Integrated Landscape Initiatives: a Review of Kenyan Efforts

(1)

i MSc Thesis

Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc International Development Studies

Integrated Landscape Initiatives:

a Review of Kenyan Efforts

Dafne Scalfati Student number: 12504815

dafnescalfati@gmail.com

Study supervisor:

(2)

ii

Abstract

In a world where natural resources are declining, sustainably managing environmental resources is necessary, especially in the sub-Saharan African continent where such resources are scarce. To reconcile different stakeholders' needs and interests concerning natural resources, Integrated Landscape Approaches are proposed as an innovative governance instrument that aims to reconcile both development and environmental goals. Although there is an abundance of academic theory on integrated landscape approaches, evidence on implementation efforts is still limited. Many projects that follow a landscape approach are found in Kenya. Therefore, this thesis aims to synthesise evidence on how this country addresses concerns about the governance of natural resources through integrated landscape initiatives. More specifically, it seeks to 1) examine recurring patterns, similarities and lessons learnt from the initiatives implemented in Kenya in the past two decades; 2) generate insights into how policies can impact and possibly limit integrated landscape efforts; and 3) unpack the potential advantages of implementing such landscape initiatives. To this end, the thesis presents a narrative review of 13 Kenyan ILIs and the results of semi-structured interviews with key respondents active in natural resource management on the prospects of implementing ILIs in Kenya. The findings reveal that the goals of the ILIs are fairly integrated. Although most of the reviewed initiatives focused on environmental objectives, all of them integrated these with rural development goals, including livelihood improvement. Moreover, the ILIs align with the principles for landscape approaches defined by Sayer et al., with a marked focus on increasing stakeholder capacity and multifunctionality. The policy climate proved to be conducive to the implementation of landscape approaches, albeit with scope for improvement, and expert opinions painted an optimistic picture of the prospects for implementation. I, therefore, conclude that Kenya has an enabling policy environment for the implementation of landscape approaches and that these are supportive to the sectorial policies of the country. By reviewing existing evidence on implemented ILIs, this thesis contributes evidence to the theory on landscape approaches. Based on the findings, it formulates recommendations for policy and practice.

Keywords: Integrated Landscape Approach, Integrated Landscape Initiatives, Natural Resource

(3)

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, who guided me through a period full of insecurities and sudden plan changes. Thank you for your infinite patience and support. I would also like to thank the brilliant interview participants, for sharing their precious time with me and for some very insightful conversations. Finally, I would like to thank my family for the unconditional love and support. I hope this research contributes even in the slightest to the incredible efforts of the people both theorising and implementing landscape approaches to strive for a better future for all.

(4)

iv

List of tables, figures, boxes

Tables

Table 3.1 – Overview of respondents ... 20

Table 4.1 – Main policy frames in Kenya’s current policy climate relevant for the implementation of ILIs ... 33

Table 5.1 – List of reviewed ILIs in Kenya ... 35

Table 5.2 – Areas of focus ... 36

Table 5.3 – Goals – Summary ... 37

Table 5.4 – Summary of activities and disconnect with goals ... 38

Table 5.5 – Matching ILA principles ... 48

Table 6.1 – ILIs in current policy frames ... 55

Figures Figure 2.1 – Ten principles for an integrated landscape approach ... 10

Figure 2.2 – Conceptual scheme ... 15

Figure 8.1 – Alignment of reviewed ILIs with Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles for integrated landscape approaches ... 70

(9)

1

List of acronyms

General terms

AIF Agricultural Industry Forum

ASTGS Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy 2019 CABE Centre for African Bio-Entrepreneurship

CFAs Community Forest Associations

CSA Kenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Strategy DNFP Draft National Forest Policy 2020

EAWLS East African Wild Life Society

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GoK Government of Kenya

ILA Integrated Landscape Approach ILI Integrated Landscape Initiative

KFS Kenya Forest Service

KWS Kenya Wildlife Service

MALF Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries MEF Kenya’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry

NCCAP National Climate Change Action Plan 2018-2022 NGOs Non-governmental organizations

PPPs Public Private Partnerships

(10)

2 Research institutions

EAP EcoAgriculture Partners

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre (which maintained the acronym of its former name, i.e. International Centre for Research on Agroforestry). Recently merged with the Centre for International Forestry Research, but continues operating under the same acronym.

LPFN Landscapes for People Food and Nature

Initiatives

AOP Acacia Operation Project

EGA Scaling-Up the Science to Create an EverGreen Agriculture in African Countries

ILWMKTP Integrated land and water management in the Kibuon and Tende river catchments

ISLA Initiative for Sustainable Landscapes

KAPSLMP Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project KDLDP Kenya Drylands Livestock Development Programme

KEF Kikuyu Escarpment Forest

LL-LPFN Lari-Landscape - Landscapes for People, Food and Nature

LNB Lake Naivasha Basin

LVEMP Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project MKEPP Mount Kenya East pilot project

OPC Ol Pejeta Conservancy

(11)

3

1. Introduction

“With an increasingly complex globalized world facing significant wicked environmental challenges, including climate change and feeding a growing global population, sustainably managing natural resources is as pertinent as ever.” (Freeman et al., 2015, p. 24)

1.1 Background

Traditional sectorial approaches to natural resource governance within landscapes have often proven unsuccessful, frequently producing unintended social or environmental consequences, such as conflicts between users and misuse of natural resources (Sayer et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2016; Ros-Tonen et al., 2018). The desire to holistically address both environmental and societal issues has brought the focus to the landscape level, reflecting the typical multisectoral and multifunctional nature of landscapes (Freeman et al., 2015).

A landscape is best defined in “broad conceptual terms rather than simply as a physical space” (Sayer et al., 2013, p.2). Sayer et al. (2013) conceptualise landscapes as “arenas in which entities, including humans, interact according to rules – physical, biological, and social – that determine their relationships” (p.2). Alternatively, the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative (LPFN) defines a landscape as:

“a social-ecological system that consists of a mosaic of natural and/or human-modified ecosystems, often with a characteristic configuration of topography, vegetation, land use, and settlements that is influenced by the ecological, historical, economic and cultural processes and activities of the area” (LPFN, 2016).

Natural resources within landscapes, as inherently finite, are typically subject to competing claims by multiple users (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018).

