Multifunctional Landscapes Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes December 2025 Lisa Elena Fuchs, Thomas Falk, Genowefa Blundo-Canto, Nadia Bergamini, Maria Claudia Tristán, Vimbayi Chimonyo, Aymen Frija, Anne Rietveld, Sarah Freed and Valentina Robiglio Authors Lisa Elena Fuchs, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Kenya Thomas Falk, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Germany Genowefa Blundo-Canto, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia Nadia Bergamini, Bioversity International, Italy Maria Claudia Tristán, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Peru Vimbayi Chimonyo, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Zimbabwe Aymen Frija, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Tunisia Anne Rietveld, Bioversity International, Netherlands Sarah Freed, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Kenya Valentina Robiglio, Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), France Citation Fuchs, L.E.; Falk, T. and Blundo-Canto, G.; Bergamini, N.; Tristán, M.C.; Chimonyo, V.; Frija, A.; Rietveld, A.; Freed, S. and Robiglio, V. (2025). Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes. CGIAR Multifunctional Landscape Program. Acknowledgments This work was implemented and funded by the CGIAR Multifunctional Landscape Program. We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund. © 2025 CGIAR System Organization. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Front cover photo: @CIMMYT, Zimbabwe 2Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://www.cgiar.org/funders Contents 1. Introduction to the Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) approach 5 1.1. Purpose and scope of the LV2A approach 5 1.2. Factors influencing the V2A process when transitioning from agroecology to multifunctionality as basic organizing concept 6 1.3. Accommodating contextual changes in the adapted Landscape Vision-to-Action approach 7 1.4. Implementation options 8 2. The LV2A approach for co-designing multi-actor transition pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes 12 2.1. Summary overview of the adapted LV2A process 12 2.2. Implementing LV2A: Steps and methods in detail 18 3. Team internal section: Implementing LV2A in the Multifunctional Landscapes Science Program 37 3.1. Guidance for sites in which the original V2A has previously been implemented 37 3.2. Articulation between LV2A approach and MFL AoW5 activities 37 3.3. Immediate next steps 38 4. Templates for use in LV2A 39 4.1. General LV2A Transformation Map template 39 4.2. General instruction for how to fill the LV2A Transformation Map 39 4.3. General LV2A Action plan template 40 4.4. Behavior change / outcome notes that can be used for the LV2A Transformation Map development 41 5. Background reading 43 5.1. Bibliography 43 5.2. Additional background reading 43 6. Annexes 45 Annex 1: The workshop program for the first multi-stakeholder workshop in Kenya under the multi-sited implementation option (implementation option 2) 45 Annex 2: The Zimbabwe example with updating V2A through parallel stakeholder engagement (implementation option 3) 48 Annex 3: Detailed overview of how to proceed under V2A vs. LV2A with complementary methods for existing steps and new sub-steps 49 3Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Figures and Tables Figure 1: The original V2A flow, steps and sub-steps 5 Figure 2: The LV2A process flow, steps and sub-steps 8 Figure 3: Overview of the three implementation options for LV2A 11 Table 1: Summary of complementary elements and sub-steps proposed for LV2A 7 Table 2: Proposed original V2A implementation through multi-stakeholder workshops 8 Table 3: Proposed LV2A implementation through multi-stakeholder workshops (option 1) 9 Table 4: Proposed LV2A implementation through multi-sites engagement (option 2) 9 Table 5: Proposed LV2A implementation through parallel engagement (option 3) 10 Table 6: Summary overview of the adapted LV2A process with name, purpose, method, and outputs 12 Table 7: Interaction of LV2A process with AoW5 38 4Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes 1. Introduction to the Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) approach 1.1. Purpose and scope of the LV2A approach The Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) approach builds on the Vision-to-Action (V2A) approach that was developed to support inclusive stakeholder conversations to create a shared vision for a desirable future, develop holistic and medium-term transition pathways towards sustainable living landscapes, and define realistic, collectively agreed-upon concrete action plans that outline the behavior changes required to transition from their current situation to the envisioned future. V2A is designed to foster action that is multi-actor (e.g., producers, members of local and indigenous communities, state and non-state actors and agencies including land related sectors across governance levels, private sector actors including enterprises, traders, consumers etc.), multi-dimensional (e.g., agricultural, Silvi- and aquacultural, environmental, economic, social), and multi-level (e.g., farm, landscape, system) to realize sustainable food system transformation. ALL: Agroecologal Living Landscape MEL: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning VISION-TO-ACTION PROCESS Strategic actions/ Transition pathways Design the MEL of the action plan /the ALL STEP 1 Formulate a shared vision STEP 2 Identify behavior changes and drivers  STEP 3 Identify the transition pathway STEP 4 Formulate an ALL action plan Identify the MEL STEP 5 Get a shared understanding of the context A.1: Verify if conditions are met A.2: Synthetize understanding of the context Getting ready PRELIMINARY STEP A PRELIMINARY STEP B 1.a: Formulate a shared (wide) vision 1.b: Articulate the shared vision with the AE principles  2.a: Key behavior changes 2.b: Key drivers of behavior changes Identify activities (what, who, when, how) Figure 1: The original V2A flow, steps and sub-steps Source: Triomphe et al. 2024. V2A was designed to accompany transformation processes in multistakeholder spaces defined as Living Labs (LLs). Living Labs are defined as user-centered, open innovation social-ecological ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings. Living landscapes are gaining momentum as sub-national territories within which sustainable food system transformation is sought through multi-stakeholder engagement processes. With that, they are well positioned to address complex challenges requiring holistic solutions. In the CGIAR Agroecology Initiative (AE-I), we accompanied the establishment of eleven Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs) in eight countries including Burkina Faso, India, Kenya, Laos, Peru, Senegal, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe. We defined ALLs as multi-stakeholder spaces in which agroecological innovations can be identified, co-designed, tested, and adopted. These landscapes emerged as coherent territories that have fuzzy boundaries defined by the functionality and meaning bestowed onto them by their diverse users, who care about and are willing to take transformative action in pursuit of just food system transitions, rather than by geographical or administrative limits. In the MFL SP, we adapt the ALL concept and propose to collaborate with additional stakeholders in (Multifunctional) Living Landscapes (MFLLs). 5Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://hdl.handle.net/10568/169532 ALLs respond to the common challenges that external partners face in accompanying and supporting local stakeholders on sustainable and locally led transition pathways without imposing their own views and agendas. ALLs offer an opportunity to act as transformation vehicles that foster transdisciplinary research, including the co-creation of knowledge and co-design of innovations. In line with HLPE (2019), transdisciplinary research should be problem-focused, solution-oriented, inclusive, and reflexive. This transdisciplinarity challenge pushes researchers to develop and implement structured and principle-based approaches for engaging with other stakeholders that are rooted in truthfulness, dignity, and reciprocity. To support the AE-I team, we developed the Principles of Engagement and positioned them as fundamental for starting and structuring continuous engagement, and for creating principle-based ALLs. This principle-based engagement method aims to help research teams to be reflexive and self-aware in how they interact with ALL partners and emphasize the centrality of relationship and trust building for long-term collaboration in the ALLs. The Principles of Engagement address the question of how to engage. LV2A then comes in as method to structure conversations that allows stakeholders to discuss and agree about who, what, when and where to engage in the sought transformation processes. Ultimately, the outputs of LV2A provide the building blocks for a theory of change of stakeholder’s action towards intended outcomes in the landscape. On the one hand, such a transparent landscape theory of change can then be questioned and revised. On the other hand, the landscape theory of change points to opportunities and entry points for responsive external support – including by research-in-development partners such as the CGIAR Science Program on Multifunctional Landscapes (MFL SP). In this way, the landscape theory of change forms the basis for developing for instance the Multifunctional Landscapes Program theory of change that describes how the program will support system change by influencing critical actors’ behavior (Freed et al. 2025). 1.2. Factors influencing the V2A process when transitioning from agroecology to multifunctionality as basic organizing concept Moving from agroecology to multifunctionality as basic organizing concept entails changes in scope, which need to be accommodated in the expanded LV2A approach. We consider three main changes: 1. While there are significant overlaps in agroecology and multifunctionality approaches and concepts, the MFL SP shifts from a food systems-centered entry point to an integrated landscape management approach and operates at a broader socio-ecological systems’ level, managing diverse and competing land uses including agriculture, livestock, conservation, and restoration across multiple scales and jurisdictional boundaries. Practically, AE-I mostly focused on applying a holistic agroecological perspective on the agricultural, economic, social, and institutional aspects of local food system dynamics, while the MFL SP will entail an additional focus on restoration and conservation through nature positive solutions, requiring additional consideration of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other biophysical realities and concerns, as well as a more integrative consideration of livestock and aquatic systems. 2. While the ALLs were typically nested within smaller sub-national landscapes and focus predominantly on actors whose primary interests were in agricultural systems and food system transformation, MFLLs expand in geographic scope and stakeholder diversity considering multiple governance scales from local landscapes to jurisdictional and national, and potentially global levels, engaging stakeholders across sectors and functions. 