Lessons from operationalizing integrated landscape approaches

Presented by James Reed at "9th Landscape Sustainability Science Forum" on 11 May 2024

1. Lessons from operationalizing integrated landscape approaches cifor.org / colands James Reed 9 th Landscape Sustainability Science Forum 11 th May 2024

2. 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s ------------------- present 1980s: Integrated Rural Development 1998: Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) 1985 onwards: Integrated Conservation & Development projects (ICDPs) Contributing Sciences: Ecosystem Management Landscape Ecology Island biogeography Conservation rooted frameworks e.g. “Ecosystem Approach” 1983: “Landscape Approach” first documented ( Noss , 1983) 2013 - present: (Integrated) Landscape Approaches 2013: “Ten Principles for a Landscape Approach” (Sayer et al . 2013) The evolution of integrated (landscape) approaches (Reed et al. 2016, Global Ch. Biol.)

3. Global challenges are interrelated and require integrated solutions Sustainability transformations call for cross-sectoral thinking and approaches Implementation of GBF requires integrative governance Parties recognize the importance of integrated, holistic, and balanced non-market approaches Funding now increasingly targeted towards integrated projects (Reed et al. 2020 One Earth ) Integrated approaches increasingly endorsed and funded

4. Integrated landscape approaches might aim to Inspire transformational change Enhance resilience Improve governance Conserve biodiversity Restore ecosystems Mitigate climate change Alleviate poverty Why so popular?

5. conceptual ambiguity leaves the approach open to interpretation and in the realm of subjectivity and uncertainty greatly enhances the potential for the concept to be abused, mis-assimilated, or co-opted implies a lack of basic norms and rules to follow with potential for conceptually weak and poorly designed implementation efforts Despite enthusiasm, ILA definition or conceptual framework is lacking

6. Latin America & Caribbean ( n 38 ) Southern Africa ( n 13 ) South Asia ( n 16 ) East Asia & Pacific ( n 33 ) West Africa ( n 16 ) East Africa ( n 41 ) Multi-region ( n 9 ) Evidence of implementation Reed et al. 2017 Land Use Policy

7. Evidence of impact? Enhanced soil and water conservation, income, and crop production were the most frequently cited impacts (Reed et al. 2017)

8. Evidence of effectiveness? “ We show that despite considerable enthusiasm for landscape approaches, the evidence base within the scientific literature remains poorly developed ”. Peer reviewed articles Grey literature (web screening) Grey literature (document screening) Totals Case studies 24 97 53 174 Countries 16 52 42 61 Success 13 46 20 79 Reliable data 6 8 1 15

9. Generating impact from ILAs What gets measured, gets managed (Drucker 1956, Stiglitz, 2010) An (unhealthy) obsession with numbers, outcomes, and exit strategies However, performance monitoring tools are often not very useful in answering how or why values change Meanwhile, traditional impact assessment is challenging as appropriate counterfactuals are lacking ( Chervier et al. 2020)

10. Not everything in life can be measured Not everything that matters can be measured, not everything that we can measure, matters (Ridgway, 1956) What is really cared about might often be very difficult to measure Raising a child, performing a good deed, demonstrating good judgement, humility, empathy, love……. Similarly, ILAs need to better capture social values and perceptions, address power asymmetries, support community action, evaluate governance performance, and account for conservation/development trade-offs

11. Taking ILAs from theory to practice Address knowledge-implementation gap Empower marginalized stakeholders Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue Raise awareness of value of biodiversity Test potential of ILAs to reduce land use conflicts

12. Ecological  experiments  can support ILAs by ( i ) allowing researchers to determine drivers and understand mechanisms which are often hard to elucidate in observational studies in complex systems, and (ii) helping predict the outcome of future events that have yet to happen. Public problems that contain a high level of complexity such as landscape management (i.e. multiple dynamic systems, multiple problems and multiple objectives, high level of risk, sociopolitical complexity, biological complexity, and scientific uncertainty) make broader stakeholder involvement an absolute necessity Research will be more effective if knowledge is co-produced with local people as active participants rather than merely unrecognized sources or disengaged recipients of information Requires the integration of two approaches: one focusing on conventional scientific studies of biodiversity and biophysical parameters; and the other focusing on the participation of relevant stakeholders, using various participatory methods to co-create options that meet multiple stakeholder needs (Reed et al. 2021, Landscape Ecology ) Re-integrating ecology into ILAs

13. Extensive policy and network analysis in each country Political partners (Ghana: Forestry Commission, Zambia: Forestry Dept. and Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, Indonesia: Executive Office of the President) Ensures the project becomes part of the inter-ministerial committee on climate change Promote the project at all levels of government Access data and information from other departments, including forest and land use data Implementing partners (Ghana: UDS, Zambia: ZCBNRMF, Indonesia: Riak Bumi ) Promote the implementation of landscape approaches for conservation, livelihoods and adaptation to climate change, biodiversity conservation, democracy and governance Outreach through networks Scientific partners University of Amsterdam (4 PhD candidates) University of British Columbia (2 Post-docs, 2 PhD candidates, MSc students) Linking policy, practice , research

14. Core team and sites Zambia – COLANDS site ZCBNRM (partner) Kaala Moombe country lead Office and support staff 3 PhD students, 2 MSc Indonesia – COLANDS site Riak Bumi (partner) Linda Yuliani country lead Office and support staff 1 PhD Ghana- COLANDS site UDS (partner) Mathurin Zida country lead 3 PhDs, 2 MSc UBC (Terry Sunderland) Host 1 post-doc, 2 PhDs, MSc students UvA (Mirjam Ros-Tonen) Host 4 PhD students

15. Our focus in Zambia D elayed or absent strategic dialogue: conversation over protected areas/encroachments typically not held until issues get out of hand. H igh levels of mistrust of the government by the customary communities/ illegal settlers’, caused by lack of dialogue/honest communication about the different perceptions and facts related to landscape (e.g., the KFR13 case) F ragmented approach to development Uncoordinated efforts of agriculture and forestry depts. Lack of cross-scale/sector dialogue Ignoring local histories/colonial legacies (culture, etc.) and realities . Settlement in KFR13 was authorized in the early years of its establishment. Weak governance and local capacity, n ative land tenure and ownership rights ignored (e.g., on cultural heritages…sacred landscapes), env. change, have led to frequent contestation and conflicts over access U nrealistic application of external institutions (e.g., forest law/development interventions). L ack of adaptive capacity/governance or understanding of implications of interventions to ‘restore’ the landscape. Failure has led to conflicts and reduced trust/potential for trade-off negotiations. Misaligned t raditional and state governance systems: different claims, legal mandates, histories L ack of self-mobilization/insufficient external support Power asymmetries and gender disparity Kalomo contextual background

16. Co-producing theory of change (Reed et al. 2023, Sustainability Science )

17. Established common concerns in Kalomo

18. An agreement towards a shared future Wants and desires: Improved actor and institutional coordination to improve collective decision-making; Clarification of land-use boundaries; B etter enforcement of regulations; R ecognized and secured access rights; E nhanced resources for alternative and sustainable land-use practices Shared vision: I mproved consultation across scales of influence leading to reduced deforestation, landscape restoration, and sustainable NRM that improves river flow, water and food security, rural infrastructure, income, and livelihoods.

19. What hinders implementation? Interaction Lack of communication, collaboration, coordination - CIFOR as brokering partner convenes regular CWG meetings Lack of agreement due to differing visions - Scenario building and theory of change (Reed et al. 2023) Power relations Navigating power imbalances in landscape governance (Siangulube et al. 2023) Participation Absence of stakeholder groups Assessing the potential for private sector engagement in integrated landscape approaches: Insights from value-chain analyses in Southern Zambia (Upla et al. 2022) Varying levels of engagement - Perceptions across scales of governance reveal demand for forest landscape restoration in southern Zambia (Siangulube et al.) Lack of capacity, skills Training of trainers in spatial mapping, applying ILA principles Biodiversity guidelines (Reed et al. 2022) Resource Limited financial resources - Multiple funding applications Lack of/inaccessible data - Monitoring forest cover change in Kalomo Hills local forest using remote sensing and GIS: 1984–2018 ( Mbanga et al. 2021) Institutional Incompatible national policies - Potential for integration? An assessment of national environment and development policies (O’Connor et al. 2020) Misaligned institutional structures - Efforts to integrate local and scientific knowledge: The need for decolonising knowledge for conservation and natural resource management (Yanou et al. 2023) Overcoming the b arriers to implementation Vermunt et al. 2020 Current Landscape Ecology Reports

