Criterion Indicator Guidance

The NbS intervention must address clearly

1.1 The most specified challenges that have significant
pressing societal and demonstrable impacts on society.
challenges for Identification of the most pressing societal
challenges is best informed by a
rights holders transparent and inclusive consultation
and beneficiaries process (Criterion 5), as opinions may
are prioritised differ between external stakeholders and
local populations and vice versa.

Criterion 1: NbS Establishing a clear understanding and

effectively rationale of the challenges to be
address one or 1.2 The societal addressed, and ensuring these are
documented, is important for future
more societal challenges accountability and optimising those
challenges addressed are strategies to contribute to human well-
clearly being outcomes (1.3). An NbS often yields
multiple societal benefits, such as job
understood and creation or increased flow of ecosystem
documented services, and the societal challenges
these additional benefits address should
also be documented.

1.3 Human
wellbeing NbS must deliver tangible and substantive
outcomes arising benefits to human well-being. Specific,
from the NbS are measurable, attainable, realistic and timely
(SMART) targets should be used as
identified, appropriate, as they are important for
benchmarked accountability and informing adaptive
and periodically management (Criterion 7).
assessed
 2.1 Design of The success of an NbS will be determined
not only by the quality of the technical
NbS recognises intervention but, critically, how well the
and responds to interactions between people, the economy
the interactions and the ecosystem are understood and
responded to. For the solutions to be
between the durable and sustainable, the design of
economy, NbS requires a “systems” framing that
society and acknowledges and addresses these types
of interactions and builds them into the
ecosystems decision-making process.

2.2 Design of NbS will seek to work with and compliment

NbS integrated other types of interventions, such as
Criterion 2: with other engineering projects, information
Design of NbS complementary technology, financial instruments, etc.
is informed by interventions Such complementary actions will
inherently require the identification of
scale and seeks synergies across different sectors
synergies across according to the specifics and context of
each situation.
sectors

NbS has the potential to either positively

2.3 Design of or negatively impact, or be impacted by,
NbS stakeholders, interests and ecosystems
incorporates risk outside the immediate intervention area.
For the solution to be durable and
identification and sustainable, such types of interactions
risk both within and around the intervention
area need to be understood and
management accounted for in the decision-making
beyond the processes. Appropriate risk management
intervention site options should be incorporated into the
intervention design.

3.1 NbS actions

directly respond
to evidence- To develop a solution using nature, one
based must have a well-founded understanding
of the current state of the ecosystems
assessment of concerned. The baseline assessment
the current state needs to be broad enough to characterise
of the ecosystem ecological state, drivers for ecosystem
loss and options for net improvements,
 3.1 NbS actions
directly respond
to evidence- To develop a solution using nature, one
based must have a well-founded understanding
of the current state of the ecosystems
assessment of concerned. The baseline assessment
the current state needs to be broad enough to characterise
of the ecosystem ecological state, drivers for ecosystem
loss and options for net improvements,
and prevailing making use of both local knowledge and
drivers of scientific understanding where possible.
degradation and
loss

3.2 Clear and

measurable In order to inform the design, monitoring
biodiversity and assessment of an NbS, targets for
conservation enhancing key biodiversity values should
be established. For each NbS, the type of
outcomes are target may differ; for example, the target
identified, could be the percentage of ecosystem
benchmarked area restored or the return of a keystone
Criterion 3: NbS and periodically species.
result in net assessed
gain to
biodiversity and
ecosystem
integrity

3.3 Monitoring Ecosystems are complex with

includes periodic interdependent components and
processes. There will always be a level of
assessments for uncertainty in how they will react to
unintended specific interventions or other external
adverse changes. Therefore, NbS should be
designed and monitored to minimise and
consequences mitigate unanticipated risks that might
on nature arising undermine the ecological foundations of
from the NbS the solution itself.
 unintended specific interventions or other external
adverse changes. Therefore, NbS should be
designed and monitored to minimise and
consequences mitigate unanticipated risks that might
on nature arising undermine the ecological foundations of
from the NbS the solution itself.

Utilising NbS can provide an opportunity to

enhance biodiversity conservation and
3.4 ecosystem management efforts in ways
Opportunities to that other types of intervention, in isolation
enhance (such as engineering), will not be able to
achieve. If solutions are to be
ecosystem implemented close to natural ecosystems
integrity and that are managed explicitly for
connectivity conservation outcomes, the NbS should
be designed to enable greater ecosystem
identified and connectivity. Furthermore, they could be
incorporated into designed to re-introduce lost components
the NbS strategy of an existing ecosystem, for example, by
deliberately choosing formerly existing
species of vegetation when restoring.

4.1 The direct

and indirect Identification and documentation of the
benefits and main benefits derived, including their
direct and indirect, financial and non-
costs associated financial elements are key components for
with the NbS, assessing the economic feasibility of the
who pays and intervention, over time. This information
should be differentiated according to who
who benefits, receives the benefits and who bears the
are identified costs.
and documented

