Consideration of Nature-Based Solutions as Offsets in Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

This working paper by the World Resources Institute examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) as carbon offsets within corporate climate mitigation strategies. It argues that while NBS are critical for achieving global net-zero goals by 2050, their use as offsets is controversial due to risks of 'greenwashing' and technical challenges regarding credit quality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach where companies combine aggressive direct fossil fuel abatement with high-quality NBS investments, emphasizing the need for robust standards to ensure environmental and social integrity.

• Nature-based solutions (NBS) are essential for meeting the 1.5°C target, potentially providing approximately one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation required. However, current financial flows to NBS are significantly lower than their mitigation potential; for example, efforts to fight tropical deforestation received less than 3 percent of international climate mitigation finance, totaling roughly US$20 billion since 2010.
• NBS offer benefits beyond carbon storage, including enhancing climate stability through rainfall generation and temperature moderation, providing biodiversity and adaptation cobenefits, and supporting economic recovery. Specifically, protecting and restoring mangroves is estimated to provide $80 billion per year in avoided coastal flooding losses globally, plus $40–$50 billion in nonmarket benefits.
• There is a critical distinction between emissions reductions (ecosystem protection) and removals (restoration). Avoiding the conversion of carbon-dense ecosystems is a higher near-term priority because the carbon released is 'irrecoverable' by 2050. For instance, preventing the loss of one hectare of mature forest avoids about 100 tons of CO2, whereas tropical reforestation sequesters only 3 percent of that amount annually.
• The use of NBS as offsets faces two primary integrity risks: 'demand-side environmental integrity,' where offsets might be used to delay or substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement, and 'supply-side environmental integrity,' where credits may fail to represent real reductions due to issues with additionality, leakage, permanence, and double counting.
• Corporate mitigation strategies vary by sector based on the availability of abatement options. Sectors with 'hard-to-abate' emissions—including cement, steel, plastics, chemicals, heavy-duty road transport, maritime shipping, and aviation—may rely more heavily on compensation via NBS while awaiting the scaling of new technologies.
• Significant guidance gaps exist regarding the legitimate use of offsets. There is no definitive consensus on the level of internal abatement a company must achieve before it is 'eligible' to use offsets, nor is there a standardized accounting methodology for 'insetting' (reductions within a company's own value chain).
• The transition from project-scale to jurisdictional-scale crediting is recommended to reduce supply-side risks. Project-scale REDD+ credits have been criticized for inflated baselines and risks to indigenous communities, whereas jurisdictional approaches concentrate incentives at the level of government authority to better manage leakage and non-additionality.
• The interaction between voluntary carbon markets and compliance markets remains unresolved. A key issue is whether 'corresponding adjustments' to national-level emissions accounting under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement should apply to voluntary corporate purchases to prevent double counting.
• To manage demand-side risk, companies should implement 'no regrets' actions: publishing Paris-aligned decarbonization strategies, disclosing offset sources, and signaling demand for high-quality jurisdictional-scale credits without making premature 'climate neutral' claims.

APA

Seymour, F., & Langer, P. (2021). Consideration of Nature-Based Solutions as Offsets in Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/consideration-nature-based-solutions-offsets-corporate-climate-change-mitigation-strategies.pdf

Chicago

Seymour, Frances, and Paige Langer. Consideration of Nature-Based Solutions as Offsets in Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies. World Resources Institute, 2021. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/consideration-nature-based-solutions-offsets-corporate-climate-change-mitigation-strategies.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Seymour |first1=Frances |last2=Langer |first2=Paige |title=Consideration of Nature-Based Solutions as Offsets in Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=February 2021 |url=https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/consideration-nature-based-solutions-offsets-corporate-climate-change-mitigation-strategies.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{seymour2021consideration, author = {Seymour, Frances and Langer, Paige}, title = {{Consideration of Nature-Based Solutions as Offsets in Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2021}, month = feb, url = {https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/consideration-nature-based-solutions-offsets-corporate-climate-change-mitigation-strategies.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }