News category: NWS_SCIENCE

Research

A “one-stop shop” for ecological monitoring of NbS

From the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to the Biodiversity Monitoring Framework agreed at COP16, there is an increasing recognition that nature and biodiversity projects require better monitoring if they are to be successful. Nature-based solutions must deliver benefits for biodiversity, alongside tackling societal challenges, but gathering the right data can prove challenging.

New research out today in Ecological Solutions and Evidence provides a monitoring framework which could significantly help.

“Our study tackles the question of ‘How can we monitor biodiversity?’ which is now critical to NbS and a priority focus globally since the Global Biodiversity Framework was agreed at COP15,” explains lead author Dr Emily Warner, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative.

“While there are a few different frameworks for biodiversity monitoring, until now there has been a gap between the methods proposed and the data that is collected on the ground. I see our framework as bridging this gap between the high-level ambitions set by global policy and practitioner needs.”

Bridging this gap is particularly urgent given the increased interest in biodiversity credits, and the need to ensure that these actually deliver positive biodiversity outcomes.

The team also looked at the possible impact of technological solutions for biodiversity monitoring including AI, remote sensing, acoustic monitoring and environmental DNA. “All have the potential to significantly reduce fieldwork effort and bypass expertise constraints, particularly taxonomic knowledge required to identify more challenging groups of organisms,” says Dr Warner.

Graphical abstract illustrating how the monitoring framework was developed (Warner et al., 2025)

To construct their framework, the researchers identified above and below-ground metrics for monitoring the success of Nature-based Solutions and ranked them using a scoring system to assess their informativeness and feasibility. Their work culminated in a searchable database of metrics and their characteristics, aimed at UK practitioners but with wider applicability. “It’s effectively a one-stop shop for effective monitoring of Nature-based Solutions,” says Dr Warner. The database was developed as part of an Agile Initiative research sprint on Scaling up Nature-based Solutions in the UK.

The monitoring framework is now used by people working at the forefront of nature restoration and biodiversity credits in the UK, including Ross Johnson, Head of Nature Markets at Wilder Carbon, who comments:

“The Biodiversity & Soil Health Metrics Tool provides a useful framework, enabling objective assessment of ecosystem monitoring techniques which is really useful for nature restoration-focused NbS initiatives, such as Wilder Carbon. The metrics in the tool’s inventory capture multiple aspects of biodiversity categorised into function, structure and composition and this holistic representation of ecosystems aligns with Wilder Carbon’s whole-ecosystem approach to reestablishing natural processes and ecosystem functioning in our projects.”

 

Check out the NbS monitoring framework.

Explore the NbS Knowledge Hub: a one-stop resource for the governance, designing, funding and monitoring of NbS projects.

 

 

Fragmented Governance Endangers Biodiversity, Climate, and Human Systems, Warns IPBES Report

A new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) highlights the dangers of fragmented governance across biodiversity, climate change, food, water, and health systems. The “Nexus Assessment” emphasizes the interconnectedness of these crises and warns that addressing one issue in isolation risks compounding others.

Prof Pam McElwee, co-chair of the report and a professor at Rutgers University, told a press briefing that biodiversity, climate, food, water and health should not be treated as “single-issue crises”.

She further underscored the urgency of a unified approach: “These are interlinked crises. They are compounding each other. They are making things worse, and the current business as usual approach is not only failing to tackle the drivers of these problems, [but] in some cases, we are wasting money because we’re duplicating policies, when in fact, we could be treating them as issues that need to be dealt with together.”

The assessment identifies critical challenges, including the dominance of economic systems that prioritize short-term gains at the expense of biodiversity and equity. While biodiversity loss is accelerating due to unsustainable practices, the report also outlines pathways to reverse these trends. The report, which contains over 70 recommendations for addressing these interconnected issues in a holistic manner, include shifting to sustainable healthy diets, investing in biodiversity-positive activities, and reforming financial systems to close the $300 billion to $1 trillion annual funding gap for nature protection.

The Nexus Assessment report calls for integrated governance to align global actions, ensuring mutually beneficial outcomes for nature and humanity.

Read the full summary for policymakers on the IPBES website.

How can we monitor soil health for NbS?

Soil health is critical for the success of nature-based solutions (NbS). It underpins ecosystem multifunctionality and resilience by supporting biodiversity, improving carbon sequestration and storage, regulating water flow, and enhancing plant productivity. NbS projects often protect soil health and restore degraded soil. Yet many NbS projects do not monitor soil health. A new paper explores the challenges and opportunities in monitoring soil health and introduces a practical tool to help select suitable metrics for monitoring soil and biodiversity.

Led by Licida Giuliani, the review, “Advancing nature-based solutions through enhanced soil health monitoring in the United Kingdom”, was published yesterday in Soil Use & Management as part of a special issue on integrating NbS into soil and land management decisions.

Co-author and NbSI researcher Emily Warner takes us through the key findings:

The importance of soil health for successful and sustainable NbS

Soil health is made up of chemical, physical, and biological properties, which contribute to key soil processes and functions. Physical properties reflect pores, aggregates, and structures in soil that determine the movement of air and water, and provide habitat for soil biodiversity. Chemical properties influence the transformation of chemical components, providing energy and nutrition. Biological properties include biodiversity, ranging from the genetic to community level, as well as the biochemical and biophysical processes that they influence. We emphasise the interlinked and reciprocal relationship between above- and below-ground ecosystems, such that successful NbS are dependent on, benefit from, and support healthy soils.

How can soil health be monitored?

To maximise synergies between soil health and other outcomes of NbS projects, we need a robust system for monitoring soil health outcomes. A current absence of guidelines on enhancing soil health and metrics for assessing soil health mean that it is often overlooked in habitat restoration projects, limiting their potential. Our review considers the existing frameworks and metrics for monitoring soil health, highlighting the variety of different metrics and sampling protocols available for soil health assessment.

Robust monitoring, reporting and verification systems are essential to ensure that policies and practices of soil health improvement are effectively implemented and achieve their intended outcomes. The first step to developing a robust monitoring system is to identify appropriate soil health indicators. We explore the tensions between adopting a standardised set of metrics, to facilitate comparisons between sites and projects, and reflecting the complexity and local variability of soil systems, and the diverse priorities, skills and resources of stakeholders. To address this, we recommend integrating a range of monitoring techniques which encompass soil and above-ground biodiversity alongside socio-economic outcomes, to provide a cohesive narrative on ecosystem health in NbS.

For practical implementation of this approach, we introduce an interactive tool to help users select suitable soil and biodiversity metrics.

The Biodiversity and Soil Health Metrics Tool (Warner et al. 2024) provides a framework for selecting above-ground ecological metrics and soil health indicators for assessing NbS outcomes, developed as part of the Agile Initiative Sprint on Scaling up Nature-based Solutions in the UK. It allows practitioners to filter metrics based on their project needs, feasibility of data collection, and informativeness for each metric.

Finally, we emphasise the need for supportive policy frameworks and incentives to effectively integrate soil health into current and future NbS. Regulatory support, guidance, and funding mechanisms will be key to enabling long-term systemic change.

Read the new paper: Advancing nature-based solutions through enhanced soil health monitoring in the United Kingdom.

Explore the Biodiversity and Soil Health Metrics Tool on our NbS Hub.

Balancing land use for biodiversity and climate

How can we balance land-use to address the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, and food insecurity?

Interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners from across the globe convened in Oaxaca, Mexico, to explore pathways to sustainable and just land systems at the 2024 Global Land Programme Open Science Meeting.

NbSI researchers Aline Soterroni and John Lynch presented new research offering solutions for uniting biodiversity and climate objectives, from broadening the definition of ‘forest’ in the new European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), to recognising the value of peatland restoration for climate change mitigation.

Potential impacts of the EUDR for Brazil’s Cerrado

Aline’s work demonstrates the importance of broadening the ‘forest’ definition in the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), particularly for Brazil’s Cerrado, a non-forest ecosystem and a biodiversity-rich hotspot that is frequently regarded as a sacrifice zone. The EUDR mandates that companies remove deforestation from their supply chains and ensure that agricultural commodities they source such as soy and beef, as well as derived products, are not associated with deforestation.

New scenario modelling by Aline and colleagues reveals that broadening the scope of the regulation to include ‘other wooded land’ could almost sixfold increase the potential of the EUDR for avoiding direct deforestation for soy in Brazil’s Cerrado, associated with the EU consumption.

Aline also pointed out that further protection could be achieved by making some of the major agricultural companies commit across their entire operations – beyond just exports to Europe.

Aline Soterroni presents her findings at the Global Land Programme 2024 Open Science Meeting

 

Value of peatland restoration for climate change mitigation

John’s research highlights the importance of peatland restoration for climate change mitigation. When peatlands are drained and degraded, they emit carbon dioxide, but when rewetted, they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as soil carbon. However, rewetting can increase emissions of another greenhouse gas, methane, resulting in concerns that peatland restoration may increase warming in the short-term.

John and NbSI’s Xiao Zhang explored how peatland restoration undertaken by The Wildlife Trusts contributes to climate change mitigation, finding that rewetting UK peatlands is expected to benefit the climate no matter the timeframe considered.

John also illustrated new approaches for conceptualising the effect of peatland emissions.

Towards more holistic scenario assessment

Aline and John co-chaired a thought-provoking session on ‘The role of land-use in achieving climate and biodiversity objectives: towards more holistic scenario assessment.’ The session revealed insights from different approaches to integrating diverse aspects of land-use, and how this contributes to our biodiversity and climate objectives.

Key takeaways:

  • Embedding local knowledge in projects: Case-studies of agroforestry cocoa production in Brazil and the Castro Verde region in Portugal emphasised the need to understand on-the-ground decision-making and co-develop projects in a way that recognises and builds on the knowledge of local communities.
  • Integrated modelling approaches: Examples from Wales and Argentina highlighted the need for an integrated modelling approach tracking food system properties, land-use, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity impacts in tandem. They also emphasised the importance of stakeholder involvement in developing pathways, including input from national and local representatives.
  • Conceptual tools and mechanisms driving land use decisions: ‘Carbon opportunity cost’ approaches were suggested as being useful in appraising the indirect impacts of agricultural practices that affect yield on overall land-use, and hence climate impacts. A critique of biodiversity credits suggested critical interventions to improve the practice, including robust comparative baselines and enhanced, independent monitoring and verification.

 

Read more about John’s project here: Overlooked potential of peatland restoration

Look out for upcoming publications from Aline’s work on The potential impacts of the EUDR for Brazil’s Cerrado.

The imperative of aligning policy on climate and biodiversity

In a new article published yesterday in The Conversation, NbSI’s Nathalie Seddon and Audrey Wagner explain why aligning climate and biodiversity policy is essential.

The message is clear: healthy ecosystems are crucial for climate resilience and a stable climate is essential to protecting biodiversity. Climate action must not come at the expense of biodiversity or human rights. As Nathalie and Audrey highlight:

“The scientific consensus is clear: we cannot address climate change by industrialising the biosphere. Effective climate solutions must protect ecosystem integrity and support biodiversity, not compromise them for carbon gains.”

However, the recent UN Biodiversity Conference in Colombia (COP16) brought both progress and concerning developments. In particular, key language addressing the need to transition away from fossil fuels and warning of the dangers of bioenergy for biodiversity was deleted from the final text.

On the positive side, we saw growing political support for aligning climate targets with biodiversity goals, including commitments to stronger coordination across the three conventions – on biodiversity, climate change and desertification. In a landmark step towards more inclusive governance, a new subsidiary body for the ‘full and effective’ participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities was established.

Read the full article in the Conversation: “The climate and biodiversity crises are entwined, but we risk pitting one against the other”

 

 

Do we have enough information to scale up carbon removals sustainably?

As COP29 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) commences in Azerbaijan, the need for effective and sustainable strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is more critical than ever. However, most global scenarios also rely heavily on carbon dioxide removals (CDRs) to keep within the Paris Agreement temperature targets, and many ‘net-zero’ pathways indicated by governments contain a significant amount of CDR.

But do we know what the wider effects of these CDR practices will be, or which approaches might be more or less sustainable?

A new paper, led by Dr Isabela Butnar of UCL and NbSI’s Dr John Lynch, argues that we currently have only limited evidence to address these important questions.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods, widely used to assess the environmental impacts of products and services, are increasingly used to inform policy decision-making around CDR practices, to suggest which practices are most favourable and whether there may be adverse effects that need to be considered. However, this new analysis highlights the urgent need for more comprehensive and consistent LCA studies to enable comparison between different CDRs and reveal the potential consequences of scaling CDRs up in the future.

Reviewing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) literature on CDR, the authors found that while there is much valuable and informative research, which usually covers the full life cycle of removals, studies of different types of carbon removal have different methods and norms, making cross-comparison challenging or impossible. In many cases, research only explored a small number of impacts beyond climate effects, if any, so there is limited data on the wider effects – positive or negative – of many CDR practices. The social and environmental impacts of CDR must be understood in order to scale-up practices that support co-benefits, and do not risk damage to the biosphere or human rights violations. Further analysis on the wider effects of CDR can help to identify practices which prioritise multiple core benefits alongside carbon sequestration, such as biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Finally, LCA papers predominantly take an ‘attributional’ rather than ‘consequential’ approach, meaning that they track impacts at project-scale, but cannot reveal systemic effects: key to understanding whether large-scale roll-out can be sustainable.

The paper concludes that more consistent and comprehensive LCA studies will be vital in determining the roles of different carbon dioxide removal practices in a sustainable future. This evidence would enable us to plan the best way to deploy CDR to achieve our climate commitments while minimising trade-offs and maximising additional benefits.

The work was undertaken as part of the CO2RE greenhouse gas removal hub, in collaboration with the wider GGR-D Biochar, Enhanced Rock Weathering, Peatlands, Perennial Biomass Crops and Woodland Creation & Management, demonstrators.

Read the paper: “A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Methods to Inform the Scale-Up of Carbon Dioxide Removal Interventions”

Read about the need for social and ecological sustainability limits for CDR here.

Nature-based solutions for transformative change at COP16

At the halfway point of COP16 in Cali, our Director, Nathalie Seddon, joined fellow academics and researchers to discuss how nature-based solutions (NbS) can drive the transformative change urgently needed to restore balance between people, nature and climate.

“Nature-based solutions have the power to transform not just our landscapes but also how we think and act. They have the potential to be genuinely holistic, going beyond being solutions to climate, biodiversity and justice issues—they have potential to reshape our mindset and invite us to see nature as a partner in our well-being. Rather than being seen as tools or projects or policies, NbS might best be understood as pathways to a more balanced relationship with the earth” – Prof Nathalie Seddon, Director of NbSI

Key attributes of NbS

There was consensus amongst the panellists that NbS hold three core attributes:

  • Addressing societal challenges: NbS must address societal challenges, such as climate change and economic inequality
  • Ecosystem integrity: NbS must restore and maintain ecosystem integrity and biodiversity
  • Indigenous and local rights: NbS must secure rights and promote benefits for people locally

Barriers and enablers for transformative NbS

The panel emphasised the importance of avoiding trade-offs between climate policy and biodiversity. Nathalie warned against NbS projects that prioritise carbon sequestration over biodiversity or community well-being. She highlighted the risks of viewing NbS as purely technical solutions, like large-scale monoculture plantations, rather than considering their local ecological, social and cultural context.  The transformative power of NbS lies in inclusive, community-led approaches supported by strong governance, clear policies, and ongoing adaptive management to respond to evolving conditions and unique ecological contexts. The panel underscored the critical importance of amplifying Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ voices, whose worldviews are the foundations and drivers of lasting systems change. Nathalie shared:

“What gives me hope is the growing strength of the leadership and agency of IPLCs and other marginalised groups in NbS, and linked to this, deepening interest in nature reconnection as a core part of system change. There’s more awareness that rebuilding our relationship with nature is fundamental, not just for tackling climate and biodiversity crises but for shifting our entire mindset towards sustainable living. The surge in research and collaboration around this is inspiring. ”

She emphasised the importance of working collaboratively to embrace this mindset change, support local initiatives, share knowledge, and make space for diverse voices to shape NbS that benefit nature, and people as part of nature.

“Remembering our kinship with all of nature, and shifting from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric or kincentric world view is central and I do think nature-based solutions can play a critical role in that.”

Looking forward, the panel celebrated the momentum created by the community at COP16 and the potential for NbS to bring transformative change by connecting biodiversity, climate and equity through collaborative action.

Director Seddon at COP16
Director Seddon at COP16. Photo Philipp Montenegro

Explore further key actions for transformative NbS in our 2024 Conference Report: Growing Positive Change.

NbSI at COP16: What we’re doing, what’s happening, and what outcomes we’re hoping for

The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is now well underway in Cali, Colombia, bringing together nearly 190 nations to tackle the critical challenge of reversing biodiversity loss, addressing the interconnected climate crisis, and improving well being globally. This COP is particularly significant as it is the first since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) at COP15, and the key overarching question is how countries will fulfil their pledge to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water and restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030. In other words, how will countries translate their commitments into concrete actions on the ground.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described it as an opportunity to “make peace with nature” and turn the framework into a lived reality. Known as the “people’s COP,” it emphasises inclusive, equitable solutions that prioritise Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

What NbSI Is doing at COP16

As negotiations progress, with much at stake, we are working to strengthen the link between science and policy with a focus on the role of high integrity nature-based solutions in aligning policy action on climate and biodiversity.

We’re taking a multi-layered approach:

We are collaborating with NGOs in direct communication with negotiators to help ensure that the most up-to-date scientific insights are reflected in decision texts. This includes facilitating connections between the Academia and Research Organisations Group—which we are coordinating and of which the Oxford delegation is part—and coalitions like the Friends of Synergies group.

Participating in side events, we are helping to enhance understanding of the potential of high-integrity NbS not only to help mitigate climate change by enhancing carbon storage and reducing emissions but also to support adaptation to climate change and other societal goals. This week we are sharing our recent study showing how investment in nature-based solutions can support economic recovery. Stay tuned.

We are advocating for the alignment of biodiversity and climate action based on scientific evidence, emphasising the importance of prioritising the protection of high-integrity ecosystems—those that are biodiverse, healthy, connected, and community-stewarded— as these show greatest resilience to climate impacts and harbour most of Earth’s biodiversity. To this end, we are actively monitoring the negotiations on agenda item 25, which addresses the links between biodiversity and climate action.

We are doubling down on what counts as a nature-based solution. It is crucial to clearly define NbS, ensuring they genuinely embody community involvement, biodiversity enhancement, and human rights-based approaches. We are committed to keeping these principles at the forefront of discussions.

We have organised Oxford’s largest delegation to a biodiversity COP, reflecting our commitment to integrating the best evidence into policy and aligning efforts on biodiversity and climate. We aim to elevate biodiversity loss to the same level of urgency as climate change, ensuring both crises are addressed concurrently.

Key issues so far

During the first week, some progress has been reported on addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss, sustainable management of wildlife and on establishing collaborations among countries that are attempting to integrate nature into policies for agriculture, education, and health. Perhaps most welcome, is the universal recognition of the critical importance of ensuring that diverse values and knowledge systems guide practical actions on the ground and that robust flows of finance must be secured to IPLCs.

Ongoing discussions are centred on strengthening synergies between climate and nature initiatives, as addressed in agenda item 25, which relates to Target 8 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Additionally, deliberations are underway on Article 8J, involving new proposals for a work programme and the establishment of a permanent body to provide institutional support, ensuring the full and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the Convention’s efforts.

A key challenge under agenda item 25, focusing on biodiversity and climate change, is paragraph 5, which aims to optimise co-benefits and synergies in financing while avoiding double counting of biodiversity and climate funds. Developing countries, in particular, have raised concerns that double counting could reduce overall financing for their biodiversity and climate initiatives. This issue ties into ongoing discussions on resource mobilisation, and deliberations are in progress for a resolution. Another important aspect is paragraph 14, which may propose steps to enhance cooperation between the CBD and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including potential wording on a Joint Work Programme across the conventions, or more likely, on a joint CBD/UNFCCC expert meeting on biodiversity and climate change in 2025, to further explore other options, and to prepare a summary report of this expert meeting for consideration prior to COP17.

Despite progress, substantial divisions remain, particularly regarding resource mobilisation and benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources. Moreover, as of the end of the first week, only 34 countries and the European Union (representing 18% of Parties) have submitted revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), with 115 countries (59% of Parties) revising their national targets. Colombia, as the COP16 Presidency holder, set an ambitious tone by submitting a strong NBSAP on the opening day, providing an example for others. Nevertheless, we need to see all parties submitting robust NBSAPs, ideally aligned with NDCs and NAPs, over the coming months.

It remains uncertain whether disagreements over how to mobilise adequate financial support for the implementation of the KMGBF will be resolved in the coming days.

Our hopes for NbS at COP16

We have several key outcomes relevant to scaling nature-based solutions that we’re hoping for at COP16:

  • Synergies between climate and biodiversity action
    We hope that COP16 will strengthen the synergies between policy and action for biodiversity, climate, and social equity. This includes aligning National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). We believe that Colombia’s leadership will be crucial in achieving this alignment, setting a precedent for cross-convention collaboration through agenda items like 13 (Cooperation) and 25 (Biodiversity and Climate Change). Strong commitments from Colombia and other parties could establish a clear pathway for collaboration, benefiting future COPs, including COP30 in Brazil.
  • Centring justice and equity
    NbS must be co-designed and implemented in close collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), who are the primary stewards of biodiversity. We hope that the decision text has strong commitments to human rights-based approaches, explicitly protecting the rights of IPLCs, women, and marginalised groups. Empowering these communities is crucial for achieving both effective biodiversity conservation and social equity, ensuring that NbS provide fair, inclusive, and genuinely sustainable outcomes.
  • Ensuring ecosystem integrity
    Protecting ecosystem integrity is essential for the long-term success of NbS. This means enhancing ecosystem health and resilience, while supporting critical services like carbon sequestration, water regulation, and biodiversity conservation. COP16 should maintain strong language that emphasises the importance of integrity and resilience, ensuring that NbS continue to provide sustained environmental benefits that humanity relies upon.
  • Safeguards against greenwashing
    Robust safeguards are needed to prevent NbS from being used as a cover for greenwashing or harmful carbon offsetting schemes. True climate action must not come at the expense of biodiversity or the well-being of local communities. We therefore need mechanisms that enforce these safeguards, ensuring that NbS do not perpetuate environmental and social harm or serve merely as superficial carbon offsetting tools.
  • Embracing complexity and building resilience
    NbS must consider the complexity of ecological and social systems, which requires adaptive governance frameworks that evolve in response to real-world outcomes. We therefore hope  for some language that reflects this.
  •  Accountability and transparency
    Accountability is vital for the success of NbS. We call for robust monitoring and reporting systems to track progress and ensure transparency. NbS initiatives must adhere to high standards with clear, open governance and decision-making processes. Strengthening accountability mechanisms will ensure that NbS deliver measurable and verifiable benefits, building trust in these solutions and their implementation.

 

Keep up-to-date with our work at COP16 on LinkedIn and X.

Read our newly released NbS Conference 2024 Report to explore key actions for COP16 and beyond: Growing Positive Change Report.

Growing positive change – NbS Conference 2024 insights, report and recordings

Download NbS Conference 2024 Report

We are living in a time of immense urgency, as the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social injustice call for transformative action. Achieving this systemic change requires more than just data and policy—it demands a shift in values, relationships, and the integration of diverse worldviews and knowledge systems.

The Nature-based Solutions Conference 2024 brought together a wide range of voices, including Indigenous scholars, interdisciplinary researchers, public and private sector practitioners, as well as musicians and artists. Over the course of three days, we combined science, traditional knowledge, music, and art to discuss and co-create an action plan for nature-based solutions that can drive positive social and environmental change.

Key high-level insights from across conference included:

  1. Redefining NbS through justice and equity
    A major takeaway was the need for transformative NbS that prioritise justice and equity. Addressing global inequalities and ensuring that NbS initiatives are led by, or in close partnership with, Indigenous Peoples and local communities is critical to their success. These groups’ knowledge, leadership, and perspectives were highlighted as central to delivering effective and enduring solutions.
  2. Embracing complexity to drive resilience
    The conference emphasised the importance of embracing complexity. NbS should work within complex systems, integrating ecological, social, and cultural dimensions to build resilience. Learning by doing, with adaptive frameworks that evolve based on real-world outcomes, was seen as essential for scaling NbS effectively in a rapidly changing world.
  3. New governance models grounded in local knowledge
    An important insight was the need for governance models that move away from traditional top-down approaches. Local and Indigenous-led governance was seen as essential to successful NbS. These models not only provide the leadership required for ecological projects but also offer new ways of addressing social challenges, demonstrating how local knowledge can guide solutions on a broader scale.
  4. Reframing the economy within biosphere limits
    The conference proposed a shift in how we think about the economy, advocating for framing economic activity within the limits of the biosphere. This approach challenges the traditional sustainable development model and prioritises long-term ecological health over endless growth. NbS were presented as a pathway to a transformed economy, one that is in service of the web of life and focused on supporting the flourishing of ecosystems and communities alike.
  5. Collective responsibility and democratic renewal
    A key theme was the importance of collective action and responsibility in achieving better social and ecological outcomes. Discussions called for democratic renewal through mechanisms like citizens’ assemblies to ensure that decision-making processes are inclusive and representative. Empowering people to participate in shaping policies and ensuring governments act on public demand for NbS are crucial for creating long-term change.
  6. Transforming finance for long-term sustainability
    Another critical insight was the need to redesign financial systems to support long-term ecological and social resilience. Discussions highlighted the urgent need to move financial resources away from harmful subsidies and practices that degrade ecosystems, toward nature-positive investments. Creating robust regulatory frameworks and aligning financial systems to prioritise long-term ecological health were recognised as essential steps to ensuring that NbS deliver sustainable and equitable outcomes for people and the planet.
  7. Expanding the concept of health to include nature
    One of the standout insights was the growing recognition of the interconnectedness between human and ecosystem health. Nature-based solutions were presented as vital components of public health strategies, not only for their environmental benefits but also for improving mental and physical health. This points to a future where healthcare systems fully integrate nature-based interventions as part of a holistic approach to well-being.
  8. Reconnecting with nature as a foundation for systemic change
    The conference also stressed that reconnecting with nature is essential to achieving systemic change. By deepening connection with the natural world, individuals and societies can reimagine their place within the web of life, cultivating the empathy and care required to restore ecosystems and build a future where humanity and nature thrive as one.

