Gaps in design of initiatives
Against this backdrop, researchers at CDE conducted an exploratory analysis of private-sector landscape initiatives (see Box 1, below). They synthesized design principles for landscape initiatives recommended in the scientific literature and compared them with the strategic documents of private-sector actors (businesses and NGOs) participating in landscape initiatives. The analysis showed that certain design principles were sufficiently addressed (e.g. progress evaluation), whereas others received less attention or were missing entirely (see Figure 1, above). Key gaps identified include:
Considering multifunctionality
Despite their landscape focus, the private-sector initiatives tended to emphasize their own production areas while overlooking other land uses or ecosystem services supported by the wider landscape as a whole. This contradicts the holistic view recommended by scientific advocates of integrated landscape approaches.
Comprehensive inclusiveness
The strategic documents of most initiatives cited the need for engagement with a broad cross-section of stakeholders. However, our sample also revealed a tendency to focus primarily on actors directly linked to the respective company supply chains. This approach risks excluding important stakeholders with competing interests or claims – among them vulnerable groups (e.g. indigenous communities).
Conflict resolution
Relatedly, mechanisms for solving grievances or tensions among stakeholders were scarcely mentioned. This too is concerning due to the power imbalances frequently present between outside business interests and local actors.
Local integration
Also absent was mention of the need to harmonize landscape initiatives with the existing (spatial) planning of local government agencies and the policies of relevant jurisdictional authorities. But without the buy-in of such authorities, landscape initiatives are unlikely to succeed in the medium- to long-term.
Secure financing
The question of lasting funding often remains insufficiently addressed. Private actors understandably try to target their investment, delimit its time horizon, and safeguard their own returns. But ensuring healthy landscapes demands more innovative, coordinated, long-view funding that brings together private, public, and civic actors in sharing costs, assuming risks, and benefitting from investment returns – the latter including the appraised value of ecosystem services.
Multi-scale integration
Finally, there was little discussion of the need to consider linkages between landscapes regionally, nationally, and globally – going beyond the boundaries of a given value chain. In our networked world, however, landscapes are connected through various flows (e.g. worker migration, trade, or financial flows). Also, interventions in one landscape can impact other landscapes near and far through leakage effects.