In 19-21 June 2026, in Prespa, we co-organised a meeting of particular significance. It was a first structured effort to bring together, in the same space, organisations, social enterprises, environmental bodies and research collectives working on biodiversity, the social and solidarity economy, and the empowerment of mountain communities.
The Cooperation Meeting for Mountain Communities took place in Prespa and was co-organised by Society for the Protection of Prespa, της , The High Mountains Co-op and P2P Lab,. Participants included organisations and bodies such as Callisto, Living Aspropotamos, the Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature, Ecotopia, WWF Greece, Open Mountain, Medina, Electra Energy, the Thrace Biodiversity Protection Society, Boulouki, The Pokari Project, the Hellenic Ornithological Society, and other groups active in the field.
Biodiversity or development of mountain regions?
One of the key questions running through the meeting was the relationship between biodiversity protection and the development of mountain regions.
The discussion is often framed as a dilemma: on the one hand, the protection of nature; on the other, economic development. On the one hand, ecosystems; on the other, people’s needs. In Prespa, however, we tried to revisit the very terms of this dilemma.
Perhaps the problem is not only where the balance lies between protection and development, but how we define development itself. Can we speak of development that is not reduced to the consumption of a place, to touristification, or to external investment? Can we imagine models that support life in mountain communities without undermining the ecosystems that keep them alive?
These questions are becoming increasingly urgent. Mountain communities do not simply need “more development”, but different models of living, working, producing, caring and collaborating. These models must emerge from the possibilities and limits of each place, linking biodiversity with the local economy, social cohesion, and people’s ability to stay in or return to their villages.
Tools for knowledge, documentation and fieldwork
During the meeting, a rich range of knowledge and documentation tools emerged, which organisations are already using in their efforts for social and ecological change. These include field research, action research, ethnographic and cultural mapping, and the recording of needs, strengths and gaps. Legal and institutional tools were also identified, such as legal appeals, advocacy for more appropriate funding instruments, the development of joint proposals, and dialogue with public services at the local level.
The category of fieldwork was of particular importance. This brought forward tools such as a sustained presence in communities, the participation of local people in the design and implementation of methods, the ethical return of knowledge to the community, the “Ambassadors of Repopulation" in the villages, the creation of stable spaces in mountain areas, and training in the joint management of resources.
Contradictions and open challenges
Some contradictions, however, were also discussed.
One of these was the sense that time is running out. The climate crisis, pressures on ecosystems, the abandonment of villages, land grabbing, energy investments without social consent, and the weakening of local services all create a sense of urgency. At the same time, meaningful social change requires slower rhythms, trust, relationships, and continuity.
Another contradiction concerns scale. Are we creating “islands” of positive examples, or can we contribute to something that changes the field more broadly? How can successful practices grow without losing their connection to place? How do we move from pilot initiatives to more systemic change?
Perhaps, however, the most essential point was conceptual: what does development mean? What does participation mean? What does local community mean? What does resistance mean? What does it mean to “take a position”? What does the central state mean when we are talking about places that often feel abandoned by it?
Areas of intervention and cross-cutting issues
When the meeting moved from reflection to the co-design of possible interventions, the working groups focused on three main themes: the empowerment and revitalisation of mountain communities, adaptation to climate change, and the connection between biodiversity protection and new forms of the social and solidarity economy.
The cross-cutting issues raised included the creation of inclusive communities, a strategic approach to new urban–rural dynamics, the balance between institutional pressure “from above” and action with communities “from below”, as well as the need to cultivate new narratives and values.
Possible directions for collaboration
These discussions gave rise to possible directions for collaboration between environmental organisations and social cooperative enterprises.
For example:
Forest protection can be linked to participatory forest management, the community reappropriation of forest products, and the creation of volunteer fire protection groups.
The agri-food sector can become a field for common policies and pilot applications, especially when it is connected with local production, energy, community empowerment, and socially supported food models.
Municipal and public buildings in villages can be used for social and solidarity economy initiatives, with the support and recognition of environmental organisations. This direction also directly resonates with our own experience at The High Mountains, where empty or inactive buildings can once again become hubs of life, work, hospitality, education and community.
In addition, Vasilis Kostakis (P2P Lab) put forward four axes of social change: models of ownership, models of governance and organisation, models of production, and the dissemination of new narratives and imaginaries. These axes help us see that change is not only about “what we do”, but also about who decides, who owns, who produces, who benefits, and what story we tell about the future of our places.
Prespa as a place of exchange
The choice of Prespa as the place for this exchange carried particular significance. Prespa is a place where biodiversity means everyday coexistence. Agricultural production, livestock farming, beekeeping, tourism, nature protection, and the presence of species such as the brown bear create a complex socio-ecological field.
This was also highlighted through Callisto’s material on Bear-Smart Communities. The experience of Trikala–Meteora, which was the first comprehensive application of the Bear-Smart Communities model in Greece, shows that human–bear coexistence is not only a matter of technical measures. It is primarily a matter of local cooperation, prevention, trust, and shared responsibility.
This example is directly connected to what was discussed during the meeting. If we want mountain communities to remain alive and ecosystems to be meaningfully protected, then we need communities that have a role, the right tools, trust, and the ability to participate in decision-making.
Next steps and shared infrastructures
The meeting closed with a shared sense that the collaboration needs to remain fluid, open, and adaptable.
As next steps, it was proposed that each organisation appoint a focal point, that a mailing list for mountain communities be created, along with a shared digital infrastructure or repository for needs, job opportunities, funding opportunities, actions and resources to be shared, as well as the appointment of people who would act as “gardeners” of the process, tending to communication and future meetings.
A next in-person meeting in June 2027 was also proposed, with an invitation extended to new groups as well, along with two or three interim online meetings on strategic issues such as energy, tourism, and organisational models.
These next steps are important because they show that collaboration does not always need to begin with a major institutional structure. It can begin with shared communication, common tools, practical mutual support, and small pilot synergies.
The connection with the work of The High Mountains
For The High Mountains, this discussion connects directly with the core of our work: the revitalisation of mountain communities, decentralisation, social innovation, collaborative infrastructures, the social and solidarity economy, and people’s ability to stay, return, and create life in the mountains.
Prespa reminded us that the future of mountain communities is built through networks, trust, shared practices, and spaces of encounter.
A warm thank you to the Society for the Protection of Prespa for the initiative and hospitality, to P2P Lab for the collaboration, and to all the organisations that participated, shared their experiences, and opened up pathways for next steps.