Find much more including key actions and session summaries in our Report:

Download NbS Conference 2024 Report

Watch the recordings on Youtube:

 

 

The cost-effectiveness of nature-based solutions for reducing disaster risk

Although  nature-based solutions are widely recognised by international frameworks and national policies, the economic viability and equity implications of them as potential solutions to reduce disaster risks requires further exploration.

A recent study, led by Marta Vicarelli from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, addresses this critical gap by developing a comprehensive database of peer-reviewed studies that analyse the economic and social impacts of NbS.

Building a global knowledge base for Eco-DRR and EbA

This study centres on two primary forms of nature-based solutions (NbS): Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) and Ecosystem-based Climate Change Adaptation (EbA). Both approaches are designed to bolster resilience by utilising natural ecosystems—such as wetlands, coastal areas, forests, and mangroves—to mitigate risks like flooding, erosion, and storms.

The research team compiled data from 402 observations across 87 peer-reviewed studies, resulting in a comprehensive database that highlights the effectiveness, funding structures, and socio-economic outcomes of these interventions.

This in-depth review builds on a broader global assessment of more than 500 studies that analyse Eco-DRR approaches. By concentrating on the economic dimensions of these nature-based strategies, the research adds to the growing body of evidence supporting their use as effective alternatives to traditional engineering-based solutions.

Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic benefits

A key finding of the study is that over 80% of the reviewed studies found NbS to be more cost-effective than conventional engineering solutions for disaster risk reduction. Beyond offering direct economic benefits by shielding communities from environmental hazards, these interventions provide significant co-benefits, such as biodiversity restoration, improved water quality, and carbon sequestration—all of which support long-term socio-economic resilience.

However, cost-effectiveness is context-dependent. Around 24% of the studies reviewed pointed out that while NbS are generally effective, their success often hinges on factors such as geographic location and ecosystem type. Mangroves, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems emerged as consistently among the most effective in disaster mitigation, with robust evidence of their ability to reduce risks associated with flooding and storms.

Social justice and equity impacts

The study also explores the equity implications of NbS, going beyond purely economic considerations. It underscores the vital role of local and indigenous communities in ecosystem stewardship, highlighting the importance of inclusive decision-making processes. By adopting participatory approaches, NbS policies can more effectively reflect the needs and preferences of marginalised groups, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits across socio-economic boundaries.

The review also identified gaps in the existing literature concerning the social justice aspects of NbS. Further research is needed to evaluate how various income groups benefit from ecosystem-based interventions, especially in regions where vulnerable populations are most at risk from climate-related disasters.

Scaling-up with finance

One of the critical insights from the study is the need for more comprehensive approaches to financing NbS. At present, most NbS projects are funded by the public sector, but there is increasing recognition of the potential role of blended public-private partnerships in scaling these interventions to meet global challenges. Engaging private sector finance in green infrastructure could be key to expanding these efforts on a larger scale.

The authors also note that the success of NbS is often linked to property rights. Effective governance structures are crucial for managing and restoring ecosystems, and financing models must take into account different property ownership arrangements.

Challenges and research gaps

Despite the promise of NbS, the review highlights several challenges and research gaps. A major issue is the lack of a globally standardised approach for monitoring and evaluating NbS performance, which complicates comparisons of effectiveness across different ecosystems and regions. Additionally, some hazards—such as drought—are underrepresented in the current literature, despite their significant impact on millions worldwide.

The study concludes by strongly endorsing NbS as a sustainable and cost-effective solution for disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation, finding that NbS not only provide immediate economic benefits but also contribute to long-term social and environmental resilience. However, as climate change accelerates and disasters become more frequent and severe, the study emphasises further research into the biodiversity benefits of NbS and their long-term effectiveness is needed.

This research offers key timely insights into the viability of nature-based solutions, providing a foundation for informed decision-making by policymakers and stakeholders. By considering both the economic and social dimensions of NbS, we can develop a more holistic understanding of how natural ecosystems can contribute to mitigating global disaster risks and enhancing climate adaptation efforts.

Read the paper.

 

Survey: how can we design better green infrastructure in line with NbS principles?

Green infrastructure has considerable potential to protect urban areas from the impacts of climate change while enhancing natural ecosystems within towns and cities. However, it is not always designed in accordance with the principles of nature-based solutions, which support biodiversity and communities locally whilst also addressing societal challenges.

Our research seeks to address this gap by developing a unified set of principles that integrates the best practices from both green infrastructure and NbS, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of urban planning.

To achieve this, we conducted an extensive literature review, building on previous research into the benefits of green infrastructure, and formulated a comprehensive set of combined principles. Now, we need your input to help evaluate these principles.

If you are involved in NbS or green infrastructure, we invite you to take part in our short survey. Your insights will help us determine the practicality and usefulness of these principles. All responses will be anonymous, and the findings will be published in an upcoming paper, which we hope will contribute to more informed and sustainable urban planning in the future.

Please visit our short survey and tell us what you think!

 

The cross-boundary impact of EU’s carbon dioxide removal strategy in Brazil

In a recent publication, NbSI’s Aline Soterroni and collaborators took a a close look at the European Union’s (EU) Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategy and its implications beyond EU borders, particularly in Brazil. The study, published in a broader work on European climate policy, raises important questions about the environmental and social impacts of CDR measures like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and large-scale afforestation projects on the Global South.

Europe’s climate strategy—implications beyond its borders

The EU aims to reach climate neutrality by 2050, and CDR methods are a significant part of this plan. These include afforestation, reforestation, and the deployment of BECCS—technologies that convert biomass into energy while capturing and storing carbon emissions. However, with the land required to implement these strategies often being sourced in regions like Latin America, there is a growing concern about the potential for negative ecological and social impacts on these areas.

The study explores the requirements for Brazil to support EU carbon neutrality, which could involve vast areas of land—up to 152.5 million hectares by 2050. This requirement could exceed 80% of Brazil’s projected pasturelands, leading to intense competition for land between agriculture, forest restoration, and CDR projects. Such pressures threaten to undermine local food production and natural ecosystems, complicating Brazil’s own sustainability goals.

Environmental and social threats of carbon removal in Brazil

The study highlights significant risks linked to the deployment of short-rotation monoculture Eucalyptus plantations—a typical choice for BECCS. While fast-growing, these plantations can lead to severe soil degradation, including compaction and nutrient depletion, which could have long-term consequences for soil health and productivity. Additionally, large-scale monocultures affect biodiversity by replacing native habitats and could result in reduced resilience of the local ecosystems.

Water scarcity is another critical issue. Eucalyptus plantations are water-intensive, particularly in regions that are already water-stressed, such as northeastern Brazil. The study notes that monoculture afforestation could exacerbate water shortages, affecting both agricultural productivity and the availability of clean drinking water.

The social consequences are no less severe. The displacement of indigenous and local communities due to large-scale land-use change poses risks to traditional livelihoods and food security. Past experiences with similar afforestation initiatives in Brazil have shown negative effects, including forced displacement, land dispossession, and increased land prices that drive local farmers out of economically feasible farming.

Land tenure and climate justice

A significant part of the report’s findings relates to land tenure—a crucial issue for the Global South. Without secure land tenure, local and indigenous communities are more vulnerable to losing their land to large-scale CDR projects. The EU’s carbon strategies could inadvertently perpetuate neo-colonial practices, where the environmental costs of wealthy nations are outsourced to less affluent countries.

The study urges the EU to consider the ethical implications of relying on land-based CDR strategies outside its borders. It recommends enhancing collaboration with countries like Brazil, ensuring that land use changes for CDR do not compromise local communities’ rights or undermine sustainable land management practices. A rights-based approach to land tenure is suggested as essential to making such projects socially just and environmentally sustainable.

Key recommendations for EU climate policy

The researchers present several recommendations for ensuring that EU climate actions are environmentally and socially responsible:

  1. Stricter emission reductions within the EU: The European Commission should focus more on internal emission reductions rather than relying heavily on land-based CDR outside the EU. Expanding the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) and imposing a carbon tax could incentivise emission reductions domestically.
  2. Investing in regenerative land management: The study calls for increased funding for sustainable agricultural practices and the restoration of natural ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration within the EU, rather than placing this burden on third-party countries.
  3. Supporting technological transfers and collaboration: To balance the burden, the EU should allocate funds to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building in the Global South, allowing for the shared development of CDR technologies.
    Responsible carbon offsetting: Revisiting the Renewable Energy Directive to include strict socio-environmental safeguards is necessary to prevent the negative impacts of BECCS and afforestation projects in Brazil and other countries.
  4. Enhanced accountability and monitoring: The EU should improve its Monitoring, Verification, and Reporting (MVR) system to include all sectors of its economy, ensuring the transparency and credibility of carbon removal efforts.ConclusionThe study underscores the potential dangers of exporting the burden of carbon neutrality to the Global South. While technologies like BECCS and large-scale afforestation are promising tools for mitigating climate change, their deployment must be approached with caution, considering both environmental sustainability and social justice. By securing land tenure for local communities, ensuring equitable participation, and focusing more on reducing emissions within its own borders, the EU can lead a more ethical path to climate neutrality.

