Why investments in nature projects do not deliver expected outcomes — and how “ground-truth” assessment with local communities helps

Some have called it “goat-gate.” A multi-million-dollar reforestation program, backed by multinational capital and designed to sequester thousands of tonnes of CO₂, underperformed — not because of drought, political instability, or lack of funding, but because local grazing patterns were not fully accounted for. Goats destroyed newly planted saplings within months.

The project followed recognized market standards. Satellite imagery and carbon models appeared robust. What they didn’t capture was how land was actually used day to day. And as local communities were not involved in project design and set up, they wouldn’t change their habits for the success of the project. The result was not only lost capital, but a broader lesson for the “nature economy": applying for project certification via established standards alone is often insufficient to manage highly localized execution risk.

Crucially, this outcome was avoidable. The lesson is not that nature-based solutions don’t work, but that they should be designed and governed with closer alignment between boardroom intent and on-the-ground reality (i.e., involving local communities to ensure local living requirements are sustained).

More data, less certainty

Investors today have unprecedented access to climate and nature data: high-resolution satellite imagery, increasingly sophisticated carbon models, AI-enabled monitoring tools, and blockchain-based registries. Yet confidence in nature-based investments remains subdued. A significant share of potential capital continues to sit on the sidelines, driven by concerns over data reliability and execution risk — even as global estimates suggest more than a trillion dollars of investment will be required to protect and restore ecosystems.

This paradox reflects the organisation of projects rather than a failure of technology. Investments in nature-based projects are inherently long-term, often spanning 3–20+ years, and operate in complex social and ecological systems. Outcomes depend not only on biophysical factors, but on governance, incentives, and human behaviour — variables that cannot be fully assessed through remote observation alone.

Where on-the-ground presence is limited, risks compound: local knowledge is under-leveraged, early warning signals are missed, and oversight weakens precisely when it matters most. In such cases, data abundance can cause uncertainty rather than resolve it.

When risk materialises

When nature-based projects underperform, the consequences extend beyond carbon outcomes. Expected benefits to supply-chain security, ecosystem resilience, and community livelihoods fall short. Capital is deployed without durable impact, reputational exposure increases, and — as certification standards tighten — compliance and legal risks become more pronounced. Trust with local stakeholders may also erode, undermining the long-term viability of projects that depend on community engagement.

Nature-based solutions already represent a multi-billion-dollar market, with individual corporate commitments frequently reaching tens of millions. Improving execution is therefore not only an environmental imperative, but a material business concern.

Three gaps limiting performance

1. The ground-truth gap

Remote MRV systems, however advanced, ultimately rely on physical validation. Satellite data requires calibration, models require real-world checks, and biodiversity outcomes demand substantiation beyond proxies. Without independent, on-the-ground assessment, outputs remain probabilistic — generating risk when discrepancies surface during audits or regulatory reviews.

2. The execution gap

Even when baseline data is accurate, successful implementation is not guaranteed. Establishing that land is suitable for regeneration is only the starting point. Projects must then be executed, maintained, and adapted over multi-year horizons. This requires institutional-grade feasibility processes, governance structures, community alignment, technical oversight, and continuous monitoring. Many project developers lack the capacity to sustain this level of operational discipline without extended support.

3. The trust gap

Investors and buyers have grown skeptical of self-reported claims and snapshot certification. The result is a persistent trade-off: incur higher costs by layering-on assessment, or proceed with elevated delivery risk. Neither approach scales. Closing this gap requires independent validation signals that integrate directly into no investment decision-making, shifting trust from subjective judgement to evidence-based assessment.

Ground truth: where technology reaches its limits

As regenerative agriculture, reforestation, and biodiversity conservation mature into mainstream asset classes, assessment infrastructure must evolve alongside them. Capital is increasingly available; assessment capacity has become the binding constraint.

What is missing is not more data, but assessment infrastructure — independent, continuous, and grounded in local context. Much like financial audits evolved to support capital markets, land-based investments now require dedicated ground-level assessment layers that operate alongside MRV providers, registries, and standards bodies.

This is the space in which ground-truth assessment platforms are emerging — not as alternatives to existing monitoring technologies, but as connective tissue between remote data, project execution, and local reality.

Findings can then be cross-referenced against MRV outputs, allowing discrepancies to be identified early and automated monitoring to be calibrated over time. Ground truth does not replace technology; it strengthens its reliability.

