Landscape governance refers to the combination of rules and decision-making processes of civic, private, and public actors with stakes in the landscape, that together shape the future of that landscape. As part of the Green Livelihoods Alliance, a program that supports civil society organizations (CSOs) to strengthen the governance of tropical forested landscapes, we developed and implemented a method that facilitates stakeholders to assess the status of governance in their own landscape and to identify options for improvement. In this article, we aim to reflect on landscape governance, based on our work within the Green Livelihoods Alliance. We present the method, summarize the results of its implementation, and draw practical lessons regarding the role of CSOs to improve landscape governance. We conducted workshops with stakeholders in 17 forested landscapes across 10 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. During each workshop, participants scored and discussed a set of governance indicators, developed a common vision for landscape governance, and identified the practical steps that would need to be taken to achieve that vision. Analyzing the results from the workshops, we found that landscape stakeholders tend to perceive that: opportunities to influence decision-making are unequal; integrated landscape planning efforts remain noncommittal; and implementation and enforcement of regulations is weak. To improve governance in the future, it is common to call for the development of multi-stakeholder processes, to allow different actors to discuss, negotiate, and develop collaborative action to address landscape-level challenges. CSOs can support such processes, by helping to develop a shared understanding of landscape governance, differences in interests, and possibilities for collaborative action. CSOs can also help stakeholders to develop multi-stakeholder procedures, and build trust and capacity among stakeholders to take an active role in such processes.

Community-based agroforestry, as a planetary health solution, can rebuild fertile soils, minimize climate risk, diversify farmer incomes, and provide a source of food, raw materials, and other vital ecosystem functions. Utilizing focus groups, individual semi-structured interviews, and field observations, we studied how the Haiti Timber Reintroduction Program (HTRIP), an agroforestry program operating in Haiti since 2005, leveraged institutional infrastructures and social networks to facilitate the adoption, scaling, and sustainability of community-based agroforestry as a solution for planetary health. Results show that the adoption and scaling of community-based agroforestry was facilitated by support from institutional and social networks. The results underscore the importance of cross-sector collaboration and coordination in creating the enabling conditions necessary for successful community-based agroforestry implementation. Additionally, strengthened social networks, cultivated through long-term participation in the HTRIP, contributed to the program’s sustainability. While competing socio-political problems in some low-income settings may seem insurmountable—particularly those in fragile states, where our study took place—our research demonstrates that community-based agroforestry solutions are possible. Where culturally relevant, this ecologically and socially based practice could be scaled up to amplify its benefits to more communities. We encourage further research to explore the scaling up of regenerative practices such as agroforestry for climate resilience and planetary health.

Integrated landscape (bioregional, territorial) management (ILM) is a model for place-based planning and development that integrates values of healthy nature, regenerative economies, human well-being, and social solidarity. This review paper analyzes the support system for ILM to achieve transformative change, highlighting 20 dimensions in five support sub-systems. Though landscape partnerships (LPs) are now widespread, they have little coordinated support to form and have weak capacities, inadequate long-term operational funding, and limited cultural resonance. Landscape programs have proliferated and gained notable system-level support, but LP coalitions and alliances are just emerging, and there is little coordinated provision of LP support services. Despite widespread developments in the knowledge base, methods, and tools for local ILM design, there is little coordinated system support and limited dedicated work on data and IT, impact assessment, or strategic research. Landscape finance tools and business engagement with LPs are being explored, but economic valuation is inadequate, and little financing has shifted to coordinated landscape investments. In public policy, professional planners and international policy frameworks are adopting ILM, but government policies and tenure systems provide sparse support. High-leverage actions can accelerate progress in each dimension. But to fully realize the transformative potential of ILM will require more coherent support strategies.