The landscape approach: Ten principles to apply at the ... · “Landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic,

THINKING beyond the canopy THINKING beyond the canopy

The landscape approach: Ten principles to apply at the nexus of agriculture,

conservation and other competing land-uses

Terry Sunderland ATBC Symposium S26–Forest People and Market Integration June 26th 2013 San Jose, Costa Rica

THINKING beyond the canopy

Why ‘landscapes’?

•  Forests support ca. 65% of worlds terrestrial taxa •  Estimated 1.6 billion people “depend” on forested landscapes in some way for their livelihoods •  40% of world’s food originates in multi-functional landscapes •  Forests and trees sustain agriculture through ES provision •  “Landscape approaches” have moved to forefront of research and development agenda


What do we mean by landscapes?

•  Landscapes are fuzzy concepts – they are not planning units

•  “A geographical construct that includes not only the biophysical components of an area but also the social, political, institutional and cultural components of that system”


Shooting in the dark..?

•  Large body of literature on “landscape approaches” and “ecosystem approaches” but little consensus on applicability

•  General principles and guidelines have been largely missing

•  However, need to avoid “one size fits all” approach

•  Complex landscapes; complex challenges


Core challenge: different sites, different issues


Whose landscapes?


Multi-functionality •  Combination of separate

land units with different functions (spatial segregation)

•  Different functions on the same unit of land but separated in time (temporal segregation)

•  Different functions on the same unit of land at the same time (functional integration or “real multi-functionality)


But in reality, segregation is the norm

Plantation Forest

Agriculture


Land sparing/sharing within landscapes


Landscape assessment for development

•  Collecting economic data at various levels, engaging most stakeholders

•  Spatial data: administrative boundaries, land cover change and current land uses

•  “Governance landscape” including local (traditional) institutions

•  Focus on ecosystem services and agricultural productivity and away from protected areas alone


Preliminary observations from LM sites

•  Governance and land use planning remain weak especially

without project/NGO-led interventions •  Still few compensations/incentives for conservation, but

interest in certification, PES and REDD+ •  Past trends in terms of forest/tree cover: eradication of forest

patches, monocultures preferred to agroforests… •  How to achieve sustainability when donor driven??


Perceived importance of forest goods and services in five landscape mosaics

Cameroon

Laos Madagascar Tanzania Indonesia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Food and self-‐consumed goods Marketed items and

income RegulaDng services Cultural services


New (landscape) approaches •  Since 2008, CIFOR and multiple partners working on

defining and refining broad “landscape approaches” building on previous initiatives

•  How? Review of published literature, multiple workshops for consensus building, conferences/side events, e.g. Diversitas, IUFRO, CBD Bonn, Nagoya

•  Validated by extensive survey of field practitioners •  Based on this on-going work, SBSTTA commissioned

CIFOR to draft report “sustainable use of biodiversity at the landscape scale” (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-15/official/sbstta-15-13-en.pdf)


So, what is new? •  The landscape approach has

been re-defined to include societal concerns related to conservation and development trade-offs and negotiate for them

•  Increased integration of poverty alleviation goals

•  Increased integration of agricultural production and food security

•  Emphasis is on adaptive management, stakeholder involvement and multiple objectives


The “Ten Commandments”...?


Ten principles for a landscape approach 1.  Continual learning and adaptive management 2.  Common concern entry point 3.  Multiple scales 4.  Multi-functionality 5.  Multi-stakeholder 6.  Negotiated and transparent change 7.  Clarification of rights and principles 8.  Participatory and user-friendly monitoring 9.  Resilience 10. Strengthened stakeholder capacity


What impact?

•  Recommendation XV/6 "sustainable use" from SBSTTA XV (includes work on bushmeat)

•  Tabled for adoption at COP 11 in Hyderabad: “taken note” of by parties

•  Desire (and funding) to follow up with future CGIAR and CBD policy processes

•  Contribution to System Level Outcomes of CGIAR


PNAS: (2013) 110 (21) 8345-8348

SPECIAL FEATURE: PERSPECTIVE

Ten principles for a landscape approachto reconciling agriculture, conservation,and other competing land usesJeffrey Sayera,1, Terry Sunderlandb, Jaboury Ghazoulc, Jean-Laurent Pfundd, Douglas Sheilb,e,f, Erik Meijaardb,g,h,Michelle Ventera, Agni Klintuni Boedhihartonoa, Michael Dayb, Claude Garciab,i, Cora van Oostenj,and Louise E. BuckkaCenter for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns,QLD 4870, Australia; bCenter for International Forestry Research, Bogor 16000, Indonesia; cDepartment of Environmental Systems Science,Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; dFauna, Forests and Nature Service, 2108Couvet, Switzerland; eInstitute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda; fSchool ofEnvironmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia; gPeople and Nature Borneo FuturesProject, Consulting International, Jakarta 15412, Indonesia; hSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072,Australia; iGoods and Services of Tropical Forest Ecosystems Research Unit, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomiquepour le Développement (CIRAD), Unité Propre de Recherche, F-34398 Montpellier, France; jCentre for Development Innovation, WageningenUniversity and Research Centre, 6700 AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and kEcoAgriculture Partners and Department of Natural Resources,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Edited by Kenneth G. Cassman, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, and accepted by the Editorial Board December 21, 2012 (received for review June 21, 2012)

“Landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmentalobjectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and biodiversity goals. Here wesynthesize the current consensus on landscape approaches.This is based on published literature and a consensus-building process to define goodpractice and is validated by a survey of practitioners.We find the landscape approach has been refined in response to increasing societal concernsabout environment and development tradeoffs. Notably, there has been a shift from conservation-orientated perspectives toward increasingintegration of poverty alleviation goals. We provide 10 summary principles to support implementation of a landscape approach as it iscurrently interpreted.These principles emphasize adaptive management, stakeholder involvement, and multiple objectives.Various constraintsare recognized, with institutional and governance concerns identified as the most severe obstacles to implementation. We discuss how theseprinciples differ from more traditional sectoral and project-based approaches. Although no panacea, we see few alternatives that are likely toaddress landscape challenges more effectively than an approach circumscribed by the principles outlined here.

food security | integrated development approaches | social ecological systems | agriculture environment trade offs | Convention on Biological Diversity

Global demand for agricultural land is on acollision course with environmental protec-tion goals. We face a “perfect storm” as westruggle to feed a burgeoning population ona diminishing supply of land, water, nutri-ents, and biodiversity (1). Despite globalefforts, ambitious targets and massive expen-diture, there are as yet no general and effec-tive solutions for meeting both nature con-servation goals and human needs (2, 3). TheFood and Agricultural Organization esti-mates a 70% increase in food productionis needed to feed a projected population of9.1 billion people by 2050 (4). Food pro-duction goals have to be met in ways thatalleviate poverty, improve nutrition, and con-serve the environment. Interactions amongthese challenges require that they be ad-dressed in a concerted way. Sectoral ap-proaches, despite still being predominant,have long been recognized as inadequate(5). For example, agricultural expansion and

intensification threatens environmental goodsand services (6), which could in turn under-mine efforts to meet future food demands (7),while also affecting livelihoods and health (8).There are many uncertainties: climate changethreatens to reduce crop production in someregions, but will perhaps provide new oppor-tunities elsewhere (9); competing demandson land for climate change mitigation, bio-diversity conservation, and agriculture im-plies tradeoffs, many of which are poorlyunderstood and not easily resolvable (10).There will be no single best answer, andsocieties will have to confront challengesthat transcend traditional agricultural andenvironmental boundaries. People and so-cieties must make decisions. We contend thatthe quality of decision-making is a functionof the process by which the decision isreached, and achieving objectives is an on-going process subject to negotiation, learn-ing, adaptation, and improvement. To this

end, we identify 10 principles to guide theprocess of decision-making in landscapecontexts. These principles emphasize thatthe integration of agricultural and environ-mental priorities will require a people-cen-tered approach applied at landscape scales.We examine the multiple ways in whichthis is being approached and the validityof the underlying concepts.

Author contributions: J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., C.v.O., and L.E.B.

designed research; J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., C.v.O., and L.E.B. per-

formed research; J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., and C.v.O. contributed

new analytic tools; J.S., T.S., J.G., J.-L.P., D.S., E.M., M.V., A.K.B.,

M.D., and C.G. analyzed data; and J.S., T.S., J.G., D.S., E.M., M.V.,

A.K.B., M.D., and C.G. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. K.G.C. is a guest editor

invited by the Editorial Board.

1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/

lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110/-/DCSupplemental.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110 PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 8

SPEC

IALFEATU

RE:

PERS

PECT

IVE


Challenges of the landscape approach

•  Understanding complex systems is not straightforward •  Understanding and influencing underlying trajectories •  Functionality of landscape mosaics •  The landscape approach is different to spatial planning. Landscapes are

dynamic and subjective. Different people see them in different ways. •  Trade-offs are the norm and have to be negotiated •  There is no “end point” or best solution for a landscape – one can simply

intervene to avoid bad outcomes and favour better ones


Some tricky questions •  What are we trying to

achieve? •  Who decides? •  How to reconcile and

negotiate trade-offs? •  How to predict outcomes

and understand “landscape dynamics”?

•  How to measure progress and/or success?

•  Impact?

THINKING beyond the canopy THINKING beyond the canopy

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is one of the 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

Thank you! www.cifor.cgiar.org

Documents

The landscape approach: Ten principles to apply at the ... · “Landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic,