Access to finance is a key element of sustainable and inclusive landscapes. We conducted a literature review to identify the factors that contribute to or hinder inclusive financing for micro/small/medium-sized enterprises and projects across sectors in ways that collectively contribute to more sustainable landscapes in the tropics. The key factors in the design of inclusive landscape finance are landscape governance, the financial literacy of local stakeholders, access to finance technology and services, and inclusive finance facilities and associated mechanisms for integrated (i.e., multi-project, multi-sector, spatially coordinated) landscape finance. The most frequent challenges are the types of existing financial products, the lack of livelihood assets among recipients (such as capital and income), the lack of transparency in finance mechanisms, the small scale of potential business cases, and the high risks perceived by finance providers and their customers. From this review, we propose components specifically focused on financial inclusion that complement the framework for integrated landscape finance developed by the Finance Solutions Design Team for the 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People Initiative. We suggest how the revised framework can be applied in designing and assessing the inclusiveness of finance mechanisms for integrated landscape management and to guide further research.

Rural landscapes in many parts of Indonesia are rapidly being transformed, due to the expansion of agrocommodity plantations—oil palm in particular. At the same time, communities in those landscapes face declining crop yields and ecosystem degradation as a result of both climate and non-climate factors. We assessed local perceptions on climate stressors, adaptation and vulnerability using focus group discussions in Ketapang, West Kalimantan. We found that the main perceived climatic stressors were extreme and unpredictable seasons, fires, and saltwater intrusion, affecting ecosystem services and agricultural production. Land clearing and forest loss were mentioned as exacerbating non-climatic stressors. Respondents indicated willingness to adapt to these changes by investing in long-term measures, such as tree-planting. To adapt to yield declines, respondents indicated that many farmers shifted from rubber to oil palm. Such adaptation actions benefit households in the short term but may be at odds with long-term adaptation objectives at the landscape level. Finally, we found that perceptions about vulnerability differed between landscapes, and between communities at the landscape level and stakeholders at the district level. This stresses the importance of participatory and inclusive planning and multi-stakeholder processes towards context-based climate action planning to accommodate the differences in contexts and scale, and to reconcile the differences in perceptions.

Donors and non-governmental organizations are showing increased interest in integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs), where landscape stakeholders work together to achieve common goals related to development, climate change and conservation. In order to support the work of ILIs, we developed a novel methodology with which stakeholders—organized in multi-stakeholder partnerships—can assess how financial flows in the landscape are impacting their common goals and to identify funding gaps. Piloting the methodology in three landscapes in Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam, we found that there were trade-offs between ensuring broad stakeholder participation in the assessments (to capture different perspectives) and the level of technical and quantifiable detail that could be acquired. The methodology effectively contributed to a common understanding among landscape-level stakeholders and triggered discussions on methods in which financial flows can be adapted to reduce their negative impacts or increase their positive impacts. It also functioned as a basis for the development of joint action plans and to initiate collaborations with the providers of financial flows that have potential to contribute to common landscape objectives. In addition to promoting common understanding and providing a basis for the development of action plans, we conclude that implementing the methodology also helped with strengthening the landscape partnerships themselves.