 Now, my name is Pascal. I work for the Global Donut Platform for Rural Development and that's an organization that sort of an umbrella for this event and one of the members is GIZ, Tanya's from GIZ. It's a member-driven organization of 38 global agriculture Rural Development organizations, World Bank, GIZ. I'm not gonna tell you all this 38. Okay, now before we start with the presentations, I want to actually introduce the panel to the audience. Here's the, or the other way around. This is the audience panel. This is my sample here that's later and she's actually here because she wants to know a little bit more about the pressure for small holders where she comes from. I want solutions. So you give me some ideas on how to solve this pressure. This don't translate to food production, development or conservation. Okay, so you need to change your whole presentation now because you know what the audience wants to hear. Okay, now this was just a little example to make sure that we reflect what you interested in and now when the new people come, please come to the front. Don't do the same thing again. Just please come up to the front. Don't just all sit there in the middle, please. Okay, now we start with Debra. Debra Vosio, she's working for SEAT, which is the Center for Tropical Agriculture Research and she will start with framing our subject in the SDG debate. Do you want to take it from there? I'm gonna say much more. She can introduce herself. And as well. Okay. Oh, it's on. Okay. Great. Thanks. Good afternoon everybody. Thanks for coming to this session. I was asked to give just a very brief framing of this session within the whole concept of the sustainable development goals and I'm very excited about the progress that we've made in a very short time on these sustainable development goals and the post-2015 agenda and about the linking of this forum, the global landscape forum, with the sustainable development agenda post-2015. I think it's a big step forward in terms of understanding the role of landscape approaches in our possible futures. I want to start back just only a few years ago at the Rio Plus 20, which was in 2012. That's when the member states agreed to launch the process to set a set of sustainable development goals. So that's only three years ago that we actually started on a process to try to define what these goals would look like. At that time, a document was produced called the future we want. And the future we want did a lot of framing of basically the aspirations for our the sustainable sort of development agenda. And for example, in the future we want, they brought forward to they brought forward the concept of a land degradation neutral world, which has now been incorporated into the draft goals and targets of the agenda. Since the Rio Plus 20, we've had the open working group on sustainable development goals has been working to define these limited set of goals and targets. This has been a very innovative process, much different from the Millennium Development Goals, for example. This had a constituency-based system of extensive involvement with relevant stakeholders to actually come up and define the set of goals that we have now, which on the should be noted is really still just a draft of these goals. There's 17 goals in draft form to be ratified next year. So even though now we have these 17 goals that cover everything from eradicating poverty, they have the universality clause and include actually sustainability within the development agenda. So for the first time this concept that development and sustainability can actually go hand in hand rather than be an either or kind of a proposition. That's what's important I think about these goals. But there's a lot of things that still remain in question as to what's going to happen. One of them is how sustaining natural resources can actually be sort of fully integrated into the relevant aspects of these goals. We still have a goal 15 that has terrestrial ecosystems. So we've sort of lumped a lot of the natural resources work into a separate goal from development. But on the other hand, some of the goals are already starting to integrate the concept. So the proposed goal number two refers specifically to sustainable agriculture as a vehicle to end hunger and improve nutrition. So it's integrated into one of the highest level important goals of hunger and nutrition. Goal 15 does refer to sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halting land degradation. What's important for this session is how do landscape approaches actually help us to achieve these sustainable development goals in whatever final form they actually take? What does a landscape approach actually bring to that table? What is the added value of this landscape approach that most of us are sort of bought into or we wouldn't even be here at the forum? One thing, one point I'd like to make is that these sustainable development goals won't be possible to be reached if we continue on this very sectoral type of approach. Forestry is the main entry point to all climate change mitigation, for example. We need to be considering agriculture, forestry and other human endeavors in sort of these multi-sectoral approaches to sustainable development. I.e. that is basically the definition of a landscape approach. So one of the main messages here, I think we'll all agree, but we could see what are the bottlenecks there, is that these integrated landscape approach really are essential to achieving the sustainable development goals. One thing we heard this morning at the opening plenary already is it's not anymore about being convinced that landscapes are important, etc. It's sort of about the how. And when you get to the how, that is really what we're here to talk about today, I think, some examples of what we really mean. A mistake we might be making is this idea of packaging landscapes as a single thing. The landscape approach is our new silver bullet of some kind, but that's not the case. It's a diversity of landscapes that encompass croplands, pastures, forests, under varying degrees of pressure. And we need to maintain a focus on that diversity. There's not one solution. And another thing that's very important about the landscape approach is that you include not only, say, productive uses of the landscape, but also urban water supplies, natural resources extraction, or cultural values, also as important goods and benefits that we get from the landscapes. So sustainable land use and sustainable landscape use varies just as much as the landscapes themselves do. Each initiative requires a unique combination of policy, financial, science components to actually deliver success on sustainable landscape management. And here we mean success in terms of restored ecosystem services, but also sustained crop production and tangible benefits for local peoples, marginal groups, and women. So, for example, in our work at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, we work in one landscape that I think is a useful example of how a landscape approach can actually bridge the sectors and bring the right investment and all the critical elements together in a particular place. And we're working with the Nature Conservancy, with Kenya Power Company, with Kenya Water Supply and the breweries to try to bring together investment in clean water to support upstream sustainable land management. So here you have to look at the entire landscape from the downstream urban users of water to the upstream smallholder farmers, and learn how to make sure that the benefits flow all the way around in the circle for sustainable land management. And that's a good example of how a landscape approach can be crossed the sectors and bring together the different kinds of investments. So, in this session titled Landscapes Under Pressure, what we're doing here really is exploring a variety of entry points to preserve livelihoods and natural resources. These entry points can be both social and technical, and each requires some sort of fundamental changes in either institutions, governance, private sector behavior, and citizenship. Our case examples are really varied with our three presentations, preserving and managing biocultural diversity as one entry point to achieving SDGs in landscapes, reducing food losses, and as an entry point to increase resource use efficiency and reduce climate impacts. And then as well, an example of trans-boundary agreements based on cultural identities as one of the interesting and innovative approaches to landscapes. So with these presentations, we hope to discuss and really broaden our understanding of the variety of the entry points there are, and see how landscape approaches bring an integrated view that can help us to achieve the sustainable development goals. Thank you very much. Now, I think we can say that Deborah has said that she's a strong believer in the landscapes approach. I want to just ask the audience who thinks that the landscape approach is an added value. If you can just raise your hand, I just want to know. No second question, it's either or. Who believes it's an added value? I think there was quite a lot of hands up there. Okay, maybe you can tell us just for one second why you think that is. I think some of the added value in the landscapes approach is moving away from the sectoral approach, and I hope we're going to hear a little bit about agriculture and this whole push on climate-smart agriculture, which seems to be technologically driven and not really making the connection yet to other ecosystems within the landscapes. And I'm hoping that as the landscape approach begins to inform other types of approaches, we can see that bringing agriculture more into the landscape and getting the agronomists out of the field, just as the foresters need to get out of the forest and talk to other people. The agronomists need to get out of their field and talk to the other folks in the landscapes. So I think there's added value in pushing people to go beyond their own sectoral vision. And even if they see their sector as the entry point, they understand what they're entering into. Okay, thank you very much. I want to leave it with that. I want to go over to Cora, and I think what I learned from her so far is that she's also a strong believer. She thinks that social change and institutions need to be changed to give the landscapes approach a proper chance. I think so, and even much more will have to change. I would like to pick up on what Louise says, is that the added value of landscape approaches for me is the spatial aspect. It is the connecting the different sectors and actors and scales to a particular place on Earth. And I think that is sometimes overlooked when we talk about integration and so on and so forth. But space and place as such is, I think, the biggest added value. I would like to move to my slides. Can I do so, please? I've got a few slides just to illustrate my story and also to avoid you looking at me. I'd rather have you looking at the screen if there is something on the screen. Technicians, please. Yeah, there it is. Okay, building on what Deborah said, the sustainable goals, the development goals. How can landscape approaches actually give an added value to that? Well, we believe that it's really the spatial element that is the added value. A landscape approach used to be started or was actually started from the site of the forests. Peter Holmgren was speaking here before as the director of C4. I think C4 was one of the biggest promoters of the landscape approach because they realized that if you work in forests, you have to realize that forests these days are fragmented every day more. And forests as such cannot be looked at independently from the people who live in the forest and who live from the forest, who build their households and their livelihoods there until we have a rural village. But increasingly, rural inhabitants, they move to the cities and they produce commercially and they produce large-scale commodities which are necessary to feed the cities. So somehow the connectedness between the rural and the urban is an important aspect of this landscape approach. And then the cities, of course, they highly depend on the industry. And without industries, we don't have solid landscapes and then the industries, they rely on the water, which is coming from the landscape and which is feeding the landscape with all its social and economic activities and which give also a bio-cultural identity to this particular landscape. And then we increasingly have the mining industry and miners, whether they like it or not, whether they realize it or not, they do have a huge influence on the landscape. They are co-shapers of the landscape. Together with the inhabitants and other shapers in the landscape. Here we have a typical spatial image of a landscape but we increasingly realize that it's not just the local stakeholders who shape the landscape, but increasingly so our landscapes are entangled in global processes. We have mobility, in this case I think it's KLM, not sure though, which provides the connection, not only the interconnectedness in a landscape but its connectedness to global processes like the coffee consumers who, whether they like it or not, are directly connected to the area where the coffee is being produced. They are co-shapers of the landscape. They are involved whether they know it or not. We have all sort of international agreements and trade relations that shape the landscape. So somehow if we look at the landscape we have to take into account these international treaties that have such a high influence and that's sometimes overseen but increasingly recognized that is the business world and the investors that are also involved because they to a high extent shape the landscape and define how a landscape looks like. Now for us a landscape approach is not just the recognition of this multi-actor and multi-sector and multi-scale dynamics. It's not enough for us, and I'm talking on behalf of my colleagues in Wageningen, for us there is more that for us a crucial element is how do we bring all these actors and sectors together. How do we somehow interconnect them and while recognizing that they all have different stories, different worldviews, different discourses, they are interconnected and what connects them is this landscape, the place they are shaping. So how can we bring them somehow together around a table, including the youth, the new generation, including the biodiversity and how can we make them collectively planned? Well in order to do so we believe we need a lot of changes and not just the small marginal changes but really big changes. A first big change that we believe is necessary to make this landscape approach happen is institutional change. And here I come back to what Deborah was already talking about. Our landscapes are very often managed and steered by silos. We've got the agricultural stronghold, we've got the water experts and the city planners and they really like to work isolatedly from each other. They forget to realize that as co-shapers they have to work together. So this whole fragmentation, the way in which we fragment our whole governance, our whole institutional frames will bring us to a change in governance which is needed. And yesterday with the youth we talked a lot about it. The youth actually helped me with this presentation. I really recognize them, I'm thankful to them. But governance, we have organized our society in a very vertical way and yesterday I tried to illustrate this vertical way in which we have organized our society. I think you know this, you should know that. Anyway, we have organized our world in all nested scales and that's not a bad thing but it has somehow led to a whole sectoral silo way of managing our space and the question is then there, where do landscapes fit in? Are we to create a new layer which is called landscape or do we have to be more clever and change from this sectoral way of organizing our society into a much more network way of organizing our society. A network across sectors and skills but whoops, it's gone. Can somebody help me to get it back? The way actually this network way of organizing society networks rooted in place would look more like this. So the big question is how can we reorganize our society from such a model and bring it into such a model where we can twist and turn and connect skills and I hoped it would have been better. So this is the change which is needed. Now in order to get to that change but that's a big point, we have two illustrations after this presentation that will help us understand how we can bring about such a change but more change is needed. We need to change something with our businesses because funny enough our businesses however they try to do their best they are also organized in such a vertical way. They are totally based on the product chains and they realize that their product chains are currently at risk and they certainly do a lot to improve their chains but it is a vertical improvement. They talk about responsible business which is excellent and they use landscapes for branding and marketing and they really do their best to not do harm but we want more than that. We actually would love to do business do good instead of no harm and that requires a different way in which businesses operate and we believe something has to move from the thinking in chains to the thinking in circles and from the change in... That is where it goes. Thinking of landscapes not just as sourcing areas but as investment areas not only taking products out but bringing products back in and creating a flow of creating what I would call a restorative industry so moving from an extractive to a restorative industry I think that's really needed the difference between do no harm and do good I've got this beautiful image of the Lusplato in China I think you've seen it and a lot of money is being made by this extractive to restorative industry and then I'm almost through, don't worry we also need to get there a change in investment a change in the thinking of investors and to enable them to create investment models which are geographically defined and learn to see landscapes as investment areas where you can work with bundles of products or bundles of goods and services where you can derive your return from and then we have to help them to not only think in financial returns but realize that actually a return can also be social can be natural even inspiration can be seen as a return on investment so how to move to that circular economy thing and then a last change which we both which we think we need for that is actually a change in citizenship how to help citizens to fit in this new model and then we thought actually what you would need for that is a citizenship, a state in which citizens instead of being degraders become protagonists and protectors and create a bond or reconnect to the place they own or reconnect to the bio-cultural identity of the place they are attached to and that's a big step but funny enough for a lot of people local people, indigenous people it's not such a big step it's actually quite common sense so how to get back this bio-cultural diversity this identity of place and bring that back into the system how to create this environmental citizenship in which people are actually willing to pay the price for all these changes through their consumptive behavior and through the way in which they work and use their environment I thought probably the best illustration is this picture how to create such a sort of citizenship where people out of their sense of place respect and restore that's the end of my story that's the end of the story that's the beginning of change when you started talking about do no harm I was thinking about Google and I was wondering how you're going to bring Google into this landscape picture it would be cool because Google actually knows how this model works and probably we should help them or they should help us to create this now I don't know about you but I think for me I have learned that the landscape approach you could debate whether you need that or not but for me I think it's just any type of approach that brings in more complexity into the way you handle it I think that's probably what is needed you can call it whatever you want the second thing that I think I've learned from this is that we need a lot of changes and it's not all about knowledge what everybody is talking about knowledge transfer and bringing knowledge to the people but if you want to actually bring about change you have to motivate people I guess and the question would be how to do all this business change now from that we want to go over and hand over to Tanya who's with an advisor with GIZ and she's going to talk about the rice value chain in Nigeria and what she believes what could be done I think she's going to tell us that industrialized production can actually be better for the environment than just traditional okay thank you Pascal yes in fact I want to talk about sustaining landscapes and show you that food losses matter and I will also compare a traditional industrialized value chain for that just to give you a bit of the background the topic of food losses is much debated there's a lot of figures on it all over the world we here made the attempt to look at only two sources just to show you the range of figures for instance if you look at sorghum in Africa the sources talk about 0 to 40% of losses if you look at fruits and vegetables if you include distribution or not there's a high range 30 to 51% this is to illustrate that there's a lot of research still needed in order to look at food losses the newest studies that are published those sources are a bit older give some evidence that tells us that some of those figures have been exaggerated that the losses in fact are a little bit smaller however they are still very relevant and they are one very important issue in agriculture how you can mitigate climate change so actually I heard from Swiss researchers that it's actually the most important mitigation possibility for agriculture more than other techniques now looking at food losses and landscapes I think Cora already gave us a very good background the challenge is that there's a conceptual difference between this value chain approach and the circle approach that landscapes tell us where you have a spatial dimension and where it's more locally based however the interconnections are there decisions on farm level or at processing level however also influence the surrounding landscapes a lot and that is something that we have to take into consideration when talking about value chains, efficiency and so on there's a growing common concern about the limited nature resources for food and non-food production a growing concern about overuse of nature resources about land use changes and climate change and of course also the topic of food security is important in relation to food losses now we did several case studies I here want to present the results of the latest study which looks at the rice value chain in Nigeria rice is a major staple food in Nigeria the local demand increases a lot and there's a supply demand gap which is bridged by imports which of course have a much higher environmental footprint not only due to the transport but to the higher methane emissions that occur in Asian rice production compared to the African rice production the scope of the GIZ funded study was on the one hand to determine to quantify losses and on the other hand to calculate the environmental footprint of those losses for that more than 200 rice farmers have been interviewed 30 millers 30 marketers from two states in Nigeria and it looked at it analyzed the whole chain from cultivation harvest, storing, processing and distribution of the rice focus was the lowland rice production it determined quantitative and qualitative food losses and the environmental footprint which is probably for the landscape topic the most important one and at the end I will present some recommendations on how to improve those value chains how to reduce losses and also how to bring down the environmental footprint looking at the rice value chain in Nigeria at least 90% of the rice farmers are subsistence oriented small holders which sell only the surplus production the average farm size is around 2.5 hectare and the cultivation is mainly done manually with sickle harvesting with direct seeding with manual threshing and from this point from the small holders the surplus production goes either into a traditional processing where the producers do the processing themselves they do power boiling on their farms directly open fire, they dry on mats they mill it in small scale mills which are diesel driven and the outcome is a very low quality product and the co-products, brands and husks of the rice which have some value either as fodder for animals or as burning material are very seldomly used on the other hand the industrial processing we only looked at one example here in Nigeria at one processing plant that purchases the paddy from the farmers here you see an integrated processing where power boiling, drying, milling, polishing and color sorting is done within that plant there are almost no losses in those steps of the processing of the value adding the rice husks are used as burning material the brands are used as fodder and the outcome is a high quality product which can be sold at higher prices of course now looking I show you some pictures here you see the manual rice production you see the harvest you see the soil works you see the power boiling which is done on open fire on traditional ovens rice is dried on mats as I said and then here you see a rice mill and then you see what is remaining of the rice it's usually only thrown into the landscape it's not used, it's there and it's like waste dumping site which doesn't look nice and is of no use actually this is the integrated the industrialized value chain the processing plant in comparison to that those are the results of the analysis of the losses I don't want to go into very much detail here it's just to tell you that we found in that Nigeria example that roughly 25% of the rice is lost we found that the hotspots in the value chain are on the one hand during harvest, threshing and winnowing of the paddy you see that here you have between 4 and 5% of losses and during the power boiling process on the farms I'm talking about the traditional value chain those are the main issues but at every step of the value chain you see that losses occur and they sum up to almost 25% this remote doesn't want to work now those losses we use them to calculate an environmental footprint so this graph looks at the contribution of different life cycle phases to the global warming potential of one ton of rice so the CO2 equivalent is shown here you see that in terms of methane field emissions, fertilizer and so on there's not a big difference the big difference between the traditional and the industrial chain is the power boiling and the flash on top there and that is the main reason why the industrial value chain has a much better environmental footprint in terms of CO2 emissions but also in terms of other topics important for the environmental footprint if we look at the value of rice it doesn't like me that remote if we look at the value of rice it becomes even more obvious you see here the KG CO2 equivalent for 100 naira of rice and for 100 naira of rice you can buy a larger quantity of traditional rice a lower quantity of industrial rice which has higher quality and is therefore sold to higher prices and here you see that it's almost half so the industrial value chain is wise as good let's say then compared to the traditional one so what does that mean in terms of conclusions reducing post harvest losses in the Nigerian rice value chain is relevant for both food security and climate change mitigation and that is not only relevant for the Nigerian rice value chain but also for all other value chains where losses occur the methane emissions occur on an area basis that means if you increase production if you increase the yields that will also lower the methane emissions per quantity parboiling contributes significantly to negative impact on the surrounding landscapes on the one hand due to the emissions but then also if you think about landscape linkages of course it contributes also to deforestation the integrated mill has improved environmental performance due to the integrated parboiling process which is fueled by the residues that are there the reduction in losses valuable byproducts and improved quality of the final product now there are some options for improving the sustainability of the rice value chain in Nigeria I'm sure we can add more here in the discussion but those are only a few points on the one hand it's important to support farmers to organize themselves in order to be able also to be part of an industrialized value chain it is important to reduce the losses by improving farmers access to improve threshing and harvesting technology where you saw the high percentage of losses knowledge is important, seeds and other inputs are important as well now a very important point that can be discussed also later on it would be important to support industrial processing and what is the role of the private sector here we need more investors to have more industrial processing we also found evidence in the potato value chain in Kenya that contract farmers that are part of an industrialized value chain have less losses that doesn't say anything about the farmers incomes but the losses are reduced and that is important for environmental protection traditional processing can also be improved you can introduce improved rice milling machines with capability to separate rent from husk and separate broken grains and of course you can use modern power boilers power boilers, destoners you have improved ovens that are already developed that use also the residues as burning material so those improved stoves can harvest emissions with the global warming potential in the power boiling step and with those words I would like to thank you the studies are available the rice study is not yet online but will be soon and don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to have it, thank you thank you very much I think you can see I didn't promise the wrong thing she is a strong believer in that the industrializing helps there to save the environment so I would like to ask you who believes that that's the case you want to raise your hand please raise your hand if you believe that the industrializing these processes actually helps the saving the environment yes, yes, there are some very hesitant, they only go half way up okay, with that moving to Rajan Kothru he's with Isimot and he works in the Hindukush area eight countries actually in the Himalayan and he believes that it's very important to work trans-boundary to save the environment yes, I think it's working, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen I have now the opportunity to take over well as we say, you know planning without action is often fatal and action without planning is futile at the end of the day you have to demonstrate on the ground that in a trans-boundary scale you can actually move things that we are trying to do in geopolitically hotspot in the Himalayas where countries like India, China, Nepal are just neighboring each other and just to take you for a while how the action is being done as the previous two presentations we are talking about in an area which is the birthplace of ten rivers in a way and even the Yellow River of China but also it is about five key religions in the world Hinduism and Buddhism who belong to this landscape who treat this landscape as one of the cultural cradle of the region but also we talk about over thousand languages which are in these areas still living languages so that will tell you something about the culture but not to forget the four bio-hotspots in this 32 of the bio-hotspots in the world are in this area so let me take you a little bit in the action I hope it works, yes it does work well this is an area you know it is very often to talk about frameworks and then talk about the concepts at the end of the day when you go to the ground you have the difficulty and the difficulty is the data is not available or the data is not comparable I don't know much about how ecosystems work in the Himalayas and what is the interface between these ecosystems which are producing these value chains which are linked to that intensive culture I was talking about of five religions and different tribal groups which are in the area all this is a kind of an open question that the rationale has to be built why we are coming countries together and working on a trans-Monday landscape that really moves the subject of water which is as I said 10 rivers, a lot of glaciers and they bring you a lot of water so that's something to talk about where we are but things are not all that bad you can see that India, China, Nepal are already have something in their national strategies development strategies, national bio-diversity action plans we are talking about let's come together in terms of multilateral cooperation, bilateral cooperation and that's where we are trying to build in to talk about these 1.3 billion people in the Himalayas which are relying on the ecosystem services which come from the Himalayas now this is just to give you a frame we are talking about a green one Kala sacred landscape, operational landscape where we are working between India, China and Nepal and the rest of the landscape, the yellow color they take you really the heterogeneous sections of the Himalayas left-hand side, Afghanistan, Pakistan very arid and very tough area on the right hand side Myanmar, Bangladesh almost like a tropical climate all this heterogeneity of ecosystems, cultures ecoregions which are there corridor connectivity which is there that is what really moves us to work in this landscape but not to forget at the end of the day whatever we produce if it is not really coming from science that's what IPCC report says where is the science to prove that glaciers are melting and therefore we have to take actions from the science but also we have to produce something which policy makers and practitioners are actually biting at the end of the day yes there is a critical evidence we really need to generate that knowledge and then share that knowledge and go forward this will give you just a small glimpse where we are as I said bio-hotspot as well as geopolitical hotspot these are three countries China, India and Nepal and there is a holy peak of the name of Kalash and two big battle lands Mansarovar as one of them and Rakshas on the right hand side you might get a glimpse of why we are there we are there because there are gaps of science and there are also cultural linkages that's why these countries have come together the two entry points it was mentioned by the first presentation as well as second and that is really lead to livelihoods the livelihoods are the key and the second entry point we do believe is livelihoods are dependent on the ecosystems and the ecosystems are also dependent on people because people manage them so you come to an entry point which is yellowish one and two and it gives you a feeling that where the program is focusing because at the end of the day if people don't see the benefit in trans-boundary landscape concept it's not working and all other can fall in place later but keeping given the fact we are talking about feminization of mountain culture that means the men are moving out due to whatever problems climatic, non-climatic but we therefore do look into gender trans-boundary natural resource governance we do talk about private sector as a cross-cutting joining platform for the three countries as well as the valuation science we have to put more value on the ecosystems which are there and create that science based on that that's how it works it is working on the left hand side India on the right hand side Nepal and in the center you will see where we are working together action on the ground as I said is very very important now what has really so far worked in terms of building milestones we have done a lot we have value chains which are trans-boundary in this case Indian butter tree and honey we have Reuters market light which gives communication information to tribals which don't have any roads coming to their village but they have a mobile form all the information, weather, climate fertilizer prices, market prices and that's what we are trying to build in this landscape but also linking value chains to sustained ecosystem management but that's not the case often when you go to the people then you find other problems it's not the problem of value chain problem was our spring heads are drying up drying up due to climate change we have to give another attention that is spring head conservation and all the agendas in a global level we want to also move certain things like CBD agenda, biodiversity cultural protocols which we are trying to raise and see that people are also benefitting from them but now how does it work at the end of the day on the upper side you see three countries come together in terms of a program steering committee or a program management unit lower half you find where actually action is done and how this feedback loop is getting into the national level and how we come to the international level at the end of the day to move the things this is just a snapshot how do we really move having an edifice of trans-mountain landscapes, taking it upwards having some set of deliverables, partners, credible partners then moving things on local level, national level global level and the right hand side definitely seeing that regional cooperation is manifested in the long run and scientific information is shared and created and then finally also good governance at the landscape level but benefit for the people these are then the last two slides what has really worked really what has worked is the ownership because countries do believe that it is a kind of a soft diplomacy we are talking here about people's benefit cultural benefit so let's own this initiative as such the second is communication really matters because all of our value chains where people are producing the products I was talking about they are getting this information and they are getting other information, vice versa the information from the ground level is also coming to the national level to move things there but at the end of the day as I said Kailash landscape is a holy landscape the culture is very very important so we are building on responsible tourism which takes us to the heritage of this heritage preservation of this particular landscape then finally I think we do talk about transporting markets which are not possible without having institutions on the ground which deliver that governance which Ustun was talking about which really deliver that governance, good governance across the borders now this is what I have to say at the end there is a lot of scope because I was talking about geopolitical sensitiveness at the end of the day we have to demonstrate that model and we are practicing that model at the end of the day and institutions and governance we are as I said I gave you an example of India and Nepal how they are coming together and creating this market creating that management plan being shared and creating that chance of good natural resource management governance across the borders, last but not least converging the innovations, the landscape is something as the first picture was shown earlier that it really brings certain stakeholders together not certain but a lot of multiple stakeholders brought together but at the end of the day when you are converging innovations, red plus, value chain, private sector ecosystem management at a trans-boundary landscape there is an absolute chance that you are doing the right thing as we have done so far so that is the end of the day, let the peak bless you forever and times to come Thank you very much I think, I don't know if I misstate that but I think you can say that you are a strong believer in trans-boundary mechanisms regional organizations that work I mean surely it is not so easy to say that because you would have to figure out how they actually work so that has maybe taken us to the next round then how you can actually do all these things but since I have asked you questions before and they were all difficult because there is always a big how to the question but do you think that we need more coordinating mechanisms who believes that we need more coordinating mechanisms okay, right that is quite a lot even though we all know that there are a lot of coordinating mechanisms that don't have really a lot of power that are in institutions with any teeth that are not hooked to government or to business let's take it from there I would like to invite my colleagues here also to raise a question otherwise I would ask anyone to come up who wants to ask a question maybe connected to Rajan to the coordinating mechanism thank you Rajan, I don't envy your position this must be the equivalent of working in the eye of the cyclone this is one of the most difficult places on earth my name is Daniel, I am a farmer from Ethiopia I also represent the farmer's cooperative for all of you I started today extremely skeptical and I am ending the day a lot less skeptical and I think you said it is the new silver bullet I don't know if it is the soup of the day or whatever euphemism we want to say I have some concerns and I am not sure I can frame it in a way of a question but it gets to the point of four years ago we started on a journey to improve farmer productivity and our outputs and our yields and to become more sustainable or quote responsible and the use of fertilizers and appropriate seed the experience, I don't know if you were in the plenary there was a short brief film showed about what we went through in Ethiopia in one area in this landscape approach which worked very well it takes a tremendous amount of resource tremendous amount of coordination a tremendous amount of communal arm twisting and learning to navigate your very nice people organizations to figure out should I speak to Ilri, Wagon Egan, USAID, DFID, who comes to the table and how do I get this because you are all in silos nobody is doing what Google is doing the transformative and revolutionary stuff of disrupting the existing status quo just working my way through the United Nations and who to talk to about some very simple technologies that FAO has been writing about what are we doing about making it easy for the community of farmers in the world who have been taking care of the land to now figure out how to make this work easy to get the money out of the EU to do these large scale projects or anybody else I really am at a loss you need to have a government that knows how to do it but from a farmer's point of view I am listening to this and wondering there is no place in here to understand how a farmer's cooperative or group of farmers can participate or organize or be involved in this this seems to me a lot of top-heavy intellectual stuff that has to be planned and organized and funded and then what will it do to me in terms of my output as a farmer any one of you there yeah my mic is working thanks very much very interesting at the end how do you really upscale such a model as such what I do firmly believe and the belief comes that we are doing it in a way currently just an example a group of Indian farmers is in Nepal which I have taken they are looking into this value chain issues in Nepal and then Nepalese will go to India this is one way community to community farmer to farmer interface but that's only half the trouble the important thing is where are finally the resources coming from we know that we are very limited resources right from the beginning it's very very important to take on board all the public schemes which are in that area and if you don't involve as an institution if I'm going as easy mode or as any other organization talking to farmers working with different NGOs at the end of the day if government doesn't show the ownership very very difficult therefore right from the day one whatever we are doing it is discussed with the local government and the local line agencies we prepare a plan and the agencies finally see where are their bits of puzzles where they can contribute to I think that's very very important I call it often convergence of resources and also expertise but also preparing a model which can be also replicated and this government ownership that way because we are not working parallel to the government often that happens in the projects we should never do that so we should put them on the board right from the day one and it works okay then I use this one I have two replies to you I don't know whether they help but it's reflections that I personally have on the one hand I think the donors also have to coordinate themselves and to sit together and to find mechanisms of funding and of getting resources very practically to the people be it small scale funds or whatever I think that is a work that donor organizations have to do to ease access of farmer organizations or local other local organizations to get support on the other hand I think a landscape approach is an ideal model that you will never implement fully in reality I think you can build landscape approaches around a common concern or a problem that is there where different actors different sectors have a common interest and I think if you start from there you will also be able to implement something and change something but I think if you want to start with the whole picture as such it will not work because it's too complicated too costly too lengthy and the interests are not clearly enough there Thank you for a very complex question to remind us of what we're talking about here but I think you brought up a really good point that's where we have a lot of development initiatives where we're trying to bring in the resources to help change the world and some of them very large and very top down we're having another session tomorrow we have the launch of the 20 by 20 initiative which is an initiative to restore 20 million hectares of degraded land by the year 2020 here in Latin America starting with political will and investment but the next stage is well how is that going to play out on the ground for people we've had a couple of decades I think at least where we thought that improving farm productivity was really in the hands of farmers and it had to always be their investment and their profit and all had to turn on that one farm and whether or not that was profitable so we have these two completely separate paradigms one a very large scale top down another where a farmer has to be absolutely profitable in and of himself for any intervention to be sustainable but there is something in the middle here I think that landscapes can bring to that story if you have for example degraded lands in this situation it's not easy for the small holder farmer to be the only unit of profit making that doesn't really necessarily take many people very far especially for example in Ethiopia but we have something else in this landscape something meeting in the middle it's not so large scale it's local it's an actual place a local place where you bring together various aspects beyond the farm to actually help support the farm and the other industries and I think that's what landscape approach brings we should probably be trying to get away from this sort of yeah more academic view landscape approaches integrated approaches and just speak plainly about what we're talking about one of the examples is this in this Lake Tana basin in Kenya what we're really talking about is that we have a classic situation of upstream land users the land is degraded their farming practices are not very sustainable and the people are very poor they're very difficult for them to improve their practices and we have downstream we have a city with 6 million people who want clean water who want nice beer who want power a reliable power and so what a landscape approach is doing is bringing those two sectors together these poor small holder farmers and the much more wealthy city dwellers and water users and trying to bring the resources that people are willing to pay for clean water directly up into a communities and to support those communities one thing that's very important in that process is looking at the trade-offs that might be occurring if we're asking farmers to put in say tea or coffee or bring back the forest we have to acknowledge that they're going to be planting less maize and have less food security there's a trade-off there that has to be balanced and we have to have their interests to the table bringing them around the table to negotiate those kind of trade-offs but landscapes is about bringing those different perspectives together in the same place, in a local place Okay, you guys can ask each other a question otherwise I would just come anybody else who wants to ask a question make a comment, here you are Good afternoon, good evening I'm Roger Garinga from Philippines I think I have to ask first for your pardon if I didn't get the conditions about this comparing farmers emission and the industrial emission because I think I did not see how the contribution of the manufacturing of the machines were inputted in the computation of the emission so probably you were talking about the comparing emission from the point of view of the production system only not including the fuel and the machine manufacturing and the other question I would like to ask is that when we were talking about landscape approach the key strategy there is land allocation is there already an established mechanism or method in which we can actually consider the carrying capacity of different kinds of land use allocations that we are trying to develop in different landscapes Thank you very much Can you respond to that? Is your mic working now? On the comparison of the two value chains every factor contributing to global warming has been internalised calculated in the calculations of the environmental footprint so also fuel and so on used for the machines the fact is that the power boiling process on the traditional stoves with wood of the surrounding forests has much more emissions than if you use even diesel and so on for the machines and that came out of that comparison so it has been taken into consideration it also includes there is also a footprint on water use a footprint on land use change and so on but the clearest was on the emission side where you could compare and see that the industrialised chain with that regard is much better There was another part of the question on the land allocation Go for it, your mic is working now Your mic is working but I don't have someone the answer on that because in my example it was not mentioned I didn't get the question I have to repeat the question Yeah and then you were talking about mechanisms or methodologies probably even are there existing methodologies developed somewhere maybe in Wageningen and then can be applied in a landscape to measure NSS carrying capacity I'm sure there are I'm very sure there are but I really doubt the value of such generic models because usually they are wrong and I think that's the point that we were trying to make is that the fundamental change that landscape approaches bring is that it starts from place and from people who live and own and take care of their place You cannot design a model for that it happens in place itself Small example, my 85, 86 year old father he never understood what I was working on when I was working on biodiversity ecosystem governance not a clue and now finally I'm working on landscapes now and now he understands what I'm working on because he knows his landscape and he knows that he takes care of it he's a farmer and he's getting a subsidy from Heineken beer brewery to manage his land well and he likes that and he says I take care of my landscape and my government is letting me down totally but thanks God Heineken pays for me to take care of our land and I think yeah it's as simple as that So let those scientists develop their models and have conferences like this and let us start at the bottom where you are working bringing people together across boundaries that's revolutionary you're creating friendships where we have 100 years of war and I think in your case well private farmers, private sector producers create value chains which are better fit in the landscape than probably any other value chain in Nigeria So that would be my response Another question you want to answer? No, I just want to oppose on the carrying capacity and on the modeling I think it's an important information that a government also needs to take decisions and to steer a bit the use of landscapes I work for a long time in Namibia where livestock is very important and if you think about droughts that occur there if the government doesn't know about carrying capacity and about how much livestock is there they cannot react they cannot for instance offer to the farmers to pay how is it called a fee if they bring their animals to the slaughterhouse in order to protect common pastures It's an important information but it's very very difficult to get because in order to calculate a carrying capacity for instance you need long term rainfall data which is just not there not even in Namibia where you have a very good measuring network in other countries you will just fail to do it so you need to find a way on how to easily say something about a carrying capacity also about carrying capacity in drought situations in order to give to a government for instance the information that it needs to react and to protect landscapes But probably farmers know yes but they would not reduce their hurts if they don't get enough money out of it they would try to sustain them as long as possible even though the grounds are great and they try to reserve parts of pastures for themselves and use up first the common pasture grounds so there's a lot of problems relating to that So a lot may have to be improved in the communication sphere and indeed the bringing different partners at landscape level together those who know and those who make the policy and then leave those in Wageningen and make their models but we in our landscape we may be able to find the information and find the corresponding resources to get our problems solved and then you need to convince those who have the power and to reserve for themselves their exactly all parts okay we have one more question but are they really using these little puzzle figures from your presentation for the models? I hope so My question is related to his question but has to do more with land tenure because for example in Central America the places where we work at the landscape level one of the big challenges is that there are many many small farmers that rent land to be able to produce and then it's a very difficult situation to be able for example to work with them in more sustainable systems that will help to have a more sustainable use at the landscape level but you didn't any of you mention anything about land tenure or even natural resources property right so how that would play within all this picture You want to respond directly we have one more question I love this topic I realized listening to the four of us I thought oh my god none of us is talking about land tenure it's probably the basis for any good landscape management governance without proper land tenure a clear land tenure doesn't have to be formalized in a cadastra can be traditional can be bricolage to somewhere halfway doesn't matter but you need to have clarity what we say in spatial theory if you want people to make their place they have to to be granted that place and if you don't grant them that place then they will come and take it so there is a big power issue there which if you don't tackle that issue then don't start because what we work and especially don't start with investments for every investment be it water infrastructure be it an investor who wants to work with farmers and to build contracts they also need security of land tenure that's the key issue I have handed on the microphone already my name is Nathan Russell I work at Seattle with Debra and I have a question for her and it has to do with the relationship between landscape approaches like the one you described in the Tana River Basin like one I saw yesterday 150 kilometers south of here in the Canyate River Basin where a very similar benefit sharing mechanism is being set up very similar to the one you described the connection is about the relationship between the landscape approach and value chain approaches as you and I know in our organization those two approaches operate separately very little integration if any between them and yet what we heard farmers say yesterday in the Canyate the lower part of the Canyate Basin is several things they acknowledge that they are the biggest users of the water coming from the upper watershed they acknowledge that if they don't invest in changing land use practices in the upper watershed they're going to suffer in terms of water quality and quantity they're willing to contribute they are relatively more prosperous than the farmers in the upper watershed they have irrigation water they're 150 kilometers from a market yet what they say is there a lot of flaws a lot of problems in the value chains that they participate in maize, grapes, cassava etc so they're saying we could give more in this new landscape approach if we had better value chain that better linked us with markets it gave us more power in markets so how can we better link these two approaches starting in our own organization starting in our own organization starting in our own organization that's an interesting question because of course value chains tends to be along one commodity usually it's one commodity and the big innovation that's happened over the last few years is that we bring together all the stakeholders along the chain the marketers and the input and the output markets and everything all with the farmers instead of working again only with farmers as an isolated unit so that we can connect up all of those things and it seemed to be a pretty much anathema to the landscape approach which is more about protecting the overall environment and the ecosystem services so they actually seem to be completely opposing paradigms and I'm certainly as guilty as anybody of saying that these are completely opposing paradigms that if you're focusing only on value chains you almost never are taking account of the need for sustainability sustaining natural resources it's just the way that it usually plays out but one thing that we are really trying to do now is bring together both those things for example in the growth corridors in Africa in many countries in Africa especially in the east and the south right now there are a lot of retail initiatives to get lots of big investment into agricultural production increasing agricultural production food security etc etc they call them growth corridors and they're trying to focus all of this investment public and private investment into these areas and what we're trying to do there is bring both those together so let's say they're going to invest in beans and maize will bring the market not planning but also bring the land use planning which is now completely missing from those so bring those things together and to try to sustain some of the natural resources that people will depend on the long term because value chains alone without sustaining the resources are just going to burn out so we do try to bring them together maybe a classical example is tourism value chain and Kailash landscape I was talking about this year is year of horse and according to Tibetan calendar this is the most luckiest year it comes every 13 years so if you go there then you have enlightened yourself for next several generations so you can imagine if 1 million tourists or pilgrims go to this landscape which is about 15,000 feet on the average so any biological or non-biological ways you can understand what it means so we use the responsible tourism value chain as a rallying point between 3 countries in the landscape because tourism is dependent on landscape if landscape goes bad then of course you have a lot of tourists other pilgrims who come most probably don't like it so we brought tour operators together from India, China and Nepal and devised a value chain which is clearly linked to the landscape this was just an example that tourism is one such value chain maybe just one addition we all know about that phenomenon of land grabbing of investments that take large land areas if you want to use them in a win-win situation one prerequisite is that proper land use planning is done before in order for an investor to know what land is really available for an investment and the problem here is that an investor wants to go quickly somewhere and to start, whereas a land use planning process if you first need to start what is the case in most countries is a long, long process and that is I think this time frame thing is also a challenge that we need to look at May I now oppose to you I think if we have to wait for the planners I'm a planner myself they take too long and they don't know the terrain but would I increasingly recognise is that a lot of businesses who are so well in improving the value chains they are starting to realise that their chains are at risk because their sourcing areas are getting totally damaged and there are social unrest and degradation and invasive species I think they are starting to realise that something horizontal you cannot only work this way you have to also work this way example in Indonesia where palm oil companies oil palm companies I mean people in Singapore the investors they are sick and tired of the smoke and they have said stop this way of producing they are now searching for other ways of managing their landscapes and they are starting to understand how how reality works and we are very ready to help them same with the cocoa the cocoa price is going down because the quality is going down because we are screwing up the landscape where cocoa is being produced and I think that urgency that risk that financial loss is what companies are finally starting to realise and they are trying to do better and I'm quite optimistic about their learning capacity I think although I don't I'm an eternal optimist or we wouldn't still be doing these things we all have to believe that there is some hope in the future but I think we should also tackle the issue that all here we are sort of on the same page about the landscapes etc but the trend still despite all of our good examples the trends are completely the opposite the trends and investment and what people are investing in you know wanting to have sustainable rubber so I think that we have to confront that issue a little bit and see where we are going to interact one thing where I do find hope is that it's not just like to say how do you bring the value chains and the landscape approach together it's partly at least coming up from the research and conservation the agriculture communities and the conservation communities are now coming closer and closer actually working and thinking together and that's at least the first step the next would be farmers and governments and etc so my name is I'm from the University of Illinois and I work with an institute that I would like to talk to you about the ADM Institute for the prevention of post-harvest loss but just for the sake of the group also I wanted to ask I'm hearing value chain and landscape approach