Nature-based Solutions and Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the context of forest management

By: Lars Borras & Philipp Mack

NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION

NBS AND EBA IN ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND PLANS

NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION

Introduction to climate change adaptation

Adaptation to climate change has been evolving dynamically since the late 1990s. While societies in history have frequently faced the need to adapt to changing climate (Adamson et al. 2018), adaptation to climate change in a narrow understanding is linked to the process of Climate Change adaptation that commenced in 1994, when the UNFCCC entered into force. However, its importance and relevance has changed dramatically. At that time “the primary focus was on greenhouse gas mitigation, and the idea of adapting to anthropogenic climate change struggled to gain legitimacy alongside mitigation. In some cases, the discourse surrounding adaptation implied that it betrays an arrogant faith in the capacity of natural and human systems to adapt, and that it could siphon attention and energy away from the urgent problem of reducing emissions” (United Nations Climate Change Secretariat 2019, p. 11). Only gradually development of adaptation strategies became a key attention in responses by member states, so that nowadays an agreement exists that mitigation and adaptation cannot be separated and are of equal importance to face climate change.

Adaptation has been described as the adjustments of natural or human systems in response to actual or expected stimuli, or its effects to moderate the harm or exploit beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2007). In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects. Adaptation needs are defined as the circumstances requiring action to ensure safety of populations and security of assets in response to climate impacts. Adaptation opportunities are factors that make it easier to plan and implement adaptation actions, that expand adaptation options, or that provide ancillary co-benefits. Finally, adaptation options are the array of strategies and measures that are available and appropriate for addressing adaptation needs. They include a wide range of actions that can be categorized as structural, institutional, or social (McGray et al. 2007).

Here we follow Dupuis and Biesbroek (2013) and define adaptation policy as “[…] the production of outputs in forms of activities and decisions taken by purposeful public and private actors at different administrative levels and in different sectors, which deals intentionally with climate change impacts, and whose outcomes attempt to substantially impact actor groups, sectors, or geographical areas that are vulnerable to climate change” (p. 1480). Adaptation policy will thus be understood quite literally, an approach that is consistent with most other comparative adaptation policy studies (Araos et al., 2016; Austin et al., 2016).

The aim of this collection and overview of climate change adaptation policies within the variety of locations covered by the Eco2adapt project is to monitor and promote policy learning across scales. To this end an assessment of ecosystem-based adaptation and nature-based solutions will be provided and linked to the adaptation processes with regard to forests and forest management in the countries and regions covered by the Eco2adapt project.

The issues will be addressed in the following order:

First, a general introduction to climate change, forests and NbS and EbA will be provided. This will subsequently be related to adaptation processes in forests and implications of the concepts for forests and forest management will be sketched.

Second, the adaptation processes in various countries will be described with regard to the role of forest adaptation in national plans and strategies, yet also referring to more specific and sectoral strategies directly targeting adaptation of forests.

Third, an overview will be provided of regional and local processes in the various Living Labs that are researched in the Eco2adapt project.

Nature-based Solutions (NbS)

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are employed as an umbrella concept in the tool box of climate change adaptation. The concept includes many related approaches such as ecosystem services, natural capital, ecosystem-based adaptation, and ecological engineering. The main avenue to introduce NbS was via international institutions at the international level towards the end of the 2000s. Early definitions by World Bank (MacKinnon et al. 2008) or IUCN (2009) highlighted the dual importance of biodiversity conservation and the potential of NbS for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Initial definitions were expanded by IUCN in the context of the climate change negotiations in Paris, when NbS were presented “as a way to mitigate and adapt to climate change, secure water, food and energy supplies, reduce poverty and drive economic growth.” (IUCN 2014). The attractiveness of the concept to many institutions “is based on their perceived or documented effectiveness, readiness, scalability, and affordability relative to those of technological solutions. It also reflects broader recognition of the interdependency of societal well-being and ecosystem health” (Seddon, 2022, 1411).