3. The multi-scalar approach and broadened perspective of the MFL SP will require involving diverse stakeholders across agricultural, conservation, governance, and private sectors, including farmer organizations, environmental authorities, protected area managers, indigenous peoples’ representatives, civil society organizations, and cross-sectoral coordination bodies at local, provincial, and national level. The original V2A guide addresses the question of applicability at different scales. Three main points can be retained: 1. Choosing appropriate participants is crucial, keeping the formulated Principles of Engagement in mind. This requires mapping stakeholders at the relevant scale(s) from local to jurisdictional levels – and characterizing them by category and (potential) roles interests and power, identifying groupings and networks, and potential frictions, before engaging and reassessing these stakeholder maps as new actors engage, governance responsibility shifts and or landscape dynamics and priorities evolve. 2. Ensuring appropriate and intentional facilitation and adaptive strategies is essential to engage with and address asymmetries of information and power among stakeholders, and to integrate diverse voices and perspectives. This is particularly relevant between community-based actors and institutional/government representatives operating at different scales, where space for diverse voices and perspectives (including marginalized groups, women, youth) needs to be held and/or created to allow them meaningfully shape landscape decisions. This requires facilitation mechanisms that explicitly address power dynamics and create safe spaces for different stakeholder categories to engage authentically. Although facilitation alone is unlikely to reduce such asymmetries, understanding them in terms of depth, prevalence and consequences 6Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104399 is important for effective facilitation. In addition, it will be important to denote readiness to employ behavior change strategies such as gender-transformative approaches to challenge these asymmetries (which includes awareness-raising and reflection). 3. For institutional and government stakeholders at different levels, discussions about desired behavioral change (Step 2) might be considered primarily at the organizational/institutional and/or stakeholder grouping level ensuring that commitments align with each institution’s mandate, mission, budget cycles, and primary activity domain (e.g., environmental protection, agricultural development, spatial planning; or farmer collectives or specific ministries can reflect on how they might operate differently in line with their mandate and following their respective institutional policies and strategies, rather than looking at individual behavior changes). Accommodating these differences in line with the suggestions made in the V2A guide requires adapting the original V2A approach, as well as diversifying implementation options. 1.3. Accommodating contextual changes in the adapted Landscape Vision-to-Action approach To accommodate the expanded scope and complexity as we move from AE-Ito the MFL Science Program, we propose (1) maintaining the original V2A flow and sequence, (2) adding complementary elements into the existing V2A structure and process. The proposed complementary elements and sub-steps are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of complementary elements and sub-steps proposed for LV2A Step What changed Details Preliminary Step A.1 (Team preparation and process set up) Improved structure How the team can prepare for engaging the LV2A process; which expertise is required Preliminary Step A.2 (Synthesizing and enriching knowledge of the landscape) Improved structure Comprehensive list of information, data, assessments and stakeholder mapping required before engaging the LV2A process (ideally in coordination with AoW6) Step 1 (Shared vision) Additional sub-step 1.2 After the initial visioning (step 1.1), a more in-depth investigation of the vision for the future (1.2) Step 2 (Behavior change) Additional sub-step 2.2 After the initial behavior change conversation (step 2.1), an investigation of existing assets and strengths to draw on what can be mobilized in the definition of realistic transition pathways Step 2 (Behavior change) Additional sub-step 2.3 After discussing desired behavior changes (2.1), and assets that can be mobilized (2.2), an investigation of systemic political economy factors that require adaptation to enable broader transformation (2.3) Step 3 (Transition pathway) Additional sub-step 3.2 After elaborating transition pathways (3.1), an investigation of existing evidence on potential trade-offs to transform the transition pathway into action plans (3.2) The revision team also proposes a few adapted methods for the existing steps, without changing the steps as such. Details are shared in the following sections. The adapted LV2A process is illustrated in Figure 2. 7Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes A.1: Team preparation and process set up A.2: Synthetizing and enriching knowledge of the landscape 1.1: Identifying a shared vision 1.2: Grounding the vision in past, current and future dynamics B: Validating the context assessment 2.1: Identifying behavior changes and drivers 2.2: Identifying existing assets 2.3: Identifying political economy 3.1: Defining a holistic long-term transition pathway 3.2: Analyzing trade-offs and entry points 4: Developing a short- term action plan 5: Participatory landscape-oriented MEL Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Process Figure 2: The LV2A process flow, steps and sub-steps 1.4. Implementation options The original V2A proposed implementing the V2A process as a consecutive workshop divided in two sessions (or in two spaced-out one-day workshops) with the local “communities of place” in the respective ALLs (see details in Triomphe et al., 2024, pp. 16-17). In such cases, preliminary steps A.1, A.2, and B were to be conducted before engaging in the V2A workshops. Table 2: Proposed original V2A implementation through multi-stakeholder workshops Session Steps Timing Details Preparation off-site • Preliminary step A.1 • Preliminary step A.2 • Preliminary step B n/a Prepare off-site as much as possible, interact with central partners and develop summary context analysis Introduction, Visioning, Behavior changes, Transition pathways • Step 1 • Step 2.a • Step 2.b • Step 3 1 day Consecutive implementation of visioning, back-casting of desired behavior changes and identification of behavior changes over time in a pathway sequence in one day. Recap, Action Plan, Participatory MEL set-up • Recap of day 1 • Step 4 • Step 5 • Synthesis and next steps, evaluation 1 day Recap of the vision, behavior changes, and pathways to discuss a very concrete action plan for the different stakeholders for the short term, as well as participatory monitoring and evaluation modalities. With the increasing scale and complexity in the MFL SP, and the additional sub-steps proposed in LV2A, we propose three implementation options. Option 1: Continuous series of multistakeholder workshops First, if possible, we propose implementing the full process as a continuous workshop series in three sessions (either in one go, or in different spaced-out workshops) with all identified stakeholders. Here again, preliminary steps A and B would be completed beforehand. For a continuous workshop series with all identified stakeholders at the same time, the structure outlined in Table 3 can be considered. 8Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Table 3: Proposed LV2A implementation through multi-stakeholder workshops (option 1) Session Steps Timing Details Preparation off-site • Preliminary step A.1 • Preliminary step A.2 • Preliminary step B n/a Prepare off-site as much as possible, interact with central partners and develop summary context analysis that can either be shared in a preparatory workshop, or be introduced at the beginning of the in-person workshops. Introduction and visioning • Step 1.1 • Step 1.2 1 day Broad participatory workshop with a relevant/ representative selection of participants. Important moment of LL engagement. If pre-existing vision, use LV2A transformation map to share and update the vision. Behavior changes and transition pathways • Step 2.1 • Step 2.2 • Step 2.3 • Step 3.1 • (Step 3.2) 1-2 days Broad participatory workshop with a relevant/ representative selection of participants who discuss together which changes are required to achieve the vision, by whom, under consideration of contextual enablers and disablers, and by mobilizing and building on existing assets. Here, participants differentiate between desired actions of stakeholders that are present, and those that are not present and should be mobilized additionally. Articulate them in a sequential logic as a transition pathway. Action planning and MEL • (Step 3.2) • Step 4 • Step 5 1 day Broad participatory workshop with a relevant/ representative selection of participants. Use the transition pathway, enter it into the LV2A Transformation Map (off-site preparation) and present it back to stakeholders meeting in plenary, discuss trade-offs, and prepare a realistic action plan for the short term. Set up a multi- stakeholder participatory MEL group that will engage mapped stakeholders and observe progress. Option 2: Sequence of multi-sited engagement Second, in view of the changes in scale between AE-I and MFL SP, the more realistic, and more efficient way of implementing the LV2A process might combine off-site preparation, visioning meetings in plenary, and separate bilateral or small groups stakeholder engagement. This approach might be particularly useful in areas where there was no prior V2A engagement, and a joint vision needs to be elaborated by all relevant stakeholders. For these multi-sited engagements, the structure outlined in Table 4 can be considered. Table 4: Proposed LV2A implementation through multi-sites engagement (option 2) Session Steps Modality Timing Details Preparation • Preliminary step A.1 • Preliminary step A.2 • Preliminary step B Off-site n/a Prepare off-site as much as possible, interact with central partners and develop summary context analysis that can either be shared in a preparatory workshop, or can be introduced at the beginning of the in-person workshops. Introduction and visioning • Step 1.1 • Step 1.2 Joint multi- stakeholder workshop 1 day Broad participatory workshop with a relevant/representative selection of participants. Important moment of LL engagement. If previously developed vision(s) exist, use LV2A Transformation Map to share and update the vision. 9Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Behavior changes and transition pathways • Step 2.1 • Step 2.2 • Step 2.3 • Step 3.1 Parallel bilateral (or small groups) stakeholder meetings Variable Discuss with individual stakeholders which changes are required to achieve the vision, under consideration of contextual enablers and disablers, and by mobilizing and building on existing assets. Articulate them in a sequential logic as a transition pathway for each individual stakeholder or stakeholder group. If possible, differentiate between desired actions of stakeholders that are present, and those that are not present and should be mobilized additionally. Action planning and MEL • Step 3.2 • Step 4 • Step 5 Joint multi- stakeholder workshop 1 day Use the transition pathways developed by different stakeholders and articulate them into one integrated LV2A Transformation Map (off-site preparation) and present it back to stakeholders meeting in plenary, discuss trade-offs, and prepare a realistic action plan for the short term. Set up a multi-stakeholder participatory MEL group that will engage mapped stakeholders and observe progress. Option 3: Sequence of parallel engagements Third, in areas where there was prior V2A engagement, and a relevant vision has already been elaborated by a section of the relevant stakeholders, it might be most suitable to combine off-site preparation with fully separate and parallel bilateral or small groups stakeholder engagement. For these parallel engagements, the structure outlined in Table 5 can be considered. Table 5: Proposed LV2A implementation through parallel engagement (option 3) Session Steps Modality Timing Details Preparation • Preliminary step A.1 • Preliminary step A.2 • Preliminary step B Off-site n/a Prepare off-site as much as possible, interact with central partners and develop summary context analysis that can either be shared in a preparatory workshop, or can be introduced at the beginning of the in-person workshops. Introduction and visioning • Step 1.1 • Step 1.2 Parallel bilateral (or small group) stakeholder meetings 1 day Recap and refine the existing vision(s) with individual stakeholders. Consider prioritizing the previously under-engaged stakeholders and key informants for activities found to poorly align with desired changes. If there is a pre-existing vision (preferred context for this option), use LV2A transformation map to share and update the vision. Behavior changes and transition pathways • Step 2.1 • Step 2.2 • Step 2.3 • Step 3.1 Parallel bilateral (or small group) stakeholder meetings Variable Discuss with individual stakeholders which changes are required to achieve the vision, under consideration of contextual enablers and disablers, and by mobilizing and building on existing assets. Articulate them in a sequential logic as a transition pathway for each individual stakeholder. 10Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Action planning and MEL • Step 3.2 • Step 4 • Step 5 Parallel bilateral (or small group) stakeholder meetings Variable Use the transition pathways developed by different stakeholders and articulate them into one integrated LV2A Transformation Map and present it back to individual stakeholders or small groups, discuss trade-offs, and prepare a realistic action plan for the individual stakeholders in the short term. Combine individual action plans, socialize them, and set up a multi- stakeholder participatory MEL group that will engage mapped stakeholders and observe progress. Figure 3 provides an overview of the three proposed implementation options, in which similarities and differences can be easily identified. Preparation Option 2 Option 3 Off-siteOption 1 Off-site Off-site Introduction and visioning Multi-stakeholder workshop Multi-stakeholder workshop Parallel individual or small group engagement Behavior changes and transition pathways Multi-stakeholder workshop Parallel individual or small group engagement Parallel individual or small group engagement Action planning and MEL Multi-stakeholder workshop Multi-stakeholder workshop Parallel individual or small group engagement Figure 3: Overview of the three implementation options for LV2A Context-specific adaptations of the implementation options are always possible. In option 2, the multi-sited engagement option, it is possible to adapt which individual steps or sub-steps are done jointly, and which ones in parallel. In Kenya, for instance, Steps 2.1 and 3.1, which, in principle, could be addressed in parallel individual or small-group engagements, were already done in the first joint workshop, while Steps 3.1 and 4 were initially done through separate sessions with individual stakeholder groups. After separate action planning (Step 4) in line with stakeholder specific assets (Step 2.2) and context-specific political economy considerations (Step 2.3), following the previously jointly developed broad transition pathway (Step 3.1) that set the identified behavior changes (Step 2.1) into sequence and relation, the team then conducted a trade-off analysis (Step 3.2) off-site. This analysis was then presented in a second multi-stakeholder workshop, and a joint action plan elaborated (Step 4). At the same time, a broad participatory MEL framework (adapted Step 5) for the transition pathway was already developed during the first workshop, which was refined and further developed to allow monitoring the action plan in the second workshop (Step 5). An outline for the first multistakeholder workshops held in Kenya can be found in Annex 1. Relevant experience with adapting implementation option 3, full parallel engagement, from the Zimbabwe AE-I team is documented in Annex 2. Here, the team made a range of interesting adaptations: • Included analyses of under-engaged stakeholders and the alignment between the activities, the enablers and barriers to change addressed, and the desired outcomes of the vision. • Prioritized the previously under-engaged stakeholders and key informants for activities found to poorly align with desired changes. • Developed two sample formats for the transition pathway logic that make it easy to update existing plans. • Developed an interesting example on revising MEL indicators. • Delivered two outputs: 1) plans for revising the V2A and 2) plans for formative research to better understand how to enable desired changes (which informed the LV2A once completed). 11Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes 12Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes 2. The LV2A approach for co-designing multi-actor transition pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes 2.1. Summary overview of the adapted LV2A process Table 6 entails a summary overview of the LV2A steps and their numbering against the original V2A steps and numbering. It also lists the names and purpose of the individual steps, and a brief summary overview of the methods used (detailed methodological descriptions can be found in section 2.2). Lastly, the table lists the outputs produced by each step. The output listing entails indications in square purple brackets, which identify and localize the outputs in line with their use in the V2A Transformation Map (see detailed description in section 4.3 Templates for use in LV2A); the suffixes V1, V2, V3 refer to different versions of a specific output that is refined in the course of the engagement process. Table 6: Summary overview of the adapted LV2A process with name, purpose, method, and outputs V2A step no LV2A step no Name Purpose Method Outputs of this step needed to proceed to the next step Preliminary step A.1 (p. 18-20) Preliminary step A.1 Team preparation and process set up Establish process understanding • Communicate that LV2A process is iterative and needs to be conducted regularly (yearly or every 1.5 years) for adaptivity. • Communicate that several activities are to be conducted in one or preferably more days workshops or through interviews. LV2A team identified Define scope and links to existing systems • Ensure the team has a clear understanding that the vision and Transition Pathways are NOT the program country-level theory of change (ToC) but a landscape-level process to which the MFL SP contributes. • Ensure understanding of how LV2A process interacts with existing governance structures, current planning processes, established stakeholder engagement mechanisms. LV2A interaction with governance and planning processes identified Establish landscape definition process • Establish minimum criteria to define a landscape (size, different land uses, type of stakeholders….). • Boundary-setting authority: legitimacy and capacity to define landscape boundaries. • Consider options for co-defining landscape boundaries using ecological administrative cultural and functional criteria. Criteria and leadership identified 13Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Preliminary step A.2 (p. 20-21) Preliminary step A.2 Synthetizing and enriching knowledge of the landscape Identification of relevant stakeholders • Identify key stakeholders who will be affected by or have an interest in the landscape. • Identify the key stakeholders that should be invited in the LV2A process. • Engage an iterative but focused process, focusing on the stakeholders that are key to each function of the landscape that can be optimized or where trade-offs can be reduced. • In places where V2A has been implemented, this can include an analysis of under-engaged stakeholders and the alignment between the activities, the enablers and barriers to change addressed, and the desired outcomes of the vision. First stakeholder mapping carried out Current land use and tenure • Assess the current land use and ownership patterns to understand how the landscape is being utilized and by whom. • Tenure regime, legal and customary categories, rights associated to that by actors. Land use and tenure characterized Environmental. social and economic data • Gather basic environmental data such as soil quality, water availability, biodiversity and climate conditions, social data such as social structures norms, equality and marginalization and economic data. Basic environmental, social and economic data characterized Landscape boundaries • The identification or definition of the MFL boundaries can be done by collecting spatial information, ecological processes, by engaging with local stakeholders to draw initial boundaries, by multifunctional assessment of the landscape identifying and mapping various landscape functions, and by identifying institutional/governance related boundaries. • Bear in mind that the boundaries will need to be continuously refined as a better understanding of the landscape dynamics is gained and as new stakeholders join the effort. • Make the boundary setting process a cornerstone of the MSP engagement! Multidimensional boundaries and a working definition of boundaries identified Landscape functions and their interactions • Analyze knowledge available on the different functions of the proposed landscape (e.g. in terms of provisioning, regulatory, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services), their status and interactions, including synergies and trade-offs, and the stakeholders’ actions, interest and values attached to them. First functions trade-offs and synergies mapping 14Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Preliminary step B (p. 20-21) Preliminary step B Validating the context assessment Validate context assessment • Assemble results from Preliminary Step A.2, ideally using a SHARED approach, and accompanying data illustrations and dashboards. • Present, discuss, complement, and validate context assessments. • In places where V2A has been implemented, this can include 1) plans for revising the V2A and 2) plans for formative research to better understand how to enable desired changes (which can further inform the V2A once completed). • First validated context assessment • Plan for the way forward with the LV2A implementation process Step 1 (1.A, 1.B) (p. 24-27) Step 1.1 Identifying a shared vision Share and reflect on development priorities; Create a common agreement on the direction in which the group wants to move. • In groups, participants brainstorm about key features of the desired future for their landscape and later enact a press conference. • To start the workshop with a playful visioning exercise, participants enact a role-play where the workshop participants imagine travelling 15 years ahead to a time when their landscape has transformed into how they always wanted it to be. In the play, a documentary team visits them and wants to find out what makes their place so special and what has happened for it to become like this – and particularly for how its actors have successfully enhanced multiple landscape functions and provided diverse benefits to a diverse stakeholder groups. • Documentation of vision elements by subgroups. • Documentation of enacted interview. • A 1-3 sentence statement expressing the synthesis of a shared vision for the landscape. • [1. Vision V1] NEW (p. 58-60) Step 1.2 Grounding the vision in past, current and future dynamics by adapting the Futures Triangle Embed a contextual understanding of the