This document summarizes a presentation on how political ecology can help improve integrated landscape approaches. It discusses how political ecology examines power imbalances, competing knowledge claims, and discourse analysis. It provides examples from Ghana, Zambia, and elsewhere of applying these concepts. The document concludes that political ecology is needed to understand landscape governance politics and negotiate diverse stakeholder interests, in order to achieve more equitable and sustainable landscape outcomes.

1. Accommodating power and inclusivity in
integrated landscape approaches:
what can we learn from political
ecology?
Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen, Eric Bayala, James Reed,
Freddie Siangulube, Malaika Yanou, Terry Sunderland
8th Annual Meeting on Forests and Livelihoods (FLARE)
9 October 2022, Rome
Contact: m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl

2. Why integrated landscape approaches?
Wicked problems (Rittel & Weber 1973)
Source: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest-
degradation

3. “Landscape approaches have emerged as the most widely
advocated means to...
• address growing pressures on land, water and other resources;
• accommodate the needs of present and future generations;
• facilitate the simultaneous framing of development and conservation
needs;
• steer the evolution of landscapes towards desirable futures” (Sayer et
al. 2013: 8352)
But whose desirable
futures?
And how to
negotiate those
among actors with
different power
positions?

4. Political ecology
Interdisciplinary study of:
• The relationships between political, economic and social dimensions of
environmental issues and changes
• The politics of the human-nature relationships
• Power imbalances and uneven access to resources
• Interactions between multiple levels of scale
• The politics of knowledge
• The use of discourses
What are the different
interests, and how can
they be made visible
and understood?
How to deal with
gender imbalances and
indigenous territorial
claims & rights?
Whose knowledge is
used in ILAs? Whose
knowledge is ignored?
To what discourses do
stakeholders adhere
and how do they use
those in the
negotiations?
How can we integrate
power imbalances in
stakeholder analyses?

5. Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC
Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC
Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC
Example 1: Unravelling discourses in
northern Ghana
The Builsa Yenning
CREMA
The Moagduri Wuntaluri
Kuwosaasi CREMA
The Sanyiga Kasena Gavara
Kara (SKGK) CREMA
Photo credits: Eric Bayala
Q method allowed identifying common concerns and “discourse coalitions”

6. Example 2: Unravelling power differences in Zambia
Source: Siangulube et al. 2022 (conditionally accepted in Regional Environmental Change)
Power analysis allowed
identifying visible, hidden and
invisible power
Source: Siangulube et al. forthcoming

7. Example 3: The politics of knowledge in Zambia
Source: Upla et al. 2022
Photo credits: Malaika Yanou
Presentation Yanou:
Photovoice and walking
interviews revealed
various dimensions of
ILK and practices
relevant to ILAs:
conservation, taboos and
beliefs, sacred
landscapes, livelihood
traditions and climate
indicators

8. Some major contributions of political ecology to integrated
landscape approaches
Theme Authors Contribution to ILA principles How?
Politics of
knowledge
Fairhead & Leach 1996;
Escobar 1998; Peluso
2012; Pimbert 2017;
Chambers 2017; Yanou et
al. under review
Adaptive management and continual
learning; common concern entry
points; multi-stakeholders; negotiated
change logic; strengthened stakeholder
capacity
Reveals the politics of knowledge and
learning; foregrounds indigenous and local
knowledge (decolonisation of knowledge)
Discourse
analysis
Peluso 2003; Walker &
Fortmann 2003; Bixler et
al. 2015; Benjaminsen
2021; Bayala et al.
forthcoming
Common concern entry points; multi-
stakeholders; negotiated and
transparent change logic; strengthened
stakeholder capacity
Reveals different perceptions of landscape
dynamics and “desired landscapes”;
identifies frictions and incompatibilities;
uncovers perceived trade-offs
Power and
network
analysis
Clay 2016; Rai et al. 2018;
Osborne et al. 2021;
Siangulube et al. 2022
Multiple scales; multi-stakeholder;
negotiated and transparent change
logic; strengthened stakeholder
capacity
Deconstructs ‘stakeholders’, power
imbalances and diverging interests;
Identifies frictions and incompatibilities;
focuses on empowerment

