Myth-busting Nature-based solutions: 10 misconceptions holding teams back
Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience.
Despite representing up to 37% of the cost-effective climate mitigation potential needed by 2030, nature-based solutions (NbS) receive only $154 billion annually—a fraction of the $384 billion required by 2025 according to UNEP's State of Finance for Nature report. This funding gap persists not because NbS projects lack merit, but because persistent myths undermine investor confidence, corporate commitment, and practitioner effectiveness. With 50% of global GDP depending on healthy ecosystems and 80% of NbS projects now achieving market-rate returns, the disconnect between perception and reality is costing organizations billions in unrealized value.
This analysis examines the ten most damaging misconceptions holding teams back, contrasting each with evidence from 2024-2025 research and practitioner experience.
The 10 Myths Holding Teams Back
Myth 1: Nature-based solutions are just tree planting
Reality: NbS encompasses a spectrum of interventions far beyond afforestation. The IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions identifies ecosystem-based approaches spanning coastal blue carbon (mangroves, seagrass, salt marshes), peatland restoration, regenerative agriculture, urban green infrastructure, and watershed management. Blue carbon ecosystems, for instance, sequester carbon up to five times faster per hectare than terrestrial forests. The Symbiosis Coalition—launched in May 2024 by Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Salesforce—explicitly includes agroforestry and mangrove restoration in their 20 million ton carbon removal commitment, recognizing that effective portfolios require diverse intervention types matched to local ecological contexts.
Myth 2: Carbon credits from NbS projects lack integrity
Reality: While historic concerns about credit quality were legitimate, the market has matured significantly. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles now provide rigorous thresholds for additionality, permanence, and measurement. MSCI's 2024 State of Integrity report found that new nature-based removal projects show substantially higher average integrity than legacy avoidance projects. Record offtake deals—10 multiyear agreements in H1 2024 alone, double the full-year 2023 total—signal that sophisticated buyers are finding high-integrity supply. The issue is no longer whether quality exists, but whether procurement teams know how to identify it.
Myth 3: NbS projects take too long to deliver results
Reality: Project timelines vary dramatically by intervention type. Forest conservation (REDD+) delivers immediate results by protecting existing carbon stocks. Water security NbS projects have doubled from $22.4 billion (2013) to $49 billion (2023) investment precisely because they deliver measurable outcomes within typical budget cycles. SAP's investment in Livelihoods Carbon Funds has already yielded 20.51 million trees planted across 25+ countries, with verified carbon sequestration occurring within 3-5 years of planting. The key is matching intervention type to organizational timeline requirements rather than assuming all NbS operates on multi-decade horizons.
Myth 4: Private sector investment in NbS is negligible
Reality: Private finance currently represents 14-17% of NbS investment, or approximately $26 billion annually—far from negligible. More importantly, this share is growing rapidly. Nature tech startups attracted $2 billion in investments by end of 2024, double the level from six years prior. Bregal Investments launched Bregal Sphere Nature in 2024 as a dedicated NbS investment platform. Apple's Restore Fund invested in 8,600 hectares of New Zealand forestland restoration in late 2025. The narrative that private capital avoids NbS ignores accelerating momentum across venture, growth equity, and corporate direct investment.
Myth 5: NbS projects cannot achieve market-rate returns
Reality: According to analysis by the Environmental Policy Innovation Center, 80% of NbS projects now achieve market-rate returns. This reflects maturation in business models, improved measurement technologies, and growing demand from compliance and voluntary markets. WWF's Bankable Nature Solutions framework documents viable revenue streams from ecosystem services, carbon credits, biodiversity offsets, and sustainable commodities. The challenge has shifted from proving financial viability to scaling deployment capacity.
Myth 6: Biodiversity benefits automatically follow carbon outcomes
Reality: Carbon sequestration and biodiversity enhancement require distinct—sometimes conflicting—intervention strategies. Monoculture tree plantations may sequester carbon efficiently but provide minimal habitat value. Research published in Nature Climate Change (2024) emphasizes that optimizing solely for carbon can produce "perverse outcomes" for biodiversity. The IUCN Global Standard explicitly requires projects to address both dimensions through its eight-criteria assessment framework. Effective NbS demands intentional design for co-benefits, not assumption that one outcome automatically produces another.
Myth 7: NbS is primarily relevant for land-intensive industries
Reality: Every sector with Scope 3 emissions, physical asset exposure, or supply chain dependencies has material NbS relevance. Financial services firms use NbS for portfolio decarbonization and climate risk mitigation. Technology companies—despite minimal direct land use—are among the largest NbS investors through carbon removal purchases. Retail and consumer goods companies integrate NbS into supply chain resilience strategies. The Symbiosis Coalition's founding members are technology companies whose primary operations occur in data centers, not forests.
Myth 8: Community engagement is a "nice to have" rather than essential
Reality: Projects without robust community engagement face elevated risks of failure, reversal, and reputational damage. WRI's 10 guardrails for responsible NbS credit use explicitly prioritize respecting Indigenous and local community rights. The VCMI Claims Code of Practice requires demonstrated community benefit-sharing for corporate climate claims. Beyond compliance, projects with strong community involvement show higher permanence rates, lower monitoring costs, and better long-term carbon outcomes. Tullow Oil's 10-year, 10+ Mt agreement with Ghana succeeds partly because of structured community benefit arrangements.
Myth 9: Technology cannot meaningfully improve NbS outcomes
Reality: Nature tech—AI-powered monitoring, satellite remote sensing, eDNA analysis, IoT sensors—is transforming project performance and verification. Pachama provides digital land assessment and baseline screening for the Symbiosis Coalition. Satellite imagery enables deforestation detection within days rather than years. Acoustic sensors and camera traps generate biodiversity data at unprecedented scale. The nature tech market is projected to grow from $2 billion (2024) to $6 billion by 2033, reflecting demonstrated value in reducing measurement uncertainty and improving project management.
Myth 10: NbS and engineered solutions are competing approaches
Reality: The most effective climate strategies combine both. NbS can deliver approximately 30-40% of required emissions reductions while engineered solutions address hard-to-abate sectors. Microsoft's carbon negative strategy explicitly includes both nature-based removal purchases and direct air capture investments. The Symbiosis Coalition operates alongside frontier technology commitments from the same companies. Framing NbS versus technology as competition ignores complementarity: NbS provides near-term, cost-effective mitigation while engineered solutions scale; technology improves NbS outcomes while NbS delivers co-benefits technology cannot.
Why It Matters
The persistence of these myths creates concrete organizational costs. Teams that dismiss NbS based on outdated perceptions miss opportunities to reduce Scope 3 emissions at lower cost than technological alternatives. Procurement departments unfamiliar with integrity frameworks overpay for low-quality credits or avoid the market entirely. Sustainability leaders unable to articulate NbS business cases lose internal budget competitions to initiatives with clearer—but not necessarily better—ROI narratives.
The $8.1 trillion investment required between now and 2050 to address climate and nature loss will not materialize while decision-makers operate on misconceptions. Organizations that update their mental models gain competitive advantage: earlier access to quality project supply, lower carbon credit costs through long-term offtakes, and stronger positioning for evolving disclosure requirements.
Key Concepts
Additionality: The requirement that credited emissions reductions would not have occurred without project intervention. Robust additionality assessment distinguishes high-integrity projects from those crediting "business as usual" outcomes.
Permanence: The duration for which sequestered carbon remains stored. Nature-based projects face reversal risks (fire, disease, land conversion) addressed through buffer pools—credits set aside to cover potential losses.
Co-benefits: Non-carbon outcomes including biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvement, community livelihoods, and climate adaptation. Projects optimized exclusively for carbon may underperform on co-benefits that drive long-term sustainability.
Jurisdictional approaches: Landscape-scale accounting that addresses leakage concerns by measuring outcomes across entire regions rather than individual project boundaries.
NbS Performance KPIs by Sector
| Sector | Primary KPI | Benchmark Range | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer Goods | Supply chain resilience score | 15-35% reduction in climate-related disruptions | Supplier assessment surveys |
| Financial Services | Portfolio climate risk exposure | 20-40% reduction in physical risk | Climate scenario analysis |
| Technology | Carbon removal procurement | $15-50/tonne for verified removals | Third-party verification |
| Real Estate | Urban heat island mitigation | 2-5°C temperature reduction | Sensor networks |
| Agriculture | Soil organic carbon | 0.4-1.2 tC/ha/year sequestration | Soil sampling protocols |
| Energy | Watershed services | 10-25% improvement in water quality | Water quality monitoring |
What's Working
Structured Procurement Coalitions
The Symbiosis Coalition model—pooling demand across multiple buyers to signal market commitment—reduces transaction costs and enables access to higher-quality projects. By committing to 20 million tons through 2030, founding members create predictable demand that supports project developer investment in quality.
