Using Landscape Approaches in
National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action PlanningRecommended citation

UNU-IAS and IGES (2023) Using Landscape Approaches in National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Planning

Acknowledgements

The creation of this guide was financially supported by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MoEJ) and it was written in collaboration
with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Evonne Yiu, Tomoko
Uetake, William Dunbar, Mari Yamazaki, Makiko Yanagiya, Lijie Cai, Jillian Campbell, Nadine Saad, and Kaoru Akahoshi for theirinvaluable contributions to the project that culminated in the creation of this guide. Their roles encompassed conceptualization,
workshop coordination, and providing essential inputs during the finalization process. We would also like to thank the CBD Parties andother reviewers of earlier versions of the guide, as well as the participants of a consultation webinar that helped sharpen the contents ofthe guide.
This report was written by Andre D Mader, Suneetha M Subramanian, Maiko Nishi and Miyuki Noguchi. Design by Masato Aoki, IGES.
© United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability 2023

Special note

We welcome feedback on the guide. We particularly invite inputs based on implementation challenges and case studies that users may
want to share. Please send your inputs to isi@unu.edu.

Table of Contents
Foreword.........................................................................................iv
Summary..........................................................................................v
1. Introduction................................................................................ 1
Landscapes and seascapes............................................................................................................................... 2
About landscape approaches.......................................................................................................................... 3
Landscape approaches, NBSAPs and the GBF............................................................................................. 4

2. Operationalizing landscape approaches.............................5
Who can implement landscape approaches?............................................................................................. 6
Components of landscape approaches........................................................................................................ 7

3. Integrating landscape approaches into national
biodiversity targets and updated NBSAPs..........................9
Who to involve................................................................................................................................................. 10
The GBF as a guide on applying landscape approaches to NBSAPs.................................................... 11
Examples of landscape approaches contributing to GBF targets......................................................... 12

4. Additional considerations..................................................... 15
Where to focus landscape approaches....................................................................................................... 16
National government support for implementation................................................................................ 16
Monitoring, review and reporting............................................................................................................... 16
Other policy and strategy at national level............................................................................................... 16

Annex: additional resource....................................................... 17
Bibliography.................................................................................. 19

Foreword
Shinobu Yume Yamaguchi
Director of United Nations
University Institute for the
Advanced Study of Sustainability

The urgent need to get back on track to achieve sustainability
goals cannot be overemphasized. In a world where human–nature interactions are steeped in complexity, and takeplace in diverse contexts, we face challenges that transcendboundaries and sectors. The call for whole-of-government andwhole-of-society approaches underscores the importance ofcomprehensive strategies. Yet they require careful adaptation
within sectoral plans.
The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) sets ambitious targets
for Parties, calling for synchronized action for biodiversity,
climate, health, livelihoods, and development goals. This requires
revising and enhancing National Biodiversity Strategies andAction Plans (NBSAPs).
UNU-IAS is pleased to present this guide, developed incollaboration with the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies and the Secretariat of the CBD, for incorporatinglandscape approaches into NBSAPs. These approaches —which consider the multiple uses of landscapes and seascapes,
and incorporate diverse user priorities in decision-making —offer a holistic perspective on biodiversity planning. They haveprofound implications for biodiversity conservation, climate,health, livelihoods, development, and other national priorities.
This manual is a valuable tool for policymakers andadministrators involved in biodiversity planning. It reflects ourcommitment to supporting implementation of the CBD, and
we look forward to its positive impact on the journey towards amore sustainable and harmonious world for all.

Kazuhiko Takeuchi

President of Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies

Human beings influence almost every landscape and seascapearound the world, and most landscapes and seascapes havemultiple users and multiple uses. “Landscape approaches” areapproaches to management that accept these multiple uses andmeaningfully involve these multiple users.

Custodianship of the land and sea can be a powerful motivation
for its conservation. If we acknowledge the variety of land andsea uses, and engage and involve the variety of users, it is more
likely that those users will be good custodians who regard thelandscape as theirs to protect.
Until now, there has been no simple yet comprehensive overview
of how to apply landscape approaches at the national level. That
information is needed if national and subnational actors are tocontribute to achieving the goals and targets of the KunmingMontreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. This guide synthesizes a variety of
key research to present a concise and user-friendly introduction
to this robust approach.
It is my pleasure to have partnered with UNU-IAS and the CBD
to produce this important publication, bringing a crucial concept
to a much larger audience.

David Cooper

Acting Executive Secretary of theConvention on Biological Diversity

In 2022, the world agreed to take action to halt and reverse
biodiversity loss and put nature on a path to recovery by2030, working toward a vision of living in harmony with natureby 2050. To achieve this vision, urgent action is needed. The
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in
December 2022, seeks to ensure that we integrate social andenvironmental development, including how local and national
economic, cultural, and social decisions consider both ecologicalconsequences and human well-being.
Halting and reversing biodiversity loss requires addressing thevalues and priorities of different actors and interest groups
who have preferences on how best to use a land or seascape.
It is in this context that the concept of landscape approaches isparticularly useful. It helps to unravel the complex interactions
between people and nature, and how best to leverage andsynergize efforts towards conservation, sustainable use andequity.
We are pleased to have collaborated with UNU-IAS and IGESin the development of this guide on incorporating landscapeapproaches for NBSAPs. We hope that Parties and non-state
actors find it a useful tool to plan and strategize coordinatedand coherent actions across multiple sectors and actors.

Summary
Landscape approaches are approaches to management that consider
and integrate the multiple uses and the multiple users of a landscape orseascape. These multiple uses, and the priorities of multiple users, areoften difficult to reconcile, but attempting to do so is more sustainable
than working in silos.
In the context of biodiversity conservation landscape approaches can beapplied directly (see section 2) or enabled at the national level throughnational biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (section 3)
or other mechanisms (section 4). Landscape approaches could evenhelp to align NBSAPs between countries by considering transboundary
conservation.
Landscape approaches can be applied directly by national governments
in cases where those governments are directly responsible formanagement at the landscape or seascape scale, for example in nationalparks. At subnational levels of government there is likely to be an evenwider variety of opportunities for such direct application. Beyond therealm of government, indigenous peoples and local communities andprivate landowners are directly responsible for land management. After
identifying who to involve, stakeholders can convene and establish
objectives, setting out a map or vision and planning together with followup monitoring. NBSAPS can include guidelines such as those laid out
here, for NBSAP users working at the landscape or seascape level.
Landscape approaches can be applied indirectly by incorporatinglandscape approaches principles into biodiversity strategy and planningat the national level. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework, adopted by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
in December 2022, provides a guide for countries to set targets, withtarget 1 on spatial planning underpinning the need for landscape orseascape approaches to protecting biodiversity. Landscape approaches
can be incorporated into national targets to varying degrees dependingon the local situation and the target.
Beyond NBSAPs and in support of them national governments can work
directly with various stakeholders, including subnational governments,
who more typically work at the landscape level. A suggested precursor is
to identify which landscape or seascape and which stakeholders to focus
on for greatest effect. All significant successes and failures of applicationof landscape approaches should be monitored as a means of improving,and national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity provide
one important means to report these observations. Cross-sector plans
and sector-specific plans should also be considered as potential channels
for integrating landscape approaches, considering their applicability to
the spectrum of land/sea use activities and users.

v

1

Introduction• Landscapes and seascapes• About landscape approaches• Landscape approaches, NBSAPs and the GBF

The manual consists of four sections:● Section 1 provides context. It explains what is meant bylandscapes, seascapes and waterscapes, and landscapeapproaches, and how they are relevant to national
biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and theKunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
● Section 2 explains how to operationalize or implement
landscape approaches. Landscape approaches are typically
implemented at the local level, which is usually beyond theremit of NBSAPs. However, there are cases in which national
governments work at the local level. In many other cases, as
discussed in section 3, national governments can enable andencourage landscape approaches. To do so, however, a basic
understanding of the process of implementing landscapeapproaches is necessary.
● Section 3 discusses how landscape approaches can beapplied to the process of updating or developing NBSAPs,
using the targets of the GBF. While section 2 outlines how to“do” landscape approaches, section 3, shows how to enable
and encourage landscape approaches by integrating theminto strategy at the national level.
● Section 4 discusses additional ways of enabling andencouraging the uptake of landscape approaches,beyond NBSAPs, including how to be strategic about theirapplication.
The manual is expected to remain useful for years to come.
However, its release is timed to facilitate governments’ updatingor review of NBSAPs in line with the GBF, in accordance with
CBD Decision 15/6 [1].

