Photo by auntmasako/Pixabay NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT Nature-based Solutions (NBS) that strategically conserve or restore nature to support conventionally built infrastructure systems (also referred to as gray infrastructure) can reduce disaster risk and produce more resilient and lower-cost services in developing countries. In the disaster risk management (DRM) and water security sectors, NBS can be applied as green infrastructure strategies that work in harmony with gray infrastructure systems. NBS can also support community well-being, generate benefits for the environment, and make progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in ways that gray infrastructure systems alone cannot. Though NBS approaches have yet to be fully integrated into decision-making or to compel widespread investment in developing countries, this is on the brink of change. Developing countries and their partners (including multilateral development banks and bilateral agencies) are increasingly utilizing NBS in DRM, as well as in water security, urban sustainability, and other development projects. The growing number of NBS projects offer lessons and insights to help mainstream NBS into development decision- making. As more disaster risk managers understand and integrate well-designed NBS into DRM projects, more finance can be routed to nature-based projects that are cost-effective and resilient. With that goal in mind, the World Bank’s Nature-based Solutions Program aims to facilitate uptake of NBS in water management and DRM projects. ►► Guidance to support implementation of NBS in DRM, including a high-level review of emerging Contents policies and financing approaches that encourage the use of NBS Introduction 2 About the World Bank Nature-based About the World Bank Nature-based Solutions Program Solutions Program 3 Established in 2017, the World Bank NBS Program Nature-based Solutions in the informs and enables the World Bank operational Disaster Risk Management Portfolio 3 teams and clients to make use of natural and modified Mitigating Disaster Risks with ecosystems for functional purposes, to reduce risks Nature-based Solutions 6 associated with natural hazards and achieve other Nature-based Solutions for development objectives. Coastal Flooding and Erosion 7 WEBSITE: www.naturebasedsolutions.org Nature-based Solutions for Urban Flooding 9 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Nature-based Solutions The program seeks to inform and enable World Bank for River Flooding 11 operational teams and clients to incorporate NBS Enabling and Implementing considerations into project plans and investments by Nature-based Solutions to Manage Disaster Risk 13 ►► identifying NBS investments across the World Bank portfolio; Implementing Nature-based Solutions 14 ►► addressing challenges and obstacles within the Policy to Support Nature-based institution and in the client engagement process; Solutions 15 ►► mainstreaming NBS among clients, management, Financing for Nature-based Solutions 18 and operational staff by providing technical guidance and conducting pilot projects; and References 21 ►► fostering knowledge exchange among staff, and with practitioners outside the World Bank. This booklet is for staff at governments, development RELATED PUBLICATIONS finance institutions (DFIs), and other development The World Bank NBS Program has been exchanging institutions to understand how NBS can enhance knowledge, experiences, and lessons learned DRM, and how to begin integrating these approaches among stakeholders to enhance the planning and into projects. The booklet illustrates NBS through 14 implementation of NBS across the World Bank real-world examples. Its main findings draw on the portfolio. Key resources include the following: forthcoming report Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure, published ►► Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next by the World Bank and World Resources Institute. The Generation Infrastructure (Browder et al. booklet’s three sections cover the following: Forthcoming)1 ►► The World Bank’s Nature-based Solutions Program ►► Implementing Nature-based Flood and World Bank projects already investing in NBS Protection: Principles and Implementation components Guidance (Available in English, Spanish, and French) (World Bank 2017)2 ►► Examples of NBS for three types of hazards: coastal flooding and erosion, urban stormwater flooding, and river flooding 2 ►► Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: projects that utilize NBS in project subcomponents Guidelines for Measuring and Valuing the (Figure 1). The total value of subcomponents that Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves utilize NBS is $2 billion (Figure 2). These projects and Coral Reefs (World Bank 2016)3 target several hazards and risks (see Figure 3; note ►► The Role of Green Infrastructure Solutions some projects apply to more than one hazard). in Urban Flood Risk Management (Soz et al. 2016)4 Six World Bank Global Practices have implemented these projects with NBS components: Environment Nature-based Solutions in the Disaster Risk and Natural Resources (35 projects); Social, Urban, Management Portfolio Rural and Resilience (29); Agriculture (5); Water (5); From 2012 to 2018, the World Bank’s DRM portfolio Social Protection and Labor (1); and Transport and totaled US$52.87 billion across 681 projects. Over Information and Communication Technology (ICT) this same period, the World Bank approved 76 DRM (1). FIGURE 1 | Nature-based Solutions in the Disaster Risk Management Portfolio 30 25 Projects Approved 20 15 10 5 0 Africa and East Asia South Asia Latin America Europe and Global Middle East and The Pacific and the Central Asia Caribbean Source: Adapted from WRI and World Bank (forthcoming)1. FIGURE 2 | Investments in Project Components Containing Nature-based Solutions by Region 1000 800 US$ Millions 600 400 200 0 Africa and East Asia South Asia Latin America Europe and Middle East and The Pacific and the Central Asia Caribbean Source: Adapted from Browder et al. (forthcoming)1. FIGURE 3 | Hazards Targeted by Projects Containing Nature-based Solutions 35 Targeting Each Hazard 30 Number of Projects 25 20 15 10 5 0 Urban River Coastal Coastal Landslides Drought Flooding Flooding Flooding Erosion and Erosion Source: Adapted from Browder et al. (forthcoming)1. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 3 FIGURE 4 | Highlights of DRM Projects with NBS The map below highlights some examples of DRM projects and their NBS components. Poland Morocco Senegal Vietnam Suriname Sri Lanka Coastal & urban Coastal River flooding Landslides flooding erosion L ATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBE AN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA Greater Paramaribo Flood Risk Management Odra-Vistula Flood Management Project Location: Suriname Location: Poland Challenges: Coastal & urban flooding; coastal erosion Challenge: River flooding NBS: Mangrove restoration; rivers & floodplain management NBS: Dry polder & embankment retrieval Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 225,000 Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 22M AFRICA SOUTH ASIA Stormwater Management and Climate Change Adaptation Project Forest-based Landslide Risk Management Program Location: Senegal Location: Sri Lanka Challenge: Urban & river flooding Challenge: Landslides NBS: Artificial & natural retention ponds; wetlands NBS: Restoration of forests & vegetation Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 4M Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 150,000 MIDDLE E AST & NORTH AFRICA E AST ASIA & THE PACIFIC Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project Mekong Delta Integrated Climate Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Project Location: Morocco Location: Vietnam Challenge: Coastal & urban flooding Challenge: Coastal flooding & erosion; river flooding NBS: Forests & vegetation; inland & coastal wetlands; dunes & beaches NBS: Mangrove restoration & re-connect river Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 4M Cost of NBS-related Component: US$ 243M 4 MITIGATING DISASTER RISKS WITH NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS This section describes a variety of NBS that can help mitigate the impact of coastal flooding and erosion, urban flooding, and river flooding. It highlights risk-reduction potential, estimated costs of implementation (where available), and examples of where and how NBS have been used—drawing on experiences from the World Bank project portfolio as well as other sources. The magnitude of costs and benefits for nature-based solutions, and their suitability for local contexts, vary widely according to geography, and for several NBS very few estimates are available. This booklet provides estimates from existing literature to give a sense of potential values, but these estimates are not directly applicable to every site. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 5 NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS ►► Coral and oyster reef systems can control coastal erosion by reducing wave velocity. By one FOR COASTAL FLOODING AND estimate, coral reefs reduce nonstorm wave heights by 70 percent6. Median restoration costs for coral EROSION reefs are $166/m2 (ranging from $2 to $7,500), Average global flood losses in major coastal cities are while oyster reef restoration costs range from $107 to $316/m2. expected to spike from $6 billion per year in 2005 to $52 billion per year by 20505. Coastal flooding is on ►► Sandy beaches and dunes prevent coastal the rise in part due to ecosystem degradation (e.g., erosion caused by strong winds, waves, and tides. overextraction of natural resources, loss of wetlands They can also stop waves and storm surge from reaching inland areas. The natural services these and mangroves, and pollution that harms species), as NBS provide can be enhanced through artificial well as human settlement in low-lying coastal areas. sand nourishment, which costs between $6,500 to Climate change and sea-level rise are exacerbating $16,400/meter (m)7. Revegetating and restoring these trends. sand dunes can cost between $100 to $16,400/m. NBS can help stabilize shorelines and attenuate waves ►► Seagrass helps stabilize sediment and regulates to reduce flooding and erosion impacts. Integrating water currents that contribute to coastal erosion. these solutions into coastal development and flood Seagrass beds reduce non-storm wave height 36 risk mitigation strategies could enhance overall flood percent on average6. A cost of $11/m2 (ranging control system performance. from $0.20 to $410) is estimated for seagrass restoration8. ►► Coastal wetlands, such as mangroves Additional benefits of NBS: In addition to and salt marshes, can stabilize coastlines by protecting coastlines from flooding and erosion, these trapping sediment with their root systems, and by NBS can generate income for local communities by reducing wave height and velocity with their dense underpinning fisheries, tourism, and recreation; vegetation. Salt marshes can reduce nonstorm wave heights by an average of 72 percent, and some nature-based solutions can aid in the storage of mangroves, by 31 percent6. Median restoration freshwater supplies and improve water quality; they costs for salt marshes are $1.11/square meter (m2) also enhance habitat and biodiversity. Intentional (ranging from $0.01 to $33.00), and $0.1/ m2 for design of NBS to work in combination with gray mangroves (ranging from $0.05 to $6.50). It can be infrastructure can achieve coastal resilience as well as two to five times cheaper to restore coastal wetlands these additional benefits. than to construct submerged breakwaters to deal with wave heights of up to half a meter. 6 Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | November 2018 | 6 Photo by Blue Forests/Flickr Examples of NBS in Action UNITED STATES | Oyster Reef Restoration9 Oyster reefs in the Gulf of Mexico have been degraded from decades of unsustainable harvesting, pollution, and diseases. The Nature Conservancy has undertaken several reef restoration projects to rejuvenate oyster reefs and create a healthy marine ecosystem in the Gulf that naturally protects the coastline while providing habitat, food, and cleaner waters. In Mobile Bay, Alabama, $3.5 million has been spent on efforts to successfully restore 5.9 kilometers (km) of oyster reefs that have reduced wave height and energy of average waves at the shoreline by 53 to 91 percent9. The reefs have also produced 6,560 kilograms (kg) of seafood per year—a weight equivalent to half the total oysters harvested in Alabama in 2015. These efforts also help filter nitrogen pollution that contributes to conditions that can be fatal for marine life. THE NETHERLANDS | Sand Nourishment10 To help protect the Delfland Coast from erosion and inland flooding, the Dutch Government must periodically replenish sand along its dunes and beaches. The traditional method for doing so, however, is costly—it requires small, frequent nourishment operations on an as-needed basis. In 2011, the government took a different approach called the “Sand Motor.” With an investment of nearly $100 million, it deposited a large volume of sand (21.5 million cubic meters [m3]) all at once to let the sand naturally distribute itself across the coastline and replenish the natural sand dunes. Initial findings indicate the shoreline has indeed grown beyond the original deposit, although the dunes have grown more slowly than expected10. VIETNAM | Restoring Mangrove Forests11 In the late 1980s, rapid aquaculture expansion along the northern coast of Vietnam caused significant loss of mangrove forests, which in turn decreased natural defenses against coastal floods and erosion in an area with a rapidly growing population. Recognizing that the restoration of mangrove forests could help mitigate the impact of disasters and protect livelihoods, in 1994, the Vietnam Red Cross launched the Mangrove Plantation and Disaster Risk Reduction Project to enhance existing gray infrastructure and reduce the risk of flooding. By 2010, $9 million was invested to restore 9,000 hectares (ha) of mangroves along the shores of 166 communes as well as 100 km of dike lines. Cost of damages to the dikes was reduced by $80,000 to $295,000, and $15 million was saved in avoided damages to private property and other public infrastructure11. VEGETATED DUNES AND SANDY BEACHES HELP ATTENUATE WAVES AND STABILIZE THE SHORELINE Source: |vv@ldzen|/Flickr Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 7 NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR ►► Bioretention areas, including rain gardens and bioswales, are vegetated trenches designed URBAN FLOODING to receive runoff in a specific location to help control stormwater. A cost of cost between $110 Of the total global population, 68 percent will live in to $430/m2 is estimated for industrial bioswales17. cities by 2050, up from 55 percent in 201812. Heavy In addition to controlling peak flows, bioretention rainfall in low-drainage urban areas poses flood areas can filter pollutants and have been shown hazards and overwhelms water infrastructure systems, to remove up to 90 percent of heavy metals from resulting in system overflows that expose city residents stormwater16. to health risks. As urban populations grow and climate ►► Open spaces such as parks and greenways change shifts rainfall patterns, people are at increasing can be intentionally constructed or protected in risk of urban flooding. Rapid urbanization often entails strategic locations to capture runoff from upstream informal settlements in areas with high flood risk, such basins and adjacent areas. The cost of open spaces as floodplains and riverbanks, exposing the urban poor is highly variable and largely dependent on land prices. The benefits can be substantial: a study of to higher risk of floods. green spaces in Beijing, China, showed that these NBS for urban flooding can help increase onsite areas stored 154 million m3 of rainwater, which stormwater absorption. They can be applied from corresponds roughly to the annual water needs of the house or building level to landscape scale, are the city’s urban ecological landscape18. often used in combination with multiple NBS and ►► Constructed wetlands can capture and retain gray infrastructure components, and are most stormwater, allowing for greater water infiltration. effective when integrated into comprehensive urban The cost of constructed wetlands may range from development plans. $7 to $15/m2 and are usually less expensive than built (gray) options for the same function, though ►► Green roofs reduce stormwater runoff by these costs are also highly variable according to promoting rainfall infiltration on the tops of land costs19. An acre of wetland can store 3.8 to 5.7 buildings. Green roofs retain 50 to 100 percent of million liters of floodwater, reducing the peak load the stormwater they receive13. At $110 to $270/m2, on built stormwater and wastewater systems. green roofs are more than two to five times more Additional benefits of NBS: Beyond helping expensive to install than traditional roofs. However, control urban flooding and preventing stormwater they are of comparable cost over their life cycle, pollution, these NBS create additional benefits for given that green roofs typically last twice as long as traditional roofs, and they also insulate buildings, urban communities. For example, urban green spaces which cuts heating and cooling bills14. have been shown to increase property values by 5 to 15 percent, while wetlands create birdwatching and ►► Permeable pavements are pervious concrete, recreation opportunities20. Many of these NBS mitigate asphalt, or interlocking pavements that allow the heat island effect and provide a cool refuge for city rainwater to infiltrate where it falls, thereby reducing stormwater runoff. At $5 to $100/m2, dwellers and wildlife. installation costs are roughly two to three times higher than for regular asphalt or concrete15. However, some applications have demonstrated a 90 percent reduction in runoff volumes16. 8 Examples of NBS in Action SRI LANKA | Urban Wetlands21 Metropolitan Colombo is surrounded by large, interconnected natural and managed wetlands that help retain floodwaters. However, rapid urbanization in recent decades has caused steady wetland degradation, and a 30 percent reduction in wetlands’ water-holding capacity. In 2010, the city experienced a series of record-breaking flooding events that brought unprecedented economic losses. To reduce flood risks, the Government of Sri Lanka implemented the Metro Colombo Urban Development Project, which combines green and gray infrastructure—wetland conservation, flood retention parks, and traditional concrete bank protection walls. The integration of wetlands and flooding parks allows rainwater to infiltrate slowly, decreasing the volume of water that must be moved through the overtaxed built system. Economic analysis has found, the more wetlands are conserved, the greater the payoff in flood protection and other benefits, like wastewater treatment21. UNITED STATES | Mixing Multiple NBS for Urban Stormwater Management22, 23, 24 One-third of Portland, Oregon, has a combined sewer system that transports its stormwater runoff and sewage to treatment using a single pipe. Over time, Portland grew, and the system struggled to handle the growing volumes of sewage and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, resulting in increased frequency of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that directly affected water quality and community health. From 1990 to 2011, the City implemented a CSO control program that expanded gray infrastructure, like tunnels and treatment facilities, to reduce its CSOs and clean up local waterways22. As a complement to this program, the City also implemented a range of programs, policies, and incentives to spur the use of urban NBS to help keep stormwater out of combined sewers and control overflows, such as its Green Streets program. Since 2007, the program has installed permeable pavements and bioswales throughout the city and achieved an 80 to 94 percent reduction in peak flow in the targeted areas23. Portland officials estimate $9 million in their total NBS investment portfolio has yielded a savings of $224 million in CSO costs related to repairs and maintenance24. CHINA | Promoting Public-Private Partnerships to Scale Up Urban NBS25 China’s rapidly growing urban population has increasingly encountered serious water challenges associated with insufficient water infrastructure, sprawling development, degradation of waterways, and intensifying storms: in fact, 62 percent of cities experience flooding, and half are considered water-scarce. To address these growing hazards, the Chinese Government is supporting the development of “sponge cities” by providing funding and technical support to cities to implement NBS to capture, store, filter, and purify rainwater for reuse. Between 2015 and 2016, the government supported 30 cities, which have constructed green roofs, permeable pavements, and wetland restoration25. The central government is directly providing between $59 and $88 million per year to each of its 30 pilot cities for three consecutive years as start-up capital to help them devise and construct NBS. This investment is intended to inspire the creation of public-private partnerships (PPP) that will unlock private finance to meet overall investment needs25. China’s Ministry of Finance created a strategy to support the PPP model by soliciting private investment in construction projects and formalizing the government procurement process for PPPs25. RESTORED URBAN WETLANDS AT THE BEDDAGANA WETLAND PARK, SRI LANKA Source: World Bank Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 9 NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR ►► Stream beds and banks can help slow the river flow when natural functions are preserved RIVER FLOODING or restored, such as a river’s meandering path or vegetated riparian areas. This can sometimes River flooding is a common natural process that is require removing concrete reinforcements and revegetating riverbanks or riparian areas. essential for productive river-floodplain ecosystems. It Restoration costs can vary widely: channel also poses serious hazards as population growth and rehabilitation costs range from $16,000 to economic development in flood-prone areas continue $53,000/km of river30. The benefits can be to rise. Climate change and aging flood-management substantial: for example, setting back levees along infrastructure only compound the risk. Economic the Middle Mississippi River in the United States losses from river floods have increased by 6 percent would decrease expected annual damages by 55 per year on average since the 1960s26. percent in urban areas31. Integrating NBS into flood control systems can ►► Upland forests with deep soils can help slow and retain runoff, resulting in lower peak flow. complement engineered infrastructure and relieve Forest management is most effective at retaining pressure on the system, and is especially effective at and slowing moderate floods of short duration mitigating impacts of short-duration floods. NBS for before soils become saturated32.The cost of forest river flood risk mitigation often involve large-scale restoration (excluding land acquisition costs) varies interventions, and therefore must be carefully planned but is on average between $2,000 and $3,500/ to meet the needs of affected communities. ha29. A review of restoration studies found that 82 percent reported a decrease in peak flow after ►► Floodplains and bypasses can store and restoring upland areas33. slowly convey water and sediment that overtops riverbanks during flood events. ​ Bypasses comprise Additional benefits of NBS: Along with reducing built diversions, like weirs, to control floodwater flooding risks, NBS implemented along rivers can have volume, while floodplains are naturally occurring a range of additional benefits for both people and the areas that absorb water. The cost of restoring and natural environment. Restoring riverbanks and flood reconnecting floodplains varies with land prices, plains can improve downstream water quality and roughly $10,000 to $800,000/ha in Europe27. provide important fish and migratory bird habitats34. ►► Inland wetlands can reduce flood risk by storing Slowing down flood waters in river basins can also water during wet periods and releasing it during increase the deposits of nutrient-rich sediments that dry periods. Their storage capacity depends on help to create fertile soils for agriculture35. the type of wetland and its location, but some can store up to 9,400 to 14,000/m3 of floodwater per hectare28. Estimated costs of wetland restoration are $33,000/ha 29. 