IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).
Google Scholar
Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Dooley, K. Undoing equivalence: rethinking carbon accounting for just carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3, 30 (2021).
Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).
Griscom, B. W. et al. We need both natural and energy solutions to stabilize our climate. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1889–1890 (2019).
Fargione, J. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
Drever, C. R. et al. Natural climate solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd6034 (2021).
Google Scholar
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Google Scholar
Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 63002 (2018).
Gregorio, N. et al. in Enhancing Food Security Through Forest Landscape Restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines (eds Kumar, C. et al.) 174–217 (IUCN, 2015).
Meyer, J. M. Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, and the boundaries of politics in American thought. Polity 30, 267–284 (1997).
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (BBOP, 2012).
Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (IFC, 2012).
Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. Bioscience 68, 336–347 (2018).
Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020).
Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120 (2020).
Ellis, P. W. et al. Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests. Ecol. Manag. 438, 255–266 (2019).
Martin, D. M. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restor. Ecol. 25, 668–673 (2017).
Veldman, J. W. et al. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65, 1011–1018 (2015).
Supporting Canadians and Fighting COVID-19 (Department of Finance Canada, 2020).
Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Seddon, N. et al. Nature-Based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and Recommendations for Enhancing Climate Ambition and Action by 2020 (IUCN, 2019).
Carbon Removal Corporate Action Tracker (Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy, accessed 6 July 2021); https://research.american.edu/carbonremoval/2020/05/07/carbon-removal-corporate-action-tracker/
Pendrill, F. et al. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 56, 1–10 (2019).
Goal 1 Assessment: Striving to End Natural Forest Loss (NYDF Progress Assessment Secretariat, 2020).
Smith, B. One year later: The path to carbon negative—a progress report on our climate ‘moonshot’. Microsoft Blog (28 January 2021); https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2021/01/28/one-year-later-the-path-to-carbon-negative-a-progress-report-on-our-climate-moonshot/
Ward, C. et al. Smallholder perceptions of land restoration activities: rewetting tropical peatland oil palm areas in Sumatra. Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Change 21, 1 (2020).
Jacobson, M. & Ham, C. The (un)broken promise of agroforestry: a case study of improved fallows in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 8247–8260 (2020).
West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 117, 24188–24194 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Lower cost and more feasible options to restore forest cover in the contiguous United States for climate mitigation. One Earth 3, 739–752 (2020).
Petersen, S. O., Højberg, O., Poulsen, M., Schwab, C. & Eriksen, J. Methanogenic community changes, and emissions of methane and other gases, during storage of acidified and untreated pig slurry. J. Appl. Microbiol. 117, 160–172 (2014).
Google Scholar
Günther, A. et al. Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1644 (2020).
Qin, Z. et al. Delayed impact of natural climate solutions. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 215–217 (2021).
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Honey-Rosés, J. & Freire-González, J. Assessing the permanence of land-use change induced by payments for environmental services: evidence from Nicaragua. Trop. Conserv. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082920922676 (2020).
Tseng, T.-W. J. et al. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 4, 242–251 (2021).
Smith, P. et al. Impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal options on ecosystem services and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).
Nunez, S., Verboom, J. & Alkemade, R. Assessing land-based mitigation implications for biodiversity. Environ. Sci. Policy 106, 68–76 (2020).
Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).
Infield, M., Entwistle, A., Anthem, H., Mugisha, A. & Phillips, K. Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx 52, 220–230 (2018).
Rosenstock, T. S. et al. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 1, 330–344 (2019).
Garrett, H. E. et al. Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. Agrofor. Syst. 61, 21–33 (2004).
Kroeger, T. et al. Returns on investment in watershed conservation: application of a best practices analytical framework to the Rio Camboriú Water Producer program, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1368–1381 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D. & Parrotta, J. A. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310, 1628–1632 (2005).
Google Scholar
Ferreira, J. et al. Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 744–749 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585, 545–550 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wilson, S. J., Schelhas, J., Grau, R., Nanni, A. S. & Sloan, S. Forest ecosystem-service transitions: the ecological dimensions of the forest transition. Ecol. Soc. 22, 38 (2017).
Funk, J. M. et al. Securing the climate benefits of stable forests. Clim. Policy 19, 845–860 (2019).
Keith, H. et al. Evaluating nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and conservation requires comprehensive carbon accounting. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144341 (2021).
Google Scholar
Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).
Hiraishi, T. et al. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (WMO, 2013).
Goldstein, A. et al. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 287–295 (2020).
Google Scholar
Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126 (2020).
Google Scholar
Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vargas Zeppetello, L. R. et al. Large scale tropical deforestation drives extreme warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 84012 (2020).
Spalding, M. D. et al. The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 90, 50–57 (2014).
Watson, J. E. M. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018).
Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
Dobson, A. P. et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science 369, 379–381 (2020).
Google Scholar
Streck, C. REDD+ and leakage: debunking myths and promoting integrated solutions. Clim. Policy 21, 843–852 (2021).
Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. The cost of restoring carbon stocks in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Land Degrad. Dev. 32, 830–841 (2021).
Bustamante-Sánchez, M. A. & Armesto, J. J. Seed limitation during early forest succession in a rural landscape on Chiloé Island, Chile: implications for temperate forest restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1103–1112 (2012).
Koch, A., Brierley, C. & Lewis, S. L. Effects of Earth system feedbacks on the potential mitigation of large-scale tropical forest restoration. Biogeosciences 18, 2627–2647 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zickfeld, K., Azevedo, D., Mathesius, S. & Matthews, H. D. Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 613–617 (2021).
Google Scholar
Johnson, K. A. et al. A benefit–cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction. Nat. Sustain. 3, 56–62 (2020).
Nolte, C. High-resolution land value maps reveal underestimation of conservation costs in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 29577–29583 (2020).
Google Scholar
Reetz, H., Heffer, P. & Bruulsema, T. in Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (eds Drechsel, P. et al.) 65–86 (IFA, IWMI, IPNI and IPI, 2015).
Sharma, P. et al. The role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture—a review paper. Am. J. Plant Sci. 09, 1935–1951 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bergeron, M. et al. Reduced soil nutrient leaching following the establishment of tree-based intercropping systems in eastern Canada. Agrofor. Syst. 83, 321–330 (2011).
Moore, A. A. & Palmer, M. A. Invertebrate biodiveristy in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1169–1177 (2005).
Martin, M. P. et al. People plant trees for utility more often than for biodiversity or carbon. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109224 (2021).
Mendes, T. P., de Assis Montag, L. F., Alvarado, S. T. & Juen, L. Assessing habitat quality on alpha and beta diversity of Odonata larvae (Insect) in logging areas in Amazon forest. Hydrobiologia 848, 1147–1161 (2021).
Crouzeilles, R. et al. Achieving cost-effective landscape-scale forest restoration through targeted natural regeneration. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12709 (2020).
Gilroy, J. J. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 503–507 (2014).
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019).
Taillardat, P., Thompson, B. S., Garneau, M., Trottier, K. & Friess, D. A. Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration. Interface Focus 10, 20190129 (2020).
Xu, S., Liu, X., Li, X. & Tian, C. Soil organic carbon changes following wetland restoration: a global meta-analysis. Geoderma 353, 89–96 (2019).
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kroeger, T., McDonald, R. I., Boucher, T., Zhang, P. & Wang, L. Where the people are: current trends and future potential targeted investments in urban trees for PM10 and temperature mitigation in 27 U.S. cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 177, 277–240 (2018).
McDonald, R. I., Kroeger, T., Zhang, P. & Hamel, P. The value of US urban tree cover for reducing heat-related health impacts and electricity consumption. Ecosystems 23, 137–150 (2020).
Heris, M. et al. Piloting urban ecosystem accounting for the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 48, 101226 (2021).
Ellison, D. et al. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 51–61 (2017).
Li, R. et al. Time and space catch up with restoration programs that ignore ecosystem service trade-offs. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf8650 (2021).
Gaveau, D. L. A. et al. Rise and fall of forest loss and industrial plantations in Borneo (2000–2017). Conserv. Lett. 12, e12622 (2019).
Griscom, B. W., Goodman, R. C., Burivalova, Z. & Putz, F. E. Carbon and biodiversity impacts of intensive versus extensive tropical forestry. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12362 (2018).
Gabon’s Proposed National RED+ Forest Reference Level (Gabonese Republic, 2021).
Umunay, P., Gregoire, T., Gopalakrishna, T., Ellis, P. & Putz, F. Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin. Ecol. Manag. 437, 360–371 (2019).
Natural Climate Solutions World Atlas (Nature4Climate, accessed 9 December 2020); https://nature4climate.org/n4c-mapper/
Dave, R. et al. Second Bonn Challenge Progress Report: Application of the Barometer in 2018 (IUCN, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.06.en
Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018).
Seymour, F. Seeing the forests as well as the (trillion) trees in corporate climate strategies. One Earth 2, 390–393 (2020).
Kronenberg, J. & Mieszkowicz, J. Planting trees for publicity—how much are they worth? Sustainability 3, 1022–1034 (2011).
Microsoft Carbon Removal: Lessons from an Early Corporate Purchase (Microsoft, 2021).
Toor, I. A., Smith, E. G., Whalen, J. K. & Naseem, A. Tree-based intercropping in southern Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 60, 141–154 (2012).
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).
Google Scholar
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).
Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
