A@A Knowledge Network: Harnessing nature-based solutions for adaptation in mountains

Summary

The Adaptation at Altitude (A@A) Knowledge Network held its learning event ‘Harnessing nature-based solutions for adaptation in mountains’ on 27 November 2025. The meeting was hosted online by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) under the Adaptation at Altitude programme, supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The event gathered 20 participants all working on or with an interest in mountain environments.

The A@A Knowledge Network meeting was opened by Rosie Witton and Kate Williamson (SEI), who provided a brief introduction to the A@A Knowledge Network and an overview of the meeting agenda, before introducing the panellists:

• María Teresa Becerra Ramírez – a Consultant with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), serving as a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Expert and a nature-based solutions governance and policy specialist.
• Dr Anna Scolobig – a Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Geneva whose research focuses on social vulnerability and climate adaptation.
• Ivana Tomasevic – Nature-based solution Project Officer at the IUCN regional office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The panel of experts provided opening remarks before participating in a panel discussion and audience Q&A.

Background

Mountain regions – home to 50% of global biodiversity hotspots and the world’s ‘water towers’ – supply a wealth of ecosystem services, supporting the livelihoods of millions of people around the globe. Yet mountains and their ecosystems are also at the frontlines of climate change. Rising temperatures, melting glaciers and changing precipitation patterns are disrupting water flows and affecting ecosystems and biodiversity, creating and worsening natural hazards, and threatening livelihoods and communities both within mountains and downstream.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) – defined as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits” (UNEA-5, 2022) – and ecosystem-based adaptation approaches provide opportunities to both address the impacts of climate change and enhance the resilience of mountain communities and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

This event posed the question: how can nature-based solutions be better harnessed going forwards to strengthen adaptation in mountain regions?

Opening remarks

Mountain areas: Interlinkages between the biodiversity and climate change agendas

María Teresa Becerra Ramírez highlighted the key messages from the ‘Mountain Ecosystems for a Resilient Future: Policy pathways under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’ policy brief, produced by CONDESAN and the Zoï Environment Network under the Adaptation at Altitude programme. The brief provides an overview of climate change biodiversity challenges in mountain areas, highlights the role of mountains in achieving CBD and UNFCCC goals, and suggests policy recommendations and ways forward to take action.

The key messages of the brief:

• Mountains biological richness is essential for maintaining ecosystem integrity and resilience
• Mountain biodiversity is a cornerstone of global climate resilience
• Climate change and mismanagement of natural resources are driving a mountain biodiversity crisis
• Conservation of mountain ecosystems is essential for achieving global environmental goals
• Mountain platforms play a pivotal role in advancing biodiversity and climate action across all levels

María also outlined the brief’s recommendations and how policy changes can contribute to and support nature-based solutions in mountains. For example by:

• Restoring and protecting high-altitude wetlands and peatlands
• Implementing integrated watershed management and upstream-downstream cooperation
• Creating and restoring ecological corridors
• Promoting climate-resilient mountain agriculture and agroecology
• Adopting community-based grazing management and grassland restoration
• Protecting and restoring glacier, peri-glacial, and high-mountain ecosystems using NbS
• Strengthening NbS in mountain cities
• Supporting Indigenous and local community-led biocultural conservation as a foundation for legitimate, effective and long-term NbS in mountain regions

Such measures would provide a range of benefits, including improving water and food security, reducing flood risk, storing carbon, reducing land degradation, buffering hydrological changes, and enhancing livelihoods.

The nature-based solutions governance gap

Dr. Anna Scolobig presented the research results from the ‘PHUSICOS’ and ‘The HuT’ projects, and started by introducing the concept of the ‘nature-based solution governance gap’. This gap is fuelled by the nature financing gap – with a need to double and triple investment in NbS by 2025 and 2030 respectively – and the NbS implementation gap – which describes a mismatch between ambitions for NbS and on-the-ground implementation.

What are the barriers to NbS implementation causing this gap? A systematic literature review of both peer-reviewed and grey literature identified 13 clusters of barriers to NbS, with the main barriers being:

• Lack of expertise and knowledge on NbS – particularly, among practitioners who are tasked with implementing them on the ground, but also within research.
• Stakeholder conflicts/equity – stakeholders often promote different agendas and these can conflict with the implementation of NbS.
• Evidence on performance and co-benefits – there is limited evidence and systematic assessments on the effectiveness and co-benefits of NbS, which are required to underpin decision-making processes.

What innovations do we need to overcome such barriers and tackle the governance gap? Informed by policy-business forums with over 70 stakeholders working in the public and private sector on the implementation of NbS, 5 key themes emerged:

• Strengthen the knowledge base – this includes the need for both more knowledge (e.g. assessments of co-benefits) and more capacities.
• Switch the burden of proof – a mindset shift is required to minimise the current burden of proof on NbS, and challenge the preference often given to ‘grey solutions’ within local decision-making processes.
• Update policies – there is a need for more binding – rather than voluntary – policy instruments to promote NbS implementation.
• De-risk NbS – reducing and transferring the risks associated with NbS implementation and performance in a way that will encourage the public and private sectors to select NbS over grey measures.
• Support public/private NbS investments – increasing financing and new forms of financing for NbS, including public-private partnerships, payments for ecosystem services, and divestment from nature negative assets.

