10th Anniversary Review: Addressing land degradation and climate change in dryland agroecosystems through sustainable land management

Land and water management approaches that address environmental and social challenges, such as land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, health, climate change and the decline in biodiversity, have been gaining importance in recent years. Several of these approaches are well known, while others have been only recently developed. These approaches have different names, specific objectives and principles and may employ different methods and technologies. At their core, however, all have the potential to address land degradation and desertification, to mitigate drought and to deliver many other environmental, economic and/or social co-benefits. The well-known concepts of land degradation neutrality (LDN) and sustainable land management (SLM) offer benchmarks against which land and water management approaches can be assessed. Understanding how well aligned these approaches are with SLM and LDN can help different communities that solve similar problems to work together to remedy global environmental challenges. To explore this opportunity more systematically, the Parties of the UNCCD requested an assessment of approaches that may contribute to the sustainable management of land and water resources and to the achievement of LDN (UNCCD Decision 19/COP.15/23/Add.1). Accordingly, this report assesses the alignment of seven selected land and water management approaches with SLM and LDN: agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, forest landscape restoration, integrated agriculture, regenerative agriculture and rewilding. The alignment assessment is structured along the SLM and LDN pillars of ecosystem health, food security, and human-wellbeing, each comprised by several criteria, as well as selected cross-cutting socioeconomic criteria that span all pillars. The results indicate that each of the approaches contributes to SLM and the achievement of LDN in different ways and to varying degrees, with none of the approaches embracing principles or practices that directly conflict with the criteria of SLM and LDN. A higher degree of alignment was identified for the ecosystem health and food security pillars, while most gaps in alignment concern criteria of the human well-being pillar along with certain cross-cutting criteria. The results of the assessment led to the identification of entry points for addressing gaps in alignment via supplementary activities that directly target the gaps during project planning and implementation, as well as through adhering to principles and established guidelines. Importantly, conclusions about the degree of alignment or about gaps in alignment of an approach with SLM and LDN criteria are conceptually indicative, but may change in actual practice depending on where and how projects are implemented. Notwithstanding, clarifying the approaches’ contribution to SLM and the achievement of LDN can help overcome the lack of formal intergovernmental recognition of the approaches, prevent misinterpretation, and ensure their strategic inclusion in broader efforts to remedy land degradation.

Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for maintaining the basis for our livelihoods. With threats from climate change, disputes over water, biodiversity loss, competing claims on land, and migration increasing worldwide, the demands for sustainable land management (SLM) practices will only increase in the future. For years already, various national and international organizations (GOs, NGOs, donors, research institutes, etc.) have been working on alternative forms of land management. And numerous land users worldwide – especially small farmers – have been testing, adapting, and refining new and better ways of managing land. All too often, however, the resulting SLM knowledge has not been sufficiently evaluated, documented and shared. Among other things, this has often prevented valuable SLM knowledge from being channelled into evidence-based decision-making processes. Indeed, proper knowledge management is crucial for SLM to reach its full potential. Since more than 20 years, the international WOCAT network documents and promotes SLM through its global platform. As a whole, the WOCAT methodology comprises tools for documenting, evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing, analysis and use for decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. In early 2014, WOCAT’s growth and ongoing improvement culminated in its being officially recognized by the UNCCD as the primary recommended database for SLM best practices. Over the years, the WOCAT network confirmed that SLM helps to prevent desertification, to increase biodiversity, enhance food security and to make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change. In addi- tion, it plays an important role in mitigating climate change through improving soil organic matter and increasing vegetation cover. In-depth assessments of SLM practices from desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats. The impacts mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Among others, favourable local-scale cost-benefit relationships of SLM practices play a crucial role in their adoption. An economic analysis from the WOCAT database showed that land users perceive a large majority of the technologies as having benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. The high investment costs associated with some practices may constitute a barrier to adoption, however, where appropriate, short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices. The increased global concerns on climate change, disaster risks and food security redirect attention to, and trigger more funds for SLM. To provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM and to reinforce expert and land users assessments of SLM impacts, more field research using inter- and transdisciplinary approaches is needed. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the EU FP7 projects CASCADE and RECARE.

