From Synergy to Complexity: The Trend Toward Integrated Value Chain and Landscape Governance

From Synergy to Complexity: The Trend Toward Integrated Value Chain and Landscape Governance This Editorial introduces a special issue that illustrates a trend toward integrated landscape approaches. Whereas two papers echo older “win–win” strategies based on the trade of non-timber forest products, ten papers reflect a shift from a product to landscape perspective. However, they differ from integrated landscape approaches in that they emanate from sectorial approaches driven primarily by aims such as forest restoration, sustainable commodity sourcing, natural resource management, or carbon emission reduction. The potential of such initiatives for integrated landscape governance and achieving landscape-level outcomes has hitherto been largely unaddressed in the literature on integrated landscape approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, with a focus on actor constellations and institutional arrangements emerging in the transition from sectorial to integrated approaches. This editorial discusses the trends arising from the papers, including the need for a commonly shared concern and sense of urgency; inclusive stakeholder engagement; accommodating and coordinating polycentric governance in landscapes beset with institutional fragmentation and jurisdictional mismatches; alignment with locally embedded initiatives and governance structures; and a framework to assess and monitor the performance of integrated multi-stakeholder approaches. We conclude that, despite a growing tendency toward integrated approaches at the landscape level, inherent landscape complexity renders persistent and significant challenges such as balancing multiple objectives, equitable inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, dealing with power and gender asymmetries, adaptive management based on participatory outcome monitoring, and moving beyond existing administrative, jurisdictional, and sectorial silos. Multi-stakeholder platforms and bridging organizations and individuals are seen as key in overcoming such challenges. ● ● ● ● Keywords Integrated landscape approaches Integrated landscape-level initiatives Landscape governance Institutions Multi-stakeholder platforms Bridging actors Introduction Integrated landscape approaches (ILAs) or initiatives (ILIs) have been promoted by a broad range of international Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0) contains supplementary conservation and development organizations as a govern- material, which is available to authorized users. ance approach to reconcile local-global challenges such as * Mirjam A. F. Ros-Tonen m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl We take ILAs and ILIs as being synonymous and use ILAs in the rest of this paper. 1 2 Department of Geography, Planning and International Including, among others, the Centre of International Forestry Development Studies and Centre for Sustainable Development Research, CIFOR (Frost et al. 2006; Sunderland et al. 2008; Reed et al. Studies, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15629, 1001 NC 2016, 2017), EcoAgrculture Partners (Scherr et al. 2013; Kozar et al. Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2014), the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF.org), the Food and Agri- culture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2016), ICRAF, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Jalan CIFOR, World Agroforestry Centre (Minang et al. 2015), the International Situ Gede, 16115 Bogor, West Java, Indonesia Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Brown et al. 2005), University of British Columbia (UBC) and Center for International Tropenbos International (Kusters et al. 2016), the World Bank (World Forestry Research (CIFOR), Forest Sciences Centre 2424 Main Bank Group 2016), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada 2002). 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: 2 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 Table 1 Overview of integrated landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs) biodiversity loss, climate change, food insecurity, and analyzed in this issue poverty at the landscape level (Harvey et al. 2008; Scherr Integrated landscape-level initiatives emanating from sectorial et al. 2012; Harvey et al. 2014; Kozar et al. 2014; Padoch approaches and Sunderland 2014; Reed et al. 2015, 2016). ILAs represent the most recent attempt to reconcile conservation Forest and landscape restoration and development objectives, following on from Integrated 1. Integrated forest and water management, Sweden (Eriksson et al. Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in the 2018) 1980s and strategies embarking on non-timber forest pro- 2. Forest restoration, China (Long et al. 2018) duct (NTFP) trade in the 1990s (Reed et al. 2017). In 3. Reforestation through co-management (MTS), Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) contrast with the earlier approaches, ILAs recognize that such problems cannot be addressed in isolation and that, at Natural resource management schemes the landscape level, tackling one problem invariably 4. Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Dale et al. 2018) involves trade-offs with another (Sunderland et al. 2008). 5. Community resource management (CREMA), Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) ILAs therefore call for solutions based on a common con- 6. Chantier d’Aménagment Forestier (CAF), Burkina Faso (Foli cern entry point and change logic negotiated in multi- et al. 2018) stakeholder settings, characterized by multifunctionality, Climate change mitigation multiple scales, flexibility, adaptive management and 7. REDD+, Peru (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018) continual learning (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 8. REDD+, Cameroon (Brown 2018) 2014; Freeman et al. 2015; Sayer et al. 2015). Imple- Sustainable value chain governance mentation in practice results in new actor constellations, and 9. Value chain governance for environmental services, The hybrid and polycentric institutional arrangements involving Netherlands (Ingram et al. 2018) multiple centers of decision-making (Nagendra and Ostrom 10. Value chain collaboration, Ghana (Deans et al. 2018) 2012) that challenge existing sectorial, administrative and 11. Oil palm public–private partnership, Indonesia (van Oosten et al. jurisdictional boundaries (van Oosten 2013; Ros-Tonen 2018) et al. 2015a; Visseren-Hamakers 2015). This requires a The papers by Lowore et al. (2018) and Ndeinoma et al. (2018) are more nuanced understanding of the diversity of governance excluded from this overview as they deal with “win–win” strategies arrangements within complex landscapes, and the ability to based on the trade of non-timber forest products, without targeting the better align actor aspirations and needs across multiple landscape level. Kusters et al. (2018) is excluded from this table as the levels in landscape governance. We thereby distinguish paper refers to a method designed for integrated landscape approaches from the beginning landscape governance from landscape approaches, using the latter as a general denominator for processes, tools, and MTS modified taungya system, CREMA community resource manage- ment area, CAF Chantier d’Aménagement Forestier, REDD+ reducing concepts for allocating and managing land within a land- emissions from deforestation and forest degradation scape of competing land uses (Sayer et al. 2013, p. 8349) and “landscape governance” to denote the more general process of steering human–nature interactions in a bounded et al. 2014; Kusters et al. 2018, this issue). Most cases geographical space (c.f. Görg 2007; van Oosten et al. 2014; analyzed in this special issue concern the latter: such Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; van Oosten et al. 2018; Rodríguez- initiatives qualify as integrated approaches for tackling Ward et al. 2018). multiple aims in multifunctional landscapes with multi- There is a great variety in how landscape approaches are stakeholder involvement, but emanate from sectorial conceptualized and labeled (Pfund 2010; Reed et al. 2016; approaches that are driven by an underlying primary aim Sayer et al. 2013; Scherr et al. 2013; Erbaugh and Agrawal such as forest and landscape restoration (Eriksson et al. 2017). A recent distinction has been made between ILAs as 2018; Foli et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018, this issue); sus- cross-sectorial landscape approaches that make a deliberate tainable natural resource management (Dale et al. 2018;Foli effort to “achieve multiple functional goals through col- et al. 2018, this issue); carbon emission reduction (Brown lective action and integrated governance”, and integrated 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018, this issue); or sustain- landscape-scale initiatives that tend to focus on a primary able sourcing of commodities (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram goal around a defined social, ecological, or political et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue; Table 1). boundary (Zanzanaini et al. 2017, p. 12; see also Kozar Consistent with the distinction between scale and level (footnote 3), we refer to such initiatives as integrated Scales are understood as the spatial, temporal, jurisdictional or landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs). However, little is known institutional dimensions of a phenomenon under study; levels to dif- about the potential of such initiatives to contribute to inte- ferent positions on a scale (Gibson et al. 2000; Cash et al. 2006). In grated landscape governance, for which they were not this conceptualization, a landscape is a level on a spatial or geo- graphical scale (Cash et al. 2006). designed in the first place. This is the first knowledge gap Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 3 that this special issue addresses. Second, most integrated commonly shared concern and sense of urgency; multi- approaches are still largely experimental, and their institu- stakeholder platforms, bridging organizations, and “multi- tional arrangements and overall effectiveness remain rela- level hybrids” (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018; Brown 2018, tively under-researched (Reed et al. 2017). This makes this issue); private sector engagement; dealing with con- research into the nature and inclusiveness of institutional flicting interests and power imbalances; accommodating arrangements that govern integrated approaches opportune. and coordinating polycentric governance in landscapes Third, the scientific literature has hitherto focused mainly on beset with institutional fragmentation and jurisdictional the design principles and frameworks of ILAs (Sayer et al. mismatches; alignment with locally embedded initiatives 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Freeman et al. 2015; Bürgi and governance structures; and a framework to assess and et al. 2017) and the documentation of case studies (Estrada- monitor performance of integrated multi-stakeholder Carmona et al. 2014; Milder et al. 2014; Minang et al. 2015; approaches. The papers herein collectively conclude that NAS 2016; García Martín et al. 2016; Zanzanaini et al. there is a growing tendency toward integrated approaches 2017). Much less is known about how ILAs should be and creating synergies at landscape level, but that “mud- operationalized over the longer term and how landscape- dling through” (Lindblom 1959; Sayer et al. 2008; Colfer level governance can be aligned with existing institutional et al. 2011) is a fundamental characteristic of such initia- frameworks. This special issue attempts to address these tives due to the inherent dynamism of landscapes and the gaps, with a focus on institutional arrangements and actor actors and activities associated with them (Sayer et al. constellations emerging in the transition from sectorial to 2016). integrated approaches. On the basis of empirical case stu- dies carried out mostly in forested and tree-dominated From “Win–Wins” to “Winning More and Losing landscapes, the papers shed light on how sectorial policies Less” are being redesigned toward more integrated approaches; sometimes as a reverberation of the earlier NTFP debate Integrated landscape approaches represent the latest in a (Lowore et al. 2018 and Ndeidoma et al. 2018, this issue), series of attempts to reconcile issues affecting society and but mostly as new integrated approaches targeting the environment at multiple scales. Previous attempts, like landscape level. The studies examine how the tendency promoting the trade in NTFPs, were based on the notion of toward such approaches creates synergies with, or chal- delivering “win–win” outcomes, i.e., both positive social lenges existing jurisdictions in, for instance, integrated and environmental impacts. Despite this intention to forest and water management, natural resource management reconcile multiple aims (livelihood improvement and nature schemes, climate change mitigation, and sustainable value conservation), the strategy was based on a sectorial focus on chain governance. In doing so, this volume explores whe- one or a few NTFPs, hardly considering trade-offs with ther and how existing institutions within the landscape can other land uses, activities, or actor interests (Ros-Tonen and be merged into new governance configurations for greater Wiersum 2005; Sunderland et al. 2008). This is reflected in synergy in achieving landscape-level outcomes. As such, the article on forest honey in Cameroon by Lowore et al. this collection of papers contributes to topical, and some- (2018, this issue), which we included in this special issue to time contentious, debates on landscape governance, inte- illustrate how thinking about integrated objectives has grated natural resource management, and value chain evolved from a product to landscape focus. Although governance. representative for the rather naive belief in “win–wins” Building upon recent literature on ILAs and drawing through NTFP trade, the authors note the importance of from the contributions to this volume, this editorial first partnerships to achieve objectives to scale and of taking past provides an overview of ILAs and how they differ from and present land uses into account. earlier approaches such as ICDPs and NTFP strategies that The need to ensure and coordinate broad stakeholder aimed to reconcile multiple aims. After this initial focus on involvement as well as learning processes to achieve such ILAs, we move to ILLIs in areas such as forest and land- “win–win” outcomes is addressed in the paper on NTFP scape restoration (Eriksson et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; governance in Namibia (Ndeinoma et al. 2018, this issue). Foli et al. 2018, this issue); natural resource management Using a policy network analysis, the authors identify the (Dale et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018, this issue); climate Indigenous Plant Task Team (IPTT) as a key actor in the change mitigation (Brown 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. governance of what in Namibia is labeled as “Indigenous 2018, this issue); and value chain governance (Deans et al. Natural Products”. The IPTT was established as a multi- 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue) stakeholder forum to mobilize actors, funds, and knowl- that can potentially be aligned with ILAs. Considering the edge, as well as to design policies and coordinate the significant institutional challenges of operating beyond development of products and markets. It eventually turned sectors, we thereby, respectively, address the need for a into an organization in which the interests of government 4 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 actors and consultants prevailed, and in which traders, merely be the latest conservation and development fad small-scale enterprises, harvesters, and community-based (Redford et al. 2013; Lund et al. 2017), a re-branding of organizations are hardly, if at all, involved. Despite its previous efforts (Redford et al. 2013; Reed et al. 2017; policy influence, this has resulted in a neglect of local-level Bastos Lima et al. 2017)ora “new management ethic” interests in policy formulation and implementation. It also (Erbaugh and Agrawal 2017). This is related to a number of illustrates the difficulty of achieving inclusive governance challenges that prevent ILAs from moving beyond their structures in “win–win” strategies and landscape approa- obvious theoretical potential. First, ILAs face challenges in ches more broadly. the operationalization of the approach on the ground However, what these NTFP strategies (and, earlier, (Freeman et al. 2015; Bürgi et al. 2017). These challenges ICDPs) are particularly lacking is the recognition that not all often relate to the scale at which implementation and stakeholders will “win” all of the time (Sunderland et al. maintenance of an ILA take place—both of a spatial and 2013). Therefore, landscape approaches—in theory at least temporal nature. Second, it has been recognized that land- —recognize the inherent dynamism of landscapes and are scapes do not coincide with either jurisdictional boundaries built on the premise of the need for overall facilitation of (Kozar et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Arts et al. 2017) stakeholder negotiation, trade-off analysis, and processes of or territorial boundaries (McCall 2016) and may therefore adaptive management to ensure that stakeholders are face administrative impediments to implementation. Third, “winning more and losing less” (Sayer et al. 2013). Through ILAs have been criticized for downplaying power imbal- independently facilitated platforms that acknowledge the ances (Lebel and Daniel 2009; Clay 2016; Arts et al. 2017) diversity of stakeholder needs, objectives, and power posi- and considering landscapes as depoliticized spaces (Müller tions, potential synergies and trade-offs can be identified in et al. 2015). Fourth, ILAs face challenges to monitor and order to develop a shared vision for the management of a evaluate impact due to their nature as a long-term process wider landscape. With regular and ongoing negotiation, and the need to account for trade-offs (Sunderland et al. processes of adaptive management can be implemented and 2008; Lebel and Daniel 2009; Sayer et al. 2015; Sayer et al. continually reflected upon to enhance synergies and seek 2016). Fifth, due to their ambitions, ILAs require con- alternative implementation strategies where major trade-offs siderable funds and time investments to involve all stake- occur (Sunderland et al. 2008; Sayer et al. 2015). holders (Reed et al. 2016; Bürgi et al. 2017). In this special There is a growing body of work that provides evidence issue we therefore look at the potential to address these of uptake of ILAs. One of these is a global review under- issues through landscape-level initiatives that were initially taken by EcoAgriculture Partners and collaborators—pri- designed as sectorial approaches, but which are moving marily based on grass-roots perspectives and using toward increasing integration of objectives and stakeholder standardized questionnaire methods—in Latin America involvement to achieve sustainable multifunctional (Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014), Africa (Milder et al. 2014), landscapes. Europe (García Martín et al. 2016), and Asia (Zanzanaini et al. 2017). This review showed that local stakeholders The Basis of Integrated Approaches: Shared reported successful integrated conservation and develop- Concerns and Sense of Urgency ment outcomes consistently across the three continents. A review of peer-reviewed evidence provides further— An integrated approach begins with a “common concern although limited—support for the effectiveness of ILAs in entry point” (Sayer et al. 2013)or “value proposition” practice (Reed et al. 2017). Finally, the abundant body of (Sayer et al. 2015). As with any multi-stakeholder approach, literature detailing the assumed characteristics of ILAs actors are likely to join the process only if there is a com- (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Minang et al. monly felt problem and sense of urgency to act upon it. As 2015; Freeman et al. 2015; Reed et al. 2017) demonstrates a regional overviews of ILAs have demonstrated, over 70% real distinction between ILAs and previous attempts at of landscape initiatives are primarily driven by conservation integration in moving from a primary focus on biodiversity and restoration motives, but also that an increasing pro- conservation and local development alone (McShane and portion is situated in multifunctional landscapes where they Wells 2004) to broader land-use issues. seek to balance production with conservation and sustain- While there has been increasing support for ILAs, the ability aims (Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014; Milder et al. approach has also been questioned for its utility and via- 2014; García-Martín et al. 2016; Sayer et al. 2016; Zanza- bility, notably compared to territorial approaches toward naini et al. 2017). As outlined in the introduction, the latter indigenous and local community management of natural also applies to the case studies brought together in this issue resources (McCall 2016). Recent discourse has also sug- with resource depletion, deforestation, and environmental gested that the uptake of landscape approaches in practice is degradation being the primary drivers of landscape-level slow, at best (Reed et al. 2017) and that the approach may initiatives, and livelihood concerns and water management Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 5 Table 2 Shared concerns in the cases of this special issue Case study Primary concern Secondary concerns African forest honey, Ethiopia (Lowore et al. 2018) Livelihood improvement; trade development Forest conservation Non-timber forest products (NTFPs), Namibia (Ndeinoma Improve production and marketing of NTFPs; enhance Livelihood improvement et al. 2018) coordination (resource mobilization and knowledge exchange) among actors Integrated forest and water management, Sweden (Eriksson Forest restoration and sustainable forest management Water management, preserving environmental and social values, et al. 2018) climate change mitigation and adaptation Ecological Forest Purchase Program, China (Long et al. Forest landscape restoration and safeguarding the provision of Improving rural livelihoods through compensatory payments 2018) environmental services Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Dale et al. 2018) Various depending on the governance subdomain (ecological Water quality (but sense of urgency missing and hence mostly health of water flows, natural resource management, land-use neglected at catchment landscape level) planning, farm productivity, indigenous management) Reforestation through co-management (MTS), Ghana (Foli Future timber supply; forest restoration Livelihood improvement through interplanting food crops and et al. 2018) sharing in timber benefits Community resource management (CREMA) and Chantier Natural resource management Livelihood improvement d’Aménagment Forestier (CAF), Burkina Faso, Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) REDD+, Peru (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018) Reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest Biodiversity conservation, land-use planning to reconcile degradation/climate change mitigation competing land uses (e.g., mining, farming, Brazil nut extraction) REDD+, Cameroon (Brown 2018) Climate change mitigation Forest conservation, livelihood improvement Value chain governance for environmental services, the Sustainable sourcing of several commodities Conservation of environmental services Netherlands (Ingram et al. 2018) Value chain collaboration, Ghana (Deans et al. 2018) Sustainable sourcing of cocoa—water and biodiversity Livelihood improvement through input provision and training, conservation, pollution control, waste management, preventing increasing climate resilience supplier failure Multifunctional oil palm concession, Indonesia (van Oosten Sustainable sourcing of palm oil—protection of riparian zones Increasing the inclusiveness of the company’s production model et al. 2018) and high conservation value forests; meeting Zero through a collaborative landscape design that integrates Deforestation pledges smallholder land uses (e.g., rubber agro-forests, cultural–spiritual sites). Multi-stakeholder platforms, Ghana and Indonesia (Kusters Explore options for landscape-level multi-stakeholder — et al. 2018) processes and outcomes The Zero Deforestation movement emanated from the non-binding New York Declaration on Forests (2014) and comprises a private sector commitment to eliminate deforestation from agricultural commodities (http://forestdeclaration.org/, accessed 3 January 2018) 6 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 often being the secondary concerns (Table 2). As the paper illustrated in the paper by Ndeinoma et al. (2018). Examples by Dale et al. (2018, this issue) illustrates, the lack of a include identifying an appropriate location such that all sense of urgency (in this case of ensuring water quality) concerned stakeholders have the capacity to attend; ensur- impedes an integrated approach at the catchment landscape ing that opportunities to engage in such platforms are level. Similarly, the Ghana pilot described in Kusters et al. equitable; providing independent facilitation to build trust (2018, this issue) revealed that follow-up on a workshop among attendees; enhancing transparency via monitoring of that brought stakeholders together to discuss collaboration the efficiency of the platform and dissemination of results at the landscape level remained “in the air” because of the and progress; and embracing, rather than avoiding, issues lack of a commonly felt sense of urgency around a parti- that may be anticipated to lead to social or environmental cular issue. Contrastingly, general awareness of the need to conflicts (Kusters et al. 2018; see also Sayer et al. 2015; combine forest restoration with water resource management Bürgi et al. 2017). was at the basis of landscape-level initiatives in Sweden Actors capable of bridging different sectors and levels (Eriksson et al. 2018, this issue). play an important role in initiating and maintaining such platforms. Such actors function as bridging organizations and can be a research organization, NGO, “ecomuseum” Actor Constellations (Hahn et al. 2006) or an agro-ecological partnership (Prager 2015). They mobilize actors, funds, and political support; The Importance of Multi-stakeholder Platforms, broker information and different knowledges; build trust Bridging Organizations and “Multilevel Hybrids” and social capital; mediate conflicts; network and commu- nicate across scales; facilitate linkages between different Evidence in this special issue suggests that hybrid, multi- actors; and create platforms for collective learning (Folke level governance arrangements that marry top-down et al. 2005; Cash et al. 2006; Hahn et al. 2006; Berkes 2009; authoritarian processes with more bottom-up democratic Leys and Vanclay 2011; Rathwell and Peterson 2012; structures may be optimal for continued engagement in, and Crona and Parker 2012; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen effectiveness of, ILAs and ILLIs (Long et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2015b; Prager 2015). Examples from the papers in this et al. 2018; Rodriguez-Ward et al. 2018). How such gov- issue include the Stockholm Water Institute that mobilized ernance arrangements are operationalized will be both stakeholders for integrated forest and water management dependent upon—and influenced by—local context and (Eriksson et al. 2018); the State-led Yong’an Volunteer existing social arrangements, depending on the place-based Association for Promoting Ecological Civilization that interactions between natural conditions and the political mobilized funds and actors to implement a forest landscape economy (van Oosten et al. 2018); whether more or less restoration program in a municipality in China (Long et al. formalized governance systems are in place (Dale et al. 2018); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which 2018; Long et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018); previous experi- mobilized actors and funds to implement REDD+ in ences with collaboration, positive or negative (conflicts, Cameroon (Brown 2018); and the NGOs (Tropenbos mistrust; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018); the degree to which International and EcoAgriculture Partners) that piloted the the private sector or bridging organizations such as NGOs platform methodology in Ghana and Indonesia (Kusters or research organizations play a role (Deans et al. 2018; et al. 2018). The Indigenous Plant Task Team in Namibia Ingram et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. was established to perform such a role for the country’s 2018); and the financial capacity of the organizations NTFP sector (Ndeinoma et al. 2018). Rodríguez-Ward et al. involved (Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Brown 2018, this issue). (2018) point to a particular bridging actor, to which they Theoretically, such an arrangement should feature a refer as “multilevel hybrids”: individuals who navigate platform that provides an enabling environment for local across levels and sectors and act as binding factors between actors and broader stakeholders with an interest in the those. In the REDD+ case in Cameroon, the WWF was landscape to regularly—or at least intermittently—negotiate identified as such a hybrid (Brown, 2018). objectives and exchange desired outcomes (Kusters et al. Proponents of ILAs recommend that implementation 2018). In practice, maintaining such a platform is often should focus on establishing a multi-stakeholder platform fraught with difficulty and identifying leverage points to from the outset (Sayer et al. 2013; Denier et al. 2015; Reed best overcome challenges will be fundamental to maintain et al. 2016). By bringing together those with a vested long-term engagement from a diverse group of stake- interest in the landscape of interest, individual and collec- holders. Such leverage points may be initially under- tive needs, objectives and trade-offs can be identified and estimated, but overlooking them could disproportionately management be applied accordingly. In theory, this should affect the efficiency of adaptive governance processes and help to dissolve power asymmetries and ensure that local perpetuate marginalization of local stakeholders, as and marginalized groups can express what it is they hope Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 7 for, rather than what it is they are willing to accept. In often to increase the wellbeing of producers, particularly practical terms, it has to be questioned how realistic such a where youth needs to be attracted to replace an ageing scenario is likely to be. Recent experience of ILAs being farmer population such as in Ghana’s cocoa sector (Deans implemented suggests that more often the case is that an et al. 2018). implementing organization enters with a pre-conceived set As made clear in this special issue, private sector- of criteria that they wish to fulfill (Clay 2016; Weatherley- initiated ILLIs require new actor configurations and insti- Singh and Gupta 2017). This, however, need not diminish tutional arrangements (van Oosten et al. 2018) that go the potential use, and value, of ILA principles—even when “beyond the farm” (Deans et al. 2018), “beyond the chain” objectives are pre-defined, the efficacy of the intervention (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Deans et al. 2018), and “beyond will likely be heightened with regular stakeholder negotia- certification” (Ingram et al. 2018). This would entail greater tion that seeks to enhance local capacity and increase synergies between the agricultural, forestry, and environ- landscape multifunctionality and resilience. mental sectors (in terms of policies, laws, and actors); between public and private governance (e.g., by combining The Role of the Private Sector procurement policies with certification); and between gov- ernance levels (global to local). Public–private partnerships Earlier reviews of mainly conservation-induced ILAs and landscape-level certification are avenues to achieving revealed limited participation of the private sector, with such synergies (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; van averages between 10 and 14% (N = 87) for Africa and 22% Oosten et al. 2018). (local agribusinesses) and 7% (foreign agribusinesses; N = Where such alliances can be created and value chain and 104) for Latin America and the Caribbean (Milder et al. landscape governance can be linked (Ingram et al. 2018), 2014; Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014; Hart et al. 2015). The there is a great potential for implementing landscape picture is definitively different for the ILLIs reported in this approaches at the producer end of value chains (see also special issue, with the private sector participating in almost section on locally embedded entry points). This implies a all (95.8%) of the 24 cases and taking the lead in 41.7% of potentially important and even key role for the private them. Companies’ main motivations to engage in ILLIs are sector in the implementation of landscape approaches related to sustainable sourcing: to prevent supply failure in (Sayer et al. 2015; see also Wambugu et al. 2015; Kissinger the future, reduce the ecological impact in sourcing areas, et al. 2015; Gyau et al. 2015) and in increasing the eco- and/or to satisfy consumers’ and NGO demands for sus- nomic sustainability of such initiatives (Deans et al. 2018). tainably sourced products and benefit from price premiums Some scholars, however, question the inclusiveness of pri- on markets for certified products (Deans et al. 2018; van vate sector-led arrangements and the equitability of risk and Oosten et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2018). benefit sharing, and point at risks such as a narrow com- These reasons resonate with those mentioned by Arts et al. modity focus, privatization of natural resources, green- (2017) regarding the attractiveness of landscape approaches washing, and outcompeting small producers (Namirembe for the private sector, to which they add the opportunity for and Bernard 2015; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015a; Arts et al. innovations by promoting improved farming methods and 2017). This brings us to the broader challenge of dealing increased product quality. Such innovations can also be with power imbalances in multi-stakeholder processes. found in this special issue. One is the multifunctional oil palm concession in Indonesia, which combines commodity The Challenge of Dealing with Power Imbalances production with the protection of riparian zones, high conservation forests, and —important for local communities Landscapes with non-administrative boundaries might —multifunctional rubber gardens and cultural–spiritual sites poorly reflect the rights and requirements of local actors. (van Oosten et al. 2018). Another is the inclusion of pay- However, thinking beyond jurisdictional boundaries (see ments for environmental services (PES) schemes in the next section) and the dichotomy of top-down vs. bottom-up cocoa trade (Ingram et al. 2018). A secondary motivation is governance will likely be necessary to better account for the multiple conflicting processes occurring across tropical developing landscapes. ILAs need not be considered a The cases reported by Lowore et al. and Ndeinoma et al. (2018) are departure from community-based conservation (Berkes excluded from this count as they have a sectorial focus; the case 2009) or rights-based development approaches (Johnson reported by Kusters et al. was excluded because it concerns a pilot to test a methodology for an ILA. and Forsyth 2002; Campese et al. 2009; Reed et al. 2017; Of the 24 ILLIs, 8 were initiated by the private sector and 2 through Erbaugh and Agrawal 2017). Indeed, the key principles of a public–private partnership. Ten of the remaining cases were initiated ILAs as defined by Sayer et al. (2013) are clear recognition by the public sector and 4 by a civil society organization with or of rights and responsibilities and common concern entry without a university or knowledge institution. See supplementary material 1. points. An ILA attempts to incorporate these values within 8 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 broader landscape processes, identify pressures and feed- weaker parties (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002; Ros-Tonen back mechanisms, account for inevitable trade-offs, and et al. 2008; Dale et al. 2018). These may be NGOs or internalize potential externalities. However, ILLIs such as political alliances, but also the active involvement of the those reviewed in this special issue were not primarily State, including at subnational levels, is crucial in this designed as ILAs and may therefore pose challenges to respect (Wambugu et al. 2015; Kissinger et al. 2015; dealing with power imbalances and giving a voice to mar- Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). ginalized people, as do the “win–win” strategies in Nami- bia’s NTFP sector (Ndeinoma et al. 2018). The paper by Institutional Synergies and Jurisdictional Rodríguez-Ward et al. (2018) illustrates this well, demon- Mismatches: The Need for Accommodating and strating that particular land-user associations (farmers and Coordinating Polycentric Governance miners) were largely excluded from the REDD+ process in Madre de Dios, Peru. Similarly, Deans et al. (2018), within Implementing landscape-level initiatives must confront the a context of value chain collaboration for certified cocoa challenge of institutional and jurisdictional fragmentation production in Ghana, note that the company invested con- and institutional rigidity, whereby in particular public actors siderably in the relationship with farmers, but that there was adhere to their sectorial silos and jurisdictional powers (van limited space for farmers to negotiate their interests further Oosten et al. 2013; van Oosten et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; down the value chain. In China, space was given to citizen Rodríguez-Ward 2018, this issue). This mismatch between participation in forest landscape restoration, but local citi- landscapes and existing administrative jurisdictions implies zens were marginalized from decision-making and mon- the necessity of dealing with multiple centers of decision- itoring (Long et al. 2018). The issue of adequate and making that operate at different scale levels (Dale et al. equitable stakeholder representation and voice is not typical 2018). “Polycentric governance” has been