10 Photo by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Flickr Examples of NBS in Action POLAND | Remeandering Rivers36 In response to a series of catastrophic river flooding events in 1997, 2006, and 2010, the Polish Government and the World Bank imple- mented two hybrid NBS projects in the Odra and Vistula River basins. These projects take a systems approach that make investments to deliver flood protection services to the entire population by protecting the country’s robust economic centers, as opposed to standalone interventions that only benefit the local community. A range of project components are being implemented that combine existing gray infrastructure with natural features in the river basin. For example, expanding the river floodplain by retrieving embankments and improv- ing existing levee systems and drainage canals helps enhance flood retention capacity and lower peak flooding levels in upstream areas. These efforts not only protect the immediate rural communities, but also the large economic and urban centers downstream36. UNITED STATES | Bypassing Floodwaters37, 38 Major flooding events in the late 1800s in California’s Sacramento Valley brought realization to communities and policymakers that exist- ing single-channel, gray infrastructure approaches to flood management were insufficient to handle the volume of floodwaters in the re- gion. At the turn of the century, opinions shifted in support of the implementation of a comprehensive, multichannel flood-control system. The resulting system is known today as the Sacramento River Flood Control Project and consists of a network of built levees and weirs, and natural bypasses that work together to route and control floodwaters from the main river channel to protect settlements along the river valley. The Yolo Bypass, for example, is an integral part of the hybrid NBS network, and receives overflow from the Sacramento River through weirs. The bypass consists of 240 km2 of wetland area (65 km long); during large storm events, it conveys as much as 80 percent of floodwaters37. It also provides groundwater recharge, fosters wildlife habitat, and serves as agricultural land when not flooded38. CHINA | River Reconnection39 Widespread dam and dike construction in the Yangtze River Basin from the 1950s to 1970s fragmented the existing river-lake wetlands system. The fragmentation contributed to major flooding events that occurred in the 1990s, which resulted in thousands of deaths and billions in direct economic losses. To mitigate future flooding risks, the Chinese Government in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reconnected the Yangtze River with the disconnected lakes and rehabilitated the natural functions of the wetland system39. The reconnection project restored 448 km2 of wetlands, which have a floodwater retention capacity of 285 million m3. In one of the lake districts, the restoration of seasonal flooding increased fisheries production more than 17 percent39. Reconnecting the river-lake wetland system has helped reduce vulnerability to flooding and to increase wildlife populations. VIEW OF THE YOLO BYPASS IN CALIFORNIA’S SACRAMENTO VALLEY DURING A FLOOD EVENT Source: Pacific Southwest Region USFWS/Flickr Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 11 ENABLING AND IMPLEMENTING NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS TO MANAGE DISASTER RISK The previous section covered the variety of NBS that can be utilized to address development challenges and disaster risk, and highlighted their many advantages—they can be cost-effective, multifunctional, resilient, and they can empower communities. Yet, to date, the mixed success of NBS projects has revealed that these advantages may not be realized unless NBS is well-designed and efficiently implemented. Mainstreaming natural infrastructure into development decisions requires an expansion of high-quality demonstration projects as well as documentation of their results. 12 IMPLEMENTING NATURE-BASED Technical dimensions NBS can be functionally equivalent to gray SOLUTIONS ►► infrastructure components. The performance of NBS in meeting a service provision target can be Lessons from existing NBS projects and guidance estimated through modeling. documents help demonstrate best practices for ►► NBS can have variable service provision, large assessing, designing, and managing NBS projects. The uncertainties, and possible failures, requiring World Bank (2017) guide Implementing Nature-based thoughtful pairing and sequencing of infrastructure Flood Risk Mitigation sets out eight steps for the components to ensure resilience in a changing successful implementation of NBS for river flooding, climate. with relevance to a broad set of NBS (see Figure 5, ►► NBS project viability depends on the willingness page 14). The World Resources Institute and World and capacity of impacted communities to operate Bank’s, forthcoming report, Integrating Green and the NBS or at least to work in harmony with it. Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure, ►► Identifying key features of the target landscape— also offers high-level guidance to support design and from ecosystem services and biodiversity to implementation of successful NBS. interdependencies with other ecosystems, people, and infrastructure—provides baseline information to help ensure interventions reconcile conservation Integrating NBS considerations into and development needs without harming biological development planning or cultural diversity, ecosystem services, or people Normal planning processes offer opportunities to and their livelihoods. define suitable roles for NBS to work in harmony with Social dimensions conventional DRM project components, such as gray ►► The main operators of NBS are often local infrastructure, for example: communities, responsible for implementing land ►► Regional or sectoral planning processes: stewardship practices, and for maintaining the land-use master plans, coastal zone plans, forest project over the long term. NBS employ strategies management plants, country- or state-level water that impact land management, often across a resources plans, and river basin plans can be used landscape and across property boundaries or to identify potential opportunities for NBS. jurisdictions. For this reason, NBS sometimes impact more people than gray infrastructure ►► Infrastructure master planning: Potential projects do, and often impact multiple stakeholder NBS investments can be considered in the menu groups. of options to inform investment programs and financial needs. ►► In certain situations NBS approaches may empower communities more than gray infrastructure does, If NBS opportunities can be confirmed at these early by building communities’ capacity to shift their stages of planning, then resources can be directed natural resource practices toward more sustainable to undertake detailed feasibility and design studies, paradigms. To capture these opportunities, NBS explicitly considering linkages with gray infrastructure. should be assessed with systemwide analysis of the local socioeconomic, environmental, and Assessment of projects with NBS (and green institutional conditions. infrastructure) components Economic dimensions Conducting thorough assessments can help identify ►► NBS can be low-cost, and cost-effective, helping the right places to apply NBS, as well as inform the enhance the cost-benefit ratio of development design of NBS. Key considerations for assessment, projects with NBS components. design, and implementation of NBS include the following: Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 13 ►► Economic analysis will undervalue the worth The assessment and design needs of NBS may require of NBS if the chosen analytical methods do not different expertise, time, or resources than typical appraise NBS’s delivery of important cobenefits, DRM projects. Making use of project preparation which can be both monetary and nonmarket. facilities can help ensure successful NBS assessment ►► While NBS can in theory generate multiple and design. Bilateral donor agencies can encourage benefits that help resolve social inequalities, development bank adoption of NBS by creating NBS they must be consciously designed to do so in project preparation and monitoring facilities. practice. Evaluating who stands to gain from NBS, evaluating trade-offs, and incorporating adequate benefit-sharing schemes are therefore also critical components of NBS economic assessment. FIGURE 5 | Steps to Successful Implementation of NBS 1 2 3 4 DEFINE PROBLEM, PROJECT DEVELOP FINANCING CONDUCT ECOSYSTEM, DEVELOP NATURE-BASED RISK SCOPE, AND OBJECTIVES STRATEGY HAZARD, AND RISK ASSESSMENTS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ■■ Document stakeholder ■■ Create preliminary ■■ Map current and future hazard risk, ■■ Review feasible measures to needs budget for project exposure and vulnerability reduce risk, their estimated effects and implementation ■■ Map areas of interest ■■ Review available ■■ Review land use, ecosystem steps depicting main risks and and possible future presence, and health root causes to these risks resources ■■ Outline different strategies, their ■■ Define importance of ecosystem phasing in time with a focus ■■ Define measurable project for DRR on no-regret and less costly objectives options first 5 6 7 8 ESTIMATE THE COST, BENEFITS SELECT AND DESIGN THE MONITOR AND INFORM IMPLEMENT AND CONSTRUCT AND EFFECTIVENESS INTERVENTION FUTURE ACTION ■■ Complete cost-benefit analysis ■■ Design NBS, and ■■ Determine lifetime of ■■ Review monitoring including the full range of create monitoring plan intervention, support reports social and environmental containing indicators, regulatory frameworks ■■ Take needed action to benefits/impact target, values, roles and to sustain and maintain change or improve the responsibilities intervention planet ■■ Define monitoring ■■ Construct NBS ■■ Share lessons learned method and duration ■■ Establish maintainence plan Source: World Bank 20172. 14 POLICY TO SUPPORT NATURE- ►► Creating incentives for local actors to participate in NBS. This can include aligning BASED SOLUTIONS public incentives with local or privately led NBS efforts to maximize the benefits of these efforts; as One key to successful NBS implementation well as establishing national payment for ecosystem service programs or land acquisition programs for is understanding the institutional and policy NBS. environment that creates enabling conditions for NBS. In many cases, NBS can be used as one approach ►► Authorizing and enabling NBS and allowing to achieve policy objectives on DRM and on other for regulatory flexibility. Governments can signal that NBS can be used to comply with issues, including climate mitigation, water security, air environmental requirements of building codes, quality, and public health. Development of robust and water safety regulations, and environmental effective policy frameworks that create a role for NBS impact mitigation plans. This includes using NBS are essential for implementing high-quality NBS, as to achieve climate mitigation and adaptation well as for catalyzing larger-scale NBS adoption. objectives, air quality and public health objectives, and the like. Similarly, governments can allow A growing number of international agreements, like green infrastructure to be counted as a capital asset the Paris Agreement, High-Level Panel on Water, Sus- on the balance sheet for the services it provides. tainable Development Goals, and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, all include high-level ►► Encouraging or requiring consideration of NBS by decision-makers. Integrating NBS into commitments to promote ecosystem-based solutions planning often involves guidance or policy, such such as NBS. These commitments are intended to filter as providing criteria for infrastructure projects down to actions at the country level, creating a window to include NBS evaluations in the planning, or for policy changes. For example, among signatories of adopting building codes or zoning laws that require the Paris Agreement, 102 countries have now com- a portion of space dedicated to green elements. mitted to restore or protect nature as an adaptation ►► Supporting monitoring, research, and measure in their nationally determined contributions innovation on NBS through government- (NDCs)40. NBS were most commonly mentioned in sponsored research and data collection programs. NDCs of low- and lower-middle-income countries. Collecting baseline data on ecosystem health and following trends in environmental degradation, like The following types of policies and government actions deforestation and drought, as well as in restoration can help create an enabling environment to integrate makes it easier to determine the suitability of NBS NBS into DRM and other development strategies1,41: in meeting local needs and priorities, as well as to ►► Incorporating sustainable landscape vision monitor NBS project impacts and promote mutual into strategies and policies. A high-level vision learning among projects. can help mediate traditional conflicts between economic growth and conservation interests, and identify strategic opportunities to deploy high- quality NBS. Land-use planning can help create a shared vision of the multiple goals of sustainable landscapes and help embed that vision into relevant jurisdictional strategies. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 15 ►► Facilitating cross-sector coordination. NBS land value capture, water tariffs, and insurance. often cross jurisdictions; their implementation Financing mechanisms for NBS is discussed further can also benefit multiple sectors and agencies, and in the following section. contribute toward a broad range of policy objec- Importantly, many of the policies explicitly supporting tives. To operationalize NBS, governments should NBS have only been in place for a short period of time, promote interagency coordination to ensure NBS and some have yet to be implemented; thus, only very do not incur red tape. Governments can grant legal authority to DRM agencies to implement cross-sec- few policies have been rigorously tested and proven tor NBS to engage water, energy, and agriculture effective. Although there is no perfect formula for NBS sectors, among others, in NBS projects. At the policy, a growing number of states and countries have same time, governments can link NBS to existing made progress that can serve as examples to others. policy objectives such as climate mitigation, adapta- Development agencies can help encourage policy re- tion, infrastructure, and water security. form along these lines by leveraging policy lending and ►► Creating financing mechanisms to unlock engaging in dialogue with clients. investment in NBS. Governments can earmark public funds for explicit use in NBS, or set policy that generates funds from other sources, such as 16 Examples of NBS in Action PERU | Raising Revenue from Water Tariffs for Resilient NBS42 Peru has dealt with water crises related to El Niño for centuries, and climate change is only exacerbating these water woes. Recognizing this increased risk, in 2016, Peruvian lawmakers passed the Sanitation Sector Reform Law, which requires water utilities to earmark revenue from water tariffs for watershed conservation and climate change adaptation, and to consider these strategies in the official budgeting and planning processes. This policy change has already generated $30 million for NBS via payments for ecosystem services, and an additional $86 million for climate change mitigation and disaster risk management42. UNITED STATES | Recognizing NBS as Infrastructure at the State-Level43, 44, 45 Over the past 30 years more than 5 million hectares of land in the American West have burned due to wildfires, including import- ant watersheds that are becoming degraded with the loss of trees and increased erosion43. In 2016, California passed a law that classified source watersheds as integral components of water infrastructure. This makes it easier for utilities to justify investments in watershed health as a means for combatting wildfires that can damage water infrastructure and threaten water supplies. The law allows for investment in NBS to support source watersheds using the same forms of financing typically reserved for gray infrastruc- ture44. This policy change may motivate investments from utilities and other beneficiaries, as well as the state, in watershed health. One such project is the Forest Resilience Bond, which utilizes investor capital and cost-sharing among beneficiaries, like water utilities, to pay for benefits created by restoration activities and decrease