Natural Climate Solutions

Misty tropical rain forest. Mt. Whitfield National Park, Cairns, Australia.

Centering Intact Ecosystems in Nature-based Climate Solutions

Friday, February 20, 2026

Pervez Manan, TRL Fellow, Environmental Leadership & Training Initiative

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are actions that protect, restore, and manage ecosystems to address challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and human well-being, while Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) refer more specifically to NbS that increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. This featured article focuses on the climate-mitigation subset of NCS but uses the broader NbS framing when discussing the full range of ecosystem benefits that support adaptation, resilience, and local livelihoods.

NbS are central to global climate and biodiversity strategies, but most attention gravitates toward tree planting and large-scale restoration rather than the more difficult and political work of protecting what remains (Cook Patton et al., 2021; Daily et al., 2009). Land is finite and already under pressure from food production, infrastructure, and existing communities, whereas recent studies show that the safest and fastest climate gains come from safeguarding intact ecosystems and managing working lands better, not from endless expansion of new forests (Ahmad et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2024; Randerson et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025).

Cook Patton et al. (2021) introduce a simple hierarchy for natural climate action: protect intact ecosystems first, then improve management of working lands, and finally restore degraded areas where appropriate. Intact forests and other high-integrity ecosystems hold large, often slow-to-recover carbon stocks while sustaining biodiversity, hydrological regulation, and local livelihoods that cannot be quickly rebuilt once lost (Chapin et al., 2009; Lapola et al., 2023; Randerson et al., 2025). Analyses of the global forest carbon sink and the emerging “weak land carbon sink” hypothesis further emphasize that avoiding new losses from existing ecosystems is more reliable than betting on future removals from plantations or offsets (Pan et al., 2024; Randerson et al., 2025).

Chapin et al. (2009) demonstrate how tightly coupled plant–soil carbon dynamics are to global biogeochemical cycles, underscoring that carbon losses from intact ecosystems can take decades to centuries to recover. Lapola et al. (2023) reveal how Amazon forest degradation reduces biomass carbon, increases fire vulnerability, and undermines biodiversity and local livelihoods, even without complete deforestation. Together, these studies show that once high-integrity ecosystems are degraded, both carbon stocks and co-benefits are difficult to restore, making protection a first-order priority for NbS and NCS.

According to Fesenmyer et al. (2025) and Wang et al. (2025), analyses that incorporate soil and biomass carbon dynamics, competing land uses, and robust social and environmental safeguards find that earlier global reforestation estimates substantially overstated the potential area and climate benefits of tree planting. They further emphasize that earlier, high-end global reforestation assessments over roughly the past decade often treated large areas of cropland, pasture, and other lands as “available” for forest expansion without fully accounting for food security, leakage, albedo change, or social justice concerns. They suggest that when food security, biodiversity, water resources, and community rights are explicitly respected, the land realistically available for new tree cover drops sharply, and the mitigation potential of forestation is far lower than headline numbers suggest.

Daily et al. (2009) and Gajre et al. (2025) stress that restoration and reforestation work best as targeted, context-specific tools: recovering degraded lands, reconnecting fragmented habitats, and supporting climate-resilient livelihoods where ecosystems and communities stand to benefit. Daily et al. (2009) argue that ecosystem services must be integrated into decision-making to ensure that restoration efforts deliver local benefits as well as global mitigation. Similarly, Gajre et al. (2025) show how aligning national targets with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework can focus interventions on priority ecosystems such as mangroves. Ahmad et al. (2025) find that structurally complex, diverse forests in the Hindu Kush Himalaya store carbon more effectively and stably than simpler stands, reinforcing the case for diverse, mixed-species forests and quality over sheer hectares where restoration is pursued. Emerging evidence from other regions also supports the idea that restoring already degraded areas in forested landscapes can jointly improve climate and biodiversity outcomes when appropriate safeguards are in place.

Daily et al. (2009) and Gajre et al. (2025) emphasize that restoration and reforestation are most effective when applied as targeted, context-specific interventions aimed at recovering degraded lands, reconnecting fragmented habitats, and supporting climate-resilient livelihoods where both ecosystems and communities benefit. Daily et al. (2009) underscore the need to embed ecosystem services into decision-making so that restoration delivers tangible local benefits alongside global climate mitigation. In a similar vein, Gajre et al. (2025) demonstrate that aligning national commitments with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework can help concentrate efforts in priority ecosystems such as mangroves, where co-benefits for biodiversity and climate are highest. Evidence from the Hindu Kush Himalaya further reinforces this perspective, with Ahmad et al. (2025) showing that structurally complex, species-rich forests store carbon more effectively and durably than simpler stands. Together with emerging findings from other regions, these studies support a shift toward restoring already degraded areas within forested landscapes, prioritizing ecological quality, diversity, and safeguards over the pursuit of restoration at scale alone.

At the same time, carbon markets and corporate net-zero pledges risk over-relying on offsets from new forests while underinvesting in the governance, finance, and rights-based frameworks needed to keep remaining high-carbon ecosystems standing (Blanton et al., 2024; Lapola et al., 2023). Blanton et al. (2024) review forest carbon markets in Latin America and warn that poorly designed offset schemes can over-promise climate benefits, create perverse incentives, and marginalize Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). Bateman and Mace (2020) and Costanza (2020) show how natural capital and ecosystem service valuation frameworks can help embed multiple ecosystem values into decision-making, steering investments toward protection and high-quality NbS instead of cheap but risky credits.

Framing NbS around the many benefits ecosystems provide (e.g.,climate regulation, water security, food and fiber, cultural values, and resilience to shocks) highlights why protection must come first (Bateman & Mace, 2020; Costanza, 2020). These benefits are especially critical for IPLCs, who are often the most effective stewards yet the least empowered in land-use decisions and carbon market design (Blanton et al., 2024; Lapola et al., 2023). Embedding these multiple values into policy through spatial planning, safeguards, and performance-based finance helps align national development, climate targets, and local well-being, while reducing the temptation to treat tree planting as a license to delay phasing out fossil fuels (Daily et al., 2009; Randerson et al., 2025; Fesenmyer et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025).

Cook-Patton et al. (2021), Pan et al. (2024), Randerson et al. (2025), Fesenmyer et al. (2025), Wang et al. (2025), and related studies converge on a central conclusion: the credibility of NbS and NCS depends far more on conserving and effectively governing existing ecosystems than on the sheer number of trees planted. For policymakers, businesses, and civil society, this implies a strategic shift toward protecting remaining intact landscapes, improving management of working forests and agricultural systems, and pursuing restoration only where it demonstrably strengthens ecosystem resilience, social equity, and durable carbon storage.