There is growing consensus that the Green Revolution trajectory followed in Latin America and Asia is not fully appropriate for Africa; instead, greater emphasis on social and environmental outcomes is needed.
Integrated Landscape Initiatives provide a model for agricultural development that satisfies these demands. This presentation explains.
Integrated Landscape Initiatives Drive African Development
1. Integrated Landscape Initiatives:
An Emerging Paradigm for African Agriculture,
Development, and Conservation
Jeffrey C. Milder,Abigail K. Hart, Phil Dobie, Joshua Minai, and Christi Zaleski
October 2012
2. The study was funded by:
And implemented by:
As part of the:
This project was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. RLA-A-00-07-
00043-00. The contents are the responsibility of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. This presentation was produced by
EcoAgriculture Partners on behalf of ABCG.
3. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Converging needs for integrated landscape management
● There is growing consensus that the Green Revolution trajectory followed in
Latin America and Asia is not fully appropriate for Africa; instead, greater
emphasis on social and environmental outcomes is needed.
● Climate change and land degradation in Africa point to the need for
agricultural development approaches that emphasize ecosystem and
livelihood resilience to sustain long-term productivity.
● Rather than degrade the environment, agricultural areas have the potential to
provide important ecosystem services.
● As competition for land and water escalates, sectoral approaches that pursue
different aims in isolation from one another are likely to generate conflict and
result in failure to meet key objectives.
● Rural landscapes are the nexus where key issues including food security,
poverty reduction, energy production, biodiversity conservation, and climate
change all converge.
4. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Why this study?
To date, understanding of integrated landscape approaches has been
fragmentary, often anecdotal, and spread widely across several
academic fields and communities of practice.
This study provides first region-wide portrait of the contexts,
motivations, design, participation, and outcomes of integrated
landscape initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. It takes a systematic
approach to understanding the state of practice, what works and
what doesn’t, and how landscape initiatives can better support
conservation, food production, and livelihood goals.
5. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Definition of Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs)
An ILI can be a project, program, platform, initiative or set of
activities that:
1. Seeks to improve food production, biodiversity or
ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods
2. Works at landscape scale and includes policy, planning,
management or support activities at this scale
3. Involves inter-sectoral and/or multi-stakeholder
coordination
4. Is highly participatory and supports adaptive collaborative
management
6. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Methodology
1. Database of candidate ILIs established through partner networks,
interviews, and Internet searches
2. Candidates screened to select those that met the ILI definition
3. Survey of one respondent per ILI to collect information on:
• Landscape characteristics
• Dates, scale, and motivations of the ILI
• ILI investments, activities, and coordinating mechanisms
• Stakeholder and sectoral participation
• Outcomes, most and least successful aspects
4. Screening of survey responses
5. Data analysis and interpretation
7. Questions on investment and
outcomes were oriented around
four key “domains” of landscape
multi-functionality:
1. Agricultural production
2. Ecosystem conservation
3. Human livelihoods
4. Institutional coordination and
planning
Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Methodology
Screen shot of survey:
8. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs
Complete
documentation from 87
landscape initiatives in
33 countries
1 15
10. AfricaContinental Review
What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Improve health or nutrition
Climate change mitigation/adaptation
Improve livestock productivity
Diversify food production
Improve crop productivity
Water conservation
Reduce negative impacts of agriculture
Reduce risk and vulnerability
Reduce conflict
Enhance food security
Soil conservation
Increase farmer incomes
Conserve biodiversity
Sustainable land management
Reduce natural resource degradation
% of surveyed initiatives
11. AfricaContinental Review
What challenges and issues are motivating ILIs?
0 10 20 30 40
Mitigating or adapting to climate
change
Reducing conflict
Coordinating stakeholders and
activities
Improving livehoods
Improving agricultural production
and practices
Biodiversity and natural resource
conservation
Number of initiatives
12. AfricaContinental Review
What types of organizations are involved?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Industry
Agribusiness
Community Groups
Education/Research
NGOs
Marginalized Groups
Producer Groups
Government
% of surveyed initiatives
Internal / local
13. AfricaContinental Review
What types of organizations are involved?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agribusiness
Education/Research
Donors
Other International…
NGOs
Government
% of surveyed initiatives
External
14. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Investments and outcomes in agriculture
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total area increased
Profitability increased
Agrobiodiversity protected
Environmental impacts reduced
Yield per unit land
% of surveyed initiatives
Investments Outcomes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mechanized intensification
Reduce negative ag. Impacts
Improved irrigation
Ag. supply chains/markets
Livestock intensification
Conserve/use agrobiodiversity
Promote new crops
Home gardens
Agroforestry
Agroecological intensification
Soil conservation
Extension or capacity building
% of surveyed initiatives
Associated Core
15. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Investments and outcomes in conservation
Investments Outcomes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
New protected areas
Watershed management activities
New management plans
New community-based conservation areas
Improved forestry management
Other community-based management
activities
Extension or capacity building programs
% of surveyed initiatives
Supporting Core
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other ecosystems services
protected
Connectivity increased
Water quality improved
Endangered species protected
Ecosystem services for agriculture
protected
Overall biodiversity protected
% of surveyed initiatives
16. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Investments and outcomes in livelihoods
Investments Outcomes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reduce migration
Improving human health
Reduce malnutrition and hunger
Secure land tenure/resource access
Preservation of traditional knowledge
Enterprise development, savings and
investment
Improving gender equity
Promote income generation
% of surveyed initiatives
Associated Core
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Access to health services
improved
Communities became less
vulnerable
Non-cash measures of livelihoods
improved
Food security improved
Cash income increased
% or surveyed initiatives
17. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Investments and outcomes in institutional planning
and coordination
Investments Outcomes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Traditional and local knowledge
preserved/used
Sectoral coord. Improved
Women's capacity built
Local communities empowered
Capacity for ILM improved
Stakeholder coord. Improved
% of surveyed initiatives
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Local/external conflict mediation
Strengthen existing coordination bodies
New coordinating bodies
Local/local conflict mediation
Technical assistance for integrated,
landscape-scale management
Capacity building for integrated, landscape-
scale management
% of surveyed initiatives
Associated Core
18. AfricaContinental Review
How is landscape coordination achieved?
0% 50% 100%
Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local,
national and international communities or resource…
Activities to strengthen existing coordination bodies
(e.g., inter-jurisdictional councils, public-private…
Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies
Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among local
communities or resource users
Technical assistance to support integrated, landscape-
scale management
Capacity building activities to help communities and
stakeholders conduct integrated, landscape-scale…
Percent of surveyed initiatives
Core
Supporting
19. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Factors associated with high outcome initiatives
● Inclusion of women groups
● Higher levels of “multi-objectivity” (i.e., larger numbers of stated
objectives)
● Multi-objective initiatives without a stated primary motivation
● Investments in capacity building across all domains
● Establishment of new landscape coordinating bodies
20. ● Specific, tangible outcomes such as:
● Formation of new protected areas
● Rehabilitation of degraded land
● Increased yields, income, or food security
● Improvements in capacity, knowledge, governance, etc.:
● Awareness raising on key landscape issues
● Capacity bulding for local decision-makers to manage their
landscape
● New plans or agreements regarding land or resource management
Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Most successful aspects of the initiatives
21. ● Lack of sufficient and sustainable sources of funding
● Infrastructure for transport and storage, as well as market
access
● Policies and laws that hinder integrated landscape
management
● Key stakeholders, mainly specific government and private
sector entities, were missing from planning and coordination
processes
Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Least successful aspects of the initiatives
22. ● ILIs may be an effective way to increase delivery of multiple goods
and services in drylands by linking them to initiatives and
stakeholders in a broader, diverse landscape.
● Landscape planning and coordinating capacities can be established
in just a few years, but other outcomes often take more time.To
ensure sustainability, landscape management functions must be
supported by local financial resources and/or social capital, even if
they are initially catalyzed by external support.
Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Implications for practice
23. ● Multi-objective initiatives are generating outcomes in key areas of
interest to development practitioners, policy-makers and donors,
including:
● Rural household income generation
● Increased agricultural productivity
● Food security
● While there has traditionally been little support for integrated
landscape approaches in Africa, current interest from donors and
policymakers may provide a “window of opportunity”; prior
experience such as that profiled in this study can help inform this
new generation of initiatives
Integrated Landscape Initiatives in Africa
Implications for policy
This annotated presentation provides an overview of the study. The full version is available in a written report with the same title.
Within the past five years, a convergence of factors has led to growing interest in integrated landscape management across Africa.
This study is part of a broader set of “continental reviews” of integrated landscape management being conducted for several of the world’s continents, following similar methodologies, as part of the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative (http://landscapes.ecoagriculture.org), a global effort to inform and support the effective adoption of landscape approaches to integrating agriculture, conservation, and livelihood objectives.
In this context, “landscapes” typically consist of land mosaics including crop, livestock, fish, and forest production areas; grassland, woodland, or forest ecosystems; wetlands and water bodies; and human settlements and infrastructure. Formally, landscapes may be described as cohesive land areas defined by common biophysical characteristics, socioeconomic conditions, and/or political demarcations, and typically encompassing approximately 100 to 10,000 square kilometers. In practice, however, many African landscapes are larger than this, as they are defined around river basins, transboundary management areas, or large forest areas. Landscape boundaries may be discrete or fuzzy, and are often defined functionally around particular management challenges (such as watershed protection) or goals (such as agricultural value chain development).
The final survey instrument was based on a pilot-test of the survey in late 2011 as part of a similar study done in Latin America. Based on the pilot test, several questions were clarified and improved for the final version.
We used the online service SurveyMonkey as the main vehicle for administering the survey. However, we also made available Microsoft Word and PDF versions of the survey for respondents with unreliable internet access.
More than two hundred ILIs were initially contacted, from which we collected survey data on 105 cases. Of these, we excluded 15 from subsequent analysis because the survey information revealed that the case did not meet our criteria for ILIs, or because the data included too many incomplete responses to permit sound analysis. The remaining 87 ILIs were included in subsequent analysis.
More than two hundred ILIs were initially contacted, from which we collected survey data on 105 cases. Of these, we excluded 15 from subsequent analysis because the survey information revealed that the case did not meet our criteria for ILIs, or because the data included too many incomplete responses to permit sound analysis. The remaining 87 ILIs were included in subsequent analysis.
Conservation seems to encompass most of the main motivations…. On average, each initiative reported at least 8 motivating factors, but 64% of the initiatives identified one or two primary motivations – see next slide
Photo of women planting fertilizer trees in fields.
These are the main entry points that respondents listed as the one or two primary motivations. Not all respondents listed a primary motivation, only 60% of initiatives reported having one or two motivations of greater importance than others. These responses were open-ended but their responses were categorized.
Photo of farm involved in the Mount Kenya East Pilot Project
9 stakeholder groups involved on average. More local actors than external actors, but the external actors play critical roles in funding, designing and providing technical support.
Photo: Women preparing bags for planting seedlings that will be grown for live fencing in Kita, Mali.
.
9 stakeholder groups involved on average. More local actors than external actors, but the external actors play critical roles in funding, designing and providing technical support.
Photo: Government leaders support formation of a transboundary park between Sierra Leone and Cameroon.
Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to agricultural production.
In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
Please note the frequency of investment in capacity building. As you proceed through the coming slides, you will notice that investments in capacity building are relatively high in all domains.
Also note the inverse relationship between supporting and core investments.
Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation.
In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation.
In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
Areas typically associated with service provision and humanitarian aid, such as improving health, malnutrition and hunger, were less frequently part of ILIs. However, they were sometimes cited as “associated” investments being made by others in the landscape.
Respondents were able to choose from any of the above options to identify ILI investments and outcomes related to conservation.
In the graphs, investments included as part of the initiative itself are designated as “core” while those that took place in the landscape outside of the purview of the initiative are indicated as “associated.” Outcomes attributed to initiative activities are designated as “core” while those attributed to other factors are designated as “associated.”
PHIL: If you want to shorten the presentation, perhaps use this slide to cut to the chase, instead of presenting investments and outcomes for each of the four domains.
These are the different investments/activities in planning and coordination. You can see that capacity building and technical assistance are common, as well as horizontal coordination, but vertical coordination is not that common. Also, see the creation of new coordinating bodies… see more on next slide
All these associations were statistically significant.
These are some of the more frequently occurring themes in response to the open-ended question on the most successful aspects of the ILI.
These are some of the more frequently occurring themes in response to the open-ended question on the least successful aspects of the ILI.
Phil, please feel free to adapt these policy implications for the UNCCD audience. I’m sure you are more familiar with potential policy implications for drylands than I am.