Integrated Landscape Approaches (ILAs) present themselves as an innovative governance instrument, apt for reconciling the interests of different users. Coined as a concept in the 1980s by the “conservation-oriented ecologists and land managers” (Noss, 1983, p. 700), currently ILAs emphasize equitable resource management and operating in a trans-sectoral and integrated manner. Working simultaneously towards environmental and conservation goals, landscape approaches seek

(12)

4

to address the global challenges of poverty alleviation, food security, climate change and biodiversity loss (Reed et al., 2016). As stated by Freeman (2015) in the introductory quote, we live in a world facing significant environmental challenges, such as climate change and the increase in global population intensifying food demands. It is of paramount importance to act before current environmental issues become irreversible. These and other problems, including biodiversity loss and desertification, are progressively causing the shrinkage of natural resources and land deterioration, making sustainable management of natural resources as relevant as ever (Freeman et al., 2015).

ILAs have become an influential paradigm in the environmental and development community in the last decade. This governance approach has been embraced by large environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the African Wildlife Foundation and Conservation International; international research organizations such as the Centre for International Forestry Research and the World Agroforestry (ICRAF); and international bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization. The Global Landscapes Forum, held in Poland in 2013 alongside the 19th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference, is further proof of the increasing significance of landscape approaches (Freeman et al., 2015). Although ILAs have gained prominence of use in international and non-governmental organisations, there is still a significant lack of empirical testing (Reed et al., 2015; Freeman et al., 2015). Reed et al. (2016; 2020) therefore urge for an increase in implementation initiatives to test trans-sectorial efforts in practice. As ILAs are a relatively new construct, it is vital to carefully analyse existing attempts to steer future implementation efforts (Reed et al., 2016).

Milder et al. (2014) use the term Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs) for implemented programmes and projects following an ILA. ILIs have been employed worldwide, for instance in several countries across Europe (García-Martín et al., 2016), Latin America and the Caribbean (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014), and Africa (Milder et al., 2014). The loss of ecosystem services1 will likely cause the most damage to those countries and populations that are deeply dependant on them. In the context of sub-Saharan Africa, the effective governance of landscape resources constitutes a concrete problem. Kenya is the country with the highest implementation efforts in the region, counting 15 initiatives in 2014 (Milder et al., 2014).

1_{The term ‘ecosystem services’ was first coined by Paul and Anne Ehrlich (1981); later defined by Costanza et al. (1997)} as “the ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing: that is, the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems” (Costanza et al., 2017, p.3).

(13)

5

As a primarily agricultural nation, with 75% of Kenyans depending on agriculture for their income and accounting for 33% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, Kenya is extremely vulnerable to land deterioration (USAID, 2020; FAO, 2020a). Additionally, 89% of Kenya is made up of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands where people are even more vulnerable to the loss of ecosystems (Mayers, 2009; UNDP, 2018).

Reviewing the initiatives being implemented present in Kenyan territory, this study aims to synthesise evidence on how this country addresses concerns about the governance of natural resources through integrated landscape initiatives. More specifically, the threefold purpose of this study is to 1) explore the initiatives implemented in Kenya in the last two decades with a view to identifying recurring patterns, similarities, and lessons learnt; 2) generate insights into how policies can impact and possibly limit integrated landscape efforts; and 3) unpack the potential advantages of implementing such initiatives.

Considering the vast potential of landscape approaches and their limited operationalisation worldwide, it is of paramount importance to collect and interpret the lessons learnt from existing projects. Both successes and failures in implementation efforts are vital to the effective implementation of ILIs (Reed et al., 2016).

1.2 Research questions

The main research question addressed is:

• How does Kenya address landscape concerns through integrated landscape initiatives and

what are the prospects for their implementation?

This will be further explored through the following sub-questions:

1) What landscape concerns do documented integrated landscape initiatives in Kenya address and how do they perform in relation to the principles defined by Sayer et al. (2013)?

2) How do concerns addressed through integrated landscape initiatives combine sectorial concerns related to agriculture, forestry and nature conservation?

(14)

6

1.3 Thesis setup

This chapter laid out the purpose, contextualisation of the problem statement, and research questions and clarified the social and academic relevance of the study.

Chapter 2 outlines the theoretical framework, building on the principles for integrated landscape approaches (Sayer et al., 2013) and the concept of policy frames.

Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, addressing the research design, operationalisation of the ILI concept, the units of analysis and observation, data collection methods, sampling, and data analysis techniques. The chapter ends with reflections on ethics and positionality the limitations of the study.

Chapter 4 provides context to the ILIs in Kenya. It briefly outlines three sectorial policies – agriculture, forestry and nature and wildlife conservation – that guide the Kenya government in the governance of natural resources.

Chapter 5 addresses the first sub-question and identifies the main characteristics of the ILIs under study. It comparatively analyses the dominating concerns and reoccurring trends, including the frequency of sectorial issues addressed, and the outcomes achieved in different domains. It additionally considers how to ILIs perform in relation to Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles for integrated landscape approaches.

Chapter 6 assesses whether the ILIs align or conflict with the sectorial policies. It identifies matches and mismatches between the focus and objectives of the landscape initiatives and that of the policy frameworks within which they operate.

Chapter 7 addresses the question about the prospects of implementing ILIs. The chapter draws from the results of interviews with individuals working in natural resource management both at the sectorial and integrated level.

Chapter 8 presents the conclusions. After a synthesis of the findings per sub-question, it answers the overall research question. Next, it provides a theoretical reflection and formulates suggestions for further research, after which the implications and policy recommendations are presented.

(15)

7

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter presents the theoretical framework if this study, starting to outline the origin and define integrated landscape approaches (2.1). Next it presents the principles of integrated landscape governance that informs the operationalisation for this study (2.2). After presenting the notion of policy frame (2.3) and the conceptual scheme (2.4), Section 2.5 concludes the chapter.

2.1 Integrated Landscape Approaches

Conventional sectorial approaches to natural resource governance within landscapes have frequently proven unsuccessful, often producing unintended social or environmental consequences, such as conflicts between users for land, water and other resources (Sayer et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2016; Ros-Tonen et al., 2018). The conceptualisation of integrated landscape approaches (ILAs) began in the early 1980s from the biodiversity conservation sector (Milder et al., 2014). The first paper using the term was published in BioScience (Noss, 1983, cited in Reed et al., 2020). ILAs were devised to address the governance of natural resources more holistically, taking the multitude of actors, with their different interests and resource uses into account. ILAs are not the first attempt to develop a more integrated approach: previous integrated governance frameworks include, among others, Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), Ecosystem Approaches (EAs) and Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) (Reed et al., 2016).

Over the years, ILAs have gained importance and have been embraced by large non-governmental and international organisations (Freeman et al., 2015). The use of ILAs has been advocated as a means to deal with climate change, population growth and the associated growth in food demand and production while striving for socio-economic development (Reed et al., 2016). Although a generally accepted definition is missing, ILAs can be defined as governance strategies devised to guide the management and allocation of natural resources in a landscape marked by competing users with different interests (Ros-Tonen et al., 2014). ILAs aim to identify potential trade-offs and synergies between resource uses of multiple stakeholders to reconcile societal and environmental goals for sustainable and equitable land management (Reed et al., 2020). Additionally, they seek to reconcile transboundary and trans-sectorial struggles over natural resources: ILAs pose

(16)

8

themselves as instrumental in addressing wicked problems2, ‘unstructured problems that are hard to characterise and define’ (Freeman et al., 2015, p.24), which must be addressed through constant negotiations across sectorial and disciplinary boundaries (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018).

Notably, ILA proponents advocate abandoning conventional win-win discourses and recognising the inevitability of trade-offs (Sayer et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2016; Ros-Tonen et al., 2018). Previous attempts at reconciling societal and environmental needs were based on “win-win” outcomes, implying the existence of a solution that brings positive outcomes to both categories of needs. Such win-win scenarios are the exception rather than the norm, as most interventions result in losers and winners (Reed et al., 2016; Castella et al. 2014). ILAs aim at minimising trade-offs and maximising synergies, so that in the long run there will be fewer losers and more winners, summarised under the maxim ‘win more, lose less’ (Sayer et al., 2015).

Nonetheless, landscape approaches are highly context-specific and do not offer a single-best and universally applicable solution: they are constituted by a continuous negotiation process between the actors present in the landscape. Considering the gap between knowledge and implementation of ILAs, academics recognise the urgent need for more implementation and testing of these approaches in the field (Reed et al., 2016) and for moving beyond their theoretical potential (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018).

Preconditions for the successful implementation of landscape approaches are undoubtedly required. Ros-Tonen et al. (2014) define three enabling conditions to the successful implementation of landscape approaches: social capital (defined as trust, reciprocity and the respect of common rules and norms); bridging organisations (defined as long-term facilitation and leadership, including conflict-resolving capacity); and long-term funding.

There are several barriers to the effective implementation of a landscape approach, and Reed et al. (2016) identified five of them. First, it is essential to consider that landscape approaches are still relatively new, and the theory behind them is still in evolution and in need of refinement. Second, with more than 80 different terms, confusion over terminology exist (Scherr et al., 2013). Third, participatory stakeholder and implementer engagement is key to a landscape approach, but limited as often insufficient financial means are allocated to that end. Fourth, insufficient or inaccessible

2_{The term ‘wicked problems’ was first coined by Horst and Webber (1973) and refers to unique problems that have no}

precise formulation, a single cause, or explanation; are interconnected to other problems and symptom of those other problems; and have no straightforward solution blueprint approach to address them.

(17)

9

monitoring poses threats to the successful implementation of landscape approaches. Finally, Reed et al. (2016) point to the limited willingness of actors, including researchers and policymakers, to work beyond their traditional operating spaces and jurisdictions (‘silos’) and integrate their efforts. Aside from the divide between research and practice (Reed et al., 2016), there is also a significant divide between research and policy (Shackleton et al., 2009; Shanley and López, 2009). Unfortunately, existing policies can limit the scope of ILAs when they maintain an extremely sectorial focus and disregard the need for a holistic, integrated approach.

Finally, it is crucial to note that confusion over terminology exists concerning landscape approaches (Scherr et al., 2013). As integrated approaches have developed independently in different communities and are labelled under various names, collaboration and knowledge exchange on the topic has been complex. Fragmentation of knowledge results in unnecessary re-invention of existing practices and ideas, slowing down progress and mobilisation. For simplicity, this thesis will use the ILA concept as an umbrella term [for a detailed list, see Scherr and Shames (2012) and Scherr et al. (2013, p.4)]. To distinguish the overall approach from concrete implementation efforts, this thesis adopts the term Integrated Landscape Initiatives (ILIs), as defined by Milder et al. (2014) (see next section).

2.2 Principles for ILAs

Various sets of principles that define landscape approaches are found in the literature. With 907 recorded citations in Google Scholar, Sayer et al.’s (2013) work is one of the most prominent in this regard. Sayer et al. (2013) propose ten principles to guide a fruitful application of landscape approaches and offer a framework to effectively achieve the negotiated outcomes among the relevant actors (Figure 2.1).

Another set of principles is the one provided by Milder et al. (2014) through the systematic assessment of 87 landscape initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. They describe integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) as “a project, programme, or platform or set of activities that: (1) explicitly seeks to improve food production, nature conservation and rural livelihoods; a project, program, platform, (2) works at a landscape level and includes deliberate planning, policy, management, or support activities at this scale; (3) involves inter-sectorial coordination or alignment of activities, policies, or investments at the level of ministries, local government entities, farmer and community organizations, NGOs, donors, and/or the private sector; and (4) is highly participatory, supporting adaptive, collaborative management within a social learning framework” (p.70).

(18)

10

Figure 2.1 – Ten principles for an integrated landscape approach

Source: Visualised by Van Vianen et al. (2015) based on Sayer et al. (2013)

A practical synthesis of Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles is the one provided by Ros-Tonen et al. (2014). This set of five principles for adaptive landscape governance was also utilised in Foli et al. (2018) and Deans et al. (2018). They include an integrated approach, multi-stakeholder negotiation, polycentric governance, continual learning and adaptive capacity.

This thesis applies Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles to the analysis of ILIs in Kenya. The conceptualisations above inform the operationalisation of the ILI concept (Appendix 1). The remainder of this section elaborates on these principles.

2.2.1 Continual learning and adaptive management

Landscapes can be defined as socio-ecological systems that undergo dynamic and irregular changes (Walker et al., 2004). The unpredictability of these changes is exacerbated by climate change and economic globalisation. Therefore, coping with everchanging issues requires a continual learning approach and adaptive management (Sayer et al., 2013; Armitage, 2005). Learning is an iterative and

(19)

11

reflective process that builds on diverse types of knowledge. Various learning approaches have been theorised in the literature. Armitage et al. (2008) and Pahl-Wostl et al. (2009) differentiate between single loop-learning (improving day-to-day management practices), double loop-learning (adapting assumptions about issues and how best solve them), and triple loop-learning (transforming the underlying structural context, ultimately resulting in improved policies, regulatory frameworks and stakeholder networks). The optimal learning approach for an ILI is what Gupta et al. (2010) define as institutional learning, which they describe as the ‘institutional provision of monitoring and evaluation processes of policy experiences’ (2010, p. 6). The principle of adaptive management entails the use of the lessons learnt through monitoring and evaluation to improve future planning efforts. For adaptive management, data is collected, analysed and re-interpreted it to identify trade-offs and synergies to adapt future planning accordingly (Meadows, 2009; Reed et al., 2020). The potential of ILAs and ILIs can only be fulfilled through trial and error, owing to the iterative nature of adaptive management (Reed et al., 2016).

2.2.2 Common concern entry point

Another fundamental principle for the application of an ILA is the need to identify a common concern entry point in order to build a rapport between actors and facilitate future collaboration. A common concern entry point must be an issue of shared interest to all stakeholders. Actors must be able to identify a feasible and short-term goal that will function as a first step towards to solution or amelioration of the problem. Feasibility can be expressed in economic, social and sustainable terms. According to Sayer et al. (2013), a common concern entry point has the ability to increase trust and collaboration between stakeholders, increasing the likelihood of achieving other, harder to reach, goals. As ILIs are often externally driven and come with high implementation costs (Reed et al., 2016), the importance of finding “economically sustainable and locally embedded entry points for implementation” cannot be overstated (Deans et al., 2018, p.144).

2.2.3 Multiple scales

Socio-ecological issues arise across and impact different scales (Termeer et al., 2010) and different organisational levels within a scale (Cash et al., 2006). Landscape governance must, therefore recognise “multiple and multi-level centres of decision making, including statutory, customary and hybrid ones” (Foli et al., 2018, p. 88). An awareness of these processes can enhance “local interventions, inform higher-level policy and governance, and help coordinate administrative entities” (Sayer et al., 2013, p. 8351). Vincent Ostrom et al. (1961) coined the polycentric governance concept to denote various, and sometimes overlapping, decision-making centres that work at different scales

(20)

12

and with their own jurisdictions. Polycentric governance takes place when these institutional units take each other into account in both a competitive and a cooperative manner and when they are able to help resolve conflicts (Carlisle and Gruby, 2019). Climate change and economic globalisation further intensify the need for vertical and horizontal cooperation between public and private actors, to make the best use possible of natural resources (Ros-Tonen et al., 2014). Therefore, economic resources and incentives to protect environmental goods and services cannot be relegated to one level of governance (Nagendra and E. Ostrom, 2012).

2.2.4 Multifunctionality

Landscapes also need to be recognised as multifunctional (Sayer et al., 2013; Ros-Tonen et al., 2014). Landscape resources have multiple uses: they provide food security and livelihood alternatives, as well as biodiversity and different environmental services (O’Farrell and Anderson, 2010). As both nature preservation and productive uses are inherent to landscapes, the integration of conservation and development goals is fundamental to the successful implementation of landscape initiatives. Additionally, each resource is needed and valued differently by the various stakeholders concerned. Therefore, trade-offs between both uses and users need to be sought. Negotiation between actors is further explored in the next principle.

2.2.5 Multiple stakeholders

Since the turn of the 21st century, multi-stakeholder engagement, for instance, in platforms, has gained prominence in several approaches, including ILAs (Kusters et al., 2018). However, there are several constraints to the satisfaction of multiple stakeholder interests, including conflicting objectives, hidden agendas, the misidentification of relevant stakeholders, a lack of capacity, power imbalances, a lack of a common conceptual framework, as well as distrust, high transaction costs and communication breakdowns (Sayer et al., 2013). Furthermore, Clay (2016) critiques ILAs for downplaying power imbalances and failing to reconcile the needs of different stakeholders, exacerbating historically entrenched inequalities between actors and create the apparent unavoidability of trade-offs. Drawing inspiration from this critique, multi-stakeholder dialogue within ILAs should be instituted with particular attention to issues of accessibility, ensuring fair opportunities to engage in debates and enhancing transparency through clear and universally understandable monitoring (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018). Participation is a fundamental aspect of governance, as it enables informed decision-making and effective implementation (Camkin and Neto, 2015). Participation in multi-stakeholder dialogues can take different forms, from merely being able to take part in the discussion to being able to actively engage in decision-making (Kusters et al.,

(21)

13

2018), although it is often intended only as the former. In the context of ILAs, the participation of weaker actors aimed at facilitating their meaningful engagement in the discussion constitutes a good governance principle (Kozar et al., 2014). A major challenge is, therefore, to ensure the active participation of all stakeholders, without the most powerful actors dominating the discussion (Kozar et al., 2014).

2.2.6 Negotiated and transparent change logic

Landscape initiatives pose themselves as instrumental in reconciling the needs of multiple stakeholders. Actors from both the public and the private sphere, usually operating at various levels of scale, and with diverse needs and interests, ought to engage in negotiation processes to determine desired goals and trade-offs. A negotiated and transparent change logic entails a shared vision and an agreed-upon action course where all stakeholders and are aware of available opportunities and risks (Sayer et al., 2013). Additionally, multi-stakeholder dialogue must be encouraged in designated forums or platforms. Keeping Clay’s (2016) critique in mind, all involved actors must to able to access a space to negotiate land uses, productive means, trade-offs and synergies. Transdisciplinarity and co-learning must also be encouraged in these platforms (Reed et al., 2020) to function at an integrated level.

2.2.7 Clarification of rights and responsibilities

One of Sayer’s (2013) principles for a practical application of an ILA is the clarification of rights and responsibilities. As a basis for good management of natural resources, the rules and resource use that shape social and conservation outcomes need to be clear. Therefore, the rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders need to be clearly defined and accepted by all relevant actors.

The establishment of clear and consistent rights and responsibilities can facilitate socio-economic and environmental benefits, including improved access to water for people previously deprived of formal or informal water rights (WGF, 2015). Overlapping rights or claims, unequal access to justice, corruption, power imbalances, a lack of awareness, knowledge and education are identified as constraints to the achievement of this principle (Sayer et al., 2013). In addition, actors should comply with commonly agreed rules.

2.2.8 Participatory and user-friendly monitoring

Continual learning and adaptive management rest on what Sayer et al. (2013) define as the principle of participatory and user-friendly monitoring. In fact, monitoring and evaluation are fundamental to facilitate collective learning and assess the achievement of desired outcomes. Indicators that integrate

(22)

14

the appraisal of multiple demands, including socio-economic, environmental and governance goals, produced through different knowledge systems, are particularly desirable (Reed et al., 2020). Additionally, progress assessment needs to be accessible and usable by all relevant stakeholders. The process of monitoring is highly context specific. Regardless, it allows stakeholders to effectively utilise data to identify synergies and trade-offs and improve management practices, enabling to learn from past mistakes (Sayer et al. 2013; Armitage, 2005).

2.2.9 Resilience

It is essential to govern to recognise landscapes as social ecological systems (SES) where people and the ecosystem are intrinsically linked and govern them as such in order to increase resilience, which is defined as the capacity to avoid or deflect threats and vulnerabilities and to absorb or recover from their manifestations (Sayer et al., 2013). Active recognition of these threats is therefore vital to improve the ability to resist and respond to them, as well as supporting attributes that increase resilience to unwanted changes.

2.2.10 Strengthened stakeholder capacity

The last of Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles focuses on the ability of stakeholders to effectively participate in decision-making processes. To do so, actors are required to have certain knowledge and skills to judge and respond to issues that arise within the landscape. Therefore, through continual learning and participation, landscape approaches can empower stakeholders to commit to an informed decision-making process. Knowledge sharing should occur within and among multi-stakeholder forums. Foli et al. (2018) identify key points building stakeholder capacity beyond knowledge dissemination. In incremental order of potential they highlight: i) Focusing on skills that the dominant actor considers “desirable”; ii) Aligning with local knowledge and needs, targeting collaborative capacity; iii) Enhancing negotiation skills and inclusive decision-making; iv) Enhancing adaptive capacity, acting as “catalyst of change”, and empowerment.

2.3 Policy frames

Through strategic plans, policies, and other guidelines, numerous sectors influence and regulate use activities in a landscape (O’Connor et al., 2020). As identifying all legislation influencing land-use activities in Kenya is unfeasible for this thesis, policy frames have been chosen as an appropriate means to discuss the national policy climate and assess its alignment with landscape approaches. Policy frames are ‘interpretive schemata and ordering devices that are needed by policymakers to

(23)

15

structure the reality of a policy issue’ (Dekker, 2017, p.129). As policy frames entail causal assumptions on issues and relative suitable responses, a policy frame encompasses an understanding of an issue and how it is interlinked with other issues or factors. Frames comprise characteristics of a perceived reality, highlighting particular aspects of such reality, while ignoring or downplaying others. Policy frames are influenced by various sources, including international NGOs and research organisations, creating ambiguity and presenting an uncertain action plan. Issues may arise when frames overlap each other, when there are insufficient resources or when differing perspectives are being accommodated (Faling, 2020). Outputs of policy frames include legislation, bills, policies and Strategic Plans.

2.4 Conceptual scheme

Figure 2.2 – Conceptual scheme

1 2 3 Agriculture Policy Frame Environment Policy Frame

Forestry Policy Frame AOP, LVEMP, KDLDP, KEF, MKEPP, KAPSLMP, UTaNRMP, ILWMKTP, LL-LPFN, LNB, OPC, ISLA, EGA

Integrated Landscape Approaches (Theory)

Kenyan context Sectorial policy frames ILA implementation efforts Sayer et al.’s (2013) ILA principles Sub-question Research focus Negotiated and transparent change

logic

Clarification of rights and responsibilities

Participatory and user-friendly monitoring

Resilience

Strengthened stakeholder capacity Continual learning and

adaptive management

Common concern entry point

Multiple scales

Multifunctionality

Multiple stakeholders

Prospects of

(24)

16

2.5 Conclusions

This chapter reviewed the origin and nature of integrated landscape approaches (ILAs). It defined integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) as concrete projects implemented on the ground with the aim being of combining multiple aims at landscape level, involving multiple stakeholders to that end. It then moved on to delineate the ten principles for landscape approaches devised by Sayer et al. (2013). The principles were combined with the notion of policy frame as a basis for the analysis of the ILIs in subsequent chapters. The conceptual scheme aids in the visualisation of the theory that informs the thesis and the research questions that emerge from it.

Before moving onto the analysis, the next chapter presents the methodology used for the structured review of ILIs in Kenya and for the interviews with key respondents.

(25)

17

3. Research methodology

This chapter presents the methodology used in this study. It outlines the research design (3.1) and the various stages from operationalisation (3.2) to data analysis (3.6). The chapter ends with reflections on ethics and positionality (3.7) and the quality and limitations of the research (3.8).

3.1 Research design

A qualitative approach was considered as the most appropriate basis for the design of this study. Qualitative data has the potential to address real-world problems by being “systematically gathered, organised, interpreted, analysed and communicated” (Tracy, 2014, p.4). The research design follows a sequential approach, based on a rigorous literature search and review, following principles of a narrative review (see Section 3.4.1 for more detail) and key respondent interviews with some key players in landscape governance and the sectorial policies to which it is linked (3.4.2).

The ontological stance that most aptly describes the research philosophy underpinning this research is that of a pragmatic nature (Popa et al., 2015). The theorisation of ILAs stems from a necessity to gather and synthesise information on holistic, multi-stakeholder, landscape-based governance to grasp a better understanding of governance processes, with the ultimate goal being to improve these processes in a way that satisfies both environmental and developmental goals. What is most important is the practical implementation of these ideas in the real world. Therefore, the evidence gathered from real-life experiences is vital to the theory behind it, to inform and refine it. For this reason, one of the most important products of the thesis are the recommendations for policy and practice (see Section 8.4).

