Principles to Practice: Comparing the different guidance documents for nature-based solutions

Why do we need these standards and guidelines for NbS? 

Over the past few years, NbS has become increasingly visible in countries’ environmental and development policies. More and more countries’ nationally determined contributions, national adaptation plans (NAPs), and national biodiversity strategies and action plans feature NbS as approaches that will help them achieve their commitments under different multilateral environmental agreements. 

In a recent analysis by the NAP Global Network, 77% of the countries’ submitted NAP documents contain the terms “nature-based solutions” or “ecosystem-based adaptation,” and all of them include at least one action related to protecting, conserving, restoring, and sustainably using and managing natural ecosystems among the identified adaptation options. 

But, with its growing popularity, concerns have emerged over the concept’s human-centric perspective and the risks of commodifying nature , along with the potential for greenwashing and human rights violations during their planning and implementation.

These concerns sparked the need for a formal definition of what constitutes NbS, as well as the safeguards and guidelines practitioners should follow. Having these standards and guidelines helps practitioners and policy-makers ensure that the outcomes of their NbS interventions are effective and deliver genuine social, economic, and environmental benefits for people of all backgrounds while also preventing their misuse and protecting people’s rights and ecological integrity.

What are the two key international standards and guidelines in place? 

In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) World Conservation Congress defined NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” Following this resolution , IUCN’s NbS Group developed the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions, which represents a high-level, practical, and user-friendly framework for the verification, design, and scaling-up of NbS. It sets out eight criteria with 28 associated indicators to help practitioners improve their NbS projects while enabling funders and other stakeholders to assess the effectiveness and safeguards of the interventions. 

At roughly the same time in 2016, parties to the CBD requested that the secretariat develop a set of voluntary guidelines for the implementation of ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR)—two types of NbS that focus on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. The voluntary guidelines provide a set of principles, safeguards, and overarching considerations for planning and implementing EbA and Eco-DRR. They also provide practitioners with a list of tools and case studies on mainstreaming EbA and Eco-DRR across different sectors. 

What does the comparative analysis reveal? 

Our analysis looks at the different aspects of the two guidance documents, including their definitions and the scope of NbS, how they characterize benefits from NbS, what environmental and social considerations are integrated, aspects of adaptive management, mainstreaming and monitoring and evaluation, their accessibility and operationality, and how they are perceived and accepted by countries. 

It found that, overall, both guidance documents are highly compatible with each other and, in some respects, complementary. 

 

Both of their definitions and scopes of NbS therein, as well as the principles and criteria they proposed, are aligned with the multilaterally recognized definition of NbS adopted by UNEA-5. They both also emphasize critical considerations during the design and implementation of NbS, such as social and environmental safeguards and adaptive management, as well as the need to mainstream nature and biodiversity considerations into social and environmental policies and planning. 

However, these two guidance documents do differ in their structure and granularity. The IUCN Global Standard offers a high-level, practical framework that is suitable for providing umbrella guidance for a wide range of NbS activities—and not simply those focused on climate change adaptation. It also offers indicators to support the verification, design, and scaling-up of NbS. Conversely, the CBD Voluntary Guidelines focus on EbA and Eco-DRR, providing further technical details of these two types of NbS. The guidance offers targeted, stepwise advice and useful tools and resources for every phase of an EbA/Eco-DRR project. But it is also important to point out that while the CBD Voluntary Guidelines target EbA and Eco-DRR interventions, their guidance and tips are also applicable to other types of NbS. 

In summary, the IUCN Global Standards and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines each serve different but complementary purposes. 

 

When used together, they can provide practitioners and policy-makers with comprehensive guidance to ensure proper environmental and social considerations are integrated at each step of the project cycle, as well as the effectiveness of their NbS interventions. 

What does this mean for practitioners and policy-makers? 

Here are our recommendations. Read our background note for more in-depth suggestions for practitioners designing and implementing NbS interventions, as well as policy-makers involved in the international conversation on developing standards and guidelines for NbS.

• Strong, coherent criteria, norms, standards, and guidelines for designing and implementing NbS are important for improving the outcomes of NbS interventions and avoiding  adverse environmental and social impacts. However, there is no one-size-fits-all guidance on NbS. Selecting and adapting guidance on designing and implementing NbS interventions should be flexible and inclusive. There are many more guidance products beyond the IUCN Global Standards and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines, and they all have varying levels of acceptance among different countries and stakeholders, as well as different focus areas and scopes. Practitioners and policy-makers should apply the most appropriate frameworks within their policy and project contexts, taking into account local, national, and regional circumstances and managed adaptively.
• Avoiding duplication of work and additional burden within workstreams is key to the ongoing international discussions on NbS. Policy-makers may wish to consider compiling existing guidance and standards documents across different types of NbS and encourage countries and practitioners to plan and implement NbS with the most appropriate guidance and resources for their specific policy and project contexts.
• The ongoing and planned review and update of both the IUCN Global Standard and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines could present opportunities to align different guidance frameworks and tools and integrate the UNEA definition for NbS for better coherence.