 So I'd like to start first by acknowledging really that integrated landscape approaches to land management is not a new concept It's actually been widely documented within the literature since at least the early 1980s under various guises and the past three decades have seen a real growing recognition that they're that the Traditional approaches sectorial approaches to global challenges such as biodiversity conservation Poverty alleviation deforestation are no longer working And we need to find a more holistic integrated a solution to these problems now previous approaches Like I said, they've fallen under various guises, but they've been developed over the past three decades and Despite initial promise they've failed to achieve a lot of key objectives and principle amongst these is combining sectors so reconciling conservation and development targets To give some examples initiatives such as ecosystem-based approaches or ICDPs Have been heavily criticized for being too heavily focused on conservation issues and therefore to the detriment of rural livelihoods Conversely, you have integrated rural development approaches Which have come under scrutiny for being too anthropocentric and therefore not addressing conservation issues sufficiently The integrated landscape approach can be viewed as a refinement of these prior approaches And it can be broadly defined as a framework to address the increasingly widespread and complex environmental social and political challenges that typically transcend traditional management boundaries They end to do this through the equitable and sustainable use of land And also help to strengthen measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change So they really are a multi-faceted approach to land management They aim to bring together multiple stakeholders across multiple sectors and work at various multiple scales Now when you consider them these consider these approaches in this context It's really quite difficult to argue against the merits of a landscape approach as a framework You know what we have here is a mechanism that could potentially help to alleviate poverty and do so in an equitable manner Conserved by diversity safeguard our forests and also contribute to food production while also mitigating climate change We can also throw into that mix with the forthcoming sustainable development goals if you look at the current working draft They've outlined seven targets key targets And if you look at the terrestrial targets at least the majority of them Display significant overlap with the objectives of a landscape approach So at this point we really have to question why is the landscape approach been relatively slow to gain policy traction and This has inevitably led to slow take on the ground So what I'd like to do is address a few key issues that we've identified That have become perhaps barriers to implementation of the approach So the first one is this issue of terminology as I mentioned there's been an exponential rise in the last three decades of Literature related to landscape approaches in one form or another and this has led to a real significant Institutional overlap in terms of the terminology used so we have research groups at different corners of the globe and they're using different definitions and Even applying different terms that all mean the same thing a recent study identified 78 different terms all alluding to landscape approaches And perhaps what we've done is just created this sea of terminology That's not actually helping progress actually hindering Engagement with policymakers because the scientists were failing to deliver a coherent message The second issue really relates to the first one How do we define a landscape approach? This has Become increasingly problematic. We're dealing with a complex and dynamic system and we acknowledge that perhaps what we what we don't need is a universal universally agreed definition Because a landscape approach is a framework perhaps has to be as dynamic as the landscape to which we're trying to apply it having said that What we do need is a coordinated effort with at least within the research community To build on the terminology we have and try to provide at least a widely accepted definition of what we think is a landscape approach and how we can deliver that message to policymakers The third point is the issue of impact assessment We seem to have built this real wealth of knowledge related to integrated landscape approaches to land management But a lot of it is theory and conceptual frameworks. Do we really have a strong evidence base? Do we have the case studies on the ground that have shown that these objectives are being met and these global challenges are being addressed? Related to this do we currently have a toolkit that can assess a landscape approach as it's been implemented? Again, we acknowledge that a landscape approach Does not need to have a specific end goal. It is more about the journey rather than the destination But at points along this journey, we need to be having some metric some measure of meeting objectives at short-term at various stages along the journey The final issue is the issue of governance Again, it's a problematic area and it's quite easy to sit here and say we demand a bottom-up approach And we need to engage with rural communities But we all know from experience within forest governance That when you try to implement something in the field having this bottom-up approach is very difficult to get all the stakeholders together and get them Involved in the decision-making process However a landscape approach we feel demands this in order to bridge national policies with local practices There needs to be engagement with rural communities and we need to somehow work out how to empower these rural communities So they do have an active voice within the disc within the decision-making processes And also they're active in the management going forward of the approach So in order to seek some answers or solutions to some of the issues that we've raised here See for currently undertaking this systematic mapping process. We're following the standard systematic review methodology we've captured as broad a range of literature as possible from a number of specialist databases and grey literature sources individuals and organizations and We collate the the literature and apply inclusion and exclusion criteria and then filter this literature of various stages So title screening abstract screening and finally full text and that will give us our final set of studies that we plan to map The two key objectives that we hope to meet with this process We we first want to map the development of the theory of landscape approaches So how the previous approaches are fed into the current iteration the integrated landscape approach and Try to somehow decipher the existing terminology and provide that more coherent message And then we can use this in the form of policy briefs to deliver a better message to policymakers The second objective is to identify a map geographically where and how these initiatives have been implemented in the field So we would I we would ideally like to identify What stakeholder involvement there has been what sector involvement there has been how governance has been applied and by doing this process we hope that we can then Contribute to future research efforts to to gain a greater understanding