CIFOR infobriefs provide concise, accurate, peer-reviewed information on current topics in forest research No. 129, November 2015 cifor.org James Reed, Josh van Vianen and Terry Sunderland From global complexity to local reality Aligning implementation pathways for the Sustainable Development Goals and landscape approaches Introduction The Global Landscapes Forums held in Warsaw (November 2013) and Lima (December 2014), coupled with the CGIAR Development Dialogues (New York, September 2014), have helped position ‘landscape approaches’ at the center of sustainable development initiatives and global discourse. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and its many partners continue to devise ways to best introduce a holistic and integrated ‘landscapes’ approach to balance trade-offs between conservation and development, including agriculture, with the aim of influencing both policy and practice. The adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September this year, following a more than two-year process of open negotiation, is very timely. The 17 goals, with their 169 targets, provide an ambitious set of objectives for the 200+ nations that have committed to “end poverty” (Goal 1), “end hunger” (Goal 2), and “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems” (Goal 15), among others. These goals represent a departure from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that have guided the global development agenda during 2000–2015. The UN SDG report now applies to all countries and nation states irrespective of development status, making commitment to the SDGs a truly global endeavor (UNGA 2015). From MDGs to SDGs The MDGs contributed to fostering better collaboration between nation states, donors and disciplines, and have helped deliver many significant and tangible achievements. Some positive outcomes that have been achieved during the tenure of the MDGs – though not necessarily as a direct result – include: halving global poverty (five years prior to the target deadline) and child mortality, and almost halving undernourishment and maternal mortality. However, the MDGs were not without criticism – the process of negotiating the goals was criticized for its lack of inclusiveness. Similarly there was the suggestion that the goals did not sufficiently address pressing environmental concerns, being largely aimed at developing countries. As a whole, there was some criticism that the use of diffuse, non- specific targets could see goals accomplished without sufficiently addressing the needs of those most vulnerable. For example, it has been suggested that the goal of halving global poverty (MDG Target 1A) was facilitated by strong economic growth in specific countries (particularly China) and also lifting up those closest to the USD 1.25 (revised to USD 1.90) poverty line. Thus failing to account for those at the most extreme end of the poverty spectrum. The SDGs are an attempt to advance the development agenda by reconciling and building upon both the successes and some of the shortcomings of the MDGs. The lengthy consultative global process of negotiation to formulate the goals following the Rio+20 conference has been commendable. Biodiversity conservation and global climate change are more central and the goals are more inclusive of developed countries. The current goals are ambitious and will require a high degree of enthusiasm and resourcefulness for members to meet their commitments; if anything there is concern that the goals are somewhat overambitious, which could result in a lack of focus and potentially become a limiting factor to achieving overall targets. In the transition period from the MDGs to SDGs, it is important to reflect on both the successes and shortcomings of the last 15 years and look forward to the challenges and opportunities presented by the SDGs. Key factors that contributed to the successes of the MDGs were the collaborative efforts within and between countries and the ability to track progress against robust indicators. It is widely acknowledged that the success of the SDGs depends on our ability to integrate efforts across all the stated goals and commit both technical and financial support accordingly (Mbow et al. 2015). Consensus is also required on which implementation strategies are most appropriate and in what context. Agreement is also needed on how progress should be measured and monitored and the resultant information disseminated in a tangible, transparent and comprehensible manner Griggs et al. 2013). We urgently need to learn lessons from both successes and what might be regarded as failures in approach. Here, we present some initial suggestions for how an integrated landscape approach to reconciling competing land uses can – under the right circumstances – be an appropriate implementing mechanism for achieving the SDG targets. The landscape approach A landscape approach can be defined as a framework to integrate policy and practice for multiple competing land uses through the implementation of adaptive and integrated management systems (Reed et al. 2015). It is a multi-faceted, long-term and collaborative process that aims to bring together multiple stakeholders from multiple sectors to provide solutions at multiple scales. In doing so, the process is designed to facilitate negotiation between stakeholders in order to reconcile and negotiate for trade-offs and maximizing synergies with the overall objective of ‘winning more’ and ‘losing less’ (Sayer et al. 2013). DOI: 10.17528/cifor/005865