Landscapes and seascapes
A landscape or seascape1 is more of a concept than a physicalspace [2], and there are many ways to define them. Here, we
use the understanding that landscapes and seascapes are
multifunctional mosaics of ecosystems and land and sea use(see Figure 1) that are characterized by the presence of multiple
stakeholders 2 and diverse human-nature interactions. The
different elements of a landscape or seascape, including its
species and ecosystems, are interconnected and interdependent.
That means it is important to reconcile different uses and usersof the landscape or seascape. Different boundaries can be used
to demarcate a landscape or seascape. These can be ecological,
like the transitions between land and water or between plains

and mountains or the perimeter of watersheds (catchment
areas); or administrative such as the borders of a municipality or
local community.
Diversity in a landscape or seascape depends on biophysicalfactors like topography, hydrology, substrate, vegetation, etc.,
and the influence of human beings [3]. A landscape can consistof, for example, protected areas or sacred areas, crops, humansettlements, and infrastructure. A seascape might consist of
strictly protected areas, less strictly protected areas, aquaculture,
coast and open ocean, and areas that experience different formsof fishing. A landscape or seascape’s composition (the elements
it contains, and their quality) and configuration (the way in whichthose elements are arranged and connected), affect its ecologicalintegrity [4].

Introduction

The purpose of this guide is to introduce the concept oflandscape and seascape approaches (henceforth, “landscapeapproaches” for ease of reading), and how they can be applied
to national biodiversity strategy and planning. Although it is
written from the point of view of biodiversity conservation, it isaimed at all the many sectors that affect, and are affected by,conservation. Throughout this document, “conservation” mayalso include the restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Ecological integrity is the capacity of ecosystems to function
to their natural potential. In other words, ecological integrity
means healthy landscapes and seascapes. Degraded landscapesor seascapes are often unable to support as many ecological
functions, or as many species, as healthy ones. Connectivity
between the elements of a landscape or seascape also facilitates
ecological integrity, while barriers impede it. For example, fences
or dams prevent organisms from migrating across a landscape,while pesticides might prevent pollinators from moving between
natural vegetation and crops.
Ecosystem services are influenced by ecosystem integrity
because ecosystem services depend on ecosystem functions.
For example, croplands mostly produce food while natural
grasslands may produce a broader spectrum of services
including erosion control, flood retention and the provision of adiversity of species. Degraded cropland or grassland is less able
to provide any of these services. Free-flowing rivers, unlike rivers
fragmented by dams, transport nutrients and sediments to feed
coastal ecosystems and allow the migration of fish upon which
livelihoods depend.

About landscape approaches
The 2050 vision of the GBF is a world of living in harmony
with nature. Part of the mission of the GBF, for the period up
to 2030 and towards the 2050 vision, is to halt and reverse
biodiversity loss. The vision and mission are elaborated in thegoals and targets of the framework. Landscape approaches
may be not only helpful, but necessary, for achieving the vision,
mission, goals and targets of the framework, especially outside
protected areas. That’s because landscape approaches aim toreconcile developmental priorities with conservation priorities, tomaximize the benefits to each. Landscape approaches recognize
the inevitable trade-offs between conservation and development[5].

1 In this document, the term “landscapes and seascapes” refers also to fresh and brackish inland and coastal waterscapes, unless otherwise specified. The term “landscape approaches” isapplicable to all of these systems.
2 This manual refers to “stakeholders” in a broad sense to include both ‘rightsholders’ and those who do not possess legal rights and control over the relevant landscape or seascape.

2Introduction
Figure 1. A stylized representation of a terrestrial landscape, with different land-use types such as natural ecosystems, agriculture, forestry,
settlements, and a waterway. Different land-use types typically have different people using them. However, within a land-use type there may also be
different users, using the land for different purposes. The various elements of a seascape are less spatially explicit, but have similar characteristics interms of users and use.

Without landscape approaches, conservation is less likely tohappen, especially outside formally protected areas. A relatively
small proportion of the planet is formally protected. Even
areas that are protected are typically disconnected and are notalways well managed. Target 3 of the GBF is to protect at least
30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine
and coastal areas; while goal A stresses the importance of theintegrity, connectivity, and resilience of all ecosystems. Achieving
such ambitious global conservation aims requires inclusive
conservation outside protected areas, with the buy-in of adiverse range of stakeholders.

3

As the name suggests, landscape approaches are conducted at
the scale of the landscape or seascape, and with the involvementof the stakeholders who use and manage the landscape orseascape [6]. Among stakeholders, some may have been, or may
still be, marginalized and lacking in representation, and hencein need of due consideration. These may include indigenous
peoples and local communities (IPLCs), women and girls, theelderly, youth, and anyone who is unfamiliar with the workingsof government. Different stakeholders may have distinct
roles, knowledge, and experiences related to landscapes andseascapes. Therefore, their participation could be necessary
not only for their own empowerment, but also for sustainable
development and successful biodiversity conservation.

Ideally, landscape approaches should be incorporated into aspatial plan. A spatial plan is a strategy for the developmentof an area, stating the policies, priorities, programmes andallocations of areas for implementation, and influencing the
distribution of human settlements and activities [7]. A spatialplan usually includes a map of the relevant area, showing how
different parts of the area are used or the intention for their use,
based on existing information. A very basic plan can be enough– at least to start with (more details in section 2).
The terms “landscape approach” and “ecosystem approach” aresometimes used interchangeably [6]. The ecosystem approach,however, focuses mostly on managing entire ecosystems[8], while social and economic aspects may be “relegated tothe background”. The ecosystem approach also tends not toaddress the critical aspect of managing conflicts and trade-offs
between stakeholders [9], which requires careful negotiation.
Multifunctional landscapes and seascapes with diverse
stakeholders are complex and dynamic, so management needs
to be adaptive and collaborative [10, 11]. A “good” landscapeapproach can be regarded as one that manages this processwith as little conflict as possible and integrates the multiple usesof a landscape or seascape as much and as smoothly as possible.
Finding synergies between different land or sea uses is a key
goal of landscape approaches including, for example between
biodiversity conservation and climate action.

Landscape approaches can be applied to national biodiversity
strategy and planning to help achieve the goals and targetsof the GBF [12]. The core of the GBF is a set of 23 targets thatalign with its four goals, and with the objectives of the CBD
and its Protocols: to conserve and restore biodiversity, and toensure that its use is sustainable, and its benefits are equitably
shared. Countries are required to update or revise their NBSAPs
in line with the GBF and its goals and targets. In so doing, they
enable their contributions to achieving the goals and targets of
the GBF. Some targets in the GBF already encourage landscapeapproaches. In the case of all GBF targets, however, national
governments can adapt national targets to integrate landscapeapproaches (see section 3 of this manual). NBSAPs are, therefore,
the ideal place for landscape approaches to enter the national
planning process.

Introduction

Landscape approaches, NBSAPs
and the GBF

Landscape approaches could even help to harmonize NBSAPs
across national boundaries through transboundary conservation.
Indeed, the GBF invites Parties and other governments tocooperate at the transboundary, regional, and international
levels in implementing the framework. In cases of transboundary
development, the guidance of the Espoo Convention [13], on
environmental impact assessment may be useful.

42Operationalizing
landscape approaches• Who can implement landscape approaches?
• Components of landscape approaches

Who can implement landscapeapproaches?
All stakeholders within a particular landscape or seascapecan take part in implementing landscape approaches. In fact,comprehensive stakeholder representation is a big part of whatdefines landscape approaches. Ensuring fair representation can
be challenging due to the power dynamics in almost any groupof people. Among diverse groups, women, and IPLCs and otherminority groups, have historically been at a disadvantage. The
ways in which that can be avoided are beyond the scope of thisreport but are the focus of many other publications including
some by the CBD [15, 16, 17, 18].

Participants in the implementation of landscapeapproaches

To be effective, government sectors involved in landscape andseascape management include those responsible for biodiversity
conservation, as well as those responsible for development
decisions that may have an impact on biodiversity, or be
impacted by its conservation. These sectors may be public
or private, national or local, formal, or informal. Some may
be conservation oriented, while others may have a history of
conflict with conservation, or no association with conservation
at all. They all have a part to play in operationalizing landscapeapproaches.
For example, conservationists may be responsible for the
management of protected areas and other areas managed
primarily for conservation. IPLCs and others may manage“other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs),
which contribute to conservation outcomes even if they are
not managed for the sake of conservation. Spatial planners
plays a central role in determining and designing all aspectsof landscape and seascape use. Development planners play asimilarly central role to spatial planners, with less of a spatial
focus. Agriculturists, aquaculturists, fishers, and foresters
use disproportionately large areas of land or sea for criticalproduction activities, with agriculture constituting 38% of theworld’s land surface [19]. Those involved in infrastructure,mining, and energy production significantly alter parts of thelandscape or seascape, as well as causing pollution. Tourism
benefits from pristine landscapes and seascapes but may also
impact them. Landscape approaches can help to mainstream
biodiversity into many of these sectors.
As indicated in CBD COP Decision 15/12 [20], local andsubnational governments may have a particularly important roleto play in operationalizing landscape approaches because they

operate at a level where landscape approaches are most likely
to be implemented. Local governments can also reach a rangeof local stakeholders, further facilitating implementation at thelandscape or seascape level. Many subnational governments
have subnational and local biodiversity strategies and actionplans (LBSAPs), which are sometimes included in, and cancomplement, NBSAPs and facilitate local implementation of
NBSAPs. National governments were invited to support thedevelopment of LBSAPs in paragraph 2 (b) of CBD COP Decision
15/12.
Civil society organizations, IPLC leaders and others who represent
the interests of stakeholder groups, especially stakeholder
groups that have historically been under-represented, cancontribute by mobilizing stakeholders at the landscape orseascape scale to take part in landscape approach processes.
Among stakeholders, such groups require special attention to
avoid continued marginalization and to ensure involvement indecision-making.

Coordinators of the implementation of landscapeapproaches

Operationalizing landscape approaches

Landscape approaches need to take place at different scales [14].
NBSAPs and other strategies at the national level are needed toenable landscape approaches, which we discuss in section 3. The
operationalization of landscape approaches, however, involves
specific actions, at specific locations, by specific actors, involving
all key stakeholders. Section 2 focuses on ways in which
national government works at this local level, for example in the
management of a national park or putting in place infrastructure.

Aside from those who should be involved in implementing
landscape approaches, there are also those who can support andfacilitate the process. Experts on the application of landscapeapproaches may already be working in government, or they
may need to be consulted on a temporary or permanent
basis. For example, experts in the facilitation of meetings andnegotiations can help to ensure a smooth-running and fairdiscussion. Experts in ecology, conservation biology, systematicconservation planning, and other natural science disciplines canprovide expertise about the natural elements of the landscapeor seascape. Experts on indigenous and local knowledge,
gender and other aspects of social inclusion can facilitate therepresentation of marginalized groups and provide useful
information about the area in question and its custodians in
the past. Experts in geography, public health, and other areasof social science can provide expertise about the socio-culturalelements of the landscape or seascape. Experts in finance andeconomics can foster an understanding of financial risks andbenefits of different decisions regarding the use of an area.

Components of landscapeapproaches
This section outlines components or elements of landscapeapproaches. The components are presented in a sequence inwhich they could be applied, but the order may differ in different
situations. More detailed guidelines are provided by initiatives
like the Terraso Platform, which provides the various stakeholders
in a landscape or seascape with software, data tools, and theaccess to financial resources to find common ground [21]. Notethat the components listed below may need to be repeated in an
iterative process of dialogue. That requires time, but it enables
relationships to be built and conflicts gradually to be resolved.

6

Operationalizing landscape approaches

Identify the landscape or seascape and its stakeholders
Identification of a landscape or seascape and identification of its stakeholders are interlinked, and so they are part of thesame exercise. The boundaries of the landscape or seascape will determine who to include. If the area requires a groupthat is too large or too complex to convene, it may be that the area is too large to be considered as a single landscape orseascape. In that case, the boundaries may need to be reconsidered before landscape approaches are applied. Identify all

stakeholder groups in the landscape or seascape and identify representatives with whom to engage. Invite stakeholder
representatives to a scoping meeting and explain that their participation will enable them to air their views and express theirneeds.

Things to consider:• Local media and other local stakeholder networks (e.g., farmers or other stakeholder networks) may be useful to invite
stakeholders to take part in the process.

• Indigenous and local knowledge on management and resource utilization could provide valuable input. When soliciting

indigenous and local knowledge, respect the rights of IPLCs [12] and make sure to get their prior and informed consent [17].

• Note the unique needs of different stakeholders. They may, for example, require interpretation or materials in otherlanguages.

Convene and establish objectives
Implementing landscape approaches involves identifying issues in the landscape or seascape, noting trade-offs andsynergies between different land uses, and then working together with stakeholders to minimize tradeoffs and maximize
synergies. The goal is to get as close as possible to defined, agreed and shared management objectives [6, 14] and a sharedvision. Trust is essential and requires openly sharing objectives and values.

Start by enlisting the support of facilitators who can help to ensure smooth discussions. When everyone is together, ask
different stakeholders about their objectives, concerns, aspirations, and incentives for cooperation. Identify knowledge
inputs and expertise, giving sufficient attention to indigenous and local knowledge [22]. Clarify responsibilities and rights,

including land rights [6]. Agree on a legitimate system that can be consulted in case arbitration is required. Try to secure thecommitment of all to work together to plan and manage the landscape or seascape.

Consider starting with simple, attainable goals for cooperation. A visioning exercise can enable different stakeholders

to describe their hopes for the landscape or seascape. Discussing and comparing these individual visions can lead into
discussing and describing a common future vision.
Things to consider:• The challenging task of minimizing trade-offs can include simple actions like identifying alternatives for development, ormeans of production, that have even a slightly lighter impact on biodiversity.

• The process should not override existing rights of stakeholders, including IPLCs and women, that have been recognizedin the landscape or seascape.

• Agreeing on the boundaries of the area will help to clarify objectives [23].

• Power relations exist in any group, especially if it is heterogenous. Being aware of that can help to balance inputs [24].

7Compile a map of the landscape or seascape, indicating different forms of land use and which stakeholders are active in

each. The complexity of maps depends on information and tools available, but simpler is generally better. The scale of themap should match its purpose, but to be useful it should be at a resolution fine enough to capture all of the land usesthat are represented. A draft map can be prepared before convening stakeholders, and then refined together. To integrateconservation considerations, start with an existing map of ecosystems and land cover, if available. Maps of land cover and/or
land use may also be found in, for example, municipal master plans, or in the plans of other sectors like agriculture. Where

possible, it can be helpful to indicate existing administrative and/or ecological boundaries and/or physical boundaries suchas watersheds. As described in section 1, the area needs to be an appropriate size for applying a landscape approach. If

no maps are available at the local level, try starting with national scale maps. If those are also not available, try global scaledata such as the land cover maps from ESA [25], protected areas from the WDPA [26], or various maps available from UN
Biodiversity Lab [27]. Even global maps might be at a scale that is fine enough to use in a landscape or seascape.

Areas of high importance for biodiversity should be included in landscape or seascape mapping. The world database on
key biodiversity areas can be used alongside tools like the world database on protected areas, to assess the most important
areas for conservation in a landscape or seascape.
Things to consider:

Operationalizing landscape approaches

Map• A geographic information system (GIS) is the most precise way to map an area. Consider options like the free QGIS [28],or paid versions like ArcGIS [29]. Bear in mind that some land use data are likely to be more accurate than other data.

• Whatever the accuracy of your map, ground-truthing (on-the-ground checking to see whether the map is accurate invarious places) may be necessary.

Plan
Depending on the outcome of the visioning exercise mentioned under “convene and establish objectives” above, the map

discussed above can be adapted into a simple spatial plan. Such a plan could indicate what is intended for the landscape orseascape in future, acknowledge conflicting multiple objectives. For example, if stakeholders agree to expand a protected
area, the spatial plan could indicate the new boundaries of that area. This can form the basis of a basic management plan,
which also states what will be done by different stakeholders in the landscape or seascape, and by when. For example, it may

state that a protected area will be managed by the local government in partnership with an NGO, with concessions to IPLCs
and a tour operating company.

A spatial planning exercise can be time-consuming and challenging [30]. If it is not possible to compile a detailed map, usea simple one accompanied by a management plan so that the landscape or seascape approach process is not hindered.

Review and modify draft spatial plans with stakeholders. If sufficient agreement is reached, you may be able to go on todevelop a budget and agree on who is responsible for funding. Where relevant, circulate the plan for public consultation,and then implement the plan.

For more detailed guidance see, for example, the ”LandScale” initiative, which has developed a framework for integrated
impact monitoring at landscape or seascape scale including for biodiversity [14, 31], and a guide to landscape financing [32].
Things to consider:• It can be useful to be aware of the overarching legislation pertaining to land use in your country or area, systems oftaxation, policies that support or threaten biodiversity (including subsidies), and support mechanisms.

• Team building exercises can foster cooperation between stakeholders, and encourage the participatory approaches
needed to develop plans using landscape approaches.

• Incentives, such as recognition for participation, may help to motivate stakeholders to take part in planning.

8Operationalizing landscape approaches

Monitor
Identify and agree on metrics for measuring success. Be adaptive based on outcomes and changing circumstances. Indicatorsof progress can be difficult to identify. Some, however, already exist including in the draft monitoring framework for the GBF[33] and other publications. All GBF indicators may be relevant to landscape approaches, but some are specifically relevant
to landscape approaches. Relevant indicators, in the GBF and elsewhere, may include:Level of stakeholder representation• Existence of a biodiversity-inclusive spatial plan [3].

• Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33].
• Progress towards sustainable forest management [33].

• Area of the landscape with continuous vegetative cover [34].

• Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34].
In other cases, a specific landscape or seascape may need specific indicators to be developed – ideally also with the

involvement of all stakeholders. For example, in a mosaic of protected areas and farmland, the level of human-animal

conflict may be an indicator of the success of a landscape approach. Use the monitoring process to inform the next round of
implementation of landscape approaches, building on the lessons and mistakes of the previous round.
Things to consider:• Involving all stakeholders as much as possible in the process of monitoring [23], including data collection, can foster

ownership of the process and build capacity to manage the landscape or seascape in an integrated way, thus supportingstrong governance [35].

• Ensuring that stakeholders have access to a fair justice system can put stakeholders at ease, knowing that they haverecourse in case of dispute or disagreement [5].

93Integrating landscape approaches
into national biodiversity targets
and updated NBSAPs• Who to involve• The GBF as a guide on applying landscape approaches to NBSAPs• Examples of landscape approaches contribu�ng to GBF targets

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

Parties to the CBD are required to update or revise their NBSAPs
and their national targets in line with the goals and targets of
the GBF. This provides an opportunity for the integration oflandscape approaches into national biodiversity planning andimplementation. While landscape approaches are implemented
at the local level, NBSAPs and national targets can provide aframework for biodiversity-friendly land management for allof government and the whole of society, including at the local
level. Annex I of CBD COP Decision 15/6 [1] provides guidance
for revising or updating NBSAPs to align with the GBF, including
a template in which countries can describe how landscapeapproaches have been used to align national targets with thoseof the GBF.

Who to involve

If stakeholder groups are involved in the process of formulating
NBSAP targets, NBSAPs can be a tool to stimulate action at thelandscape or seascape level. At the national level it is usually
impractical to involve stakeholders representing individual
landscapes or seascapes, simply because there are too manylandscapes and seascapes and too many stakeholders. However,stakeholder groups may be represented at the national level,
where they can help to convey the general concerns common
to those groups of stakeholders. With broad stakeholder
participation and buy-in, both national and local objectives arelikely to be more attainable and sustainable.
Stakeholder representatives in this process may include:● Government and other sectors that have an impact on
the environment such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry,
infrastructure, energy, finance, etc.
● Government and other sectors that benefit from conserving
biodiversity, such as health departments, disaster riskplanning, culture, etc.
● Local government representatives, to ensure representationand coordination at national level and to facilitate thedevelopment of LBSAPs● Representatives of neighboring countries, in cases wheretransboundary cooperation is being explored● Private sector representation from sectors such as
agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, fisheries, financial
institutions, mining, local government, energy, transport,
etc., as well as private landowners and private protectedareas● Civil society organizations and representatives of stakeholder
groups, especially those that are known to be underrepresented● IPLCs
Experts may need to be brought in to facilitate the developmentof the NBSAP. Experts include people with expertise on
landscape approaches or related skills, such as working withdiverse stakeholders. Such experts may already be working ingovernment, or they may need to be brought in from outside
on a temporary or permanent basis. Depending on the relevanttarget, they may include:11● Professional facilitators● Ecologists, conservation biologists and other natural scientists● Spatial planners and conservation planners● Geographers, public health experts and other social scientists● Experts on indigenous and local knowledge
Subnational government representatives at a level between local
and national, may be able to bridge national government andlocal governments.
In the process of developing or updating their NBSAPs, national
governments need to involve stakeholders across governmentand beyond government, providing sufficient time to integrate
their inputs. To emphasize this need, target 1 of the GBF
stipulates participatory spatial planning, and target 21 stipulatesparticipatory management.
Stakeholders’ input could help to finetune the NBSAP or evensteer it in a better direction and can instill some sense ofownership of the process. Stakeholders could also be invited
to provide their views on a draft document of NBSAP targets,allowing input from a larger number of potential contributors.

GBF targets as a guide on applying
landscape approaches to NBSAPs

Section 2 explains how landscape approaches are appliedin practice. But they are always applied at the landscape orseascape (local) level. NBSAPs function at the national level andlay out an overarching strategy that can guide implementation
at the local level. NBSAP targets can be designed so that theyencourage landscape approaches at the local level.
Going another level up, the GBF and its 23 targets provide
a framework for national target setting in NBSAPs. Here,
we explain how landscape approaches can be applied toindividual targets in the NBSAP and which indicators may be
used to measure progress. Indicators may need to be used in
combination to indicate whether landscape approaches havecontributed toward a target, and the monitoring framework for
the GBF [31] includes some such indicators that may be useful.
Other indicators are borrowed from other sources. The relevanceof each target to application of landscape approaches isindicated by the background color, with the darkest green being
the most relevant.

Less relevant

Target 1

Ensure that all areas are under participatory integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management
processes addressing land and sea use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including

ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities.

Landscape approaches

Target 1 inherently acknowledges the need for landscape approaches. It can be applied more-or-less as it is at the national
level in the NBSAP.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Availability of geospatial mapping tools to support decision-making and landscape planning

Target 2

Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems

are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity
and connectivity.

Landscape approaches

Actions toward target 2 can integrate landscape approaches by setting targets of restorative land and sea use, such as
erosion control in agriculture and soil amelioration where industry and mining have occurred.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [33]

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Area of landscapes with continuous vegetative cover [34]12Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevantLess relevant

Target 3

Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especiallyareas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed
through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effectivearea-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into

wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully
consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
including over their traditional territories.

Landscape approaches

Landscape approaches can be applied to target 3 if protected areas are designated, and OECMs recognized, with theagreement and commitment of those involved in managing those areas. Building capacities and creating opportunities for awide set of stakeholders is central to applying landscape approaches to this target.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Area covered by OECMs and mixed-us protected areas

Target 4

Ensure urgent management actions, to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery

and conservation of species, in particular threatened species, to significantly reduce extinction risk, as well as to maintainand restore the genetic diversity within and between populations of native, wild and domesticated species to maintain theiradaptive potential, including through in situ and ex situ conservation and sustainable management practices, and effectively
manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence.

Landscape approaches

Human-wildlife conflict is a part of target 4 that is particularly relevant to landscape approaches, for example throughongoing consultation with those who interact most with wildlife. Raising of awareness about endangered species that

occur in parts of the landscape or seascape where conservation is not a priority and reducing adverse impacts on the mostthreatened species, are also relevant.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]13Less relevant

Target 5

Ensure that the use, harvesting and trade of wild species is sustainable, safe and legal, preventing overexploitation,
minimizing impacts on non-target species and ecosystems, and reducing the risk of pathogen spill-over, applying

the ecosystem approach, while respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local
communities.

Landscape approaches
Target 5 of the GBF implies human use of the landscape or seascape other than conservation. Therefore, it alreadyencourages landscape approaches as long as actions are applied to various parts of the landscape or seascape and not only
conserved areas, and if applied to various users of the landscape or seascape.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Target 6

Eliminate, minimize, reduce and or mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity and ecosystem services byidentifying and managing pathways of the introduction of alien species, preventing the introduction and establishment ofpriority invasive alien species, reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive

alien species by at least 50 percent, by 2030, eradicating or controlling invasive alien species especially in priority sites, suchas islands.

Landscape approaches

Target 6 of the GBF incorporates landscape approaches if actions acknowledge the role of multiple users of the landscape orseascape, and their potential role in reducing the introduction and spread of invasive species, for example in the control ofinvasive species in agriculture and aquaculture.

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

14

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevantLess relevant

Target 7

Reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources, by 2030, to levels that are not harmful tobiodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, considering cumulative effects, including: reducing excess nutrients lostto the environment by at least half including through more efficient nutrient cycling and use; reducing the overall risk frompesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half including through integrated pest management, based on science,taking into account food security and livelihoods; and also preventing, reducing, and working towards eliminating plastic
pollution.

Landscape approaches

Pollution is caused by various land and water uses other than conservation, so actions toward target 7 can be aimed ataddressing the need to reduce pollution by different forms of land use. At the same time, as stated in this target, foodsecurity and livelihoods should be taken into account, for example through acceptable levels of chemicals required for
agriculture, aquaculture and forestry, and waste management.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33]Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Target 8

Minimize the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity and increase its resilience through mitigation,
adaptation, and disaster risk reduction actions, including through nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based
approaches, while minimizing negative and fostering positive impacts of climate action on biodiversity.

Landscape approaches

Climate change mitigation, adaptation, and risk reduction can be applied by almost all land and sea users to almost all

aspects of land and sea use. Target 8 is thus relevant across sectors and can borrow from existing climate change strategies.
To contribute to target 8, actions need to explicitly consider negative impacts on biodiversity.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]15Less relevant

Target 9

Ensure that the management and use of wild species are sustainable, thereby providing social, economic and environmental
benefits for people, especially those in vulnerable situations and those most dependent on biodiversity, including throughsustainable biodiversity-based activities, products and services that enhance biodiversity, and protecting and encouraging
customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities.

