2014 ESP Conference: Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•1,066 views
This slideshow was presented by Dr. Christine Negra at the 2014 ESP Conference in Costa Rica. It covers integrated landscape management projects around the world, providing an overview of the global initiative and setting research priorities for the future. For more information on the session, please see the Conference Program: http://www.espconference.org/ESP_Conference/82483/5/0/60
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie 2014 ESP Conference: Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people
Ähnlich wie 2014 ESP Conference: Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people (20)
Mehr von The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative
Mehr von The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
2014 ESP Conference: Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people
- 1. Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people Dr Christine Negra, EcoAgriculture Partners Ecosystem Services Partnership 2014 San Jose, Costa Rica September 10, 2014
- 2. Overview ● Describe a global initiative ● Share insights from recent projects on integrated landscape management (ILM) ● Offer a set of research priorities
- 4. Objective: Promote integrated landscape management (ILM), for: ● Climate-resilient, diversified agriculture ● Secure access to food, fuel, fiber ● Ecosystem services and biodiversity ● Rural livelihoods and culture
- 5. LPFN ‘Value- Added’ ● Document experiences across communities of practice ● Synthesize diverse knowledge sets ● Foster dialogue and action among diverse groups
- 6. Organization of LPFN Initiative ● 9 Co-organizers ● Many strategic partners ● 6 working groups ● Secretariat (EcoAgriculture) Co-Organizers Strategic Partners Secretariat Working Groups
- 7. The LPFN Working Groups Improving Policy Strengthening Landscapes Engaging Business Mobilizing scientists Outreach Aligning Finance
- 8. Some LPFN strategic partners
- 9. Integrated Landscapes: Key Features 1) Shared management objectives: multiple landscape benefits 2) Community engaged in planning, negotiating and monitoring decisions 3) Management practices deliver co-benefits at farm and landscape scales 4) Interactions among landscape components promote synergies or mitigate trade-offs 5) Markets and policies encourage multi-benefit landscapes
- 10. Testing a concept Improved multi-stakeholder processes improved practices and policies increased multi-functionality in landscapes Photo: M Castley, Private Forests Tasmania
- 11. WG1: Strengthening Landscape Initiatives ● Document activities and impacts of large, multi-stakeholder landscape initiatives ● Training and knowledge-sharing for landscape leaders
- 12. WG2: Policy Support for Integrated Landscapes ● Link high-level policy initiatives and landscape actors Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD 2) Global Landscapes Forum / UNFCCC IUCN World Conservation Congress Nairobi International Forum Rio+20 Global Conference on Agriculture, Food Security, and Climate Change Committee for World Food Security Climate-Smart Agricultural Global Science Conference Sustainable Development Goals
- 13. WG3: Incorporating Landscape Approaches into Business Models ● Understand when and why agribusinesses think – and act – at landscape scale ● Global scoping: 27 examples ● 3 in-depth case studies
- 14. Starbucks and Conservation Int’l: landscape approach to coffee in Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil ● Risks / rationales: Volatile market prices, farmer incomes Declining production (climate, aging farmers) Env’l risks (deforestation, GHGs, water) ● Modes of engagement Supply chain intervention (C.A.F.E. practices) Regional producer support interventions (farmer loans) Payments for Ecosystem Services (carbon payments)
- 15. Reducing risk through landscape approaches Source: Kissinger, G., A. Brasser, and L. Gross, 2013. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing. Washington, DC. EcoAgriculture Partners, on behalf of the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.
