 The title of this session is A Landscape Approach to Management and Conservation of Natural Resources Change of Paradigm or New Illusory Fad. Who made up that title? Okay, so this is co-organized by C4 and eCraft and it revolves around a landscape approach to ecological based management that has been around for a long time. Without going into the details because the presenters will do that. What we will do is that we will have a presentation by Robert Nasi from C4 and Anja from eCraft. And after that we will have an open series of questions and answers for about 10 minutes. And after that we have organized four respondents to the presentations and maybe to the following questions as well. I'll present the respondents when we get to that point. And following the respondents' statements we will have a group work which Robert is organizing so I will hand it over to him at that point. And we will have just huddled around a few questions I guess inside the room. And after some huddling we come back and have a quick reporting back from those groups to round off the session. And we plan that all of this will be done within two and a half hours. So that's the session and by that I will ask Robert and Anja to kick off by the presentation. Do I need the mic or do you hear me clear? If you accept for the French accent. It's better with the mic? Okay. It doesn't fix the accent probably. Anyway. So we are going to, no I'm not going to sit here. So you have the title of the session and that's really something that has been running in our mind for a while. I mean we have had for a long time evolving concepts and I'm not going to go back to the ecosystem management or watershed management beyond but just to go back to a little bit more than a decade ago. You had the ecosystem approach that was the overarching goal of the CBD and that was sustained by the Malawi principles. But then in the end the ecosystem approach, I'm not in the end but it has been more or less I would say hijacked by the conservation lobby, mainly. And then on the other side you had the CGIR and that was mainly the work of Jeff Sayer and Bruce Campbell that came back with this idea of Integrated Natural Resource Management, INRM, which was another avatar of the ecosystem approach or the, and then what do we have today? It's the landscape approach. So the question is that is there really something different and if it's different, what makes the difference and how can we make sure that this landscape approach is going to make a difference if it is going to make a difference. And then the classical question that everybody asks and you have heard several times, what is a landscape and you can go back to the 5th century in Germany or in England that was a small administrative unit of land. In the 16th century for Bruegel it was the bird's eye viewpoint of a Flamish countryside. In the 30s that was in part of the domain of geography and the subset of a region. In the 1970s we moved from natural to human landscape and finally a landscape, it's quite a diffuse concept that's not necessarily have a fixed boundaries or very hard limits but in fact it's something that lies before your eyes and in your mind and it's a place where people are living and they are interacting with their environment and they are acting on their environment. So it's something which is, it's a bit like a forest, I mean it's sort of, it's very difficult to define it properly but when you see it you know what it is. So, and to illustrate that, this is the same things, the same landscape at different scale. I mean if you zoom it, it's at the farm, then it becomes at the village level and then at the city level, then at the region, then at the country level. So all these are perfectly valid landscapes and depending on which part you position yourself, which scale you position yourself, these things have different properties. Some are emerging, some are linked to the scale, some are linked to the size. And if you are this small older farmer looking at this landscape, which is mainly rice here, what would you want as trying to maintain, to have this landscape sustainable in terms of maintaining ecosystem services, biodiversity, livelihood, productivity, what can you do to help this person, if this person can help or if they don't know more than you, in terms of how do you want to intervene in this whole system, in terms of management, because that's the purpose of the landscape approach. We have to move beyond concept into something that is practical in some sense to implement. And then you have a whole system. I mean you have the individual differences. I mean sort of what I would like to do is probably different than what Jabri would like to do and would be different than what Anya wants to do. Then you have the various network. What this group as the global landscape forum would like to do with the landscape is probably very different than maybe what the negotiator or the cop would do with this landscape. And then you have the external physical factor. I may want to do something in the landscape, but if I want to grow maize and the rainfall is 200 mm per year, I'm unlikely to do anything because I'm constrained by the external physical factor. Some of them I can change through fertilization. For example, some of them I cannot change. And then you have the personal preferences. I mean sort of does this person want to be a farmer in the end or does he or she prefer to go to town and open a trade? Something, a small trade, you know, the most small commercial. You don't know. So all this system and the management objective creates the behavior but that's what will decide what the person will do or will not do at the landscape. And that's in the end what you want to change or what do you want to steer in the direction where the community or the, how can you say that? It's not necessarily us, but the science, but the society has some things. It's the best trajectory for the landscape. And then for that we have very good conceptual model and there are many, I mean sort of we have just put a small subset here and integrative science for society and environment, the pressure and pulse model, the DPSIR, the classic of the OECD, the human appropriation of net production. These are all models that tell you in theory what you could, should do for something like landscape to be sustainable. The problem is that how do we move from this good conceptual model to make something which is operational, something that works, something that we can tell to the policymaker or to the negotiator or to the small order. This is how you can intervene in your landscape to have a better life, to improve your productivity, to protect the environment. Sometimes you can do everything at the same place, sometimes it's not possible. So this is how you deal with the, or you can deal with the trade-offs. So our limited answer to this big question is that in the framework of the forestry and agroforestry, a CGIR research program, we have developed this sustainable landscape initiative, which is really about providing evidence on key indicators important to landscape management, provide an information platform for decision making, backstopping for data management, data mining, data analysis. To allow greater cohesion, interdependence and alignment of stakeholder within as well as across the landscape and in the end, really to close the gap between the intention and the implementation in terms of the landscape approach. This is where we are now in terms of the Sentinel landscape in FTA. There are one in Borneo Sumatra, in Mekong, Western Ghats, Afromontaine Forest, Central Africa, Sahel, Eastern Amazon, Western Amazon, Nicaragua, Honduras, and you have things that are not geographically bounded but that are thematically bounded. There is one which is about the overall global oil value chain and one which is about the dynamics of tropical forest after harvesting. So this is where we are, it's far from perfect, it's unlimited, but that's, we need to start and we have limited resources and you will see that one of the questions we'll ask you is that are you willing to help in this effort? I will stop here because that was the easiest part and that becomes complicated. I will give the mic to Anya that will explain that to us. Trying to. Thanks, Robert. So, first thing I have to actually figure out how to operate this. So what the Sentinel landscape initiative is actually really doing, what are we doing across these landscapes? First of all, we look actually at existing data networks matrices that have long-term time series data. There's the LDSF, the Land Degregation Surveillance Framework which has been done by SEAD in aircraft and is built on 20,000 ground-trusing points in Africa. Now we'll show that a bit later. The Poverty Environmental Network, it's about 110 villages in the forest margin done by C4. The Agent Court is one of the health surveillance sites of the in-depth, I don't know who's familiar with the in-depth network. The in-depth network is a global network of sites on health surveillance, some of them going back 40 years. This particular site that we're working with is going back 15 years, monitoring 15,000 households on health. The progress out of poverty, a nice project by the Garmin Foundation which has taken the standard of living survey of the World Bank and made it site-specific. And in some of the International Forest Resource Institution which is the network on forest governance and equity. So we looked at all of those and actually used the elements and combined them into a new research framework that we're actually implementing in a standard way across all the sites that Robert has just shown which does two things. A, we're actually filling the gap but we're also making sure that the data that we are collecting is actually valued to all of these networks and it's feeding into their databases. So these are the landscape's indicators. I'm not going to read all of them. They are basically not that complicated productivity, livelihood, policy, environment, and social. This is the indicators that we can construct at the moment. These data sets that I've just shown before together will give you those indicators. And as I've just said, we actually invented or put it together in a new research methodology framework to do that in all these sites. The land health surveillance work that we do is really going beyond the forest cover. Somebody this morning in Planetary was pointing out there's this new publication and signs out just a new map of the change in tree cover. We are interested in looking into what's the impact of tree cover on livelihood outcomes. So essentially the question is, okay, tree cover's changing, but so what? With the indicators, we have a whole bunch of indicators that allow us to actually look exactly into the effect of tree cover change. Here we have soil organic carbon as an indicator for soil fertility. Over here we have texture. Down there we have the erosion potentials, the probability that this particular pixel is going to erode, and this is soil pH. So this model actually allows us to look into, okay, if the land cover is changing, has it resulted in a change in land health, and has it resulted in a change in environmental services available? So it's a typical... This is one of the indices that we're using. It's a probability of a closed canopy. It's for the Amazon 2001 and 2011. So you can nicely monitor the deforestation, but as Shet said, it isn't just about looking at the change of tree cover. It is really, what does it mean for the people that are living in those landscapes? Okay, that's one. So here we have an example from the Western Ghats, and I think Jaboui, you're going to talk a bit more about this, right? So here we have the same, what I just showed for the Amazon. It's a probability of a closed canopy, 2001 to 2011. You can see there are numerous changes. In some parts, you have an increase in tree cover, where in other parts, you have a decrease of the actual trees in the landscape. And as a result of that, where you actually lose the trees, you have a drying of the surface, you're changing the soil property, you're changing actually the land health. Here what we have done is, that's where we're trying to go to, is if we are able to actually model the properties of the land health, can we then look into villages where we are in these environments and see how has their environment changed and how does it actually affect their livelihoods? So this is an example where we used the climate change and food security villages. They have done a baseline on 15 sites across the globe, and they ask a question to the farmer, saying in the last 10 years, what are the changes you have made to crops and land management? And here what we have done is, we just used the location and we modeled basically their land health in the location where those villages are. And what you can see here is from going from the left to the right, this is an increase in soil fertility. So villages on this part have a higher soil fertility versus those that are here. And in correspondence to that, you have the texture. So this goes with very sandy soils and very low fertility. More clay soils with a higher fertility. And the dots is proportionally to the diversity of changes people made. So what we actually very nicely can see from here is that if you look into the environment these villages are placed, you can clearly model that farmer's decision-making is very much influenced by the environmental constraint factor that's in their which they're living in. So that goes back to the picture that Robert was just saying. The question here is then, if this is the inherent limitation of the site, we as people that actually want to advise an intervention, we need to actually talk about that there isn't much you can do if you're sitting in a sandy soil with no water. We have to take this into account where if you want people to actually adopt your interventions, you have to tailor-made them to the environmental context those people are living. This is something that we're working at the moment. This is the Penn data set for Africa. So here you see this is the different countries where you have various villages that were actually analyzed in the Penn data sets. Here again are our indices, the forest index, soil organic carbon and erosion. These are data from 2011. We're actually cleaning the data sets at the moment to have decadal data for land health. We can go back since we're working on a remote-sensed data, we can go back to the 80s. And the objective is for each of the villages and all of the regions that we work in to actually construct back the trajectory. So 30 years before, what was the vegetation cover and what was the health of the land that they actually have access to? And can we then actually group these villages into groups where you have villages where the trajectory turned from you cut the forest, but they actually kept environmental health so they're basically profited from cutting down the forest? Do we then find that all of the villages actually improved and benefited? What about those people that live in places where you have actually cut down the forest and it actually resulted in a drastic change of land health? So that's the question we're trying to answer. Here is the example of, I talked about the land health surveillance work. The data set is 24 rural villages next to the Kruger National Park in South Africa. It's a former homeland, 14,000 households, 48,000 people, and they have been monitored since 1992. Can we use this data set to actually look into the effect? Can we actually say that people that have trees, does it affect people's food security? And by doing the analysis on that data set, we could clearly actually link, which is not an impact, but it's an association, that households that actually had trees in their homestead yards were three times more likely to feed their families and be food secure when they had it in their fields that dropped a little bit down to two times. But this isn't just an example of showing to you that the data sets are out there, the indicators are there. It's a question of how do we bring them together and can we actually make use of the data that's already there? This is the Landscape Portal. We have established over the last two years, we have established Data Sharing Platform, which is publicly available. All the data that we are generating in the Sentinel landscapes are actually uploaded on this platform. The email address, at the moment, is still under the E-Craft EU Science Lab, and it's just about to be changed to the Landscape Portal. So as Robert said, one of the objectives of this initiative is not only to produce indicators and do science, but it is to bring partners together to share their data and to share the efforts and discuss what one can do together. So thank you, that would be for my part. We'll come back to this at the end of this discussion, I think. This is the emails if you're interested to actually find out more, Robert's email, my email, and Tor Wagen, who's doing the modelling and the remote sensing. Thank you. Thanks. I think we will actually come back to this right away, because now it's an opportunity to ask questions to Robert and Anja on their presentation. Who wants to go first? Thank you very much. I'm Mikael Buki, European Commission. I'm part of the negotiation team for the European Union. I was looking at this... Thanks a lot for this presentation. I was looking at that and wondering, in relation to the title of your intervention, how we can use that type of information to convince not only the other parties, but also our decision-makers at home. Talking about my own experience, I'm right in the middle of a Directorate General for Climate Action and the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation. These people, it's like they don't talk to each other with the same words. The monitoring and evaluation criteria or headings or indicators that they use are just so different that there is a suspicion that there would be a hidden agenda when we are proposing things like climate smarter culture. There would be one way of imposing climate objectives on development money. When we try to explain that maybe red plus is a little more complicated than tons of carbon and that some more programmatic elements in relation to social or environmental dimensions are needed to achieve results on mitigation, it's like we are burdening the red plus concept too much. I wonder how you can articulate these findings into concrete guidance for decision-makers, things that make sure at least that they are using the same words. We are very much interested in the concept of climate smarter culture and these three pillars of climate smarter culture, productivity, resilience and mitigation aspects. However it is designed, it's very useful but it's just another concept that adds to a proliferation of concepts. So it's a question. How would you phrase the top priorities for decision-making so that we can bridge this gap between the climate spheres and the development spheres? If there is another question, we give them some more time to answer this. Can we sell this both as climate action and development action without upsetting either side? That's pretty much what you ask. Is there any other question or everybody is eager to hear the answer to that question? We had this discussion at lunch with Mikal and as our colleague from Germany said, we are fighting against gravity. Gravity is pushing us down into sectors. The forester talks to the forestry and the agriculture talks to the agriculture and then you have this sort of silo mentality. The only message that we can deliver, it's not the one about the complexity because then it becomes fuzzy, then it's not something that you can communicate to a decision-maker. What we can do at our level in terms of scientists or research and development community is we need to develop the method and the tools so that we can have these obvious results that show that if you don't consider something at scale thinking into account the various components, then you lose a large part of the information and you take the wrong decision. So in a sense with the Agincourt, there is a clear, if you say to the people, oh, you need to plant tree and the agriculture will say, no, if you plant tree you get a lot of birds that eat your crop and it doesn't work or you get a lot of pests. Then someone will hear, but if you plant tree, if you go to a decision-maker and say, if you have tree in your backyard, your family has three times more chance to be fed the whole year, then it's something that percolates in the mind and that's because the issue is very important can go across sectors. But as I said, we are really fighting against gravity and I think that we need to continue in developing the proper method and trying to get the proper results and trying to convince people to join the effort and to show that in fact having a landscape approach is not a threat to the sector. That's the best way to optimize many sectors in one place or in a given place. That's the only answer I can give and maybe Peter has an answer also because it's one of the things he likes about it. The gravity analogy is good. I'll just ask one other question. That's the question. Yes, Lutz Ferman from the University of Göttingen. I really enjoyed both presentations. My question refers a little bit to the scaling issue. Robert, as you said, it is a critical issue if we talk about landscapes and also if we try to analyze these relations whether it's correlations or cause-and-effect relationships is another issue. But we have to be very careful with conclusions because we have to consider the scale and this example of the trees in the garden and the household income or well-being or whatever is also from my point of view a little bit critical because it's not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship. Thank you. That's a very good question. I hope I said it's an association. I hope I didn't say that it was a causal effect because it isn't. It could just simply mean that people that are actually more caring for their families also happen to have a fruit tree in their garden. So it's not a causal effect. But the question about the scale is I think what we are trying to do at the moment is we having the matrixes that I showed are taking data at various scale, working at the village, household level, landscape and plot level. At the moment we have three of our landscapes are taking data at the moment and we have our first analytical workshop in March and all the rest should actually have the first set of data in by the end of 2014. So this is actually part of what this initiative is trying to do is answering that question. We would like to, by the essence outcome of this not only to have indicators but we would actually like to be able to advise what question you have to ask at what scale. Might be the same question at all the scales but that's enough. I thought about the answer to Michael's question before and I'm going to answer in this way. We had a little discussion last night what we do in the next landscape forum and then this time around we're kind of limited to agriculture and forestry because that's the genesis of the forum this time around. But next time maybe we should invite the mining sector the infrastructure sector, the energy sector and the cities and on top of that the finance institutions then we will have a real landscapes forum and you will have some interesting challenges in the commission to explain things. Okay, one more question before we ask the respondents. Ladies first, sorry. My point is very complimenting to what has been raised already. I am a landscape ecologist working in a transdisciplinary team where there is economists, there is a social scientist and though we try to follow a landscape approach the meaning of landscape differs of how I interpret it or how I understand it or how a social scientist would like to understand it or how he or she views it. So I mean the scale becomes again I want to reiterate the scale becomes a very crucial element of a point of interest when you talk about addressing landscapes and I think maybe we need to deconstruct the whole meaning of landscape to arrive at a common understanding of I personally wanted to join this forum because I saw the tagline and the website that we want to arrive at a common language of understanding landscapes and that's what I'm missing until now and I'm sure for a few hours to go we'll have some at least entry point to understand that. Thanks, so the question was what is the common language? Okay, maybe we're not ready to answer that yet but can we leave, park that to the discussion we're going to have soon, thank you. I think now is a good time to ask the four eminent persons that have been asked to think about the answers a little bit longer and I don't know if the... I think you should perhaps come up here but we don't have all four of you sitting up here but if you could come up and sit or stand up in the front as you present your things. Do they have PowerPoints? Oh they are PowerPoints, excellent. So the first respondent is Professor Ruth DeFries from Columbia University. You spoke before in the opening sessions you may not need much further introduction and you have a very long experience of working with all sorts of technologies and approaches to landscape so I'll leave it to you to respond, Ruth, please. How's that? Okay, good. All right, thank you. So I wanted to follow up by moving to a landscape which is a very commodity driven landscape so we've talked a lot about small holder landscapes which of course are extremely important but the more and more urban we become as a species the more and more our commodities are going to become coming. They have to come from our landscapes or seascapes and these commodity oriented landscapes will become more and more important. So for me a landscape approach in these commodity driven landscapes is about balancing the multiple objectives and coming to some management which enables a way to think about not just production of the commodity but how to achieve the production while maintaining other services of that landscape be it watershed protection or forest biodiversity or carbon or what have you. So I wanted to talk about this example which is probably fairly known to many of you. In Mato Grosso Brazil in the southeastern part of the Amazon and the success in reducing deforestation and to me it seems like a fantastic success because the first time I went to this landscape was in 2002-2003 when the deforestation rate was at its peak and it was quite impressive in the rate of deforestation and it's drawn off come down quite dramatically. And I would argue that that's because a landscape approach well many reasons but one reason because a landscape approach has taken hold. So this is as I said a very commodity driven landscape in the first part of the last decade we saw high rates of deforestation which were driven mostly by conversion for pasture but the rate of deforestation was coupled pretty closely with the price of soy. So this is a rather complicated graphic but if you look at the orange part of the bar in this bar chart that's the from our remote sensing work that's the area deforested that was subsequently used for soy. So it was in that at that time scale about 10% of all the deforestation was for expansion of soy but that was very closely linked with the prices or the profitability of soy. In the second half of the decade that became decoupled and the rate of deforestation reduced dramatically overall and even further the proportion of deforestation that was being used for subsequently for soy production dropped to about 2%. So there was an overall drop in deforestation and even further drop in the deforestation for soy and the coupling with prices became decoupled. So we can see here the really dramatic reduction in deforestation in all of the legal Amazon and particularly in the state of Brazil. We've heard reports of