Win-wins or trade-offs? Finding the balance in nature-based solutions

A new study finds that there is a need for comprehensive, site-specific planning to leverage the dual potential of NbS for climate mitigation and human wellbeing—moving beyond the "one-size-fits-all" narrative and embracing the complexity of our shared environment. August 12, 2024

A recent study published in Frontiers in Environmental Science investigates the effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NbS) like protection, restoration, and agroforestry in addressing climate change mitigation while also delivering local ecosystem services. The paper, titled “Win-wins or trade-offs? Site and strategy determine carbon and local ecosystem service benefits for protection, restoration, and agroforestry,” presents a nuanced exploration of how these strategies impact both carbon sequestration and broader ecological benefits.

Understanding nature-based solutions

NbS are increasingly seen as promising methods to tackle climate change while also supporting local communities. They encompass a range of actions like restoring forests, preventing deforestation, and implementing agroforestry practices to sustainably manage ecosystems. The challenge, however, lies in understanding where and how these interventions deliver the best results for both climate mitigation and local ecosystem services, such as water availability, sediment retention, and pollination.

The study evaluated these strategies globally, quantifying their potential for mitigating climate change and their effects on local ecosystem services. Interestingly, while strategies like avoided forest conversion and reforestation often lead to high levels of carbon sequestration, they may not always bring the highest benefit to local populations. Conversely, agroforestry, which integrates trees into farming landscapes, often provides significant benefits to more people, even if its carbon sequestration potential per area is lower.

Benefits and trade-offs vary by strategy

The results of the analysis highlight that each NbS comes with its own suite of benefits and challenges:. Reforestation and avoided forest conversion are highly effective at sequestering carbon, particularly in tropical areas. However, they may deliver fewer direct benefits to local communities if implemented in sparsely populated regions. Agroforestry, on the other hand, showed the potential to provide substantial local benefits, particularly in highly populated agricultural regions like India and parts of Southeast Asia. Agroforestry practices, although less carbon-dense compared to reforestation, improve pollination, water quality, and soil stability, benefiting local farmers and communities. The researchers also uncovered significant trade-offs. One major drawback shared across all NBS strategies is the increase in woody biomass, which can lead to higher transpiration rates, thereby reducing water availability in some watersheds. This reduction in annual runoff can negatively impact local water supplies, particularly in already water-stressed regions.

Targeting win-win locations

The paper suggests that focusing NbS efforts in specific areas can maximise both carbon and human wellbeing benefits. Key regions identified include parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. By strategically concentrating these efforts on “win-win” sites, where high carbon sequestration potential overlaps with significant local ecosystem service benefits, the effectiveness of these interventions can be amplified. For example, the study points to Nigeria for reforestation efforts, India for agroforestry, and the Republic of Congo for avoiding forest conversion as optimal locations for balanced outcomes.

The importance of context in planning

The authors emphasise the need for tailored planning in implementing NbS. The spatial overlap between carbon-rich areas and areas with high populations or significant needs for ecosystem services is often limited. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate. Policymakers should consider not only the carbon benefits but also the social and ecological context to ensure that NbS contribute meaningfully to both climate goals and local community resilience.

The study calls for multi-benefit planning that can help avoid situations where carbon-focused interventions undermine other important local benefits. By considering the complex interplay of ecological services—such as water availability, nutrient retention, and pollination—NbS can be more effectively deployed to meet both global climate targets and local adaptation needs.

Conclusions

NbS  have great potential, but their success depends on a nuanced understanding of where and how they should be implemented. Not all strategies offer universal benefits; some excel in carbon sequestration, while others offer crucial local ecosystem services. To truly harness the potential of NBS, policymakers must focus on balancing these sometimes competing priorities, ensuring that interventions offer both environmental and social benefits.

The study’s findings underscore the need for comprehensive, site-specific planning to leverage the dual potential of NbS for climate mitigation and human wellbeing—moving beyond the “one-size-fits-all” narrative and embracing the complexity of our shared environment.