past, present and future factors potentially influencing the vision • Adapting the Futures’ Triangle, participants identify weights of the past that hinder achievement of the vision, pushes of the present that lead in the direction of the vision, and pulls of the future that show potential directions independently of the vision we would like to achieve. • Participants work in plenary or split into two groups first (each group has a facilitator, one group works on the pushes of the present, the other on the weights from the past) and then come together to work on the pull from the future. • Once the three triangles are discussed, participants revisit the vision statement and change it or complement it by writing the future desired state of the pushes of the present, weights of the past and pulls of the future that will allow to achieve the vision. • The elements from this discussion will already allow identifying some key behavior changes (the future desired states of pushes, weights and pulls), and some drivers of behavior (in the current states of pushes, weights, and pulls). • A list of weights of the past. • A list of pushes of the present. • A list of pulls of the future. • [1. Vision V2] 15Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Step 2 (p. 31-34) Step 2.1 Identifying behavior changes and drivers Landscape actors reflect on which actors need to do what differently (practices, actions, policies…) to move towards the common vision. • With help from the facilitators, participants divide the revised vision into different aspects. • In groups, participants reflect on what changes in practice/behavior by which actors are needed at the landscape level and beyond to achieve the different parts of the vision compared to current practices and behaviors, considering the stakeholder mapping (interests, power dynamics) and discussion from the Futures Triangle alongside new elements. Consider both individual and collective behaviors. • Participants identify behavioral changes and actors with the strongest transformational potential, even if they cannot make them happen immediately. • Participants are encouraged to reflect on which behavioral changes can be influenced by the present actors, and which require changes by other actors. • For prioritized subsets of behaviors/actions and associated actors, groups reflect on what could enable or motivate actors to take these actions. • To make participants think out of the box, share classifications of factors which can support or create motivation for taking action. • A list of changes in behaviors, actions, practices, and policies. to be taken by actors. • A list of enabling or motivating factors • [2. Behavior change V1] NEW  (p. 61-63)  Step 2.2  Identifying and synthesizing existing assets that can be leveraged for change Understanding which assets, strengths and relationships exist that can be leveraged to achieve the vision  • To combine scientific asset mapping (emerging from Preliminary Step A) & participatory asset mapping to co-create knowledge on available assets, participants map their existing assets and strengths: - First: Facilitators introduce the purpose of asset mapping – and position it in a broader context of centering knowledge co-creation and the mobilization of both scientific and local knowledge to co-design context-specific, asset-based, resource- efficient and locally-led solutions. - Second: Participants engage participatory asset mapping after selecting the most relevant tools for the respective context and setting (selection guidance provided below). - (if possible) Third: Following a broad SHARED approach, facilitators use well-illustrated data boards to recap scientific data results about existing assets in the community. - (if possible) Fourth: Facilitators propose a knowledge synthesis by using the existing data dashboards and complementing them with the results of the participatory asset mapping.  • Participatory asset maps  • Knowledge synthesis maps  16Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes NEW Step 2.3 Identifying political economy factors that influence transformation Identifying systems dynamics and political economy factors relevant for achieving behavior change. • Participants discuss three themes (using a selection of the proposed questions): - Policies and Incentives: what rules and laws; how have they changed; who is making them; which relationships and power dynamics. - Market structures: pricing and decision-making; required market changes; strategic market actors. - Cooperation Structures, coordination and collaboration: who is addressing problems of access and resources; local decision- making structures; equity of access; required changes. • A summary overview of important political economy factors that influence broader system transformation Step 3 (p. 35-36) (p. 67-70) Step 3.1 Defining a holistic long- term transition pathway Developing one or more transition pathways highlighting the sequence of strategic actions required to achieve the desired behavior changes and vision. • Facilitators facilitate a summary discussion about how to achieve the changes at the landscape level identified in Step 1.2, taking into account the behavior changes required (Step 2.1), assets available (Step 2.2) and the governance changes needed to achieve the vision (Step 2.3). • Participants agree to a timeframe, ideally the same 10-15-years’ timeframe used for the vision (knowing that the detailed action plan in step 4 will focus on the shorter term). • Following guiding questions, participants identify the broad strategic behavior actions and/or outcomes (not specific activities), their sequence and dependencies, that would need to be implemented over the time frame agreed to take advantage of the enabling drivers or to overcome the hindering ones and achieve the behavior change identified. Groups use the LV2A Transformation Map to note strategic behavior actions and group them in specific action domains (“rays”). • Groups note the details on a simple version of the LV2A Transformation Map. • During restitution, facilitators develop an integrated preliminary LV2A Transformation Map. • LV2A Transformation Map that represents the transition pathways • [2. Behavior change V2] • [3. Behavior change domain “rays” V1] • [4. Timeline “rings” V1] NEW Step 3.2 Analyzing trade-offs and entry points Analyzing impacts of the transition pathway towards behavior changes and related trade- offs between functions • After the initial transition pathway is developed, facilitators foster exchanges to confirm existing knowledge of the positive and negative consequences that the actions/outcomes would have on landscape multifunctionality according to scientific evidence. • Participants identify potential trade-offs and negative behavioral feedback/responses between functions based on the changes in behavior identified. • Facilitators mark on the LV2A Transformation Map the knowledge needs, and potential pathways and timelines for gathering the knowledge. • A list of priority actions in the transition pathways. • A list of actions that require additional knowledge. 17Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Step 4. Action plan (p. 37-38) Step 4. Action plan Developing a short-term action plan Collective short-term action plan with a prioritized list of activities. • Using the information from the previous steps and scientific evidence on the potential consequences of the behavior changes identified, facilitators facilitate a discussion and review of the transition pathway and eventually modify it to address and mitigate potentially negative consequences. • Building on that discussion, groups use the action plan template and/ or the LV2A Transformation Map to list specific activities to achieve each of the prioritized behavior actions identified. • Participants identify shorter term actions (1-2 years actions to inspire stakeholders in engaging and seeing some benefits) and longer-term actions (3+ years action as landscape changes and restoration take a long time) based on the vision and transition pathway. • Participants identify for each activity the relevant stakeholders, the behavioral driver, available assets that can be mobilized, and additional support required. Also indicate a timeframe for implementation. • Participants restitute in plenary and facilitators compose an integrated action plan, either using LV2A Transformation Map templates or the action plan template. • Jointly identify a small MEL committee that represents the different stakeholders, which will be tasked with overseeing progress and contribute to developing modalities for implementing step 5 (PMEL). • Short-term and medium-term action plans that differentiate between different stakeholders • Preliminary MEL committee and functioning modalities • [2. Behavior change V3] • [3. Behavior change domain “rays” V2] • [4. Timeline “rings” V2] Step 5. MEL (p. 39-41) (p. 63-66) Step 5. Participatory MEL Participatory landscape- oriented MEL Collaborative design of a monitoring, evaluation and learning framework • Facilitators engage a conversation to create a joint and participatory monitoring, evaluation, and learning (PMEL) framework that includes metrics/indicators, methods, and implementation intervals that the stakeholders engaged in the PMEL can manage and deliver, with roles and responsibilities clearly identified. • This approach generates opportunities for co-learning and enable all members to adaptively manage their actions and action plans to achieve shared visions of change. • Instead of proposing set performance criteria, guidelines are developed by the respective stakeholders in a meaningful yet pragmatic way. • MEL framework (what, when, who) 2.2. Implementing LV2A: Steps and methods in detail In this section, we outline the methods and proceedings for the adapted LV2A approach. Beyond that, Annex 3 entails a table that provides the full details of the original V2A and the adapted LV2A approach. To help guide users that have been working with the published V2A guide (Triomphe et al., 2024), Annex 3 maintains the V2A structure and list adapted methods for existing steps, as well as additional sub-steps side by side with the existing material. In this section here, we highlight whether specific methods and procedures in LV2A are maintained, adapted, new, or dropped altogether compared to V2A in square mint green brackets. It highlights whether specific methods and procedures in LV2A are maintained, adapted, new, or dropped altogether compared to V2A in square purple brackets. It complements rather than substitutes what is in the original V2A guidance document, which entails a considerable amount of additional information and guidance. The published original V2A guide can be consulted for guidance on how to facilitate individual segments, structure focus groups, on how to deal with power imbalances, ensure diverse voices are heard, etc. The V2A guide also includes numerous practical and applied examples 2.2.1. Preliminary Step A: Team preparation and process set up [Adapted from original V2A methods] Establish process understanding: • Clearly communicate to the team and the STHs that the LV2A process is iterative and needs to be conducted regularly (yearly or every 1.5 years) to adapt to changing situation and needs • Clearly communicate that many of the suggested activities are part of exercises to be conducted in one or preferably more days workshops (yearly or every 1.5 years). Other processes are more desk-based or data collection based and inform the iterative workshops. Define scope and links to existing systems: • Ensure the team has a clear understanding that the vision, the transition pathways developed and captured in the Transformation Map are NOT ‘’the’’ MFL program country-level theory of change, but a landscape- level process to which external actors/MFL team can contribute through responsive action, and where all landscape stakeholders play a role. • Ensure that there is an understanding of how the V2A process interacts with existing governance structures, current planning processes, established stakeholder engagement mechanisms. Landscape definition: • Establish a joint understanding for minimum criteria to define a landscape (e.g. spatial extent, different land uses, type of stakeholders) • Discuss boundary-setting authority: legitimacy and capacity to define landscape boundaries (stakeholder mapping should happen in parallel or at multiple rounds as new information is gathered) • Consider options for co-defining landscape boundaries using ecological administrative cultural and functional criteria, and documenting the logic and rationale for that so that they can be iteratively reviewed; which will allow refining the stakeholder mapping and establishing a link with governance level and bridging to jurisdictional processes. 2.2.2. Preliminary Step A.2: Synthetizing and enriching knowledge of the landscape [Adapted] Stakeholder mapping Review existing mappings of stakeholders for the selected landscape or its parts. This can be done through web-based search for documents as well as contacting researchers, partners or other actors who have worked in the landscape, or in specific areas of the landscape. A general rule could be to use information that is not older than 10 years to have a relatively recent understanding of stakeholders and their dynamics. The question to answer with the mapping is something along these lines: • Who are the stakeholders that are involved in the key issues related to multifunctionality in the landscape? • Who influences the status of the multiple landscape functions we aim to address? • Who is influenced by the status of the landscape functions targeted? The existing information should be analyzed in terms of: • What are existing governance arrangements, multistakeholder processes/and fora, their effectiveness, how do they connect to jurisdictional (including national) governance, and are there bridging mechanisms and feedback loops? • Relationships between stakeholders, including power dynamics related to the landscape or the specific 18Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://hdl.handle.net/10568/127414 functions targeted • Competing uses and diverging values and interests in the landscape (e.g., pro or against agroecology or nature positive solutions) • ‘Voice’ of stakeholders; who can meaningfully participate in landscape decisions/governance? What social norms enable or impede specific stakeholders (also in terms of men, women, youth, marginalized groups)? If the existing information is not focused enough, not recent enough, or does not address the objective of the stakeholder mapping and does not allow to adequately identify stakeholders for the LV2A process, we move forward to carry out a stakeholder mapping activity. The stakeholder mapping should ideally address the following questions (at this initial step, this can be a relatively light touch that is deepened as the program is implemented): • Stakeholder identification and classification - Who are the key actors currently operating in or significantly influencing the defined landscape (potential core partners)? Towards which direction are they influencing it? At what scale? - Who are the stakeholders currently impacted by changes in the landscape/its functions? - Has the range and differentiation of stakeholders, in terms of roles (e.g., farmer, pastoralist, fisher, logger, business, government) and intersectional identities (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, religious groups), been considered? How uniform / pluriform or divers are these groups that we consider stakeholders (e.g. producers). Should they be sub-divided into more targeted groups (e.g. small-scale and large-scale producers; specialized and mixed farming producers) to enable a better articulation of their interests? - Who are the stakeholders who have an interest in the landscape but are not actively or not significantly influencing it yet? - How do all these stakeholders relate to the landscape functions targeted? - Is there any change in the roles/influence of stakeholders on the landscape across temporal scales? (seasonal, annual?) - How do stakeholder practices affect ecosystem functioning and services? • Power Dynamics & Governance (rapid assessment) - Who has formal and informal authority over landscape functions and resources – who controls access? - What are the existing or potential conflicts between stakeholder groups over land and resource use? - How heterogeneous are stakeholder groups and how do we ensure diverse interests are represented per group? - Are there stakeholders whose interests are threatened e.g. by the interests of more powerful stakeholders? - How are people within these groups differently affected on basis of their intersectional identity (sex, age, education, wealth status, ethnicity, etc.) What are the existing governance structures and how stakeholders participate in them? - Are there stakeholders who do not have voice or meaningful participation in current decisions about the landscape and its governance? Why and how? After the mapping has been carried out, define an explicit rationale to identify the stakeholders that should be engaged in the LV2A engagement process initially, as well as a selection strategy. In line with the Principles of Engagement (Triomphe et al., 2022), prioritize starting with those who are aligned to the objectives of the program. Consider the Kenya AE-I experience with three approaches: • Appreciative characterization of stakeholders to identify a “mutual match”; • Mapping stakeholders on concentric circles differentiating - those at the core who are likely to be relevant and interested, - those who are relevant but might be less directly involved, - those who are relevant but outside our direct sphere of influence; • Building on the stakeholder mapping, identifying a “community of place” that is responsive to landscape level threats and opportunities together with initially identified stakeholders (snowballing) – all captured in Fuchs et al., 2023. Additionally, the following selection principles for participants can be considered: • Sectoral representation (agriculture, conservation, government, private sector, civil society); • Multi-level representation (community, jurisdictional, national levels); • Inclusion of underrepresented and marginalized groups following principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for indigenous peoples, gender parity targets, youth representation, and accommodation for marginalized groups’ meaningful participation (e.g., timing, language, facilitation format); • Representation of key landscape governance actors and bridging organizations 19Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://hdl.handle.net/10568/127414 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/138753 Current land use and tenure: • Assess the current land use and ownership patterns to understand how the landscape is being utilized and by whom. Tenure regime, legal and customary categories, rights associated to that by actors. • GESI suggestion: Identify power imbalances in terms of who owns the land/resources, who works on the land/resources, and who benefits from the land/resources and whether any approaches are being taken to address these. Environmental and social data: • Gather basic environmental data such as soil quality, water availability, biodiversity and climate conditions and social data such as social structures and norms, economic data. Landscape boundaries: The identification or definition of the MFL boundaries can be done by: • Collecting spatial information (jurisdictional boundaries, location of major socio-economic activities and key physical features (topography, rivers etc.) • Considering the ecological processes (water flow, wildlife movements, vegetation patterns), • Engaging with local stakeholders to draw initial boundaries, • Multifunctional assessment of the landscape identifying and mapping various landscape functions (production, regulation, habitat and other ecosystem services), • Identifying institutional/governance related boundaries. GESI suggestion (for both landscape boundaries and functions): Be clear about who has a voice in identifying the landscape boundaries and functions, ideally all of the relevant stakeholders should have a voice in this process. It is important to bear in mind that the boundaries will probably change over time and might need to be refined as a better understanding of the landscape dynamics is gained and as new stakeholders join the effort. Status of landscape functions: Once the multidimensional boundaries of the landscape have been identified, define the landscape and its’ physical characteristics (e.g. biome, watershed, vegetation, land uses, production systems and natural resources). Review available documentation on the functions of the territory in terms of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulatory, supporting, and cultural), their current status – including natural and social capital, land use changes and drivers of change. Analyze documentation available on interactions among functions, including synergies and trade-offs, as well as stakeholders’ actions, interest and values attached to them. Prepare data illustrations and dashboards, ideally using a broad SHARED approach (Neely et al., 2021) in preparation of data feedback session, and the context assessment validation in preliminary step B. 2.2.3. Preliminary step B: Validating the context assessment [Maintained] The main facilitator introduces the session by reminding participants of the previous steps and activities conducted as part of the ALL-emergence process. S/he then explains what has been done to synthesize existing information as part of step A.2. If possible, the implementing team prepares, shares and uses synthetizing thematic posters and brochures that participants can validate, consult and refer to afterwards. To discuss the various types of information presented participants are asked the following discussion questions: • Is the information presented on the topic clear? • Is the information presented accurate and does it reflect what the group participants know about the issue? • Is there critical knowledge and information that needs to be corrected, reformulated, or added to what was presented by the implementing team so that the understanding of the ALL context is improved and shared among participants? After participants have answered the question, the facilitator focuses on new or reformulated understanding about the context assessment; including the definition and boundaries of the landscape, which is a central piece of the context validation! At the end of the session, the facilitator presents in visual form the next steps (step 1 to 5) in the LV2A process and invites participants to express any questions arising. Note. In case of disagreement around the understanding of the context, it is essential to facilitate an open discussion where all participants can voice their concerns and perspectives. Clearly identifying the key points of 20Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-021-00410-3 disagreement helps focus the conversation. It could be useful to gather evidence and data to support different viewpoints and clarify misunderstandings by bringing objectivity to the discussion. Once the discussion has taken place, collaboratively reformulate the information to address the concerns raised, ensuring the revised content is clear and accurate. Note. If necessary, it is possible to present and discuss the accuracy of the contextual understanding in groupwork and then hold a plenary debrief. 