Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation

Integrated Landscape Initiatives: An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation

Jeffrey C. Milder, Abigail K. Hart, Phil Dobie, Joshua Minai, and Christi Zaleski

October 2012

The study was funded by:

And implemented by:

As part of the:

This project was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. RLA-A-00-07-00043-00. The contents are the responsibility of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. This presentation was produced by EcoAgriculture Partners on behalf of ABCG.

Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa

Converging needs for integrated landscape management

● There is growing consensus that the Green Revolution trajectory followed in Latin America and Asia is not fully appropriate for Africa; instead, greater emphasis on social and environmental outcomes is needed.

● Climate change and land degradation in Africa point to the need for agricultural development approaches that emphasize ecosystem and livelihood resilience to sustain long-term productivity.

● Rather than degrade the environment, agricultural areas have the potential to provide important ecosystem services.

● As competition for land and water escalates, sectoral approaches that pursue different aims in isolation from one another are likely to generate conflict and result in failure to meet key objectives.

● Rural landscapes are the nexus where key issues including food security, poverty reduction, energy production, biodiversity conservation, and climate change all converge.


Why this study?

To date, understanding of integrated landscape approaches has been fragmentary, often anecdotal, and spread widely across several academic fields and communities of practice.

This study provides first region-wide portrait of the contexts, motivations, design, participation, and outcomes of integrated landscape initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. It takes a systematic approach to understanding the state of practice, what works and what doesn’t, and how landscape initiatives can better support conservation, food production, and livelihood goals.


Definition of Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs)

An ILI can be a project, program, platform, initiative or set of activities that:

1. Seeks to improve food production, biodiversity or ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods

2. Works at landscape scale and includes policy, planning, management or support activities at this scale

3. Involves inter-sectoral and/or multi-stakeholder coordination

4. Is highly participatory and supports adaptive collaborative management


Methodology

1. Database of candidate ILIs established through partner networks, interviews, and Internet searches

2. Candidates screened to select those that met the ILI definition

3. Survey of one respondent per ILI to collect information on:• Landscape characteristics

• Dates, scale, and motivations of the ILI

• ILI investments, activities, and coordinating mechanisms

• Stakeholder and sectoral participation

• Outcomes, most and least successful aspects

4. Screening of survey responses

5. Data analysis and interpretation

Questions on investment and outcomes were oriented around four key “domains” of landscape multi-functionality:

1. Agricultural production

2. Ecosystem conservation

3. Human livelihoods

4. Institutional coordination and planning

Integrated Landscape Initiatives in AfricaMethodology

Screen shot of survey:


Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs

Complete documentation from 87 landscape initiatives in

33 countries

1 15


Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs

64% of initiatives in African drylands

Africa Continental Review

What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improve health or nutrition

Climate change mitigation/adaptation

Improve livestock productivity

Diversify food production

Improve crop productivity

Water conservation

Reduce negative impacts of agriculture

Reduce risk and vulnerability

Reduce conflict

Enhance food security

Soil conservation

Increase farmer incomes

Conserve biodiversity

Sustainable land management

Reduce natural resource degradation

% of surveyed initiatives


What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs?

0 10 20 30 40

Mitigating or adapting to climatechange

Reducing conflict

Coordinating stakeholders andactivities

Improving livehoods

Improving agricultural productionand practices

Biodiversity and natural resourceconservation

Number of initiatives


What types of organizations are involved?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry

Agribusiness

Community Groups

Education/Research

NGOs

Marginalized Groups

Producer Groups

Government


Internal / local


What types of organizations are involved?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Agribusiness

Education/Research

Donors

Other International…

NGOs

Government


External


Investments and outcomes in agriculture

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total area increased

Profitability increased

Agrobiodiversity protected

Environmental impacts reduced

Yield per unit land


Investments Outcomes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mechanized intensification

Reduce negative ag. Impacts

Improved irrigation

Ag. supply chains/markets

Livestock intensification

Conserve/use agrobiodiversity

Promote new crops

Home gardens

Agroforestry

Agroecological intensification

Soil conservation

Extension or capacity building


Associated Core


Investments and outcomes in conservation


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

New protected areas

Watershed management activities

New management plans

New community-based conservation areas

Improved forestry management

Other community-based managementactivities

Extension or capacity building programs

% of surveyed initiativesSupporting Core

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other ecosystems servicesprotected

Connectivity increased

Water quality improved

Endangered species protected

Ecosystem services for agricultureprotected

Overall biodiversity protected



Investments and outcomes in livelihoods


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reduce migration

Improving human health

Reduce malnutrition and hunger

Secure land tenure/resource access

Preservation of traditional knowledge

Enterprise development, savings andinvestment

Improving gender equity

Promote income generation


Associated Core

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Access to health servicesimproved

Communities became lessvulnerable

Non-cash measures of livelihoodsimproved

Food security improved

Cash income increased

% or surveyed initiatives


Investments and outcomes in institutional planning and coordination


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Traditional and local knowledgepreserved/used

Sectoral coord. Improved

Women's capacity built

Local communities empowered

Capacity for ILM improved

Stakeholder coord. Improved


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Local/external conflict mediation

Strengthen existing coordination bodies

New coordinating bodies

Local/local conflict mediation

Technical assistance for integrated,landscape-scale management

Capacity building for integrated, landscape-scale management

% of surveyed initiativesAssociated Core


How is landscape coordination achieved?

0% 50% 100%

Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local,national and international communities or resource…

Activities to strengthen existing coordination bodies(e.g., inter-jurisdictional councils, public-private…

Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies

Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among localcommunities or resource users

Technical assistance to support integrated, landscape-scale management

Capacity building activities to help communities andstakeholders conduct integrated, landscape-scale…

Percent of surveyed initiatives

Core

Supporting


Factors associated with high outcome initiatives

● Inclusion of women groups

● Higher levels of “multi-objectivity” (i.e., larger numbers of stated objectives)

● Multi-objective initiatives without a stated primary motivation

● Investments in capacity building across all domains

● Establishment of new landscape coordinating bodies

● Specific, tangible outcomes such as:

● Formation of new protected areas

● Rehabilitation of degraded land

● Increased yields, income, or food security

● Improvements in capacity, knowledge, governance, etc.:

● Awareness raising on key landscape issues

● Capacity bulding for local decision-makers to manage their landscape

● New plans or agreements regarding land or resource management


Most successful aspects of the initiatives

● Lack of sufficient and sustainable sources of funding

● Infrastructure for transport and storage, as well as market access

● Policies and laws that hinder integrated landscape management

● Key stakeholders, mainly specific government and private sector entities, were missing from planning and coordination processes


Least successful aspects of the initiatives

● ILIs may be an effective way to increase delivery of multiple goods and services in drylands by linking them to initiatives and stakeholders in a broader, diverse landscape.

● Landscape planning and coordinating capacities can be established in just a few years, but other outcomes often take more time. To ensure sustainability, landscape management functions must be supported by local financial resources and/or social capital, even if they are initially catalyzed by external support.


Implications for practice

● Multi-objective initiatives are generating outcomes in key areas of interest to development practitioners, policy-makers and donors, including:

● Rural household income generation

● Increased agricultural productivity

● Food security

● While there has traditionally been little support for integrated landscape approaches in Africa, current interest from donors and policymakers may provide a “window of opportunity”; prior experience such as that profiled in this study can help inform this new generation of initiatives


Implications for policy

Thank you!