- 16. WG4: Mobilizing finance / investment for ILM ● Types of mechanisms and institutions? ● Barriers / opportunities for financing ILM? ● Global scoping: 29 cases ● 3 in-depth case studies Atlantic Forest, Brazil Namaqualand, South Africa Lake Naivasha, Kenya
- 18. ILM Case Studies and Examples - Global Environment Facility - World Bank BioCarbon Fund - NICFI / NORAD - EcoEnterprises Fund - Moringa - Althelia - Bunge Environmental Markets - Agricultural Lending & Investment - SAB Miller - Global Mechanism UNCCD - Verified Carbon Standard’s Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) - ForestRE - CGIAR Landscape Fund - Grasslands, LLC
- 19. WG5: Science and Knowledge to Support ILM ● Strengthen landscape science ● Mobilize scientific support for landscape initiatives ● Mainstream landscape approach in research and knowledge networks
- 20. Integrated Landscape Initiatives in LAC Geographic distribution of surveyed ILIs Surveyed 104 landscape initiatives in 21 countries
- 21. Key findings ● ILIs are truly multi-objective, multi-stakeholder initiatives: > 9 objectives, 11 stakeholder groups, 4 sectors on average ● ILIs with more objectives, years of experience, and participating stakeholder groups reported a greater number of outcomes ● Some policies and laws support, other hinder ILM ● Limited funding and intermittent / low stakeholder participation over the long term, particularly private sector and government
- 22. WG6: Key Stakeholders Aware of ILM Benefits ● Pool resources for advocacy and outreach Landscapes blog Op-eds Media Videos Events
- 23. Evidence base for ILM Integrated, multi-disciplinary scientific research is essential to make agricultural landscapes more productive, sustainable, climate-resilient, and socially inclusive
- 24. Global Review Knowledge Products Trees and landscape restoration Agroecological intensification Climate-smart landscape planning Linking climate change mitigation & adaptation Benefits of agrobiodiversity Impact of eco-certification Water management in landscapes Landscape governance Producer movements City regions as landscapes
- 25. Research gaps ● Quantified benefits of ILM in different places / management contexts e.g. yield, food security, well-being, ecosystem services, biodiversity ● Linked farm- and landscape-scale data to compare ILM with BAU e.g. diversification, restoration ● Spatially-explicit understanding of how landscape elements interact and contribute to multi-functionality ● Agreed multi-scale landscape metrics to monitor outcomes
- 26. …and a few more research gaps ● Advance methods for combined study of human and ecosystem services dimensions • e.g. governance of multifunctional landscapes ● Study interactions across highland-lowland and rural-urban gradients and transboundary resources N Palmer (CIAT)
- 27. Roles for research networks (e.g. ESP) Transformative science ● Broker collaboration among field and lab researchers across a broad set of scientific disciplines to address complex challenges ● Showcase participatory action research that taps into the innovative capacity of farmers and communities Broad support ● Build a business case for co-investment (by global donors, businesses) in knowledge systems • e.g. seasonal forecasting, landscape ‘observatories’ ● Work with ‘boundary organizations’ to communicate research recommendations to government, private sector, etc
- 28. ESP and LPFN ● LPFN WG5 = ESP working group on Rural & Cultivated Landscapes ● Session #48: ● Concepts from upcoming paper on landscape science for sustainable rural development ● Plans for 2015 and beyond…
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Managing rural landscapes to sustain ecosystem services, nature and people Integrated, multi-disciplinary scientific research is essential to understand the complexity of rural landscapes and to make them more productive, sustainable, and inclusive. This presentation will present a Global Review of diverse knowledge sets and action strategies used around the world for integrated landscape management, which has been undertaken by the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature (LPFN) initiative. Examples of specific LPFN-led studies will be shared including continental-scale inventories of cross-sectoral landscape initiatives that are pursuing multi-functionality as well as surveys of financing options and market-based approaches to better support healthy landscapes. Innovative tools for planning, implementation, and M&E of sustainability strategies in rural landscapes will be showcased. Recommendations will be offered for tackling the highest priority research needs for managing landscapes so they can fulfill the multiple goals of food provision, generation of livelihoods, and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services
- The 6 working groups have each set out ambitious agendas focused on different dimensions of integrated landscape management. Together, their efforts are designed to transform the context and capacity of rural landscapes so that the range of stakeholders are better positioned and more likely to make decisions that support multi-functionality.
- Drawing on the collective experience of LPFN Co-Organizers and strategic partners, we’ve identified a set of key features of integrated multifunctional landscapes. If these features truly are what needs to be in place to achieve multi-functionality, then we know where we need to go and this helps us think about a roadmap. This is what the LPFN working groups are pushing for.
- SDG Brief. EcoAg led the authorship of a joint LPFN brief on a ‘landscape target’ for the Sustainable Development Goals. The brief was presented online in the form of a letter that is open for public signature and included the signatures of Directors General Peter Holmgren (CIFOR), Tony Simons (ICRAF), Ann Tutwiler (Bioversity), and Jose Joaquin Campos Arce (CATIE)
- The Reducing Risk report found that innovative agribusinesses are piloting landscape approaches to address challenges of climate adaptation, water stewardship and building community relations. In cases where businesses recognized that quality or stability of supply from key sourcing regions is threatened by a constellation of risks that cannot be mitigated solely on-farm or via supply chain programmes, they have begun to invest in landscape approaches in high-priority geographic areas. The report describes the landscape approach as a framework for working deliberately in an integrated manner beyond the farm-scale to support food production, ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods across entire landscapes. Key elements include: -> Identifying risks to the business beyond the farm- or facility-scale, -> Efforts to improve food production, ecosystem services, and rural livelihoods -> Policy, planning, management or support activities at the landscape scale -> Multi-stakeholder coordination to achieve adaptive collaborative management
- Starting objective was to understand the different motivations and expectation (in terms of expected returns) of a range of public and private investors. Governments and not for profit organisations such as foundations, NGOS, and charities, tend to grant or lend funds with the intention of generating social and environmental returns. While, expectations of financial return are of greater significance than social and environmental for investors, such as institutional investors, asset managers, and financial lenders such as private sector banks. DFIs tend to sit somewhere in the middle, depending on the organisation.
- The different boxes show the array of financial mechanisms used across the range of ILM entry points (represented by different colors). Public sector finance (mainly through grants, subsidies and credit) can enable landscape actors to collaborate on projects that integrate multiple landscape objectives. Private sector investment (loans, equity, credits) and partnership models for ILM ranged from those that channel finance into whole landscapes to those that are supporting and coordinating landscape objectives. ENABLING INVESTMENT Stakeholder engagement and cooperation Appropriate legal and regulatory framework Knowledge and capacity to plan and manage on a landscape scale Incentive mechanisms CHALLENGES Public sector silos Underfunded ILI coordination Incentives for asset investment ASSET INVESTMENT Agriculture practices that contribute to multiple landscape objectives Farm conservation or production Restoration or protection of natural assets Environmentally and socially responsible enterprises Large-scale green infrastructure CHALLENGES Time horizon Investment size Risk/return ratio
- A range of 15 case studies (8 full cases) and less detailed case examples were used to explore the major opportunities and challenges of ILM finance. The relative size of the bubbled depict the relative amounts of capital available. The cases showed two main modalities of ILM finance 1) A specific allocation of finance for integrated landscape management practices (e.g. enabling funds for integrative planning at a catchment level through GEF multi-focal projects; investments for improved sustainable land use at landscape scale, 100,000 through WB BioCarbon Fund – generating carbon credits at the landscape level; brokering and capacity building for integrating finance for SLM through the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD). 2) Investment positioned as either REDD, agriculture, conservation or sustainable land use finance for projects or businesses, but these land based investments have explicit revenue streams and risk mitigation instruments and procedures that have generate positive environmental and social returns at the landscape scale. For example: Althelia or Moringa – investing in agro-forestry projects and companies with positive social and environmental impacts at the landscape level. Nestle/Bunge/Rabo take a supply chain approach to manage risks, improve security of supply, improve productivity and resilience; EcoEnterprises investment in companies in conservation areas with positive social and environmental returns.
- TIER 1 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. TIER 2 Interviewed 75 landscape stakeholders in 23 ILIs located in 13 countries
- Challenges in building the evidence base to motivate action by policy makers, businesses, financiers, etc
- Ecosystem Services Partnership Rural Landscapes Working Group. The co-leaders of the ESP working group on Rural & Cultivated Landscapes and the co-chairs of the ecosystem services in landscapes session at the upcoming ESP conference can use these platforms to convene discussions, engage potential WG5 participants, showcase research ideas, and build visibility and legitimacy for these ideas, especially with convening partners (TEEB, WLE) and session speakers (eg, WorldFish). ESPWorking group co-leads are given the opportunity to organize sessions during the annual ESP Conference (ie, an opportunity to stay in touch with the rural landscape research and practice community and to disseminate, discuss and refine LPFN research) and are expected to update the activities and manage the list of members on website. A paper on "Landscape Science for Rural Development: perspectives on current progress and challenges" reviews the current set of tools for landscape science and offers pathways forward to the scientific community to support four main management objectives; landscapes for sustainable resource supply, landscape restoration, financing mechanisms for landscape benefits, and fair distribution of landscape benefits