The path to carbon neutrality must not come at the cost of local communities and ecosystems. A just and sustainable transition is needed—one that respects the rights of those who may otherwise bear the unintended consequences of these ambitious climate strategies.

Warm welcome to new team members

Dr Jen M. Lucey

Deputy Director and Senior Researcher

Jen Lucy outside, pink shirt

We are delighted to introduce Jennifer Lucey as the Deputy Director of NbSI and a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. Jen is an expert on biodiversity and forests in oil palm landscapes. Working at the interface of science, policy and practice, her research focuses on developing NbS to transform agricultural landscapes to support biodiverse, resilient ecosystems. Following a PhD on the impacts of oil-palm-caused forest fragmentation, Jen spearheaded the Socially and Environmentally Sustainable Oil Palm Research Programme (SEnSOR 2015-2024), investigating the effects of oil palm certification on livelihoods and biodiversity. Her impact-driven research has been recognised with a NERC Early Career Impact Award and a REF2021 Impact case study.

Alongside her work as Deputy Director, Jen is leading the establishment of a new Agricultural Resilience Impact and Innovation (AGRII) Hub. The AGRII Hub will seek to accelerate the transformation of our agricultural systems, by engaging industry leaders and stakeholders to co-develop novel research and innovation across disciplines.

Klara Kaleb

Senior Research Associate

Klara in a blue top

Klara‘s research focusses on how to leverage machine learning for systematic reviews of NbS and nature recovery research, working between the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, the Department of Statistics and NbSI. Klara holds a PhD in Computational Neuroscience from Imperial College London.

 

 

 

 

Xiao Zhang

Research Assistant

Xiao is modelling the GHG emissions of UK peatlands, with relevance for their crucial role in the UK Net Zero Strategy. She recently presented a research poster on the key findings. This project forms part of the Agile Sprint on ‘How can we manage uncertainties in habitat greenhouse gas emissions?‘, led by Dr John Lynch. Before joining NbSI, Xiao completed an MRes at Imperial College London, investigating the impact of pesticides on honeybee brood disease development, and the relationship between flower morphology and their pollinators.

 

 

Jon Harper

Masters student

Jon is investigating the impacts of native woodland regeneration on carbon sequestration and biodiversity in Scotland, supervised by Dr Emily Warner. This work is part of a wider project on ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem responses to woodland creation.’

 

Flourishing Landscapes Programme

We welcome several new team members who join the newly established Flourishing Landscapes Programme (FLP), led by NbSI’s Dr Will Thompson. This project addresses the triple challenge of livelihoods, climate change, and biodiversity loss at tropical forest frontiers, driven by a global consortium of research, civil society, and industry collaborators, and targeted in agricultural-forest matrix landscapes across Ecuador, Ghana and Viet Nam.

Dr Daniel Hending

Research Fellow

Dan is leading ecological research within the cacao agroecosystems in the Ashanti Region of Ghana (Guinean Forests of West Africa), and coffee agroecosystems in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam (Indo-Burma). Having worked on a wide range of projects spanning animal behaviour, ecology and evolution, Dan’s interests are focussed on how organisms respond to changes such as habitat degradation and fragmentation, and the development of non-invasive biodiversity assessment tools, such as bioacoustics.

 

 

Michael Ruggeri

Research Assistant

Michael in a canoe

Michael is gathering evidence on practices and mechanisms to inform landscape and farm-scale management of agroforestry systems. This work includes mapping financial flows that can support restorative practices. Michael’s background spans environmental sciences, agriculture and rural development.

 

 

 

 

Phoebe Reid

Masters Student

Phoebe is exploring trade-offs between climate adaptation, biodiversity and productivity in cocoa agroforestry systems in Ghana, supervised by Dr Will Thompson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find out more and keep up-to-date with the Flourishing Landscapes Programme here.

A new research agenda for exploring nature’s contribution to wellbeing

The complexity of societal challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss and air pollution, require interdisciplinary research to address them effectively. Models and scenarios, particularly integrated assessment models (IAMs), offer valuable insights into these complex problems and play a crucial role in informing decision-making. Despite significant scientific advances, key gaps remain.

The study ‘Integrated modelling of nature’s role in human well-being: a research agenda’, led by Rebecca Chapling-Kramer from WWF in collaboration with world-class modellers for integrated assessment, including NbSI research fellow Aline Soterroni, identifies to five critical research areas for enhancing the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into global Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs).

A key area identified by the authors is the downscaling the impacts of direct and indirect drivers on ecosystems. Current IAMs operate at broad scales, which inadequately capture fine-scale ecological processes such as water quality and pollination. It is essential to understand the specific locations where human pressures affect nature and its contributions to people, as the location of these pressures greatly influences their impact. Thus, incorporating detailed, localised data into models is necessary to better represent these critical ecological processes.

Incorporating feedbacks within and between ecosystems is also essential. To assess the long-term impacts of our decisions, it is important to understand how these impacts cascade through interconnected systems. Without accounting for these cascading effects, models cannot accurately predict the broader implications of ecological changes over time. Therefore, developing models that capture these feedbacks is vital for effective long-term planning.

Linking ecological impacts to human well-being is also critical. Although there have been significant advancements in ecosystem service modelling, these models often fall short of translating biophysical changes into values that resonate with decision-makers. IAMs need to more effectively integrate the impacts of changes in biodiversity and ecosystems on various social and economic dimensions of well-being to provide a clearer picture of their true value.

Disaggregating outcomes for distributional equity is another important research area. Understanding average impacts on people is insufficient because averages can mask significant inequalities. Those most dependent on nature—often the most vulnerable—face disproportionate impacts. IAMs must address these disparities by disaggregating outcomes based on socio-economic characteristics such as gender, age, and income to ensure that policy measures promote equity and address the needs of the most affected groups.

Incorporating dynamic feedbacks of ecosystem services on the socio-economic system represents the final critical frontier that actually integrates the previous research areas, offering a comprehensive view of how ecological changes feedback into social and economic systems. Without linking outcomes back to the drivers, models are limited to static snapshots and fail to anticipate how ecological degradation impacts the broader economy and society.

A key policy question requiring an integrated social-economic-ecological assessment is the full benefits and costs of nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as their resilience to future climate change impacts. When comparing nature-based solutions with technological alternatives, it is important to include the broad range of non-market environmental and social benefits that nature provides. Evaluating the long-term resilience of nature-based solutions also requires assessing the security of these investments under climate change and determining how to maintain the ecosystems that deliver essential benefits.

IAMs are powerful tools for exploring linkages and feedbacks among social, economic, and ecological systems, but further development is needed for them to more effectively inform policy and practice.

 

Download the paper. 

Balancing conservation in the face of a dynamic environment

The dynamics of conservation have always been complex, particularly when considering both the biological and socio-political landscapes involved. A recent Nature article sheds light on the ongoing discussions about the value of degraded ecosystems, especially in the context of how societies should prioritise these ecosystems for conservation in a world undergoing rapid change.

The focus of this discussion lies in understanding how logged and degraded tropical forests should be managed. Traditional views often dismiss these areas as ecologically worthless once degraded. However, this perspective is increasingly challenged by research highlighting the significant biodiversity that such areas can still support. Logged forests, though not as pristine as primary forests, provide critical refugia for many species and play a role in broader ecological resilience.

A recent article, Thresholds for Adding Degraded Tropical Forest to the Conservation Estate published in Nature by Ewers et al, presents a more nuanced understanding, suggesting that conservation efforts should not only focus on untouched habitats but also consider moderately disturbed ones as valuable conservation estates. This approach encourages a balance between proactive conservation—where relatively intact areas are protected to prevent further degradation—and reactive conservation, which involves efforts like restoration to rehabilitate more severely impacted regions.

The research involved analysing data from 127 biodiversity surveys conducted over 11 years in Sabah, as part of the Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystems (SAFE) Project, encompassing 1,681 taxa from 86 taxonomic orders and 126 functional groups. Forests were categorised by the percentage of biomass removed, ranging from undisturbed primary forests to heavily degraded areas with up to 99% biomass loss, and biodiversity changes were modelled to identify critical points of change for each taxon.

Two key thresholds for conservation value were identified:

Lightly logged forests (<29% biomass removal): Forests with less than 29% biomass removal retain a substantial level of biodiversity and an intact functional composition. These forests have strong potential to regenerate naturally, making them suitable for proactive conservation measures, such as assigning protected status.

Heavily degraded forests (>68% biomass removal): Forests that have lost more than 68% of their biomass exhibit significant biodiversity loss and altered community structures. Such forests require reactive conservation, involving expensive interventions like habitat restoration, to recover their ecological value.

Lightly logged areas, with less than 29% biomass removal, were found to retain substantial biodiversity and hold strong regenerative potential. In contrast, areas that have undergone over 68% biomass loss face much greater ecological challenges, necessitating more intensive, often costly restoration efforts to regain biodiversity function. This shift in the conservation narrative is crucial for policymakers. Instead of focusing solely on maintaining untouched wilderness, the emphasis is on managing human-altered landscapes in a way that maximises ecological benefits. Degraded does not mean devoid of value—conserving logged forests could be key to sustaining biodiversity in many regions where human activities dominate.

The article concludes by urging the scientific and conservation community to stop devaluing degraded ecosystems and recognise their potential contributions to ecological health. This reframing of conservation priorities could significantly affect how resources are allocated, moving towards an inclusive strategy that appreciates the diversity of ecosystems, both pristine and altered.

“These results demand that we stop devaluing degraded tropical forests for what they have lost, and rather appreciate them for the many values they retain.”

For those engaged in conservation science, this nuanced approach reinforces the idea that the future of biodiversity depends not just on protecting untouched environments but on a broader perspective that includes rehabilitation, resilience, and adaptive management across landscapes of varying quality.

Read the full article.

Narratives around nature-based dolutions

A new report, released last week, explores the multifaceted concept of nature-based solutions, with the aim of shedding light on how NbS are interpreted by different communities of practice within the biodiversity and climate sectors.

The report was co-authored by Alex Chausson (Senior Associate at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative) in a collaboration with Unearthodox. Researchers explored emerging tensions surrounding NbS amidst growing support for their implementation.

The report adopts the ‘Three Horizons framework’ to provide:

·       a comprehensive analysis of the current situation (Horizon 1),

·       the emergence of disruptive innovations (Horizon 2),

·       and a transformative future where human-nature relations are rooted in interbeing and interdependence (Horizon 3).

Key findings from the report reveal a complex landscape of narratives and frames within the NbS community. Proponents view NbS as cost-effective approach to helping to address climate adaptation and mitigation, but concerns about greenwashing, potential negative impacts on biodiversity, and inclusivity issues persist.

The report identifies two primary narratives among supporters: one focused on climate mitigation through carbon markets and another on enhancing resilience to climate impacts. Critics, however, argue that the misapplication of NbS can perpetuate business-as-usual approaches and marginalise Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LCs), calling for a deeper examination of structural drivers behind climate and biodiversity crises.

One of the core themes of the study was the importance of inclusive and just implementation of NbS. Findings underscored the need for NbS projects to be implemented by or in close partnership with IP&LCs to ensure their knowledge and rights are respected. The report emphasises that justice-oriented approaches must challenge imbalanced power dynamics and promote decolonial funding mechanisms that empower local communities to lead interventions that align with their needs and priorities.

The horizon framing used in this report is not just theoretical but aligns with practical discussions presented at the NbS conference, held in Oxford June 18-20. The first two days of the conference focused on current solutions to deliver tangible impact within the current economic system, while the final day looked at how we might transform the economy so that it supports human wellbeing and ecological integrity. This dual focus on immediate impact and long-term transformation is crucial for understanding and advancing NbS and the report explores both.

This report aims to serve as a valuable resource for anyone interested in the uptake of NbS and their potential role in shaping biodiversity and climate policy; offering insights into the tensions around NbS and exploring how these solutions can be harnessed to enable a flourishing future. We encourage policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and all stakeholders to engage with these findings and consider the recommendations to foster just and regenerative outcomes for nature and people as part of nature.

 

Download the report here.

Going beyond carbon essential to appraise Climate Benefits of Nature-based Solutions

The contribution of reforestation to climate change mitigation is typically appraised and reported in terms of how much carbon dioxide (CO2) can be taken up. Two recent papers, in Science and Nature Communications, highlight how focussing exclusively on this measure can overlook other important details that impact climate.

When trees are planted or naturally regrow on a previously deforested area, they remove atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, fixing it in an accumulating stock of carbon in biomass and soil. As long as these carbon stocks are maintained, this carbon sequestration can provide a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation.

At the same time, increased tree cover typically darkens the land surface, meaning that less sunlight is reflected and more energy is absorbed, causing warming. The reflectiveness of a surface is technically described as its ‘albedo’, with a higher albedo meaning greater reflection. Hasler et al. report that neglecting to factor in reductions in albedo could exaggerate the climate benefits of tree restoration by up to 81% in some locations.

Furthermore, forests release a variety of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) that can give rise to methane and ozone, which are also greenhouse gases, and so may further offset the climate benefit from any carbon removed. Deploying Earth System Models to simulate the climate effects of largescale forestation, Weber et al. found that 1/3 of the cooling provided by carbon removals was offset by decreased albedo and these non-CO2 greenhouse gas effects.

The potential for ecological restoration to capture carbon but increase methane emissions is well recognised for peatlands – and is something we are exploring as part of our project on uncertainties in habitat greenhouse gas emissions – but is only rarely noted in relation to other habitats, warranting further attention.

It is not all bad news for Nature-based Solutions contributing to climate change mitigation, however. Another effect of the BVOCs released by trees can be to increase organic aerosols – particles suspended in the air – which can scatter incoming sunlight and provide a cooling effect in the same way that reflective clouds do. Between 50 and 100% of the warming caused by albedo reductions was overcome by this effect, depending on the modelling setup.

Both studies also highlight that despite these additional effects reducing the degree of cooling provided, tree restoration still universally contributes to climate change mitigation. As the carbon stored and degree of albedo offset expected following tree restoration both vary significantly across the world, appropriately targeting the most effective areas can maximise the climatic value of reforestation. Indeed, many models do already take these factors into consideration, such as earlier NbSI work quantifying contribution of nature-based solutions to reducing peak warming, which excluded restoration of areas likely to have major albedo offsets.

The conclusion is not, therefore, that we should stop encouraging Nature-based Solutions for climate change mitigation, but that we do need to recognise and build on the latest science to provide accurate and comprehensive estimates of their value, and factor in emerging details in targeted deployment. The need for a more holistic approach goes beyond just climate mitigation assessment; the true value of Nature-based Solutions is in their ability to contribute to multiple goals, from climate change adaptation, to livelihoods for local communities, and of course, benefiting biodiversity.

 

Authors: John Lynch and Xiao Zhang

Monitoring and reporting outcomes of Nature-based Solutions projects

The Agile Initiative Knowledge Hub includes a tool for selecting metrics for monitoring biodiversity and soil health outcomes in NbS.

Research completed by NbSI and Agile Initiative to inform this resource highlighted factors that are considered in every project when developing a monitoring plan:

  • What to measure – selecting informative metrics.
  • How to measure – identifying effective, ideally standardised, methodologies for data collection.
  • Interpreting results – assessing results to understand project outcomes.

Developing monitoring approaches  

Nature-based Solutions projects usually have multiple desired outcomes, alongside tackling societal challenges, they should support biodiversity and local communities. For example, in a project aiming to mitigate climate change, alongside demonstrated carbon sequestration, clear benefits for biodiversity and local people should be very well evidenced.

Biodiversity and soil health are central to the ecological integrity of NbS and can present challenges to measure, given their multifaceted nature. Following Noss’ hierarchy of biodiversity [1], which categorises biodiversity into compositional, structural, and functional elements, and grouping soil health indicators into biological, chemical and physical categories [2], we prioritised metrics based on their ease of monitoring and informativeness. This process also highlighted the multitude of metrics available for monitoring, often with limited associated information on their effectiveness.

Pairing metrics with methodologies for data collection adds an additional challenge. Ideally, data would be collected in a standardised way across all NbS projects, maximising the possibility of cross-project comparisons and synthesis of multiple projects. However, even in the UK, which has fairly well-developed ecological monitoring programmes, standardised methodologies are not readily available for many of the recommended biodiversity and soil health metrics.

Data is only as useful as its interpretation. The purpose of data collection and how it will be used to assess outcomes should be the first step in monitoring design. Understanding how trends will be inferred, either by assessing change over time or by comparison to a control site, is a crucial part of the design process.

Lack of data can limit policy impacts – an example of carbon in rewilding 

The recent Grantham Institute report “Exploring the carbon sequestration potential of rewilding in the UK” highlighted that incorporating rewilding into UK net zero commitments is currently limited by available evidence and the ability to effectively monitor outcomes3. Given the expected contribution of rewilding to carbon sequestration and emissions reduction, filling these gaps is an important policy goal.

