O U R CL I M A T E F U T U R E

REVIEW vegetation across rural landscapes and planting

trees in cities enhances CO2 removal from the
Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions atmosphere; and effectively protecting intact
forests, grasslands, and wetlands keeps critical
for mitigating and adapting to climate change reserves of carbon locked in the biosphere (7).
Estimates of the extent to which nature-based
Nathalie Seddon solutions can cool the planet vary considerably.
To date, there have been more than 30 pub-
Although many governments, financial institutions, and corporations are embracing nature-based lished estimates for the global contribution of
solutions as part of their sustainability and net-zero carbon strategies, some nations, Indigenous peoples, nature-based solutions to climate change miti-
local community groups, and grassroots organizations have rejected this term. This pushback is gation (8). These estimates include terrestrial
fueled by (i) critical uncertainties about when, where, how, and for whom nature-based solutions are and coastal ecosystems but exclude oceans, for
effective and (ii) controversies surrounding their misuse in greenwashing, violations of human rights, which knowledge of carbon fluxes is limited
and threats to biodiversity. To clarify how the scientific community can help address these issues, (9). The large range in estimates of land-based
I provide an overview of recent research on the benefits and limits of nature-based solutions, including mitigation globally [from ~100 to more than
how they compare with technological approaches, and highlight critical areas for future research. 800 billion tonnes (Gt) of accumulated CO2 by

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
the end of the century] reflects differences in

N
studies’ methods and assumptions (8). High es-
ature-based solutions are actions that whereas many organizations and governments timates assume that society is willing to pay a
involve people working with nature, as are embracing the approach as an essential tool high price for carbon (>US$100 per tonne),
part of nature, to address societal chal- for tackling climate change, others, particularly consider few biophysical or socioeconomic
lenges, providing benefits for both hu- grassroots organizations, have dismissed it as constraints on implementation, include a wide
man well-being and biodiversity (1, 2). a dangerous distraction from systemic change range of ecosystems, and not distinguish be-
Climate change is one such key societal chal- (6). Contrasting narratives partly reflect uncer- tween afforestation (i.e., planting forests where
lenge. Examples of nature-based solutions tainty in the underlying evidence as well as they did not previously exist) and reforestation
that can help people adapt to climate change controversies on how nature-based solutions approaches (8). Conversely, low estimates as-
impacts include community-led protection, are conceptualized and implemented. Here, I sume a carbon price <US$100 per tonne, con-
restoration, and management of natural and sider stricter biophysical and socioeconomic
seminatural ecosystems within river catchments
or along coastlines to protect against flooding
“Nature-based solutions can limits on where nature-based solutions can be
implemented, and/or include a smaller subset
and erosion; sustainable management of work-
ing lands to sustain or enhance crop yields
make an important contribution of ecosystems or types of interventions (8).
Including net climate effects in models also
during unpredictable growing conditions; and to reaching net-zero…but increases the uncertainty around global esti-
creation of forests, parks, and wetlands within mates of climate change mitigation potential of
and around urban areas for cooling and to re- only if combined with other nature-based solutions (8, 10). Although nature-
duce flood risk. In addition to supporting hu-
man adaptation, such actions can increase
climate solutions…” based solutions generally increase carbon stor-
age, they can also have local biophysical or
carbon storage to help mitigate climate change review recent research on the effectiveness of biochemical effects that increase tempera-
and protect biodiversity (3) (Fig. 1). nature-based solutions to climate change miti- tures (for example, by decreasing albedo), de-
The rapid rise in the prominence of nature- gation and adaptation and provide an overview pending on latitude and type of vegetation.
based solutions on policy, research, and business of how an improved evidence base, supported by Even the most constrained estimates of the
agendas (Fig. 2) (2) is based on their perceived interdisciplinary research and traditional knowl- contribution of land-based nature-based sol-
or documented effectiveness, readiness, scal- edge, can and must help address these issues. utions to global climate change mitigation are
ability, and affordability relative to those of highly uncertain. These estimates do not con-
technological solutions (3). It also reflects The role of nature-based solutions in sider the risk of impermanence, as climate
broader recognition of the interdependency of addressing climate change change and other anthropogenic stressors
societal well-being and ecosystem health (4). There is general scientific consensus that to can undermine ecosystem health (Fig. 1) (11).
Yet, in the final hours of the negotiations at achieve the Paris Agreement ambition of lim- Nor do they account for the serious problem
the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to iting mean temperature increase to 1.5°C, the that scaling up of nature-based solutions in
the United Nations Framework Convention global economy will require substantial, rapid one region can result in the export of ecosys-
on Climate Change, the term “nature-based reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- tem loss and damage to another (a phenom-
solution” was removed from the decision text sions, reaching net-zero CO2 by around 2050 enon termed “leakage”). Leakage is especially
(i.e., the Glasgow Climate Pact). What remained and likely needing ongoing net-CO2 removals problematic when it results in biodiversity
was a commitment by the pact’s 197 signatories thereafter (7). Nature-based solutions play a loss through the degradation and destruction
to recognize “the critical role of protecting, con- key role by reducing the release of GHGs from of native vegetation elsewhere (12). In view of
serving and restoring nature and ecosystems in the agriculture, forest, and land-use sector— such issues, a conservative potential for nature-
delivering benefits for climate adaptation and which currently account for ~22% of annual based solutions on land globally to contribute
mitigation, while ensuring social and environ- GHG emissions—and by protecting and en- to climate change mitigation is around 100
mental safeguards” (5). Although it could be hancing the carbon sink on land and in the to 200 Gt of CO2 by 2100 (8) or, at most, 11.5 Gt
claimed that nature-based solutions were in- sea (7). Specifically, improving the manage- of CO2 equivalents per year up to 2050 (a
cluded in all but name, COP26 revealed that ment of working lands and seas (e.g., croplands, CO2 equivalent is the number of tonnes of CO2
pastures, timberlands, and aquatic systems) emissions with the same global warming
Nature-based Solutions Initiative, Department of Biology,
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3SAZ, UK. reduces emissions of CO2, methane, and nitrous potential as 1 tonne of another greenhouse
Corresponding author. Email: nathalie.seddon@zoo.ox.ac.uk oxide and sequesters carbon; restoring native gas) (7). This corresponds to a ~0.3°C reduction

