global review overview
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Global Review
Jeffrey MilderEcoAgriculture Partners
Global Review FramingKey Impediments to
Scaling-up Effective ILM
Global Review1. Knowledge and
experience not synthesized or shared
2. Limited capacity to implement effective
practices
3. Unsupportive policies, incentives and
investments
Learn systematically from prior experience
Synthesize information for key user groups
Provide a robust evidence base
Global Review Goal:To bolster and communicate the evidence base about integrated landscape approaches to support practitioners, policymakers, and advocates to develop and scale-up effective practices
Global Review Goal:To bolster and communicate the evidence base about integrated landscape approaches to support practitioners, policymakers, and advocates to develop and scale-up effective practices
Means to this Goal:Draw on the expertise of leading practitioners, researchers, and experts from around the world to implement an applied research portfolio consisting of about 40 “Knowledge Products” that document and communicate key dimensions of the practice, impact, potential, and key mechanisms supporting integrated landscape management
Global Review StructureKnowledge Products Address 9 Key Questions
KQ 0: global review of ILM practice
KQ 1: current extent & future potenial of ILM
KQ 2: role of ILM in supporting climate change adaptation and mitigation
KQ 3: biophysical aspects of implementing ILM
KQ 4: social and institutional aspects of implementing ILM
KQ 5: market mechanisms to support ILM
KQ 6: policy and governance to support ILM
KQ 7: priority investments to support ILM
KQ 8: research agenda for ILM
Related to four key themes
Global Potential
Action in Landscapes
Markets
Future Directions
Status of Global Review Knowledge Products (KPs)
KPs already completed
3
12
4
11
8
KPs funded and in progress
KPs funded and in design
KPs not yet funded, and high
priority
KPs not yet funded, but lower priority
The Global Review: A Tasting Menu● KP 0.8 – integrated landscapes ‘storybook’ (illustrations)● *KP 2.1 & 2.2 – integrated landscapes for climate change adaptation,
mitigation, and climate-smart agriculture● *KP 3.6 – integrating food and energy in rural landscapes● *KP 3.7 – integrated landscapes for resilience and disaster risk mitigation● *KP 4.3 – landscape governance for multi-objective, multi-stakeholder
mgmt.● *KP 5.2 – “ILM in an age of supermarkets”● *KP 6.5 – integrated landscape/ecosystem approach to foodshed planning● *KP 6.3 – national policy analysis to support integrated landscapes● KP 7.3 – economic costs & benefits of integrated landscape approaches● KP 8.2 – how plant breeding can support multi-functional rural landscapes
Key Sets of Global Review Outputs
●Publications in peer-reviewed journals (and special issues)
●Set of briefs for awareness-raising, outreach, and advocacy
●Landscapes manual/sourcebook and curriculum materials for training practitioners & landscape leaders
●Multi-media (video, photo narratives, etc.) to communicate compellingly, including to non-reading audiences
●Landscapes for People, Food and Nature book
This afternoon’s session
Who?What?When?Where?Why?How?
The Continental
Reviews
Thematic Global Review
Studies
An overview of the continental reviews
Research questions1. Where is ILM happening? What kinds of problems
does it seek to solve? Who is leading these efforts?2. What activities comprise integrated landscapes and
initiatives? How are they structured and implemented?
3. When, where, and why have ILM approaches been effective or ineffective in advancing multiple landscape goals?
4. Based on this experience, how can we support the wider and more effective adoption ILM in places where it can provide significant benefits?
Research methodology
STEP 1: Cast a wide net
STEP 2: Evaluate and filter results
STEP 3: Tier 1 survey—landscapes & initiatives continent-wide
STEP 4: Stratified sample for Tier 2
STEP 5: Tier 2 “deep dive” analysis
STEP 6: Analysis and knowledge sharing
Latin America
Natalia Estrada, CATIEJeffrey Milder, EcoAgriculture PartnersFabrice DeClerck, Bioversity
InternationalAbigail Hart, EcoAgriculture PartnersCelia Harvey, Conservation International
Photo: IFAD
Where are the landscape initiatives located?
n = 212 potential initiatives
Genesis
Keyword / School of thoughtCharacterization of the collected landscape initiatives
Field schoolWater management
Protected areasBiological corridors
Climate changeRural development
Buffer zones Sustainable tourism
Watershed mgmt.Biosphere reserve
Model forestImproving VC
Conservation / sus.Community based
(2) 3 8 13 18 23
Chart Title
Regional platform
Government aid
Multilateral
Government / research
int'l research program
int'l conservation proj.
Landscape-scale partnership
int'l dvpmt proj.
- 5 10 15 20
What land uses were present in these landscapes?
Industry, mining, oil/gas dvpmtWetland
Tropical dry forestOther annual crops
WaterGrassland
Villages / towns / urbanOther sun-grown perennials
Forestry plantationsAgroforestry
Temperate or upland forestAnnual grain crops
Tropical moist forestPasture
- 20 40 60 80 100
Major Minor Don’t exist
ON
M
L
K
J
IHG
F
E
D
C
B
AEnhance sustainable land management
Conserve biodiversity
Stop or reverse land/resource degradation
Increase farmer incomes
Conserve soil / increase fertility
Manage water quality or flow
Improve crop productivity
Not important
Very important
What were the main motivations for the landscape initiative?
Investments in agriculture
Crop intensification (conventional)Irrigation systems
Livestock intensification (agroecology)Implementation of laws or incentives
New crops or crop varietiesHome gardens
Extension or capacity building programs Value chain
AgroforestrySoil conservationAgrobiodiversity
Crop intensification (agroecology)
- 20 40 60 80 100
Core Supporting Not Included
Investments in forestry, conservation, and NRM
New mgmt plans for existing PA
Watershed management
New protected areas established
Extension for forestry/NRM
Improved forestry management
New conservation areas
Community-based NRM
0 20 40 60 80 100
Core Supporting Not Included
Investments in livelihoods and human wellbeing
Human health
Land tenure and resource access rights
Migration
Malnutrition and hunger
Gender equity
Income generation and diversification
Traditional knowledge
Enterprise development
0 20 40 60 80 100
Core Supporting Not Included
Investments in multi-sectoral coordination and planning
Local/external conflict mediation
Local/local conflict mediation
Strengthen existing coordinating bodies
New landscape coordinating body
Capacity building for ILM
Technical assistance for ILM
0 20 40 60 80 100
Core Supporting Not Included
AsiaSocio-ecological production landscapes in Asia
Kaoru IchikawaUnited Nations University – Institute of Advanced Studies
Photo: Nakwoodford
Socio-ecological Production landscapes (SEPLs)●Developed by interactions between
humans and nature
●Local knowledge, techniques, rules and norms regarding wise use of natural resources and sharing of benefits and burdens
●Benefit people and maintain ecosystems and biodiversity
SEPLs in Asia
●Pastoralism●Rice cultivation:● Temperate ● Tropical (hills and mountainous)
●Lowland
Pastoralism ●Dry and/or alpine climate with seasonal/ irregular pattern of precipitation
●Controls herd's load on vegetation by translocation
●Traditional institutional system of pasture and livestock management
●Political and economic regimes change
●Overuse and abandonment of pasture land
Rice cultivation system
●Temperate and humid climate
●Integrated land use system representing a mosaic pattern
●Woodlands are managed regularly
●A decreasing and aging population resulting in abandonment of farmland and woodland
Photo: T. Okayasu Photo: JWRC
Rice cultivation, homegarden, shifting cultivation, livestock
● Tropical climate in hills and mountains● Complexity of landuse and mixed livelihoods ● Irrigation system for dry season● Shifting cultivation and the extraction of wild
plants● Growing population/ migration to urban
areas● Development of market economies ● Intensification and abandonment
Rice cultivation systems with fishery
● Lowland near the wetland areas● Production systems and/or crop
varieties along with the gradient of water condition.
● Accompanied by fishery activities. ● Population increase and market
economy development ● Conversion of land use and
extraction of wetland vegetation
Photo: JWRC Photo: JWRC
Common characteristics
●Practices that enable adaption to spatial and temporal variation in environmental conditions●Fallow systems●Combined use of different production systems●Combined use of different of different
species/varieties of crops and livestock●Land use according to topographic conditions
●Local institutional systems that adjust and coordinate resource use
Challenges and responses
Challenges● Population increase● Emigration● Development of market economy● Degradation of SEPLs
(overexplotation,conversion,abandonment)
Responses● Policy development and implementation of land tenure
and resource management such as community forestry● Projects on community development, awareness raising,
restoration of ecosystems and abandoned agricultural facilities, supported by NGOs, private sector organizations, governmental bodies and international organizations
AfricaPhilip Dobie, World Agroforestry
CentreJeffrey Milder, EcoAgriculture Partners
Photo: CGIAR Climate
Landscape approaches found across the continent
ForestsDrylandsWetlandsWatershedsCross boundaryProduction systemsConservation reserves
Availability of data
• Basic information reasonably easy to find
• But reporting is not complete or easily accessible
• NGO work particularly difficult to track down
• More propoganda than reliable, quantified data
• Little on impact
Key themes of landscape initiatives (n=68)
NR managementCommunities/ CD
Productive systemsPoverty/ livelihoods
Land degradation
Investment/financeLand degradation
Conservation/ biodiversityPolicy/governance
Ecosystems services
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Preliminary evidence & implications
• Most projects dominated by NRM, with design by conservationists
• Development aspects often appear weak: where are the people’s needs? Mention of livelihoods > poverty alleviation > improved incomes
• Some focus on governance; little on policy and legislation (IUCN a commendable exception)
• Very mixed approaches to investment, from serious intent (TerrAfrica) to passing mention
• Surprisingly little on climate change, ecosystems services, or tourism
• Impact quantification generally weak
Implications for future projects
• Need much more study of costs and benefits, with quantitative comparisons of approaches
• Need much more focus on impacts (landscapes and people)
Thanks for your attention!