Table 3.
The potential and challenges of integrated landscape-level initiatives (ILLIs) as entry points for integrated landscape approaches
| Type of ILLIa | Potential | Challenges | Referencesb |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integrated forest and water management, Sweden | Integrated goals (economic, ecological, sociocultural); space for citizen and private sector participation; clear rules | Operationalization of how several objectives can best be balanced in an integrated approach | Eriksson et al. 2018 |
| Forest landscape restoration, China | Integrated goals (economic, ecological, social); more equitable benefit sharing; new space for multi-stakeholder collaboration; greater fund-raising capacity | Non-participation of larger forest owners; limited civil society and community involvement; separation of land and tree ownership; political commitment with change in administration; hierarchical network dominated by the State | Long et al. 2018 |
| Great Barrier Reef catchment management, Australia | Preventing implementation failure; improved coordination of governance in subdomains for increased water quality at catchment level | Institutional fragmentation; holistic catchment planning and coordination of subdomain governance; community commitment; power differences; and conflicting interests | Dale et al. 2018 |
| Reforestation through co-management (MTS), Ghana | Integration of goals (forest restoration, securing future timber supply, livelihood improvement, carbon sequestration); multi-stakeholder design | Rigid, state-dominated decision-making structure; a lack of long-term economic incentives; broader partnerships dependent on donor funding; non-empowering capacity building; absence of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms | Foli et al. 2018 |
| Community resource management areas (CREMAs), Ghana | Integrated approach, multi-stakeholder design for negotiation and collaboration; adaptive management; accommodates polycentric governance; capacity building | Limited scale and vertical connectedness; no monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place | Foli et al. 2018 |
| Chantier d’Aménagement, Burkina Faso | Potential for creating landscape-level synergies | Limited integration of development and conservation objectives; hierarchical governance structure; no dedicated platforms for stakeholder negotiation; non-empowering capacity building; no monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place | Foli et al. 2018 |
| REDD+, Peru | Creates new space for multilevel and multi-sector dialog and collaboration, notably between forestry, conservation and agriculture | Exclusion or marginal inclusion of key stakeholders; a lack of trust; conflicting interests; unequal power relations; weak governance structures; jurisdictional frictions; poor coordination | Rodríguez-Ward et al. 2018 |
| Climate change mitigation, Cameroon | REDD+ as entry point for tackling livelihood and conservation concerns; WWF as “hybrid” that mobilizes funds and actors | Limited institutional (financial and human) capacity; restricted impact on livelihoods; short-term project funding | Brown 2018 |
| Value chain governance for ecosystem services, The Netherlands | Awareness raising of need to preserve ecosystem services; multi-stakeholder involvement to address landscape-level issues (sourcing areas) | Integration of goals; sectorial focus; inclusiveness of the arrangements; adaptive learning approach; balancing state regulation and market governance; dealing with trade-offs | Ingram et al. 2018 |
| Advanced value chain collaboration, Ghana | Sustainable cocoa production; enhanced natural, human, and social capital | Interventions at farm rather than landscape level; hierarchical relations; institutional and cultural rigidity; limited inclusiveness in decision-making; limited options for farmers’ self-organization; jurisdictional mismatches; and non-exclusion of relevant actors prevent negotiated decision-making on land use | Deans et al. 2018 |
| Multifunctional oil palm concession, Indonesia | Place- and context-specific form of landscape governance; integration of production, environmental, social and cultural objectives | Sectorial focus; institutional rigidity and mismatch with existing legal frameworks; focus on concession rather than landscape level; resistance of central government against Zero Deforestation movement; reduced income from concession (but compensated through reduced social unrest) | Van Oosten et al. 2018 |
| Multi-stakeholder platforms (piloted in Ghana and Indonesia) | Mobilizes landscape actors; enables multi-stakeholder negotiation and collaboration as well as monitoring and evaluation of landscape outcomes | High transaction costs; absence of good governance principles in government (notably transparency, legitimacy, and voice); power imbalances; inclusion of women; a lack of shared concern/sense of urgency; non-participation of key stakeholders (notably in Indonesia) | Kusters et al. 2018 |
aLowore et al. and Ndeinoma et al. (this issue) have been excluded from this overview as they target products rather than landscapes;
bAll references in this issue