 Welcome to all of you at the session, which is on the research petitioner gap. My name is Miriam Rosso, I'm from the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Let me present who is on the stage here. Next to me, Muriel Sorragosti, if I pronounce it well. She is a scientific manager of the large-scale biosphere atmosphere experiment in Brazilian Amazonia, which suggests that she is a scientist and she certainly is, but she has a very rich experience as a policymaker and as a campaigner as well. Welcome, Muriel. Next to Muriel is Mr. Daniel Gad, who is the owner and the manager of a leading vegetable production and exporting farm in Ethiopia. Then we have Jane Fien, natural resource specialist at the European Investment Bank, representing the financial sector. David Cooper, who is the science director at the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. And we have already seen her, Ms. Victoria Taule Corpus, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people. And finally we have Terry Sunderland, principal scientist at CIFOR, who is going to present the systematic mapping of landscape approaches that CIFOR has been undertaking lately. And what you will make clear is that landscape approach, although there is a wide diversity of terminology on it, as an integrated and negotiated approach on land use and trade-offs, is well elaborated in scientific literature. But if you look for cases, how it is being implemented in practice, there's still a way to go. And I invite Terry Sunderland to the floor to explain how they worked on it and what they have found so far. Put the presentation up, please. Thank you. In the plenary yesterday, Peter Hongren, the Director General of CIFOR, alluded to the study that we were doing related to landscape approaches. And we're undertaking a systematic review that I'm going to present this morning, or version into this afternoon. It's a review that's been undertaken over the last few months. It really grew out of some of the discourse of the Warsaw Global Landscapes Forum. People were asking, what is a landscape approach? What does it mean on the ground? What is the definition of a landscape approach? So this is really an attempt with funding from the UK's Department for International Development to try and put some meat on the bones of that discourse and to try and understand the conditionalities under which the landscape approach is implemented and where it's not. I hope this works, which it doesn't seem to be doing. There we go. So we have an issue of terminology, and our partners in agriculture in a review a couple of years ago identify that there are actually 78 different terms related to the landscape approach. And because of that, there remains really no single definition to what the landscape approach is. And every time we publish something on the landscape approach, the first thing that we get back is, can you define it? Can you tell us what it really is so we can really understand it? I think it's part of human nature in terms of understanding and compartmentalizing something. But the reason that the definitions prove so elusive is primarily because landscape approaches are not a silver bullet, and one size does not fit all, and I'll touch on that a little bit more later on in the presentation. So just some examples of the current terminology. All of you will be familiar with these terms. Anybody who works in research, development, or any other sector will understand all of these fairly comprehensively. But this is a very good example of the challenges that we're facing, the plethora of terms and terminology, and it creates considerable confusion in many instances. So we attempted to systematically review the literature, and there's a very big difference between a systematic review and a normal literature review. A systematic review is very much based on rigor and a very strict methodology in how you review the literature. We follow preset guidelines. They are living reviews. They're not a review. You stop and then the literature contains your review. They are also exclusive of bias. So it's very difficult to be biased in the type of systematic reviews that we undertake. They can be updated, which means, as I said earlier, they remain live. They're active reviews, and includes a dissemination component beyond just the essential review that's published in the peer-reviewed literature. And again, I'll talk about that in subsequent slides. So our systematic map, which began really in about March, April of this year, was focused primarily on two main questions. What is the landscape approach and how has it evolved into current discourse and practice, and how and where is it actually being implemented. And there are three key objectives related to that. One is to map and understand the landscape approach theory and how it's developed over time. Review and synthesize the current terminology. As I mentioned earlier, we're faced with a plethora of terminologies and concepts related to the landscape approach. And also to look at where these integrated approaches are actually being implemented and under what conditions and how and why. So our basic methods, we undertook extensive internal consultations, much of which emerged from the Warsaw GLF last year. Discussions related around what is the landscape approach led us at C4 to think about that more, about how we can address that for a subsequent event such as these. And along that continuum of understanding, trying to address essentially the definitional approaches, but also the implementation approaches that we refer to. We undertook a number of consultations externally. We had two large workshops, one at the Eco-Agriculture meeting in Kenya in Nairobi in June, and a subsequent one at the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation Meeting in Australia. And these consultations really helped us define our search terms but also helped us think about our research questions. The research questions I showed in the slide two previously were really at the end of a long consultation process and it's amazing how people like to get into the nitty-gritty of those types of questions. We developed a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies and I'll talk about that in the next slide. And we currently have a protocol related to the systematic mapping press in the journal Environmental Evidence. So you can see here we have a whole bunch of search terms that were put into, this is a very, very small sample of the search terms we used, put into special databases such as Scopus and others. And these basically provided the initial references and publications that we used for that for our systematic map. And this thing is very elusive. There we go. The one thing I want to touch on here is related to the case studies. The key thing is listed here in red that we were looking for case studies that essentially we were looking at integrating two land uses. And most projects, initiatives, whatever, tend to have a primary land use. And here we were looking for those that were integrating at least two. And also integrating at least two institutional and sectorial stakeholders. And that's very important when we're talking about the integrated landscape approach. So I have to say the initial, as I said to our panel when we were sitting prior to this coming to the room, the search terms initially that were put into Scopus and the other databases that we were talking about generated 271,000 initial references. Now, of course, that's completely unworkable. Now, of course, that's because the term landscape itself encompasses a whole broad series of fields, including philosophy, including art. So we then spent about a month trying to basically pare down our search terms into those that would be more relevant to ourselves in the natural resource sector. We got down to about 13,000 publications where the titles were screened. We then screened over 1,000 abstracts. We read full papers of nearly 400 full papers. But at the end we only got down to 47 papers which included real case studies of landscape approaches in practice. So some of the results, preliminary results, here we have here just touched on those, the 13,000 abstracts or titles that were screened down to the abstracts and the papers that were read. But across the geographical continuum we had here heavy emphasis on Central Africa, South Asia, and less cases in Asia and North America. The main criterion we had to focus on the English literature for now and so there was probably a heavy bias here geographically because of that. And subsequent finding also, which I find some of it quite interesting, the majority of our case study started with a single entry focus, a single objective focus. And not surprisingly, and we all do this, most of the cases reported positive outcomes only. There are very few examples of lessons learned through negative interactions or other problems. And also interestingly there's a real dearth of monitoring and evaluation at any of these landscape scale projects. And the literature is somewhat silent on the long-term performance of landscapes using landscape approaches. And yet 37% of the papers specifically acknowledged a need for a landscape approach. And let me just move to the graph here. I was somewhat surprised but also glad to see that forestry projects and livelihood projects, probably integrated projects, were more common in the literature related to landscape approaches. But when we look down here, agriculture and biodiversity conservation seem to be, probably intuitively in terms of our understanding, seem to be simple sectoral projects. And don't tend to embrace other land uses or other stakeholders, which is also a very interesting outcome of the initial findings. This is a very elusive switcher. There we go. So despite the wealth of information in the landscapes, as I mentioned, we got down to 13,000 titles, papers, references, whatever we like to call them, that refer to landscape approaches from a conceptual, from a framework perspective. There are really very few case studies in the peer-reviewed literature. And we suspect that it doesn't mean that they're not out there. And intuitively we know that there are landscape approach projects being undertaken throughout many areas of the tropics. In fact, I, with a team of colleagues, published a book related to an evaluation of conservation projects in the lower Mekong, which looked at a whole series of projects focused on protected areas but the wider landscape itself. They didn't make it into our final cut because they didn't refer to themselves as landscape approaches. And so we think that it's the lack of reporting in the literature that seems to be the main problem. So our next stage is to incorporate the grey literature. So project literature, the types of literature that obviously is not going to be in the peer-reviewed searching engines that we've been focusing on. And I suspect that that grey literature will provide some of the bridge between the academic literature and what's actually happening on the ground. And that's the next stage in our systematic review. As a final product, we wanted to put together an interactive map of landscape approaches, where they're happening, what types of projects they are. This is a screenshot of the initial map of our 47 case studies. And here we basically tend to map each of the projects, which we're going to highlight what they're actually focusing on, who's funding them when they are active. And we hope to actually generate and build this map and make it available online so that people can contribute to this map with their own projects, with their own project information to build up a freely available database of these types of landscape approach. I have to say a special thanks to the researchers who've led this work, James Ridley, Steve King, and Josh Van Vialen, who have read thousands and thousands and thousands of titles, abstracts and papers without which we wouldn't have this systematic review. And I'd like to very much thank you, all of you, for coming and seeing for being able to share this work with you and I look forward to the comments and discussion from the panel. Thank you. Thank you, Larry. Before I give the opportunity to the audience to ask some questions for clarification only, I just want to check, is there internet in the room? Yes? Okay, then I would like to invite you to go to landscapes.org opinion-compass, where you can position yourself in the compass with respect to your opinion as how far we are and how ready we are to implement landscape approaches in practice. And you can choose from four statements. One is the concept as well-defined, meaning, well, we know the principles, we know the conditions, so are you ready for implementation in policy practice? So that's one statement. The next one, on the top, can we project that on the screen? You have it on your devices? Anyone? If there's internet, it should be projectable. Okay, the second statement is, well, what about conceptualization? It is already being, okay, there it is. It is already being applied in practice. And I remember a presentation of Peruvian farmer yesterday at the Tropenbos booth, who really made it clear that what landscape is is the product of what farmers are doing. So you could argue, and not for the statement, landscape approach is being applied in practice. You can be more cautious and say, well, we need more research before we are going to implement this. And the final one is where you see Terry's picture. Okay, the concept is fine, but there is still a gap between theory and practice. As we go, you will see the needle moving, representing a majority opinion. And we would like to consider at the end of this session whether your opinion has changed or whether you would like to opt for another statement and see what that does to the majority opinion. Now I promised you to give you the opportunity for a few questions of clarification following Terry's presentation. Are there any? Not for discussion yet. You will have an opportunity later. None? Yes, please. Is there a mic? Hello, I'm just wondering about where you would position geographic literature in this because most geographers think landscape and all the historical literature and landscape kind of endeavors would be under geography, perhaps. The term geography was in the search term. It was one of the ones that was discussed about whether it should be removed or not, but geography and everything related to the geographical sector was included still in the research terms. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for clarification? Yeah, in the same sense of the lady. The term territory, because we use very much the term of territory that will include also this sector cross approach, have you also included it and how do you work with this term regarding the landscape approach? And again, territory was another term that was discussed to keep in because it tends not to be an anglophone term more in French or Spanish, but it did remain in the initial search terms and the protocol when published will be available online will have supplementary material providing all of the search terms that were used and you can see. We'd hoped to have that published online in anticipation of this meeting, but you know, journal editors. So essentially, that term was included as well. Any other question? Also for clarification only? None. Hello to Muriel. Muriel, as a former policymaker, plus researcher, plus campaigner, how important do you think our landscape approaches in achieving development goals such as food security and particularly in the context of a rapidly growing economy like Brazil? What are the challenges? What is the practice? Okay. I want to start by saying that in Brazil we have a lot of policy experience on the landscape approach that we call the participatory regional development, sustainable development planning. Much more, I think, than papers written about it. We had, if we look at the landscape approach or the regional planning as a method to achieve better policies to improve the life of people and to preserve nature and also use the natural resources. We can say that we are using this already in policies and it's not a new concept. We already have for more than 50 years a National Council for environment. We have a National Council for water resources that had in their composition all the stakeholders that are using environment, meaning also the private sector, the states, the municipalities, local governments, NGOs, farmers and big farmers, small farmers, different groups, even firemen. But we also have started for the last 10, 15 years to have watershelves committees to discuss the different water uses in the watershelves. These are well-established forums where you have the discussion on how to use land or natural resources. More recently, we start some very interesting territorial approach on planning policies like the citizenship territories that are led by the Ebrarian Development Ministry and include like 19 different ministries. They had local groups discussing how to do things and what are the priorities for the territories. The problem is that with this, you have a confrontation with the legal system that is well-established that we have the Federative Union, then we have the state, then we have the municipalities. And when you look at landscape, these practical divisions have no meaning. It doesn't mean because you have a border that is decided for a practical purpose or because of different countries that nature will follow this rule. Nature doesn't follow this kind of rules. So when you try to put in place landscape management and long-term planning, you shock with this kind of practicalities that you need to change. We have also a very huge program around the BR163. It's a road that crossed the Amazon from the south to the Amazon River. And it's 19% of the Amazon, of the Brazilian Amazon. It's a huge region that had a very, very interesting landscape approach to decide the priorities for sustainable development. Which are the main problems we have? The main problems are inequality in information and in capacity, the financial capacity to mobilize the different stakeholders. Some stakeholders just take their private plane and arrive in a place for a meeting. Others have to take a canoe for three days paddling and arriving in a city and take another bus and don't have the money to do it. They don't have the capacity of talking to each other and have a common view of the group. And there is also a disruption in the implementation of priorities as government has short-term view. They look for the next election. So we need more stability in the forest that we are establishing and a more long-term commitment of all the stakeholders to ensure that the policy will go for more than only a mandate. And we also need... We have a problem of who represents who. It's an eternal problem, but we don't have to be stopped by this. I think we have... It's very interesting that we have very practical examples. We have very few scientific articles written about these examples. And we have very few long-term monitoring and evaluation on how does this work and what do we need to do to support these absolutely interesting and very resultful experiences. I can talk all day long on this, so just shut me. Okay, but I'm sure your input provides... Just one word on food security. Very short one. I think that what we face, especially in the Amazon, is not a problem of food security versus the forest or versus other uses of the land. What we face is a talk between commodities and food security. I can elaborate more, but I think it's just... Two sentences. Two to explain. What is deforestation in the Amazon is pasture and commodities like soybean. And they have a very good trick to pass through unilever criteria. First of all, the pasture arrives and then soya arrive in the pasture lands that are already grated, so they are saving the land and not deforestation. Okay, thank you very much. Well, that brings us to the... It's nice that you ended up with food security because that brings us to the farmer's perspective and also the issue about the difficulty of getting farmers on the table because they need a lot of travelling time, sometimes to get on the negotiation table. Mr. Graat, what do you think from your position as a farmer? What are the hindrances and the possibilities for farmers to engage in landscape approaches? You told me in the break that you came here as being a bit skeptical, but that your opinion is changing. So please, from your perspective as a farmer, tell us how you see the implementation of landscape approaches from a farmer's perspective. All right, thank you. It's clear, I think, to all who have attended the sessions here that this is not a single solution, it's not a silver bullet. The world farmers in the history of farming and agriculture have been dealing with a multi-pronged approach to the reality of what we face every day. We have been the custodians and are still custodians of the land, custodians of Mother Earth. There is no farmer today that goes onto his land or her land to go and destroy it in a vicious way, intentionally. There have been farmers historically, whether they are commercial or individual farmers, who because of many reasons have misused or abused and have not been able to keep up with the changes in the landscape of the farms and the communities and the areas that they live in. If you look at the history of how farmers organized into villages, you will find that farmers have always built landscapes around them, for protection, for windbreak, for water conservation, for soil conservation, etc. I belong to a world farmers organization and in meeting with farmers from all over the world who are represented here and are participating in this event, from Uganda, from Peru, from Uruguay, from Brazil, from Ethiopia, from many parts of the world including Jamaica. One thing that we have a consensus on is that yes, this is important, but in the schedule of important things that we have to do, the scale of landscape approach is so significant that we cannot do it alone. Farmers till their land, when a farmer takes responsibility for her piece of land and she produces yams or cassava or any other crop, she does it for several reasons. One is survival, to produce food for the immediate family, and second one is to provide enough food to produce a product that can be sold and bring in cash or other commodities in exchange for the farm goods or crops. But at the same time, that farmer is part of a very large community, thus the commonness of what farmers do. As custodians of the land, landscape approach is part and parcel of every day what a farmer does in a community, but not what a farmer does by herself or himself. In the larger context of the relationship with what we are discussing on the role of the research community and the linkage to farmers, I would tell you it's the same thing that we have said to CGIR and Montpellier. We want the research, we need the research, but we want it in a form that is understandable and that is usable. Research has become quite extensive, sometimes complex, but farmers have come together in farmers groups and organizations, and we want real, clear, simple, understandable projects that we can relate directly to crop