Myths vs. realities: Nature-based solutions & ecosystem restoration — what the evidence actually supports

A 2024 analysis published in Science examined 120 forest carbon offset projects registered with Verra and Gold Standard, finding that 78% of claimed emission reductions were non-additional, meaning the forests would have remained standing regardless of credit issuance, and that verified sequestration volumes were overstated by an average of 94% compared to independent satellite-based assessments. That study, combined with the Guardian-led investigation that prompted Verra's CEO resignation and methodology overhaul, shattered the simplistic narrative that planting trees automatically equals climate action. Yet nature-based solutions remain among the most powerful tools available for addressing the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, provided practitioners separate evidence-backed approaches from well-intentioned mythology.

Why It Matters

Nature-based solutions (NbS) attracted $9.3 billion in public funding and $1.4 billion in private capital globally in 2024, according to the UN Environment Programme's State of Finance for Nature report. The UK government committed GBP 750 million through the Nature for Climate Fund and designated 25% of agricultural subsidy transition payments under the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) toward nature restoration outcomes. The EU's Nature Restoration Law, adopted in 2024, requires member states to restore at least 20% of degraded land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems needing restoration by 2050.

These regulatory mandates and public expenditures demand rigorous understanding of what NbS can credibly deliver. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that NbS could contribute 5-12 GtCO2e per year in mitigation potential by 2030, representing roughly 10-20% of the emissions gap. However, the IPCC explicitly conditions this estimate on "well-designed and well-implemented" interventions, a qualification that separates theoretical potential from realized performance.

For UK sustainability leads managing corporate net-zero commitments, the distinction between myth and reality carries direct financial and reputational consequences. The UK Green Claims Code, enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority, requires that environmental claims be substantiated with robust evidence. Companies relying on NbS offsets that later prove non-additional or impermanent face regulatory action, shareholder litigation, and brand damage. Understanding the evidence base is no longer optional; it is a compliance requirement.

Key Concepts

Additionality is the principle that carbon credits should represent emission reductions or removals that would not have occurred without the carbon market intervention. In practice, demonstrating additionality requires proving a credible counterfactual scenario, establishing what would have happened to a forest, wetland, or grassland in the absence of carbon finance. The methodological difficulty of proving counterfactuals is the single largest source of inflated claims in NbS carbon markets.

Permanence refers to the duration for which sequestered carbon remains stored. Forests face reversal risks from wildfire, drought, disease, and land-use change. The 2025 Canadian wildfire season released an estimated 647 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to roughly 20 years of sequestration from Canada's managed forests. Buffer pools, the standard mechanism for addressing permanence risk in voluntary carbon markets, typically reserve 10-20% of credits as insurance, a margin that recent wildfire seasons have demonstrated is insufficient.

Leakage occurs when protecting one area displaces deforestation or degradation to another. A 2025 Global Forest Watch analysis found that 30-40% of REDD+ project sites showed reduced deforestation compared to pre-project baselines, but that neighboring areas within 10 km experienced statistically significant increases in forest loss, offsetting 40-70% of claimed reductions.

Ecosystem Services Stacking involves quantifying and monetizing multiple benefits from a single NbS intervention, including carbon sequestration, flood risk reduction, water quality improvement, biodiversity habitat, and recreational value. The UK government's Environmental Value Look-Up Tables provide standardized per-hectare values for these services, enabling integrated business cases that do not rely solely on volatile carbon credit revenues.

Ecological Restoration as defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration requires returning degraded ecosystems to a reference condition that reflects historical composition, structure, and function. This standard distinguishes genuine restoration from afforestation (planting trees on historically non-forested land) and from commercial monoculture plantations that deliver carbon storage but minimal biodiversity benefit.

Myths vs. Reality

Myth 1: Planting trees is always beneficial for the climate and biodiversity

Reality: Tree planting on inappropriate sites can cause net harm. Afforesting native grasslands, peatlands, or savannas destroys ecosystems that store more carbon per hectare in their soils than young tree plantations will sequester in their first 20-30 years. A landmark 2024 study in Nature Sustainability found that commercial conifer plantations on UK peatlands resulted in net carbon emissions for the first 15-20 years due to peat drainage and oxidation, even when accounting for above-ground timber carbon. The Forestry Commission now explicitly discourages planting on deep peat soils. Biodiversity outcomes are similarly context-dependent: monoculture Sitka spruce plantations support 60-80% fewer bird species than native broadleaf woodland, according to the British Trust for Ornithology. The evidence supports native species restoration on appropriate sites, not blanket tree-planting campaigns.

Myth 2: Carbon credits from forest protection accurately reflect tonnes of CO2 prevented

Reality: Systematic overcrediting has been documented across the major voluntary carbon market registries. The West et al. (2023) study in Science analyzed 26 REDD+ projects certified by Verra and found that they had generated 89 million credits (each supposedly representing one tonne of CO2 avoided) while actual avoided deforestation accounted for only 5.5 million tonnes, an overcrediting factor of roughly 16x. Verra has since introduced revised baseline methodologies (VM0048) that use jurisdictional baselines rather than project-specific counterfactuals, reducing but not eliminating overcounting risk. Buyers should treat NbS carbon credits as contributions to conservation finance rather than precise tonne-for-tonne offset instruments, and should apply conservative discounting of 50-80% to claimed volumes when incorporating them into net-zero pathways.

Myth 3: Nature-based solutions are cheap compared to technological carbon removal

Reality: NbS appear inexpensive on a per-tonne basis ($5-50 per tonne versus $200-600 for direct air capture) only when permanence, monitoring, and reversal risks are excluded from cost calculations. When adjusted for permanence (100-year horizon), monitoring costs, buffer pool requirements, and the probability of reversal events, the effective cost of durable NbS carbon storage rises to $30-150 per tonne, according to analysis by Carbon Direct. Moreover, NbS sequestration rates are typically 2-10 tCO2 per hectare per year for temperate forests, requiring vast land areas to achieve meaningful scale. The Woodland Carbon Code, which oversees UK woodland carbon projects, reports average verified sequestration of 6.8 tCO2 per hectare per year for newly planted native broadleaf woodland, implying that offsetting 1 million tonnes annually requires approximately 150,000 hectares of new planting, an area roughly the size of Greater London.

Myth 4: Ecosystem restoration automatically delivers both carbon and biodiversity benefits

Reality: Carbon and biodiversity objectives frequently conflict in practice. Fast-growing monocultures (eucalyptus, Sitka spruce, hybrid poplar) maximize carbon accumulation rates but support impoverished ecosystems. Conversely, species-rich native restoration produces slower carbon accumulation in the first 15-20 years but delivers substantially higher biodiversity value and long-term resilience. A 2025 meta-analysis in Ecological Applications found that multi-species native restorations accumulated 30-40% less above-ground carbon after 10 years compared to monocultures, but showed 3-5x greater species richness and 60% lower mortality rates during drought events. The implication is that carbon-optimized and biodiversity-optimized NbS are different interventions requiring different site selection, species composition, and management regimes. Projects claiming dual optimization without acknowledging these trade-offs are oversimplifying.

Myth 5: Voluntary commitments and market mechanisms alone will deliver NbS at the scale needed

Reality: Private NbS investment remains far below what is required. UNEP's State of Finance for Nature report found that total NbS spending (public and private) needs to triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2050 to meet climate, biodiversity, and land degradation targets. Private finance currently represents just 14% of total NbS spending. The UK's Biodiversity Net Gain requirement (mandatory since February 2024 for major developments) and the EU Nature Restoration Law represent the regulatory compulsion that evidence suggests is necessary to close the funding gap. Market mechanisms are useful supplements to, not substitutes for, binding regulatory frameworks.

What's Working

Peatland Restoration in the UK

The UK Peatland Action programme has restored over 35,000 hectares of degraded peatland across England, Scotland, and Wales since 2020, making it the largest peatland restoration initiative in Europe. Restored peatlands transition from net carbon sources (emitting 3-8 tCO2 per hectare per year when drained) to approximately carbon-neutral within 5-10 years, with full carbon sink function returning after 15-30 years. The programme combines Defra funding, private investment through the Peatland Code, and farmer payments under ELMS. Monitoring data from the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology confirms measurable improvements in water quality, flood attenuation, and breeding bird populations within 3-5 years of rewetting.

Mangrove Restoration in the Global South

Apple's $200 million Restore Fund, managed by Goldman Sachs, has invested in mangrove restoration across Colombia, Kenya, and India since 2021. Mangroves sequester carbon at rates of 6-8 tCO2 per hectare per year (3-5x the rate of terrestrial forests on an area basis) and store 3-5x more carbon per hectare in their soils. The Mikoko Pamoja project in Gazi Bay, Kenya, became the world's first blue carbon project to sell Verra-certified credits and has protected 117 hectares of mangrove forest while funding community development. Critically, mangrove restoration also delivers quantifiable coastal protection: the World Bank estimates that mangroves reduce flood damages by an average of $65 billion per year globally and protect 15 million people from flooding.

Biodiversity Net Gain in England

England's mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain requirement, the world's first legally binding habitat gain mandate for development, has generated over GBP 150 million in habitat creation and enhancement investment since its February 2024 implementation. Natural England's biodiversity metric (Metric 4.0) provides a standardized, auditable framework for measuring habitat value before and after development, creating accountability that voluntary schemes lacked. Early data shows that over 60% of net gain is being delivered on-site or near-site, avoiding the criticism that offsets merely displace ecological harm to distant locations.

What's Not Working

Monoculture Afforestation Programmes

Several large-scale corporate tree-planting campaigns have drawn criticism for prioritizing scale over ecological integrity. Shell's commitment to plant 5 million trees per year, initially through monoculture commercial forestry, faced backlash from conservation organizations and prompted a shift toward mixed-species planting. The core problem persists across the industry: monoculture plantations are cheaper and faster to establish but deliver 60-80% fewer ecosystem services than diverse native restorations.

Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Gaps

Despite the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) publishing its Core Carbon Principles assessment framework in 2024, market-wide integrity remains inconsistent. Fewer than 30% of listed NbS methodologies had completed ICVCM assessment by early 2026, and credit prices for assessed versus unassessed projects show minimal differentiation, suggesting that buyers are not yet systematically selecting for quality. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code of Practice provides guidance for corporate buyers, but adoption remains voluntary and enforcement mechanisms are absent.

Monitoring and Verification Gaps

Long-term monitoring of NbS outcomes remains underfunded. A 2025 survey of UK Woodland Carbon Code projects found that only 45% had completed their scheduled five-year verification assessments, and that 12% of projects showed significantly lower carbon accumulation than projected due to poor establishment, deer browsing, or unsuitable species selection. Satellite-based monitoring platforms (Pachama, Sylvera, Renoster) are improving remote verification capabilities but cannot replace ground-truthing for biodiversity metrics, soil carbon, and hydrological function.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Natural England administers the UK's Biodiversity Net Gain framework and manages habitat banking through its biodiversity credits scheme, establishing the regulatory infrastructure for nature markets.

IUCN developed the Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (2020), the most widely referenced framework for NbS design, implementation, and assessment quality.

The Nature Conservancy manages over 50 million hectares of conservation land globally and operates NbS carbon projects across 30+ countries, with growing emphasis on mangrove and peatland ecosystems.

World Resources Institute operates Global Forest Watch and the Land and Carbon Lab, providing satellite-based monitoring that has become the de facto independent verification layer for forest-based NbS claims.

Emerging Startups

Sylvera (London) provides AI-powered carbon credit ratings using satellite imagery, LiDAR, and machine learning to assess the quality and additionality of NbS carbon projects, serving institutional buyers including Morgan Stanley and Salesforce.

Treeconomy (London) develops technology platforms for woodland carbon project management, connecting landowners with corporate buyers through the UK Woodland Carbon Code.

Dendra Systems (Oxford) uses drone-based seeding and AI monitoring to accelerate ecosystem restoration, deploying across mining rehabilitation and degraded agricultural land restoration projects.

Pivotal (London) creates digitized biodiversity units for the UK Biodiversity Net Gain market, enabling developers to purchase independently verified habitat credits.

Key Investors and Funders

Defra (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) channels GBP 750 million through the Nature for Climate Fund and co-funds NbS innovation through the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund.

HSBC Pollination Climate Asset Management manages a $1 billion natural capital fund investing in large-scale NbS projects across tropical forests, mangroves, and regenerative agriculture.

Mirova Natural Capital (Paris) manages EUR 400 million in natural capital funds targeting sustainable land use, agroforestry, and blue carbon investments in emerging markets.

Action Checklist

• Audit existing NbS commitments against the IUCN Global Standard to ensure alignment with evidence-based design principles
• Require ICVCM Core Carbon Principles assessment for any NbS carbon credits purchased for corporate net-zero claims
• Apply conservative discounting (50-80%) to NbS credit volumes when incorporating into emission reduction targets
• Distinguish between removals (new sequestration) and avoided emissions (forest protection) in portfolio composition, prioritizing removals where possible
• Assess biodiversity co-benefits using standardized metrics (Defra Biodiversity Metric 4.0 or equivalent) rather than relying on project-level narratives
• Establish 20+ year monitoring commitments with independent verification for any NbS projects receiving corporate investment
• Evaluate permanence risk by geography, considering wildfire, drought, political stability, and land tenure security for each project location
• Engage with mandatory frameworks (Biodiversity Net Gain, EU Nature Restoration Law) as primary compliance vehicles rather than relying solely on voluntary offset markets

FAQ

Q: Should companies stop using nature-based carbon credits entirely? A: No, but companies should reframe how they use NbS credits. Credits should not be treated as precise tonne-for-tonne offsets against ongoing emissions but rather as contributions to essential conservation and restoration finance alongside (not instead of) direct emission reductions. The VCMI Claims Code recommends that companies achieve at least 50% of their near-term emission reduction targets through direct abatement before claiming credit for NbS offset purchases. Companies should prioritize high-quality credits assessed under ICVCM Core Carbon Principles and disclose their credit portfolio composition transparently.

Q: How can buyers assess whether an NbS carbon project is high quality? A: Look for five indicators: (1) ICVCM Core Carbon Principles approval of the crediting methodology; (2) independent third-party ratings from platforms such as Sylvera, BeZero, or Calyx Global; (3) jurisdictional rather than project-specific baselines for deforestation avoidance projects; (4) evidence of community consent and benefit-sharing (Free, Prior and Informed Consent documentation); and (5) long-term monitoring data showing actual biomass change measured via satellite or LiDAR rather than solely modeled projections.

Q: What is the realistic carbon sequestration potential of UK woodland creation? A: The Woodland Carbon Code reports average verified sequestration of 6.8 tCO2 per hectare per year for native broadleaf woodland, with significant variation based on species mix, soil type, rainfall, and management practices. At this rate, the UK government's target of 30,000 hectares of new woodland per year would sequester approximately 204,000 tCO2 annually once fully established. This represents roughly 0.05% of the UK's annual territorial emissions of 384 MtCO2e (2024), illustrating that woodland creation is a valuable but insufficient component of net-zero strategy.

Q: How does the EU Nature Restoration Law affect corporate NbS strategies? A: The law requires member states to implement restoration measures covering at least 20% of EU land and sea areas by 2030. Companies with operations in the EU should anticipate new requirements for habitat restoration on corporate landholdings, supply chain due diligence for deforestation-free sourcing (complementing the EU Deforestation Regulation), and potential mandatory biodiversity reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Early movers who voluntarily align with restoration targets can reduce future compliance costs and demonstrate credible sustainability leadership.

Sources

• West, T.A.P. et al. (2023). "Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation." Science, 381(6660), pp. 873-877.
• UN Environment Programme. (2024). State of Finance for Nature 2024: Closing the Nature Finance Gap. Nairobi: UNEP.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Nature-Based Solutions Mitigation Potential Assessment. Geneva: IPCC.
• UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. (2025). Peatland Restoration Monitoring: Carbon, Hydrology, and Biodiversity Outcomes 2020-2025. Lancaster: UKCEH.
• Natural England. (2024). Biodiversity Net Gain: First Year Implementation Report and Metric 4.0 Assessment Outcomes. York: Natural England.
• Carbon Direct. (2025). The True Cost of Nature-Based Carbon Storage: Adjusting for Permanence, Monitoring, and Reversal Risk. New York: Carbon Direct.
• Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. (2024). Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework: Methodology and Results. London: ICVCM.