NBS - Agricultura

12
Nature-Based Solutions for

agricultural water management
and food security
Nature-Based Solutions LAND AND
WATER
DISCUSSION
for agricultural water

PAPER
12
management and
food security
by
Ben G.J.S. Sonneveld & Max D. Merbis
Amsterdam Centre for World Food Studies (ACWFS) –
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
with
Amani Alfarra & Olcay Ünver
FAO Land and Water Division
and
Maria Felicia Arnal
FAO Climate and Environment Division
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2018
Required citation:
Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. Merbis, M.D. Alfarra, A. & Ünver, O. and Arnal, M.A. 2018. Nature-Based Solutions for agricultural water management
and food security. FAO Land and Water Discussion Paper no. 12. Rome, FAO. 66 pp.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-131125-7
© FAO, 2018
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence
(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is
appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or
services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative
Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This
translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or
accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as at present in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images,
are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk
of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased
through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request.
Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected].
Cover photo: ©Pixabay

iii
Contents
Acknowledgments V
Summary vi
Context vii
1. Increased demand for agricultural water 1
2. NBS – a new paradigm for water management 5

2.1. Defining NBS and classifying interventions 5
2.2 NBS and agricultural water management 8
3. Challenges for implementation of NBS policies 11

3.1 The value of the environment 11
3.2 Techniques of ecosystems valuation 13
3.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement as a requirement for NBS implementation 15
4. NBS case studies; what can be learned? 17

4.1 Case studies 18
4.2 Synthesis 41
5. Conclusions 43
References 48
v
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the substantial contributions of the following colleagues

to this publication. Atif Kubrsi (Professor of Economics, McMaster University),
Selvaraju Ramasamy (Climate Change Officer, Climate and Environment Division,
FAO), Bernardete Neves (Natural Resources Officer, Land and Water Division,
FAO), Patrick P. Kalas (Natural Resources Officer, Climate, Biodiversity, Land and
Water Department, FAO), Hiroyuki Ono (Associate Professional Officer, Climate,
Biodiversity, Land and Water Department, FAO), Manar Abdelmagied (Consultant,
Climate and Environment Division, FAO), Pierre-Marie Bosc (Senior Agronomist,
Land and Water Division, FAO), Jim Morgan (Technical Officer, Land and Water
Division, FAO).
vi
Summary
Feeding the future world population sustainably and satisfactorily requires,

among others, accessibility to water resources of adequate quantity and quality.
Yet, conventional interventions solely based on ‘hard’ engineering solutions and
infrastructural development have provided valuable lessons as they can compromise
various ecosystem services that are required for stable water flows. Hence, calls for a
shift in water management paradigms are justified and should prioritize in the political
agendas. Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) offer a promising contribution on how to
enhance the availability and quality of water for productive purposes and human
consumption, while simultaneously striving to preserve the integrity and intrinsic value
of the ecosystems. Implementing successful NBS for water management, however, is
not an easy task since many ecosystems are already severely degraded, and exploited
beyond their regenerative capacity. Furthermore, ecosystems are large and complex
and the impact of interventions can only be assessed and analysed at a system-wide
level. As a rule, many stakeholders are involved, as owners, users or caretakers, each
with their own set of interests and values and it is not an easy task to reconcile these
complex objectives and interests into a coherent set of principles and procedures.
Simple market-based solutions such as partitioning of an ecosystem, attributing
property rights and applying the polluter-pays-principle are often not sufficient for
devising viable strategies.
Implementation of NBS requires a structured and comprehensive approach that

starts with the valuation of the services provided by the ecosystem. The whole set
of use and non-use values, in monetary terms, provides a factual basis to guide the
implementation of NBS, which ideally is done according to transdisciplinary principles,
i.e. complemented with scientific and case-specific knowledge of the eco-system in an
adaptive decision-making process that involves the relevant stakeholders. To maximize
intended sustainability and scale of NBS results, a system-wide, country-driven
capacity enhancement approach needs to be applied that independently empowers
people, strengthens organizations, institutions, multi-stakeholder processes as well as
the enabling policy environment based on assessed needs.
In this discussion paper, twenty-one case studies of water management processes are
analysed, using a non-representative literature survey, and checked to what extent they
meet the requirements of the NBS implementation based on the criteria presented. It
emerges that transdisciplinarity, stakeholder involvement, and well-designed funding
schemes are important elements for successful implementation of NBS. Often, lengthy
periods to organize participatory and transdisciplinary platforms are needed, which
makes this process costly and as a result, complete implementation is often strained by
funding shortages. Another common challenge in the surveyed examples is the minor
role given to valuation of ecosystem services, an area for which the literature is still
developing guidance while available valuation methods remain scattered, incomplete
or imprecise. The less successful water management projects tend to suffer from
inadequate factual and scientific basis and uncoordinated or insufficient stakeholder
involvement. Successful case studies point to a satisfactory understanding of the
functioning of ecosystems and the importance of multi-stakeholder platforms, well-
identified funding schemes, and realistic monitoring and evaluation systems.
vii
Context
Food and agricultural systems are under a set of pressures to, on the one hand, cater
to an increasingly hungry population which demands not only more food, but also
more resource-intense food, and on the other hand, tackle an intensifying competition
over natural, human and financial resources, all subject to impacts of climate change.
The natural resource base is already degraded to significant levels, and the business, as
usual, is no longer an option.
FAO has been emphasizing the need to accelerate a global transition to sustainable food
and agriculture systems, advocating an integrated approach to ensure sustainability in
crop production, livestock, forestry, fisheries, and agriculture and in the management of
natural resources (FAO, 2014a). This involves not only major increases in agricultural
production but also major paradigm changes in the entire value chain. Increases
in resource use efficiency and resource productivity are to be accompanied by
improvements in storing, shipping, distributing, refrigeration, marketing, consuming,
and recycling.
The green revolution that boosted crop production and agricultural yields was a result
of the intensification of agriculture which entailed high-yielding varieties, irrigation and
high levels of chemical inputs. The case for intensification has been well articulated in
the literature, both from a perspective of increased production and from a conservation
perspective, in terms of the millions of hectares of forests which otherwise would be
converted into farm land, unquantifiable amount of ecosystem services saved, and
of some 590 billion tons of CO2 prevented from being released into the atmosphere
(Burney et al, 2010).
Most intensification in the past occurred with the primary aim of production, whose
negative consequences are now well documented. We can mention soil and water
pollution, soil acidification, salinization, and nutrient depletion. The lessons learned
from the past tell us that the response is sustainable food and agriculture systems as
the overarching principle, and sustainable intensification and diversification (SIA) in
terms of production.
Achieving sustainability in food and agriculture has five pillars (FAO, 2014a):
i. Improve efficiency in the use of resources, especially water resources,

ii. Take direct and deliberate action to conserve, protect and enhance natural
resources,
iii. Protect and improve rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being,
iv. Enhance the resilience of people, communities and ecosystems, and
v. Ensure responsible and effective governance mechanisms.
Through these pillars, the case is well made and acknowledged for a transformation
to sustainable intensification and diversification in agriculture with an agro-ecological
perspective. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has endorsed in its 42nd
Session (CFS, 2015) a set of eight recommendations, first of which states “Promote an
ecosystem approach and participatory mechanisms for the conservation, restoration
viii
and sustainable management of ecosystems, involving actors at the appropriate scales”.

Rockström et al (2017) describe the conditions and the elements of mainstreaming
sustainable agricultural intensification (SIA) in order to reposition agriculture from
being the major driver of global environmental change to a major contributor to the
transition to sustainability through incorporating double objectives of increasing yields
and enhancing the ecosystem services.
This means, in many areas, diversification of cropping and increases in yield will be
mutually supportive with environmental improvements. In others, lesser yields or land
reallocation to ensure sustainability will have to be counterbalanced by benefits such
as biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, protection from floods and droughts, and
recreation.
From a production perspective, SIA has 2 components, i.e. resource efficiency, which
relates to combining locally relevant crop and animal genetic improvement and practices
that minimize inputs and close nutrient, carbon, and water cycles; and landscape level
resilience which relies on practices sustaining ecosystem functions and services.
Sustainable practices range across full domain of agriculture, including soil tillage
systems, water resource management, crop and nutrient management, use of drought
or heat resistant seeds, livestock practices, integrated landscape management, pest
management, sustainable soil management, and managing the forest-water nexus. All
of these have impacts on and are impacted by, the quantity, quality, and availability of
water.
We have plenty of evidence, examples, and tools for the above to happen. The need is
for upscaling the practices through deliberate and consistent policies.
Within this context, this discussion paper makes the case for the role that nature based
solutions can play in making agriculture more productive while maintaining and
preferably strengthening the integrity of the ecosystems from a lens of water resources
management.
Photo: ©FAO/Giulio Napolitano

1. Increased demand
The challenges to feed the world in 2050 are well-known by now, and can, as a
summary statistic, be captured as the task to increase global agricultural production
to cater to a global demand which is projected to increase by 50 percent between
2012 and mid-century (FAO, 2017a). External inputs must grow at about the same
rate while decreasing returns in productivity can be compensated for or possibly
surpassed by further efficiency gains. This document focuses on the management of
water for agricultural use, which constitutes the largest share of total water demand
for many countries. Figure 1 gives a global overview of the share of agricultural water
demand over total water demand, showing that East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the
Middle East, the Eastern Part of Latin America and South Asia allocate more than 85
percent of their water withdrawals for agriculture. In large parts of Central America,
Southern America as well as North Africa, and parts of Southern Africa agriculture
claims between 70 and 85 percent of water withdrawals. In the latter countries, a severe
competition is observed between water demand in the agricultural and industrial sectors
and the recent rise in household demand. Clearly, in certain countries, large efficiency
gains can still be realized by limiting losses and by introducing water-reducing irrigation
technologies. Even when large efficiency gains can be possible (see Figure 2), it is fair
to assume that agricultural water demand will continue to represent the largest share of
total water demand and is expected to grow further, especially in the developing world.
2 Nature-Based Solutions for agricultural water management and food security
Figure 1
The share of agricultural water demand over total water demand
Source: FAO, Land and Water Division, 2018
Figure 2
Agricultural Water Demand (000 m3) by Agricultural Area (ha)
Source: FAO, Land and Water Division, 2018.

The World Water Development Report (UNESCO, 2018), the demand for agricultural
water is expected to increase by a third. Projections are, as usual, fraught with uncertainty.
In this case, even more so, since climate change and land cover change can amplify or
moderate future water demand (Dieguez and Paruelo, 2017). For instance, climate
change can increase (e.g. through more intense precipitation) or reduce average water
discharge (through an increase in evapotranspiration). Higher temperatures can lead to
an earlier onset of snowmelt, while the expansion of cultivated areas and reduction of
water holding capacity (soil sealing) can increase run-off volumes. In particular, the local
impact of climate change is expected to be more pronounced as shown by the evidence
displayed at the watershed level (Van der Esch et al., 2017).
It follows that agricultural water supply will have to increase in order to meet the
requirements of an agricultural system that has expanded its cultivated area, and has to
produce higher yields in a volatile climate so as to meet the more diversified demand
of a world with higher incomes and higher purchasing power. Water scarcity, already
prevalent in many regions of the world, will become more widespread and prominent.
Treatment of wastewater, large-scale desalination, and transport over large distances
are options to increase supply in principle, but may not always be locally feasible or
affordable.
Under a business as usual scenario, an additional supply of water, which often entails
increased extraction of water, will greatly strain the existing ecosystems. Water supply
will have to become more productive, most likely through the development of grey
infrastructure to meet increasing water demand. At the same time, it has to be realized
that conventional interventions based on grey infrastructure1 have compromised the
various ecosystem services that are required for stable water flows. In order to meet
current and future demand for both water and a sustainable supply of ecosystem
services, water management should make the best use of efficiency and productivity
improvements at all levels involved, coupled with demand management and options
beyond water domain (Unver et al. 2017), and transition to a new paradigm based on
the premise that ecosystem functionalities should be preserved and nurtured rather
than exploited and compromised. Specifically, the adoption of so-called Nature-Based
Solutions (NBS) and the related protection and sustainable development of ecosystems
could enhance a resource efficient and competitive circular economy, once well-
considered and appropriate interventions are being established.
Indeed, NBS have the potential to underpin a sustainable water management strategy
for agricultural purposes, as shown in an increasing number of cases (Niemi et al., 2007;
Talberth, et al., 2013; IFRC, 2012; Turner et al., 2007; Nesshöver, 2017). The potential
for NBS projects may be much larger still, as the New Climate Economy (2016) argues.
The global economy would require about US$90 trillion in green infrastructure2 over
the next 15 years, while currently about US$3-4 trillion per year is spent (NCE,2016).
Such massive investments have to take place under carefully formulated conditions that
seek to simultaneously optimize water supply and to preserve the integrity and value
of the ecosystem at stake. To align these conflicting goals, the key issues are in finding a
way to identify the pre-conditions required to create an enabling environment for NBS
and how to conduct its successful implementation.
This discussion paper argues that both questions can be addressed through a two-pronged
approach. The first task is a comprehensive valuation of the services that the ecosystem
1 Grey infrastructure refers to engineering projects that use concrete and steel.
2 Green infrastrure depends on plants and ecosystem services
provides. This is, in principle, the basis for (economic) decision making. Yet, it is also
well-known that the complete range of use and non-use values is difficult to determine
in monetary terms. This is true, in particular, for large and indivisible ecosystems
that require special natural resource management and an adequate social fabric for its
organization and supervision. Therefore, a second pillar is needed to complement the
imprecise and incomplete valuation process and to facilitate the implementation steps.
The basic insight is that the management of ecosystems for NBS should cut across the
whole range of scientific fields involved (it should be an interdisciplinary approach) and
should integrate scientific and case-specific knowledge with experience and practice in
problem-solving (i.e. it also is a transdisciplinary approach). This means NBS involve all
relevant stakeholders, ranging from governmental participation to coordinating higher
levels of involvement of the custodians at the grass-roots level. This requires mutual
trust, willingness to learn, patience, and the ability to adapt to the requirements of
circumstances (Mander et al., 2017).
This document is organized into five sections. Section 2 characterizes NBS interventions
in the agricultural water management context. Section 3 discusses the valuation of
natural resources and offers guidelines for the management of ecosystems of NBS
interventions. Section 4 summarizes lessons learned based on the success and failure of
the various NBS case studies presented. Finally, Section 5 includes a synthesis of the
paper with conclusions.
Photo: ©FAO/Aris Mihich

2. NBS – a new paradigm
for water management
Historically (e.g. Bossio et al., 2008) water management practices in the agricultural
sector were viewed as a driving force behind natural habitat degradation, purposefully
obstructing the functioning of ecosystem services (Coates et al., 2013; Dale and
Polasky, 2007). These controversies became manifest, for example, in the management
of wetlands (Finlayson et al., 2013), rivers and lakes that on the one hand provide
ecosystem services by supplying water for agriculture, while on the other hand, the
quality of water bodies is affected by high concentrations of agrochemicals. Yet, there
is a growing understanding that interventions that sustain or improve the state and
quality of ecosystems are also beneficial for agricultural development and agricultural
water management. Moreover, it is anticipated that in the next few decades- the
agricultural sector will remain the dominant user of water. NBS are potentially a
powerful strategy to transform the agricultural sector to be both a beneficiary and
custodian of ecosystems. Indeed, NBS adoption provides opportunities to organize the
nexus between agriculture–ecosystem–water to support sustainable food production
and reaping the benefits of a well-functioning ecosystem.
2.1. Defining NBS and classifying interventions

In principle, NBS can mimic natural processes and build on fully operational water-
land management concepts that aim to simultaneously improve water availability and
quality, and raise agricultural productivity. As such, NBS comprise closely related
concepts such as improved water use efficiency, integrated watershed management,
source-to-sea initiatives, ecosystem approaches, eco-hydrology, agroecology and,
green and blue infrastructure3 development.
2.1.1 Compatible concepts, tools, approaches, and terminology

There are many concepts available that either align or can be comparable to the
definition and scope of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) (see Box 1). In principle, NBS
aims to contribute to the improved management of water resources at both the micro-
and macro levels. NBS can involve conserving or rehabilitating natural ecosystems
and/or the enhancement or the creation of natural processes in modified or artificial
ecosystems4. Moreover, they support a circular economy that advocates greater
resource productivity while reducing waste and avoiding pollution through reuse and
recycling processes. NBS are consistent with numerous religious and cultural beliefs
that advocate equity between man and nature. Although NBS are based on sound
science and economics, they may represent a bridge between traditional and modern
paradigms. NBS have a tendency to be in harmony with customary laws and local and
traditional knowledge that are consistent with the human rights-based approach for
water resources.
The inclusive character of the NBS concept has both strengths and weaknesses. There
is, for example, no straightforward distinction between NBS and other human-induced
management of ecosystem services. NBS is also interpreted as a mutually supportive
approach for integrated water management that combines ecological and grey
infrastructure (Mander et al., 2017). Moreover, there is a danger that the wide coverage
of ecosystem concepts by NBS creates multiple interests for different stakeholders
whereas only a few goals can be met simultaneously. To address these concerns and to
reflect the inherent heterogeneity and complexity of the interaction between NBS and
ecosystem services, Eggermont et al. (2015) suggested three NBS typologies that clarify
trade-offs between the degree of engineering and the delivery of ecosystem services for
the stakeholders involved:
These typologies should not be considered as a static representation of possible NBS

interventions but are dynamic benchmarks for many hybrid NBS that exist along the
gradients used, enhancing their flexibility and problem-solving capacity. For example,
NBS TYPOLOGY
Type 1 None or minimal intervention in ecosystems. This type maintains/ improves delivery of
ecosystem services of preserved ecosystems. This NBS incorporates areas where people live
and work in a sustainable way including nature conservation and national parks.
Type 2 Partial interventions in ecosystems. This type develops sustainable and multi-functional
ecosystems and landscapes that improve delivery of selected ecosystem services. This type of
NBS are strongly connected to benefitting from natural systems agriculture and conserving
the agroecology.
Type 3 Inclusive intervention in ecosystems. This type manages ecosystems in intrusive ways and
includes full restoration of degraded or polluted areas using grey infrastructures.
3 Blue infrastructure combines green spaces with good water management. Blue infrastructure ensures that
buildings and spaces promote healthy and sustainable living environments.
4 WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. 2018. The United Nations
World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water. Paris, UNESCO.
BOX 1
Concepts aligning to NBS
The Ecosystem Approach focuses on scientifically based integrated management of land,

water and living resources to promote sustainable use of natural resources in an equitable
manner. It encompasses specific to essential processes of the biological organization. It
embodies the human aspect thus considering human diversity as an integral component of
the ecosystem (CBD, acc. 26 July 2018).
The Wise Use of Wetlands has been defined by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as “the
maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem
approaches, within the context of sustainable development” (Ramsar Convention, acc. 27
July 2018).
Ecosystem-Based Management focus on the conservation, sustainable management and

restoration of ecosystems. This approach recognizes the vast array of interactions within an
ecosystem, involving humans. It considers resource trade-offs to protect and sustain diverse
and productive ecosystems and services they provide. (UNEP/GPA, 2006). Environmental
Flows consider the management of the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows below
a dam, with the aim of sustaining freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human
livelihoods that depend on them (International Rivers, acc. 27 July, 2018).
Green Infrastructure is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas

that are designed to deliver ecosystem services. These areas provide opportunities for green
jobs and enhance biodiversity. Green infrastructure provides environmental, economic and
social benefits through natural solutions and reduces dependency on grey infrastructure (EU
Environment, acc. 27 July, 2018). Ecological Engineering is defined as the design of ecosystems
for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. It involves the restoration of ecosystems that
have been disturbed by human activities and the development of new sustainable ecosystems
comprising both human and ecological values (Mitsch, 2012).
Agroecology has been defined as “the application of ecological science to the study, design
and management of sustainable agriculture”. It creates diversified agroecosystems that mimic
natural systems as closely as possible to enhance sustainable production and self-reliance
(FAO, 2018a).
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems are landscapes formed through

coevolution of humankind and nature. They combine agricultural biodiversity, resilient
ecosystems and a valuable cultural heritage. Moreover, they provide multiple goods and
services, food and livelihood security for millions of small-scale farmers. These sites have
emerged over centuries of cultural and biological interactions, representing the accumulated
experiences of rural people (FAO, 2018b.)
Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EBA) uses biodiversity and ecosystem services as an entry
point for development of adaptation strategies to climate change. EBA includes sustainable
management, conservation and restoration of agriculture, forestry and fishery related
ecosystems. EBA is cost effective and generates social, economic and cultural co-benefits
(FAO, acc. 27 July 2018).
constructed wetlands involve a type 3 intervention that subsequently can be managed

as a type 1. Source-to-sea concepts (e.g. Granit et al., 2017), for example, will apply
type 2 and type 3 interventions in order to restore natural vegetation and control
surface flows for agricultural production.
The openness of the NBS concept can also create an inclusive environment. Potschin
et al., 2016 suggested the consideration of wider definitions of NBS concepts as a
flagship term that offers incentives for public-private partnerships and citizens to
integrate natural and ecological values (e.g. biodiversity) in the planning of prospective
scenarios. These scenarios would address wider societal challenges including resource
degradation, climate change, and social equity.
All-inclusiveness of the NBS term also recognizes the value of regulations and customary
laws of indigenous people that prescribe sustainable management of the common
resources like sharing of drylands by nomadic pastoralists or joint management of
fishing grounds by fishermen on inland lakes. Indeed, these institutions form an
epitome of sustainability (e.g. Desta et al., 2004; Salpeteur et al., 2017; Olomola, 1993)
that unrelentingly depend on a judicious set of rules that are instrumental in shared
ecosystems management. The paradigm of NBS interventions also resonates with
the natural resource management of indigenous people who combine conservation
of ecosystem services with the preservation of the aesthetic beauty of the natural
landscape and biodiversity. These ancestral agricultural systems have been recognized
by FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) programme as
systems that offer rich knowledge base on sustainable agricultural practices for a better
and more efficient use of natural resources (FAO/GIAHS, 2018a). Moreover, NBS
can achieve substantial gains in human well-being when related ecosystem services
are mainstreamed with poverty reduction strategies (ESPA, 2018; MacKinnon et al.
2011). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2012) frames
biodiversity and reinforcement of communities’ rights over natural resources at the
heart of NBS showing that an alignment of environmental sustainability pathways is
a requirement and certainly not a constraint to achieving higher economic and social
development (Burek et al., 2016; Scholes and Biggs, 2004). NBS also offer cross-
cutting solutions to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). NBS contribute
to SDG15 by protecting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems that provide
favorable conditions for water-related ecosystem services that directly underpin
poverty alleviation efforts (SDG1), the zero hunger initiative (SDG2), ensure water
and sanitation services (SDG6), and mitigate negative effects under climate change
conditions (SDG13).
2.2 NBS and agricultural water management

Water availability considering both its quantity and quality, at the correct time and
place, is an important ecosystem service to agriculture and food security. Understanding
the underlying mechanisms of the ecosystem, and its influence on water availability in
terms of volume and quality for agriculture and food security provides the guidelines
for targeted NBS interventions. Our focus is on NBS interventions that enhance water-
related ecosystem services for the sustainable development of agricultural initiatives
whilst reducing external impacts on water and land resources (Hattingh et al., 2007).
NBS activities should ensure sustainable development of ecosystems that provide
lasting services for current and future generations (Sood et al., 2017).
NBS can serve agricultural water management by regulating the movement, storage,
and transformation of water, including its quality (Acreman and Mountford, 2009). For
Figure 3
SDG’s related to NBS
NO
POVERTY 2 ZERO
HUNGER
CLEAN WATER
AND SANITATION
CLIMATE
ACTION 15 LIFEON LAND
example, in South Africa, after rehabilitating the thicket biome5 in the Baviaanskloof-
Tsitsikamma and uMngeni catchments (Mander et al., 2017), canopy interception
increased and soil functionalities showed improvement in terms of infiltration,
conductivity and soil moisture retention. These regulatory mechanisms have a significant
positive impact downstream by decreasing flood intensities and increasing base-flow
that, during the dry season, resulted in sustained and reliable flows. Ecosystem
functionalities are often restored by combining natural and infrastructural modifications
in the landscape. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD,
2018), reported that a blend of tree planting and construction of pits and earthen banks
preserved substantial amounts of water and re-established the recharge rates that fed
depleted aquifers in the Puebla Tlaxcala Valley, Mexico. An interesting Type3 NBS
example is that of constructed wetlands in Europe and the USA (EPA, 2000) that offer
ecosystem services to improve water quality by filtering water, trapping suspended
solids by vegetation and immobilizing pollutants that are either taken up by water
vegetation or deposited. Wetlands provide high-level water treatment techniques like
deposition, nitrification and anaerobic digestion of organic wastes and microbial suites
(Horwitz, et al., 2012). Water treatment mechanisms also hold for the processing of
excess of nutrients, derived from agriculture that are, for example, absorbed by wetland
soils or, for organic nitrogen, converted by micro-organisms into inorganic chemical
structures that are taken up by plants.
These are just three of many examples of (improved) ecosystems serving water
management objectives. A synopsis of over 20 cases (section 4) constitutes the basis
for an assessment of the possible reasons for success and failure of NBS. In an ideal
world, such an assessment hinges on a (monetary) valuation of services provided by
the ecosystem, including the valuation of the ecosystem itself, as an entity that is worth
preserving. In practice, however, proper valuation techniques are difficult to implement
or unavailable to the decision-makers and as a result many NBS interventions are
often based on ad-hoc decisions. Since this paper strives for (and presents) a more
encompassing framework of valuation and implementation of NBS, a brief review
of the theory and practice of the valuation of natural resources and the required
conditions for its implementation follows in the next section.
5 The subtropical thicket biome in Southern Africa occurs in a wide range of annual rainfall regimes and
on poor and fertile soils. Its vegetation varies from shrubland to low forest with many evergreen and
succulent trees and shrubs. Source: https://pbhslifescience.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/biomes-of-south-
africa-thicket/.
Photo: ©FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarri

3. Challenges for
implementation of NBS policies
This section will discuss the valuation of natural resources, the principles, and techniques
to allocate a price to an ecosystem service and present a transdisciplinary, multi-
stakeholder approach to ecosystem management that informs NBS implementation.
3.1 The value of the environment6

One way for policymakers to make informed decisions about NBS interventions is
to value the changes in related ecosystem services in monetary terms. This facilitates
a comparison among NBS with other interventions and facilitates the selection of
policies that yield most benefits to society. Furthermore, allocation of a price to
ecosystem services gives a signal of water scarcity providing an incentive to avoid
overexploitation and degradation while warranting a sustainable use of water/natural
resources and preservation for future generations (Box 2). As is the case for pricing
commodities, ecosystems services can, in principle, be assigned a value that reflects
water scarcity and utility in terms of human satisfaction.
6 This section draws on Keyzer et al., 2009.

A healthy ecosystem can provide a variety of crucial services for public goods, such
as clean water, nutrient cycling, climate regulation, and food security services that
contribute directly or indirectly to human well-being. Yet today, many ecosystems are
in decline; this is of particular importance to agriculture, which depends on ecosystem
services.
BOX 2
The values of ecosystems
Ecosystems contribute in different forms to NBS interventions. Direct use values refer
to ecosystem services for consumptive purposes like fresh drinking water and sanitation.
Indirect-use values are associated with intermediate inputs for production of final goods like
processes of water purification and waste assimilation. Amenity values refer to, for example,
admiring the scenic beauty of rivers through landscapes. Option values reflect unexploited
potential of environmental services that can be used in the future, for example to clean water,
while responsibility to preserve ecosystem quality for future generations, the natural heritage,
is expressed in the bequest value.
Loss of healthy ecosystems will seriously affect the production of food, both today
and in the future. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) or incentives for ecosystem
services (IES) are economic instruments designed to provide positive incentives to
users of agricultural land and those involved in coastal or marine management (Box
3). These incentives are expected to result in the continued or improved provision of
ecosystem services, which, in turn, will benefit society as a whole.
BOX 3
PES and IES
Payment for Ecosystem Services occur when beneficiaries or users of an ecosystem service
make payments to the providers of that service (Fripp, 2014).
Incentives for Ecosystem Services (IES) is a tool that can be used to maintain or improve
the flow of ecosystem services, while rewarding the managers of that ecosystem service
(Patterson, et al, 2017).
The management of ecosystems has several features that require careful consideration
and that may affect or compromise the valuation of ecosystem services. First, there
is the issue of the so-called negative externalities: a person who receives the benefits
of natural resource use does not necessarily pay for the costs imposed on others. Soil
erosion causing sedimentation of lakes and mine pollution contaminating surface
and groundwater resources are two frequently occurring negative externalities that
go unpaid. This is commonly expressed by stating that the polluters-pay-principle
is violated, and the valuation process is incomplete since the social costs due to the
pollution are not covered.
Second, many ecosystems are in the public domain and their benefits cannot be restricted
to the owner(s) only. The ecosystem is said to be non-private and non-excludable.
A special case is where the benefits are also considered to be rival, which means that
consumption of ecosystem services diminishes the capacity of others to enjoy the
same benefit. This creates a particular form of externality known as the Tragedy of the
Commons (Hardin, 1968). Benefits of additional use of these jointly shared resources
accrue to the individual while the costs are born by the entire group. Overgrazing is
the classical example: the costs of forage consumption from communal rangeland seem
small to the individual because it is distributed among all other users. Rivalry among
fishermen that cumulate in overfishing of inland lakes is another example.
These particular properties of ecosystems are well understood by now, theoretically,

and institutional tools have been developed to remedy them. For instance, the
government can impose a tax to bring the polluting activity back to the socially
desirable level. Common property resources are often managed collectively, as shown
by Ostrom (1990), even under a set of informal and unwritten rules.
3.2 Techniques of ecosystems valuation

In general, the valuation of ecosystem services is not an easy task, because ecosystems
like watersheds, rain forests and inland lakes are not traded in markets and their
value cannot be derived directly from a demand-supply relationship. Consequently,
techniques to value the environment are usually of indirect nature, and can be classified
according to the basis of the monetary valuation: market-imputed, surrogate market or
non-market-based.
NBS interventions for agricultural water management partly rely on market-based

approaches that invoke the price mechanism for end-users (farmers) of the ecosystem
services. For example, water prices are imputed from marketed commodities like
agricultural products, timber and drinking water for livestock, each providing an
end product with a functioning market. Production function analysis and defensive
expenditures are two other examples of market-based approaches. Production
BOX 4
Why is it difficult to implement NBS?
i. Characteristics of ecosystems relate to non-excludability issues in water management:

