NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Economics and Finance 72 The principle benefit addressed by climate-resilient agriculture projects is improving local livelihoods and resilience (i.e. improved food security) to current and future impacts of climate change. In some cases, there may be low regret interventions77 such as improved agronomic and nutrient management which can generate net benefits per unit of carbon saved without the need for a carbon price, for example in India69 or Malawi88. In general, benefits may be delivered over a longer period of time and, for more resource intensive interventions, there is likely to be relatively high up-front costs and problems with access to resources and inputs before the net benefits are realised88. High opportunity costs and foregone income may therefore act as a barrier to adoption despite the likely wider benefits to society76. Non-monetised benefits Climate change adaptation and resilience Food security and nutrition Reduced vulnerability to pests, diseases, droughts, and otherclimate-related risks Reduced pollution Spiritual and cultural benefits Maintenance of local knowledge Shade provision Soil erosion prevention, soil nutrient cycling and soilbiodiversity protection Increased habitat for wildlife Further discussion Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) aims to address the intertwined challenges of food insecurity and climate change89. CSA has three predominant goals: (i) sustainable agricultural intensification to support an equitable increase in incomes, food security and development; (ii) adapting and improving the resilience of food systems to climate change, and (iii) where possible, reducing agricultural GHG emissions90,91. There are often trade-offs between CSA objectives due to the complexity of agricultural food systems and the interdependencies which arise between agroecology and socio-political importance of agriculturein local communities. Advancement in towards one objective may negatively impact another92, for example CSA efforts often focuson climate change mitigation hotspots, which risks inappropriate intervention types which pay less attention to the socio-economic background or vulnerabilities of farmers in the target area93. As with many NbS, relatively high upfront costs for land, labour, plant material or specialised equipment can create barriers to CSA adoption, particularly in subsistence economies94. Farmers living in poverty are often unable to increase their farm size or access the financial markets required to facilitate the adoption of new practices or technologies required for CSA, and thus are unlikely to reap improvements in income and food security93. Moreover, gender inequalities especially in terms of land inheritance, insurance, and collateral may limit how women access and benefit from CSA93. Benefit-cost ratios and cost-effectiveness studies often do not address such factors, but disaggregation ofthese factors is of critical importance for NbS in this area. The applicability of CSA also often varies extensively between different countries, regions, and sites. For example, particular agricultural techniques may be more appropriate and effective in drylandsin comparison with areas with greater annual rainfall, due toan increased risk of wind-blown soil loss or water erosion95.Agro-ecological conditions, pre-project land uses and thecost structure of the proposed activities will also influencethe cost of CSA in different regions of the world93, and thus it is important to tailor activities to both the ecologicaland socio-economic context of the target site.