eld-main-report 05 web 72dpi

8/19/2019 ELD-main-report 05 Web 72dpi

1/170

THE E CONOMICS OF

L AND D EGRADATION

Prosperous lands and positive rewardsthrough sustainable land management

The Value of Land

www.eld-initiative.org

http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/


2/170

II

Suggested citation:

ELD Initiative (2015). The value of land: Prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainableland management. Available from www.eld-initiative.org .

Editor and coordinator:Naomi Stewart (UNU-INWEH)

With the support of:Hannes Etter (GIZ), Nicola Favretto (UNU-INWEH),Tobias Gerhartsreiter (GIZ), Mark Schauer (GIZ), and Richard Thomas (ICARDA)

Report Reviewers:Maria Brockhaus (CIFOR), Martin Dal limer (University of Leeds), and Emily McKenzie (WWF)

This ELD report was published with the support of the partner organisations of theELD Initiative and Deutsche Gesellschaf t für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHon behalf of t he German Federal Minist ry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Photography:

Clemens Bergmann/GIZ (pg. 93); Hannes Etter (pg. 29, 37, 109); Jiang Gaoming (pg. 46);Andreas König/GIZ (pg. 70);Tesfaya Mebrahtu/GIZ (pg. 71); Ursula Meissner/GIZ (pg. 45);Friederike Mikulcak (pg. 41, 50, 122, 127);Mark Schauer (pg. 67);Naomi Stewart (pg. 14, 61, 76); Richard Thomas (pg. 32) Visual concept: MediaCompany, Bonn OfficeLayout: kippconcept GmbH, Bonn

ISBN: 978-92-808-6061-0

For further information and feedback please contact:ELD [email protected] Schauerc/o Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 3653113 Bonn, Germany



3/170

Prosperous lands and positive rewardsthrough sustainable land management

September 2015

The Value of Land:ELD Main Report

www.eld-initiative.org



4/170

IV

Acknowledgments:

In addition all of the authors listed by chapter who worked in a collaborative process throughout the writ ing process invarious capacities, the ELD Initiative would like to acknowledge a broad network of experts, practitioners, and partnerswho have contributed in time, advice, and expert ise. This includes non-exhaustively and in alphabetical order:

Zafar Adeel (UNU-INWEH), Eugene Apindi (EPI),Louise Baker (UNCCD),Mauricio Gonzalez Chang (LincolnUniversity),Andrew Chilombo (GEF),Sasha Courville (National Australia Bank),Tommy Dalgaard (Aarhus University),Estelle Dominati (Agresearch),Waltraud Ederer (GIZ),Tobias Gerhartsreiter (GIZ),Matthew Graham (EnvironmentCanada), Anne Juepner (UNDP),Utchang Kang (UNCCD),Niko Langhammer (GIZ),Pushpam Kumar (UNEP),EricMungatana (University of Pretoria),Sarah Odera (GIZ/SEI-Africa),Sue Ogilvy (Australia National University),CarlyPopenko (UNU-INWEH),Luciana Porrio (Australia National University),Simone Quatrini (Global Mechanism ofthe UNCCD),Nazmun Ratna (Lincoln University),Uriel Safriel (UNCCD-SPI),Harpinder Sandhu (Flinders University),Sascha Schmidt (GIZ),Christina Seeberg-Elverfeldt (BMZ),Ashbindu Singh (EPI)Lars Soefstad (Supras Biz),Jens-Christian Svenning (Aarhus University),Mesn Tilahun (Norwegian University of Life Sciences/Mekelle University),Graham Mark Turner (Australia National University),Katrine Grace Turner (Aarhus University),Nathan S. Upham

(Yale University),Yann-David Varennes (Lincoln University),Anjana Varma (UNEP),Alexey Voinov (InternationalInstitute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observatory), Aaron Vuola (UNEP),Patrick Wegerdt (EuropeanCommission), Stephen Wratten (Lincoln University), andZinta Zommers (UNEP).


5/170

T H E V A L U E O F L A N D

1

About the ELD Initiative

The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD)Initiative is an international collaboration thatprovides a global assessment of the economics ofland degradation, and highlights the benets ofsustainable land management. Working with ateam of scientists, practitioners, policy-/decision-makers, and all interested stakeholders, theInitiative endeavours to provide a scienticallyrobust, politically relevant, and socio-economicallyconsiderate approach that is economically viableand rewarding. Ensuring the implementation ofmore sustainable land management is of criticalimportance considering the vast environmentaland socio-economic challenges we are collectivelyfacing – from food, water, and energy security andmalnutrition, to climate change, a burgeoningglobal population, and reduction in biodiversity,ecosystems, and ecosystem services.

Understanding the cost of inaction and beneftis ofaction are important in order for all stakeholders tobe able to make sound, informed decisions aboutthe amount and type of investments in land theymake. Even though techniques for sustainable landmanagement are known, many barriers remainand the nancial and economic aspects are oftenput forward as primary obstacles. If the full valueof land is not understood by all stakeholders, itmay not be sustainable managed, leaving futuregenerations with diminished choices and optionsto secure human and environmental well-being.A better understanding of the economic value ofland will also help correct the imbalance that canoccur between the nancial value of land and itseconomic value. For instance, land speculationand land grabbing are often separated from theactual economic value that can be obtained fromland and its provisioning services. This divergenceis likely to widen as land scarcity increases andland becomes increasingly seen as a ‘commodity’.Economic values can provide a common languageto help entities decide between alternative land

uses, set up new markets related to environmentalquality, and reach the goal of land degradationneutrality. It should also be noted that the resulting

economic incentives must take place within anenabling environment that includes the removal ofcultural, environment, legal, social, and technicalbarriers, and also consider the need for equitabledistribution of the benets of land amongst allstakeholders. Though there is a wide variety ofpossible methods, valuations, and approaches thatmay be available or appropriate, the ELD Initiativepromotes the use of the total economic value,achieved through cost-benet analyses, as this canprovide broad and cohesive understanding of theeconomics of land degradation. It is a method thatis generally accepted by governments and othersas a decision-making tool, and applying othertools may require a fundamental change existingsystems. To this end, the ELD Initiative operatesunder the following vision and mission statement,with a structure outlined in the organigram:

ELD Initiative: Vision

To transform global understanding of the value ofland and to create awareness of the economic casefor sustainable land management in preventingloss of natural capital, preserving ecosystemservices, combatting climate change, and inaddressing food, energy and water security.