• Lumpy indivisible water bodies (aquifers, inland waters)
• Distributed water flows require ample space
• Interconnectedness makes all places equal
• No ‘closing down’ if unprofitable
• Difficult to protect from unpaid use
ii. Consequences of non-excludability

• Unpaid use of ecosystem services
• No price signals of scarcity
iii. Inadequate pricing results in:

• Free rider’s behavior (‘Tragedy of the Commons’)
• No incentive for production of ecosystem services
• No role for ecosystem custodians
functions use detailed process knowledge to identify the marginal contribution of

the ecosystem service to a marketed commodity, for example, to determine the added
value of water to crops (e.g. Archaya and Barbier, 2002; Freeman, 2003). For example,
Albersen et al. (2003) show that downstream economic activities (e.g. agricultural
yields) can be related to the economic value of upstream water flows. Concerning
defensive expenditures, these equal the cost of maintaining an ecosystems' productivity
by protecting it against pollution and degradation (e.g. Tiezzi, 2002). Despite this,
there are many ecosystem services that cannot directly be related to market prices and
a surrogate market or non-market based approach has to be designed.
Surrogate markets can be introduced through either one of two pricing techniques. The
hedonic pricing method assigns a price to an ecosystem based on the comparison of
the values of houses that have otherwise similar conditions but differ in environmental
characteristics (e.g. Taylor and Smith, 2000). The travel cost method values a
recreational site by the economic costs that travelers incur for a visit (e.g. Pendleton
and Mendelsohn, 2000).
Finally, there are non-market-based techniques that elicit information from individuals
based on both their willingness to pay for the improvement of ecosystem services (e.g.
Alfarra, et al., 2013) or to be compensated for the degradation of the ecosystem. Two
methods are commonly used. First, contingent valuation uses surveys and interviews to
ask for the willingness to pay for environmental services (e.g. Kolstad, 2000). Second,
the conjoint stated preference method uses experiments to estimate intended financial
contributions to the environment by ranking various options that represent levels of
non-marketable services (e.g. Roe et al. 1996).
The various methods of ecosystem valuation come with drawbacks. The production
function analysis needs detailed process knowledge and a vast empirical base that is
often not available or has to be realized against high costs. Criticism on the surrogate
market methods refers to personal subjective interpretation with respect to the
subject that is valued, while a correlation with other non-ecosystem values cannot
be excluded. Stated-preference methods have the disadvantage that respondents give
strategic answers while commitments to pay the price are never tested. In conclusion,
the experimental designs in the stated-preference may not be suitable to represent
actuality. Hence, relying on these less accurate pricing techniques might weaken NBS
with respect to alternative scenarios.
Since pricing strategies are difficult to implement, they are usually combined with,
or even replaced by, regulation and quantitative restrictions. A strict conservationist
protective measure is then the most far-reaching. Strict conservationism or ‘strong
sustainability’ measures bans all use and ensure the functioning of ecosystems that
are considered to be essential to human well-being for current and future generations.
Under a regime of strict conservation current levels of ecosystem quality are stringently
maintained (Brekke, 1997). Of course, less strict conservation is possible, and indeed
common, which allows for limited use; this can be accommodated and governed by
licensing schemes and user quotas as instruments.
Quantitative restrictions are powerful to prevent ecosystem exhaustion, but are

economically less efficient and require expensive monitoring systems. This may be
remedied by establishing private property rights over ecosystems. This privatization
strategy (which may involve collective ownership) solves the excludability problem,
by definition, but is hard to align with the inherent characteristics of large ecosystems.
The very potency of such large ecosystems can only be derived from the use of their
full physical extent.7 The related reason is that conservation of natural resources
requires concerted action at various levels. For example, high set-up costs of ecological
interventions for degradation control should be borne by all stakeholders; higher
administrative levels should be responsible to levy contributions. Finally, when
distributing property rights social equity issues come to the fore, especially when
richer and powerful groups benefit from the new situation while the poor are denied
access to earlier shared ecosystems.
3.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement as a requirement for

NBS implementation
Valuation and taxation, assignation of property rights, regulation and quantitative
restrictions offer a toolkit on how to govern ecosystems. Yet, since interventions
necessarily require a trade-off between the integrity of the ecosystem and the required
effects demanded from ecosystem services, a structured and more encompassing
process is needed, involving all relevant stakeholders, for a successful implementation
of NBS.
Management of ecosystems for NBS is too complex to be dealt with adequately with
the concepts and methods of a single discipline. Hence, the knowledge base for NBS
interventions should transcend their own disciplines and cut across a broad range of
established academic fields (inter-disciplinary) as well as beyond the boundaries of
the scientific community (trans-disciplinary) integrating scientific and case-specific
knowledge with experience and practice in problem-solving. Moreover, to assure that
NBS are supported by well-functioning ecosystems they should be grounded in society
and involve all relevant stakeholders from governmental participation for coordination
at higher levels, developing policies and legislation to custodians at a grass-root level
that are directly responsible for the state and functioning of ecosystems. This requires
confidence, mutual trust, willingness to change, ability to adapt to new circumstances
and endurance (Mander et al., 2017) while addressing the challenges to functioning
of multi-stakeholder processes (HLPE 2018), the critical role of a neutral convener
and broker (Kalas et. 2017) and inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly the most
marginalized to overcome power asymmetries (Kalas, 2007; Rioux and Kalas, 2017,
Kurbalija and Katrandjiev, 2006; Kalas, 2007; Saner, 2007). Jointly, stakeholders
should design monitoring systems that can be used to reward good stewardship,
penalize neglect, and sustain the transfer to the next generations. At the heart of the
process is the importance of a multi-stakeholder / multi-actor platform conceived and
defined together with stakeholders to create the space for dialogue, consensus building
and joint-decision-making (Kalas et. all, 2017). Additionally, the paper capitalizes
on lessons learned from common pool resources (CPR) management (e.g. Ostrom,
1990; Dietz et al. 2003). Specifically, there is congruence with ecosystems for water
management, in terms of setting system boundaries and taking into account diversity.
Moreover, the multi-stakeholder approach in CPR management gives useful guidelines
to shape social processes that can be adopted for NBS interventions. These guidelines
secure full participation of local users, encouragement of collective action, the right
of groups to organize, and, finally, the establishment of conflict resolving institutions.
If these institutions fail, the prevailing ecosystems can be seriously threatened in the
long term and wreak havoc upon involved users and communities. Transparency of
the organization and jointly developed tools will be helpful to coordinate concerted
actions.
7 For instance, restricting accessibility by partitioning drylands seriously undermines the strategy to avoid
dry spells through migratory routings; interconnected water flows in bounded watersheds cannot be
controlled without affecting downstream users.
The conclusion is that ecosystem properties demand that inter- and transdisciplinary
approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement are at the very heart of NBS
implementation. A similar conclusion to adopt a transdisciplinary approach has been
reached in the OpenNESS project8, (Jax et al., 2018). The basic rules for managing
common property resources (as formulated in McGinnis and Ostrom, 1992) can also
be seen as a practical implementation of this approach. In the next section, several
case studies are analysed. Lessons learned to suggest concrete policy guidelines and
roadmaps for upscaling best practices in NBS for agricultural water management and
food security while minimizing environmental impacts.
8 OpenNESS aims to translate the concepts of Natural Capital (NC) and Ecosystem Services (ES) into
operational frameworks that provide tested, practical and tailored solutions for integrating ES into
land, water and urban management and decision-making. It examines how the concepts link to, and
support, wider EU economic, social and environmental policy initiatives and scrutinizes the potential and
limitations of the concepts of ES and NC.
Photo: ©FAO/Ami Vitale

4. NBS case studies;
what can be learned?
This section evaluates various case studies that were identified as NBS interventions.
The NBS case studies were selected for their contribution to water management
interventions. Our aim was to learn from successful and failed experiences and to
identify possible causalities among factors that characterize the implementation of
NBS. However, in the short time available for the literature survey serious bias in the
reporting of success-stories was found whereas failed NBS interventions were difficult
to find. Hence, this data set is not statistically representative. This being said, the paper
does explore the associative patterns that indicate and explain the possible outcomes of
NBS success rates. Factors discussed in the evaluation are:
• identification of stakeholders and beneficiaries

• prevailing degradation process
• assessment of stakeholder involvement
• the degree of transdisciplinarity
• typology of NBS intervention (See 2.1)
• rewarding schemes for custodians
• stability of institutional collaboration
• stability of financing, and

• success or failure of the NBS.
The Rubrics presented in Table 1 give a scoring guide to evaluate the NBS interventions.
Table 1
Rubrics for NBS evaluation
Code Transdisciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure
-- Absence of Absence of rewarding No collaboration Social and ecological

transdisciplinary approach schemes NBS objectives were not
achieved
- Transdisciplinary Presence of Some collaboration Either social or ecological

approach present rewarding schemes NBS objective was
but implementation but unsuccessful achieved
unsuccessful implementation
-+ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration established Part of the social and

approach present with present with some with minor results ecological NBS objectives
some results results were achieved
+ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration successful; Social and ecological NBS

approach successful; successful; payments alignment of activities objectives were achieved
clear involvement assure NBS objectives successfully
of transcendence
stakeholder
++ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration very Social and ecological NBS

approach very successful; very successful; successful; alignment of objectives were achieved
stakeholders of payments assure activities and establishment successfully and mutually
transcendent disciplines NBS objectives and of sustainable relationships strengthen each other
fully participate in NBS encourage other PES
process from design to initiatives
implementation
Section 4.1 briefly presents 21 selected case studies indicating the references consulted
for this study, followed by an assessment that provides a summary of major findings
(Table 2)
4.1 Case studies

C 1. Modeling potential hydrological returns
from investing in green infrastructure in South Africa.
Main characteristics: Success, type 1.
NBS typology Trans- disciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure
1 +- -- -- +
The sustainable development of the South African economy and the well-being of
its people are seriously affected by prevailing water shortages. Climate change, land
degradation and an inherently semi-arid, variable climate are making it increasingly
difficult for water service providers to deliver sufficient quantity and quality of water
to meet South Africa’s escalating demand. Investments in ecological infrastructure are
rarely considered as a way of augmenting water supplies and improving water quality
over the long-term. Hydrological modeling shows that protecting and rehabilitating
ecological infrastructure could generate meaningful gains in water quantity in two
important South African water supply systems, the Baviaanskloof-Tsitsikamma and
uMngeni catchments. In a paired catchment experiment, the NBS was of thicket
vegetation rehabilitation influenced the basin’s hydrology positively as flood intensities
decreased while base-flows and water availability increased in the dry seasons. Costs of
NBS interventions are in the same range as grey engineering structures. For example,
ecological infrastructure ranges from 1.67-4.67 Rands M3, built infrastructure varies
from 4.56-9.01 Rands M3 and dams from R0.50 to 3.79 Rands M3. Implementation
of a monitoring network and research program will deepen the understanding of
ecosystems and contribute to select the correct interventions (excerpts from Mander
et al., 2017).
C 2. Izta-Popo - Replenishing Groundwater

through Reforestation in Mexico
Main characteristics: Success, types 2 and 3.
2/3 + + -- ++
The Puebla Tlaxcala Valley in Mexico hosts a Volkswagen production plant whose
water demand exceeded natural water supply. The surrounding land would, in
principle, replenish sufficient groundwater. Yet, deforestation, overgrazing, and fires
severely affected the hydrological cycle of the area increasing runoff while reducing
aquifer recharge. Together with the Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas,
Volkswagen developed a NBS related water infrastructure to restore ecosystem
functionalities on the slopes of the Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl volcanoes. To facilitate
this, approximately 300 000 Hartweg Pines,
a tree native to Mexico, were planted in 2008
on 300 ha of land located at an altitude of Figure 4
up to 4000 meters. To support pine growth Earthen banks/dams
nutrient concentration, the soil was amended
with organic material. Additionally, pits and
earthen dams were constructed to ensure
that water sources were retained while
trees were establishing. Over six years, 490
thousand trees were planted and 91 thousand
pits and 430 earthen banks (dams) were
installed (Figure 4). The restored ecosystem
functionalities preserved water over 750 ha,
enabling 1.3 MCM9 /year of additional water;
more than the plant consumes. The project
capitalized on the local knowledge base to
implement sustainable water use practices
and transferred ownership of the restored
land to participating local communities. A Source: WBCSD (acc. 30 July 2018).
stakeholder buy-in from other organizations
9 Million Cubic Meter (MCM)

was an important factor in the projects’ economic success. The project created
widespread awareness within local communities and among students on the importance
of environmental stewardship (Excerpt from WBCSD, accessed 2018).
C 3. The Saye River bank failure
Main characteristics: Failure, type 3.
3 - - - -
The downstream deposition of sediments and damage effects on the ecology of the
Saye River Banks in Nigeria is caused by slope instability and erosion (Figure 5). As a
result, agricultural development and the logistical operations of rural communities since
2008 were affected. Widening of the river resulted in a loss of floodplain affecting vast
farmland areas as well as road foundations and railway bridges. Physical characteristics
of the Saye watershed and its distributaries are changing rapidly due to accelerated
erosion of the riverbanks. River depths became shallower at places and many off-
takes were closed due to depositions of huge sediments loads. The intervention by the
local government comprised engineering structures that should support natural slope
formation in river banks. Yet, this top-down type 3 intervention of civil engineering
structures is not feasible in the Saye River
and its tributaries, where sandy, silty or
Figure 5 loamy soil types prevail. As such, these
Saye River bank erosion, Nigeria structures cannot effectively solve the erosion
problem nor revitalize the lost ecological life
in the watershed. According to the local
population, community involvements of the
restoration efforts were absent nor were
consultations with local people organized.
Experts indicated that the widespread loss
of indigenous plants like the wild palm and
bamboo was a major cause of erosion and
NBS interventions should concentrate on the
Source: Girku et al., 2017
restoration of original vegetation (Excerpts
from Girku et al., 2017).
C 4. Enhancing water security in Kenya using ancient methods of

rainwater harvesting practices
2 + -- -- +
The 884 thousand people that live in the semi-arid Makueni County in Eastern Kenya
suffer from severe water and food insecurity. Subsistence farming is the prevailing form
of agriculture (95 percent) with more than a stunning 60 percent of the population living
in poverty (Excerpts from FAO, 2016a). Poor

