2528 interdisciplinary literature, sector experience and current practitioner insights, the paper advances three interrelated explanations: (A) dominance of technical and ecological framings in NbS design; (B) communities’ positioning as risks or beneficiaries, shaped by governance and power relations; (C) project lenses that overlook social and landscape dynamics, resulting in fragile ToCs and incomplete measures of success. 1.2 What the Literature Already Establishes: Communities as Central to Conservation Success Although NbS are presented as separate from traditional conservation projects, in practice they encompass a broad set of ecosystem preservation, forest conservation, and restoration interventions that rely on changes in land and resource-use patterns. As such, they often draw directly on implementation approaches historically associated with conservation practice. This continuity means that NbS do not automatically represent a substantive shift in how conservation is enacted on the ground, even where they are framed as socially inclusive or people centred. For this reason, conservation research and experience on the social dimensions of protection, zonal exclusion, and governance remain directly relevant to understanding NbS outcomes today. 1.2.1 From Fortress Conservation to Socio-Ecological Integration Longstanding conservation research demonstrates that excluding Indigenous Peoples and local communities from conservation is both socially unjust and ecologically counterproductive (Global Goals, 2025). ‘Fortress conservation’ models, premised on strict regulation or removal of human presence, have been widely criticised for generating rights abuses, undermining livelihoods, and eroding stewardship relationships (Brockington, 2002; West, Igoe & Brockington, 2006). Empirical studies show that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are integral to socio-ecological systems, and that conservation outcomes improve where tenure, knowledge, and agency are recognised. Conversely, interventions that restrict access without viable alternatives often generate resistance, non-compliance, or displacement of environmental pressures. This literature unsettles a persistent assumption within NbS discourse: that ecological interventions inherently generate positive outcomes. Instead, a wide range of conservation outcomes are shown to be contingent on a strong evidence base, governance arrangements, power relations, and the distribution of costs and benefits across social groups – underscoring the need for early development of context-sensitive theories of change that make social assumptions explicit and testable. 1.2.2 Social Inclusion as a Formalised NbS Requirement In response to this evidence base, social inclusion has been progressively formalised within NbS standards, safeguards, and guidance frameworks. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions, which functions as a certified global benchmark, includes explicit criteria on inclusive and transparent governance, meaningful stakeholder participation throughout the project lifecycle, respect for rights and tenure, and the equitable distribution of benefits and costs. Social considerations are framed as integral to the effectiveness, legitimacy, and longterm sustainability of NbS interventions. Similarly, widely adopted voluntary frameworks such as the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Principles require projects to demonstrate early and ongoing stakeholder engagement, respect for customary land and resource rights, and attention to livelihood impacts and community wellbeing as conditions for validation. In offsetting and forest-carbon contexts, these standards explicitly link social performance to the credibility and durability of environmental outcomes. While these standards are largely voluntary rather than legally binding, they play a significant role in shaping investor expectations and corporate risk assessments. At the level of norms and standards, therefore, there is little ambiguity: NbS are expected to be socially inclusive, rights-respecting, and participatory. Yet despite this convergence between evidence and standards, implementation outcomes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2