Landscape approaches

Target 9 reflects landscape approaches when actions toward the target acknowledge and involve all relevant stakeholders

impacted by, or impacting, the sustainable use of wild species. Traditional practices of IPLCs are particularly relevant due totheir close relationship with wild species.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin managemen

Target 10

Ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, in particular through thesustainable use of biodiversity, including through a substantial increase of the application of biodiversity friendly practices,such as sustainable intensification, agroecological and other innovative approaches contributing to the resilience and long-term efficiency and productivity of these production systems and to food security, conserving and restoring biodiversity andmaintaining nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services.

Landscape approaches

Due to its focus on sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries or forestry, target 10 is inherently landscape or seascapeIntegrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

oriented if the stakeholders who manage these areas consulted and involved in target setting.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Degree of application of a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights forsmall‐scale fisheries [37]16Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevantLess relevant

Target 11

Restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services, such as

regulation of air, water, and climate, soil health, pollination and reduction of disease risk, as well as protection from natural
hazards and disasters, through nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches for the benefit of all people andnature.

Landscape approaches

Almost all land and sea users in almost all types of land and sea use, benefit from ecosystem services. Landscape approaches
are therefore inherently relevant to target 11 whenever the stakeholders who manage these areas are involved in, andbenefit from, the restoring, maintaining, and enhancing of ecosystem services.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Proportion of agricultural area managed with climate-, water- and biodiversity-friendly practices [34]Area of landscapes with continuous vegetative cover [34]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Target 12

Significantly increase the area and quality and connectivity of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces in urban

and densely populated areas sustainably, by mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensurebiodiversity-inclusive urban planning, enhancing native biodiversity, ecological connectivity and integrity, and improving

human health and well-being and connection to nature and contributing to inclusive and sustainable urbanization and theprovision of ecosystem functions and services.

Landscape approaches

Cities can be considered as landscapes, so target 12 has landscape approaches built into it to some extent. Various

landowners, including city governments and large corporations, can be involved in creating, improving, and promoting

access to green and blue spaces in urban and densely populated areas and conserving their species. Special access rights for
local stakeholders can help to foster stewardship.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Area of landscapes with continuous vegetative cover [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]17Less relevant

Target 13

Take effective legal, policy, administrative and capacity-building measures at all levels, as appropriate, to ensure the fair andequitable sharing of benefits that arise from the utilization of genetic resources and from digital sequence information on
genetic resources, as well as traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, and facilitating appropriate accessto genetic resources, and by 2030 facilitating a significant increase of the benefits shared, in accordance with applicableinternational access and benefit-sharing instruments.

Landscape approaches

Facilitating access to genetic resources and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use ofgenetic resources, and as relevant, of associated traditional knowledge, requires multi-stakeholder involvement. Target 13 istherefore another target that already has landscape approaches built-into it.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Target 14

Ensure the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development

processes, poverty eradication strategies, strategic environmental assessments, environmental impact assessments and, as
appropriate, national accounting, within and across all levels of government and across all sectors, in particular those withsignificant impacts on biodiversity, progressively aligning all relevant public and private activities, fiscal and financial flows
with the goals and targets of this framework.

Landscape approaches

Target 14 reflects landscape approaches if the integration of biodiversity values into policies, assessment, planning, anddevelopment acknowledges and involves diverse stakeholders and manages trade-offs with other key development goals.

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

18Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevantLess relevant

Target 15

Take legal, administrative or policy measures to encourage and enable business, and in particular to ensure that large

and transnational companies and financial institutions: (a) Regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks,
dependencies and impacts on biodiversity including with requirements for all large as well as transnational companies

and financial institutions along their operations, supply and value chains and portfolios; (b) Provide information needed
to consumers to promote sustainable consumption patterns; (c) Report on compliance with access and benefit-sharing

regulations and measures, as applicable; in order to progressively reduce negative impacts on biodiversity, increase positive
impacts, reduce biodiversity-related risks to business and financial institutions, and promote actions to ensure sustainable
patterns of production.

Landscape approaches

Business is a broad term that can reflect a wide diversity of landscape and seascape uses, from small to large and fromagricultural/ aquacultural to industrial to financial. Many are a significant part of the landscape or seascape. Target 15 reflects
landscape approaches if actions consider both the impacts and the benefits of business on the full range of landscape andseascape users.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Target 16

Ensure that people are encouraged and enabled to make sustainable consumption choices including by establishingsupportive policy, legislative or regulatory frameworks, improving education and access to relevant and accurate information
and alternatives, and by 2030, reduce the global footprint of consumption in an equitable manner, halve global food waste,significantly reduce overconsumption and substantially reduce waste generation, in order for all people to live well inharmony with Mother Earth.

Landscape approaches

Target 16 addresses ecological footprint at a fairly global level, but landscape approaches can contribute collectively when

actions include, for example, standards for sustainable production practices such as certification of sustainable production,
providing sustainable options for consumers.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

19Less relevant

Target 17

Establish, strengthen capacity for, and implement in all countries biosafety measures as set out in Article 8(g) of theConvention on Biological Diversity and measures for the handling of biotechnology and distribution of its benefits as set out
in Article 19 of the Convention.

Landscape approaches

Facilitating access to genetic resources and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic
resources, and associated traditional knowledge, inherently requires multi-stakeholder involvement.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators

Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture [33, 36]
Progress towards sustainable forest management [33]Progress towards sustainable water management

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Target 18

Identify by 2025, and eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies harmful for biodiversity, in a

proportionate, just, fair, effective and equitable way, while substantially and progressively reducing them by at least 500

billion United States dollars per year by 2030, starting with the most harmful incentives, and scale up positive incentives forthe conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Landscape approaches

Actions toward target 18 can encourage rational and safe use of chemicals in production activities and incentivize policies
and activities for various sectors that will reduce impact on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

20Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevantLess relevant

Target 193

Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily
accessible manner, including domestic, international, public and private resources, in accordance with Article 20 of theConvention, to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion UnitedStates dollars per year.

Landscape approaches

National governments can obligate environmental safeguards, policies, compensatory mechanisms and penalties in caseof adverse events to people and nature. Systems of fees to access landscapes and seascapes can also be considered, forcommercial activities

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]
Number of integrated landscape initiatives [34]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Target 20

Strengthen capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology, and promote development of andaccess to innovation and technical and scientific cooperation, including through South- South, North-South and triangularcooperation, to meet the needs for effective implementation, particularly in developing countries, fostering joint technology
development and joint scientific research programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity andstrengthening scientific research and monitoring capacities, commensurate with the ambition of the goals and targets of theframework.

Landscape approaches

Actions toward target 20 incorporate landscape approaches if they ensure that relevant knowledge, including traditional
knowledge, innovations and practices of IPLCs, guide decision-making.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Level of cross-sector involvement in compiling an NBSAP

Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]

Number of companies reporting on disclosures of risks, dependencies and impacts biodiversity [33]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]21
3 Target 19 is too long to include here. Please see the GBF for its full text [12].

Less relevant

Target 21

Ensure that the best available data, information and knowledge, are accessible to decision makers, practitioners and the
public to guide effective and equitable governance, integrated and participatory management of biodiversity, and tostrengthen communication, awareness-raising, education, monitoring, research and knowledge management and, also inthis context, traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities
should only be accessed with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with national legislation

Landscape approaches

Establish freely accessible clearing house mechanisms available for decision makers at multiple levels, that integrate datafrom different sectors.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Target 22

Ensure the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making,and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting theircultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children
and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders.

Landscape approaches

Landscape approaches, by definition, align with this target. Any application of this target is likely to promote the inclusion ofdiverse stakeholder groups, recognizing their role in landscape and seascape management. The protection of environmental
human rights defenders may be relevant because landscape approaches can be an important tool in mediating resource
conflicts, where biodiversity is threatened by other interests.

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Number of local authorities applying landscape approaches in a country

Percentage of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans [33]Percentage of the population in traditional occupations [33][38]National policy support for integrated landscape management [34]National policy support for integrated basin management

Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Proportion of IPLC groups involved in landscape and seascape planning.

Proportion of the adult population with secure tenure rights to land, across genders [38].

22Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

More relevant

23

Less relevant

Target 23

Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all womenand girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including byrecognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed
participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.

Landscape approaches

Landscape approaches, by definition, align with this target. Any application of this target is likely to promote the inclusion of
women and girls, recognizing their crucial role in landscape management.

Possible landscape & seascape -related indicators
Percentage of the population, across genders, in traditional occupations [33]Extent to which education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at alllevels in national education policies, curricula, teacher education and student assessments [33]Percentage improvement in the multiple dimensions of human well-being of households within a landscape [34]Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to landownership and/or control [REF 5.A.2]

Degree of application of a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights forsmall‐scale fisheries [37]The basic principles of landscape approaches, as outlined in
section 1, are straightforward and universal. However, specificcircumstances can vary enormously and therefore the meansof formulating national targets with landscape approaches inmind can differ greatly from country to country, and withincountries. The following diverse examples show how landscapeor seascape-scale initiatives can address the GBF targets throughlandscape approaches. In each case, the numbers of relevant
GBF targets are indicated. Applying landscape approaches in theformulation of NBSAP targets can help to enable and encourage
local initiatives like these.