production. Remember, there are over 500 million farmers who are in subsistence, producing 80% of the food that we eat. But potentially, the damage that is occurring in the landscape where we farm is not directly attributable to what we do on an everyday basis. We are still farming. In Ethiopia, 66 million farmers are still farming with an underfed ox and a piece of stick about 15 centimeters long scratching the surface of the soil. These 66 million farmers have been doing this since the 14th century, and we're still doing it. Our level of producing something to replace the horrible hoe, do you know what a hoe is? A piece of metal with a stick on the back of it. It's a back-breaking work if you ask any West African woman farmer, she will tell you, if there's a replacement for this hoe, we're asking research, what can you do for us? And we're asking the financial services industry and our partners in development and the donor community to please help us put this hoe in the museum. So we can get on with producing more from the same land that we have. The land distribution today is imbalanced. It's out of balance. The amount of food we are producing in Africa, in Africa, okay, where you can fit most of South America, North America and Europe into the continent of Africa, less than 7% of the arable land is under production. So where are we today in terms of making a decision about which priority as a farmer do I spend my time on? So I have a role as a member of a farmer community to take care of the overall landscape and environment around me. I have also got a role as an individual farmer to increase my yield to contribute to food security and to produce crops that are in direct relationship to the needs of nutrition in my community. This is a double-barrel shotgun that every farmer deals with every day. At the same time, the more we produce, the less we get paid because the way, the economics of the world and the global community works, you are punished economically for producing more and rewarded for producing less and having to pay more for inflation more for control of seed, more for control of fertilizers and inputs that you need to run and operate your farm. So the international organizations in research, as farmers, what we ask is, give us simple practical guides and assistance that makes the situation we are in today better. A 1% increase in the amount of land that we are using and a 1% increase in the yield of crops by 500 million farmers would be a significant contribution to global food security. Thank you. Thank you. Now, you are mainly talking about what landscapes as farmers make of it. Now, the way we are discussing landscape approaches in this global landscape forum is also a negotiation approach, negotiating different land uses and trade-offs of conservation and development food security, climate smart landscapes, etc. If you look at from that perspective, how do you think what should be done to get farmers engaged in this negotiation process and what kind of incentives are needed to get them on a negotiation table? I think the judge said it today that we must have a more inclusive approach that brings representatives from the farming community to participate in this negotiation and have legal protection and constraints for the enforcement of these agreements with regard to the implementation of any landscape approach. Secondly, landscape approach, and I'll give you an example of a video that was shown during the plenary yesterday or just before the plenary. It's a selfish example because I come from Ethiopia but I know this project. It has taken over almost 36 months to make a huge landscape approach solution for a community that has been historically a community that you used to watch on CNN a few years ago when Bob Gildoff and other very good actors and singers got together and sang about food aid. This was the community that was impacted by severe droughts. And it's taken three years and is now impacting positively the lives of over 3 million people. How was that negotiated? Was it a government commitment? A donor commitment? The research community's commitment? Etc. So what you're saying is absolutely true. It is a coalition. It is a negotiated and it is long term. Because landscape approaches are not for bullets and one day approaches. Okay, sir. I'm going to continue with a different tool. Thank you. I'm done. Thank you. I will go to Jane Fiehendern. We heard Ms. Kakabatsu saying this morning in the plenary, we need to restructure finances around landscapes. So what you're representing the financial community is integrated landscape thinking already a consideration for investments, for instance in terms of sustainable sourcing. Can you elaborate on that please? Because landscape approaches as a negotiated approach requires a lot of transaction costs as we heard and costs a lot of time and money to bring more and more to the future. So what can a financial sector do? Am I on? Yes. Good morning everybody. If I may, before answering your question, your first question. I just want to start by sincerely thanking the organisers for inviting ourselves from the European Investment Bank to share our point of view with you in this interesting session and share our view of this gap from the perspective of ourselves as practitioners in the financial arena. In case you're not familiar with our organisation the European Investment Bank is the European Union's long-term lending bank, we're based in Luxembourg and we're the largest multilateral financier for climate action. We have a target of 25% of our total business for climate action. We meet and exceed that target. Last year in 2013, we delivered 19 billion euros in financing for climate action orientated projects. And forestry and agriculture are important sectors within that. Small but important sectors within that. On the forestry side we're lending about 900 million euros a year to projects throughout the forest value chain both in Europe and outside Europe. And it is important to underline not just what we do do but what we do not do because we have an exclusion on financing any activity which contributes to the deforestation or degradation of tropical and subtropical natural or high conservation value of forests. And that exclusion applies across our portfolio. It is not only in the forest sector. So much for the brief introduction of who we are. Coming to your question, Miriam whether integrated landscape thinking is already a consideration for investments and whether that's part of our lexicon. I would say yes, we call it integrated landscapes thinking. We tend to talk more about diversification of revenue streams. It was interesting the consideration that Terry gave in his presentation to this issue of language and how different practitioners tend to use different words to talk about essentially the same things. And this is perhaps one example where we would speak about the financial robustness and attractiveness of a diversified vehicle with several different revenue streams. Whereas a practitioner in another field might speak about the landscapes level benefits of having different interlinked activities. That could be the same thing but described in a very different way. We see an increasing number of examples of projects which are developing several landscapes-based revenue streams. For example, forest carbon alongside sustainable commodities and agritourism, for example. And those different sources of income can be mutually reinforcing and they can help to address both deforestation and the drivers of deforestation. But what's the business case? Because that's not really the business case. What's the business case? Why is that commercially attractive? Well, I could point to four aspects of that which are interesting from a commercial point of view. Firstly, it's