ELD Initiative: Mission Statement

Through an open inter-disciplinary partnership:

❚ We develop a holistic framework for theconsideration of the economic values of land inpolitical decision-making processes;

❚ We compile and build a compelling economiccase for benets derived from the sustainablemanagement of land and soil on a global andlocal scale;

❚ We estimate the economic benets derived

from adopting sustainable land managementpractices and compare them to the costs ofthese practices;


6/170

2

❚ We sharpen awareness of the value of land andrelated ecosystem services;

❚ We will propose effective solutions, policies andactivities to reduce land degradation, mitigateclimate change and deliver food, energy, andwater security worldwide

Reports & Outputstargeting:

Scientic Communities Political Decision-Makers

Private Sector

Ministries

DevelopmentBanks

IndividualExperts

Civil Society

PrivateSector

OtherInstitutions

EconomicValuationof Options

Optionsand Pathways

for Action

Data andMethodology

Case

Studies

Policy Partnership

Supporting Partners Supporting Partners

Working Groupsand Scientic Networks

Science Partnership

Steering Group

ELD Secretatiat

Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initative Governance Structure


7/170


3

Acronyms and abbreviations

CBA Cost benet analysisDLDD Desertication, land degradation, and droughtDPSIR Driver-pressure-state-impact-response frameworkESV Ecosystem service valuesEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsLDN Land degradation neutralityGDP Gross domestic productGEF Global Environment FacilityGIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

GM Global Mechanism of the UNCCDHANPP Human appropriation of net primary productivityLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanMCDA Multi-criteria decision analysisMDG Millennium Development GoalsMOOC Massive Open Online CourseNAP National action planNDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation IndexNGO Non-governmental organisationNPP Net primary productionNPV Net present valueOSLO Offering Sustainable Land use Options ConsortiumPES Payment for ecosystem servicesPPP Purchasing power paritySDG Sustainable Development GoalsSLM Sustainable land managementTEV Total Economic ValueUK United KingdomUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desert icationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNGA United Nations General AssemblyUSD United States DollarUSA United States of AmericaUSPED Unit Stream-Power based Erosion DepositionWBCSD World Business Council on Sustainable DevelopmentWOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and TechniquesWTO World Trade Organization

* Editor’s note: Acronyms and abbreviations are used interchangeably across the document with their fullercounterpart, dependent on context and language.


8/170

4

Table of contents

About the ELD Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acronyms and abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 1 Introduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The economics of land degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sustainable land management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enabling environments and other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Knowledge Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Linking to global agendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELD and Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELD and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The value of land: An overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 2 Setting the stage for structured economic assessment:The + step ELD approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Complementary frameworks to structure a comprehensive economicassessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impact pathways to sustainable land management:a framework for investment into increased productivity and/oralternative livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capital asset framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ecosystem service framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Total Economic Value framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combining the ecosystem service and total economic value frameworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Valuing the costs of inaction or the benets from action forcomparison to the costs of action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multi-level, multi-scale simple decision-making framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

+ step approach: six steps drawing from a collection of methodologies(pluralistic) to establish a cost-benet analysis of possible actions,

plus one step to take action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic benets of sustainable land management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


9/170


5

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the economic assessment approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3a The future of ecosystem services: Impacts on ecosystem service values,and global and national scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impacts of land cover changes degradation on ecosystem service values . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discussion and conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3b The future of ecosystem services: Global and national scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global value of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scenario planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Global and national land use change scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Unit value change scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4 Regional-level economic valuation of land degradation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why are regional-level studies on the economic impacts of landdegradation needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional-level economic values of land degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on the climate system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts of land-related processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts of land-use systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management-related drivers of degradation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benets and weaknesses of regional-scale economic valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benets of regional-scale economic analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weaknesses with regional-level estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


10/170

6

How to substantiate regional-level economic analyses for policyimplementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 5 Stakeholder engagement and perspectives at national and sub-national scale s . .

Stakeholder engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional consultation: Latin America and the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National workshop: Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sub-national consultation: Narok County, Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stakeholder needs and expectations from the ELD Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy pathways: Entry points for action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 6 Enabling action: Conditions for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Possible pathways to enable action by land users: changing the incentivestructure underlying land management and land use decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enabling environment for successful action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial conditions for success: mobilising necessary funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic conditions for success: removing perverse incentives andestablishing the right mix of economic incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical conditions for success: identifying appropriate and‘future-proofed’ technology and securing access to physical resources . . . . . . . . .

Political conditions for success: establishing good governance andenabling policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legal conditions for success: rule of law and property rights allocation . . . . . . . . Cultural conditions for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Social and sociological conditions for success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental conditions for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enabling action through identifying and removing barriers to action . . . . . . . . . . .

Implementing adaptive processes: building in exibility to take lessonslearnt into account and adapt to changing circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assessment and policy cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Innovation pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge and capacity building: supporting exible designs

and evolutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


11/170


7

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 7 Outcomes and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Next Steps for the ELD Initiat ive:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Final Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 1 ELD networks and collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ELD Regional Hubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latin America and the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ELD Regional Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other land initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 2 Institutional and socio-economic land databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 3 Database of ecosystem service value losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 4 Regional population and land cover values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of gures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


12/170

C H A P T E R

01

8

Introduction

Introduction

All human life ultimately depends on landincluding the soil and water found there. Fromland, food is grown, on it protective shelters areraised, and through and across it the fresh waterwe drink is puried and delivered. Land provideshumans with the means to live, and from therst steps tread upon it, has been a patientprovider of vital resources. But at the start ofthe 21st century, our lands are no longer able tokeep up with the pressures placed on its limitedresources. Increasing misuse and demands forits goods are resulting in rapidly intensifyingdesertication and land degradation globally – anissue of growing importance for all people and atall scales. Burgeoning populations with shiftingdemographics and distributions are increasing thedemands on land to produce food, energy, water,

resources, and livelihoods. Environmental shiftsinduced through stressors (e.g., climate change)and dissolution of ecosystem stability are furtherdecreasing the ability of land to respond resilientlyto natural or anthropogenic pressures.

60 per cent of the Earth’s land surface ismanaged, and approximately 60 per cent of thatis agricultural land use 1,2 . Estimates of the extentof land degradation vary, but approximately onethird of the world’s arable land is thought to havebeen affected by degradation and desertication todate 3, indicating that it is widespread, on the rise,and occurring in all land cover types and agro-ecologies4, and especially so in drylands 3,5 . Manydegrading practices can be linked to the ‘tragedy ofthe commons’ 6 in which the demands of individualinterest take precedence over shared, sustainableuse of land resources, leading to its overexploitation i.Land degradation jeopardises ecosystem servicesglobally, including agricultural products, cleanair, fresh water, disturbance regulation, climateregulation, recreational opportunities, and fertile

soils7,8,9,10

. Novel estimates from the ELD Initiativeof the global loss of ecosystem service values (ESV)place the cost between USD 6.3 and 10.6 trillion

Lead author:

Naomi Stewarta

Contributing author:

Richard Thomasb , Mark Schauerc

Author affiliation:a United Nations University –

Institute for Water, Environment, and Health.204-175 Longwood Rd. S., Hamilton, Canada. [email protected]

b International Center forAgricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).Building No. 15, Khalid Abu Dalbouh St. Abdoun,Amman 11195, [email protected]

c Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36 + 40, 53113 Bonn, [email protected]

i It is worthwhile to

note that communa l management can

actually be moresustainable (McAfee &

Miller, 201255 ), such as in the traditional Hima

system of the Arabicworld. In the Hima

system, there are protected areas of

pasture that are sharedamongst individual

pastora lists, but also left to fal low with an

understanding thatthis is benecial for the

greater good, eventhough temporary

setbacks due to lack ofaccess are endured.

The ELD Initiative hasalso supported

research on theeconomic rewards of

the Hima system (see Myint & Westerberg,

2015 18 ).


13/170


9

annually (see Chapter 3a ). These effects of landdegradation and desertication are distributedunevenly throughout human populations 5,11 andoften impact the most vulnerable – the rural poor.This population regularly depends on land for theirsustenance and livelihoods, and the ramicationsof degradation affect them most deeply because ofthis intimate relationship 12 . An ELD Initiative studyon the spatial and economic distribution of therural poor in the context of land degradation foundthat over a third of this marginalised population– up to 1.4 billion people – live in less favouredagricultural land and areas 13 . However, havingaccess to an understanding of the full economicbenets and receiving equitable distribution ofrewards gained by all of society through their landstewardship, and especially when implementingsustainable land management, is key in resolvingmany of the issues this population faces.

In light of these types of considerations, usingobjective metrics like economic values providesa way for different stakeholders to compare thetrade-offs of alternative future options or scenariosand thus deliberate on land issues from an equallyinformed position. Considering land issues fromthe perspective of the economic values that nature

provides involves measuring and valuing all of thebenets of land and land-based ecosystems andthe services they provide, including what losses areincurred when they are degraded. Combining thisinformation with a thorough understanding of theeconomic drivers of land degradation, stakeholderneeds, and sustainable land managementapproaches – practices that ensure renewable,

resilient and rewarding land uses, and which arebecoming increasingly available and accessible –can support better decision-making. And indeed,awareness on the value of nature and the economiclosses of its services that result when it is degradedis reaching public consciousness, with a wave ofarticles and media outlets discussing the valueof ecosystem services (e.g., ‘The staggeringly largebenets of conserving nature’, in The WashingtonPost14).

The economics of land degradation

Land has long been valued solely for the marketprice of crops, or similar commodity-based marketvalues. The services that ecosystems provide arenow understood to include not only those that havemarket values (e.g., charcoal, minerals, crops), butalso those which have non-market values that alsocontribute to our economy and social well-being,albeit in less direct ways (e.g., water ltration,provision of clean air, nutrient cycling). Theseare all collectively known as ecosystem services,and are categorised as provisioning, regulating,supporting, and cultural services (see Box 1.1).Including non-market valuation is critical to inform

decisions on resolving the issues of deserticationand land degradation through economic tools,as many of these values take place outside of thecurrent market values, and thus land valuations.Land degradation is dened by the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertication (UNCCD)as ‘a reduction or loss of the biologic or economicproductivity and complexity of rain-fed cropland,

Ecosystem services and examples(adapted from ELD Scienti c Interim Report, 2013 12 )

B O X 1 . 1

Provisioning Food, freshwater, ber, timber, fuel, fodder, minerals, building materials,genetic resources, medicinal resources

Supporting Primary production, soil formation, nutrient cycling, species habitat,maintenance of genetic diversity

Regulating Climate regulation, moderation of extreme events, pollution puri cation, nutrient cycling,erosion prevention, maintenance of soil fertility, pollination

Cultural Spiritual and aesthetic bene ts, educational opportunities, recreation, tourism, hunting

N.B. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2


14/170

H A P T E R 0 1 Introduction

10

irrigated cropland or range, pasture, forest, andwoodland’15 . Here, as in previous ELD reports (e.g.,

the ELD Initiative Scientic Interim Report, 2013), itis referred to as the reduction in the economic valueof ecosystem services and goods of land, as a result of

human activities or natural biophysical causes .