ExampleGBF Targets

Enabling community-led landscape initiatives in Kenya [39]Policy information often remains within government circles. In Kenya an initiative was launched

to involve communities in the policy development and review process. The Nature Conservancy

3

5

14

18

22

23

2

4

5

9

10

11

15

22

1

5

9

10

14

15

21

23

4

10

13

21

(TNC) and Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA) implemented the Community Con-

servancy Policy Support and Implementation Program to support communities’ and landowners’
participation in national policy review processes to enable better access to policy informationand incentives. They operated across 12 regional wildlife conservancy associations, representing
private and community-based conservancies. The program covered land and resource policy,
community governance systems, conservation incentives and inclusion of women and youths
for more equitable distribution of conservancy benefits.

Species conservation in Japan [40]Sasa palmata is a plant that grows naturally in the mountainous northern part of Kyoto City inJapan. Used to wrap traditional confections or make good luck charms, it has long been a partof Kyoto culture. The plant’s population is in decline due to browsing by deer as well as a shortage of workers engaged in forest management. A project by the City of Kyoto aims to restore
populations of S. palmata, to secure forest workers, and to promote traditional techniquesand distribution of S. palmata to revitalize local culture and industry, involving local residents.
An existing fenced area is being expanded to protect S. palmata from deer browsing, while

young forest workers are being recruited to resurrect traditional techniques. Public awarenessfor a sustainable mechanism to support these activities is being encouraged by involving thebusiness sector and urban residents.

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

Examples of landscape approaches
contributing to GBF targets

Integrated development and livelihood promotion in India [41]The Integrated Basin Development and Livelihood Promotion (IBDLP) Programme was initiatedby the subnational government of Meghalaya in India to institutionalize ecologically sustainable

and inclusive development in Meghalaya. Involving all departments of the subnational government, the programme reached out to support citizens in any of eleven identified livelihood

sectors – agriculture, aquaculture, apiculture, livestock, sericulture, water, rural energy, tourism,
horticulture, forestry and plantation crops, and services / non-farm sector. They engaged with

communities to formulate development interventions, documenting traditional knowledge tojuxtapose it with modern knowledge to strengthen livelihood enterprise decisions. To address
the common requirements of sectors, the implementation of the IBDLP was based on the fourpillars of knowledge management, natural resource management, entrepreneurship development, and good governance, and aims to instill an entrepreneurial spirit including through theempowerment of women.

Biodiversity conservation and indigenous knowledge in Panama [42]The community of Usdub in Gunayala, Panama, has a population of approximately 2,500 people
with limited monthly income, who subsist on fishing and agriculture. The local administrationis under traditional authority that manages community resources with support from other local

institutions, including women and youth groups. The area is at risk of losing agricultural biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems. To simultaneously preserve biodiversity and indigenous
knowledge, the Foundation for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge gathered indigenous

experts on agricultural biodiversity and inventoried and cultivated native seeds in danger of
local extinction as well as producing a 10-year management plan for agricultural biodiversity

and ecosystems. This was done in cooperation with community authorities and institutions andgovernmental institutions.

2224

sectors – agriculture, aquaculture, apiculture, livestock, sericulture, water, rural energy, tourism,
horticulture, forestry and plantation crops, and services / non-farm sector. They engaged with

communities to formulate development interventions, documenting traditional knowledge tojuxtapose it with modern knowledge to strengthen livelihood enterprise decisions. To address
the common requirements of sectors, the implementation of the IBDLP was based on the fourpillars of knowledge management, natural resource management, entrepreneurship development, and good governance, and aims to instill an entrepreneurial spirit including through the

14

15

21

23

4

10

13

21

Integrating landscape approaches into national biodiversity targets

empowerment of women.

25

Biodiversity conservation and indigenous knowledge in Panama [42]The community of Usdub in Gunayala, Panama, has a population of approximately 2,500 people
with limited monthly income, who subsist on fishing and agriculture. The local administrationis under traditional authority that manages community resources with support from other local

institutions, including women and youth groups. The area is at risk of losing agricultural biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems. To simultaneously preserve biodiversity and indigenous
knowledge, the Foundation for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge gathered indigenous

experts on agricultural biodiversity and inventoried and cultivated native seeds in danger of
local extinction as well as producing a 10-year management plan for agricultural biodiversity

and ecosystems. This was done in cooperation with community authorities and institutions and22

governmental institutions.

Fisheries, offshore oil, and ecosystems in Norway [9]In a study of conflicting sea use between fisheries and oil companies, researchers found that in

Norway, these two industries have learned to coexist through “decades of conflict and dialogue

5

7

9

10

15

18

between the industries, their associations, and the related government agencies and research

institutions”. By engaging around use of the seascape, they have learned to cooperate. Their
cooperation has implications for the ecosystems affected by both industries, because “theindustries have to consider each other's needs, as conflicts and clarification of differences tend
to raise government environmental standards and requirements, and because these processes
promote knowledge generation, technology development, and the search for more sustainable
solutions.”

4

Additional
considerations• Where to focus landscape approaches• Na�onal government support for implementa�on• Monitoring, review and repor�ng• Other policy and strategy at na�onal levelAdditional considerations

Where to focus landscapeapproaches
Most countries consist mostly of multifunctional landscapesand seascapes, and their coastal waters consist mostly of
multifunctional seascapes. These landscapes and seascapes
may cross national and other boundaries. That’s too much fora government to manage, so landscape approaches cannot beapplied everywhere, immediately, and it is necessary to prioritize.
Experts in the relevant fields, as outlined in section 3, can beapproached to help with the prioritization process. Here are two
ways to prioritize:● Identify biodiversity priority areas, where especially richbiodiversity is under threat. In many cases such areas are
already known, or there may be experts or organizations
that are able to provide this information. Spatial planners,
especially conservation planners, could be engaged to assist
in identifying them.
● Identify areas where landscape approaches are alreadybeing applied to some extent. These may not be the mostimportant areas for biodiversity but, where landscapeapproaches arise spontaneously, they may require a
relatively small amount of support to help them succeed.
Landscape approaches that arise spontaneously are also
more likely to be adapted to meet local needs and priorities.
If your country has a national-level biodiversity or ecosystemassessment, you may already know where biodiversity priority
areas are and where information gaps exist. If not, it is advisable
to plan a biodiversity assessment [43] for the future. Several
initiatives have also identified international biodiversity priority
areas worldwide, including key biodiversity areas (KBAs) [44],indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) [45], Ramsar
wetland sites [46], natural world heritage sites [47], essential life
support areas (ELSAs) [48], and the red list of ecosystems [49].
Biodiversity prioritization needs to be a continuous process, andit relies on up-to-date data.

National government support for
implementation
In addition to introducing policy and strategy at the national
level, as outlined in section 3, national governments may beable to allocate some time toward working directly with people
or institutions that are trying to apply landscape approaches
at the local level. National governments may, for example, beable to provide information on how to proceed with landscapeapproaches, or they may be able to put different championsof landscape approaches, from different parts of a country, incontact with one another to share lessons or work together.

27

Recognition of the efforts of local proponents of landscapeapproaches can encourage them to continue and to expand
their efforts and can serve as a model for others. This might
be achieved by sponsoring the attendance of individuals tonational-level meetings on biodiversity planning, and/or bypresenting an award of some kind, for example a certificate ofrecognition of efforts. National government representatives may
also be able to participate in local-level meetings on applying
landscape approaches.
National governments can also conduct workshops specificallyto build the capacity of local proponents to apply landscapeapproaches. This can be done even before attempting to carryout landscape approaches. It can include training on mappingof territories within the larger landscape or seascape as well
as already established governance mechanisms that allow forsustainable use and access within the landscape or seascape.
Community-based monitoring and information systems provide
some good examples [50].
Depending on the national and local context, different
forms of outreach could be used to raise awareness about
landscape approaches, and experts could be invited to takepart or to facilitate the sessions. This could take the form of
a communication, education and public awareness (CEPA)
plan such as those promoted by the Ramsar Convention [51],including relevant targets and actions for integration into the
NBSAP.

Monitoring, review and reporting
Even when landscape approaches are enabled by national
governments, those governments may not be aware of their
existence. A system of monitoring can keep track of wherelandscape approaches are being applied so that efforts canbe supported, lessons can be shared, and successes can be
replicated.
Monitoring needs to happen both at the national level to provide
an overview, and at the local level where individual landscapeapproaches can be examined in some detail. At the local level,
especially, it is important and helpful to involve stakeholders inmonitoring [23]. A participatory approach to monitoring andevaluation, by which stakeholders measure progress, identify
gaps and report the monitoring results back finally to national
governments, can help to build the capacity of stakeholders
through information exchange and awareness raising.
Comparing outcomes over time can provide clues on how
to adapt and improve landscape approaches, and the use of
indicators can provide support for evidence-based policymaking
and implementation [52]. There is no single monitoring approachthat will work in all situations, but several globally acceptedframeworks and indicators are available. A draft “Monitoring
framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework” [33] was adopted at the fifteenth meeting of
the Conference of the Parties (decision 15/5). Other usefulindicators may be found in the Livelihood Vulnerability Index[53], the Social Vulnerability Index [54], and among the planetary
boundary indicators [55]. It may be possible to adapt or
downscale some of these indicators to suit local circumstances[56]. National governments can also survey stakeholders’opinions on a regular basis, at a frequency that matches theircapacity.

Other policy and strategy atnational levelside of a national border have never been in contact with thoseon the other. For example, when a river flows over a border,
communities and biodiversity downstream are affected by
activities upstream. Landscape connectivity, in general, can playa key role in landscape approaches.

Additional considerations

National governments can report their observations of thesuccesses and failures of landscape approaches back to
stakeholders at the national level and at the landscape orseascape level, feeding into the processes outlined throughout
sections 2 and 3. Part of this reporting process should ideallybe a summary of lessons learned, and progress, in the national
reports [57] that all Parties are expected to submit to the CBD.
Once several countries begin to report on landscape approaches,comparison and sharing of lessons will become possible atthe international level, which will enable further progress indesigning better landscape approaches.

NBSAPs should be seen as “whole of government” and “wholeof-society” strategies. However, national governments also
often have broader master plans or cross-sectoral plans,
to address various aspects of governance. Integrating key
messages from the NBSAP into these broader plans can be aneffective way of mainstreaming conservation messages [58].
Integrating landscape approaches into national sustainable
development plans, poverty reduction plans, climate adaptationplans, watershed or aquifer management plans, and national
development plans, is appropriate because landscapeapproaches specifically aim to address the needs of various
stakeholders.
In local government, master plans provide the same opportunity
for integration of biodiversity goals, especially from theperspective of landscape approaches. Where possible, national
governments may want to encourage or propose policy that
requires cooperation between sectors when formulating strategy.
Alternatively, a committee or other mechanism can be set up to
enable and encourage discussion between different sectors thatshould be involved in landscape approaches.
National governments are also likely to have sectoral plans, otherthan NBSAPs, that are also relevant to biodiversity. These may
include nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national
adaptation plans (NAPs), as well as plans in non-environmental
fields, which are relevant to biodiversity in various ways. They
offer the opportunity to provide biodiversity-relevant input, inthe same way that various government sectors are involved in
the NBSAP. This opportunity may even result from inviting othersectors to be involved in the NBSAP process. In other cases, it
might require approaching individuals and offering biodiversityrelated expertise. Cross-sectoral cooperation like this canalso increase understanding of the processes and challenges
faced by different sectors. At best, it may help to guide theformulation of strategy and policy that is more conscious of theneed for biodiversity conservation and the involvement of all
stakeholders.
Policy may also be needed to apply landscape approaches
across national borders, which could require cooperation
between neighboring countries. Transboundary landscapeapproaches may be beneficial even when stakeholders on one

28

Annex:additional resources

● NBSAP Forum. The NBSAP Forum is a community of practiceaiming to support the implementation of the UN Biodiversity
Convention and its policy and reporting mechanism. It is
led through a partnership between the Secretariat of the
CBD, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
and UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Its purpose isto support countries in finding the information they needto develop and implement effective NBSAPs and prepare
National Reports.
● Convention in Biological Diversity (revised 2011-2012).
NBSAP Capacity Building Modules. A set of modules
produced by the CBD outlining different aspects of
NBSAPs including mainstreaming, setting targets, ensuring
inclusive societal engagement, gaining political support,
communication, subnational authorities and gender.
● Landscape approaches are a key aspect of the Satoyama
concept, which “aims to build on mutually beneficial
human-nature relationships, where the maintenanceand development of socio-economic activities (including
agriculture, fishing and forestry) aligns with naturalprocesses” and “entailing a range of activities including
expanding the body of knowledge about how the
relationships between humans and nature should function ina wide variety of production landscapes and seascapes fromboth social and scientific points of view.”● Forest Peoples Programme (2020). Local Biodiversity
Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples andlocal communities to the implementation of the Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature andcultures. This, the second iteration of the local biodiversity
outlook, is a complement to the fifth edition of the Global
Biodiversity Outlook produced by the CBD Secretariat. It“presents the perspectives and experiences of indigenous
peoples and local communities (IPLCs) on the current
social-ecological crisis, and their contributions to theimplementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to the renewal of nature and cultures.
● Ajjugo J, Kamanga J, Kanyamibwa S, Scherr SJ. (2020). How
Integrated Landscape Management can contribute to the
CBD Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Recommendations
for policymakers from African Landscape Leaders:
Recommendations for policymakers from African Landscape
Leaders. Results of a dialogue looking at African perspectivesof biodiversity conservation and emphasizing the provisionof policy support for locally led landscape partnerships,building ‘green’ landscape economies, and measuringlandscape-level performance.

● Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011).
Report on how to improve sustainable use of biodiversity
in a landscape perspective (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/13). An
official document of the Fifteenth meeting of the Subsidiary
Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice,offering a rationale for focus on the landscape level.
● IUCN. (2021). Science-based ecosystem restoration forthe 2020s and beyond. A “think piece” that presents
recommendations for “specific actions to be undertaken
by public and private stakeholders to sustain and restore
the diverse and functioning ecosystems essential forhuman wellbeing and the preservation of biodiversity.”
It offers “a framework of questions, key messages andrecommendations.”

Annex: additional resources● Integrated Spatial Planning Workbook (2022). A UNDP
publication showing how countries can use integrated
spatial planning to reveal pathways toward the achievementof multiple nature-based goals at once. Employing stepby-step explanations and case studies from 11 countries,
the workbook shows how nations can develop ‘Maps of
Hope’ that indicate where to protect, manage, and restore
ecosystems to meet their unique goals.

● Mitchell N, Rössler M, Tricaud P (2009). World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation andManagement. A book designed “to assist managers of World
Heritage inscribed cultural landscapes, those to whom they
are responsible and with whom they should be working, andto inform those seeking potential nomination of culturallandscapes of the requirements for successful on-sitemanagement”. It’s focus is on protecting the outstanding
universal value in the inscribed landscape. This requires
skills, knowledge and information, a planning process
which is inclusive and multi-tiered, promotion and funding.
Maintaining the landscape and its values and assessing thelimits of acceptable change are the key challenges.
● Ervin J, Mulongoy KJ, Lawrence K, Game E, Sheppard D,
Bridgewater P, Bennett G, Gidda SB, Bos P. (2010). Making
Protected Areas Relevant: A guide to integrating protectedareas into wider landscapes, seascapes and sectoral plans
and strategies. CBD Technical Series No. 44. Montreal,
Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity, 94pp. This
guide provides conservation planners with a concrete set ofsteps they can take to improve protected area integration,
including getting started, assessing the broader context,
developing and implementing strategies and monitoring
the results. This guide also aims to inform and support
others involved in land use planning to help them better
understand and integrate conservation principles into theirwork.
● Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011).
NBSAP training modules version 2.2 – Module 2. Using
the Biodiversity Planning Process to Prepare or Update a
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans. Montreal,
June 2011. This module forms part of a training package on
the updating and revision of national biodiversity strategies
and action plans (NBSAPs) in line with the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
The package is intended for national focal points of theConvention on Biological Diversity, those responsible for
updating and implementing NBSAPs and other biodiversity
planners, including those responsible for other biodiversity
related conventions.

30Annex: additional resources● Boedhihartono, Klintuni A. (2012). Visualizing Sustainable
Landscapes: Understanding and Negotiating Conservation
and Development Trade-offs Using Visual Techniques. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. (56 pp). This manual aims to support
the environmental community who is using visualization
techniques to communicate both abstract and concrete
ideas when dealing with conservation and development
situations. The manual contains various visualization
techniques that will facilitate communication among various
stakeholders from different ethnic groups, with different
levels of educations and literacy and different needs.
● Guidance on integrating human rights in National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) is intended
to support UN Country Teams, States, policymakers andstakeholders in integrating human rights into their NBSAPs
under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
● IIED and UNEP-WCMC. (2015). Putting biodiversity at
the centre of development: a checklist for reviewing
the mainstreaming potential of a country’s NBSAP. This
toolkit targets those who want to mainstream biodiversity
concerns into development policy and planning or tohighlight how biodiversity contributes to nutrition and social
development or are involved in developing or revising an
NBSAP. This guides these toolkit users to: 1) Make betteruse of the NBSAP revision opportunity; 2) Understand themainstreaming process – biodiversity into development anddevelopment into biodiversity – and find out more about
helpful tools and approaches; 3) Acquire the ability andskills to select, assemble, analyse and present compelling
evidence on the links between biodiversity and national
development priorities; and 4) Develop a communication
strategy.
● Shames, Seth, and Sara J. Scherr. 2020. Mobilizing Financeacross Sectors and Projects to Achieve Sustainable
L a n d s c a p e s : E m e r g i n g M o d e l s . Wa s h i n g t o n , D C :EcoAgriculture Partners

31

Bibliography

32

Annex: additional resourcesBibliography[1] CBD, Decision 15/6. Mechanisms for planning, monitoring,
reporting and review, 2022.
[2] A. Farina, “The Cultural Landscape as a Model for the
Integration of Ecology and Economics,” BioScience, vol. 50,
no. 4, p. 313–320, 2000.
[3] L. Denier, S. Scherr, S. Shames, P. Chatterton, L. Hovani and
N. Stam, The little sustainable landscapes book, Oxford:
Global Canopy Programme, 2015.
[4] A. H. Perera, U. Peterson, G. Martínez Pastur and L. R.
Iverson, Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes:
Broadscale Considerations, Cham: Springer, 2018, p. 265.
[5] J. Sayer, “Reconciling Conservation and Development: Are
Landscapes the Answer?,” Biotropica, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 649652, 2009.
[6] J. Sayer, T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul and L. E. Buck, “Tenprinciples for a landscape approach to reconciling
agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 10,
no. 21, p. 8349–8356, 2013.
[7] European Commission, “INSPIRE registry,” 2015. [Online].
Available: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/featureconcept/
SpatialPlan.
[8] CBD, Decision 5/6: Ecosystem approach, 2000.
[9] P. Arbo and P. T. T. Thủy, “Use conflicts in marine
ecosystem-based management — The case of oil versus
fisheries,” Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 122, pp. 7786, 2016.
[10] A. Velázquez, E. M. Cué-Bär, A. Larrazábal, N. Sosa, J. L.
Villaseñor, M. McCall and G. Ibarra-Manríquez, “Building
participatory landscape-based conservation alternatives: A
case study of Michoacán, Mexico,” Applied Geography, vol.
29, no. 4, pp. 513-526 , 2009.
[11] M. Nishi and M. Yamazaki, Landscape Approaches for the
Post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda: Perspectives from SocioEcological Production Landscapes and Seascapes, UNU-IAS,
2020.

33

[15] CBD, “CBD Technical Series No. 49: Guidelines for
Mainstreaming Gender into National Biodiversity Strategies
and Action Plans,” Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2010.
[16] CBD, “CBD Technical Series No. 64: Recognizing andSupporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenousand Local Communities Global Overview and National
Case Studies,” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 2012.
[17] CBD, “Mo’ otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines for thedevelopment of mechanisms, legislation or otherappropriate initiatives to ensure the “prior and informed
consent”, “free, prior and informed consent” or “approvaland involvement”,” Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2019.
[18] CBD, “Decision 15/11. Gender Plan of Action,” Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022.
[19] FAO, “Sustainable Food and Agriculture,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/
c/1274219/. [Accessed 19 07 2023].
[20] CBD, Decision 15/12. Engagement with subnational
governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance
implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework, 2022.
[21] Technology Matters, “Terraso: Building a sustainable
future,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://techmatters.org/
project/1000-landscapes/.
[22] B. Martín-López, M. R. Felipe-Lucia, E. M. Bennett, A.
Norström, G. Peterson, T. Plieninger, C. C. Hicks, F.
Turkelboom, M. García-Llorente, S. Jacobs, S. Lavorel,
Locatelli and B., “A novel telecoupling framework toassess social relations across spatial scales,” Journal ofEnvironmental Management, vol. 241, pp. 251-263, 2019.
[23] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University
Press, 1990.

[12] CBD, Decision 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework, 2022.

[24] J. Cameron and D. Grant-Smith, “Putting people in planning:participatory democracy, inclusion and power,” in Australianenvironmental planning: Challenges and future prospects,
Routledge, 2014, pp. 197-205.

[13] United Nations, Convention on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 1991.

[25] European Space Agency, “ESA Climate Change Initiative,”2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org.

[14] J. Ajjugo, J. Kamanga and S. S. S. J. Kanyamibwa, Howintegrated landscape management can contribute to the
CBD post-2020 biodiversity framework: Recommendations
for policymakers from African landscape leaders, Fairfax:
EcoAgriculture Partners, 2020.

[26] UN-WCMC, “Protected Areas (WDPA),” 2023. [Online].
Available: https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematicareas/wdpa?tab=WDPA.
[27] UN Biodiversity Lab, “UN Biodiversity Lab,” 2023. [Online].
Available: https://map.unbiodiversitylab.org.

[29] ArcGIS, “ArcGIS Online,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.arcgis.com.
[30] J. Sayer, C. Margules, A. K. Boedhihartono, A. Dale, T.
Sunderland, J. Supriatna and R. Saryanthi, “Landscapeapproaches: what are the pre-conditions for success?,”
Sustainability Science, vol. 10, p. 345–355, 2014.
[31] Conservation International, “Landscale,” 2023. [Online].
Available: https://www.conservation.org/projects/landscale..
[32] S. James and S. J. Scherr, “Mobilizing Finance across Sectors
and Projects to Achieve Sustainable Landscapes: Emerging
Models,” Washington, DC, 2020.
[33] CBD, “Decision 15/5. Monitoring framework for theKunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” 2022.
[Online].
[34] EcoAgriculture Partners, An Integrated Landscape Target for
the Sustainable Development Goals, 2014.
[35] E. A. Morgan, T. Cadman and B. Mackey, “Integrating
forest management across the landscape: a three pillar
framework,” Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 1735-1769, 2021.
[36] United Nations, “End hunger, achieve food security andimproved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture,”[Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2.
[37] United Nations, “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans,seas and marine resources for sustainable development,”[Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal14.
[38] United Nations, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere,”[Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal1.
[39] USAID, Community Conservation Policy Support, 2020.
[40] Ministry of the Environment of the Government of Japan,
Satoyama in Japan – for nature-based solutions, 2022.
[41] Meghalaya, “About IBDLP,” Accessed 2023. [Online].
Available: https://miemeghalaya.org/about-ibdlp/.

[44] IUCN, “Key Biodiversity Areas,” 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tool/keybiodiversity-areas.
[45] UN-WCMC, “Supporting indigenous poeples’ and local
communities’ contributions to conservation,” 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://www.unep-wcmc.org/en/news/
supporting-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities.

Bibliography[28] QGIS Association, “QGIS Geographic Information System,”
2023. [Online]. Available: http://www.qgis.org.

[46] Ramsar, “Wetlands of international importance,” 2014.
[Online]. Available: https://www.ramsar.org/sites-countries/
wetlands-of-international-importance.
[47] UNESCO, “Natural World Heritage,” 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/natural-world-heritage/.
[48] UNDP, “Integrated Spatial Planning Workbook,” New York,2022.
[49] IUCN, “Red List of Ecosystems,” 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://iucnrle.org.
[50] C. d. J. V. S. B. Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, “Communitybased monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) in thecontext of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),”
Biodiversity, 2015.
[51] Ramsar Convention, “CEPA action plans and guidelines,”
2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ramsar.org/activity/
cepa-action-plans-and-guidelines.
[52] M. Nishi, Y. Natori and D. Dublin, Resilience in Landscapes& Seascapes: Building Back Better from COVID-19, UNUIAS, 2021.
[53] M. B. Hahn, A. M. Riederer and S. O. Foster, “The Livelihood
Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing
risks from climate variability and change—A case study inMozambique,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 74-88, 2009.
[54] U. C. R. Toolkit, “Social Vulnerablity Index,” 2021. [Online].
Av a i l a b l e : h t t p s : / / t o o l k i t . c l i m a t e . g o v / t o o l / s o c i a l vulnerability-index.
[55] S. R. Centre, “The nine planetary boundaries,” 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/
planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html.

[42] Satoyama Initiative, “Conservation and management of
biodiversity of cultural, spiritual and food sovereignty
importance, and recovery of indigenous knowledge
in the management of their territory,” Accessed 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://sdm.satoyama-initiative.org/
projects/2018_panama/.

[56] M. Nishi, S. M. Subramanian and H. Gupta, The Biodiversity–
Health–Sustainability Nexus: Integrated Solutions fromLandscapes & Seascapes, Tokyo: UNU-IAS, 2022.

[43] U N - W C M C , “ N a t i o n a l e c o s y s t e m a s s e s s m e n t s f o rpeople & nature,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.
ecosystemassessments.net.

[58] CBD, Updating National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans in line with the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Training Package(Version 2.1), 2011.

[57] CBD, “National Reports,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbd.int/reports/.

34

United Nations University

Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925 Japan
Tel: +81-3-5467-1212

unu.edu/ias

UNU is committed to the ideals and practices of environmental
sustainability, and is an IS0140001 certified institution.
Designed by IGES
Copyright @2023 United Nations University. All Rights Reserved.

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-46-855-3700

iges.or.jp