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):




Multiple use forestry (1970 - 1990):


wood production leading principle & nature-oriented forest mgt
Ecosystem management (1990 - ….)



site studies and growth and yield assessment
timber quality, species genetics
maximum sustained yield
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


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:



Categories of protected areas ( IUCN)
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



International Dialogues




Increasing pressure (and conflict) on PA system
Broadening Development Agenda (linkages to poverty
Alleviation, MDG and new aid modalities (sector
approach)
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 between
Nature
and People- and these interact and
create a distinct place
Past and present – and how landscapes
thus present a record of our natural and
cultural history
Tangible 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 decisionmaking.
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 decisionmakers;
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.
ST
AG
E1
ST
AG
E2
Drivers of change (problem identification)
Natural and cultural dimension
Institutional dimension
Socio-cultural and economic dimension
Geology
Existing local organisations
Attitudes
Institutions and stakeholders
Local culture
Farm economy
Power relations
Sense of place
Other industries
Farm types
contextualizationSettlement
Legislation and bylaws
Multistakeholder
Sense ofanalysis
community
Land planning policies
Climate
Landscape description
Infrastructure
Vegetation
qualities
Institutions
Tenure arrangements
Historical development
Stakeholder perceptions and vision
Goals and aspirations
Aesthetic
Developing trust and partnerships
Identification of land use and management options
Biodiversity
features
Distinctive
Building landscape scenarios
ST
AG
E4
Agricultural industries
Soils
Topography
Progressive
pattern
ST
AG
E3
and values
Land use
Environmental functions and values
Environmental valuation
Scenario planning
Multistakeholder discussion and
negotiation
Negotiated landscape scenarios and trade-offs
Action learning
Action planning and implementation
ST
AG
E5
New institutional arrangements
Monitoring for impact
Participatory monitoring
Adapt and Learn
Perceptions of and experiences with the Landscape concept
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.