the risk of severe wildfires45. COMMUNITY MEETING IN MKURANGA DISTRICT, TANZANIA Source: Roots, Tubers and Bananas/Flickr Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 17 FINANCING FOR NATURE-BASED water management through ecosystem-based adaptation and through their support of natural SOLUTIONS systems increasing resilience in coastal areas47. Only a small sliver of these funding sources are Increased uptake of NBS depends on rerouting dedicated to disaster risk reduction, and an even or unlocking new funds to support these projects. smaller amount of these funds are currently put Presently, most NBS are funded through public toward NBS. That is now changing with the creation of and philanthropic means. These will continue to be new funds and utilization of financing mechanisms for important sources of funding, but these alone are NBS. not enough to meet the worldwide NBS investment opportunity. A variety of new financing approaches The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one example. and mechanisms have emerged to blend public and The GCF was created under the UN Framework private finance together to enable broader adoption of Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to provide NBS. grants, loans, equity, or guarantees to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in In designing NBS projects, task team leads and project developing countries. So far, $10.3 billion has been developers can take advantage of the following existing pledged, $3.5 billion committed, and $1.4 billion and emerging sources of funding for NBS. The choice invested in 74 projects. The GCF has already funded of which funding mechanism to use should be guided a handful of projects with NBS components; it judges by suitability for local context and the degree to which projects on their ability to avoid infrastructure and NBS will generate cash flows. development lock-in, to reduce vulnerability and International public finance opportunities exposure to climate risks, and to generate multiple environmental benefits, among other criteria. The GCF for NBS aims to leverage private sector contributions and to International public finance and development aid support development of new markets48. are a primary source of available funding for NBS in developing countries. These include multilateral Other applicable international development aid funds, multilateral development banks (including approaches include pay-for-success models (also the International Bank for Reconstruction and known as pay-for-performance), where loan Development [IBRD] and the International disbursements are made against actual results Development Association [IDA]), and bilateral sources irrespective of any contractual arrangements. A debt- like national development or aid organizations. for-nature swap is another financing mechanism that can support NBS and is particularly helpful for International public finance for NBS often takes developing countries with a large national debt and the form of standard project financing where loan threatened natural ecosystems. The debt is canceled disbursements are made against payments to contracts or restructured if a country agrees to invest in as well as grants. The Global Environmental environmental protection measures. Facility (GEF), created in 1992, has supported NBS through investment in a wide range of projects Domestic public finance opportunities that advance, for instance, integrated water resource for NBS management, the restoration of degraded lands, Local and national governments often support NBS and special designation of protected areas46. The through dedicated taxes, fees, and charges that GEF Adaptation Fund was created in 2008 and has make up general revenue funds can be drawn upon committed $517 million to projects in developing to finance programs that invest in NBS, and can be countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate specifically earmarked for investment in NBS-related change. This Fund has enabled NBS by promoting 18 projects. Much of these public funds are related to ►► Green Bonds: Also known as blue, climate, and environmental objectives. For example, revenue from environmental bonds, these make up a growing compensatory mitigation and compensation market ($157 billion in green bonds issued in fees imposed on unavoidable impact to water is 2017). The new Water Infrastructure Standard of collected in 57 countries49. These funds can be routed the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) enables water projects—including projects that utilize green to support NBS for water security or DRM projects: in infrastructure—to be certified as green bonds. This the United States, compensatory mitigation generates provides an avenue for nature-based solutions to $3.8 billion a year, which is then used to support attract private financing, while also allowing cities restoration of watershed areas50. Municipal bonds to communicate with corporations and investors are another useful policy driver that allow government interested in green growth53. entities to borrow money from investors and repay ►► Insurance Payments for Risk Reduction: it over time using tax revenue or other collateral. Also known as catastrophe bonds, these provide Municipal bonds can be used to provide upfront financial protection in the event of disaster, such capital quickly, which can be used as seed funding for as intense storms and floods. In 2018, insurance NBS. brokerage Willis Towers Watson launched the Global Ecosystem Resilience Facility (GERF) to Federal or local public infrastructure spending support coastal communities in the Caribbean54. as well as disaster risk mitigation programs GERF uses risk pooling and other financial can also be routed to green infrastructure strategies instruments like catastrophe bonds, resilience that help meet flood control standards, though the bonds, grants, and loans to provide support to local vast majority of these funds currently go toward communities. conventional infrastructure. ►► Pay-for-success models: Public and private lenders can utilize pay-for-success, environmental Emerging sources of funding and impact bonds, or conservation impact bonds, to tie financing approaches payment for service delivery to the achievement Because NBS can sometimes address multiple of measurable outcomes. This approach rewards development objectives, it is possible to generate investors based on how well the NBS performs. One such example of said model is the DC Water Bond, multiple cash flows, thereby attracting a diverse base discussed in more detail below. of investors interested in different project benefits. This includes mission-focused investors willing to ►► Corporate stewardship models: Corporations tolerate higher risk or lower returns, who can leverage are increasingly realizing the importance of understanding the impact of their business on their investment to “de-risk” NBS investments for the environment and incorporating sustainable less confident investors. A variety of financing models practices that improve company reputations, has been introduced to make NBS bankable and to offset negative environmental impacts, safeguard appeal to commercial interests. While private sector valuable natural assets, and make businesses more investment in NBS is still relatively small compared profitable. One Coca-Cola program aims to provide to public funding sources, these models are gaining water replenishment benefits equal to 100 percent momentum. They include, as follows: of the water used in its global sales by 202053. It first met its goal in 2015, and continues to do so ►► Water Funds: These pool money from multiple through source water protection activities like water-dependent private and public sector watershed restoration, and through replenishment actors so that each small contribution enlarges programs like improved wastewater collection and the cumulative impact. There are more than 25 treatment54. Water Funds in Latin America and the Caribbean that have routed about $120 million to invest in watershed management51. A review of 16 of these Water Funds found that 12 report regulating water flows, either to increase water availability or to reduce flood risk, as their primary objectives52. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 19 EXAMPLES OF NBS IN ACTION SEYCHELLES | Debt Restructuring for Protected Marine Areas55 In 2008, Seychelles defaulted on its national debt and has since sought ways to preserve its natural environment—the vital pillar of its economy and of its citizens’ livelihoods—without endangering financial stability. In 2015, The Nature Conservancy and its impact-investing unit, NatureVest, brokered a deal to restructure a portion of Seychelles’ debt with a debt-for-nature swap. The deal allows the government to restructure the country’s debt with a mix of investments and grants, in exchange for designating one-third of its marine area as protected. The agreement frees capital streams and directs debt service payments to fund climate change adaptation and marine conservation activities that will improve the management of Seychelles coastlines, coral reefs, and mangroves55. This is the first time this financing technique has been used for the marine environment. PHILIPPINES | National Fund for Climate Disasters56 The Philippines People’s Survival Fund (PSF) is a national fund dedicated to supporting disaster risk reduction and climate change adapta- tion projects at the local level. The Philippine Congress enacted the PSF in 2012 in response to the country’s vulnerability to climate-related disasters and the need for additional support at the community level. The government allocates $20 million of general revenue to the PSF, which can also be supplemented through the mobilization of additional funding sources like local governments or the private sector56. The PSF is managed by a board comprising six governmental and three nongovernmental representatives that evaluate project proposals for funding. Once approved, funds are disbursed under a memorandum of agreement with monitoring and reporting requirements. The PSF provides long-term financing streams to support projects proposed by local government units or accredited community organizations. UNITED STATES | Pay-for-Success Model for Urban Green Infrastructure57 To better manage stormwater and prevent urban flooding, Washington, DC’s water utility, DC Water, boldly pursued an unconventional financing structure to pay for its NBS program. DC Water utilized a performance-based or “pay-for-success” financing model issued as a 30-year, tax-exempt municipal bon57, a contract between a public entity (i.e., DC Water) and private investors, where payment is based on measured environmental outcomes. The NBS program employs different types of hybrid infrastructure to minimize urban hazards, including bioretention or rain gardens; permeable pavements; and downspout disconnection, which reroutes drainage pipes into rain barrels or pervious surfaces57. This financing mechanism is the first of its kind for NBS in the United States. Source: Nijmegen/Wikipedia 20 REFERENCES 13. Scholz-Barth, K. 2001. “Green Roofs: Stormwater Management from the Top Down.” Environmental Design & Construction 4 (1). 1. Browder, G., S. Ozment. I. Rehberger Bescos, T. Gartner, and G. Lange. 14. U.S. GSA (United States General Services Administration). 2011. “The Benefits Forthcoming. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation and Challenges of Green Roofs on Public and Commercial Buildings.” A Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank and World Resources Institute. Report of the United States General Service Administration. Washington, DC. 2. World Bank. 2017. Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection: Principles 15. Virginia DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2011. “Permeable and Implementation Guidance. Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// Pavement.” Virginia DEQ Stormwater Design Specifications. documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/739421509427698706/Implementing- March 1. http://www.vwrrc.v t.edu/swc/NonPBMPSpecsMarch11/ nature-based-flood-protection-principles-and-implementation-guidance. VWMBMPSpec7PERMEABLEPAVEMENT.html. 3. World Bank. 2016. Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for 16. LIDC (Low Impact Development Center). 2007. “Low Impact Development Measuring and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Center (LIDC) Urban Design Tools.” https://www.lid-stormwater.net/. Coral Reefs. M. W. Beck and G-M. Lange, editors. Washington, DC: Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services Partnership (WAVES), 17. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. “Opti-Tool: World Bank. EPA Region 1’s Stormwater Management Optimization Tool.” Overviews and Factsheets. US EPA. July 11. https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/opti-tool-epa-region- 4. Soz, S.A., J. Kryspin-Watson, and Z. Stanton-Geddes. 2016. “The Role of Green 1s-stormwater-management-optimization-tool. Infrastructure Solutions in Urban Flood Risk Management.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/ 18. Zhang, B., G. Xie, C. Zhang, and J. Zhang. 2012. “The Economic Benefits handle/10986/25112/108291.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y. of Rainwater-Runoff Reduction by Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study in Beijing, China.” Journal of Environmental Management 100 (June): 65–71. 5. Hallegatte, S., C. Green, R.J. Nicholls, and J. Corfee-Morlot. 2013. “Future Flood Losses in Major Coastal Cities.” Nature Climate Change 3 (9): 802–6. 19. PDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2006. doi:10.1038/nclimate1979. “Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual.” PDEP. http://pecpa.org/wp- content/uploads/Stormwater-BMP-Manual.pdf. 6. Narayan, S., M.W. Beck, B.G. Reguero, I.J. Losada, B. van Wesenbeeck, N. Pontee, J.N. Sanchirico, J.C. Ingram, G.-M. Lange, and K.A. Burks-Copes. 20. Haq, S.M.A. 2011. “Urban Green Spaces and an Integrative Approach to 2016. “The Effectiveness, Costs and Coastal Protection Benefits of Natural Sustainable Environment.” Journal of Environmental Protection 2 (5): 601–8. and Nature-based Defences.” PLOS ONE 11 (5): e0154735. doi:10.1371/journal. doi:10.4236/jep.2011.25069. pone.0154735. 21. Rozenberg, J., M. Simpson, L. Bonzanigo, M. Bangalore, and L. 7. Cunniff, S., and A. Schwartz. 2015. “Performance of Natural Infrastructure and Prasanga. 2015. “Wetlands Conservation and Management: A New Nature-based Measures as Coastal Risk Reduction Features.” Environmental Model for Urban Resilience in Colombo.” Washington, DC: World Defense Fund. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/summary_ni_ Bank Group. https://collaboration.worldbank.org/servlet/JiveServlet/ literature_compilation_0.pdf. downloadBody/21539-102-5-27686/final_report_wetlands_Colombo_mtdf. pdf. 8. Bayraktarov, E., M.I. Saunders, S. Abdullah, M. Mills, J. Beher, H.P. Possingham, P.J. Mumby, and C.E. Lovelock. 2015. “The Cost and Feasibility of Marine 22. City of Portland. 2018. “Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Information / Coastal Restoration.” Ecological Applications 26 (4): 1055–74. doi:10.1890/15- The City of Portland, Oregon.” Accessed August 19, 2018. https://www. 1077. portlandoregon.gov/bes/69511. 9. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2013. “Green Infrastructure Case Study.” 23. City Parks Alliance. 2018. “Portland Green Street Program—City Parks The Nature Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/about-us/working-with- Alliance.” Accessed August 8, 2018. https://www.cityparksalliance.org/ companies/case-studies-for-green-infrastructure.pdf. issues-a-resources/design/case-studies/portland-green-street-program. 10. Taal, M.D., M.A.M. Loffler, C.T.M. Vertegaal, J.W.M. Wijsman, L. Van der Valk, 24. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. “Green and P.K. Tonnon. 2016. “Development of the Sand Motor: Concise Report Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater Describing the First Four Years of the Monitoring and Evaluation Programme with Green Infrastructure.” EPA-841-F-10-004. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ (MEP).” Delft, Netherlands: Deltares. ZyPDF.cgi/P100FTEM.PDF?Dockey=P100FTEM.PDF. 11. IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 25. Li, X., J. Li, X. Fang, Y. Gong, and W. Wang. 2016. “Case Studies of the Sponge 2018.