9. Risks of landscape approaches without a political ecology
perspective
• Downplaying power imbalances and diverging interests (Clay 2016; Arts et al. 2017;
Ros-Tonen et al. 2018)
• Depoliticizing human-nature interactions (McCall 2016; Bluwstein 2021)
• Overlooking that persistent trade-offs may require hard choices (McShane et al.
2011; Budiharta et al. 2018; Howe et al. 2020)
• Trivializing the politics of knowledge and multiple truth claims (Klenk & Meehan
2015; Conde & Walter 2022)

10. Conclusions
• Political ecology helps uncover ‘the politics’ of human-nature interactions,
competing claims to NRs, knowledge exchange and negotiations—
analytically strong but generally lacks practicality
• ILAs’ focus on negotiated outcomes is somewhat naïve regarding power
imbalances, inequalities and the politics of landscape governance
 Needed: a political ecology of landscapes to unravel power differences,
discourses and different knowledges prior to ILA implementation

11. Thank you
This project is working with CIFOR, the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) and other partners to
conduct innovative research related to landscapes, including forestry and other productive
processes; as well as the essential work of engaging multiple stakeholders
cifor.org/colands

12. References
Adams, W. M., Hodge, I. D., & Sandbrook, L. (2014). New spaces for nature: the re‐territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the
UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 574-588.
Bayala, E., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J. & Sunderland, T. (forthcoming). Stakeholder perceptions on landscape governance in northern Ghana: A Q-study to
identify common concern entry points for integrated landscape approaches (work in progress)
Benjaminsen, T. A. (2021). Depicting decline: images and myths in environmental discourse analysis. Landscape Research, 46(2), 211-225.
Bixler, R. P., Dell'Angelo, J., Mfune, O., & Roba, H. (2015). The political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse. Journal of Political
Ecology, 22(1), 164-182.
Bluwstein, J. (2021). Colonizing landscapes/landscaping colonies: from a global history of landscapism to the contemporary landscape approach in nature
conservation. Journal of Political Ecology, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2850
Budiharta, S., Meijaard, E., Gaveau, D. L., Struebig, M. J., Wilting, A., Kramer-Schadt, S., ... & Wilson, K. A. (2018). Restoration to offset the impacts of
developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environmental Change, 52, 152-161.Walker, P. A.
(2006). Political ecology: where is the policy?. Progress in Human Geography, 30(3), 382-395.
Chambers, R. (2017). Can we Know Better? Reflections for Development. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/ 9781780449449
Clay, N. (2016). Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: A political ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum, 76, 130-141.
Conde, M., & Walter, M. (2022). Knowledge co-production in scientific and activist alliances: Unsettling coloniality. Engaging Science, Technology, and
Society, 8(1), 150-170.
Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology,
5(1), 53-82.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (Vol. 90). Cambridge University Press.
Howe, C., Corbera, E., Vira, B., Brockington, D., & Adams, W. M. (2020). Distinct positions underpin ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. Oryx, 54(3),
375-382.
(continues)

13. References
Klenk, N., & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental science & Policy,
54, 160-167.
McCall, M. K. (2016). Beyond “landscape” in REDD+: the imperative for “territory”. World Development, 85, 58-72.
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., ... & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between
biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966-972.
Osborne, T., Brock, S., Chazdon, R., Chomba, S., Garen, E., Gutierrez, V., ... & Sundberg, J. (2021). The political ecology playbook for ecosystem
restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102320.
Peluso, N. L. (2012). What's nature got to do with it? A situated historical perspective on socio‐natural commodities.Development and change, 43(1),
79-104.
Peluso, N. L. (2003). A look at environmental discourses and politics in Indonesia. Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and
Southeast Asia, ed. P. Greenough and AL Tsing, 231-252.
Pimbert, M. P. (2017). Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity. Constructing and contesting knowledge. London: Routledge.
Rai, N.D., Bhasme, S., & Balaji, P. (2018). Power, inequality and rights: A political ecology of forest restoration. In: Mansourian S. and Parrotta, J. (eds.)
Forest Landscape Restoration (pp. 47-62). London: Routledge.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., ... & Van Oosten, C. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling
agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349-8356.
Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies, 10(4), 469-491.
Siangulube, F.S., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J., Djoudi, H., Gumbo, D. & Sunderland, T. (in press). Navigating power imbalances in landscape governance: A
network and influence analysis in Southern Zambia. Regional Environmental Change.
Yanou, M. P., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J. & Sunderland, T. (under review). Indigenous local knowledge and practices among Tonga people in Zambia and
Zimbabwe: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy.