Nature for resilience reconfigured: global-to-local translation of frames in Africa

Abstract

Globally, various frames of urban nature circulate, each emphasising particular challenges and natural solutions in the climate context. Yet which actors and dynamics shape their translation to the African context remains unclear. This paper explores the global-to-local translation process of frames through interventions funded by transnational actors, conceptualised as agents of policy transfer. Critical scholarship has observed that urban adaptation and resilience interventions in Africa are often characterised as technocratic and top-down approaches, hence it is vital to understand whether these are replicated through proliferating nature-based solutions (NBSs). The study of a resilience-building intervention in Lilongwe, Malawi, reveals that transnational actors play important roles by deploying frames of urban nature through funding projects. However, rather than involving a top-down imposition of particular solutions, this sets in motion dynamics: in the competition for resources that frames generate, various actor constellations of transnational actors, subnational governments and local NGOs reconfigure or relabel strategies and associated (nature-based) practices to suit global frames and the resources they generate. This shapes who is included or not, and what kinds of NBS are being developed, for and by whom. There is a risk that priorities of communities get lost in translation. Policy relevance Frames of urban nature shape global agendas but also matter locally in the design of programmes and projects. This study provides key insights of relevance for policymakers. First, external funding for climate and resilience is unpredictable and insufficient to address manifold urgent local priorities. It is important that actors at all levels strive to align resources to holistic strategies of local governments and do not impose certain visions for urban nature. For this to happen, and second, it is key that local governments and communities are empowered to create forms of nature that are built around diverse forms of local knowledge and expertise, to cater to values and priorities of the communities. Third, proponents of NBSs highlight their potential to address interlinked climate-, biodiversity- and society-related challenges. However, unless funding allocation puts emphasis on the interlinkage of goals, the potential for NBSs to reach multiple goals can get lost. Fourth, there is a need to disrupt the persisting scepticism concerning the feasibility of NBSs in informal settlements and forge collaborations that realise interventions closely linked to the priorities of disadvantaged groups in African cities, to leverage the power of nature for more just societies.