Figure 6
access to water in rural areas forces people,
Sand dams store up to 30 million liters of water
especially women and children, to walk and create the opportunity to invest in ecological
for several hours to collect water. In 2002, agriculture
UK’s Excellent Development (Excellent,
accessed 2018) and Excellent Development
Kenya extended their activities to Makueni
County with the NBS intervention through
a sand dam (Figure 6) revitalization project
and aa cost-effective rainwater harvesting
technique. Self-help groups built sand dunes
and introduced terraces, intercropping, crop
diversification, seed banks, and agroforestry.
Each community co-financed 40 percent
of the project thereby creating ownership
Source: ©Excellent Development Ltd.
and long-term sustainability. Results were
impressive. Sand dams supplied water
non-stop to 91 percent of households, 958
thousand trees were planted and 1622 km of terraces extended. Agro-ecological
techniques increased soil moisture and enabled small-scale irrigation to expand
the growing season. A traditional knowledge sharing platform disseminated agro-
ecological techniques through farmer-to-farmer field schools.
C 5. Water fund for catchment management, Ecuador
Main characteristics: Success, types 1 and 2.
1/2 +- + ++ ++
The availability of clean water for people living in Ecuador’s capital, Quito, is
threatened by the unregulated expansion of agricultural production, illegal logging,
and deforestation. With the support of the Municipality of Quito and the Quito
Water Company, a water trust fund was created. The fund sponsors a multitude of
NBS interventions targeted to watershed conservation activities and regeneration of
viable ecosystem services (Figure 7) that
should guarantee a clean and regular supply
Figure 7
of water to the citizens of Quito. The major Farmer beneficiaries of the water trust fund
challenge was to obtain sufficient funding
and political support, which took over seven
years to materialize. Lack of scientific data
regarding the provision of ecosystem services
(only water balances have been constructed)
hampered progress. Various water users were
involved, including water utilities, electricity
companies, and private users. The evolution
of Ecuador’s water trust funds highlights
their ability to adapt to different socio-
cultural and political conditions, including
those that oppose the commodification of
Source: ©FAO/Guiseppe Bizzarri
natural resources. As such, water funds
provide an innovative model for sustainable financing of watershed conservation

activities in countries like Ecuador where privatization is not possible for either legal
or cultural reasons (excerpts from Arias et al., 2010).
C 6. PES in the Ruvu watershed of the Uluguru Mountains in

Tanzania
Main characteristics: Success, type 2
2 ++ -- - ++
The Uluguru Mountains are a mountain range in eastern Tanzania that blocks moisture
coming from the Indian Ocean. These mountains are characterized by wet east-facing
slopes where overall annual precipitation exceeds 2000 mm. Rainfall is captured in a
complex network of streams that jointly form the Ruvu River, which supplies water
to over four million people in Dar-es-Salaam and to the major industries of Tanzania.
About 150 thousand people live in the Uluguru Mountains in about 50 villages situated
on the edge of the forested areas. In 2007, a hydrological assessment by CARE-WWF
revealed an overall decrease in water quality due to a dramatic increase in sediment
loading into the river. Meanwhile, significant fluctuations have been recorded in the
annual volume of surface flows due to variations in the precipitation regime, as well
as to increased runoff and an overall decrease in storage capacity. As a consequence,
downstream water treatments were required due to a high siltation level of the Ruvu
River while downstream water supply had to be rationed.
The restoration of the Ruvu’s hydrologic services is linked to enhanced upstream

land use management, which is strictly linked to poverty alleviation and livelihood
improvements of this densely populated region. A PES scheme was initiated in the
Ruvu River in Tanzania between downstream buyers (industry, sewerage plants)
and upstream farmers. The PES incentivized farmer participation and assured their
continuing commitment to the initiative.
Farmers received payments for adoption of agricultural practices that aimed to control
runoff and soil erosion while improving crop production. A combined approach was
implemented that includes structural (bench terraces and fanya terraces), vegetative
(reforestation, agroforestry, and grass strips) and agronomic measures (intercropping
crops with fruit trees, mulching and fertilizing with animal manure) to limit runoff,
combat soil erosion, and increase soil moisture and productivity. The objective was to
control soil erosion and simultaneously improve crop production, which is considered
a Type 2 NBS intervention.
The implementing agency (CARE-WWF) in the Uluguru Mountains conducted a cost-

benefit analysis showing that opportunity costs are key in the design of a PES scheme.
This PES-type case study shows how estimating opportunity costs is a key factor in
the design of PES schemes to ensure farmer participation. Long-term involvement of
farmers is also necessary to meet the timescale requirements to restore the functionality
of ecosystem processes (excerpts from FAO, 2011).
Figure 8
A combined approach was implemented that includes structural (bench terraces and fanya
terraces)
Source: IIRR, 2008
C 7. Reducing land degradation in fragile micro-watersheds

through integrated natural resources management in the upper
basin of El Salvador’s Lempa Riverthrough integrated natural
resources management in the upper basin of El Salvador’s Lempa
River
2 ++ - ++ ++
The upper basin of the Lempa River in El Salvador suffers from increased drought
while farmer practices of burning soil vegetation result in high erosion rates. An
FAO/GEF (FAO/GEF, accessed 2018) project was linked to El Salvador’s Family
Agriculture Plan (FAP) in targeted micro-watersheds in the Santa Ana Department
to reduce vulnerability and increase adaptive capacity to the adverse impacts of
climate change of small-scale rural producers. The project is enabling stakeholders
to mainstream climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction priorities into
"Fragile Micro-Watersheds Management Plans," while reducing land degradation and
unsuitable land/water use through the integrated management of natural resources
and the participation of small-scale rural producers. Through this project, a number
of agro- and forest ecosystems were restored by training 55 technical staff from
eight local institutions and Farmer Field Schools on sustainable soil management.
Courses emphasized good practices, such as organic fertilizers, agroforestry, and cover
crops management. Introduction of local agro-forestry systems resulted in increased
vegetation cover. Families built rainwater collection harvesting systems for domestic
use. The project was implemented with the support of local authorities and national
agricultural extension agencies.
Figure 9
Farmers during “Farmer Field School” training
Source: IIRR, 2008
C 8. Qanat Irrigated Agricultural Heritage Systems of Iran
2 ++ - + ++
Farmers in the central desert of Iran have been using the traditional Qanat irrigation
systems (Figure 11) as early as 800 BC (excerpts from GIAHS, 2014). Qanats have
sustained food and livelihood security over millennia because they are a reliable source
of water for traditional family farms in dry areas where agriculture and farming would
be impossible otherwise. Kashan is home to some of the most impressive Qanats in
terms of architecture, structure and indigenous knowledge. The Qanat is considered a
traditional NBS that transports water through an underground channel system from
aquifers to the surface for irrigation and household use. The Qanat system made the
cultivation of a high number of species possible. Hence, biodiversity and genetic
variation that is important for food and agriculture in a barren and sparsely vegetated
area were possible. Indigenous and important biodiversity species, high-value crops,
fruits, and trees have developed and survived thanks to Qanat technology (Figure 12).
In total, about 32 types of various field crops and 20 types of fruits are produced in the
region. Operation of the Qanat’s is based on full participation of local water users that
receive water according to the share of land owned. The construction and maintenance
of the Qanat’s rely on the well-organized participation of experienced labor and full
cooperation among community members. As quoted in the GIAHS site, “Qanats
represent a unique and inclusive system illustrating where indigenous knowledge in the
sustainable management of land, water, and agricultural biodiversity is used” (GIAHS,
2014).
Figure 10
The Ardestan two-staged Moon Qanat, in Iran
Source: FAO/GIAHS, 2014
Figure 11
A forage crop farm on Qanat Qazi, Iran
Source: FAO/GIAHS, 2014
C 9. Horticulture production and food security of farmers in

watershed communities in Burundi
2 ++ - + ++
The Kagera River basin is shared by Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The
basin lies in a sub-humid agro-ecological zone with a bimodal rainfall, long rains from
late February to May/June and short rains from late September to early December,
providing a growing period of 90 to 200 days. Maintenance of the flow regime
of the Kagera is vital for the preservation of Lake Victoria’s water levels and the
outflow to the Nile, while the riverine wetland areas have an important function in
the deposition of eroded sediments and nutrients, hence, maintaining water quality.
The transboundary area of the Kagera Basin is among the most important areas in
Africa in terms of agro-biodiversity and food production. The diverse ecosystems and
convergence of lowland (mainly western Guinea-Congolian) and highland (eastern
afro-montane) species provide an array of habitats for multiple species of high global
significance. Yet, the basin’s land and freshwater resource base, associated biodiversity
and populations whose livelihoods and food security depend on those resources, are
under threat due to land degradation, declining productive capacity of croplands and
rangelands, deforestation and encroachment of agriculture into wetlands. Climate
change is associated with the disruption of rainfall which became unreliable and
drought periods combined with extreme temperatures. An integrated ecosystems
approach for land and water resources management was adopted in the Kagera Basin
through a horticultural program to promote cultivation of vegetables that require small
quantities of space, have a short growth cycle and are easily marketable. Anticipating
climate change effects, high-yielding and drought tolerant varieties, organic fertilizer,
small-scale irrigation, and mulching were applied. This is an example of a Type 2 NBS
intervention. (FAO, 2017b).
Figure 12
FAO supports sustainable agricultural growth in Burundi through farmer field schools
Source: FAO, 2017b
C 10. Japan’s Wasabi cultivation system
1 + + + ++
Wasabi, a highly valued native Japanese plant of the Brassicaceae family, is one of the
main ingredients of traditional Japanese cuisine. The plant is cultivated in mountainous
areas with high precipitation rates and springs that are used for its cultivation. The
plant is originally from the Shizuoka region. Its cultivation began approximately 400
years ago, during the Keicho era (1596-1615) in the Aoi district of Shizuoka City.
The traditional cultivation of Wasabi is considered a Type 1 NBS intervention.

Traditional cultivation methods use small amounts of fertilizers and do not apply
agrochemicals. Through soil management, Wasabi fields maintain high water-holding
capacities that prevent floods downstream. The wasabi production system offers
a scenic landscape that is in harmony with natural ecosystems. For its production,
villagers got organized and formed an association to agree on land and water resources
use for wasabi fields (FAO/GIAHS, 2018b).
Figure 13
Wasabi field in Japan
Source: FAO/GIAHS
C 11. Using compost pits in Nepal
2 ++ ++ ++ ++
The Udayapur District in eastern Nepal consists of both plains and hilly areas, many of
which are prone to flooding. Women are the major food producers in this region and
are engaged in all stages of production, from planting to harvesting. Women’s access
to and ownership of land in Udayapur has increased over the years, enhancing their
economic opportunities in farming.
Climate Change affected agricultural production, forcing men to migrate to find work
elsewhere. As a result, women’s workload in agriculture has increased significantly.
Water sources have started drying up and unpredictable monsoons and floods have
started to affect crop production.
A major problem facing farmers in this area is the increasing use of chemical fertilizers
and pesticides in agriculture. These pesticides are damaging farmers’ health and their
environment. Chemical fertilizers are also causing negative impacts on soil structure
and soil organic matter.
ActionAid Nepal supported women farmers’ groups in the Udayapur District with
the objective to promote sustainable agriculture and replace the use of chemicals in
farming practices. Farmers received training in the management of organic soil matter,
the health impact of pesticides and need to reduce dependency on external inputs. As
a result, chemicals have been replaced by animal manure and organic pesticides. They
were made aware of the importance of agro-ecological farming. This is considered a
Type 2 NBS intervention. Other farmers adopted agro-ecological farming practices
through compost pits water harvesting techniques, irrigation (drip irrigation) and the
introduction of drought-resistant crops (excerpts from FAO, 2014b). Several farmers
also invested in the combination of crop production and animal rearing as a way to
increase livelihood options and economic alternatives. Farmer's rear chicken and
goats for meat and manure, cows for milk, oxen for manure and field ploughing, and
buffaloes for milk and manure. These animals provide an additional source of income
from meat and milk. Their manure saves money that would be spent on chemical
fertilizers and is a major source of plant and soil nutrients.
Every member of the farmers’ groups contributes money to a collective savings

scheme. The Village Development Committee also provides budgetary support to
the community for training sessions on organic farming techniques. The process of
organizing farmers into cooperatives and local groups has improved the solidarity of
the community and improved the relationship with local agricultural offices and the
Agriculture Service Centres.
C 12. Improving water efficiency in the irrigated drylands of Egypt
2 -- - ++ +
Egypt’s agriculture sector uses 80 percent of the available water resources. Due to the
ongoing expansion of irrigated agriculture in Egypt and the challenges faced by dry
climatic conditions, the focus is currently on the improvement of water efficiency.
The raised bed system is an improved surface irrigation strategy, which enhances water
productivity and makes the application of water in irrigated systems more efficient. In
this system, irrigation water is applied to the bottom of the furrows. In the raised bed
system the furrows are wider than in the traditional one (see figure 15). Two furrows
are merged, the width of the ridges is double as wide as in the traditional system.
A research project tested and validated the

Figure 14
system between 2004-2008 for a sample of
Raised-bed system
winter and summer crops (wheat, berseem,
maize, cotton). The application of this
technique with the main winter crops has
shown that up to 25 percent of water could be
saved, while crop production increased by 10
percent. Net benefits increased by 40 percent
and reduced variable costs by 30 percent.
Using raised-bed systems for surface irrigation

in Egypt prevents high water losses and is
considered as a Type 2 NBS intervention.
The technology introduces improved crop
varieties and agronomic practices. Agriculture
productivity has increased by 15-25 percent
while reduction of soil salinity and lower
incidences of water logging are considered to Source: FAO, 2018c.
be positive spinoffs (FAO, 2018c).
C 13. Groundwater management in Aweil East, Sudan.
1 -- - - -
The political context of South Sudan has significantly shaped the groundwater
management in the Aweil East Region, putting emphasis on emergency relief for access
to water. Fragile institutions significantly hindered by the overwhelming presence of
armed conflicts, fail to assure water supply while communities lack local capacity;
dependency on aid organizations is high. Illustrative is the lack of clarity in water
management rules on micro, meso and macro-levels. The ethnic/tribal violence that
broke out in 2013 had a negative effect on sustainable development. The water crisis
in Malualkuel Boma is a special case in point. The NBS intervention, in this case,
study, refers to local boreholes financed by local authorities. Yet, these boreholes were
unreliable and largely insufficient to cater to the water needs of the communities.
Hence, women need to venture into an unsafe trek for three hours to get water and an
additional three hours to walk back home. The alternative is to queue for a whole day
at the hand pump for 20 liters of water, which is insufficient for a household for one
day (excerpts from Murad and Ulveland, 2014; Reliefweb, 2007).
C 14. Water for Life and Sustainability Water

Fund, Cauca Valley, Southwestern Colombia
2 ++ ++ + ++
Cauca Valley is Colombia’s largest sugarcane producing region. The Nature

Conservancy and its partners have been working to implement and refine an innovative
Water Funds concept to secure freshwater for people living downstream in urban
centers and other large water users (irrigation) in the region. The fund compensates
those living upstream for conserving or restoring watershed headwaters (excerpts from
The Nature Conservancy, 2013).
A Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) model has been set up where sugar cane
growers invest in a scheme that is used to promote land use change, fencing, and set-
up of silvopastoral systems, forest enrichment, and restoration. Complementary grey
infrastructure has been built. This intervention combines grey and green infrastructure
and is considered Types 2 and 3.
Investors—the large water users—pay to an endowment fund (the water fund) whose
earnings leverage public and private funds and benefit local communities. This self-
sustaining funding mechanism supports efforts such as watershed conservation and
habitat restoration and enables development of sustainable small businesses. In some
cases, instead of endowment funds, there is a flow of constant revenues based on water
users’ contribution. Because of their intrinsic flexibility, water funds are well-suited to
be replicated globally, which sets the stage for their application in a range of contexts
and political realities.
Results have shown that growers benefit from the increased water supply, which
safeguards long-term prospects of water-intensive agricultural activities. The scheme
also resulted in enhanced flood risk management, reduced waste and promoted local
entrepreneurship (Ramos, 2012).
Figure 15
Farmer in the Cauca Valley.
Source: FAO, 2018. ©Patrick Zachmann/Magnum Photos / FAO

C 15. Greening infrastructure to

address water security in Lima, Peru
Main characteristics: Success, type 2/3.
3 ++ ++ ++ +
Lima, the capital of Peru, is a fast-growing desert city with 10 million inhabitants. The
population pressure constitutes a significant burden on the surrounding environment
and natural resources, in which 75 percent of tree cover has been lost (excerpts from
Qin et al., 2016 in FAO, 2018d). As a result, the area suffered from increased droughts,
floods and landslides (Barrett, 2017 in FAO, 2018d). The Peruvian government adopted
in 2015 a law on ‘Mechanism for Ecosystem Services Compensation’ to guide and
oversee the introduction of green infrastructure at the national level. The new law is an
opportunity for the water sector to harmonize NBS with ongoing grey infrastructure
projects. Gammie and de Bievre (2015) showed that a NBS that integrates existing
grey with green infrastructure reduces dry-season deficits by 90 percent at lower costs
than increasing grey infrastructure alone. Practices implemented are reforestation,
pastoral reforms, and wetland restoration as well as other low-impact approaches such
as rehabilitation of traditional 'amunas'10 system. Funding is provided by Lima’s water
utility authority, which reserves 5 percent of its water bills (approximately US$110
million) to finance green infrastructure projects that should mitigate negative effects of
climate change and reduce disaster risk. Local communities, governments, industries
and NGO’s in Lima launched a multi-sectoral platform to orchestrate conservation and
restoration activities and to promote sustainable use of water resources (TNC, 2018).
Lima water authority (SEDAPAL) is developing a novel green infrastructure master
plan to enhance and complement grey infrastructure (SEDAPAL, 2016). Lima is
pioneering a new generation of integrated water and landscape management, providing
an example for other municipalities and countries to follow.
C 16. The Marikina Forest Watershed Integrated Resource

Development
2 ++ ++ ++ +
After the intensive floods in the metropole of Manila, the Philippines, caused by
tropical storm Ondoy in 2010, the mayors of seven towns signed a memorandum of
agreement to jointly implement a set of NBS to rehabilitate and reforest the Marikina
watershed. The initiative was led by the Philippine Disaster Recovery Foundation
which consists of a broad alliance of business organizations and non-governmental
organizations. The specific objectives were to: a) reforest 34 percent of the watershed’s
degraded areas; b) establish a cooperation among various sectors to rehabilitate, protect
10 Amunas are stone canals built in the Andes by the Wari culture between 600 and 1000 BC. Amunas
capture water from rivers and let it infiltrate into rocks that fed year-round springs further (Pearce, 2015).
and restore the watershed; and c) reduce human-induced pressure on the watershed by
providing alternative sources of income for local inhabitants.
The national government cooperated with this initiative by revising existing land
and water legislation and developing a plan to address the expected negative impacts
of future climate change in the Marikina watershed. Moreover, the upper Marikina
watershed was declared a protected area (excerpts from FAO, 2016b).
Figure 16
Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) Approach to Forest Restoration in the Philippines
Photo: ©FAO/Noel Celis
C 17. Wetlands in the eastern Free State, South Africa
1 -+ + -+ -
Wetlands in the eastern Free State of South Africa are a natural resource that provides
various services predominantly for agriculture (both crop production and grazing) but
also for other services that improve the well-being of the community. Yet, despite these
valuable functions, many wetlands have been degraded. Belle et al. (2017) collected
primary (field observations of wetlands, a survey among water users, and interviews
with experts) and secondary data (climate parameters) to analyze the vulnerability of the
wetlands for climate change effects. They found that a lack of a deeper understanding
of wetland values and functions are an important cause for their deterioration. They
also found that the wetland degradation is still on-going. The main recommendation
was a proposed NBS intervention that is based on an integrated water management that
should create a resilient environment for wetlands to absorb shocks caused by extreme
weather events that are expected under future climate change conditions (excerpt from
Belle et al., 2017).
C 18. Rewarding water-related ecosystem

services in the Cañete Basin, Peru
2 + + ++ ++
The main sources of surface water in the central and upper reaches of the Cañete
watershed in Peru are precipitation, melting of glaciers or snow caps, small natural
lakes, and springs. These sources are located in the upper watershed that hosts
various ecosystems such as: high Andean scrublands, Andean wetlands, relict Andean
forests, and some brushwood. The highest demand for water resources in this basin is
concentrated in the lower watershed. The functioning of the ecosystems in the higher
Cañete watershed provides two principal hydro-environmental services (HES): water
yield and all-year availability of water, generating benefits for various sectors. Yet,
upstream areas suffer from soil compactions due to increasing pressure from cattle
grazing that results in declining water retention and an increase in runoff and soil
erosion. The situation is exacerbated by the fast deglaciation process in the high Andean
mountains due to climate change. In 2010, the Peruvian Ministry for the Environment
(MINAM for its acronym in Spanish), with a set of partners, jointly initiated a project
to evaluate and design a payment reward PES scheme in the Cañete River watershed
(FAO, 2013a). The PES scheme targeted an investment in the HES. The initiative
identified via hydrological modeling water uses and identified options to enable local
communities to improve their livelihoods while conserving the area. The rehabilitation
of degraded native pastures was done through improved forage management practices;
the better management of disturbed wetlands ensure functioning and regulation of
stream flows; the maintenance of well-conserved native grasslands, wetlands, and
Andean forests will be guaranteed; and some sustainable businesses will be sustained
to farmers as a way of recompensation for the conservation of the upper watershed
ecosystem (excerpts from FAO, 2013a). Based on this experience, MINAM expects to
develop 16 other similar PES initiatives in the country.
Figure 17
A farm in Peru's Cañete basin
Photo: CIAT
In parallel MINAM drafted a law proposal to promote PES mechanisms. The proposal
recognizes the legitimacy of these mechanisms and encourages its use by local and
regional authorities, civil society, and non-governmental organizations. The proposed
law also mentions the possibility of public entities (e.g. local governments, public water
supply companies) to invest and participate in PES schemes.
C 19. Ensuring groundwater recharge in a sensitive

Michigan, USA watershed through PES
Main characteristics: Successful, type 2.
2 ++ ++ ++ ++
The Paw Paw River Watershed has suffered from a 50 percent loss of wetlands since
the 1800s and a decline of the functions once provided (excerpts from FAO, 2013). The
most salient problems are surface runoff with excessive loads of sediment and nutrients
from agricultural lands and overdrawing of the aquifer for irrigation. Traditional
conservation programs presented by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through the United States Farm Bill experienced challenges in this region due
to slow adoption rates, low reimbursement payments, long waits for reimbursement
and rigid rules, regulations and paperwork requirements (FAO, 2013b).
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) partnered with the local agricultural conservation
agency in Van Buren County, Michigan to link with farmers in priority locations to
encourage implementation of buffer strips and reduced tillage and no-till practices. In
2012, Coca-Cola enabled this initiative to test a PES scheme to incentivize farmers,
providing farmers with a per-gallon incentive payment for the quantity of groundwater
recharge increase that resulted from the implementation of conservation practices such
as buffer strips, reduced tillage practices, and no-till. These new practices jointly added
up to 100 million gallons (378.5 million liters) of increased groundwater recharge to
the Paw Paw River over a three-year period (FAO, 2013b). In the initial years of the
project, TNC scientists worked with Michigan State University to identify the key
areas of farmland where agricultural best management practices would provide the
most benefit to groundwater recharge.
C 20. Financial sustainability for environmental services: rural

development in micro-watersheds, Rio Rural, Brazil
2 ++ ++ ++ ++
Between the years 2006-2011, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in partnership
with the Rio de Janeiro (RJ) Government provided a US$14 million grant to implement
the RJ Integrated Agroecosystem Management project in productive landscapes of

North-Northwestern Region of RJ State. The pilot project covered 48 micro-watersheds
that supported 4000 small householders (FAO, 2013c). This area suffers from high rates
of rural poverty, land degradation, and deforestation because of unsustainable land use
and low productivity of the agricultural systems. This situation has – in large part-
resulted from policies that have been historically in favor of mono-cropping of coffee
and sugar cane and extensive cattle-raising, using deforestation and unsustainable
production systems that caused soil depletion and degradation of water resources
(FAO, 2013c). The project aimed to improve rural livelihoods and income through
the adoption of sustainable natural resources management and conservation practices
integrated into agricultural and non-agricultural systems. Increased productivity and
increased biodiversity increases farmer resilience, reverses land degradation and allows
for climate change adaptation and mitigation. The project managed (i) to increase
awareness among small farmers, local managers, technicians and stakeholders about
global environmental issues and their contribution to biodiversity conservation, water
protection and climate change mitigation and (ii) to provide long-term support to
small farmers in their transition to eco-friendly productive systems (excerpts from
FAO, 2013c). As the project advances, a multi-stakeholder dialogue meeting, which
took place in Rome, Italy mentioned that farmers are gradually adopting practices such
as reforestation, spring protection, recovery of riparian vegetation, and protection of
water recharge areas, sanitation, and road rehabilitation, green and organic manure,
among other actions with direct impact on natural resources (FAO, 2013c). The pilot
project is considered a Type 2 NBS intervention as it has the combination of green and
grey infrastructure.
Figure 18
Farmers working the land with sustainable practices.
Photo: ©FAO/Alberto Conti

C 21. Engaging local business in PES.

Lessons from Lake Naivasha, Kenya
Main characteristics: Success/Failure, type 1.
2 + + + -+
The PES project in Lake Naivasha, Kenya contributes to the enhancement of water
quality, the reduction of on-farm soil erosion, the reverse of forest loss, and the
improvement of livelihoods through various forms of compensation and an increase
in agricultural productivity through the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
The main incentive for farmers to join this initiative is the yield increase rather than
the annual PES incentive. Two critical sub-basins were chosen as pilot sites: Upper
Turasha (639 hectares) and Wanjohi (4680 hectares), based on the hydrological impact
on the lake, the magnitude of sediment loads, population size and socioeconomic
characteristics that influence the small-scale farmers’ capacity to sustainably manage
their lands (FAO, 2013d). The buyers of the environmental service were the water
users downstream comprised of water companies, horticultural growers, ranchers
and hotel/tourism industry. These companies remunerated farmers upstream for the
measures adopted to improve soil and water conservation and thus for contributing
to the improvement of the quality and quantity of water in the region. In 2012, 785
farmer households in the upper catchment became sellers of environmental services
in the area making up roughly 4 percent of the total number of farm households in
the upper catchment PES sites (excerpts from FAO, 2013d). The following measures
to improve soil and water conservation on their farm were implemented: grass strips
to check soil erosion and act as filter materials; agroforestry along the grass strips to
reinforce the grass strips and improve the effectiveness in erosion control; river bank/
riparian rehabilitation by planting grass and trees along the riparian areas to act as
a buffer; good land management practices such as cultivating along the contours as
opposed to across the contours.
Furthermore, the involved farmers are members of the local Water Resource Users
Association (WRUA), which represents them as sellers within this scheme.
However, the project was difficult to upscale due to limited resources from the
facilitating organizations as well as limited incentives from buyers to reach out to many
farmers. The low buy-in of the buyers downstream is mainly because the watershed
service is yet to be seen and upstream farmers and downstream buyers are working in
trust and anticipation of the availability of the adequate clean water services in future
(FAO, 2013d).
Figure 19
Map of the PES pilot sites within the L. Naivasha basin
Table 2
Inventory of case studies
Name Country Ecosystem Initiator/ Stakeholders Beneficiaries Degradation NBS NBS Trans- Rewarding Institutional Success/
funding process typology disciplinarity custodians collaboration failure
C 1. South Africa Watershed Development Municipalities, Urban water Overgrazing Restoring 1 +- -- -- +

Baviaanskloof Bank, NGO’s NGO’s, consumers thicket
/Tsitsikamma Governmental provincial
and uMngeni national/local government
catchments researchers,
farmers
C 2. Izta-Popo Mexico Land Private Private Private Illegal Reforestation/ 2/3 + + -- ++

company company/urban company/ logging, infrastructure
population/land urban livestock (pits and banks
users population grazing, fires
C 3. Saye River Nigeria River State Communities/ Communities/ River bank Civil 3 - - - -
bank failure farmers farmers erosion engineering
structures
C 4. Athi River Kenya Watershed NGO’s NGO’s and local Local Water scarcity Water 2 + -- -- +
Kaiti,/Muuoni and local communities communities and drought harvesting
and Kikuu communities technique
rivers (sand bars)/
agroecology
C 5. Water Ecuador Watershed NGO’s, private NGO’s, private Urban -- ++ 1/2 +- + ++ ++

fund for companies, companies, population/
catchment state state, farmers
management
C 6. Ruvu Tanzania Watershed NGO’s Upstream Local River Restoration of 2 ++ -- - ++

watershed communities, communities sedimentation rivers through
private companies, the adoption of
companies urban agro-ecological
industry, population practices.
urban /rural and industry
population
C 7. Lempa El Salvador Watershed FAO and GEF Local Local Soil Integrated 2 ++ - ++ ++
River communities communities degradation natural
and and selected resources
government officials management/
staff in selected in the rainwater
municipalities municipality collection
C 8. Qanat Iran Watershed Local Local Farmers and Water Building natural 2 + - + ++
Irrigated communities communities communities salinization irrigation
Agricultural systems
C 9. Burundi Watershed Local Local Farmers Water scarcity Horticulture 2 ++ - + ++
Horticulture communities communities and local and drought production
production in communities systems
the Kagera
Basin
C 10. Shizuoka Japan Land Local Wasabi farmers Wasabi Water quality Water quality 1 + + + ++
and Izu regions communities farmers and management
communities systems
C 11. Udayapur Nepal Land NGO and local Local farmers Women Soil Compost pits 2 ++ ++ ++ ++
District municipality especially farmers degradation
women and drought
C 12. Egypt Watershed Government NGO’s, Farmers Extreme Raised-bedding 2 -- - ++ +

Improving government Drought system
water and farmers
efficiency in
the irrigated
drylands of
Egypt
C 13. South Sudan Groundwater/ NGO’s/UN NGO’s/UN/local Rural Desertification Pumping 1 - - - -

Groundwater land government population/
management farmers
in Aweil East
C 14. Cauca Colombia Watershed NGO and NGO, farmers, Farmers Sedimentation Fencing, 2 ++ ++ + ++
Valley associations associations and silvo-pastoral
private sector systems,
reforestation
C 15. Lima’s Peru Watershed Government NGO, water Urban Water scarcity Reforestation, 2/3 ++ ++ ++ +
surrounding and NGO utility authority, dwellers and pastoral
watersheds urban dwellers, farmers reforms,
peri-urban wetland
farmers (amunas)
restoration,
C 16. Forest The Philippines Watershed Government Local Urban Degraded Reforestation, 2 ++ ++ ++ +
Watershed at various authorities dwellers, watershed cooperation,
Management levels and national farmers new sources of
government upstream livelihood.
C 17. Wetlands South Africa Wetlands Communities Communities/ Communities/ Wetland Restoration 1 -+ + -+ +
in Eastern Free Farmers farmers degradation programmes
State
C 18. Peru Cañete Government, Government, Urban Degraded Conservation 2 + + ++ ++

Rewarding watershed Private Private sector, population wetland techniques-
water-related sector, local farmers and Farmers and miss agroecosystem
ecosystem communities and local management
services in the communities in the
Cañete Basin watershed
Name Country Ecosystem Initiator/ Stakeholders Beneficiaries Degradation NBS NBS Trans- Rewarding Institutional Success/
funding process typology disciplinarity custodians collaboration failure
C 19. U.S Paw Paw River- Government, Government, Government, surface runoff Conservation 2 ++ ++ ++ ++
Groundwater watershed Private Private sector, Private with excessive techniques
recharge in sector, local farmers company loads of
a sensitive communities and local (Coca-cola), sediment and
Michigan communities and farmer nutrients from
watershed agricultural
lands
C 20. Rural Brazil 48 Micro- Small farmer- Watershed Reforestation Agroecosystem 2 ++ ++ ++ ++

development watersheds government – degraded
Land
in micro- donor – world and land
management
watersheds bank degradation
Reforestation
spring
protection
protection of
water recharge
areas
C 21. Engaging Kenya Lake Naivasha International Farmers Degraded Water Farmers 2 + + + -+
local business donor upstream and public management upstream
in PES. Lessons International downstream. lands that practices adopted
from Lake institute influence the measures to
Naivasha, (WWF and water quality improve soil
Kenya. CARE)- private and water
sector - conservation.
Farmers - Contributing to
Service buyers improvement
: Flower of water quality
companies, and quantity
Hoteliers,
Ranchers,
Water supply
providers
4.2 Synthesis
As we discussed in section 4.1 this paper does not claim to have a representative set
of NBS interventions. An analysis is provided to identify potential indicators for
successful NBS interventions and failed experiences in relation to the ecosystem,
NBS-typology, stakeholder involvement, financial mechanisms, transdisciplinarity, and
institutional collaboration.
Success/failure
The four failures found in our inventory were attributed to a lack of understanding of
the functioning of ecosystems and ecosystem services [C 3, C 13, C 17, C 21). This was
sometimes combined with a top-down planning without involving local communities
(C 17) and involved armed conflicts that hindered the empowerment of people to take
matters in their own hands (C 13).
Ecosystem
All case studies, except C 2, C 10, and C 11 refer to NBS that are part of a
watershed ecosystem that is characterized by well-defined hydrological boundaries
and interconnecting water flows that cannot be partitioned without affecting other
users. It confirms our argument forwarded in sections 2 and 3 on the need for collective
action when NBS interventions are planned.
NBS typology
Of the evaluated case studies five (C 1, C 5, C 10, C 13, C 17) are associated to NBS
typology 1, sixteen (C 2, C 4, C 5, C 6, C 7, C 8, C 9, C 11, C 12, C 14, C 15, C 16,
C 18, C 19, C 20, C 21) qualify for a type 2 label and three (C 2, C 3, C 15) as type 3.
One case study (C 5) is categorized as hybrids of types 1 and 2 and two (C 2, C 15)
of types 2 and 3. We can cautiously conclude that NBS interventions are diverse and
cover the full range of typologies and their hybrids. Different experiences show a wide
array of results.
Stakeholder involvement
As interventions at watershed level impact downstream users, a basin-wide stakeholder
involvement is prerequisite for successful implementation of NBS as confirmed by
case studies C 1, C 2, C 5, C 6, C 7, C 8, C 9, C 10, C 11, C 14, C 18, C 19 and C
20 that have the highest success rates. Interesting examples illustrate that stakeholder
involvement can be organized in various ways. Case study C 2 uses stakeholder buy-
in which became the key to the economic success of the NBS project. Case study C1
made a compelling call to seek wide support among national and local governments,
researchers and local water users for the large-scale protection and rehabilitation
of ecological infrastructure that should increase water quantity in catchments. In
contrast, case studies C 3 and C 13 elucidate that top-down approaches that lack any
involvement of local communities, all failed to meet at least part of their objectives.
Though some cases (C 17) did not consider ecological impacts at the inception stage,
other examples that are more recent confirm that multi-stakeholder involvement is
still not always guaranteed as part and parcel of NBS. The absence of an organizational
structure, the disruptive effect of armed conflict on social cohesion, and possibilities to
organize people become most visible in the case of studies C 17 and C 13, respectively.
Case study C 6 shows an interesting example of public-private collaboration in
promoting a PES scheme, implemented in the period 2006-2011, between downstream
customers (industry, local sewerage services, and a beverage company) and upstream
suppliers (farmers).
Financial mechanisms
Creating and organizing funds fosters a sustainable and lasting positive impact of NBS
on the environment and on the end users of water. Case studies C 5, C 14, C 15 and C
18 shows that the establishment of operational funds contributed to successful or very
successful NBS interventions. We observed that these funds operate at a watershed
level and were supported by multiple contributors organizing a broad support for
NBS interventions. A special highlight in this respect is the Ecuadorian case (C 5) that
established a water trust fund to provide financing of watershed conservation activities.
Although it took seven years before the fund became operational, it was supported by
private and public institutions and involved all water users. An interesting operational
PES scheme is presented in C 6 where farmers received payments to incentivize the
adoption of good practices to reduce soil erosion and improve the water quality of
downstream users.
Transdisciplinarity
In our assessment, the use of local knowledge is positively related to the success rate
of NBS. Very high scores for case studies C 6, C 7, C 9, C 11, C 14, C 19 and C 20
corresponded with very high success rates. Very high scores for C 15, C 16 and C 20
correlated with high success rates. Interesting and informative are the cases studies
where centuries-old indigenous knowledge led to finding lasting solutions for water
delivery in, for example, an arid regime where ingenious underground water system
assured the timely delivery of fresh water (C 8) while traditional upstream soil and land
use management systems conserved water flows from becoming erosive (C 10).
Institutional collaboration
Strong ties between institutions involved in the NBS are fundamental for organizing
stakeholder involvement and coordinating NBS implementation that often takes place
at a level higher than the individual one. Case studies C 5, C7, C 9, C 11, C 18, C 19,
C 20 and cases C 12, C 15 and C 16 show that well-organized collaboration between
institutions has a very successful and successful rating, respectively. The absence of
institutional collaboration can lead to failure (C 3, C 13) unless it is compensated by a
high level of transdisciplinarity (C 4, C 6) sometimes combined with a well-functioning
rewarding scheme (C 2).
We conclude that many of the findings from the case studies confirm our analytical
results of sections 2 and 3. Transdisciplinarity, stakeholder involvement, and well-
organized funding schemes are important elements for successful implementation of
NBS. Furthermore, the endurance of the NBS is required to organize participatory
and transdisciplinary platforms, implementation of payment schemes and restoration
of activities that usually cover large areas. Surprisingly, in our NBS case studies the
valuation of natural resources and ecosystem services is solved by imposing payment
schemes that were reached after joint agreements of stakeholders or the decision-
making process were based on other criteria. In both cases, a tedious exercise of natural
resource valuation was omitted.
5. Conclusions 43
Photo: Pexels
5. Conclusions
In the previous section, this FAO discussion paper analyzed case studies where
NBS was implemented in the agricultural water management context. Main findings
concluded that NBS failed interventions were attributed to a lack of understanding
of the functioning of ecosystems and ecosystem services as well as a combination of
a non-participatory and top-down approach. In addition, NBS interventions were
wide and varied. Each intervention has its particularity in regards to geographic
location, political context, and community involvement. In most NBS success stories,
communities were involved from the beginning of the NBS intervention, which gave
them a sense of ownership. The absence of an organizational structure, the disruptive
effect of armed conflict on social cohesion, and opportunities for people to get
organized were evident in failed case studies. Finally, case studies demonstrated that
NBS requires an initial investment, which may deter communities to implement it.
However, in the long-run benefits outweigh costs.
Conceptually NBS covers a wide spectrum of activities and concepts. More specifically
it includes “All actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified
ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously
providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016).
Furthermore, the United Nations World Water Development Report of 2018 concludes
that NBS is a flexible concept that covers a wide range of techniques and policies that
vary in the degree of intervention in the functioning of ecosystems.
What matters here is that the bipartite objective of NBS in water management
interventions is focused on how best to serve the well-being of humanity while
minimizing their impacts on the functioning of ecosystems. The accommodating
character of NBS might result in multiple, yet, conflicting interests, and trade-offs of
interventions should be discussed among the various stakeholders.
NBS is no longer a theoretical structure, rather it is widely used as a practical set of

interventions, actions, and rules that are efficient and economically feasible. Some
of the case studies show that NBS interventions that combine green with grey
infrastructure are more efficient than grey infrastructure alone. However, it was also
found that investments in NBS water management and related green infrastructure
are only a small fraction of the required investments to sustain and protect the
prevailing ecosystems. Therefore the key question is seen to be: Why is it so difficult
to implement NBS measures? And what are the pre-conditions to create an enabling
environment for NBS?
The answer is rooted in the intrinsic dependence of NBS on the functionalities of

ecosystems, which creates two problems. First, it is difficult to set prices for these
ecosystems services and amenities that could comprehensively quantify the value of
these complex ecosystems in a complete and precise manner. This makes it difficult
to quantify and compare the benefits of NBS on the balance of positive and negative
rewards of grey infrastructure. A further additional complication is that the time span
for valuation of NBS interventions in a cost-benefit analysis takes long periods of time
that increases the uncertainty imposed by the choice of the parameters, in particular, the
discount rate. Additionally, pricing becomes less meaningful when critical ecological
thresholds are being approached and ecosystem services become non-substitutable
(Greenhalgh et al., 2017). The complexity of pricing eco-system services might also
explain why the detailed and tedious practice of natural resource valuation was largely
absent in our case studies. There is no escape option here. Work is needed on improving
the valuation methods and dealing with the uncertainties inherent in the system.
Second, the ecosystems considered are usually large and lumpy and contingent on
interconnecting biophysical flows and migrating organisms that cannot be partitioned
into smaller units without affecting other sites. The first issue about lumpiness
can, in principle, be solved by adequate eco-system valuation that is recommended
above. Yet, even if taxation and user fees for ecosystem use could be based on
proper prices, experience teaches us that this is not sufficient to prevent degradation,
because agreements on monitoring negative externalities or rewarding the efforts of
custodians are difficult to monitor and implement. The much-promoted solution to
assign property rights to parts of the ecosystem need not be a viable pathway either,
precisely because of the second issue that ecosystems only function well in its entirety;
assignment of individual property rights could destroy the essential productive
properties of the ecosystem that only work as a whole. Our case studies indeed show
that the indivisibility issue of ecosystem services may be successfully addressed by
collective action that reconciles the conflicting interests of all stakeholders involved in
a transdisciplinary approach.
It follows from the above discussion that a decision framework is required which
explicitly takes into consideration the trade-offs between the benefits of NBS
interventions and the impact on ecosystems when alternative options are compared. A
5. Conclusions 45
long-term sustainable perspective of this decision framework should also guarantee the
preservation of ecosystem services for future generations.
A road map for NBS interventions; inter- and

transdisciplinary approach
The aim of a road map for NBS interventions is to create a productive stakeholder
engagement that balances the interests of resource users against the quality and
sustainability of the ecosystem. This social process starts with a structured inventory
of actors (individuals, groups and organizations) involved and their interests,
acknowledging that each actor has its own goals and strategies and that there are, as
in any political process, possible conflicting objectives among participants. Indeed,
for participants, NBS interventions can be ambitious. They are also highly complex in
nature and potentially impact many existing development policies. Hence, the tendency
to seek solutions in a mono-disciplinary manner in isolation should be avoided as this
simplifies reality and omits the prevalent key characteristics of the impact of NBS on
the ecosystem.
In this full and comprehensive involvement process, the lack of shared understanding
looms large and might result in polarization and erosion of mutual trust. NBS
interventions should, therefore, be designed to be both inclusive of, as opposed to
competitive with, other ecosystem management strategies and related urban and rural
planning activities. Structural stakeholder engagement strategy, therefore, involves an
active participation and co-design of NBS management plans. This joint stakeholder
process benefits immensely from the development of dedicated support tools. These
tools could provide adequate representation of the spatial and temporal dimensions of
ecosystems and their relation to specific ecosystem services. The developed tools may
include illustrating results of NBS interventions in synoptic tables and colorful maps
that are interpretable for a large audience and makes comparisons between various
options possible. Effects of NBS on ecosystem services that are related to water
availability for agriculture, human consumption and industrial use can be quantified
in monetary terms; the impact on ecosystem services like biodiversity, that are less
quantifiable, can be represented by changing eco-indicators and proximity of the
ecosystem quality to critical thresholds.
Concerning the practical development of these support tools, they typically combine
theory and accumulated experience to represent the complexity of the ecosystem.
When constructing such models several considerations should be taken into account.
To start with, the model should be able to accommodate data of various formats
from different sources and harmonize the information into an analytical framework
that can be used for evaluation. Modern data architecture can capitalize on the many
georeferenced surveys that are available and link household information to spatially-
distributed biophysical attributes (land use, soils, climate, and topography). In the
absence of these georeferenced socio-economic information sources, the model should
calculate measurable aggregates that are mostly of an economic nature, against which
the predictive performance of the models is tested. For spatially distributed water flow
models, consistent aggregation protocols are available (Keyzer, 2015) that ensure an
accurate representation at the aggregated level of inflows and outflows at the finest
resolution, avoiding double-counting. Furthermore, many of these support tools are of
a modular nature that facilitates the organization of work among the various disciplines
involved. It is to be noted, however, that a modular structure does not often comply
with the standard assumptions of economic theory and, hence, cannot be placed in an
optimization framework. Comparative statics can be used instead without much loss
of generality. Estimation and calibration remain, in this case, by-and-large eclectic as

rigorous processes are lacking and it is difficult to estimate the model in full. Hence,
as an informal sequence of estimations causes equi-finality, the same result is being
reached by different sets of parameters and the model becomes prohibitive for policy
purposes. Therefore, it is preferable to create models with an overarching mathematical
structure that maintains the fundamental constraints on dynamics (Doherty, 2016). As
such, the development of tools can be helpful in this process by creating an enabling
environment and a broad acceptance of NBS.
BOX 5
A roadmap for NBS interventions
The five-step roadmap for NBS interventions (Figure 2), as presented in the discussion paper,
should create a productive stakeholder engagement that balances interests of resource users
against quality and sustainability of the ecosystem.
Step 1. This social process starts with a structured inventory of the problematic, actors
involved and their interests, acknowledging that each actor has its own goals and strategies.
Step 2. In a process of alignment the project seeks to solve possible conflicting objectives
and acknowledges retention of the subsidiarity principle: assuring active involvement of
stakeholders that are closest to where NBS has its main environmental impact. This joint
stakeholder process benefits immensely from the development of dedicated support tools
(DST) that accumulate the multi- and transdisciplinary know-how and provide an adequate
spatially and temporal representation of the impact of NBS interventions on ecosystems.
Step 3. A business model should describe how NBS adds value to its users and how it is
financed.
Step 4. The implementation follows a management plan where the project is decomposed in
smaller components that are formulated in terms of work packages and deliverables.
Step 5. A monitoring scheme provides a comprehensive analysis of the monetary and

