**3. Results**

We reviewed the workshop reports for general patterns and lessons. We found that the indicators with the lowest mean scores generated the most insightful discussions about ways in which governance could be improved. The indicators with the lowest mean scores were: equity (Indicator 1.3); integrated landscape planning (Indicator 3.1); and implementation and enforcement (Indicator 4.4). Below we will address each of these indicators in some more detail, based on the qualitative descriptions of these indicators in the different landscapes.

#### *3.1. Stakeholders Do Not Have Equal Opportunities to Influence Decision-Making*

Inequality in decision-making is one of the biggest concerns among workshop participants in all landscapes. The influence of local communities and Indigenous Peoples on landscape-level decisions was often considered sub-optimal. Governments tend to be in control of important decisions in the landscape, such as the planning of infrastructural projects and the issuance of plantation, logging, and mining permits. Some governments organize consultations, where landscape actors can comment on development plans. However, non-governmen<sup>t</sup> participants would often point at the lack of procedures and mechanisms that allow for structural and meaningful participation in these planning processes. A common observation is that more powerful landscape actors, such as plantation companies, are better able to make use of opportunities to influence decision-making, because they have the necessary resources to participate, more access to information, and often have direct access to governmen<sup>t</sup> o fficials. Further discussions also revealed bottlenecks at the community level. Participants in the Kalangala Landscape, Uganda, for example, mentioned that the district governmen<sup>t</sup> had been inviting community representatives to participate in meetings, but that these seldom showed up, due to a lack of confidence to participate.

Participants also used the discussion on this indicator to point at inequalities between community members at the village level. In two-thirds of the workshop reports it is stressed that women are in a disadvantageous position, and lack representation in decision-making. Some reports further mention that village-level decision-making processes are dominated by village elites, and such intra-village inequalities (in terms of both decision-making power and wealth) are further exacerbated as soon as companies start o ffering material benefits to customary leaders and village elites, to win their support.

Across the board, CSOs are considered key actors to promote equality in decision-making. They may help create opportunities for marginalized groups to share their views or raise their voice, and invest in their capacity to do so. For example, CSOs may support representatives of marginalized groups to participate in multi-stakeholder workshops and meetings, helping them to voice their concerns and share these with other actors in the landscape. There are also CSOs that support marginalized groups to access justice in courts, while other CSOs help to organize local actors in formal structures (such as cooperatives, community-based enterprises, and women's groups), to give their voices more weight in political arenas. At the same time, it was stressed that the inclusion of marginalized groups can not depend on CSO support alone, and that governments should also take responsibility to strengthen capacities of marginalized groups and ensure their participation in decision-making.

#### *3.2. Integrated Landscape Planning E*ff*orts Remain Noncommittal*

In many landscapes, stakeholders highlighted the need for better alignment and coordination of plans in the landscape. Sometimes there are e fforts to improve coordination between stakeholders at the landscape level. In Uganda, for example, participants mentioned that CSOs occasionally organize coordination meetings, where stakeholders ge<sup>t</sup> together to discuss pressing issues. Despite such e fforts, mistrust between stakeholders is common, and planning processes often lack transparency. In some cases, there had been integrated landscape planning initiatives, but these lacked synchronization with existing governmen<sup>t</sup> planning processes. When push comes to shove, sectoral planning through mandated governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies tends to override well-intended multi-stakeholder planning exercises.

Discussions also revealed that governmen<sup>t</sup> representatives and other landscape actors may have di fferent ideas about the meaning of 'coordination'. Government o fficials would present their efforts to create awareness about governmen<sup>t</sup> plans as a form of coordination. Other stakeholders, however, would argue that such awareness programs are one-way tra ffic, with the governmen<sup>t</sup> sending information to other actors. Overall, it is uncommon for governments to facilitate coordination between actors towards integrated landscape planning.

#### *3.3. Weak Implementation and Enforcement of Regulations*

In many landscapes, the regulations to promote sustainable land use and managemen<sup>t</sup> exist. There is usually a range of government-devised prohibitions and requirements, such as a limitation to access forest reserves and national parks, a ban on hunting in certain periods of the year, a moratorium on plantations in peat areas, and reporting requirements for logging and sustainable forest management. However, the implementation and enforcement of these regulations is generally considered inadequate. Indeed, the indicator 'implementation and enforcement' had the lowest score of all indicators.

A common perspective is that local governments do not have su fficient capacity and resources (and sometimes willingness) to implement and enforce governmen<sup>t</sup> regulations. The lack of enforcement creates opportunities for other actors to circumvent the rules. In the Bafwasende landscape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stakeholders stressed that regulations are established by legal texts, but in the field it is the 'law of the strongest' that prevails. The lack of adequate governmen<sup>t</sup> monitoring was brought up in 11 out of 12 workshop reports. When governmen<sup>t</sup> monitoring fails, CSOs may try to fill the gap, by monitoring illegal activities themselves, but public and private actors often ignore the results of CSO monitoring. Though watchdog CSOs have little or no power to enforce compliance themselves, they can use their monitoring results to raise attention in the media and mobilize communities to pressure other parties.

Corruption is mentioned as a major problem in half of all the landscapes. In the Kalangala landscape in Uganda, stakeholders argued that powerful individuals are able to influence policies, law enforcement, and the judicial system to their own advantage. Local governmen<sup>t</sup> o fficials, who often stay in one area for a long time, establish personal relationships with businesses, and are therefore prone to corruption.

During the workshops, CSO and community representatives often stressed the importance of customary norms and rules. In the Akamkpa landscape in Nigeria, for example, parts of the forest cannot be used, because they are dedicated to spirits. Furthermore, eating of certain animals is considered taboo, according to local customs. Such customary regulations are not immune to implementation and enforcement challenges. Customary authorities may have their own enforcement systems in place, but these are increasingly challenged by outsiders and younger generations. This is because they are either not aware of them, or simply attach less value to customary practices and beliefs, such as the idea that nature will punish villagers when they violate customary rules.

#### *3.4. Suggestions to Improve Landscape Governance*

The last part of each workshop was used to discuss practical next steps to improve landscape governance. Three suggestions appeared common. The first is for the governmen<sup>t</sup> to explicitly recognize traditional knowledge and rights, and to align governmen<sup>t</sup> regulations with customary governance systems. In line with this, CSOs would need to invest in the capacity of traditional leaders, so they can e ffectively coordinate with governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies.

Second, governments were urged to step up e ffort in support of sustainable practices, by investing in the monitoring and halting of illegal activities, implementing environmental impact assessments, developing incentives for sustainable enterprise development, and raising environmental awareness. Governments are also called upon to support the creation of a safe operational space for civil society organizations.

Third, 75% of the workshop reports sugges<sup>t</sup> to invest in a multi-stakeholder mechanism, either by establishing a new institutional arrangement, or by strengthening an existing one. This is expected to contribute to all four criteria of inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development: enabling more active involvement of marginalized groups in discussions and negotiations with others; promoting information sharing and coordination between stakeholders; building trust and stimulating cooperation; and providing a place to discuss and initiate sustainable management.
