Our new name, Landscape Alliance, signals a shift in how we do science — a whole-of-landscape approach shaped by interdisciplinary research and the need for long-term investments in the people and institutions that understand their landscapes best.
The idea of “landscape approaches” originated in landscape ecology but was reborn as a conceptual framework for research and development work in an influential paper by Jeffrey Sayer and his colleagues (2013). Since then, it’s had over a decade to take shape and grow in meaning and influence.
For the Landscape Alliance, a shift towards landscape approaches means catalysing systemic change, tackling root causes rather than symptoms and combining urgent environmental action with rights, livelihoods and well-being. And as an Alliance, it means working together to generate that change.
Land governance is central to this shift. Its rules, processes and structures determine who makes decisions about land, how those decisions are made and how they’re carried out. Yet research and development work on land governance and tenure is often fraught with misunderstandings, as well as social and political challenges.
In our respective roles as theme lead for Governance, Equity and Wellbeing (GEW) and communications specialist, our recent experience advising the Land Facility Decision Support Unit (DSU), funded by the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), suggests ways forward for our organization and others conducting land tenure and governance research for impact.
Photo by Aulia Erlangga / Landscape Alliance
Land: A charged topic
Land is associated with life and livelihood, culture and rights, wealth, inequity, exploitation and expropriation.
Land tenure security — which includes clarity about who can use the bundle of rights associated with land and under what conditions — is widely seen as a necessary condition for landscape governance that supports positive environmental and social outcomes.
People differ over how to obtain tenure security and even what effective or successful land governance looks like. The stakes can be enormous, especially for people whose livelihoods and communities are rooted in land and territory.
Many “land governance” programmes focus on land regularization through technical land administration, such as improving cadastres and titling procedures; the underlying thinking is most often shaped by ideals of private land ownership. These interventions may ignore broader political and economic factors such as customary and communal systems, equity and gender relations and the fragility or stability of the state — all of which affect landscape governance more broadly.
A political economy approach (PEA), especially thinking and working politically (TWP), can help bridge these two worlds and focus research and action on meaningful and lasting change.
Learning partnerships to address gaps
From 2024 to 2026, we worked with the DSU to support outputs that help the Land Facility and other projects think and work politically for lasting land governance and administration reforms.
“[W]hether it’s reframing a narrative, changing budget allocation or changing how individuals and institutions function, politically informed action is key to bringing about change,” write the authors of Good Practices for Political Engagement and Influencing.
The recently published guide distils good practices, tips, tactics and case studies, including Landscape Alliance’s forest policy work in Ethiopia. It recommends taking a long view while working incrementally, understanding the roots of the problem you’re trying to address and being ready to seize opportunities.
Given the evidence, it is striking how few land programmes (those focused on rights, registration and formalization) have examined or even acknowledged political and economic levers of change. A recent DSU brief on evaluations of land programmes found that only 11 percent assessed project implementation strategies and contextual factors influencing outcomes. Although the review found strong evidence that titling supported tenure security, there was very little analysis of the “approaches … best suited to achieving successful reform.” The wider study also found that most project outcomes were recorded at household or community level rather than at national or institutional level. Evaluations gave little attention to causal mechanisms, political economy, governance reform processes or cross-sector links.
The analysis also calls for recognition of the limits of rigorous quantitative impact evaluations in understanding “complex, context-dependent governance reforms.” The authors argue that such reforms are better understood through “theory-based, realist, and mixed-methods approaches,” particularly if the goal is to influence policy rather than fund land titling.
Implications for Landscape Alliance
The DSU’s political economy work contributes to understanding and supporting land governance in line with the Landscape Alliance 2025–2035 strategy, which states that change requires “understanding power relations through political economy and political ecology approaches, in order to create the enabling conditions to scale impactful solutions and support long-term transformation.”
Land tenure and land governance research that is embedded and co-created with partners can help secure rights and livelihoods for Indigenous Peoples, local communities and smallholders over time.
In the current “post-aid” context, identifying context-specific strategic solutions requires an understanding of political and economic obstacles and opportunities, along with a long-term commitment to partners on the ground.
