 Ac efallai, byddai ar y llwn, byddai'r cwestiynau eu proswysiad a'r drafodaeth yn y rheiniol i'r proswysiad nawr, felly llwyddechrau cymryd o'ch bod cymryd y brif Warthed Wyrwyr Cynllun o'r brif er fydd yn cael o gwaith y Lanscape allan. Ond yn ôl yn y maen i ddefnyddio. O'r cydweithio, roeddwn i ffridd yma yma ymwiythiynau, ar wgindol y cwestiynau ym mwythio, ond dysgu 결wyddo i chi'n meddwl ar y Lanscape a'r proswys malfaneg.les ydy'r amser wedi eu ffordd i'n тыblu ar gyfer. Felly, hwnnw'n wnghwylo'r awrgralf ar y gyrfa yng Nghymru. Yn ymgyrch i'r dyflaen i gymrith gbnodd, ydy'r amser wedi cael ei gwybod ar hyn arall. Felly, mae'r awrgrif yw lle mae'r ffordd i'r awrgr Tanzaniawn ac mae'r qualifications yn cyfnwys. neues yna gyda ni'n ei cefn y maen nhw ar gwellan ac ymddrygiad glwyr. Felly, mae'r phrwysau sy'n ymwylo yn ymdyn nhw, for optimising adoption of landscape approaches. The first one, evaluating progress. So the methods that you use to measure what's happening within the landscape so determining where gains or losses are being made is basically fundamental to the evaluation of landscape approaches over time. The government structures were, typically the theory promoted these hybrid structures that married this top-down authoritarian approaches with more bottom-up democratic approaches. The need for contextualisation. This is something that really is a bound within the literature of the concepts of landscape approaches. And a number of workshops that we've been at and Peter has been at these workshops as well where the need for context is absolutely fundamental to a landscape approach. You can't just say that a landscape approach in one landscape is going to work equally well in another landscape. We all know landscapes are different, they're dynamic, and we have to adapt accordingly. Multi-stakeholder negotiation. This is also something that's very well promoted in the literature, and it's also saying that this needs to happen from the outset. It's no good just going into a landscape and saying, this is what we want to fulfil and this is what you will accept. It has to be about identifying what people want and how we can bring those wants together, basically. And then finally, you need to recognise dynamic processes. I can't just kind of add to what I said before and also recognise that perverse outcomes can and will happen. So it's about having the techniques to adapt to those and that's where the adaptive management processes come in. So then moving on to the implementation of landscape approaches. We actually found very few within the peer-reviewed literature of landscape approaches within the tropics a total number of 24 case studies. And a lot of these weren't labelled as landscape approaches but they seemed to show a lot of the characteristics we would expect of a landscape approach. Encouragingly, we found a lot more from the grey literature. So 150 case studies across the tropics. But a lot of these documents, they're non-published and also a lot of them were pilot studies or action plans for implementation. And when we were reviewing the literature on the case studies what became clear quite quickly as many of the documents were saying that they were finding successes. Success was happening in these landscapes. But when we were looking at the data it became clear that the data wasn't particularly backing them up or the data just wasn't there. And so we produced this fairly basic table which shows the number of case studies, the number reporting success and then on the bottom row is the studies that showed reliable data. And you can see that especially the total figures on the right here from 174 studies, 80 were reporting success but only 15 of those had the data to back those successes up which is obviously concerning. However, the ones that did report success they were reporting successful outcomes for both environment and society. And these we've graphed, this is just from the peer-reviewed literature the socio-economic and environmental outcomes from these interventions. And you can see, you know, not... You can't see any more. So you can see they were seemingly quite successful in reconciling conservation development and producing positive impacts. And then I think this is kind of gets a bit more interesting. So we looked at the factors that influenced these successful outcomes. And this is where it really started to occur that the reporting in the case studies was supporting what we had already reported from the theory. So, for example, the key things that were recognised as being so important for producing successful outcomes community management, engagement, institutional support, capacity building and good governance these are all things that the theory literature really supported. We then looked at influence of governance structure again to see if what we were finding from the implementation was supporting the theory. And again, it seems to do a pretty good job that most commonly successful is the mixed approaches to governance within the landscape. But another interesting finding that's kind of not shown on this graph but it is there is the fact that you can see the access on the left is successful not determined ongoing. There is no category for unsuccessful landscape approaches. And again, I think this is a real concern. Like, they're working all the time. I don't think that's the case. So we need to know if obviously if it's working all the time, why are we here? We've done the job. So we really need to know what's happening with these ones that aren't working because obviously that's a huge wealth of knowledge right there. So these are the key findings from the case study material. Current barriers to effective implementation. There's a perception that we're possibly dealing with time lags here. Actually the conceptualisation of landscape approaches is an ongoing process. And therefore implementing agencies are actually not committing to implementation until the theory is solid. The proliferation of terms, that's something I mentioned earlier. So over 80 terms alluding to a landscape approach is probably not very helpful for people that don't work in this sector and that might be impeding policy and practice. Operating silos continue to persist at all levels and this is from policy where you have separate ministries with different mandates within research where social scientists and natural scientists for whatever reason don't want to collaborate and at practice level as well. And then engaging multiple stakeholders is all too often seen as a boxing exercise. So there's a really nice quote from one of the papers that says attendance can't be considered a good enough proxy for engagement. So just because you're having these multi-stakeholder meetings and you've got 80 people there, if only the same three people are talking every time then you're not really engaging enough people. And finally, monitoring remains the least well-developed area of landscape approach application. So there are tools being developed and there's quite a good body of literature on tools but there's nothing that's really kind of jumped out as a gold standard for how to monitor a landscape approach. So this is things we need to continue to work on and collaborate our efforts. Some conclusions and recommendations. Landscape approaches remain contentious and under theorised. I think there is truth in that but I think there's enough now and there's kind of a lead into the topic of this session. There's enough theory out there now that we can start the implementation process and really try to work with what we have because it is a trial and error process at the end of the day and that's the adaptive management. We need to trial it, see what's working and then we can adapt over time. There's good evidence of landscape approaches being implemented within the tropics but as you've seen from our review, weak evidence of the effectiveness so far. Multilevel engagement seems fundamental. That's clear from both the theory and the case studies and attempts to implement must be contextualised. As I said already, metrics need to be developed further. I just put this slide up there because these are some of the research topics that we're currently working on and we acknowledge that this has to be a collaborative process and we're very keen to hear from anybody that's working on similar things or is interested in working on similar things. Because we're not going to be able to do it alone for sure. Thank you. Thanks, James, for opening up the discussion. I think there was some rich material in there opening up a lot of questions and that's why we're here. How do we talk about those questions that he opened up really at the end of his presentation? Please hold any questions you have. Please write them down because we'd like to get the reactions first and then we'll come back to you pretty quickly. So please just note your questions. So when it's time, then you can bring them on, please. We have our next panelist that is going to react to what James has talked about. It's Miriam Rose-Toner. Miriam is from the Netherlands and I've known her for a couple of years. She's an associate professor at the University of Amsterdam Department of Geography and Urban Planning. She's taken a lot of interest over the years working on what are sort of the triggers at the local level that you need to achieve landscape approaches. So she's going to talk a little bit about those entry points at the local level in reaction to this. So three to four minutes, Miriam. Thanks. Yeah, so welcome to this panel. Just to clarify something, I'm not a landscape approach expert. I mean, my interest comes from research on the interactions between governance and forest-based live views. I did a lot of work on non-temperforce products as a win-win strategy to find out that search win-win strategies are elusive in natural forest. You either lose on development outcomes, live view outcomes, or on conservation outcomes. So my interest shifted was productive landscape and there started my interest in landscape approaches as an integrated approach working on different issues. So I'm not familiar with those big-scale donor-driven landscape approach, but rather, as Peter says, my interest is in identified local level, locally-embedded schemes and projects, governance schemes, or private sector-driven schemes like value-chain collaborations, which have an impact on the landscape, which have potential to evolve into an integrated approach. For instance, because they address several objectives beyond the sector from which they are driven. Just to give you an example to make it concrete. I've been supervising research on a reforestation scheme in Ghana, the modified Tonya system, which is being carried out between the Forestry Commission and small-scale farmers. The primary goal is to restore degraded forest reserves, but because the farmers are allowed to interplant food crops and it has the potential to evolve into an integrated approach which achieves landscape restoration, food security, carbon sequestration, et cetera. But it was not developed as a landscape approach, so you need a change in mindset of those who are responsible for that approach to build partnerships and alliances and to get a broader scope. A similar example for value-chain collaboration, what we observe, for instance, in the cocoa sector is that there is a business case to also invest not only in the commodity, but also in the sustainability of cocoa production in order to ensure long-term supply. So companies start investing in farmers' livelihoods and in sustainable farming methods. If you look at the sourcing area, you have a landscape effect, so this might also be an entry point. This is also to emphasise that as conservation organisations or civil society organisations, we can come up with a large-scale approach, but if it's not locally embedded, it will come and go with donor money and not be sustainable. So, that's very much aligned with James' conclusions that we need contextualised approaches about monitoring and evaluation. I think there is a close connection to participary approaches. I mean, we heard this morning in the session which was in this room about very nice trade initiative, a very sophisticated method to trace the origin of commodities, but these kind of sophisticated methods are far away from the farmers. So I would like to argue for participary monitoring methods using participary mapping, participary GIS, in which farmers and other local stakeholders feel part of the monitoring process feel owners have ownership of the monitoring process and monitoring the goals that they themselves help to establish. Otherwise, again, it will come and go with project money and will not be locally embedded. Well, what else? I was developing a proposal with someone from Ghana and he came up with a nice idea. We need to have a component to create a pool of landscape approach ambassadors because landscape approach really needs a change of mindsets and we already heard that jurisdiction reboundaries really are a limit to implementing landscape approaches. So we need to collaborate with local universities and change the curriculum in order to have a pool of landscape approaches which focuses very much on collaborative leadership on participatory monitoring tools just to change the mindset of future resource managers and land managers so that they know that they, even if they come to work in a forestry service department or a ministry of agriculture, that you change that mindset to stay within their jurisdictional boundary. I think my three four minutes are over, right? I think the other things will pop up in further discussion. Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot, Miliam. I think that really grounds it in the context in terms of the context issues. We'll now move on to our second panelist who's called Tony Wieners. Tony is the president and director of RAMP which is a real underlying paper and poll company which is a subsidiary of April company in the region as a term of paper and poll company. So I think Tony will talk to us a little bit about how they address some of these issues in practical terms within their activities. Over to you, Tony. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm very glad to be here. So James, very good presentation about the research and I'd like to see it from the private sector point of view. I mean, more on the practical way that we did. April we had an ecosystem restoration project. It's a landscape approach in the Kampar Peninsula and our ecosystem restoration is basically covering 150,000 hectares and the core of the Kampar Peninsula of England. And the license is given by our government, by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and it's already there. So I'm very interested in point three of your conclusion is the multi-level engagement and the multi-stakeholder participation because ecosystem restoration in Indonesia is relatively new. And it covers the, I mentioned, 150,000 hectares. There are a lot of villages in the adjacent to the areas and in the past it was a selective logging license that we acquired and we converted to ecosystem restoration and many of the people there made living from that forest. So what I'm trying to say here is that first is the government structure as well because in Indonesia the structure is there's a central government, there is also a provincial government and there is a local government, the regional government. So it's three levels of governments and sometimes or many times the central local and provincial have different way of thinking. So this has to be synergised. Many of the bupates or the regions in Indonesia basically they would like to, you need to produce more because to gain more revenue to the state, to the local government. So this kind of way of thinking has to be adjusted a little bit so that yes it can produce more but not in the form of money right now in the form of better ecosystem in the future. Better ecosystem means you will gain a lot. So this participatory stakeholders discussion or sitting down together with them is really key in the operational side. So for example, we engage with the central, provincial and local government, not only like I said, only a tick box. One time we explained and then that's it, no. It has to be a very continuous. Continuous means very regular, not only like every six months, no it should be like every month. And not only with the local governments, it has to be also with the village heads. Because we are going to explain to them that look ecosystem restoration landscape approach is key. It's key for your children, for you and for your grandchildren as well. And they make living out of the forest area. So the challenge is that how to convince them that there are sustainable ways in making living out of the forest. Like the non timber forest use and also fishing etc. Also we are trying to implement also the ecotourism in those areas. So we need to provide them with alternatives. If we don't provide them with alternatives, of course they will reject that. And if they reject that, there's no company that can success in a community that fail. So for example we also introduced, this is also in regard to the landscape approaches, that we introduced what we call the fire free village program. Whereby we incentivize the villages if you don't have any burning at all in your area, we will incentivize you. Certain amount of money, it's $10,000 in form of projects. And also it's not only about the incentive. The other important thing is the alternative as well. And they will say, okay if we cannot burn, how do we live? Okay if you want to open an area as long as it's not a forest, it's not forested, then we will. We will provide you with our agricultural assistance, we will mobilize our heavy equipment and also our technician to help you to open an area. If you want to have a rice field, 20 hectares rice field, we'll build it for you and it's already there. And the result was significantly, the forest fire in those villages dropped significantly like from 1,000 hectares in two years ago to become less than 50 hectares. So again, I would like to reiterate that the multi-cycle holder engagement is very important and all layers and not only horizontally but also vertically. Thank you. Thanks a lot Tony. I think Tony really delved into one of the most crucial things which is also part of his fifth question which is how do you incentivize people? What are the incentives that are going to this? I think you talked very critically on how you incentivize people and we'll come back to that a little bit in the next. I'm sure you think a little bit more about how much more you can tell us, right? Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Margaret Yuya Tana, from Thailand. She's from the Department of Agriculture. She's a senior policy and planning expert in the ministry and she's worked a lot on co-operation, collaboration and research, especially in the area of developing plans and planning landscapes. So, over to you Margaret. Thank you very much. Thank you for this opportunity to speak here and give you some insights on how the agriculture sector fits into the landscape approach. I also represent the government sector views on this and I also represent the association of the Southeast Asian Nations, or we call it the ASEAN, comprised of 10 ASEAN member states in the Southeast Asia. And where we have the ASEAN common position on agricultural issues related to agriculture at the UNFCCC COP negotiations, which was already reflected in the G77 and China common position on agricultural issues. So, the plenary speaker this morning it's very interesting plenary, mentioned this morning that the mantra for in the agriculture are the words adaptation and mitigation. And unfortunately there was no decision on this item in the COP negotiation. However, it is not in the language in the Paris agreement we use but it is in our common goal that to even more important with the keywords reflected in the landscape approach, which is a multifunctional integrated approach for food security, livelihood, resilience, enhanced carbon sinks, all those keywords. It is therefore important to have a deep analysis on how these words adaptation and mitigation complements one another. And we hope that this would be a good preparation to the sub step 46 in Bonn. Now on the question how we really achieve climate goals it is just simple as putting policy into action. What we want are implementation on the grounds. Particularly in Thailand, His Majesty the Great King Pwmi Pwann Atulia did applied a landscape approach in his more than 70 years in reign through his more than 4,000 royal initiative projects all over Thailand. We have to learn from his great works on promoting resilience to climate change of the rural community through a scientific, evidence-based land and water resource management, forestry management, livelihood programs and His Majesty's sufficiency economy philosophy is one model that gives the community the protection to all kinds of external shocks, be it environmental or economic shocks. Now going back to the topic how can all the stakeholders get involved. First we need commitment and devotion by the leaders. As I gave an example to His Majesty the King Pwmi Pwann Atulia did who have worked so hard in actually going and reaching the people in the rural areas to know what are their real needs and listen to them how their life could be better. So these informations are vital, very important and this has to be put mainstream into policies for all the line ministries of the government to get engaged. Well, as this is an order from the King, so every line agency has to respond. That is the strength of the royal project, initiative project in Thailand particularly. The international cooperation is also very important on the implementation in the implementation phase for expertise and funding support, for technology development and transfer and capacity building of all related actors. So we partner with dialogue with the CGR centres, the UNEP, the IPRI, FAO and many more ASEAN dialogue partners and many more not only on research project basis but we are now more towards a more holistic approach and through regional networks as we need to scale up and mobilize the national determined contribution identified by the ASEAN member states. What we need is to package the existing technologies right now. We have extensive research results and what we need is to package climate resilient technology that is really practical in every agroecological vulnerability. To conclude, speaking specifically on the agriculture sector, the ASEAN Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is moving towards a more holistic approach on the whole value chain which is more or less reflecting the landscape approach, gender responsiveness, linkage to market capacity building. It is important that we know what we need and the vulnerabilities of a different agroecological situation or conditions. We need to have a common goal. Our networkings, our partnerships should be going towards a common goal. We believe that networking, we will have a better chance of scaling up and scaling up some global actions on climate change. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Margaret. I think your intervention touches a little bit on one of the things at the heart of the landscape approach which is how do you bring different sectors together. You repeatedly mentioned about agriculture, linking with other government departments. I think that's an extremely important question that some people I'm showing here have some insights to share with us. Without much ado, I think we'll go to our next speaker, Paola Agustini, from the World Bank. She works with the lead economist at the World Bank Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice Unit and she leads the work on resilient landscapes. She had 20 years of experience around Africa and Latin America so we'll be happy to share some of your perspectives on this. Thanks Paola for being here. Thank you very much. Good morning to everybody. Thank you for inviting me. Let me see what I see as some of the challenges of what the World Bank is trying to do. The World Bank is really now heavily involved in using the landscape approach as one of the main way to really implement the projects that we are doing with the government in different parts of the world. And especially on the landscape restoration part there is a lot of interest from our client countries because of the positive message that it brings which is not so much the land degradation side but really the opportunities of restoring the land into a productive system for the production of ecosystem services for improving the livelihood of the people. As an example to you of how much we are really using this landscape approach the World Bank has approved last year after many years of sort of an empty policy document for the bank, a forest and landscape action plan that really focusing on the landscape approach as the way to go for this double objective if you want of improving ecosystem services and improving livelihood. The way the forest and landscape action plan is organised is that you have something that is what you can do, what kind of investment you can do in forest area and I am talking about tropical forest or dryland forest as well so sustainable forest management, community forest all this work but then it has all another component which is called forest smart investment. So it's all the investment that maybe our investment in infrastructure maybe our investment in agriculture or maybe our investment in transport how to make sure we make them more forest friendly and that's really in some way one of a way to do landscape approach and so here it comes and I connect very much to what the previous speaker was saying is how do you bring in the other sectors how do you work together with the other sector if you want to really use this landscape approach The commitment of the bank so they are spelled out in this forest and landscape action plan but they also reflected in documents like this is the climate change action plan we have a very big part of this climate change action plan related to landscape and how much the landscape can bring in in terms of climate we are here in Morocco but as we all know we are the champion of the landscape approach the landscape approach is much more than the climate part of course the climate adaptation is fundamental the mitigation hopefully will be the cherry on the cake for everybody but there are many other reasons for using this landscape approach nonetheless it's in there and we are really committing that a big part of our investment are going to use this landscape approach we have some programs from Indonesia to Ethiopia, to Costa Rica, Colombia we just finished a session this morning on the Great Green Wall from Senegal to Djibouti and how some countries from North Africa want to join this Great Green Wall which should be really more of a mosaic of the ecosystem and livelihood management so it's really picking up and all the challenges we find with our clients the bond challenge and with their targets of a certain number of hectares restored or under sustainable landscape management it's really helping to move in this agenda in terms of some of the challenges that we find one of the things that is coming to us from our clients is that what we need the most is not only or not so much the investment maybe money can be there even from the private sector but it's the technical assistance doing landscape or landscape restoration is not always so obvious what is the best way to do it so that you're really optimizing the use of your resources so it's a technical assistance of the technical size it's a technical assistance on looking at the trade-offs a lot of times when we talk about landscape management you have to manage trade-offs between different land uses the end goal is for the World Bank it's always to reduce poverty increase shared prosperity in a sustainable way so it's not that it's conservation at all cost no, we are very conscious with our countries want to grow our countries want development so managing these trade-offs and learning how to manage that is what they are asking us a lot of technical assistance and help so I think that's really the major challenge that is coming from our clients and I hope that in terms of investment with the private sector with our part of the bank that works with the private sector called IFC just issued a fantastic bond for restoration so a lot of innovative financing is coming up but where we all need to put our efforts it's on the championing and the very technical assistance thank you I think Parliament makes a really, really sound point there in terms of trade-offs I'll add to that synergies between these multiple objectives that we want to bring together I think that's extremely crucial I think the second point she makes which is the whole investment dimension I think that's really important because we are moving towards blended finance approaches nowadays and we need to technically understand what blended finance is about and how you bring that together I think these two things that she mentions are really, really crucial and we might need, I'm sure some of you will come back into it I see some people in the room that I know are working on these things so we'll come back to that but that leads me, I think when you mentioned the Great Green Wall I started thinking about the scale issues when Tony talked about 150,000 hectares then I started thinking what scale are we talking about so I think this gives us the opportunity because we asked Dennis to reflect a little bit about the scaling of the dimensions of landscapes Dennis Garrity is a former director general of e-craft but currently he is the UNFCC Drylands Ambassador and a senior fellow resident at e-craft Over to you Dennis Great, well thank you very much Peter You know I brought my little teleprompter along this morning because like certain presidential candidates I get off message if I don't keep my notes in front of me so I will try to do that James, I'd like to make my remarks a take off on your presentation and some of my reactions to it which I think was part of our responsibility this morning but I welcome that because James you started off with a very interesting question Is a rose by any other name? Is it still a rose? Ah! And you noted that integrated rural development programs of the 70s and 80s the integrated conservation development programs of the 90s and early 2000s and then there were the integrated natural resource management approaches during the 1990s that the CGIR pioneered and now we talk about integrated landscape approaches the rose I think you were talking about in addition there were the farming systems approaches of the late 70s to the mid 90s which were another integrated perspective that dealt with farmscapes if not landscapes so you're right that there was a rich history of research and investments deploying these prior approaches and I would also add that there was a great deal of empirical work done on why they were not as successful as you imply so and in fact Peter you know I've actually been around long enough to be contemporary with much of what these programs were back when the Ford Foundation pioneered integrated rural development in India and other countries etc I go back quite a ways it does remind me but I was excited when you listed them and you acknowledge that history and I kicked back in my seat and I was anxiously expecting to learn how the new integrated landscape approaches would differ from these preceding other approaches and to learn more about what might be give us confidence that integrated landscape approaches have learned from the past and are now overcoming the problems and the constraints that were identified with respect to these other approaches and would be therefore obviously more successful than their predecessors now that would be a very interesting analysis but it's not one that you actually did or at least you actually reported I gather that you didn't really attempt to answer that question of the historical comparison but rather tried to determine based on contemporary projects of integrated landscape approaches whether they were being successful according to a number of indicators but I would advise that that historical analysis obviously would ground everything because that's what we're talking about in terms of old wine and new bottles that's what we're talking about calling the rose by a different name because for those of us who have been around that's the question that's lingering in our mind because all of these prior attempts were also grounded in the context of taking a more holistic integrated approach to development in various contexts so that's been around for a long time the issue is how do you do it more effectively and particularly more cost effectively and James you noted that there are major difficulties with the current literature, grey or peer reviewed to try to deal with making a judgment of whether current integrated landscape approaches are more successful and particularly are they more cost effective and that's what I'd like to kind of close on is that when you come to looking at whether a given holistic integrated project is successful by a number of indicators you obviously have to compare it against the straw man which is a non-integrated approach and where I believe that many of the prior programs had reached situations where they were seriously criticized was that it was based on were they actually more cost effective in delivering the outcomes that they were considering that when you do have more siloed programs which are the natural way it's simpler, it's more direct you need less sophisticated human capacity to enact them and therefore particularly in developing countries I know that some of these programs have foundered because the capacity and the talent is not there to do sophisticated holistic arrangements so I guess James I'm not criticizing but I'm pleading that we need to go farther and look at that historical analysis because I think it would be so rich in giving us better grounding on where we ought to be with integrated landscape programs and then finally I think Peter now that we are really engaged at a huge way in approaching the restoration challenges that Paula brought up we obviously are looking at these in a holistic integrated process at the landscape level now we do desperately need, don't we these kind of analyses that give us a better idea of how we can cost effectively operate and I know I personally can engage very much along with my sister Wanjira Matai here in the audience with supporting the development of the Africa 100 the African Restoration Initiative which has a target of 100 million hectares and many countries, about 21 countries have joined over 63.5 million hectares that they can confirm and now we get to the real work which is how do you work across the environment ministry the agriculture ministry the livestock ministry to develop this holistic landscape approach so indeed we're locked into landscape approaches there's no doubt about it but how do they stack up against historical experience and how do they compare cost effectively with other less integrated ways of doing business that's my challenge to you and your colleagues to get to work and get us answers because we're spending lots of money and we need to know how to do it more effectively and I tell you many governments will be happy to know the results of that as well thank you for inviting me Peter thanks a lot Dennis can I get a message? I don't know I need to have a look thank you I think Dennis touched really really for me in my experience working on these things one of the most important questions we need to ask and it's about performance how do this landscape approaches perform compared to other approaches because we know everyone has spoken about stakeholder engagement we know it's not cheap to engage stakeholders everyone has talked about doing everything at the same time it's not cheap to do that how do we make sure that as we move forward in the holistic approach performance we are performing better than we were performing before I think that's an extremely important question that we need to ask and James asked the question what metrics do we need in fact if you wanted to look at metrics number one metric that you will be looking for is a performance metric on efficiency cost effectiveness of what we are doing that's extremely important but I'll tell you about 25 minutes of interactions but just to mention Dennis we attempted to answer your question in the book that we published in 2014 but one of that book has four chapters that looks at each one of these approaches that James mentioned the first look at what are the differences and how do they stack up in terms of the evolution in itself so I think it's free the book is free you can download it there will be cards at the back that you can get and you download it and you begin to have questions the only thing we couldn't answer is the performance side and that's because a lot of the approaches before haven't been looking at performance and that's what we need to begin to look at at the moment that's really crucial so thanks for touching on that please I know you've been extremely patient so we'll try now to take your questions and ask the panelists to come in front please try to be brief we've got 25 minutes so if you can try to keep your questions to 30 seconds that would really help so we'll take about four or five comments of questions and then we go back to the panel can we start please with this side and then we go to the other side just be patient so one, two, three and then we see the next part and then we can go please can you please say your name and your affiliation to me I'm Jonas Hain from the German Development Institute in Bonn, Germany I have one question actually to the first bullet point of the conclusion but I think it will also be picked up during the different comments so the question is that I have our landscape approaches really under theorised since we've just heard that actually we have a lot of experience on research on community based conservation on red plus on all these different conservation mechanisms especially from more critical researchers like political ecologists human geographers, anthropologists so all that knowledge is somewhere around actually about how power is constructed in landscapes which actors are important and so I think landscape research as such is maybe not under theorised but the approach as such so maybe we have to learn more from all these researchers that did actually the work already and find out the right things that we need to design such approaches okay thanks maybe we can start from the mic so maybe at the back thanks for being very concerned hi, good morning my name is Karissa Casperzak I work with the National Wildlife Federation based in the US so I had part of my thinking about the idea of what's new about the landscape approach is the proliferation of technology and monitoring systems the new access to or not new but no proliferation of satellite data, LIDAR data to help facilitate landscape planning and being able to easily look at a landscape and look at the different ecosystems and land uses and so I was just wondering what you all think of some of the tools that have that have come about the HDSA the convergence if you guys are using tools if what you've thought is helpful in your landscape planning in the different contexts okay my name is Robert Hofstadir I'm director climate change at IDRC Canada I was very intrigued by this historical summary of how the concepts towards integrated research on landscape has evolved and we're still not there and if we look a little bit back then we see that every time we take something else on board 20 years ago we didn't value too much the traditional knowledge and we got it on board and we didn't value too much the participation aspect we got it on board then we didn't value too much the skills of environment now it's a big thing how to get private investments and we're trying to get it on board maybe to become complete we shouldn't look too much back but to the future my question would be what do you think would be the next thing we have to take on board so that we do not know yet that will be important in five years time could you reflect a little bit on that can we take a few more questions and then we'll go back to the panel any more comments any more questions thank you so much just in addition to the last question there's this term of territorial approach why we use these days and I was wondering whether you could reflect on that a rose question I know but that would make our life much more easier I'm of the German Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs thank you on that I think we can turn it over I know there was a specific question on the channel and then that was to be spoken to where I want to respond sorry can you just remind me which question I'm responding to you're not asked about you said knowledge is there but there are several concepts on geography and things like that and I think I said at the end of the presentation that there's sufficient knowledge there available to us it's now time to utilise that knowledge I do think one area that remains on the theorise is the metrics that we still don't have a sufficient body of knowledge on metrics for landscape approaches and we need to bring in GIS I think we need more than we have currently but yeah you're right now is the time to move beyond conceptualising can you also have a tip once you have the mic I do have one on the general problem yeah also to reflect on Dennis's points that he made earlier so from our perspective how landscape approaches are different to prior interventions certainly it's within the theory it's acknowledging that win-wins or triple-wins are not particularly likely I think that's been the kind of the way that previous interventions have put themselves forward a landscape approach is about trade-offs it's about acknowledging that there's going to be winners there's going to be losers it's how we develop strategies to help the people that are losing so they lose less often basically I think that is where the theory is distinct unfortunately we can't we can't evaluate that in practice yet they just aren't enough interventions that have happened where we can say that's actually the case they're all saying they're successful so actually they are reporting win-wins that's not the case and the third question what do we take on next I thought that was really interesting and there was a really nice paper that came out earlier this year or very recently actually from Geoff Sayer who unfortunately couldn't be here today but that looked at a landscape approach over the past 12 years so 12 years of experience