Nature-based solutions for resilient societies in the Western Balkans: NbS pilot project in Gledić, Serbia

Ivana Tomasevic closed the opening remarks by sharing insights and lessons learned from the ADAPT NbS pilot project in Gledić, Serbia (funded by SIDA, Sweden). Gledić village is located nearby to the City of Kraljevo, an area which faces a range of challenges, namely: increased vulnerability due to climate change, extreme degradation of forest landscapes, and direct threats to local infrastructure, households, water resources, forests and communities whom predominantly depend on agriculture. As a result, this project aimed to improve the state of ecosystems and biodiversity and enhance community resilience to climate change and climate-related hazards.

The project was implemented across 15 different zones, with different NbS measures proposed in each, and in 3 phases:

1. Baseline assessment based on the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM) methodology – an approach that includes broad consultations with relevant stakeholders, and analyses of environment, socio-economic and gender aspects.
2. Development of technical project (concrete measures and locations) and the monitoring and evaluation framework.
3. Obtaining permits, procuring services, and on-the-ground implementation.

The project implemented a range of NbS measures, including:

• Underplanting and enrichment planting in the shelter of existing and remaining trees – which served as natural protection for young seedlings – using manually constructed terraces. This took place on steep slopes and highly degraded lands to prevent the loss of soil.
• Planting and enrichment planting in manually prepared planting holes. This was done in areas without direct risk of flooding, but where the capacity of soil to absorb and store water was limited.
• Building loose-stone check dams in gulleys using locally available stone material. This helped slow down torrential flows of water.
• Assisting natural regeneration – the natural regrowth of forests – by protecting and enhancing existing natural tree seedlings and controlling competing vegetation.
• Implementing silvopastoral measures to support the local community. For example, a water reservoir and wooden fence were built to provide water for and protect the community’s livestock.

Panel discussion

Q: What opportunities do global frameworks provide for mountain communities and the implementation of NbS?

María Teresa: Countries’ NDCs and Biodiversity Action Plans provide opportunities to support NbS activities over the long-term. Countries can also promote policy reforms that directly benefit local communities – often the stewards and caretakers of ecosystems and the services they provide – and help raise awareness about the importance of NbS. However, we need to make sure that the NbS included in policy frameworks are credible and of high quality; and not used to promote greenwashing agendas.

Q: What innovations are there to promote NbS upscaling that are relevant and urgent for mountain regions?

Anna:  De-risking NbS is really critical. The liability risk from non-performing NbS makes NbS proponents and constructors reluctant to implement them. This risk not easily transferrable to private insurers. Options include: i) insuring NbS to transfer risk of project design, construction and loss-and-damage from extreme weather; ii) providing government guarantees for operational and liability risk (e.g., risky but socially desirable investments). A good practice example is the coral reef in Mexico where hotel owners, the tourist sector, the public sector, the private sector, and ultimately tourists themselves are paying for the insurance of the reef. The same can be applied for forests in mountain areas. We can also explore how to simplify procedures for NbS approvals, which often follow the same approval processes as grey measures. Lastly, we need to develop a robust knowledge base and increase monitoring to track short- and long-term impacts of NbS measures.

Q: What were some of the enablers and challenges you faced in the Gledić project? How could stakeholders go about scaling-up the solution or tailoring it to other mountain regions?

Ivana: In terms of enablers, local institutions provided great support in all aspects of the project – from data collection and project development to connecting with the local community. Local communities themselves actively participated in project development and helped connect the project team with landowners whose plots were used for implementing the NbS measures. Lastly, donors, such as Sida, are key – they showed great understanding for the additional time we needed to complete the project, as well as for the changes made compared to the initial concept. Without this, it would have been significantly more difficult – if not impossible – to bring the project to completion.

The main challenges we faced included engagement with landowners given the complex ownership model of privately owned parcels of land; as well as engagement with companies to help implement the NbS measures. This procurement lasted for more than a year, due to low availability of the expert companies which could carry out this type of work. Moreover, the low financial value of the assignment also reduces the number of companies interested in participating in the project.

Finally, in terms of upscaling and tailoring the project, the measures can be implemented in similar hilly, deciduous forest areas where it is necessary to reduce the impact of torrential flows and increase the density of woody vegetation. Additionally, stakeholders could apply other measures to restore the soil, such as restoring herbaceous vegetation within the forest. Measures should always be tailored to specific local needs and conditions. For example, depending on the natural forest type in the area where the measures are implemented, both the species selected for planting and their combinations will vary.

What’s next?

To keep informed about upcoming meetings and events, please refer to our A@A Knowledge Network homepage. Want to present at a future event/meeting? Have a topic you would like to learn more about? Get in touch!

You can also visit the A@A website and Solutions Portal to access and share resources, learn and be inspired by solutions, share your adaptation solutions, and keep up to date with the work of the A@A programme. Or check out the ‘Climate Change Adaptation in Mountains’ theme on weADAPT to share your projects and articles.

Sign up to the A@A Knowledge Network mailing list for updates on our upcoming news, events, and activities!