3.2 Operationalisation

As previously mentioned, the principles of ILAs lack empirical testing (Reed et al., 2015; Freeman et al., 2016). Nonetheless, to analyse the level of integration of the 13 ILIs studied and their alignment with the 10 principles for ILAs devised by Sayer et al. (2013), an operationalisation of these principles of is necessary. Appendix 1 presents an overview of the dimensions and variables attached to each principle, drawing from Sayer et al. (2013), Ros-Tonen et al. (2014) and Reed et al. (2020). The performance of the 13 ILIs will also be analysed by comparing them with sectorial policies, with a view to testing whether the initiatives align or conflict with the institutional framework within which they operate.

(26)

18

3.3 Units of analysis and observation

The units of analysis are the 13 ILIs implemented in Kenya (for definition see Section 2.1) and their goals, achievements and sectorial interests; alignment with sectorial policies; and their potential for integrated multi-stakeholder governance. The units of observation are the reports on Kenyan ILIs, the policy frames taken into account (relative to agriculture, environment and forestry), and the key informants, who are individuals employed in natural resource management agencies in Kenta, whose perspectives on ILAs/ILIs were solicited. The analysis was carried out at national level.

3.4 Data collection methods

Taking into consideration the study’s purpose and the different constraints regarding the collection of primary data due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the following data collection methods were employed.

3.4.1 Narrative review

A narrative review gives a snapshot of available research at a particular moment. It is by no means exhaustive and does not involve testing of robustness of the data, but this will be compensated by transparency about the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the material reviewed (3.5.1) and an assessment of the biases (Section 3.9). The use of transparent reproducible search methods limits the risks of biases and increases the replicability of the study (Booth et al., 2016).

3.4.2 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured, in-depth, interviews with key respondents affiliated to Kenyan natural resource agencies and NGOs allowed for the exploration of the third sub-question on perceptions of the potential of ILIs among key players in Kenya’s landscape governance. An interview topic guide was prepared prior to the first interview (see Appendix 2). This data collection method allowed for high comparability between responses, while allowing respondents to elaborate on their responses and provide unexplored perceptions, views and experiences (Bryman, 2008). Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the interviews had to be conducted via Skype and Zoom.

3.5 Sampling

This section addresses the selection criteria for the landscape initiatives and the sectorial policies taken into consideration, as well as the sampling method for the interview participants.

(27)

19

3.5.1 Selection criteria

Considering the scope of this thesis, the initiatives included in this study are exclusively linked to the Kenyan territory. Additionally, this research aimed to analyse the initiatives in their surrounding sectorial policy frameworks. Thus, both the initiatives and the policies chosen had to relate to the Kenyan national level. Because of the confusion about the terminology used to indicate landscape approaches (Scherr et al., 2013) and the limited scope of the study, I chose to focus on landscape initiatives that had been included in three broad studies on ILIs: Milder et al. (2014), Gray et al. (2016) and Heiner et al. (2016). Eight of the initiatives were drawn from Milder et al.’s (2014) research. The study, conducted by members of EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Agroforestry Centre, explored 87 ILIs in 33 African countries to provide the first region-wide portrait of landscape initiatives. Seven initiatives were obtained from Heiner et al.’s (2016) study, three of which overlapped with Milder et al.’s study. The research team, composed of EcoAgriculture Partners and sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), reviewed ILAs in Kenya, with a focus on investments. Finally, two initiatives were drawn from Gray et al.’s (2016) study, organised by the World Bank Group. One project was already present in Milder et al. (2014) and the other was present in both studies by Milder et al. (2014) and Heiner et al. (2016). Focusing on the drylands in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Niger and Kenya), they investigated how ILAs can reduce the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of populations living in the landscapes.

The selected 13 initiatives all appear in one or more of the abovementioned studies (see Appendix 5 for more detail). Information on these initiatives was drawn from the websites of research associations, sponsors and coordinating or partner organisations associated with the ILIs and from available reports. The information obtained was used to compile the review of the initiatives. For inclusion in this study, initiatives needed to have publicly accessible online material on their projects, published either by them, supporting organisations, or research associations such as Landscapes for People Food and Nature and EcoAgriculture. Initiatives mentioned in Milder et al. (2014), Gray et al. (2016) and Heiner et al. (2016) that did not have official published documentation on their projects were excluded. At least two different sources were used to triangulate the information and to improve the depiction of the ILIs under study, avoiding misconstruction of project goals and activities and untruthful reporting from the initiatives themselves. The complete list of the resources used can be found in Appendix 6.

(28)

20

Another selection criterion was utilised to determine the policies included in the study. Following Faling (2020), the most recent Strategic Plans and sectorial policies were taken into account. The analysis and definition of the current policy frames (see Chapter 4) derives from the analysis of the main points of the policies described in Appendix 4 and an in-depth analysis of the latest policies concerning agriculture (Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy), environment (National Climate Change Action Plan 2018-2022) and forestry (Draft National Forest Policy 2020). Although some ILIs belong to an earlier period (early 2000s) the choice to focus on current policy frameworks is deliberate, as this thesis aims to explore how the current policy climate matches with efforts to implement integrated landscape approaches. This decision respects the pragmatic stance behind the study and the ultimate goal of creating policy recommendations to facilitate the implementation of ILAs.

3.5.2 Respondent selection

Purposive and convenience sampling was employed for this study, as it allows for the identification of key respondents. This sampling approach permits the identification of people with specific characteristics (Teddlie and Yu, 2009). The sampling process did not seek to be statically representative, as qualitative studies deliberately employ non-probability samples to reflect the characteristics of specific groups in a population (Gobo, 2004). Rather, the sampling method was instrumental in finding an adequate range of key informants. Key informants included people employed in natural resource management, conservation, agriculture, forestry and wildlife management in Kenya. After an initial contact via my supervisor, snowball sampling was employed. Table 3.1 provides an overview of the interviewees.3

Table 3.1 – Overview of respondents

No. Name Institutional affiliation Position 1 Fiesta Warinwa African Wildlife Foundation

(AWF)

Director

2 Apollo Kariuki Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Head Planning and Environmental Compliance

3 Anna Onyango Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MALF)

Former Agriculture Secretary at MALF; now independent consultant

(29)

21 4 Benjamin De

Ridder

FAO Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism team

International consultant

3.6 Data analysis methods

The research employed qualitative content analysis to examine the evidence base of the narrative review (i.e. the included studies and reports on the selected Kenyan ILIs) and the interview transcripts.