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 1 of 7

in mean global temperature if temperature adapt to environmental changes since time enhanced weathering, are effective but are cur-
rise since preindustrial times peaks at 2°C immemorial. Nature-based solutions harness rently expensive and energy intensive (26). Sim-
toward the end of this century (13). In other this process and contribute to different aspects ilarly, structures designed to reduce climate
words, though it is important, the contribu- of adaptation (3, 18, 19). In particular, there is change impacts, such as seawalls and dikes,
tion of nature-based solutions to global cool- robust evidence to show that nature-based can be constructed quickly and are efficient
ing is much smaller than what must also be solutions can reduce direct exposure to climate in mitigating specific hazards. However, con-
achieved through drastic cuts in the use of change impacts. For example, restoring native struction brings social and environmental
fossil fuels (14). ecosystems can promote healthy soil and vege- damages locally, and the financial costs of
In recognition of the fact that substantial tation that reduce the risks of floods, droughts, maintaining or upgrading engineered structures
climate change has already occurred and fur- and landslides by increasing infiltration and can be very high [e.g., US$12 billion to US$71
ther warming is inevitable, Paris Agreement storage of water, stabilizing slopes and shores, billion per year to protect against sea level rise
signatories have committed to “enhancing and attenuating wave energy (20–22) (Fig. 1). with dikes globally (27)]. By contrast, nature-
adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and Introducing green and blue infrastructure based solutions can take time to establish, and
reducing vulnerability to climate change” (15). (such as bioswales, green roofs, and constructed their efficacy can vary with the intensity and
Although no single metric can track adaptation wetlands) into urban areas can help moderate frequency of threats and the resilience of eco-
progress, and it is as much a process as an out- heatwaves and reduce flooding (22, 23). There systems to climate impacts. Yet as living, evolv-

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
come, there are many examples of successful is also evidence that nature-based solutions ing systems, nature-based solutions have the
adaptation at the local level (Fig. 3). However, can reduce sensitivity—that is, the degree to potential for self-repair and adaptation and
a recent systematic review of 1682 publications which people are affected by climate impacts. may keep pace with a changing climate—for
found that humans are failing to implement For example, nature-based agricultural prac- example, some studies suggest that oyster reefs
adaptation strategies, other than by making tices such as agroforestry can sustain or en- and mangroves can track sea level rise (3, 28).
minor adjustments such as developing drought- hance yields in drier or more unpredictable Thus, although initial implementation costs of
resistant crops (16). Consequently, there is a climates (24, 25). Further, implementing nature- nature-based solutions may be high (29), main-
large and widening gap between climate change based solutions can build capacity to innovate tenance costs over the long term may be lower
adaptation needs and action. This is especially or adjust in response to changing conditions, than the cost of engineered alternatives.
true in low-income countries, where there is a thereby supporting adaptation as a process (19). Few studies directly contrast the efficacy of
lack of international climate finance and adap- Nature-based solutions can complement nature-based and other approaches, but some
tation costs are 5 to 10 times as high as the engineered approaches to address climate have shown that, when their long-term and
current flows of public funding (17). mitigation and adaptation, with some key broader benefits are taken into account, nature-
Nature-based solutions can help bridge this advantages. Technological approaches for based and/or hybrid solutions can have benefit/
gap. People have been working with nature to GHG removal, such as direct air capture and cost ratios that are many times as large as those

High GHG emissions and no nature-based solutions; warming exceeds 2 degrees

+ Anthropogenic stressors

Biophysical potential,
land availability –
–
GHG emissions (GtCO2eq/yr)

+ –
increased climate ambition

–
Decreased emissions =

Nature-based solutions Benefits – Societal enablers

climate change adaptation,
+ biodiversity protection, +
enhanced wellbeing,
0 GHG reduction

2020 2050 2100

+ +

Rapid reduction in GHG emissions plus nature-based solutions; warming limited to within 1.5 degrees

Fig. 1. Nature-based solutions and the key factors that influence their effec- represented by the blue and purple lines in the lower part of the graph on the left).
tiveness. Nature-based solutions are “place-based partnerships between people and Otherwise, the warming that results from high and increasing GHG emissions (low
nature” that are underpinned by biodiversity and implemented by and for local climate policy ambition, represented by the orange and red lines in the upper part of
communities (2). When well designed and carefully implemented, nature-based the graph on the left) will turn the biosphere into a net source of GHGs through the
solutions bring multiple benefits (blue box), although the extent to which they can be increased frequency and/or intensity of fires, extreme events, and pests (orange box),
deployed depends on biophysical potential (including net climate effects) and land although these impacts can be reduced through careful adaptive management of
availability, as well as a range of societal enablers (tan box on the right) that influence nature-based solutions. The GHG emissions trajectories shown here are derived
the implementation and upkeep of nature-based solutions over time. These enablers from scenarios published in the latest report from Working Group III of the
include good governance, secure land tenure, sustainable livelihoods and finance, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (7). Orange arrows denote harmful
and nature-positive values. However, nature-based solutions must be implemented in effects, whereas pale blue arrows denote beneficial effects; + and − symbols indicate
tandem with rapid reductions in GHG emissions (high climate policy ambition, where effects are achieved by increasing (+) or decreasing (−) the target factors.

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 2 of 7

 O U R CL I M A T E F U T U R E

A B
2009 NCS NbS
2010
EU 2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
105 NbS in revised
Nationally Determined 2020
Contributions 2021

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
0 200 400 600 800
Term “nature-based”
explicitly mentioned Number of peer-reviewed publications

Fig. 2. Global traction of nature-based solutions. Recent years have seen a rapid mitigation and/or adaptation plans (A), with more than 40% explicitly using the term
rise in the prominence of nature-based solutions on policy (A), research (B), and “nature-based” (red dots). The large red dot for EU indicates that the NDC was
business agendas (2). There has been a steep increase in the number of peer-reviewed submitted by the European Union as a whole (in contrast to countries that sent
articles identified by Google Scholar that use the term “nature-based solution” (NbS) individual NDCs). Note that some nations (such as Peru) include nature-based
or the related term “natural climate solution” (NCS) (which refers specifically to solutions in their national adaptation plans but not their NDCs, whereas others (such
nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation) in their titles, abstracts, or as Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Madagascar) included nature-based solutions in their
keywords (B). Meanwhile, more than 80% of revised Paris Agreement climate pledges first NDC but had not submitted an updated version by the end of 2021 (and
[nationally determined contributions (NDCs)] include nature-based solutions in their hence are gray in this figure). For more information, visit www.nbspolicyplatform.org.

of engineered alternatives (3, 30). Further, there for protection compared with 2 Gt of CO2 per fits to society (Fig. 1). Ecosystems are usually
are indications that nature-based solutions are year for restoration (13)]. Moreover, the gradual well adapted to natural disturbances, and
more cost effective than engineered approaches accumulation of carbon from restoration can- some require a degree of disturbance to thrive.
in lower-intensity hazard scenarios, whereas not compensate, in a timely way, for the rapid However, under anthropogenic climate change,
hybrid approaches are more cost effective for emission of large amounts of carbon from de- the frequency and intensity of fires, floods,
high-intensity hazards, especially for flood forestation and degradation (34). Protecting droughts, and invasions by pests and patho-
mitigation along coasts (31) and stormwater intact ecosystems, especially old-growth forests, gens may be too high to allow for recovery
management in cities (32). In other words, a also brings the greatest benefits for biodiversity and/or adaptation (7). Such climate-driven
combination of approaches is needed to ad- and local communities (including support for risks are already causing forest dieback across
dress the drivers and impacts of climate change. climate change adaptation) and has the lowest the world (11) and are predicted to reduce car-
Even so, the default remains engineered solu- risk of impermanence (35). bon sequestration by tropical forests (37), and
tions. This is a missed opportunity to build The potential benefits of nature-based so- many ecosystems have transitioned or are in
resilience, especially in lower-income nations lutions are ultimately limited by the availability the process of transitioning to alternative states
where dependency on natural ecosystems is of suitable land and sea areas, and so it is the under climate change that either cannot sup-
high and finance for technology is limited. larger countries with the highest forest cover port human adaptation or are net sources of
that could benefit most from their implementa- GHGs (3, 37, 38). Thus, unless GHG emissions
Varying effectiveness and misuse of tion (36). Ecosystem protection and restoration are curbed, the impacts of climate change will
nature-based solutions face intense competition with other uses such cause the carbon stored in ecosystems to be
The effectiveness of nature-based solutions as coastal and urban development, production released back into the atmosphere, accelerating
varies depending on the type and condition of food and fiber, and carbon-reduction tech- warming and compromising human adapta-
of the ecosystems, the interventions involved, nologies (e.g., wind and solar farms). How- tion (Fig. 1) (2, 11). Such climate-driven threats
how they are implemented, and the intended ever, most (85%) of the land needed for to ecosystem integrity are compounded by pol-
beneficiaries (2, 3). Globally, the most cost- cost-effective (<US$100 per tonne) mitigation lution, logging, and fragmentation (38), which
effective land-based mitigation potentials in- of 10 Gt of CO2 per year comes from improv- reduce resilience via loss of biodiversity and
volve forests (especially in the tropics), followed ing the management of existing working curtail species’ abilities to track shifting cli-
by inland wetlands (peatland soils), coastal lands—i.e., ~2.5 billion ha of agricultural and mate niches (39). Conversely, careful adapt-
wetlands, and grasslands (33). According to grazing lands and production forest (13). ive management of nature-based solutions
the “natural climate solutions (NCS) hierarchy,” Rather than displacing food and fiber produc- over time can reduce these threats and increase
protecting intact ecosystems has the highest tion, nature-based solutions on these lands resilience (19).
potential for mitigation, followed by manage- (e.g., agroforestry implementation) could en- In addition, a wide range of institutional,
ment of working lands, and lastly restoration hance yields (24, 25). socioeconomic, and cultural factors can hinder
(34). Preventing the loss of stored carbon by Even where suitable space for nature-based implementation and maintenance of nature-
protecting ecosystems is estimated to be about solutions is available, major anthropogenic based solutions (Fig. 1), especially in the areas of
twice as effective globally as restoring lost or stressors threaten the health and resilience of governance and finance (8, 40, 41). Implement-
damaged ecosystems [~4 Gt of CO2 per year ecosystems and their ability to provide bene- ing nature-based solutions requires overcoming