Long-term Offtake Agreements
Nine of ten new offtake deals in H1 2024 focused on removal credits with multi-year terms. This shift from spot purchasing to structured agreements improves project financial viability, reduces buyer price volatility, and aligns incentives around long-term permanence.
Integrated Landscape Approaches
Rather than isolated project-level interventions, leading practitioners adopt jurisdictional approaches that address leakage and scale impact. SAP's partnership with Livelihoods Carbon Funds spans 25+ countries, enabling portfolio diversification while maintaining local implementation expertise.
What's Not Working
Vanity Metrics and Greenwashing
Organizations that purchase low-cost, low-integrity credits for marketing purposes undermine market credibility without delivering climate benefit. The ICVCM's rejection of legacy renewable energy methodologies as "insufficiently rigorous" reflects necessary correction, but damaged reputations persist.
Siloed Sustainability Functions
NbS delivers value across risk management, supply chain, facilities, and investor relations—yet remains organizationally confined to sustainability departments without budget authority or operational integration. Cross-functional governance is prerequisite to meaningful deployment.
Inadequate Due Diligence
Only two companies achieved VCMI Claims Code certification by April 2025 (Bain & Co., Natura), reflecting the difficulty of meeting rigorous requirements. Organizations announcing NbS commitments without understanding verification requirements face subsequent credibility challenges.
Key Players
Established Leaders
| Organization | Focus Area | Notable Activity |
|---|---|---|
| SAP | Corporate NbS investment | 20.51M trees via Livelihoods Carbon Funds; targeting 25M by 2030 |
| Microsoft | Carbon negative strategy | Symbiosis Coalition founder; 19 GW renewable PPAs (2024) |
| Apple | Forestry restoration | Restore Fund: 8,600 hectares New Zealand forestland (2025) |
| Unilever | Regenerative agriculture | Pollinator conservation integrated across supply chain |
| The Nature Conservancy | Project development | Global leader in conservation finance and NbS implementation |
Emerging Startups
| Company | Technology/Focus | Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Pachama | AI-powered forest monitoring | Series B; Symbiosis Coalition technical partner |
| Xilva | On-ground project assessment | Growth stage; independent evaluation services |
| Sylvera | Carbon credit ratings | Series B; integrity assessment platform |
| Earthbanc | NbS carbon accounting | Seed stage; MRV technology |
| Perennial | Soil carbon quantification | Series A; agricultural NbS verification |
Key Investors & Funders
| Investor | Focus | Recent Activity |
|---|---|---|
| Climate Asset Management | Nature-based investing | Apple Restore Fund partnership |
| Bregal Investments | Dedicated NbS platform | Launched Bregal Sphere Nature (2024) |
| Ecosystem Services Partners | Conservation finance | Wetland and stream mitigation banking |
| Mirova Natural Capital | Sustainable land use | $500M+ AUM in nature-positive strategies |
| HSBC Pollination Climate Asset Management | Nature-based projects | $1B+ natural capital strategy |
Examples
SAP and Livelihoods Carbon Funds: SAP's multi-year investment has directly funded tree planting across Brazil, Madagascar, and the Philippines, with 20.51 million trees planted toward a 25 million target by 2030. The program integrates community livelihood support with carbon sequestration, demonstrating that corporate procurement can drive scaled implementation when structured through experienced fund managers with local implementation capacity.
Symbiosis Coalition Formation: In May 2024, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Salesforce launched the largest-ever advanced market commitment for nature-based carbon removal. The 20 million ton commitment through 2030 operates under five quality pillars: conservative accounting, durability, social benefits, ecological integrity, and transparency. By pooling demand and establishing rigorous selection criteria, the coalition addresses both supply-side project quality and demand-side buyer coordination challenges.
Tullow Oil and Ghana Forest Agreement: This 10-year offtake agreement covering 10+ Mt of carbon removal demonstrates how long-term commitments enable project development at meaningful scale. The agreement includes structured community benefit-sharing arrangements, addressing social dimensions alongside carbon outcomes. The multi-year structure provides project developers with revenue certainty required for upfront restoration investment.
