* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The opening speeches of the recent Community Based Adaptation (CBA9) conference in Nairobi clearly demonstrate that Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) - the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services to help people adapt to climate change - has achieved buy-in at the highest policy levels. Everyone from the UN Environment Programme and the African Development Bank to the Kenyan government and Maasai cultural leaders emphasised its importance when addressing climate change. EbA was top of the agenda again on day three, but as the plenary grappled with the question of how to evaluate ecosystem services for effectiveness, several more pressing challenges sprang to mind.
Evidence base for EbA
The question of a strong evidence base for EbA remains largely unanswered. While the measurement of ecosystems is indeed a challenge, we can’t overcome this until we better understand the links between ecosystem services and adaptation. In a recent ODI publication (available here), which assesses the contribution of ecosystem services to human resilience, we present evidence that some ecosystem services provide for and support human wellbeing outcomes, such as subsistence needs and livelihoods . Yet we don’t yet know how different ecosystem services can reduce disaster and climate risk or increase the capacity of communities to adapt to climate change.
Ecosystem services are particularly hard to quantify because they can have multiple uses that contribute to resilience. For example, dual-use crops in rain-fed agricultural systems contribute to livelihoods and resilience in different, equally valuable ways. Similarly, the use of crops can change over time, for example for subsistence, cash income and livestock feed. In fact, it is these multiple benefits that constitute effectiveness, and we must accept that it may not be possible to measure them all.
Good governance is crucial
While the technical challenge of quantifying the benefits of ecosystems is significant, the question of good ecosystem governance is arguably more important and also more difficult. As one CBA9 participant posed: ‘Is quantification of ecosystems the right thing to do or does this say something about our decision-making processes?’
What we need to look at instead are the principles by which we govern ecosystems. Indeed, this is the argument we make in our report. Even if we did understand the ways in which different ecosystem services contribute to aspects of human resilience, we must first ensure the ecosystems are sustained. We can achieve this by incorporating resilience thinking into ecosystem management.
A climate-smart approach
Finally, in the context of a changing climate, we need to go even further. Sustainable management of ecosystem services is not enough. EbA needs to be climate-smart. Ecosystem services can only support adaptation if the ecosystems themselves are not vulnerable to climate change. For example, investing in reforestation to protect watersheds is a waste of time in the long run if the trees planted cannot thrive under future climate conditions.
CBA9 confirmed EbA’s place at the forefront of tackling climate change at the community level. The opportunities for cheaper adaptation measures with considerable extra benefits must not be missed. To achieve this, the development, conservation and climate change communities must work together to address these key challenges. Until then, attempts to measure the effectiveness of ecosystems will remain premature.
