2527 1. DIAGNOSING THE SOCIAL IMPLEMENTATION GAP IN NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS 1.1. Introduction - The Turn to NbS and the Social Determinants of Outcomes As demand for critical minerals accelerates under the green energy transition, with consumption for some minerals projected to increase up to sixfold by 2050, the mining sector has become central to decarbonisation efforts while simultaneously intensifying climate, biodiversity, and land-use pressures (Greenfield & Benato, 2022). Mined materials remain indispensable to renewable energy systems and lowcarbon infrastructure, yet mining activities themselves remain carbon-intensive, accounting for an estimated 4-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions from extraction, processing, and energy use (UNEP FI, 2024). In response to growing investor and regulatory pressure, more than 75% of metals and mining companies have articulated net-zero emissions objectives (Future Minerals Forum, 2025). Yet these commitments coincide with a rapid expansion of mining’s physical footprint. Mining surfaces have increased by more than 50% since 2000 and are projected to continue growing – heightening risks to ecosystems and resource-dependent communities (Stanimirova et al., 2024). Industrial mining is a major driver of deforestation and is disproportionately concentrated in ecologically and socially vulnerable areas: around 86% of metal mines are located in regions of high or intermediate plant biodiversity, and over half of energy-transition mineral projects are situated on or near Indigenous lands (IRENA, 2025; Murguía et al., 2016). This raises critical questions about whether the green energy transition can deliver not only emissions reductions, but also a just transition that avoids transferring social and environmental costs onto the communities and geographies most affected by extraction. Within this context, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) ranging from biodiversity offsets (BO) and ecosystem restoration to forest-carbon mechanisms such as ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’ (REDD+), have been promoted as mechanisms to reconcile extraction with conservation and climate mitigation. In the mining sector, NbS gained traction in the early 2000s alongside carbon markets and voluntary conservation finance and have since been mainstreamed through corporate commitments and international institutions like the World Bank (Bull, et al., 2016). Encouraged as win-win solutions capable of delivering benefits for climate and people, the number of NbS-related initiatives and programmes increased approximately sixfold in the last decade, driven largely by development finance institutions and multilateral investment (IDOS, 2020). Yet this promise hinges on human and institutional processes: beyond ecological design, NbS outcomes are produced by how projects engage with governance arrangements, behavioural incentives, and the social contexts in which land-use decisions are made. At the level of definition, NbS explicitly foreground the interdependence of ecological and social systems. The IUCN (2025) defines NbS as actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges while simultaneously delivering benefits for human wellbeing and biodiversity. Parallel formulations emphasise the role of human behaviour and governance in sustaining ecological outcomes (Seddon et al., 2020; The World Bank, 2019). In principle, NbS therefore reject the historical separation of people and nature in conservation. Yet despite this conceptual grounding, evidence suggests that NbS implementation often struggles to realise these ambitions in complex, real-world settings (Olivadese, 2025). Across many interventions, particularly in contexts marked by high resource dependence and governance constraints, communities experience uneven social and economic effects, including changes in access to land and resources, livelihood disruption, and limited influence over decision-making (Brockington, 2002; Wong et al., 2022; IEEP, 2020). This gap between theory and practice raises an important question for the mining sector and NbS funders alike: why do interventions framed as peoplecentred often fail to deliver these outcomes on the ground? This paper argues that a central driver of this gap lies in the reliance on implicit and insufficiently tested social assumptions embedded within project design. When social context is insufficiently analysed, assumptions become foundational elements of project Theories of Change (ToC) despite limited evidence – shaping feasibility decisions, monitoring frameworks, and investment judgments. Drawing on
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2