about reducing financial risk by having different, sometimes counter-cyclical sources of income which can together build a more financially robust activity. Secondly, it is about securing increasingly vulnerable supply chains. Many companies in the agriculture and forestry sectors are becoming more and more sensitive to the vulnerability of their supply chains and the risks that that exposes them to. Thirdly, it's about responding to consumer and shareholder demands on taking a long, hard look at actually where are my raw materials coming from and where are the problems in that supply chain and how can I improve that. And fourthly, briefly, it's increasingly about securing market access because certification, for example Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council in the fisheries sector, certification used to be about capturing a premium in a particular market. But it is moving towards actually securing access to particular markets for particular commodities. And companies are aware of that and they're sensitive to that. I don't want to say too much about forest carbon because this is something which is being discussed a lot elsewhere over the course of this weekend. But just briefly, the forest carbon revenue stream alone is not enough to attract investors. It's too vulnerable. It can be too volatile. It can be too small. But there's increased demand for forest carbon because alongside that, on the part of the agriculture and forestry companies to really look at their supply chains and ask how can they produce better, produce smarter, produce greener. And there are multiple sources of finance linked to that process. And they should all be tapped into really to help address deforestation and support more sustainable production of key commodities at the same level. So much for the first question. Okay, thank you. And then my second question is, are there any special funds at the European Investment Bank? For instance, coming out of this conference there will be a joint initiative by C4 by the experiment, by-sphere, atmospheric experiment where the real is represented or the Ethiopian farmers. Okay, let's sit together and let's implement a landscape approach here or there. Is there any special funds to bring stakeholders together at your bank? Well, looking at the toolbox that we have and the financial tools that we can bring to bear on these questions and these needs, our bread and butter is the standalone investment loan for a large single project. That kind of approach is really not that useful in this context. It's too blunt, it's too big. But equity-based funds, another one of our tools, these can be very valuable in this context. These funds can be a useful vehicle for delivering finance to the project or regional level and sharing the risks and returns from those activities and then aggregating that in a manner which can achieve scale and can attract large-scale participation from large banks like ours. And as banks like ours get more comfortable with taking equity risk to achieve bigger development impacts because we are getting more comfortable with that and developing ways of doing that and developing tools to enable us to do that. So we are able to invest more easily in funds such as these and we're really seeing that happening now. I would say that compared to the mainstream of what we do, it's still quite small but it's a growing trend and a very interesting one. I think it's relevant in this context. And to make it further grow, what kind of enabling conditions would be needed? Yeah, well I think in terms of what's holding that back the availability of willing capital is not holding this back, I think. I mean, from our perspective what's holding this back is the number of robust sound vehicles out there that we can support because what we can do is contingent on good promoters coming to us and asking for our finance. We can't go out there and develop the projects ourselves. So our contribution is contingent on good funds, good promoters bringing their funds, their projects to us. But to underline that I don't think the availability of willing capital is the problem. So good promoters any preference for a scale? A scale of working? A landscape can be anything on any scale but is there a particular scale that you would prefer working on from a financial perspective? Well fortunately we have several different ways of tackling different scales of activities but I guess to answer your question a typical equity fund that we would participate in, our participation would usually be you're talking about at least 20 million euros in a single investment and we our general rule is that we cannot finance all of the investment costs of a particular project, we can only finance 50% of the costs of a particular activity and that is in order to maximise our role in providing a signalling effect and catalyzing the process of bringing in other sources of finance so we're not able to finance something up to 100%. Thank you very much. I'm David Cooper at the CBD Secretariat well you represent the conservation perspective here what would you say are the incentives for conservationists to practice landscape approaches? Thank you, well I'd say basically in many many cases it's the only way we have competing demands on land for food security and for carbon sequestration now as well as for biodiversity conservation and so we have to negotiate how land is going to be used and essentially that happens at the spatial scale so the landscape approach I think provides that space to negotiate and it provides a framework in which to make the case so of course we would make the case conservation, not only conservation by the way also sustainable use of biodiversity but also the value that that biodiversity would then bring to other users in the landscape and these might be the local scale so for the farmer perspective the value of pollination, the value of pest control in the landscape and obviously in more regional scales supply of water climate and at the global scale carbon so in many cases it's going to be essential just because there are going to be competing demands on the land and you'll need to negotiate those in the Convention on Biological Adversity broad framework actually is the underlying framework for work under the convention is the ecosystem approach the first principle of the ecosystem approach is ecosystem management is an issue of societal choice then of course it's a question of at what scale or at what range of scales are you then going to exercise that choice but it's essentially involves or should involve a negotiation among all the stakeholders, the pressures on the land and of course the challenge is then linking those multiple demands which are only recognized perhaps at different scales and I think it's the multi-scale aspect that's perhaps one of the bigger challenges and ultimately why you need to complement stakeholder discussion at the local level with higher level a higher level policy framework and I think that reflects back to some of the things that were said this morning by Justice Benjamin and others so you need some framework you need some legal or policy framework and I think it's a reasonable I think an effective application of the landscape approach if you look at more specific incentives now so Red Plus is obviously one Red Plus operates essentially at the jurisdictional scale so it operates at the national scale that's you could say that's even bigger depending on the size of the country that's even bigger than the national scale and it's focused predominantly on forests but we need to look also at other ecosystems otherwise we risk protecting the forest but perhaps losing the savanna take the case of Brazil where there's been a very effective reduction