As desertication and land degradation havenegative impacts on land and land-basedecosystems, much of the economic focus on landdegradation to date has been on the costs resultingfrom these issues (of inaction, as well as action).The estimations of both direct and indirect costs(see Table 1.1) are often imprecise, based mainlyon biophysical information on land degradationand its impacts, singular – instead of multiple –estimates of impact costs, unvalued non-marketcosts, and variation in estimation methods 11 , andthis is an even more pronounced issue in indirectcosts. However, assessments of the economicsof land degradation to date have shown that thecosts of action are lower than the costs of inaction,or ‘business-as-usual’16 , which demonstrates thevalue of taking action towards sustainable landmanagement.

Moreover, it is also necessary to move beyonda focus on the costs of inaction and action.

Stakeholders frequently fail to see the full economicvalue of land inclusive of market and non-market

values, and so increased efforts should be made tocapture the direct and indirect values of land andland-based ecosystems towards a comprehensiveunderstanding of their full value. Drylandecosystems are rich sources of ora and faunabiodiversity – organisms that are already adaptedto harsh environments and will be increasinglyvaluable in mitigating risks, for example, ofunpredictable weather patterns expected to bringood and droughts 17. An emphasis on these typesof long-term economic benets and the benetsof action is needed to encourage awareness andinvestments into sustainable land managementscenarios for the long term benet of humansociety. Performing cost-benet analyses (CBAs)on various potential land management optionswhich include ‘business-as-usual’ scenarios,improved productivity, and alternative livelihoodsscenarios ii,12 , and clearly identifying the economicbenets of sustainable land management providesa path forward. Comprehensive CBAs, in additionto other economic valuations and methods,provide clear economic incentives for land users,

businesses, and policy-/decision-makers to lookbeyond short-term gains and see the fuller pictureof future rewards.

T A B L E 1 . 1

Examples of land degradation impacts and economic opportunities(examples sourced from UNCCD, 2012 15 ; Low, 2013 11 )

Impacts Economic opportunities

Direct Loss of ecosystem services, decreases in biodiversity,soil fertility, nutrient depletion, carbon sequestrationcapacity, animal fodder, wood production, groundwaterrecharge, grazing, hunting opportunities, tourism,lowered agricultural productivity, etc., increases insalinisation, alkalisation, waterlogging, soil erosion, soilcompaction, etc.

Consistent and/or increased supplyof goods, stabilised markets, novelmarkets (i.e., carbon storage),increased access to a stabilisedlabour force, increased cropproduction and productivity, etc.

Indirect(including

o -site)

Increases in dust storms, changes in stream ow andreliability of irrigation water ow, lowered drinking

water quality, siltation of water systems (rivers, dams,lakes, reefs), rural poverty, food insecurity andmalnutrition, respiratory diseases (from dust storms),food/water-borne diseases (from lowered water qualityand poor hygiene), infectious diseases (from populationmigration), con ict over natural resources, forcedmigrations, public unrest, contributions to/decreasedresilience against climate change, etc.

Investments into prevention,mitigation, and adaptation (e.g.,

new conservation or irrigationtechnologies), etc.

ii When creating potentia l scenar ios to

value throughcost-benet analyses, it is important to identi fy

scenarios that are likely to be

implemented based onthe contextual

framework, as wel l itsability to be reexively

maintained andadapted going forward.

This is discussed fur ther in Chapter 2

and 5.


15/170


11

Sustainable land management

Sustainable land management practices are thosethat serve to maintain ecological resilience iii andthe stability of ecosystem services indenitely,while providing sustenance and diverselivelihoods for humans. It does not refer to a singlemethod or practice, but is rather a portfolio ofpossible technologies, practices, and approachesto land management that are implementableat the local scale. It further involves all relevantand affected stakeholders and their needs in aparticipatory manner, and is supported by thebroader cultural, economic, environmental, legal,political, technical, and social framework andenvironment. It needs to be adaptive and work withiterative feedback, as the context for sustainableland management is constantly shifting withchanging environments, populations, anddemands. The ELD Initiative has supported anumber of case studies that have explored avariety of sustainable land management scenariosin the context of cost-benet analyses (see www.eld-initiative.org for publications), tailored with afocus on specic geographic regions ( Table 1.2). Forexample, one study analysed the benets of large-scale rangeland restoration using the traditional

communal management approach of the Himasystem in Jordan18 , while another performed costbenet analyses for intercropping Acacia senegal ,a high quality gum arabic producing tree, withsorghum, a primary staple crop in Sudan 19 . Both ofthese, and other ELD Initiative case studies fur therdemonstrate how considerations for implementingsustainable land management and scenariosbased on them must also take place in an enablingenvironment, discussed next.

Enabling environments and otherconsiderations

As the ELD case studies and others demonstrate, itis critical to create and understand the enablingframeworks and environments that rewardsustainable land management practices. Further,these practices must be practical to implement bylocal stakeholders and be capable of being scaledup to national and even regional or global scales.Without a full enabling environment, efforts

to implement sustainable land managementpractices may not be successful, even with soundeconomic evidence. For example, governments

may introduce policies that turn out to beunsuccessful though the information existed toselect a successful choice, or even unwittingly leadto degrading land practices (e.g., implementingschemes that have positive local impact, butnegative national impact, or subsiding fertiliseruse without considering the full economic orenvironmental effects of low-cost fertiliser) 11 .Instead of relying on corrective actions that failto consider the broader framework, governmentscould promote approaches like the “payment forecosystem services” (PES) schemes, which rewardconservation efforts through mechanisms thatcompensate land users nancially (see Case study6.2 in Chapter 6 ; Pagiola, 200820 ; Pereira, 201021).As another example, certain laws may favour thepassing of land titles through men or even openlydeny them to women. This discourages womenfrom investing time into sustainable practices forland that they do not have rights to and may even beevicted from. These types of laws can be revisitedwith economic evidence which shows that thereare increased rates of return when women haveland rights iv,22 , and changed to reect the morerewarding nature of revised legal frameworks. Anexample of a novel and enabling legal environmentcreated and driven by indigenous traditions,

capacity, and cultural considerations can beseen in Case study 1.1. As these examples show, anenabling environment must be created in orderto fully and successfully implement sustainableland management practices, and have to considerthe full context of the particular scale, area, andenvironment.

A thorough understanding of the total economicvalue (TEV) of land, complemented with anunderstanding of the drivers of land degradationand the enabling environment required, caninform the development of policies and incentivesto identify and support positive, rewardingscenarios. Economic incentives and mechanismsreward land users for potential losses incurredin switching to sustainable management, andshould operate in an environment that includesconsideration for the nances. When enablingconditions are absent, sound economic argumentscan be used to build support for the removal of othercultural, environmental, legal, political, social, andtechnical barriers, to create economically viable

opportunities for sustainable land management.

iii Ecological resilience is dened as thecapacity of anecosystem to respondto disturbances by

resist ing and recovering fromdamage

iv It is also importantto keep in mind, thatsince sustainable land

managementapproaches tend to

have a higher rate ofadaptation when theyare innovated at the

local level, that scalingup and out must be

focused on the

“method” as opposedto the actualtechnology itself 5.

http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/


16/170


12

Creating an enabling legal environment for land rights: The Tsilhqot’in Nation inBritish Columbia

(adapted from Kopecky, 201527

)

C A S E S T U D Y 1 . 1

The Tsilhqot’in are a First Nations tribe based inBritish Columbia, on the western coast of Canada.The land is known for harsh winters and lowecological carrying capacit y, which has led to the

acquisition of large swathesof land by the Tsilhqot’inthroughout their history,and whom are sustained bya combination of huntingand shing, as well as cattleranching.

After the colonisation ofCanada, there was a variedprocess of treaties signed

between indigenous tribes and the Canadiangovernment. Following a series of laws that largelyprevented indigenous people from making landclaims from 1927 to 1951, in 1982 the Canadiangovernment enshrined “aboriginal and treatyrights” within the Constitution. In most situations,this meant that traditional territory was dividedup, with the largest portions going to the

government, and smaller parcels of land going tothe First Nations people, wit h the exception thatthey could use some of the ceded lands fortraditional purposes (hunting , shing, etc.). Accessto ceded lands has and is increasingly becomingthreatened by industrial expansion, especially inthe resource rich region of British Columbia, andmany First Nations people also argue that theyhave been given less than 3 to 5 per cent of whatthey claim as traditional territor y.

Despite these enshrined rights, in 1992, forestcompanies began making moves to set up loggingoperations in the traditional territory of theTsilhqot’in people in Brit ish Columbia, In response,the Tsilhqot’in set up blockades at forest accessbridges, resulting in a two month stand-o untilthe government openly supported the Tsilhqot’in’sthree year old Nemiah Declaration which forbadecommercial logging, mining, road building, andconstruction in the region.

Following this, the Tsilhqot’in commissioned asustainable-forestry plan to identify a feasibleapproach to sustainable land management intheir territory. In their scenarios, they identi edan upper sustainable limit of 30,00 0 cubic metresof timber harvesting annually. However, BritishColumbia responded with a plan to remove 1.8million cubic metres over the next ve years.Negotiations ensued for a while before 1.1 millioncubic metres was settled on. When put to a votebefore the Tsilhqot’in people, they resoundinglyturned it down, however, the Minister of Forestrybegan issuing logging permits for the regionanyway, despite their opposition.

The Tsilhqot’in were not satis ed with thisapproach, nor the loss of environmental oreconomic bene ts associated with it. As Tsilhqot’inChief Roger William was quoted, “Our vision, is we,as Tsilhqot’in people, want to make decision in allthe Tsilhqot’in territory. We want to get revenuesfrom all the Tsilhqot’in territor y.” Thus, rather thanargue under the modern treaty process, they

chose to go through the court s ystem and createa novel enabling legal environment . It took ten yearsfor the case to go to court, and another twelveyears before it would be resolved.

After nearly t hree decades, on June 26, 2014, theSupreme Court ruled that the Tsilhqot’in Nationheld the title for almost 2,0 00 square kilometres– just over 40 per cent – of their traditionalterritory, (as opposed to the 3 to 5 per cent theywould have gotten through treaty negotiations).This set legal precedence for what “Aboriginaltitle” meant, and also created an enabling legalenvironment for land rights that re ected thetraditions and history of indigenous people andtheir relationship to the land. T his paves the wayfor other indigenous tribes to argue for landrights, and in doing so, to sustainably manage theland and reap the economic and environmentalbene ts in traditional manners. As Chief Williamsaid, “You have to look forward for your newgeneration and bring your history with you”.

You have to look forwardfor your new generationand bring your history

with you. Chief William


17/170


18/170


14

document 31 specically noted that the economicdata on desertication and land degradation waslacking, possibly resulting in limited developmentinvestments and decision-making at all levels.This was fur ther recognised and formalised by theUNCCD Conference of Parties (COP) 12 agreementin 2013v.

The ELD Initiative and its partners have beenworking to close this gap between economicunderstanding and applications, and sustainableland management. It uses the common languageof economics to emphasise the total economicvalue of all land and land-based ecosystems, andto highlight the economic benets of sustainableland management. The Initiative’s goal is to ndan integrated economic approach that considersthe multitude of variables and impacts thatland management decisions can have on theterrestrial environment and its people, particularly

for policy-/decision-makers. This approach isglobal and aims to make the economics of landdegradation an integral part of policy strategiesand decision-making by increasing the politicaland public awareness of the costs and benets ofland and land-based ecosystems. The ELD Initiativeapproach and methodology enables the economicassessment of current and future scenarios andland-use practices, allowing decision-makers,practitioners, and investors to see the trade-offsassociated with such, and highlighting the benetsof sustainable land management with sound dataand evidence.

As part of these efforts, the Initiative has a numberof products to support this, including the provision,warehousing, and dissemination of knowledgeon the topic through a variety of reports, briefs,and academic publications. As mentioned, theInitiative has also conducted a number of regionaland global case studies (see Table 1.2), and hasprovided scientic knowledge, management, andnetworks to other researchers and institutionsglobally. Further, the Initiative has supported theefforts of three working groups in the areas of Dataand Methodology, Economic Valuations and Scenarios,and Options and Pathways to Action in producing

robust scientic outputs, and supporting capacitybuilding where it has been identied as a priority.ELD stakeholder consultations have also takenplace in many countries (see Chapter 5 ). To fullyunderstand what is needed on-the-ground toperform thorough CBAs – or other methodologieswhere this approach is not feasible vi – furtherconsultations are planned in other regions tohelp create sustainable policies, encouragesustainable investments, and put sustainableland management practices into place. The ELDInitiative also provides free, accessible e-learningcourses, face-to-face training, and workshops onthese approaches, and endeavours to maintain anaccessible knowledge base for all, and which canbe accessed online at www.eld-initiative.org .

Knowledge Management Strategies

The ELD Initiative is a large global network ofscientists, academics, business leaders, politicians,decision-makers and other relevant stakeholders,

with expertise ranging from ecosystem servicesto economics, stakeholder participation,communications, and many related topics.

v See www. eld- initiative.org/ index. php?id=25 for more

informat ion

vi See section on‘Limitations of the

economic assessmentapproach’ in Chapter 2



19/170


15

T A B L E 1 . 2

An overview of past ELD Initiative case studies

Title Focus Region

Land degradation, less favored lands andthe rural poor: A spatial and economicanalysis (2014)

Determining the spatial distribution ofglobal rural populations on less favouredagricultural land and in less favouredagricultural areas from 2000–2010, and thespatial distribution of global ruralpopulations on degrading and improvingagricultural land from 2000–2010, and toanalyse how these spatial distributionsa ect poverty in developing countries

Global

Assessing the socio-economic andenvironmental dimensions of landdegradation: A case study in Botswana’sKalahari (2014)

Applying a multi-criteria decision analysis(MCDA) approach used to identify keyecosystem service trade-o s associatedwith four di erent land uses in Botswana’sKalahari rangelands (note that an MCDAtook place in lieu of an intended cost-bene-

t analyses due to temporal constraints)

Botswana

Soil degradation and sustainable landmanagement in the rainfed agriculturalareas of Ethiopia: An assessment of theeconomic implicat ions (2015)

Performing a spatially explicit economicscenario-based assessment of the extentof land degradation (soil erosion by water)and the costs and bene ts of sustainableland management measures in areas of theEthiopian highlands with rainfed cultivation

Ethiopia

An economic valuation of sustainable landmanagement through agroforestry ineastern Sudan (2015)

A scenario based analysis of the economicsof agroforestry in Gedaref state, based onthe integration of Acacia senegal – a highproducing gum arabic tree- with sorghum,a primary staple crop.

Eastern Sudan

An economic valuation of agroforestry andland restoration in the Kelka forest, Mali(2015)

Performing an ex-ante cost bene t analysisof large-scale agroforestry and reforesta-tion in the Kelka forest to inform decision-makers about the value and importance ofchanging current land use practices in thisdegrading area

Mali

An economic valuation of a large-scalerangeland restoration project through theHima system in Jordan (2015)

Performing an ex-ante cost-bene t analysisof large-scale rangeland restorationthrough the Hima system (a traditionalArabic pastoralist rangeland managementregimes based on communal sharing)within the Zarqa River Basin in Jordan

Jordan

The economics of land degradation:Bene ts of action outweigh the costs ofaction in Africa (In print, 2015)

A regional study estimating the bene ts ofaction and costs of inaction based on cropproductivity and top soil loss across 42countries in Africa

Africa

All case studies are available at: www.eld-initiative.org


20/170


16

Land degradation neutrality at aglance

(from UNCCD, 2015 (Box 1)3 )

B O X 1 . 2

Land degradation neutrality (LDN) was bornout of the United Nations Conference onSustainable Development (Rio+20) and isbased on the critical idea that the cost of actionis signi cantly lower than the cos t of inaction.At the heart of the land degradation neutralit ytargets are sustainable land managementpractices that help to close yield gaps andenhance the resilience of land resources andcommunities that directly depend on themwhile avoiding further degradation.

It can be understood as a state where theamount and quality of land resources, neces-sary to support ecosystem func tions and ser-vices and enhance food security, remains sta-ble or increases. This can happen within dif-ferent scales and ecosystems. It can occurnaturally or due to better land management.It is really the combination of avoiding orreducing the rate of land degradation andincreasing the rate of recovery.

Capturing and making this intellectual capitalaccessible is one goal of the ELD Initiative, and willcontribute to the achievement of land degradationneutrality globally (see Box 1.2), as demanded in thenew SDGs, particularly Goal 15. Hence, knowledgemanagement by the ELD Initiative has and willcontinue to involve:

❚ Knowledge compilation: the creation of aseries of publicly available and disseminatedreports targeting the scientic community,private sector, and policy-/decision-makers, aswell as case studies, summaries, user guides,and practitioner guides to enable accessto the methods, assessments, and researchundertaken by the ELD expert network;

❚ Knowledge warehousing: a fully accessibleplatform that provides all ELD reports, casestudies, infographics, and briefs, all other ELD-related publications, an interactive case studydatabase and map, access to a compendium ofrelated resources, and general information onthe economics of land degradation;

❚ Capacity building: disseminating knowledgeat the user level through a series of free

e-learning courses addressing different themes,with publicly available online video seminarsand in situ training of decision-makers on ELDapproaches;

❚ Network development: liaising openly andencouragingly with all stakeholders andinterested parties, providing support andexpertise for those interested in undertakingcost-benet analyses for sustainable landmanagement at any level or in any location,including the preparation of collaborativeresearch for development proposals betweeninstitutions working on the economics of landdegradation or the economics of sustainableland management; and,

❚ Institutional development: regional hubs thatcollate and support knowledge managementand research in a localised context to betterserve stakeholders at a different scale. Thesehubs are intended to serve as interlinkednodes in the ELD web, and allow for regional

knowledge and resources that may bemore useful than small-scale or large-scaleinformation.

It is essential to maintain a synergistic approachto knowledge management in an area that isparadoxically both as specic and broad as theeconomics of land degradation, which includesbiophysical, cultural, economic, legal, social, andtechnical factors as necessary considerations forsuccessful action. While not all factors can beincluded in every assessment due to limitationsin time, capacity, capital, etc., developing a robustapproach necessarily includes access to a platformof expert knowledge. A prime example of this isthe World Overview of Conservation Technologiesand Approaches (WOCAT) database, which hostsinformation on sustainable land managementtechnology, mapping, and approaches ( www.wocat.net/en/knowledge-base.html ). The ELDInitiative has also developed and maintains aRefWorks database, which contains relevantcase studies and academic publications ( www.

refworks.com )vii. Appendix 1 has more informationabout broader ELD collaborations, networks, andcomplementary initiatives, and Appendix 2 has a

listing of organisations and databases that relateto land management institutionally and socio-economically.

vii Group code:

RWMcMasterU, Login:unu-inweh, Password: inweh


21/170


17

Linking to global agendas

The ELD Initiative also maintains a balancedperspective on parallel global concerns about thetrajectory of anthropogenically induced trendsand impact on land, which can be interlinkedwith endeavours to increase efficiency andoutputs. Large-scale efforts that the ELD Initiativespecically endeavours to synergistically matchits outputs with include the SDGs and the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).

ELD and Sustainable Development Goals

The SDGs are a set of intergovernmental globalgoals that aim to focus progress and action towardsthe world’s most pressing concerns, and build onthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). TheSDGs are expected to be nalised at the UnitedNations General Assembly (UNGA) in September2015.The Future We Want was the guiding outcomedocument from the Rio 20+ Convention held inBrazil in 2012, intended to create an “inclusiveand transparent intergovernmental process onSDGs that is open to all stakeholders with a view

to developing global sustainable developmentgoals to be agreed by the UNGA.”32 It identies theneed to ‘promote an economically, socially, andenvironmentally sustainable future for our planetand for present and future generations’, inclusive ofmainstreaming and identifying the interlinkagesof sustainable development at all levels, withstakeholders considered equal in driving thisgrowth 33 . Based on this vision, there are 17 SDGsproposed at the time of the writing of this report.

The SDGs include seminal targets for addressingpoverty, hunger, equality (gender, income,opportunities, education, etc.), climate change,sustainable resource use, etc. Through its ongoingefforts to secure sustainable land management andland degradation neutral world, the ELD Initiativesupports, amongst others, to Goal 15: Protect, restore,and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,sustainably manage forests, combat desertication,and halt and reverse land degradation and haltbiodiversity loss.

Many other organisations support the raticationof Goal 15, including the UNCCD, which has alsocalled for the goal of achieving land degradation

neutrality by 2030 as critical in reaching otherinternational commitments to climate changeadaptation and mitigation, conservation ofbiodiversity and forests, alleviating rural povertyand hunger, ensuring long-term food security, andbuilding resilience to drought and water stress 34 .Aiming to sustainably use these critical naturalresources also includes the need to protect thekey ecosystem services that land and land-basedecosystems provide, including the production offood, feed, bre, and fuel, carbon sequestration,nutrient cycling, water regulation, etc.

As the Executive Secretary of the UNCCD, MoniqueBarbut, recently noted, “ … The proposed SDGsare ambitious – as they should be. They have theseeds to turn us into better [land] users than anyother generation before us. But only if we are boldenough to adopt sustainable land use practices, toaccord land rights, and to restore degraded land tomeet future growth.” 35

Other entities have rallied around different landissues in regards to the SDGs, further bolsteringand demonstrating the need and demand for globalaction on land degradation and restoration. Forexample, 16 organisations worked collaboratively

to prepare a technical brieng on securing landrights in the post-2015 agenda for SDGs36 , a moveendorsed also by the World Resources Institute 37 .The ELD Initiative supports these parallel efforts ascomplementary and necessary to its own work insecuring sustainable land management througheconomic tools and approaches.

It is clear that connections to and dependenceupon land as well as soils are present throughoutnumerous SDGs, and addressing many of thesegoals will thus require commitments to thesustainable use of land and land-based ecosystems.The Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies(IASS) has identied at least nine other SDGs thatwill require the support of land and soil in order toreach their targets (see Figure 1.1).

Taking into consideration the increasing andoften competing demand for natural resources,it is imperative that the global community movesbeyond silos of efforts and into an integratedsystems approach when addressing the numerous,

overlapping issues found within the SDGs38,39

.Thus, the harmonised activities of the ELD Initiativealso support the other SDGs that have impacts


22/170


18

and dependence on land and soil resources, byproviding resource hubs, scientic knowledge,and economic approaches to sustainable landmanagement through cost benet analyses andother applicable economic tools, and scalableframeworks to action. The multi-stakeholder,capacity-building, localised approach of the

ELD Initiative is mirrored in the calls for holisticframeworks around the SDGs, and again, actionsby all players should be coordinated to ensuresynergistic, efficient, resilient, and sustainableuse and allocation of our limited resources andcapacity to meet these bold yet necessary globaltargets.