4.2 A cost-
effectiveness Investing heavily in upfront costs without
considering the longer-term economic and
study is provided financial sustainability can negatively
to support the impact the intervention’s viability. A cost-
choice of NbS effectiveness study not only enables an
examination of the upfront and recurring
including the costs against the anticipated longer-term
likely impact of benefits of the proposed intervention(s)
over time but also allows key (or hidden)
Criterion 4: NbS any relevant assumptions to be made explicit, tested
are regulations and and verified.
economically subsidies
viable
 choice of NbS effectiveness study not only enables an
examination of the upfront and recurring
including the costs against the anticipated longer-term
likely impact of benefits of the proposed intervention(s)
over time but also allows key (or hidden)
Criterion 4: NbS any relevant assumptions to be made explicit, tested
are regulations and and verified.
economically subsidies
viable

challenge in a manner that is both

effectiveness of economically viable and efficient. This
an NbS design is means that the cost-effectiveness and
affordability of the solution must be tested
justified against against viable alternatives. Alternative
available solutions may include a different nature-
alternative based solution (for example watershed
catchment management rather than
solutions, taking floodplain management), a different
into account any combination of conventional and nature-
associated based solutions, or substitution of the
4.4 NbS design multiple benefits
nature-based to different
solution stakeholders
entirely
may place limits on some sources of
with a more
considers a financing, thereby undermining the
portfolio of interventions long-term viability. For
example, private investors may not wish to
resourcing bear the cost of delivering public goods or
options such as public authorities may be reluctant to
market-based, cover costs for benefits that will accrue
privately. This may require a resourcing
public sector, package that integrates a range of
voluntary financial mechanisms. Sources of
commitments investment can include public-sector
grants, incentives and low interest loans,
and actions to private-sector loans and equity, blended
support public-private partnerships as well as
regulatory philanthropic and voluntary contributions
or combinations of the above, reflecting an
compliance equitable distribution of both the risks and
5.1 A defined Feedback and grievance resolution
mechanisms can include formal, legal or
and fully agreed informal non-legal complaint systems that
upon feedback operate according to a clear set of
and grievance procedures, roles and rules for receiving
complaints and providing a remedy.
resolution Effective grievance resolution
mechanism is mechanisms are characterised by their
available to all acceptance and legitimacy among
affected stakeholders, transparency,
stakeholders accessibility and adherence to rights-
before an NbS based approaches. They should operate
intervention can in a predictable and equitable manner,
be initiated
 available to all
stakeholders
before an NbS
intervention can in a predictable and equitable manner,
and be based on engagement and
be initiated dialogue.
function effectively, all affected
mutual respect stakeholders need to be equipped with the
and equality, right information at the right time and the
regardless of inputs they provide need to be
meaningfully addressed. In doing so, a
gender, age or conscious effort is required to ensure that
social status, traditionally excluded groups are actively
and upholds the brought into the process in a manner that
upholds their dignity and encourages their
right of participation. This is particularly the case
Indigenous when an NbS intervention operates or
Peoples to Free impacts on the lands and territories of
indigenous peoples, where their right to
Prior and self-determine interventions and outcomes

5.3 Stakeholders Stakeholder mapping and analysis

who are directly identifies those who may be directly and
Criterion 5: NbS indirectly, positively or negatively, affected
and indirectly
are based on by the NbS. This allows the intervention to
affected by the afford opportunities to affected
inclusive,
NbS have been stakeholders to engage with and
transparent and participate in the design and
identified and
empowering implementation, advocate clearly to
involved in all uphold their own rights and interests, and
governance
processes of the where necessary, prevent further
processes
NbS intervention marginalisation.

It is important that transparent and

5.4 Decision- accessible documentation records key
making steps in NbS decision-making procedures.
processes This helps enhance accountability and
provides a strong basis for recourse in the
document and case of any disputes or disagreements.
respond to rights Specific attention should be paid to noting
and interests of which stakeholders where involved in
decision-making and the role they played.
all participating This is particularly important where
and affected extreme inequity persists so that
stakeholders processes can be adapted to encourage
meaningful and effective participation.

extends beyond
jurisdictional
boundaries, Ecosystems do not follow political and
mechanisms are administrative borders. Where
appropriate, transboundary cooperation
agreements between relevant authorities
underpin NbS planning and
implementation across frontiers to help
ensure coherency and consistency of
 Ecosystems do not follow political and
mechanisms are administrative borders. Where
established to appropriate, transboundary cooperation
agreements between relevant authorities
enable joint underpin NbS planning and
decision-making implementation across frontiers to help
among the ensure coherency and consistency of
approach and desired outcomes.
stakeholders in
those
jurisdictions
costs and All trades-off are accompanied with an
benefits of associated set of costs and benefits which
may be subject to change over the entire
associated NbS lifecycle. A key function of NbS
trade-offs of the safeguards is to ensure that necessary
NbS intervention trade-offs do not negatively impact the
most disadvantaged elements of society
are explicitly or, equally, that they are denied access to
acknowledged the intervention’s benefits. It is therefore
and inform important that the costs and benefits of
trade-off arrangements are fully
safeguards and understood, widely shared among affected
any appropriate stakeholders, and periodically revisited
corrective (6.3)
Criterion 6: NbS The legal and customary rights to access,
equitably 6.2 The rights, use and control management over land
balances trade- usage of and and natural resources, particularly of
offs between access to land vulnerable and marginalised groups,
needs to be respected and upheld. Rights,
achievement of and resources, use and responsibilities of stakeholder
their primary along with the groups in relation to the NbS should be
goal(s) and the responsibilities analysed and assessed, using appropriate
tools and by building upon the outcomes
continued of different of stakeholder analysis or mapping (5.3).
provision of stakeholders are This is particularly important when dealing
acknowledged with Indigenous communities, where Free,
multiple Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) must
benefits and respected be used (5.2).
6.3 Established to anticipate and avoid adverse
consequences of interventions, especially
safeguards are considering that inequity in trade-offs may
periodically change over time and that not all
reviewed to stakeholders may be equally affected.
Therefore, NbS design and strategy needs
ensure that to be explicit about whose benefits and
mutually-agreed whose costs will be addressed, including
trade-offs limits when and how this will be reviewed.
Safeguards may be put in place for
are respected biodiversity (e.g. setting aside a certain
and do not area for protection or limiting the timing of
 and do not area for protection or limiting the timing of
destabilise the fishing) and for people (e.g. procedural –
grievance mechanisms, consultation
entire NbS obligations, right to appeal or substantive

7.1 A NbS An NbS strategy, at its most basic,

strategy is includes the reasoning behind the NbS, a
precise articulation of the intended
established and outcomes and clear understanding of how
used as a basis these should be achieved through the
for regular actions taken. It should be informed by the
prevailing economic, social and ecological
monitoring and conditions, and clearly state the
evaluation of the assumptions as to whether and how they
intervention are expected to change.

requirement to understand whether the

7.2 A monitoring NbS strategy effectively delivers the
Criterion 7: NbS and evaluation intended outcomes and, thereby
addressing the societal challenge; and,
are managed plan is whether risks or unexpected impacts
adaptively, developed and mean a change in strategy or action is
based on implemented
required. Where NbS have synergies with
other interventions or approaches, these
evidence throughout the should be included in the monitoring and
intervention evaluation (M&E) plan. Observed and
sustained deviations from the key
lifecycle elements of the NBS strategy (7.1) should
trigger an adaptive management response
7.3 A framework Learning based on evidence should drive
for iterative NbS management. Furthermore, iterative -
learning that learning is essential in informing adaptive
management actions, in order to respond
enables adaptive to the factors influencing NbS
management is interventions. For this Criterion, indicators
applied 7.1 and 7.2 provide a continuous feedback
loop to learn and adapt the NbS
throughout the intervention. Ideally, iterative learning is
intervention institutionalised so that it carries on even
lifecycle after the NbS intervention ceases.

Transformative change can be

characterised by scaling up (policy or
8.1 NbS design, programmatic mainstreaming), scaling
implementation out(expansion at the geographical or
sectoral level) or replication of the NbS.
and lessons Consequently, it is important that the
learnt are shared process of design and implementation
for triggering captures, documents and makes available
lessons learnt to individuals and
transformative stakeholders interested in replicating the
change process. This includes decision makers,
investors and other NbS users from the
public and private sectors.
 implementation out(expansion at the geographical or
sectoral level) or replication of the NbS.
and lessons Consequently, it is important that the
learnt are shared process of design and implementation
for triggering captures, documents and makes available
lessons learnt to individuals and
transformative stakeholders interested in replicating the
change process. This includes decision makers,
investors and other NbS users from the
public and private sectors.

The implementation of NbS is subject to a

range of pre-existing policies, laws and
sectoral regulations, some of which may
Criterion 8: NbS 8.2 NbS inform not be consistent or mutually reinforcing.

are sustainable and enhance

In some situations, inconsistent policies
and regulations may limit the effective
and facilitating policy rollout of NBS or, worse, actually
mainstreamed and regulation contribute to the loss of important

within an frameworks to ecosystem functions over time. In such

situations, it is important to a) be aware of
appropriate support its policy, regulatory and legal limitations and
jurisdictional uptake and b) work with local and/or national decision
makers as well as other key stakeholders,
context mainstreaming
to highlight such obstacles and identify
effective responses or other enabling
solutions.
contribute to
national and NbS can make significant contributions to
global targets for national economic, social and
conservation targets and help achieve
human national commitments to international
wellbeing, processes on climate change, human
climate change, rights, human development and
biodiversity. Making these linkages
biodiversity and explicit, documenting and communicating
human rights, them, help further reinforce the profile and
including the role of NbS nationally, secure broad-
based and durable political commitment
United Nations as well as societal support, thereby
Declaration on enhancing the long-term sustainability of
the Rights of the intervention.
Indigenous
 Questions

Are societal challenges identified?

Are rights holders and
beneficiaries consulted? Are the
most pressing societal challenges
for rights holders and beneficiaries
prioritised?

Are the drivers and responses to

the societal challenges identified?
Are the societal challenges
understood at the relevant
national/local context? Are the
societal challenges documented
and accessible to affected
stakeholders?

Are human wellbeing outcomes

relevant to the identified societal
challenges identified? Are there
benchmarks in place to monitor
impact? Are outcomes and
benchmarks assessed at regularly
occurring intervals? Are human
wellbeing outcomes incorporated
into the strategy for the
intervention?
Are interactions identified between
the economy, society and
ecosystems? Does that include
those within and surrounding the
intervention area? Is the change in
these interactions considered over
time? Are potential knock-on
impacts on and from other areas
identified? Are these interactions
used to design the intervention
and decision making processes?

Are complementary interventions

identified in and around the area?
Is the design of the NbS integrated
with relevant complementary
interventions? Are synergies
sought in project management,
monitoring and outcomes? Are
complementary interventions and
synergies re-assessed throughout
the intervention time scale?

Have the drivers of internal and

external risks been identified? Has
scientific and local knowledge
concerning those risks been taken
into account? Does the design of
the NbS take into account possible
internal and external risks? Has a
risk management plan been
integrated into the design of the
NbS? Will this risk management
plan be revisited throughout the
intervention time scale?

Is the current state of relevant

ecosystems assessed? Is this
assessment at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scale? Are
the drivers of ecosystem
degradation and biodiversity loss
assessed? Does the assessment
include field verification? Does the
assessment take into account
Is the current state of relevant
ecosystems assessed? Is this
assessment at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scale? Are
the drivers of ecosystem
degradation and biodiversity loss
assessed? Does the assessment
include field verification? Does the
assessment take into account
scientific and local knowledge? Do
NbS actions respond to the
assessment and identified drivers
of degradation and loss?

Are clear and measurable

biodiversity conservation
outcomes identified? Are these
outcomes based on an
understanding of the current
ecosystem state? Are these
outcomes applicable to the
relevant period of time for the
intervention? Are benchmarks for
desired change in place? Are the
conservation outcomes
periodically assessed?

Is a monitoring and assessment

plan in place for ecosystems,
species and ecological processes?
Is the monitoring plan based
around measurable variables
related to potential adverse
impacts on nature arising from the
NbS, both direct and indirect? Are
actions in response to those
impacts in place? Is the monitoring
plan properly implemented with
measurements taking place at
periodic intervals?
impacts on nature arising from the
NbS, both direct and indirect? Are
actions in response to those
impacts in place? Is the monitoring
plan properly implemented with
measurements taking place at
periodic intervals?

Are the requirements to maintain

or recover ecosystem integrity
identified? Are opportunities to
enhance ecosystem connectivity
and integrity assessed? Are
actions in response to these
requirements and opportunities
incorporated into the NbS
strategy?

Are the direct and indirect benefits

and costs associated with the NbS
and who receives them identified?
Is this fully documented? Is this
verified with key informants? Can
"winners" and "losers" be easily
ascertained?

Is cost-effectiveness analysed?
Does the study include upfront and
recurring direct and indirect costs
as well as the full flow of benefits
overtime? Are the key
assumptions of cost-effectiveness
identified? Does the study include
measuring the impact of any
relevant regulations and
subsidies? Does the study support
the choice of actions for the
intervention? Is a sensitivity
analysis conducted against critical
variables?
identified? Does the study include
measuring the impact of any
relevant regulations and
subsidies? Does the study support
the choice of actions for the
intervention? Is a sensitivity
analysis conducted against critical
variables?

Are available alternative solutions

identified? Is the intervention
design's effectiveness justified
against available alternative
solutions? Is this justification
documented? Are associated
externalities adequately taken into
account?

Is there a comprehensive review of

resourcing options? Does this
review cover the costs of delivery
of the intervention's primary and
ancillary benefits? Has a full
resourcing package been
assembled and negotiated? Does
this resourcing package include
provision for future revenue
streams?

Is there a legitimate feedback and

grievance mechanism? Are
affected stakeholders consulted for
the development of this
mechanism? Is this mechanism
documented, predictable and
transparent? Is this mechanism
available and accessible to all
stakeholders? Is the mechanism
available to stakeholders from
before the start of the intervention?
Is the mechanism right-
compatible? Is the ownership and
trust of the mechanism evident? Is
trust of the mechanism evident? Is
the mechanism regularly reviewed
and adapted?
Are indigenous peoples impacted,
either directly or indirectly, at any
point during the intervention? Does
the intervention uphold the right of
Indigenous Peoples to Free Prior
and Informed Consent throughout
the intervention timescale? Is
participation based on mutual
respect and equality? Are there
processes in place to support this
throughout the intervention
timescale?

Are the stakeholders who are

directly and indirectly affected by
the NbS identified? Is their impact
and interest in the intervention
mapped? Are they involved in all
processes of the intervention? Do
affected stakeholder accept and
feel ownership over the outcomes
of the intervention?

Are decision-making processes

being documented? Is this
documentation transparent and
accessible? Do they respond to
the rights and interests of all
participating and affected
stakeholders? Is specific attention
paid to stakeholders subject to
extreme inequity?

Do ecological processes and

functions of the ecosystems in the
intervention extend beyond
jurisdictional boundaries? If so, is
joint decision-making being
enabled among the stakeholders
affected by the NbS in all
jurisdictions? Are transboundary
Do ecological processes and
functions of the ecosystems in the
intervention extend beyond
jurisdictional boundaries? If so, is
joint decision-making being
enabled among the stakeholders
affected by the NbS in all
jurisdictions? Are transboundary
cooperation's agreements created
between affected stakeholders in
all jurisdictions?

Are costs and benefits both at the

NbS site and the larger
landscape/seascape, throughout
the NbS intervention time-scale
identified? Are the potential NbS
costs and benefits of associated
trade-offs explicitly acknowledged?
Are they used to inform
safeguards? Are they used to
inform corrective actions if those
safeguards are passed? Is the
process of decision-making
regarding costs and benefits
disclosed to affected
stakeholders?

Are the rights, usage of and

access to land and resources as
well as stakeholder responsibilities
identified? Are they incorporated
into a stakeholder mapping
analysis? Are they acknowledged
and respected? Do they inform the
design of the intervention?

Are there mutually agreed upon

limits of trade-offs and are they
being respected? Are there
established safeguards in place to
prevent these being exceeded or
to prevent trade-offs destabilising
the entire ecosystem or
land/seascape? Are these
safeguards being periodically
reviewed? Is clear documentation
of safeguards and their review
provided?
the entire ecosystem or
land/seascape? Are these
safeguards being periodically
reviewed? Is clear documentation
of safeguards and their review
provided?

Is there a strategy for the

intervention for how societal
challenges will be addressed?
Does the strategy precisely state
intended outcomes, actions and
assumptions in regards to
economic, social and ecological
conditions? Does the strategy
elaborate on whether and how
assumptions may change? Is it
consistently being used as a basis
for regular monitoring and
evaluation of the intervention?

Is there a robust monitoring and

evaluation plan in place? Is it
being implemented throughout the
lifecycle of the intervention? Does
this plan include how deviations of
the strategy trigger an adaptive
management response?

Is there a plan to learn and adapt

in response to the monitoring and
evaluation plan? Is there a
learning framework applied to the
NbS for iterative learning
throughout the intervention
lifecycle? Does this enable
adaptive management? Is there
are strategy for how learning
persists beyond the time frame of
the intervention?

Are NbS design, implementation

and lessons learnt being
systematically captured? Are they
being shared both on demand and
with strategic audiences? Is this
sharing accessible to target
audiences? Is a communication
strategy in place? Does this
strategy detail how communication
will change behaviours and how
this will trigger transformational
change?
systematically captured? Are they
being shared both on demand and
with strategic audiences? Is this
sharing accessible to target
audiences? Is a communication
strategy in place? Does this
strategy detail how communication
will change behaviours and how
this will trigger transformational
change?

Are policy, regulations and laws

relevant to the intervention being
identified? Are their impacts and
opportunities being mapped? Are
early adopters and entry points
being identified? Are the
interventions actions and
communications informing or
enhancing facilitating policy and
regulation frameworks? Is this
supporting uptake and
mainstreaming of NbS?

Are relevant national and global

targets for human wellbeing,
climate change, and biodiversity
and human rights being identified?
Does this include UNDRIP? Are
the interventions actions
contributing to any of these
targets? Is this contribution being
reported in relevant platforms? IS
this facilitating mainstreaming and
upscaling of the intervention?
 Meaning of Ratings
Strong: Yes. The most pressing societal challenges prioritized based on full consultation with rights holders
beneficiaries.

Adequate: Specific societal challenges identified with some consultation with rights holders and beneficiari

Partial: General societal challenges identified with limited input from some rights holders and beneficiaries

Insufficient: No. No clear societal challenges identified and/or no consultation with any rights holders and b

Strong: Yes. The drivers of and responses to identified societal challenges are well understood, including w
to the relevant national/local context, and are fully documented and accessible.

Adequate: Drivers of and responses to identified societal challenges are broadly understood within the rele
although some documentation and knowledge gaps persist.

Partial: Societal challenges framed in terms consistent with widely accepted narratives but multiple docum
context-specific knowledge gaps persist.

Insufficient: No. Superficial/limited understanding of drivers of and responses to identified societal challeng
limited or no documentation.

Strong: Yes. SMART human well-being outcomes and benchmarks, relevant to the identified societal chall
national/local context, are identified and are assessed at regularly occurring intervals.

Adequate: Specific human well-being outcomes and benchmarks, relevant to the identified societal challen
national/local context, are identified and assessed at least once during the intervention period.

Partial: General human well-being outcomes and benchmarks identified but no provision has been made fo
assessment.
Insufficient: No. Human well-being outcomes are not identified or are vague and ill defined with no benchm
provision for assessment.
Strong: Yes. The design of the NbS considers in detail the interactions between the economy, society, and
within and surrounding the intervention area, given its potential knock-on impacts on and from other areas/
These interactions are accounted for in the decision-making process throughout the intervention timescale

Adequate: The design of NbS recognises specific interactions between the economy, society, and ecosyst
these are accounted for in the NbS decision-making processes, at least once during the intervention period

Partial: The design of NbS recognises and responds to some interactions between the economy, society, a
ecosystems, although knowledge gaps remain. These are partially or not at all accounted for in decision-m
processes.

Insufficient: No. The design of the NbS does not recognise nor respond to the interactions between the eco
society and ecosystems. No. Superficial/limited understanding of drivers of and responses to identified soc
challenges with limited or no documentation.

Strong: Yes. Synergies across sectors are thoroughly investigated, and all relevant complementary interve
integrated within the design of the NbS. These are investigated and revisited at relevant points throughout
intervention timescale.

Adequate: Synergies across sectors are investigated, and the most relevant complementary interventions
within the design of the NbS. These are revisited at least once during the intervention period.

Partial: Synergies across some sectors are broadly identified, but knowledge gaps persist, and only some
complementary interventions are integrated into the design of the NbS.

Insufficient: No. Synergies across sectors are not identified, and if any complementary interventions are ide
are not integrated into the design of the NbS.
Strong: Yes. The possible risks of undesirable changes and their drivers are identified, taking into account
local knowledge. The management of these risks is integrated into the design of the NbS and revisited thro
intervention timescale.

Adequate: Most risks of undesirable changes and their drivers are identified, taking into account scientific a
knowledge. The management of most of these risks is integrated into the design of the NbS and revisited a
during the intervention timescale.

Partial: Some possible risks are identified and taken into account in the design of the NbS, but context-spe
knowledge gaps persist and multiple documentation (e.g., their management, within the intervention site an
broader land/seascape) are lacking.

Insufficient: No. Limited or no risks are identified, and where identified, the management of these are not in
the design of the NbS.

Strong: Yes. An updated assessment of the current status of ecosystems at the appropriate spatial and tem
is in place. The assessment includes information about the drivers of change and biodiversity loss. The as
includes field verification and local knowledge.
Adequate: There is information available about the current state of the ecosystems using secondary data a
maps, not older than 10 years. The information of the ecosystem has been verified in general terms throug
with general inputs from local communities and traditional knowledge, where possible.

Partial: General information about existing land cover and land use is used for assessing the status of the
at more general scales and not older than ten years. There is no validation at field level and no data comin
communities or traditional knowledge.

Insufficient: No. There is no information available about general conditions of the status of the ecosystems
relevant spatial or temporal scale.

Strong: Yes. The NbS objectives include specific and measurable indicator variables related to biodiversity
ecosystem integrity, the direction of desired change (increase, decrease, maintain), the magnitude of desir
(e.g., 80%), and the timeframe (e.g., within 5 years). Prior to initiating treatments, a monitoring and evaluat
in place that includes the variables to be assessed, the frequency of assessment, the analyses that will be
determine outcomes, and how information will be shared. Also prior to initiating treatment, a baseline asse
indicator variables has been conducted. Depending on the conservation actions proposed, monitoring and
yield enough information to indicate species or ecosystem recovery or a measurable extent of recovered a
relevant period of time.

Adequate: The NbS outcomes include measurable indicator variables related to biodiversity and ecosystem
may lack specific details related to the magnitude of desired change (e.g., 80%) and the timeframe (e.g., w
Prior to initiating treatments, a baseline assessment has been conducted and a monitoring and evaluation
place, but may lack detail on the frequency of assessment, the analyses that will be done to determine out
how information will be shared. There is not enough information on ecosystem indicators for a relevant per

Partial: The NbS outcomes related to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity lack specificity. There is a gener
about relevant conservation outcomes, and a monitoring system is under preparation.

Insufficient: No. The NbS lacks identified outcomes related to biodiversity or ecosystem integrity. There is n
system in place and no data about ecosystem or species recovery.

Strong: Yes. Possible adverse impacts of NbS interventions on ecosystems, ecological processes, and spe
identified, and actions to mitigate those impacts are mobilized. Specific measurable variables related to po
adverse impacts have been included in the baseline assessment, a monitoring and evaluation system of th
is properly implemented, and actions to address those impacts are in place.

Adequate: The NbS plan has identified possible adverse impacts of NbS interventions on ecosystems, eco
processes, and species, and has included actions to mitigate those impacts. However, there is a lack of cla
actions will be mobilized and resourced. A monitoring plan for assessing adverse impacts is under develop
including actions to counteract the effects of those impacts.
Partial: There is a general identification of possible impacts of NbS actions at the ecosystem level, and pla
those impacts are in place.

Insufficient: No. There is no identification of potential impacts of NbS interventions, and these impacts are

Strong: Yes. There is a detailed assessment of requirements to maintain or recover ecosystem integrity. O
enhance the integrity of the ecosystem or connectivity, where appropriate, are identified and implemented.
options might include soil recovery practices, ecological restoration activities, isolation practices, or conser
for targeted species.

Adequate: There is a general identification of potential options to enhance ecosystem integrity or connectiv
appropriate, and a plan to incorporate them into the NbS strategy.

Partial: There is a general identification of potential actions to enhance ecosystem integrity or connectivity,
appropriate.

Insufficient: No. There is no identification of any options to enhance ecosystem integrity or connectivity.

Strong: Yes. All the main direct and indirect costs and benefits have been established, verified with key inf
are fully documented. The distribution of the costs and benefits is well understood, and "winners" and "lose
easily ascertained.

Adequate: Analysis of costs and benefits includes both financial and non-financial elements and a clear de
indirect costs and benefits, although some gaps in understanding are still evident. There is a good underst
costs and benefits are distributed, but limited verification with key informants.

Partial: Analysis of costs and benefits includes both financial and non-financial elements, although significa
understanding exist with respect to indirect costs and benefits. There is a general understanding of how th
and benefits are distributed, but it is not comprehensive and lacks verification.

Insufficient: No. Identification of costs and benefits is limited only to the immediate and direct financial tran
initiative. Understanding of how costs and benefits are distributed is superficial and/or anecdotal.

Strong: Yes. A full cost-effectiveness study has been conducted according to best practice and includes up
recurring direct and indirect costs, the full flow of benefits over time, and key assumptions. Sensitivity analy
conducted against critical variables (including changes to key regulatory and subsidy arrangements), the lo
economic and financial sustainability is well understood, as well as the economic risks.

Adequate: A cost-effectiveness study is available, which includes upfront and recurring direct and indirect c
flow of key benefits. Key assumptions have been identified, but a full sensitivity analysis has not been unde
long-term economic and financial sustainability is broadly understood, but there may be gaps in the framin
economic risks with respect to changes in regulation and subsidy regimes.
Partial: A basic internal rate of return has been calculated, drawing primarily on direct upfront and recurring
direct benefits. However, there are significant gaps in accounting for indirect costs and benefits, and key a
have not been tested. There is a limited understanding of the impacts of changes to current regulations an
regimes.

Insufficient: No. There has been no attempt to calculate or estimate even a basic internal rate of return or o
understand how the flow of benefits over time compare against upfront and recurring costs.

Strong: Yes. The effectiveness and affordability of the intervention against the next best alternative(s) are f
economically justified, understood and documented.

Adequate: The effectiveness and affordability of the intervention can be broadly justified although gaps in t
particularly with respect to a comprehensive understanding of the alternate's cost, benefits and risks, persi

Partial: Viable alternate solutions have been identified and their pros and cons have been documented but
and basic economic analysis has been conducted.
Insufficient: No. There has been no meaningful review of the proposed intervention's cost effectiveness ag
viable alternatives.

Strong: Yes. A comprehensive review of resourcing options that covers the costs of delivery of the interven
and ancillary benefits has been undertaken and a full resourcing package has been assembled and negoti
including provision for future revenue streams.

Adequate: The principle source of long-term funding is identified and secured. Potential viable sources of
complementary resourcing have been identified and thoroughly assessed, including accompanying legal, r
contractual obligations. While a comprehensive resourcing package has been identified it has not yet been

Partial: The principle source of long-term funding is identified and secured. Potential viable sources of com
resourcing have been identified although more analysis is required to properly assess feasibility.

Insufficient: No. There is no clear understanding (or guarantee) of even the main long-term funding source
required to cover the costs of immediate start-up or piloting phase. There has been no analysis of potentia
revenue streams and no preliminary analysis of complementary resourcing options.

Strong: Yes. A feedback and grievance resolution mechanism is developed in full consultation with affecte
stakeholders. The mechanism is legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatib
adaptively managed. There is clear evidence of ownership and trust in the mechanism.

Adequate: A feedback and grievance resolution mechanism is developed in full consultation with affected s
The mechanism is legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, and adapti
managed. Ownership and trust in the mechanism is likely but currently cannot be substantiated.

Partial: A feedback and grievance resolution mechanism is developed with limited input from some affecte
stakeholders. The mechanism is not fully legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-
adaptively managed.
Insufficient: No. A feedback and grievance resolution mechanism is not or only partially developed with no
with affected stakeholders.

Strong: Yes. FPIC was obtained through high level participation from representative institutions and proces
been established to ensure this is upheld throughout the NbS timescale.

Adequate: High level participation was achieved from most representative institutions. Processes have bee
to ensure this is upheld throughout the intervention with priority stakeholders although gaps persist with so
stakeholders.

Partial: Information giving and consultation was provided early in the NbS process with some representativ
No processes in place to ensure this persists throughout the intervention.

Insufficient: No. FPIC has not been obtained and processes have not been established to ensure this is up

Strong: Yes. A robust multi-scale multi-sector stakeholder analysis was conducted to identify who may be
indirectly affected by the NbS. Affected stakeholders were involved in all processes from the start of the int
accept/own the outcomes.

Adequate: A stakeholder analysis was conducted identifying stakeholders who may be directly or indirectly
the NbS. Most stakeholders were then involved in the processes of the intervention although some gaps re
Ownership cannot be substantiated.

Partial: Limited stakeholder analysis was conducted identifying only some of the stakeholder who may be d
indirectly affected by the NbS. Of those identified, some have been engaged in the processes of the NbS.

Insufficient: No. No stakeholder analysis has been conducted to identify who maybe directly and indirectly
the NbS.

Strong: Yes. Decision-making processes take into account the rights and interests of all participating and a
stakeholders, with specific attention paid to stakeholders subject to extreme inequity. The procedures are d
and this documentation is transparent and accessible.

Adequate: Decision-making processes take into account the rights and interests of all participating and affe
stakeholders. The procedures are documented and this documentation is transparent and accessible.

Partial: Decision-making processes map rights and interests of all or some participating and affected stake
procedures are documented however no clear plan to take into account stakeholder decisions. Gaps rema
there is a lack of transparency or accessibility.

Insufficient: No. Decision making processes do not take into account rights and interests of stakeholders a
documented.

Strong: Yes. Whether and where the NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries is ide
this is the case, transboundary cooperation's agreements are created between affected stakeholders in all
Joint decision-making is enabled.
Adequate: General understanding whether the NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional bounda
transboundary cooperation's agreements are created between affected stakeholders in jurisdictions althou
persist.

Partial: Limited identification of whether and where NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional bo
There is a lack of transboundary cooperation agreements.

Insufficient: No. Not known whether or where NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundar

Strong: Yes. The cost benefits analysis considers costs and benefits both at the NbS site and the larger
landscape/seascape, throughout the NbS intervention time-scale. Costs and benefits are used to inform sa
corrective actions. Process of decision-making on choices is disclosed to all stakeholders.

Adequate: The cost benefit analysis considers most spatial and temporal dimensions. Costs and benefits i
used to inform safeguards and corrective actions although there are some gaps.

Partial: A limited cost benefit analysis is carried out only considering the NbS site and/or only for specific p
NbS lifecycle. Costs and benefits identified have not been used to inform safeguards and corrective action

Insufficient: No. No cost benefit analysis of trade-offs is carried out and/or no safeguards or corrective actio
place.
Strong: Yes. All the rights, usage of and access to land and resources, as well as stakeholder responsibilit
analysed using a stakeholder mapping/analysis. Rights, usage of and access to land and resources are re
inform the design of NbS.

Adequate: Most rights, usage of and access to land and resources, as well as responsibilities were analyse
stakeholder mapping/analysis. All those analysed are acknowledged and respected although knowledge g
some areas or parts of the NbS.

Partial: Some rights, usage of and access to land and resources, as well as responsibilities are analysed. H
was not done using appropriate tools and not linked to the outcomes of stakeholder analysis or mapping w
stakeholders considered. Only some of those analysed are acknowledged and respected.

Insufficient: No. The rights, usage of and access to land and resources, as well as responsibilities are not i

Strong: Yes. Mutually agreed upon limits of trade-offs are in place, documented, and respected. Safeguard
and are periodically reviewed throughout the intervention timescale, with clear documentation of this being

Adequate: Mutually agreed upon limits of some trade-offs are in place and are respected. Safeguards are
are occasionally reviewed, with documentation provided.

Partial: Mutually agreed upon limits of only a few trade-offs are in place and/or are not being respected. Fe
are in place but are sporadically reviewed. There is no documentation of the process.
Insufficient: No. Mutually agreed upon limits of trade-offs have not been considered and no safeguards hav
been put in place.
Strong: Yes. A strategy is established that precisely states intended outcomes, actions and assumptions m
regards to economic, social and ecological conditions. The strategy elaborates on whether/how assumptio
change and is consistently used as a basis for monitoring and evaluation of the intervention occurring at re
intervals.
Adequate: A strategy is established that states intended outcomes, actions and assumptions relevant to th
context. The strategy is used to inform monitoring and evaluation of the intervention in the design and impl
stage.

Partial: A strategy is established that states some intended outcomes, actions and assumptions. The strate
inform the monitoring and evaluation of the intervention and/or does not take into account changing assum

Insufficient: No. Incomplete or no strategy established, with no link to economic, social and ecological cond
little link to monitoring and evaluation of the intervention.
Strong: Yes. A robust and adaptive monitoring and evaluation plan is in place to be implemented at regula
throughout the intervention lifecycle. The plan includes how deviations from the strategy trigger an adaptiv
management response.

Adequate: A monitoring and evaluation plan is in place to be implemented throughout the intervention lifec
at a regular basis. A clear process for how deviations will trigger an adaptive management response is lack

Partial: A monitoring and evaluation plan is in place to be implemented throughout the intervention lifecycle
a regular basis. A clear process for how deviations will trigger an adaptive management response is lackin

Insufficient: No. Incomplete or no monitoring and evaluation plan in place. No link to how the plan could trig
adaptive management response.

Strong: Yes. There is a learning framework that is applied throughout the intervention lifecycle and that is u
continuously to learn and adapt in response to results of the monitoring and evaluation plan. Strategy in pla
learning would persist beyond the timeframe of intervention.

Adequate: There is a learning framework that is applied at different stages of the intervention lifecycle. It is
monitoring and evaluation plan.
Partial: Incomplete learning framework lacking clarity on how monitoring and evaluation will lead to learnin
adaptation.

Insufficient: No. Incomplete or no learning framework. No link to the monitoring and evaluation of the interv

Strong: Yes. NbS lessons learnt have been systematically captured and subsequently shared both upon d
with strategic audiences in an accessible manner. A communication strategy is in place identifying how this
behaviors to trigger transformational change.

Adequate: Lessons learnt have been systematically captured and some sharing both upon demand and wi
audiences in an accessible manner. Communications strategy is incomplete.
Partial: Provision made to systematically capture lessons learnt. Some lessons learnt are shared with relev
audiences. There are barriers to accessibility (time frame, language, visibility, etc.) whether on demand or
available. No communications strategy in place.

Insufficient: No. Lessons learnt are not captured and/or shared. Not communications strategy in place.

Strong: Yes. NbS actions incorporate a review of policy, regulations and laws that are relevant to the NbS,
used to support their uptake and mainstreaming. Where necessary and possible, the NbS may inform and
policy and regulating frameworks amendment, to ensure sustainability.

Adequate: The policy, laws and regulations relevant to the NbS were identified and taken into account as p
design of the NbS, and their potential use to support NbS or necessary amendment, were partially included

Partial: Some relevant policy, regulations or laws were identified as part of the design of the NbS, but know
(e.g. their potential use to influence the NbS, their relevance to the NbS, possible amendment) remain and
them was thought of or planned.

Insufficient: No. The NbS design and operational plans have not been framed within the context of prevailin
and other relevant policies, regulations or laws and has not engage with other key stakeholders on issues
enabling policy, legal and regulatory frameworks.

Strong: Yes. Relevant national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change and biodiversity ha
identified. The potential contribution of the NbS to these targets was identified is reported in the relevant pl
facilitate mainstreaming and upscaling of the NbS intervention.

Adequate: Relevant national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change and biodiversity have
identified. The potential contribution of the NbS to these targets was partially identified and partially reporte
relevant platforms.

Partial: Some national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change and biodiversity have been
part of the NbS design. But the potential contribution of the NbS to these targets was only partially identifie
reported in the relevant platforms.

Insufficient: No. No relevant national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change and biodivers
identified. The potential contribution of the NbS to these targets was not identified and nor reported in the r
platforms.
 Rating Score Rationale

Strong 4

Strong 4

Insufficient 1
 Strong 4

Adequate 3

Insufficient 1

Adequate 3
Adequate 3

Partial 2

Insufficient 1
Insufficient 1

Adequate 3

Adequate 3

Strong 4
Strong 4

Partial 2

Partial 2

Partial 2
Adequate 3

Adequate 3

Adequate 3

Adequate 3
Adequate 3

Partial 2

Partial 2

Partial 2
Partial 2

Strong 4

Strong 4

Strong 4

Partial 2
Partial 2

Partial 2

Partial 2
Tools for Implementing Evidences
 Criterion

Criterion 1: NbS effectively address one or more societal

challenges

Criterion 2: Design of NbS is informed by scale

Criterion 3: NbS result in net gain to biodiversity and

ecosystem integrity

Criterion 4: NbS are economically viable

Criterion 5: NbS are based on inclusive, transparent and

empowering governance processes

Criterion 6: NbS equitably balances trade-offs between

achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued
provision of multiple benefits

Criterion 7: NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence

Criterion 8: NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an

appropriate jurisdictional context
 Indicator
1.1 Prioritize pressing societal challenges for rights holders/beneficiaries
1.2 Clearly understand and document societal challenges addressed
1.3 Identify, benchmark, and periodically assess human wellbeing outcomes
2.1 Recognize interactions between economy, society, and ecosystems
2.2 Integrate NbS with complementary interventions for synergy
2.3 Incorporate risk management beyond intervention site
3.1 Respond to evidence-based ecosystem assessments
3.2 Identify and assess biodiversity conservation outcomes
3.3 Periodically assess unintended adverse impacts
3.4 Enhance ecosystem integrity and connectivity
4.1 Document NbS benefits, costs, and stakeholders
4.2 Provide cost-effectiveness study
4.3 Justify NbS effectiveness against alternatives
4.4 Consider diverse resourcing options
5.1 Establish feedback/grievance mechanism
5.2 Ensure participation based on equality and FPIC
5.3 Identify/involve affected stakeholders
5.4 Address rights and interests of all stakeholders
5.5 Enable joint decision-making across jurisdictions
6.1 Acknowledge costs, benefits, and trade-offs
6.2 Respect rights and access to land/resources
6.3 Review safeguards to ensure trade-offs are balanced
7.1 Establish NbS strategy for monitoring
7.2 Implement M&E plan throughout lifecycle
7.3 Apply adaptive management through iterative learning
8.1 Share NbS design and lessons for transformative change
8.2 Inform and enhance policies for NbS uptake
8.3 Contribute to national/global targets on wellbeing, climate, biodiversity, and human righ

OVERALL PERCENT MATCH

Score Total Score Percent Adherence Level
4
4 9/12 75% Adequate
1
4
3 8/12 67% Adequate
1
3
2
9/16 56% Adequate
1
3
3
4
11/16 69% Adequate
2
2
2
3
3 14/20 70% Adequate
3
3
2
2 6/12 50% Partial
2
4
4 12/12 100% Strong
4
2
2
6/12 50% Partial
2

67%
Compliant
This shape represents a table slicer.
Table slicers are not supported in
this version of Excel.

If the shape was modified in an

earlier version of Excel, or if the
workbook was saved in Excel 2007
or earlier, the slicer can't be used.
#NAME? #NAME? #NAM
 Criterion %wise

#NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

#NAME? #NAME? #NAME?