proposed to for landscape-level initiatives, but inherent in any multi- cover such different, but partly overlapping units of stakeholder initiative in situations marked by power decision-making with their own jurisdictions, rules of imbalances and unequal access to natural resources. access and use, monitoring and sanction systems, and Evidence from the conservation literature has shown that conflict resolution mechanisms (Ostrom 1999, 2010). strictly bottom-up approaches can produce perverse out- Polycentric governance differs from the notion of multilevel comes (Carpentier et al. 1999; Wunder 2001; Brown 2002), governance that assumes a hierarchical order between dif- whereas local stakeholders may lack the necessary skills to ferent governance units (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014). effectively negotiate and compromise in multi-stakeholder Several cases reported in this special issue illustrate such dialogs (Hemmati 2002; Reed et al. 2015). Meanwhile, tendency toward polycentrism in ILLIs. In Ghana, this interventions that are constrained by jurisdictional bound- encompasses a combination of statutory and customary aries may represent an opportunity to better influence local institutions in the implementation of natural resource policy formulation (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018; van Oos- schemes (Foli et al. 2018). In China, state-controlled forest ten et al. 2018), but are also be subject to leakage effects in landscape restoration is gradually being transformed toward neighboring jurisdictions (Atmadja and Verchot 2012; polycentric governance involving the engagement of the Carrasco et al. 2017). Similarly, commodity supply chains private sector and—be it still to a limited extent—civic typically operate across jurisdictional and national bound- actors as well as the incorporation of market-based policy aries, but are often of a hierarchical nature, leaving local instruments such as PES (Long et al. 2018, this issue). stakeholders vulnerable to inadequate representation in Polycentric governance allows for flexibility, but also negotiation processes and making regulation and trace- creates a coordination dilemma where one jurisdiction ability particularly challenging (Ndeinoma et al. 2018; generates positive or negative externalities for other jur- Deans et al. 2018). Multi-stakeholder dialog platforms have isdictions (Hooghe and Marks 2003). The paper by Dale been suggested as a solution to create space for negotiation et al. (2018) illustrates this well: in the Great Barrier Reef, and knowledge exchange (Cullen et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen landscape-level water-quality outcomes will not be auto- et al. 2015a; Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018), but matically achieved based on the cumulative effect of frag- evidence from the water sector has shown that little power mented governance subdomains that focus on different sharing (notably vertical inclusion) takes place in such management problems (e.g., water allocation, land-use platforms, while some actors may strategically withhold planning, indigenous management, farm-scale planning, or knowledge (Warner 2006). Similar experiences were urban water management). The authors argue that a gov- observed in the platforms piloted in Ghana and Indonesia by ernance system analysis of how these subdomains perform Kusters et al. (2018). As with all multisectorial partnerships against pre-defined design and evaluation principles for and multi-stakeholder processes this requires third-party integrated landscape governance may create synergies that brokers as “watchdogs” to defend the interests of the help prevent implementation failures in delivering water Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 9 quality at the catchment level. Similarly, Rodríguez-Ward this issue) in which actors from the forestry and agricultural et al. (2018) point at the need for horizontal (multisectorial sectors take collective action for the first time. and multi-actor) and vertical (multilevel) coordination to Despite these encouraging signs, there are a number of achieve inclusive REDD+ governance at the landscape other conditions that need to be fulfilled for ILLIs to evolve level. Both papers emphasize the role of the State in into integrated landscape approaches. These include, first, creating the conditions for effective steering and coordina- the need to create a sense of urgency of a commonly shared tion. This is a shift away from neoliberal discourses that problem at the landscape level. As several cases have shown emphasize a retreating role of the State and a greater role for (e.g., Dale et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018), there is limited private actors and civil society (Jessop 2002; Bäckstrand potential for collective action at the landscape level when and Lövbrand 2006). However Ndeinoma et al. (2018, this such a sense of urgency is missing. Second, additional issue) note that civil society organizations may perform a partnerships and alliances are needed to cover all jurisdic- similar role where they take on traditional government roles. tions within the landscape, including those of customary authorities (Foli et al. 2018; Deans et al. 2018) and indi- ILLIs as Locally Embedded Entry Points for the genous rights holders (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). Third, Implementation of Integrated Landscape particular attention is needed to the inclusion of key sta- Approaches keholders which might not be the primary stakeholders in the ILLI and are, therefore, excluded (e.g., the forestry The papers in this special issue evidence the increasing agency and traditional land owners in the case of value recognition that global challenges such as sustainable pro- chain collaboration (Deans et al. 2018) or key land users duction and livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and cli- such as miners and farmers in REDD+ initiatives (Rodrí- mate change mitigation need to be addressed in a holistic guez-Ward, 2018). Attention to gender dynamics is a par- and integrated manner at the landscape level. However, the ticular blind spot, poorly addressed in the papers of this sectorial silos, particularly in the public sector, are not special issue and the literature on landscape approaches in easily broken down (e.g., Dale et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018; general (van Dijk and Bose 2016; Reed et al. 2016). Fourth, Ingram et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; ILLIs (and ILAs for that matter) thrive better where prin- Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). Institutional fragmentation ciples of good governance are in place, as shown in the and jurisdictional boundaries are major hindrances to Sweden case (Eriksson et al. 2018) where forest tenure and implementing ILAs, and they hinder clarity about who is to other rules are clear and enforced, and there is ample space steer such an approach or to implement its outcomes (van for citizen participation. Fifth, except in the paper by Oosten et al. 2013; Kusters et al. 2018, this issue). More- Eriksson et al. and van Oosten et al. (2018) we found over, there is a price tag to bringing different actors around limited evidence of attention to cultural ecosystem services the table; transaction costs are high (Sayer et al. 2015, 2016) in ILLIs such as cultural heritage and spiritual values, which and the financial capacity of local actors limited (Brown, are particularly important to local inhabitants. Sixth, some 2018, this issue). In order to prevent donor dependency and ILLIs with considerable potential for landscape governance ensure local buy-in of negotiated landscape solutions, it is require upscaling beyond the local level such as the therefore important to identify locally embedded entry CREMA case in Ghana (Foli et al. 2018). Creating a plat- points for the implementation of ILAs (Deans et al. 2018; form to negotiate and monitor objectives at a landscape Foli et al. 2018, this issue). The ILLIs brought together in level can be a means of doing so (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015a; this volume show mixed potential to function as such (Table Sayer et al. 2016; Foli et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018, this 3). They all target multifunctional landscapes and multiple issue). objectives, such as a combination of sustainable production and livelihoods with the preservation of other than provi- A Framework to Assess and Monitor Performance of sioning ecosystem services such as water regulation (Dale Integrated Approaches et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018, this issue), biodiversity conservation (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram Participatory monitoring of progress and outcomes of et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue), cultural landscape approaches and landscape-level initiatives is key ecosystem services (van Oosten et al. 2018), and carbon to adaptive management and the capacity to deal with the sequestration (Foli et al. 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). dynamics inherent in landscapes, but data collection is often They have also brought together actors from multiple sec- costly and time-consuming (Sayer et al. 2013; 2015). tors that typically did not collaborate prior to the initiative. EcoAgriculture Partners (2017) developed a simple scor- This is particularly clear in the Cameroonian and Peruvian ecard to assess the institutional capacity and performance of REDD+ cases (Brown 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018, actors active in integrated landscape governance, an adapted version of which was applied by Brown (2018, this issue) in 10 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 Table 3 The potential and challenges of integrated landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs) as entry points for integrated landscape approaches a b Type of ILLI Potential Challenges References Integrated forest and water management, Integrated goals (economic, ecological, sociocultural); space for citizen Operationalization of how several objectives can best be balanced in an Eriksson et al. 2018 Sweden and private sector participation; clear rules integrated approach Forest landscape restoration, China Integrated goals (economic, ecological, social); more equitable benefit Non-participation of larger forest owners; limited civil society and Long et al. 2018 sharing; new space for multi-stakeholder collaboration; greater fund- community involvement; separation of land and tree ownership; political raising capacity commitment with change in administration; hierarchical network dominated by the State Great Barrier Reef catchment management, Preventing implementation failure; improved coordination of Institutional fragmentation; holistic catchment planning and coordination of Dale et al. 2018 Australia governance in subdomains for increased water quality at catchment level subdomain governance; community commitment; power differences; and conflicting interests Reforestation through co-management Integration of goals (forest restoration, securing future timber supply, Rigid, state-dominated decision-making structure; a lack of long-term Foli et al. 2018 (MTS), Ghana livelihood improvement, carbon sequestration); multi-stakeholder design economic incentives; broader partnerships dependent on donor funding; non-empowering capacity building; absence of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms Community resource management areas Integrated approach, multi-stakeholder design for negotiation and Limited scale and vertical connectedness; no monitoring and evaluation Foli et al. 2018 (CREMAs), Ghana collaboration; adaptive management; accommodates polycentric mechanisms in place governance; capacity building Chantier d’Aménagement, Burkina Faso Potential for creating landscape-level synergies Limited integration of development and conservation objectives; Foli et al. 2018 hierarchical governance structure; no dedicated platforms for stakeholder negotiation; non-empowering capacity building; no monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place REDD+, Peru Creates new space for multilevel and multi-sector dialog and Exclusion or marginal inclusion of key stakeholders; a lack of trust; Rodríguez-Ward collaboration, notably between forestry, conservation and agriculture conflicting interests; unequal power relations; weak governance structures; et al. 2018 jurisdictional frictions; poor coordination Climate change mitigation, Cameroon REDD+ as entry point for tackling livelihood and conservation Limited institutional (financial and human) capacity; restricted impact on Brown 2018 concerns; WWF as “hybrid” that mobilizes funds and actors livelihoods; short-term project funding Value chain governance for ecosystem Awareness raising of need to preserve ecosystem services; multi- Integration of goals; sectorial focus; inclusiveness of the arrangements; Ingram et al. 2018 services, The Netherlands stakeholder involvement to address landscape-level issues (sourcing adaptive learning approach; balancing state regulation and market areas) governance; dealing with trade-offs Advanced value chain collaboration, Ghana Sustainable cocoa production; enhanced natural, human, and social Interventions at farm rather than landscape level; hierarchical relations; Deans et al. 2018 capital institutional and cultural rigidity; limited inclusiveness in decision-making; limited options for farmers’ self-organization; jurisdictional mismatches; and non-exclusion of relevant actors prevent negotiated decision-making on land use Multifunctional oil palm concession, Place- and context-specific form of landscape governance; integration of Sectorial focus; institutional rigidity and mismatch with existing legal Van Oosten et al. Indonesia production, environmental, social and cultural objectives frameworks; focus on concession rather than landscape level; resistance of 2018 central government against Zero Deforestation movement; reduced income from concession (but compensated through reduced social unrest) Multi-stakeholder platforms (piloted in Mobilizes landscape actors; enables multi-stakeholder negotiation and High transaction costs; absence of good governance principles in Kusters et al. 2018 Ghana and Indonesia) collaboration as well as monitoring and evaluation of landscape government (notably transparency, legitimacy, and voice); power outcomes imbalances; inclusion of women; a lack of shared concern/sense of urgency; non-participation of key stakeholders (notably in Indonesia) Lowore et al. and Ndeinoma et al. (this issue) have been excluded from this overview as they target products rather than landscapes; All references in this issue Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 11 Cameroon to identify strengths and weaknesses in financial integrated multi-stakeholder approaches targeting multi- and human capacity, longevity in the landscape, demon- functional landscapes. The tendency toward integrated strated leadership, coordination with other organizations, landscape approaches is growing, but balancing multiple and influence. The participatory monitoring and evaluation objectives, equitable inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, (PME) method proposed by Kusters et al. (2018, this issue) dealing with power and gender imbalances, adaptive not only looks at the performance of the multi-stakeholder management based on participatory outcome monitoring, process (“looking inward” in terms of good governance and moving beyond existing administrative, jurisdictional, principles and conditions for effective multi-sector colla- and sectorial silos remain significant challenges. Overall, boration), but also helps them in “looking ahead” (joint we conclude that, first, actors can only be mobilized priority setting regarding conservation, production, and around a commonly felt problem and sense of urgency, production objectives and institutional strengthening) and and that landscape approaches are therefore necessarily “looking back” (evaluating the outcomes and whether context- and issue-specific. Second, dealing with multiple platform objectives have been met). Pilots in Ghana and objectives, trade-offs, as well as with power imbalances Indonesia illustrated that such a method can work well if and conflicting interests, implies a key role for multi- relevant stakeholders are committed to participate in the stakeholder platforms, bridging organizations and PME workshop; reflect critically on all the actors, including “watchdogs” to negotiate priorities and give voice to themselves; and follow-up on the recommendations that weaker parties. Third, considering the challenges that result from the process. Such a method could be particularly integrated landscape approaches are still facing, ILLIs may useful for cases where concrete monitoring and evaluation be feasible and locally embedded entry points to their mechanisms are missing, as in the natural resource man- implementation. Fourth, the multilayered nature of agement schemes analyzed in Foli et al. (2018, this issue)— human–nature interactions at the landscape level—vertical particularly if such schemes are a response to failures of (multilevel), horizontal and cross-cutting (“zigzagging”; past initiatives. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation is key Torfing et al. 2012)—requires accommodating multiple to dealing with landscape-level dynamics, uncertainty, and centers of decision-making in fluid, polycentric govern- complexity, and fundamental to the application of adaptive ance arrangements. This involves statutory and customary management (Sayer et al. 2016). as well as public and private institutions, but requires an overseeing actor—government or bridging organization— who can steer the process. Last, but not least, imple- Conclusion menting integrated landscape approaches implies the need to deal with diversity and dynamics. Such challenges This special issue illustrates a trend toward greater suggest that an element of “muddling through” (Lindblom synergies in objectives and actor configurations in natural 1959; Sayer et al. 2008;Colferetal. 2011)willbe resource management and value chain governance. Start- necessary for landscape approaches to evolve. However, ingwithproduct-focusedapproachesinthe NTFP sector “muddling through” need not imply muddled thinking or a aiming at combined development and conservation out- state of imperfection, but is inherent in dealing with comes, the current trend is toward landscape-level initia- landscapes. tives and integrated landscape approaches that consider Acknowledgements Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen acknowledges financial and negotiate trade-offs between different land uses and support from WOTRO Science for Development of The Netherlands objectives. Despite design principles that suggest a com- Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (project no. mon umbrella (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014), W08.250.2013.122). Terry Sunderland and James Reed thank USAID landscape approaches are, to paraphrase Max Eggert and their Biodiversity Fund for covering their time. (2015), like jellyfish: an increasing scholarship knows what they are, but there are no two people who understand Compliance with Ethical Standards them in a similar manner or even use the same term Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of (Scherr et al. 2013;Reedet al. 2016). As landscapes are in interest. the eyes of the beholder (c.f. Meinig 1979), integrated landscape approaches and landscape-level initiatives come Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative in different sizes and shapes. This review and the papers in Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, this special issue make clear that it is useful to distinguish distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give between ILAs, which are designed as negotiated landscape appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a governance from the beginning, and ILLIs that started as link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were sectorial approaches but are moving toward more made. 12 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 References Development through integrated landscape management. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford EcoAgriculture Partners (2017) Landscape performance scorecard. Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L, Ingram V, van Oosten C, Opdam P http://peoplefoodandnature.org/tool/landscape-performance- (2017) Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annu scorecard-lps/. Accessed 16 Apr 2018 Rev Env Resour 42:439–463 Eggert MA (2015) Motivation pocketbook. Management Pocketbooks Atmadja S, Verchot L (2012) A review of the state of research, policies Ltd, Hant, UK and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions Erbaugh J, Agrawal A (2017) Clarifying the landscape approach: a from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD + ). MITIG letter to the editor on “Integrated landscape approaches to Adapt Strat Gl 17(3):311–336 managing social and environmental issues in the tropics”. Glob Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate Change Biol 2017:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13788 change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green Eriksson M, Samuelson L, Jägrud L, Mattsson E, Celander T, Malmer governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob Environ Polit A, Bengtsson K, Johansson O, Schaaf N, Svending O, Tengberg 6(1):50–75 A (2018) Water, forests, people—the Swedish experience in Bastos Lima MG, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Braña-Varela J, Gupta A building resilient landscapes. Environ Manage (this issue) (2017) A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD + : Estrada-Carmona N, Hart AK, DeClerck FA, Harvey CA, Milder JC lessons from Latin America. For Policy Econ 78:10–20 (2014) Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc Urban Manag 90(5):1692–1702 Plan 129:1–11 Brown HCP (2018) An assessment of institutional capacity for inte- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) grated landscape management in eastern Cameroon. Environ (2016) Informing future interventions for scaling-up sustainable Manage (this issue) land management. FAO, Rome and TerrAfrica, Midrand, South Brown K (2002) Innovations for conservation and development. Africa Geogr J 168:6–17 Foli S, Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J, Sunderland T (2018) Natural Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) (2005) The protected land- resource management schemes as entry points for integrated scape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, landscape approaches: evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Gland and Cambridge Environ Manage (this issue) Bürgi M, Ali P, Chowdhury A, Heinimann A, Hett C, Kienast F, Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of Verburg PH (2017) Integrated landscape approach: closing the social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Env Resour 30:441–473 gap between theory and application. Sustainability 9(8):1371 Freeman OE, Duguma LA, Minang PA (2015) Operationalizing the Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T, Oviedo G (eds) (2009) Rights- integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol Soc 20(1):24 based approaches: exploring issues and opportunities for con- Frost PB, Campbell G, Medina B, Usongo L (2006) Landscape-scale servation. CIFOR and IUCN, Bogor, Indonesia approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropi- Carpentier CL, Vosti S, Witcover J (1999) Impacts of subsidized cal forest landscapes. Ecol Soc 11(2):30 Brazil nut prices on deforestation, use of cleared land, and farm García Martín M, Bieling C, Hart A, Plieninger T (2016) Integrated income. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, Technical landscape initiatives in Europe: multi-sector collaboration in Note 8.1 multi-functional landscapes. Land Use Policy 58:43−53 Carrasco LR, Chan J, McGrath F, Nghiem L (2017) Biodiversity Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the conservation in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 22(3):24 human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32 Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Young (2):217–239 O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and Gorg C (2007) Landscape governance: the politics of scale and the information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8 natural conditions of places. Geoforum 38:954–966 Clay N (2016) Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: a political Gyau A, Oduol J, Mbugua M, Foundjem-Tita D, Ademonla Arinloye ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum D, KOuame C (2015) Landscape approaches to sustainable sup- 76:130–141 ply chain management: the role of agribusinesses. In: Minang PA, Colfer CJP, Pfund J, Sunderland T (2011) The essential task of van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan ‘muddling through’ to better landscape governance. In: Colfer D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. CJP, Pfund J (eds) Collaborative governance of tropical land- World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 295–306 scapes. Earthscan, London, p 271–278 Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K (2006) Trust-building, Crona BI, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: the- knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of ories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging orga- a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland nizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc 17 landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol 34:573–592 (1):32 Hart AK, Milder JC, Estrada-Carmona N, DeClerck FAJ, Harvey CA, Cullen B, Tucker J, Snyder K, Lema Z, Duncan A (2014) An analysis Dobie P (2015) Integrated landscape initiatives in practice: of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural assessing experiences from 191 landscapes in Africa and Latin resource management. Innov Dev 4(2):259–275 America. In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow Dale AP, Vella K, Gooch M, Potts R, Pressey RL, Brodie J, Eberhard C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: R (2018) Avoiding implementation failure in catchment land- multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre scapes: a case study in governance of the Great Barrier Reef. (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 89–101 Environ manage (this issue) Harvey CA, Komar O, Chazdon R, Ferguson BG, Finegan B, Griffith Deans H, Ros-Tonen MAF, Derkyi M (2018) Advanced value chain DM, van Breugel M (2008) Integrating agricultural landscapes collaboration in Ghana’s cocoa sector: an entry point for inte- with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. grated landscape approaches? Environ Manage (this issue) Conserv Biol 22(1):8–15 Denier L, Scherr S, Shames S, Chatterton P, Hovani L, Stam N (2015) Harvey CA, Chacon M, Donatti CI, Garen E, Hanna L, Andrade, The little sustainable landscapes book. Achieving sustainable Clement C (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 13 challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical multifunctionality in practice, World Agroforestry Centre agriculture. Conserv Lett 7(2):77–90 (ICRAF), Nairobi Hemmati M (2002) Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and Müller A, Janetschek H, Weigelt J (2015) Towards a governance sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan, London heuristic for sustainable development. Curr Opin Env Sust Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? 15:49–56 Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97 Nagendra H, Ostrom E (2012) Polycentric governance of multi- (2):233–243 functional forested landscapes. Int J Commons 6(2):104–133 Ingram V, van den Berg J, van Oorschot M, Arets E, Judge L (2018) Namirembe S, Bernard F (2015) Private sector engagement in Governance options to enhance ecosystem services in cocoa, soy, landscape-based approaches—lessons from cases in East Africa. tropical timber and palm oil value chains. Environ Manage (this In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de issue). Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multi- Jessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a functionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), state–theoretical perspective. Antipode 34(3):452–472 Nairobi, p 307–315 Johnson C, Forsyth T (2002) In the eyes of the state: negotiating a NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) “rights-based approach” to forest conservation in Thailand. (2016) A review of the landscape conservation cooperatives. The World Dev 30(9):1591–1605 National Academies Press, Washington Kissinger G, Moroge M, Noponen M (2015) Private sector investment Ndeinoma A, Wiersum KF, Arts B (2018) The governance of indi- in landscape approaches: the role of productions standards and genous natural products in Namibia: a policy network analysis. certification. In: Minang P, Van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Environ Manage (this issue) Mbow C, De Leeuw J, Cataculan D (eds) Climate-smart land- Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance scapes: multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–672 (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 277–292 Ostrom V (1999) Polycentricity (Part 1). In: McGinnis M (ed) Poly- Kozar R, Buck LE, Barrow EG, Sunderland TCH, Catacutan DE, centricity and local public economics. University of Michigan Planicka C, Hart AK, Willemen L (2014) EcoAgriculture Part- Press, Ann Arbor, p 52–74 ners, on behalf of the Landscapes for People. Food, and Nature Padoch C, Sunderland TCH (2014) Managing landscapes for greater Initiative, Washington, DC food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva 64(241):3–13 Kusters K, de Graaf M, Minang P, van Oosten C, Zagt R (2018) Pfund J-L (2010) Landscape-scale research for conservation and Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi- development in the tropics: fighting persisting challenges. Curr stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Opin Env Sust 2:117–126 Environ Manage (this issue) Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives as bridging orga- Lebel L, Daniel R (2009) The governance of ecosystem services from nisations in landscape management. J Environ Manag tropical upland watersheds. Curr Opin Env Sust 1:61–68 161:375–384 Leys AJ, Vanclay JK (2011) Social learning: a knowledge and capa- Rathwell KJ, Peterson GD (2012) Connecting social networks with city building approach for adaptive co-management of contested ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social ecological landscapes. Land Use Policy 3:574–584 network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Admin organizations. Ecol Soc 17(2):24 Rev 19(2):79–88 Redford KH, Roe D, Sunderland TC (2013) Linking conservation and Long H, Liu J, Tub C, Fub Y (2018) From state-controlled to poly- poverty alleviation: discussion paper on good and best practice in centric governance in forest landscape restoration: the case of the the case of great ape. No. PCLG Discussion Paper no. 11, IIED, Ecological Forest Purchase Program in Yong’an Municipality of London China. Environ Manage (this issue) Reed J, Deakin L, Sunderland T (2015) What are ‘integrated landscape Lowore J, Meaton J, Wood A (2018) African forest honey: an over- approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in looked non-timber forest product with potential to support live- the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 4:2 lihoods and forests. Environ Manage (this issue) Reed J, van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2016) Lund JF, Sungusia E, Mabele MB, Scheba A (2017) Promising Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and envir- change, delivering continuity: REDD + as conservation fad. onmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the World Dev 89:124–139 future. Glob Change Biol 22(7):2540–2554 Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Reed J, van Vianen J, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2017) Have integrated Admin Rev 19(2):79–88 landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental Mayers J, Vermeulen S (2002) Instruments for sustainable private issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63:481–492 sector forestry series. International Institute for Environment and Rodríguez-Ward D, Larson AM, Gordillo Ruesta H (2018) Top-down, Development, London bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi- McCall MK (2016) Beyond “landscape” in REDD + : the imperative level actors shaping forest governance and REDD + arrange- for “territory”. World Dev 85:58–72 ments in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ Manage (this issue) McShane T, Wells M (eds) (2004) Getting biodiversity projects to Ros-Tonen MAF, Wiersum KF (2005) The scope for improving rural work: towards more effective conservation and development. livelihoods through non-timber forest products: an evolving Columbia University Press, New York research agenda. For Trees Livelihoods 15(2):129–148 Meinig DW (1979) The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene. Ros-Tonen MAF, van Andel T, Morsello C, Otsuki K, Rosendo S, In: Meinig DW, Brinckerhoff Jackson J (eds) The interpretation Scholz I (2008) Forest-related partnerships in Brazilian Amazo- of ordinary landscapes: geographical essays. Oxford University nia: there is more to sustainable forest management than reduced Press, New York, p 33–47 impact logging. For Ecol Manag 256:1482–1497 Milder JC, Hart AK, Dobie P, Minai J, Zaleski C (2014) Integrated Ros-Tonen MAF, Derkyi M, Insaidoo TF (2014) From co- landscape initiatives for African agriculture, development, and management to landscape governance: whither Ghana’s mod- conservation: a region-wide assessment. World Dev 54:68–80 ified taungya system? Forests 5(12):2996–3021 Minang, PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman, OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Ros-Tonen M, Van Leynseele YPB, Laven A, Sunderland T (2015a) Catacutan D (eds) (2015) Climate-smart landscapes: Landscapes of social inclusion: inclusive value-chain 14 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 collaboration through the lenses of food sovereignty and land- van Oosten C, Gunarso P, Koesoetjahjo I, Wiersum F (2014) Gov- scape governance. Eur J Dev Res 27(4):523–540 erning forest landscape restoration: cases from Indonesia. Forests Ros-Tonen M, Pouw N, Bavinck M (2015b) Governing beyond cities: 5:1143–1162 the urban-rural interface. In: Gupta J, Pfeffer K, Verrest H, Ros- van Oosten C, Moeliono M, Wiersum F (2018) From product to place Tonen M (eds) Geographies of urban governance. Springer —spatializing governance in a commodified landscape. Environ International Publishing, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, Manage (this issue) London, p 85–105 Visseren-Hamakers IJ (2015) Integrative environmental governance: Sayer J, Bullb G, Elliott C (2008) Mediating forest transitions: ‘grand enhancing governance in the era of synergies. Curr Opin Env Sust design’ or ‘muddling through’. Conserv Soc 6(4):320–327 14:136–143 Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, van Wambugu SW, Chomba SW, Atela J (2015) Institutional arrange- Oosten C (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to ments for climate-smart landscapes. In: Minang PA, van reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8349–8356 (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 257–273 Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2015) Landscape approaches; what are Warner JF (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10:345–355 platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Res Sayer J, Endamana D, Boedhihartono AK, Ruiz-Perez M, Breuer T Devel Man 22(1):15–35 (2016) Learning from change in the Sangha Tri-national land- Weatherley-Singh J, Gupta A (2017) An ecological landscape scape. Int Rev 18(S1):130–139 approach to REDD + in Madagascar: promise and limitations? Scherr SJ, Shames S, Friedman R (2012) From climate-smart agri- For Policy Econ 85:1–9 culture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric Food Secur 1(1):1–12 Wood A, Bekele Haile (2009) NTFP-PFM Research and Development Scherr S, Shames SA, Friedman R (2013) Defining integrated land- Project South-West Ethiopia. Forest landscape sustainability and scape management for policy makers. Ecoagriculture Policy improved livelihoods through non-timber forest product devel- Focus. No. 10 Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington DC. https:// opment and payment for environmental services. Progress report ecoagriculture.org/publication/defining-integrated-landscape-ma 2008–2009. http://wetlands.hud.ac.uk/forests/ntfp_pfm/links/ nagement-for-policy-makers/. Accessed Jan 2018 NTFP-PFM_Annual_Report_Year_2.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2018 Sunderland TCH, Ehringhaus C, Campbell BM (2008) Conservation World Bank Group (2016) Investing in landscapes for integrated, and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the inclusive, and climate-resilient development. http://pubdocs. trade-offs? Environ Conserv 34:276–279 worldbank.org/en/666921449003548382/Investing-in-Landsca Sunderland TCH, Sayer J, Hoang M-H (eds) (2013) Evidence-based pes-Brief-World-Bank-ENR-GP-2016.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov conservation: lessons from the lower Mekong. CIFOR, Bogor, 2016 Indonesia Wunder S (2001) Poverty alleviation and tropical forests—what scope Torfing J, Peters BG, Pierre J, Sørensen E (2012) Interactive gov- for synergies? World Dev 29:1817–1833 ernance: advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press, New WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2002). The landscape approach. York Position Paper. http://wwf.panda.org/?12953/Position-Paper-The- van Dijk H, Bose P (2016) Dryland landscapes: forest management, Landscape-Approach. Accessed 19 Dec 2017 gender and social diversity in Asia and Africa. In: van Dijk H, Zanzanaini C, Trần BT, Singh C, Hart A, Milder J, DeClerck F (2017) Bose P (eds) Dryland forests. Springer, Cham Heidelberg, New Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and York, Dordrecht, London, p 3–21 ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from van Oosten C (2013) Restoring landscapes—governing place: a South and Southeast Asia. Landsc Urban Plan 165:11–21 learning approach to forest landscape restoration. J Sustain For 32 (7):659–676 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Environmental Management Springer Journals

From Synergy to Complexity: The Trend Toward Integrated Value Chain and Landscape Governance

Free
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/from-synergy-to-complexity-the-trend-toward-integrated-value-chain-and-9Bw6JZjhAk
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Environment; Environmental Management; Ecology; Nature Conservation; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution; Forestry Management; Waste Water Technology / Water Pollution Control / Water Management / Aquatic Pollution
ISSN
0364-152X
eISSN
1432-1009
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This Editorial introduces a special issue that illustrates a trend toward integrated landscape approaches. Whereas two papers echo older “win–win” strategies based on the trade of non-timber forest products, ten papers reflect a shift from a product to landscape perspective. However, they differ from integrated landscape approaches in that they emanate from sectorial approaches driven primarily by aims such as forest restoration, sustainable commodity sourcing, natural resource management, or carbon emission reduction. The potential of such initiatives for integrated landscape governance and achieving landscape-level outcomes has hitherto been largely unaddressed in the literature on integrated landscape approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, with a focus on actor constellations and institutional arrangements emerging in the transition from sectorial to integrated approaches. This editorial discusses the trends arising from the papers, including the need for a commonly shared concern and sense of urgency; inclusive stakeholder engagement; accommodating and coordinating polycentric governance in landscapes beset with institutional fragmentation and jurisdictional mismatches; alignment with locally embedded initiatives and governance structures; and a framework to assess and monitor the performance of integrated multi-stakeholder approaches. We conclude that, despite a growing tendency toward integrated approaches at the landscape level, inherent landscape complexity renders persistent and significant challenges such as balancing multiple objectives, equitable inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, dealing with power and gender asymmetries, adaptive management based on participatory outcome monitoring, and moving beyond existing administrative, jurisdictional, and sectorial silos. Multi-stakeholder platforms and bridging organizations and individuals are seen as key in overcoming such challenges. ● ● ● ● Keywords Integrated landscape approaches Integrated landscape-level initiatives Landscape governance Institutions Multi-stakeholder platforms Bridging actors Introduction Integrated landscape approaches (ILAs) or initiatives (ILIs) have been promoted by a broad range of international Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0) contains supplementary conservation and development organizations as a govern- material, which is available to authorized users. ance approach to reconcile local-global challenges such as * Mirjam A. F. Ros-Tonen m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl We take ILAs and ILIs as being synonymous and use ILAs in the rest of this paper. 1 2 Department of Geography, Planning and International Including, among others, the Centre of International Forestry Development Studies and Centre for Sustainable Development Research, CIFOR (Frost et al. 2006; Sunderland et al. 2008; Reed et al. Studies, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15629, 1001 NC 2016, 2017), EcoAgrculture Partners (Scherr et al. 2013; Kozar et al. Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2014), the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF.org), the Food and Agri- culture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2016), ICRAF, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Jalan CIFOR, World Agroforestry Centre (Minang et al. 2015), the International Situ Gede, 16115 Bogor, West Java, Indonesia Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Brown et al. 2005), University of British Columbia (UBC) and Center for International Tropenbos International (Kusters et al. 2016), the World Bank (World Forestry Research (CIFOR), Forest Sciences Centre 2424 Main Bank Group 2016), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada 2002). 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: 2 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 Table 1 Overview of integrated landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs) biodiversity loss, climate change, food insecurity, and analyzed in this issue poverty at the landscape level (Harvey et al. 2008; Scherr Integrated landscape-level initiatives emanating from sectorial et al. 2012; Harvey et al. 2014; Kozar et al. 2014; Padoch approaches and Sunderland 2014; Reed et al. 2015, 2016). ILAs represent the most recent attempt to reconcile conservation Forest and landscape restoration and development objectives, following on from Integrated 1. Integrated forest and water management, Sweden (Eriksson et al. Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in the 2018) 1980s and strategies embarking on non-timber forest pro- 2. Forest restoration, China (Long et al. 2018) duct (NTFP) trade in the 1990s (Reed et al. 2017). In 3. Reforestation through co-management (MTS), Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) contrast with the earlier approaches, ILAs recognize that such problems cannot be addressed in isolation and that, at Natural resource management schemes the landscape level, tackling one problem invariably 4. Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Dale et al. 2018) involves trade-offs with another (Sunderland et al. 2008). 5. Community resource management (CREMA), Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) ILAs therefore call for solutions based on a common con- 6. Chantier d’Aménagment Forestier (CAF), Burkina Faso (Foli cern entry point and change logic negotiated in multi- et al. 2018) stakeholder settings, characterized by multifunctionality, Climate change mitigation multiple scales, flexibility, adaptive management and 7. REDD+, Peru (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018) continual learning (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 8. REDD+, Cameroon (Brown 2018) 2014; Freeman et al. 2015; Sayer et al. 2015). Imple- Sustainable value chain governance mentation in practice results in new actor constellations, and 9. Value chain governance for environmental services, The hybrid and polycentric institutional arrangements involving Netherlands (Ingram et al. 2018) multiple centers of decision-making (Nagendra and Ostrom 10. Value chain collaboration, Ghana (Deans et al. 2018) 2012) that challenge existing sectorial, administrative and 11. Oil palm public–private partnership, Indonesia (van Oosten et al. jurisdictional boundaries (van Oosten 2013; Ros-Tonen 2018) et al. 2015a; Visseren-Hamakers 2015). This requires a The papers by Lowore et al. (2018) and Ndeinoma et al. (2018) are more nuanced understanding of the diversity of governance excluded from this overview as they deal with “win–win” strategies arrangements within complex landscapes, and the ability to based on the trade of non-timber forest products, without targeting the better align actor aspirations and needs across multiple landscape level. Kusters et al. (2018) is excluded from this table as the levels in landscape governance. We thereby distinguish paper refers to a method designed for integrated landscape approaches from the beginning landscape governance from landscape approaches, using the latter as a general denominator for processes, tools, and MTS modified taungya system, CREMA community resource manage- ment area, CAF Chantier d’Aménagement Forestier, REDD+ reducing concepts for allocating and managing land within a land- emissions from deforestation and forest degradation scape of competing land uses (Sayer et al. 2013, p. 8349) and “landscape governance” to denote the more general process of steering human–nature interactions in a bounded et al. 2014; Kusters et al. 2018, this issue). Most cases geographical space (c.f. Görg 2007; van Oosten et al. 2014; analyzed in this special issue concern the latter: such Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; van Oosten et al. 2018; Rodríguez- initiatives qualify as integrated approaches for tackling Ward et al. 2018). multiple aims in multifunctional landscapes with multi- There is a great variety in how landscape approaches are stakeholder involvement, but emanate from sectorial conceptualized and labeled (Pfund 2010; Reed et al. 2016; approaches that are driven by an underlying primary aim Sayer et al. 2013; Scherr et al. 2013; Erbaugh and Agrawal such as forest and landscape restoration (Eriksson et al. 2017). A recent distinction has been made between ILAs as 2018; Foli et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018, this issue); sus- cross-sectorial landscape approaches that make a deliberate tainable natural resource management (Dale et al. 2018;Foli effort to “achieve multiple functional goals through col- et al. 2018, this issue); carbon emission reduction (Brown lective action and integrated governance”, and integrated 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018, this issue); or sustain- landscape-scale initiatives that tend to focus on a primary able sourcing of commodities (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram goal around a defined social, ecological, or political et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue; Table 1). boundary (Zanzanaini et al. 2017, p. 12; see also Kozar Consistent with the distinction between scale and level (footnote 3), we refer to such initiatives as integrated Scales are understood as the spatial, temporal, jurisdictional or landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs). However, little is known institutional dimensions of a phenomenon under study; levels to dif- about the potential of such initiatives to contribute to inte- ferent positions on a scale (Gibson et al. 2000; Cash et al. 2006). In grated landscape governance, for which they were not this conceptualization, a landscape is a level on a spatial or geo- graphical scale (Cash et al. 2006). designed in the first place. This is the first knowledge gap Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 3 that this special issue addresses. Second, most integrated commonly shared concern and sense of urgency; multi- approaches are still largely experimental, and their institu- stakeholder platforms, bridging organizations, and “multi- tional arrangements and overall effectiveness remain rela- level hybrids” (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018; Brown 2018, tively under-researched (Reed et al. 2017). This makes this issue); private sector engagement; dealing with con- research into the nature and inclusiveness of institutional flicting interests and power imbalances; accommodating arrangements that govern integrated approaches opportune. and coordinating polycentric governance in landscapes Third, the scientific literature has hitherto focused mainly on beset with institutional fragmentation and jurisdictional the design principles and frameworks of ILAs (Sayer et al. mismatches; alignment with locally embedded initiatives 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Freeman et al. 2015; Bürgi and governance structures; and a framework to assess and et al. 2017) and the documentation of case studies (Estrada- monitor performance of integrated multi-stakeholder Carmona et al. 2014; Milder et al. 2014; Minang et al. 2015; approaches. The papers herein collectively conclude that NAS 2016; García Martín et al. 2016; Zanzanaini et al. there is a growing tendency toward integrated approaches 2017). Much less is known about how ILAs should be and creating synergies at landscape level, but that “mud- operationalized over the longer term and how landscape- dling through” (Lindblom 1959; Sayer et al. 2008; Colfer level governance can be aligned with existing institutional et al. 2011) is a fundamental characteristic of such initia- frameworks. This special issue attempts to address these tives due to the inherent dynamism of landscapes and the gaps, with a focus on institutional arrangements and actor actors and activities associated with them (Sayer et al. constellations emerging in the transition from sectorial to 2016). integrated approaches. On the basis of empirical case stu- dies carried out mostly in forested and tree-dominated From “Win–Wins” to “Winning More and Losing landscapes, the papers shed light on how sectorial policies Less” are being redesigned toward more integrated approaches; sometimes as a reverberation of the earlier NTFP debate Integrated landscape approaches represent the latest in a (Lowore et al. 2018 and Ndeidoma et al. 2018, this issue), series of attempts to reconcile issues affecting society and but mostly as new integrated approaches targeting the environment at multiple scales. Previous attempts, like landscape level. The studies examine how the tendency promoting the trade in NTFPs, were based on the notion of toward such approaches creates synergies with, or chal- delivering “win–win” outcomes, i.e., both positive social lenges existing jurisdictions in, for instance, integrated and environmental impacts. Despite this intention to forest and water management, natural resource management reconcile multiple aims (livelihood improvement and nature schemes, climate change mitigation, and sustainable value conservation), the strategy was based on a sectorial focus on chain governance. In doing so, this volume explores whe- one or a few NTFPs, hardly considering trade-offs with ther and how existing institutions within the landscape can other land uses, activities, or actor interests (Ros-Tonen and be merged into new governance configurations for greater Wiersum 2005; Sunderland et al. 2008). This is reflected in synergy in achieving landscape-level outcomes. As such, the article on forest honey in Cameroon by Lowore et al. this collection of papers contributes to topical, and some- (2018, this issue), which we included in this special issue to time contentious, debates on landscape governance, inte- illustrate how thinking about integrated objectives has grated natural resource management, and value chain evolved from a product to landscape focus. Although governance. representative for the rather naive belief in “win–wins” Building upon recent literature on ILAs and drawing through NTFP trade, the authors note the importance of from the contributions to this volume, this editorial first partnerships to achieve objectives to scale and of taking past provides an overview of ILAs and how they differ from and present land uses into account. earlier approaches such as ICDPs and NTFP strategies that The need to ensure and coordinate broad stakeholder aimed to reconcile multiple aims. After this initial focus on involvement as well as learning processes to achieve such ILAs, we move to ILLIs in areas such as forest and land- “win–win” outcomes is addressed in the paper on NTFP scape restoration (Eriksson et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; governance in Namibia (Ndeinoma et al. 2018, this issue). Foli et al. 2018, this issue); natural resource management Using a policy network analysis, the authors identify the (Dale et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018, this issue); climate Indigenous Plant Task Team (IPTT) as a key actor in the change mitigation (Brown 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. governance of what in Namibia is labeled as “Indigenous 2018, this issue); and value chain governance (Deans et al. Natural Products”. The IPTT was established as a multi- 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue) stakeholder forum to mobilize actors, funds, and knowl- that can potentially be aligned with ILAs. Considering the edge, as well as to design policies and coordinate the significant institutional challenges of operating beyond development of products and markets. It eventually turned sectors, we thereby, respectively, address the need for a into an organization in which the interests of government 4 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 actors and consultants prevailed, and in which traders, merely be the latest conservation and development fad small-scale enterprises, harvesters, and community-based (Redford et al. 2013; Lund et al. 2017), a re-branding of organizations are hardly, if at all, involved. Despite its previous efforts (Redford et al. 2013; Reed et al. 2017; policy influence, this has resulted in a neglect of local-level Bastos Lima et al. 2017)ora “new management ethic” interests in policy formulation and implementation. It also (Erbaugh and Agrawal 2017). This is related to a number of illustrates the difficulty of achieving inclusive governance challenges that prevent ILAs from moving beyond their structures in “win–win” strategies and landscape approa- obvious theoretical potential. First, ILAs face challenges in ches more broadly. the operationalization of the approach on the ground However, what these NTFP strategies (and, earlier, (Freeman et al. 2015; Bürgi et al. 2017). These challenges ICDPs) are particularly lacking is the recognition that not all often relate to the scale at which implementation and stakeholders will “win” all of the time (Sunderland et al. maintenance of an ILA take place—both of a spatial and 2013). Therefore, landscape approaches—in theory at least temporal nature. Second, it has been recognized that land- —recognize the inherent dynamism of landscapes and are scapes do not coincide with either jurisdictional boundaries built on the premise of the need for overall facilitation of (Kozar et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Arts et al. 2017) stakeholder negotiation, trade-off analysis, and processes of or territorial boundaries (McCall 2016) and may therefore adaptive management to ensure that stakeholders are face administrative impediments to implementation. Third, “winning more and losing less” (Sayer et al. 2013). Through ILAs have been criticized for downplaying power imbal- independently facilitated platforms that acknowledge the ances (Lebel and Daniel 2009; Clay 2016; Arts et al. 2017) diversity of stakeholder needs, objectives, and power posi- and considering landscapes as depoliticized spaces (Müller tions, potential synergies and trade-offs can be identified in et al. 2015). Fourth, ILAs face challenges to monitor and order to develop a shared vision for the management of a evaluate impact due to their nature as a long-term process wider landscape. With regular and ongoing negotiation, and the need to account for trade-offs (Sunderland et al. processes of adaptive management can be implemented and 2008; Lebel and Daniel 2009; Sayer et al. 2015; Sayer et al. continually reflected upon to enhance synergies and seek 2016). Fifth, due to their ambitions, ILAs require con- alternative implementation strategies where major trade-offs siderable funds and time investments to involve all stake- occur (Sunderland et al. 2008; Sayer et al. 2015). holders (Reed et al. 2016; Bürgi et al. 2017). In this special There is a growing body of work that provides evidence issue we therefore look at the potential to address these of uptake of ILAs. One of these is a global review under- issues through landscape-level initiatives that were initially taken by EcoAgriculture Partners and collaborators—pri- designed as sectorial approaches, but which are moving marily based on grass-roots perspectives and using toward increasing integration of objectives and stakeholder standardized questionnaire methods—in Latin America involvement to achieve sustainable multifunctional (Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014), Africa (Milder et al. 2014), landscapes. Europe (García Martín et al. 2016), and Asia (Zanzanaini et al. 2017). This review showed that local stakeholders The Basis of Integrated Approaches: Shared reported successful integrated conservation and develop- Concerns and Sense of Urgency ment outcomes consistently across the three continents. A review of peer-reviewed evidence provides further— An integrated approach begins with a “common concern although limited—support for the effectiveness of ILAs in entry point” (Sayer et al. 2013)or “value proposition” practice (Reed et al. 2017). Finally, the abundant body of (Sayer et al. 2015). As with any multi-stakeholder approach, literature detailing the assumed characteristics of ILAs actors are likely to join the process only if there is a com- (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Minang et al. monly felt problem and sense of urgency to act upon it. As 2015; Freeman et al. 2015; Reed et al. 2017) demonstrates a regional overviews of ILAs have demonstrated, over 70% real distinction between ILAs and previous attempts at of landscape initiatives are primarily driven by conservation integration in moving from a primary focus on biodiversity and restoration motives, but also that an increasing pro- conservation and local development alone (McShane and portion is situated in multifunctional landscapes where they Wells 2004) to broader land-use issues. seek to balance production with conservation and sustain- While there has been increasing support for ILAs, the ability aims (Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014; Milder et al. approach has also been questioned for its utility and via- 2014; García-Martín et al. 2016; Sayer et al. 2016; Zanza- bility, notably compared to territorial approaches toward naini et al. 2017). As outlined in the introduction, the latter indigenous and local community management of natural also applies to the case studies brought together in this issue resources (McCall 2016). Recent discourse has also sug- with resource depletion, deforestation, and environmental gested that the uptake of landscape approaches in practice is degradation being the primary drivers of landscape-level slow, at best (Reed et al. 2017) and that the approach may initiatives, and livelihood concerns and water management Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 5 Table 2 Shared concerns in the cases of this special issue Case study Primary concern Secondary concerns African forest honey, Ethiopia (Lowore et al. 2018) Livelihood improvement; trade development Forest conservation Non-timber forest products (NTFPs), Namibia (Ndeinoma Improve production and marketing of NTFPs; enhance Livelihood improvement et al. 2018) coordination (resource mobilization and knowledge exchange) among actors Integrated forest and water management, Sweden (Eriksson Forest restoration and sustainable forest management Water management, preserving environmental and social values, et al. 2018) climate change mitigation and adaptation Ecological Forest Purchase Program, China (Long et al. Forest landscape restoration and safeguarding the provision of Improving rural livelihoods through compensatory payments 2018) environmental services Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Dale et al. 2018) Various depending on the governance subdomain (ecological Water quality (but sense of urgency missing and hence mostly health of water flows, natural resource management, land-use neglected at catchment landscape level) planning, farm productivity, indigenous management) Reforestation through co-management (MTS), Ghana (Foli Future timber supply; forest restoration Livelihood improvement through interplanting food crops and et al. 2018) sharing in timber benefits Community resource management (CREMA) and Chantier Natural resource management Livelihood improvement d’Aménagment Forestier (CAF), Burkina Faso, Ghana (Foli et al. 2018) REDD+, Peru (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018) Reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest Biodiversity conservation, land-use planning to reconcile degradation/climate change mitigation competing land uses (e.g., mining, farming, Brazil nut extraction) REDD+, Cameroon (Brown 2018) Climate change mitigation Forest conservation, livelihood improvement Value chain governance for environmental services, the Sustainable sourcing of several commodities Conservation of environmental services Netherlands (Ingram et al. 2018) Value chain collaboration, Ghana (Deans et al. 2018) Sustainable sourcing of cocoa—water and biodiversity Livelihood improvement through input provision and training, conservation, pollution control, waste management, preventing increasing climate resilience supplier failure Multifunctional oil palm concession, Indonesia (van Oosten Sustainable sourcing of palm oil—protection of riparian zones Increasing the inclusiveness of the company’s production model et al. 2018) and high conservation value forests; meeting Zero through a collaborative landscape design that integrates Deforestation pledges smallholder land uses (e.g., rubber agro-forests, cultural–spiritual sites). Multi-stakeholder platforms, Ghana and Indonesia (Kusters Explore options for landscape-level multi-stakeholder — et al. 2018) processes and outcomes The Zero Deforestation movement emanated from the non-binding New York Declaration on Forests (2014) and comprises a private sector commitment to eliminate deforestation from agricultural commodities (http://forestdeclaration.org/, accessed 3 January 2018) 6 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 often being the secondary concerns (Table 2). As the paper illustrated in the paper by Ndeinoma et al. (2018). Examples by Dale et al. (2018, this issue) illustrates, the lack of a include identifying an appropriate location such that all sense of urgency (in this case of ensuring water quality) concerned stakeholders have the capacity to attend; ensur- impedes an integrated approach at the catchment landscape ing that opportunities to engage in such platforms are level. Similarly, the Ghana pilot described in Kusters et al. equitable; providing independent facilitation to build trust (2018, this issue) revealed that follow-up on a workshop among attendees; enhancing transparency via monitoring of that brought stakeholders together to discuss collaboration the efficiency of the platform and dissemination of results at the landscape level remained “in the air” because of the and progress; and embracing, rather than avoiding, issues lack of a commonly felt sense of urgency around a parti- that may be anticipated to lead to social or environmental cular issue. Contrastingly, general awareness of the need to conflicts (Kusters et al. 2018; see also Sayer et al. 2015; combine forest restoration with water resource management Bürgi et al. 2017). was at the basis of landscape-level initiatives in Sweden Actors capable of bridging different sectors and levels (Eriksson et al. 2018, this issue). play an important role in initiating and maintaining such platforms. Such actors function as bridging organizations and can be a research organization, NGO, “ecomuseum” Actor Constellations (Hahn et al. 2006) or an agro-ecological partnership (Prager 2015). They mobilize actors, funds, and political support; The Importance of Multi-stakeholder Platforms, broker information and different knowledges; build trust Bridging Organizations and “Multilevel Hybrids” and social capital; mediate conflicts; network and commu- nicate across scales; facilitate linkages between different Evidence in this special issue suggests that hybrid, multi- actors; and create platforms for collective learning (Folke level governance arrangements that marry top-down et al. 2005; Cash et al. 2006; Hahn et al. 2006; Berkes 2009; authoritarian processes with more bottom-up democratic Leys and Vanclay 2011; Rathwell and Peterson 2012; structures may be optimal for continued engagement in, and Crona and Parker 2012; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen effectiveness of, ILAs and ILLIs (Long et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2015b; Prager 2015). Examples from the papers in this et al. 2018; Rodriguez-Ward et al. 2018). How such gov- issue include the Stockholm Water Institute that mobilized ernance arrangements are operationalized will be both stakeholders for integrated forest and water management dependent upon—and influenced by—local context and (Eriksson et al. 2018); the State-led Yong’an Volunteer existing social arrangements, depending on the place-based Association for Promoting Ecological Civilization that interactions between natural conditions and the political mobilized funds and actors to implement a forest landscape economy (van Oosten et al. 2018); whether more or less restoration program in a municipality in China (Long et al. formalized governance systems are in place (Dale et al. 2018); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which 2018; Long et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018); previous experi- mobilized actors and funds to implement REDD+ in ences with collaboration, positive or negative (conflicts, Cameroon (Brown 2018); and the NGOs (Tropenbos mistrust; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018); the degree to which International and EcoAgriculture Partners) that piloted the the private sector or bridging organizations such as NGOs platform methodology in Ghana and Indonesia (Kusters or research organizations play a role (Deans et al. 2018; et al. 2018). The Indigenous Plant Task Team in Namibia Ingram et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. was established to perform such a role for the country’s 2018); and the financial capacity of the organizations NTFP sector (Ndeinoma et al. 2018). Rodríguez-Ward et al. involved (Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Brown 2018, this issue). (2018) point to a particular bridging actor, to which they Theoretically, such an arrangement should feature a refer as “multilevel hybrids”: individuals who navigate platform that provides an enabling environment for local across levels and sectors and act as binding factors between actors and broader stakeholders with an interest in the those. In the REDD+ case in Cameroon, the WWF was landscape to regularly—or at least intermittently—negotiate identified as such a hybrid (Brown, 2018). objectives and exchange desired outcomes (Kusters et al. Proponents of ILAs recommend that implementation 2018). In practice, maintaining such a platform is often should focus on establishing a multi-stakeholder platform fraught with difficulty and identifying leverage points to from the outset (Sayer et al. 2013; Denier et al. 2015; Reed best overcome challenges will be fundamental to maintain et al. 2016). By bringing together those with a vested long-term engagement from a diverse group of stake- interest in the landscape of interest, individual and collec- holders. Such leverage points may be initially under- tive needs, objectives and trade-offs can be identified and estimated, but overlooking them could disproportionately management be applied accordingly. In theory, this should affect the efficiency of adaptive governance processes and help to dissolve power asymmetries and ensure that local perpetuate marginalization of local stakeholders, as and marginalized groups can express what it is they hope Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 7 for, rather than what it is they are willing to accept. In often to increase the wellbeing of producers, particularly practical terms, it has to be questioned how realistic such a where youth needs to be attracted to replace an ageing scenario is likely to be. Recent experience of ILAs being farmer population such as in Ghana’s cocoa sector (Deans implemented suggests that more often the case is that an et al. 2018). implementing organization enters with a pre-conceived set As made clear in this special issue, private sector- of criteria that they wish to fulfill (Clay 2016; Weatherley- initiated ILLIs require new actor configurations and insti- Singh and Gupta 2017). This, however, need not diminish tutional arrangements (van Oosten et al. 2018) that go the potential use, and value, of ILA principles—even when “beyond the farm” (Deans et al. 2018), “beyond the chain” objectives are pre-defined, the efficacy of the intervention (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Deans et al. 2018), and “beyond will likely be heightened with regular stakeholder negotia- certification” (Ingram et al. 2018). This would entail greater tion that seeks to enhance local capacity and increase synergies between the agricultural, forestry, and environ- landscape multifunctionality and resilience. mental sectors (in terms of policies, laws, and actors); between public and private governance (e.g., by combining The Role of the Private Sector procurement policies with certification); and between gov- ernance levels (global to local). Public–private partnerships Earlier reviews of mainly conservation-induced ILAs and landscape-level certification are avenues to achieving revealed limited participation of the private sector, with such synergies (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; van averages between 10 and 14% (N = 87) for Africa and 22% Oosten et al. 2018). (local agribusinesses) and 7% (foreign agribusinesses; N = Where such alliances can be created and value chain and 104) for Latin America and the Caribbean (Milder et al. landscape governance can be linked (Ingram et al. 2018), 2014; Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014; Hart et al. 2015). The there is a great potential for implementing landscape picture is definitively different for the ILLIs reported in this approaches at the producer end of value chains (see also special issue, with the private sector participating in almost section on locally embedded entry points). This implies a all (95.8%) of the 24 cases and taking the lead in 41.7% of potentially important and even key role for the private them. Companies’ main motivations to engage in ILLIs are sector in the implementation of landscape approaches related to sustainable sourcing: to prevent supply failure in (Sayer et al. 2015; see also Wambugu et al. 2015; Kissinger the future, reduce the ecological impact in sourcing areas, et al. 2015; Gyau et al. 2015) and in increasing the eco- and/or to satisfy consumers’ and NGO demands for sus- nomic sustainability of such initiatives (Deans et al. 2018). tainably sourced products and benefit from price premiums Some scholars, however, question the inclusiveness of pri- on markets for certified products (Deans et al. 2018; van vate sector-led arrangements and the equitability of risk and Oosten et al. 2018; Ingram et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2018). benefit sharing, and point at risks such as a narrow com- These reasons resonate with those mentioned by Arts et al. modity focus, privatization of natural resources, green- (2017) regarding the attractiveness of landscape approaches washing, and outcompeting small producers (Namirembe for the private sector, to which they add the opportunity for and Bernard 2015; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015a; Arts et al. innovations by promoting improved farming methods and 2017). This brings us to the broader challenge of dealing increased product quality. Such innovations can also be with power imbalances in multi-stakeholder processes. found in this special issue. One is the multifunctional oil palm concession in Indonesia, which combines commodity The Challenge of Dealing with Power Imbalances production with the protection of riparian zones, high conservation forests, and —important for local communities Landscapes with non-administrative boundaries might —multifunctional rubber gardens and cultural–spiritual sites poorly reflect the rights and requirements of local actors. (van Oosten et al. 2018). Another is the inclusion of pay- However, thinking beyond jurisdictional boundaries (see ments for environmental services (PES) schemes in the next section) and the dichotomy of top-down vs. bottom-up cocoa trade (Ingram et al. 2018). A secondary motivation is governance will likely be necessary to better account for the multiple conflicting processes occurring across tropical developing landscapes. ILAs need not be considered a The cases reported by Lowore et al. and Ndeinoma et al. (2018) are departure from community-based conservation (Berkes excluded from this count as they have a sectorial focus; the case 2009) or rights-based development approaches (Johnson reported by Kusters et al. was excluded because it concerns a pilot to test a methodology for an ILA. and Forsyth 2002; Campese et al. 2009; Reed et al. 2017; Of the 24 ILLIs, 8 were initiated by the private sector and 2 through Erbaugh and Agrawal 2017). Indeed, the key principles of a public–private partnership. Ten of the remaining cases were initiated ILAs as defined by Sayer et al. (2013) are clear recognition by the public sector and 4 by a civil society organization with or of rights and responsibilities and common concern entry without a university or knowledge institution. See supplementary material 1. points. An ILA attempts to incorporate these values within 8 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 broader landscape processes, identify pressures and feed- weaker parties (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002; Ros-Tonen back mechanisms, account for inevitable trade-offs, and et al. 2008; Dale et al. 2018). These may be NGOs or internalize potential externalities. However, ILLIs such as political alliances, but also the active involvement of the those reviewed in this special issue were not primarily State, including at subnational levels, is crucial in this designed as ILAs and may therefore pose challenges to respect (Wambugu et al. 2015; Kissinger et al. 2015; dealing with power imbalances and giving a voice to mar- Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). ginalized people, as do the “win–win” strategies in Nami- bia’s NTFP sector (Ndeinoma et al. 2018). The paper by Institutional Synergies and Jurisdictional Rodríguez-Ward et al. (2018) illustrates this well, demon- Mismatches: The Need for Accommodating and strating that particular land-user associations (farmers and Coordinating Polycentric Governance miners) were largely excluded from the REDD+ process in Madre de Dios, Peru. Similarly, Deans et al. (2018), within Implementing landscape-level initiatives must confront the a context of value chain collaboration for certified cocoa challenge of institutional and jurisdictional fragmentation production in Ghana, note that the company invested con- and institutional rigidity, whereby in particular public actors siderably in the relationship with farmers, but that there was adhere to their sectorial silos and jurisdictional powers (van limited space for farmers to negotiate their interests further Oosten et al. 2013; van Oosten et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; down the value chain. In China, space was given to citizen Rodríguez-Ward 2018, this issue). This mismatch between participation in forest landscape restoration, but local citi- landscapes and existing administrative jurisdictions implies zens were marginalized from decision-making and mon- the necessity of dealing with multiple centers