Rewilding presents a twofold challenge for projecting benefits from projects. Firstly, the nature-led approach means that projects will often have unpredictable trajectories. Secondly, carbon sequestration estimates are poorly characterised for the habitats resulting from rewilding e.g. mosaics of grassland and scrub.

A unified and effective approach for monitoring outcomes of nature restoration projects is an important goal, particularly when project outputs are used for offsetting. This will ensure that any benefits from projects are accurately balanced against the negative impacts they are offsetting.  The report encourages government to “consider the merits of nominating or creating an organisation to capture and manage carbon and greenhouse gas flux data (alongside wider socioeconomic and ecological data) from nature restoration projects” [3].

A recent study assessed the suitability of an existing standardised tree biomass estimation method, which combines tree measurements with allometric equations to predict carbon storage, in the context of regenerating trees and scrub at the Knepp rewilding project in southern England [4]. The study found that, at Knepp, belowground biomass was around four times that predicted by the models, and on average biomass belowground was slightly greater than aboveground. This highlights that we often lack the underlying data needed to accurately estimate the carbon benefits of rewilding projects.

Measurement in the context of offsetting 

In a world where accurate measurement of project outcomes is crucial – from biodiversity to carbon storage – we need frameworks, tools, and protocols to ensure accurate, robust, and repeatable monitoring. In particular, when outputs are balanced against an offsetting commitment, as is increasingly the case, accurate assessment of project outcomes becomes even more critical.

References: 
1. Noss, R. F. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conserv. Biol. 4, 355–364 (1990).
2. Jian, J., Du, X. & Stewart, R. D. A database for global soil health assessment. Sci. Data 7, 3–10 (2020). 
3. Mercer, L. & Gregg, R. Exploring the carbon sequestration potential of rewilding in the UK: policy and data needs to support net zero. www.cccep.ac.uk (2023).  
4. Burrell, N. C., Jeffers, E. S., Macias-Fauria, M. & Willis, K. J. The inadequacy of current carbon storage assessment methods for rewilding: A Knepp Estate case study. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 5, 1–12 (2024). 

 

Related Projects: 

Biodiversity and ecosystem function responses to woodland creation

Scaling-up nature-based solutions in the UK

 

5th Open Science Meeting “Pathways to Sustainable and Just Land Systems”

NbSI led session: 217R The role of land-use in achieving climate and biodiversity objectives: towards more holistic scenario assessment

Organizer(s): John Lynch, Aline Soterroni

There are considerable and increasing pressures on ecosystems globally. We must maintain and increase the capacity of nature to provide ecosystem services, from food provision and climate regulation to livelihoods and recreation, while minimising our environmental footprint and reversing the decline in biodiversity. Furthermore, there are expectations for transformational land-use change to help meet wider biodiversity and climate goals in tandem. Yet there are also criticisms that current scenario modelling is too narrow. For example, net-zero pathways that solely focus on climate solutions in isolation from their biodiversity impacts or national contexts often lead to significant amounts of land dedicated to monoculture afforestation or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

These actions are not nature-based solutions and can lead to detrimental environmental or social impacts. In this session, we will explore some of the conceptual and practical tools that can enable more holistic evaluation, addressing multiple sustainability criteria, and highlight case-studies of multi-criteria assessment methods that can contribute to achieving and monitoring genuinely sustainable land-use.

We will highlight recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and scenario modelling, including Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), that are improving our ability to anticipate and evaluate the impacts of land use and management across a more comprehensive range of environmental, climate and social concerns.

We will also discuss the need for more holistic assessments in policy design. Case-studies will highlight multiple, potentially competing, roles of land-use in national / sub-national policy commitments in different regions.

Finally, we also invite studies that can demonstrate how theoretical advances in impact assessment can help address these concerns and aid policy design, from global-level (e.g. meeting international environmental commitments) to smaller scales (e.g. regional governance and project-level assessment).

 

Find out more here.

See the session programme here.

Treading Lightly: Policy Implications of the Restated Evidence on Grazing Livestock and Soil Carbon

This week, the Oxford Martin School released a ‘restatement’ of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage. These Scientific Restatements review the contemporary evidence underlying areas of current policy concern and controversy, aiming to help stakeholders make informed decisions.

The degree to which grazed soils can capture carbon is a difficult topic for policymakers to navigate. Some claim that enough carbon can be stored in pastures to balance all other emissions from livestock production, whilst others state that the carbon storage potential is minimal and easily reversed. The Restatement summarises the available evidence (particularly as it relates to the UK), indicating where there is a broad consensus but also where there is still uncertainty, to maintain scientific integrity.

The Restatement, which involved John Lynch (a postdoc in the Nature-based Solutions Initiative), highlights the potential for rapid carbon accumulation in degraded pastures, but cautions against misleading extrapolations. It emphasised that the vulnerability of stored carbon in grasslands necessitates long-term preservation measures and comprehensive carbon policies that address both livestock emissions and systemic effects. Innovative grazing methods like mob-grazing warrant further investigation: there is some scientific justification for claims that this practice is beneficial, but dependent on local conditions.

‘Governments and policymakers have a tough task trying to make informed decisions around the role grassland management, grazing livestock and carbon soil storage can play in mitigating climate change due to the complexity and difficult-to-navigate nature of the current evidence base. It is our hope that this Restatement presents the current evidence in an easy-to-read and policy-neutral manner that will make it easier for policymakers and other relevant stakeholders to understand the strengths and limitations of the science involved and so make more informed decisions.’ – Professor Sir Charles Godfray, Director of the Oxford Martin School.

Key points highlighted by the Restatement:

  • Severely degraded pasture can accumulate carbon rapidly if managed appropriately but this will plateau over time. Extrapolating from accumulation rates measured at different times can be very misleading.
  • Soils differ greatly in their physical and chemical properties and this must be taken into account when estimating storage potentials.
  • Grazing regimes affect carbon accumulation and there is some evidence that new ideas such as mob-grazing can have positive effects. This is an area where policymakers would benefit from more evidence.
  • Carbon stored in grassland soils can easily be lost, for example after ploughing or if over-grazed. If grasslands are to act as carbon stores then measures are needed for their long-term preservation.
  • In developing a grassland soil carbon policy, it is important to consider the emissions from livestock as well as possible indirect effects (for example, reducing stocking density may lead to displaced food production and emissions somewhere else). It is also important to consider the counterfactual and question whether fewer emissions may occur if the land was used in an alternative way.

John Lynch said: ‘There has been a lot of excitement about the potential of soil carbon sequestration to help mitigate climate change recently. If soil carbon increases are achieved through agroecological measures that support soil health and restore ecosystem functioning, there could also be significant benefits for biodiversity and the wider environment: a valuable nature-based solution. Yet some estimates for the potential scale of carbon that could be removed are implausibly high, and fail to highlight the broader agricultural shifts that will be required to meet our climate and environmental goals. I hope that our “restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock, and soil carbon storage” can help clarify the science. In it, we explain the underlying scientific evidence and highlight the significant opportunities that do exist for increased soil carbon sequestration, but also note that the amount of carbon that can be stored is location and management-specific, and would not provide large-scale removals indefinitely.’

 

This Restatement has been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

 

Diverse forests can store over 70% more carbon than monocultures

New research published in Frontiers’ Forests and Global Change journal found that diverse planted forests can store over 70% more carbon than monocultures – the greatest increase in carbon storage relative to monocultures in four-species mixtures.

Researchers, including Nature-based Solutions Initiative researcher, Dr Emily Warner, analysed studies published since 1975 that directly compared carbon storage in mixed and single-species forests. They combined this data with previously unpublished data from a global network of tree diversity experiments, to create a comprehensive meta-analysis of whether forest diversification provides carbon storage benefits.

In the dataset used in this study, four-species mixes were found to have the greatest increase in carbon storage. Mixes with two species also had greater above-ground carbon stocks than monocultures and stored up to 35% more carbon. Forests made up of six species, however, showed no clear advantage to monocultures.

Forest restoration plays a key role in sequestering carbon, mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity, and meeting sustainable development goals. Replanted forests store carbon not only in trees but also in soil and shrubs. Authors of this study suggest that mixed forests are particularly effective at carbon storage because they contain different species with complementary traits, meaning that they can more effectively use the resources in an area to attain higher growth rates.

A mix of species also contributes to wider ecosystem services and biodiversity. Mixed forests are also more resilient to pests, diseases, and climate change, which makes them more effective long-term carbon sinks.

“As momentum for tree planting grows, our study highlights that mixed species plantations would increase carbon storage alongside other benefits of diversifying planted forests,” said Dr Susan Cook-Patton, from The Nature Conservancy.

“This study demonstrates the carbon sequestration benefits of the diversification of planted forests,” Warner said. “As we go towards COP28, we are likely to see a lot of countries making reforestation pledges. This study shows the benefits of creating diverse planted forests, providing multiple benefits.”