Uniting the Global Gastroenterology Community to Meet the Challenge of Climate Change and Non-Recyclable Waste

Growing concern over land degradation impacts everyone via food security, rising food costs, climate change, environmental threats, and loss of biodiversity. Land degradation harms food production, livelihoods, and the ecosystem. This study aimed at examining the drivers of land degradation in semiarid Agro-pastoral systems in semiarid areas of Tanzania by classifying land conservation practices adopted by the community in efforts to ensure land restoration within the selected district using a relative importance index approach. The study selected the Mbulu district as a study area and sampled 178 agro-pastoralists. A semi-structured questionnaire was used for data collection. The data collected were analysed using a Relative Importance Index to classify the most important criteria based on the participants’ responses. Results show that the severity of the factors causing land degradation ranges from 66.97% to 70.90%: Cutting trees for building purposes (70.9%), overgrazing (70.79%), a lack of a land use plan (69.21%), charcoal burning (66.97%), agricultural practices including poor farming methods (66.97%), and land ownership and tenure system (57.98%). The study identified that 90% of agro-pastoralists do not use any land conservation practices, while less than 10% use the practices. The study concludes that the five dimensions identified have a considerable effect on land degradation. However, nearly 90% of sampled households did not use land conservation methods. Thus, the study recommended that stakeholders should increase efforts to reduce the severity of land degradation by engaging the local communities with frequent training and extension services and involving the community in protecting and managing their environment. Policymakers and conservationists should develop programs that will engage the community and put sustainable land management practices into action. Moreover, community development experts should be involved in the whole process of sustainable land management since they know how to engage the community through principles of community development.

Toward sustainable and just forest recovery: research gaps and potentials for knowledge integration

The phrase “climate change” was used in more than 80 000 articles published in 2012. Over the same period, only ~10 000 publications referred to “land degradation” or “soil degradation”. While we agree that long-term climate change requires a high level of intellectual and resource investment, we are concerned that this focus is distracting scientists and decision makers from the often equally irreversible effects of land degradation (including desertification). Climate change and land degradation reduce the provisioning of ecosystem services but occur at different temporal and spatial scales and therefore often require different solutions. Although the environmental and social impacts of climate change may exceed those of land degradation at some point in the future, the effects of land degradation are occurring now. Furthermore, while climate-change mitigation requires global solutions, individuals and communities can successfully reduce land degradation at the local level. Land degradation generally reduces plant-water availability by increasing runoff and reducing the water-holding capacity of soil through erosion, loss of organic matter, and the deterioration of soil structure. This creates “edaphic (soil-related) droughts” during otherwise “normal” years. Similarly, land degradation exacerbates climate-change-related water deficits that result from higher temperatures and the consequent increase in evaporative demand. During large rainfall events, land degradation intensifies flooding, as infiltration is reduced and gullies channel water more quickly to rivers, magnifying peak flows. All of these impacts can be addressed at field-to-watershed scales, but the solutions often require awareness and investments at multiple levels and by various sectors of society, including private, government, and non-governmental organizations. Farmers, pastoralists, and policy makers around the world now routinely identify climate change as a primary factor driving land productivity declines, and often use this as a justification for disregarding other possible contributing factors. The scientific community is clearly not solely responsible for the lack of awareness of the impacts of poor management practices, but we do play a contributing role. At best, our increasing focus on climate change has an opportunity cost: there is less time available to understand and develop strategies to limit land degradation and to restore degraded lands. At worst, our pursuit of funding and recognition for climate-change research can inadvertently disenfranchise those promoting sustainable land management. When discussing the climate-change mitigation value of soil carbon sequestration, we may minimize the current reality of soil carbon emissions associated with land degradation and the associated impacts of these soil organic matter losses on ecosystem services. Closing the yield gap is one of the suggested paths toward achieving a sustainable food production system that meets the demands of a growing population. The challenges of bringing current yields closer to potential yields are becoming more complicated as land degrades and the gap widens. A practical understanding of the factors that control land degradation and, more broadly, land potential (including both potential to support multiple ecosystem services and resilience) is necessary to target investments in sustainable land management on productive lands that are at high risk of irreversible degradation. Many of these lands are in semiarid and dry, subhumid regions, areas where frequent drought reduces soil cover and increases erosion. The shallow soils that are common in many of these regions ensure that the impacts of soil losses are greater than they would be in areas with deeper soils. We also suggest that research designed to improve drought management should clearly distinguish between climatological and edaphic causes. Edaphic droughts can result from reduced water infiltration, decreased soil-water holding capacity, and gully incision. This distinction can often be illustrated by comparing production declines on relatively degraded and undegraded land with similar potential during years with reduced precipitation. Landscape position and relatively static soil profile characteristics – such as texture, mineralogy, and depth – are used to define land potential. Finally, we argue that an improved understanding and use of land potential concepts in research and monitoring will allow scientists, managers, and policy makers to more easily determine when observed differences are due to current management, land degradation, or climate change by ensuring that comparisons are made between similar types of land. In summary, we offer two recommendations. First, the current focus on climate-change research should be complemented by research on ecological processes associated with land degradation and the development of solutions based on an understanding of these processes. Second, an enhanced understanding of land potential is necessary to target limited resources to increase agricultural production, conserve biodiversity, promote recovery of degraded lands, and adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

This study was conducted with the objective of determining the returns to sustainable land management (SLM) at the national level in Bhutan. The study first uses satellite data on land change (Landsat) to examine land use change in 1990–2010 and its impact on sediment loading in hydroelectric power plants. The study then uses the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to analyze the impact of land use change and land management on sediment loading. The results from the land use change and SWAT analyses are used to assess the economic benefits of SLM. We estimate the benefits and costs of SLM practices and compare them with the land-degrading practices that are most prevalent in Bhutan—that is, business as usual. An analysis of the drivers of adoption of SLM practices is also done to draw conclusions about strategies that Bhutan could use to enhance adoption of SLM practices. The land cover change results show that the vast majority of forested areas remained as such between 1994 and 2010. SWAT results show that with long-term SLM practices such as contouring, increased forested cover and density, terracing, and other SLM practices, soil erosion from forested area could be reduced by 50 %. Analysis of returns to SLM practices showed that citrus orchards are the most profitable enterprises in 13 of the 20 districts (dzongkhag), but they require farmers to wait for at least six years before the first harvest. Improved pasture management is the second most profitable enterprise—underscoring the potential role it can play to meet the growing demand for livestock products as household incomes increase. Returns to community forest management are low but profitable at a 10 % discount rate. Considering the drivers of SLM adoption, our research shows an inverse relationship between returns to land management and their corresponding adoption rates. The factors that increase adoption of SLM were land security, access to extension services, and roads. In summary, Bhutan’s policies and its cultural and historical background have set the country on the path to becoming a global green growth success story. Results of this study vindicate the country’s efforts to invest in sustainable land and forest management and highlight the additional policies and strategies that will enhance achievement of Bhutan’s SLM objectives.

Contribution of community-based initiatives to the sustainable development goal of Land Degradation Neutrality

Presently, land degradation is a global concern discussed by numerous institutions and its management is of utmost important for ensuring environmental sustainability. As per ISRO (2019), approx. 97.85 M ha of land is degraded and 3.32 M ha of degradation was reported between 2005 and 2019 (last five years) in India. Almost 30% of the country's geographical areas are under desertification, which is a major environmental problem. Thirty percent of 71 M ha forest land, 20% of agricultural and 10% of grass land are under land degradation severity due to anthropogenic activities. Similarly, land degradation and desertification affect 2.6 billion people in a hundred countries which cover approximately 33% of global land surface. These figures are enough to express a global scenario of land degradation in the world. Land degradation, climate change and biodiversity losses are strongly linked to poor environmental health and services. Poor environmental health, services and its sustainability are further amplified by land degradation including deforestation and intensive land use practices. Land degradation vulnerability (LDV) is also observed due to poor vegetations and soil quality under climate change that jeopardize ecosystem health and environmental sustainability. In this context, land degradation can be reversed by practicing sustainable forest management including better restoration and rehabilitation. Moreover, UNCCD also introduced the term LDN (land degradation neutrality) which represents land management for enhancing ecosystem services including soil-food quality and its sustainability. Therefore, sustainable land use and management is a key step towards better environmental sustainability which can be possible through managing forests in sustainable ways. Constructive policy and institutional supports are required to sustainable land and environmental management through better forestry practices.

Sustainable dryland practices and drought risk management are the centerpieces for sustainable management systems as well as measures to sustainable land use, particularly resilience and ecosystem services. On the other hand, sustainable development goals (SDGs) and target 15.3 provide a general guidance for environmental and socio-ecological dynamics for improving a better-coordinated approach to land management, particularly in the case of drylands. During the period 1998–2013, about one-fifth of the Earth’s land surface covered by vegetation showed persistent and declining trends in productivity, particularly in the case of Latin American countries. It is therefore key to reverse advanced stages of land degradation by sustainable land management and improving lives and livelihoods of millions of people currently under threat in the region. Paragraph 33 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focuses on the linkage between sustainable management of the planet’s natural resources and social and economic development as well as on strengthening “cooperation on desertification, dust storms, land degradation and drought” and promote resilience and disaster risk reduction.” In this article, we explore the relation between SDGs and their interconnections with drylands management. SDGs are considered a major instrument to combat desertification, drought, and land degradation together with climate change and the loss of biodiversity by combining and scaling up established socioeconomic principles and practices to reach SDG target 15.3 and the objectives of UNCCD for land degradation neutrality (LDN).

Land degradation and desertification (LDD) and climate change are having increased effects in the Near East and North Africa (NENA) impacting the livelihoods of about 410 million people. Agriculture is a vital sector, contributing on average 14% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (excluding oil producing countries) and providing jobs and incomes for 38% of the region’s economically active population. Nevertheless, most NENA countries import at least 50% of the calories they consume. Furthermore, it is estimated that the total area that is desertified or is vulnerable to desertification cover 9.84 million km2 or about 86.7% of the total NENA region. Soil erosion by water, wind, and sand and dust storms (SDS) cause losses of about USD 13 billion of GDP each year. To confront these hardships, the region must endorse proper land use planning, prioritization of target areas for restoration and adoption of sustainable land and water management (SLWM) to reverse the situation. This paper analyses the inter-linkages between LDD, resource base management and food security under different scenarios and offers mitigation and remediation options. These include knowledge management and sharing; establishment of a regional platform to facilitate dialogue; public and private investment opportunities; provision of tools to scale-out sustainable land and water management options; and creation of a conducive enabling environment supported by policies and strategies. The paper provides policy and decision-makers with priority actions and options to enhance productivity, and combat land degradation to improve food security in the region.

Biodiversity loss due to changes in climate and land use has been assessed recently. The earliest biodiversity assessments already showed that species are declining faster than at any time in the past and that ecosystems are rapidly deteriorating. Moreover, these assessments indicated that the projected changes in climate and land use likely drive further biodiversity losses in the 21st century, both directly and in synergy with each other. This accumulated evidence positions climate change and land-use change among the major human-induced direct drivers of biodiversity loss. Climate change affects biodiversity as climate variables, such as temperature and precipitation, largely determine the geographical distributions of species. Hence, in areas where climate is less suitable, species shift their geographical ranges and go extinct locally. Land-use change poses immediate threats to biodiversity as the conversion of natural habitats (e.g. forests, wetlands and grasslands) into agricultural land results in populations decline and extinctions become more likely. These adverse effects consequently change ecosystems functioning and potentially affect the supply of ecosystems services and thus human well-being. Although research on climate and land-use change impacts on biodiversity and the consequent implications was repeatedly conducted, the range of estimates for these impacts remains disturbingly large. Moreover, such research relied on climate-change scenarios that depict relatively small increases in global mean temperatures (i.e. <2°C). Nowadays, the plausibility of climate-change scenarios which overshoot the 2°C policy target from The Paris Agreement, is rapidly increasing. Advances are thus needed to better understand how biodiversity will respond to such larger changes, including quantifications of the expected biodiversity decline at different climate and land-use change levels, and the effect derived from interaction mechanisms between these drivers. Furthermore, the global efforts to combat climate change and to keep global average temperature to well-below 2°C will require large mitigation commitments from the land sector with potentially both positive and negative consequences for biodiversity. These implications of land-based mitigation efforts have to be further assessed. My PhD thesis therefore aimed to explore future biodiversity trends under projected direct and synergistic changes in climate and land use and to advance understanding of climate-change mitigation consequences for biodiversity. In this thesis, climate change was indicated by global mean temperature increase (°C) and land-use change by land-use intensity levels (i.e. grazing and cropland levels) and land-cover type transitions. In Chapter 2, I assessed the magnitude of expected changes of biodiversity by systematically reviewing studies and performing a meta-analysis of the responses of species distributions to climate change. I proposed two indicators to quantify the local response of terrestrial biodiversity to climate change: the fraction of remaining species (FRS) and the fraction of remaining area (FRA) with suitable habitat for each species. The FRS and FRA calculate deviations from the original biodiversity state and both they indicate biodiversity intactness. The biodiversity response was quantified for different intervals of global mean temperature increase and for different taxonomic groups and ecosystems. The results showed that projected climate-change impacts likely cause changes to the distribution of many plants and animals and this leads to severe range contractions and local extinction of some species (i.e. decreasing biodiversity). The FRS and FRA were projected to gradually decrease with significant reductions of 14% and 35% between 1°C and 2°C increases in global mean temperature, and 32% and 54% beyond 4°C increase. This chapter showed that already at moderate temperature increases the original biodiversity significant decreased. In Chapter 3, I estimated biodiversity decline from changes in climate and land use in grassland ecosystems, which are among the most extensive ecosystems in the world. The analysis was conducted in the Central Asian grasslands, which are nowadays transforming by changes in land use and climate. I used a scenario analysis based on the latest Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (i.e. SSP-RCP scenario framework) and further detail land-use scenarios for the region. I selected contrasting socio-economic and climate conditions (i.e. SSP1-RCP4.5, SSP3-RCP8.5, SSP4-RCP4.5 and SSP5-RCP8.5). In this analysis, the climate-change impact for the selected RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 was indicated by the FRS for grasslands as estimated in Chapter 2; the land-use change impact was indicated by changes in land-use intensity derived from the land-use scenarios; and the future biodiversity was indicated by the Mean Species Abundance (MSA). The MSA expresses the mean abundance of originally occurring species in disturbed conditions (e.g. after climate change) relative to their original abundance in undisturbed habitats. The contrasting scenario combinations showed that grasslands’ biodiversity remained under continuous threat and will further decline under each scenario. The strongest impact on biodiversity was projected in SSP5-RCP8.5, where half of the grasslands will likely undergo a large decrease in their species abundance by 2100. This chapter stressed the potential vulnerability of the Central Asian grasslands to increasing land-use intensity and climate change. In Chapter 4, I explored interaction mechanisms between climate and land-use change effects on biodiversity. Climate change and land-use change are often addressed as drivers that interact synergistically in several ways and alter their mutual effects on biodiversity. I identified interaction mechanisms in which species in heavily modified landscapes may respond differently to climate change than species in pristine landscapes. These interactions arise if 1) species adapted to modified landscapes differ in their sensitivity to climate change from species adapted to natural landscapes and if 2) land-use composition restricts climate-change induced dispersal of species in fragmented landscapes. To verify these conditions, I performed systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of bioclimatic studies on species distributions in landscapes with varying proportions of cropland (first condition) and species’ dispersal under climate change in fragmented landscapes (second condition). I used the FRS as the effect-size metric in this meta-analysis. Based on the results of this analysis, I found no significant interaction effect for the first condition. This indicates that the influence of global mean temperature increase on the FRS did not change with different cropland levels. No quantitative studies were found to verify the second condition for climate-change induced dispersal of species. This chapter emphasized the need to assess interactions between land-use and climate-change effects on biodiversity, integrating other conditions, such as spatial location, adaptive capacity and time lags. In Chapter 5, I assessed carbon-dioxide-removal options in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sectors (i.e. land-based mitigation options) implemented in different mitigation pathways that keep global temperature increase to well-below 2°C for their biodiversity impacts using the MSA indicator. Land-based mitigation options may preserve, increase or deteriorate biodiversity, because of their land-use impact. In this chapter, I reviewed climate change mitigation studies that assessed each of the selected land-based mitigation options and indicated the land transition needed to achieve a significant climate change mitigation (i.e. potential land-cover and/or land-use change). I found that reforestation of cultivated and managed areas together with restoration of wetlands deliver the largest increase of MSA, if provided the opportunity to reach mature states over time. Contrary, intensification of agricultural areas and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration decreased MSA locally. Options such as afforestation and reduced deforestation, either positively or negatively affect MSA. This depends on their spatial implementation and the precise forest conservation schemes. This chapter provided insights on possible synergies that emerge from certain scenarios and their benefits for current and future biodiversity conservation in regions with large land-based mitigation potential. My PhD thesis advanced scientific understanding of climate and land-use change impacts on biodiversity that can feed into the current UN Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change agendas. It showed future biodiversity trends and proposed methods that translate relevant information of socio-economic and climate-change drivers to assess interactions between climate and land-use change effects on biodiversity. Such knowledge is quickly becoming an important element to develop strategies for regional and global biodiversity conservation and thus to minimize biodiversity loss. I stress the importance of holding climate change well-below 2°C as this helps to maintain the composition of local communities and their climatically suitable areas, while seeking for the desired combinations that will reduce the use of detrimental land-based mitigation options to biodiversity.

Gaining Acceptance of Novel Plant Breeding Technologies.

\n Contains fulltext :\n 237566.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)\n

Niger’s colonial and post-independence natural resource management policies contributed to land degradation. The country also experienced a prolonged drought that amplified the suffering of the people who are heavily dependent on natural resources. The country learnt hard lessons from its past mistakes and changed its policies and strategies. This study shows a strong association of the policy changes and improved human welfare demonstrating that even poor countries could achieve sustainable development. Enhancing government effectiveness by giving communities mandate to manage natural resources and by giving incentives to land users to benefit from their investment played a key role in realizing simultaneous improvement in land management and human welfare in Niger. Given these achievements, Niger was picked as a case study to showcase its achievement and what other countries could learn from the country’s mistakes and achievements. The analytical approach used focuses on estimation of cost of land degradation, ground-truthing of satellite data and drivers of adoption of sustainable land management practices. Land use/cover change (LUCC) analysis shows that a total of 6.12 million ha experienced LUCC and shrublands and grassland accounted for the largest change. Excluding the desert, 19 % of the land area experienced LUCC. Cropland expansion accounted for about 57 % of deforestation followed by grassland expansion. The cost of land degradation due to LUCC is about 2007 US$0.75 billion, which is 11 % of the 2007 GDP of US$6.773 billion and 1 % of the 2001 value of ecosystem services (ES) in Niger. Every US dollar invested in taking action returns about $6—a level that is quite attractive. Ground-truthing showed high level of agreement between satellite data and communities perception on degraded lands but poor agreement in areas for which satellite data showed land improvement. Communities also reported that tree planting and protection were the most common actions against land degradation. Tree planting was done mainly on bare lands to fix sand dunes. In summary, this study shows that severe land degradation and the consequent negative impacts on human welfare is a low-hanging fruit that needs to be utilized by countries as they address land degradation. This implies that instead of abandoning severely degraded lands, strategies should be used to rehabilitate such lands using low-cost organic soil fertility management practices and progressively followed by using high cost inputs as soil fertility improves. Improvement of access to rural services and facilitation of non-farm activities will also lead to faster and greater impacts on adoption of SLM practices and increasing resilience to agricultural production shocks in Niger. As Niger continues to improve sustainable land management, it faces daunting challenges to alleviate the high cost of land degradation. Niger serves as a success story to the world in addressing land degradation. Both the national and international communities need to learn from the achievement of Niger and help land users to sustainably manage their natural resources.