Natural and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have become a cornerstone of climate policy, conservation, and sustainable development. These solutions—ranging from wetland restoration to urban green spaces—are promoted by governments, international organizations, and researchers to leverage natural systems to provide ecological and societal benefits.

But there’s a problem.

Many definitions of NBS assume a separation between people and nature. This perspective can be confusing or even exclusionary, especially for Indigenous communities that view humans as part of nature, not separate from it. If the goal is to implement effective, inclusive, and just environmental policies, then it’s time to rethink how we define and apply the concept of NBS.

Defining NBS

At its core, NBS refers to strategies that protect, manage, or restore natural ecosystems to address societal challenges. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NBS as “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.”

Examples include:

• Restoring coastal wetlands to buffer storm surges and control flooding.
• Reforesting degraded landscapes to absorb carbon emissions.
• Creating urban green spaces to improve air quality and reduce heat.

These approaches highlight that nature provides important solutions to global problems. As a result, nature-based solutions are becoming popular in public and private sectors worldwide. Major international scientific organizations focused on climate change and biodiversity, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), recognize their significance. Many countries are including these concepts in their national climate plans and biodiversity and restoration targets.

However, the dominant framing of NBS often treats “nature” as something separate from human societies, rather than something we are intrinsically part of.

An Indigenous Perspective on NBS

For many Indigenous communities, the idea of a “nature-based” solution is redundant. Indigenous Knowledge systems have long understood that human and ecological well-being are interconnected. Stewardship practices such as controlled burns, river restoration, and sustainable hunting and fishing have maintained balanced ecosystems for millennia—long before NBS became a widely discussed policy tool.

Take, for example, Indigenous fire management in North America. Many Indigenous groups have used controlled burns to reduce wildfire risks and promote ecological diversity. Western fire suppression policies have often dismissed or restricted these practices, only to later recognize their effectiveness. Yet, under conventional NBS frameworks, these Indigenous-led solutions may be overlooked or treated as an add-on to “nature-based” strategies rather than central to them.

The core issue is that dominant environmental policies often assume that human influence is inherently harmful, while “nature” is something that exists apart from us. This thinking can marginalize Indigenous approaches that emphasize reciprocity, responsibility, and coexistence with the environment.

The Policy Gap: Why Language Matters

Why does this distinction matter? Because definitions shape policy, funding, and governance. If NBS definitions fail to acknowledge the interconnection between people and nature, they risk:

• Excluding Indigenous leadership in NBS initiatives.
• Limiting funding opportunities for Indigenous-led conservation and climate adaptation efforts.
• Promoting top-down approaches that impose solutions without considering local and cultural contexts.

Currently, many NBS projects are designed and implemented without the direct involvement of Indigenous communities, even in places where they have long-standing knowledge of land stewardship. Without a more inclusive framework, NBS risks reinforcing historical patterns of exclusion rather than fostering genuine partnerships.

A Call for a More Inclusive Definition

To make NBS truly effective and equitable, we need to rethink its definition. A more inclusive policy approach should:

1. Recognize Indigenous Knowledge and governance systems as fundamental to NBS.
2. Explicitly state that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.
3. Ensure Indigenous communities are co-leaders in shaping and implementing NBS policies.

One way to achieve this is by standardizing NBS definitions in national and international policies to explicitly acknowledge Indigenous worldviews. For example, rather than defining NBS as “using nature to address societal challenges,” policies could emphasize “co-stewardship approaches that recognize human communities as an integral part of ecosystems, fostering solutions based on both Indigenous and scientific knowledge.”

This shift in language might seem subtle, but it has significant implications. It could ensure that Indigenous-led conservation practices are not merely included in NBS strategies but recognized as essential to them. It may also create pathways for funding, governance, and collaboration that respect Indigenous sovereignty and knowledge systems.

Conclusion

Nature-Based Solutions are essential tools for addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, but their definitions and applications must evolve. If policymakers truly want to build effective and just environmental strategies, we need a more holistic understanding—one that acknowledges that people, especially Indigenous communities, are not just beneficiaries of NBS, but essential participants in shaping and sustaining them. By redefining NBS to better reflect Indigenous perspectives, we can create policies that are more inclusive, more effective, and more aligned with the realities of the ecosystems we all depend on.