Beyond protected areas:
Landscape approaches to reconcile
conservation and development
Terry Sunderland,
IUCN Conservation Congress
7th September 2016

• Difficulty justifying protectionist
approaches alone
• Inclusion of poverty alleviation
strategies
• Integrated Conservation and
Development Project (ICDP) approach
introduced in the 1980s
• Integrated approaches focus on PA’s but
in the context of the wider landscape
(buffer zone)
• Previous studies of these missed the
“landscape” context
• Very little critical analysis of ICDPs
From protected areas to “landscapes”

What strategies have contributed
to the achievements of landscape-
scale “integrated conservation and
development projects?”

Two geographical case studies:
Lower Mekong and Cameroon
Mekong
r and Hoang Minh-Ha
ty of the intervention. By bridging the gap

THINKING beyond the canopy
Lower Mekong
• Biodiversity hotspot of global
significance
• Major threats: habitat loss,
infrastructure development, land
grabbing, wildlife trade
• Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam (15
sites):
• Forested landscapes (> 10,000
ha)
• History of conservation
intervention in previous 7-10
years

Research
• Landscape trends and threats analysis
• ICDP comparison (multi-variate analysis, qualitative assessment of
outcomes) = analysis of organisational strategies
• Governance and policy review
• Land cover change
• Potential for rewards mechanisms (PES, REDD+)
• “Best practice” for integrating conservation and development

Threats analysis

What do projects actually do?

Land cover change
• Surprisingly, majority of protected areas experiencing low levels of
deforestation and tree cover loss
• HOWEVER, significant degradation outside of PA’s

Project implementation “best practice”

Potential for reward mechanisms (PES, REDD+)
• PES is seen as a “win-win” for conservation and development
• Strong legislative framework for PES (e.g. Vietnam)
• Implementation is complex and beneficiaries often unclear
• None of the sites surveyed have established PES schemes
• Thus potential for REDD+ is uncertain

• Concept of Technical Operations Units (TOU) was developed upon
creation of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 1992
(articles 41 & 42 of Decree)
• Forest Environment Sector Programme (FESP) framework,
elaborated in 2003 by the Government of Cameroon with
assistance of international development partners:
• [A] “TOU is a delimited geographical area, based on ecological,
socio-economic, cultural and political characteristics for the
enhancement of integrated landscape management involving all
stakeholders”
• Similar to the French “terroir” in which landscapes are
administrative units
Cameroon: Technical Cooperation
Units (T0U)

ToU’s in Cameroon
• TOU’s of varying extent
and geographical
coverage and complexity
• Often “managed” by
external agents with
funding from bilateral
arrangements (e.g.
German Development
Bank (KfW))
• Sustainability?

• TOU Conservator is appointed
by PM decree
• A Management Committee is
created and organised by PM
decree
• The key advantage is that
within the TOU area, all
stakeholders elaborate and
implement a holistic
management concept using
the synergy of their
partnership
How are ToU’s administered?

• 440,000 ha.
• Complex mosaic of
forest, timber
concession, PA’s
and community
managed areas
• Home to Cross
River gorilla and
other endangered
species
• Strong pressures
from cross-border
trade
The Takamanda-Mone TOU

• Integrated landscape
management tool
• Multi-stakeholder land use-
based forest management
approach
• Focused management
interventions on specific land
uses
• Promote platform for societal
dialogue between managers of
various land-use types (timber
production, nature protection,
industrial agriculture, industry,
habitation, recreational areas)
Advantages of TOU process

• Increased involvement of local people in
forest management issues
• Promoting community development
through use of:
 Forest royalties from exploitation of
forest management units (UFA) and
production forest reserves
 Income generated from direct
exploitation of forest resources
(Community Forest Management)
 Harvesting and commercialisation of
non-timber forest products
 Accompanying development measures
initiated in communities close to
nature protection areas- Village
Development Plans
Impact of TOU’s on local populace

• Traditionally a key
component of conservation
delivery
• HOWEVER, recent systematic
review (Roe et al. 2016)
suggests such initiatives are
largely ineffective
• Estimated alternative
livelihoods would have to
contribute >25% of HH
income to change behaviour
A word about “alternative livelihoods”

THINKING beyond the canopy
Lessons learned (for Indonesia??)
• Landscape-scale initiatives with agreed and negotiated goals and
objectives from the start have better outcomes, but flexibility is
absolutely key (adaptive management)
• Multi-stakeholder participation and partnerships are critical
• Implemented should happen with a full understanding of policy
processes
• Beware alternative livelihoods!
• Greater integration at landscape scale should be real and not
assumed
• Longer-term time scales = better outcomes. Process not project!

www.cifor.org
t.sunderland@cgiar.org
@TCHSunderland