As part of the Climate change and human (CLIMATE) program funded by Strategic Research Council, the CO-CARBON project was asked in August 2024 for comments on the draft statement compiled by the European Committee of the Regions regarding the future of EU climate policy. In this blog, we share the observations we collected at that time about the actions that should be taken at the EU level if the co-benefits of urban nature as a climate solution are taken seriously. At the end of the blog, you can also find slides where the same content is expressed in a more concise form.
Urban nature, which is sufficient and healthy, is a cost-effective way to simultaneously mitigate climate change, promote adaptation to climate change, and support the diversity of nature as well as human well-being and health (Raymond et al 2023). Urban nature as a multi-purpose climate solution should be taken into account in decision-making regarding cities and in the national legislation governing it more comprehensively than at present (Hautamäki et al 2023). Making national implementation more efficient requires that urban nature is better included in the EU’s policy guidance than is currently the case.
There are strategies and directives that focus on urban nature at the EU level, but still urban nature and its many benefits are largely ignored. Policies are also siloed, for example climate action often focuses on either mitigation or adaptation. Climate policy is also not always linked to biodiversity, although these are deeply interconnected (Hautamäki et al 2024b). In terms of mitigation, the focus is understandably on reducing emissions, but achieving carbon negativity also requires carbon sinks. Based on the latest research data, natural carbon sinks are significant also in the urban environment (Havu et al 2024). However, carbon sinks and urban green are almost completely absent from the guidelines governing climate plans, such as SECAP (Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan) and SEAP (Sustainable Energy Action Plan), as the guidelines focus on energy and transport emission reductions. Urban nature and its carbon stocks are also largely ignored in, for example, the soil directive that is being prepared, which deals mainly with agricultural issues. Likewise, for example, the carbon removal certificate focuses on agriculture and industry.
The Nature Restoration Law is a promising way to combine climate and nature goals also in urban ecosystems (Article 8), but the goals are only quantitative, without more precise qualitative criteria (Hautamäki et al 2024 a). In addition, the regulation refers to a sufficient level of urban green without defining this in more detail. The monitoring of the implementation of the Nature Restoration Law focuses on the national level on the urban and urban regional scale, without taking a more detailed position on urban green locally, for example at the district or block level. In order for urban nature to produce climate benefits and other ecosystem services, however, attention must be paid to the equal distribution of nature throughout cities, even at the level of blocks (Leppänen et al 2024).
Urban nature and its multiple benefits should be taken into account, for example, in the EU’s soil objectives and in the certification of carbon removal. We also propose that in the Nature Restoration Law the suffiency of urban nature should have more precise qualitative and criteria that ensure an equal distribution of urban nature, both in terms of climate change mitigation and adaptation. In terms of implementation, a lot of room for maneuver has been left to the member states, but it would be important for the EU to ensure that research information on the many benefits of urban green is provided to support the implementation. Multi-purpose climate action should be better recognized and encouraged in funding as well.
Summary on slides: Co-benefits of urban nature as EU level climate solution
Photo: Mari Ariluoma
References:
Hautamäki, Ranja; Järvi, Leena; Ariluoma, Mari; Kinnunen, Antti; Kulmala, Liisa; Lampinen, Jussi; Merikoski, Tiina; Tahvonen, Outi (2023) Carbon-smart urban green infrastructure as a climate solution. Policy Brief. Available: https://cocarbon.fi/en/research/recommendations/
Hautamäki, R., Heinilä, A., Moilanen, A., Rajaniemi, J. (2024a). Ekologinen kytkeytyvyys ja luonnon monimuotoisuus alueidenkäytön suunnittelussa. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Available: https://acadsci.fi/tiede-ja-paatoksenteko-kategoria/ekologinen-kytkeytyvyys-tietokooste/
Hautamäki, R., Puustinen, T., Merikoski, T., & Staffans, A. (2024b). Greening the compact city: Unarticulated tensions and incremental advances in municipal climate action plans. Cities, 152, 105251-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105251
Havu M., Kulmala L., Lee H.S., Saranko O., Soininen J., Ahongshabam J. and Järvi L. (2024). CO2 uptake of urban green in a warming Nordic city. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 94, 128261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128261.
Leppänen, P.-K., Kinnunen, A., Hautamäki, R., Järvi, L., Havu, M., Junnila, S., & Tahvonen, O. (2024). Impact of changing urban typologies on residential vegetation and its climate-effects – A case study from Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 96, 128343-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128343
Raymond C.M., Lechner A., Havu M., Jalkanen J., Lampinen J., Garcia-Antúnez O., Olafsson A., Gulsrud N., Kinnunen A., Backman L., Kulmala L. and Järvi L. (2023). Spatially identifying where nature-based solutions can offer win-wins for carbon mitigation and biodiversity based on diverse values and knowledge systems. npj Urban Sustainability 3:27, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00103-2.