Read the paper here.

The study was the result of work from an international team of researchers. The authors are particularly grateful to the Tree Diversity Network of experiments, for contributing data. With thanks to NERC for funding.
The role of nature-based solutions in enabling climate-resilient development pathways

According to a new study, nature-based solutions (NbS) can offer integrated avenues for addressing climate change challenges while advancing sustainable development goals. They possess the ability to simultaneously address the root causes of climate change, bolster resilience against its impacts, and foster adaptability across social, environmental, and economic domains. This alignment supports the objectives of climate-resilient development (CRD). However, the article emphasises that climate justice considerations are vital, particularly in navigating the political complexities of choosing between various NbS options.

Despite the convergence between NbS and CRD objectives, realising their potential requires a thoughtful approach. The study therefore employs the CRD pathway framework to unpack the intricate relationship between CRD and NbS. This framework treats NbS as pivotal decision points along the CRD trajectory, their effectiveness hinging on framing, design, and implementation choices. This entails balancing local and global climate goals within NbS initiatives and critically assessing whether their framing inadvertently perpetuates inequalities or unsustainable practices.

Realising CRD objectives hinges on the application of climate justice principles:
1. Distributional justice ensures equitable outcomes, necessitating NbS designs that address social and economic disparities.
2. Procedural justice underscores inclusive decision-making processes, involving affected communities in NbS planning and execution.
3. Recognitional justice values diverse knowledge systems and perspectives.
4. Restorative justice rectifies past injustices and contextualizes NbS interventions historically.

The authors contend that this comprehensive approach, intertwined with climate justice considerations, furnishes a robust framework to evaluate NbS’s potential to advance CRD in specific contexts. By viewing NbS as pivotal nodes along the CRD journey and deftly navigating trade-offs amid diverse values and priorities, the full potential of NbS to foster sustainable and climate-resilient development can be harnessed.

Read the article here.

Women are Key Actors in NbS

A recent working paper by Salcedo-La Viña et al. from the World Resources Institute has shed new light on the crucial role that rural women perform in the implementation of nature-based solutions (NbS). The study calls for enhanced support for their participation, underscoring that the success of NbS can hinge on the inclusion of critical stakeholders, particularly women. Recognising gender as a pivotal factor in climate change solutions, the paper emphasises women’s leadership in natural resource management and the potential positive outcomes of their involvement.

Highlighting the global challenge of climate change, and its impacts on natural resources and the environment, researchers reviewed four NbS approaches and conducted in-depth analyses of three Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects from different parts of the world. Using qualitative research methods, they focused on identifying gender dimensions within these projects and exploring strategies to overcome gender-related barriers.

Case studies:

  •  International small group tree planting programme, Kenya: showcases a gender-responsive project that empowers women by encouraging their leadership roles and providing incentives for participation. The programme’s focus on tree planting and ownership has helped reduce carbon emissions and erosion.
  • Cuencas Costeras programme, Mexico: demonstrates the challenges of integrating gender considerations within a PES project. Traditional gender norms and land ownership disparities impact women’s participation and decision-making in project activities.
  • Rewarding upland poor for environmental services, Indonesia: is a project that incentivises environmental-friendly activities among local communities. While it highlights some gender disparities, it also emphasises the importance of integrating gender considerations at multiple levels and stages of the project.

A key finding of the study is that rural women often face barriers to participating in and benefiting from climate solutions, including NbS. Barriers include unequal access to resources such as land, agricultural credits, inputs, services, and technology. Gender norms also play a role in subordinating decision-making power within households and communities.

The authors suggests a series of recommendations to foster gender-responsive approaches in NbS projects:

  1. Develop institutional gender policies for NbS projects to ensure gender integration.
  2. Conduct gender analyses as part of the project’s baseline data gathering.
  3. Set explicit gender goals and targets within project frameworks.
  4. Ensure gender balance in project staff to promote diverse perspectives.
  5. Implement strategies to incentivise women’s participation and engagement.
  6. Collaborate with local women’s groups and leaders to enhance women’s agency.
  7. Incorporate gender-responsive practices in monitoring and evaluation systems.

The paper concludes by emphasising the need to prioritise gender and social dimensions alongside technical aspects in NbS interventions. It calls for increased awareness, training, and integration of gender-sensitive policies and practices within NbS initiatives to ensure that both women and men can equitably participate in and benefit from these solutions.

In a world where climate change requires collective efforts, acknowledging and addressing gender disparities in climate solutions will be essential for achieving sustainable and equitable outcomes. The paper is a valuable resource for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers seeking to create more inclusive and effective nature-based solutions to combat climate challenges.

Read the working paper here.

Study illustrates integrating a wide spectrum of nature’s values into policy formulation and decision processes is crucial for a sustainable future.

In a study published in the journal Nature, Pascual et al. illustrate that integrating a wide spectrum of nature’s values into policy formulation and decision processes is crucial for a sustainable future.

Analysing over 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources published between 2010 and 2020, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s values, as well as valuation methods, to shed light on their role in policy and decision making. Findings revealed a notable gap in valuing marine environments, although they account for over 70% of our planet’s surface. They also showed limited involvement of stakeholders during the valuation process, which can lead to an unbalanced representation of values in decision-making.

The authors emphasise the potential positive impact of integrating local and indigenous values into decision-making. Inclusion of these, particularly in protected areas and local resource management initiatives, tend to lead to more sustainable and just outcomes.
The study identifies a crucial issue: the power imbalances that often shape decision-making processes.

In many cases, values prioritised by influential stakeholders overshadow those of local communities and marginalised groups. This disconnect can lead to conflicts and compromised outcomes, highlighting the urgent need for a more balanced approach.
Barriers to uptake and valuations can be improved through addressing cultural significance and economic incentives together, to lead to transformative changes that are fair towards people and nature, including consideration of inter- and intragenerational equity.

Researchers identified four key values leverage points that hold the potential to drive transformative change, including short-term actions as well as more profound shifts in perspective. By embracing a comprehensive range of values, decision-makers can ensure that benefits and costs are distributed equitably.

 

Leverage points diagram
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Anderson, C.B. et al. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620

 

By adopting a holistic valuation of nature, leveraging established valuation methods, and engaging stakeholders, policymakers can reshape the landscape of environmental management. This paradigm shift signifies a step towards addressing the ongoing global biodiversity crisis while honouring the unique viewpoints and needs of diverse communities.

Rather than solely relying on economic indicators, this study urges decision-makers to embrace an inclusive approach, that recognises the diverse range of values that are key to addressing the pressing sustainability challenges we face today.

 

Read the paper here.

See similar papers here.

Agroforestry: A Solution for Sustainable Cocoa as Climate Changes

Jonna, a talented environmental engineering student from Stockholm’s esteemed Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), collaborated with Nature-based Solutions Initiative, with expert guidance from Dr. William Thompson and Dr. Ulla Mörtberg, for this key research – as part of the UKRI NERC funded HARP project.

Following several months based in the NbSI in Oxford, Jonna immersed herself in the world of cocoa farming, in the landscapes of Kumasi, Ghana. There, her study explored the potential of shade trees in sustaining cocoa production under changing climatic conditions.

The fieldwork was partly funded through the Swedish scholarship Minor Field Studies provided by The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

The thesis consisted of two parts:

  1. To conduct a species distribution model to examine which shade trees used in West African cocoa agroforestry systems would be suitable for future climates;
  2. To examine how the microclimate on farms was affected by the diversity of shade trees on the farms.

As part of the fieldwork, Jonna joined up with a team of skilled field assistants from Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST). Together, they gathered comprehensive data on microclimatic measurements, farm characteristics, and household surveys. Harnessing technology, they also utilized drones to acquire valuable aerial data.

To comprehensively evaluate microclimate influence, Jonna strategically positioned sensors both above the cocoa canopy and in the ground, to record maximum temperatures during the study period. By comparing temperatures recorded near shade trees versus in open areas, she sought to assess the shade trees’ buffering capacity. The study incorporated three distinct farm structures, which were categorized based on the diversity and density of shade tree species.

Data analysis found farms with a medium/high density of shade trees exhibited a significant buffering of temperature increases, when sensors were placed above the cocoa canopy near a shade tree. However, no significant changes were observed at ground-level. This indicates potential benefits for local farmers of further research of agroforestry solutions, to aid crop resilience against projected temperature rises in West Africa. By integrating shade trees into cocoa farms, farmers can increase resilience to climate change while promoting sustainable and eco-friendly cocoa production practices.

By tapping into the potential of nature-based solutions such as agroforestry, we can build resilient agricultural systems and ensure a thriving cocoa industry for generations to come.

 

NbSI Will Thompson and Jonna Halonen, together with colleagues from Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).

 

Related Publication

Cocoa plantations are associated with deforestation in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana | Nature Food