We're talking Integrated Landscape Management
Welcome to the purpose-built online space in which you can share ideas and best practices, learn from other ILM practitioners and peers, ask questions and seek advice via both public and behind-the-scenes discussions...
Follow others’ conversations or start your own...
Go on: use this Forum as a support facility where you can post your own queries as well as answer those of others. The Central Component team is actively moderating discussion and will be available to respond to key questions and technical support requests.
Welcome to the discussion!: Please do jump in and share your knowledge or ask questions. Feel free to do that as a guest (though you will be asked to supply your name and email) but even better would be to register (it's quick and easy) and you'll be able to join behind-the-scenes conversations within minutes.
In the original manuscript the 10 Principles of ILM - Sayer et al 2012, identifies a "Common concern or entry point" as critical. Where objectives and values are shared around a collective and agreed upon problem. Stakeholders will indeed have different values, beliefs and objectives, however ILM engages them in a process of dialogue to build confidence and trust, towards intermediate and shared targets and goals. I believe the principle of a "Common Vision" implies the same, not that stakeholders do not hold unique visions for there landscape , but amongst those views are commonly shared values which help to build trust and acts as a starting point to discuss the future commonly held vision.
Why is a common vision so important in ILM? Surely all of the stakeholders have their own visions?
Dominique le Roux said
Your thoughts: what is 'Adaptive Management'? Can you give an example?
My understanding is that adaptive management is about the flexibility to respond to changing and previously unforeseen circumstances. It's not that we throw the logframe out entirely, but that we remain flexible: fixed on our end goals but able to iterate our plans based on new or previously unforeseen realities.
Ben Swanepoel, the protected area manager of Nam Et Phou Louey NPA in Lao PDR was telling me about the cattle that is now suddenly being grazed in the protected area. A project like RangER in Kenya would have foreseen this demand on the landscape, but it had not been an issue in Laos until the new high-speed railway was built by the Chinese, who have an increasingly insatiable appetite for beef. Not only is this demand relatively new, but Laos's ability to export meat to its northern neighbour is brand new.
We, as the LFF Central Component, see six critical elements in the ILM process:
The identification of stakeholders, and an assessment of relations amongst them is an essential prerequisite to forming multi-stakeholder fora. Identification via stakeholder mapping, or Net-Mapping.
‘Safe’ spaces in which stakeholders with different interests can gather, deliberate, negotiate, learn and plan. Such spaces need to be highly attentive to power dynamics. Important skills required here include facilitation, mediation, negotiation, and leadership.
A co-created and co-desired future state (of a landscape) only achievable through stakeholder cooperation. Provides a destination behind which people and initiatives can line up. A vision can provide strong incentives for buy-in, inclusivity, a basis for collective action, and a baseline against which trade-offs can be evaluated and common concerns identified.
ILM fora or processes are identified as some form of entity, deriving sustainable funding, and with associated staff; institutions become a source of identity for their participants. The institution is embedded or ‘nested’ within a broader system and/or organisation.
ITERATIVE & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Clear feedback loops and learning capabilities integrated into institutional and process design. Institutional flexibility and nimble-footedness influence daily operations and decision-making. Monitoring and evaluation support self-reflection, as does research-based evidence, and contribute to future planning.
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS & TOOLS
Tools, technical capabilities; capacity building for stakeholder platform management; external technical support, input and deliberation.
Do you agree? What would you add or subtract?