Nevertheless, it does not foresee the possibility to institute the RIMBA corridor landscape governance into a new institution. This has been applied in the Batanghari watershed located in the three provinces of West Sumatra, Jambi and South Sumatra. In Jambi province a memorandum of understanding MoU has been established with West Sumatra province to manage the upstream watershed area to mitigate negative impacts in terms of surface water runoff, soil erosion and sediment transport in the downstream areas of the Batanghari watershed.
However, challenges remain to be addressed in the current Forest Management Units KPH in terms of tasks, functions, authorities and resources as appeared from the FGD results. We found that the existing institutions in the RIMBA corridor have limited ability to address the cross-cutting issues beyond their jurisdictional authorities. This context is obviously found by other studies that addressed failures of sectoral approaches to engage with environmental losses and habitat damage because there is no clear shared vision on the future of landscapes Reed et al. As each forest management unit has a clearly demarcated authority and a limited level of interventions, the establishment of a consortium of those units was proposed for the RIMBA corridor, which again represents a sectoral approach.
The current institutions are sectorally oriented, lacking the mandate and capacities to refer problems to a higher authority level and the knowledge-transfer systems or networks to share lessons learned with other actors in the region Hudalah and Woltjer ; Kelman The current institutions have mandates to support household creative industries, promote eco-culture tourism, as well as support the production of sustainable commodities.
However, they currently fail to act as a catalyst to such collaboration. Establishing trust and functional partnerships between the existing Forest Management Units and village governments is crucial to successfully govern the RIMBA corridor. Other case studies, such as in India, highlighted that arrangements and partnerships between local communities and other agencies are an important aspect to successfully protect biodiversity, as it provides communities more access to forests and recognises the rights to manage biodiversity, forest, and resources use Gibson and Koontz ; Kothari et al. This could be explored further in the application in Sumatra if the Forest Management Units start collaborating more with village communities.
As revealed by the FGDs in the village context, communities have limited access to financial and technical resources. However, they can support joint decisions addressing local conflicts and promote particular cultural values. This is a form of power, as without community agreement proposed landscape approaches are unlikely to achieve an inclusive and participatory solution and will therefore be counterproductive Reed et al. Village governance systems can adopt management systems based on customary law or state law positive law , or a mix of the two.
Although the village governments in the RIMBA corridor generally use state laws to govern their villages, customary institutions are usually involved in decision-making related to natural resources management. This practice is common in other places as well. For example, in Ghana and Burkina Faso, community forestry is used as an entry point in rural areas to establish and link it to a broader landscape approach to achieve reducing the landscape degradation Foli et al. The questionnaire survey responses highlight the desire to establish a formal institution to facilitate green economy cooperation focused on key management issues in the RIMBA corridor and regulated by a Presidential Decree.
This could establish a stronger coordination and governance contributing to effective landscape management. Analysing the institutional roles and development of such an institution related to improving sound governance is a pivotal issue in the social—ecological systems as it obtains a clear relationship and the political settings among social, economic and ecological issues. This is highlighted in a French case where farmland development to promote sustainable agriculture was supported and accepted by all stakeholders in a landscape approach bound by regulatory mechanisms Ban et al.
Another challenge of ICGE is to support existing institutions involved in promoting and developing feasible business models for green economic development such as eco-culture tourism in the RIMBA corridor area. It involves marketing this development as an eco-culture destination and developing the required tourist infrastructure such as accommodation. Other elements of a green economy comprise the improvement to track and monitor raw material from illegal sources along the supply chain, especially for those commodities that have an adverse effect on sustainable land use, e.
The ICGE needs to engage with multiple levels of decision-making, multiple actors and land users and a diversity of knowledge systems to solve the current natural resource management problems. This concurs with previous studies dealing with complex governance issues, which also required an institutional diagnostic Angelstam et al.
This type of complex landscape governance by multiple stakeholders requires knowledge management and specific systems of rules and rule-making processes that need to be developed, which is also in line with Ostrom Its position must not overlap with tasks, functions, and authorities of other existing institutions, as overlapping or contradictory mandates can result in bureaucratic dysfunctional or ineffective institutions Fukuyama Funding sources from the national budget, local governmental budgets, and other sources are pivotal to make planning and managing of the RIMBA corridor a reality.
We also identified the need to support business plans that are compatible with biodiversity conservation, which is in line with Reid et al. Overall, the results of FGDs, CDA and questionnaires have shown that the applied landscape approach requires dealing with multiple objectives as an entry point to develop a common vision, multi-level governance, stakeholder participation, capacity building and processes towards robust governance.
These requirements mirror the ten principles of landscape approaches stipulated by Sayer et al. Hence, the joint secretariat can be a preliminary institution model of ICGE in the RIMBA corridor landscape to propose a new regulatory mechanism evoking a robust governance model supported by a Presidential Decree.
The CDA analysis helped illuminate the context and the key elements of an institutional arrangement that is needed to govern and manage the RIMBA corridor at the local level. Combined with the FGDs, the approach also helped to identify the key stakeholders and institutions that are willing to support the RIMBA corridor environmental objectives. A limitation of our approach was that we did not review the entire policy and regulatory framework, but focused on the most relevant elements.
However, our results can be used as a starting point to improve the formal and informal governance of the on-going dynamics in the field that are already part of the RIMBA programme, for further policy studies and to inform the design and development of more adapted institutional mechanisms. It became apparent, however, that coordination is required among the central government i.
- A coalition of uncommon bedfellows is bringing sustainable agriculture to scale;
- Account Options?
- Dyspepsia in Clinical Practice.
- Research resources for understanding and acting on complex real-world problems;
The new envisaged institution ICGE RIMBA can act as a mediator, and as a vehicle for learning processes, communication and monitoring by national, provincial and district agencies. To enhance the connectivity in such a large landscape, stronger modes of governance and coordination are thus required. This study used an original combination of methods and tools to identify governance challenges and barriers and to develop options to improve the governance structures in support of sustainable landscapes. Our empirical results point at the various limitations of current institutions that govern the RIMBA corridor and opportunities to create significant changes towards sustainable landscape management.
Our research identifies the need for a formal institution of cooperation for a green economy that could take the form of a joint secretariat of three provinces as a preliminary step. The current lack of regulation to create a formal institution of cooperation for a green economy increases the chance of business-as-usual dynamics to prevail. Developing this new institution, that could be legitimised by a new Presidential Decree, could encourage the integration of national and local government regulations across jurisdictional scales.
This should be done in coordination with the Forest Management Units as well as the village government and customary institutions, in order to guarantee implementation on the ground. However, the key elements and requirements such as an appropriate regulation level, involvement of multi-level institutions, and access to resources, capacity building and feasible green business models still need to be delivered. We believe our approach could be applied in other settings in Indonesia as well as globally to establish effective and contextualised governance modes for management of biodiversity and ecosystem services at landscape scales, including in landscape approaches that include the development of ecological corridors.
Skip to main content Skip to sections.
Advertisement Hide. Download PDF. Sustainability Science pp 1—18 Cite as. Open Access.
Shared governance for sustainable working landscapes
First Online: 11 February Part of the following topical collections: Sustainability Transitions, Management, and Governance. Introduction Over the last two decades, actors involved in nature conservation have made increasing efforts to improve land-use planning and management at landscape scales to balance economic, social and environmental trade-offs in places where productive land uses compete with biodiversity goals Bennett and Mulongoy ; Sayer et al.
The corridor connects a network of biodiversity-rich protected areas that are increasingly being fragmented by roads and prone to rapid urban and agricultural expansion. It is also subject to wildlife poaching and forest encroachment by settler communities living inside or surrounding the corridor. Open image in new window. Guided by these six criteria, we used a combination of social science methods to both produce a diagnostic of the main existing governance challenges of the RIMBA corridor landscape, and to identify and put forward actions and institutional design elements needed to address these challenges and progress towards a more sustainable landscape.
Together, these three methods address different dimensions of the conditions under which biodiversity and ecosystem services protection could become an integral part of the landscape development, which is a central element of its sustainability. For each stakeholder group, we used five sets of questions to frame the Focus Group Discussions. Each of the five groups of stakeholders was divided into smaller groups to discuss the questions successively in relation to their everyday activities.
Challenges and opportunities in achieving sustainable landscape governance The main problems identified in the five successive 2-day Focus Group Discussions pertained to the weak institutionalisation of the RIMBA corridor programme, including limited institutional legitimacy and authority to govern the RIMBA corridor given the weak legal framework and regulations.
Conventional practices related to commodities, such as producing, harvesting, processing, packaging and marketing are maintained, with little room for innovation. This condition is also reflected by an existing trading system with strong inequalities between farmers and traders. Social conflicts over land tenure were identified within local communities due to immigrants occupying land and extending agricultural area into protected areas.
Some of the most salient issues identified include: 1 insufficient financial support to the Forest Management Units in charge of controlling and enforcing the law on forestland; 2 lack of human capacity, skills and knowledge for farm management, which limits the ability to introduce innovative sustainable practices among farmers; 3 limited prospects for tourism due to weak infrastructure and hotel accommodation; 4 weak negotiation and communication skills of local authorities; and 5 low capacity to address complex and time-consuming issues such as providing guidance on the adoption of more sustainable practices to local communities and farmers.
The innovations and solutions promoted by the project for instance include sustainable coffee, certification of palm oil and rubber, accompanied by land access restrictions. Each of the three groups of local communities identified institutional and infrastructure changes and innovations that could be promoted by the project to address well-being and livelihoods issues.
Diversify food sources through yam, sweet potato and sago cultivation Enhance a home industry to produce mat handicraft from marsh grass using sustainable harvesting techniques Cluster III: Nilo Dingin village Desa Nilo Dingin , Desa Tanjung Mudo, Desa Tuo, Desa Tanjung Alam, Desa Air Bersih The environmental goods that are primary income sources are Robusta coffee, potato, sugar palm, patchouli oil, avocado, cinnamon, wild honey.
There is potential for micro-hydropower Collect wild honey through sustainable harvesting Apply best practices for vegetables and agroforestry products, combined with planting multi-purpose trees such as avocado, sugar palm, cinnamon for forest restoration Improve community skills on post-harvesting techniques to produce good coffee beans Establish micro hydro power plants to obtain sustainable energy for supporting household production such as coffee bean dryers.
Albrechts L Strategic spatial planning reexamined. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31 5 — Ambio 42 2 — Annu Rev Environ Resour — Prog Phys Geogr 40 1 :7— Front Ecol Environ 11 4 — Econ Ecosyst Biodivers :1—5. Accessed 11 Sept Accessed 28 Apr Bennett G, Mulongoy KJ Review of experience with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. CBD Technical Series no Biol Conserv — Conserv Biol 31 1 — Land Use Policy — Sci Total Environ — CrossRef Google Scholar. Conserv Biol — Accessed 03 Mar Callon M Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.
Accessed 05 Nov Chazdon RL Making tropical succession and landscape reforestation successful. Connect Conserv. Key Top Conserv Biol — Landsc Urban Plan — Accessed 07 Nov Feldman MS et al. J Publ Adm Res Theor 14 2 — Environ Manag.
Shared Governance for Sustainable Working Landscapes
Annu Rev Environ Resour. Fukuyama F What is governance? Working paper January , pp 1—22 Google Scholar. Organometallics 18 15 — Int Plan Stud 12 3 — Kareiva P, Marvier M What is conservation science? Bioscience 62 11 — Kelman CC Governance lessons from two sumatran integrated conservation and development projects. Conserv Soc 11 3 Proc Natl Acad Sci 13 Kothari A, Camill P, Brown J Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and practice of community-based conservation. Conserv Soc 11 1 :1— Latour B Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy.
Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. Lowndes V, Roberts M Why institutions matter: the new institutionalism in political science. Habitat Int — Mermet L Strategic environmental management analysis: addressing the blind spots of collaborative approaches. Accessed 30 Oct Jakarta, Indonesia. Accessed 30 Apr Ostrom E Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Ostrom E A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science — Primdahl J, Kristensen LS, Swaffield S Current policy approaches and potentials of landscape strategy making as a policy integrating approach. Appl Geogr — Reed MS Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 10 — Environ Evid 1—7. Glob Change Biol 22 7 — Reid FN et al Ecosystems and human well-being. Edited by Jose Sarukhan and Anne Whyte. Proc Natl Acad Sci 21 — Sustain Sci 10 2 — Sustain Sci 12 3 — Selman P What do we mean by sustainable landscape?