2.2.4. Step 1.1: Identifying a shared vision [Maintained, and adapted] Context setting: Establishing a joint vision is of fundamental importance when seeking to foster multi-actor, multi-dimensional, and multi-level landscape transformation. Using an approach which is inspired by Brouwer et al. (2017), the facilitator introduces a step-wise experiential exercise. Plenary 1: After introducing the session, the facilitator explains that visioning will be done in a stepwise process. First, groups will brainstorm about visions for the future in groups. Then, after agreeing to an initial broad vision in plenary, the facilitator will invite participants to imagine traveling 15 years into the future. Here, a documentary team has arrived in the landscape to interview various stakeholders because the area has gained recognition for its remarkable progress - particularly for how its actors have successfully enhanced multiple landscape functions and provided diverse benefits to a wide range of groups. Participants are asked to reflect on what messages they would want to share with the documentary team about these achievements. Groupwork 1: The facilitator invites participants to form groups which brainstorm for 20 minutes. The following questions can be given to inspire reflection (groups are free to select the ones that resonate with them): • What makes the landscape a desirable place to live for different actors from economic, social, and environmental perspectives? • What achievements have been made in terms of landscape management? • What policies, institutions, market developments or collaborations have supported this change? • How did norms, attitudes, and paradigms change in support of the developments? • How do the changes affect different types of benefits enjoyed by different groups? • How are conflicts between different interests (trade-offs) managed? • How do outside organizations collaborate? The groups write short statements on flash cards, which are potential elements of the shared vision. Plenary 2: Next, each group briefly presents their ideas in plenary. One facilitator places the cards of the groups on the ground or a board and clusters them thematically. While participants can ask clarifying questions, the facilitator guides participants away from entering into deep discussions at this stage. Groupwork 2: After the first plenary restitution, the groups continue groupwork for another 15 minutes after each group selects one member to be a journalist and one member to be a landscape actor. The ‘journalists’ and ‘landscape actors’ of all groups are invited to enact a press conference where there is a panel of ‘landscape actors’ from the different groups, as well as the ‘journalists’ from the groups. The ‘landscape actors’ will answer the questions of the ‘journalists’. In preparation for the press conference, the groups prioritize aspects of the desirable future as expressed on the cards before. Groups should agree on related questions to be asked by the ‘journalists’ and answers given by the ‘landscape actors’. Plenary 3: After 15 minutes preparation time, the facilitator calls all participants back to the plenary. For the press conference, the ‘landscape actors’ sit in front behind a table, and the ‘journalist’ on the other side. The facilitator will play the role of the moderator asking the journalists to ask their questions, which will be answered by the ‘landscape actors’ panel. The facilitator ensures that all journalists have equal opportunity to ask questions and each panel member to answer questions. All ‘landscape actors’ can respond to any question (not only the one of their group). If participants agree, the facilitators also record the press conference for reporting, sharing and later analysis. Close-out of the session: After the press conference, the facilitator asks the participants to agree on a brief statement (max. three sentences) summarizing their vision. In the first step, they rate vision elements on cards, and then iteratively build up the vision. If considered useful, the facilitator can use AI tools to condense vision elements into a brief vision statement of not more than three sentences. The facilitator and participants should also extract specific summary “future changes” or “goals” that, together, represent the vision. 21Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316072259_The_MSP_Tool_Guide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316072259_The_MSP_Tool_Guide Note. Throughout the exercise, the facilitator should encourage participants to free themselves from imagining their desired future as a mere extension of current positive trends. 2.2.5. Step 1.2: Grounding the vision in past, current and future dynamics by adapting the Futures Triangle [New sub-step, methods included in Appendix C] Context setting: Adapting the Futures Triangle (Inayatullah, 2006; Blundo Canto et al., 2023), the trends that potentially shape the achievement of the vision are unpacked: the weights of the past that could hinder it; the pushes of the present that lead in the direction of the vision or other directions; and the pulls of the future that show potential directions the landscape might be taking independently of the formulated vision. The convergence of these three components creates a conceptual space where future scenarios can be developed and defined Plenary 1: After introducing the session, the facilitator explains that after defining the first version of the vision in Step 1.1, this step aims to develop an understanding of how past, current and potential future dynamics might be influencing that vision. The facilitator explains further that the Futures Triangle serves as a framework for participants to construct future scenarios related to a theme or objective (for instance, a more equitable and sustainable food system) through the integration of three components. • The first component encompasses the historical constraints that impede potential transformation - the obstacles, barriers, and existing environmental, material, social or institutional structures that hinder achieving the object we are analyzing. • The second component addresses contemporary factors, analyzing the current circumstances and prevailing forces that drive change in particular directions, either towards our object, or in other directions. This involves examining the present situation and identifying what is actively shaping developments today. • The third component concerns future-oriented elements - the emerging indicators of potential developments, innovations, and collective aspirations or concerns that appear to be gaining influence, regardless of whether their implications are positive or negative.  Depending on the number of participants, the facilitators can propose to work in plenary (if few participants) or split into two groups first (each group has a facilitator, one group works on the pushes of the present, the other on the weights from the past) and both come together to work on the pull from the future. The facilitator can propose working in and facilitating explicit dialogue in line with sectoral/groups’ tensions, which helps to document these tensions explicitly to inform trade-offs analysis: • Where do different stakeholder groups see conflicting pushes or pulls? • Where do conservation pushes conflict with production pushes? • Where do government/jurisdictional timelines conflict with community timelines? The facilitator can propose differentiating between three levels to further refine the reflection and identify which levers are available at different scales for addressing barriers and mobilizing pushes: • Local-level dynamics (community-based forces, immediate threats/opportunities); • Landscape/jurisdictional-level dynamics (provincial policies, regional markets, cross-sector coordination); • National/global dynamics (international markets, national climate policy, diaspora investments). Before starting the groupwork, the facilitator places the vision statement at the center of the Triangles drawing: Initial Vision statement Revised Vision statement Weights Pushes Pulls Groupwork 1: The facilitator either asks participants to discuss and start listing the answers (weights, pulls or pushes) and participants write down one or two ideas (one per card). Facilitators share questions to guide the 22Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2005.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00566-6 reflection, including: • Weights of the past: What factors, dynamics, institutional arrangements, relationships or current stakeholder actions/practices prevent the achievement of the vision today? • Pushes of the present: What factors, dynamics, institutional arrangements, relationships or current stakeholder actions/practices contribute to the vision today/go in the same direction of the vision? • Pulls from the future: Do we perceive other potential directions towards which the system might be going in the future, unrelated to the vision (artificial intelligence harvesting crops on Mars? Be creative!)? Facilitators encourage individual reflection, or reflections in pairs, and discussing them in their groups. Plenary 2: Facilitator invites groups to present their results and pins the cards on the respective triangle, grouping them thematically. Once the three triangles are discussed, the facilitator proposes to revisit the vision statement and change it or complement it by writing the future desired state of the pushes of the present, weights of the past and pulls of the future that will allow achieving the vision. Note. The elements from this discussion will already allow identifying some key behavior changes (the future desired states of pushes, weights and pulls), and some drivers of behavior (in the current states of pushes, weights, and pulls), as well as potential trade-offs. GESI suggestion. The facilitator should encourage participants to consider social and gender norms - what norms from the past hinder or support the vision? What is the status of these norms at present - do different stakeholders view these norms differently? What is a likely future shift in norms, and how would that affect the vision? What is a potential future shift in norms that could contribute to enabling the vision? 2.2.6. Step 2.1: Identifying behavior changes and drivers [Maintained, and adapted] Behavior changes Context setting: After introducing the session, facilitators remind the participants of the visions formulated in Step 1.1 and 1.2 and ask the participants whether any important changes to the visions need to be made. Facilitators also remind the participants of the actors identified in the stakeholder mapping and refer to resulting reports (if available). Plenary 1: The facilitator then asks the participants to brainstorm in the plenary on the following question: Which actors could most strongly influence a move towards the desired future? The facilitator avoids long discussions and focuses on collecting the names of actors. A co-facilitator writes them on moderation cards, places them on the ground/pins them on a board and sorts them by sectors and/or stakeholder types. Groupwork 1: Next, the facilitator invites participants to form groups. Each group selects two to three actors to focus on. To identify behavioral changes of as many actors as possible, groups should avoid working on the same actors unless participants explicitly request otherwise. The groups’ task will be to address the following question: What would these actors need to do (differently) to trigger a change towards the desired future? Actor Change in behavior, practice or policy or action required Present in workshop? y/n y/n y/n y/n In this process, behavioral change statements should be formulated as explicitly as possible. They should name the actor explicitly. Behavior change statements should focus on the outcome rather than the activity, i.e. “Farmers affiliated to CSHEP produce fully organic vegetables”, “CSHEP produces processed, branded, and packaged organic products”, “CSHEP, the Ndeiya PGS, and the multifunctional schools network adopt a functioning local market model”. Rather than vaguely stating what a ministry should do, specify who within it should act. This can be a group or an individual, and the statement should avoid confrontation. Similarly, behavioral change should be as explicit as possible. Instead of vague terms like “creating an enabling environment,” specify the actions that would foster it. 23Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes The groups should use large sheets of paper and fill a table like the one listed above. The groups should highlight whether the actor is in the room or not. Plenary 2: After approximately 30 minutes, the participants come back to the plenary and briefly share highlights of their discussions. Note. It is important to always tie a behavior change to a specific actor(s) or stakeholder(s). This is how the discussion stays practical (not too abstract or vague) and it is easy to track when some actors are being overlooked. GESI suggestion. When considering collective behaviors, think about both the behavior and the composition of the group. Is a change in group identity/membership also needed? Behavior drivers [Maintained methods of V2A Step 2.b] Context setting: The groups continue working separately, focusing on the behavioral drivers. The facilitator introduces key examples of behavior drivers, such as mindset, resources, physical environment, and institutions, noting them on a flipchart. Groupwork 1: The facilitator then asks the following questions to help identify internal and external enablers and barriers for the previously identified behavior changes (reminding participants that these changes are meant to contribute to achieving the desired vision): • What or who could enable, motivate, prompt, or support the actor(s) to make the identified change? • What or who could hinder or discourage the actor(s) from making the change? The proposed drivers can be discussed in plenary, especially if participants worked in groups, and validated using the “one-to-all” facilitation method. Plenary 1: To finalize the identification of behavior changes and behavioral drivers, the results are presented in plenary. Depending on the time available, three main options for presentation can be proposed: 1. World Café (requires less time): One person from each small group stays at their station and welcomes another group to share their results. The groups move in parallel, so the feedback is done by groups and not in plenary. This is relatively faster. 2. Bus Stop (requires more time): All participants go from station to station where a representative of the group at each stop explains the results. All participants move together sequentially from one stop to the next. 3. Simple restitution in plenary. In all three presentation options, additional barriers and opportunities can be added by other participants. 2.2.7. Step 2.2: Identifying and synthesizing existing assets that can be leveraged for change [New sub-step; introduction to the methods included in Appendix D] Context setting: Participatory asset mapping is typically done to cultivate an asset mindset (rather than a deficiency mindset), and a sense of agency (rather than powerlessness) among participants. Plenary 1: The asset mapping process is introduced by the facilitator: • In the first sub-step, a brief introduction to the importance of leveraging different knowledge sources and broader co-design iteration processes is made. The facilitator introduces the purpose of asset mapping – and positions it in a broader context of centering knowledge co-creation and the mobilization of both scientific and local knowledge to co-design context-specific, asset-based, resource-efficient and locally-led solutions • In the second sub-step, specific methods from the asset-based community-driven development (ABCD) approaches, a well-established community engagement and mobilization approach that allows operationalizing the sustainable livelihoods framework, are used for participatory asset mapping (while all the tools can be introduced, the facilitation team should decide beforehand which asset mapping tools should be used in the given context; it can be one or several – and it is also possible to have different sub-groups work on the different asset mapping exercises in parallel). The facilitator explains that the objective of this mapping is to help participants uncover hidden assets, skills, talents and networks in the community and broader landscape. The facilitator further explains that it helps to foster a sense of having assets and strengths to draw and build on allowing to “start with what they have to achieve what they have not”. The second objective is to strengthen the sense of agency, or to build participants’ conviction that they 24Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes already have the capacity to achieve some of their goals through repurposing their existing assets through individual action, collective action, and strategic partnerships and collaborations with external actors. The third objective is to start identifying the diverse assets and capacities that can be mobilized to achieve the envisioned and desired changes. Following the adapted ABCD approach proposed in the Sustainability Planning approach (Fuchs et al., 2021), different asset mapping tools can be mobilized for different groups of stakeholders. • The three options are: - Human and social asset assessments for strategic partnership development and future collaboration; including a visual mapping of current and future internal and external partnerships. - Local economy assessment for strategic planning of income-generating activities and future investments; including mapping of current and prospective inflows, outflows and circulation of goods and services – both at community and at individual level. - Resource assessment and mapping for envisioned changes that can manifest physically in future, including mapping of past, present, future natural and physical resources. • Contextual factors to consider when choosing a specific ABCD-inspired approach to identifying assets and stakeholders. The selection of the most appropriate option will depend on contextual factors in each setting (see Table), or, ideally, all three can be done in groupwork in parallel and/or human and social asset mapping can be further sub-divided into two separate parallel steps: Option Tools Expected outcome Contextual factors Human and social asset assessment Heads, hands and hearts; Institution and association mapping; (Community action planning) Vision for strategic partnerships, both within the community and with targeted external actors in pursuit of specific development goals. Suitable for communities where social capital is important; potentially for less sedentary communities. Local economy assessment Community Leaky Bucket Strategic plans for income- generating activities (increase inflows, reduce outflows), future investments (repurpose outflows) and improving circulation of goods and services in the community (circular economy). Suitable for communities that tends to respond to economic rationales, and potential individual development goals, over ‘common good’ thinking. Natural and physical resource assessment and mapping Community resource mapping; Transect walk and mapping Vision for conserving and/ or changing the physical environment, based on an appreciation for what has been, used to be, and could potentially be in future. Suitable for communities that live in areas whose particular agroecology, biodiversity and/or legally protected status require a joint rethinking of land use; potentially in areas that are legally or de facto held collectively and/or in freehold. • Depending on the asset mapping modality chosen, groups are invited to discuss and map their assets. Ideally, each of the groups has a facilitator from the facilitation team to support them Groupwork 1.1: Human assets: Heads, Hands and Hearts, and composition of integrated of available knowledge/training (heads), practical skills (hands) and passions/interests (hearts) inventory • The facilitator asks participants to think about what they do well, each of them individually, or as representatives of the institutions they represent. It might be their work or something else they are known for within their community. Explain that these skills and capacities can fall into different categories, including intellectual (head), physical (hand), and emotional (heart). 25Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf • Analysis • • • Business and trading • Management • Literacy • Problem solving • Money management • Carpentry • Farming • Cooking • Mechanics • Sewing • Weaving • Animal husbandry • • Compassion • Care of elderly • Sense of humour • • Willingness to collaborate Cooperative spirit• Accounting Organisation House construction Conflict resolution Source: Fuchs et al. 2021. • Then the facilitator asks them to form pairs and note on different cards their diverse skills and talents, using different colors of cards to differentiate between head, hand and heart. After some time, ask them to form smaller groups to discuss and complement. Finally, the facilitator asks them to come together and present all the captured skills and talents and list them in three separate lists. If there are highly specific skills and talents, the specific individual or organization should mark their name on the card. Groupwork 1.2: Social assets: Mapping of formal institutions, and informal associations, and composition of a Venn diagram that shows location in or out of the community/area/landscape and relations between actors • The facilitator asks participants to list their personal connections to relevant informal community associations, such as farmer groups, religious groups, common interest groups etc. on cards in pairs of two or three. Participants should also describe the role of these associations, list names of the leaders, and list other relevant members of these associations. Then the facilitator asks the group to come together and note all the captured associations on a flipchart. Together, ask them to expand the list to other associations that they know about. If known, list the leaders and name the participants who are most closely connected to the leaders. Once the group has drafted a comprehensive list of the associations that exist in the community, they should try to illustrate their relative size (membership) and importance to overall community life. This can be done by drawing a Venn diagram. The intensity of interactions between actors can be represented to reflect the level of collaboration in achieving sustainability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 12 13 14 15 Source: Fuchs et al. 2021. • Then, in the same group, the facilitator asks them to start looking at formal institutions that are active in the locality, which are often overlooked as assets that can be drawn upon to support achieving joint objectives. The facilitator then asks participants to identify relevant local institutions including government institutions and ministries, NGOs, research institutes, religious institutions, private sector institutions such as cooperatives, banks, and diverse businesses etc. For each institution list its potential assets including: Which services and expertise does it offer? How might it contribute to achieving the vision by partnering strategically? Who among the participants has connections? Let participants compose one list of institutions active in the location. Once the comprehensive list of the locally relevant institutions is composed, the facilitator asks groups to illustrate their importance, and existing or potential collaboration with community associations (see Venn diagram below). One option for such an illustration is to represent community associations as circles and/or triangles, and formal institutions as rectangles. Furthermore, those associations and institutions that are within the locality can be drawn within the circle, and those that influence the locality from outside can be drawn outside of the circle. Thinner or thicker arrows can be drawn to show the existence and strength of interaction between different actors. This helps to illustrate existing connections between actors – but also shows absent, and potential new, relationships. 26Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf Source: Fuchs et al. 2021. Groupwork 1.3: Community Leaky Bucket to understand what comes in, what goes out, and what circulates in the community/area/landscape to strategize how the “water level in the bucket can increase” by increasing inflows, “plugging holes” and reducing outflows, and by increasing circulation in the community/area/landscape • The facilitator asks participants to think of the economy of their community, which means the goods and services produced, sold, and bought in their community. Then the facilitator asks participants to imagine their local economy as a bucket with income sources from outside the community pouring in from the top and expenditure on goods and services purchased outside the community spilling out of the holes at the bottom. Brainstorm together about: (1) Goods and services that are bought and sold within the village and outside the community; (2) Money that flows in and out of the community; (3) How money circulates within the community, and within households in the community, through the sale of goods and services. • Then the facilitator draws a picture of a bucket with three boxes inside the bucket representing the main economic actors in any market economy: Households, local government and businesses. After that, the facilitator draws arrows coming into the bucket to represent income coming from sources outside the community. The arrows begin outside of the bucket and lead into the relevant box: household, local government or businesses. Then the facilitator draws arrows between the three boxes inside the bucket (households, local government and businesses) and shows the financial interactions between the economic players listed in the boxes. Lastly, the facilitator draws arrows leaking out of the bucket from households, businesses and local government representing spending that is taking place outside the community. Once the participants in this exercise understand the basic idea, the facilitator asks them to list all the inflows and outflows in the locality. • After the analysis of current inflows in and outflows from the local economy is finalized, the facilitator asks participants to think about how this situation could be improved. The facilitator explains that, simply speaking, the local economy can be improved by increasing the inflows, reducing the outflows, and increasing the circulation in the bucket. Based on the situational analysis, the facilitator asks community members to identify opportunities to increase inflows into and circulation of money within the locality. These are marked in a different color in the Community Leaky Bucket. Then the facilitator asks to identify opportunities to plug leaks where means are flowing out of the locality, and mark these in yet another color in the Community Leaky Bucket. Lastly, the facilitator summarizes briefly the changes discussed to reduce what leaks out, to increase what remains, and to improve circularity within the locality – and connects that with conversations about behavior changes required to achieve the vision. 27Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf Source: Fuchs et al. 2021. Groupwork 1.4: Natural and physical asset mapping: Participatory mapping, transect walk, and transect map with status of land cover and land use and identified opportunities • The facilitator asks participants to sit together in pairs and discuss the main natural and physical features in their locality and note them on cards. After some time, the facilitator asks participants to come together and draw a map of their locality in which they should include all physical and natural resources – in line with the boundaries established together at the beginning of the LV2A process. The facilitator asks participants to identify two participants who draw, while the others make suggestions about what to include, following the features noted on their cards – invite them to use different colors, and different symbols to represent different kinds of assets (i.e., squares for houses, circles for water sources, triangles for trees and forests). When all pairs have added their features, the group reflects together on what might have been missed and complements the map. • Then the facilitator asks them to identify a transect line, which represents an imaginary line across the map to capture as much diversity as possible. If time allows, participants could do an actual transect walk and walk through that area; otherwise, they can discuss what they expect to find along that line in terms of land use, trees and plants, animals, soils, land/resource tenure, and specific emerging opportunities. When discussing in the workshop, this is particularly useful to understand different land use and land tenure arrangements that need to be considered during action planning. 28Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf Zone Upland Hillside Riverbank River Riverbank Hillside Land use House, huts, Mosques, food drying and storage, animal pens Pasture Fallow land, pasture, water sources, fields Water sources Fields, fallow land, banana fields Houses, huts, food drying and storage, fields, fallow land, pasture Trees and plants Parkia biglobosa, Combretum micronthum, Lophira lanceolata Parkia biglobosa, Acasia spp. Combretum micranthum, grasses Erythrophleum suaveolens – Bauhinia reticulato, Pterocarpus erinaceus, Parkia biglobosa Mangifera indica, Citrus aurantum, Carica papaya, Borossus aethiopium, Tomarindus indica Animals Goats, sheep, cattle, poultry Goats, sheep, cattle, poultry, squirrel, hare Monkeys, domestic animals Fish Monkeys, field rats Goats, sheep, cattle, poultry, hare Soils Gravel surface Little soill development Skeletal soils, over dolerite Gullying Black soils, easily worked Increased clay content – Ferrallitic soils,silty or sandy clays, soil accumulation, ochre Black soils, easily worked Resource tenure Compounds and enclosure: private I individual holdings Pastures: open access Open access Fields/fallow land: limited access Private individual/ family holdings and communal management Water sources: open access, communal management Pasture: open access Open access, communal management Fields/fallow land: limited access Private individual/ family holdings and communal management Banana fields: private holdings Compounds and enclosures: individual/ family property, private Outer fields: limited access Private/ individual holdings and communal management Opportunities Source: Fuchs et al. 2021. 29Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes https://regreeningafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sustainability_Guidance_Note_Final.pdf Plenary 2: • All the groups present their asset mapping results from Step 2 in plenary. If time permits, the other participants can make additions that can be added with the help of sticky notes, or a differently colored marker. • (If possible) As part of the group presentations, the facilitator re-introduces the data dashboards that illustrate much of the data that was developed under Preliminary Step A.2 and introduced in Preliminary Step B, and add relevant assets mapped to these dashboards in a third sub-step. • (If possible) In a fourth sub-step, the facilitator proposes a process that fosters a participatory knowledge synthesis by discussing similarities and differences between the scientific and local asset data, and highlight how they complement each other to deepen participants’ understanding of existing assets to draw on in the pursuit of the vision GESI suggestion. Consider including elements related to equity (especially when working with IPLCs), IPLU- specific power analysis (incl. quality of processes in relation to consultation/benefit sharing, decision making, safeguards and indicators for inclusion assessed iteratively during the process), mapping of indigenous territories, and community rights to resources use. Include an analysis of responsibilities - is each type of actor contributing in proportion to their available assets? Time/labor is an important one to consider for this question. 2.2.8. Step 2.3: Identifying political economy factors that influence transformation [New sub-step] Context setting: Next, participants are invited to discuss important political economy factors that influence broader system transformation, both in terms of barriers and opportunities for achieving the vision. Plenary 1: The facilitator introduces the session and explains that the purpose of the session is to understand the broader enabling environment that will influence how the vision can be achieved. • The facilitator explains that the enabling environment can be looked at in different ways, or through different lenses, and that the three ways that are proposed are (1) policies and incentives, (2) market structure, (3) cooperation modalities. • The facilitator explains that there are different questions that can either be asked from a behavioral perspective, or from a relational perspective – and invites groups to look at both. • The facilitator asks participants to split into three groups to discuss the three separate themes. Groupwork 1: In groups, participants discuss the questions listed in the table. The facilitator reminds groups that the purpose is not to respond to all the questions, but to capture the broad tendencies and relevant features related to the questions. Groups can discuss and note their key observations on flip charts. Asking the LV2A questions from a behavioral change perspective Asking the questions from a relational and network perspective (power dynamics/ balance for change] Policies and Incentives: (how existing policies either enable or restrict desired MFL behaviors). • What current rules and laws make it easier or harder for you to farm in the way you expressed through your vision? • If these rules are to be made again, what would you change to make it easier for you to achieve your vision? • Do you know who is making these rules? Do you think you have the power to change them? If yes how? • Who are the policy actors are government programs with whom you are dealing currently? • Which relationship is the most strategic for you today? • Which relationship would be the most strategic in the future to achieve your vision? • Are there laws, or ways that can help make your relationship with each of these actors stronger? • What changes in rules, laws, etc. are needed to make your relationship stronger? 30Landscape Vision-to-Action (LV2A) Approach to Co-design Multi-Stakeholder Transition Pathways for Multifunctional Landscapes Market Structures: (market dynamics are key areas of interplay between economic (market) organizations and policy (including administration etc.) organizations. This relation is