Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•478 views
There is growing consensus that the Green Revolution trajectory followed in Latin America and Asia is not fully appropriate for Africa; instead, greater emphasis on social and environmental outcomes is needed. Integrated Landscape Initiatives provide a model for agricultural development that satisfies these demands. This presentation explains.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation
Similar to Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation (20)
More from EcoAgriculture Partners
More from EcoAgriculture Partners (17)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation
- 1. Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation Jeffrey C. Milder,Abigail K. Hart, Phil Dobie, Joshua Minai, and Christi Zaleski October 2012
- 2. The study was funded by: And implemented by: As part of the: This project was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. RLA-A-00-07- 00043-00. The contents are the responsibility of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. This presentation was produced by EcoAgriculture Partners on behalf of ABCG.
- 3. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Converging needs for integrated landscape management ● There is growing consensus that the Green Revolution trajectory followed in Latin America and Asia is not fully appropriate for Africa; instead, greater emphasis on social and environmental outcomes is needed. ● Climate change and land degradation in Africa point to the need for agricultural development approaches that emphasize ecosystem and livelihood resilience to sustain long-term productivity. ● Rather than degrade the environment, agricultural areas have the potential to provide important ecosystem services. ● As competition for land and water escalates, sectoral approaches that pursue different aims in isolation from one another are likely to generate conflict and result in failure to meet key objectives. ● Rural landscapes are the nexus where key issues including food security, poverty reduction, energy production, biodiversity conservation, and climate change all converge.
- 4. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Why this study? To date, understanding of integrated landscape approaches has been fragmentary, often anecdotal, and spread widely across several academic fields and communities of practice. This study provides first region-wide portrait of the contexts, motivations, design, participation, and outcomes of integrated landscape initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. It takes a systematic approach to understanding the state of practice, what works and what doesn’t, and how landscape initiatives can better support conservation, food production, and livelihood goals.
- 5. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Definition of Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs) An ILI can be a project, program, platform, initiative or set of activities that: 1. Seeks to improve food production, biodiversity or ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods 2. Works at landscape scale and includes policy, planning, management or support activities at this scale 3. Involves inter-sectoral and/or multi-stakeholder coordination 4. Is highly participatory and supports adaptive collaborative management
- 6. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Methodology 1. Database of candidate ILIs established through partner networks, interviews, and Internet searches 2. Candidates screened to select those that met the ILI definition 3. Survey of one respondent per ILI to collect information on: • Landscape characteristics • Dates, scale, and motivations of the ILI • ILI investments, activities, and coordinating mechanisms • Stakeholder and sectoral participation • Outcomes, most and least successful aspects 4. Screening of survey responses 5. Data analysis and interpretation
- 7. Questions on investment and outcomes were oriented around four key “domains” of landscape multi-functionality: 1. Agricultural production 2. Ecosystem conservation 3. Human livelihoods 4. Institutional coordination and planning Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Methodology Screen shot of survey:
- 8. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs Complete documentation from 87 landscape initiatives in 33 countries 1 15
- 9. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs 64% of initiatives in African drylands
- 10. AfricaContinental Review What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Improve health or nutrition Climate change mitigation/adaptation Improve livestock productivity Diversify food production Improve crop productivity Water conservation Reduce negative impacts of agriculture Reduce risk and vulnerability Reduce conflict Enhance food security Soil conservation Increase farmer incomes Conserve biodiversity Sustainable land management Reduce natural resource degradation % of surveyed initiatives
- 11. AfricaContinental Review What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs? 0 10 20 30 40 Mitigating or adapting to climate change Reducing conflict Coordinating stakeholders and activities Improving livehoods Improving agricultural production and practices Biodiversity and natural resource conservation Number of initiatives
- 12. AfricaContinental Review What types of organizations are involved? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Industry Agribusiness Community Groups Education/Research NGOs Marginalized Groups Producer Groups Government % of surveyed initiatives Internal / local
- 13. AfricaContinental Review What types of organizations are involved? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agribusiness Education/Research Donors Other International… NGOs Government % of surveyed initiatives External
- 14. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Investments and outcomes in agriculture 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total area increased Profitability increased Agrobiodiversity protected Environmental impacts reduced Yield per unit land % of surveyed initiatives Investments Outcomes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mechanized intensification Reduce negative ag. Impacts Improved irrigation Ag. supply chains/markets Livestock intensification Conserve/use agrobiodiversity Promote new crops Home gardens Agroforestry Agroecological intensification Soil conservation Extension or capacity building % of surveyed initiatives Associated Core
- 15. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Investments and outcomes in conservation Investments Outcomes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% New protected areas Watershed management activities New management plans New community-based conservation areas Improved forestry management Other community-based management activities Extension or capacity building programs % of surveyed initiatives Supporting Core 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other ecosystems services protected Connectivity increased Water quality improved Endangered species protected Ecosystem services for agriculture protected Overall biodiversity protected % of surveyed initiatives
- 16. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Investments and outcomes in livelihoods Investments Outcomes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Reduce migration Improving human health Reduce malnutrition and hunger Secure land tenure/resource access Preservation of traditional knowledge Enterprise development, savings and investment Improving gender equity Promote income generation % of surveyed initiatives Associated Core 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Access to health services improved Communities became less vulnerable Non-cash measures of livelihoods improved Food security improved Cash income increased % or surveyed initiatives
- 17. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Investments and outcomes in institutional planning and coordination Investments Outcomes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Traditional and local knowledge preserved/used Sectoral coord. Improved Women's capacity built Local communities empowered Capacity for ILM improved Stakeholder coord. Improved % of surveyed initiatives 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Local/external conflict mediation Strengthen existing coordination bodies New coordinating bodies Local/local conflict mediation Technical assistance for integrated, landscape-scale management Capacity building for integrated, landscape- scale management % of surveyed initiatives Associated Core
- 18. AfricaContinental Review How is landscape coordination achieved? 0% 50% 100% Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local, national and international communities or resource… Activities to strengthen existing coordination bodies (e.g., inter-jurisdictional councils, public-private… Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among local communities or resource users Technical assistance to support integrated, landscape- scale management Capacity building activities to help communities and stakeholders conduct integrated, landscape-scale… Percent of surveyed initiatives Core Supporting
- 19. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Factors associated with high outcome initiatives ● Inclusion of women groups ● Higher levels of “multi-objectivity” (i.e., larger numbers of stated objectives) ● Multi-objective initiatives without a stated primary motivation ● Investments in capacity building across all domains ● Establishment of new landscape coordinating bodies
- 20. ● Specific, tangible outcomes such as: ● Formation of new protected areas ● Rehabilitation of degraded land ● Increased yields, income, or food security ● Improvements in capacity, knowledge, governance, etc.: ● Awareness raising on key landscape issues ● Capacity bulding for local decision-makers to manage their landscape ● New plans or agreements regarding land or resource management Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Most successful aspects of the initiatives
- 21. ● Lack of sufficient and sustainable sources of funding ● Infrastructure for transport and storage, as well as market access ● Policies and laws that hinder integrated landscape management ● Key stakeholders, mainly specific government and private sector entities, were missing from planning and coordination processes Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Least successful aspects of the initiatives
- 22. ● ILIs may be an effective way to increase delivery of multiple goods and services in drylands by linking them to initiatives and stakeholders in a broader, diverse landscape. ● Landscape planning and coordinating capacities can be established in just a few years, but other outcomes often take more time.To ensure sustainability, landscape management functions must be supported by local financial resources and/or social capital, even if they are initially catalyzed by external support. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Implications for practice
- 23. ● Multi-objective initiatives are generating outcomes in key areas of interest to development practitioners, policy-makers and donors, including: ● Rural household income generation ● Increased agricultural productivity ● Food security ● While there has traditionally been little support for integrated landscape approaches in Africa, current interest from donors and policymakers may provide a “window of opportunity”; prior experience such as that profiled in this study can help inform this new generation of initiatives Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa Implications for policy
- 24. Thank you!
Editor's Notes
- This annotated presentation provides an overview of the study. The full version is available in a written report with the same title.
- Within the past five years, a convergence of factors has led to growing interest in integrated landscape management across Africa.
- This study is part of a broader set of “continental reviews” of integrated landscape management being conducted for several of the world’s continents, following similar methodologies, as part of the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative (http://landscapes.ecoagriculture.org), a global effort to inform and support the effective adoption of landscape approaches to integrating agriculture, conservation, and livelihood objectives.
- In this context, “landscapes” typically consist of land mosaics including crop, livestock, fish, and forest production areas; grassland, woodland, or forest ecosystems; wetlands and water bodies; and human settlements and infrastructure. Formally, landscapes may be described as cohesive land areas defined by common biophysical characteristics, socioeconomic conditions, and/or political demarcations, and typically encompassing approximately 100 to 10,000 square kilometers. In practice, however, many African landscapes are larger than this, as they are defined around river basins, transboundary management areas, or large forest areas. Landscape boundaries may be discrete or fuzzy, and are often defined functionally around particular management challenges (such as watershed protection) or goals (such as agricultural value chain development).
- The final survey instrument was based on a pilot-test of the survey in late 2011 as part of a similar study done in Latin America. Based on the pilot test, several questions were clarified and improved for the final version. We used the online service SurveyMonkey as the main vehicle for administering the survey. However, we also made available Microsoft Word and PDF versions of the survey for respondents with unreliable internet access.
- More than two hundred ILIs were initially contacted, from which we collected survey data on 105 cases. Of these, we excluded 15 from subsequent analysis because the survey information revealed that the case did not meet our criteria for ILIs, or because the data included too many incomplete responses to permit sound analysis. The remaining 87 ILIs were included in subsequent analysis.
- More than two hundred ILIs were initially contacted, from which we collected survey data on 105 cases. Of these, we excluded 15 from subsequent analysis because the survey information revealed that the case did not meet our criteria for ILIs, or because the data included too many incomplete responses to permit sound analysis. The remaining 87 ILIs were included in subsequent analysis.
- Conservation seems to encompass most of the main motivations…. On average, each initiative reported at least 8 motivating factors, but 64% of the initiatives identified one or two primary motivations – see next slide Photo of women planting fertilizer trees in fields.
- These are the main entry points that respondents listed as the one or two primary motivations. Not all respondents listed a primary motivation, only 60% of initiatives reported having one or two motivations of greater importance than others. These responses were open-ended but their responses were categorized. Photo of farm involved in the Mount Kenya East Pilot Project
- 9 stakeholder groups involved on average. More local actors than external actors, but the external actors play critical roles in funding, designing and providing technical support. Photo: Women preparing bags for planting seedlings that will be grown for live fencing in Kita, Mali. .
- 9 stakeholder groups involved on average. More local actors than external actors, but the external actors play critical roles in funding, designing and providing technical support. Photo: Government leaders support formation of a transboundary park between Sierra Leone and Cameroon.
- Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to agricultural production. In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.” Please note the frequency of investment in capacity building. As you proceed through the coming slides, you will notice that investments in capacity building are relatively high in all domains. Also note the inverse relationship between supporting and core investments.
- Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation. In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
- Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation. In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.” Areas typically associated with service provision and humanitarian aid, such as improving health, malnutrition and hunger, were less frequently part of ILIs. However, they were sometimes cited as “associated” investments being made by others in the landscape.
- Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation. In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
- PHIL: If you want to shorten the presentation, perhaps use this slide to cut to the chase, instead of presenting investments and outcomes for each of the four domains. These are the different investments/activities in planning and coordination. You can see that capacity building and technical assistance are common, as well as horizontal coordination, but vertical coordination is not that common. Also, see the creation of new coordinating bodies… see more on next slide
- All these associations were statistically significant.
- These are some of the more frequently occurring themes in response to the open-ended question on the most successful aspects of the ILI.
- These are some of the more frequently occurring themes in response to the open-ended question on the least successful aspects of the ILI.
- Phil, please feel free to adapt these policy implications for the UNCCD audience. I’m sure you are more familiar with potential policy implications for drylands than I am.