Governance and institutional set up for forest and landscape restorationWorld Forestry Congress, Durban, 9th September 2015

What are integrated landscape approaches and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics?

What are integrated landscape approaches?

A response to the failings of sectorial land management approaches

The latest in a series of attempts to concurrently address conservation, development and restoration challenges

A refinement of previous approaches A method to integrate stakeholders at multiple scales A framework to integrate policy and practice A land management strategy to fulfill social, economic,

ecological & cultural objectives, including forest restoration A tool to assess performance and manage trade-offs within

the landscape All of the above?

Development of the “Landscape Approach”

1980s 1990s 2000s 2010 - present

1980s: Integrated Rural Development

1998: Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)

1985 onwards: Integrated Conservation & Development projects (ICDPs)

Contributing Sciences:Ecosystem ManagementLandscape EcologyIsland biogeography

Conservation rooted frameworks e.g. “Ecosystem Approach”

1992: “Landscape Approach” first documented (Barrett 1992)

Last decade: (Integrated) Landscape Approach frameworks

Landscapes are complex socio-ecological systems

Hypothesis:

The confusion over the conceptualization and application of integrated landscape approaches is impeding policy traction and practitioner uptake.

Terminology confusion:“We use the same words but we aren’t speaking the

same language”Objective:Systematically map the available evidence to provide clarity

Systematic Review Maps• Transparent, repeatable, pre-determined methodology• Commonly used in medical research• Recently adopted by natural and social sciences (see www.environmentalevidence.org)

MethodsEvolution of search terms and strategy:• Internal/external consultation• Two stakeholder workshops (Nairobi, Kenya & Cape Tribulation, Australia)• Extensive scoping exercise using Web of Science• Developed inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies• Protocol published. See Reed et al. 2015http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2047-2382-4-2.pdf

Specialist databases:ScopusCAB DirectISI Web of KnowledgePubMed Internet searches:Google ScholarOther:Grey literature search

Screening results: peer-reviewed articles

26,303 scoping results in WoK using 35 revised search terms

13,290 Publications captured with refined search termsAll TITLES screened

271,974 results from initial 56 main search terms trialed in WoK

1,171 Relevant studies All ABSTRACTS screened

382 Relevant studiesAll FULL TEXTS screened

82 Final studies of relevance

Preliminary results: geographic coverage

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Region

No.

of c

ase

stud

ies

Preliminary results: entry point

Livelihoods

Water

Forests

Soil

Biodiversity Conservation

Agriculture

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

29%

16%

25%

13%

13%

4%

Percentage of peer-reviewed studies (%)

Preliminary results (peer-reviewed literature only)Success of implementation Governance regimes

Successful Not determined Mixed 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Lessons learned

• Often funded on short term or temporary basis (time limited project investments)• Terminology issues (what do we mean by restoration for example?)• Landscape approach remains relatively under-theorized• Lack of true integration across scientific disciplines• Institutional barriers - government agencies still rooted in silos• Governance concerns• Empowerment and engagement concerns• Lack of appropriate metrics and monitoring• Stop making assumptions, start acting…but how?!

www.landscapes.orgwww.cifor.orgt.sunderland@cgiar,org