Figure 1: Nature-based solutions (IUCN 2020, p. 1) © IUCN

To increase applicability and provide a more substantial and coherent definition IUCN (2020) suggested eight principal characteristics establishing the core of the concept. These made NbS especially useful and applicable to address global challenges and were already indicating problems applying NbS to real life situations on the ground or in the forests. The principles include among others cost efficiency, harnessing both public and private funding, ease of communication, and replicability of solutions (van Ham 2014). After the initial success and increasing appeal of the concept, the European Commission integrated NbS firmly in adaptation plans and strategies characterising NbS as “actions which are inspired by, supported by or copied from nature” (EC 2015). These characteristics are further defined by the European Commission as living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptable manner and to provide simultaneously economic, social, and environmental benefits (see also European Commission 2015). This definition of NbS explicitly emphasises the linking of biodiversity conservation with goals for sustainable and climate resilient development (Balian et al. 2014; Eggermont et al. 2015), and casts NbS as innovative, action-oriented solutions.

The main features of NbS, following Pauleit et al. 2017, can be broadly summarised by four major issues:

First, NbS was, since the outset, broad in definition and scope. Despite a focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation, the concept is employed as an umbrella term. The aim to simultaneously address several policy objectives may be part of its attractiveness for policy-makers and institutions. Biodiversity conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services are considered as the basis for finding solutions to major challenges, ranging from climate change and disaster risk reduction to addressing poverty and promoting a green economy. The goal to simultaneously further economic growth and sustainability via NbS has been particularly stressed by the European Commission (Maes and Jacobs 2017, EC 2015).

Second, NbS applies a very wide definition of what is covered by “nature”. One of the early documents on NbS at the European level (EC 2015) lists 310 examples of measures. These range from conserving and expanding of forests, establishing wind breaks for soil conservation to managing urban green spaces or planting of green roofs. The added value of the concept in comparison to established technical or engineering approaches, was argued to rest in the theoretical ability to guarantee multifunctionality, conservation of natural capital, adaptation and resilience (e.g. Eggermont et al. 2015, Maes and Jacobs 2015). It remained largely unanswered, if all of these criteria or merely a number of these had to be met by measures to qualify as NbS.

A third reason why the concept resonated with policy-making processes at EU level rests in the possibility to distinguish it from top-down and centralised decision-making. Thus, initial assessments of scholars or political institutions embraced the integrative and governance-based approaches to the creation and management of NbS (van Ham 2014) and advocated participatory approaches to co-design, co-creation and co-management of nature-based solutions (EC 2016). However, many of the measures presented in adaptation strategies and plans, in contradiction to the early enthusiastic expectations, remain firmly rooted in top-down policy making or are at least strongly managed by state actors and institutions.

Fourth, the concept of NbS is action-oriented. While IUCN recognises the need for linking policy with action on the ground, the latter is emphasised (MacKinnon et al. 2008). However, the Horizon 2020 work programme for 2016–2017 seeks for systemic solutions to the development and implementation of NbS (EC 2016). This will require that attention is placed on regulatory frameworks, planning systems and economic instruments.

Although NbS (and EbA) are thus potentially able to effectively address societal challenges, the concept has also been subject to concerns, especially among grass roots and non-governmental organisations. These criticisms relate foremost to problems emerging from the openness and ambiguity of the definition or to questions of applicability of such an abstract concept to real life situations. The concerns and critiques can be centred around the following issues (Seddon 2022; Terton 2022):

Misbranding activities as NbS that are ineffective or even harmful for biodiversity (e.g., afforestation of biodiverse open-land habitats, resulting in tree monocultures and loss of habitat for locally adapted open-land species).
NbS being used for “greenwashing”, deflecting the need to reduce emissions and decarbonize the economy, distracting from required systemic changes.
Measures being executed through top-down decision-making approaches that do not consider local rights, values and traditional knowledge systems.
Contrasting narratives partly reflect uncertainty in the underlying evidence as well as controversies on how nature-based solutions are conceptualized and implemented (Melanidis and Hagerman 2022).

Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA)

Ecosystem-based adaptation is a relatively new concept that emerged under the umbrella of NbS. It can be defined as the “use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy” (CBD 2009:41). The concept builds on ecosystem services to buffer communities against the adverse effects of climate change, including climate extremes and variability (Gill et al. 2007, Foster et al. 2011, Gaffin et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2012, Munang et al. 2013). Ecosystem-based adaptation is generally presented as one approach among Nature-based solutions.

Ecosystem-based adaptation was introduced via the international political arena through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2008. EbA has gained an increasing importance in the international climate policy framework, especially following endorsement by international funding authorities (World Bank 2009, UNFCCC 2011). It also became gradually important in adaptation strategies and plans. Thus, the EU climate adaptation strategy (2013) explicitly encourages the adoption of ecosystem-based adaptation approaches. References to the concept were expanded under the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (2021), also as The European Green Deal stressed that “Climate adaptation work must continue to influence public and private investments, including solutions based on nature” (Cousiño et al. 2021).

Ecosystem-based adaptation planning is thus a specific dimension of ecosystem management, an overarching strategy to handle the complexity of environmental challenges, which has been developed in research and practice since the 1990s (Borgström et al. 2015). Ecosystem management is an approach “that integrates ecological, socio-economic, and institutional factors into comprehensive analysis and action in order to sustain and enhance the quality of ecosystems to meet current and future needs,” including climate risk and related vulnerability (UNEP 2011:13).

The introduction of Ecosystem-based adaptation is often justified by the need to create transformative approaches towards adaptation, which is voiced in policy documents and scientific publications. “Ultimately, a paradigm shift is needed – the world must move from the cycles of degradation driven by unsustainable development to making best use of ecosystem services to support resilient societies and economies. Effective EbA can be a key tool for achieving this paradigm shift.” (UNEP Briefing Note 1 2019). Such a paradigm shift is regularly presented as a broad transformative socio-economic process, yet is also directly related to forest management practices.

Despite a consistent interest in the concept and increasing policy leverage, a considerable knowledge gap exists with regard to specifics, content and practical implications. “While EbA is increasingly being implemented and promoted by many groups as a preferred approach to climate change adaptation, the evidence base remains limited both on its effectiveness in meeting adaptation goals and on its cost-effectiveness” (UNEP Briefing Note 1 2019).

Figure 2: Key policy developments of NbS and EbA (Lo et al. 2022, p. 11)

Defining and Delimiting NbS and EbA

Due to concerns that EbA and NbS are too vaguely defined and applied too generously to label existing approaches as such, several initiatives attempted to further define characteristics and conditions for EbA (e.g. FEBA 2017; IUCN 2011). Thus, in 2017 FEBA warned that “[i]n the context of increasing political commitment and funding it is essential to sharpen the understanding among policy makers and practitioners on what qualifies as EbA, to avoid the incorrect re-packaging of “business-as-usual” conservation or development approaches” (FEBA 2017). The paper attempts to sketch an initial differentiation of EbA and “business as usual”, stating that EbA aims at joining “traditional biodiversity and ecosystem conservation approaches with sustainable socio-economic development as part of an overall strategy for helping people adapt to shocks and risks associated with climate change” (FEBA 2017).

Furthermore, the distinction of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation from other adaptation processes was becoming an ever more urgent issue. "Participants discussed the need to clearly identify the differences and synergies between ecosystem approaches to adaptation and other approaches to adaptation. Unlike other approaches to adaptation, ecosystem approaches to adaptation have synergies with disaster risk reduction, local natural resource management, integrated conservation strategies and local adaptation to climate change. Well-managed and resilient ecosystems, and the services they provide, help to reduce people's vulnerability to the effects of before, during and after climate change. By supporting livelihoods, ecosystems also reduce exposure to certain risks by acting as natural buffers and reducing vulnerability to climate change.” (See paragraph 23 of the Report on the technical workshop on ecosystem approaches to climate change adaptation, Note by the Secretariat, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (2013)).

Three elements and five criteria were developed to more clearly delimit EbA. The elements closely reflect the 2009 CBD definition for EbA, which argues that EbA

- (i) helps people adapt to climate change

- (ii) by an active use of biodiversity and ecosystem services,

- (iii) in the context of an overall adaptation strategy. The three elements of the CBD definition must be addressed equally in order for an activity, initiative, project, approach, strategy and/or measure to qualify as ecosystem-based adaptation.”

In a second step five criteria are spelled out and underpinned with sub-criteria to further differentiate variations of EbA approaches.

Criterion 1. Reduces social and environmental vulnerabilities.

- 1.1 Use of climate information
- 1.2 Use of local and traditional knowledge
- 1.3 Taking into account findings of vulnerability assessment
- 1.4 Vulnerability reduction at the appropriate scale

Criterion 2. Generates societal benefits in the context of climate change adaptation.

- 2.1 Quantity & quality of societal benefits compared to other adaptation options
- 2.2 Timescale of societal benefits demonstrated
- 2.3 Economic feasibility & advantages compared to other adaptation options
- 2.4 Number of beneficiaries
- 2.5 Distribution of benefits

Criterion 3. Restores, maintains or improves ecosystem health.

- 3.1 Appropriate scale of management
- 3.2 Prioritization of key ecosystem services within management
- 3.3 Monitoring of ecosystem services health and stability
- 3.4 Protection and management area coverage / diversification of land use
- 3.5 Level of co-management (government, communities, private sector)

Criterion 4. Is supported by policies at multiple levels.

- 4.1 Compatibility with policy and legal frameworks and policy support
- 4.2 Multi-actor and multi-sector engagement (communities, civil society, private sector)

Criterion 5. Supports equitable governance and enhances capacities.

- 5.1 Accountability and group representation
- 5.2 Consideration of gender balance and empowerment
- 5.3 Status of indigenous and local knowledge and institutions
- 5.4 Long-term capacity to ensure sustainable governance

These criteria and elements were forming the basis for a suite of principles and safeguards adopted by parties to the CBD in 2018 in the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of Ecosystem-Based Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction (CBD, 2019). The principles serve as high-level, foundational beliefs to guide planning and implementation and address the themes of building resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity, inclusivity and equity, consideration of multiple scales, and effectiveness. Safeguards are social and environmental measures to avoid unintended consequences to people, ecosystems, and biodiversity and complement existing national environmental and social impact assessment regulations and guidelines.

In a similar way a definition for NbS was attempted by creating the IUCN Global Standard for NbS (2020), a set of criteria to aid project design and implementation. The global standard outlines eight criteria for projects relying on NbS.

Criterion 1: “NbS effectively address societal challenges”
Criterion 2: “Design of NbS is informed by scale”
Criterion 3: “NbS result in a net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity“
Criterion 4: “NbS are economically viable“
Criterion 5: “NbS are based on inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes“ Criterion 6: “NbS equitably balance trade-offs between achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits“
Criterion 7: “NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence“
Criterion 8: “NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context“.

Cohen-Schacham et al. (2019) in their analysis of the criteria and comparison with other concepts (including EbA) conclude that: “although we found substantial alignment between NbS principles and the principles of the other frameworks, three of the eight NbS principles stand out from other approaches: NbS can be implemented alone or in an integrated manner with other solutions; NbS should be applied at a landscape scale; and, NbS are integral to the overall design of policies, measures and actions, to address societal challenges. Reversely, concepts such as adaptive management/governance, effectiveness, uncertainty, multi-stakeholder participation, and temporal scale are present in other frameworks but not captured at all or detailed enough in the NbS principles” (20).

NBS AND EBA IN ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND PLANS

Nature-based solutions are sparsely, yet regularly mentioned in adaptation strategies and plans. However, as will become clear in the presentation of national and sub-national cases, these references are in general rather broad and only rarely refer directly to forests or forest management. Furthermore, most of the references do not direct attention to specific measures. Similar conclusions hold true for Ecosystem-based Adaptation. As the concepts of NbS and EbA made their way via international arenas and were only embraced at EU level by the adaptation strategies after 2015, many national and sub-national adaptation strategies and plans do not directly refer to the concept. Both findings are not surprising, as they emerged via international negotiations on climate change and the time required to gain traction in national or sub-national adaptation plans and strategies.