3.6.1 Content analysis

An extensive database was compiled from the material collected. The database included the following information for each initiative: project name; project focus; goals; activities; studies that included the ILI; years of implementation; location; and domains. This thesis employed content analysis as conceived by Bardin (2011). This interpretative analysis tool offers a descriptive summary of the ILIs under examination and an overview of leading concerns, activities and main domains of interest. This data analysis process is very dynamic, adaptable and does not have canonical steps to follow. Nonetheless, Bardin (2011) offers some broad guidelines, encompassing three phases: pre-analysis, material exploration and processing of results.

As typical of qualitative analysis, this study uses both inductive and deductive reasoning (Tracy, 2014). Making use of Atlas.ti, the first part of the coding process consisted of deductively exploring the main characteristics of the ILIs under study. Codes (see Appendix 3) were applied to the identified areas of focus, desired goals and implemented activities. Around two-hundred codes were initially generated, and they were gradually condensed into three main areas of focus and eight areas that include the most sought goals and implemented activities. The codes used in the second part of the analysis were inductively based on the operationalisation of the ten principles by Sayer et al. (2013) (see Section 2.2 and Appendix 1). Some of the codes had already been identified in the deductive stage, as many ILIs formulated goals and conducted activities reflecting Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles. Content analysis, again following Bardin’s (2011) steps, was also performed to analyse interview results. The interviews, all conducted either on Skype or Zoom, were recorded and then uploaded in Otter, a transcribing software. The transcripts were then verified and corrected before being uploaded on Atlas.ti. The approach to coding in this section was mostly inductive, as it followed the main topics touched upon in the interview topic guide (Appendix 2).

(30)

22

3.6.2 Evaluation of ILIs against the Sayer’s principles

Following the content analysis on the ILIs focuses, goals and activities (Section 5.2 and 5.3), the projects were assessed against Sayer et al.’s (2013) principles for integrated landscape approaches. The results from this analysis were arranged in a table (see Table 5.5), which places the ILIs in relation to the ten principles, with the symbols below indicating how the ILIs performed relative to each principle:

3.6.3 Evaluation of ILIs against sectorial policies

The information on each ILI was assessed against each of the three sectorial policy frames in order to determine whether a favourable policy environment exists for the implementation of ILAs and to assess whether the ILIs indeed have the potential to move beyond administrative, jurisdictional, and sectorial silos (Reed et al., 2016; Ros-Tonen et al. 2013, 2018). The results of this analysis were arranged in a table (see Table 6.1) utilising a five-point scale with the following symbols:

3.6.4 Narrative synthesis

This thesis utilises a narrative synthesis to report the results of the review. To that end, I adapted the steps proposed by Popay et al. 2006 (cited in Booth et al., 2012, p.146):

1. Developing a theoretical model of how ILIs work, why and for whom (using the principles for ILAs by Sayer et al., 2013);

2. A preliminary synthesis based on the content analysis described in Section 3.6.1;

3. Exploring relationships in the data (differences and commonalities across ILIs; how they relate to sectorial policies (see Section 3.6.3); and

4. Assessing the robustness of the synthesised output (see Section 3.8). • + + principle comprehensively applied

• + principle minimally/partially applied • ± no evidence of principle implementation

• + + high alignment with sectorial policy frame (>1 objective match with a policy frame) • + alignment with sectorial policy (1 objective matches with the policy frame)

• ± alignment nor mismatch

• - mismatch with policy (1 conflicting objective)

(31)

23

3.7 Ethical considerations and positionality

Conventionally, the use of secondary data does hardly involve ethical concerns: it reduces the burden placed on respondents and maximises previous data collection efforts, increasing time for data analysis (Bryman, 2008). On the other hand, it is important to consider that relying heavily on secondary data limits the voices and opinions of the stakeholders concerned, in turn limiting the inclusiveness of the interpretations.

Nonetheless, transparency of research procedures and explicit decisions regarding inclusion criteria are necessary to ensure the replicability of the study findings. For this reason, dependability, one of the four components of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria (see 3.8.1), is especially important in this context. To ensure dependability, the process of enquiry from data collection to data analysis has been documented. The explicit statement of research inclusion criteria prevented ad hoc selection of data. Additionally, although there is minimal risk because the study deals with non-sensitive data, I maintained consideration of how my work may affect those to whom it pertains, respecting their interests and concerns throughout the research process.

The respondents were verbally informed of the research’s purpose at the beginning of each interview. This allowed them to become acquainted with the interview topic and enabled them to ask questions if there were any uncertainties. I also asked for consent for each interview, guaranteeing the participants the freedom to withdraw at any point without question. The interviewees were asked for permission to utilise their names and professional affiliation in this thesis. Additionally, I asked approval of the audio-recording of the interviews. To the best of my knowledge, no harm will come to any participant who participated in this study. Finally, the communication product that will accompany this thesis will ensure that the research results will be usable and understandable by all concerned.

The last fundamental point to take into account is my positionality in relation to the participants and the research topic. It is important to consider that interviewer characteristics, such as gender, class and ethnicity, have the potential of influencing interviewee responses (Liamputtong, 2010). Being a white, European, twenty-four-year-old student might influence the participants’ perception of me. They also might feel compelled to answer questions depending on what they believe is expected of them. It is also essential to keep in mind that as a researcher, I hold a ‘professional bias’ which might lead me to seek out the answers I expect (Sumner and Tribe, 2008). However, I tried to avoid ‘cherry picking’ of results to steer the outcomes of this research.

(32)

24

3.8 Reflection on the quality and limitations of the research

3.8.1 Quality assessment

Using the same criteria to assess the quality of both quantitative and qualitative research can be problematic and non-productive (Ritchie and Lewis, 2005). Therefore, instead of the canonical criteria of validity and reliability, this thesis will make use of the alternative quality criteria for qualitative research suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985, 1994): trustworthiness and authenticity. Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba (1985) divided this criterion into the four components listed below.

Credibility

Credibility has been ensured by carrying out the study in a transparent manner and abiding by good practice canons. The selection criteria for the data and the participants has been made explicit in Section 3.5. Additionally, I have triangulated the results of the review, cross-checking between the data from the landscape programmes and data from previous studies.

Transferability

This study recognises the uniqueness of the Kenyan context and the initiatives studied and does not intend to generalise the results.

Dependability

The auditing process suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985) proves quite challenging to achieve within a limited time frame of an MSc study. Nonetheless, transparency about the selection criteria and data collection and analysis process allows for auditing a posteriori.

Confirmability

No hypotheses nor expected results were formulated prior to data collection and analysis. Although the initial review was conducted using predetermined criteria to investigate landscape initiatives, the domains emerged inductively in response to the third and fourth sub-question (see 1.1 for the research questions). The outline of the research process in Section 3.1 allows for the confirmability of the

(33)

25

inquiry, defined as “the degree to which the findings of the research study could be confirmed by other researchers” (Korstjens and Moser, 2018, p.121).

Authenticity

Authenticity relates to the wider political impact of the study. The research was conducted with attention to this criterion, with a focus on educative and catalytic authenticity. Firstly, the research aims to highlight the benefits of adopting landscape initiatives to natural resource governance, striving to obtain a cohesive and holistic overview of such programmes in the Kenyan context. Ideally, this will serve the purpose of informing those implementing landscape governance initiatives on the work conducted by similar programmes, creating the grounds for communication and dialogue across the projects. Finally, the study aims at ontological authenticity, striving to create a clear and understandable picture of the state of Kenyan landscape initiatives.

3.8.2 Bias assessment

During the first months of 2020, the spread of Covid-19 in Europe halted the initial plan to conduct primary research on landscape approaches in Ghana. After the closure of the Ghanaian embassy in Rome, the project shifted towards collecting primary data on the same topic in Tuscany, forerunner region for landscape initiatives in Italy. After the official lockdown in my home country began on 9 May, the final decision was to resort to a review of secondary data. Kenya was selected as the study area, as it is the country with the most significant documented presence of landscape initiatives in the African continent (Milder et al., 2014).

As previously stated, narrative reviews must include considerations on potential biases. Discussing biases in review assessments, Butler et al. (2005) identified three main issues threatening research trustworthiness and authenticity: selection bias, publication bias and language of publication bias.

Selection bias

Ideally, the selection of studies and extraction of information for narrative reviews is performed by multiple researchers, in order to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the study. Since I was the only researcher to perform this selection, the second-best option was to be as transparent as possible about the studies included in the research. Being the only researcher involved may also have impacted data extraction from official documents or previous research, increasing the likelihood of errors. A selection bias could also have occurred in the stage of data analysis, including the choice of domains. Finally, the choice of ILIs may have caused an unintended selection bias, involuntarily excluding

(34)

26

relevant material. For instance, choosing to exclusively review projects that have been covered in peer-reviewed studies may have excluded a reality of smaller, less well-known initiatives.

A selection bias could also be present in the selection of the participants. Unfortunately, I was able to access a very limited pool of participants. From the around two dozen participants contacted for their expertise in natural resource management in Kenya, about half responded, and only four consented to the interview (Table 3.1). A bias could reside in the fact that the experts who decided to take part in the study were all already familiar with the concept of ILAs. This might not reflect the reality of the other experts in the field. Additionally, I was not able to contact anyone employed in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, which would have been a significant addition to the study.

Publication bias

Publication bias has been mitigated through the use of grey literature and official documents from the landscape initiatives.

Language of publication bias

Only choosing studies and documents in English may have excluded other significant data provided in different languages. Considering that English is the official language of the country, this bias is highly unlikely. The geographical focus of the research may also imply a bias: limiting the study to Kenyan experiences might have excluded significant studies published elsewhere.

3.9 Concluding remarks

This chapter outlined the methodological choices made in this study and rendered them transparent, while recognising their limitations. The next chapter will help contextualise the research in Kenya’s policy context. It will especially aid in analysing the interplay between the current Kenyan policy frames regarding agriculture, forestry and nature conservation and ILIs.

(35)

27

4. The policy context of integrated landscape initiatives Kenya

This chapter positions the ILIs in the broader policy context of Kenya. Using the concept of policy frames (Section 2.3) it first briefly mentions two overarching policies with which Strategic Plans of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment are expected to align (4.1). The chapter then reviews the main foci of Kenya’s Strategic Plans and sectorial policies regarding agriculture (4.2.1), environmental conservation (4.2.2) and forestry (4.2.3), which are the sectors that most strongly link to the ILIs reviewed in this thesis. Based on this review, the chapter concludes with an attempt to define these sectors’ policy frames in Kenya’s current policy climate (4.3).

4.1 Overarching policies: Vision 2030 and the National Climate Change

Response Strategy

In 2008, the Kenyan government launched the development blueprint Kenya Vision 2030 to propel the country into industrialisation. This indicated a direction away from the traditional focus on agriculture, which has always been viewed as central to the country’s growth. Since then, all Strategic Plans needed to be aligned with Vision 2030, while the government established inter-ministerial consultations as compulsory for policy development. The aim of this blueprint is to transform Kenya into “a newly-industrialising, middle income country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure environment" (Government of Kenya, 2008, p.vii).

The key pillars of Vision 2030 are: i) Economic Pillar: aiming towards an economic growth rate of 10% every year until 2030; ii) Social Pillar: promoting social development in a clean and safe environment; and iii) Political Pillar: realising a democratic and accountable political system that protects the rights and freedoms of citizens. The foundations of these pillars include macroeconomic stability, infrastructural development, technology and innovation.

From the early 2000s, both the Agriculture and the Environment ministries devoted increased attention to the issue of climate change. Kenya’s new Constitution, adopted in 2010, recognised the need for mainstreaming climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. The Government of Kenya (GoK) published the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) the same year, providing recommendations for the integration of climate change in the country’s policies (GoK, 2010). Since then, Strategic Plans and sectorial policies were expected to integrate climate change concerns.

Integrated Landscape Initiatives: a Review of Kenyan Efforts