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 3 of 7

siloed governance, as it is often a multisectoral the expense of others (Fig. 3H) (2, 19). Local tions can also compromise human adapta-
transjurisdictional policy issue that requires social outcomes of nature-based solutions, such tion by reducing water supplies (20). Recent
cooperation within and between governments as empowerment and community cohesion, work emphasizes the high risks of carbon
and among stakeholders with differing or con- are key to ensuring that nature-based solutions loss from tree plantations, either because the
flicting priorities. Nature-based solutions are can be maintained over time (2, 19). Not only wood is harvested for short-lived products or
rarely implemented unless they are main- are human rights dependent on a healthy and because the plantations are more suscepti-
streamed or integrated with existing planning safe environment, but the “recognition of hu- ble to the impacts of fires, pests, and diseases
tools (41). Successful implementation also re- man rights can itself be essential for restor- (2, 47, 48). A paired global analysis found that
quires a secure and sustainable flow of finance ing and protecting healthy ecosystems” (44). plantations produce more commercially usable
to the communities and projects that need it Indeed, Indigenous peoples and local commu- biomass than comparable native forests but
most, in the form most suitable for the local nities often have considerable knowledge on store less carbon, have lower water availa-
sociocultural and political context. Land own- how to form reciprocal relationships with na- bility, prevent erosion less effectively, and
ership and access are also key considerations; ture and adapt to change and are playing a key harbor fewer species (49). Plantations can
there is evidence that nature-based solutions role in tackling the biodiversity and climate also cause net harm when they distract from
projects in Europe are more successful when crises (2, 45). Projects that ignore their knowl- the imperative of effectively protecting the re-
implemented in designated conservation areas edge and rights are therefore both unethical maining intact ecosystems. Some governments

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
where land rights and access are already es- and unlikely to be maintained over the long have committed to investing in large-scale tree-
tablished (41). Such constraints on the feasi- term (2, 45). A related concern is that nature- planting schemes while also opening up pre-
bility of implementing nature-based solutions based solutions are instrumentalizing cultural viously protected forests for logging [e.g., (50)].
can reduce their potential (36) [e.g., the mitiga- practices and commodifying nature, thus vio-
tion potential of restoring of degraded lands in lating many people’s values and worldviews; Avoiding the bad, harnessing the good
Southeast Asia was reduced by 80% when im- this issue underpins pushback against the term To address these issues, a growing number of
plementation barriers were considered (42)]. “nature-based solutions” by some Indigenous organizations are developing evidence-based
Despite growing evidence for the multiple peoples and local community groups (6). guidance on what constitutes successful, sus-
benefits of well-designed nature-based solu- Finally, there is evidence that the misuse of tainable nature-based solutions (2). Some are
tions, this term has become controversial for nature-based solutions can harm biodiversity, framed as policy guardrails for the uptake of
three broad reasons. First, nature-based solu- which secures the flow of ecosystem functions the concept in international climate policy (e.g.,
tions are being used in “greenwashing.” Spe- and services and is the cornerstone of resilient, www.nbsguidelines.info); others present evalu-
cifically, many of the biggest emitters (such as adaptive ecosystems (2, 46). A key concern is that ative standards for the investment, planning,
fossil fuel companies and the wealthy nations current policy and funding emphasize affores- and practice of nature-based solutions [e.g.,
that subsidize them) are investing in activities tation rather than ecosystem protection and the global standard for nature-based solutions
labeled as nature-based solutions without also restoration (47) and that investments incor- from the International Union for Conservation
investing in robust actions to rapidly decarbo- rectly characterized as nature-based solutions of Nature (IUCN) (51)]. All guidance converges
nize their operations (43). As a result, some have can involve low-diversity commercial planta- on a set of key recommendations. In particular,
dismissed nature-based solutions as a “danger- tions of non-native species (Fig. 3, E and F). there is strong agreement that nature-based
ous distraction” from the urgent need to keep This drives biodiversity loss when plantations solutions must be designed, implemented, and
fossil fuels in the ground that has been co-opted replace native forests, grasslands, moorlands, monitored by, or in close partnership with,
by those wanting to perpetuate the “unsustain- and peatlands (2, 48). Fast-growing planta- Indigenous peoples and local communities,
able, unjust status quo” of an energy-intensive
global economy (6). Including nature-based
solutions as carbon “offsets” while continuing Box 1. Critical research questions for evaluating nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation
business as usual not only allows for continued and adaptation.
emissions, dismissing the need for systemic
change, but also distracts attention from harm- 1. How does the social and ecological effectiveness of different nature-based solutions versus
ful, and often catastrophic, local impacts of fossil alternative hybrid and technological approaches vary in space and time, as well as with the
fuel extraction on people and the environment. magnitude of threats from climate change?
A second major concern is that actions 2. How do interactions between ecosystems influence the social and ecological effectiveness and
labeled as nature-based solutions are some- permanence of different types of nature-based solutions?
times implemented through top-down gov- 3. How and why do the different dimensions of effectiveness trade off with one another—e.g., mitigation
ernance structures that do not respect local with adaptation outcomes, social with ecological impacts, and short-term with long-term benefits?
rights; fail to account for local voices, values, 4. How can ecosystems be adaptively and equitably governed and managed to reduce the
and knowledge in decision-making; and perpet- impacts of anthropogenic stressors on the flow of multiple benefits from nature-based solutions,
uate power asymmetries (6). For example, there including biodiversity?
is evidence that poor-quality carbon offsets,
5. How can the multiple benefits and costs of nature-based solutions be equitably distributed within
such as plantations of single, non-native tree
and among local stakeholders and rightsholders?
species, are leading to land grabs. Sometimes
plantations or protected areas are established, 6. How do social structures and processes such as cohesion, learning, and empowerment influence the
in the name of climate change mitigation, with- social and ecological effectiveness of nature-based solutions?
in Indigenous peoples’ territories without their 7. What forms and interplay of public and private finance can incentivize the implementation of
knowledge or consent, ignoring their rights nature-based solutions, and what are their economic and governance implications, particularly in
and cultural links with ecosystems (Fig. 3, E relation to equity, permanence, and impacts on biodiversity?
to G). Similar problems can arise in externally 8. How can the social and ecological outcomes of nature-based solutions be monitored over the
imposed adaptation strategies, which can cause long term, informed by Indigenous and local knowledge as well as mainstream science?
maladaptation or benefit only some people at

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 4 of 7

 O U R CL I M A T E F U T U R E

Mitigation Adaptation Biodiversity Livelihoods/rights

Good practice, nature-based solutions Poor social and ecological outcomes

A Indigenous land titling and forest E

management with non-native monoculture
+ + + + – – – –

PHOTOS: (A) AMY ROLLO/UNSPLASH, (B) MARIOLA GROBELSKA/UNSPLASH, (C) JAMES WHEELER/UNSPLASH, (D) BISHNU SARANGI/PIXABAY, (E) YOUNG SHIH/UNSPLASH, (F) JULIE RICARD/UNSPLASH, (G) THOMAS PEHAM/UNSPLASH, (H) MIKE SWIGUNSKI/UNSPLASH
Indigenous Council of Tacana People manage Prey Lang forest declared a wildlife sanctuary
390k ha of ancestral lands Increase in illegal logging as Indigenous Kuy people were denied
Projected 13 Mt avoided CO2 emissions access and could no longer patrol forest
Reported reduced slope erosion Think Biotech granted rights to ‘reforest’ 34,007 ha for climate
Habitat for > 50 endangered species mitigation, replacing old growth forest with Acacia monoculture
Sustainable livelihoods (e.g. agroforestry) Negative outcomes for biodiversity and climate mitigation
Further displacement and marginalization of local people