“In my experience, nature investments don’t fail because of a lack of technology,” affirmed Wienke Schouwink, Head of Business Development at Green Earth, “They fail because of a lack of presence. Satellite data and models are powerful tools, but they can’t see local dynamics, cultural practices, or early warning signs that are obvious to people on the ground. When companies outsource verification entirely and remain distant from implementation, they miss the context that determines success or failure. Real resilience comes from combining technology with continuous local engagement: people who understand the land, the communities, and the pressures at play. Ground truth isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s the foundational infrastructure that builds systems that last: economically, socially, and ecologically.”

Building trust at scale

The value of ground-truth validation compounds when applied consistently across regions and over time. Each assessment adds contextual knowledge and credibility that cannot be rapidly replicated through technology alone. Over years of engagement, this builds a trusted validation layer that benefits investors, developers, registries, and standards bodies alike.

Early platforms such as KlimateNet illustrate how ground-level assessment can be structured as shared infrastructure rather than bespoke consulting — enabling trust to scale without slowing capital deployment.

What leading companies are doing differently

Organisations successfully deploying capital into nature-based solutions tend to share several practices:

1. Continuous assessment, not one-off certification
   Always-on MRV complemented by regular site presence and community feedback loops.

2. Investment in local expertise
   Partnerships with assessors who understand regional realities and social dynamics, and can surface risks that outsiders miss.

3. Value-chain alignment
   Projects linked directly to sourcing regions or operational footprints, embedding assessment into supply-chain management rather than treating it as a standalone ESG activity, thus delivering value through supply chain resilience, quality assurance, and competitive advantage through authentic sustainability stories. 

4. Peer learning and shared validation
   Participation in assessment/validation networks that enable collective learning and risk reduction through shared experience.

What works well in practice: Fashion, cosmetics & food & beverage highlights

We asked Chief Sustainability Officers and Heads of Sustainability one question: “what truly works in implementing nature-based solutions in your value chain?”

From the perspective of the fashion industry, Joffrey Delfgaauw, Head of Tech, Innovation & Sustainability at O’Neill, answered, “in apparel, credibility starts with traceability. At O’Neill Europe we prioritise recognized, trackable fibres: we use Better Cotton and are progressing toward physical traceability, and for viscose we specify Livaeco by Birla Cellulose tracked via GreenTrack. This helps keep our claims evidence-based.

Beyond traceability, transparency comes from third-party verification where appropriate and real feedback loops in sourcing regions. In practice that means independent assessments and open channels for concerns, so risks to communities and ecosystems can be identified earlier and addressed with suppliers”.

Adding to the discourse, Baptiste Therin, Head of Sustainability at Shiseido EMEA, reaffirmed that “one of the most effective ways to de‑risk nature investments is to anchor them directly in the supply chain. At Shiseido, our partnership to support regenerative beet farming for alcohol sourcing shows how local agricultural practices, soil health, and long‑term supplier resilience can reinforce both sustainability outcomes and business continuity.”

Meanwhile, Simon Hoffmeyer, Chief Sustainability Officer of Carlsberg, noted with reference to the agriculture value chain that “what works well in our industry when implementing nature‑based solutions and regenerative agriculture is first recognising that agriculture is one of the key drivers of our nature impact — and therefore a priority area for action.

We have learned that you must be explicit on the outcomes you want to achieve, while remaining flexible on how to get there. Agriculture is deeply local, so local agronomists and farmers are best placed to decide which practices deliver the targets. Imposing practices almost always fails.

We also know not to assume that quality data is cheap or abundant. Environmental impact data is often difficult to obtain and rarely perfect, so we focus on understanding which practices truly drive outcomes and use farmer adoption as a pragmatic proxy for progress.

Finally, none of this works in isolation. Alignment and collaboration across suppliers, value‑chain partners — and increasingly across industries — are essential. This is why frameworks like SAI’s Regenerating Together will be critical in the coming years to harmonise expectations, metrics and incentives, and enable regenerative agriculture to scale beyond pilots into mainstream sourcing” 

From optimisation to de-risking

The lesson from “goat-gate” is not about an isolated failure, but about the limits of distance-based control. In an environment shaped by climate volatility, resource constraints, and long-horizon assets, competitive advantage is increasingly shifting toward companies that systematically de-risk, rather than simply optimise.

Independent land assessment is likely to become as fundamental to nature-based investments as financial audits are to capital markets. The question is no longer whether such infrastructure will be required, but who builds it — and which organisations position themselves early to benefit.

In a landscape of abundant data but persistent scepticism, the ability to establish credible, real-world trust is fast becoming a decisive advantage.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

This article was co-written with KlimateNet. KlimateNet's mission is to de-risk investments in Nature, which are essential to our survival on this planet.