Another issue concerns the development of adaptation strategies and plans themselves. Whereas the first wave of documents, which can roughly be dated from 2005-2015, put a focus on groundwork, i.e. the definition of baselines, the elaboration of vulnerability studies for individual sectors, or the delimitation of research needs, only the second wave of concepts started to integrate action-based targets that clearly define measures to be carried out. Among these action-based measures increasingly nature-based solutions play an important role. These are not in every case clearly defined or directly related to forestry. Thus, only in the second wave of concepts nature-based and ecosystem-based adaptation was taken up as an integral approach worth following.

Often the definitions used for both concepts are rather broad and allow for incorporation of multiple approaches. As an example, the Finnish NAP from 2014 (National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022) did not explicitly mention NbS, though contained indirect references. In the latest National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2030 approved by the Government in December 2022 multiple direct references to NbS are made and a specific measure (Nr. 12) on NbS is included in the plan. Two sub-actions describe future developments with regard to NbS: Action 12.1 Developing nature-based solutions and up-to-date legislation and guidance material and promote planning for stormwater management. Measure 12.2 Mainstream organic water management practices in agriculture and forestry.

The role of NBS and EBA in forests and forest management?

The increasing degree of definition and the ongoing differentiation of the concepts of EbA and NbS allow for a more nuanced assessment of what actually constitutes an NbS / EbA measure or evaluation of existing measures, especially regarding the application of both concepts in the realm of forests and forest management. However, the provided conceptual clarifications might not align with some actions on the ground, e.g. those based on traditional knowledge and sustainable livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples or peasant farming communities (Kill, 2024). On the other hand, large-scale “fortress conservation” (Survival International, 2025) projects, industrial tree plantations and agriculture projects equally meet the definition. All of these indicate the need to more clearly define the meaning of NbS and EbA with regard to forests and forest management and to more clearly distinguish both concepts from traditional approaches.

The concepts of NbS and EbA were originally tailored to global issues or countries of the Global South and had little practical relation or applicability to contexts of European forests. Thus, while the concepts were branded as action oriented, early manifestations had little practical relevance and were largely appellative. This was the case especially with regard to forests, where often a very broad definition was applied and as a consequence most adaptive measures were labelled NbS / EbA conform.

Consequently, it is generally not spelled out (in official plans and strategies or in public descriptions of direct measures) which definition is applied to distinguish NbS and EbA on the ground. Especially with regard to forests a clear distinction between “normal” or commonly applied management activities and novel EbA approaches is not easy to make and the boundaries are, except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, blurred. Thus, an incentive exists to label each forest management activity as EbA and even more so NbS, which would strip both concepts in the realm of forests and forest management of meaningful content or conceptual clarity.

This is linked to the fact that a huge element of uncertainty exists with regard to the effectiveness and effectivity of measures. What does work and which measures are effective in the light of an escalating climate situation is very difficult to grasp already from standard approaches, yet becomes even more contested against the background of the criteria regarding NbS and EbA. The amount of secured knowledge with regard to evidence-based application of NbS and EbA is very much limited.

With regard to “traditional” multi-functional European forestry a clear ecosystem-centred approach is difficult to realise to a full extent. This is even more apparent as there seems to be a case of ideological clash or unease between EbA and traditional commercial, exploitative forestry. Ibisch (2022) even argued that the “prevailing discourse and practice of forestry-related climate change adaptation runs counter to an ecosystem-based approach. There is a focus on tree species; active adaptation often means planting species alien to the ecosystem. Efforts to define future forest types in as species-specific a manner as possible reveal a deterministic design paradigm” (325). He continues to argue that, “[a] contrasting approach assumes that ecosystem processes must be better utilised and that these are certainly suitable for promoting the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems in a cost-effective manner. Natural regeneration, for example, but also deadwood on calamity areas play an important role here. Corresponding proposals to give forest ecosystems more time and space for natural recovery are dismissed by some actors as non-science-based romanticism or even ideology” (Ibisch 2022, 326).