in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon forest of around 80% over the last 10 years but we've seen an increase in the deforestation or the loss of vegetation in the Sahara in the savanna ecosystems so you need to look at all those ecosystems to prevent that leakage and then ultimately also to prevent undue pressures on the food production sector we need to make sure that incentives for Red Plus incentives for conserving carbon do not drive out food production particularly I would say small scale food production and incidentally I think it's these sorts of linkages which mean that we must make sure that in the climate agreement being negotiated in COP20 and then next year in Paris that we we look at land and land use very effectively to make sure that carbon carbon based incentives don't drive out these other major ecosystem services that the landscape provides and what would you say what are the barriers that conservationists are facing when developing those multiple objective approaches to what ecosystems taking account of both environmental services and sustainable land uses perhaps the first is a lack of a coherent policy framework in many countries across different land uses so many countries probably most countries for example have a forest law which will say how the forest or lands designated as forest should be managed but once land is no longer designated at forest it no longer applies and then you can end up with essentially no rules on how the remaining parts of the landscape is managed so I think that's one thing is that you need a wall to wall law or policy framework if you like for how the landscape within a particular country is to be managed now there are very important existing tools and frameworks that different countries use ecological and economic zoning or denomiento territorial various forms of spatial planning that can be important and they're very useful tools but they need to be situated within this broader framework and then I think the incentive measures obviously need to be aligned with those I think the second challenge will be an imbalance between the different stakeholders the power of some very large vested interests particularly if small holders or indigenous and local communities don't have their rights guaranteed you cannot have a fair negotiation if some people are those stakeholders are very powerful and others don't have their rights guaranteed and again I think some of the things that Judge Benjamin was saying this morning sort of speak to that and as well as reflecting the rights and protecting the rights of indigenous community instantly you know if you look at the effectiveness of conservation in many countries indigenous lands are often even though they're not necessarily the main purpose of those lands is not conservation conservation of biodiversity is often much more effective in those lands than even official protected areas but besides protecting the rights of indigenous communities, local farmers and so on there has to be some representation at the local level of the broader public interest the national and now I think the global scales as well that brings back to this issue of this challenge of matching what happens at these at these various scales you know if you look at various scenarios for how we could simultaneously protect biodiversity stay within two degrees and achieve food security it can be done with the land that we have but it's not simple and as Daniel said there's no silver bullet you need a combination of measures and I think in looking at that combination of measures you also want to make sure that you look at the compatibility of the individual measures that you don't drive out some possibilities by just going down one particular particular pathway I just received a message that we really should stop at 115 so I would like to use your second point as a bridge to the last panelist had issue of rights and the voice of indigenous people and we heard impressive speech by Canada this morning so my question to Victoria Tauly how do landscape approaches fit in with indigenous world views and livelihood practices and what's in it for indigenous people thank you very much I was in the opening plenary yesterday and I think stated strongly that the landscape approach is something that resonates very well with indigenous world views and practices in relation to how they can of course conserve and sustainably use their lands and waters and so for us that's not something that's very strange but I just wanted to comment a little bit on the presentation of Terry because I'm not surprised that there is not that much peer-reviewed material that you can use in your research and I think one of the reasons for that is many of those really indigenous in particular her practice landscape approach we do not have the capacity to do the research and in most cases many of the western scientists who come to our communities they also don't understand very well the whole context of how land management and water management is really done in a more holistic manner so I think that's really one of the big gaps and that's why there is not such proliferation of materials on that but the second point I wanted to say was indigenous peoples have and their livelihoods many indigenous peoples are still rotating agriculturists they are pastoralist, they are hunters and gatherers and of course they also have other livelihoods like handicrafts or artisanal production which is very much dependent on the land and the territories where they are based for instance my organization prior to becoming a rapporteur we have been supporting indigenous women in the Amazon of Peru who very much are doing this dyeing of cloth but they are taking the dyes from the forest from the fruits of the forest and if those forests are going away then that kind of livelihood that they are doing will definitely be destroyed the things that we need to do in terms of really enhancing the possibilities for indigenous peoples to contribute their knowledge and their practices in doing an integrated and holistic management and governance over the land's territories and resources is of course to respect the rights as contained in many international instruments already that have been agreed upon and committed to by states the other thing is the issue of traditional knowledge because many now there is a recognition that there are multiple knowledge systems which include of course traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge systems and these are equally valid as western science but of course the tools that are used to be able to present this and really convince the government policy makers that they should support these systems are not there so the interface with policy is still very weak and I think that's one of the things we need to work more around so that we will be able to really convince policy makers that this is a very valuable source of practice and knowledge that needs to be supported more strongly and if the evidence is showing that many of the better protected ecosystems are found in indigenous territories it's because of that kind of approach that we have been using and we continue to use and we continue to assert should be supported instead of undermined so I think my message really especially for the scientific and research community which many of you are is to really how do you really also build your capacities to be able to understand the world views the practice of indigenous people so that the knowledge systems they have which have allowed for this kind of sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and even ecosystem services how do you support that and how do you really also influence your institutions and build the capacity of your own scientists to help project and articulate and get support and really set up these kinds of centers of excellence of traditional knowledge so that we will be able to consolidate this knowledge and disseminate it even more widely and encourage others to use it I'm not just speaking as an indigenous person I'm also speaking for instance of the local communities and the farmers they do have accumulated knowledge but you know because this is not the one that produces the profits that's undermined every time so I think that's really in the end it's really the economic development model that will determine whether we can really implement the landscape approach or not because as of now the ministries of forestry or agriculture or these ministries which are delivering the economic growth that countries need this is what is given premium in policy and programs in donor support and I think a time has come that we need to really practice sustainability and integrate economic, social environmental costs and components for us to be able to really implement the landscape approach Thank you very much Well we have to conclude so unfortunately there is no more time because we started late to have to take questions from the audience but I was saying that we don't have time for it I was set to finish and to wind up so I'm very sorry for that but what I took from the discussion is that implementing a holistic and integrated approach appeals to common sense it is already being done it's being done by farmers by indigenous people the financial sector is involved there are still challenges as you said what about aligning with jurisdictional and administrative boundaries with financial limits etc so as a way of having the audience input I would like to invite you to go to the opinion compass again and see whether the discussion has changed your opinion and your statement whether you would like to change your position and see what the discussion has done to the majority statement can it be projected on the screen and maybe also the people that have questions or want to discuss we can go outside and have lunch together I think it's always very important to have more inputs the afternoon session will start at 2.15 so the panellists will be available outside and Terry I was asking you to wind up the session after having heard all these people what do you think is the next step for your mapping exercise I wasn't going to wind up as such if you say it was 1.15 we still have 12 minutes what is it? not your watch her watch is wrong sorry for that I would encourage the audience to then sure we have 15 minutes mine is up at 1.15 okay so we take a couple of questions from the audience then for the panellists I suggest we take three of them and then you wear the first definitely you just let your watch correct yeah I know it was the timing hello I'm Peter Cronkelton from C4 I have a question for Jane you mentioned that there was no shortage of willing capital but the obstacle you saw was the lack of robust equitable projects and so my question would be are you aware of any initiatives to try to build capacity for development projects or policy makers to present those types of projects and secondly what are the criteria that you would use to judge the robustness of one of these projects self-question thank you, did the question is clear I have another one for you from Moriel as well very briefly loans don't finance science or participation how do we do to have the landscape approach be financed is there one question from the audience I'll come back to you particularly for Jane no David had one no okay then I suggest first Jane to answer the question yes thank you very much for those two questions firstly robust equitable projects actually here is another example of this issue of language I said equity and you heard equitable yeah but to come to your question on how whether there are capacity building activities which can help to build the pipeline of these types of projects I think the most powerful way of building that pipeline is by looking at the leaders in this field and sharing that good practice which is being exemplified by the small number of leaders in this field one fund that we are currently investing in is the Althelia climate fund which we view as a very good example of the type of vehicle that I was trying to describe and actually learning from what they are doing and the good practice that they are developing this is perhaps the best form of TA technical assistance that we could hope for you had another part to your question as well the criteria that we use to judge well any request for financing that we have we go through an internal due diligence on each request and that internal process needs to cover the technical strength of the proposal the economic contribution the social and environmental strengths and weaknesses and we need to look at all of these aspects to actually judge whether this project whether the promoter really knows what they are talking about whether they can really pull it off whether it is financially robust because after all we are lending we have a duty of care and resources that we are lending out we need to get that money back so it might be a project which promises the world and looks absolutely great but if it is financially weak we have a big problem right there so in our internal due diligence we need to cover each of those aspects the bank has a strong policy with regard to the social and environmental criteria that all of our projects have to meet we need to look at whether this is available on our website to be happy to tell you more about that so I hope that answers your question with regard to the second question Muriel your statement loans don't finance science actually the EIB and other certainly I should just speak for ourselves we do finance research development and innovation with loans and institutes we also finance student loans actually so we do have a program of loans and other sources of support for research development and innovation whether and how that's being applied in the sustainable landscape sphere maybe that's something we should look at for the future and the final part of your question how are there any financial funds to bring stakeholders together in those negotiation processes goodness I would say that that's perhaps the role of the the project developers themselves and not of organizations like ourselves which would finance those activities I would say that's not that's not our role we would view it very favorably where we see it happening but I think it's hard for us to do that we do have convening power in the sense that as I mentioned because we can only finance part of the costs of any given activity we often work together with other financiers on a particular project and we cooperate with the other financiers and we work together on our due diligence so in that sense there's at our level there's a lot of cooperation going on but I don't think that's quite what you were there's a lot of that type of cooperation going on criteria you should use criteria to finance projects and participation may be one well for sure with regards to projects to what extent they are working on stakeholder consultation are they implementing free prior informed consent where indigenous peoples may be affected by a particular project that was built into our policy on the social sustainability of all of our projects so those components are captured by the bank's policy in this regard so that would certainly contribute thank you just a small comment Jessica I need the mic everybody gets a chance to hear what farmers talk about when you raised the issue of finance in agriculture for those of you who like to go on the internet I suggest to you to go to the CTA website we had a four day revolutionizing agriculture finance session in Nairobi about four months ago I think it's a very important discussion the EIB is not the issue that I'm going to address at this point but I have to tell you that as a human being and a member of this educated well to do community that we are all part of it is a shame that we are unable to financially figure out that the risk factors in financing agriculture are different from the risk factors of our traditional banking we put banks in constraints and say here's money for development then we call the development community the developing community civil society when we farmers are profitable businesses we don't look at the valorization of farmers farmers produce over a trillion dollars worth of goods and services which is not bankable but on the internet there are companies who produce zero product can't feed your children with Facebook or any other high value stock market business out of San Jose or elsewhere and yet for the important things in our lives we solve air conditioning, electricity but we can't figure out how to improve the financing of agriculture that we depend on every day we do not valorize agriculture we do not build equity in agriculture farmers produce more they get paid less they have less land every day they're subject to climate and changes that make their lives a nightmare they have to depend on the forest for heating and cooking their food and building their homes we provide none of that and yet we have every year feed the future feed this, then nutrition this over 18 billion dollars worth on record if you go to the headlines and we can't figure it out that's a shame on us as human beings thank you that was a strong statement indeed let's take a last round of questions from the audience there's one hopefully thank you, Evan Knottman from USAID I'll direct my question I guess to Terry from C4 but first I want to say thanks for a really great conversation from everybody but I want to bring up a little bit the definitional aspects which hate to dwell on but I do think thinking about some of these definitional aspects are important for addressing the research gap I think we've heard some very interesting comments today about how different sectors different parts of this equation are using different types of definition whether it's an integrated portfolio or in the perspective of red thinking about a jurisdictional approach and then a landscape approach and in many ways they are very similar but there are actually very important differences in terms of the perspectives and approaches in which they're taking and I'd like to kind of hear your perspective on how through research and really looking at those differences in terms of definition you might be able to think about addressing some of the gaps in knowledge across these different sectors Thank you, another question No one, I invite Terry to Yes sorry, no I will answer after he Okay, I can try I think one of the most frustrating things of this whole landscape approach thing is the silver bullet mentality that seems to accompany it I really liked what was said earlier about this is not a new concept the landscape approach is not new it's just been given new impetus it's a cognizance of the fact that we can't work in silos I do a lot of work on the links between forest and food security and agriculture and forestry have always been segregated both institutionally, politically, financially and in any other way yet the links between forest and food security are extremely strong and if you come to our session this afternoon but nonetheless I think that we should be very, very careful about restricting ourselves to definitions landscapes are very dynamic landscapes are varying in geographical size in scope in what happens in those landscapes and the long-term commitment to landscapes encompasses that dynamism and I think the dialogue has shifted very significantly just two or three years ago an event like this would have been people like Miriam and myself talking to each other about landscapes but here we have representatives from finance, from farmers groups from the policy sector indigenous organizations the dialogue is changing and the silos are breaking down and I think they're breaking down because we're not being constrained by definitions they're breaking down because people are understanding what it is that this landscape approach represents to them it may represent something different to another sector or to another individual or to another institution so there have been a whole bunch of blogs leading up to this global landscapes forum and also the CG dialogues that happened in New York in September really urging caution about not clearly defining or over defining the landscape approach and allowing it to be a sort of overarching framework under which we work and sort of start breaking down those silos in that way by adding definitions you're creating even more silos in many aspects and more compartments the very thing we're trying to avoid that's my opinion anyway I just wanted to say that we are talking about the landscape approach and we have to link this with what is happening globally in terms of shaping a new development agenda and the post 2015 development agenda governments are going to decide on this September of next year there will be a big summit which will what is this going to be and if we see the sustainable development goals that have been developed so far it does include all the different landscapes that we are talking about and waterscapes, seascapes as well and I think that kind of framework if we are going to work very hard on that to be able to make sure that while we are talking about this specific different ecosystems and landscapes or territories whatever term we use the fact remains that it's really very much needed at this time that we look at any kind of land use or waters in a very integrated way and define policies on how this can be done I mean there is no such thing in the world as a ministry of landscapes and maybe it will never happen but it's really bringing together all the different ministries and different U.N. bodies or CGA IARs to really talk about this and what are the contributions that each of them should give to make this a reality I think that's I mean if we are working within where we are right now that is the challenge for all of us how do we break out of those silos and really bring this together because that is what is needed now nature works that way and it's about time that we learn about nature from how it has sustained itself of course with people who are who recognize the value of nature and come together and really use this kind of knowledge to be able to really bring out the kind of policies that will make a difference in the world and this is what we need now if we are going to go the same track I bet you maybe in 20 years we are even worse off than where we are right now but that is needed and that has to be done at present and all of us are challenged to contribute to this so the research people have a very important role to play I think as long as they are not as long as they are given the proper support and the proper orientation and the dialogue with the practitioners the ones who are making this happen is something that needs to be to be ensured like your participatory research approaches and that I think will make the difference I think this is a very neat summary of the debate and a take home message for us to take just a final question is anyone inclined to change the position that he or she took on the opinion compass after this discussion none then at least I hope you benefit from the take home message that Victoria has given us thank to the panelists thank to Terry for organizing this panel and presenting and thanks to the audience for being here and providing inputs enjoy your lunch