Nature-based solutions in agriculture: A review of their contribution to sectoral transformation

‘Nature-based solutions’ (NbS) have recently gained traction among environmental policy makers and scholars. According to IUCN’s widespread definition, NbS are ‘[a]ctions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits’ (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016: 2). NbS rely on ecosystems rather than technical and engineering solutions to address major societal challenges of water and food provision, health, disaster risk reduction, and climate change. With NbS being a relatively recent concept, its guiding principles are still largely under development. Proponents emphasise the concept’s potential for win-win solutions for nature and people and credit it with opening up opportunities for mainstreaming conservation into sectors that do not usually consider nature’s value. Critics reject the concept for being fuzzy, and there remain questions about its practical guidance and the types of interventions it legitimises. To advance systematic analysis of the concept, in this paper, I scrutinise whether the application of the NbS concept to agriculture fosters the much-needed transformation towards simultaneous social and environmental benefits in this particular sector. Agricultural NbS relate to nature-based agricultural practices in the realms of crop and livestock. The agricultural sector has tremendous social and environmental relevance. Agriculture is key for realising Sustainable Development Goal 2 ‘Zero Hunger’ and the direct livelihood base of an estimated 2.5 billion smallholder farmers. Moreover, the sector is uniquely positioned as both a major contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss and the most important victim of the interruption of biophysical processes. It therefore provides a major test case for NbS’ potential to address environmental and social challenges. Yet research on NbS has so far focused mainly on forestry or urban NbS. Methodologically, I employ qualitative content analysis of policy documents and publications by major international bodies working at the intersection of agriculture and the environment: UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD, UNEP, FAO, GEF, IUCN, the World Bank, IPCC and IPBES. I apply an inductive coding procedure to identify how these bodies approach NbS in the agricultural sector, which aspects they highlight and which aspects they neglect. I embed the main messages emerging from the coding process into broader discourses around NbS and the governance of food and agriculture. The initial empirical analysis – which will be refined by the time of the conference – suggests two core arguments. First, NbS as applied to the agricultural sector confirm previous criticisms of the vagueness of the NbS concept as such. Second – and this is novel about my contribution – I show how the application of NbS to agriculture and food production leads to profoundly a-political approaches that prioritise the deployment of the ‘right’ land management techniques over addressing fundamental questions of empowerment and social stratification in land management and food production. This analysis thus suggests that rather than transforming agricultural policies and practices, agricultural NbS contribute to conserving the status quo.