Sustainability: science. Pract Policy 4 2 — Glob Ecol Conserv — Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed 11 Nov UNEP Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Sustain Dev. Accessed 05 Feb Polit Geogr — Wyborn CA Landscape scale ecological connectivity: Australian survey and rehearsals. Pac Conserv Biol 17 2 — Wyborn CA Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: adaptive governance and connectivity conservation.
AgroParisTech Paris France 5. Personalised recommendations. Cite article How to cite? ENW EndNote. Share article. Inadequate financial support Lack of capacity and number of staff Lack of equipment, infrastructure Lack of conflict management. Establishment of a collaborative institution for RIMBA management Better management of land degradation Better knowledge of sustainable business models. Forming consortium of FMUs Young employees with high commitment. Local communities not including recent settlers October —80 participants.
Unfair commodity prices Low product quality and quantity due to lack of capacity on farm management Social tension from immigrant groups. Low skills to produce more products with better quality Low diversity in products Low negotiation skills with middlemen. Diversifying income through multiple land uses Improving quantity and quality of commodities. Regional business November —40 participants. Farmers cannot comply to production standards No processing for home industry such as rubber, coffee Some policies prevent sustainable business solutions such as ecotourism.
These metrics and indicators are needed to determine whether the impacts of climate change have been addressed and justify the effectiveness of the landscape management approaches in supporting climate-smart agriculture. This activity will help measure performance and highlight areas for improvement. In the application of integrated landscape management, beneficiaries must be able to undertake their own assessment of their own individual needs and the needs of the wider community.
Landscape approaches requires the beneficiaries to be part of assessment activities, so that they have the necessary data and information that allow them to engage as equals in negotiations and decision-making processes. Decision-making processes that can contribute to mainstreaming climate-smart practices involve management planning at the landscape level to reach social, economic and environmental targets.
Diverse groups and institutions need to work together to develop strategies for increasing farm incomes and diversifying agricultural economies. At the same time, efforts need to me made to ensure that natural resources are used efficiently and that ecosystem functions and services are sustained over the long term.
One of the primary benefits of coordinating efforts at the landscape level is the integration of decision-making processes that can support the achievement of wider objectives and national targets, including the SDGs. In Rwanda, FAO has supported the monitoring of climate-smart interventions using local assessments to determine the benefits derived from incentives or payments for ecosystem services. Negotiations and strategic planning processes can be facilitated through the development of databases that integrate local and scientific information, as well as socio-economic and biophysical data on the state of land resources e.
An example of such an assessment is given in Case study A3. Often, stakeholders have different visions and understanding of landscape planning and goals, and different entry points and priorities e. This needed to formulate management plans that address land use and resource management, conflict resolution and the minimization of trade-offs.
Negotiations should follow procedures and rules that stakeholders have agreed on, and that are enforced by a credible and legitimized third party. Landscape management is an iterative and evolving process that, through multistakeholder involvement, can help tackle and resolve conflicts and facilitate equitable negotiation processes for minority and disadvantageous groups.
It can help reach negotiated agreements that involve all stakeholders. For the process to be easily understood and allow for stakeholder involvement in all phases, it needs to be as clear, simple, practical, coherent and feasible as possible given the available resources. The process should also ensure transparency and accountability, so that all stakeholders can meet their responsibilities.
Best Practice Guidelines
FAO has developed the Green Negotiated Territorial Development GreeNTD approach for multistakeholder engagement to foster a progressive consensus that can ideally lead to a holistic, and negotiated vision for territorial development at multiple scales FAO, b. The GreeNTD approach promotes a decision-making method that contributes to levelling the power asymmetries among different stakeholders, particularly women, minorities, youth and other marginalized groups.
A rapidly growing number of researchers have been analysing whether conflicts can be affected by climatic change. Hsiang et al. Although there has been increased attention and commitment towards empowering women and improving gender equality with regard to access to health and social services in territorial development interventions, the results that have been achieved in translating these commitments into standards and operational practices has been modest.
This aspect of development is particularly important in efforts to address climate change because the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of individuals and societies are largely shaped by roles, responsibilities and entitlements associated with various markers of social identities and power relations, including, gender, ethnicity, age, socio-economic class, and caste Carr and Thompson, Disentangling the complex intersectionality of social inequality and power relations, which can be achieved through the GreenTD approach, is key element in activities to strengthen the resilience of communities and reducing vulnerability, especially for minority groups.
An example of FAO work at the landscape scale that is being affected by climate change and conflict is presented, in Case Study A3. Water management and the efficient use of water resources are of fundamental importance in designing landscape approaches for implementing climate-smart production systems that can also contribute to avoiding conflicts. Ecosystem management can also have a key role in this area. Forests and several types of agriculture land management practices, can help store water, reduce run off, protect communities from floods and other extreme weather events.
Water management is essential for building resilient production systems and managing the risks associated the impacts of climate change on hydrological regimes and the frequency and intensity of droughts and flooding see also module B. Efficient water resource management involves practices that sustain ecosystem services. These practices need to be based on common agreements among water and land users and other stakeholders on the modalities of use. These agreements will be best achieved through participatory governance processes that are backed up by integrated land-use and resources planning.
Large hydrological units, such as river basins, need a nested planning approach that involve various stakeholders at various scales. This approach involves linking the detailed management plan for local landscapes, which may be a micro-catchment or community territory, to larger catchment or watershed management plans and a multisector and multistakeholder plan for the river basin.
Case Study A3. To catalyse landscape-scale interventions for climate-smart agricultural development there is a need to increase access to financing. Achieving financial viability for development initiatives that operate at the landscape level requires that the incomes of all stakeholders are sufficiently high to prevent them from engaging in activities detrimental to local ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods. Several options to create these conditions are outlined in more detail in module C.
To implement a landscape approach and provide co-financing to climate-smart agriculture activities, mechanisms should be negotiated among multiple users and directed to multiple sectors. These mechanisms can provide incentives to smallholder producers to overcome barriers to the adoption of more environmentally-friendly and climate-smart practices.
Incentives for ecosystem services can provide a spectrum of options, ranging from policy-driven incentives to voluntary ones. Funding in this area can be sourced from existing public programmes, private sector investment and civil society initiatives. Improved cross-sectoral coordination of existing co-financed incentives can provide a package of actions to support short-term transitional needs and the long-term sustainability of climate-smart agriculture production systems. Incentives for applying the landscape approach to implement climate-smart agriculture interventions can be financial or non-financial.
- View Shared Governance For Sustainable Working Landscapes 2017.
- Calling Back the Spirit: Music, Dance, and Cultural Politics in Lowland South Sulawesi.
- About This Item;
Financial incentives can include payments for ecosystem services PES — a mechanism to compensate farmers and farming communities for the lost opportunity costs of maintaining ecosystem services. PES can be used as a market-based innovation to scale up sustainable land management and its components, such as sustainable forest management. PES incentives have the added advantage of increasing the financial attractiveness of alternative practices.
You are here
Non-financial incentives include capacity development, educational initiatives, the provision of inputs and the development of alternative livelihoods. Improving access to higher-value markets, for example through certification for major agricultural commodities e. There is a need to catalyse landscape-scale interventions by increasing access to finance for climate-smart agricultural development. Incentives for ecosystem services can provide support for an enabling environment to improve the coordination of existing initiatives that can compensate producers for conservation activities.
Support for more sustainable, climate-smart production with private sector-led eco-certification initiatives could also be coordinated with large investment programmes to increase access to locally adapted, affordable and high-quality inputs and improve infrastructure e. For climate finance in rural landscapes to be effective, the interventions need to be coordinated with local development activities.
There are several opportunities for securing additional private and public climate finance e. For example the AFR the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative is a country-led effort to bring million hectares of land in Africa into restoration by Initiative 20x20 is a similar country-led effort to bring 20 million hectares of land in Latin America and the Caribbean into restoration by To harmonize sectoral approaches, climate finance should be linked to agricultural development finance.
These national and international policy tools provide the flexibility to fund policy development in support of climate change adaptation and mitigation on a large scale. An example of a success story in this area is presented in Case study A3. Managing landscapes for Climate-Smart Agriculture systems.