NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Future Directions 116 Future Direction: Understanding shortcomings and failure is critical to the collective learning process. Documenting and sharing knowledge on these factors can enhance the delivery of NbS overall. The existing evidence base for NbS primarily comes from reports to donors, skewing the evidence towards positive stories and outcomes. Examples of projects with negative consequences exist in scientific literature but, as projects are linked to donors, the unexpected outcomes are not necessarily discussed openly at the fund and forum level. Ecosystem disservices are unintended negative consequences arising from project delivery, whereby human wellbeing and the ecosystem are undermined or detrimentally harmed. Failure to recognise and address potential harm caused by NbS may constrain or undermine the links between ecosystem services, biodiversity and human wellbeing144. This knowledge gap highlights the importance of incorporating a ‘do no harm’ principle into project planning and implementation, and the need for project safeguards (see NbS Principle: Put in place social and environmental safeguards). Future Direction: Diversify interventions and ecosystems for NbS implementation. Marine ecosystems and urban environments are underrepresented in NbS implementation, as are NbS in non-forested ecosystems in the terrestrial environment. From the assessment of NbS projects, the majority of projects reviewed were implemented in terrestrial environments. This is likely due to easier implementation, monitoring, and the direct and discernible impact they have on poverty reduction in local communities. Given the scale of urban interventions, they are less likely to have meaningful positive impacts at programmatic scales, especially for biodiversity. In the marine context, identifying appropriate interventions that qualify as NbS and operate beyond the coastal or intertidal zones is a challenge. Additionally, once an NbS is implemented, understanding benefit flows to beneficiaries and monitoring can be particularly complicated in a marine context. Therefore, ascertainingthe benefits returned from investments designed to achieve the triple win are hard to determine in marine cases outside coastal or intertidal areas. Of the terrestrial projects implemented in ODA-eligible countries, approximately half involved primary intervention types which focused on tree planting. There appears to be an under-representation of non- forested ecosystems within the terrestrial environment, such as grasslands and wetlands, which often host high biodiversity and significantly contribute to carbon sequestration145. Diversifying the ecosystems in which NbS are implemented could result in strong positive impacts for achieving the triple win. Spatial prioritisation may once again play a role in selecting ecosystems to pilot NbS interventions. A key aspect of NbS is considering implementation at landscape- ormulti-ecosystem scales which could incorporate this diversity. Furthermore, implementing NbS to address broad societal problems necessitates thinking about upstream or downstream effects. To address water security in one community, solutions such as riparian buffers may need to be implemented upstream. To prevent displacement of harm from a project site to another location, the connectivity of the broader ecosystem mustbe recognised. Funding NbS implementation could contain an elementof research and innovation, emphasising diverse ecosystems as wellas novel approaches to improve connectivity of multiple ecosystemsand diversity of interventions utilised. Existing ‘Ridge to Reef’ and watershed-scale approaches offer a potential starting point.