Bolivia, Cambodia,
lowland tropical forest lowland tropical forest

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
B Farmer-led pasturelands management F
with a silvo-pastoral system ? – ? –
+ + + +
Mount Elgon Uganda Wildlife Authority – Forests Absorbing
Traditional silvo-pastoral system (Ngitili) Carbon Emissions project marketed as a ‘triple-win’ by a
Protects patches of native vegetation from
livestock, opening them up in dry season when
feedstocks are low 25,000 Ha
Enhanced soil carbon and biodiversity likely, Relied on uncompensated dispossession and violent eviction
of local people
Reports of reduced soil erosion, enhanced soil
fertility, and year-round food security Project abandoned after 10 years
Tanzania, Uganda,
dry grasslands montane forest and savanna

C Participatory integrated watershed management G Top-down implementation of marine protected areas

+ + + + ? – + –
Indigenous Naxi people self-organized into watershed Dwesa-Cwebe Marine Protected Area forced racially-based
management teams, empowering vulnerable groups, relocations
including women. Criminalization of customs, violent suppression of illegal
Protected/restored forest and wetlands, with agroforestry harvesting
Traditional ecological knowledge ignored,
cultural heritage eroded
Decreased risk of erosion Loss of tenure rights led to loss of food security and livelihoods
Increased local incomes, food and water security
Native wildlife returned
China, South Africa,
montane forest and wetlands marine ecosystems

D Community-based hybrid approach H Peri-urban land grab for greenbelt development

to build coastal resilience + ? + –
+ + + ? Greenbelt project established around the city of Medellin
Protected natural habitats
mangroves Enhanced carbon storage and biodiversity likely, but not
Enhanced reefs reported to break wave energy
Decreased risk of landslides
Restored mangroves store carbon and protect coastline Displaced vulnerable communities, but not high-income ones
Coral recruitment observed within 12 months Social tensions from lack of local consultation and participation,

Grenada, Columbia,
coastal ecosystem urban and montane ecosystems

Fig. 3. Examples of projects that meet guidelines for successful, sustainable (E and F), protecting biodiversity (G), or reducing flood and landslide risk (H) have
nature-based solutions and those that do not. To be categorized as a nature- poor social and/or ecological outcomes and thus do not qualify as nature-based
based solution, an intervention must address at least one societal challenge while also solutions. Symbols denote mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity, and livelihoods or
bringing local benefits and supporting biodiversity. Therefore, although bioenergy human rights outcomes reported as positive (+) or negative (−) (or likely to be positive
with carbon capture and storage (commonly referred to as BECCS) and afforestation or negative on the basis of current evidence). Question marks denote outcomes that
(i.e., planting trees where they do not naturally occur) are biological approaches are unknown or difficult to predict. Note that a question mark for adaptation is
to carbon sequestration, they are not nature-based solutions, nor are protected areas assigned to the scenario detailed in (H) because only one dimension of adaptation was
established without regard for the rights of local communities (2). Shown here are addressed [reduction of exposure to the immediate climate change impact (in this
good-practice examples (A to D) in a range of ecosystems involving a variety of nature- case, landslides)], whereas other dimensions were compromised. For more
based solutions that, as far as can be determined from available information, meet information about (A) to (D) and other examples of good-practice nature-based
guidelines for successful, sustainable nature-based solutions (www.nbsguidelines. solutions, see https://casestudies.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/. Information
info). By contrast, examples of projects established for mitigating climate change about projects (E) to (H) can be found in (56–59).

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 5 of 7

reinforcing local rights and delivering bene- supports robust accountability and regulatory need it most—and in a form that will build
fits for local people. However, more clarity is frameworks for nature-based solutions would rather than compromise the health and resil-
needed on how the concept of nature-based be transformative (2). ience of the social-ecological systems involved.
solutions can align with Indigenous and local Ensuring the long-term social and ecolog-
values and worldviews and, in particular, to ical integrity of nature-based solutions re- Conclusion
explain that such solutions should not repre- quires an improved evidence base, informed Nature-based solutions can make an important
sent a commodification of nature (6). Nature- by scientific, practitioner, and local and In- contribution to reaching net-zero carbon emis-
based solutions need to be understood as ways digenous knowledge. There is an urgent need sions this century, but only if combined with
of working with, and as part of, nature and for enhanced understanding of where, when, other climate solutions, including substantial
framed to ensure that multiple values of nature how, and for whom nature-based solutions cuts in GHG emissions across all sectors of the
are respected. For this, the nature-based solu- can support both mitigation and adaptation, economy. This statement is not an argument
tions community could learn from the Inter- especially in marine and nonforest ecosys- against scaling up nature-based solutions. In-
governmental Platform on Biodiversity and tems, low-income nations in general, and stead, it underscores the need to consider the
Ecosystem Services in its efforts to develop an their cities in particular (20, 21). This research many other well-evidenced benefits of nature-
inclusive framework for understanding how needs to take a holistic approach, for example, based solutions, especially their critical role
contributions from nature affect people both by considering how nature-based solutions in- supporting social and ecological adaptation to

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
positively and negatively (52). fluence the multiple dimensions of adapta- climate change. Achieving net-zero carbon emis-
There is also consensus on the critical im- tion, not just exposure to immediate climate sions and transitioning to a nature-positive
portance of ensuring that nature-based solutions change impacts, and by comparing the bene- economy will also require systemic change
support biodiversity by protecting, restoring, fits and costs of nature-based solutions with in the way we behave as societies, shifting to a
and connecting a wide range of native habitats hybrid and technological alternatives (Box 1). dominant worldview that is based on valuing
across landscapes and seascapes and by moni- More regional and national scenarios and quality of life and human well-being rather than
toring ecological outcomes (which are rarely sectoral models of nature-based solutions cli- material wealth—and connection with nature
quantified at present). Guidelines could more mate change mitigation potentials are urgently rather than its conquest. Signals such as the rise
effectively promote biodiversity by recommend- required. These must be firmly grounded in of climate and nature grassroots activism indi-
ing the use of the natural climate solutions the local policy and socioeconomic and cultural cate that this shift is taking place. If carefully
hierarchy that prioritizes protection of intact context, with robust consideration of perma- implemented to ensure that multiple values of
ecosystems (34), as well as approaches that nence and leakage risks, interactions between the natural world are respected, nature-based
allow ecosystems to reach their full poten- ecosystems, feasibility, and outcomes for bio- solutions offer an opportunity to accelerate this
tial with minimal intervention [i.e., through diversity, local people, and the economy (36). transition while also slowing warming, build-
“proforestation” (53)]. Practitioners would also Such models must also distinguish affores- ing resilience, and protecting biodiversity.
benefit from understanding impermanence tation from reforestation (47–49). Integrating
risks and adopting adaptive approaches to landscape-scale experiments with recent REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. E. Cohen-Shacham et al., Environ. Sci. Policy 98, 20–29
restoration. Given that local climate and dis- advances in multispectral remote sensing,
(2019).
turbance regimes are changing, in some loca- large-scale ecological observation networks, 2. N. Seddon et al., Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546
tions it may be necessary to restore and manage disturbance ecology, and mechanistic veg- (2021).
3. N. Seddon et al., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120
ecosystems by using different species that are etation modeling will improve quantification (2020).
able to thrive under unfamiliar conditions, in- of risks to the stability of ecosystems (11). 4. S. Díaz et al., Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
cluding through assisted migration (54). Such research would also support the devel- 5. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), Glasgow Climate Pact. Decision text from CoP26
Guidelines are also clear that nature-based opment of high-quality metrics that capture (2021); https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/
solutions are not an alternative to keeping fos- the multidimensional nature of biodiversity as cp2021_12_add1E.pdf.
sil fuels in the ground. The challenge is how well as the social outcomes of interventions. 6. M. S. Melanidis, S. Hagerman, Environ. Sci. Policy 132, 273–281
(2022).
to direct rapidly growing public- and private- This information will allow baselines to be 7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate
sector finance (especially via booming volun- established and effects of nature-based so- Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
tary carbon markets) toward high-integrity lutions to be mapped and monitored over Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, P. R. Shukla et al.,
nature-based solutions projects that are well time, which is critical to improving adaptive Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
planned and do not delay decarbonization. management. Meanwhile, new research indi- 8. C. J. Nolan, C. B. Field, K. J. Mach, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2,
Part of the solution is regulation that restricts cates that participation in nature-based solu- 436–446 (2021).
9. J. Howard et al., Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 42–50 (2017).
investment in nature-based solutions–related tions can lead to more-sustainable lifestyle 10. H. D. Matthews et al., Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 65
offsets to those organizations with ambitious choices (55); the role of nature-based solu- (2022).
11. W. R. L. Anderegg et al., Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
yet robust and verifiable action plans to rap- tions in enabling system change is a rich area 12. A. C. Soterroni et al., Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7336 (2019).
idly phase out the use of fossil fuels. This in- for future study. 13. C. A. J. Girardin et al., Nature 593, 191–194 (2021).
cludes meeting stringent criteria for companies Addressing these knowledge gaps involves 14. C. M. Anderson et al., Science 363, 933–934 (2019).
15. UNFCCC, Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015); https://
to reduce emissions throughout their opera- genuine collaboration between social and nat- unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
tions and supply chains to be in line with the ural scientists, as well as between the scientific 16. L. Berrang-Ford et al., Nat. Clim. Change 11, 989–1000
(2021).
Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C increase limit before community and those Indigenous peoples and 17. United Nations Environment Programme, “Adaptation Gap
or in addition to investing in robust nature- local communities who have been working Report 2021: The gathering storm – Adapting to climate
based solutions—for example, by adhering to with nature, as part of nature, for millennia. change in a post-pandemic world” (2021); https://www.unep.
org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2021.
the plan of the Science Based Targets initiative Only through such inter- and transdisciplinary 18. I. Palomo et al., One Earth 4, 730–741 (2021).
(https://sciencebasedtargets.org/). To ensure efforts will we be able to implement nature- 19. T. Devisscher, J. Spies, V. C. Griessa, Land Use Policy 103,
compliance, nature-based solutions should be based solutions in a way that accounts for 105317 (2021).
rigorously assessed and validated, by methods their multiple values. Such efforts are urgently 20. A. Chausson et al., Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).
21. K. Sudmeier-Rieux et al., Nat. Sustain. 4, 803–810 (2021).
such as long-term monitoring of social and needed to channel growing private and public 22. L. Ruangpan et al., Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 243–270
ecological impacts. Government policy that climate finance to the projects and people that (2020).

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 6 of 7

 O U R CL I M A T E F U T U R E

23. P. Herath, M. Thatcher, H. Jin, X. Bai, Sustain Cities Soc. 72, 39. C. Moritz, R. Agudo, Science 341, 504–508 (2013). 53. W. R. Moomaw, S. A. Masino, E. K. Faison, Front. For. Glob.
103072 (2021). 40. I. Schulte, J. Eggers, J. Ø. Nielsen, S. Fuss, Environ. Res. Lett. Change 2, 27 (2019).
24. S. Kuyah et al., Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 47 (2019). 17, 013002 (2021). 54. G. Peterson St-Laurent, L. E. Oakes, M. Cross, S. Hagerman,
25. S. Kay et al., Land Use Policy 83, 581–593 (2019). 41. J. Nalau, S. Becken, B. Mackey, Environ. Sci. Policy 89, Commun. Biol. 4, 39 (2021).
26. The Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, 357–364 (2018). 55. M. L. Cárdenas et al., Sustainability 13, 4344 (2021).
“Greenhouse gas removal” (The Royal Society, 2018); 42. Y. Zeng et al., Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 842–844 (2020). 56. A. Scheidel, C. Work, Land Use Policy 77, 9–18 (2018).
https://royalsociety.org/greenhouse-gas-removal. 43. M. Li, G. Trencher, J. Asuka, PLOS ONE 17, e0263596 (2022). 57. C. Cavanagh, T. A. Benjaminsen, Geoforum 56, 55–65 (2014).
27. J. Hinkel et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3292–3297 44. H. Tugendhat, “Re-thinking nature-based solutions: seeking 58. M. Sowman, J. Sunde, Ocean Coast. Manage. 157, 168–179
(2014). transformative change through culture and rights” (Forest (2018).
28. A. B. Rodriguez et al., Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 493–497 (2014). Peoples Programme, 2020). 59. I. Anguelovski, C. Irazábal‐Zurita, J. J. Connolly, Int. J. Urban
45. J. D. Ford et al., One Earth 2, 532–543 (2020). Reg. Res. 43, 133–156 (2019).
29. B. P. Harman, S. Heyenga, B. M. Taylor, C. S. Fletcher, J. Coast.
Res. 31, 790–801 (2015). 46. T. H. Oliver et al., Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).
AC KNOWLED GME NTS
30. S. Hynes, R. Burger, J. Tudella, D. Norton, W. Chen, Ecol. Econ. 47. S. L. Lewis, C. E. Wheeler, E. T. A. Mitchard, A. Koch, Nature
194, 107349 (2022). 568, 25–28 (2019). The author thanks A. Chausson, J. Lynch, A. Smith, A. Soterroni,
31. R. L. Morris, A. Boxshall, S. E. Swearer, Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 48. F. Fleischman et al., Bioscience 70, 947–950 (2020). B. Turner, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments
485–487 (2020). 49. F. Hua et al., Science 376, 839–844 (2022). and A. Wagner and D. Seddon for help with the figures. Funding:
32. W. Chen et al., Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 54, 102045 (2021). 50. R. Frazin, “Trump creates federal government council This work was supported by the Waterloo Foundation and the
33. J. Reise et al., “Nature-based solutions and global climate on global tree planting initiative,” The Hill (2020); Natural Environment Research Council. Competing interests:
protection. Assessment of their global mitigation potential and https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/520852-trump- The author is on the Adaptation Committee of the UK’s Climate
creates-federal-government-council-on-global-tree-planting. Change Committee, advising on land, biodiversity, and agriculture.

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana on May 28, 2024
recommendations for international climate policy” (German
Environment Agency, 2022). 51. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Guidance License information: Copyright © 2022 the authors, some
34. S. C. Cook-Patton et al., Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 1027–1034 for using the IUCN Global Standard for nature-based solutions. rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the
(2021). A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling Advancement of Science. No claim to original US government
35. J. E. M. Watson et al., Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018). up or nature-based solutions (IUCN, ed. 1, 2020); https:// works. https://www.science.org/about/science-licenses-journal-
36. S. Roe et al., Glob. Change Biol. 27, 6025–6058 (2021). portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020- article-reuse
37. L. V. Gatti et al., Nature 595, 388–393 (2021). 021-En.pdf.
38. C. A. Boulton, T. M. Lenton, N. Boers, Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 52. U. Pascual et al., Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 Submitted 31 March 2022; accepted 18 May 2022
271–278 (2022). (2017). 10.1126/science.abn9668

Seddon, Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022) 24 June 2022 7 of 7