of decision- itoring (Long et al. 2018). The issue of adequate and making that operate at different scale levels (Dale et al. equitable stakeholder representation and voice is not typical 2018). “Polycentric governance” has been proposed to for landscape-level initiatives, but inherent in any multi- cover such different, but partly overlapping units of stakeholder initiative in situations marked by power decision-making with their own jurisdictions, rules of imbalances and unequal access to natural resources. access and use, monitoring and sanction systems, and Evidence from the conservation literature has shown that conflict resolution mechanisms (Ostrom 1999, 2010). strictly bottom-up approaches can produce perverse out- Polycentric governance differs from the notion of multilevel comes (Carpentier et al. 1999; Wunder 2001; Brown 2002), governance that assumes a hierarchical order between dif- whereas local stakeholders may lack the necessary skills to ferent governance units (Ros-Tonen et al. 2014). effectively negotiate and compromise in multi-stakeholder Several cases reported in this special issue illustrate such dialogs (Hemmati 2002; Reed et al. 2015). Meanwhile, tendency toward polycentrism in ILLIs. In Ghana, this interventions that are constrained by jurisdictional bound- encompasses a combination of statutory and customary aries may represent an opportunity to better influence local institutions in the implementation of natural resource policy formulation (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018; van Oos- schemes (Foli et al. 2018). In China, state-controlled forest ten et al. 2018), but are also be subject to leakage effects in landscape restoration is gradually being transformed toward neighboring jurisdictions (Atmadja and Verchot 2012; polycentric governance involving the engagement of the Carrasco et al. 2017). Similarly, commodity supply chains private sector and—be it still to a limited extent—civic typically operate across jurisdictional and national bound- actors as well as the incorporation of market-based policy aries, but are often of a hierarchical nature, leaving local instruments such as PES (Long et al. 2018, this issue). stakeholders vulnerable to inadequate representation in Polycentric governance allows for flexibility, but also negotiation processes and making regulation and trace- creates a coordination dilemma where one jurisdiction ability particularly challenging (Ndeinoma et al. 2018; generates positive or negative externalities for other jur- Deans et al. 2018). Multi-stakeholder dialog platforms have isdictions (Hooghe and Marks 2003). The paper by Dale been suggested as a solution to create space for negotiation et al. (2018) illustrates this well: in the Great Barrier Reef, and knowledge exchange (Cullen et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen landscape-level water-quality outcomes will not be auto- et al. 2015a; Ndeinoma et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018), but matically achieved based on the cumulative effect of frag- evidence from the water sector has shown that little power mented governance subdomains that focus on different sharing (notably vertical inclusion) takes place in such management problems (e.g., water allocation, land-use platforms, while some actors may strategically withhold planning, indigenous management, farm-scale planning, or knowledge (Warner 2006). Similar experiences were urban water management). The authors argue that a gov- observed in the platforms piloted in Ghana and Indonesia by ernance system analysis of how these subdomains perform Kusters et al. (2018). As with all multisectorial partnerships against pre-defined design and evaluation principles for and multi-stakeholder processes this requires third-party integrated landscape governance may create synergies that brokers as “watchdogs” to defend the interests of the help prevent implementation failures in delivering water Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 9 quality at the catchment level. Similarly, Rodríguez-Ward this issue) in which actors from the forestry and agricultural et al. (2018) point at the need for horizontal (multisectorial sectors take collective action for the first time. and multi-actor) and vertical (multilevel) coordination to Despite these encouraging signs, there are a number of achieve inclusive REDD+ governance at the landscape other conditions that need to be fulfilled for ILLIs to evolve level. Both papers emphasize the role of the State in into integrated landscape approaches. These include, first, creating the conditions for effective steering and coordina- the need to create a sense of urgency of a commonly shared tion. This is a shift away from neoliberal discourses that problem at the landscape level. As several cases have shown emphasize a retreating role of the State and a greater role for (e.g., Dale et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018), there is limited private actors and civil society (Jessop 2002; Bäckstrand potential for collective action at the landscape level when and Lövbrand 2006). However Ndeinoma et al. (2018, this such a sense of urgency is missing. Second, additional issue) note that civil society organizations may perform a partnerships and alliances are needed to cover all jurisdic- similar role where they take on traditional government roles. tions within the landscape, including those of customary authorities (Foli et al. 2018; Deans et al. 2018) and indi- ILLIs as Locally Embedded Entry Points for the genous rights holders (Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). Third, Implementation of Integrated Landscape particular attention is needed to the inclusion of key sta- Approaches keholders which might not be the primary stakeholders in the ILLI and are, therefore, excluded (e.g., the forestry The papers in this special issue evidence the increasing agency and traditional land owners in the case of value recognition that global challenges such as sustainable pro- chain collaboration (Deans et al. 2018) or key land users duction and livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and cli- such as miners and farmers in REDD+ initiatives (Rodrí- mate change mitigation need to be addressed in a holistic guez-Ward, 2018). Attention to gender dynamics is a par- and integrated manner at the landscape level. However, the ticular blind spot, poorly addressed in the papers of this sectorial silos, particularly in the public sector, are not special issue and the literature on landscape approaches in easily broken down (e.g., Dale et al. 2018; Foli et al. 2018; general (van Dijk and Bose 2016; Reed et al. 2016). Fourth, Ingram et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018; ILLIs (and ILAs for that matter) thrive better where prin- Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). Institutional fragmentation ciples of good governance are in place, as shown in the and jurisdictional boundaries are major hindrances to Sweden case (Eriksson et al. 2018) where forest tenure and implementing ILAs, and they hinder clarity about who is to other rules are clear and enforced, and there is ample space steer such an approach or to implement its outcomes (van for citizen participation. Fifth, except in the paper by Oosten et al. 2013; Kusters et al. 2018, this issue). More- Eriksson et al. and van Oosten et al. (2018) we found over, there is a price tag to bringing different actors around limited evidence of attention to cultural ecosystem services the table; transaction costs are high (Sayer et al. 2015, 2016) in ILLIs such as cultural heritage and spiritual values, which and the financial capacity of local actors limited (Brown, are particularly important to local inhabitants. Sixth, some 2018, this issue). In order to prevent donor dependency and ILLIs with considerable potential for landscape governance ensure local buy-in of negotiated landscape solutions, it is require upscaling beyond the local level such as the therefore important to identify locally embedded entry CREMA case in Ghana (Foli et al. 2018). Creating a plat- points for the implementation of ILAs (Deans et al. 2018; form to negotiate and monitor objectives at a landscape Foli et al. 2018, this issue). The ILLIs brought together in level can be a means of doing so (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015a; this volume show mixed potential to function as such (Table Sayer et al. 2016; Foli et al. 2018; Kusters et al. 2018, this 3). They all target multifunctional landscapes and multiple issue). objectives, such as a combination of sustainable production and livelihoods with the preservation of other than provi- A Framework to Assess and Monitor Performance of sioning ecosystem services such as water regulation (Dale Integrated Approaches et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2018; Long et al. 2018, this issue), biodiversity conservation (Deans et al. 2018; Ingram Participatory monitoring of progress and outcomes of et al. 2018; van Oosten et al. 2018, this issue), cultural landscape approaches and landscape-level initiatives is key ecosystem services (van Oosten et al. 2018), and carbon to adaptive management and the capacity to deal with the sequestration (Foli et al. 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018). dynamics inherent in landscapes, but data collection is often They have also brought together actors from multiple sec- costly and time-consuming (Sayer et al. 2013; 2015). tors that typically did not collaborate prior to the initiative. EcoAgriculture Partners (2017) developed a simple scor- This is particularly clear in the Cameroonian and Peruvian ecard to assess the institutional capacity and performance of REDD+ cases (Brown 2018; Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018, actors active in integrated landscape governance, an adapted version of which was applied by Brown (2018, this issue) in 10 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 Table 3 The potential and challenges of integrated landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs) as entry points for integrated landscape approaches a b Type of ILLI Potential Challenges References Integrated forest and water management, Integrated goals (economic, ecological, sociocultural); space for citizen Operationalization of how several objectives can best be balanced in an Eriksson et al. 2018 Sweden and private sector participation; clear rules integrated approach Forest landscape restoration, China Integrated goals (economic, ecological, social); more equitable benefit Non-participation of larger forest owners; limited civil society and Long et al. 2018 sharing; new space for multi-stakeholder collaboration; greater fund- community involvement; separation of land and tree ownership; political raising capacity commitment with change in administration; hierarchical network dominated by the State Great Barrier Reef catchment management, Preventing implementation failure; improved coordination of Institutional fragmentation; holistic catchment planning and coordination of Dale et al. 2018 Australia governance in subdomains for increased water quality at catchment level subdomain governance; community commitment; power differences; and conflicting interests Reforestation through co-management Integration of goals (forest restoration, securing future timber supply, Rigid, state-dominated decision-making structure; a lack of long-term Foli et al. 2018 (MTS), Ghana livelihood improvement, carbon sequestration); multi-stakeholder design economic incentives; broader partnerships dependent on donor funding; non-empowering capacity building; absence of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms Community resource management areas Integrated approach, multi-stakeholder design for negotiation and Limited scale and vertical connectedness; no monitoring and evaluation Foli et al. 2018 (CREMAs), Ghana collaboration; adaptive management; accommodates polycentric mechanisms in place governance; capacity building Chantier d’Aménagement, Burkina Faso Potential for creating landscape-level synergies Limited integration of development and conservation objectives; Foli et al. 2018 hierarchical governance structure; no dedicated platforms for stakeholder negotiation; non-empowering capacity building; no monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place REDD+, Peru Creates new space for multilevel and multi-sector dialog and Exclusion or marginal inclusion of key stakeholders; a lack of trust; Rodríguez-Ward collaboration, notably between forestry, conservation and agriculture conflicting interests; unequal power relations; weak governance structures; et al. 2018 jurisdictional frictions; poor coordination Climate change mitigation, Cameroon REDD+ as entry point for tackling livelihood and conservation Limited institutional (financial and human) capacity; restricted impact on Brown 2018 concerns; WWF as “hybrid” that mobilizes funds and actors livelihoods; short-term project funding Value chain governance for ecosystem Awareness raising of need to preserve ecosystem services; multi- Integration of goals; sectorial focus; inclusiveness of the arrangements; Ingram et al. 2018 services, The Netherlands stakeholder involvement to address landscape-level issues (sourcing adaptive learning approach; balancing state regulation and market areas) governance; dealing with trade-offs Advanced value chain collaboration, Ghana Sustainable cocoa production; enhanced natural, human, and social Interventions at farm rather than landscape level; hierarchical relations; Deans et al. 2018 capital institutional and cultural rigidity; limited inclusiveness in decision-making; limited options for farmers’ self-organization; jurisdictional mismatches; and non-exclusion of relevant actors prevent negotiated decision-making on land use Multifunctional oil palm concession, Place- and context-specific form of landscape governance; integration of Sectorial focus; institutional rigidity and mismatch with existing legal Van Oosten et al. Indonesia production, environmental, social and cultural objectives frameworks; focus on concession rather than landscape level; resistance of 2018 central government against Zero Deforestation movement; reduced income from concession (but compensated through reduced social unrest) Multi-stakeholder platforms (piloted in Mobilizes landscape actors; enables multi-stakeholder negotiation and High transaction costs; absence of good governance principles in Kusters et al. 2018 Ghana and Indonesia) collaboration as well as monitoring and evaluation of landscape government (notably transparency, legitimacy, and voice); power outcomes imbalances; inclusion of women; a lack of shared concern/sense of urgency; non-participation of key stakeholders (notably in Indonesia) Lowore et al. and Ndeinoma et al. (this issue) have been excluded from this overview as they target products rather than landscapes; All references in this issue Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 11 Cameroon to identify strengths and weaknesses in financial integrated multi-stakeholder approaches targeting multi- and human capacity, longevity in the landscape, demon- functional landscapes. The tendency toward integrated strated leadership, coordination with other organizations, landscape approaches is growing, but balancing multiple and influence. The participatory monitoring and evaluation objectives, equitable inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, (PME) method proposed by Kusters et al. (2018, this issue) dealing with power and gender imbalances, adaptive not only looks at the performance of the multi-stakeholder management based on participatory outcome monitoring, process (“looking inward” in terms of good governance and moving beyond existing administrative, jurisdictional, principles and conditions for effective multi-sector colla- and sectorial silos remain significant challenges. Overall, boration), but also helps them in “looking ahead” (joint we conclude that, first, actors can only be mobilized priority setting regarding conservation, production, and around a commonly felt problem and sense of urgency, production objectives and institutional strengthening) and and that landscape approaches are therefore necessarily “looking back” (evaluating the outcomes and whether context- and issue-specific. Second, dealing with multiple platform objectives have been met). Pilots in Ghana and objectives, trade-offs, as well as with power imbalances Indonesia illustrated that such a method can work well if and conflicting interests, implies a key role for multi- relevant stakeholders are committed to participate in the stakeholder platforms, bridging organizations and PME workshop; reflect critically on all the actors, including “watchdogs” to negotiate priorities and give voice to themselves; and follow-up on the recommendations that weaker parties. Third, considering the challenges that result from the process. Such a method could be particularly integrated landscape approaches are still facing, ILLIs may useful for cases where concrete monitoring and evaluation be feasible and locally embedded entry points to their mechanisms are missing, as in the natural resource man- implementation. Fourth, the multilayered nature of agement schemes analyzed in Foli et al. (2018, this issue)— human–nature interactions at the landscape level—vertical particularly if such schemes are a response to failures of (multilevel), horizontal and cross-cutting (“zigzagging”; past initiatives. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation is key Torfing et al. 2012)—requires accommodating multiple to dealing with landscape-level dynamics, uncertainty, and centers of decision-making in fluid, polycentric govern- complexity, and fundamental to the application of adaptive ance arrangements. This involves statutory and customary management (Sayer et al. 2016). as well as public and private institutions, but requires an overseeing actor—government or bridging organization— who can steer the process. Last, but not least, imple- Conclusion menting integrated landscape approaches implies the need to deal with diversity and dynamics. Such challenges This special issue illustrates a trend toward greater suggest that an element of “muddling through” (Lindblom synergies in objectives and actor configurations in natural 1959; Sayer et al. 2008;Colferetal. 2011)willbe resource management and value chain governance. Start- necessary for landscape approaches to evolve. However, ingwithproduct-focusedapproachesinthe NTFP sector “muddling through” need not imply muddled thinking or a aiming at combined development and conservation out- state of imperfection, but is inherent in dealing with comes, the current trend is toward landscape-level initia- landscapes. tives and integrated landscape approaches that consider Acknowledgements Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen acknowledges financial and negotiate trade-offs between different land uses and support from WOTRO Science for Development of The Netherlands objectives. Despite design principles that suggest a com- Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (project no. mon umbrella (Sayer et al. 2013; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014), W08.250.2013.122). Terry Sunderland and James Reed thank USAID landscape approaches are, to paraphrase Max Eggert and their Biodiversity Fund for covering their time. (2015), like jellyfish: an increasing scholarship knows what they are, but there are no two people who understand Compliance with Ethical Standards them in a similar manner or even use the same term Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of (Scherr et al. 2013;Reedet al. 2016). As landscapes are in interest. the eyes of the beholder (c.f. Meinig 1979), integrated landscape approaches and landscape-level initiatives come Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative in different sizes and shapes. This review and the papers in Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, this special issue make clear that it is useful to distinguish distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give between ILAs, which are designed as negotiated landscape appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a governance from the beginning, and ILLIs that started as link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were sectorial approaches but are moving toward more made. 12 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 References Development through integrated landscape management. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford EcoAgriculture Partners (2017) Landscape performance scorecard. Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L, Ingram V, van Oosten C, Opdam P http://peoplefoodandnature.org/tool/landscape-performance- (2017) Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annu scorecard-lps/. Accessed 16 Apr 2018 Rev Env Resour 42:439–463 Eggert MA (2015) Motivation pocketbook. Management Pocketbooks Atmadja S, Verchot L (2012) A review of the state of research, policies Ltd, Hant, UK and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions Erbaugh J, Agrawal A (2017) Clarifying the landscape approach: a from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD + ). MITIG letter to the editor on “Integrated landscape approaches to Adapt Strat Gl 17(3):311–336 managing social and environmental issues in the tropics”. Glob Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate Change Biol 2017:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13788 change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green Eriksson M, Samuelson L, Jägrud L, Mattsson E, Celander T, Malmer governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob Environ Polit A, Bengtsson K, Johansson O, Schaaf N, Svending O, Tengberg 6(1):50–75 A (2018) Water, forests, people—the Swedish experience in Bastos Lima MG, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Braña-Varela J, Gupta A building resilient landscapes. Environ Manage (this issue) (2017) A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD + : Estrada-Carmona N, Hart AK, DeClerck FA, Harvey CA, Milder JC lessons from Latin America. For Policy Econ 78:10–20 (2014) Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc Urban Manag 90(5):1692–1702 Plan 129:1–11 Brown HCP (2018) An assessment of institutional capacity for inte- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) grated landscape management in eastern Cameroon. Environ (2016) Informing future interventions for scaling-up sustainable Manage (this issue) land management. FAO, Rome and TerrAfrica, Midrand, South Brown K (2002) Innovations for conservation and development. Africa Geogr J 168:6–17 Foli S, Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J, Sunderland T (2018) Natural Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) (2005) The protected land- resource management schemes as entry points for integrated scape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, landscape approaches: evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Gland and Cambridge Environ Manage (this issue) Bürgi M, Ali P, Chowdhury A, Heinimann A, Hett C, Kienast F, Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of Verburg PH (2017) Integrated landscape approach: closing the social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Env Resour 30:441–473 gap between theory and application. Sustainability 9(8):1371 Freeman OE, Duguma LA, Minang PA (2015) Operationalizing the Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T, Oviedo G (eds) (2009) Rights- integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol Soc 20(1):24 based approaches: exploring issues and opportunities for con- Frost PB, Campbell G, Medina B, Usongo L (2006) Landscape-scale servation. CIFOR and IUCN, Bogor, Indonesia approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropi- Carpentier CL, Vosti S, Witcover J (1999) Impacts of subsidized cal forest landscapes. Ecol Soc 11(2):30 Brazil nut prices on deforestation, use of cleared land, and farm García Martín M, Bieling C, Hart A, Plieninger T (2016) Integrated income. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, Technical landscape initiatives in Europe: multi-sector collaboration in Note 8.1 multi-functional landscapes. Land Use Policy 58:43−53 Carrasco LR, Chan J, McGrath F, Nghiem L (2017) Biodiversity Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the conservation in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 22(3):24 human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32 Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Young (2):217–239 O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and Gorg C (2007) Landscape governance: the politics of scale and the information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8 natural conditions of places. Geoforum 38:954–966 Clay N (2016) Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: a political Gyau A, Oduol J, Mbugua M, Foundjem-Tita D, Ademonla Arinloye ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum D, KOuame C (2015) Landscape approaches to sustainable sup- 76:130–141 ply chain management: the role of agribusinesses. In: Minang PA, Colfer CJP, Pfund J, Sunderland T (2011) The essential task of van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan ‘muddling through’ to better landscape governance. In: Colfer D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. CJP, Pfund J (eds) Collaborative governance of tropical land- World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 295–306 scapes. Earthscan, London, p 271–278 Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K (2006) Trust-building, Crona BI, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: the- knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of ories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging orga- a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland nizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc 17 landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol 34:573–592 (1):32 Hart AK, Milder JC, Estrada-Carmona N, DeClerck FAJ, Harvey CA, Cullen B, Tucker J, Snyder K, Lema Z, Duncan A (2014) An analysis Dobie P (2015) Integrated landscape initiatives in practice: of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural assessing experiences from 191 landscapes in Africa and Latin resource management. Innov Dev 4(2):259–275 America. In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow Dale AP, Vella K, Gooch M, Potts R, Pressey RL, Brodie J, Eberhard C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: R (2018) Avoiding implementation failure in catchment land- multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre scapes: a case study in governance of the Great Barrier Reef. (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 89–101 Environ manage (this issue) Harvey CA, Komar O, Chazdon R, Ferguson BG, Finegan B, Griffith Deans H, Ros-Tonen MAF, Derkyi M (2018) Advanced value chain DM, van Breugel M (2008) Integrating agricultural landscapes collaboration in Ghana’s cocoa sector: an entry point for inte- with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. grated landscape approaches? Environ Manage (this issue) Conserv Biol 22(1):8–15 Denier L, Scherr S, Shames S, Chatterton P, Hovani L, Stam N (2015) Harvey CA, Chacon M, Donatti CI, Garen E, Hanna L, Andrade, The little sustainable landscapes book. Achieving sustainable Clement C (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 13 challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical multifunctionality in practice, World Agroforestry Centre agriculture. Conserv Lett 7(2):77–90 (ICRAF), Nairobi Hemmati M (2002) Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and Müller A, Janetschek H, Weigelt J (2015) Towards a governance sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan, London heuristic for sustainable development. Curr Opin Env Sust Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? 15:49–56 Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97 Nagendra H, Ostrom E (2012) Polycentric governance of multi- (2):233–243 functional forested landscapes. Int J Commons 6(2):104–133 Ingram V, van den Berg J, van Oorschot M, Arets E, Judge L (2018) Namirembe S, Bernard F (2015) Private sector engagement in Governance options to enhance ecosystem services in cocoa, soy, landscape-based approaches—lessons from cases in East Africa. tropical timber and palm oil value chains. Environ Manage (this In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de issue). Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multi- Jessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a functionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), state–theoretical perspective. Antipode 34(3):452–472 Nairobi, p 307–315 Johnson C, Forsyth T (2002) In the eyes of the state: negotiating a NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) “rights-based approach” to forest conservation in Thailand. (2016) A review of the landscape conservation cooperatives. The World Dev 30(9):1591–1605 National Academies Press, Washington Kissinger G, Moroge M, Noponen M (2015) Private sector investment Ndeinoma A, Wiersum KF, Arts B (2018) The governance of indi- in landscape approaches: the role of productions standards and genous natural products in Namibia: a policy network analysis. certification. In: Minang P, Van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Environ Manage (this issue) Mbow C, De Leeuw J, Cataculan D (eds) Climate-smart land- Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance scapes: multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–672 (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 277–292 Ostrom V (1999) Polycentricity (Part 1). In: McGinnis M (ed) Poly- Kozar R, Buck LE, Barrow EG, Sunderland TCH, Catacutan DE, centricity and local public economics. University of Michigan Planicka C, Hart AK, Willemen L (2014) EcoAgriculture Part- Press, Ann Arbor, p 52–74 ners, on behalf of the Landscapes for People. Food, and Nature Padoch C, Sunderland TCH (2014) Managing landscapes for greater Initiative, Washington, DC food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva 64(241):3–13 Kusters K, de Graaf M, Minang P, van Oosten C, Zagt R (2018) Pfund J-L (2010) Landscape-scale research for conservation and Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi- development in the tropics: fighting persisting challenges. Curr stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Opin Env Sust 2:117–126 Environ Manage (this issue) Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives as bridging orga- Lebel L, Daniel R (2009) The governance of ecosystem services from nisations in landscape management. J Environ Manag tropical upland watersheds. Curr Opin Env Sust 1:61–68 161:375–384 Leys AJ, Vanclay JK (2011) Social learning: a knowledge and capa- Rathwell KJ, Peterson GD (2012) Connecting social networks with city building approach for adaptive co-management of contested ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social ecological landscapes. Land Use Policy 3:574–584 network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Admin organizations. Ecol Soc 17(2):24 Rev 19(2):79–88 Redford KH, Roe D, Sunderland TC (2013) Linking conservation and Long H, Liu J, Tub C, Fub Y (2018) From state-controlled to poly- poverty alleviation: discussion paper on good and best practice in centric governance in forest landscape restoration: the case of the the case of great ape. No. PCLG Discussion Paper no. 11, IIED, Ecological Forest Purchase Program in Yong’an Municipality of London China. Environ Manage (this issue) Reed J, Deakin L, Sunderland T (2015) What are ‘integrated landscape Lowore J, Meaton J, Wood A (2018) African forest honey: an over- approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in looked non-timber forest product with potential to support live- the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 4:2 lihoods and forests. Environ Manage (this issue) Reed J, van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2016) Lund JF, Sungusia E, Mabele MB, Scheba A (2017) Promising Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and envir- change, delivering continuity: REDD + as conservation fad. onmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the World Dev 89:124–139 future. Glob Change Biol 22(7):2540–2554 Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Reed J, van Vianen J, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2017) Have integrated Admin Rev 19(2):79–88 landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental Mayers J, Vermeulen S (2002) Instruments for sustainable private issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63:481–492 sector forestry series. International Institute for Environment and Rodríguez-Ward D, Larson AM, Gordillo Ruesta H (2018) Top-down, Development, London bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi- McCall MK (2016) Beyond “landscape” in REDD + : the imperative level actors shaping forest governance and REDD + arrange- for “territory”. World Dev 85:58–72 ments in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ Manage (this issue) McShane T, Wells M (eds) (2004) Getting biodiversity projects to Ros-Tonen MAF, Wiersum KF (2005) The scope for improving rural work: towards more effective conservation and development. livelihoods through non-timber forest products: an evolving Columbia University Press, New York research agenda. For Trees Livelihoods 15(2):129–148 Meinig DW (1979) The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene. Ros-Tonen MAF, van Andel T, Morsello C, Otsuki K, Rosendo S, In: Meinig DW, Brinckerhoff Jackson J (eds) The interpretation Scholz I (2008) Forest-related partnerships in Brazilian Amazo- of ordinary landscapes: geographical essays. Oxford University nia: there is more to sustainable forest management than reduced Press, New York, p 33–47 impact logging. For Ecol Manag 256:1482–1497 Milder JC, Hart AK, Dobie P, Minai J, Zaleski C (2014) Integrated Ros-Tonen MAF, Derkyi M, Insaidoo TF (2014) From co- landscape initiatives for African agriculture, development, and management to landscape governance: whither Ghana’s mod- conservation: a region-wide assessment. World Dev 54:68–80 ified taungya system? Forests 5(12):2996–3021 Minang, PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman, OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Ros-Tonen M, Van Leynseele YPB, Laven A, Sunderland T (2015a) Catacutan D (eds) (2015) Climate-smart landscapes: Landscapes of social inclusion: inclusive value-chain 14 Environmental Management (2018) 62:1–14 collaboration through the lenses of food sovereignty and land- van Oosten C, Gunarso P, Koesoetjahjo I, Wiersum F (2014) Gov- scape governance. Eur J Dev Res 27(4):523–540 erning forest landscape restoration: cases from Indonesia. Forests Ros-Tonen M, Pouw N, Bavinck M (2015b) Governing beyond cities: 5:1143–1162 the urban-rural interface. In: Gupta J, Pfeffer K, Verrest H, Ros- van Oosten C, Moeliono M, Wiersum F (2018) From product to place Tonen M (eds) Geographies of urban governance. Springer —spatializing governance in a commodified landscape. Environ International Publishing, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, Manage (this issue) London, p 85–105 Visseren-Hamakers IJ (2015) Integrative environmental governance: Sayer J, Bullb G, Elliott C (2008) Mediating forest transitions: ‘grand enhancing governance in the era of synergies. Curr Opin Env Sust design’ or ‘muddling through’. Conserv Soc 6(4):320–327 14:136–143 Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, van Wambugu SW, Chomba SW, Atela J (2015) Institutional arrange- Oosten C (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to ments for climate-smart landscapes. In: Minang PA, van reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8349–8356 (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, p 257–273 Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2015) Landscape approaches; what are Warner JF (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10:345–355 platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Res Sayer J, Endamana D, Boedhihartono AK, Ruiz-Perez M, Breuer T Devel Man 22(1):15–35 (2016) Learning from change in the Sangha Tri-national land- Weatherley-Singh J, Gupta A (2017) An ecological landscape scape. Int Rev 18(S1):130–139 approach to REDD + in Madagascar: promise and limitations? Scherr SJ, Shames S, Friedman R (2012) From climate-smart agri- For Policy Econ 85:1–9 culture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric Food Secur 1(1):1–12 Wood A, Bekele Haile (2009) NTFP-PFM Research and Development Scherr S, Shames SA, Friedman R (2013) Defining integrated land- Project South-West Ethiopia. Forest landscape sustainability and scape management for policy makers. Ecoagriculture Policy improved livelihoods through non-timber forest product devel- Focus. No. 10 Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington DC. https:// opment and payment for environmental services. Progress report ecoagriculture.org/publication/defining-integrated-landscape-ma 2008–2009. http://wetlands.hud.ac.uk/forests/ntfp_pfm/links/ nagement-for-policy-makers/. Accessed Jan 2018 NTFP-PFM_Annual_Report_Year_2.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2018 Sunderland TCH, Ehringhaus C, Campbell BM (2008) Conservation World Bank Group (2016) Investing in landscapes for integrated, and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the inclusive, and climate-resilient development. http://pubdocs. trade-offs? Environ Conserv 34:276–279 worldbank.org/en/666921449003548382/Investing-in-Landsca Sunderland TCH, Sayer J, Hoang M-H (eds) (2013) Evidence-based pes-Brief-World-Bank-ENR-GP-2016.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov conservation: lessons from the lower Mekong. CIFOR, Bogor, 2016 Indonesia Wunder S (2001) Poverty alleviation and tropical forests—what scope Torfing J, Peters BG, Pierre J, Sørensen E (2012) Interactive gov- for synergies? World Dev 29:1817–1833 ernance: advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press, New WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2002). The landscape approach. York Position Paper. http://wwf.panda.org/?12953/Position-Paper-The- van Dijk H, Bose P (2016) Dryland landscapes: forest management, Landscape-Approach. Accessed 19 Dec 2017 gender and social diversity in Asia and Africa. In: van Dijk H, Zanzanaini C, Trần BT, Singh C, Hart A, Milder J, DeClerck F (2017) Bose P (eds) Dryland forests. Springer, Cham Heidelberg, New Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and York, Dordrecht, London, p 3–21 ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from van Oosten C (2013) Restoring landscapes—governing place: a South and Southeast Asia. Landsc Urban Plan 165:11–21 learning approach to forest landscape restoration. J Sustain For 32 (7):659–676

Journal

Environmental ManagementSpringer Journals

Published: May 30, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off