Addressing the links between climate change and nature loss

Jonny Wentworth

Overview

Contributors to the POST horizon scan highlighted the interconnectedness of nature loss and climate change (PN 617)[1] and that integrated nature based solutions (NbS) present an opportunity to simultaneously address both.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

The UN defines NbS as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits”.[12]

The International Union for Conservation of Nature describe NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems, benefiting people and nature at the same time”.[13] The European Committee for Standardization are developing a standard for NbS,[14] which is supported by the British Standards Institute.[15]

Contributors stated that a ‘net zero’ economy will need to operate within the safe limits of ‘planetary boundaries’.[16] Interactions between the geosphere (energy flow and non-living materials in Earth and atmosphere) and biosphere (all living organisms/ecosystems) control global environmental conditions. Climate change and nature loss are interrelated, with one increasing the risk of the other.[17][18]

Challenges and opportunities

Nature based solutions (NbS) can address climate change in three ways:[19]

Decrease emissions from land uses. For example, restoring peatlands by raising water levels. (PN 668)[20] Rewetted agricultural peat soils can also be used to grow wetland crops or biomass (paludiculture).[21][22][23][24]
Capture and store CO₂ from the atmosphere. For example, planting of woodlands (PN 636) restoring peatland habitat (PN 668 PN 636)[25] or restoring coastal saltmarshes (PN 651)[26] can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and into these natural stores (carbon sequestration).[27][28]
Provide adaptation to climate change hazards. For example, restored coastal habitats such as saltmarshes can absorb wave energy and store flood waters to reduce coastal flooding risks (PN 647)[29] while restoring upland peatlands can reduce flood peaks downstream,[30][31] and re-establishing floodplain peatlands can create flood storage[32][33][34][35]

Contributors to the scan also suggested there were opportunities to store more carbon on farmland. For example, implementing paludiculture on rewetted agricultural peat soils has the potential to accumulate carbon in wetland crop residues.[25] However, this would require accurate estimates of existing on-farm carbon stocks (in soils, trees and hedges) in order that its potential to increase storage is understood and to determine the effectiveness of actions.[36]

Contributors noted the potential of enhanced rock weathering to capture and store CO₂ (ERW, PN 726)[37][38][39] which is marketed as a high quality carbon credit in voluntary carbon markets (PN 713). Rock weathering is a natural process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, at a rate of ~1100 Mt CO₂/year. In ERW, fine rock particles are created, increasing the reactive surface area of the rock. This is then spread over land and when the rainwater and rock dust react, the resulting chemical products are released into the soil, with studies suggesting this improves soil fertility and crop yields.[40]

Over time, these dissolved products may be taken up by plants, remain in the soil, or be transported to a carbon sink, such as the ocean where they may gradually react to form a stable solid carbonate mineral.[41][42][43][44][45] ERW can be combined with other measures such as forestry that provide biodiversity benefits (PN 726),[46][47]but approaches that focus solely on soil management are unlikely to be considered as meeting requirements for an NbS.[48][49][50]

Soil organic carbon management measures (PN 662) would also need to demonstrate biodiversity benefits to qualify as an NbS.[45][51] Contributors also raised concerns about the challenges of accounting for the complex soil processes influencing carbon storage and re-emission at different space and time scales.[52][53] For example, moisture levels in soils may influence the microbial communities decomposing organic matter and how long carbon persists in the soil.[54] Soil carbon codes can be used to set the rules for sequestering carbon in soil and enable payments to be made,[55][56][57] but it was suggested more reliable datasets were needed to inform farmland soil management measures in different conditions.[58][59]

There were also concerns raised that policy and guidance should incentivise ‘planting the right tree in the right place’ to ensure they are a net carbon store (PN 636). For example, studies have suggested tree planting on shallow peat soils may create a net carbon source for several decades, rather than removing carbon from the atmosphere.[60][61][62][63][64]However, encouraging natural woodland regeneration at the edge of upland blanket bogs, may increase carbon capture, reduce surface water flows and reduce wildfire risk (PN 717)[30][65]

Contributors to the scan agreed with the Office for Environmental Protection that the available data suggests the legally binding target of 16.5% of England to be trees and woodland cover by 2050 is unlikely to be met.[66] However, if natural climate mitigation actions have low biodiversity value (not fulfilling NbS criteria), such as planting of non-native trees in monocultures, there will be trade-offs between realising climate and biodiversity objectives.[67][68]

One example raised of the application of NbS to climate adaptation was natural flood management. This can be described as protecting, restoring, or mimicking, natural landscape features to store and slow down the flow of water (PN 623).[69] Flooding from either river, coastal or surface water flooding poses a significant risk to people, communities and the built environment in the UK, which will increase by the 2050s with climate change.[70] The 2024 national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk in England stated that the 6.3 million properties at risk of flooding will rise to 8 million (1 in 4 properties) by 2050.[71]

In September 2023, the Environment Agency and Defra announced £25 million funding for improving flood resilience through a new NFM programme, which aims to fund 260 projects by 2027.[72][34] Most of the techniques, such as better soil management, tree planting, installing leaky dams and wetland creation could be delivered by farmers with advice and dialogue.[73][74][75] However, data gaps remain on how different interventions act over different physical environments and in different conditions.[76][77][78] For example, in some areas agricultural drainage of lowland peat has led to the ground subsiding below sea level and increasing flood risks.[79][80][81] Addressing this would require raising water levels,[82][83] which would also reduce GHG emissions, but adopting paludiculture alongside this may also increase carbon capture and storage.[84][85][25]

NbS can also be used in urban climate adaptation and to restore biodiversity (PB 26). For example, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), provide natural drainage processes and reduce flood risks through a network of predominantly above-ground surface water management features, such as swales, which are shallow, broad and vegetated channels (PN 529). These can be an aspect of blue-green infrastructure, greenspace areas such as urban parks that have been designed and managed to provide multiple benefits.[86]

Key uncertainties/unknowns

Floodplains can store significantly larger amounts of carbon per area compared to surrounding land, in above ground vegetation, peat and within the river channel. However, most of the evidence relates to the first metre of soils and above ground vegetation, with limited understanding of deeper long-term stores and the potential for restoration.[87]
NbS can be designed in a way that prioritise nature-based and co-creation approach, such as a place-based approach to engaging communities in co-design and management of SuDS.[88] However, this may be more challenging to achieve if NbS are to be implemented at sufficient scale to deliver required changes.
Methane emissions from NbS such as wetlands,[89] may increase in response to climate change.[90] The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee recommended the funding of methane emissions measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification academic studies in the UK.[91] Methane is the second strongest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide,[92][93] but there are uncertainties in the methane sources and sinks that determine the rate of atmospheric methane increase. Although most emissions arise from human activities (76.3%), such as agriculture[94] or non-sewered sanitation,[95][96] there are uncertainties about freshwater, vegetation, and coastal/ocean methane sources.[97] The main sinks of methane are through chemical reactions in the atmosphere and bacterial mediated reactions in soils and sediments, which are also subject to uncertainties.[98][99][100][101][102]

Key questions for Parliament

How to encourage investment in NbS at the necessary speed and scale when a substantial proportion of the returns on investment are societal benefits?
What is the role of land use planning, agri-environment policies and markets in delivering relevant NbS in appropriate locations over relevant landscape and time scales (PB 42)?
Should nature-based greenhouse gas removals be integrated into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to achieve sufficient carbon sequestration?[103][104][105][106]
Voluntary UK nature markets standards are being developed,[107] but do mandatory governance frameworks need to be in place to regulate fraud and deception risk (PN 713)? [108][109][110]

References

[1] UNFCCC, CBD, IISD, GIZ, UNEP and SwedBio (2022). Promoting synergies between climate change adaptation and biodiversity through the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP) processes. United Nations Climate Change Secretariat. Bonn.

[2] IPBES. (2021). IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop on Biodiversity and Climate Change

[3] Science Based Targets Network. (2024). Corporate manual for setting science-based targets for nature

[4] Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version. (London: HM Treasury).

[5] Hill, T. (2023). Nature Returns. Natural England.

[6] Hudson, G. et al. (2023). Investing in nature-based solutions State-of-play and way forward for public and private financial measures in Europe. European Investment Bank

[7] EEA. (2023). Scaling nature-based solutions for climate resilience and nature restoration

[8] Stafford, R., et al. (Eds.) (2021). Nature-based Solutions for Climate Change in the UK: A Report by the British Ecological Society. London

[9] IUCN. (2020). IUCN Global Standard for NbS

[10] ILO-UNEP-IUCN joint report. (2022). Decent Work in Nature-based Solutions 2022

[11] IPCC. (2022). Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

[12] UN Environment Assembly. (2022). Fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5)

[13] IUCN. Nature-based Solutions

[14] CEN. About CEN – prEN 18140

[15] Bsi. (2022). CEN/TC 465 NWIP Draft Decision 35/2022 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Nature Based Solutions (NBSs) – Vocabulary

[16] The Planetary Boundaries framework outlines a safe operating space for humanity by defining biogeophysical limits of 9 key processes influenced by humans. The nine planetary boundaries set out are biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater use, biogeochemical (nitrogen and phosphorus) flows, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading (microscopic particles in the atmosphere) and introduction of novel entities (such as micro-plastics). Biosphere integrity is the ability of the world’s ecosystems to continue to provide goods and services to human society, and the risk of these benefits being threatened due to the loss of nature. Six planetary boundaries of the nine boundaries are currently being exceeded (climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change, biogeochemical flows, freshwater use and novel entities) – see 17.

[17] Richardson, K. et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances,Vol 9, Issue 37

[18] Hurley, I. et al. (2020). The uptake of the biosphere integrity planetary boundary concept into national and international environmental policy. Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 22, e01029

[19] https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/nature-based-solutions-climate

[20] IUCN Peatland Programme. Peatland Code

[21] Natural England. (2022). The Paludiculture Exploration Fund invites you to explore the future of wet farming on peat soils. GOV.UK

[22] Paludiculture. Paludiculture Exploration Fund Projects

[23] The Lowland Agricultural Peat Task Force: Paludiculture sub-group. (2023). Roadmap to making wide-scale adoption of paludiculture a commercial reality in England: Independent report to the UK government

[24] Stockdale, E. (2024). Supporting and developing paludiculture in the UK. NIAB

[25] UK Woodland Carbon Code

[26] UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Saltmarsh Code

[27] The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2018). Greenhouse gas removal.

[28] House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, 2nd Report of Session 2021–22, Nature-based solutions: rhetoric or reality?

[29] Environment Agency. (2024). Calstock flood defence improvement scheme

[30] Holden, J., et al. (2008). Overland flow velocity and roughness properties in peatlands. Water Resour. Res., 44, W06415,

[31] Holden, J., et al. (2015), Impact of prescribed burning on blanket peat hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 51, 6472–6484

[32] Milner, A. et al. (2024). The forgotten forests: Incorporating temperate peat-forming wet woodlands as nature-based solutions into policy and practice. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. Volume5, Issue2, e12346

[33] National Centre for Resilience. (2024). Assessing Peatlands as Nature-Based Solutions for Mitigating Cascading Hazards in Scotland.

[34] Jenkins, K. et al. (2024). The UK Fens Climate Change Risk Assessment: Big challenges and strategic solutions. University of East Anglia.

[35] Griffiths, J. et al. (2024). Selection, Planning, and Modelling of Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation. Water, 16 (19), 2802

[36] ARCZero

[37] It is estimated ERW (10 t/ha/year) on one million square kilometres of land would remove 1 Gt CO₂ per year – Taylor, W. et al. (2025). Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal. A Physical Science Perspective. American Physical Society

[38] Goll, D. et al. (2021). Potential CO2 removal from enhanced weathering by ecosystem responses to powdered rock. Nature Geoscience, volume 14, pages 545–549

[39] Pegg, E. (2023). A Deep Dive into nature-based carbon removal solutions. Maddyness

[40] Skov, K., et al. (2024). Initial agronomic benefits of enhanced weathering using basalt: A study of spring oat in a temperate climate. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0295031.

[41] Kantzas, E., et al. (2022). Substantial carbon drawdown potential from enhanced rock weathering in the United Kingdom. Nature Geoscience volume 15, pages382–389

[42] Jorat, M. et al. (2020). Passive CO2 removal in urban soils: Evidence from brownfield sites. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 703, 135573

[43] Jorat, M. et al. (2018). Sequestering Atmospheric CO2 Inorganically: A Solution for Malaysia’s CO2 Emission. Geosciences 2018, 8(12), 483

[44] Brewster, A. et al. (2022). Basic silicate rock by-product: a new agricultural input that captures CO2 also known as ‘Rock on Soils’. James Hutton Institute

[45] Jorat, M. et al. (2022). Removal of atmospheric CO2 by engineered soils in infrastructure projects. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 314, 115016

[46] Levy, C. et al. (2024). Enhanced Rock Weathering for Carbon Removal–Monitoring and Mitigating Potential Environmental Impacts on Agricultural Land. Environ. Sci. Technol., 58, 39, 17215–17226

[47] Jones, G., Paschalis, A., and Waring, B. (2023). Harnessing enhanced rock weathering in a forestry context, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, EGU23-5716,.

[48] Demozzi, T., Oberč, B.P., Prieto López, A., Larbodière, L., Borges, M.A., (2024). Sustainable agriculture and Nature-based Solutions. Arroyo Schnell, A. (ed.). IUCN Common Ground on Food and Agricultural Systems Series No. 1 Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

[49] Tedersoo, L. et al. (2023). Towards a co-crediting system for carbon and biodiversity. Plants, People, Planet. Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 18-28

[50] Ellis, P. et al. (2024). The principles of natural climate solutions. Nature Communications volume 15, Article number: 547

[51] Seddon, N. et al. (2021). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global Climate Change, Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 1518-1546

[52] Keenor, S., Lee, R., and Reid, B., (2025). Physical Protection of Soil Carbon Stocks Under Regenerative Agriculture, EGUsphere [preprint]

[53] Whitehead, D. et al. (2024). Evaluation of the potential for nine established and emerging interventions to reduce soil carbon losses and increase stocks in grazing systems: A case study for Aotearoa New Zealand. Soil Use and Management, Volume 40, Issue 3, e13113

[54] Lehmann, J. et al. (2020). Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nature Geoscience volume 13, pages 529–534

[55] Black, H. et al. (2022). What makes an operational farm soil carbon code? Insights from a global comparison of existing soil carbon codes using a structured analytical framework. Carbon Management, Volume 13, pages 554-580

[56] Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP). UK Farm and Soil Carbon Code: A Feasibility Study

[57] Sustainable Soils Alliance. Our Work

[58] Collier, S. et al. (2021). Effect of farm management on topsoil organic carbon and aggregate stability in water: A case study from Southwest England, UK. Soil Use and Management, Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 49-62

[59] Jaworski, C. et al. (2024). Sustainable soil management in the United Kingdom: A survey of current practices and how they relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture. Soil Use and Management, Volume 40, Issue 1, e12908

[60] Friggens, N. et al. (2020). Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales. Glob Chang Biol; 26 (9): 5178-5188

[61] Matthews, K. et al. (2020). Not seeing the carbon for the trees? Why area-based targets for establishing new woodlands can limit or underplay their climate change mitigation benefits. Land Use Policy, Volume 97, 104690

[62] Mayer, M. et al. (2023). Elevation dependent response of soil organic carbon stocks to forest windthrow. Science of The Total Environment Volume 857, Part 3,159694

[63] Hong, S. et al. (2020). Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 694–700

[64] Jurasinski, G. et al. (2024). Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law. Ambio, Volume 53, pages 970–983

[65] Lindsay, R. (2019). Delivering the 25 Year Environment Plan: Woodland Creation in Upland Protected Landscapes. University of East London

[66] OEP. (2024). Progress in improving the natural environment in England 2022/2023

[67] Seddon, N. et al. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Volume 375, Issue 1794

[68] Orchard, S. et al. (2025). Impact Assessment Frameworks for Nature-Based Climate Solutions: A Review of Contemporary Approaches. Sustainability, 17(2), 677

[69] Environment Agency (2023). Natural flood management programme

[70] UK Climate Risk. (2024). Flood and Coastal Change. Findings from the third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) Evidence Report 2021

[71] Environment Agency. (2025). National assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk in England 2024

[72] Environment Agency. (2023). 40 projects to benefit from £25 million funding for natural flood management

[73] The Flood Hub. Natural Flood Management (NFM)

[74] Clarke, S. et al. (2021). Natural flood management in future farming schemes – lessons from the Yorkshire Dales

[75] Forbes, H. et al. (2015). Natural Flood Management Handbook. SEPA

[76] NFM Hub. National Map.

[77] University of Reading. NERC Natural Flood Management Research Programme.

[78] Thames21. Natural Flood Management

[79] Page. S. et al. (2020). An assessment of the societal impacts of water level management on lowland peatlands in England and Wales. Report to Defra for Project SP1218: Managing agricultural systems on lowland peat for decreased greenhouse gas emissions whilst maintaining agricultural productivity

[80] Ikkala, L. et al. (2021). Peatland subsidence enhances cultivated lowland flood risk. Soil and Tillage Research, Volume 212, 105078

[81] UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. The LowlandPeat3 Project

[82] Defra (2024). Lowland agricultural peat: water for peat pilots

[83] Lowland Agricultural Peat Task Force. (2023). Lowland Agricultural Peat Task Force Chair’s Report

[84] Stockdale, E. (2023). It’s a triple challenge for lowland peat. NIAB

[85] Freeman, B. et al. (2022). Responsible agriculture must adapt to the wetland character of mid-latitude peatlands. Global Change Biology, Volume 28, Issue12, Pages 3795-3811

[86] Kirby, M., & Scott,. A. (2023). Green Blue Infrastructure Impacts on Health and Wellbeing; A Rapid Evidence Assessment: CAPE, University College London.

[87] Sear, D., et al. (2023) Carbon storage in river and floodplain systems: A review of evidence to update and inform policy development for riverine nature based solutions. University of Southampton

[88] Consumer Scotland. (2023). Overcoming Barriers to the Adoption of Blue-Green Infrastructure

[89] Saunois, M. et al. (2020). The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017. ESSD, Volume 12, issue 3

pages 1561–1623

[90] Rosentreter, J. et al. (2024). Revisiting the Global Methane Cycle Through Expert Opinion. Earth’s Future, Volume 12, Issue 6, e2023EF004234

[91] House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee. Methane: keep up the momentum.

1st Report of Session 2024-25

[92] IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis

[93] Saunois, M. et al. (2024). Global Methane Budget 2000–2020. Preprint essd-2024-115

[94] House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee. Uncorrected oral evidence: Methane.

Wednesday 17 April 2024

[95] Cheng, S. et al. (2022). Non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions from non-sewered sanitation systems: A meta-analysis. Environmental Research, Volume 212, Part D 113468

[96] Reid, M. et al. (2014). Global Methane Emissions from Pit Latrines. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol 48, Issue 15

[97] Shen, L. et al. (2025). The large role of declining atmospheric sulfate deposition and rising CO2 concentrations in stimulating future wetland CH4 emissions. Science Advances, Vol 11, Issue 6

[98] Skeie, R. et al. (2023). Trends in atmospheric methane concentrations since 1990 were driven and modified by anthropogenic emissions. Communications Earth & Environment volume 4, Article number: 317

[99] Wang, N. et al. (2023). Microbial mechanisms for methane source-to-sink transition after wetland conversion to cropland. Geoderma, Volume 429, 116229

[100] He, Z. et al. (2019). Regulation of coastal methane sinks by a structured gradient of microbial methane oxidizers. Environmental Pollution, Volume 244, Pages 228-237

[101] Dion-Kirschner, H. et al. (2024). Evaluating the contribution of methanotrophy kinetics to uncertainty in the soil methane sink. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 19, Number 6

[102] Gauci, V. et al. (2024). Global atmospheric methane uptake by upland tree woody surfaces. Nature, volume 631, pages 796–800

[103] DESNZ. (2024). Integrating greenhouse gas removals in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme

[104] Wildlife and Countryside Link (2024). Link response to the integration of Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGR) into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS)

[105] Rosales, R. et al. (2024). The Carbon Credit Price and National Tree Planting Impact of Woodland Carbon Code Admittance to the UK-ETS. KCL Policy Paper

[106] UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland. Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Main Response. Gov UK

[107] BSI. BSI launches UK nature markets principles standard for consultation

[108] Reed, M. (2022). Ecosystem markets and land use in England. Advance online publication.

[109] Reed, M. et al. (2023). Governing high-integrity ecosystem markets. EarthArXiv

[110] Young, D. et al. (2022) Financing Nature Recovery UK: Scaling Up High-Integrity Environmental Markets Across the UK.

Image credit: BY-NC-SA 2 via Flickr

Addressing the links between climate change and nature loss

Table of contents

Overview

Challenges and opportunities

Key uncertainties/unknowns

Key questions for Parliament

Related Documents

References

Horizon scan 2024