See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285176201

Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and

Research in Europe

Article in GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society · September 2015
DOI: 10.14512/gaia.24.4.9

CITATIONS READS

610 7,487

15 authors, including:

E. V. Balian Tomas Brodin

Facilitation for Environmental Action and Learning (FEAL) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
35 PUBLICATIONS 3,009 CITATIONS 191 PUBLICATIONS 9,538 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joachim Claudet Martin Grube

French National Centre for Scientific Research University of Graz
313 PUBLICATIONS 12,748 CITATIONS 479 PUBLICATIONS 23,419 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomas Brodin on 30 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 243

243

Nature-based Solutions:
New Influence for Environmental Management
and Research in Europe

Greening roofs or walls to cool down city areas during summer,

to capture storm water, to abate pollution, and to increase
Hilde Eggermont, Estelle Balian, José Manuel N. Azevedo,
human well-being while enhancing biodiversity: nature-based
Victor Beumer, Tomas Brodin, Joachim Claudet, Bruno Fady,
solutions (NBS) refer to the sustainable management and use of
Martin Grube, Hans Keune, Penelope Lamarque,
nature for tackling societal challenges. Building on and comple-
Katrin Reuter, Matt Smith, Chantal van Ham,
menting traditional biodiversity conservation and management
Wolfgang W. Weisser, Xavier Le Roux
strategies, NBS integrate science, policy, and practice and create
biodiversity benefits in terms of diverse, well-managed ecosystems.

Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe | GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248
Keywords: biodiversity, ecosystem services, research programming, social-ecological systems, societal challenges, sustainable management

Nature-based Solutions, an Emerging Term for self-reorganization and mutability and associated resistance
and resilience capacities (Garmestani and Benson 2013). In this
It is now widely recognized that human activities have reached context, nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently been put for-
a level that could result in abrupt and, in some cases, irreversible ward by practitioners (in particular the International Union for
environmental changes detrimental to human development (Stef- Nature Conservation, IUCN) and quickly thereafter by policy (Eu-
fen et al. 2015). Societies face increasing challenges such as cli- ropean Commission), referring to the sustainable use of nature
mate change, jeopardized food security and water resource pro- in solving societal challenges.
vision, and an enhanced disaster risk. While ES are often valued in terms of immediate benefits to
One approach to answer these challenges is to increasingly re- human well-being and economy, NBS focus on the benefits to peo-
ly on technological strategies, which are designed and managed ple and the environment itself, to allow for sustainable solutions
to be as simple, replicable and predictable as possible (Hoffert et that are able to respond to environmental change and hazards in
al. 2002). For instance, physico-chemical biofiltration processes the long-term. NBS go beyond the traditional biodiversity conser-
are used to purify air and water at large scales in most countries, vation and management principles by “re-focusing” the debate on
in particular in the northern hemisphere. An alternative approach humans and specifically integrating societal factors such as hu-
is to manage the (socio-)ecological systems in a comprehensive man well-being and poverty alleviation, socio-economic develop-
approach in order to sustain and potentially increase the delivery ment, and governance principles.
of the ecosystem services (ES) to humans.1 In this sense, NBS are strongly connected to ideas such as nat-
The second approach recognizes the complexity of socio-eco- ural systems agriculture (Jackson 2002), natural solutions (Dud-
logical systems and the fact that they are dynamic, leaving room ley et al. 2010), ecosystem-based approaches (Cowan et al. 2010),
green infrastructures (Benedict and McMahon 2006), and ecolog-
ical engineering (Borsje et al. 2011).2 >
1 In this paper, we refer to ES as the direct and indirect contributions of
ecosystems to human well-being (Costanza et al. 1997, Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005).
2 For instance, ecosystem-based approaches are increasingly promoted for Contact: Dr. Hilde Eggermont | Belgian Biodiversity Platform | Royal Belgian
climate change adaptation and mitigation (Cowan et al. 2010, Naumann et al. Institute for Natural Sciences | Vautierstraat 29 | 1000 Brussels | Belgium |
2011, Burch et al. 2014) by organisations like United Nations Environment Tel.: +32 2 6274318 | E-Mail: h.eggermont@biodiversity.be
Programme (UNEP) and non-governmental organisations such as The Nature
Conservancy. Similarly, green infrastructure refers to an “interconnected ©2015 H. Eggermont et al.; licensee oekom verlag.This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
network of green spaces that conserves natural systems and provides (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
assorted benefits to human populations” (Benedict and McMahon 2006). and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9
243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 244

244 FORUM Hilde Eggermont et al.

The concept of ecological engineering may be closest to NBS and more likely a flagship term, that can provide incentives for
(at least types 2 and 3 below), though it has different definitions governments, institutions, business and citizens to develop inno-
(Mitsch 2012). In particular, Barot et al.(2012) indicate that the goal vative ways to integrate natural capital in policies and planning,
of ecological engineering is to develop more sustainable practices and to maintain or increase biodiversity and human well-being
informed by ecological knowledge with the aim to 1. protecting (European Commission 2015).
and 2. restoring ecological systems, 3. modifying ecological sys- With this paper, we do not intend to provide an in-depth review
tems to increase the quantity, quality and sustainability of particu- of all concepts related to NBS, nor to nail down a strict definition.
lar services they provide, or 4. building new ecological systems that Rather, we aim to sharpen the term, in particular by proposing
provide services that would otherwise be provided through more a typology of NBS, and reflect on its added value with respect to
conventional engineering based on non-renewable resources.3 existing terms and concepts, its possible drawbacks in case of mis-
The term “nature-based solutions” was first used in the late use, and perceived future challenges for research and manage-
2000s (MacKinnon et al. 2008, Mittermeier et al. 2008) in the con- ment. As such, we hope to spur further discussion, and contrib-
text of finding new solutions to mitigate and to adapt to climate ute to sharpening the term allowing for a better evaluation of its
change effects whilst simultaneously protecting biodiversity and true potential.
improving sustainable livelihoods. The IUCN referred to NBS in
a position paper for the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (IUCN 2009), after which the term has been quick- A Proposed Typology
ly taken up by policy, viewing NBS as an innovative mean to cre-
ate jobs and growth part of a green economy. Currently, the Euro- We propose a typology characterizing NBS along two gradients
pean Commission is developing a EU research and innovation (figure 1): 1. “How much engineering of biodiversity and ecosys-
policy on NBS in the context of its Horizon 2020 Framework Pro- tems is involved in NBS?”, 2. “How many ecosystem services and
gramme (European Commission 2015), with the aim to position stakeholder groups are targeted by a given NBS?”. Due to the ES
Europe as a world leader in this field. trade-offs that likely exist (Howe et al. 2014), we hypothesize that
most often, the higher the number of services and stakeholder
groups is targeted, the lower the capacity to maximize the delivery
Many Voices, One Term of each service and simultaneously fulfill the specific needs of all
stakeholder groups will be. As such, there are three types of NBS:
The NBS idea has barely been evaluated by the scientific commu- Type 1 consists of no or minimal intervention in ecosystems,
nity (but see MacKinnon and Hickey 2009, MacKinnon et al. 2011), with the objectives of maintaining or improving the delivery of
and different stakeholders view NBS from different perspectives. a range of ES both inside and outside of these preserved ecosys-
For instance, IUCN (2012) stresses that they “can deliver effective tems. Examples include the protection of mangroves in coast-
solutions to major global challenges, such as climate regulation, al areas to limit risks associated to extreme weather conditions
using nature while providing biodiversity benefits in terms of di- and to provide benefits and opportunities to local populations;
verse, well-managed ecosystems and respecting and reinforcing and the establishment of marine protected areas to conserve
communities’ rights over natural resources”. This framing puts biodiversity within these areas while exporting biomass into
biodiversity and local human communities at the heart of NBS. fishing grounds (Grorud-Colvert et al. 2014). This type of NBS
In the context of the on-going political debate on jobs and growth is connected to, e. g., the concept of biosphere reserves incor-
(main drivers of the current EU policy agenda), the European Com- porating core protected areas for nature conservation and buffer
mission underlines that NBS can transform environmental and and transition areas where people live and work in a sustain-
societal challenges into innovation opportunities, by turning nat- able way.
ural capital into a source for green growth and sustainable devel- Type 2 corresponds to the definition and implementation of
opment. For the commission, NBS are sustainable measures that management approaches that develop sustainable and multi-
aim to simultaneously meet environmental, societal and econom- functional ecosystems and landscapes (extensively or inten-
ic objectives, which should help maintain and enhance natural cap- sively managed), which improves the delivery of selected ES
ital (European Commission 2015). This framing puts economy compared to what would be obtained with a more convention-
and social assets at the heart of NBS while sustaining environ- al intervention. Examples include innovative planning of agri-
mental conditions. In any case, NBS are often seen as a concept, cultural landscapes to increase their multifunctionality; and
approaches for enhancing tree species and genetic diversity to
increase forest resilience to extreme events. This type of NBS
3 Terms such as “ecosystem restoration” (return of an ecosystem to a is strongly connected to concepts like natural systems agricul-
close approximation of its condition prior to a disturbance or period of ture (Jackson 2002), agro-ecology (Altieri 1989), and evolution-
specific management) are often seen as part of ecological engineering
(National Research Council 1992). The same applies for “agro-ecology”
ary-orientated forestry (Lefèvre et al. 2014).
which delineates the ecological principles necessary to develop sustainable Type 3 consists of managing ecosystems in very intrusive ways
agricultural production systems (Altieri 1989). or even creating new ecosystems (e.g., artificial ecosystems with

GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248

243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 245

Hilde Eggermont et al. FORUM 245

Opportunities and Risks Associated to NBS

What NBS are, or are not
While we advocate that the open nature of the term NBS can fa-
vor its success, we contend that it is important to specify which
solutions should and should not be considered as NBS. We illus-
trate this with the development of green roofs and walls in cities.
Having in mind the sole objective of developing green surfaces in
urban areas to mitigate the effects of global warming, green roofs
or walls could be created using, e. g., clones from one or very few
plant species, regardless of their biogeographical distribution. Such
new structures would hardly contribute to increase biodiversity
FIGURE 1: Schematic representation of the range of nature-based solutions
and the delivery of other ES. This may also lead to a poor resis-
(NBS) approaches. Three main types of NBS are defined, differing in the level tance and resilience to future extreme events, increased manage-
of engineering or management applied to biodiversity and ecosystems (x-axis), ment costs, and risk of biological invasions. Furthermore, without
and in the number of services to be delivered, the number of stakeholder groups a coordinated approach at the city scale, firms would likely design
targeted, and the likely level of maximization of the delivery of targeted services
(y-axis). Some examples of NBS are located in this schematic representation.
green buildings in a case-by-case approach with a very uncertain
Note that the y-axes could be shifted, and that type 3 cannot be viewed as effectiveness at city scale. Such an approach, which largely miss-
“better” than type 1, the three types being complementary. es out on the objectives of sustainability, increased biodiversity,
and effectiveness at relevant scale (here the city), would not fit the
new assemblages of organisms for green roofs and walls to NBS framing. Similarly, rain gardens designed to manage storm
mitigate city warming and clean polluted air). Type 3 is linked water runoff that pay little reference to what plants are used and
to concepts like green and blue infrastructures 4 (Benedict and to other ES, fall short of NBS. In contrast, within an urban plan-
McMahon 2006) and objectives like restoration of heavily de- ning approach at the city scale, a range of species could be select-
graded or polluted areas. Within this type, novel approaches ed for green roofs or walls based on their biogeography and key
such as animal-aided design (Hauck and Weisser 2015) are cur- functional traits (Lundholm et al. 2015), which would address mul-
rently being explored to bridge the gap between biodiversity tiple goals such as cooling during summer, storm water capture,
conservation and landscape architecture. pollution abatement, increased human well-being, biodiversity en-
hancement, and better resilience to future hazards, while adopt-
Type 1 fully fits with the way IUCN frames NBS. Types 2 and 3 ing adequate governance to properly tackle the issue at city scale
would also fit with this definition providing that they should con- (figure 2, p. 247). Such approaches would fit the NBS term. NBS
tribute to preserving biodiversity and managing or restoring eco- thus broadens the ES framework, promoting and better relying
systems sustainably while delivering a range of ES. In the case of on biological diversity to increase the resistance and resilience of
agro-ecosystems or inner city green spaces, e. g., it would be im- social-ecological systems to global changes and extreme or unex-
portant to consider ecological complexity and connection with sur- pected events and the delivery of a range of ES.
rounding ecosystems to provide biodiversity benefits. Type 2 and
moreover type 3 are often exemplified by the European Commis- Calling for innovative NBS should not imply loosing track of
sion for turning natural capital into a source for green growth and existing ones
sustainable development. NBS are often referred to as innovative, but they should not in-
The boundary between these three types is obviously not clear- clude exclusively “new” solutions.Whilst the NBS concept offers
cut. Hybrid solutions exist along this gradient both in space and new opportunities and brings added-value, it also encompasses
time. For instance, at landscape scale, mixing protected and man- existing ideas and requires inclusion of lessons from the past.
aged areas could be needed to fulfill multifunctionality and sus- Local and traditional knowledge should also be considered when
tainability goals. Similarly, a constructed wetland can be developed exploring NBS. Traditional management systems (e. g., for agri-
as a type 3 but, when well established, may subsequently be pre- culture, forestry, aquaculture, fishing) and their principles should
served and surveyed as a type 1. be re-assessed in light of NBS criteria, as they often include sus-
Outlier examples (that would plot upper-left and bottom-right) tainable, locally-adapted and biodiversity-enhancing practices. For
are likely rare. Pristine ecosystems, like taiga, have many roles at example, engineered biodiverse pastures developed in Portugal
local and global scale (like water and climate regulation, support in the 1960s and 1970s provide higher yields of better quality for-
to livelihoods of local populations, etc.), and may therefore not be age, significantly increase sustainable stocking rates, and have mul- >
restricted to a narrow range of stakeholders. Similarly, although
abilities to manage complex ecosystems will continue to increase
over the coming decades, the design of artificial ecosystems will 4 Green or blue infrastructures should solve urban and climatic challenges
likely target only a few ES and have to tackle ES trade-off. by building with nature.

GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248

243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 246

246 FORUM Hilde Eggermont et al.

tiple environmental co-benefits(Teixeira et al. 2015).This could be plinary approaches are more likely to achieve effective change on
a typical NBS unrecognized as such so far. the ground (BIOMOT 2014).

NBS should exploit win-win situations but will have to cope The intellectual challenge requires those coming from various scho-
with trade-offs and uncertainties lastic traditions (ecosystem science and ecology, conservation and
NBS should account for multiple interests (in particular environ- restoration, forestry and agronomy, sociology, economics, archi-
mental, societal, and economic ones) and promote sustainabili- tecture, etc.) to respectively identify and fuse their key principles
ty. Yet, there will be few win-win situations where all goals are si- into a coherent, useful set that is comprehensible and accessible
multaneously met. Documenting and analyzing the possible syn- to all.The nature of NBS could help with providing the critical in-
ergies and trade-offs between ES and stakeholders’ expectations tellectual mass and rapid cross-fertilization of ideas needed for
will therefore be at the heart of identifying and implementing NBS. reaching this ambition. Moreover, there is a need to promote re-
In addition, stakeholders and policy makers must remain aware search models where applied and fundamental sciences are not
of the complexities and uncertainties that surround NBS. Assess- opposed, thereby facilitating transdisciplinarity (Barot et al. 2015).
ing the risks associated with a given NBS should be compulsory
and alternative solutions should be envisaged, looking at the poten- The relational challenge is strategic.Being promoted by practition-
tial impacts through time and space, and accounting for future ers and policy makers rather than scientists (unlike, e. g., ES: Gó-
environmental changes.Otherwise, NBS could generate problems mez-Baggethun et al. 2009), one added-value of the NBS term
instead of solutions (e. g., species introduced for pest control can could be that it is easier to grasp by non-technical audiences and
become invasive, if corresponding controls are lacking). key societal partners (business, policy, education, and practition-
ers), and hence could promote the stakeholder model of research
NBS could help meet various ethical, intellectual and (Barot et al. 2015), receive wider support, and result in systemic
relational challenges solutions rather than sectorial ones. Although many practitioners
NBS clearly build on, and share aspects with other concepts, ap- and scientists working in traditional fields such as agriculture,
proaches and tools, but might be more holistic and have more po- forestry and aquaculture are genuinely concerned by sustainabil-
tential to support environmental sustainability. More specifically, ity issues, they often have difficulties integrating scientific ecolog-
the NBS approach may help meet three types of challenges – eth- ical knowledge and turning towards drastically new practices(Neß-
ical, intellectual, relational – that other concepts have not com- höver et al. 2013, Lewinsohn et al. 2015). Work on NBS could mo-
pletely addressed so far (Jones 2011; but see Hauck et al. 2013). bilize a great number of people towards achieving environmen-
tal sustainability in all kinds of socio-ecosystems. However, while
Ethical challenges arise at two different levels: NBS are 1. a hu- social scientists and various groups of stakeholders may receive
man-centered utilitarian concept, and 2. include other knowledge the idea of NBS well, its acceptance among natural scientists, in
systems beyond modern science (i.e., indigenous and local knowl- particular those involved in species and habitat conservation, re-
edge). As the NBS term clearly refers to societal challenges (onto- mains a challenge as there is some distrust in “yet another buzz
logical dimension), problems defined by humans (epistemic di- word” and concern that at the end these NBS may address biodi-
mension), and the sustainable use of nature (practical dimension), versity conservation only in a cosmetic manner, possibly gener-
there is no doubt that the concept is anthropocentric as are other ating even more pressure on natural systems.
current concepts such as ES. The debate on anthropocentric and For their successful deployment, we believe that NBS should
bio- or ecocentric (assuming an intrinsic value of living beings, not be considered as “the one and only” possible way, but need to
entire ecosystems, or the biosphere) views has been at the heart be embedded in a wider, coherent strategy at research and policy
of the discussions on the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiver- level. Otherwise, NBS run the risk of misinterpretation, misappli-
sity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework (Diaz et cation and non-acceptance. One of the risks is that it might chan-
al. 2015) and the discussion on “the new conservation” (Kareiva nel all research and management efforts towards an approach that
2014); we will not start it again here.We advocate that NBS might is useful in some but not all conditions, whereas nature preserva-
help to demonstrate that these two views can be complementary, tion – and associated research – should be supported also.
leading to successful approaches to promote biodiversity. The sec-
ond ethical challenge relates to the plurality of value and knowl- The authors thank all the participants of the horizon scanning workshop
edge systems that exist among different cultures regarding hu- organized in June 2014 by the BiodivERsA ERA-NET 5. Various stakeholders
(scientists, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, research pro-
man-nature interactions.This plurality of views has to be acknowl-
grammers and funders) were asked to exchange their views on the emerging
edged and integrated while developing and assessing NBS, and NBS term. The authors also thank Rachel Armstrong (University of Newcastle)
stakeholder participation has to be ensured. NBS have the poten- for insightful discussion. BiodivERsA is the network of national and local
tial to solve or avoid conflicts here, because they aim at dealing organizations that program, fund, and promote pan-European research on
biodiversity and ecosystem services. It was supported by the European Com-
with concrete problems often at a local level. Moreover, research
mission in the Seventh Framework Programme, and is further supported from
has shown that a mismatch exists between ES approaches and gov- 2015 under the ERA-NET cofund scheme in Horizon2020. First and last authors
ernance needs (Primmer and Furman 2012) and that transdisci- (Hilde Eggermont and Xavier Le Roux) contributed equally to this paper.

GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248

243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 247

Hilde Eggermont et al. FORUM 247

© Martine/Flickr

FIGURE 2: Nature-based solution approaches can promote the development and management of urban ecosystems to offer sustainable and cost-effective
solutions to societal challenges like global warming, water regulation and human health, while enhancing biodiversity. Here, the Green Park in London.

References
Altieri, M. A. 1989. Agroecology – A new research and development paradigm Dudley, N. et al. 2010. Natural solutions: Protected areas helping people cope
for world agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27: 37–36. with climate change. Gland, CH: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF).
Barot, S. et al. 2015. Evolving away from the linear model of research: A response wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/?uNewsID=183021
to Courchamp et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30: 368–370. (accessed October 7, 2015).
Barot, S., J. C. Lata, G. Lacroix. 2012. Meeting the relational challenge of ecolog- European Commission. 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy
ical engineering within ecological sciences. Ecological Engineering 45: 13–23. agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final Report of the
Benedict, M. A., E. T. McMahon. 2006. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes Horizon2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities.
and communities. Washington, D. C.: Island. Brussels: European Commission.
BIOMOT. 2014. Effective research for biodiversity action. Policy brief 3. Garmestani, A. S., M. H. Benson. 2013. A framework for resilience-based gover-
www.biomot.eu/docs/BIOMOT%20Policy%20brief%203.pdf nance of socio-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18/1: Article 9.
(accessed October 7, 2015). Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. de Groot, P. L. Lomas, C. Montes. 2009.
Borsje, B. W. et al. 2011. How ecological engineering can serve in coastal The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice:
protection. Ecological Engineering 37/2: 113–122. From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological
Burch, S, P. M. Berry, M. Sanders. 2014. Embedding climate change adaptation Economics 69: 1209–1218.
in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England. Environmental Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. 2014. Marine protected area networks: Assessing
Science & Policy 37: 79–90. whether the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. PLOS ONE 9/8:
Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and e102298. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102298.
natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. Hauck, J. et al. 2013. The promise of the ecosystem services concept for
Cowan C., C. Epple, H. Korn, R. Schliep, J. Stadler (Eds.). 2010. Working with planning and decision-making. GAIA 22/4: 232–236.
nature to tackle climate change. Report of the ENCA/BfN Workshop on Hauck, T. E., W. W. Weisser. 2015. AAD – Animal aided design. Freising:
“Developing ecosystem-based approaches to climate change – Why, what and Technische Universität München. www.toek.wzw.tum.de/fileadmin/
how”. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). www.bfn.de/fileadmin/ 1_Datein/PDF_WWW/AAD_Broschuere_Webversion_10MB.pdf
MDB/documents/service/Skript264.pdf (accessed October 7, 2015). (accessed October 7, 2015).
Diaz, S. et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework – Connecting nature Hoffert, M. I. et al. 2002. Advanced technology paths to global climate stability:
and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16. Energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 298/5595: 981–987.
Howe, C., H. Suich, B. Vira, G. M. Mace. 2014. Creating win-win from trade-offs?
Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem
service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental
5 www.biodiversa.org Change 28: 263–275. >

GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248

243_248_Eggermont 27.11.15 14:39 Seite 248

248 FORUM Hilde Eggermont et al.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2009. No time to CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
lose: Make full use of nature-based solutions in the post-2012 climate
change regime. Position paper on the Fifteenth session of the Conference Dr. Hilde Eggermont, Estelle Balian, MSc
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Royal Belgian Institute of
Change (COP 15). Gland, CH: IUCN. Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium
IUCN. 2012. The IUCN Programme 2013–2016. Gland, CH: IUCN.
Dr. José Manuel N. Azevedo
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_programme_2013_2016.pdf
Fundo Regional para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Açores, Portugal
(accessed October 7, 2015).
Jackson, D. L. 2002. The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems Dr. Victor Beumer
with ecosystems. Washington, D. C.: Island. Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Jones, C. 2011. Grand challenges for the future of ecological engineering.
Prof. Dr. Tomas Brodin
Ecological Engineering 45: 80–84.
Umeå University, Department of Ecology and
Kareiva, P. 2014. New conservation: setting the record straight and finding
Environmental Science, Umeå, Sweden
common ground. Conservation Biology 28/3: 634 –636.
Lefèvre, F. et al. 2014. Considering evolutionary processes in adaptive forestry. Dr. Joachim Claudet
Annals of Forest Science 71: 723–739. National Center for Scientific Research, CRIOBE, Perpignan, France
Lewinsohn, T. M. et al. 2015. Ecological literacy and beyond: problem-based
Dr. Bruno Fady
learning for future professionals. Ambio 44: 154 –162.
French Institute of Agronomic Research, Ecology of
Lundholm, J., S. Tran, L. Gebert. 2015. Plant functional traits predict
Mediterranean Forests, Avignon, France
green roof ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Technology 49:
2366–2374. Prof. Dr. Martin Grube
MacKinnon, K., N. Dudley, T. Sandwith. 2011. Natural solutions: Protected Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Graz, Austria
areas helping people to cope with climate change. Oryx 45/4: 461– 462.
Dr. Hans Keune
MacKinnon, K., V. Hickey. 2009. Nature-based solutions to climate change.
Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Research Institute for Nature and Forest,
Oryx 43/1: 13–16.
Brussels, Belgium
MacKinnon, K., C. Sobrevila, V. Hickey. 2008. Biodiversity, climate change and
adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the Word Bank portfolio. Dr. Penelope Lamarque
Washington, D. C.: World Bank. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Dr. Katrin Reuter
Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, D. C.: World Resources Institute (WRI).
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin – Leibniz Institute for Evolution and
Mitsch, W.J. 2012. What is ecological engineering? Ecological Engineering 45:
Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany
5–12.
Mittermeier, R. et al. 2008. A climate for life: Meeting the global challenge. Matt Smith, MSc
Arlington, VA: International League of Conservation Photographers. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, United Kingdom
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
Chantal van Ham, MSc
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
Naumann, S. et al. 2011. Assessment of the potential of ecosystem-based
European Union Representative Office, Brussels, Belgium
approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Europe.
Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment. Berlin, Oxford, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang W. Weisser
UK: Ecologic Institute, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Technische Universität München, Terrestrial Ecology Research Group,
Centre for the Environment. School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Freising, Germany
Neßhöver, C. et al. 2013. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity
Dr. Xavier Le Roux
research projects. GAIA 22/2: 99–103.
Microbial Ecology Center, French Institute of
Primmer, E., E. Furman. 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches
Agronomic Research, University Lyon 1, Lyon, France, and
for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-
French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity, Paris, France
specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services 1: 85–92.
Steffen, W. et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development
on a changing planet. Science 347/6223. doi:10.1126/science.1259855.
Teixeira, R., V. Proença, D. Crespo, T. Valada, T. Domingos. 2015. A conceptual
framework for the analysis of engineered biodiverse pastures. Hilde Eggermont
Ecological Engineering 77: 85–97.
Born 1977 in Waregem, Belgium. MSc in biology, PhD in
freshwater biology/paleolimnology. Scientific coordinator
Submitted July 5, 2015; revised version accepted September 6, 2015. of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform and Vice-Chair of
BiodivERsA ERA-NET. Research interests: science-policy
and science-society interfacing, biodiversity,
research strategies, horizon scanning.

Estelle Balian Xavier Le Roux

Born 1971 in Saint-Etienne, France. BA in genetics and Born 1967 in Coutances, France. PhD in ecosystem ecology.
molecular biology, MSc in fisheries and aquatic sciences. Research team leader at the Microbial Ecology Centre of
Biodiversity expert for the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. Lyon-Villeurbanne, Université Lyon. 2008 to 2012 director of
Competences in science-policy interfaces on the Foundation for Research on Biodiversity. Since 2008
biodiversity and ecosystem services at European and coordinator and Chief Executive Officer of BiodivERsA
international levels, participatory processes, stakeholder engagement in ERA-NET. Research interests: biodiversity, microbial ecology, research
scientific projects, facilitation and conflict resolution. programming and promotion, science-society interfacing.

GAIA 24/4 (2015): 243 – 248

View publication stats