Ten Principles for a Landscape Approach to Reconciling Agriculture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPECIAL FEATURE: PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE SPECIAL FEATURE: Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses Jeffrey Sayera,1, Terry Sunderlandb, Jaboury Ghazoulc, Jean-Laurent Pfundd, Douglas Sheilb,e,f, Erik Meijaardb,g,h, Michelle Ventera, Agni Klintuni Boedhihartonoa, Michael Dayb, Claude Garciab,i, Cora van Oostenj, and Louise E. Buckk aCenter for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia; bCenter for International Forestry Research, Bogor 16000, Indonesia; cDepartment of Environmental Systems Science, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; dFauna, Forests and Nature Service, 2108 Couvet, Switzerland; eInstitute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda; fSchool of Environmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia; gPeople and Nature Borneo Futures Project, Consulting International, Jakarta 15412, Indonesia; hSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; iGoods and Services of Tropical Forest Ecosystems Research Unit, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Unité Propre de Recherche, F-34398 Montpellier, France; jCentre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University and Research Centre, 6700 AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and kEcoAgriculture Partners and Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Edited by Kenneth G. Cassman, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, and accepted by the Editorial Board December 21, 2012 (received for review June 21, 2012) “Landscape approaches” seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and biodiversity goals. Here we synthesize the current consensus on landscape approaches. This is based on published literature and a consensus-building process to define good practice and is validated by a survey of practitioners. We find the landscape approach has been refined in response to increasing societal concerns about environment and development tradeoffs. Notably, there has been a shift from conservation-orientated perspectives toward increasing integration of poverty alleviation goals. We provide 10 summary principles to support implementation of a landscape approach as it is currently interpreted.These principles emphasize adaptive management, stakeholder involvement, and multiple objectives.Various constraints are recognized, with institutional and governance concerns identified as the most severe obstacles to implementation. We discuss how these principles differ from more traditional sectoral and project-based approaches. Although no panacea, we see few alternatives that are likely to address landscape challenges more effectively than an approach circumscribed by the principles outlined here. food security | integrated development approaches | social ecological systems | agriculture environment trade offs | Convention on Biological Diversity Global demand for agricultural land is on a intensification threatens environmental goods end, we identify 10 principles to guide the collision course with environmental protec- and services (6), which could in turn under- process of decision-making in landscape “ ” tion goals. We face a perfect storm as we mine efforts to meet future food demands (7), contexts. These principles emphasize that struggle to feed a burgeoning population on while also affecting livelihoods and health (8). the integration of agricultural and environ- a diminishing supply of land, water, nutri- There are many uncertainties: climate change mental priorities will require a people-cen- ents, and biodiversity (1). Despite global threatens to reduce crop production in some tered approach applied at landscape scales. efforts, ambitious targets and massive expen- regions, but will perhaps provide new oppor- We examine the multiple ways in which diture, there are as yet no general and effec- tunities elsewhere (9); competing demands tive solutions for meeting both nature con- on land for climate change mitigation, bio- this is being approached and the validity servation goals and human needs (2, 3). The diversity conservation, and agriculture im- of the underlying concepts. Food and Agricultural Organization esti- plies tradeoffs, many of which are poorly Author contributions: J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., C.v.O., and L.E.B. mates a 70% increase in food production understood and not easily resolvable (10). designed research; J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., C.v.O., and L.E.B. per- is needed to feed a projected population of Therewillbenosinglebestanswer,and formed research; J.S., T.S., J.-L.P., A.K.B., and C.v.O. contributed 9.1 billion people by 2050 (4). Food pro- societies will have to confront challenges new analytic tools; J.S., T.S., J.G., J.-L.P., D.S., E.M., M.V., A.K.B., duction goals have to be met in ways that that transcend traditional agricultural and M.D., and C.G. analyzed data; and J.S., T.S., J.G., D.S., E.M., M.V., A.K.B., M.D., and C.G. wrote the paper. alleviate poverty, improve nutrition, and con- environmental boundaries. People and so- fl serve the environment. Interactions among cieties must make decisions. We contend that The authors declare no con ict of interest. these challenges require that they be ad- the quality of decision-making is a function This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. K.G.C. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board. dressed in a concerted way. Sectoral ap- of the process by which the decision is 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jeffrey. proaches, despite still being predominant, reached, and achieving objectives is an on- [email protected]. have long been recognized as inadequate going process subject to negotiation, learn- This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/ (5). For example, agricultural expansion and ing, adaptation, and improvement. To this lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110 PNAS | May 21, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 21 | 8349–8356 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 “Landscape approaches” have gained principles have been relatively well summa- paradigm of the late 20th century of inte- prominence in the search for solutions to rized and shared (e.g., refs. 28, 34), the hu- grated conservation and development projects reconcile conservation and development man and institutional issues lack recent (5, 38). It describes an approach to reconciling tradeoffs (11), and the term has evolved synthesis in the scientific literature. Here conservation and development through in- to encompass a wide variety of interpreta- we fill that gap and discuss 10 principles terventions in different components of a land- tions. Early conservation theory promoted that reflect the prevailing views in recent scape matrix—some of which are managed landscape-scale thinking, particularly through literature. They are based on current ap- toward livelihood development goals and the principles of island biogeography (12); proaches and statements of “good practice” others for conservation. The evolution of debates about the appropriate size, number, and on an extensive multidisciplinary con- integrated conservation and development and distributions of reserves and connec- sultation with a range of professional insti- projects and ecosystem approaches toward tivity between them (e.g., refs. 13, 14); and tutions, four formal workshops, and 137 landscape approaches has been incremental. metapopulation theory for maintaining vi- further consultations via an online ques- The main substantive innovations have been able populations (15). “People” and “society,” tionnaire (SI Text). Representing a consensus the recognition of the need to address the however, were notably absent from such view, these principles were discussed by the complex interactions between different considerations, and, as a result, conservation Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) spatial scales, and the need to embrace the has been beset by disappointments and fail- during the 15th Meeting of the Subsidiary full complexity of human institutions and ures (16–18). Thus, although conservation Body on Scientific, Technical and Techno- behaviors (38, 39). theory provided a stimulus and foundation logical Advice (35). Following a lengthy Biodiversity conservation has been ad- for landscape approaches, their further de- consultative process and eventual accep- dressed in an explicitly “landscape context” velopment has come from the recognition tance by the CBD, we expect that these since at least 1983 (40). The early uses of of the need to address the priorities of peo- principles will have traction in guiding landscape focused on biophysical attributes ple who live and work within, and ultimately landscape approaches to environmental (41). In 1997, a comprehensive account of shape, these landscapes (19). These priori- management for some time to come. The ecosystem management used the term land- ties are often not aligned, and hence chal- principles are targeted at those seeking de- scape only in the context of the visual (i.e., lenges are often “wicked” problems with no