and they didn't call it a landscape approach when it first started but that's basically what it's developed into shown that the things that they were most concerned about 12 years ago actually aren't that important anymore and there's things that have changed within the landscape that have much great influence on their decision making at the moment so I think if we can somehow predict the things we need to take on next and obviously that's where models come into play then that would be useful I don't have the answers so is there anyone wanting to react? I'd like to follow up on that yeah surely acknowledging the new integrated approaches is not really new negotiation a negotiation process, negotiation trade-offs is new but what I think is also new and that also makes the question about the process a challenging one is that we now recognize complexity and uncertainty and that means that there is no blueprint for a landscape approach and for a process to implement a landscape approach had the actors in a landscape they changed the dynamics of the processes changed the economic activities changed just a simple example when I did my PhD research in Brazilian Amazonia in the Mediterranean colonization and shortly after that a small-scale illegal gold mining now imagine implementing a landscape approach on those issues they would think when I came back in 15 years later there was no gold miner in my study area anymore because gold was depleted the big concern was the expansion of soy cultivation so that means a different set of stakeholders a different set of goals and so I wouldn't worry too much about sustainable institutions in the case of a landscape approach but just again as I argued earlier build on local initiatives and the topical issues and the actual actual constellations in place any part of that and then Margaret Margaret OK so thank you very much for the questions so let me try to to see the question on the tools for monitoring so I don't remember here so the word bank is really trying to work with the clients and use a lot more of all these incredible amount of tools related to some that can help in spatial analysis it's not easy many of our clients are also very confused because there are too many out there and not always bringing the same the same information if you want so I think that one of the responsibility of the technical partners is to really try to coordinate a bit more on especially on the special one and bring a more consistent message to the countries the policy maker don't have too much time they want just a map that speaks to them and we're not yet able a lot of times to just give that in a simple way so we need to do more work in getting together on that so that's the first point on the question what is next what is the next issues I'm not sure if we have not considered but every time I've been coming to the landscape forum for the last three or four years and I see a lot of work on the natural resources, the forest the agriculture etc the climate, the adaptation the land rights I think we are not yet completely on the water the water is not so prominent in our work and I had the privilege to be on a panel with Lester Brown about two or three weeks ago I'm sure many of you know him and he was telling us that the next big issue for him the next book he's going to write is going to be about aquifers all these aquifers are getting completely depleted in about a ratio one to ten which means we are extracting ten times more than the water that is getting into the aquifers and he gave me all the numbers etc so we need to integrate that element a lot more I don't want to integrate it in five or ten years so let's start now and the second point which I think we need to work where we just had in the panel today a mawr agnoreti who just entered discussing that is to work more on the heritage aspects of the landscape the inclusion the co-evolution as it was mentioned in between the human and the environment and how to recuperate all the cultural element and the historic elements on how the communities were really dealing with the landscape I think it's an element that needs to be more present that brings an important livelihood aspects to the point the last one territorial versus landscape we are having the same debates in the bank and in Latin America they use a lot the word desaroio territorial in West Africa the gestion de terror so our understanding but it's a matter of interpretation so the way we interpret it in the bank is that territorial approaches are bigger than the landscape one maybe because they include more elements a lot of infrastructure, a lot of industry a lot of the urban areas so I'm trying inside the bank as global landscape lead to really move from the landscape into the territorial as well to integrate them to integrate them more so that you bring also all these other all these other elements but one step at a time let's start with the landscape and then include the rest I'd like to comment a bit about whether or not we use whatever available tools trying to measure and other stuff so basically we've been working with our 150,000 hectares ecosystem restoration we've been working closely with the Fauna Flora International the Nature Conservancy as well the National NGO Bidara and some other local NGOs and of course some other consultants and we've been using and we're going to use any best available technology that can help us in trying to because the four approaches and then to assess and then to restore and to manage so all the stages will have to go in accordance with the plan and we've been helped by the other consultants and also NGOs as well but the critical thing I mentioned earlier about the landscape itself because if you're talking about Kampar Peninsula it's not only our ecosystem restoration 150,000 hectares there's some other concessions there as well there's also a national park in that in that peninsula so the key thing is the collaboration means that the government should be in front I mean yes of course we need the private sector but the government has to be in front and we will always support and follow the government because there are some national parks in those areas as well and there are some other concessions as well like I mentioned earlier so again we will use whatever available technology in trying to do the four stages and we expect that for the bigger landscape approach we're going to rely very much on the lead of the government thank you very much with the regards to the okay we are more familiar we've heard words such as integrated farming systems sustainable agriculture climate smart agriculture for a very long time okay so the question with the question of how it differs from the landscape approach we are talking right now is for my understanding is that it now address the issues on what's the impact of climate change on the agricultural system or the agriculture system it is important that climate change is a cross-sectoral it's a cross-sectoral issue so it is very important that there should be an integrated approach or as I understand it that landscape approach is one of one practice that we could consider here with regards to the tools as I already a bit mentioned in my talk a while ago that what we need now is to identify all those available technologies in a specific vulnerable zone or every ecological zone packaging it having it as a practical solution to a certain vulnerable area we call it the climate smart agriculture technology packaging for different kind of agriculture area and there we will need some tools and some approaches on that with the territorial approach we are trying in the ASEAN region to have a common position on how we will deal with the impact of climate change on food security we have a common goal we should have a common goal on addressing this issue which is food security and livelihood and by there we have a common position on how we will deal with climate change or what will be our climate change action involving all the sectors multi sectoral actors thank you Thanks a lot I really would like two points I think on the tools thing FAO developed some things in the past with that needs updating so you can look at that but I think there are lots of modern tools that haven't been updated on the FAO sort of tool kind of toolbox and we didn't have them to talk about it here on the territory I think there is a really nice recent paper that came out in world development by somebody called Mike McCall and I can share that with you I can give you the context but it's a brilliant one looking at territorial versus landscape approaches in world development really good very recent this year so it's a really nice paper Dennis with 30 seconds 30 seconds ok if you want to go really back into history with integrated approaches back in the 1920s the soil and water conservation districts formed in the United States that was a county level territorial approach way back then they still exist in every country in the United States so the territorial approach has been around for a long time and you'll have to work on that one too ok Dennis 30 seconds are running out ok I got one more point to make that is to address what's new what's the next big thing and I am really excited about the fact that with the the geological survey of the US and FAO and World Resources Institute and others they've developed a tool called collect curve which is making us a whole new element of crowd sourcing and crowd engagement in monitoring all sorts of things in the landscape at very high resolution with no cost and the name of the tool is collector we are now at a stage when the individual in their own officer home can engage in monitoring their local landscape their community landscape or anything bigger than that I think this is really exciting because it's no longer the purview of those pointy headed GIS specialists who you know give me the data I'll go away for six months and I'll give you a map we now can engage in that and it's a wonderful opportunity for us to do this and that leads to the big opportunity for all of us to get engaged in ever greening the planet because whatever we do as individuals we want to monitor what we do and see the outcomes so Peter, thank you Thanks a lot Dennis, thanks that's a very enthusiastic note I like we can't take questions back and forth but what I like to happen now is if you felt that there is something really important that we've missed in the discussion that you want to highlight or comment have the microphone and make your point in 30 seconds would like to go around just some comments and some you know if you feel that there is something that is really missing that we need to highlight before we close it Yeah, Percy Summers from Conservation International in Peru I would like to hear a little bit more about scaling up I think a lot of the landscape efforts are still done at a very small scale and I think that's one of the issues with monitoring and measuring success because we can have this first phase where we do the spatial analysis where are the key areas to conserve where we want to target more efficient activities but if I can only reach 1,000 farmers and I have 30,000 farmers in the landscape my impact is still not going to be landscape scale it's still going to be projects Any other observations, comments please I think people are pretty pretty have the feeling that we've exhausted a lot of things I think they've really been really really good in looking at what we wanted I think they've raised a lot of the issues we've gotten some issues back I think we are moving towards and I think we are asking the right questions here at the end of it asking what is new I think is a really hard question we have to look at and I think they've provided quite a lot of perspectives on that I think just one from my side I think the big question about what is new and in terms of the metrics I think one of the most important questions is not whether we have metrics for measuring as Dennis said I think the biggest question is how do we measure in an effective and efficient way how do we take a minimum set of indicators because there are a lot of indicators of sustainability out there but what is a minimum set of indicators that gives you a good feeling of the landscape moving forward and measuring what is necessary at reasonable cost because that's that's where I think because we are moving towards questioning performance of the landscapes on climate change on different issues that's an extremely important question we are exploring now and I think one of the issues that I think you raised which is coming on and on and on is how do you nest these different levels I think your point about really looking at that I think the nesting of the different levels is extremely important here I think if there are two challenges we want to go back with is how do we become more efficient in landscape approaches your question about the too many frameworks existing I would say in our thinking now one of the big questions that remain open is how do you bring these multiple concepts from water from forestry, from agriculture into a framework that allows them to be implemented in synergy and that you minimise the trade-offs what's that framework because as you said there are lots of things everywhere James mentioned you've got all of these things and a lot of them as you said the water question we have integrated water management as a huge landscape concept how do you bring a framework that brings these things together and that allows synergy and sort of seamless implementation at that sort of convenient level whether you want to call it territory which brings in the jurisdiction and decision making side of the story I think these are sort of the messages as I can summarise that we are moving towards how do we become more efficient how do we make landscape approaches more performance based questioning whether they are delivering value for money I think that's an extremely important question because the whole financing thing is hanging over our heads and nobody will invest if they don't get value for money and the tools that you mentioned are really important in making sure we give that value for money I think it's really important So I think let's give our panellists a big hand Thank you very much for being here and for participating