1.
NbS effectively address one or more societal challenges
1.1 Prioritize pressing societal challenges for rights holders/beneficiaries
● Strong: Pressing challenges identified with evidence recorded in full consultation of
rights holders and beneficiaries.
● Adequate: Specific challenges identified and recorded with some consultation.
● Partial: General challenges identified with limited input.
● Insufficient: No challenges identified; no consultation.
1.2 Clearly understand and document societal challenges addressed
● Strong: Drivers and responses fully understood and identified, well-documented,
accessible.
● Adequate: Drivers/responses broadly understood; minor documentation gaps.
● Partial: Challenges framed in general terms; significant gaps in context and
documentation.
● Insufficient: Superficial understanding; no or limited documentation.
1.3 Identify, benchmark, and periodically assess human wellbeing outcomes
● Strong: SMART outcomes identified, benchmarked, and assessed periodically with
respected to the societal challenges identified. Documented and assessed at regularly
occurring intervals.
● Adequate: Outcomes and benchmarks identified; assessed at least once during the
intervention period.
● Partial: Outcomes identified, but no provision for assessment.
● Insufficient: Outcomes not identified or vague; no benchmarks or assessment.
2. Design of NbS is informed by scale
2.1 Recognize interactions between economy, society, and ecosystems
● Strong: Detailed design accounting for interactions and their impacts over the
intervention. These interactions are accounted for in the decision-making process
throughout the intervention timescale.
● Adequate: Specific interactions recognized and accounted for at least once during the
intervention period.
● Partial: Some interactions recognized but not fully integrated into decisions. Partially or
not at all accounted for.
● Insufficient: Interactions not recognized or addressed.
2.2 Integrate NbS with complementary interventions for synergy
● Strong: Thoroughly investigated synergies across multiple sectors and integrated
complementary interventions. Revisited periodically.
● Adequate: Relevant synergies identified and integrated across few sectors; revisited at
least once.
● Partial: Broadly identified synergies; only some integrated into design.
● Insufficient: Synergies not identified or integrated.
2.3 Incorporate risk management beyond intervention site
● Strong: Risks and their drivers identified using local/scientific knowledge; Management
plan integrated and revisited throughout intervention.
● Adequate: Most risks identified; managed/planned and revisited at least once.
● Partial: Some risks identified but gaps in management/documentation remain.
● Insufficient: No or limited risk identification; no integration or management.
3. NbS result in net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity
3.1 Respond to evidence-based ecosystem assessments
● Strong: Updated, verified assessment at appropriate spatial/temporal scales with local
input. Information on drivers of change, biodiversity loss, field verification and local
knowledge documented.
● Adequate: Current state assessed with secondary data/maps (≤10 years old); General
validation through field visits, with general inputs from local communities and
traditional knowledge recorded.
● Partial: General ecosystem information used; no validation at field level or local data.
● Insufficient: No ecosystem status information available.
3.2 Identify and assess biodiversity conservation outcomes
● Strong: Specific measurable outcomes with the direction of desired change (increase,
decrease, maintain), the magnitude of desired change and the timeframe and
monitoring systems in place. Before treatments, a monitoring system is established with
defined variables, assessment frequency, analysis methods, and information-sharing
plans. A baseline assessment is conducted, providing data to track species or ecosystem
recovery over time.
● Adequate: Measurable outcomes identified but but may lack specific details related to
the magnitude of desired change and the timeframe. Not enough information on
ecosystem indicators for a relevant period of time.
● Partial: General conservation outcomes indicated; monitoring system under
preparation.
● Insufficient: No biodiversity outcomes identified; no monitoring system.
3.3 Periodically assess unintended adverse impacts
● Strong: Adverse impacts identified; Specific measurable variables included in baseline
assessment; monitoring system fully implemented; mitigation actions planned.
● Adequate: Possible impacts recognized, mitigation actions planned but lacking clarity on
resources.
● Partial: General identification of potential impacts; mitigation plans not fully developed.
● Insufficient: No identification or assessment of impacts.
3.4 Enhance ecosystem integrity and connectivity
● Strong: Detailed assessment identifies specific actions for ecosystem integrity; options
implemented and documented.
● Adequate: At least few potential actions identified and documented for incorporation
into NbS strategy.
● Partial: General identification of potential actions, lacking specificity or clear plans.
● Insufficient: No identification of options for enhancing ecosystem integrity.
4. NbS are economically viable
4.1 Document NbS benefits, costs, and stakeholders
● Strong: Comprehensive evaluation of direct/indirect costs and benefits; verified by key
informants. Evidence of Summary points with the key informants recorded. The
distribution of the costs and benefits is well understood, and "winners" and "losers" can
be easily ascertained.
● Adequate: Analysis includes both financial and non-financial elements; limited
verification. There is a good understanding of how costs and benefits are distributed,
but limited verification with key informants
● Partial: Basic analysis; gaps in understanding indirect costs/benefits; limited verification.
There is a general understanding of how the major costs and benefits are distributed,
but it is not comprehensive and lacks verification
● Insufficient: Only immediate/direct financial costs analyzed; superficial understanding.
4.2 Provide cost-effectiveness study
● Strong: A full cost-effectiveness study includes upfront and recurring direct and indirect
costs, the full flow of benefits over time, and key assumptions. Sensitivity analysis has
been conducted against critical variables, the long-term 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 costs but lacks sensitivity analysis; risks broadly understood with gaps
in the framing of future economic risks with respect to changes in regulation and
subsidy regimes.
● Partial: Basic internal rate of return calculated drawing primarily on direct upfront and
recurring costs and direct benefits; gaps in accounting for indirect costs/benefits.
Limited understanding of the impacts of changes to current regulations and subsidy
regimes.
● Insufficient: No attempt at cost-effectiveness evaluation.
4.3 Justify NbS effectiveness against alternatives
● Strong: Effectiveness and affordability justified with comprehensive documentation;
externalities considered and documented.
● Adequate: Broad justification on effectiveness and affordability; gaps in understanding
alternate costs, benefits, and risks.
● Partial: Alternatives identified with limited economic analysis.
● Insufficient: No review of alternatives’ cost-effectiveness.
4.4 Consider diverse resourcing options
● Strong: Comprehensive review of resourcing options- covering cost of delivery; full
package negotiated, including future revenue streams.
● Adequate: Primary funding identified and secured ; complementary options assessed
including accompanying legal, regulatory and contractual obligations. but not
negotiated.
● Partial: Primary funding identified and secured; complementary options require further
analysis.
● Insufficient: No clear understanding of long-term funding; no analysis of revenue
streams or resourcing options.
5. NbS are based on inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes
5.1 Establish feedback/grievance mechanism
● Strong: Developed through full consultation with affected stakeholders; mechanism is
legitimate, accessible, equitable, and trusted. The mechanism has defined timeframe to
implement mechanism. Accessible to all stakeholders. Evidence of being Managed by
stakeholders.
● Adequate: Developed with consultation, but trust and ownership not fully
substantiated.
● Partial: Limited consultation; mechanism lacks full legitimacy or accessibility.
● Insufficient: No mechanism or partial development without consultation.
5.2 Ensure participation based on equality and FPIC
● Strong: FPIC obtained through high-level participation and process in place to upheld
throughout the NbS timescale.
● Adequate: High-level participation with gaps in some stakeholders.
● Partial: Early consultation, but no ongoing processes for FPIC.
● Insufficient: FPIC not obtained and no processes established.
5.3 Identify/involve affected stakeholders
● Strong: Robust multi-scale multi-sector stakeholder analysis and full involvement from
the start, with ownership documented.
● Adequate: Stakeholder analysis conducted; most affected stakeholders involved in
processes of intervention. Evidence recorded for same.
● Partial: Limited stakeholder analysis, partial involvement.
● Insufficient: No stakeholder analysis or involvement.
5.4 Address rights and interests of all stakeholders
● Strong: Processes account for all stakeholders’ rights and interests, with specific
attention paid to stakeholders subject to extreme inequity. Documented and
transparent.
● Adequate: Processes account for most participating and affected stakeholders,
documented and accessible.
● Partial: Some rights mapped but no clear plan or transparency.
● Insufficient: No account of stakeholders' rights or documentation.
5.5 Enable joint decision-making across jurisdictions
● Strong: Whether and where the NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional
boundaries is identified. Then Transboundary cooperation agreements created with
joint decision-making.
● Adequate: Some transboundary agreements, but gaps persist.
● Partial: Limited identification of boundaries and lack of cooperation.
● Insufficient: Not known whether the area extends beyond boundaries.
6. NbS equitably balances trade-offs between achievement of their primary goal(s) and the
continued provision of multiple benefits
6.1 Acknowledge costs, benefits, and trade-offs
● Strong: Comprehensive analysis, both at the NbS site and the larger
landscape/seascape, throughout the NbS intervention time-scale. Costs and benefits are
used to inform safeguards and corrective actions. Process of decision-making on choices
is disclosed to all stakeholders.
● Adequate: Broad analysis, with some gaps; informs safeguards and corrective actions.
● Partial: Limited analysis for specific areas; not linked to safeguards.
● Insufficient: No analysis or safeguards.
6.2 Respect rights and access to land/resources
● Strong: Comprehensive analysis of all rights, land/resource usage, and stakeholder
responsibilities are analyzed through stakeholder mapping and recorded. These factors
inform and are respected in the NbS design.
● Adequate: Most rights and land use considered, with minor gaps.
● Partial: Some rights and land use considered, with limited analysis.
● Insufficient: Rights and land use not identified.
6.3 Review safeguards to ensure trade-offs are balanced
● Strong: Mutually agreed trade-off limits are documented, respected, and periodically
reviewed with clear documentation.
● Adequate: Some trade-off limits, safeguards reviewed occasionally.
● Partial: Few trade-off limits, sporadic safeguard reviews.
● Insufficient: No trade-off limits or safeguards.
7. NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence
7.1 Establish NbS strategy for monitoring
● Strong: Clear strategy with defined outcomes, actions, and assumptions regarding
economic, social, and ecological conditions, with provisions for changes documented,
regularly used for monitoring.
● Adequate: Strategy used during design and implementation for monitoring.
● Partial: Incomplete strategy, not linked to monitoring.
● Insufficient: No strategy or link to monitoring.
7.2 Implement Monitoring &Evaluation plan throughout lifecycle
● Strong: Adaptive plan implemented at regular intervals throughout the intervention
lifecycle with trigger responses. Recorded.
● Adequate: Plan implemented throughout the lifecycle but not at regular intervals.
● Partial: Plan in place but unclear how deviations trigger responses.
● Insufficient: No plan or adaptive management link.
7.3 Apply adaptive management through iterative learning
● Strong: Continuous learning framework linked to monitoring results, strategy for post-
intervention learning. Framework and strategy documented.
● Adequate: Learning framework applied at different stages, linked to monitoring.
● Partial: Incomplete framework, unclear learning and adaptation process.
● Insufficient: No learning framework or link to monitoring.
8. NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context
8.1 Share NbS design and lessons for transformative change
● Strong: NbS lessons are systematically captured, shared with strategic audiences, and
are accessible. A communication strategy is in place to identify behavioral change to
trigger transformation.
● Adequate: Lessons captured and shared, with incomplete communications strategy.
● Partial: Lessons shared with some barriers to accessibility; no communication strategy.
● Insufficient: Lessons not captured or shared; no strategy.
8.2 Inform and enhance policies for NbS uptake
● Strong: NbS actions include review of relevant policies, regulations, and laws to support
uptake and mainstreaming, and may inform necessary amendments for sustainability.
All to be documented.
● Adequate: Policies considered, with partial amendment for NbS support.
● Partial: Some policies identified, but gaps remain in their relevance to NbS.
● Insufficient: No consideration of policies or regulations.
8.3 Contribute to national/global targets on wellbeing, climate, biodiversity, and human
rights (UNDRIP)
● Strong: Relevant national and global targets for wellbeing, climate change, and
biodiversity are identified, with NbS contributions reported to support mainstreaming
and upscaling.
● Adequate: Contributions partially identified and reported.
● Partial: Some targets identified, but no reporting.
● Insufficient: No contribution identified or reported.