20. Uncertainty and project/process misalignment Getting everyone ‘around the table’ and who is a legitimate ‘stakeholder’ Confronting distant drivers of harm Incomplete characterisation of ILAs/Understanding of how to do ILAs P oor incorporation of gender-related dimensions L ack of attention to deeply embedded socio-political issues and historical legacies P oor understanding of cross-scale dynamics, interdependencies among levels of governance, and inherent power structures Financing and capacity issues, lack of continuity/presence Trust / research fatigue with high-turnover projects Overlapping structures and sectoral planning Other (ongoing) challenges

21. Clear need to redefine conservation actions Widespread decline in environmental health Falling capacity of nature to sustain NCP

22. Main drivers of biodiversity decline Related to wealth Stemming from ‘distant’ geographies Disproportionate impact

23. Telecoupled landscapes: distant wealth and consumption threatens biodiversity Three examples within the IUCN anthropogenic driver of ‘agriculture and aquaculture’

24. Actions i n biocultural landscapes Through protected areas: sectoral solution, ~ bioD gains, yet displacement, detachment, dispossession alternative livelihoods -alternative occupation/income or method of extraction; substituting a livelihood strategy ‘Resolve poverty’ - a virtuous act propagates the white saviour colonial style, rather than critically examine poverty, or seeking to enhance wellbeing within diverse notions of development Despite evidence on wealth, and shifts in policy fora Contemporary conservation is not equipped for addressing transboundary wealth-related flows

25. Site-level emphasis alone cannot deliver justice or sustainability Unduly exonerates actors most responsible for the biodiversity crisis Forfeits learning from biodiversity stewards Ultimately is not (and will not) deliver conservation Forced removals, payments/rewards can perversely nudge in to supply chains driving D, motivational crowding out Prohibition of practices resulting in erosion of cultural lived experience marineconservationphilippines.org

26. Resource draining and intentional cost-shifting, e.g. agricultural expansion (and related pollution), deforestation, over-fishing, IWT. Extreme climatic events (e.g. floods, droughts, fires) drive biodiversity loss in terrestrial, marine and fresh-water systems. Progress defined as never-ending growth in capitalist economies, homogenizes biological and cultural diversity, drives alienation and rootlessness, powerful underlying driver of CC and Trade. Conservation must disrupt and diminish the dominant flows reducing biodiversity

27. Marginalized flows, yet contribute to conservation Even while being eroded, local governance stands in direct contrast to one-world development, supports biocultural centres to flourish Ways of knowing & experiencing the world, influences species mixes, agro-BioD , sustainable resource use and ‘intact’ landscapes. Diverse and plural values; norms and accolades of ‘success’; moral, gift and solidarity economies; diverse conceptions of a good life; stewardship, reciprocity, connection.

28. Moves beyond conservation’s site-level emphasis Actions in centres of wealth Actions in Biocultural Centres

29. Desired states within which both biodiversity and humanity can flourish In centres of wealth: Gratification not growth – redefining ‘prosperity’ Accountable trade – transparent, internalized externalities In Biocultural centres : Autonomy and rights – empowered and enhanced Knowledge and value diversity – legitimized and recognized Deconstruct norms and models, combined with articulating alternatives for sustainable futures ( Feola et al, 2021) But moving towards what?

30. Works to disrupt and diminish dominant flows, enhance and amplify marginalized flows Requires actions across scales, interdisciplinary, and multi-sectoral Unconstrained by colonial ideas of site-level conservation Invites conservation to become more political Challenges the networks and norms of contemporary conservation Connected conservation in summary

31. Secure funding to continue transforming ToC into action Perspective on pervasive assumptions behind poverty-biodiversity loss association Strengthening engagement with local and international institutions Two open special issue collections Current efforts

32. Final takeaways To better engage with the realities of complex tropical landscapes, integrated landscape approaches need to be long-term and transdisciplinary Moving away from the dichotomous language of success and failure, and rather adopting a systems approach that prioritizes process and adaptation to determine enabling conditions and lessons learned, will likely be more constructive to the long-term sustainability of integrated landscape approaches Research that attempts to measure the things that count as well as counting what can be measured is fundamental to building the evidence base and helping understand under what conditions ILAs are workable and who benefits Conservation needs to expand its focus and extend its collaborations across sectors to deliver to transformative change

33. Maybe the real treasure is the friends we made along the way Thank you! cifor.org / colands