*2.1. Background*

The GLA is a partnership between the Dutch government, Tropenbos International, the Dutch national committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-NL), and Milieudefensie, and works with partner CSOs (i.e., organizations that partner with the Green Livelihoods Alliance) in 16 landscapes across 9 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The landscapes in the GLA program were selected based on their high forest cover and biodiversity, and their importance in delivering ecosystem services to local communities. In all landscapes, the provisioning of ecosystem services is under threat due to high deforestation rates, often driven by agricultural expansion, and unsustainable land managemen<sup>t</sup> practices. The landscape selection was also informed by the working history and expertise of the GLA partners within the various countries.

A key assumption underlying the program is that achieving multifunctional landscapes (i.e., simultaneously achieving agricultural, livelihood, conservation, and climate objectives) requires that decision-making processes are inclusive—so they take multiple interests into account—and promote sustainability. It also assumes that that CSOs can play a crucial role in achieving this. The GLA has therefore been supporting CSOs to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration, support the participation of smallholders and local communities in decision-making processes, and promote nature-based approaches to resource management, among others.

Within the framework of the GLA, Tropenbos International and EcoAgriculture Partners developed a landscape governance assessment methodology, as part of the GLA's approach to planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning. We defined landscape governance as "the set of rules (policies and cultural norms) and the decision-making processes of public, private, and civic actors with stakes in the landscape, that a ffect actions in the landscape" and identified a set of criteria and indicators that capture the main elements of landscape governance to which the GLA aspires. [27]. We recognized that the objective and desired characteristics of governance di ffer between the GLA landscapes and between actors within these landscapes. That is why we aimed to identify a set of overarching characteristics of landscape governance, which were specific enough to be meaningful, and broad enough to allow for context-specific interpretation. To ensure that the methodology would be easy to apply and cost-e ffective, we worked towards a minimum set of criteria, which provide insights into the main governance characteristics without making the methodology unwieldy.

A core group of authors from both organizations identified these key characteristics of landscape governance in line with the GLA priorities and based on literature, experience, and knowledge within the respective organizations. These characteristics were then translated into four criteria for landscape governance, each with a set of indicators for the assessment. The criteria and indicators were reviewed and revised in workshops with researchers and practitioners. Following this first revision, we organized a pilot assessment workshop in the Cagayan de Oro landscape in the Philippines, based on which the list of criteria was refined again to create the final version of the method. This process resulted in four criteria and 18 associated indicators, as shown in Table 1.

#### *2.2. Criteria and Indicators for Inclusive and Sustainable Landscape Governance*

The first criterion is inclusive decision-making. Inclusive decision-making implies that all relevant actors, including marginalized and vulnerable groups, are able to influence decisions of public and private actors that determine how the landscape is being used and managed [13]. Often, however, decisions that influence the future of the landscape are dominated by the most powerful stakeholders. This can lead to decisions with negative e ffects on other groups, such as women, indigenous communities, recent migrants, and farmers with unclear land rights [21]. Decision-making processes therefore need to be designed and implemented in a way that ensures equitable and meaningful input from all stakeholders. It also requires transparency and accountability, to ensure

that representatives in decision-making processes can be held responsible for the resources, processes, and outcomes with which they are entrusted [25,28].


**Table 1.** Landscape governance assessment performance indicators.

The second criterion is the existence of a culture of collaboration in the landscape, based on trust and connectedness among stakeholders. A culture of collaboration starts with a sense of community among actors, and awareness of how their actions and behaviors influence others in the landscape [1]. Based on this, stakeholders can decide to work together toward common goals, which stimulates information sharing and collaborative learning. Moreover, meaningful collaboration on immediate objectives will help to expand the trust that is needed for realizing more ambitious goals [5]. A culture of collaboration will further benefit from the existence of conflict resolution mechanisms that can effectively and fairly address conflicts when they arise, so they do not stand in the way of collaboration in the future [18]. Finally, a culture of collaboration is expected to contribute to collective planning and action, fostering resilience and innovations that are needed to address complex challenges [18,29].

The third criterion is coordination between actors across sectors and levels. Better coordination is likely to help minimize trade-o ffs and maximize synergies between di fferent interests in the landscape [12,30]. Coordination can be improved through the collaborative development of integrated planning frameworks. Moreover, coordination implies alignment of planning and decisions across technical sectors (e.g., agriculture, environment, rural development, water) and jurisdictional levels (local, regional, national, international). It may also require better coordination between customary and formal governance institutions [31].

The fourth and final criterion is decision-making for sustainability. Ideally, the decisions made by public, private, and civic actors promote practices that limit the degradation of forests, grasslands, soils, and waterbodies, and contribute to their restoration [32,33]. This requires adequate knowledge and awareness on the meaning and importance of sustainability, policies and regulations that directly promote sustainable practices, and the actual implementation and enforcement of these policies and regulations. Finally, there are other governance processes that could stimulate sustainable thinking and action in the landscape, such as access to support, capacity strengthening, and investments in innovation.

#### *2.3. Assessing Landscape Governance in Participatory Workshops*

Based on the set of criteria and indicators introduced above, we developed a landscape governance assessment method. It provides a simple and cost-e ffective tool to assess the status of landscape governance at di fferent points in time, as part of the GLA's monitoring and evaluation framework. In addition, implementing the assessment provides an opportunity for landscape actors to discuss possibilities for improvement and plan for collaborative action, thus contributing to improved governance.

The method involves a two-day participatory workshop with stakeholders from the landscape. First, participants discuss how governance processes are currently organized in their landscape. The standard criteria and indicators are used as a discussion framework, but there is room to add additional criteria and indicators. This part of the workshop provides an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss (and learn about) the criteria and indicators, and to exchange knowledge and perspectives. Second, participants discuss what they would like to see change in the future, using the Rich Picture methodology [34]. Third, participants score the current performance of the governance of their landscape on all indicators. The scoring is done individually, using a straightforward 5-point Likert scale, from very poor (0) to very good (+5). After scoring, the results are presented and discussed. The final part of the workshop is then used to discuss what would need to be done in practical terms to move from the current situation to the desired situation. For a full description of the tool, see De Graaf et al. (2017) [27].

The method aims to create a shared understanding of how governance processes are organized in the landscape, but it is not meant to be prescriptive or to compare this to a predetermined standard. Instead it relies on the perceptions and ideas of the actors in the landscape, to make their own judgement on the quality of these governance processes. This approach helps to uncover di fferences in aspirations and the desired characteristics of landscape governance that may exist between various stakeholders. During the workshop, participants are actively encouraged to share their own knowledge and experiences with others. This increases the understanding of the governance system, provides insight in the di fferent perspectives and interests, and shows the di fficulties associated with prioritizing these di fferent interests. Last, but not least, the workshop setting creates a space for participants to engage with others, which helps with developing a sense of community and trust.

In early 2017, sta ff from Tropenbos International and EcoAgriculture Partners trained 20 facilitators from GLA partner CSOs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America during a four-day workshop. The partner CSOs then implemented the method in the 17 GLA landscapes. Partner CSOs would invite between 20 and 40 participants for a two-day workshop, aiming for a balance between di fferent stakeholder groups

and representation of a diversity of viewpoints. The list of invitees would include representatives of local communities and indigenous peoples, community-based organizations (e.g., women's groups, farmer associations and cooperatives), non-governmental organizations (e.g., rights-based organizations and conservation organizations), local governments, sectoral governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, small and medium enterprises, and corporations active in the landscape.

The workshop served to kick off discussions and collaborations between stakeholders within the program, while also serving as a base line assessment for monitoring and evaluation. After each workshop, the facilitators wrote a report, presenting the scores as well as qualitative descriptions of the discussions. In 2020, similar workshops will be conducted in the same landscapes, to assess whether and how landscape governance has changed over time. Table 2 presents the 14 landscapes for which the quantitative assessment data is available. Qualitative workshop reports were produced for all except the last two landscapes.


**Table 2.** Overview landscape assessments, implementing partners, and number of participants.

Assessments were also conducted in Ghana, Liberia, and Bolivia, but at the time of writing this data is not ye<sup>t</sup> available.