recent increase in deforestation and it's been quite in the news in the last few days of increase of 28% but I would say 28% of a low number is a pretty low number so that uptick is really still quite doesn't take away from the success in reducing deforestation but there's no end to end to this story really. There's always pressures on this landscape for more so it's not like there's been success and we can just move on to the next. So it has been quite dramatic. At the same time the drop in deforestation did not result in a decline in the increase in production of the important commodities from that landscape which are soy and cattle. So even though deforestation rates fell dramatically the intensification of production on low productivity lands led to further increases in soy and cattle and you can see this here zooming into one part of this landscape that big green blob that you see is the Shingu indigenous reserve which is with the deforestation has been hemmed in by clearing and in the first part of the decade which is on your right we see lots of deforestation and quite a few orange spots which is that deforestation which subsequently used for cropland primarily soy and on your left side is that same area in the second part of the decade and you see very little less deforestation overall but very little of those orange spots so that most of the increase in soy was coming from already cleared pasture not from clearing of new forest so instead of the forest going directly to cropland you can see at the top there the path was from forest to pasture low productivity and then conversion to cropland so that's an intensification process oops so why what happened many things happened at the same time so of course it's hard to sort out what exactly caused this drop in deforestation clearly the market crash was a big part of the story people estimate that that was about maybe about half 50% of the drop may have been attributable to the drop in the market but a lot of other aspects happened as well there was the soy moratorium which was pressure from the European buyers to buy deforestation free soy there was improvement in monitoring capabilities on the part of the Brazilian government who have had very good monitoring capabilities there's some high profile enforcement of the very strict laws in Brazil for deforestation there were credit policies there was this intensification of production both in terms of the heads per hectare for cattle and for the soy per area so a lot of things happened at the same time but the state government and the national government took the issue of deforestation seriously and put these policies in place to reduce deforestation one can argue that whether that would have happened if the market hadn't crashed and the profitability had reduced is something for the economists to tell us we're the remote sensors who look for these patterns so this is an example where in this commodity driven landscape land sparing really was a reality that we had an intensification of production and that left the forest standing instead of expanding soy into the forest it was left standing the lower productivity areas were intensified for production but is land sparing really realistic in different places? I think there's been quite a bit of work recently and I think the basic bottom line conclusion is yes there are examples of successful land sparing but that does not happen spontaneously we cannot just say if we intensify production then forests or other areas will be left unclear that will not happen spontaneously but it can happen and there are examples where that has happened when there are policies and incentives in place to protect the forest coupled with intensification that's when we see the examples so to me that's a landscape approach to go from a single focus on producing the commodities to a multi-objective focus on producing the commodities and maintaining the services from the other services from the forest for the landscape so then we always have to ask ourselves if we have these success stories and we can find other success stories around the world but are they really sustainable? There's so much pressure for commodities so much pressure for clearing can we expect that these will have more success stories and that these success stories that we do have won't succumb to pressure? Well we don't know what happens in the future but we do know that governance is an enormous part of the question about whether these multi-objective landscapes are sustainable over the long run and we know that the exports of the soybeans from Brazil were previously up until about 2005 dominated by exports to Europe and that is going more and more to Asia so we can ask ourselves is that same demand for deforestation free products going to be maintained which was a major part of the story for why we had reduction in deforestation again intensification of landscapes is not problem free in terms of other environmental issues like agrochemicals, pesticides, so on and so forth and we always have to be thinking about the leakage issue whether the clearing goes to some other state some other country, some other part of the world How transferable is this story in Monte Grosso to other commodity driven landscapes around the world? Well it seems that the really key issue is governance here and if we look at the drivers of deforestation in other tropical forest countries which are for commodity landscapes or agricultural exports, commercial production, urbanization and so on there are many other tropical forests that face those same pressures but there are very few of those countries that have the similar governance capacity to Brazil that we would expect would be needed to have other success stories such as this so again thinking beyond the very important issue of the small holders to the commodity driven landscapes which are going to become more and more frequent and thinking how we can apply our landscape approach landscape thinking to those types of landscapes as well so thank you Thanks Ruth that's a good illustration of how to reason around the landscape and what's sustainable I note that the assumption here is that more forest is more sustainable but that's something for another session to discuss Our next respondent is Sakile Koketso from the CBD Secretariat That's correct I don't know anything more about you so if you can please introduce yourself a little bit more completely Do you have a PowerPoint as well? No, okay, so please go ahead Good, thank you So my name is Sakile Koketso I work for the CBD Secretariat The programme officer responsible for the programme of work on dry and subhumid lands biodiversity and the cross cutting issue on climate change I am from Botswana and my background is in dry lands but also climate change So I'm here representing my colleague Katsalina who is responsible for the programme of work on forest biodiversity So before I start I'd just like to find out how many people know about the strategic plan for biodiversity because that is my jumping off point So two people in the room, three Okay, okay So I'll do a 30 second overview of the strategic plan In 2010 at our conference of parties the parties adopted the strategic plan for biodiversity It has five goals and these goals relate to underlying sorry, addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss addressing the direct drivers of biodiversity loss strengthening conservation of ecosystems, genes and species enhancing the benefits of all sorry, the benefits to all of biodiversity and then strengthening institutional mechanisms So the strategic plan has 20 targets the ICHI biodiversity targets and these are arranged under the different goals So by 2020, for all except two of the ICHI targets the 2020 is the deadline date for achieving the targets So basically in order to achieve the vision or the mission of the strategic goal which is to halt the loss of biodiversity so that ecosystems can be resilient and continue to provide services for human beings In order to achieve that we're going to in many cases have to use the landscape approach So for example, goal B which is about addressing the direct drivers of biodiversity loss We want to halt the loss of habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation but not only that, we aim to improve or to the ICHI target 7 aims for sustainable production landscape so sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry sustainable aquaculture, sorry, sustainable fisheries Or for example, target 15 which aims to reduce sorry, to increase the resilience of ecosystems and to restore degraded ecosystems So there's five targets in the strategic plan which have quantitative area targets That's target 5 which as I said it aims to reduce habitat loss to bring it to half and we're feasible to zero Target 11 which aims not only to improve or increase protected area coverage terrestrially to 17% and marine to terrestrial to 17% marine to 10% but it also aims to improve governance of protected areas and then target 15 to restore at least 15% of degraded lands So in order to achieve this, again the landscape approaches are interesting But there's many challenges, I just want to highlight three of them I think the previous presentation made it very clear that we don't actually have enough space we don't have enough land to increase protected areas coverage and at the same time improve agricultural production and at the same time build human settlements and at the same time do all the things that we need to do to feed 9 billion people to close them, to house them Also even though we have made some we have some achievements when it comes to conservation and restoration of biodiversity we really need to upscale our efforts in order by 2020 to have achieved some of the things that we have set for ourselves So how do we do this? I mean if we all agree that we haven't really been able to finance biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration adequately how are we going to be able to make the case that we need to finance ecosystem restoration of biodiversity conservation at a larger scale at a landscape scale and this brings us to the point of my presentation which is perhaps we need to look beyond the traditional sources of finance and look at for example public programs that have socio-economic and development objectives So for example these are projects that have the aim to address poverty and to achieve development whatever your definition of development is whether it's community development or economic growth So these programs encompass social welfare programs, employment guarantee schemes short-term employment schemes labour intensive public works short-term wants of public programs These programs their main purpose is to alleviate poverty that's what they're put in place for sometimes to stabilize economies as we saw in 2008 But many of these programs they result in improved physical infrastructure so roads, bridges, things like this sometimes they result in improved social capital so early childhood education or health, community health and a lot of the time they also result in improved natural capital so biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration soils, protection, water, things like that I highlight two countries that have actually been able to merge both the development or socio-economic objectives with the protection of natural capital So for example the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act which guarantees rural life, adults of households in rural areas 100 days of guaranteed wage employment if they agree to do manual unskilled labour so they'll have 100 days guaranteed and this could be 100 days one adult or 3 adults 100 days split which is 33.3 and the kind of public works that this scheme does is things like water conservation water harvesting, afforestation restoration of water bodies, land development, flood control things like that so if for example this scheme were to be implemented at a landscape level we could perhaps see better outcomes or improve outcomes such that we could reach the strategic plan for biodiversity The second one is the quite famous one which is working for Water in South Africa which is an employment scheme as well to clear alien invasive vegetation from ecosystems They have an annual budget of over 4 million US dollars a year ongoing and so there's a lot of political support because it is viewed as an employment guarantee scheme at the same time they've been able to show benefits for water availability To sum up these programs they offer great opportunity for the conservation and restoration of ecosystems at a large enough scale that we would see benefits for biodiversity for ecosystems but also for livelihoods and I just want to underline that it's an equation it's a two way equation so these programs offer solutions for landscape for management of biodiversity at landscapes but actually biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration also provide economic opportunities at different scales so job creation, socio-economic development, these kind of things and so following on our COP decision from the latest COP in Hyderabad last year the CBD secretariat is initiating a global study to see how could we use these programs to achieve some of the IG targets and we would like to understand the potential of these programs how we can actually contribute simultaneously to livelihoods socio-economic objectives but also to restoration so we should be hopefully able to present these findings at the next landscape stage thank you Thanks Akire, it sounds a little bit dramatic when you say that we don't have enough land first of all I don't agree with that statement and secondly maybe we should also check how much labour we have and how much capital we have so we get labour and capital into the equation but thank you for your response comments and we will now turn to the third respondent who at least I know a little better Terry Sanderland is a principal scientist at C4 and he often has comments about things that Robert and Anja does so here you have another go, please Was that positive? Yes, always I'm going to talk a little bit about the formalizing of a landscape approach in Cameroon that was evolved over a period of 15 to 20 years I was based there for many years and was involved in this particular process and so it sort of answers the call of the symposium type you know, is the landscape approach something that is an illusory fad or something that's actually well established and I hope to prove that we have some historical perspective here that shows that there is some precedent in terms of long term establishment of the landscape approach and basically Cameroon has a very unique land use classification called technical cooperation units and they essentially were centred on conservation concessions and protected areas where the old fashioned ICDPs integrated conservation development projects were active and they had this rather loose set of land use classifications around protected areas called buffer zones and then there were agroforestry zones etc etc but the Ministry of Environment and Forestry which was split off from the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992 required a rethinking of the conservation approach and coined this term technical operations units but didn't properly define them and it was only in 2003 there was a forest environment sector program which was a coalition of the Cameroon government and external donors came up with a very clear definition of what a technical operation unit is and there you can see it and it's a delimited geographical area based on ecological socio-economic cultural and political characteristics for the enhancements of integrated landscape management including all stakeholders now this could have been written yesterday it could have been written in any of the landscape papers that have come out in the last two or three years which was actually written ten years ago so we have a very strong basis for the definition of a landscape approach within this political entity and basically it was focused on a participatory management approach and a tool for implementation of both environmental and forest policy so why was the TOU concept adopted? as I mentioned it sort of grew out of the whole conservation concession program but also there was a strong focus on the donors to not focus solely on conservation but to look at the livelihood aspects of protected areas as well but also to fundamentally realize the contribution of natural resources for the linkages of poverty alleviation as we know during this period the linkage between donor aid and poverty alleviation came very much to the fore and there was also a strong recognition of the need to increase the involvement of stakeholders in particular areas in an equitable manner and the TOU process was seen as a way of achieving that so there are currently seven technical operation units technical operation units in Cameroon they vary in size and extent and complexity and they are often managed and I've used the parentheses managed coordinated by external agents but often with funding from bilateral arrangements and one of the ones I'm going to talk about in a bit more detail is funded through the German Development Bank KFW with a long term funding commitment but this raises the issue of sustainability which I'll touch on in the later slide so the advantages of the TOUs is basically an integrated landscape management tool it's focusing on multi-stakeholder involvement in terms of forest management and looking at management interventions on specific land uses I'll talk about that when I speak about the specific case study that I'm going to mention and the idea was to promote a platform for dialogue between managers of various different types of dialogue that was not happening in any of the sectors in Cameroon particularly timber production those managing protected areas industrial agriculture which is pervasive and prevalent through most of Cameroon industry, habitation and recreation areas but very few actually the TOUs are administered as a single entity they each has a coordinator who is appointed by the prime minister he or she is advised by management committee which is made up of all of the stakeholders representatives of all the stakeholders within that TOU which could be the private sector it could be indigenous groups and the idea of the management committee is that it does represent every single interest within that particular TOU and ideally and conceptually the key advantage is that all the stakeholders elaborate and implement a much more holistic management concept using this partnership which entails essentially recognition of