ecological costs and benefits to adequately informed stakeholders. Moreover, the monitoring
scheme is used to reward the good functioning of NBS and to penalize abusive interventions.
1. Identify water
problematique for
various actors
involved
Design DST.
5. Conduct a
participatory
monitoring and
evaluation of NBS
activities 2. NBS Value
proposition and
alignment
4.Implement
agreed NBS and
activate
stakeholders 3. Identify NBS
intervention and
related business
model
5. Conclusions 47
Summarizing, the joint stakeholder initiative should comply with the following
elements:
• Identification of stakeholders;
• Jointly designing and managing a stakeholder platform together with stakeholders
for continuous monitoring and feedback on developments with enabling
meaningful inclusion of the most marginalized through targeted, individual
capacity enhancements;
• Design of schemes that reward good functioning of NBS and penalizes abusive
interventions;
• Comprehensive analysis of the monetary and ecological costs and benefits to
adequately inform stakeholders and assist the decision-making process;
• Implementation of conflict resolution mechanisms;
• Retention of the subsidiarity principle: assuring the active involvement of
stakeholders that are closest to where NBS has its main environmental impact;
and
• Implementation of a monitoring scheme for evaluation of NBS interventions that
provides feedback to stakeholders.
• Incorporating a system-wide, country-driven capacity enhancement approach11
that interdependently empowers people, strengthens organizations, institutions,
multi-stakeholder processes and sharpens the enabling policy environment based
on assessed needs for more sustainable NBS interventions at scale
As confirmed by the case studies, this road map asks for lengthy periods of time
to organize the participatory and transdisciplinary platforms, the monitoring and
evaluation of schemes and funding as well as execution of the NBS intervention, which
makes this process costly and requires endurance of its promoters. Yet, the hope is
that the lasting positive effects of well-designed NBS interventions will outweigh the
inconsiderate quick wins that are largely based on ignorance.
11 See for instance FAO. 2017. Enhancing Capacities for Country-Owned Transition Towards Climate Smart
Agriculture. Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook.
References
Acreman, M.C. & Mountford, J.O. 2009. Wetlands. In: Ferrier, R., Jenkins, A. (eds)
Handbook of catchment management. Blackwell, Oxford.
Albersen, P. J., Houba, H.E.D. & Keyzer, M.A. 2003. Pricing a raindrop in a process-
based model: general methodology and a case study of the Upper-Zambezi.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28(5): 183-192.
Alfarra, A., Sonneveld, B. G. J. S. & Hoetzl, H., 2013. Farmers’ willingness to pay
for treated wastewater in the Jordan valley. Sky Journal of Agricultural Research,
2(6): 69-84.
Archaya, G. & Barbier, E.B., 2002. Using domestic water analysis to value groundwater
recharge in the Hadejia-Jama’are floodplain Northern Nigeria. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 84(2): 415-426.
Arias, V., Benitez, S. & Goldman, R., 2010. Water fund for catchment management,
Ecuador. Available at TEEBweb.org. (http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/01/Water-fund-for-catchment-management-Ecuador.pdf )
Arthington, A., Bunn, H., Poff, S.E. & Naiman, N.L., 2006. The challenge of
providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological
Applications, 16(4): 1311-1318.
Barrett, K., 2017. Lima kicks off development of 30-year green infrastructure plan
[online]. Ecosystem Marketplace, 3 March 2017.
Belle, J. A., Collins, N. & Jordaan, A., 2017. Building resilience in natural capital to
reduce disaster risks and adapt to climate change: a case of wetlands in the eastern
Free State; South Africa. In eBook of Abstracts of the Conference “Nature-based
Solutions: From Innovation to Common-use”, 24-26 October, Tallin University,
Tallin Estonia. (https://nbs2017.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NBS2017_
AbstractBook_211217.pdf)
Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R. & Caraco, N.F., 2001. Human impact on erodable
phosphorus and eutrophication: a global perspective. BioScience, 51(3): 227-234.
Bindraban P.S., Van der Velde, M., Van den Berg, L., Materechera, M., Kiba, D.I.,
Tamene, L., Ragnarsdóttir, K.V., Jongschaap R. & Hoogmoed, M., 2012.
Assessing the impact of soil degradation on food production. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 4(5): 478-488.
Bossio, D., Noble, A., Molden, D. & Nangia, V., 2008. Land Degradation and
Water Productivity in Agricultural Landscapes, in Bossio, B. & Geheb, K., eds.
Conserving Land, Protecting Water, pp 20-32, CAB International.
Brekke, K.A., 1997. Economic Growth and the Environment: On the Measurement of
Income and Welfare. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
References 49
Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M. T., Scherzer, A., Tramberend, S., Nava, L.
F., Wada, Y., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Hanasaki, N., Magnuszewski, P., Cosgrove,
B. and Wiberg, D., 2016. Water Futures and Solution - Fast Track Initiative (Final
Report). IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria
Coates D., Pert, P.L., Barron, J., Muthuri, C., Nguyen-Khoa, S., Boelee, E. & Jarvis,
D.I., 2013. Water-related Ecosystem Services and Food Security. In (ed. E. Boelee)
Managing Water and Agroecosystems for Food Security, pp 29-41.
CBD (accessed 26 July 2018) Ecosystem Approach. Convention on Biological Diversity,

https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/
CFS, 2015. Report on 42nd Session "Making a Difference in Food Security and
Nutrition". Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy, 12-15 October
2015. http://www.fao.org/3/a-mo943e.pdf
Coates, D., Uhlenbook, S. & Connor, E., 2018. Nature-based solutions work
everywhere, including Africa. www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/
HQ/SC/images/NBS_for_Africa_website.pdf.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. & Maginnis, S., eds., 2016. Nature-
based Solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
xiii + 97pp. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
Dale, V.H. & Polasky, S., 2007. Measure of the effects of agricultural practices on
ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 64: 286–296.
Desta, S. & Coppock, D.L., 2004. Pastoralism under Pressure: Tracking System Change
in Southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 32: 465–486.
Diaz, R.J., 2001. Overview of hypoxia around the world. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 30: 275–281.
Dieguez, H. & Paruelo, J.M., 2017. Disentangling the signal of climatic fluctuations
from land use: changes in ecosystem functioning in South American protected
areas (1982-2012). Remote Sens Ecol Conserv, 3: 177-189.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons.
Science, 302
Doherty, J. 2016. PEST Model-Independent Parameter Estimation User Manual Part

I: PEST, SENSAN, and Global Optimisers. 6th Edition. Watermark Numerical
Computing.
EC, 2014.Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 5: ‘Climate Action, Environment, Resource

Efficiency, and Raw Materials’ Advisory Group Report. http://ec.europa.eu/
transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2924.
Eggermont, H., Estelle, B., Azevedo, J.M.N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J.,
Fady, B., Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., Van Ham,
C., Weisser, W.W. & Le Roux, X., 2015. Nature-based Solutions: New Influence
for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA 24/4: 243-248.
EPA, 2000. Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for
Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 843-B-00-003. Available online at www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
constructed/guide.html.
Esler, K., Downsborough, L., Roux, D., Blignaut, J., Milton, S., Le Maitre, D. &
De Wit, M., 2016. Multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional higher learning:
reflecting on a South African case study investigating complex and dynamic
environmental challenges. Cosust, 19: 76–86.
ESPA, 2018. An environment for well-being: Pathways out of poverty – Policy messages
from the ESPA programme. Executive summary. Edinburgh: Ecosystem Services
for Poverty Alleviation.
EU Environment (acc. 27 July, 2018) Green Infrastructure. http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm
Excellent, 2018. Available online at http://www.excellentdevelopment.com/what-we-

do/the-excellent-approach.
FAO, 2011. Payments for Ecosystem Services and Food Security. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/014/i2100e/i2100e00.htm.
FAO, 2013a. Rewarding water-related ecosystem services in the Canete Basin, Peru,
http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl932e.pdf.
FAO, 2013b. Ensuring groundwater recharge in a sensitive Michigan watershed

through PES, http://www.fao.org/3/a-bp432e.pdf
FAO, 2013c. Financial sustainability for environmental services: rural development in

microwatersheds. Rio Rural, Brazil, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/
pes-project/docs/FAO_RPE-PES_RJ_Brazil.pdf.
FAO, 2013d. Engaging local business in PES Lessons from Lake Naivasha, Kenya,
http://www.fao.org/3/a-bp436e.pdf.
FAO, 2014a. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture, Rome,
Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940e.pdf
FAO, 2014b. Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition - Proceedings of the FAO
International Symposium, pp. 368-369. 18-19 September 2014, Rome, Italy. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf
FAO, 2016a. Water Security and Agroecology Transform Lives in the Drylands of
Kenya. Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. http://www.fao.org/3/a-be859e.
pdf.
FAO, 2016b. Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. http://www.fao.org/3/a-

i6210e.pdf
FAO, 2017a. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. FAO: Rome.
References 51
FAO, 2017b. Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in practice in the Kagera

Basin. Lessons learned for scaling up at landscape level- Results of the Kagera
Transboundary Agro-ecosystem management Project (Kagera TAMP). http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i6085e.pdf.
FAO. 2017c. Enhancing Capacities for Country-Owned Transition Towards Climate

Smart Agriculture. Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook.
FAO, 2018a. Catalysing Dialogue and Cooperation to Scale up Agroecology: Outcomes

of FAO Regional Seminars on Agroecology. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2018b. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2018c. TECA. Raised beds for improving crop water productivity and water
efficiency in irrigated dryland agriculture, Egypt. http://www.fao.org/family-
farming/detail/en/c/1040392/
FAO, 2018d. Unasylva 250-An international journal of forestry and forest industries.
Vol. 69 2018/1. http://www.fao.org/3/i8707en/I8707EN.pdf
FAO [acc. 27 July 2018]. FAO Submission to the UNFCCC in the areas of ecosystems,
interrelated areas such as water resources and adaptation under the Nairobi
work programme. https://unfccc.int/files/parties_observers/submissions_from_
observers/application/pdf/784.pdf
FAO/GEF, 2018. Climate Change Adaptation to Reduce Land Degradation in Fragile

Micro-Watersheds located in the municipalities of Texistepeque and Candelaria de
la Frontera (2014-2018). [Cited April 24, 2018]. http://www.fao.org/gef/projects/
detail/en/c/1056875/.
FAO/GIAHS, 2014. Proposal for a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System

(GIAHS) Qanat Irrigated Agricultural Heritage Systems of Kashan, Isfahan
Province. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture. , Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.
fao.org/3/a-bp794e.pdf
FAO/GIAHS, 2018a. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. [Cited

March 20, 2018]. http://www.fao.org/giahs/en/
FAO/GIAHS, 2018b. Traditional Wasabi Cultivation in Shizuoka, Japan. [Cited

March 24, 2018.] http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahsaroundtheworld/designated-
sites/asia-and-the-pacific/traditional-wasabi-cultivation-in-shizuoka-japan/
detailed-information/en/.
Finlayson, M., Bunting, S.W., Beveridge, M., Tharme, R.E. & Nguyen-Khoa, S.,
2013. Wetlands. In: E. Boelee, ed. Managing Water and Agroecosystems for Food
Security, pp. 82-103.
Freeman III, A.M., 2003. The measurement of environmental and resources values:
Theory and methods. Second edition. Washington, D.C. Resources for the future.
Fripp E. 2014. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the
feasibility of PES projects. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Galloway, J.N. et al., 2004. Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry,
70: 153-226.
Gammie, G. & De Bievre, B., 2015. Assessing Green Interventions for the Water
Supply of Lima, Peru Cost-Effectiveness, Potential Impact, and Priority Research
Areas. Forest Trends. Washington DC, USA.
Geary, K., 2017. Learning hard lessons: AIIB and the Tarbela dam in Pakistan. The
third pole. https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/2017/05/09/learning-hard-lessons-
aiib-and-the-tarbela-dam-in-pakistan/
Girku, B.I., Hassan, A., Yakubu, G.M. & James, K.K., 2017. The trend of the Saye
River bank failure: An Environmental Challenge and Concern. https://www.
iucn.org/news/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/201710/
trend-saye-river-bank-failure-environmental-challenge-and-concern.
Granit. J., Liss Lymer, B., Olsen, S., Tengberg, A, Nõmmann, S. and Clausen, T.
J. (2017). A conceptual framework for governing and managing key flows in a
source-to-sea continuum: A STAP Advisory Document. Global Environment
Facility, Washington, D.C.
Greenhalgh, S., Samarasinghe, O., Curran-Cournane, F., Wright, W. & Brown, P.,
2017. Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: Is it a way to
protect finite soil resources? Ecosystem Services, 27: 1-14.
Hardin, G., 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162: 1243-1248.
Hattingh, J., Maree, G.A., Ashton, P.J., Leaner, J., Rascher, J. & Turton, A.R. 2007.
A Trialogue Model for Ecosystem Governance. Water Policy, (9)2: 11-18.
Horwitz, P., Finlayson, M. & Weinstein, P., 2012. Healthy wetlands, healthy people: a
review of wetlands and human health interactions. Ramsar Technical Report No.
6. Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Gland, Switzerland, & The
World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
HLPE. 2018. Multi-stakeholder partnerships to finance and improve food security

and nutrition in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. A report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food
Security, Rome.
IFRC, 2012. Mangrove plantation in Viet Nam: Measuring impact and cost benefit.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Available
online at http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/reducing_risks/
Case-study-Vietnam.pdf.
International Rivers [acc. 27 July 2018] Environmental flows. https://www.

internationalrivers.org/environmental-flows
IUCN, 2012. The IUCN Programme 2013–2016. [Cited 7 October 2015]. (http://
cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_programme_2013_2016.pdf)
Jax, K. et al. 2018. Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the
ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosystems Services, 29: 415-427.
References 53
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, G., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W. & Rockström, J.,
2016. Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food
gap. Environmental Research Letters, 11(2): 025002.
Kalas, P. 2007. Multi-stakeholder partnerships and diplomacy in communications

technology for development at the global policy level. A Study of the UN Working
Group on Internet Governance. DiploFoundation, Geneva.
Kalas, P., Abubakar, A., Chavva, K., Gordes, A., Grovermann, C., Innes-Taylor,
N., Ketelaar, J., Laval, E., Phillips, S. and Rioux, J. 2017. Multi-stakeholder,
multi-actor processes, platforms and networks for Climate Smart Agriculture. In
Enhancing Capacities for a Country-Owned Transition towards Climate Smart
Agriculture. Climate-Smart Agriculture.
Keyzer, M.A., Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. & Van Veen, W.C.M., 2009. Valuation of natural
resources: efficiency and equity. Journal of Development Practice, 19(2): 233-239.
Keyzer, M.A., 2015. Optimal calibration and control in a regional water economy model
for the Jordan River Basin. Project paper. Towards concerted sharing: Development
of a regional water economy model in the Jordan River Basin. Amsterdam Centre
for World Food Studies. VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kolstad, C.D. 2000. Environmental Economics, Oxford University Press.
Kremen, C. & Ostfeld, R., 2005. Measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem
services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3: 540-548.
Kurbalija, J. & Katrandjiev, V., eds. 2006. Multi-stakeholder diplomacy – challenges

and opportunities. DiploFoundation.
Mander, M., Jewitt, G., Dini, J., Glenday, J., Blignaut, J., Hughes, C., Marais, C.,
Maze, K., Van der Waal, B. & Mills, A., 2017. Modelling potential hydrological
returns from investing in ecological infrastructure: Case studies from the
Baviaanskloof-Tsitsikamma and uMngeni catchments, South Africa. Ecosystem
Services. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.003.
MacKinnon, K., Dudley, N. & Sandwith, T.,2011. Natural solutions: Protected areas
helping people to cope with climate change. Oryx, 45(4): 461-462.
McCarthy, T.S., Cooper, G.R.J., Tyson, P.D. & Ellery, W.N., 2000. Seasonal Flooding
in the Okavango Delta, Botswana - Recent History and Future Prospects. South
African Journal of Science, 96: 25-33.
McGinnis, M. & Ostrom, E., 1992. Design principles for local and global commons.
Paper presented at the Conference "Linking Local and Global Commons,"
Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 23-25, 1992.
Mitsch, W. J. (2012) “What is ecological engineering?” Elsevier 5-12
Murad, S. & Ulveland, L. ,2014. “To still have water, that is the dream” Exploring a
Transition to Sustainable Groundwater Management in Aweil East, South Sudan.
Master Thesis. Lund University Master of Science in International Development
and Management May 2014. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur.
Naumann, S., McKenna, D., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M. & Rayment, M. 2011.
Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects.
Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no.
070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting.
NCE, 2016. The Sustainable Infrastructure Imperative: Financing For Better

Growth and Development. The 2016 New Climate Economy Report- The
Global commission on the Economy and Climate. https://newclimateeconomy.
report/2016/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/08/NCE_2016Report.pdf
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K.N., Rusch, G.M., Waylen, K.A., Delbaere,
B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik,
M., Rey, F., Van Dijk, J., Vistad, O.I., Wilkinson, M.E. & Wittmer, H., 2017.
The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary
perspective. The Science of the Total Environment, 579: 1215-1227.
Niemi, E., Lee, K. & Raterman, T., 2007. Net Economic Benefits of Using Ecosystem
Restoration to Meet Stream Temperature Requirements. ECONorthwest. Available
from http://www.econw.com/media/ap_ files/ECONorthwest_Publication_Net-
EconomicBenefits-of-Using-Ecosystem-Restoration_2008.pdf
Olomola A. S.. 1993. The traditional Approach Towards Sustainable Management of

Common Property Fishery Resources in Nigeria. MAST, 6(1/2): 92-109.
Opperman, J.J. et al.. 2009. Sustainable Floodplains through Large-scale Reconnection

to Rivers. Science, 326: 1487-1488.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, T., Bhatta, L.D., Alfthan, B., Agrawal, N. K., Basnet, D., Sharma,
E., and van Oort, B. (2017). Incentives for Ecosystem Services (IES) in the
Himalayas; A ‘Cookbook’ for Emerging IES Practitioners in the Region.
ICIMOD, GRIDArendal and CICERO.
Pearce, F., 2015. Pre-Inca canals may solve Lima’s water crisis, New scientist live 2018,
Daily news, 9 April 2015.
Pendleton, L. & Mendelsohn, R., 2000. Estimating recreation preferences using

hedonic travel cost and random utility models. Environmental & Resource
Economics, 17 (1): 89-108.
Potschin, M., Kretsch, C., Haines-Young, R., Furman, E., Berry, P. & Baró, F. 2016.
Nature-based solutions. In: Potschin, M. & Jax, K. eds.: OpenNESS Ecosystem
Services Reference Book. Available at www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-
book
Qin, Y., Gartner, T., Minnemeyer, S., Reig, P. & Sargent, S., 2016. Global Forest Watch
water metadata document. Technical note. Washington, DC, World Resources
Institute (also available at www.wri.org/publication/ GFW_Water_metadata)
References 55
Ramakrishnan, P.S., 2009. GIAHS conservation and biodiversity management.

Proceedings of the Second International Forum on Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems. Theme: Cherishing our Agricultural Heritage Systems for
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21-23
October 2009, pp. 28-30. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/ap023e/ap023e.pdf.
Ramos, B., 2012. Green Infrastructure Case Studies. TNC: CAUCA VALLEY
WATER FUND. In TNC 2013. https://www.nature.org/about-us/working-
with-companies/case-studies-for-green-infrastructure.pdf?redirect=https-301.
Ramsar Convention, [acc. 27 July 2018] The wise use of wetlands. https://www.
ramsar.org/about/the-wise-use-of-wetlands.
Reliefweb, 2007. Sudan: Water crisis in Aweil East County, Wunlang Payam -
Malualkuel Boma. https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/sudan-water-crisis-aweil-
east-county-wunlang-payam-malualkuel-boma.
Reliefweb, 2018. South Africa’s water crisis is bigger than the Cape. [Cited on: April 24,
2018]. https://reliefweb.int/report/south-africa/south-africas-water-crisis-bigger-
cape.
Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G. et al. 2017. Sustainable intensification of

agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46: 4. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6
Roe B., K.J. Boyle and M.F. Teisl. 1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates
of Compensating Variation. Journal of environmental economics and management
31, 145-159
Rioux, J. & Kalas, P. 2017. Capacity development at multiple-levels for effective

implementation of sustainable land management. In FAO. Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) in practice in the Kagera Basin: lessons learned for scaling up
at landscape level, pp. 82–85. Rome.
Saner, R. 2007. Development diplomacy by non-state actors: an emerging form

of multi-stakeholder diplomacy. In J. Kurbalija & V. Katrandjiev, eds. Multi-
stakeholder diplomacy - challenges and opportunities. DiploFoundation.
Salpeteur, M., Madella, M., Patel, H.R. & Reyes-García, V, N.D. 2017. Adaptation,
Access to Resources and Mobility: From Contemporary Pastoral Systems to Ancient
Societies. Nomadic Peoples. The White Horse Press: Winwick, Cambridgeshire,
UK, 2017; Volume 21, pp. 191–213.
Scholes, R.J. & Biggs, R. 2004. Ecosystem Services in Southern Africa: A Regional
Assessment. Pretoria. CSIR.
SEDAPAL. 2016. SEDAPAL y AQUAFONDO buscan recuperación ecológica de

ríos Rímac, Chillón y Lurín [online]. Nota de prensa no. 46 2016. Servicio de Agua
Potable y Alcantarillado de Lima (SEDAPAL). [Cited 23 July 2018]. https://goo.
gl/Tpb2QW
Sood, A., Smakhtin, V., Eriyagama, N., Villholth, K. G., Liyanage, N., Wada, Y.,
Ebrahim, G. & Dickens, C., 2017. Global environmental flow information for
the sustainable development goals. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI) Research Report 168. doi: 10.5337/2017.201
Stoorvogel, J.J., Bakkenes, M., Ten Brink, B.J. & Temme, A.J. 2017. To What Extent
Did We Change Our Soils? A Global Comparison of Natural and Current
Conditions. Land Degradation & Development, 28: 1982-1991.
Talberth, J., Gray, E., Yonavjak, L. & Gartner, T. 2013. Green-Gray Analysis.
In Natural Infrastructure: Investing in Forested Landscapes for Source Water
Protection in the United States, Gartner, T., Mulligan, J., Schmidt, R. and Gunn,
J., eds. World Resources Institute.
Taylor, L. O. & Smith, V.K., 2000. Environmental amenities as a source of market

power. Land Economics, 76 (4): 550-568.
The Conversation, 2018. Why UNESCO’s ‘nature based solutions’ to water problems
won’t work in Africa. https://theconversation.com/why-unescos-nature-based-
solutions-to-water-problems-wont-work-in-africa-93208.
The Nature Conservancy (2013) Green infrastructure case studies. Dow Cchemical
Company, Shell, Swiss Re, and Unilever. https://www.nature.org/about-us/
working-with-companies/case-studies-for-green-infrastructure.pdf
Tiezzi, S, 2002. Environmental defensive expenditures and households behaviour in

Italy. Applied Economics, 34(16): 2053-2061.
TNC, 2018. Peru-Water Security. [Cited on April 26, 2018]. https://www.nature.org/

ourinitiatives/regions/latinamerica/peru/explore/peru-water.xml.
Turner, R.K., Burgess, D.D., Hadley, D.D., Coombes, E.E. and Jackson, N.N.
2007. A cost–benefit appraisal of coastal managed realignment policy. Global
Environmental Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 17(3&4): 397–407.
UNEP/GPA (2006). Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress.

unep/gpa, The Hague. ISBN 92-807-2707-9
UNESCO, 2018. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-
based solutions for water. Paris, France.
Unver O, A. Bhaduri, and J. Hoogeveen. 2017. Water-use efficiency and productivity

improvements towards a sustainable pathway for meeting future water demand.
Water Security. 1 (2017) 21–27.
Van der Esch, S., ten Brink, B., Stehfest, E., Bakkenes, M., Sewell, A., Bouwman,
A., Meijer, J., Westhoek, H. & Van den Berg, M., 2017. Exploring future changes
in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change
and biodiversity: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook. PBL Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague.
Vergara, W. & Scholz, M., eds, 2011. Assessment of the Risk of Amazon Dieback.
World Bank, Washington, DC.
References 57
WBCSD, (acc. 30 Juy, 2018) Izta-Popo - Replenishing Groundwater through

Reforestation in Mexico. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
https://www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org/
Wilkinson, M., Quinn, P., Barber, N. & Jonczyk, J. A.,2014. Framework for managing
runoff and pollution in the rural landscape using a catchment systems engineering
approach. Sci. Total Environ. 468: 1245-1254.
FAO TECHNICAL PAPERS
FAO LAND AND WATER DISCUSSION PAPERS
1. A perspective on water control in southern Africa –

support to regional investment initiatives, 2003 (E)
2. On-farm composting methods, 2003 (E, F)
3. Payment schemes for enviornmental services

in watersheds / Sistemas de pago por servicios
ambientales en cuencas hidrográficas, 2004 (E, S)
4. Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the

Limpopo River Basin – a situation analysis, 2004 (E)
5. Water desalination for agricultural applications, 2006 (E)
6. Land evaluation – towards a revised framework, (E)

2007. Only available in PDF format at
http://www.fao/ag/agl/public.stm
7. Coping with Water Scarcity: What Role for

Biotechnologies? 2008 (E)
8. Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems

and climate change (E)
9. Monitoring agricultural water use at country level (E, F)
10. Exploring the concept of water tenure (E)
11. Water stress and human migration:

a global, georeferenced review of empirical research (E)
12. Nature-Based Solutions for agricultural water management

and food security (E)
Ar – Arabic Multil + Multilingual

C – Chinese * Out of print
E – English ** In preparation
F – French
P – Portuguese
S – Spanish
12
Nature-Based Solutions
management and food
security
Accessibility to clean and sufficient water resources for
agriculture is key in feeding the steadily increasing world
population in a sustainable manner. Nature-Based Solutions
(NBS) offer a promising contribution to enhance availability and
quality of water for productive purposes and human
consumption, while simultaneously striving to preserve the
integrity and intrinsic value of the ecosystems. Implementing
successful NBS for water management, however, is not an easy
task since many ecosystems are already severely degraded, and
exploited beyond their regenerative capacity. Furthermore,
ecosystems are large and complex and the many stakeholders
involved might have conflicting interests.
Hence, implementation of NBS requires a structured and

comprehensive approach that starts with the valuation of the
services provided by the ecosystem. The whole set of use and
non-use values, in monetary terms, provides a factual basis to
guide the implementation of NBS, which ideally is done
according to transdisciplinary principles, i.e. complemented
with scientific and case-specific knowledge of the eco-system in
an adaptive decision-making process that involves the relevant
stakeholders.
This discussion paper evaluated twenty-one NBS case studies

using a non-representative sample, to learn from successful and
failed experiences and to identify possible causalities among
factors that characterize the implementation of NBS. The case
studies give a minor role to valuation of ecosystem services, an
area for which the literature is still developing guidance. Less
successful water management projects tend to suffer from
inadequate factual and scientific basis and uncoordinated or
insufficient stakeholder involvement and lack of long term
planning. Successful case studies point to satisfactory
understanding of the functioning of ecosystems and
importance of multi-stakeholder platforms, well-identified
funding schemes, realistic monitoring and evaluation systems
and endurance of its promoters.
ISBN 978-92-5-131125-7 ISSN 1729-0554
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 3 1 1 2 5 7
CA2525EN/1/11.18

NBS - Agricultura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NBS - Agricultura

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NBS - Agricultura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12

Nature-Based Solutions for

for agricultural water

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Cover photo: ©Pixabay

1. Increased demand for agricultural water 1

2. NBS – a new paradigm for water management 5

3. Challenges for implementation of NBS policies 11

4. NBS case studies; what can be learned? 17

We wish to acknowledge the substantial contributions of the following colleagues

Feeding the future world population sustainably and satisfactorily requires,

Implementation of NBS requires a structured and comprehensive approach that

i. Improve efficiency in the use of resources, especially water resources,

and sustainable management of ecosystems, involving actors at the appropriate scales”.

Photo: ©FAO/Giulio Napolitano

Source: FAO, Land and Water Division, 2018

Source: FAO, Land and Water Division, 2018.

Photo: ©FAO/Aris Mihich

2.1. Defining NBS and classifying interventions

2.1.1 Compatible concepts, tools, approaches, and terminology

These typologies should not be considered as a static representation of possible NBS

The Ecosystem Approach focuses on scientifically based integrated management of land,

Ecosystem-Based Management focus on the conservation, sustainable management and

Green Infrastructure is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems are landscapes formed through

constructed wetlands involve a type 3 intervention that subsequently can be managed

2.2 NBS and agricultural water management

Photo: ©FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarri

3.1 The value of the environment6

6 This section draws on Keyzer et al., 2009.

These particular properties of ecosystems are well understood by now, theoretically,

3.2 Techniques of ecosystems valuation

NBS interventions for agricultural water management partly rely on market-based

i. Characteristics of ecosystems relate to non-excludability issues in water management:

ii. Consequences of non-excludability

iii. Inadequate pricing results in:

functions use detailed process knowledge to identify the marginal contribution of

Quantitative restrictions are powerful to prevent ecosystem exhaustion, but are

3.3 Multi-stakeholder engagement as a requirement for

Photo: ©FAO/Ami Vitale

• identification of stakeholders and beneficiaries

• stability of financing, and

Code Transdisciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure

-- Absence of Absence of rewarding No collaboration Social and ecological

- Transdisciplinary Presence of Some collaboration Either social or ecological

-+ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration established Part of the social and

+ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration successful; Social and ecological NBS

++ Transdisciplinary Rewarding schemes Collaboration very Social and ecological NBS

4.1 Case studies

Main characteristics: Success, type 1.

NBS typology Trans- disciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure

C 2. Izta-Popo - Replenishing Groundwater

Main characteristics: Success, types 2 and 3.

NBS typology Trans- disciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure

9 Million Cubic Meter (MCM)

C 3. The Saye River bank failure

Main characteristics: Failure, type 3.

NBS typology Trans- disciplinarity Rewarding custodians Institutional collaboration Success/failure

C 4. Enhancing water security in Kenya using ancient methods of