The improved understanding of the environmental dimensions of conflict and their link with peace and security raises the question of how to address such impacts. The relationships between environment, climate, natural resources, conflict and peace are complex. However, incorporating these linkages in programming is increasingly recognized as crucial for sustainable peacebuilding efforts, whether this is in terms of contributing to short-term stability or maintaining sustainable development in years to come.

Effective, sustainable management of natural resources is key to the peacebuilding process, helping to build resilience in infrastructure, livelihoods and food security in situations of environmental and climate stress. These actions can also reduce the drivers of conflicts over access to natural resources. NbS for the prevention and restoration of environmental degradation as an underlying risk factor for disasters can help to minimize exposure and vulnerability to a range of hazards. Those which address environmental damage caused by conflict can mitigate against potential resource crises and health impacts in post-conflict environments.

However, while the NbS framework has been advocated by many, others have pointed to important flaws, shortcomings and risks associated with it. These include, but are not limited to, the risk of avoiding carbon reduction through carbon offsetting, land grabbing and insufficient consent from local communities, militarised conservation, and insufficient focus on justice. It is crucial to learn from both successful experiences and failures to ensure the correct, conflict-sensitive implementation of NbS and positive local impacts in the most vulnerable communities worldwide.