trade-offs and negotiating for those trade-offs within that landscape and this is the one that's particularly contentious and tricky and the impact of TOUs on local population obviously the increased involvement of local people is always a good thing in particular areas and there was a very nice I think concession on part of the ministry of finance which allowed a certain amount of royalties generated from those particular areas to be put back into the the communities involved in the TOUs for example the forest royalties from timber exploitation income generated from community forest formal community forest management NTFP harvesting and commercialization and also strong links with development of village development plans which were often funded through external agencies and so there was a strong development component to much of the many of the TOUs the south-west region where I worked for many years was split up into four huge TOUs the entire region was basically desegregated into four major administrative units each of which had protected areas within and a whole range of land uses as well there weren't essentially conservation concessions these were a mixture of various land uses within each and the classification within the boundaries was left open and so there were subsequent opportunities to change classifications within each of these particular units so the Takamanda Mourney TOU which I was involved in the establishment of in 2004 just as an example of the complexity of these units have the Takamanda National Park which was upgraded from a forest reserve in 2003 or 2004 sorry and a Kagueni Gorilla Sanctuary which is a small protected area on the eastern side of the TOU it was a forest management unit which was solely focused on a single species of tree Lafaira Lata which is iron wood wood of high value and export quality and the Mourney Forest Reserve Forest Reserve of the old style Forest Reserve Forest Reserve set aside for future production and the status of that reserve remains as a forest reserve without any protective or utilization status and the other areas around are basically areas for smallholder agriculture agroforestry zones etc so you can see there's a strong network of patchwork if you like of different land uses there are obviously conservation implications it's home to the Cross River Gorilla which is the most threatened primate in this particular area of the world and concomitantly strong pressures from the cross border trade in NTFPs, bushmead and timber and so this TOU was particularly affected by international encroachment across the border so in terms of pitfalls of the TOU because of the fluidity if you like of the classification within the boundaries of each this map actually is from Matt Hansen's recent land use classification the red indicates areas of recent deforestation and the blue indicates recent reforestation but it's all one crop, it's oil palm and these are companies that have come into the Mount Cameron region which is an area traditionally known for its plantation establishment oil palm rubber and other commodities and this is expansion and planting of oil palm that's happened in the last 10 years and it just emphasises that external forces often override local considerations and much of this oil palm expansion has affected small holder farmer activities and many of whom have been displaced and moved to other areas the weak local governance that has been unfortunately plaguing the TOUs has been a particular problem and primarily because of a lack of agreement the sort of vision in the landscape by local stakeholders and another example in the corrupt TOU there's a corrupt national park you can see to the left of this red blob this red blob is a new oil palm concession which is sandwiched between a whole bunch of protected areas but it also contains the highest number of itinerant small holder farmers in the region and where are they going to go they're going to go straight into the protected areas and this was an oil palm concession that was applied without consultation with the technical operation unit stakeholders at all and this has been a rather contentious concession it's the subject of some research that we're doing at CFOA as well so in some ways the technical operation unit as a sort of political administrative concept was a bit ahead of its time in terms of providing the legal framework for integrated landscape management and it was really hamstrung I think in many ways by the skewed power relations of competing interests that happen within these landscapes and I think in all of us have different perceptions of what should be happening in landscapes and it was interesting to hear about in the previous session about landscape metrics about how you measure performance in landscapes one person's performance maybe another person's detriment of good performance and so it's a very difficult thing to balance how you measure landscape performance and weak governance which allowed external decisions to be made without consultation with the TOUs and the authorities therein was a particular problem but I have to say considering this is 10 to 15 years ago and the current government and the donors involved were extremely visionary I think in actually formalizing the landscape approach on the ground and really did make a concerted effort in terms of management, financing and through the administrative process in getting these things off the ground and I think some have been more successful than others and I think a lot of the pressures that affected the TOUs would have happened anyway but we don't know how much they've actually mitigated and saved certain aspects of livelihoods and also conservation as well so I think that it was a very positive step in the right direction it's something that's a basis to take forward and work with in the future and I think I shall end there, yes Great Thanks Terry and that's a great presentation there is a lot of knowledge and experience out there that's good to know so whatever the landscape approach is it is at least not new Okay, we have one more respondent and that is Jaburi Ghazul and again you will have to present yourself No problem So hello my name is Jaburi Ghazul I'm professor of ecosystem management at ETH Zurich what I'd like to do is just present a few ideas that's come out of some of our work in the western Ghats in India but also reflects quite a lot of work that's being done all around the world Let me see if I can get this to work There we go The first thing is what is a landscape and we have heard some people trying to define a landscape early on today Terry mentioned it was a view I think I think you mentioned gave a definition as well but I think we need to recognize that while we're all sitting in this room from more or less similar backgrounds both professionally as well as culturally many of the people we talk to in the western Ghats as well as many other places have a completely different interpretation of landscape they may view it as a cultural landscape they might view it as a physical landscape they might view it as a spiritual landscape politicians might view it in a very different way to the way we view it they're economic you can describe a landscape from an economic perspective the opportunities available in that landscape the barriers to development can be related to the physical structure of the landscape but might be interpreted in a very different way from an economic perspective so I think we need to be very aware that the kind of programs we're advocating in the western Ghats or in Indonesia or Colombia or wherever it may happen to be may be interpreted in a very different way it may not even map against the way people are interpreting the landscape in their own place there's also a wide variety of people who are doing the interpretation and even in the local communities there are many different stakeholders many agents of change and many of those people made themselves different in what they prioritize in the landscape what they feel is most important and indeed how to interpret that landscape these are just some examples this list of some examples of people who are important people who shape the landscape in various ways and also who interpret the landscape in different ways in the western Ghats where we're doing a lot of our work coffee farmers are perhaps the most important in terms of the immediate impact on the environment but coffee farmers are not just male coffee farmers there's also the women who have an important impact on the landscape in a different way to the men they respond differently and they work with the landscape in a different way coffee farmers' children is actually a very important thing that perhaps we're not thinking about sufficiently because we're talking about the landscape here and now and maybe for the next few years solving the immediate problems but when we're talking about a landscape approach it's not just the spatial extent of the landscape it's also the temporal dynamics certainly years but almost certainly decades as well but so far all the solutions all the proposals I've been hearing about are really only thinking a few years into the future and the reason I refer to coffee farmers' children is because many of those children are getting an education which is fantastic but using that education to become lawyers or doctors or businessmen or entrepreneurs in the city they're not wanting to continue the tradition of looking after the farm so the landscape in Kurg where we work in Wessengatz today is going to be looking very very different in another 30 years because there'll be far fewer people who are interested in maintaining those coffee farms so the landscape has got a trajectory and that trajectory is going to be very different taking us somewhere which is very different to where we are now and then of course there are a whole variety of other people I'm not going to go through all of these but one thing I will mention and which is again I noticed to be a major lack here are companies the corporate sector there seem to be missing from this room and from this forum Nestle for example are doing lots of good things believe it or not I hope nobody is from Nestle lots of good things which are shaping how farmers manage their their farms but they're thinking about sustainability they're thinking about the future of farming from a very different perspective they want to maintain their security of supply for the long term they're not necessarily although they call it sustainable farming they're not necessarily looking at the landscape context they're just looking at the farm unit scale but they have impact and the farmers are responding to what Nestle are saying because Nestle is buying the product from them and is there in the field we probably have far less impact because our ideas are better but it's no good having better ideas if you're not having impact so where does this take us well there's this concept of wicked problems which is another thing that hasn't really been mentioned much but it's actually an old idea it's 40 years since this idea was first proposed in a really seminal paper which should be more widely read basically when we're dealing with landscapes we're dealing with wicked problems why are they wicked? many reasons you should read the paper but a key thing is that we have very different ways we have our perspective, our interpretation farmers have their interpretation laborers have their interpretation local politicians have a different interpretation we are all talking across purposes we're interpreting the problems in different ways our priorities are very different our solutions are very different because we're thinking about different problems and it's very very difficult to bring these different values if you like together understanding what each other's values are so as a result our goals perhaps coincide sometimes but very often they conflict and often we're not even aware that they conflict I'll give you a quick example of that later on but before I do so a wicked problem I don't have the time to go through it now but it's a gradual process there's no quick fixes there's no clear solutions it's something that we work through as we understand the system those solutions themselves will throw up new problems and then we have to work on those problems there are no optimal solutions if anybody comes up with a model and says this is the optimal land use strategy that we should pursue tell them that they don't know what they're talking about and go back to the drawing board there are no optimal solutions in wicked problem situations I've heard the word balance used in fact I think Ruth used it and I apologize Ruth but never ever ever use the word balance because the word balance is everybody understands what balance is we want a balanced economy a balanced land use distribution but everybody has a different perspective on what it is we can all agree we want balance but my balance is going to be very different I want lots of biodiversity the farmers not going to want lots of biodiversity but we can all agree that we want a balance system so there are no optimal solutions there's no clear balance and there is no end point solution we cannot solve the problem the problems will always be there we just work to get them better and better so let me come back to a very quick example this is a very very simple example again coming out from some of the work that we're doing there are no rational solutions everything is dominated or you can have rational solutions but a rational solution at one scale is not going to be rational at a different scale and a simple example is pollination services now you've all heard about pollination services in the news all the time and in my opinion although I must say I'm in a minority here the whole issue is hugely overblown and we can talk about that later but yeah this is from some of our wild pollinators do improve crop production therefore many scientists are advocating we should conserve natural or semi natural areas have high diversity agroforestry systems to maintain pollinators because that has a direct benefit to the farmers for their crop production but the farmers we speak to say yes yes yes that all sounds good but if we remove trees we can do other things which give us other sources of income in fact we can actually double our income by removing trees we recognize that it's going to have a cost to the pollination service and therefore the production of coffee but now we can plant exotic silver oak at much higher density than the native trees and plant pepper silver oak and that doubles the income coming to the farmer yes they lose the pollination services but that's made completely irrelevant by the other alternative sources of income that they're getting so this narrow perspective that we scientists and I say we scientists I know not everybody in this room might be a scientist but it is often becomes irrelevant when placed in the reality of the complex situations in which we find we're working in I would mention okay briefly the women in Kour maintain honeybee hives they also tell us that we can cut down all the trees and we don't care if we lose all the wild pollinators because we can maintain honeybee hives that provides a pollination service now how do you argue against that well you can but they have a point again rational decision that's a rational decision that they're making to cut down the trees they can improve their income they can improve the diversity of the products that they have that comes at a small cost but and that's a rational decision that they're making at the farm scale but what happens when you aggregate all the decisions of all the farmers across the landscape then we'll have a completely deforested landscape and that begins to have implications negative implications for the farmers it's the scaling up issue that we need to think about in the feedbacks from the aggregated decisions of many farmers the aggregated rational decisions from many farmers across the landscape has long-term and large-scale implications which they're currently probably not aware of or if they are aware of it they're discounting it because they can have more immediate rewards so and this takes me to my final slide and I have to credit Claude García who's a scientist who's working with me in ETH Syria he's also affiliated to SIRAD as well as ETH he has promoted the idea of role-playing games and this comes to the operationalization of the landscape approach how do you work with farms, how do you work with all these different opinions, different perspectives and he uses the party approach it's not actually his approach but it's been promoted I think by SIRAD scientists but he's really implemented very effectively and that is the way we're pursuing at the central landscape that Anya mentioned we're pursuing management and developing solutions with local farms it's very participatory there's a play on words party stands for problems, actors resources, dynamics and interaction we basically work with the farmers and allow them facilitate the process of allowing them to identify what the problems are for them they identify the problems not us and their priorities are often different to us so they come up with problems that we hadn't even anticipated they identify who are the actors of change, who are the important stakeholders not us they identify the resources that are available to them and then we create a role playing game a physical game that they all come together and we encourage them to make decisions and then explore the results, the outcome of those decisions and they can see that for themselves and that gets them talking I don't have time to go into this in any detail but another important issue is we talk about collecting data who is it who's collecting data what it should be is we should be encouraging the farmers themselves to collect the data because that addresses two issues, first it addresses the issue that they will collect data on issues that are important to them so they will identify the priorities that are relevant to them and if we come up with information and we present that to them, they often say to us, well that's very interesting but it's really not that relevant it doesn't matter and secondly it empowers them they can then come to us or to Nestle for example and say to us these are our priorities and actually we've collected lots of information that we can show you and it gets them thinking about their own solutions so it really empowers them so I'll cut it short because I know time is pressing an important aspect of the landscape approach should not be to provide solutions but to provide the means for local people to collect their own information interpret it through their own networks and then come to us and say to us, okay this is what we need to do how do we go about doing it this is the information that we can provide what can you do to help us and I will mention one simple example so we have been working as I said in coffee estates in the western Ghats we're coming up with all kinds of great solutions to landscape management that benefits the farms as well as benefits conservation and Nestle have been doing something similar they've been looking at how to manage coffee estates to improve production to mitigate the emissions of carbon dioxide etc etc and so we had all these meetings and eventually I thought to ask some of the farmers what is the most important thing to you all the stuff that we've been doing what is most relevant to you what is the key barrier and they said all your stuff is great but actually our biggest problem is labor labor during harvest time so it's got nothing to do with the landscape so much it's more to do with their access to labor and in fact many of the strategies we were advocating were counterproductive because we were advocating diversification we were advocating better management of leaf material and so on and that enhances biodiversity but this means that the laborers who are in short supply don't want to work in those plantations where there is a lot of biodiversity means stinging ants it means snakes it means spiders they don't want to work there because labor is in very short supply they can choose where to go and if you're a farmer the last thing you want is laborers refusing to work on your estate because you will not be able to harvest the crop thank you very much I have two comments first two of my own comments and then you will get a chance to ask questions first on the private sector in the landscapes forum we just had one speaker in the high level session and we've had at least one subplenary on corporate governance and some other discussion group so we can't talk about that but I think we covered that base and then on wickedness I agree completely with what you said here and I think it's a matter of instead of looking for those nice simple solutions that many are engaged in we need to learn to embrace the wickedness, wickedness is good we should like wickedness then we can start dealing with the landscapes so that's a very good point to make and it's a tough sale to the politicians starting talking about heuristics and iterative solutions they don't like that but we have to make them like it so we have a few minutes for questions and answers before a short group work on specific questions any questions to any of the presenters we're going back to Robert and Anya there were some questions before one over here I think we're being recorded so we better talk into the mic Doug Boucher from the Union of Concerned Scientists for Dr. Gazoul given what the farmers have told you about labor being the main problem are you working on ways of increasing the biodiversity that reduce labor needs ways to increase diversity that would reduce labor needs okay think about that for a minute any other question I care yeah I'm Phil Franks from CARE and IID a question for Terry with those TOUs in Cameroon how were the boundaries defined through what sort of political type process I mean with a political perspective was used to define those boundaries of the landscapes okay great we'll take one more yes you spoke before but this is gender thanks again for giving me this opportunity to ask a second question but I don't want to sound provocative in 2005 we had Millenium Ecosystem Report where we propagated that ecosystem based management is the new way and then 10 years later now we have a more emphasis on landscape approach so are we talking about synergies are we implementing is there a distinction between them between the both of them when we specifically want to emphasize a landscape based approach are we trying to take into account the landscape science in general which has indicators of measuring or monitoring landscapes such as fragmentation, porosity, patchiness some have an ecological relevance others have a more social relevance I don't, nothing of an economic relevance comes to my mind now I'm not trying to look into synergies between different types of approaches available in sustainability science to manage land use systems I would rather point it that way also the labelling is wicked okay the first question was for yeah okay okay again this is a classic wicked problem we can work to enhance biodiversity we can work to enhance productivity of the landscape but then that throws up the new problem of labor shortages and the unwillingness of people to work in high biodiversity plantations so we can try to solve that problem maybe by introducing simple technologies perhaps you know I don't have a solution for that but that itself will throw up other problems because the laborers themselves are the poorest members of society they're the landless so we would be doing a grave social injustice we were to put all these people out of work they are finally empowered to demand higher wages because they're in short supply finally poorest members of society do we really want to go down the route of disempowering them and making them destitute again for the sake of biodiversity and the sake of the relatively rich farmers started talking politics there that's good I think actually both question two and question three are for Terry no just a second okay the boundaries yeah that was a big issue because from the biological perspective we wanted the boundaries to represent discreet entities in terms of the conservation value but also making sure the smallholder farmer components are also included unfortunately the government of Cameroon insisted that they follow administrative boundaries so these were at the time it was south-west province now it's south-west region some divisional boundaries were primarily used as the boundaries with some physical features such as rivers which also corresponded with the admin boundaries I think that's probably why some of these TOUs have not been so successful as well because they're a little too large to manage in their entirety I just would like to answer to the last question of what's the difference between ecosystem approach and landscape approach in preparation for this talk we actually and I'm giving my personal opinion which might not be the opinion of everybody in this room I don't think that there is a huge difference between the ecosystem approach and the landscape approach what I do think and we have heard it many times today it is about semantics it's like what you associate with the word and if you talk about ecosystem a lot of people associate that with conservation so it put it into a certain corner and it didn't actually lead to a large integration like most agencies it worked on biodiversity and conservation actually used the ecosystem approach but it wasn't taken on by the people that actually do rule poverty so it actually created another silo to me the landscape I think that's where the real merit in it is it's the term landscape everybody has an association with it and that's where it actually allows it to integrate and you don't actually think oh this is yours and this is mine and I think that really is if we are applying it really well and the question is how do we actually make it implementationable then we have a great tool to actually solve like wicked problems because it is something that everybody can own as you were just saying from what angle we approach it I think it is a little bit early to say like one of the things we do in the center landscape we have a team in each center landscape that does an institution mapping at a landscape scale at the moment so we're coming from both angles we're coming from formal and informal we're trying to see their lens and their view on that landscape while we have people working on the ecosystems building it up and maybe by mid of next year I can tell you of these two meet or they just can't meet okay thanks Anya maybe it's not an integrated landscape approach but it is landscapes as an integrating approach or something okay in interest of time and in interest of keeping you in the room we will now move to the group work and Ruben will take over from here okay that's a sort of uncharted territory organizing group work and discussion from but it's like with the landscape approach it's not because it's difficult we won't do it or try to do it can I ask the room to gather in four or five groups you look to your neighbor people that seem sympathetic or not and you sit together and the main question is the one that you see behind do you think that the landscape approach has a real value for causing the gap between intention and implementation and if yes how of course if you say no you have also to say why and you have something like 15-20 minutes so please make groups and because it's very important for us because I mean it's sort of if we are keeping repeating ourselves and not having the voice of the some people from the exterior we will convince ourselves that we have the solution and Jabari says that there is no solution so please and it's not a question but anybody interested to participate to the F4 and the sustainable landscape initiative please you have the email address here thank you