and to me post-harvest loss is kind of a perfect fit between those because post-harvest loss is a value chain and yet there's so much dynamics that have to flow back and forth and I'm just this is my second year at the GLF and I'm surprised that there was barely a mention of it last year and you're the only session that talked about it this year so I'm glad that you did and I'm just wondering if anybody and Debra I heard you talked about lots of inputs into production production and I know people know about post-harvest loss and I'm just wondering why it's not included in the discussion more so at this forum and I would like to see it and it would help with it I was also wondering that but I don't know maybe others have an answer No but I'm that's why I decided to bring it up in this session but I think it's important Hi my name is Amanda Monaco I'm from the Environmental Investigation Agency working particularly on forest forestry work in Latin America but my one question so it seems I really like this idea I think it answers a lot of the questions I've had throughout my academic and professional career so far but my one question is if you're going to get all these actors together at a table to talk one thing that seems to be missing from our discussion is well there are huge powering balances between these groups so if you want to help the farmers in Ethiopia and help them make decisions about their landscape how are you going to contrast that or kind of balance that power or raise that power as compared to private groups and government thank you directly well I think that's the $10,000 question I don't think that's an easy answer for that one thing we're thinking of doing is trying to bring more sort of social social rights groups to the table and working with us on these issues we usually for example in East Africa there's a lot of groups working on women's rights and empowerment and political activism and domestic violence and these types of issues and they tend not to be working with the women in this sort of agricultural land use kind of sectors so those things are kept really very separate and so there is a lot of action in terms of political power but maybe we can work with together at the table the people who are actually working to empower people politically with the sort of agricultural technologies and input and ideas that we have about managing landscapes so that's one idea that we're trying to pursue now because I think that's a very important point the relations of power is very important and maybe I just would only like to add what really helps is the mentorship you know we do believe and what we have done is that all the stakeholders which we are talking about they will never come to a consensus let's forget it but if there is an equitable level of information, communication and understanding what we are doing and that helps a lot and that is what we are trying to build on and then finally have a generic mentorship program for all these policy makers practitioners, private sector together as a given example of Nepalese farmers going to India and Indian farmers coming to Nepal similar exercise we do with policy makers and actual line agencies take them around and show them how it works and I think that helps in getting the consensus at least near to that there's one more question here I want to support I'm sorry I forgot your name I want to support the comment you made and you're on to something when you pointed out that the value chain concept of value chain discussion is overrated and it's extremely linear from a farmer's point of view there are two issues in today's model and that's that the small holder farmer cannot build equity in the way the land tenure and the production systems are set up today we must find ways to shorten the value chain and bring the processing capacity into the communities where the farmers live and give the farmers equity in that business otherwise as land becomes scarcer and land becomes more controlled by governments farmers lose their children leave the job is not interesting we're not building the factories in the right place yes we need to industrialize serial and rice production and processing but if that moves 700 kilometers away from where it's being produced nobody's helping but I think you can convince my skepticism if you can bring together the notion of shortening the value chain bringing in the landscape the landscape approach that might create some kind of new synergies yeah maybe reacting on the last two the last two speakers I think power power defines it all to me to be honest this silly picture that I showed with round table with all different stakeholders it's silly it's impossible it's conflict if you do it like that but I think that's probably the furthest vision you can have and a huge struggle has to go before you get there I don't believe in consensus but I do believe in common concerns and I do believe if at landscape level people come to realize that they have a common problem and whether they like each other or not they've got to do something to make it and I'm very much with you here Rajan coaching or capacity building I work in Wageningen not in the research department but in the department that's doing capacity development for professionals private partners producer organizations civil society groups governments and I think from all sides capacities need to be developed the capacity to take more right to take more power or the capacity to actually take more power to people and get to a more balanced power relation that's the only way to get there if not you get to a sort of peace and harmony story which will not make sense okay we are basically in terms of time over the time that was allocated to us if there's not any more burning questions and I want to cut it off because there's nobody waiting here for us to come in I'm supposed to tell you that there's a knowledge fair going on outside otherwise I would ask Eberhard sort of to do the job of telling us what the audience actually you're the representative what the audience thinks about the whole thing I'm Eberhard Gaul from the German Development Corporation and I was asked to do a wrap up I will do it quick and dirty for you I think there are some messages we should take with us this evening the first and I think the most important word I have heard this session this evening was change we have to change our attitudes we have to change our behavior we have to together to find out where we want to go because I found in one of your presentations a very nice word innovative livelihood quality of life if we want quality of life then we have to look at ourselves I would like to take you back after the journey to the Hindi cushion to Nigeria where we had some nice examples how things can work with a landscape approach to near where Mr. Russell was yesterday Lima itself you are in a city where it never rains we have 60 millimeters rain per year in this city we are living nearly 9 million people asking for water each and every day water was another keyword I found out of our session their core built up a very nice model of understanding landscape thank you very much for this very tactical part and I appreciate very much we learned from you the action we have seen when I look back for my professional background it looks a little bit what we have done 25 30 years ago when we called it integrated rule development there might be some additional subjects today which we have learned is necessary to include and one of the most important issue I think by myself is the issue of institution and governance both are key to clear clearance when it comes to actions between countries between borders they want to build trust and confidence on what we are doing now when it comes to farmers and I am coming from a farm I can really understand your point when you say and where I get the assistant from all this nice world of organizations which are dealing on conferences like after NAVDA I think there is a need an urgent need to make an international division of labor for what we are doing all together sometimes overlapping ourselves coming back to Lima where you goes this evening taking probably a shower out of water which is not assured for this city I can assure you that this city will face over the next 10 years a real challenge there are a lot of people already in this city which has not 24 hours access to water the aquifer we are sitting on is going down around 2 meters ground water level per year so you can imagine what will be happened with water resources as one of the biggest issue I personally believe in the near future for agriculture the whole coastal area of Peru is depending on water resources for irrigation projects which has been built over the last 50 years in this country the approach on coordination between the different parts involved as we have heard is necessary and as Icarnaval is called outside I will not like that you stay much more time with me let us thank the presentations for this nice session we had this afternoon let me thank also the moderator for the moderation of this session thank you all gracias and hasta mañana