Background In the hills of Meghalaya, climate change and land use conversions are resulting in a significant loss of forest cover. Similar stories are playing out in several forests and other natural ecosystems across the country, and beyond. Globally, populations living within and close to natural ecosystems are realising that nature-based systems no longer support their livelihoods and, as a result, their way of life. But the story is different in the State of Meghalaya, India. By integrating some of its existing ecological assets such as sacred forests, and with the support of the World Bank, Meghalaya has developed a policy that incentivises communities to protect their own sacred groves or to develop new forests(MBDA, 2020). The Green Meghalaya(PES) scheme provides landowners with expertise and support to renew and regenerate their tracts of land and also payment for that service 1 . Essentially, landowners are paid for maintaining and improving the health of forests. And, the better they do(as measured and tracked by science-based techniques) the more they get paid. This two-pronged benefit is an illustration of PES in practice. As of now, the monitoring support and payments are coming from the Meghalaya Basin Management Agency(MBMA) who in turn are reimbursed by the World Bank. As per Government of Meghalaya policy for PES, communities are expected to maintain the forest for at least a period of 30 years. And, if you travel to farms of north-eastern France, you will find that the global multinational giant Nestle(who took over the Vittel mineral spring water company in 1992) continues paying local farmers to reduce nitrate contamination of water sources instead of paying much more for the water treatment that ensures the necessary quality of spring water(Perrot-Maître, 2010). Again, this is measured by scientific techniques and Nestle continues to market its spring water based on its high purity and composition. This is facilitated by a locally-based intermediary institution, with payments made to farmers for implementing agreed upon sustainable land management and agricultural practices. Interestingly, the next generation of farmers is now renewing the contracts – and these too are being executed for a period of 30 years. In one case, an Indian state government backed by the World Bank, and in another, a global multinational corporation, are both in their own way ensuring that natural ecosystems are not only restored but also regenerated. Additionally, by providing local owners/stewards of those ecosystems(fair 2 ) compensation for this effort, they are ensuring that the ecosystems are truly sustainable and inter-generational. It is to be appreciated that the long-term health of the ecosystem ensures a critical societal objective of safety and security through Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR). According to Paul Ferraro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, whose research focuses on the design and evaluation of environmental programmes:“...compared to alternative voluntary approaches like certification, community forest management, alternative livelihoods, theoretically, it(PES) has a lot of desirable attributes: it's low complexity, easier to target, and you have this ability to tie investments more directly to outcomes”(Ferraro, 2001). It is this“low complexity” of the mechanism that has high appeal. Let's delve deeper to understand the context, background, state-of-the-art, and the future proposition of PES, within the framework of Nature-based Solutions (NbS). 1 The GREEN Meghalaya(PES) scheme, administered by the MBMA, is meant to support villages, communities, clans or individuals that have a minimum of two hectares of natural forest and commit to conserve and protect these for a minimum period of 30 years. 2 One of the challenges that PES initiatives face is that fair compensation is not provided. This is eminently solvable, and should be a critical ingredient and not an impediment to a PES initiative. Payments for Ecosystem Services VI