Customised Methodology to Assess and Measure Effectiveness of Integrated Landscape Management Relevant Multi-Stakeholder Transformative Governance, Incorporating Rights-Based Planning and Tenure Aspects, Applied in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam

Abstract

Different thinking and strategies are needed to transform our food systems at different scales. Food systems can be changed towards a more sustainable path through multi-stakeholder transformative governance at the landscape level because that is where national-level visions, objectives, and policies meet with local practice, priorities, and actions. Concrete and practical guidance on how to effectively put a multi-stakeholder transformative governance process into practice is missing. Through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded ‘Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Programme’, led by the World Bank, countries are supported in integrated landscape management (ILM) to ensure that production systems are embedded within wider landscapes to safeguard the natural capital and ecosystem services on which they depend. A customised methodology to assess and measure the effectiveness of ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance, incorporating rights-based planning and tenure aspects, has been developed that makes governance explicit in the ILM process. This methodology aims to improve landscape-level institutional coordination, coherence, and collaboration through enhanced horizontal and vertical coordination and network dynamics. The conceptual framework of the customised methodology and how to operationalise it are explained and illustrated with the application in the country projects in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam. Making transformative governance explicit within the ILM process at the landscape level will require investments in time and capabilities, but allows governance to act as a catalyst towards more sustainable pathways.

1. Introduction

The High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has called for “a radical transformation in our food systems at different scales” [1], (p. 93). The current sustainability strategies have failed to curb negative impacts. Therefore, different thinking and strategies are needed. There is sufficient scientific knowledge and evidence clearly demonstrating that we cannot afford to not act, especially when the costs of not acting are higher than any cost incurred in the short term [1]. Integrative actions, such as integrated landscape management, are required at different scales [2]. The focus on production landscapes highlights that production—often focusing on high yields, production volumes, and gross margins, rather than nutritional value or sustainability aspects—is not taking place in isolation, but as part of a wider landscape [3].

By putting people at the core and doing the proper things in the proper places and at the proper scale, food systems can be changed towards a more sustainable path through multi-stakeholder transformative governance. It is precisely at the landscape level where national-level visions, objectives, and policies meet with local practice, priorities, and actions. This requires appropriate landscape-level governance to be built up when non-existent or reinforced when existent. Governance arrangements need to move beyond administrative or jurisdictional to cover landscape boundaries, provide incentives for resource managers and resource users, authorities, and methods for taking into account the outcomes of decisions beyond their own influence. Such multi-stakeholder transformative governance, which is relevant to integrated landscape management, is not easy to achieve because competing claims and interests of various land users are often encountered in the landscape. These make it difficult to design an integrated landscape management process that leads to acceptable outcomes—i.e., a socially justifiable equilibrium between protection, production, and consumption—to all parties involved. A multi-functional approach across sectors and scales that enhances stakeholder participation is advocated for in this study; however, at the same time, this study poses the question of what we mean by ‘multi-functionality’, because its interpretation depends on scale (e.g., multi-functional farm, multi-functional forest, multi-functional concession, and multi-functional landscape). In practice, such an approach remains challenging due to the complexity of landscape dynamics, stakeholder processes, power dynamics, and institutional challenges that impede transformative governance at the landscape level [4,5,6]. The landscape level means working at a level that does not necessarily correspond to administrative and/or jurisdictional boundaries. Another aspect is the legitimacy of the process to achieve acceptable outcomes for all parties involved because it is not only about the participation of multiple stakeholders, but also about the fruitfulness of the resulting policies and the efficiency, accountability, openness, and inclusiveness of the whole process [6]. How can one embed integrated landscape management into governance arrangements at the landscape level to ensure that the outcomes are legitimate in the process of decision-making? This means that the conventional top-down, sector-oriented management and planning approach at administrative levels needs to transform in favour of context-sensitive, inclusive and participatory, iterative management and planning at the landscape level facilitated through landscape-level governance to pursue and balance multiple objectives, with all relevant actors in society involved and able to meaningfully participate in the inclusive consultation process.

Concrete and practical guidance on how to effectively put a multi-stakeholder transformative governance process into practice is missing. Capacity and firm preparedness to work across social, political, and scientific disciplinary boundaries, i.e., across ‘silos’, is needed [7] if we want to achieve truly consensus-based, integrated landscape management. The business-as-usual approach, whereby a range of landscape functions are embedded in institutional and policy ‘silos’, results in different sectors striving for sustainability outcomes without coordination, harmonisation, or integration. This concerns both horizontal (e.g., issues identified at the landscape level are fed upwards to (sub)national levels, gender mainstreaming, etc.) and vertical (e.g., coordinated and coherent approaches, meaningful participation by stakeholders, access to information, etc.) integration. Therefore, a common vision from multiple stakeholders on transformative governance in the landscape is a requisite. Change cannot be achieved without involving multiple actors by gaining their long-term buy-in and levelling the playing field to discuss and compare alternative approaches [1,8].

Multi-stakeholder participation in natural resources management at the landscape level creates spaces that are environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and socially just, thereby contributing to food security and poverty alleviation. Such benefits are particularly significant for the most disenfranchised, i.e., the vulnerable and marginalised. As vulnerable and marginalised stakeholders, like low-income farmers and families, landless farm labourers, indigenous peoples, women, migrants, youth, etc., are the most susceptible and simultaneously the least resourced to reply to the destruction of biodiversity, ecosystems, climate change risks, and natural resources, and because agricultural production systems are anticipated to support the life of the world’s population that does not live on the land, the environmental and ecological aspects of governance will be crucial going ahead [9]. It is incorrect to consider the vulnerable and marginalised as ‘victims’ and ‘powerless actors’. Their empowerment should be seen as an enabling strength for bottom-up transformational change [10]. How to value trade-offs and how to find a balance between these will vary between social groups and also within social groups. The aim should be to achieve inclusivity and equity for all [8].

Through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded ‘Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Programme’ (FOLUR-IP), led by the World Bank, countries are supported to make certain that their production systems are firmly inserted within wider landscapes to safeguard natural capital (e.g., biodiversity, habitat, land, minerals, soil, and water) and ecosystem services on which they depend. Enabling sustainable intensification and diversification through a landscape approach is central to enhanced agricultural practices from the FOLUR perspective. By integrating the full range of land uses and users in a given area through coordinated policies and management, efficient and productive agro-ecological systems can meet livelihood, environmental health and food security needs, while building resilience and reducing activities that exacerbate climate change risks. To achieve its purposes, the Impact Programme is aiming at large production landscapes that have the capability to deliver global environmental benefits at scale and be supported after the programme ends. A transformational shift in their food systems is required, and this concerns a transformation that is a “deep, systemic, and sustainable change with large-scale impact in an area of global environmental concern” [11,12]. Most transformational change involves more than one type of barrier, often requiring context-sensitive scaling up (e.g., developing system-level strategies), scaling deep (e.g., transforming system intent), and scaling out (e.g., expanding initial pilots, replicating projects in programmes, and promoting diffusion of innovation) [12,13]. A system-wide approach is promoted that draws together strategies and stakeholders through both horizontal (e.g., interventions with actors within landscapes, policy reform, governance strengthening, etc.) and vertical (e.g., food value and supply chain commitments and financing) dimensions [14]. The FOLUR-IP seeks to change the global food system by advancing sustainable, integrated landscapes and efficient commodity value chains. The IP consists of a global platform and 27 country projects targeting the production landscapes of major commercial commodities (e.g., cocoa, coffee, livestock/beef, palm oil, and soybean) and food staples (e.g., corn/maize, rice, and wheat).

Changing the current situation of landscape management to a sustainable future will only happen when transformative change is tackling the root causes and drivers: the interrelated indirect demographic, economic, institutional, political, socio-cultural, and technological drivers behind the direct drivers (mainly land-use change for land conversion for cultivation, livestock raising, and plantations; but also sea use change through extraction (fishing)) [15]. Transformative change necessitates the examination of new ways of achieving more impact. This comes with higher risk and, at the same time, higher reward [16]. Opportunities occur to change from present to future trajectories through transformative action. Such genuinely transformative change can be enabled, strengthened, and accelerated with the joint application of priority interventions (levers) to key points of intervention (leverage points) through innovative governance approaches [15]. This will require a different, evolved governance approach, i.e., transformative governance. Such governance focuses on: (1) the interlinkages between sectors and policies and guarantees policy coherence and effectiveness; and (2) inclusive approaches, including rights-based ones, that reflect numerous socio-cultural values and correspondingly advances equity. Governance approaches are enablers of transformative change [8]. The GEF identifies four levers to assist such transformation [16]: (1) governance and policies; (2) multi-stakeholder dialogue; (3) innovation and learning; and (4) financial leverage. The multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach to integrated landscape management combines the first three levers.

A customised methodology to assess and measure the effectiveness of integrated landscape management relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance incorporating rights-based planning and tenure aspects is presented by first explaining the key elements of the conceptual framework (Section 2) and then presenting the resulting operational framework (Section 3). The methodology is focused on making transformative governance explicit in ILM through improved landscape-level institutional coordination, coherence, and collaboration through enhanced horizontal and vertical coordination and network dynamics. The methodology is applied to the just-operational FOLUR country projects in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam (Section 4), followed by discussion (Section 5), and the way forward from methodology development to application (Section 6).

2. Key Elements of the Conceptual Framework

The customised methodology to assess and measure the effectiveness of integrated landscape management relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance, incorporating rights-based planning and tenure aspects, is based on a stock-taking review and built around several key elements of the conceptual framework [17]: governance, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and being transformative (Section 2.1); rights-based approaches (Section 2.2); tenure rights, limitations and obligations, and tenure security (Section 2.3); and its relevance to integrated landscape management (Section 2.4).

2.1. Key Elements: Multi-Stakeholder Transformative Governance

Multi-stakeholder transformative governance is built around three key elements with the following definitions and concepts:

• Governance: taken to embrace “all the formal and informal rules, institutions, organisations and processes through which public and private actors articulate their interests; frame and prioritise issues; and make, implement, monitor and enforce decisions” [18], (p. 1). Governance is key in managing a process of change. The usual procedures of governance include the processes of exchange and decision-making among the stakeholders involved in a joint issue. Governance, as a human function, is clearly led by aim and direction [19]. Governance mechanisms by the public sector may entail policies, legislation, regulation, taxes, and institutions, whereas governance mechanisms by the private sector may entail value chain development, and certification.
• Multi-stakeholder partnerships: occur when multiple actors work genuinely together through collective action to tackle complex challenges in an innovative and multi-faceted manner that results in systemic change/transformation of, in this case, the existing governance [20]. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are viewed as “sustained, intentionally created, long-term spaces to promote dialogue, deliberation, and collaborative action among social groups and organisations (‘stakeholders’) who stand to be meaningfully affected, either positively or negatively, by decisions of public importance within a defined domain” [21]. A stakeholder is defined as: “anyone or any institution who has interests in, or is affected by, an issue or activity or transaction and, therefore, has a natural right to participate in decisions relating to it” [22]. A stakeholder can be an individual or an interest group. Their ability to exercise agency varies because of the power dynamics at play (e.g., social, economic, and political) [23].
• Being transformative: meaning that one is able of reacting to, coping with, and even activating welcome changes in coupled social–ecological systems towards sustainability [24,25].

These three key elements are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. The multi-dimensional nature of governance, addressing many scales, stakeholders, and competing interests, among others, requires horizontal and vertical integration of mechanisms involved to address a collective action problem. Genuine multi-level governance can emerge from the bottom up as a result of voluntary collective action and negotiation (for an example from South Africa, see [26], or as a result of top-down mandated processes (e.g., land reform process, (regulated) spatial planning process) that strategically aim for more participation and meaningful and inclusive consultation [27]. Multi-level governance is understood as the result of a process of devolution and decentralisation and of the upward, downward, and lateral reassignment of authority and responsibility among stakeholders [27]. The different roles and responsibilities of these stakeholders should be complementary and mutually reinforcing. Decision-making is embedded in power relations between stakeholders, and power is intertwined with all forms of equity and justice [10]. The stakeholders with the least power are often the most vulnerable. Decisions are made, constructed, regulated and opposed between, across, and among scales through networking between stakeholders [28].

The value of genuine multi-stakeholder processes is in fostering inclusive decision-making in transformative governance. Working together to resolve complex challenges is necessary as these affect society as a whole and exceed the ability of any individual stakeholder to solve them on their own. A multi-stakeholder approach indicates a process that is both iterative, flexible, and highly inclusive. The concerns and desires of identified stakeholders should be the subject of an ongoing dialogue that is evolving and taken care of with reciprocal respect. This dialogue will address issues of trust, power dynamics, and conflicts, if and when relevant. Multi-stakeholder partnerships that are appropriately and effectively designed and implemented in the frame of adaptive learning can contribute to transformative change in governance and management at the landscape level [21]. Stakeholder misalignment is more likely when stakeholder interests are competing and diverging and, if unattended, this may undermine collective commitment and inhibit productive interactions [19]. Though there is a body of literature on multi-stakeholder partnerships, little of this work examines interactions and negotiations among local actors to manage trade-offs (through consultations, negotiations, and coalition or alliance-building) and find synergies among diverse groups and benefits or needs [29]. Negotiation is a key element in territorial development from a socio-ecological perspective [30].

Partnerships imply cooperation between different actors from different levels, where levels are understood to stretch potentially from the local (e.g., farm, landscape, watershed) to the national and international scales (including international treaties and transnational actors). Stakeholders can cooperate not only within the same level (horizontal dimension), but also across different territorial, administrative, sectoral and jurisdictional scales (vertical dimension). Any mismatches between the jurisdictional scale and the landscape level may pose specific challenges to cross-level interactions. There is an important role at each level for leaders that champion critical narratives (e.g., ‘change agents’ (i.e., persons who voluntarily take an interest in the adoption, implementation, and success of a cause, policy, programme, project, or product and cause a change in the way things are done or the way ideas are viewed [31]), and ‘boundary spanners’ (i.e., individuals, organisations, or institutions that have the ability to reach across borders, scales, sectors, or stakeholders to create strategic alliances, networks, or partnerships in order to manage complex problems [31]), who can mobilise, arrange, and sustain social and political capital for change. It is important that multiple actors exchange perspectives on what the priorities should be and to ensure that, during the process, focus is kept on the identified priority issues. Therefore, regular deliberation on what exactly the priorities are is key. To achieve more transformative developmental impact at scale, the place of the multi-stakeholder partnership in the deliberative system is key [26]. Being placed in the public space will contribute to the “articulation of interests, and the framing and prioritising of issues” (see the ‘governance’ definition above), but this does not necessarily lead to the authoritative joint decision needed for transformative and sustainable solutions in the production landscape. For that, the multi-stakeholder partnership needs to be placed in the empowered space, where it will “contribute to making, implementing, monitoring and enforcing decisions” (see the ‘governance’ definition above), which are the objectives of the integrated landscape management.

Transformative is coupled with governance. This explicitly considers that values, interests, and power dynamics are essential issues for advancing policies for socio-ecological transformation that are not only successful, but also legitimate and fair [32,33]. The growing complexity of decision-making processes in modern society requires improved harmonisation, coordination, and coherence of various levels of governance (see https://iiasa.ac.at/programs/advancing-systems-analysis-asa/cooperation-and-transformative-governance; URL accessed on 8 August 2024). For governance to support genuinely transformative change, this is an issue of aligning incentive structures, revisiting accountability systems, and equality, grounded in a comprehension of power dynamics and justice, across and within sustainability and societal domains [10]. This means an emphasis on the physical territory, or landscape, and its social assets, as well as the need for formal and informal institutions to support the transformation [34]. The goal of transformative governance is to proactively move a social-ecological system to an alternative and inherently better regime/state by changing the structures and processes that define the system [24]. Governance processes and power dynamics have been underlined as a key area for evidence creation to inform transformations to fairer sustainability [35]. What characterises an accurate transformation is when the regime shift accomplished is a direct result of strong human vision, progressive voices, leadership, experimentation, planning, and action, that is, in other words, human agency [24,25]. This agency is about people as ‘makers and shapers’, rather than ‘users and choosers’ of interventions [36].

The phenomenon of transformation is scale-dependent and multi-level, and can be system-wide or nested as personal, organisational, or other levels of subsystem transformation [24]. Consequently, transformative governance is about framing (i.e., identifying a problem) and setting the stage for a desired transformation. For integrated landscape management, governance is relevant across scales: from local land-use practices to global issues [10]. For sustainable agriculture and food systems, governance should embrace an appropriate institutional and policy environment across scales and across sectors [1]. Policy coherence at all levels should be addressed [8]. Different stakeholders have different perspectives on the imagined aim of transformative change and the ways to achieve these. It is proposed to explicitly discuss the different perspectives to come to a clearer understanding of what the actual problem is that needs to be concentrated on and what types of solutions would be fitting [25].

Our understanding of truly transformative capacity in governance systems is in its infancy [24,25,37]. To change the status quo of governance systems requires concrete alternative approaches to the existing model and will have to go further to correct market failures and constraints to invest in sustainable agricultural practices. Based on the stocktaking exercise conducted, to be truly transformative, the conceptual approach to governance should simultaneously comprise five governance approaches [25,33,36,37,38,39]. Only when these governance approaches are implemented together, operationalised, and concentrated on addressing the indirect drivers fundamental to sustainability issues, governance begins to be truly transformative [25,37]. These five approaches are:

• Integrative: Operationalised in ways to make certain solutions have sustainable impacts across scales, places/locations, issues, and sectors in order that they increase cohesion between governance levels and action. Thus, the change is related to and influenced by changes elsewhere. Working at the landscape level in the FOLUR country projects thus means, among other approaches: (1) the use of integrated landscape management approaches; (2) integration of sectoral policies with improved cohesion; and (3) polycentric governance, i.e., distributed power or multiple centres of power.
• Inclusive: Operationalised through multiple stakeholder engagement, especially the vulnerable and marginalised (e.g., indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, local communities, smallholder farming families, landless farm labourers, migrants, women, youth, etc.), in order to empower and emancipate those whose interests are right now pending and who stand for values embodying transformative change towards sustainability in the decision-making processes. For FOLUR country projects, this means, among other approaches: (1) deliberative (instituting reasons-based decision-making), empowered (tying action to discussion), participatory, and consultative approaches; (2) rights-based approaches (see Section 2.2), in particular, approaches related to legitimate tenure rights (see Section 2.3) [40]; and (3) scenario development in line with inputs from multiple stakeholders that are helpful in identifying different interests and facilitate communication between stakeholders and governments.
• Adaptive: Since transformative change and governance, and our understanding of them, are ever-changing targets, governance needs to allow for learning, capacity development, and experimentation or learning-by-doing (e.g., through interconnections between levels [19]), reflexivity, monitoring, and feedback to deal with the intricacy of transformative change. To enable a capacity to adapt, it is critical to build trust and shared understanding between diverse stakeholders to motivate co-learning and adaptation. For FOLUR country projects, this means: (1) a deliberation (approach based on the assumption that competing interests and values can only be found, constructed, and considered in interchanges with others (e.g., focus groups)) and polycentric governance as tools for enabling adaptive governance; and (2) participatory and consultative approaches that are involving, for instance, stakeholders in the selection and monitoring of indicators because that does not only contribute to the availability of relevant data, but also to their engagement, and possibly commitment, with enhanced decision-making.
• Transdisciplinary: Approaches that acknowledge different and trustworthy knowledge systems (see also above), and assist the inclusion of sustainable and equitable values by focusing on types of knowledge that are currently marginalised (see also above).
• Anticipatory: Approaches that concern the preventative principle when governing in the present for unknown future developments, and particularly the development or use of new (agrifood) technologies.

In practice, multi-level governance is being encouraged as preferable for all scenarios that require integrated and joint action at multiple levels within the spheres of economy, policy, and civil society. Such encouragement is especially pertinent for problems related to transformative governance, because those are time and again characterised by the attributes of common-pool resource management in which the costs of action are centred at the local level, whereas the benefits accumulate at the global level [41].

Transformative governance in large production landscapes means a move away from business-as-usual practices if we want to safeguard natural capital and ecosystem services. It means prioritising and better balancing the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability next to the economic dimension (i.e., beyond the economic growth paradigm) to address climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, etc. We need to strengthen social and human capital to effectively leverage finance to restore natural capital (see https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/secure-land-rights-to-restore-nature-and-improve-livelihoods-for-all/; URL accessed on 8 August 2024). Changes to individual and joint actions are needed at various levels of governance that depart from viewing production landscapes only as a means for production to considering them an integral part of a socio-ecological system [42]. Transformative governance needs to be suitable and answerable to the unique environmental, economic, and social conditions in the production landscape to capitalise on the effectiveness and positive impact of the approach. It is important to note that change is tremendously challenging because business-as-usual practices are entrenched in existing path-dependent institutional arrangements and powerful and wealthy groups or individuals benefit most from the status quo [43].

2.2. Key Elements: Rights-Based Approaches

A rights-based approach is a useful first step to convey several governance-related issues, such as the power dynamics shutting out some people from access to land, fisheries, forests, and water to secure their livelihood. It can help to concentrate on the accountability of formal and informal institutions to ensure inclusiveness and effectiveness in matters pertinent to people’s livelihoods. Furthermore, a human rights-based approach allows for an analysis of the needs of the most vulnerable and an assessment of the impact of the landscape actions undertaken and those planned.

Rights-based approaches have been created that form a normative framework to positively transform power dynamics among stakeholders. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights forms the common ground for these approaches. This Declaration states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. In addition, everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themself and of their family, including having access to food, clothing, and housing. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is grounded in the Declaration and international human rights standards deriving from the Declaration and other international human rights treaties.

Related to food systems in the production landscapes are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child also establish the substantive right to food. At the FAO, the rights-based ‘Voluntary Guidelines To Support The Progressive Realization of The Right To Adequate Food In The Context of National Food Security’ were adopted by the Council in 2004 [44].

Related to multi-stakeholder partnerships is Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration which firmly establishes participatory rights in international law. Without equal participation in decision-making and access to the management of natural resources, rural communities will remain poor [45]. In particular, Articles 18 and 27 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples allow their participation in decision-making processes affecting them and allow them to control the outcome of such processes [46]. This is important as they, with local communities, use or communally manage up to half the world’s land area with high-quality, high-biodiversity ecosystems that have weak governance [47]. The right to participate is linked to the enjoyment of other human rights.

Rights will become real only if people are involved in the decisions and processes that affect their lives. Supporting such rights-based approaches are the principles of inclusiveness, participation, and accountability [36]. A rights-based approach addresses the reciprocal existing and desired roles and responsibilities of individuals, communities, companies, societies, and states, and based on the environment that they share. It helps in increasing the aspiration of stakeholder dialogue and partnerships, and helps in setting points of reference and developing checks-and-balances for accountability, and should therefore be an intrinsic part of an inclusive, integrated landscape management approach [48].

Rights-based approaches focus attention on the connection between right holders and duty bearers; thus, stakeholder relations can be seen as rights–duties connections with interrelationships, and producing mechanisms and processes of joint accountability. The ‘right-holders,’ with their entitlements, and the ‘duty-bearers,’ with their obligations (mainly states, but also non-state actors, including business enterprises and international organisations), are both roles with which individuals or groups can engage [49].

Current human rights thinking is developing in the direction of acknowledging that everyone, everywhere, has the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment (e.g., with cleaner air, safer water, and healthier ecosystems), which is hoped to function as a catalyst for systemic and transformative changes to produce a just and sustainable future in harmony with nature [50].

2.3. Key Elements: Tenure Rights, Limitations and Obligations, and Tenure Security

Rights-based approaches address secure and equitable access to land explicitly; thus, they address tenure rights [51]. Tenure rights, limitations, and obligations are central to governance, and they are also a principal requirement to achieving effective and equitable integrated landscape management.

Tenure rights are important for those that rely on activities related to land, fisheries, forests, and water resources for their livelihoods [52]. Uncertainty, inequality, or ambiguity on the distribution of rights to access, use, and control resources may lead to issues arising in the landscape. Having clear tenure rights identifies the kind of right, the right holder(s), and the contents of the right. A tenure right always comes with limitations (which specify a right) and obligations (which require right-holders to adopt a certain conduct). Tenure rights need to be clear to, and accepted by, all stakeholders involved because they are also a basis for integrated landscape management [4].

The right to land is recognised in the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention [53], the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [46], and Articles 5 and 17 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas [54]. Furthermore, secure and equitable access is a precondition for realising a range of other human rights (e.g., right to food) as expressed in General Comment No. 26 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights [55]. Thus, human rights have the power to protect tenure rights.

In the context of national food security, to which the production landscapes may or may not contribute directly or indirectly, and grounded in international human rights law, the ‘Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security’ endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security provide a global, normative framework [40].

Tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land, fisheries, forests, and water [56]. Tenure is an institution, i.e., rules invented by societies to regulate behaviour, and as such, it is an institutional driver [47]. Land tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long and under what conditions [40,56]. The same applies to forests [57], fisheries, and water tenure, which resource uses and users mutually impact one another and where the notion of tenure may facilitate integrated approaches. According to the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [58], (p. 5), “land tenure systems are made up of multiple layers of rules, laws, customs, traditions, perceptions and regulations. […] considering land issues from a human rights perspective allows for the clarification of obligations, but also for the achievement of development and humanitarian goals, poverty eradication and the realization of human rights”.

The link between tenure rights and transformative governance is that the interventions of the latter depend on legitimate tenure rights, i.e., either legally (statutory or de jure) or socially recognised (i.e., customary or de facto) tenure rights, which determine the actions that stakeholders are permitted to take [59]. How people make use of their legitimate rights over land, fisheries, forests, and water resources has an influence on their development direction [60]. Sustainable use of land, fisheries, forests, and water resources must be included in tenure rights as an obligation because economic theory stipulates that once tenure rights are allocated over a resource, the right holder will use that resource in a way that provides for higher utility. The latter may not automatically mean higher sustainability or equitable use of the resource [45].

In the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure [40], ‘access’ follows the standard definition of “the right to benefit from things” rather than “the ability to derive benefits from things” as formulated by Ribot and Peluso [61], (p. 153). Other mechanisms than legal rights exist that shape ‘access’ (e.g., access to technology, capital, markets, labour, knowledge, authority, identity, and social relations) and that can restrict or enable people to receive advantages from resources without paying attention to tenure relations alone. The merits of Ribot and Peluso’s framework are primarily the conceptual move away from a prime focus on legal rights [62]. The FAO [40], (p. 3) follows this move away by using the term ‘legitimate’ tenure rights, which is explained as “not only those tenure rights formally recognized by national law, but also those rights that, while not currently protected by law are considered to be socially legitimate in local societies” [63], (pp. 19–25).

Indigenous peoples and local communities have formally recognised rights to only 26 percent of the world’s land [47,64,65]. Many communities throughout the world are working to keep up, recover, and restore intimate and personified relationships with the places they inhabit, but these relations are dependent on the level of community access to these places. Transformational change can be achieved through restoring, strengthening, or establishing well-founded and inclusive community-based governance of traditional ‘commons’, encouraging the achievement of global environmental benefits [47].

Insecure tenure is linked to poor use of land, fisheries, forests, and water resources which, in turn, creates environmental degradation and poverty, as there are no incentives for those using the natural resources to invest in long-term, sustainable agricultural or extractive practices [56].

People having secure legitimate tenure rights are inclined to participate in decision-making processes related to resources management and use. This participation can enlarge civic engagement and empowerment, thereby strengthening more equitable and sustainable development [66]. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification parties adopted in May 2019 a decision recognising that “who owns land, who has rights to use land and natural resources and how secure these rights are significantly influences the way that land is managed” [67], (p. 80). This decision is a major step forward in advancing rights-based approaches.

The incidence of tenure rights infringements, or violations, is an indicator of the reporting for respect of legitimate tenure rights, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples, as well as local communities (e.g., smallholder farmers), as outlined in customary tenure systems, regulations, norms, and standards [68]. Safeguards for legitimate tenure rights should be put in place against threats and infringements to protect legitimate tenure right holders against the arbitrary loss of such rights [40].

When considering legitimate tenure rights, it is not only about knowing whether these are legally or socially recognised rights, but it is also important to have an idea of the complexity in the evolving and diverse relationship between peoples and land, fisheries, forests, and water resources. For that, the ‘bundle of rights’ metaphor can be used, which distinguishes two main groups [48,56,69] and a third group that includes due process and compensation in the event of expropriation (different terms are used for expropriation in different countries, such as eminent domain, compulsory purchase/acquisition, land acquisition, and resumption) and the duration of rights [40,70,71]:

4.

The individual rights or user rights: comprising access and withdrawal rights, and the transferability of these rights. Access rights allow people, communities, and others to enter or pass through an area (e.g., a farmer to access his/her field(s), fisher folks to access a water body, and community members to pass through a forest). Having this right to enter or pass through a particular space is the most basic tenure right. Withdrawal rights are the rights to benefit from products of a resource for subsistence or commercial purposes (e.g., harvesting timber or other (non-) forest products, catching fish, appropriating water, gathering medicines, etc.). Transferability of access and withdrawal rights and associated limitations and obligations is related to the rules defining the access and withdrawal rights that may or may not permit those rights to be transferred (e.g., through temporary lease, or through permanent sale, bequeathment or inheritance).

5.

The collective-choice level right or control or decision-makers rights: comprising management, exclusion, and alienation rights. Management rights include those rights that communities have to regulate and make decisions about the resources and territories for which they have recognised access and withdrawal rights (e.g., the right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by making improvements). Exclusion rights are the ability to refuse another individual, group, or entity access to or the use of a particular resource (e.g., a private landowner, a concessionaire, a protected area manager, or an agency, or government can exclude a community or some members of it from a resource). No other right in the bundle so clearly reveals the points of power built into tenure regimes. The alienation of management and exclusion rights is the right to transfer one’s rights to another entity (individual or group) through sale or lease, or by using it as collateral.

6.

Due process or procedural rights and compensation in the event of expropriation and duration of rights. Due process (or procedural rights [72], (p. 8)) and compensation are due in cases of expropriation (the FAO [40], (p. 27) states that “[s]ubject to their national law and legislation and in accordance with national context, States should expropriate only where rights to land, fisheries or forests are required for a public purpose. States should clearly define the concept of public purpose in law, in order to allow for judicial review”), i.e., the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for ‘public good’ with or without public consultation. Such a taking of property must be accompanied by payment of ‘just compensation’ to the (former) right holder. The duration of rights is related to the length of period for which the rights are being held by the right holder (e.g., temporary or perpetual). The length of period of allocated rights plays a great role in shaping stakeholders’ decision-making regarding land, fisheries, forests, and water resource use and management. Those with short-term rights are motivated to make decisions that will maximise benefits in the short term, while those with long-term (or even perpetual) rights will probably make decisions that gratify longer-term use of the resource. The latter is thus contributing to a (more) sustainable use of the resource.

The contents of the ‘bundle of rights’ can vary over space and time. To possess a right implies that someone else has an equal duty to observe this right [69]. Individuals or collectivities may, and frequently do, hold well-defined tenure rights that do not include the full set of rights defined above.

Having legitimate tenure rights and knowing what these rights comprise is one thing; another is to know how secure such rights are. Tenure security reflects a right holder’s confidence or belief (real or perceived) that agreed-upon rights, i.e., the form of tenure, will be enforced and upheld by society more broadly. Tenure security, whether individual or communal, is considered to be an important pre-condition for stakeholder investment in sustainable landscape management [29] and land-use planning [73]. The tenure security can originate from different formal and/or informal sources and take on many different forms, such as titles, customary rights, leases, tenancy contracts, occupancy permits, land tax declarations, political statements, or the provision of public services. Several tenure forms have the potential to ensure secure, efficient, and sustainable access to land, fisheries, forests, and water resources in different contexts. Tenure security, regardless of tenure form, is a major means through which landscape management activities are obtained. Secure tenure furnishes a great motivation for the sustainable use and management of land and natural resources [74].

Reciprocal relations underline the joint beneficial care-taking obligations held between and among people and place, between nature and society, as entwining entities that are part of one another [75]. Communities activate their reciprocal relations through both formal governance actions (e.g., management planning, and legislation) and informal courses of action (e.g., daily human–environment interactions). Such relations call upon intimate, joint obligations between place and people that are part of everyday local practices (e.g., care-taking by communities of the ecosystems to which they have ancestral rights, as mentioned by [76]). Reciprocity is also a core aim of indigenous governance systems [77]. The FOLUR-IP production landscapes are hubs of profound traditional and innovative knowledge and good practices that hold the key to reversing degradation, mitigating the effects of climate change, and improving livelihoods. The mutual care-taking obligations between people and place, nature and society, amplifies that these production landscapes, their communities, and people matter. As [75] explained, reciprocal relations take the concept of reciprocity further because they describe not just human–environment linkages that are coexisting, but are rather intimately interrelated through a mutual flow of benefits and joint responsibilities. Such relations are interlinked with tenure rights, limitations, and obligations, and should be supported. In practice, it will be important to re-embed tenure rights with notions of obligation and responsibility [76].

Knowledge of the tenure arrangements within a landscape is key to recognise who the key ILM stakeholders are, who should participate in decision-making processes, and whose agreement is needed to make sure that any joint plan is implemented effectively [78].

2.4. Key Elements: Integrated Landscape Management

By being inclusive, participatory, consultative, and multi-functional, landscape approaches create the chance to involve the whole society in planning, management, science, and evidence-based decision-making processes at sub-national levels. The context of inclusive and integrated management and planning is important for measures to productively use, conserve, restore and rehabilitate land, fisheries, forest, and water resources at the local level, as well as with an international, or transnational, perspective (e.g., United Nations Convention to Combat Degradation, Convention on Biodiversity, United Nations Framework for Climate Change, and Sustainable Development Goals).

The main characteristics of a landscape approach are captured as follows: “A landscape approach is a multi-faceted integrated strategy that aims to bring together multiple stakeholders from multiple sectors to provide solutions at multiple scales. It can be broadly defined as a framework to address the increasingly widespread and complex environmental, economic, social and political challenges that typically transcend traditional management boundaries” [7], (p. 2551). The approach is an iterative process of negotiation, trial, and adaptation [79] in line with the concept of transformative governance. Thus, a landscape approach is an ambitious effort to interdisciplinary and intersectoral work [80] at multiple scales. The landscape level, as a management boundary, enables a holistic consideration of social–ecological systems, but also reveals pathways for local action, focusing on the links among decentralised governance systems, actors, and existing management of natural resources [81]. It represents a manageable level of complexity—including natural processes, human actors, and economic supply chains—that need not be a burden to promote transformation [82,83].

Integrated landscape management (ILM) is defined as involving “long-term genuine collaboration among diverse groups of land managers and stakeholders to achieve their multiple objectives and expectations within the landscape for local livelihoods, health and well-being” (https://peoplefoodandnature.org/about-integrated-landscape-management/; URL accessed on 8 August 2024) by balancing these multiple and sometimes conflicting interests surrounding the use of land, fisheries, forests, and water. Another ILM definition is “a process in which multi-stakeholder platforms manage the ecological, social and economic interactions between various parts of the landscape, in order to realise positive synergies between interests and actors or mitigate negative trade-offs” [84]. ILM brings stakeholders together to pursue multiple, challenging purposes for local livelihoods, sustainable agricultural production, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem management, and human well-being.

ILM occurs in wider economic and political contexts that may either smooth or hamper its development and implementation [78]. ILM can also contribute to changing these economic and political contexts. The type and level of cooperation within ILM varies depending on the context and objectives. Such cooperation can vary from information sharing between stakeholders and meaningful and inclusive consultation (involving the active, free, effective, and informed participation of individuals and groups prior to decisions being taken) to shared decision-making and joint implementation. Finding the most suitable level for joint action is an important part of ILM.

With ILM, by strengthening the coordination and participation of stakeholders through inclusive processes of decision-making, socio-ecological landscapes can provide the full range of goods and services for those who depend on them. ILM needs to be prioritised so that its governance becomes transformative and sustainability in all its dimensions is achieved. The multi-level, multi-sector, multi-actor governance required for ILM has generated a host of innovations around resource rights that need attention and better understanding [85].

The multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach represents a process that will facilitate the enabling environment for ILM. Decisions at the landscape level do not necessarily match existing decision levels (e.g., province, district, watershed, etc.). Therefore, governance needs to be assessed at multiple levels to ensure that any ILM plan can also be implemented.

The focus in FOLUR-IP on the production landscape level is justified as this is the level where most land-use decisions are made and trade-offs occur, where conflicting (sectoral) policy objectives become apparent and where the multiple objectives of stakeholders need to be combined to lead to balanced outcomes of sustained agricultural production. The landscape level is therefore the most appropriate level for planning and action to achieve the transformation to sustainable food systems.

Lastly, a word of caution. There are three issues that one should be aware of: (1) there are increased claims and competing interests over land, fisheries, forests, and water resources that might render ILM challenging; (2) modern administrations are built on silos, which might render cross-sectoral integration a real challenge; and (3) by relying on expert knowledge and consensus building, environmental injustices and socio-economic conflicts may be denied or suppressed [80].

3. Methodology of the Operational Framework

Combining and integrating multi-stakeholder transformative governance into ILM, including rights-based approaches, while underlining that legitimate tenure rights, limitations, and obligations are essential, is what we named the ‘tenure–scape’ approach [86]. This nexus approach originates from the significance of understanding interlinkages, synergies, and trade-offs between landscapes, governance, and legitimate tenure rights of tenure right holders [87]. The ‘tenure–scape’ approach allows the analysis of the interlinkages among stakeholders, among sectors, across scales, within the landscape, and between the landscape and further places. It also allows the analysis of synergies and trade-offs between dynamic land relations, and it supports integrated planning, management, and governance. Landscape-level work enables the incorporation of socio-economic and environmental processes to make the ‘tenure–scape’ approach applicable and operational to the reality of the FOLUR-IP country projects.

The importance and effectiveness of the process to encourage ILM and planning relies on, and is determined by, the specific governance context in each country [88]. Examining and understanding this governance context when applying ILM is vital for comprehensive, effective, and sustainable interventions. It facilitates and accelerates the committed engagement of relevant ILM stakeholders, recognising their needs, interests, influence, and power dynamics, and thus accelerating ILM impact while minimising trade-offs.

The operational framework starts with (Figure 1 from top to bottom): (1) the key multi-stakeholder partnership for transformative governance; (2) the multi-stakeholder transformative governance vision; (3) a theory of transformative change to achieve transformative governance (including preparatory analysis and enabling policies); (4) the existing baseline data and the desired situation (from the vision) against which transformative governance is measured; and (5) monitoring representing the transformative governance indicators.

The key element in the operationalisation of the approach is the multi-stakeholder partnership that is involved in creating the transformative vision, the subsequent theory of transformative change, and the monitoring based upon indicators from the theory of transformative change and the baseline data. The components of the methodology are thus closely interlinked as shown in Figure 1. These components will be described below.

3.1. Multi-Stakeholder Partnership for Transformative Governance

The concept of ‘stakeholder’ is key to ILM and to the transformative governance approach. The people whose welfare and livelihoods are potentially affected by proposed changes in land management and/or land use in a specific location in the landscape are at the centre of the ILM decision-making process. The central role of the stakeholders in ILM is important because their intimate knowledge and experience of their landscape puts them in the best position to articulate their needs and desires for transformative change.

There are different types of stakeholders [89]: (1) direct stakeholders are primarily the land users themselves (including farmers, herders, foresters, fisheries, etc.); and (2) indirect stakeholders, including those people that have concerns related to land use or management issues and are instrumental in addressing these concerns, without being directly affected by the proposed land-use changes.

Multi-stakeholder consultation can take many forms, thereby meeting a variety of needs. It should thus be flexible and adaptable to meet specific national, regional, or local contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all blueprint for defining how consultation steps and procedures should look in any particular situation. These guidelines therefore are the best option to navigate the diversity and complexity of consultation around the world.

The ‘mechanism’ for transformative governance is the multi-stakeholder partnership in which stakeholders should be actively engaged. This consists of engaging with both top-down and bottom-up processes that shape production landscapes, build trust, and improve the capacity to connect different perspectives. Especially, making sure that the information considered includes the views and needs of the vulnerable and marginalised, and is directed for the general public good, and will assist processes that reshape power dynamics. Multi-faceted strategies are needed to focus on strengthening capacities and advancing strategic partnerships for transformational change and the rights of indigenous, local, and smallholder communities [10]. As [90] rightly pointed out, one should appreciate that the multi-stakeholder partnership may not cover the entire multi-level governance structure; the partnership is expected to function as an institutional coordination mechanism helping to align and integrate planning and decision-making processes of different actors. It will be crucial to include representatives of the state-mandated management and planning agencies/authorities to align the participatory planning with (sub)national plans. As explained earlier, the multi-stakeholder partnership can be a ‘platform’ [91].

For promoting integration, innovation, learning, scaling, and, ultimately, enduring transformational change across scale multi-stakeholder dialogue is a key element [92]. Structured and supported dialogue processes can assist in building sustainable partnerships to improve the likelihood of such transformational change. Multi-stakeholder dialogue should integrate government and civil society actors with the private sector. Also, including multinational corporations, industry associations, and private financial institutions is important because of their importance in changing patterns of investment and economic activity needed to attain global environmental benefits at scale. The time to be invested in dialogue by stakeholders will be substantial; therefore, the benefits of their participation should be clear to encourage and motivate them [90]. Multi-stakeholder dialogue in the FOLUR-IP context is addressing interlinked cooperation, co-learning and joint action with the goal of transformational change of the food systems. Information exchanges and consultations play crucial roles, as do formal institutions with a governance role, but the focus is on engaging a diverse range of stakeholders to agree on system transformation [92]. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are, however, not a panacea.

The production landscape framing is a characteristic that differentiates the FOLUR multi-stakeholder partnership with a focus on transformative governance from those that take a national or issue-based focus (e.g., the national multi-stakeholder partnership addressing land reform in South Africa described by [26] or the national land-use policy multi-stakeholder consultative approach in Myanmar described by [31]).

A factor to take into account is in what type of scaling process, as mentioned earlier, the FOLUR-IP multi-stakeholder partnership is used. Depending on this scaling process the role of the multi-stakeholder dialogue changes to achieve transformational impacts [92,93]:

• Scaling up: multi-stakeholder dialogue to help link across ‘vertical’ levels to achieve policy and regulatory shifts. This will result in bringing a practice in local, national, and sometimes even global, agendas in decision-making processes;
• Scaling out: multi-stakeholder dialogue to spread practices, knowledge and trust ‘horizontally’ across geographies. This will result in replicating and spreading a good practice geographically and expanding the number of people and communities applying the good practice. The created geospatial platform is a useful tool in this process; and
• Scaling deep: multi-stakeholder dialogue to help manage divergent values and reach into society, which includes elements of behavioural change.

It remains a challenge to put the partnership for transformative governance in practice because of the complexity to build stakeholder partnerships beyond administrative and jurisdictional boundaries [26], together with how to mitigate resource-related disputes and conflicts on the ground [5]. Are the multiple stakeholders capable of facilitating such complex processes? It is therefore important to assess the stakeholders’ capacity and to strengthen their capacity where needed. Van Oosten et al. [94] developed a framework to do exactly that. This framework will assist in analysing the existing and desired governance capacities, to assess to what extent such capacities match, or clash, with legislation and formal spatial planning procedures. This will assist in redefining landscape objectives and/or to reorient in the production landscapes ongoing processes of decentralisation and market integration [94].

The FAO, as a specialised technical agency of the United Nations with a mandate by 194 countries and the European Union to achieve food security for all and make sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives, while natural resources are managed in a way that maintain ecosystem functions, is well positioned to act as a ‘neutral broker’ to facilitate the capacitating process of stakeholders. This process will prepare the ground for a level playing field in which all stakeholders can effectively and constructively participate in and contribute to the multi-stakeholder partnership.

Power dynamics are likely to surface and generate tensions because landscape-level stakeholders and those above and below this level are likely to exhibit considerable differences in terms of the use of and control over resources. Considerable differences may also be due to gender, age, language, ethnic group, etc., and should be acknowledged during the whole ILM process and beyond. During the ILM process, power dynamics should be managed, biases reduced, and equitable dialogue and discussion promoted. Some guiding principles to manage power imbalances may be helpful [95]:

▪

Ensure equal representation across key stakeholder groups in the production landscape or those affecting the production landscape;

▪

Distribute information in advance to allow all participants to enter with the same background (e.g., a concept note can be helpful);

▪

Select a date, time and location for meetings where all key stakeholder groups can attend;

▪

Dedicate time to all groups because each group is valuable;

▪

Intentionally divide the groups for meeting sessions in advance to benefit the expected outcomes of the sessions; and

•

Have a (co-)facilitator in each group to ensure equitable discussion between participants and ensure all voices are heard (not only those that are vocal).

The multi-stakeholder partnership for transformative governance should be transparent, and comprise the management of any conflict of interests, safeguards against power imbalances, and other safeguards to protect the landscape-level interest for any other existing interests.

3.2. The Multi-Stakeholder Transformative Governance Vision

The customised methodology requires the formulation of the multi-stakeholder transformative governance vision within the country project, with all relevant stakeholders as a starting point of the assessment (steps 1 to 4 in Figure 2). This fore-sighting will empower the stakeholders to develop a mutual governance vision that can be followed up by meaningful activities [34] (step 5 in Figure 2). This process of joint development of a vision will also assist in strengthening the multi-stakeholder partnership.

Mainstreaming sustainable development into ILM and planning with implementation at the landscape level requires innovative, transformative governance arrangements and practices that (further) integrate the vertical and horizontal dimensions:

• In the vertical dimension, coordinated and coherent approaches are key, together with space for meaningful participation of all actors, access to information for evidence-based management and planning, empowerment, and capacity development of landscape-level actors to implement the developed plan, application of the subsidiarity principle (i.e., decisions should always be taken at the lowest possible level, or closest to where they will have their effect), and raising awareness at all levels, including those above and below the landscape level; and
• In the horizontal dimension, issues identified at the landscape level are fed upwards to (sub)national levels, provisions are made for gender mainstreaming and vulnerable and marginalised groups, experiences are shared between communities in similar landscapes, the ‘silo’ mentality in thinking and working is removed, and provisions for legal framework and adherence to the rule of law, and guidelines for ILM and planning are provided.

Transformative governance frequently requires a ‘policy’ or ‘governance’ blend focused on steering transformations. In such a blend, instruments that facilitate the building-up of alternatives, the subtle change in institutional structures, and the controlled easing out of unwelcome elements need to be combined, dynamically based on a systemic understanding of the current transition dynamics. Through co-creative multi-stakeholder processes of searching mutual understandings of joint transition contexts and formulating shared desired future directions in a vision, different stakeholders can align long-term agendas and more deliberately use and implement short-term actions to guide and direct appearing transitions towards sustainable futures [33]. This is shown in steps 1 to 5 in Figure 2.

Joint pathways can be developed to discover which actions by individual stakeholders combined contribute to their envisioned sustainable transformative governance future (step 6 in Figure 2). The coordination and coherence of pathways to achieve transformative governance at multiple levels (e.g., household, community, landscape, national, and global levels) and endpoints (e.g., sustainable food systems) requires local contextualisation. A major constraint to transformative change is the difficulty of designing differentiated paths for agriculture and food systems transformation, which acknowledge both local and national expectations and desires [34].

3.3. Theory of Transformative Change Including Preparatory Analysis and Enabling Policies

The use of strategic planning tools, such as a theory of change, will help in understanding how change on the ground can be achieved by country projects through transformative governance approaches in ILM. To predict alternative futures in an iterative process, the goals, outputs, and outcomes are subject to assessment in the theory of change, see [97]. The theory of transformative change, as needed by the FOLUR-IP, can be set up in a participatory manner with the stakeholders. It will help in building the common vision and shared goals (steps 1 to 4 in Figure 2), as well as the ILM plan and alternative futures building of the specific production landscape (steps 5 to 9 in Figure 2). A good theory of transformative change is key for assessing whether a set of interventions is necessary and sufficient in the projects in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam to achieve transformational change, and frame adaptive monitoring and implementation [12,16].

Theories of transformative change should be based on strategies that define goals and causal pathways to achieve sustainable transformative governance, identifying power dynamics, and the chance that the balance between stakeholders may need to change before sustainability and equity goals will be achievable. Based on the principles above, theories of transformative change will build monitoring, learning, and reflection into implementation. Reflection is important in the development and evolution of the multi-stakeholder approach in the dynamic institutional and policy context [98].

According to [33], both short-term and long-terms action can be taken:

•

Already in the short-term (i.e., before country project end), all decision makers can contribute to the transformation towards sustainability by applying existing policy instruments, which need to be enhanced and used together strategically in order to become transformative—in other words, not only address direct drivers, but especially indirect drivers;

▪

In the long-term (beyond today), transformative change will entail additional measures and governance approaches to change technological, economic, and social structures within and across countries.

Theories of transformative change can be drawn up as outcomes in a causal framework. As described by [97], perceived changes in transformative governance are not without doubt ascribed to specific interventions, as required by a cause–effect logic. Nonetheless, trying to map this cause–effect logic of pathways of change supported by empirical data may be useful, particularly if concurrent causal strands to achieve a goal are included (e.g., various paths may lead to identical outcomes). The string of outcomes will advance the desired overarching goal (illustrated by “if–then” relationships between the outcomes). In the text associated to the graphic model, one may provide an explanation of the links between the outcomes, and why one outcome is required to achieve another. Assumptions (of risks) may give an explanation of the contextual foundation of the theory. Figure 3 (read from top to bottom) shows a partial example of the graphic model in the theory of transformative change related to governance. Being able to add causal links and mechanisms to the theory of transformative change will include depth, express complexity, and increase the practicality of the developed theory [97].

One should be aware that not only the theory of transformative change itself, but also the process used, are key. If this process is participatory and inclusive, those involved at the design stage will show ownership and commitment, thereby greatly smoothing the implementation stage [97].

Two types of guiding questions could be used for an initial, rapid assessment of the governance and decision-making processes related to ILM. Guiding questions for a rapid assessment of the existing governance at the landscape level, as well as the levels below and above, that could be put forward in a focus group, are:

▪

What are the main barriers and opportunities of the existing governance approach(es)?

▪

What policy and regulatory barriers exist?

•

What economic, financing, and incentive barriers exist?

▪

What (sub)national planning barriers exist?

▪

What knowledge barrier(s) exist?

Guiding questions for a rapid assessment of the desired decision-making processes are:

•

Which policies and regulations related to ILM and planning at the landscape level could be an entry point to integrate transformative governance approaches (or are they already integrated)? What action could be taken, and by whom?

▪

Where in the planning process is an entry point for transformative governance approaches to be integrated? What action could be taken, and by whom?

•

What are the key institutions, organisations (including networks), processes, and stakeholders to be involved?

3.4. Baseline Against Which Transformative Governance Is Measured

The customised methodology to assess multi-stakeholder transformative governance approaches to ILM will assess the existing governance situation and the desired governance situation within the production landscape of the country projects. The existing situation will provide the baseline against which progress to reach the desired situation created in the vision can be measured over time. This appraisal will be conducted by multiple stakeholders through a (self-) assessment. This assessment could take the form of a questionnaire (similar to the capacity needs analysis carried out in Cambodia, Myanmar, South Africa, and Viet Nam [99]) or could be integrated into existing adapted methodologies.

The main aim of the baseline is to put in place a (more) coherent, customised methodology across the production landscapes to assess multi-stakeholder transformative governance approaches to ILM. The baseline will provide context-dependent evidence to facilitate ILM.

The baseline includes key questions on:

▪

Transformative governance using its definition;

•

Mapping of the stakeholders, their desired and existing roles, responsibilities, and relationships with two central questions [27]: (1) who are the individual stakeholders involved in multi-level governance, and to which societal circle and governance level are they assigned? (mapping of the individual actors over different levels); and (2) in what (complementary) roles do stakeholders from different societal circles interrelate to advance multilevel governance, both horizontally within the same level and vertically across different governance levels? (relational aspects between actors, in both active and passive roles).

•

The centrality of legitimate tenure rights, limitations, and obligations by identifying/mapping the existing rights and through integration of a set of dedicated questions into a household survey;

•

Rights-based approaches with emphasis on the ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’ in the production landscape; and

▪

Reciprocal relationships.

Partly, the baseline will be collected during the preliminary assessment phase of the ILM process, some questions will be integrated into a household survey, and others will be the subject of focus groups.

Important for the baseline data collection will be to find the appropriate institutional ‘fit’ at the landscape level. From a governance perspective, mechanisms that advance institutional ‘fit’ or ‘interplay’ can be examined [100]. Institutional ‘fit’ aligns institutions to spatial, temporal, and functional scales of different parts of a landscape (e.g., river basins commissions that comprise various jurisdictions to cover a watershed). The challenge will be the suitable spatial fit for the landscape level. Institutional ‘interplay’ is promoted by policies including various institutions with their own legacies and cultures of operation (e.g., national-level multi-sectoral (regulated) spatial planning leading to negotiated agreements and systemic change). Jurisdictional approaches in forestry employ government administrative boundaries, mainly at the sub-national level, to define the scope of action and involvement of stakeholders, rather than social (e.g., indigenous community in which case free, prior, and informed consent would apply) or environmental (e.g., ecosystem, and watershed) boundaries [101]. Jurisdictional approaches seek to align governments, businesses, non-governmental organisations, and other stakeholders around shared goals of conservation, supply chain sustainability, and green economic development. They also focus on the political level, i.e., entire jurisdictions, at which land-use decisions are made and enforced [102]. When jurisdictional approaches, programmes, and private-sector commitments are operating together, they seem to have the potential to significantly reduce commodity-driven deforestation, but whether they actually do is not yet clearly evident [103]. Also, the long-term effectiveness of the jurisdictional approach has yet to be proven [104]. The context in each landscape and country will determine the most suitable approach, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

3.5. Monitoring

Both transformative governance, as well as ILM, are adaptive processes in which learning-by-doing is important. This learning and adaptation can be achieved through monitoring. Thus, setting up a process of monitoring is highly relevant for generating knowledge, allocating resources, revisiting interventions, and adapting as new information is becoming available.

Transformative governance comprises a set of approaches, as described earlier (i.e., integrative, inclusive, adaptive, transdisciplinary, and anticipatory), that can each be monitored during the country project and beyond. Monitoring in the context of FOLUR-IP is defined as “the ongoing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the progress being made towards achieving their goals and objectives” [105], (p. 28). This definition helps to find an equilibrium between accountability (i.e., reporting on results for resource partners) and learning (i.e., providing space for continuous learning, reflection, and identification of unintended results).

For meaningful monitoring, it is important to define a priori what is going to be monitored (through indicators), by whom, how often, how this is reported, and who is accountable to whom. It is important that responsibility towards achieving multi-stakeholder transformative governance approaches in ILM is taken, and that during the process, analysis of progress is taking place, and, if needed, adjustments are made to ensure transformative governance is achieved. The baseline assessment provides the starting point, or alternatively, a capacity needs assessment can furnish a baseline when the focus is on existing capacities and gaps [99,105]. A useful framework for monitoring and evaluation is the theory of transformative change (Section 3.3), in which the pathways to achieve transformative change can be monitored [16]. Furthermore, the capacity development framework introduces a phased approach for the evaluation of transformational change [106] by: (1) assessing capacity development activities products and results at each capacity development level; (2) assessing their contribution to development results; (3) the interconnections among capacity development dimensions and the impact on one another; and (4) investigating evidence or signs of transformational change. Transformational change strongly relies on the interconnections among capacity development dimensions (e.g., individuals, organisations, and enabling environment), especially the enabling environment and organisational dimensions [105]; for an example on tenure governance, see [99]). Some key questions that could be used in assessing transformational change in a focus group are [106]:

▪

Which is the potential to create transformational change?

▪

To which transformational change did the intervention contribute?

▪

What transformational change emerged from the intervention?

•

Which interconnections of the capacity development dimensions (e.g., individuals, organisations, and enabling environment) or of the governance dimensions (local, district/provincial, and national) contributed to the emerging change?

It is important to monitor both what result is to be achieved (i.e., the product), as well as how this is going to be achieved (i.e., the process). Product and process are important for laying the foundation for sustainability through increased ownership and commitment by all stakeholders [105]. This means that monitoring comprises indicators of process, as well as indicators of product.

ILM comprises adaptive management. Essential to successful adaptive management is the production of metrics that contribute to feedback mechanisms that inform the stakeholder partnership involved and guide the decision-making processes. As [7], (p. 2549) put it: “[…] without quantifiable and measurable data, evaluation of progress within the landscape would be indeterminable, feedback loops would fail, adaptive management would be unachievable, and landscape approaches would thus be ineffective”. Also, mention is made of the trial-by-error approach for ILM that entails learning from earlier experience to formulate improved management plans through iterative processes as an integral part of ILM [7].

The baseline assessment and the theory of transformative change comprise those elements (e.g., causal pathways, critical assumptions and barriers to achieve the expected outcomes) with which progress on transformative governance in ILM during the entire process, as well as after the process, can be measured and can be continued to be measured and reported on. Within a monitoring report, the link back to accountability can be made. The multi-stakeholder partnership may play a pivotal role in the (continued) monitoring and evaluation.

4. Application to the Country Projects in Kenya, Nigeria and Viet Nam

The FOLUR-IP country projects in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam that have become operational each address ILM in a different production landscape with different main commodities include the Mount Elgon Ecosystem in Western Kenya with coffee and maize, Cross River and Ondo States in the Lower Niger Delta with cocoa and palm oil, and the Mekong Delta with rice, respectively. The central problem in the three countries is the transformation of forest ecosystems and other natural vegetation into agriculture—a direction driven by populations that are increasing, production systems that are not sustainable, weak environmental protection and enforcement in natural habitats, and little diversification of livelihoods.

Growing demand for cocoa, coffee, and palm oil leads to unprecedented pressures on forests. Forging transformational change in deforestation-free commodity and crop value chains and land governance by significantly reducing deforestation through ILM for multiple benefits is key. Preventing the (further) encroachment of staple food crops, such as maize and rice, into intact forest ecosystems is a major environmental challenge. The transformation of these food systems through sustainable production, reduced deforestation from commodity supply chains, and increased landscape restoration will lead to higher yields, while conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. These country projects are in the initial phase of making preparations for ILM.

Analysing/examining the available project documentation and having had interactions with these projects and their stakeholders, a number of observations can be made that are presented below following the sequence of the key elements of the conceptual framework (Section 4.1, Section 4.2, Section 4.3 and Section 4.4) and the operational framework (Section 4.5).

4.1. Multi-Stakeholder Transformative Governance

4.1.1. Governance

Multi-stakeholder transformative governance is key to ILM because it tries to identify and reconcile competing and numerous interests and values of the various stakeholders. In terms of inclusive decision-making, multi-level governance is salient because of its polycentricity having several decision points across governance levels. Consequently, multi-level governance admits level-dependent interventions that many a time afford better decisions than monocentric governance [27]. Another aspect to keep in mind is that with several decision points across governance levels, the process may take more time, though the final decision will be (more) widely supported. The levels of decentralised governance differ in the three countries, as well as the overall governance structure.

• Kenya

In Kenya, the respective ministries at the national level (e.g., mainly the Ministry of Environment and Forest, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives) carry the overall responsibility for natural resources management and climate governance. Legislative frameworks were reviewed to conform to the 2010 constitutional requirements. The governance of natural resources underwent a major transformation. The environmental and natural resources regulatory framework in the two counties, i.e., Bungoma and Trans Nzoia, is quite fragmented. ‘County Environment Committees’ and ‘County Agriculture Sector Steering Committees’ have been created to facilitate coordination, working together, and dialogue of stakeholders and partners in their particular sectors. But cross-sectoral coordination, working together, and dialogue need strengthening for a truly integrated ILM approach.

• Nigeria

In Nigeria, the governance systems will be strengthened and capacity built across landscape and land-use management institutions and at the national level (e.g., in the Federal Ministry of Environment and Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development).

The social and cultural context and existing natural resources management governance structures and community forest and land management plans (some communities already have natural resources management governance structures, while some do not) will be respected and considered.

However, there is concern related to the traditional authorities that have a high degree of influence over customary land at the local level, and impact land-use systems to a high degree. This can constrain access to customary rights of occupancy, particularly for women and youth, who are important target groups.

• Viet Nam

In Viet Nam, to implement the new planning law effectively, coordination is critically important to develop sound development plans at both regional and provincial levels, and understanding the concept of integrated planning process is vital to bring all relevant stakeholders to the table contributing to the sustainable development of the Mekong Delta. To develop the master plan for the whole region, the Ministry of Planning and Investment has been assigned to coordinate with other line ministries (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment) and provinces in the region.

The limited degree of coordination and integration between environment and agriculture institutions to date makes it difficult to effectively and sustainably address the interrelations and interdependencies between these two sectors. In the Delta, agriculture is of special concern, being the main land use and being one of the main sources of environmental impact. The agricultural sustainability depends on the maintenance of reliable flows of environmental services through the conservation and/or restoration of ecosystems in an overall framework of well-managed landscapes. Thus, a stronger synergetic relationship is required between agriculture and the environment. There are favourable policy signals and local positive experiences; therefore, the envisioned transformational shift needs further encouragement.

The 2017 ‘Resolution 120/NQ-CP on Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Development in the Mekong Delta of Viet Nam’ and the ‘Mekong Delta Master Plan’ establish principles and a route map for moving the rice-dominated landscapes of the Mekong Delta towards a condition of environmental, social, and productive sustainability.

The envisaged transformational shift towards ILM requires that the existing number of coordination structures linking stakeholders and administrative units located across the region should enhance their coherency, consistency, and conceptual/strategic vision in dialogue and that coordination mechanisms are required to effectively support ILM, reconciling the diverse needs and priorities of the different stakeholder groups located across the landscape and responding adequately to the complex biophysical, socio-economic, and productive realities of the Mekong Delta.

4.1.2. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

Related to multi-stakeholder partnerships, central to the ILM process, the three countries follow different approaches:

• In Kenya, the formed County Environment Committees will be strengthened to match and impact policies, actions, and to catalyse and scale-up green investments;
• In Nigeria, the inclusive, multi-stakeholder platforms for ILM coordination will be strengthened, gender-sensitive enabling policies and sustainability standards adopted, and a public–private partnership framework for action will be put in place; and
• In Viet Nam, the implementation of ‘Resolution 120’ leads to establishing multi-stakeholder, socially-inclusive platform for dialogue on governance and planning responses to landscape wide issues. Further buy-in by stakeholders, resulting in effective outreach, scaling out, and sustainability, will be attained through the direct involvement of Provincial People’s Committees, which are the main governance entities and entry points. Members of the Provincial People’s Committees include the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, through which actions will be implemented at the local level.

4.1.3. Being Transformative

Related to being transformative, ILM for transformative food systems is central in the three countries. The existing governance entities related to the government at various levels (e.g., national, local) and, when applicable, existing laws and sectoral policies are mentioned in the project documentation, as well as existing or to be created multi-stakeholder platforms/partnerships, but other multiple scale/levels formal and informal rules, institutions, organisations (e.g., farmer organisations), and processes (e.g., rules, rulemaking systems, and actor networks), which are involved in responding to, managing, and triggering positive shifts in coupled social–ecological systems towards sustainability, will need to be examined in more detail to formulate recommendations for governance to become truly transformative.

4.2. Rights-Based Approaches

Analysing/examining the projects on the other key elements of the ‘tenure–scape’ methodology, the following observations can be made:

Related to rights-based approaches, which can positively transform power relations among stakeholders, it will be important to continuously pay attention to meaningful participation, inclusiveness, and accountability, as these are linked to the enjoyment of other human rights. Stakeholders should be engaged in the ILM process and decisions that affect their lives. In Nigeria, specific attention will be paid to women’s rights to land, but this should also be addressed in Kenya and Viet Nam. The foreseen mapping of stakeholders, their roles (e.g., right holders and duty bearers), and responsibilities in relation to each other and the environment they inhabit will contribute to raising the ambition of multi-stakeholder dialogue and partnerships, help in setting benchmarks, develop checks-and-balances for accountability, and should therefore, according to [48], be an intrinsic part of an inclusive ILM approach.

4.3. Tenure Rights, Limitations and Obligations, and Tenure Security

Related to tenure rights, limitations, and obligations, and tenure security on which transformative governance interventions depend.

In Kenya, all land belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and as individuals. Land in Kenya is classified as public, community, or private land. The 2016 Land Laws (Amendment) Act aims to provide for the sustainable and productive management of land resources. Currently, land in the two counties Bungoma and Trans Nzoia is mainly held privately under a leasehold and freehold tenure system. The rest falls under community land. In Trans Nzoia, a recent titling programme by the county settled lots of issues, but land conflict still occurs because of the lack of a complete inventory of all the land. Other existing land issues concern land subdivision, both of private and community lands, which go unregistered. It is important to know, whether documented or orally, what tenure rights are allocated over resources for their sustainable use, so that the right holders will use those resources accordingly and can be held accountable for resource uses.

In Nigeria, through the 2004 Land Use Act, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation is vested in the Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians. In rural areas, such responsibility is conferred on Local Governments. The 2004 Land Use Act vests the Local Government with the power to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person for the use of land in the Local Government Area for residential, agricultural, and other purposes, and to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person for the use of land for grazing purposes and other purposes ancillary to agricultural purposes, as may be customary in the Local Government Area concerned [107]. The tenure security of smallholder farmers is fundamental to unlocking investments in, and the adoption of, sustainable agricultural production practices at scale. Approximately 95 percent of agricultural lands are not titled, and hence cannot be used as collateral for financial transactions. Less than 5 percent of cocoa and oil palm farms in Cross River and Ondo States are titled or have a certificate of occupancy. This situation would not allow for the achievement of sustainable, integrated cocoa–oil palm landscapes. Thus, legitimate tenure rights and tenure security are vital to invest in long-term, sustainable agricultural practices, as well as ensuring the likelihood of participating in the ILM process. Cross River and Ondo States have limited capacities within Local Government and their Land Allocation Advisory Committee. The preparation and delivery of simple guidelines and training packages on gender-equitable issuance of ‘Customary Rights of Occupancy’ will be undertaken and this will be a valuable contribution to strengthen legitimate tenure rights and tenure security, as a precondition to effective ILM.

In Viet Nam, land is collectively owned by the people of Viet Nam and administered by the government on their behalf. Land-use rights include three fundamental rights: the right to possess, use, and dispose of land. For example, on agricultural land, households are provided with certificates of land-use rights (the so-called ‘Red Books’ referring to the colour of the certificate) issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, whereas in ‘Protection Forests’, households are awarded so-called ‘Green Books’ provided by the state forest enterprises, with specified conservation easements [108,109] that give them limited land-use rights that allow them to maintain productive activities, but do not allow them to change purpose and require them to maintain a proportion of their land under forest cover.

4.4. Integrated Landscape Management

The ILM process in each country will result in integrated landscape or land-use plans. Capacity development to support inclusive, equitable, participatory development, and implementation of ILM is foreseen in all three countries.

In Kenya, the ILM objective is the development of integrated, participatory landscape management plans for the Mt. Elgon landscape and development of sub-county ILM Plans. Selected community-based natural resource management groups will receive support to harmonise and/or prepare and implement sustainable management plans. Support will also be provided for the development and implementation of the Chepkitale community land-management plan. Information on the new integrated landscape management plans should be widely disseminated.

Concerning forests, Bungoma and Trans Nzoia signed with the Kenya Forest Service a ‘Transition Implementation Plan’ to ensure the easy transfer of delegated forestry functions, including forest governance and farm forestry extension services. The forest-dependent community of Ogiek (i.e., an indigenous community) developed their own governance structure and documented the ‘Chepkitale Ogiek Community By-Laws’.

Existing community-focused groups are each supported by different institutions and are focusing on one main natural resource (e.g., water or forest). Thus, there is a general lack of cross-sectoral and integrated natural resources management, as these governance mechanisms are focusing on one aspect or sector (water, forest), and do not address the landscape at large. Communities have also not been empowered to participate in local planning processes, even though there is emphasis and a requirement for community engagement in the constitution. ‘County Integrated Development Plans’ exist that are five-year plans that provide an overall framework for development and public investments at the county level aiming to coordinate the work of both levels of government in a coherent plan to improve the quality of life for all and contribute towards devolution.

In Nigeria, the ILM objective is integrated land use and investment plans for four priority Local Government Areas that will reduce deforestation and ecosystem degradation and improve the productivity and value of cocoa and oil palms, and food crops, within the Local Government landscapes.

In Viet Nam, the overall ILM objective is the transformation of rice-dominated landscapes in the Mekong Delta towards sustainable, adaptive, and resilient models of production and landscape management that deliver multiple environmental and social benefits. Five provincial master plans will be formulated and applied based on strategic environmental assessments that take into account sustainability considerations, global environmental benefits, landscape dynamics, and the results of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Currently, there is limited familiarity with integrated approaches to land-use planning. In the five provinces, inclusion is foreseen of environmental sustainability criteria with ILM perspectives in the systems for provincial government accountability to Central Government.

4.5. Operational Framework in the Three Countries

The multi-stakeholder partnership for transformative governance is key, as already shown above. It is key in driving the ILM process, and in the governance where they have different roles and responsibilities. Having procedures in place, such as multi-stakeholder partnerships and related coordination structures, which allow for polycentric mutual decision-making to realise satisfactory outcomes across multiple levels and multiple sectors, is important [27]. The stakeholders’ divergent perceptions, narratives, and values, rooted in different cultural understandings of human–nature relationships, along with power asymmetries among these actors, are generally associated with disputes around resources management. Diversity in those trying to achieve ILM is a beneficial feature because it fuels debate and reflection, thereby enhancing our insights in production landscapes from various perspectives.

A multi-stakeholder transformative governance vision will need to be developed in all three countries at the start of operational activities to ensure that the governance will be integrative with increased coherence between governance levels (i.e., the legitimacy and effectiveness of any layer of governance is restricted by the way it treats the levels below it, as well as how it negotiates with the levels above as described by [110]) and action. The envisioned multi-stakeholder engagement in the three countries needs to be broad in its stakeholder representation to ensure that governance is inclusive. Engagement is not automatically given to everyone. Being inclusive also refers to rights-based approaches (e.g., legitimate tenure rights). Because ILM is a process, it can be adaptive by enabling learning-by-doing, experimentation, and capacity development while going through the process. The steps in making the ILM plan will be especially crucial in handling the inputs of multiple stakeholders. Special attention should be paid to the types of knowledge that are at present underrepresented and that may stand for sustainable and equitable values (e.g., the forest-dependent community of Ogiek Kenya, and the role of traditional authorities in Nigeria vis-à-vis women and youth) to ensure that the governance will be transdisciplinary. While the focus in the three country projects may be on transformation of the food systems, attention should also be paid to uncertain future development in an anticipatory manner.

The theory of transformative change to achieve transformative governance (including preparatory analysis and enabling policies) formulated jointly by the stakeholders will enable the discovery of, construction of, and reflection on competing interests and values in a constructive dialogue. It will also enable the discovery of various pathways of transformative change in governance that lead to the same, mutually agreed objective of the transformed food system. This theory will complement the theory of change for the transformation of the food systems by focusing on governance.

The existing baseline and the desired situation (from the vision) against which transformative governance is measured will need to be collected in each country in the initial phase of the ILM process. Usually in ILM, governance is not explicitly dealt with, but, as this paper argues, it is a key element to build bridges between sectoral institutional ‘silos’ and integrate different policy fields to accomplish coherent ILM management and planning in the production landscapes. A series of guiding questions will assist in collecting the baseline data. The collection of the baseline data will provide a reference point for being able to measure the effectiveness of governance.

Monitoring is essential if the effectiveness of ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance is to be measured. It is the process by which the stakeholders will obtain feedback on the progress made towards achieving transformative governance. Having the multi-stakeholder transformative governance vision, having collected the baseline data, having identified pathways of change and how to achieve this through the theory of transformative change, indicators can be identified to measure progress of both the process (i.e., how it is achieved) and product (i.e., what result is achieved). Monitoring can also assist in learning and adaptation because it will generate knowledge, it may ask to revisit interventions, and may require adaptation when new information becomes available. It would therefore also be interesting to compare the monitoring results between the three countries for the benefit of other countries.

5. Discussion

If we are to enable transformational change in large production landscapes, we have to leave business-as-usual approaches behind us and must become more innovative in thinking about how systemic change, or transformation, happens and dive into better methodologies and approaches to make real change happen and stick, be durable, and scalable. This is a considerable challenge.

Examination and analysis of the available project documentation and first interactions with stakeholders in the three country projects allows for an early identification of which key elements of the ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach will need particular consideration. References [6,111] reported a number of findings that will be addressed in the ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam by: (1) including multiple stakeholders (e.g., the vulnerable and marginalised) to discuss, negotiate, and develop ILM collaborative actions in an iterative process at the landscape level, as well as the levels above and below, in which transformative governance is embedded to ensure that opportunities to influence formal and informal decision-making are equal; (2) ILM collaborative actions by multiple stakeholders and state-mandated agencies are well-defined and aligned to (sub)national planning; and (3) implementation and enforcement of existing rules and regulations (including customary norms and rules) promoting sustainable land use and management is strengthened (e.g., through enhanced capacities of local government, civil society organisations, and/or farmer organisations).

Systemic change involves working with complexity to help stakeholders glimpse the whole system—not only ILM, but its relations with multi-stakeholder and multi-level governance, rights-based approaches, legitimate tenure rights, and tenure security—to participate in a joint governance visioning, and to recognise their place within it and the opportunities to contribute to positive change through collaborative and innovative processes [38]. The objective of the proposed customised methodology is to do precisely that. The application will provide valuable feedback and lessons learnt with which the methodology can be further fine-tuned, as well as provide insights as to where capacities will need to be strengthened to successfully apply the ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach.

In the customised methodology, governance navigates the pathways towards negotiating sustainable, integrated management options contributing to the realisation of the joint vision of stakeholders similar to that mentioned by [112], as well as being concerned with the enabling environment of procedures, policies, processes, and institutions by which natural resources and legitimate tenure rights are managed, as suggested by [29]. Action at the production landscape level is the best option for mitigating the trade-offs (e.g., production versus climate change) and maximising synergies (e.g., reconciling conservation and development objectives within landscapes) between various land users and land-use purposes (e.g., conservation, development, food production, food security and nutrition, livelihoods, etc.). Making transformative governance explicit within the ILM process at the landscape level allows governance to act as a catalyst.

Based on the experiences that will be obtained in the country projects in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam, it will also be possible to examine whether in the early stages of transformation decentralised and informal processes catalyse change. In addition, in later stages of transformation, it can be examined whether centralised and formal (enforceable) methods are more effective, as indicated by [25]. Currently, it would be intuitive to expect that with time, the change dynamics evolve, together with the types of agency that drive it.

6. The Way Forward: From Methodology to Application

The current times and challenges offer an outstanding opportunity to innovate and transform toward a sustainable, inclusive, and climate-resilient world. Multi-stakeholder transformative governance approaches are innovative and provide an alternative. Similarly, ILM provides the capacity for adaptability and comprehensiveness. The combination of the two will assist to transform and enhance the sustainability of large production landscapes [17].

The customised methodology was developed to move from business-as-usual approaches to transformative change. This implies that the current governance—both informal and formal—should transform to facilitate sustainable development and equality outcomes. Alternative, competitive ILM practices with the potential to be more inclusive, participatory, and accountable exist. The FOLUR-IP has the ambition to realise transformational impact at scale by expediting action in the production landscapes, and along value chains (not discussed in this paper), for selected main commodities of which we know that they contribute to deforestation and environmental degradation. The results and lessons learnt on how food systems can be changed towards a more sustainable path through multi-stakeholder transformative governance in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam will be beneficial to the other 24 country projects in the FOLUR-IP, future GEF programmes, such as the emerging GEF Food Systems Impact programme, and other ILM projects and programmes.

Applying the multi-stakeholder transformative governance customised methodology, including rights-based approaches and tenure aspects, in Kenya, Nigeria, and Viet Nam across various landscapes with different main commodities allows for a comprehensive vision acknowledging that these production landscapes are embedded within the interlinked and mutually dependent physical and societal landscapes. The ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach provides a way forward to maximise synergies and minimise production trade-offs across land uses and land users in these landscapes across the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability to contribute to a healthier planet and people.

Transformative governance requires allocating sufficient time, capacities, and resources for the ILM inclusive, participatory planning, and decision-making processes in the large production landscape to tailor to specific needs and conditions. It should avoid two traps that are inherent to wicked problems [100]: a ‘tame’ solution, i.e., solvable with technical solutions that are equally applicable in different places, rather than integrated, tailored solutions, or inaction because of the overwhelmingly complexity of ILM.

The application of the ILM-relevant multi-stakeholder transformative governance approach will highlight the polycentricity of decision-making processes while balancing environmental and livelihood considerations. This may take an investment in building trust and deliberative capacities over time, but will contribute to achieving more inclusive and sustainable food systems as a solution.

Finally, while supporting more integrated, cross-sectoral work in the production landscapes within countries, the FOLUR-IP opens at the same time the door for more integrated, cross-divisional work within development agencies including FAO’s technical divisions [113]. The multi-stakeholder transformative governance customised methodology is fully integrated in ILM, which is bringing several FAO technical divisions together in a one-FAO-vision. This means that the ongoing work is oriented towards breaking ‘silos’, both internally and externally leading to more integrated and sustainable solutions over time.