Building Resilience With Nature: Ecosystem-based Adaptation in National Adaptation Plan Processes

The analysis of 19 NAPs reveals that while all reviewed documents integrate ecosystem considerations and vulnerabilities, the explicit link between ecosystem services and societal adaptation benefits remains generic. Latin American countries show the strongest integration of EbA and links to biodiversity strategies. Key gaps include limited monitoring of outcomes, insufficient private sector engagement, and under-representation of urban EbA and hybrid grey/green infrastructure. The report suggests that NAPs should move beyond business-as-usual conservation to explicitly address climate hazards and target specific vulnerable groups.

• All 19 reviewed NAPs integrated ecosystem considerations and identified ecosystem services, but the specific societal benefits for people were typically discussed in generic terms or implied rather than explicitly detailed.
• Vulnerabilities of ecosystems to climate change are well-documented across all NAPs, yet there is a tendency to focus on ecosystem degradation rather than utilizing ecosystems as active adaptation options.
• Latin American countries demonstrate a more robust application of EbA and stronger links to national biodiversity strategies compared to other regions, correlating with a higher number of registered EbA projects on the Panorama Platform.
• Monitoring and evaluation of EbA outcomes are rare; only a few countries, such as Chile, Brazil, and Cameroon, have established measurable targets or indicators.
• Urban EbA and hybrid grey/green infrastructure solutions are significantly under-represented, with only Brazil, Colombia, and St Lucia referencing urban greening, and only Fiji and Guatemala identifying hybrid solutions.
• Financial resource identification for EbA and private sector engagement are not widespread, with Fiji being the only country to explicitly mention the private sector's role in EbA.
• Forests, freshwater, and coastal/marine ecosystems are the most frequently identified as vulnerable and the most common targets for EbA measures, while mountains, grasslands, and deserts are rarely linked to specific adaptation actions.
• While NAPs identify vulnerable groups, few make a direct link to EbA actions; where they do, farmers and pastoralists are the most commonly cited beneficiaries.

APA

Terton, A., & Greenwalt, J. (2020). Building Resilience With Nature: Ecosystem-based Adaptation in National Adaptation Plan Processes. NAP Global Network. https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/napgn-en-2020-ecosystem-based-adaptation-in-naps.pdf

Chicago

Terton, Anika, and Julie Greenwalt. Building Resilience With Nature: Ecosystem-based Adaptation in National Adaptation Plan Processes. NAP Global Network, 2020. https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/napgn-en-2020-ecosystem-based-adaptation-in-naps.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Terton |first1=Anika |last2=Greenwalt |first2=Julie |title=Building Resilience With Nature: Ecosystem-based Adaptation in National Adaptation Plan Processes |publisher=NAP Global Network |date=2020 |url=https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/napgn-en-2020-ecosystem-based-adaptation-in-naps.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{terton2020building, author = {Terton, Anika and Greenwalt, Julie}, title = {{Building Resilience With Nature: Ecosystem-based Adaptation in National Adaptation Plan Processes}}, institution = {NAP Global Network}, year = {2020}, url = {https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/napgn-en-2020-ecosystem-based-adaptation-in-naps.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }