Unravelling the ‘landscape approach’

The 225-strong audience learned that the term ‘landscape’ entered the English language in 1598, borrowed from Dutch as a painters’ term. Only much later the term was applied to what we now understand as landscapes and what the European Landscape Convention defines as ‘an area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of nature and/or human factors’.

This definition was the focus of much discussion: that the landscape is in the eye of the beholder. Each stakeholder perceives the landscape in a different way, whether this is informed by economic, cultural, social, or ecological motives. And, as several presenters highlighted, the number of beholders who have a stake in and a view on landscapes at a global level is increasing, and their claims are rising. The expectations that we have of our rural environment and the challenges that must simultaneously be met – climate change, food security, conservation, economic livelihoods - are rising concomitantly. The urgency of managing landscapes sustainably and equitably is growing, and this urgency is increasingly felt by policy makers, companies and civil society.

We know what needs to be done

The landscape approach is touted as a, or the, solution. We need to break out of narrow sectoral approaches, consider the multiple functions of landscapes, engage local land users in identifying problems, making decisions, following up and monitoring, and we must consider scale, from household to national and even global, each in its own merit. We must move away from dichotomous world views: as Meine van Noordwijk (ICRAF) put it, we know that that forests and farms occur as mosaics so we must acknowledge that in our policies and practices. Edith van Walsum (ILEIA) stated that farmers and local land holders are the key, whether they are custodians of degraders – they must be involved. And this requires investing in capacities and institutions of farmers and foresters, and giving them a place at the table where decisions are made.

But we don’t have a language for it

At the same time, the audience was baffled by the multitude of terms that describe roughly similar concepts and ideas of integrated landscape management, and the failure of researchers and thinkers to reach out to policy makers and actors such as the private sector with clear guidance on what to achieve and how. “We are moving in the right direction, but we are trying to shoot a moving target”, according to the chair Agnes van Ardenne, former Minister of Development Cooperation. René Boot (Tropenbos International) noted the absence of a clear understanding how to measure success in landscape approaches, and for whom. This prevents landscape actors and researchers from understanding precisely what works and what doesn’t, and what progress is being made. There are also huge challenges for research, commented James Reed (CIFOR) – high costs make most research small scale and short term, and far from what is needed to seriously evaluate the landscape approach. Ingrid Duchhart pointed out we can learn from looking back to a wealth of past landscape-level projects that provide a rich source for evaluating what went right, what went wrong and what should be done better. Talk about win-win or even triple-win solutions may be rash, even in the face of a history of loose-loose solutions. We don’t exactly know in what terms we must measure such solutions, but reality tells us that there will always be trade-offs.

Are we on the right track?

Whereas there is recognition of what is needed, and governments, donors and researchers are rallying around the landscape approach, more is needed according to the panellists. We need to operationalise the principles that underlie the landscape approach, says Koen Kusters of Wereld in Woorden, and scale up the efforts. And we should not shy away from radical action – we need to mobilise farmers, foresters, consumers to take the action that is needed and at the scale that is required. Also, we must be radical in merging agricultural and forestry agendas.

In summary, it was good to see landscape architects, rural development specialists and researchers sharing their experiences both in the sessions and in the breaks, though many did find ‘nothing new’ and ‘a lack of concrete policy options’. So whereas the landscape approach was not entirely unravelled during the afternoon, some of the knots were undone, but others still require unpicking.

The meeting was chaired by Agnes van Ardenne, Chair of LandschappenNL and former Minister for Development Cooperation in the Netherlands government. Speakers and panel members included René Boot (Tropenbos International), Jeff Campbell (FAO), Ingrid Duchhart (WUR), Koen Kusters (WiW), James Reed (CIFOR), Meine van Noordwijk (ICRAF) and Edith van Walsum (ILEIA).

‘Unravelling the Landscape Approach’ was organised by Tropenbos International with ILEIA – Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Utrecht University, the Dutch Society of Tropical Forests, the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.