Introduction to Landscape Approach

Context, evolution and principles

Learning objectives “Landscape Approaches” Be able to explain the context, principles and

relevance of landscape approaches (landscape level planning and management) for “good enough” natural resource governance (notably SFM);

Be able to relate this knowledge to your professional work experiences and context;

Assess the relevance of the landscape concept for the achievement of the EU project (most notably the successful operation of the MSD);

“Think beyond your box”

Structure of the presentation

Trends and developments in forest management & conservation

Characteristics of a landscape approach for sustainable management of resources (context of the MSD)

The value of landscape level planning for Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) (afternoon)

Historical Developments in Forest Management Timber production ( - 1970):

site studies and growth and yield assessment timber quality, species genetics maximum sustained yield

Multiple use forestry (1970 - 1990): wood production leading principle & nature-oriented forest

mgt

Ecosystem management (1990 - ….) User involvement (sustainability demands, community

forestry) Wide diversification of forest uses

Sustainability, contribution to regional development, and poverty reduction Certification systems, increased complexity in planning

Conservation: Development & Trends

Traditionally: exclusive models for protection Categories of protected areas ( IUCN)

Conservation & Development Debate Starting in the 1970s, ICDPs with major landmarks in

international conventions e.g. Rio CBD (1992), WSSD (2002) Management from mono to multiple stakeholder approach: Man

& Biosphere; Core-Buffer zone; Ecological networks Ecosystem Approach:

Taking into account the interaction with surrounding area New insights in ecosystems and (dynamic) climax

Wider concerns over biodiversity and genetic resources conservation

Changing Paradigms(Philips 2002)

Twelve Principles of the ecosystem approach (adapted from the CBD Malawi Principles, 1995)

The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice

Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level (subsidiarity principle)

Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems

Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: Internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible

Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services should be a priority of the ecosystem approach

Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal

scales Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterise ecosystem

processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long-term Management must recognise that change is inevitable The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration

of, conservation and use of biological diversity The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including

scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific

disciplines

Thinking in landscapes as a “new” paradigm

Both as analytical concept and planning concept (intermediate strategic planning/bioregional planning)

Human intervention essential component of healthy ecosystem Cultural and natural values of landscapes are closely

interlinked, f.i. communities surrounding PA are central in sustaining them

Holistic thinking with “the whole greater than the sum of the parts”

Root causes of problems of resource management often not site-specific

Response to “failing community management” Another word for “ecosystem management”?

Driving Forces for a landscape approach Conservation – Development Debate

Increasing pressure (and conflict) on PA system Broadening Development Agenda (linkages to

poverty Alleviation, MDG and new aid modalities (sector approach)

International Dialogues Indigenous rights of communities and minority

groups Linking policy dialogue (conventions, EA) to practice Multistakeholder dialogues (and negotiated

outcomes in NRM) increasingly recognized Innovations:

Merging ecosystem thinking with MSP (emphasis on social learning)

Attention for markets for environmental services

What is a landscape?

A landscape can be defined as: “a contiguous area, intermediate in size

between an eco-region and a site, with a specific set of ecological, cultural and socioeconomic characteristics distinct from its neighbours”.

However, in practice all landscapes are social constructs and the definition of a landscape lies largely in the eye of the beholder (Maginnis et al., 2004).

What is a landscape?

Landscape as a social construct is a meeting ground betweenNature and People- and these interact and create a distinct placePast and present – and how landscapes thus present a record of our natural and cultural historyTangible and intangible values providing a sense of identity

Characterising Landscape approach

It recognises: various ecosystem services (valued!) to multiple stakeholders, pursuing different land use objectives (or livelihood strategies)

Characterising Landscape approach

Seeks to link local-site level action, at farm, forest and protected area level, to the broader landscape level

recognises that land use trade-offs will need to be made, and using a multi stakeholder approach for negotiated

outcomes. offers opportunity to place local people’s needs at the

centre of all forest and agricultural land use decision-making.

while simultaneously incorporating ecosystem goods and services as well as human well-being objectives in order to develop more sustainable land use practices.

Advantages of landscape approach

Closer to reality than ‘ecosystem approach’ through identification with multi-stakeholder processes (negotiated outcomes)

Emerging recognition of added value of the “whole” of landscape components

Overcome the community approach which failed to address environmental problems beyond the community sphere of interest

Recent surge in thinking about valuation of environmental services and linking end-user to resource manager

Interdisciplinary concept not claimed /dominated by one perspective.

Still plenty of questions about landscape approach

Dealing with dynamics

Scale: What are the

boundaries of a landscape?

Linking scale levels: local – regional - (inter)national

How to deal with uncertainty & complexity

Challenges…

Performance measurement at a landscape scale. The complexity of assessing progress

considering multiple objectives of multiple stakeholders (benchmarks & trade-offs)

The complexity of deciding which values and ecosystem services need to be measured

The complexity of linking performance measures to management decisions and how to encourage adaptive management (Jackson, 2005).

Challenges: Dealing with high transaction costs

Negotiations cost time and money, especially when they involve large commercial interests or government bureaucracies.

Domination of technical language or legal frameworks inaccessible to the poor and to non-specialists.

Divers stakeholders with varying working relationships with and influence on government agents and decision-makers;

The parameters for decisions are often set in advance by non-local actors (policy, laws, budgets etc.)

Expectations of the role of community representatives may vary.

Challenges:

New institutional arrangements that are better suited to dynamic conditions The challenge ahead is to explore if indeed the

best way to attain a net increase in ecosystem services across a landscape is to allow more flexible short-term agreements at site level while ensuring there is a net balance of desired ecosystem services within the broader landscape.

Socio-cultural and economic dimension

Attitudes and values Agricultural industries

Local culture Farm economy

Sense of place Other industries

Sense of community

Historical development

Goals and aspirations

Natural and cultural dimension

GeologyLand use

SoilsFarm types

Topography Settlement pattern

ClimateInfrastructure

Vegetation Aesthetic qualities

Biodiversity Distinctive features

Institutional dimension

Existing local organisations

Institutions and stakeholders

Power relations

Legislation and bylaws

Land planning policies

Tenure arrangements

Developing trust and partnerships

Scenario planning

Environmental valuation

Progressive contextualization Multistakeholder analysis

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

STAGE 4

STAGE 5

Landscape description Institutions Stakeholder perceptions and vision

Building landscape scenarios

Negotiated landscape scenarios and trade-offs

Monitoring for impact

New institutional arrangements

Identification of land use and management options

Multistakeholder discussion and negotiation

Action planning and implementation

Participatory monitoring

Action learning

Drivers of change (problem identification)

Environmental functions and values

Adapt and Learn

Perceptions of and experiences with the Landscape Perceptions of and experiences with the Landscape

conceptconcept

2 Groups

1: Your perceptions of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of using the Landscape concept to better understand and influence the context of the MSD

2: Your own experiences relevant to Landscape approaches and the areas where you feel you lack experience or capacity

In every group choose 1 facilitator and 1journalist responsible for writing a news flash (maximum third of a page) to be distributed to everybody tomorrow morning.

Please be back at 14.30 hrs.