“Mangrove Plantation in Viet Nam: Measuring Impact and Cost Benefit.” City Program in China.” In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. http:// Resources Congress, 295–308. doi:10.1061/9780784479858.031. www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/reducing_risks/Case-study- 26. Tanoue, M., Y. Hirabayashi, and H. Ikeuchi. 2016. “Global-Scale River Flood Vietnam.pdf. Vulnerability in the Last 50 Years.” Scientific Reports 6 (36021). 12. UN (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2018. 27. EEA (European Environmental Agency). 2017. “Green Infrastructure and Flood “2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects.” 2018. https://www.un.org/ Management: Promoting Cost-Efficient Flood Risk Reduction via Green development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization- Infrastructure Solutions.” European Environmental Agency. https://www. prospects.html. eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-flood-management/ at_download/file. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 21 28. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. “Functions 42. Jenkins, M., G. Gammie, and J. Cassin. 2016. “Peru Approves New Innovative & Values of Wetlands.” EPA 843-F-01-002c. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF. Environmental Policies.” Forest Trends (blog). July 27. http://forest-trends.org/ cgi/200053Q1.PDF?Dockey=200053Q1.PDF. blog/2016/07/27/peru-approves-new-innovative-environmental-policies/. 29. Strassburg, B.B., and A.E. Latawiec. 2014. “The Economics of Restoration: 43. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. “Water Quality & Wildfire / Costs, Benefits, Scale and Spatial Aspects.” Paper presented at the USGS California Water Science Center.” https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wildfires/ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Meeting—International Institute wildfires-water-quality.html. for Sustainability (IIS), Linhares, Brazil, March. https://www.cbd.int/doc/ meetings/ecr/cbwecr-sa-01/other/cbwecr-sa-01-iis-en.pdf. 44. State of California. 2016. Source Watersheds: Financing. Assembly Bill -2480. Vol. AB-2480. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient. 30. Bair, B. 2000. “Stream Restoration Cost Estimates.” In Proceedings of the xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2480. Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop, edited by S.T. Allen, C. Thomson, and R. Carlson. Portland, OR: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 45. BFC (Blue Forest Conservation). 2017. “Forest Resilience Bond.” http://www. blueforestconservation.com/. 31. Dierauer, J., N. Pinter, and J.W.F. Remo. 2012. “Evaluation of Levee Setbacks for Flood-Loss Reduction, Middle Mississippi River, USA.” Journal of Hydrology 46. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2018. “About Us / Global Environment 450–51 (July): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.044. Facility.” https://www.thegef.org/about-us. 32. Bathurst, J.C., A. Iroumé, F. Cisneros, J. Fallas, R. Iturraspe, M.G. Novillo, A. 47. AF (Adaptation Fund). 2018. “Adaption Fund.” https://www.adaptation-fund. Urciuolo, B. De Bièvre, V.G. Borges, and C. Coello. 2011. “Forest Impact on org/. Floods due to Extreme Rainfall and Snowmelt in Four Latin American 48. GCF (Green Climate Fund). 2018. “Green Climate Fund.” https://www. Environments 1: Field Data Analysis.” Journal of Hydrology 400 (3–4): 281–91. greenclimate.fund/home. 33. Filoso, S., M.O. Bezerra, K.C.B. Weiss, and M.A. Palmer. 2017. “Impacts of Forest 49. McKenney, B., and J. Wilkinson. 2015. “Achieving Conservation and Restoration on Water Yield: A Systematic Review.” PLOS ONE 12 (8): e0183210. Development: 10 Principals for Achieving the Mitigation Hierarchy.” Arlington, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183210. VA: The Nature Conservancy. 34. Noe, G.B., and C.R. Hupp. 2005. “Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus 50. BenDor, T., T.W. Lester, A. Livengood, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. 2015. Accumulation in Floodplains of Atlantic Coastal Plain Rivers, USA.” Ecological “Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy.” Applications 15 (4): 1178–90. PLOS ONE 10 (6): e0128339. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128339. 35. Opperman, J. 2014. “A Flood of Benefits: Using Green Infrastructure to Reduce 51. IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2018. “Latin American Water Funds Flood Risks.” Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. Partnership.” https://www.iadb.org/en/sector/water-and-sanitation/founds- 36. World Bank. 2015. “Poland—Odra-Vistula Flood Management Project partnership/home. (OVFMP).” Project Appraisal Document PAD1203. Washington, DC: 52. Bremer, L., D.A. Auerbach, J.H. Goldstein, A.L. Vogl, D. Shemie, T. Kroeger, World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ J.L. Nelson, et al. 2016. “One Size Does Not Fit All: Natural Infrastructure en/320251467986305800/pdf/PAD1203-PAD-P147460-R2015-0142-1- Investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership.” Ecosystem Box391498B-OUO-9.pdf. Services 17 (February): 217–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006. 37. Opperman, J., G. Galloway, J. Fargione, J. Mount, B. Richter, and S. Secchi. 53. Dai, L., and J. Matthews. 2018. “Criteria: Water Infrastructure / Climate Bonds 2009. “Sustainable Floodplains through Large-Scale Reconnection to Standard.” Climate Bonds Initiative. https://standard.climatebonds.net/ Rivers.” Science 326: 1487–88. doi:10.1126/science.1178256. sector/water. 38. Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. 54. Coca-Cola. 2018. “Collaborating to Replenish the Water We Use.” The Coca- “Floodplain Rearing of Juvenile Chinook Salmon: Evidence of Enhanced Cola Company. Accessed August 22, 2018. https://www.coca-colacompany. Growth and Survival.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: com/stories/collaborating-to-replenish-the-water-we-use. 325–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-245. 55. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2016. “Seychelles Debt Restructuring.” 39. Yu, X., and L. Jiang. 2009. “Freshwater Management and Climate Change NatureVest (blog). http://www.naturevesttnc.org/investment-areas/ocean- Adaptation: Experiences from the Central Yangtze in China.” Climate and protection/seychelles-debt-restructuring/. Development 1 (3): 241–48. doi:10.3763/cdev.2009.0023. 56. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). 2018. 40. IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 2018. “Finance Options and Instruments for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation. “Nature-based Solutions: Nature-based Solutions Policy Platform.” http:// Overview and Compilation of Ten Examples.” Bonn: GIZ GmbH. www.nbspolicyplatform.org/adaptation-planning/adaptation-action-types/ nature-based-actions/. 57. DC Water. 2017. “Rock Creek Project A Green Infrastructure Program: A Part of the DC Clean Rivers Project.” https://www.dcwater.com/sites/default/files/ 41. Sudmeier-Rieux, K., N. Ash, and R. Murti. 2013. “Environmental Guidance Note project/documents/2017%20Fall%20RCA%20Factsheet_Website.pdf. for Disaster Risk Reduction.” IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/2013_ iucn_bookv2.pdf. 22 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This booklet was prepared by a team from the World Bank and World Resources Institute, led by Suzanne Ozment, Gretchen Ellison, and Brenden Jongman with support and input from Simone Balog-Way, Stefanie Kapua, Russell King, Denis Jordy, and Boris Van Zanten. It was made possible with support from the Global Fund for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the Program for Forests (PROFOR). We also thank Rebecca Carter, Indira Masullo, and John-Rob Pool from WRI for their review and comments and Billie Kafner, Shazia Amin, and Carni Klirs for the production of this document. The booklet draws on the forthcoming report Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure, published by the World Bank and World Resources Institute. For more information, visit www.naturebasedsolutions.org. CONTACTS: Brenden Jongman bjognman@worldbank.org Denis Jean-Jaques Jordy djordy@worldbank.org Boris Van Zanten bvanzanten@worldbank.org Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management | December 2018 | 23