Action Checklist
- Conduct materiality assessment identifying where NbS can address Scope 3 emissions, physical risk, or supply chain resilience
- Establish internal governance structure connecting sustainability, procurement, finance, and operations on NbS decisions
- Develop procurement criteria aligned with ICVCM Core Carbon Principles and IUCN Global Standard
- Evaluate long-term offtake agreements versus spot purchases based on organizational needs and risk tolerance
- Implement sampling-based verification for purchased credits beyond standard certification review
- Build relationships with experienced project developers and fund managers before scaling commitments
- Create internal education programming to address misconceptions among decision-makers
- Integrate NbS KPIs into existing sustainability reporting and management dashboards
FAQ
Q: How should organizations balance NbS investment against internal emissions reductions?
A: NbS should supplement, not replace, internal decarbonization. WRI guidance recommends prioritizing direct emissions reductions while using credits to address residual emissions and support beyond-value-chain mitigation. Organizations should demonstrate 1.5°C-aligned reduction pathways before claiming NbS contributions. The VCMI Claims Code provides specific guidance on appropriate credit use within overall climate strategy.
Q: What due diligence is required to identify high-integrity NbS projects?
A: Minimum due diligence includes: verification against ICVCM Core Carbon Principles or equivalent standards; assessment of additionality methodology and baseline assumptions; review of permanence provisions and buffer pool adequacy; evaluation of community engagement and benefit-sharing arrangements; and analysis of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. Buyers should conduct site visits or engage independent evaluators for significant purchases.
Q: How do disclosure requirements affect NbS strategy?
A: The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and emerging SEC requirements create obligations around carbon credit use disclosure. Organizations must distinguish between emissions reductions and removals, report credit retirement practices, and demonstrate credit quality. Strategies built on low-integrity credits face regulatory and reputational risk as disclosure requirements tighten. Investing in high-integrity projects now positions organizations for evolving compliance expectations.
Q: What timeline should organizations expect from NbS project initiation to credit delivery?
A: Timelines vary by intervention type. Forest conservation (avoided deforestation) can deliver verified credits within 12-24 months if robust baseline data exists. Afforestation and reforestation typically require 3-7 years for initial verification, with peak sequestration occurring over decades. Blue carbon and peatland restoration projects vary based on ecosystem conditions and regulatory context. Organizations should match intervention selection to internal timeline requirements while maintaining portfolio diversification across timescales.
Q: How can smaller organizations access NbS benefits without dedicated sustainability teams?
A: Several pathways exist: participating in industry coalitions that aggregate demand and conduct due diligence; purchasing through verified intermediaries with established quality screening; engaging specialized consultants for procurement guidance; and starting with smaller-scale pilots to build internal capacity. The nature tech ecosystem increasingly offers software tools that reduce expertise requirements for project evaluation and monitoring.
Sources
- UNEP, "State of Finance for Nature 2024," November 2024
- ICVCM, "Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework," 2024
- MSCI, "State of Integrity in the Global Carbon Credit Market," 2024
- Nature Climate Change, "Expert Review of the Science Underlying Nature-based Climate Solutions," April 2024
- WRI, "Guidance on Voluntary Use of Nature-based Solution Carbon Credits Through 2040," 2024
- Nature4Climate, "Nature Tech Report 2024: Integrating Nature Tech for Businesses," October 2024
- IUCN, "Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions, Second Edition," 2025
- ESG Today, "Tech Giants Launch 20 Million Ton Nature-Based Carbon Removal Buyers Coalition," May 2024
Related Articles
Deep dive: nature-based solutions — what's working, what isn't, and what's next
what's working, what isn't, and what's next. Focus on a leading company's implementation and lessons learned.
Case Study: Nature-Based Solutions — A City or Utility Pilot and the Results So Far
How Singapore's ABC Waters Programme transformed urban water management with nature-based solutions, delivering 124 certified projects since 2010.
Data Story — Key Signals in Nature-Based Solutions
Nature-based solutions investment reached $200 billion globally in 2025, with leading companies demonstrating scalable implementation while navigating permanence, additionality, and biodiversity co-benefit requirements.