Another issue is related to the complexity of potential measures and the diversity of forest types, or the multitude of cases (also exemplified by the Living Labs). These require essentially a case-by-case approach and site and place-based definition of what actually might constitute an Nbs or EbA measure. An EbA / NbS measure in one site must not necessarily translate to an EbA / NbS measure on another site.

A gap seems to exist between the hopes invested in the concepts and their impact on actions and mainstreaming in planning processes. „Ecosystem-based approaches for climate change adaptation are promoted at international, national, and local levels by both scholars and practitioners. However, local planning practices that support these approaches are scattered, and measures are neither systematically implemented nor comprehensively reviewed. [...] Many of the measures that have been implemented focus on biodiversity rather than climate change adaptation, which is an important factor in only around half of all measures. Furthermore, existing measures are limited in their focus regarding the ecological structures and the ecosystem services they support, and the hazards and risk factors they address. We conclude that a more comprehensive approach to sustainable ecosystem-based adaptation planning and its systematic mainstreaming is required” (Wamsler et al., 2016; p. 1)

EbA / NbS thus seem to be lost in translation in many cases. While increasingly NbS is referenced by new strategies and plans for adaptation (since roughly 2020), it rarely goes beyond very broad and general framing. For example, EbA is rarely mentioned in (national and sub-national) NAS or NAPs, in sectoral forestry adaptation plans it is entirely lacking with some of the suggested measures even contradicting EbA, as for example shortening of rotation periods or the immediate and complete clearing of large-scale disturbance sites.

On local level in none of the cases EbA is (explicitly) mentioned as being applied, though some might qualify as such. The Finnish NAS (2005) states that “The maintenance of the ability of ecosystems to function and recover and the management and restoration of habitats valuable to biodiversity, in addition to a sufficient network of protected areas, lay the foundation for the conservation of Finland’s natural species and for the adaptation to climate change” (page 204). Such a quote can be found in most adaptation strategies and plans. While it acknowledges the importance of ecosystem integrity and functionality, it falls short of lifting its status to be conserved or indeed suggesting measures or actions for reaching ecosystem integrity.

Similarly Naumann et al. (2011) concluded, “While all countries could be seen to be applying ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation because they are either actively maintaining and increasing ecological resilience and taking practical action now or are at least planning to undertake actions falling into these categories, only the UK actually used the term ‘ecosystem-based’ and even in that case, the term was used only in an aspirational sense (‘we will apply ecosystem based approaches’) rather than in a practical sense” (Naumann et al. 2011). In a number of recently updated plans and strategies, NbS and EbA are more frequently used and applied. The translation into meaningful activities on the ground remains to be analyzed in the future and assessments cannot be provided currently.

Cookie type	Means of blocking
Analytical and performance cookies	Realytics Google Analytics Spoteffects Optimizely
Targeted advertising cookies	DoubleClick Mediarithmics

Mandatory cookies	Functional cookies	Social media and advertising cookies
These cookies are needed to ensure the proper functioning of the site and cannot be disabled. They help ensure a secure connection and the basic availability of our website.	These cookies allow us to analyse site use in order to measure and optimise performance. They allow us to store your sign-in information and display the different components of our website in a more coherent way.	These cookies are used by advertising agencies such as Google and by social media sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Among other things, they allow pages to be shared on social media, the posting of comments, and the publication (on our site or elsewhere) of ads that reflect your centres of interest.
Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) uses CAS and PHP session cookies and the New Relic cookie for monitoring purposes (IP, response times). These cookies are deleted at the end of the browsing session (when you log off or close your browser window)	Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) uses the XiTi cookie to measure traffic. Our service provider is AT Internet. This company stores data (IPs, date and time of access, length of the visit and pages viewed) for six months	Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) does not use this type of cookie.

Nature-based Solutions and Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the context of forest management