, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 351–360 | Cite as

Integrated Approaches to Natural Resources Management in Practice: The Catalyzing Role of National Adaptation Programmes for Action

  • Virpi Stucki
  • Mark Smith
Review Paper


The relationship of forests in water quantity and quality has been debated during the past years. At the same time, focus on climate change has increased interest in ecosystem restoration as a means for adaptation. Climate change might become one of the key drivers pushing integrated approaches for natural resources management into practice. The National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) is an initiative agreed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. An analysis was done to find out how widely ecosystem restoration and integrated approaches have been incorporated into NAPA priority adaptation projects. The data show that that the NAPAs can be seen as potentially important channel for operationalizing various integrated concepts. Key challenge is to implement the NAPA projects. The amount needed to implement the NAPA projects aiming at ecosystem restoration using integrated approaches presents only 0.7% of the money pledged in Copenhagen for climate change adaptation.


Forests Water Integrated approaches for natural resources management Climate change adaptation Post-Copenhagen 



The authors would like to thank Prof. Olli Varis and Prof. Steven De Bie for constructive comments and advice during the drafting stage of this article. Scholarship received from Maa- ja Vesitekniikan Tuki r.y. helped tremendously in allowing for the finalization of this article. The two independent reviewers provided valuable comments during the revision process.


  1. BBC. 2005. Logging: No impact on big floods. BBC News world edition, Richard Black, Environment Correspondent, BBC News website. Accessed 1 April 2010.
  2. Björklund, C., H. Tropp, J. Harlin, A. Morrison, and A. Hudson. 2010. Water adaptation in National Adaptation Programmes for Action. The United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, Dialogue Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, K.S.-H. Peh, and B.W. Brook. 2007. Global Change Biology. doi: 10.111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x.
  4. Bruijnzeel, S. 2007. Barking up the wrong tree: negative environmental impacts of reforestation heavily overrated. Science and Education Supplement to NRC Handelsblad of 21.1.2006.Google Scholar
  5. Calder, I. 2006. Forests and water—ensuring benefits outweigh the water costs. In International conference on cultivated forests, Bilbao, Spain, 3–7 October 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Cicin-Sain, B., R.W. Knecht, and G.W. Fisk. 1995. Growth capacity for integrated coastal management since UNCED: An international perspective. Ocean Coastal Management 29(1–3): 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Convention on Biological Diversity CBD. 1995. Report of the second meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, Jakarta, 6–17 November 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Douthwaite, B., J.M. Ekboir, S. Twomlow, and J.D.H. Keatinge. 2004. The concept of integrated natural resources management (INRM) and its implications for developing evaluation methods. In Natural resources management in agriculture: Methods for assessing environmental impacts, ed. B. Shiferaw, H.G. Freeman, and S.M. Swinton. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  9. Economist, The. 2005. Deforestation and floods—not the root cause. The Economist, October 15.Google Scholar
  10. Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO–Center for International Forestry Research, CIFOR. 2005. Forests and floods. Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts?. Indonesia/Thailand: CIFOR/FAO.Google Scholar
  11. Global Water Partnership–International Network of Basin Organisations (GWP–INBO). 2009. A handbook for integrated water resources management in basins. Sweden: Elanders. ISBN: 978-91-85321-72-8.Google Scholar
  12. Hayward, B. 2005. From the mountain to the tap: How land-use management can work for the rural poor?. Hayle: Rowe the Printers.Google Scholar
  13. Ilstedt, U., A. Malmer, E. Verbeeten, and D. Murdiyarso. 2007. The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 251: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). 2004. Accessed 14 April 2010.
  15. International Congress on Cultivated Forests, 3rd–7th October. 2006. Bilbao, Spain. Session: Plantations and water.
  16. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. A report of the working group II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Fourth assessment report, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Laurance, W.F. 2007. Forests and floods. Nature 449: 409–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Locatelli, B., and R. Vignola. 2007. Managing watershed services of tropical forests and plantations: Can meta-analyses help? Forest Ecology and Management 258(9): 1864–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malmer, A., D. Murdiyarso, L. Sampurno Bruijnzeel, and U. Ilstedt. 2010. Carbon sequestration in tropical forests and water: A critical look at the basis for commonly used generalizations. Global Change Biology 16(2): 599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pernetta, J.C., and D.L. Elder. 1993. Cross-sectoral integrated and coastal area planning (CICAP): Guidelines and principles for coastal area development. A marine conservation and development report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN in collaboration with World Wide Fund for Nature, 63 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Stucki, V. 2010. In the search for integration—analyzing the practical occurrence of integrated water resources management with case studies from basin organisations, international policy processes, and across disciplines. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology (under preparation).Google Scholar
  22. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEEB. 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers—summary: Responding to the value of nature.Google Scholar
  23. Twomlow, S., D. Love, and S. Walker. 2008. The nexus between INRM and IWRM. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 33(8–13): 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC. 2009a. Draft decision -/CP.15, Copenhagen Accord. Conference of the parties, fifteenth session, Copenhagen, 7–8 December 2009.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC. 2009b. NAPA project database. Accessed December 2009.
  26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC. 2009c. Least developed countries expert group. Annotated guidelines for the preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action.Google Scholar
  27. Varis, O., M.M. Rahaman, and V. Stucki. 2008. The rocky road from integrated plans to implementation: Lessons learned from the Mekong and Senegal River basins. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wenger, R., R. Sommer, and S. Wymann v Dacg. 2005. Forest landscape restoration. Focus No 2/05.Google Scholar
  29. World Water Forum, 16–22 March. 2006. Mexico City, Mexico. Session FT5.10: The role of forests in water-related natural disaster risk management.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water and Development Research Team, School of Science and TechnologyAalto UniversityEspooFinland
  2. 2.Water ProgrammeInternational Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCNGlandSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations