Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Session 6.4 insights from 191 landscape initiatives in africa and latin america

313 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Session 6.4 insights from 191 landscape initiatives in africa and latin america

  1. 1. From Concept to Action: Comparing experiences and lessons learned from 191 Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Latin America and Africa Jeffrey C. Milder, Abigail K. Hart, Natalia Estrada-Carmona, Fabrice A.J. DeClerck, Celia A. Harvey, Philip Dobie, Joshua Minai, Christi Zaleski February 2014
  2. 2. landscapes.ecoagriculture.org
  3. 3. Objective: To catalyze scaling up of integrated landscape management (ILM), for: ● Climate-resilient, diversified agricultural production ● Secure access to food, fuel, fiber ● Rural livelihoods and culture ● Biodiversity ● Watershed functions ● Terrestrial climate mitigation Global Review
  4. 4. Continental Reviews of Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs) in Africa and Latin America ● Context ● Motivations and Objectives ● Stakeholder groups ● Activities and Investments ● Outcomes ● Opportunities and constraints Phase 1 ● Online survey Phase 2 ● In-depth interviews
  5. 5. Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs in Africa Complete documentation from 87 landscape initiatives in 33 countries 1 15
  6. 6. Key Findings of the Africa Review What is motivating ILIs? - More than 8 objectives on average ● Reducing natural resource degradation, sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation (78-79%) ● Enhancing food security (60%) ● Improving crop productivity (52%) Who’s involved – more than 9 stakeholder groups on average ● In the landscape – Government, producer groups, potentially marginalized groups ● From outside the landscape – Government, NGOs, other international
  7. 7. Key Findings of the Africa Review Investments in agroforestry ● 46 ILIs invested directly in agroforestry, and agroforestry was supported in another 12 ILIs by other actors in the landscape ●ILIs that invested in agroforestry reported a higher number of outcomes on average
  8. 8. How is landscape coordination achieved? Capacity building activities to help communities and stakeholders conduct integrated, landscape-scale… Technical assistance to support integrated, landscapescale management Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among local communities or resource users Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies Core Supporting Activities to strengthen existing coordination bodies (e.g., inter-jurisdictional councils, public-private… Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local, national and international communities or… 0% 50% 100% Percent of surveyed initiatives
  9. 9. Most successful aspects of the initiatives Success factors ● Specific, tangible outcomes ● Improvements in capacity, knowledge, and governance Limiting factors ● ● ● ● 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
  10. 10. Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs in Latin America Complete documentation from 104 landscape initiatives in 21 countries 75 leaders interviewed from 23 ILIs
  11. 11. Key Findings of the LAC Review What is motivating ILIs? - More than 9 objectives on average ●Reducing natural resource degradation, sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation (65-80%) ●Reducing negative impacts of agriculture (52%) ●Enhancing food security and improving crop productivity (38%) Who’s involved ● more than 11 stakeholder groups on average ●4 sectors on average – natural resources, agriculture, forestry, tourism
  12. 12. Key Findings of the LAC Review Investments in agroforestry ● 61 ILIs invested directly in agroforestry, and agroforestry was supported in another 16 ILIs by other actors in the landscape ●ILIs that invested in agroforestry reported higher outcomes on average
  13. 13. Key Findings of the LAC Review • Multi objective - greater numbers of investments were associated with higher numbers of outcomes • Initiatives with more years of experience reported higher numbers of sectors involved and outcomes • Initiatives with a greater number of participating stakeholder groups reported greater numbers of investments and outcomes • Key challenges: limited funding, short-term funding and intermittent or low stakeholder participation over the long term
  14. 14. Conclusions ● ILIs are investing across 4 “domains”: agricultural production, ecosystem conservation, human livelihoods, and institutional planning and coordination ● Initiatives reported positive outcomes across all 4 domains, especially in institutional planning and coordination ● Landscape approaches appear to be contributing to building local foundations for adaptive management and resource governance via: ● platforms for stakeholder coordination and negotiation ● improved inter-sectoral alignment ● empowerment of women and local communities
  15. 15. Conclusions ● Africa - landscape approaches were most commonly rooted in conservation objectives, underwritten by external funding, and often engaged local governments in a superficial way ● LAC - wider range of entry points and objectives, more robust local participation, and greater evidence of supportive policies and platforms ● Common key challenges identified by survey respondents: ● long time horizon required to achieve results at scale ● unsupportive policy frameworks ● difficulty in engaging the private sector and other important stakeholders
  16. 16. What’s next? ● In-depth interviews with ILI leaders and stakeholder groups in Africa, coming in 2014 ● Continental review of integrated landscape initiatives in three sub-regions in Asia: Mekong basin, Indonesia/Malaysia, and South Asia ● Cross-continental synthesis of ILI experiences
  17. 17. For more information contact: ahart@ecoagriculture.org THANKS!

×