Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives REPORT NO: P171124 Produced by the Biocarbon Fund Initiative For Sustainable Forest Landscapes August 2021 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 1 © 2021 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the executive directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory, or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Photography Sarah Fretwell, Nadège Mazars, Yo Fauzan, Binyam Teshome and Shutterstock. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to the work is given. Please cite this work as follows: World Bank. 2021. Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives. © World Bank. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. 2 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives i Contents Figures, Tables, and Boxes Foreword............................................................................................................................................................................................................1 FIGURES Figure 1.1: Indicative Stakeholder Mapping (Non-Exhaustive)............................................................................................... 9 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2.1: Key Themes and Features of Integrated Land Use Initiatives ...................................................................... 10 Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2.2: Effective MSE: An Iterative Process Built on Four Key Elements ............................................................... 12 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.3: Three Key Elements of Implementing an Environmental Focus in an Integrated Land Use Initiative.................................................................................................................................................. 17 1. Introduction to Integrated Land Use Initiatives................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.4: Three Key Elements of Ensuring Economic Benefits to Communities 2. The Eight Themes................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 in an Integrated Land Use Initiative................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.1 Multistakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2.5: Two Key Elements of Setting the Boundary Around an Initiative.............................................................. 25 Figure 2.6: Three Key Elements in Addressing Land Tenure Issues................................................................................... 29 2.2 Environmental Focus.................................................................................................................................................................16 Figure 2.7: Three Key Elements of Identifying Financing ...................................................................................................... 34 2.3 Economic Focus.......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.8: Three Key Elements of MEL for Integrated Land Use Initiatives................................................................. 39 2.4 Boundary Setting....................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2.9: Three Key Elements of Promoting Cross-Sectoral Coordination............................................................... 44 2.5 Land Tenure.................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure B.1: Schematic Diagram of Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 62 2.6 Financing Strategies................................................................................................................................................................ 33 TABLES 2.7 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning............................................................................................................................... 38 Table 1: Summary of the Eight Themes at the Basis of Integrated Land Use Initiatives ........................................... 7 2.8 Cross-Sectoral Coordination............................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 2.1: Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Boundary Types................................................... 26 3. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Table 2.2: Types of Land Tenure......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................................................47 Table 2.3: Tools for Expanding Financing....................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 2.4: Indicators for Integrated Land Use Initiatives....................................................................................................... 40 Appendixes................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Table C.1: Case Studies by Region .................................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix A: Glossary....................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix B: Methodology and Limitations............................................................................................................................61 Appendix C: Case Studies............................................................................................................................................................. 64 ii Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives iii nature, and the drastic unintended consequences these actions can, in turn, have on humans. therefore a poignant moment to discuss integrated land use initiatives as an approach to deve and environmental challenges. BOXES Foreword Box 1: BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes................................................................................. 6 Natural andland Integrated human use initiatives ecosystems offer a are complex, holistic structures. interwoven approach to sustainable Approaching development a problem by challeng that is entangled practitioners to look within interdependent beyond in ecosystems traditional, sectoral isolation rather development than acknowledging projects the complex and challenge it instead presents to engage Box 1.1: Key Terms....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 tends to lead to disappointing results, and unintended consequences. The interconnection of these systems, and complexity of entire landscapes, and to account for the social, economic, and natural ecosyste the way that a change in one can drastically impact another, has perhaps found no clearer expression than in the Box 2.1: Case Study: MSE in the Congo River Basin..................................................................................................................13 depend effects ofon them. Such COVID-19, an disease a zoonotic approach challenges that has us altered fundamentally to consider how our social all these systems. Research shows us pieces—r different than thatoperating in siloes, habitat disruption or harming and anthropogenic each climate other change —lead will cantoinstead work together more ecosystem to create and withmore sus destabilization, it will also raise the chances of new zoonotic diseases spreading, and more pandemics. Box 2.2: Additional Considerations for Effective MSE.............................................................................................................15 vibrant, thriving landscapes. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread realization of how deeply humans can impact nature, and Box 2.3: Best Practices, MSE...............................................................................................................................................................15 When implemented the drastic at scale, integrated unintended consequences these actionsland use can, in initiatives turn, can This have on humans. help countries is therefore meet the a poignant Sustain moment to discuss integrated land use initiatives as an approach to development and environmental challenges. Box 2.4: Case Study: Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration.............................................................................................18 Development Goals (SDGs) and realize their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) unde Climate Agreement. Integrated This offer land use initiatives approach fits a holistic with to approach the call to action sustainable generated development by the by challenging United Nations practitioners Box 2.5: Best Practices: Environmental Focus............................................................................................................................19 to look beyond traditional, sectoral development projects and instead to engage with the complexity of entire Decade on Ecosystem landscapes, and to account Restoration, which and for the social, economic, acknowledges that natural ecosystems by depend that fostering healthy on them. Such anecosystems w Box 2.6: Case Study: Economic and Environmental Goals Can Go Hand-In-Hand...................................................... 21 protect approachEarth’s us to considerfight biodiversity, challenges how all climate chanpieces—rather these different ge, and help generate than operating better livelihoods in siloes, or harming for peop each other—can instead work together to create more sustainable, vibrant, thriving landscapes. the world. Box 2.7: Best Practices: Economic Focus....................................................................................................................................... 23 When implemented at scale, integrated land use initiatives can help countries meet the Sustainable Development Goals initiatives These are complex (SDGs) and realize and their Nationally ambitious: Determined they demand Contributions cross-sectoral (NDCs) under coordination, Agreement. constan the Paris Climate Box 2.8: Best Practices: Boundary Setting.................................................................................................................................. 27 This approach fits with the call to action generated by the United Nations (UN) Decade on Ecosystem engagement with a wide variety of stakeholders, and an adaptive approach. Many organization Restoration, which acknowledges that by fostering healthy ecosystems we can protect Earth’s biodiversity, fight Box 2.9: Case Study: Mapping Technology for Land Tenure in Tanzania..........................................................................31 climate change, and governments, communities and help generate better have taken livelihoods for this challenge people head-on and have begun designing a around the world. These initiativescutting-edge implementing programs are complex and ambitious: around they demandthe world. This cross-sectoral report constant coordination, takes stock of the lessons l engagement Box 2.10: Best Practices: Land Tenure............................................................................................................................................ 32 over withthe last a wide decade variety or so of implementation of stakeholders, and an adaptive approach.of some of these initiatives, Many organizations, governments,andandoffers a guide to Box 2.11: Case Study: An Innovative Approach to Financing in Brazil............................................................................. 35 practitioners who are planning an integrated land use initiative, or looking to adopt some of th communities have taken this challenge head-on and have begun designing and implementing cutting-edge programs around the world. This report takes stock of the lessons learned over the last decade or so of approaches implementation make to of some ofexisting projects these initiatives, andmore holistic. offers a guide to practitioners who are planning an integrated Box 2.12: Best Practices: Financing Strategies.......................................................................................................................... 36 land use initiative, or looking to adopt some of these approaches to make existing projects more holistic. These are bold goals: but big, integrated thinking is needed in order to face the pressing global Box 2.13: Case Study: Fixing the “Missing Middle” With the Help of Commercial Banks....................................... 37 These are bold goals: but big, integrated thinking is needed in order to face the pressing global challenges of our challenges of our times. This report times. aims This report to facilitate aims knowledge to facilitate sharing, and in doingknowledge sharing, so, help to begin and about a conversation in doing how so, help Box 2.14: MRV for Results-Based Financing ............................................................................................................................... 40 conversation about of to unlock the potential how to unlock this promising the potential of this promising approach. approach. Box 2.15: Case Study: Participatory Monitoring and Adaptive Management in Nepal............................................. 41 Box 2.16: Best Practices: MEL............................................................................................................................................................ 42 Bernice Van Bronkhorst Global Director, Climate Change, Sustainable Development Practice Group, World Bank iv Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 1 Acknowledgements Abbreviations This report is a product of, and funded by, the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes, which sits in the Climate Change Funds Management Unit (SCCFM) in the Sustainable Development Network AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (SDN) Vice Presidency. The project was managed by Kilara Suit.  BioCF BioCarbon Fund The report was prepared by a team that included Roy Parizat, Annette Friis, Ishita Kaushik, Don Larson, John Nash, and Jillian DiPersio with support from the SCCFM Communications and Knowledge Management Team. BSM Benefit Sharing Mechanism Many reviewers and colleagues provided extensive advice and comments including Marc Sadler, Siet Meijer, Paola Agostini, Rajesh Koirala, Jonathan Cooney, and David Tuschneider.  CACILM Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management The team would like to thank the experts they interviewed during this study for taking the time to share their CIF Climate Investment Funds knowledge. The potential of the integrated land use approach to sustainable development can only be realized with effective collaboration and open knowledge sharing; these experts were exemplary of this idea and critical to CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research the writing of this report. COMACO Community Markets for Conservation FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FOLUR Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration GCF Green Climate Fund GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gases GIS Geographic Information System GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German Corporation for International Cooperation) (Germany) GLF Global Landscapes Forum GPS Global Positioning System ICMS Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços (Brazil) ICMS-E Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços Ecológico (Brazil) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISA Carbon Environmental Service Incentives for Carbon (State of Acre, Brazil) ISFL Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature Kagera TAMP Kagera Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project M&E Monitoring and evaluation 2 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 3 MAST MEL Mobile Application to Secure Tenure Monitoring, evaluation and learning Executive Summary MRV Monitoring, reporting, and verification Through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the international community has recognized the need for MSE Multistakeholder engagement an approach to development that considers the interdependence of human and natural systems. Single-sector approaches to development challenges are insufficient to produce sustainable landscapes that promote resilience MSP Multistakeholder platform and help communities mitigate and adapt to climate change. Achieving sustainable development requires stakeholders to work together to minimize trade-offs and increase synergies between different, and often NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions competing, sector-focused goals. Integrated land use initiatives offer a holistic approach to addressing complex environmental and development NGO Nongovernmental organization challenges. This approach seeks to sustainably manage multiple land uses across landscapes, considering both the natural and human systems that depend on them. In order to take an integrated approach to land OSILP Orinoquía Sustainable Integrated Landscape Program use management, programs need to link the visions of all land use sectors, including agriculture, forestry, and industry—sectors which impact one another but are often siloed in separate policy and management PES Payment for Ecosystem Services structures. To foster a sustainable landscape, practitioners need to consider interventions that not only address key land uses, but, critically, also approach a multifunctional landscape as a complex tapestry of interrelated PPP Public-private partnerships social, economic, and environmental systems.  PSAH Payment for Hydrological Environmental Services By achieving impact at scale across three dimensions (social, environmental, and economic), integrated land use initiatives can contribute to multiple SDGs, including SDG2 (zero hunger), SDG13 (climate action), and SDG15 (life REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, on land). These initiatives can also help countries reach their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the and fostering conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of Paris Climate Agreement. forest carbon stocks The objective of this report is to take stock of lessons learned, document best practices from a range of REM REDD Early Movers integrated land use initiatives, facilitate knowledge sharing, and provide a guide for practitioners who are looking to implement this approach. As the number of integrated land use initiatives has grown substantially in SDGs Sustainable Development Goals the last decade, and different actors have employed diverse approaches, there remains a lack of comprehensive information on the range of approaches, and limited consensus on the concepts, terms, and best practices. SISA State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (Brazil) SKEP Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Programme SLM Sustainable land management TNC The Nature Conservancy UN United Nations UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID United States Agency for International Development US$ US Dollar WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies WWF World Wide Fund for Nature All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. 4 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 5 Though these approaches are not new, much of the relevant literature on using integrated land use as a Table 1: Summary of the Eight Themes at the Basis of Integrated Land Use Initiatives development tool has been published in the last decade. This report is based on a comprehensive review of 1. Multistakeholder Integrated land use initiatives require the collaboration of a diverse range of stakeholders with the literature as well as consultations with experts in integrated land use. From this process, we identified Engagement (MSE) different, often competing interests, making multistakeholder engagement critical to program eight themes as being the most significant for the success of integrated land use initiatives: multistakeholder success. Stakeholder engagement is an ongoing, iterative process vital to all stages of integrated engagement (MSE); environmental focus; economic focus; boundary setting; land tenure; financing strategies; land use initiatives. Experience suggests that programs that focus on ensuring sustained monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL); and cross-sectoral coordination (see Table 1 for a summary of the stakeholder engagement achieve better results. eight themes). Experience has demonstrated that the chance for success improves as more of these themes are 2. Environmental Focus Integrated land use initiatives provide a unique opportunity to meet environmental objectives considered, and are included in planning and implementation. at the local level while also contributing to national commitments related to land degradation, This report provides a basic toolkit1 for practitioners and raises awareness of the cutting-edge work happening biodiversity conservation, and climate change. Efforts should be made to develop and adopt new in this space. It first offers an overview of the state of integrated land use initiatives, before delving into the eight technologies to map and understand complex ecologies in multifunctional landscapes. themes. Each theme is then used as a lens for analyzing integrated land use initiatives; and each theme is broken 3. Economic Focus The root of natural resource degradation is human behavior. To change these behaviors, integrated down into its key elements. Innovative case studies are highlighted, remaining challenges and opportunities land use practitioners need to understand the economic incentives that lead to degradation and noted, and best practices described. Finally, the report urges practitioners to consider how incorporating these find ways to improve the livelihoods of the people who depend on these resources, by developing eight themes into their programs can offer a more holistic approach to creating truly sustainable landscapes. robust mechanisms that reward communities for contributing to sustainability and conservation. This can only be achieved with a strong participatory mechanism that allows stakeholder An integrated land use approach can help promote sustainable land use, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, engagement in the decision-making process about incentives and their distribution. restore ecosystems, conserve biodiversity, protect natural resources, and improve development outcomes. This report 4. Boundary Setting Boundary setting is the process of defining the geographic borders of an integrated land use seeks to document how the approach has taken shape globally, and open the door to future collaboration to realize initiative and determining where the initiative is implemented, who is involved, and how it will be this potential. governed. There are many crucial factors that need to be considered in determining the boundaries of an integrated land use initiative, including existing jurisdictional, ecological, and social boundaries. The boundary should create an area large enough to deliver multiple functions to a diverse group of stakeholders, but not so large as to be unmanageable. Developing boundaries with key stakeholders is crucial in order to avoid conflict and improve program legitimacy. 5. Land Tenure Land tenure represents one of the most significant challenges for successfully implementing integrated land use initiatives. Land ownership and use rights are central to land use planning, but not all initiatives operate in places where all stakeholders have secure property rights. While BOX 1: BIOCARBON FUND INITIATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE an integrated land use initiative will not have the resources or capacity to bring about land FOREST LANDSCAPES tenure reform on its own, it should take the existing context into consideration and work toward developing practical solutions to land tenure challenges, such as improving the cadastre systems This report is funded by the BioCarbon Fund to bring these approaches to the forefront, by using technology to reduce the cost of registration, and strengthening conflict resolution Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes convene stakeholders, and disseminate best mechanisms. (BioCF ISFL). ISFL collaborates with countries practices and lessons learned. 6. Financing Strategies Large-scale, long-term programs require sustainable and secure financing from a variety of around the world to reduce emissions from the sources. However, most integrated land use initiatives are dependent on local and international land sector through smarter land use planning, public finances, and have limited investment from the private sector. This is largely because the policies, and practices. It works on pilot programs public benefits from integrated land use initiatives are difficult to monetize. Limited capacity in jurisdictions in Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, for risk assessment for political, socioeconomic, market, weather, and climate risks, and lack of Mexico, and Zambia. These large-scale, pioneering mitigation instruments create additional barriers. There is still significant potential for expansion programs are enabling countries and the private into private sector investment, particularly as companies continue to move toward more sustainable business practices. Effective integrated land use programs often make use of their sector to adopt changes on the ground while limited resources to identify ways to crowd in new private sector financing, and enable local actors informing policies made at the international level. to adopt more sustainable land use practices. ISFL understands the need for new tools and 7. Monitoring, Developing cost-effective and participatory methods for MEL as well as measurement, reporting, approaches to address deforestation, climate Evaluation, and and verification (MRV) is key to measuring the success of initiatives and enabling adaptive change, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable Learning (MEL) management. Setting cost-effective indicators that support multiple goals and targets, and development. Building on momentum at the building the capacities of local communities and other stakeholders involved in monitoring international, national, and subnational levels, the initiative helps ensure accuracy in data collection. Efforts are needed to generate more climate-smart land use approaches—applied comprehensive reviews of integrated land use initiatives and their outcomes to gain wider support across agriculture, forestry, and other land use for the approach and prove its effectiveness. The creation of knowledge-sharing platforms sectors—offer innovative and effective solutions where initiatives can report successful practices and lessons learned to a broader community to address the multifaceted challenges of of practitioners is also vital to the field’s ability to implement more effective integrated land use initiatives in the future and move toward a collective, comprehensive framework. deforestation and land use change. ISFL is working 8. Cross-Sectoral To properly address the complex, interlinked challenges that integrated land use initiatives are Coordination concerned with, cross-sectoral coordination is essential. However, creating coordinated sectoral responses to environmental and socioeconomic problems can often prove challenging. Lessons 1 Additional resources and tools for practitioners, along with a compendium of case studies, can be found in the supplemental booklet that serves as a companion to this report. This booklet can be accessed at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. For a glossary of key terms used throughout this report, see learned to date demonstrate that clearly defining stakeholder roles and responsibilities, along with Appendix A. For a discussion of the methodology and limitations of this report, see Appendix B. For a list of relevant case studies (details on which can be found building more effective planning instruments to align the objectives of multiple sectors and levels in the supplemental booklet), see Appendix C. of government could yield positive outcomes. 6 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 7 1. Introduction to Integrated Key Actors in the Field Many development agencies have been working to develop integrated land use approaches. These include Land Use Initiatives the World Bank Group, which has focused on acting as a convenor, generating knowledge, and implementing initiatives around the world.3 Many other development sector organizations have played leading roles in developing these approaches and many are currently undertaking, or have recently implemented, projects that adopt integrated land use approaches. Organizations such as Solidaridad, the ISEAL Alliance, the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Development Concepts and Definitions Programme (UNDP), and the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 have carried out worldwide projects using an integrated land use approach. (Figure 1.1 features a map categorizing some of the key stakeholders in the field). In the past decade, integrated land use initiatives have gained momentum among international and domestic Some organizations have also made attempts to develop frameworks outlining this kind of strategy. development agencies, and have earned recognition as an innovative means of addressing environmental and These organizations and many others have undertaken cutting-edge work in integrated land use. To help development challenges. Taking a broad, holistic, systemic view of the environmental, social, and economic practitioners navigate this rapidly expanding field and the various approaches that are developing, the following systems that depend on landscapes, integrated land use initiatives aim to protect ecosystems and safeguard sections of this report outline how these initiatives have taken shape; take stock of lessons learned and best natural resources while improving livelihood outcomes for local communities. These often large-scale initiatives practices; and summarize the opportunities and challenges that remain in order to improve this method. can help countries achieve development goals like the SDGs and work toward meeting their climate goals, for example, their NDCs under the Paris Climate Agreement. Figure 1.1: Indicative Stakeholder Mapping (Non-Exhaustive) These initiatives tend to have longer time horizons and operate at large scales, frequently at the scale of an entire landscape or jurisdiction. Integrated land use initiatives require engagement with a variety of stakeholders; CGIAR International Research they operate across sectors, and their scale and ambition necessitate continuous learning and adaptive Association Program on Forests, management. for Landscape Trees and Ecology Agroforestry Bonn Such programs are by nature complex and challenging to implement effectively. Additionally, there is a lack of Challenge consensus concerning key terms, concepts, and best practices among the growing cohort of global practitioners. African A variety of terms have been adopted to label initiatives that take this general approach, including integrated Landscape Restoration Great Green landscape management, integrated land use planning, and the landscape approach. (See Box 1.1 for a sampling Initiative Wall of terms and definitions).2 In order to encompass all of the innovative work happening in this space, and to Cornell (AFR100) IUFRO Ecoagriculture Landscape facilitate the sharing of best practices, rather than adopt one of these terms, this report uses “integrated land TerrAfrica WOCAT Working Group Ecology use initiatives” as an umbrella term covering a variety of approaches. Group The Nature Solidaridad BOX 1.1: KEY TERMS Conservatory Integrated UN Organizations: Adaptive Management: “A strategy that allows collaboration among multiple stakeholders, with Ecoagriculture stakeholders to operate in the face of uncertainty, the purpose of achieving sustainable landscapes” Partners Land-Use UNDP, UNEP, FAO, UN PAGE learning from the effects of their resource (Denier et al 2015). Tropical Initiatives Forest Partnerships management practices on resource quality and Alliance for Forests quantity (sustainability), including biodiversity, Integrated Land Use Planning: “Assesses and 2020 at certain scales, and its links with ecosystem assigns the use of resources, taking into account Global IDH, The Earth Global functioning at the same or larger scales” (FAO different uses, and demands from different users, Canopy Innovation Sustainable Landscapes Programme Trade including all agricultural sectors – pastoral, Institute Forum 2003). Initiative Landscapes for crops and forests – as well as industry and other ISEAL Alliance People, Food Landscape: A socioecological system that includes interested parties” (FAO 2020b). and Nature “topography, natural resources, biodiversity, and World various land uses. It is influenced by climate and Wildlife Fund culture, as well as ecological processes and human International World Union for Agroforestry activity. A landscape has various functionalities Conservation Center and boundaries” (World Bank 2016a). of Nature (ICRAF) Landscape Approach: “Managing multiple land uses in an integrated manner, considering both the Organizations implementing integrated land use initiatives Regional/global initiatives natural environment and the human systems that Advocacy/convening organizations Knowledge platforms/research organizations depend on it” (World Bank 2016a). Integrated Landscape Management: “A way 3 The World Bank has embraced an integrated approach to land use management, including in its Forest Action Plan (FY16-20): https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24026 . Notably, in 2016, the Bank developed an online learning course called Landscapes Approach of managing the landscape that involves 101 that walks practitioners through the landscape approach: https://olc.worldbank.org/facilitated/link/00018381. The Bank is also a cofounder of the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF), a major knowledge platform for integrated land use. Finally, the Bank has played a key role in piloting and implementing a rapidly expanding portfolio integrated land use initiatives worldwide, including through: PROGREEN, the Global Partnership for Sustainable and Resilient Landscapes; the Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration (FOLUR) Impact Program; and the five jurisdictional programs under the ISFL. 2 For a full list of key terms used throughout this report, see the Glossary in Appendix A. 8 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 9 2. The Eight Themes 2.1 Multistakeholder Engagement OVERVIEW Integrated land use initiatives require the collaboration of a diverse range of stakeholders, making multistakeholder engagement (MSE) central to this approach. These initiatives necessitate that a wide group of stakeholders adopt sustainable practices, and change the way they use the land. Even if certain key actors, like The eight themes in this report were arrived at through a series of consultations with practitioners and experts governments or large enterprises, are supportive, without the buy-in of the communities that need to adopt in integrated land use as well as a careful review of the literature. In taking stock of what efforts have been these changes at every stage of the initiative, the program will fail. Stakeholder-driven strategies increase the taken where; the critical challenges faced by these programs; and the evolving best practices from more than 150 chances of a program being supported, and improve stakeholders’ ability to adopt sustainable land management initiatives worldwide, certain activities central to integrated land use initiatives were identified.4 Categorizing (SLM) practices and technologies (Lee et al 2014; Vermeulen et al 2013; Khatri-Chhetri et al 2019). these core activities by their function has enabled the identification of eight interconnected themes, which provide a lens through which to describe, analyze, and evaluate existing integrated land use approaches. These The objective of MSE is to balance conflicting land use goals by enhancing inclusive decision-making, themes are: multistakeholder engagement (MSE); environmental focus; economic focus; boundary setting; land strengthening stakeholder capacity and networks, and empowering local communities (UNDP 2006). Different tenure; financing strategies; monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL); and cross-sectoral coordination. (See and often competing objectives, such as food production, livelihoods, conservation, or poverty alleviation, Figure 2.1 for a graphic representation of the themes). drive different stakeholders within the same landscape to prioritize some land uses over others (Sayer et al 2013). These varying demands often result in conflict and the degradation of natural resources. A robust We selected the eight major themes as being the most significant ones during the consultation process; these engagement strategy can bring stakeholders together to resolve conflict and improve equity, transparency, and themes build upon one another. The order in which they are discussed in this report roughly follows the order of accountability, thereby enabling collaborative planning.5 Furthermore, strong MSE will ensure the participation considerations that need to be made from the program planning stage, to implementation, to reporting. However, of marginalized groups, such as local and Indigenous communities, women, and youth. integrated land use initiatives are highly participatory and iterative; constant reconsideration and reassessment of each theme is needed throughout the program’s lifecycle. Stakeholder engagement is an ongoing, iterative process vital to all stages of integrated land use initiatives. There is no single approach to MSE, since the exact nature of the process depends on the exact kinds of issues Of course, many additional themes—for example, technology, governance, adaptive management, and an integrated land use initiative is aiming to address, as well as the various priorities of the stakeholders policies—are essential elements in many initiatives, and are also addressed periodically throughout the report. involved (UNDP 2006). Existing integrated land use initiatives have engaged stakeholders by creating flexible or Figure 2.1: Key Themes and Features of Integrated Land Use Initiatives official forums where they can interact with, learn from, and negotiate with each other. These initiatives build stakeholder skills and capacity, and provide local managers with tools that allow them to participate in the process effectively. Some of the skills that are vital to the success of the initiatives and that stakeholders often 8 • Identify relevant sectors • Enhance sectoral coordination 1 • Assess landscape dynamics and identify stakeholders learn through the engagement process are: 1) data collection for landscape analysis and monitoring; 2) the use • Nest multisectoral programs into • Engage stakeholders and build of ecological modeling technology; 3) negotiation; and 4) building and using knowledge-sharing mechanisms, to capacities national policy frameworks • Monitor and evaluate multistakeholder name but a few.6 8 platforms • Ensure women’s participation Cross-Sectoral 7 • Develop a monitoring and evaluation Coordination • Improve accountability (M&E) framework • Identify tools and methods for M&E, 7 1 develop appropriate indicators Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning Multistakeholder Engagement 2 • Identify environmental objectives of integrated land use initiatives • Establish a robust system for data collection, maintenance, and sharing • Identify key natural resources and the services they provide, establish • Ensure adaptive management sustainable levels of use • Engage stakeholders • Conduct ecological assessment of 6 Integrated 2 current land management practices and proposed interventions Financing Land-Use Environmental • Choose best practices for desired Focus 6 • Mobilize resources • Align with national priorities and Strategies Initiative environmental outcomes • Share information on best practices explore sectoral linkages • Monitor financial flows • Use public sector funds to reduce 3 • Assess how market incentives and investment risks for the private sector 5 3 livelihoods influence demand for natural resources Land Tenure Economic • Assess economic and financial Focus feasibility of implementing integrated 4 land use initiatives 5 • Understand the tenure arrangements that define property ownership in the Boundary Setting • Develop results-based and inclusive incentives landscape • Establish benefit sharing mechanism • Identify ways to navigate tenure security and ongoing reforms • Assess how land tenure affects economic incentives and impacts 4 • Identify possible boundary types • Ensure collaborative and iterative natural resources process for boundary selection 5 Collaborative planning is “a way for stakeholders to discuss how they will meet their objectives and realize their vision for the landscape. They identify problems and come up with solutions with multiple benefits” (World Bank 2016a). 4 For a detailed discussion of the methodology used to conduct this analysis, as well as limitations of the study, see Appendix B. 6 For more information on participatory monitoring, see Section 2.7 (on MEL). 10 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 11 KEY ELEMENTS OF MSE Establish a coordination mechanism Figure 2.2 presents four foundational processes for successful MSE. Though by no means a comprehensive list of To involve stakeholders in planning, implementation, and monitoring a land use initiative, a formal, institutional steps,7 each of the processes outlined is critical to stakeholder participation. MSE starts with adopting the right mechanism or multistakeholder platform (MSP) must be established. The MSP aids project governance by tools and methods for identifying key stakeholders; establishing a forum where they can share their interests providing a forum for negotiating joint interventions, identifying mutually acceptable solutions, and building and concerns freely; and coordinating their activities that are related to the integrated land use initiative. Finally, partnerships and interlinkages (UNDP 2006). it is important to monitor and evaluate the MSE process, seek feedback from stakeholders, and use this new Defining roles and responsibilities, and appointing an inclusive leadership team are essential to effective information to continually reassess landscape dynamics, the coordination platform, and engagement strategies MSE. This leadership team, with representatives from various stakeholder and sectoral groups, acts as a in a participatory, iterative process.8 Each of these four elements will now be considered in turn. steering committee.11 These leaders are responsible for deciding the direction of the MSP and creating shared Figure 2.2: Effective MSE: An Iterative Process Built on Four Key Elements commitments. Using existing committees, wherever possible, can avoid the duplication of efforts. However, in their absence, the job of facilitating MSPs often falls to nongovernmental and international organizations.12 • Conduct situation • Define roles and • Implement a plan that • Develop criteria to These organizations can also act as conveners, capacity builders, and knowledge management partners, and analysis responsibilities promotes collective action monitor performance can provide other types of technical support. MSPs require a neutral convener and facilitator, roles which can be • Identify stakeholders • Identify leadership • Establish agreements and of MSE played by a few organizations or persons, or just one. A convenor coordinates meetings and ensures everyone’s • Prioritize stakeholders team/steering committee voluntary commitments • Promote participatory participation, while a facilitator guides the discussion with an aim toward building trust, navigating group • Build stakeholder capacity monitoring dynamics, and working toward a shared vision (Heiner et al 2017). Engage and build stakeholder capacities Capacity building, which ensures that stakeholders have the skills and knowledge they need in order to actively contribute to the planning and implementation process, should form a key part of an initiative’s stakeholder Assess engagement strategy. Without capacity building, stakeholder engagement risks alienating or excluding critical landscape Establish a Engage and build stakeholders from the initiative. The process of using the MSP to engage stakeholders and build their skills can Monitor and dynamics and coordination stakeholder take many forms, including developing a shared understanding of an issue; collaboratively identifying program evaluate MSE identify mechanism capacities goals and outcomes; defining stakeholder roles and responsibilities; drafting voluntary commitments, and stakeholders creating collective action plans. Effective stakeholder engagement requires a common understanding of the landscape, and allows all stakeholders to use their expertise: for instance, local communities can contribute their ecological knowledge; government actors can provide institutional expertise; and the scientific community can keep all stakeholders informed of the rationale behind the proposed approaches (Bürgi et al 2017). BOX 2.1: CASE STUDY : MSE IN THE CONGO RIVER BASIN Continually reassess activities based on feedback and results A publication of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), looking at 10 years Assess landscape dynamics and identify stakeholders of the Central African Regional Program for the Environment in the Congo River Basin (Sangha A robust stakeholder analysis9 allows integrated land use initiative practitioners to determine how to Tri-National Landscape), attributed a notable engage stakeholders at various stages of the initiative; build effective partnerships and coalitions; and improvement in stakeholder coordination to the guide a participatory, consensus-building process (Purnomo et al 2012).10 This process requires identifying holding of a series of consultations. The host of and categorizing stakeholders based on, for example, interest, influence, or resource mobilization capacity; these consultations gave stakeholders enough exploring relationships between the stakeholders; and using this information to identify potential conflicts information about the program’s objectives, roles, and partnerships (Reed et al 2009; Schmeer 1999). Failing to identify and engage critical stakeholders at the and responsibilities to help them understand and beginning of the initiative can adversely affect the program, undermine community ownership of the program, fully participate in it. and ultimately lead to a lack of participation from both communities and members of the private sector. Communication platforms were built that allowed better coordination between forest administrations, the private sector, and the local community. Stakeholders signed memoranda of understanding pledging to carry out joint activities. Some of these agreements involved safeguarding the interests of and providing benefits to local communities and Indigenous peoples who rely on 7 For a list of MSE toolkits and guidelines, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. the forest (Yanggen et al 2010). 8 For a compendium of case studies showing how these elements have been put into practice in initiatives around the world, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. 9 For examples of stakeholder analysis tools, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. 10 In identifying and engaging stakeholders, practitioners should be mindful of the risk of elite capture, especially if property rights are insecure. (See Section 11 See Section 2.8 (on Cross-Sectoral Coordination). 2.6 on Land Tenure). There is a high risk of elite capture in decentralized natural resource management (Persha and Andersson 2014), and in community-led 12 Independent organizations, or national, or subnational governments can also help rectify imbalances of power by making sure that marginalized actors are programs, that can affect integrated land use initiative outcomes and sometimes result in program/policy failure. represented in negotiations and knowledge sharing (Ros-Tonen et al 2018). 12 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 13 Engagement with all stakeholders, clear expectations, and carefully designed incentives are all essential for transparency, ownership, and accountability. Voluntary commitments can be drawn up collectively to avoid BOX 2.2: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE MSE confusion, and are vital to reinforcing a shared vision. These commitments may or may not be legally binding, depending on program design. It is of crucial importance that multistakeholder groups agree to collaborate, that WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION to each other; and whether they are penalized by consultations are frequent, and that all stakeholders are kept informed. Box 2.2: Best Practices, MSE others for noncompliance (Kusters et al 2018). Gender must form an integral component Accountability is key to a participatory approach, Monitor and evaluate MSE of MSE, andC gender ommunity Participation balance : Ensure community considerations representa- and can be achieved with strong participatory should be put in place tion from the in program beginning design, of the implementation, and monitoring. platforms, feedback mechanisms, consultations, A coordination mechanism that enables continuous learning makes adaptive management possible. Monitoring initiative. Women form a large part of the rural and reporting on progress. Attaching outcomes consists of comparing the platform’s performance with its predetermined objectives, and indicators designed agricultural E workforce, ngagement of andStakeholders their exclusionfrom Different Sectors/Levels of from to financial incentives can build accountability, to judge the quality of the coordination effort (Kusters et al 2018). This exercise can be part of the participatory Government : Collectively identify decision making and policymaking will have aissues in environmental participation, and ownership. Independent monitoring process of an overarching monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) framework that is designed to effect on theand detrimentalgovernance, adoption driversofofintegrated deforestation; identify auditorsand can be used to monitor activities against assess the performance of integrated land use initiatives.13 Indicators may include stakeholder representation; develop Women land use initiatives. specializedare consumers strategies for specific stakeholders predeterminedin benchmarks. active participation; access to knowledge, information, and training; and individual and group decision making of ecosystem services, and different sectors. have vital roles in (Kusters 2015; Minang et al 2015a). Participatory assessments add to the platform’s reliability and provide managing natural resources, making their input INSTITUTIONAL AND CROSS-SECTORAL opportunities to receive valuable feedback. This process can inform integrated land use practitioners about gaps Capacity Development key in everything from incentive : Empower design through stakeholdersCOORDINATION to benefit and areas for improvement (Denier et al 2015). investing in training/skills. sharing to monitoring. The process of ensuring women’s inclusion begins with developing a Coordination between local, regional, national, and CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES C onsensus Building: Work with stakeholders to thorough understanding of gender dynamics in craft agree- international organizations and governments, as ments the landscape, andbased its role on incollective goals. natural resource well as between sectors (agriculture, environment, Despite wide recognition of the importance of active stakeholder engagement, in practice many efforts have met management. rural development, forestry) can help align the with limited success.14 Many initiatives have struggled to engage all relevant stakeholders at critical stages of their Accountability: Carefully design incentives to stimulateland use strategies and goals with initiative’s programs, especially members of marginalized groups and the private sector. And while a participation and ownership. ACCOUNTABILITY national and international environmental and fully inclusive steering committee in which all actors have equal say is the ideal, achieving this in practice has often development agendas (Kusters et al 2020). See proven challenging. While it may not be feasible to achieve stakeholder equity in decision making immediately Social Accountability Inclusion in the context : Ensure of MSE participation refers to of women, youth, Section 2.8 on Cross-Sectoral Coordination for (Anderson, Clément, and Crowder 1998), soliciting and taking all stakeholders’ input into consideration is crucial for the extent toIndigenous and other peoples, flows which information historically marginalized between more information. building trust, and as a check against asymmetric power dynamics. The varying degrees to which stakeholders are groups.they explain their decisions members; whether successfully included and engaged is partially attributable to factors such as: 1) limited financial and institutional resources; 2) lack of political will; 3) lack of relevant skills among stakeholders; 4) lack of inclusive planning and design (Vermunt, Verweij, and Verburg 2020); and 5) a lack of interest by stakeholder participants due to negative perceptions about institutions and programs, or insufficient knowledge of program benefits. BOX 2.3: BEST PRACTICES, MSE Recognizing these challenges, efforts are being made to improve stakeholder engagement in integrated land COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Ensure community use initiatives. Some of the promising interventions include: 1) strengthening dialogue and consensus; 2) enabling Early stakeholder representation engagement in program design, is crucial to practicing SLM at implementation, collaborative decision making; 3) building stakeholder skills and capacity; 4) developing benefit-sharing a large and monitoring. geographic scale (UNCCD 2017). Engaging a range of mechanisms;15 5) establishing robust grievance mechanisms; 6) improving enabling conditions, such as stakeholders in identifying environmental objectives is no ex- governance, market mechanisms, and land rights; and 7) sustainable financing.16 ENGAGEMENT ception. STAKEHOLDERS OFPractitioners FROM should account for local land-use goals DIFFERENT SECTORS/LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT: Many successful integrated land use initiative pilots have been implemented around the world. Scaling (such as water access and agricultural productivity); national Collectively identify issues in environmental them up, however, poses a challenge. Given their complexity and scope, stakeholder coordination mechanisms targets (such as NDCs); and international commitments (such governance, and drivers of deforestation; identify need to be robust, stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities clearly defined, and imbalances of power addressed. as the Paris Agreement, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the and develop specialized strategies for specific Opportunities for local communities to influence decisions also need to be expanded. Put simply, a commitment SDGs). stakeholders in different sectors. to inclusive MSE is essential to the success of integrated land use initiatives, particularly when it comes to scaling them up. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT: Empower stakeholders through investing in training/skills. Private sector engagement provides a key opportunity for growth. Private sector engagement has been limited in integrated land use initiatives to date (Estrada-Carmona et al 2014; García-Martín et al 2016; Milder et al 2014; CONSENSUS BUILDING: Work with stakeholders to Zanzanaini et al 2017; Heiner et al 2017). Private sector actors are key contributors to landscape degradation, craft agreements based on collective goals. but they have a crucial role to play in landscape preservation. Landscape degradation poses a threat to the ACCOUNTABILITY: Carefully design incentives to production and supply of even basic commodities and raw materials; this creates opportunities for engaging the stimulate participation and ownership. private sector in sustainable sourcing and production. Investing in environmentally friendly business activities also plays a pivotal role in improving corporate image, especially with rising consumer awareness of and demand SOCIAL INCLUSION: Ensure participation of for sustainable consumption. For example, NGO certification practices are a promising intervention. However, it women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and other is crucial that integrated land use initiatives carefully assess the risks involved with private sector engagement, historically marginalized groups. including environmental, social, and governance-related reputational risks (FAO 2020a). 13 See Section 2.7 (on MEL). 14 For instance, many integrated land use initiatives in Southeast Asia have had women’s representation only at the later stages of implementation (Zanzanaini et al 2017). One study found that in multiple programs, local communities and farmers were often not well represented in multistakeholder forums, or only indirectly represented through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Vermunt, Verweij, and Verburg 2020). 15 See Section 2.3 (on Economic Focus). 16 See Section 2.6 (on Financing Strategies). 14 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 15 2.2 Environmental Focus KEY ELEMENTS OF APPLYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS OVERVIEW While an environmental focus is characteristic of integrated land use initiatives, the specific environmental objectives that the project aims to achieve, and the means used to reach those ends are highly dependent on When implemented effectively, integrated land use initiatives address environmental objectives at the local the ecological and social context of the landscape. Three key components are used to apply an environmental level, for example by protecting local biodiversity and mitigating flood risks; they can also contribute to focus to an integrated land use initiative: 1) identifying the environmental objectives that will help guide the national commitments to address global challenges, such as reducing GHG emissions. Integrated land use initiative; 2) conducting an ecological assessment to isolate the causes of land degradation and assess possible initiatives are changing the way practitioners address environmental and development issues; enabling the interventions; and 3) choosing interventions that will harmonize the goals of the initiative with national and sustainable management of natural resources; and providing for the long-term resilience of ecosystems (FAO international goals, while remaining technically, financially, and socially feasible. Each of these three components 2013b). will now be considered in turn. Achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes has been a central theme of many integrated Figure 2.3: Three Key Elements of Implementing an Environmental Focus in an Integrated Land Use Initiative land use initiatives. While many of these initiatives have focused on either mitigation or adaptation, since these two different strategies have different goals and require different interventions,17 solutions can cut across the two (Grafakos et al 2018). In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized that adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing climate change-related Identify the environmental objectives of the initiative risks (IPCC 2014).18 • Determine which environmental objectives should guide the initiative, such as A thorough ecological assessment that helps to determine what interventions will be most effective in a adaptation, mitigation, land restoration, or biodiversity conservation landscape is a crucial building block for cross-sectoral, large-scale, multifunctional integrated land use initiatives. The information derived from these assessments helps practitioners identify the conservation and development intervention strategies that are most suitable for the project, and enables the evaluation of landscape-level effects. These ecological assessment tools allow the environmental impacts of an intervention to Conduct ecological assessment of current land management be assessed, and facilitate adaptive management by using lessons learned to adjust the management approach practices and proposed interventions  in an iterative process. Any approach should be environmentally and technically feasible, as well as socially acceptable, and land rights19 and social norms should always be taken into consideration (IUCN n.d.). • Identify appropriate ecological assessment methods and tools  • Determine the extent, causes, and impacts of ecological degradation • Assess environmental impacts of current and proposed interventions  Choose best practices for desired environmental outcomes • Choose technically, financially, and socially acceptable practices • Promote the use of indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence Identify the environmental objectives of the initiative Deciding which environmental objectives should guide an integrated land use initiative is a critical component of identifying and designing the range of appropriate interventions. The objectives usually incorporate goals like biodiversity protection, ecosystem conservation, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. These measures often include expanding protected areas, improving their connectivity and integration via biological corridors, reducing deforestation, increasing afforestation, protecting wetlands, improving sustainable forest management, and introducing changes to local farming systems (FAO 2007). While there are numerous possible environmental objectives to choose from, it is crucial that the one(s) selected will be the ones that are most critical and impactful within the context of the landscape, and will help to achieve the broader program objectives. They should therefore be decided based on a thorough ecological assessment (as discussed below), and through consultation with a range of relevant stakeholders.20 Clearly defining the objectives will in turn help to identify which stakeholders will need to be heavily involved in the project. Early stakeholder engagement is crucial to practicing SLM at a large geographic scale (UNCCD 2017). Engaging 17 Climate change mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or prevent the emission of GHGs (UNEP n.d.). Adaptation is “the process of adjustment to actual or a range of stakeholders in identifying environmental objectives is no exception. Practitioners should account for expected climate and its effects” (IPCC 2014). local land-use goals (such as water access and agricultural productivity); national targets (such as NDCs); and 18 Combining adaptation and mitigation is not without its challenges, however, since there is little evidence to date on exactly how different land management practices affect them and their subsequent outcomes (Harvey et al 2013). More work needs to be done in order to boost the environmental impact of blended international commitments (such as the Paris Agreement, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the SDGs). strategies. 19 See Section 2.5 (on Land Tenure). 20 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 16 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 17 Conduct an ecological assessment of current land management practices CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES An understanding of landscape ecology and the causes and extent of land degradation is needed in order to The key challenges of implementing an environmental focus in an integrated land use initiative are related to determine which strategies for conservation, mitigation, and adaptation will be the most impactful in a constraints in current technology and knowledge sharing. These challenges stem from the scale and complexity landscape. An ecological assessment helps practitioners determine an ecosystem’s health, identify key natural of these initiatives. For instance, while existing ecological assessment tools can help practitioners develop resources and the services they provide, and judge the potential effectiveness of a response. The data generated measurable outcomes and indicators that are specific to them, there is still a need to develop tools and methods from these assessments enables practitioners to evaluate the trade-offs and synergies needed for restoration that can support ecosystem-based multifunctionality assessments and provide a holistic view of a landscape. strategies, and helps them select optimal land management practices. A wide variety of tools and techniques are available for conducting an environmental assessment on multiple BOX 2.5: BEST PRACTICES: ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS spatial levels, such as Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and other survey methods, as well as satellite image processing, aerial photography, threat assessments, modeling CONDUCT AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: and simulation, data management, and information integration (Sayre et al 2000).21 These tools can inform A thorough ecological assessment helps integrated practitioners about: 1) the current status and trends of ecological parameters (for example, ecosystem services land use practitioners understand the complexity and biodiversity); 2) drivers of change in parameters; 3) ecological benefits for the local population; 4) how the of the landscape, and which interventions will have future will affect these parameters, and the economic implications; 5) how to build resilience, and maintain and the greatest impact. improve delivery; 6) and potential knowledge constraints that inhibit informed decision making.22 ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders need to be involved at every stage in the initiative. Engaging BOX 2.4: CASE STUDY: stakeholders in determining which environmental FARMER-MANAGED NATURAL REGENERATION issues matter to them, and how to go about solving these problems can help facilitate the adoption of Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration is an while the other practices protect the health of new practices at the grassroots level. Engaging intervention in climate mitigation and adaptation the ecosystem and help farmers adapt to climate with stakeholders at all levels can help to ensure that aims to improve livelihoods by improving change. These interventions have a direct impact that interventions at the local/jurisdictional levels ecosystem health. It is a low-cost land restoration on the economic livelihoods of the farmers, helping are aligned with national and international targets. technique designed to alleviate poverty and them to head-off fodder shortages, conserve INCORPORATE INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE: Local combat hunger among subsistence farmers. This firewood and timber, and handle unpredictable rain communities know their environments better than intervention tackles land degradation, soil erosion, patterns. With the nature of its interventions well- anyone, and the knowledge they have gathered and biodiversity loss by promoting the natural suited to addressing local issues, Farmer Managed should be used alongside scientific evidence to regeneration of local species of trees and shrubs Natural Regeneration is being implemented in East create effective, locally tailored, participatory on farmers’ landholdings. Carbon sequestration Timor, and in areas of East Africa and Ethiopia interventions. mitigates or lessens the effects of climate change, (WRI 2011; UN n.d). Choose best practices for desired environmental outcomes To address the challenges of lack of data and proper tools to assess complex ecologies within integrated land use initiatives, there is room for innovation and knowledge sharing. For example, while much work has Once the guiding environmental outcomes of the project have been determined, the interventions that will been done on SLM, it can be difficult for practitioners and stakeholders to access this knowledge; resources help achieve these objectives must be chosen. Engaging with stakeholders, and consulting the results of the are often fragmented, incomplete, or do not work well (TerrAfrica 2008). The absence of a robust knowledge- ecological assessments are vital to selecting the practices that are best suited to the landscape. Crucially, these sharing mechanism has become a barrier to innovation and adaptation in SLM, sometimes leading practitioners interventions must be technically, financially, socially, and environmentally feasible. to overlook or selectively apply valuable knowledge, instead of taking stock of the best knowledge available Stakeholders’ needs, perceptions, and demands will help practitioners determine the cultural acceptability of and tailoring the approach to the unique needs of the landscape (World Overview of Conservation Approaches various possible interventions (Motavalli et al 2013). To tailor interventions to the needs of local communities, and Technologies (WOCAT) n.d.). Adaptive management, a key component of integrated land-use initiatives, Indigenous knowledge should be valued and incorporated alongside scientific evidence. Article 10c23 of the necessitates continuous and transparent knowledge management. Convention on Biological Diversity, for example, focuses on conserving biological resources using traditional Private sector engagement remains a key area for growth in achieving environmental objectives through knowledge. integrated land use initiatives. In addition to mobilizing investment,24 engaging the private sector in creating more sustainable value chains can improve the environmental outcomes of interventions. The development of markets for environmentally sustainable products will play a pivotal role in green growth, and provide incentives for farmers to adopt low-carbon technologies. Platforms for collating information on private sector engagement in SLM could help further these efforts. Sharing success stories from work in sustainable forests and agricultural value chains, carbon capture projects, and standards and certifications could all help to stimulate innovation and achieve transformational outcomes at scale, by helping practitioners work with their implementing partners more strategically and systematically. 21 For a list of tools and resources for conducting environmental assessments, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund- isfl.org/knowledge-center. 22 Adapted from UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. 23 Article 10c of the Convention on Biological Diversity: “Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements.” 24 See Section 2.6 (on Financing Strategies). 18 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 19 2.3 Economic Focus Ensuring that initiatives improve livelihoods and further economic development for communities is central to using an integrated land use approach as a development tool. When considering whether a particular initiative OVERVIEW is the best method to employ in a specific place, and how best to ensure that the involved communities will reap economic benefits, practitioners must assess the costs and benefits of the initiative, and choose interventions Integrated land use initiatives aim to harmonize the often-conflicting goals of environmental protection and that will best support the initiative’s goals; develop incentives to ensure that stakeholders not only participate in economic development. This is achieved through taking a sustainable approach to economic development, and the initiative, but also benefit from it; and establish, with the engagement of stakeholders, an equitable benefit- promoting production systems that conserve biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services, while helping to build sharing mechanism (BSM). sustainable livelihoods (Estrada-Carmona et al 2014; FAO, n.d.-a). Since economic and environmental goals need to be weighed together, and potential conflict between the two reconciled, the following exploration of how to Assess the economic and financial feasibility of implementing an integrated land use apply an economic focus to integrated land use initiatives should be seen as a companion to the previous theme initiative of environmental focus. Thorough economic evaluations that show the benefits of implementing an integrated land use initiative can Considering financial feasibility along with the environmental and social costs and benefits is crucial in generate the momentum needed to motivate stakeholders to participate and invest in the initiative, and provide helping policymakers and practitioners formulate an approach to integrated land use planning that will the program with the legitimacy it needs to attract private investors. A cost-benefit analysis is one of the most lead a jurisdiction toward effective integrated land stewardship. Research indicates that economic factors, common methodologies used in assessing large-scale climate change mitigation and adaptation programs particularly perceived profitability, are the critical determinants of a land user’s decision on whether to adopt (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2011); such an analysis quantifies the SLM practices (Giger et al 2015). Typically, practitioners will conduct an economic cost/benefit assessment in the value of the program to all members of society in monetary terms. It is a technique for measuring whether the early stages of planning to determine whether an integrated land use initiative is financially feasible. Analysis of benefits of a project are larger than the costs, judged from the viewpoint of society as a whole (FAO and UNDP the real or potential financial outcomes of adopting an initiative can therefore help to convince stakeholders and, 2018). An economic cost-benefit analysis will help practitioners determine if the initiative will benefit the people most crucially, actors at the grassroot level, to accept, adopt, and exercise ownership of the initiative. who will be impacted by it, while a financial cost-benefit analysis will help them understand whether the financial incentives involved in the initiative will help to achieve the desired results. The results of these analyses can help KEY ELEMENTS OF ENSURING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES practitioners with project selection, and can later be used as an accountability tool against which to measure project outcomes.25 The analyses should be shared with stakeholders in a clear and concise manner so that they Figure 2.4: Three Key Elements of Ensuring Economic Benefits to Communities in an Integrated Land Use Initiative can fully participate in both project planning and monitoring.26 Assess the economic and financial feasibility of implementing A key part of assessing economic and financial feasibility is determining how market incentives and local the integrated land use initiative livelihoods influence the demand for natural resources. Market failures are often responsible for environmental degradation, so assessing them and their causes (for example, undervaluation of natural resources and/or • Assess costs and benefits insecure property rights),27 is crucial to these economic considerations and can help practitioners create properly • Build scenarios, calculate net benefits  targeted interventions. The data from scenarios and cost-benefit analyses can then be fed into simulation models to help practitioners choose the best possible interventions. Stakeholders can and should be involved • Use simulation to account for uncertainties in scenario building (Oteros-Rozas et al 2015), since involving them in these exercises can help bolster program • Choose interventions that best support landscape goals and objectives legitimacy and foster partnerships (Meijer et al 2018).28 BOX 2.6: CASE STUDY: ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL Develop results-based and inclusive incentives  GOALS CAN GO HAND-IN-HAND • Improve enabling conditions (land tenure system, institutional capacity) The Community Markets for Conservation initiative Communities have since invested revenue from • Encourage stakeholders to participate using appropriate incentives; ensure (COMACO) engages directly with 180,000 farmers carbon payments into their own development representation of stakeholders at incentive design stage in Zambia’s Eastern Province. COMACO trains projects, such as new wells in areas with limited • Ensure freedom of communities to spend incentive or reward as they deem fit small-scale farmers in sustainable agriculture access to clean water, and income generation and purchases their produce at premium prices schemes, such as community poultry farming to sell across Africa under the brand name “It’s and beekeeping. Economic incentives have led to Wild.” COMACO-certified farmers are assured farmers planting a total of about 30 million trees long-term trading benefits with the company, and a year that are sequestering carbon and providing Establish benefit sharing mechanisms their households typically move from food deficits renewable firewood for cooking. The reforested • Facilitate stakeholder participation in designing mechanisms to surpluses within two to three years. Part of the landscape ensures that this area is now more results-based payment mechanism is a pledge that resilient to climate change (Parizat 2020). • Ensure the mechanisms are perceived as equitable by stakeholders, especially local for every ton of carbon sequestered, communities communities will receive a financial reward. 25 The costs associated with integrated land use initiatives can include both the direct financial outlays and the opportunity costs of foregone income due to changes in land use. The benefits fall into three categories: 1) net benefits from the implementation of a program (for example, economic incentives, or financial rewards for performance); 2) net benefits from the change in land use (for example, improved ecosystem services); and 3) indirect benefits (for example, the strengthening of tenure rights, technology transfer, enhanced participation in decision making, and/or infrastructure provision) (Luttrell et al 2013). When quantified and tallied, these costs and benefits result in a net present value and an economic rate of return, either of which can be used to help strategists decide whether to pursue a particular intervention. 26 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 27 See Section 2.5 (on Land Tenure). 28 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 20 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 21 Develop results-based and inclusive incentives et al 2014). It is important to identify a basis for the distribution of such benefits collaboratively: for example, will equal amounts of money be allocated to all beneficiaries, or will the allocation be based on performance?35 Integrated land use initiatives depend on the participation and buy-in of local communities and other Frequent payments, and the freedom to spend performance-based financial rewards in whatever ways stakeholders, but often have long-term horizons, and may not yield direct benefits to communities for many stakeholders see fit are critical, especially for local communities with limited financial resources. years. To ensure that these stakeholders directly benefit from the program, and to minimize the opportunity costs from changes in land use, incentives must be developed. The incentives should be context-dependent and, where possible, developed in consultation with stakeholders. Typical incentives include short-term schemes that help farmers adopt interventions that will increase their income and encourage them to invest their new earnings BOX 2.7: BEST PRACTICES: ECONOMIC FOCUS in other SLM practices. If curbing deforestation limits income-generating activities, direct cash transfers or THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC AND incentives. MSPs should be as inclusive and ecotourism may offer compensation to overcome resistance. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: Conduct thorough equitable as possible to mitigate risks of elite These incentives can be financed by either public or private sources, such as international donors, government, cost-benefit analyses and simulations, ideally in capture. or impact investors.29 Donors can play a pivotal role in developing mechanisms like results-based financing,30 consultation with stakeholders, to determine if an integrated land use initiative is the best course of DEVELOP A BENEFIT SHARING MECHANISM: a policy instrument that is used to motivate the adoption of sustainable land or forest management activities. action, and what kinds of incentives are necessary Practitioners should work with a representative Governments can use fiscal instruments such as tax allowances for agricultural inputs designed for SLM to to minimize the costs to communities. group of stakeholders to collaboratively develop an incentivize stakeholders.31 Payment for ecosystem services (PES), a relatively new policy instrument, gives local equitable benefit sharing mechanism. communities whose lands provide such services (such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection, and forest PERFORMANCE-BASED, INCLUSIVE INCENTIVES: conservation) incentives in the form of either subsidies or market payments (WWF n.d.-a). STRONG PERFORMANCE MONITORING Stakeholders should receive incentives for participating in the program, to help minimize MECHANISMS: Stakeholders should be involved Governments that are entering into agreements on integrated land use initiatives can incentivize the private opportunity costs from changes in land use. in monitoring the performance of the initiative sector by promoting market innovations and trade rules that are supportive of the interventions, including Incentives should be context-dependent and to allow for timely distribution of incentives. collaboration in product certification systems and public procurement (Shames, Heiner, and Scherr 2017). These developed in consultation with stakeholders. Technology can help make this process more incentives can help stimulate program adoption, since local communities often lack the capital required to efficient and transparent. implement changes on their land. And without market opportunities, premium pricing, or subsidies, the private STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Stakeholders sector would probably not be sufficiently motivated to invest in programs that are potentially less commercially should be involved in designing and distributing viable. Risk guarantees, seed funding, and catalytic funding can all encourage the private sector to invest in integrated land use initiatives (Shames, Hill Clarvis, and Kissinger 2014). A system for the verification of benefits is crucial, especially for programs where incentive payments are premised on the delivery of an intervention. Verification can prove to be a resource-intensive process, depending on the degree of accuracy required. Therefore, it is important to account for the costs associated with building a verification system. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Private-public risk-sharing mechanisms, developed as an underlying component of insurance programs, Establish benefit-sharing mechanisms can complement integrated land use initiatives that are focusing on climate mitigation and adaptation.36 Integrated land use initiatives, especially those focused on climate mitigation, often use results-based finance32 Incentives such as subsidized disaster risk or crop insurance can be used to motivate local communities to motivate jurisdictions to adopt sustainable land use. Mechanisms such as PES and REDD+33 provide financing to implement SLM practices and help achieve the twin goals of reducing both poverty and environmental based on proven outcomes in activities such as reducing emissions, sustainably managing land, or protecting degradation. ecosystems. Programs using these instruments must develop BSMs to enable the efficient use and distribution of Developing cost-effective technologies for monitoring stakeholder compliance with integrated land use results-based payments to their stakeholders. initiative interventions may offer another opportunity to engage with the private sector. This kind of However, for most integrated land use initiatives, governance-related issues can make developing efficient, technology can improve efficiency and transparency in monitoring compliance, an often resource-intensive task inclusive, and transparent BSMs a challenge. The distribution of monetary and nonmonetary benefits generated that can delay the distribution of incentives.37 through these initiatives may be affected by a large number of stakeholders, each of whom has different Governments may consider mainstreaming integrated land use initiatives into their development programs, perspectives, interests, and levels of influence (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) n.d.). The especially those that are focused on poverty alleviation and rural development, to create a common entry point quality of governance, therefore, plays a pivotal role in the design and structure of BSMs, and determines the and garner political and stakeholder support. This mainstreaming could help governments use existing budgets, degree to which stakeholders are truly involved in the decision-making process. institutions, and programs to distribute benefits. Identifying ways to align these mechanisms with national Research suggests that MSE in designing and distributing incentives improves the legitimacy and effectiveness strategies, especially on poverty alleviation, can generate political support for these initiatives (Pham et al 2013). of BSMs and, in turn, of integrated land use initiatives. Given the importance of these incentives to the success of the initiative, and the need to mitigate the risk of elite capture, developing multistakeholder platforms that foster meaningful representation from all strata of the community are crucial.34 Likewise, equity is a critical factor in achieving the goals of integrated programs such as REDD+ or PES (Sommerville et al 2010; Pascual 29 See Section 2.6 (on Financing Strategies). 30 Results-based finance is a mechanism in which funding is contingent on the pre-agreed and independent verification of project outcomes (World Bank 2019a). 31 SLM is “the process of managing a land management unit – farms, production forests, protected areas – in a sustainable way. SLM across a range of different land management units is necessary in order to achieve sustainable landscapes. However, SLM commonly focuses on the site level and on particular stakeholder groups, rather than on the broader landscape level” (Denier et al 2015). 32 See Section 2.6 (on Financing Strategies). 35 For more details on establishing effective BSMs, see the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and BioCF ISFL’s Designing Benefit Sharing Arrangements: A 33 REDD+: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and fostering conservation, sustainable management of forests, Resource for Countries. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/bio-carbon/en/index.html and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. 36 See Section 2.6 (on Financing Strategies). 34 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 37 See Section 2.7 (on MEL). 22 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 23 2.4 Boundary Setting KEY ELEMENTS OF BOUNDARY SETTING OVERVIEW The process of setting the boundaries of an integrated land use initiative is complex, and can have a major impact on the outcome of the program. To increase the chances of an initiative’s success, two key components of Boundary setting is the process of defining the geographic borders of an integrated land use initiative. boundary setting must be carefully considered. First, practitioners must weigh the costs and benefits of potential Boundary-setting decisions affect where an integrated land use initiative is implemented, who is involved, boundary types and consider how using each of these types of boundaries could contribute to the initiative’s and how the initiative is to be governed. Integrated land use initiatives are normally based around a particular outcomes; second, after this process of consideration, the ultimate decision of how boundaries will be drawn landscape, or a space that includes multiple land uses and interactions between human and natural processes around the initiative must be made through an iterative process, in collaboration with a representative group of (Minang et al 2015b; Reed, Deakin, and Sunderland 2015; World Bank 2016a). The Little Sustainable Landscapes stakeholders. Book defines a landscape as a “socio-ecological system that consists of natural and/or human-modified Figure 2.5: Two Key Elements of Setting the Boundary Around an Initiative ecosystems, which is influenced by distinct ecological, historical, political, economic and cultural processes and activities” (Denier et al 2015). These definitions ignore geographic size38 in favor of describing the characteristics of the landscape in the context of the project; basically, a landscape should be “large enough” to deliver multiple Weigh costs and benefits of potential boundary types functions to a diverse group of stakeholders, but “small enough” to be effectively managed (Denier et al 2015; • Assess possible boundary types, including administrative and ecological, and weigh International Model Forest Network 2019; Conservation International 2018; Kusters 2015). their advantages and disadvantages in the context of the initiative Integrated land use initiatives commonly use regional administrative borders within a country to define the • Consider aligning initiative boundaries with administrative units scope of the project; some initiatives operate at the national or international level. The “jurisdictional approach” • Ensure the defined area is large enough to have a broad impact but not so large as is commonly cited as a primary model for integrated land use initiatives, and is sometimes used synonymously as to be unmanageable a term for the “landscape approach.” However, ecological and political boundaries do not always align, leading to one of the key challenges of defining the boundaries for an initiative. Given the wide range of factors that practitioners need to account for when setting the boundaries of an Ensure collaborative and iterative process for boundary selection integrated land use initiative, it is important that stakeholders are engaged, and that this process is highly collaborative.39 This can improve the legitimacy of the initiative and encourage stakeholders to participate. • Identify and define the interests of all stakeholders Initiatives usually use a combination of spatial data systems and legal and land tenure frameworks, along with • Consider setting preliminary boundaries with a small group of stakeholders and community input, to help identify appropriate boundaries. following up with a large, representative group to finalize • Seek government support to resolve conflicts and infrastructure-related issues that may influence implementation Weigh the costs and benefits of potential boundary types The type of boundary drawn around a landscape must help to serve the overarching goals of the initiative. As such, the chosen landscape is usually defined by the problem that needs solving (Minang et al 2015b). In addition to environmental concerns, social and economic issues are crucial in selecting a boundary. Other criteria are based on the initiative’s governance or on the landscape’s administrative unit. Planners should consider the desired effect of the initiative broadly, and select boundaries that can help achieve them. If an initiative will have to rely on government authorities in order to be implemented, selecting boundaries that align with government jurisdictions may make sense. Likewise, if an existing community network is critical to the initiative’s governance structure, aligning the boundaries with the community’s interests may be more effective. Boundary types can be grouped into those based on jurisdictional, ecological, social, or issue-based lines. Jurisdictional boundaries correspond to a government’s administrative lines. Ecological boundaries are based on natural features like watersheds, mountain ranges, or forests; spatial mapping and hydrology models can play a crucial role in determining the boundaries that encompass natural systems like watersheds. Social boundaries are tied to the location of specific communities, such as Indigenous territories: and here, historical and anthropological data, in addition to community consultations, can help practitioners draw the lines of social boundaries. Specific issues, like landscape restoration or the production area of a specific commodity can also be used to set boundaries. A single type of boundary can be used to define the initiative’s borders, or several different boundary types can be combined. Every kind of boundary comes with potential advantages and disadvantages (Table 2.1). Other factors to consider when drawing boundaries include conflict over resources; social, economic, and political issues; and the presence of market mechanisms, particularly if the private sector is a critical stakeholder in the initiative. 38 A review of existing integrated land use initiatives shows a significant degree of variation in the geographic size of initiatives. Studies examining initiatives in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South Asia have varied from the 10s to the 10,000s of square kilometers. The 60 model forests in the International Model Forest Network range from about 200 to 200,000 square kilometers each, with an average size of 3,000 to 5,000 square kilometers. At the very upper end of the scale, an initiative in Mato Grosso, Brazil—the Produce, Conserve, Include initiative—contains more than 900,000 square kilometers (Milder et al 2014; Zanzanaini et al 2017; International Model Forest Network 2019; Nepstad et al 2018) 39 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 24 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 25 Table 2.1: Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Boundary Types CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Boundary Type Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages Spatial analysis and data management form critical components of boundary-setting activities. Although Jurisdictional · Helps integrate government stakeholders · Problems often cut across governmental the past few decades have seen significant improvements in geospatial mapping applications, efforts are administrative lines in ways that do not neatly underway to make them even more accessible by allowing multiple stakeholders to easily interpret mapping · Reduces governance gaps by aligning line up with existing government administrative data. Improving integrated spatial databases and analytics, for instance, can help confer legitimacy on a chosen government institutions/authorities with boundary - legitimacy that can be critical to the initiative’s overall success. Some tools and techniques can divisions initiative boundaries facilitate participatory boundary setting by helping to bring stakeholders into the process.40 Advanced tools · Weak governance can nullify advantages (such as participatory geospatial modeling) improve visualization of a place, and clarify the spatial scales of Ecological · Focuses attention on a specific ecosystem or · Governance gaps, and possible coordination drivers and data (Vukomanovic et al 2019). Developing these integrated data management tools may support other ecological feature issues if boundaries do not also align with programs that cross state or national boundaries, allowing organizations and the public at large to easily share governmental administrative lines information. Social · Helps integrate community-based · Requires community mapping to identify stakeholders boundaries if the community borders are not already well-defined and documented BOX 2.8: BEST PRACTICES, BOUNDARY SETTING · Takes advantage of community-based networks and informal/formal governance · Can lead to disagreements between STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: The boundaries structures communities over perceived territory, especially of the initiative will impact who will be involved in and benefit from the program. Early stakeholder if boundaries affect the distribution of benefits · Focuses attention on a social issue (e.g., engagement in selecting boundaries will help to Indigenous people’s livelihoods) · Governance gaps if boundaries do not also align catalyze stakeholder engagement throughout the with governmental administrative lines program. Sources: Denier et al 2015; Kusters 2015; van Oosten 2013 CHOOSE BOUNDARIES THAT ALIGN WITH INITIATIVE OBJECTIVES: Consider the overarching goals of the initiative, and set the boundaries to help achieve that objective. Ensure a collaborative and iterative process MINIMIZE LEAKAGE: Ensure that achieving positive Selecting boundaries is a complex process and one that, like all aspects of integrated land use initiatives, should outcomes for the program area does not result in involve extensive stakeholder engagement. The initiative’s boundaries will ultimately determine who will negative environmental externalities being pushed contribute to, and benefit from, the program. Involving stakeholders in the boundary setting process therefore out elsewhere. can help set the stage for strong stakeholder participation throughout the initiative’s life cycle. Setting boundaries should therefore be viewed as a collaborative process. Practitioners should identify and define the CONSIDER GOVERNANCE: Effective landscape interests of all possible stakeholders, and even consider setting preliminary boundaries in consultation with governance is key to the initiative’s success. a small group of stakeholders. Once the preliminary boundaries have been set based on early consultations Consider whether aligning initiative boundaries and considerations of the benefits and drawbacks of choosing certain boundary types over others, a larger with administrative borders, or ensuring that a representative group of stakeholders should be convened to finalize the boundaries (Conservation International community group is firmly within the initiative 2018). area, could result in more effective program implementation. Where the private sector is a stakeholder, infrastructure such as local markets or roads may influence boundary selection. Government and international donors should work to consistently improve these sorts of enabling conditions, especially those related to markets, regulations, and conflicts. Where practitioners cannot tackle conflicts alone, land that is particularly conflict-prone should not be included within the boundary, or government support should be sought. The potential for leakage (pushing negative externalities outside the program area) should be a major consideration in setting boundaries. Some initiatives manage potential leakage by increasing the size of the area under their jurisdiction to include areas at low risk of deforestation as well as areas at high risk. Strengthening community participation in project design is another way to prevent leakage, increasing the chances that communities will uphold the obligations they have agreed to in their area without deforesting an area somewhere else (The Nature Conservancy 2010). However, if some leakage is impossible to avoid, after choosing a location a practitioner may calculate how much leakage there may be and carry out a risk assessment. They will then subtract the amount of leakage anticipated from the number of benefits anticipated overall (The Nature Conservancy 2010). 40 For examples of such tools, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. 26 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 27 2.5 Land Tenure Figure 2.6: Three Key Elements in Addressing Land Tenure Issues OVERVIEW Assess tenure arrangements that define property ownership in Secure land-tenure rights are instrumental to the success of integrated land use initiatives. Land is used 41 the landscape more efficiently and sustainably when land-tenure rights are secure; this security is vital for developing a land • Assess existing tenure security arrangements registration system and, in turn, a market in land (Hanstad 1998). However, not all places have secure property rights conditions. In some instances, either the rights are not secure, or they exist under a tenure arrangement • Explore options available to address challenges around land tenure using existing mechanisms (for example, a customary tenure arrangement) that is not recognized by the state. This makes it more difficult for individuals and communities to make investments in the sustainable management of these landscapes. The adoption of integrated land use initiatives is likely to suffer if the program’s target beneficiaries perceive Identify ways to navigate tenure insecurity and ongoing reforms land tenure as insecure. Insecure property rights are often linked to unsustainable cultivation practices, which • Consider implementing initiative in places where tenure arrangements best support exacerbate environmental degradation. Farmers with lower levels of land ownership may be less likely to adopt program outcomes SLM practices than those with higher levels of ownership (Schuck, Nganje, and Yantio 2002). A low level of program adoption can adversely impact the environmental and economic outcomes that integrated land use • Support ongoing efforts for securing tenure rights, by, for example, strengthening existing mechanisms for conflict resolution and identifying stakeholders that can initiatives are aiming to achieve. contribute financially and provide technical expertise Although secure land tenure systems facilitate the effective design and implementation of integrated land use initiatives, robust land institutions are rarely present in the places where these initiatives are most needed. Tenure reform efforts are highly complicated and usually entail a long-term and large-scale reform process, typically initiated and driven by national governments. More importantly, tenure reform is a product Enhance the use of information technology of political institutions and how they aim to address the needs of various stakeholders. While many countries • Strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to use improved technology that can are working to institute tenure reform, challenges persist, especially where rights are overly complex, or where help inform and implement land tenure-related reforms and enable surveys, land legal complications exist, such as overlapping claims by local and national governments, and/or a lack of the administration activities supporting certification, titling, and transfers instruments needed for implementation (Alden Wily 2018).  It is not feasible for integrated land use initiatives to institute land tenure reforms independently. However, given the significant impact that these arrangements can have on a program’s success or failure, it is essential Assess tenure arrangements that define property ownership for initiatives to find ways to navigate tenure security issues. Initiatives can contribute to strengthening tenure Integrated land use practitioners should assess which types of land tenure arrangements define property security in critical areas, for example by keeping stakeholders informed of their rights, improving access to legal ownership in the landscape. (Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of different types of land tenure arrangements). procedures, building secure and transparent public land registries, addressing power asymmetries (especially in There is no single, perfect approach to integrated land use projects. Rather, each approach needs to be tailored to customary tenure systems), and using technology to reduce the costs of reforms. the existing land tenure system and based on thorough consultation with all relevant stakeholders. KEY ELEMENTS The type of land tenure arrangements in place can affect how sustainably natural resources are being managed, and will impact the likelihood that stakeholders will be open to adopting new practices. Assessing the existing While integrated land use initiatives may not themselves have the capacity to independently enact land arrangements will help practitioners define which kinds of interventions will be most effective. For instance, tenure reform, practitioners can take certain steps to navigate the existing systems and even contribute to privately owned land may incentivize farmers to invest in sustainability, thereby creating private and public strengthening land tenure. There are three key components of addressing land tenure issues that practitioners benefits like carbon sequestration, which leads to cleaner air. Farmers cultivating on communal lands may seek should consider: 1) assessing existing tenure arrangements that define property ownership in the landscape; legal recognition of their collective rights, and may struggle with power asymmetries and elite capture, problems 2) identifying ways to navigate tenure insecurity and any ongoing reforms; and 3) enhancing the use of that may require intervention by the state. For many communities, especially those with common-pool resources, information technology to reduce the costs of reforms. the rights to assets such as trees or forest products may be more important than the land rights themselves (Larson 2012). Open access lands may be more likely to become degraded, since there is little incentive for forest users to protect the natural resources. State-owned lands may invite excessive government interference, hampering the local population’s interests, and marginalizing its decision-making power. 41 Land tenure rights “are a set of overlapping and multi-faceted rights, which include ownership, access, use, management, exclusion, transfer, and alienation rights” (Denier et al 2015). 28 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 29 Table 2.2: Types of Land Tenure BOX 2.9: CASE STUDY: MAPPING TECHNOLOGY FOR LAND Land Tenure Types Description TENURE IN TANZANIA Private The allocation of rights to a private entity. This private entity could be an individual, a married couple, a group of people, or a corporate body such as a commercial entity or nonprofit The United States Agency for International The highlight of this program was the demarcation organization. In this case, private entities who hold exclusive rights to land parcels (for example, Development’s (USAID) Feed the Future Land and mapping facilitated by MAST, which made agricultural land, and the trees it contains) may exclude others from using these resources. Tenure Assistance project in Tanzania primarily the process more cost-effective (Sullivan et al Communal This includes the right of commons within a community, where each member has a right to aims to clarify and document land rights; support 2019); increased the speed of the registration independently use the holdings of the community. The community as a whole holds exclusive rights land use planning efforts; and increase local and issuance of certificates; and engaged young to jointly own or manage particular natural resources (for example, grazing rights on pasture lands, understanding of land use and land rights. In people. Research indicates that men and women management rights of forests). Tanzania, smallholder registration rights were have accessed credit and loans using their land Open Access Specific rights are not assigned to anyone, and no one can be excluded. This may include given due consideration when the Village Act was registration certificates, helping to raise their rangelands, forests, etc., where there may be free access to the resources for all. passed in 1999. However, implementation was slow income and investments in their landholdings. State Property rights are assigned to a public sector authority. For example, forest lands may fall under due to various constraints. To bring the law into Residents participated in the digital capture of the national or local government’s command. full effect, the procedures used to accelerate the land-parcel data and, after brief training, they registration process needed to be low-cost, simple, worked with those in charge of the project to Sources: FAO 2002; Andersen 2011 and equitable, preferably involving a participatory demarcate the lands using GPS technology. Beyond these four types of land tenure, land rights can be defined and enforced through two main types of process. To contribute to this effort, DAI, funded Members of communities, especially women, were property rights systems: statutory, and customary. Customary rights govern collectively owned land, usually by USAID, started modifying an existing tool—the also trained to negotiate their rights to occupy the under traditional leadership authority (Chimhowu 2019). Statutory rights are those recognized by the state. Mobile Application to Secure Tenure (MAST)—to land (DAI 2017, 2018). In many countries, these two systems coexist and overlap. However, problems arise when one system does not map smallholdings and detail ownership claims. recognize the other (Knight 2010). Assessing existing land tenure and land governance systems can help practitioners design a program that reflects the reality on the ground, anticipates obstacles, and generates outcomes that will be acceptable to all stakeholders. Understanding property rights is also critical to drafting BSMs, to ensure that the benefits of the program reach everyone, especially marginalized groups, even if their property rights are not transparent or secure.42 Identify ways to navigate tenure insecurity and ongoing reforms Reforming tenure rights is a complicated, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process that demands sustained political commitment. Such reforms rarely serve as an entry point for integrated land use initiatives, and indeed are generally not one of the initiatives’ primary objectives. However, given the critical role tenure security plays in designing and implementing initiatives, practitioners need to identify ways to navigate such issues, particularly if the land tenure systems are currently under reform. Integrated land use initiatives can actively contribute to government land tenure reform efforts. They can, for example, use already-established multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) to inform communities of their rights,43 help with the land registration process, or set up a cadastre system. Practitioners can also identify stakeholders that can provide technical expertise to help with the reform, or can contribute financially. Through participatory planning and design, initiatives can also help address power asymmetries in communal tenure arrangements, and Enhance the use of information technology help local organizations build up their institutional capacity to lead forest management efforts and defend their rights. They can also take steps to strengthen local conflict resolution mechanisms. In jurisdictional initiatives, For integrated land use initiatives engaged in contributing to land tenure reform efforts, adoption of technology other than helping to clarify land rights, states and other organizations can play vital roles in providing the local that can reduce the time and financial resources needed for demarcation, mapping, and registration can be a community with improved access to legal systems. game-changer. Integrated land use initiatives can offer critical support by helping train local stakeholders to use technology for tenure reform-related activities. These tools can help enable surveys, land administration activities supporting certification, titling, and transfers. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Technology and digitization transformation is driving cost-effective rights recognition programs. Current technological solutions range from low to high-tech applications. The cost-effectiveness of low-tech solutions at times means less accuracy; for example, lower resolution for topographical applications. The latest advances in satellite imagery have made this application competitive compared to the cost of traditional surveying. However, finding the level of accuracy needed and the technology that best fits the purpose remains a challenge 42 See Section 2.3 (on Economic Focus) for more detail on BSMs. (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH 2019). 43 See Section 2.1 on MSE. 30 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 31 Public-private partnerships (PPP) can play a crucial role in building innovative technological mechanisms for effective land administration and registration systems. Land registration, and easy access to cadastre 2.6 Financing Strategies mapping, are crucial components of robust land institutions. They create opportunities to link development assistance to private sector engagement. Such models can be adopted by integrated land use initiatives for OVERVIEW specific objectives such as registration and demarcation. Implementing programs that are inclusive, climate-smart, and sustainable requires substantial financial resources. Integrated land use initiatives need to consider what kind of financing will be required to sustain In interventions where the costs of up-front investments are high and the financial benefits are not immediate (for example in agroforestry, or climate-smart agricultural practices), access to credit will be critical in the initiative at the front end (project design and implementation); in the middle of the program (enabling adopting suggested practices. For example, for landholders or communities that have adopted agroforestry, rights stakeholders to adopt sustainable new practices); and at the back end (results/outcome-based payments). can be awarded after the purchase and plantation of seedling trees; right before the trees reach maturity; or when Each country and each jurisdiction has different capacities and financial requirements for implementing integrated land use initiatives. Strong political will to reverse environmental degradation and to promote they are ready to harvest timber or forest products, thus securing longer-term benefits. ecological conservation may translate into investments in integrated land use management, both domestic and More work is required to link local or national land administration systems to programs that are carrying out international. Usually a combination of actors are involved in the funding of integrated land use initiatives; key integrated land use initiatives. Tenure reforms create feedback loops, resulting in more conducive environments among them are national and donor governments, international organizations, development banks, and other for designing other relevant programs. There is a continuing need to record, analyze, and share successful cases development agencies and NGOs. Programs can often draw on financing from a number of these sources. of improvements to the security of land tenure. As part of an ongoing discussion on making SLM more attractive by providing innovative incentive mechanisms, contingent tenure security can also offer exciting opportunities Many countries with multiple development goals and with competing demands for available funding lack the (Shames, Heiner, and Scherr 2017). Providing tenure security based on adopting SLM practices over a specific scale of resources needed to adequately fund integrated land use initiatives. The international community time frame can serve as a condition for eligibility to secure land and natural resources ownership, management, has responded to this challenge by increasing North-South public finance transfers for landscape programs or user rights. aimed at climate change mitigation, adaptation, and SLM activities.44 Although donors are currently supporting integrated land use initiatives, large gaps in financing still exist, making it crucial for initiatives to mobilize More research is required to determine causality between land tenure security and improved resource substantial additional financing from all available sectors, and to identify barriers to large-scale private and management. Given the long timescales of integrated land use initiatives, they could be well-placed to conduct public investment. longitudinal studies to rigorously investigate and generate sound evidence on if improving land tenure security leads to better resource management (USAID 2013). While initiatives often focus on publicly sourced funding for project implementation, it is critical for programs to also consider what additional financing will be required by the communities and private sector actors involved. Communities often need significant upfront investment in order to adopt new ways of managing lands, growing crops, and conducting business, particularly given the opportunity costs associated with switching modes of production. Programs need to determine what kind of support they can provide, or where they can crowd in additional sources of financing to fill these needs, whether from the local banking sector or from other BOX 2.10: BEST PRACTICES: LAND TENURE regional or international finance providers. Unfortunately, the public benefits from integrated land use initiatives are difficult to monetize, and limited capacity for risk assessment for political, socioeconomic, market, weather, SUPPORT ONGOING TENURE and climate risks, as well as the lack of mitigation instruments create additional challenges when attempting to REFORMS: Identify ways secure sustainable financing and achieve lasting benefits from these initiatives. the initiative can help the government plan and implement Reflecting this need, many programs report the challenge of the “missing middle” of financing. There is often land tenure reform. adequate financing at the front end for project design and implementation, and at the back end, for example through results-based financing or PES. The financing needed to enable critical stakeholders to actually adopt ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS: Hold sustainable practices, however, is often missing. This “missing middle” makes it difficult for initiatives to enable consultations with stakeholders stakeholders to implement the changes required of the program. These challenges are not unique to integrated to understand the current land land use initiatives, but they are a common, and major, barrier to success for these types of programs. Therefore, tenure systems and determine integrated land use initiatives must consider at the outset the availability of financing for stakeholder interventions that take these adoption of sustainable practices; and where gaps are identified, must work to find solutions and the tools systems into account; ensure that can expand it. that stakeholders know their rights. ENHANCE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Adopt technology that can help implement land tenure reform; train stakeholders to use this technology. 44 Governments have designed and reformed institutions such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Adaptation Fund, the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and, most recently, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), as well as evolving financial mechanisms like results-based finance for REDD+ (UNTT 2013) and Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). 32 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 33 KEY ELEMENTS Table 2.3: Tools for Expanding Financing Experience shows that the most successful integrated land use initiatives have a blend of investments from Financing Phase Types of Financing public and private sources. While financing arrangements vary depending on the goals of the initiative, there Front End Government investment, NGO and international nongovernmental organization (INGO) grants, are three critical elements that initiatives should adopt in order to establish a robust financing mechanism: development agency finance and grants, climate finance grants mobilizing and planning resources, aligning financial mechanisms with national priorities, and monitoring financial flows. Middle Guarantee funds, green bonds, liquidity for financial institutions, capacity building for financial institutions Figure 2.7: Three Key Elements of Identifying Financing Back End Results-based financing or PES from the private sector, governments, development agencies, etc. Mobilize and plan resources The type of funding needed for an integrated land use initiative is dependent on the objective of the initiative • Identify financial sources as well as who is leading it. PES is a popular instrument used to fund community-led programs; however, international donors like multilateral donors and climate funds generally support government-led initiatives • Identify barriers to investment (Shames, Hill Clarvis, and Kissinger 2014) through instruments like concessional loans, grants, and results- • Hold stakeholder consultations based payments. International organizations and NGOs can provide a transfer of financial resources by acting as a financial intermediary, or they can play a broader role by providing technical assistance, policy advice, and capacity building. Align financial mechanisms with national priorities and explore sectoral linkages BOX 2.11: CASE STUDY: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO • Align financial mechanisms with national mechanisms, wherever possible FINANCING IN BRAZIL • Strengthen and promote cross-sectoral financing mechanism • Build institutional capacity The Brazilian State of Acre is a global pioneer in to approve investments and funds and monitor curbing deforestation. Acre’s state government the overall performance of SISA implementation. has formulated a comprehensive policy scheme Acre’s program has demonstrated a high level of focused on protecting forests while also promoting political will, and wise stakeholder consultation- economic development, including through its driven development of integrated sectoral policies Monitor financial flows implementation of the State System of Incentives supporting forest conservation that has attracted • Map existing financial flows and potential opportunities for Environmental Services (SISA) and the a significant amount of attention and both private • Develop comprehensive systems to track domestic and international financial flows Environmental Service Incentives for Carbon (ISA and public sector finance. REM has provided an Carbon) programs. added advantage by offering performance-based payments. These initiatives have attracted a range of funders, including private foundations, members Even though a long-term, sustainable source Mobilize and plan resources of the private sector, international agencies, and of funding is yet to be established, Acre is voluntary carbon markets, and have notably gained proactively exploring various options, especially When planning an integrated land use initiative, it is important to identify funding for key activities early on. support from the German government through in the carbon market (Alencar et al 2012; Climate Typically, governments or international donors do the financial planning, and organizations with global expertise funding for emission reductions, implemented Focus 2013; Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) offer support. Funds can be sourced from international or domestic public finance (for example, tax revenues on through REDD+’s Early Movers Program (REM). 2010; Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation carbon, individual and corporate); capital markets (funds generated by bonds and other financial instruments); and Development 2017; WWF 2013). (See the nonprofits and charity donors (philanthropists and foundations); offset funds (carbon offsets); farmers and/or The central entity, the SISA-REM executive supplemental booklet of resources and case studies asset owners (income and borrowing); and members of the private sector (using business revenue and borrowing). committee, is pivotal in linking up different at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center (Table 2.3 provides a breakdown of how these different types of funding fit into various phases of an initiative). programs and approaches, and has the authority for more detail on initiatives in Acre). Donors can collaborate to fund an entire program, or a single institution may support a program, or a specific stage of it.45 Align financial mechanisms with national priorities, and explore sectoral links An important step in creating a more sustainable financing system for integrated land use initiatives is identifying opportunities to align the financing mechanism with existing national and subnational priorities, such as the REDD+ framework, or other climate change mitigation and adaptation programs. This process includes improving cross-sectoral financing mechanisms by clustering projects; joint budgeting; and building institutional capacity. This can enable local and national institutions to engage in innovative financing mechanisms such as carbon finance and results-based payments; monitor financial flows; and attract private sector investment. Fitting integrated land use initiatives into existing sustainable development plans, and in turn into national and 45 Funds can be broadly classified into “asset investments” and “enabling investments.” Enabling investments are those that lay the groundwork for commercial success, with no expectation of direct financial reward. Asset investments include those that seek returns, usually as profit or products (Elson 2012). subnational medium and long-term development planning, can catalyze sectoral development strategies and 34 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 35 improve policy coherence. Aligning the initiative with national policy objectives can stimulate private sector investment and improve cross-sectoral coordination and accountability.46 Efforts are also being made to move BOX 2.13: CASE STUDY: FIXING THE “MISSING MIDDLE” WITH beyond public sector funds and create links between ministries to define multi-objective finance opportunities. The establishment of cross-sectoral financing mechanisms that can move national development objectives for THE HELP OF COMMERCIAL BANKS sustainable land use, the environment, and climate change adaptation forward are needed to better harmonize The BioCF ISFL has noticed that, in its program course in agribusiness lending for commercial policy.47 countries, agribusinesses interested in adopting banks and financial institutions, to educate sustainable land use practices were unable to bankers on sustainable value chain financing. By Monitor financial flows secure loans from commercial banks. The banks helping domestic banks understand sustainable Monitoring financial flows helps practitioners measure progress, mobilize and incentivize resources, and redirect were concerned about recovering their investment, value chains and better conceptualize the risks assets to more sustainable activities. Periodic tracking helps improve accountability and build trust with since they were unable to determine with any involved, agribusinesses will more easily be able to partners while also providing data for national and international reporting requirements. Routine tracking can certainty what kind of risk they were assuming. secure loans to cover the upfront costs associated enable donors to assess the impacts linked to financing, and help the private sector evaluate their investment To overcome this, ISFL is developing a new training with adopting sustainable land use practices. options. In practice, monitoring financial flows includes documenting the financial performance of donor investments against the goals they aim to achieve. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING: A KEY AREA FOR GROWTH Financing large-scale, long-term, multisectoral programs like integrated land use initiatives poses numerous Fostering private sector participation in integrated land use initiatives can help ensure the long-term viability of challenges, but it also presents opportunities for innovation. One of the most pressing challenges in financing these programs—which is not guaranteed when relying on limited international and public sector funding. Public integrated land use initiatives relates to scale. These initiatives tend to have long timelines, which can lead to sector funding is well-suited to creating an enabling environment, while private sector finance can be directed a program running out of funding before it has achieved its goals. This is partly due to a mismatch between the toward activities that result in predictable streams of revenue and help fix the problem of the “missing middle,” amount of time investors want to wait to see results, and the time required to achieve financial benefits from the making these two financing sources key to the long-term success of an initiative. initiative; this restricts what kinds of investors will have the capacity to become involved. There is therefore a pressing need to identify innovative mechanisms that reduce or take into consideration the investment horizons. Global supply chains will be affected by climate change-induced ecological degradation. Private sector actors recognize the risks that climate change poses to their bottom lines, and are seeking solutions to these challenges Developing financing mechanisms that are capable of integrating numerous sectoral finance opportunities, throughout their supply chains (Kumar 2012). Despite the acknowledgement of this risk, to date private sector international aid, and domestic public financial systems remains a major challenge. This is due in part to the financing has mostly been absent from large-scale integrated land use initiatives. Innovative platforms are being underfinancing of activities that could strengthen the institutional capacity of existing financial systems and developed to attract financing from the private sector by mitigating risks and aligning land use strategies with build new mechanisms. It is difficult to achieve the smooth flow of finance between institutions and sectors where companies’ business plans. Where the private sector has become involved in these initiatives, they have begun robust financial institutions do not exist. directly investing in sustainable land management practices and supply chains. “Green bonds” for environmentally sustainable programs (for example, for climate mitigation and adaptation Integrated land use initiatives can attract private sector investors by guaranteeing first-loss protection, across various sectors) present a promising opportunity for scaling up and expanding integrated land use thereby reducing financial risk and improving the credit-worthiness of the project (Hervé-Mignucci et al 2013). initiatives. The World Bank has laid the groundwork for the development of the green bond market, and has Off-take agreements and advance market commitments can also help manage market uncertainties and make raised significant finances from institutional and retail investors around the globe. These bonds provide an an initiative more attractive to investors (Shames, Hill Clarvis, and Kissinger 2014). Strengthening domestic opportunity for institutional investors to support climate-smart investments through which investors can meet insurance markets and risk-transferring mechanisms provide a key opportunity to enhance impact investments their financial goals while creating social impact.48 Green bonds therefore represent a major opportunity to fill in these initiatives while providing the funding needed to help farmers and other private sector actors adopt more the “missing middle” by enabling private sector actors, like farmers, to offset the upfront costs of adopting more sustainable land uses. sustainable land use practices. Public sector funds can be used to provide an enabling environment (policies, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure) and to mitigate risk (through insurance and government guarantees, for example) to enable private sector participation and fill the “missing middle.” BOX 2.12: BEST PRACTICES: FINANCING STRATEGIES BLENDED FINANCING: Mobilize both public and help ensure financial sustainability. private sector financing to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the program. ROBUST MONITORING OF FINANCIAL FLOWS: Help strengthen institutional capacity to ensure ALIGN FINANCING MECHANISMS WITH NATIONAL robust monitoring of financial flows so that goals AND SUBNATIONAL PRIORITIES: Fit integrated can be tracked, funds can be redistributed as land use initiatives into existing climate change necessary, and investors will feel more confident and development strategies to improve policy contributing to the initiative. coherence, foster cross-sectoral coordination, and 46 See Section 2.8 on Cross-Sectoral Coordination. 47 Given the cross-sectoral nature of integrated land use initiatives, interest in establishing a centralized agency for mobilizing funds linked to these initiatives is high. This can put the initiatives at the center of a country’s conservation and development agenda and help identify investment gaps and potential 48 Additional information on functionality, programs supported, and eligibility criteria can be found in the World Bank’s Green Bond Impact Report (World Bank opportunities to form partnerships. 2019b), available at: https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/790081576615720375/IBRD-Green-Bond-Impact-Report-FY-2019.pdf. 36 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 37 2.7 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Figure 2.8: Three Key Elements of MEL for Integrated Land Use Initiatives OVERVIEW Develop a monitoring and evaluation strategy A robust monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) mechanism is essential for assessing integrated land • Identify tools and methods use initiatives and the contributions they make to sustainable development. MEL improves perceptions of a program’s legitimacy, informs stakeholders of the returns on their investments, and lays out lessons to be • Develop appropriate indicators learned from the program’s implementation (Willemen et al 2014). • Establish a system for data collection and maintenance and lesson sharing Multiple goals and scales of operation add a degree of complexity to designing a MEL framework for integrated land use initiatives. Therefore, in addition to having indicators that measure the expected results (outcome indicators), both long-term impact measurements and short-term process indicators are needed in order to confirm the progress of crucial initiative activities. These indicators inform stakeholders about key aspects of the initiative’s processes, Ensure adaptive management such as the negotiation of goals and timelines, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and the effectiveness of • Incorporate flexibility in program design to allow for adjustments and continual governance (Sayer et al 2017). Process indicators can illustrate how well a program has been designed and carried out. improvements Outcome indicators can measure results related to conservation, social inclusion, livelihoods, and other institutional and structural improvements, providing a holistic view of the landscape over time. Stakeholder engagement is crucial at all stages of the MEL process. MEL should be highly participatory, with stakeholders who rely on local natural resources actively involved in data collection and monitoring. The need for improving system accountability, and for more accurate data analysis, has energized participatory monitoring Engage stakeholders in these initiatives (Abbot and Guijt 1998). The multisectoral and multistakeholder nature of integrated land use • Engage stakeholders in design of the MEL framework and in monitoring  initiatives necessitates exploring the use of a participatory and gender-inclusive MEL mechanism. • Build technical and institutional capacity • Create space for sharing lessons learned A. Develop a monitoring and evaluation strategy Identifying and generating a shared vision and shared goals are critical for building an M&E framework.50 The first vital step involves identifying, in consultation with stakeholders, the main purpose of the framework. The objective(s) may include tracking the progress of the project; documenting evidence-based results; reporting data to fulfill international agreements (for example, reporting on GHG emission reductions, or progress toward SDGs); or seeking results-based finance. The purpose of the framework ultimately determines which indicators need to be included, how the data will be gathered, and what kind of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework needs to be designed. Once the vision and goals of the initiative are determined, practitioners must identify tools and methods, develop appropriate indicators, and establish a system for data collection, maintenance, and lesson sharing. Practitioners should consider using an already-established M&E system before attempting to create a new one, particularly if the existing system is geared toward tracking progress on subnational or national climate or development goals. This can be a time and cost-saving measure if a system exists that is suitable for the type of data collection and analysis that the program needs, and if it will allow for adaptive management. Using an existing system can help the initiative integrate seamlessly into a subnational, national, or international climate and development agenda. i. Identify Tools and Methods KEY ELEMENTS When developing any M&E framework, it is necessary to identify the tools and methods that will enable data collection MEL plays a key role in integrated land use initiatives: results data is used for performance assessment, informs and analysis. Practitioners will first need to use these tools and methods to understand the current situation in the the budget and evidence-based policy decisions, ensures accountability, and facilitates learning. Setting up a landscape and to develop baselines. Integrated land use initiatives have employed a variety of techniques to assess practical MEL framework requires an extensive series of steps.49 This report highlights three elements that are program status and facilitate adaptive management, including the use of score cards and impact assessments.51 fundamental for effective MEL: 1) developing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategy; 2) ensuring adaptive These techniques can be combined in more comprehensive, project-based monitoring systems. management; and 3) engaging stakeholders. An initiative’s MEL framework should be context-specific and tailored to the needs of its stakeholders, and national and supranational organization should be continuously 50 There are a wide variety of resources available that detail how to develop effective M&E frameworks. Rather than explore best practices for M&E in general, this involved in its development. section focuses on specific issues related to M&E for large-scale, cross-sectoral, participatory integrated land use initiatives. 51 Some of the most prominent techniques include a national/locally owned report card (World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); score cards (The Nature Conservancy (TNC); Rapid Assessment Process (Conservation International); project cycle management (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), (TNC); and biodiversity impact assessment (Convention on Biological Diversity) (Stem et al 2005). The theory of change, results framework, results chain, and outcome 49 For a list of resources to help practitioners develop MEL frameworks, see the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies at www.biocarbonfund-isfl. mapping are a few other techniques used by multiple agencies (for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), IUCN, The Global org/knowledge-center. Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and BioCF ISFL), to plan, implement, and evaluate integrated land use initiatives). 38 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 39 ii. Develop Appropriate Indicators B. Ensure adaptive management To effectively track an initiative’s progress, practitioners must develop appropriate indicators. (Table 2.4 provides Adaptive management is an essential element in integrated land use initiatives. Landscape projects are a breakdown of the types of indicators that can be used in an M&E framework for integrated land use initiatives). influenced by a myriad of external factors, and are typically subject to a high degree of uncertainty. An iterative Effective indicators are relevant to the objective; measurable (either having data available, or having data that process is therefore critical in building a robust program. Attempting to assess the impact of these initiatives at can be collected and quantified); sensitive (able to change along with changes in the system in a predictable a single endpoint will not account for the changing circumstances and productive iterations that these programs manner); precise (capable of collecting accurate information); and easy to understand (equally comprehensible by can and should go through. Building adaptive management into a MEL framework by developing a mechanism members of the local communities) (Buck et al 2006). to allow stakeholders to adjust and modify goals, and indicators that are based on lessons learned and achievements is therefore vital to both the learning aspect of MEL and the overall success of the initiative. iii. Establish a System for Data Collection, Maintenance, and Lesson Sharing An M&E framework should be designed to be able to readily share knowledge about the processes and outcomes of the initiative. To do this, practitioners must establish systems to ensure accurate and robust data collection; BOX 2.15: CASE STUDY: PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND maintain the data collection system; and share lessons learned. M&E platforms can serve as essential tools for ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN NEPAL skills transfer, for example, from the scientific community to local stakeholders. They are also essential in scaling A community forest management program in up, or assessing the replicability of projects. This process also contributes to the learning component of the MEL Baglung district, Nepal, used a participatory framework, both to enable adaptive management and to transmit lessons learned to a larger cohort of integrated approach that involved supporting existing land use practitioners. forest user groups in the development of forest monitoring systems. The program focused on the (MRV) FOR RESULTS-BASED FINANCING BOX 2.14: MRV FOR RESULTS-BASED FINANCING holistic representation of all local stakeholders, including women. The program selected MRV forms a critical component of results-based and environmental requirements; representatives from social units that were payment mechanisms for emission reductions. relatively homogenous to avoid domination by elite Results-based financing needs to be considered  evelop emission baselines/reference levels that •D groups. when designing an M&E framework in order to can be used as benchmarks for performance; Workshops, meetings, and discussion groups were ensure that the data collection and reporting  evelop a robust national or jurisdictional •D conducted with experts for several months to build methods for MRV are robust. monitoring system; the capacity of the local community to develop Results-based financing comes with its own goals, criteria, and indicators for monitoring.  easure emissions and calculate emission •M reporting requirements, which are usually set by The program eventually monitored institutional reductions (often based on standard protocols). the entity making the payments or by a general criteria (such as how often forest user groups met, standard. Depending on the entity or standard, the Building a system for measuring emission the participation ratio of men and women, etc.); types of indicators required for effective MRV in an reductions with sufficient accuracy is challenging ecological criteria (sustainable harvesting volumes); integrated land use initiative must: and requires a high degree of interdisciplinary and economic outcomes (income gained by forest technical expertise. International organizations user groups). The community adopted an adaptive Show that the program meets criteria and • emphasize devoting financial resources to building management approach to continuously improve the indicators related to robust institutional, legal, capacities and developing innovative solutions to program based on outcomes and new information and procedural arrangements, as well as social address these challenges. (Hamilton et al 2000; Lawrence et al 2006; Malla et al 2002; Evans and Guariguata 2008). Table 2.4: Indicators for Integrated Land Use Initiatives Indicator Type Description Examples C. Engage stakeholders Process Assesses the effectiveness of the initiative’s Stakeholder engagement, capacity building, process governance Inclusive stakeholder engagement in the design, implementation, and monitoring of a MEL system can help Intervention Assesses the effectiveness of the initiative’s Adoption of improved land management practices foster ownership, incentivize long-term participation, and increase the efficiency of the data collection and specific interventions benefit distribution processes.52 Participatory MEL works best when monitoring is directly linked to potential Impact Measures the broader impact of an initiative Conservation, agricultural output, forest improvements in communities’ livelihoods (Buck et al 2006). management, livelihoods Outcome Measures the benefits the initiative intends to Reduction in deforestation, land users who have A representative group of stakeholders should be involved in as many stages of the MEL process as possible, deliver adopted SLM practices including the processes of identifying indicators; monitoring progress (by measuring outcomes or coordinating Output Measures tangible or intangible products Land under sustainable management practices, land data collecting); and adaptive management. It is essential to have a system such as an MSP in place, through users who received training which stakeholders can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of interventions based on the monitoring Inputs and Measures readiness for program Stakeholders satisfied with the process, knowledge process, and work together to find ways to improve the initiative. Initiatives should be sure to involve all relevant Activities implementation, or the achievement of goals dissemination events carried out, grants disbursed for stakeholders, including women and other marginalized groups.53 and objectives in a timely manner improving the enabling environment Stakeholders can bring complementary skills to the table and help create and implement a locally tailored, Sources: FAO 2013b; Sayer et al 2017; Parsons, Gokey, and Thornton 2013 52 See Section 2.1 (on MSE). 53 See Box 2.2: Additional Considerations for Effective MSE in Section 2.1 (on MSE). 40 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 41 effective MEL framework. Governments are particularly well-suited to setting up M&E systems, and generally While MEL and M&E frameworks are widely used for development programs, there are still a variety of have more resources (technical and financial) at their disposal than other stakeholders. Local communities can opportunities to make them even more useful for integrated land use initiatives. Developing integrative provide crucial insights on many key indicators (for example, indicators about livelihood). International experts indicators that can support multiple goals and targets can provide a more cost-effective means of monitoring may be best equipped to help develop more complex indicators that require specialized knowledge, such as landscape-level performance.56 Using the same indicators and terminologies across projects and programs with measuring biodiversity, ecological interactions, and GHG emissions (Buck et al 2006). International NGOs and similar goals can allow practitioners and stakeholders to gain a more comprehensive view of activities across donors can contribute their expertise in capacity building, and provide technical assistance. a landscape over time. Aligning indicators in this way might also reduce the reporting burden on countries and avoid duplication of efforts. For example, donor-funded mechanisms could harmonize their indicators and link While it is widely acknowledged among practitioners that MSE is crucial to all stages of integrated land use them to national reporting obligations under various global agreements57 (FAO 2019). initiatives, local stakeholder involvement in large-scale landscape projects remains relatively low and is often limited to data collection (Hawthorne et al 2016; Danielsen et al 2013).54 Formulating effective, context-specific Finally, the adoption of improved monitoring technology could aid data collection in large-scale initiatives. training programs for local stakeholders is therefore critical. Robust training and capacity building processes can Technology such as drones, aerial photography, satellite imagery, crowd-sourced data (SMS-based technologies), ensure accuracy in data collection by reducing collection biases while also improving levels of engagement.55 This and artificial intelligence (soil and crop monitoring, predictive analytics, and image processing) could all help to kind of training is vital for communities, governments, and other national institutions as well. increase the efficiency and accuracy of data collection for integrated land use initiatives. BOX 2.16: BEST PRACTICES: MEL USE MEASURABLE, SIMPLE, COST-EFFECTIVE INDICATORS: Develop indicators that align with local needs and capacities. Where possible, align indicators with subnational, national, and international climate and development goals. ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS: Involve stakeholders in as many stages of MEL as possible, including the development of indicators, data collection, and adaptive management. Build stakeholder capacity through trainings. ENABLE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: Build adaptive management into the MEL framework, and use the monitoring process to determine which interventions are working, and where improvements are needed. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Many integrated land use initiatives have faced challenges in creating and implementing MEL frameworks because of the complexity involved in landscape-level interventions, and the resource-intensive nature of the process (Reed et al 2016). MEL becomes more complex when multiple projects are implemented under an umbrella program. To address these challenges, many initiatives are working to formulate simple indicators; establish process standards that define the standards of practice for designing, implementing, and monitoring integrated land use initiatives; and harmonize indicators and units of measurement between organizations, sectors, and levels of government, to ensure that stakeholders are all using the same definition for their indicators. 54 Stakeholder involvement in integrated land use initiatives to date has mostly been in the form of monitoring. Known as participatory monitoring, this process emphasizes locally driven programs and processes for collecting, analyzing, and using data (Guijt 2007). It typically entails the systematic, periodic collection of data related to previously agreed-upon indicators. Evidence shows that participatory monitoring in tropical forests has numerous benefits, including integrating local knowledge into scientific monitoring; building social capital and the empowerment of local people; strengthening local institutions; and facilitating decision-making (Evans and Guariguata 2008). The benefit of participatory monitoring has been recognized in landscape programs in tropical forests, but its 56 At a minimum, these trainings should ensure that stakeholders (and particularly program managers) have the ability to construct indicators successfully; the widespread use for large-scale integrated land use initiatives is yet to be fully realized. means to collect, aggregate, analyze, and report on performance data concerning the indicators and their baselines; and the skill and understanding to know 55 At a minimum, these trainings should ensure that stakeholders (and particularly program managers) have the ability to construct indicators successfully; the what to do with this data (Zall Kusek and Rist 2004). means to collect, aggregate, analyze, and report on performance data concerning the indicators and their baselines; and the skill and understanding to know 57 For example, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), and the Paris Agreement under what to do with this data (Zall Kusek and Rist 2004). the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (FAO 2019). 42 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 43 2.8 Cross-Sectoral Coordination Identify relevant sectors Integrated land use initiatives can bring different sectors together to create sustainable landscapes. The sectors OVERVIEW prioritized across initiatives will differ according to the specific context (García-Martín et al 2016). Understanding To address the complex, interlinked challenges that integrated land use initiatives are concerned with and landscape dynamics can help practitioners identify the sectors that are relevant to the initiative, find possible move toward systemic change, a cross-sectoral approach is needed. Integrated land use initiatives need to synergies, and recognize where conflicting goals will necessitate trade-offs. Analyzing how different sectors can address environmental challenges while also building community resilience and improving livelihoods. These work toward complementary goals, or manage contradictory goals can also inform practitioners about land use multiple goals, along with the often large scale of these initiatives, demand engagement with and coordination changes and the driving forces behind these changes, such as agricultural expansion, demand for timber, or the between stakeholders from all of the sectors that are impacting land use within a given landscape: agriculture, development of the mining industry (Meijer et al 2018). forestry, energy, livestock, mining, and natural resource management, among others. Here, cross-sectoral Planning tools, such as scenario building and simulation, optimization models, and empirical analysis can help coordination refers to coordinating activities across these sectors to solve interrelated problems and deliver stakeholders understand the landscape and identify synergies (EcoAgriculture Partners n.d.; Klapwijk et al 2014). results in food security, nutrition, or sustainable agriculture (Neely et al 2017). This report treats cross-sectoral Environmental footprint analysis can also help to identify which sectors are the greatest carbon emitters and coordination as a cross-cutting theme, a lens that should be applied to thinking through the other seven could therefore have the largest impact on reducing emissions in the landscape. Political analysis can provide a themes. As detailed throughout this report, taking a piecemeal approach to land use is often insufficient to nuanced understanding of the jurisdiction, particularly regarding incentives, relationships, and the distribution produce a sustainable landscape—because inevitably, and quite naturally, the different land use sectors impact and contestation of power among groups and individuals (Mcloughlin 2014), and how sectors interact one another and create a complex tapestry. This is why cross-sectoral coordination is a defining feature of integrated land use initiatives. Strengthen sectoral capacity Coordinating across sectors is vital to the success of an integrated land use initiative, but it also presents a Multisectoral integrated land use initiative programs enable governments, donors, and implementing agencies to key challenge: the various sectors are often siloed in entrenched management and policy structures and they identify and address the causes of environmental issues by linking sectors and integrating their objectives in the have little opportunity or incentive to collaborate with other sectors, and consider how they are impacting one program design. These programs may fall under several different government institutions and sectors. another. An assessment of synergies and trade-offs is therefore a crucial component in formulating a cross- sectoral strategy. Understanding the opportunity costs of alternative strategies and their impacts can enable For the seamless integration of sectoral policies, improving sectoral and institutional coordination alone may not informed decision making (Minang et al 2015a). be enough. Building strategies that develop a shared understanding and enable different sectors to meet their objectives requires education and training. Capacity building starts with assessing stakeholders’ abilities, and is Systematic, collaborative, integrated land management planning is crucial for designing integrated land use followed by developing training resources that are sensitive to local languages, and that provide straightforward initiatives. Lessons learned to date demonstrate that clearly defining stakeholder roles and responsibilities, definitions and standardized terminology. These resources and trainings should be regularly evaluated and along with building more effective planning instruments to align the objectives of multiple sectors and levels adjusted as needed. of government can yield positive outcomes. MSPs58 can be used to bring stakeholders from different sectors together, facilitate dialogue, and foster partnerships. Multisectoral approaches involve strong land governance, Use MSP to foster cross-sectoral collaboration tailor-made incentives, and training stakeholders at all levels – from local farmers, to private sector employees, Government ministries are usually responsible for leading sectoral coordination mechanisms, and for sectoral to government officials. Building cross-sectoral institutional capacity is a long-term endeavor that requires policymaking. Experience indicates that in most cases, this top-down approach has led to little meaningful sustained financial and institutional support (Peach Brown 2018). collaboration happening on the ground. Greater coordination between all levels of government could improve policy coherence. MSPs are key to achieving this: having a platform for negotiation and communication KEY ELEMENTS OF CROSS-SECTORAL COORDINATION that brings stakeholders and sectors together at the planning stage to develop a common perspective is There are three key elements for promoting cross-sectoral coordination in an integrated land use initiative: 1) crucial. Leveraging existing mechanisms and strategies, where possible, is also expected to improve standing identifying relevant sectors, 2) strengthening sectoral capacity; and 3) fostering cross-sectoral collaboration relationships and increase efficiency (Neely et al 2017). through an MSP. This is an iterative process that demands learning and improvement throughout the life cycle of the initiative. Figure 2.9: Three Key Elements of Promoting Cross-Sectoral Coordination IDENTIFY RELEVANT SECTORS STRENGTHEN SECTORAL CAPACITY USE MSP TO FOSTER CROSS-SECTORAL COLLABORATION • Assess existing sectoral dynamics • Assess institutional capacity (current capacity and gaps) • Develop a multistakeholder platform to • Develop tools and processes to assess facilitate cross-sectoral dialogue political economy of the landscape and • Develop locally sensitive capacity (including sectors, multiple levels of trade-offs and synergies of possible building measures, taking gender government, and other stakeholders) interventions considerations into account • Appoint a steering committee and convener • Monitor commitments and build ownership 58 See Section 2.1 (on MSE) for more information on building MSPs. 44 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 45 3. Conclusion Bibliography Abbot, Joanne and Irene Guijt. 1998. “Changing Views on Change: Participatory Approaches to Monitoring the Integrated land use initiatives take seriously the interdependence of human and natural systems, and embrace Environment.” Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods (SARL) Discussion Paper No. 2, July 1998. London: the complexity that comes with effectively addressing both development and environmental challenges. Given International Institute for Environment and Development. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/6140IIED.pdf the urgency of tackling climate change and the imperative of addressing poverty, integrated land use initiatives offer practitioners a promising means of working toward creating truly sustainable, thriving communities and Akida, Amina and Rosina Blomley. 2006. “Trends in Forest Ownership, Forest Resources Tenure and landscapes. This approach, though complex, is critical if the international community is going to tackle climate Institutional Arrangement: Are They Contributing to Better Forest Management and Poverty Reduction? change: limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius and realizing a zero-carbon future cannot be Case Study from the United Republic of Tanzania.” Dar es Salaam: FAO. http://www.fao.org/forestry/12511- achieved with traditional, siloed projects. 0a38b2dd54443592fd647a92d27de18fc.pdf Integrated land use initiatives represent a promising and innovative approach to addressing environmental Alden Wily, Liz. 2018. “The Community Land Act in Kenya: Opportunities and Challenges for Communities.” Land 7 and development challenges, but the current lack of consensus and limited knowledge sharing presents a (1): 12. doi:10.3390/land7010012. barrier to realizing its potential. Despite more than a decade of experience in implementing these approaches, some fundamental challenges remain. Principally, given the long time frame of these programs, and remaining Alencar, Ane, Daniel Nepstad, Elsa Mendoza, Britaldo Soares-Filho, Paulo Moutinho, Marcelo C.C. Stabile, David challenges surrounding data collection, knowledge sharing, and limited consensus over terms, definitions, and McGrath, Simone Mazer, Cassio Pereira, Andrea Azevedo, Claudia Stickler, Sonaira Souza, Isabel Castro, Osvaldo processes, there is still a serious lack of evidence on how well these initiatives work in practice. Stella. 2012. “Acre State’s Progress Towards Jurisdictional REDD: Research, Analysis, and Recommendations for the State Carbon Incentive Program (ISA-Carbono).” Brasília: Amazon Environmental Research Institute. https:// To overcome these challenges and realize the potential of this approach, key actors in the field need to come earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Acres-Progress-Towards-Jurisdictional-REDD-1.pdf together to share evidence and best practices, and work toward the creation of a comprehensive framework for integrated land use initiatives. Greater collaboration between key actors in the field, along with the creation Alix-García, Jennifer M., Elizabeth N. Shapiro, and Katharine R.E. Sims. 2010. “Impact of Payments for Ecosystem of a comprehensive framework based on the past decade of lessons learned, could lead to much greater impact Services on Deforestation in Mexico: Preliminary Lessons for REDD.” Tenure Brief. No. 11. Madison: Land Tenure in terms of more sustainable land use, reduced GHG emissions, increased biodiversity, enhanced conservation Center, University of Wisconsin. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/46748 of natural resources, and improved development outcomes. When it comes to climate change, biodiversity Andersen, Kirsten Ewers. 2011. “Communal Tenure and the Governance of Common Property Resources in Asia: conservation, and ecosystem restoration, there is no time to waste: it is absolutely critical that key actors in Lessons from Experiences in Selected Countries.” Land Tenure Working Paper 20. http://www.fao.org/3/am658e/ the field collaborate and share best practices, realize the potential of this approach, and ultimately make these am658e00.pdf programs work, both for humans and for nature. A comprehensive framework is the first step toward the kind of collaboration needed to achieve this ambitious goal. Anderson, Jon, Jean Clément, and Loy V. Crowder. 1998. “Accommodating Conflicting Interests in Forestry: Concepts Emerging from Pluralism.” Unasylva No. 194. http://www.fao.org/3/w8827e/w8827e03.htm Beatty, Craig, Leander Raes, Adrian L. Vogl, Peter L. Hawthorne, Miguel Moraes, Javier L. Saborio, and Kelly Meza Prado. 2018. Landscapes, At Your Service: Applications of the Restoration Opportunities Optimization Tool (ROOT). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47805 Bernardes, Aline T. 1999. “Some Mechanisms for Biodiversity Protection in Brazil, with Emphasis on their Application in the State of Minas Gerais.” Paper prepared for the Brazil Global Overlay Project, Development Research Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. Biancalani, Riccardo, Freddy Nachtergaele, Monica Petri, and Sally Bunning. 2013. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands: Methodology and Results. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3241e.pdf British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership (BATBP). 2011. “British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership-Progress Report.” (Accessed September 29, 2020) http://www.batbiodiversity.org/groupms/sites/ BAT_8A7ED8.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/1F54CC450E52EF88C12577BD003F2BF7/$FILE/BAT_Biodiversity_Report. pdf?openelement _____ 2012. Biodiversity Risk & Opportunity Assessment Handbook. London: BATBP (Accessed September 29, 2020) https://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__9d9kcy.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9DEM2S/$FILE/medMDAXGG9Y. pdf?openelement Brouwer, Herman, Jim Woodhill, Minu Hemmati, Karèn Verhoosel, and Simone van Vugt. 2015. The MSP Guide: How to Design and Facilitate Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research, WCDI, and Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. 46 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 47 Buck, Louise E., Jeffrey C. Milder, Thomas A. Gavin, and Ishani Mukherjee. 2006. “Understanding Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring Landscape Performance.” Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper Number 2. Washington, Danielsen, Finn, Teis Adrian, Søren Brofeldt, Meine van Noordwijk, Michael K. Poulsen, Subekti Rahayu, Ervan DC: EcoAgriculture Partners. https://ecoagriculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Discussion-Paper- Rutishauser, Ida Theilade, Atiek Widayati, Ngo The An, Tran Nguyen Bang, Arif Budiman, Martin Enghoff, Arne E. Understanding-Ecoagriculture-A-Framework-for-Measuring-Landscape-Performance.pdf Jensen, Yuyun Kurniawan, Qiaohong Li, Zhao Mingxu, Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt, Suoksompong Prixa, Vongvisouk Buck, Louise, Raffaela Kozar, John Recha, Ayal Desalegn, Chris Planicka, and Abigail Hart. 2014. A Landscape Thoumtone, Zulfira Warta, and Neil Burgess. 2013. “Community Monitoring for REDD+: International Promises Perspective on Monitoring & Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management: Trainers’ Manual. Washington, DC: and Field Realities.” Ecology and Society 18 (3): 41. doi:10.5751/es-05464-180341. EcoAgriculture Partners. https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/a-landscape-perspective-on-monitoring- Denier, Louisa, Sara Scherr, Seth Shames, Paul Chatterton, Lex Hovani, and Nienke Stam. 2015. The Little evaluation-for-sustainable-land-management/ Sustainable Landscapes Book. Oxford: Global Canopy Foundation. https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/the-little- Buck, Louise E., Sara J. Scherr, Barbara Chami, Melissa Goldman, Ted Lawrence, Jefferson Mecham, Ellen Nevers, sustainable-landscapes-book/ and Ryan Thomas. 2019. Exploring Property Rights and Tenure in Integrated Landscape Management: A Scoping Study Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. “Secure Land Tenure Rights for All: A Key from the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners (on behalf of Condition for Sustainable Development: Successful Approaches and Their Impacts” by Babette Wehrmann and the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative). Andreas Lange. Sector Project “Land Governance” / Global Project “Responsible Land Policy” Sectoral Department Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ). 2017.”REDD+ in the State of Acre, // Policy Brief 01. Eschborn: GIZ. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2019-en-secure-%20land-tenure-rights- Brazil: Rewarding a Pioneer in Forest Protection and Sustainable Livelihood Development.” Frankfurt: KfW successful-approaches.pdf Development Bank; Bonn: BMZ. https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/PDF/Entwicklungsfinanzierung/Themen- Duchelle, Amy E., Maron Greenleaf, Denyse Mello, Maria Fernanda Gebara, and Tadeu Melo. 2014. “Acre’s State NEU/REDD-Early-Movers-Acre-Fact-Sheet.pdf System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA), Brazil.” In REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Bürgi, Matthias, Panna Ali, Afroza Chowdhury, Andreas Heinimann, Cornelia Hett, Felix Kienast, Manoranjan Initiatives Across the Globe edited by Erin O. Sills, Stibniati S. Atmadja, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Kumar Mondal, Bishnu Raj Upreti, and Peter H. Verburg. 2017. “Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. between Theory and Application.”  Sustainability 9 (8): 1371. doi:10.3390/su9081371. EcoAgriculture Partners. n.d. “Modeling the Impact of Integrated Landscape Management on the SDGs.” https:// Cassola, Rodrigo S. 2010. “TEEBcase: Fiscal Transfers Between State and Municipal Governments Provide ecoagriculture.org/project/modeling-the-impact-of-integrated-landscape-management-on-the-sdgs/ Incentives for Ecosystem Services Provision: The ICMS-E in Brazil.” (Mainly based on Ring (2008). Geneva: The Elson, Dominic. 2012. Guide to Investing in Locally Controlled Forestry. Growing Forest Partnerships in Association Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Financing- with FAO, IIED, IUCN, The Forests Dialogue and the World Bank. London: IIED. http://www.fao.org/3/ap860e/ conservation-through-ecological-fiscal-transfers-in-Brazil.pdf ap860e00.pdf Center for International Forestry Research. CIFOR. n.d. “Multilevel Governance: Benefit Sharing.” Global Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2010. “The Acre State System of Incentives for Environmental Services Comparative Study On REDD+. https://www2.cifor.org/gcs/modules/multilevel-governance/benefit-sharing/ (SISA).” Summary, December 2010. New York: EDF. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/11492_Acre_SISA_ Chimhowu, Admos. 2019. “The ‘New’ African Customary Land Tenure: Characteristics, Features and Policy fact_sheet.pdf Implications of a New Paradigm.” Land Use Policy 81: 897-903. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.014. Estrada-Carmona, Natalia, Abigail K. Hart, Fabrice A.J. DeClerck, Celia A. Harvey, and Jeffrey C. Milder. 2014. Climate Focus. 2013. “Acre, Brazil: Subnational Leader In REDD+.” Amsterdam: Climate Focus. https://www. “Integrated Landscape Management for Agriculture, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Conservation: An climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/acre_brazil.pdf Assessment of Experience from Latin America and the Caribbean.” Landscape and Urban Planning 129: 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.001. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Ravi Prabhu, Mario Günter, Cynthia McDougall, Noemi Miyasaka Porro, and Roberto Porro. 1999. Who Counts Most? Assessing Human Well-Being in Sustainable Forest Management. The Criteria & Indicators European Commission. n.d. INSPIRE Knowledge: Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe. European Toolbox Series, 8. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR. doi:10.17528/cifor/000768 Environment Agency. European Commission. (Accessed May 13, 2021) https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/inspire- implementing-rules/51763 “Convention on Biological Diversity,” opened for signature June 5, 1992, United Nations Treaty Series Online, Registration no. 30619. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1992/06/19920605%2008-44%20PM/Ch_ Evans, Kristen, and Manuel R. Guariguata. 2008. Participatory Monitoring in Tropical Forest Management: A XXVII_08p.pdf Review of Tools, Concepts and Lessons Learned. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/ publication/2486/ Conservation International. 2018. Sustainable Landscape Approach: Implementation Guidebook by Danielle King. Arlington, VA: Conservation International. https://www.conservation.org/docs/default-source/publication-pdfs/ _____ 2016. Success from the Ground Up: Participatory Monitoring and Forest Restoration. Occasional Paper 159. ci_laf-sustainable-landscape-approach-implementation-guidebook.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=b772ba44_2 Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-159.pdf Crist, Patrick, Kat Maybury, Sarah Carr, and Jon Hak. 2014. Tools for Landscape-Level Assessment and Planning: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). n.d.-a. “Global Perspectives Studies: A Guide for the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. https://www. Methodologies.” http://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/methodologies/en/ natureserve.org/sites/default/files/report_final_tools_for_landscape-level_assessment_and_planning_2.pdf _____ n.d.-b. “LADA-WOCAT QM.” Land & Water, Land Resources Planning Toolkit. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/ DAI. 2017. Feed the Future: Tanzania Land Tenure Assistance (LTA). FY’17 Annual Report: October 1, 2016- September land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1197596/ 30, 2017. Washington, DC: USAID. https://land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/USAID_Land_Tenure_ _____ n.d.-c. “Modelling System for Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change (MOSAICC).” Rome: FAO (Accessed Feed_the_Future_Tanzania_Annual_Report_2017.pdf May 13, 2021), http://www.fao.org/in-action/mosaicc/en/ _____ 2018. “Tanzania Land Tenure Project Wins USAID Digital Development Award.” News, December 13, 2018. _____ n.d.-d. “SFM Toolbox.” Natural Forest Management. Rome: FAO. (Accessed May 13, 2021), http://www.fao.org/ Washington, DC: DAI. (Accessed June 25, 2021) https://www.dai.com/news/tanzania-land-tenure-project-wins- forestry/sfm/85086/en/ usaid-digital-development-award 48 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 49 _____ n.d.-e. “TECA: Technologies and Practices for Small Agricultural Producers.” Rome: FAO. (Accessed May 13, Fritz, Verena, Brian Levy, and Rachel Ort. 2014. Problem-Driven Political Economy Analysis: The World Bank’s 2021), http://www.fao.org/teca/en/ Experience. Directions in Development-Public Sector Governance. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16389 _____ 2002. “Land Tenure and Rural Development.” FAO Land Tenure Studies 3. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/y4307e/y4307e00.htm#Contents Funder, Mikkel, Finn Danielsen, Yonika Ngaga, Martin R. Nielsen, and Michael K. Poulsen. 2013. “Reshaping Conservation: The Social Dynamics of Participatory Monitoring in Tanzania′s Community-Managed _____ 2003. “Biological Management of Soil Ecosystems for Sustainable Agriculture: Report of the International Forests.” Conservation and Society 11 (3): 218-232. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.121011. Technical Workshop.” World Soil Resources Reports 101. Lordina, Brazil. June 24-27, 2002. Available at: http:// www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/soilbiodiversity/Downloadable_files/WSRR_20101_20Complete.pdf García-Martín, María, Claudia Bieling, Abigail Hart, and Tobias Plieninger. 2016. “Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Europe: Multi-Sector Collaboration in Multi-Functional Landscapes.” Land Use Policy 58: 43-53. doi:10.1016/j. _____ 2007. “Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Perspective, Framework and landusepol.2016.07.001. Priorities.” FAO Inter-Departmental Working Group on Climate Change. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a- au030e.pdf. Gebara, Maria Fernanda. 2014. “Sustainable Landscapes Pilot Program in São Félix Do Xingu, Brazil” In REDD+ On the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives Across the Globe edited by Erin O. Sills, Stibniati S. Atmadja, _____ 2013a. “Forest Conservation in Mexico: Ten Years of Payments for Ecosystem Services.” Case Studies Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida Aju Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin. Bogor, on Renumerations of Positive Externalities (RPE)/Payments for Environmental Services (PES) prepared for the Indonesia: CIFOR. https://www2.cifor.org/redd-case-book/case-reports/brazil/sustainable-landscapes-pilot- multistakeholder dialogue September 12-13, 2013. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl935e.pdf program-sao-felix-xingu-brazil/ _____ 2013b. “Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands: Questionnaire for Mapping Land Degradation and Giger, Markus, Hanspeter Liniger, Caspar Sauter, and Gudrun Schwilch. 2015. “Economic Benefits and Costs Sustainable Land Management (QM).” by Hanspeter Liniger, Godert van Lynden, Freddy Nachtergaele, Gudrun of Sustainable Land Management Technologies: An Analysis of WOCAT’s Global Data.” Land Degradation & Schwilch, and Riccardo Biancalani. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i3240e/i3240e.pdf Development 29 (4): 962-974. doi:10.1002/ldr.2429. _____ 2017a. “African Practitioners Show How Sustainable Land Management Creates Healthy Land, Water and GLOBIO. n.d. “Global Biodiversity Model for Policy Support: Modelling Interactions Between Humans and Nature.” Lives.” Land & Water. Rome: FAO (Accessed May 17, 2021) http://www.fao.org/land-water/news-archive/news- The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Accessed May 16, 2021) detail/en/c/901173/ https://www.globio.info/contact _____ 2017b. “Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Practice in the Kagera Basin: Lessons Learned for Scaling Grafakos, Stelios, Chantal Pacteau, Martha Delgado, Mia Landauer, Oswaldo Lucon, and Patrick Driscoll. 2018. Up at Landscape Level: Results of the Kagera Transboundary Agro-Ecosystem Management Project. (Kagera “Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation: Opportunities and Challenges.” In Climate Change and Cities: Second TAMP). Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i6085e/i6085e.pdf Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network, edited by Cynthia Rosenzweig, William D. _____ 2018a. “FAO/GEF Regional Project CACILM-2: ‘Integrated Natural Resources Management in Drought-Prone Solecki, Patricia Romero-Lankao, Shagun Mehrotra, Shobhakar Dhakal, and Somayya Ali Ibrahim, 101-138. and Salt-Affected Agricultural Production Systems in Central Asia and Turkey.’” Webinar: Ecosystem-Based Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adaption in Dryland Ecosystems. August 9, 2018 by Makhmud Shaumarov and Sara MarjaniZadeh. Rome: FAO. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne. 2000. “Fiscal Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: The ICMS Ecológico in Brazil.” http://www.fao.org/3/CA1423EN/ca1423en.pdf. International Institute for Environment and Development, Environmental Economics Programme, Discussion _____ 2018b. “Forest and Farm Facility Summary Report (2012-2017): Putting Producers First Works: Impacts and Paper 00-01. 10.2139/ssrn.279173. Lessons Learned from Enabling Governments and Strengthening Forest and Farm Producer Organizations.” Rome: Gross, Lee and Louis Wertz. 2015.The Landscape Approach for Sustainability in African Agribusiness: Partnerships FAO. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I9155EN That Support Excellent Companies, Communities, and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners. _____ 2019. “Operational Guidelines for the Design, Implementation and Harmonization of Monitoring and https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/landscape-approach-sustainability-african-agribusiness/ Evaluation Systems for Climate-Smart Agriculture.” Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6077en/ Guijt, Irene. (ed.) 2007. Negotiated Learning: Collaborative Monitoring in Forest Resources Management. Washington, CA6077EN.pdf DC: Resources for the Future. _____ 2020a. “FAO’s Strategy for Private Sector Engagement 2021-2025.” November 2020. CL 165/4 Rev. 1. Hamilton, CIare, Raj Kumar Rai, Ram Bahadur Shrestha, Nakisha Maharjan, Leela Rasaily, and Sibongile Hood. One Hundred and Sixty-Fifth Session. Rome, November 30-December 4, 2020. http://www.fao.org/3/nd961en/ 2000. “Exploring Visions: Self-Monitoring and Evaluation Processes Within the Nepal-UK Community Forestry nd961en.pdf Project.” In Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, edited by Marisol _____ 2020b. Framework for Integrated Land Use Planning: An Innovative Approach. by Hakki Emrah Erdogan and Estrella, Jutta Blauert, Dindo Campilan, John Gaventa, Julian Gonsalves, Irene Guijt, Deb Johnson, and Roger Soledad Bastidas. http://www.fao.org/3/cb1170en/cb1170en.pdf. Ricafort, 15-31. London and Ottawa: Intermediate Technology Publications and the International Development Research Centre. FAO and the European Union. 2017. “Strengthening Sector Policies for Better Food Security and Nutrition Results: Political Economy Analysis” by Dubravka Bogic and Klaus Urban. Policy Guidance Note 8. Rome: FAO; Brussels: Hanstad, Tim. 1998. “Designing Land Registration Systems for Developing Countries.” American University EU. http://www.fao.org/3/i7212en/I7212EN.pdf International Law Review 13 (3): 647-703. FAO and United National Development Programme (UNDP). 2018. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Climate Change Adaptation Policies and Investments in the Agriculture Sectors.” Briefing Note, February 2018. http://www.fao. org/3/I8905EN/i8905en.pdf Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and BioCarbon Fund (BioCF) Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes. 2020 Designing Benefit Sharing Arrangements: A Resource for Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. (Accessed May 13, 2021) https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/bio-carbon/en/index.html 50 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 51 Harvey, Celia A., Mario Chacón, Camila I. Donatti, Eva Garen, Lee Hannah, Angela Andrade, Lucio Bede, Douglas Kusters, Koen. 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes and the Landscape Approach: An Exploration of the Concepts and Brown, Alicia Calle, Julia Chará, Chistopher Clement, Elizabeth Gray, Minh Ha Hoang, Peter Minang, Ana María Their Practical Implications. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Trobenbos International. https://www.tropenbos.org/ Rodríguez, Christina Seeberg‐Elverfeldt, Bambi Semroc, Seth Shames, Sean Smukler, Eduardo Somarriba, resources/publications/climate-smart+landscapes+and+the+landscape+approach+%E2%80%93+an+exploration+o Emmanuel Torquebiau, Jacob van Etten, and Eva Wollenberg. 2013. “Climate-Smart Landscapes: Opportunities f+the+concepts+and+their+practical+implications and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture.” Conservation Letters 7 (2): 77- 90. doi:10.1111/conl.12066. Kusters, Koen, Louise Buck, Maartje de Graaf, Peter Minang, Cora van Oosen, and Roderick Zagt. 2018. “Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Hawthorne, Sandra, Manuel Boissière, Mary Elizabeth Felker, and Stibniati Atmadja. 2016. “Assessing the Claims Initiatives.” Environmental Management 62: 170–181. doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0847-y of Participatory Measurement, Reporting and Verification (PMRV) in Achieving REDD+ Outcomes: A Systematic Review.” PLOS ONE 11 (11): e0157826. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157826. Kusters, Koen, Maartje De Graaf, Louise Buck, Katherine Galido, Alphonse Maindo, Heidi Mendoza, Tran Huu Nghi, Edi Purwanto, and Roderick Zagt. 2020. “Inclusive Landscape Governance for Sustainable Development: Heiner, Krista, Louise Buck, Lee Gross, Abigail Hart, and Nienke Stam. 2017. Public-Private-Civic Partnerships for Assessment Methodology and Lessons for Civil Society Organizations.” Land 9 (4): 128. doi:10.3390/ Sustainable Landscapes: A Practical Guide for Convenors. EcoAgriculture Partners and IDH, the Sustainable Trade land9040128. Initiative. https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Public-Private-Civic-Partnerships-for- Sustainable-Landscapes-Practical-Guide-for-Conveners_webVrs.pdf Landscapes for People, Food and Nature. n.d. “Landscape Performance Scorecard (LPS).” Tool submitted by Louise Buck. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners. (Accessed May 14, 2021) https://peoplefoodandnature.org/tool/ Hervé-Mignucci, Morgan, Gianleo Frisari, Valerio Micale, and Federico Mazza. 2013. Risk Gaps: First-Loss landscape-performance-scorecard-lps/ Protection Mechanisms. San Francisco: Climate Policy Initiative. https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/01/Risk-Gaps-First-Loss-Protection-Mechanisms.pdf Lapeyre, Renaud, Herlina Hartanto, and Romain Pirard. 2015. Designing Incentive Agreements for Conservation: An Innovative Approach. Jakarta, Indonesia: The Nature Conservancy. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Books/BPirard1501.pdf Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change edited by Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo Heyer, 75-91. Geneva: IPCC. https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/ Larson, Anne M. 2012. Tenure Rights and Access to Forests: A Training Manual for Research. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf Lawrence, Anna, Krishna Paudel, Richard Barnes, and Yam Malla. 2006. “Adaptive Value of Participatory International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). n.d. Technologies and Approaches on Biodiversity Monitoring in Community Forestry.” Environmental Conservation 33 (4): 325-334. doi:10.1017/ Sustainable Land Management in Central Asia. Beirut: ICARDA. https://www.wocat.net/library/media/97/ s0376892906003432. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). n.d.-a. “Forest and Farm Facility Phase I.” Forests, Lee, David R., Svetlana Edmeades, Erwin De Nys, Andrew McDonald, and Willem Janssen. 2014. “Developing Local Locally-Controlled Forestry (Accessed September 29, 2020) https://www.iied.org/forest-farm-facility-phase-i Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in Agriculture: A Priority-Setting Approach with Application to Latin America.” Global Environmental Change 29: 78-91. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.002. _____ n.d.-b. “Case Studies: Mexico-National PSAH Programme.” Payments for Watershed Markets – Information from Schemes in Developing Countries London: IIED (Accessed September 27, 2020) https://watershedmarkets. Luttrell, Cecilia, Lasse Loft, Maria Fernanda Gebara, Demetrius Kweka, Maria Brockhaus, Arild Angelsen, and org/casestudies/Mexico_National_PSAH_eng.html William D. Sunderlin. 2013. “Who Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452 International Model Forest Network. 2019. Model Forest Toolkit: A How-To Manual. Ottowa: International Model Forest Network. https://imfn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Toolkit2019_Eng_All-in-One_FINAL.pdf Lyons, Anna. 2014. Building a Collaborative Vision for Landscape Action: Lombok Project Experience – A Case Study of Integrated Watershed Management in Renggung Watershed, Central Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). n.d. “Forest Landscape Restoration.” https://www.iucn. by Flora & Fauna International. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners. https://peoplefoodandnature.org/wp- org/theme/forests/our-work/forest-landscape-restoration content/uploads/2014/11/FFI_Lombok_LPFNCaseStudy_November12_2014.pdf IVM Institute for Environmental Studies. n.d. “CLUMondo Model” Environmental Geography. Amsterdam: VU Macqueen, Duncan, Jhony Zapata, Jeffrey Y. Campbell, Sony Baral, Kanimang Camara, Leonardo Chavez, Sophie University Amsterdam. (Accessed May 16, 2021) https://www.environmentalgeography.nl/site/data-models/ Grouwels, Fred Kafeero, Edward Kamara, Ewald Rametsteiner, and Ogden Rodas. 2014. Multi-Sectoral Platforms models/clumondo-model/ for Planning and Implementation: How They Might Better Serve Forest and Farm Producers. Forest and Farm Facility Working Paper 2. Rome: FAO. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G03880.pdf Khatri-Chhetri, Arun, Anjali Pant, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Vijya Vardhan Vasireddy, and Akhilesh Yadav. 2019. “Stakeholders’ Prioritization of Climate-Smart Agriculture Interventions: Evaluation of a Framework.” Agricultural Malla, Yam, Richard Barnes, Krishna Paudel, Anna Lawrence, Hemant Ojha, and Kate Green. 2002. Common Systems 174: 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.002. Property Forest Resource Management in Nepal: Developing Monitoring Systems for Use at the Local Level. Reading, UK: IRDD, University of Reading, UK, ForestAction, Nepal, and ECI, University of Oxford, UK. https://assets. Klapwijk, C.J., M.T. van Wijk, T.S. Rosenstock, P.J.A. van Asten, P.K. Thornton, and K.E. Giller. 2014. “Analysis publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d4aed915d3cfd001940/R7514projrep.pdf of Trade-Offs in Agricultural Systems: Current Status and Way Forward.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 110-115. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.012. May, Peter H., Maria Fernanda Gebara, Bruna Ranção Conti, Guilherme Rodrigues Lima. 2012. The “Ecological” Value Added Tax (ICMS-Ecológico) in Brazil and Its Effectiveness in State Biodiversity Conservation: A Comparative Knight, Rachael S. 2010. Statutory Recognition of Customary Land Rights in Africa. FAO Legislative Study 105. Analysis. Paper presented at 12th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics ISEE Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i1945e/i1945e00.htm 2012: Ecological Economics and Rio +20, Rio de Janeiro, June 16-19, 2012. Panel Session: “The role of Economic Kumar, Pushpam ed. 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Instruments in the Conservation Policy Mix.” Abingdon and New York: Routledge. McLoughlin, Claire. 2014. Political Economy Analysis: Topic Guide (2nd ed.) Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham. 52 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 53 Meijer, Johan, Sara Scherr, Seth Shames, and Paul Giesen. 2018. Spatial Modelling of Participatory Landscape Oteros-Rozas, Elisa, Berta Martín-López, Tim Daw, Erin L. Bohensky, James R.A. Butler, Rosemary Hill, Julia Scenarios: Synthesis and Lessons Learned from Exploring Potential SDG Progress in 3 Case Studies. The Hague: Martin-Ortega, Allyson Quinlan, Federica Ravera, Isabel Ruiz-Mallén, Matilda Thyresson, Jayalakshmi Mistry, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/ Ignacio Palomo, Garry D. Peterson, Tobias Plieninger, Kerry A. Waylen, Dylan M. Beach, Iris C. Bohnet, Maike PBL_2018_2613_spatial-modelling-of-participatory-landscape-scenarios_UK.pdf Hamann, Jan Hanspach, Klaud Hubacek, Sandra Lavorel, and Sandra P. Vilardy. 2015. “Participatory Scenario Planning in Place-Based Social-Ecological Research: Insights and Experiences from 23 Case Studies.” Ecology and Milder, Jeffrey C., Abigail K. Hart, Philip Dobie, Joshua Minai, and Christi Zaleski. 2014. “Integrated Landscape Society 20 (4): 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432 Initiatives for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation: A Region-Wide Assessment.”  World Development 54: 68-80. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.006. Parizat, Roy. 2020. “Getting the Incentives Right on Forest Protection.” World Bank Blogs (blog), March 18, 2020. https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/getting-incentives-right-forest-protection Minang, Peter A., Meine van Noordwijk, Olivia E. Freeman, Cheikh Mbow, Jan de Leeuw, and Delia Catacutan eds. 2015a. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Parsons, Jim, Caitlin Gokey, and Monica Thornton. 2013. Indicators of Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts in Security and Justice Programming. London: Department for International Development (DFID). Minang, Peter A., Lalisa A. Duguma, Dieudonne Alegami, and Meine Van Noordwijk. 2015b. “Scale Considerations Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ on Landscape Approaches” in Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice edited by Peter A. Minang, file/304626/Indicators.pdf Meine van Noordwijk, Olivia E. Freeman, Cheikh Mbow, Jan de Leeuw, Delia Catacutan, 121-133. Nairobi: ICRAF. http://apps.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/B17753.pdf Pascual, Unai, Jacob Phelps, Eneko Garmendia, Katrina Brown, Esteve Corbera, Adrian Martin, Erik Gomez-Baggethun, and Roldan Muradian. 2014. “Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Moncrieffe, Joy and Cecilia Luttrell. 2005. An Analytical Framework for Understanding the Political Economy of Services.” BioScience 64 (11): 1027-1036. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu146. Sectors and Policy Arenas. London: Overseas Development Institute. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/3898.pdf PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2020. IMAGE Integrated Model to Assess the Global Motavalli, Peter, Kelly Nelson, Ranjith Udawatta, Shibu Jose, and Sougata Bardhan. 2013. “Global Achievements Environment. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Accessed May 16, 2021) https:// in Sustainable Land Management.” International Soil and Water Conservation Research 1 (1): 1-10. doi:10.1016/ models.pbl.nl/image/index.php/Welcome_to_IMAGE_3.0_Documentation s2095-6339(15)30044-7. Peach Brown, H. Carolyn. 2018. “An Assessment of Institutional Capacity for Integrated Landscape Management Muñoz-Piña, Carlos, Alejandro Guevara, Juan Manuel Torres, and Josephina Braña. 2008. “Paying for the in Eastern Cameroon.” Environmental Management 62 (1): 118-127. doi:10.1007/s00267-018-1048-z. Hydrological Services of Mexico’s Forests: Analysis, Negotiations and Results.” Ecological Economics. 65 (4): 725- 36. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031. Persha, Lauren, and Krister Andersson. 2014. “Elite Capture Risk and Mitigation in Decentralized Forest Governance Regimes.” Global Environmental Change 24 (1): 265-276. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.005. Muñoz-Piña, Carlos, Marisol Rivera, Alfredo Cisneros, and Helena García. 2011. “Retos de la Focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México.” Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros Pham, Thu Thuy, Karen Bennet, Vu Tan Phuong, Jake Brunner, Le Ngoc Dung, and Nguyen Dinh Tien. 2013. 228 (1): 87–112. Payments for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From Policy to Practice. Occasional Paper 93. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Myers Madeira, Erin, Lisa Kelley, Jill Blockhus, David Ganz, Rane Cortez, and Greg Fishbein. 2013. Sharing the Benefits of REDD+: Lessons from the Field. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www. Purnomo, H., D. Suyamto, L. Abdullah, and R.H. Irawati. 2012. “REDD+ Actor Analysis and Political Mapping: An conservationgateway.org/Documents/tnc_benefit%20sharing_web.pdf Indonesian Case Study.” International Forestry Review 14 (1): 74-89. doi:10.1505/146554812799973208. Natural Capital Project. n.d.-a. “InVEST.” Natural Capital Project. Stanford: Stanford University (Accessed May 16, REDD-Monitor. 2015. “Acre, Brazil: A Story of Deforestation, Reduced Deforestation, and Now REDD.” (Accessed 2021) https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest May 17, 2021) https://redd-monitor.org/2015/07/21/acre-brazil-a-story-of-deforestation-reduced-deforestation- and-now-redd/ _____ n.d.-b. “MESH.” Natural Capital Project. Stanford: Stanford University (Accessed May 16, 2021) https:// naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/mesh Reed, Mark S., Anil Graves, Norman Dandy, Helena Posthumus, Klaus Hubacek, Joe Morris, Christina Prell, Claire H. Quinn, and Lindsay C. Stringer. 2009. “Who’s In and Why? A Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods Neely, C., M. Bourne, S. Chesterman, I. Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud, D. Bojic, and D. Vallée. 2017. Implementing the for Natural Resource Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1933-49. doi:10.1016/j. 2030 Agenda for Food and Agriculture: Accelerating Impact through Cross-Sectoral Coordination at the Country Level. jenvman.2009.01.001. Rome: ICRAF and FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i7749e/i7749e.pdf Reed, James, Liz Deakin, and Terry Sunderland. 2015. “What Are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and How Nepstad, D., C. Stickler, O. Carvalho, M. Leal, J. Shimada, O. David, A. Ribeiro. 2018. “Mato Grosso, Brazil” in The Effectively Have They Been Implemented in the Tropics: A Systematic Map Protocol.” Environment Evidence 4: 2. State of Jurisdictional Sustainability, edited by C. Stickler et al. San Francisco, CA: EII; Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR; https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-4-2 Boulder, CO: GCF-TF. Reed, James, Josh Van Vianen, Elizabeth L. Deakin, Jos Barlow, and Terry Sunderland. 2016. “Integrated Neugarten, Rachel A., Penny F. Langhammer, Elena Osipova, Kenneth J. Bagstad, Nirmal Bhagabati, Stuart Landscape Approaches to Managing Social and Environmental Issues in the Tropics: Learning from the Past to H. M. Butchart, Nigel Dudley, et al. 2018. Tools for Measuring, Modelling, and Valuing Ecosystem Services. Gland, Guide the Future.” Global Change Biology 22 (7): 2540-2554. Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47778 Ring, Irene. 2008. “Integrating Local Ecological Services into Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: The Case of the Open Foris. n.d. “Home: openforis.” (Accessed May 14, 2021) http://www.openforis.org/ Ecological ICMS in Brazil.” Land Use Policy 25 (4): 485-497. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). n.d. “Policy Coherence for Sustainable Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A. F., James Reed, and Terry Sunderland. 2018. “From Synergy to Complexity: The Trend Development Toolkit” (Accessed May 14, 2021) https://www.oecd.org/governance/pcsd/toolkit/#d.en.377019 Toward Integrated Value Chain and Landscape Governance.” Environmental Management 62 (1): 1-14. doi:10.1007/ s00267-018-1055-0. 54 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 55 Satoyama Initiative. 2019. “Towards an Integrated Multi-Stakeholder Landscape Approach to Reconciling Values Stephenson, P.J. and Sheila O’Connor. 2014. A Case Study of Conservation Monitoring Related to Aichi Targets: and Enhancing Synergies: A Case Study in Taiwan.” Tokyo: Satoyama Initiative (Accessed May 17, 2021) https:// Experiences and Lessons from WWF. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International. satoyama-initiative.org/case_studies/towards-an-integrated-multi-stakeholder-landscape-approach-to- reconciling-values-and-enhancing-synergies-a-case-study-in-taiwan/ Sullivan, Tressan, Alex Solovov, Gilead Mushaija, Malaki Msigwa, and Mustapha Issa. 2019. “An Innovative, Affordable, and Decentralized Model for Land Registration and Administration at a National Scale in Sayer, Jeffrey, Terry Sunderland, Jaboury Ghazoul, Jean-Laurent Pfund, Doulgas Sheil, Erik Meijaard, Michelle Tanzania.” LandLinks. Paper presented at the 2019 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington, Venter, Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono, Michael Day, Claude Garcia, Cora van Oosten, and Louise E. Buck. 2013. DC, March 25-29, 2019. https://www.land-links.org/research-publication/an-innovative-affordable-and- “Ten Principles for a Landscape Approach to Reconciling Agriculture, Conservation, and Other Competing Land decentralized-model-for-land-registration-and-administration-at-a-national-scale-in-tanzania-2/ Uses.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21): 8349-56. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110. Suroso, Djoko, Ti Wahyu Hadi, Ibnu Sofian, Hamzah Latief, Oman Abdurahman, Hendra Julianto and Budhi Sayer, Jeffrey, Chris Margules, Agni K. Boedhihartono, Terry Sunderland, James D. Langston, James Reed, Setiawan. 2009. “Vulnerability of Small Islands to Climate Change in Indonesia: A Case Study of Lombok Island, Rebecca Riggs, Louise E. Buck, Bruce M. Campbell, Koen Kusters, Chris Elliott, Peter A. Minang, Allan Dale, Herry Province of Nusa Tenggara Barat.” Presented at the International Conference on Climate Change Impacts on Purnomo, James R. Stevenson, Petrus Gunarso, and Agus Purnomo, A. 2017. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Water Resources and Coastal Management in Developing Countries, Manado, Indonesia, May, 2009. Landscape Approaches to Conservation and Development.” Sustainability Science 12 (3): 465-476. TerrAfrica. 2008. Sustainable Land Management/TerrAfrica Knowledge Base: How-to complete manual for Sayre, Roger, Ellen Roca, Gina Sedaghatkish, Bruce Young, Shirley Keel, Roberto Roca, and Stuart Sheppard. administrators, by Géraud Servin. http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/terrafrica/docs/KB_how_to_ 2000. Nature in Focus: Rapid Ecological Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. complete_manual_jun20.pdf Schmeer, Kammi. 1999. Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2010. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): A Casebook of Reform, Abt Associates Inc. On-the-Ground Experience by Nicole R. Virgilio, Sarene Marshall, Olaf Zerbock, and Christopher Holmes. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/media/climatechange/redd-casebook-tnc-ci-wcs.pdf Schmink, Marianne, Jeffrey Hoelle, Carlos Valério A. Gomes, and Gregory M. Thaler. 2017. “From Contested to ‘Green’ Frontiers in the Amazon? A Long-Term Analysis of São Félix do Xingu, Brazil.” The Journal of Peasant Thompson, I., and T. Christophersen eds. 2008. Cross-Sectoral Toolkit for the Conservation and Sustainable Studies 46 (2): 377-399. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1381841. Management of Forest Biodiversity. Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 39. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-39-en.pdf Schuck, Eric, William Nganje, and Debazou Yantio. 2002. “The Role of Land Tenure and Extension Education in the Adoption of Slash and Burn Agriculture.” Ecological Economics 43 (1): 61-70. doi 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00180-5. Topp-Jørgensen, Elmer, Michael K. Poulsen, Jens Friis Lund, and John F. Massao. 2005. “Community-Based Monitoring of Natural Resource Use and Forest Quality in Montane Forests and Miombo Woodlands of Shames, Seth, Margot Hill Clarvis, and Gabrielle Kissinger. 2014. Financing Strategies for Integrated Landscape Tanzania.” Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653-77. Investment: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners: https://ecoagriculture.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/FinancingStrategiesforIntegratedLandscapeInvestment_Shames_etal_2014.pdf UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx Shames, Seth, Krista Heiner, and Sara J. Scherr. 2017. Public Policy Guidelines for Integrated Landscape Management. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners: https://ecoagriculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ United Nations (UN). n.d. “Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration.” United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Public-Policy-Guidelines-for-ILM-January-2017-Final.pdf Partnerships Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=2015 Shames, Seth, Sara Scherr, Jan Willem den Besten. 2017. The Landscape Investment and Finance Tool (LIFT). Trial _____ 2018. “Initial Voluntary National Contributions to Achieving One or More of the Global Forest Goals and Version 1.0 (in development). Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners. https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/ Targets Set Out in the UNSPF” by Edward Sheikh A. Kamara (Accessed September 29, 2021) https://www.un.org/ the-landscape-investment-and-finance-toolkit/ esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VNC_Liberia_March2018.pdf Shames, Seth, Bastiaan Louman, and Sarah Scherr. 2019. The Landscape Assessment of Financial Flows: A _____ 2019. “Format for Reporting on Progress Towards the Implementation of the United Nations Strategic Plan Methodology. Wageningen: Tropenbos International and Eco Agriculture Partners. https://ecoagriculture.org/ for Forests 2017–2030: The United Nations Forest Instrument and Voluntary National Contributions.” (Accessed publication/the-landscape-assessment-of-financial-flows/ May 17, 2021) https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Liberia.pdf SocNetV. n.d. “Social Network Visualizer - SocNetV: Social Network Analysis and Visualization Software” by United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 2017. Sustainable Land Management Contribution Dimitris Kalamaras (Accessed May 18, 2021) https://socnetv.org/ to Successful Land-Based Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface by Sanz, María José, Joris de Vente, Jean-Luc Chotte, Martial Bernoux, German Kust. Bonn: United Nations Sommerville, Matthew, Julia P.G. Jones, Michael Rahajaharison, and Eleanor J. Milner-Gulland. 2010. “The Role of Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Fairness and Benefit Distribution in Community-Based Payment for Environmental Services Interventions. A Case Study from Menabe, Madagascar.” Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1262–71. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2006. “Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Processes: A UNDP Capacity Development Resource,” by Ndey Isatou Njie and Lara Yocarini. Conference Paper #7 Working Draft, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2008. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Programme: Phase 2 November 6, 2006. https://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity- 2009 - 2014 ‘Consolidation and Securing Programme Sustainability’ by Amanda Younge Hayes and Wendy Crane. A development/drivers-of-change/accountability/multi-stakeholder-engagement-processes/Engagement- Strategic Plan of Action for South Africa, August 2008. https://www.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ Processes-cp7.pdf. skep-strategic-plan-2009-2014.pdf United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). n.d. “Mitigation.” https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate- Stem, Caroline, Richard Margoluis, Nick Salafsky, and Marcia Brown. 2005. “Monitoring and Evaluation in change/what-we-do/mitigation Conservation: A Review of Trends and Approaches.” Conservation Biology 19 (2): 295-309. doi:10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2005.00594.x. 56 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 57 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2011. Assessing the Costs and Benefits _____ 2013.”WB/Brazil: 700,000 to Benefit from Enhanced Public Services in the State of Acre.” Press release, of Adaptation Options: An Overview of Approaches. The Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and December 5, 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank (Accessed May 17, 2021) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ Adaptation to Climate Change. Bonn: UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/pub_nwp_costs_ press-release/2013/12/05/wb-brazil-700-000-to-benefit-from-enhanced-public-services-in-the-state-of-acre benefits_adaptation.pdf _____ 2016a. Landscape Approach 101 [eCourse]. Open Learning Campus. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://olc. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2013. “USAID Issue Brief: Tenure, Governance, worldbank.org/facilitated/link/00018381 and Natural Resource Management: Contributions to USAID Development Objectives” by Safia Aggarwal and Mark S. Freudenberger. Washington, DC: USAID. https://land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Tenure- _____ 2016b. Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Stakeholder Mapping Toolkit: A Practical Guide for Stakeholder Analysis Governance-and-Natural-Resource-Management.pdf in PPD Using the Net-Map Method. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ en/842721467995900796/pdf/106395-WP-PUBLIC-PPD-Stakeholder-Mapping-Toolkit-2016.pdf van Oosten, Cora. 2013. “Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? A Governance Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration.” Natureza & Conservação 11 (2): 119-126. _____ 2016c. World Bank Group Forest Action Plan (FY16-20). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/24026 Varns, Theodore, Rane Cortez, Lex Hovani, and Paul Kingsbury. 2018. São Félix do Xingu, Brazil: A Jurisdictional Approach to Conserving the Amazon. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/content/ _____ 2017. “Sustainable Low-Carbon Development in Orinoquia Region Project (P160680).” Washington, DC: dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC_JurisdictionalApproaches_CaseStudies_Brazil.pdf World Bank (Accessed May 17, 2021) https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/ P160680 Vegetationmap4africa. n.d. “The Vegetationmap4africaproject.” Vegetationmap4africa (Accessed May 14, 2021) https://vegetationmap4africa.org/About.html _____ 2019a. “Banking on Impact: What You Need to Know About Results-Based Financing.” World Bank News (feature story), June 28, 2019. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/06/28/banking-on-impact- Vermeulen, Sonja J., Andrew J. Challinor, Philip K. Thornton, Bruce M. Campbell, Nishadi Eriyagama, Joost M. what-you-need-to-know-about-results-based-financing Vervoort, James Kinyangi, Andy Jarvis, Peter Läderach, Julian Ramirez-Villegas, Kathryn J. Nicklin, Ed Hawkins, and Daniel R. Smith. 2013. “Addressing Uncertainty in Adaptation Planning for Agriculture.” Proceedings of The _____ 2019b. The World Bank Green Bond Impact Report 2019. November 2019. Washington, DC: World Bank. National Academy of Sciences 110 (21): 8357-62. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219441110. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/790081576615720375/IBRD-Green-Bond-Impact-Report-FY-2019.pdf Vermunt, Dorith A., Pita A. Verweij, and René W. Verburg. 2020. “What Hampers Implementation of Integrated World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT). n.d. “About.” https://www.wocat.net/en/ Landscape Approaches in Rural Landscapes?” Current Landscape Ecology Reports 5 (4): 99-115. doi:10.1007/ about s40823-020-00057-6. World Resources Institute (WRI). 2011. A Compilation of Green Economy Policies, Programs, and Initiatives from Vukomanovic, Jelena, Megan Skrip, and Ross Meentemeyer. 2019. “Making It Spatial Makes It Personal: Engaging Around the World. The Green Economy in Practice: Interactive Workshop 1, February 11, 2011. http://pdf.wri.org/ Stakeholders With Geospatial Participatory Modeling.” Land 8 (2): 38. doi:10.3390/land8020038. green_economy_compilation_2011-02.pdf Wehrmman, Babette. 2017. Understanding, Preventing and Solving Land Conflicts: A Practical Guide and Toolbox. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). n.d.-a. “Payments for Ecosystem Services.” WWF. https://wwf.panda.org/ Bonn and Eschborn: GIZ. https://landportal.org/library/resources/understanding-preventing-and-solving-land- knowledge_hub/where_we_work/black_sea_basin/danube_carpathian/our_solutions/green_economy/pes/ conflicts-practical-guide-and-toolbox _____ n.d.-b. “Southern Africa: Southern Namibia into South Africa” by Shirley Cowling. Terrestrial Ecoregions, Willemen, Louise, Raffaela Kozar, Ayal Desalegn, and Louise Buck. 2014. Spatial Planning and Monitoring of Deserts and Xeric Shrublands. Washington, DC: WWF (Accessed September 26, 2020) https://www.worldwildlife. Landscape Interventions: Maps to Link People with Their Landscapes. A Users’ Guide. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture org/ecoregions/at1322 Partners. https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/a-landscape-perspective-on-monitoring-evaluation-for- _____ 2013. Environmental Service Incentives System in the State of Acre, Brazil: Lessons for Policies, Programmes sustainable-land-management/spatial-planning-and-monitoring-of-landscape-interventions-maps-to-link- and Strategies for Jurisdiction-Wide REDD+ by Anthony Anderson, Carlos Rittl, Luis Meneses-Filho, Brent Millikan, people-with-their-landscapes/ Emily Brickell, and Sarah Hutchison. Surrey: WWF-UK. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/acre_brazil_sisa_ Wongbusarakum, Supin, Erin Myers Madeira, Herlina Hartanto. 2014. Strengthening the Social Impacts of report___english_10_13.pdf Sustainable Landscapes Programs: A Practitioner’s Guidebook to Strengthen and Monitor Human Well-Being Outcomes. WWF-Nepal. 2013. Hariyo Ban Program Internal Governance Tool 3: Participatory Governance Assessment (PGA). Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/ Kathmandu: WWF-Nepal (Accessed 25 September 2020) https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/ PeopleConservation/SocialScience/Pages/strengthening-social-impacts.aspx toolkit_3_participatory_governance_assessmentss.pdf World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). n.d.-a “Resilience Diagnostic and Decision Support Tool.” ICRAF Geoscience Yanggen, David, Kenneth Angu, and Nicodeeme Tchamou eds. 2010. Landscape-Scale Conservation in the Congo Lab Landscape Portal (Accessed May 14, 2021) http://landscapeportal.org/sharedApp/ Basin: Lessons Learned from the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Gland, Switzerland: _____ n.d.-b “SHARED” (Accessed September 29, 2020) Available at: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/shared IUCN. _____ 2015. “LUMENS.” Tools (Accessed May 14, 2021) https://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/lumens Zall Kusek, Jody and Ray C. Rist. 2004. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Handbook for Development Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ World Bank. n.d. “Spatial Agent: A World of Data at Your Fingertips.” Open Learning Campus. Washington, DC: handle/10986/14926 World Bank (Accessed May 16, 2021). https://olc.worldbank.org/about-olc/spatial-agent-world-data-your- fingertips Zanzanaini, Camilla, Binh Thi Trần, Chandni Singh, Abigail Hart, Jeffrey Milder, and Fabrice DeClerck. 2017. “Integrated Landscape Initiatives for Agriculture, Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation: An Assessment _____ 2008. The Political Economy of Policy Reform: Issues and Implications for Policy Dialogue and Development of Experiences from South and Southeast Asia.” Landscape and Urban Planning 165: 11-21. doi:10.1016/j. Operations. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7782 landurbplan.2017.03.010. 58 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 59 Appendixes Appendix B: Methodology and Limitations Methodology The researchers first undertook a preliminary review of the literature to evaluate the status of integrated land use initiatives around the globe. This analysis led to identification of core activities that are central to integrated land use initiatives at the planning and implementation phases; their intended outcomes; and Appendix A: Glossary elements of creating an enabling policy environment. Categorizing these core activities by their functions enabled Adaptation Climate change adaptation is “the process of adjustment to actual or expected identification of eight preliminary thematic areas to assess integrated land use initiatives. These themes were: boundary setting; land ownership issues/tenure; stakeholders and stakeholder engagement; environmental climate and its effects” (IPCC 2014). focus; sectoral/actor focus; economic focus; financing and technical support; and monitoring outcomes and Adaptive Management “A strategy that allows stakeholders to operate in the face of uncertainty, measuring impact. learning from the effects of their resource management practices on resource To test the themes identified in the preliminary literature review, semistructured interviews were conducted quality and quantity (sustainability), including biodiversity, at certain scales, and with 10 experts in integrated land use initiatives who were working for international organizations, nonprofits, its links with ecosystem functioning at the same or larger scales” (FAO 2003). research institutions, and the private sector, all of which have a global reach. The interviews were each about 45 minutes long, and framed around a set of open-ended questions. Beyond the initial interviews, many of the Collaborative Planning “A way for stakeholders to discuss how they will meet their objectives and realize experts also sent follow-up emails with relevant reports, resources, and/or case studies. their vision for the landscape. They identify problems and come up with solutions with multiple benefits” (World Bank 2016a). The eight preliminary themes were shared with interviewees in advance. Interviewees were asked: Landscape A socioecological system that includes: “topography, natural resources, 1. Are the preliminary themes/criteria identified relevant, and will they help us capture the most interesting aspects of approaches and actors out there? biodiversity, and various land uses. It is influenced by climate and culture, 2. Are any major themes/criteria missing? as well as ecological processes and human activity. A landscape has various 3. What would you change in the list? functionalities and boundaries” (World Bank 2016a). 4. For some of the themes/criteria about which you have the most knowledge, who/what would make the most informative “case studies” of innovation? Who is doing different work in this space? How do approaches Landscape Approach “Managing multiple land uses in an integrated manner, considering both the differ? natural environment and the human systems that depend on it” (World Bank 5. Can you give us examples of initiatives/organizations within each theme that you think are the most 2016a). important/successful? Land Tenure Rights “A set of overlapping and multi-faceted rights, which include ownership, access, These interviews helped the researchers refine the initial list of themes and identify relevant studies, reports, and use, management, exclusion, transfer, and alienation rights” (Denier et al 2015). other sources of data for in-depth analysis. The researchers then explored each of these thematic areas in detail, breaking down their key features, specific initiatives that illustrated their characteristics and best practices, and Mitigation Climate change mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or prevent the emission of opportunities for further advancements. This included documenting what had been done and where; the critical GHGs (UNEP n.d.) challenges faced by these programs; and best practices, as recommended by practitioners and other experts in related fields. More than 150 integrated land use initiatives were identified and reviewed. Figure B.1 provides a Multistakeholder Platform A forum for different stakeholders to negotiate joint ventures, identify mutually graphic representation of the logic used to identify and analyze the themes. (MSP) acceptable solutions, and build partnerships and interlinkages (UNDP 2006). Stakeholder Analysis Analysis in which stakeholders are identified and categorized (based on, for example, interest, influence, or resource mobilization capacity), and relationships between them are explored. This process allows practitioners to determine how to engage stakeholders, build effective partnerships and coalitions, identify potential conflicts, and guide a participatory, consensus-building process (Purnomo et al 2012; Reed et al 2009; Schmeer 1999). Sustainable Land “The process of managing a land management unit – farms, production forests, Management (SLM) protected areas – in a sustainable way. Sustainable land management across a range of different land management units is necessary in order to achieve sustainable landscapes. However, SLM commonly focuses on the site level and on particular stakeholder groups, rather than on the broader landscape level” (Denier et al 2015). Results-Based Finance A mechanism whereby funding is contingent on the pre-agreed and independent verification of project outcomes (World Bank 2019a). 60 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 61 Figure B.1: Schematic Diagram of Methodology Limitations This study provides an overview of selected integrated land use approaches; its scope is intentionally narrow. The study emphasizes the forest and agriculture sectors, which are most frequently the focus of integrated land CORE ACTIVITIES UNDER INTEGRATED LAND USE INITIATIVES use initiatives. These initiatives are typically context-specific, and influenced by numerous social, economic, • Clear land tenure rights secured (restoration laws/by-laws established) • Improved access to markets environmental, and political variables. • Mechanism for incentives (policy-related and market-based) The focus of this report is on the practical implementation of integrated land use planning initiatives. • Robust financial institutions Implementation of these initiatives is influenced by macro issues such as market structures, land tenure, and • Sustained national commitment • Conservation know-how (scientific community support) government regulation. Each of these wider topics has a wealth of dedicated reports, documents, and guidance, which we have explored in the literature. This report touches upon these areas in relation to integrated land use initiatives specifically, but it does not provide an exhaustive exploration. Furthermore, there is a scarcity of impact evaluation reports for integrated land use initiatives; therefore, these have not been reviewed, and the report, as a result, has not been able to assess potentially successful programs to draw more nuanced, data-driven conclusions for practitioners. This report broadly discusses the relevant KEY INTENDED thematic areas that various stakeholders can use to guide their assessments of integrated land use initiatives PROGRAM DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES AND and identify pathways to make existing programs more holistic and sustainable. The integrated land use OTHER BENEFITS approach is an evolving concept and a moving target, necessitating further exploration and reevaluation. CORE ACTIVITIES UNDER SUSTAINABLE NATURAL SUSTAINABLE NATURAL SOCIAL BENEFITS INTEGRATED LAND USE INITIATIVES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT • Increase in community protected areas • Situation analysis • Agronomic practices • Multisectoral participation • Reduced outmigration (intercropping, crop cover, etc.) • Improved food security • Stakeholder analysis • Vertical coordination • Conservation agriculture (between government entities) • Technical and financial feasibility analysis • Water management • Multistakeholder forums ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS • Multiscale capacity needs assessment • Carbon sequestered (national/subnational/regional/community) • Agro-forestry • Gender equity • Higher input use efficiency • Defining clear stakeholder roles and • Crop livestock mix • Private sector participation • Soil health improvement responsibilities (biomass/carbon/water holding capacity) • Rangeland restoration • Robust financing mechanisms • Improved biodiversity • Community representation at all stages • Higher forest cover (including program design) • Alignment with international commitments • Climate change adaptation and resilience • Extension and communication plan • Financing plan ECONOMIC BENEFITS • Increase in crop yield/productivity • Monitoring and evaluation framework • Increase in income • Income diversification All core activities identified at a broad level were categorized under eight themes for ease of analysis EIGHT THEMES 1 - Multistakeholder engagement 2 - Environmental focus 3 - Economic focus 4 - Boundary setting 5 - Land tenure 6 - Financing strategies 7 - Monitoring, evaluation, and learning 8 - Cross-sectoral coordination FOR EACH THEME: 1 - Discussion on key features/core activities 2 - Discussion on best practices 3 - Challenges and opportunities 62 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 63 Appendix C: Case Studies Full descriptions and best practices from the following 13 case studies can be found in the supplemental booklet of resources and case studies, which serves as a companion to this report, available at www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/knowledge-center. These case studies illustrate how integrated land use initiatives work in practice. The case studies are presented alphabetically by region, then by country. Table C.1: Case Studies by Region Case Study Country Scale Relevant Themes Page in supplemental booklet Africa Multisectoral Sustainable Forest Liberia National MSE, Environmental Focus, 11 Management Economic Focus, Land Tenure, Financing Strategies, Cross- Sectoral Engagement Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Programme South Regional MSE, Environmental Focus, 12 (SKEP) in Namaqualand Africa Economic Focus, Financing Strategies, MEL, Cross-Sectoral Coordination Community-Based Monitoring of Forests Tanzania Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 13 and Woodlands Economic Focus, MEL Kagera Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Tanzania Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, Cross- 14 Management Project (Kagera TAMP), Sectoral Coordination Kyazi Microcatchment, Missenyi District East Asia and the Pacific Integrated Watershed Management in Indonesia Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 16 Reggung Watershed, Central Lombok, Economic Focus, Cross-Sectoral West Nusa Tenggara Coordination The Forest-River-Village-Sea Taiwan Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 17 Ecoagriculture Initiative Economic Focus Europe and Central Asia Integrated Natural Resource Management Central Regional/ MSE, Environmental Focus, 18 in Drought-Prone and Salt-Affected Asia and Economic Focus, Boundary Agricultural Production Landscapes in Turkey Multinational Setting, Financing Strategies, MEL, Central Asia and Turkey (CACILM-1 and 2) Cross-Sectoral Coordination Global WWF Global Monitoring and Evaluation Global National/ MSE, Environmental Focus, 19 Strategy Global Financing Strategies, MEL Latin America Incentivizing Conservation through an Brazil Sub-national MSE, Environmental Focus, 20 Ecological Tax in Brazil (ICMS Ecológico) (multiple Economic Focus, Financing states) Strategies, MEL, Cross-Sectoral Coordination State System of Incentives for Brazil Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 21 Environmental Services (SISA) and REDD Economic Focus, Boundary Early Movers (REM) Program, State of Setting, Financing Strategies, MEL, Acre Cross-Sectoral Coordination The Nature Conservancy’s Program in the Brazil Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 23 Municipality of São Félix do Xingu Economic Focus, Boundary Setting, Land Tenure, Financing Strategies, Cross-Sectoral Coordination Orinoquía Sustainable Integrated Colombia Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 25 Landscape Program (OSILP) Economic Focus, Land Tenure, Financing Strategies, MEL, Cross- Sectoral Coordination The Payment for Hydrological Mexico Subnational MSE, Environmental Focus, 26 Environmental Services (PSAH) Program Economic Focus, Financing Strategies, MEL, Cross-Sectoral Coordination 64 Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives 65 www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org