and display how landscape approaches can be implemented We our current process with the map. We're working on a very short time frame But we've managed to complete our title abstract screening We started with 13 approximately 13,000 studies After title screening, we've filtered that number down to three and a half thousand and As I said, we've recently completed abstract screening when we left with 382 studies that we will Read at full text and extract our data from and we will be transferring that died that data directly into an interactive map and we hope to Reveal some results and preliminary results at the Global Landscapes Forum in Peru in December and We will hope to unveil the map at this point as well. Thank you very much Yeah, thanks James for this think it's it's a nice overview and I'm happy that you are not taking this this study for Or that seafoes undertaking is undertaking this study and I'm happy that you'll note noted that there is a long history of landscape approaches And we should be tapping into that I'm also happy that you Did you mention the power empowerment, which is something that came up last week when we had these events in New York? And there were discussions on the landscape approach and that was point very strong strongly made also by several people That so somehow we have to figure out a way of finding a what could look like a top-down approach But in putting up landscape landscape perspectives on development problems with a Bottom-up approach where people come from the regions and the villages and say and state their point of view So it's I think that's one of the challenges we we have there Another point I would like to make and I made also before is that we need to find a way of Making this operational and that means finding a way of getting from the the integration of the complexity to an Outlet of output of simplicity Because we live in a sectoral world. We live in a levels world People at the village level are not in the ministries. That's simply not the case So they will have different challenges than those up there and and and we need to find a way of bringing those Outputs and breaking them down again and bring them out To where they matter and how they matter in those different sectors and and levels Ministries are separated. There is no ministry of landscapes. We don't have that so but there's ministries of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance of economy and so on which need to do their Their contribution to the to the solution and we need to find a way of breaking what we find in an integrated approach Down into sectoral solutions again, which then somehow reflect this integrated analysis and respond to it and contribute to an integrated outcome, but they're working basically Secturally and and at levels. I think that's another challenge. We have top-down and bottom-up approaches It's been mentioned at a few meetings that we've had that you know with the approach work without either or I think a landscape approach does require both So yeah, I agree with that and in terms of operationalizing the landscape approach Yeah, ministerial level sure that they it's quite convenient for them to sit in their boxes But I think as a research community what we can do is at least deliver the research that shows that it's a feasible approach And I I'm not entirely sure that we're doing that at the moment in terms of delivering case studies and research on the ground But it's going to take a lot of people Basically being very brave You know the donor community the research community working together and making these large-scale long-term research projects happen Review is Yeah, so we we did a scoping study to identify a set of search terms And we have a set of search terms that we then apply to various databases We've contacted research institutions directly spoken to individual experts and we basically try to Find as broad a range of material as we can possibly find including grey literature material as well And then we screen at various levels the literature that we're left with and I said, yeah We started with 13,000 but obviously a lot of them aren't aren't relevant to a landscape approach, but That's a that's a factor of doing a systematic review You have to start with a very broad set of search terms to make sure you are capturing all the material You do want to capture and then you go through this quite time consuming process of Screening at title abstract and full text and we'll then be left with well. We have 382 Full text that we have to read take the data from and and then we'll map that data accordingly How many final studies will have in the in the map? I couldn't say at the moment From experience is generally 1% from the original search. So the 13,000 would be left with 130 But sometimes you're left with nothing. I've seen from other systematic views, but that's not going to be the case with us I would recommend Not to be too Why Approaches to the concept I Will I would I won't incorporate into your review the whole issues of governance Governance or landscapes is completely different issues. I think has to be more in more into the legal literature Where you might have this one? You might enrich your review by looking at theories of complexity Look at what sorry theories of complexity because I think in a lot of what Landscape approaches are missing. There is a whole theoretical framework That's not there and that's the problem with you in DP and it's it's ecosystem-based Adaptation approach that they are doing it's there's the theory is not there I think your contribution could be very good if you look at the theories of complexity and provide some common theoretical framework Landscape approaches no governance again. It's probably more into the legal aspect legal literature or some other social political science Part of the literature. Yeah, it might be too wide to try to incorporate everything in one review Yeah, I mean obviously we have to draw boundaries somewhere and When you do a systematic approach you have to follow a quite rigid methodology But at the stage we're at at the moment, which is screening the full text We can choose what data we choose. We want to take from the text So we have a pretty large spreadsheet of various Different variables that we hope to identify but we can actually be flexible at this stage So we can add or remove Depending on what we find in the text But the governance issue isn't a specific key objective that we have it's more about mapping where and how they've been implemented and You know helping to decide for the terminology No, just a quick easy one. I think but just just from those studies that you've whittled down Is that actually are they actually where? The landscape approach has been applied or do you mean that are they conceptual papers as well that are? Working on defining it They're a mix of the two so Yeah, when when we're going through the screening of the full text We'll basically apply them to different folders. One will be theoretical frameworks. One will be case studies It's probably not a good idea to say right now, but I'm gonna say anyway But an emerging theme that we're emerging pattern that we're starting to see is that there are very little Examples of case studies within the tropics. We are finding much more theoretical work But we haven't read the full text so that might come back to bite me. I don't know