F I G U R E 1 . 1

Roles and interlinkages of soils and land in the Sustainable Development Goals(IASS (2015)38 )


23/170


19

ELD and Climate Change

Climate change is one of the most pressing globalissues, and is intrinsically coupled with landdegradation. Changes in climatic conditions atlocal and global levels drive land degradation.For example, increases in drought frequency andintensity causing vegetation and soil loss, extremeweather events (e.g., ash ooding) exacerbatingerosion, and the increasing unpredictability ofweather patterns contributes to the use of short-term, degrading practices, rather than investmentsinto long-term sustainable management. Otherconsequences of global warming, including shortergrowing seasons leading to decreased agriculturaland livestock production, decreased wateravailability, increased energy demands, rising sealevels, etc., wil l all place further pressure on landto continue providing services, despite decreasingcapacities to do so. Effects from climate change onland cause an annual loss of 12 million hectares,whereas 20 million tons of grain could have beengrown instead 40 . These concerns will becomemore relevant in consideration of the need to feeda global population of 9–10 billion by 205041 .

At the same time, with decreasing vegetation

cover and increased soil erosion, land loses theability to store carbon in biomass and soils, thuscontributing to climate change. After fossil fuelcombustion, agriculture and land use changesrepresent the second largest share of greenhousegas emissions 42 , and along with forestry, is thoughtto be responsible for 17–31 per cent of anthropogenicemissions43 . Despite soil being the second largestsource of carbon next to the oceans, the historicalloss of carbon from agricultural soils globally is 55gigatons 44 .

To date, assessments of greenhouse gas mitigationpotential in the context of soils, agriculture,forestry, and other land uses, have not adequatelyincluded the impact on other services thatland provides, or the complex nature of globalissues related to land use 45 . For example, whileestimates of the potential of soils to sequestercarbon abound, there remains controversy overits realisable potential to mitigate climate changevia interventions such as no-tillage and otherconservation agricultural practices 46,47,48,49 .

Perhaps of equal importance are the multiplefunctions of soil organic carbon, including waterretention and soil biological activity, which

contribute to soil fertility but are rarely costed.These estimates need to be included in anyattempt at total economic value of interventionsand remain key areas in need of further research 50 .Further, the referential Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) reports have not yetexplored all types of land collectively in their rolein emissions mitigation 41 .

However, sustainable land management presentsa signicant opportunity to reduce greenhousegas emissions from land use through reducingdeforestation and land degradation, somethingwhich has been adequately discussed throughthe UN programme REDD+ (Reducing Emissionsfrom Deforestation and Forest Degradation,www.un-redd.org , see Box 6.2). Sustainable landmanagement can create net carbon sequestrationin soil and vegetation, and provide renewable,low carbon energy – a salient point for nations toconsider in the development of their mitigationportfolios and national action plans 52 . For example,an ELD Initiative study performed in Sudan byIUCN showed that with agroforestry scenarios,there is potential for an additional 10 tonnes ofabove and below ground C0 2-eq. sequestration/ha/yr, with an avoided damage cost to the global

society is up to EUR 766/ha19

. Further, croplandsglobally can bear a carbon sequestration potentialof 0.43 to 0.57 gigatons/yr52 , and enhancing carbonstocks through agricultural soils alone can createpotential value on the carbon market from USD96–480 billion annually viii. Adequate managementof agricultural and forestry land uses are amongstthe lowest-cost actions that can reduce globalwarming, and most actions are either neutralcost or of positive net prot to society, requiringno substantial capital investment 53 . Sustainableland management planning (e.g., forest landscaperestoration) can easily include both mitigationand adaption when they are being developed 54 . Ascarbon sequestration in soil and plants is likely toreach a plateau over a relatively short time, it canbe considered more of a ‘stop-gap’ to allow timefor new low carbon technologies to be developedand put into widespread use. Therefore, longterm economic sustainability and viability mustconsider carbon sequestration along with otherincome generating possibilities such as PES.

As land use is a critical aspect of any climatechange solution, efforts to address either climatechange or land degradation should necessarily

viii Smith et al. 2013 41 reported that the“technical mitigation

potentia l for carbonsequestration inagricultural soils wasestimated at 4.8 GtC0 2-eq./yr for 2030,with economic

potentia ls of 1.5 , 2.2and 2.6 Gt C0 2 eq./yr at

carbon prices of 0–20,0–50, and 0–100 USD tC0 2-eq. respectively.”


24/170


20

include co-delivery of complementary objectivesto maximise ongoing efforts in both areas. Thiswill be crucial in countries and communities thatlack adaptive capacity, as the effects amplify otherissues (poverty, food, water, and energy security,resource conict, etc.).

The objectives of the UNCCD parallel those of theUNFCCC on the broader issue of climate change,which has discernible and exacerbating effectson degradation. Article 4, Paragraph 2(a) of theUNCCD, and Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the UNFCCCsupport mutual action in dryland areas, and Article8, Paragraph 1 of the UNCCD additionally seeks toaddress land degradation and desertication inclimate change negotiation and implementationprocesses 34 . Linking these two issues moreexplicitly through both UN conventions andthe associated efforts of partner institutions,initiatives, and parties, allows for a mutual sharingof resources and momentum while acknowledgingthe multifaceted approach needed from the globalcommunity in order to confront these interlinkedand pressing issues.

Addressing these two phenomena and theirfeedback loops thus requires an approach that

considers multiple objectives in setting policiesand making decisions around land and climatechange. With the support and encouragementof the UNCCD, and in parallel with the efforts ofthe UNFCCC, the ELD Initiative recognises theinterlinked impacts of climate change on landdegradation and desertication, and actively seeksto include its economic outlook in this perspective.

The value of land: An overview

Overall the ELD Initiative provides a holisticperspective on solutions to sustainable landmanagement through economically viable andoptimal scenarios. In doing so, it is drawing fromother disciplinary perspectives and practitioners’knowledge to ensure successful adoption, whilecreating and maintaining a nexus of knowledgeavailable to anyone. This report, as well as theparallel ELD Initiative reports to the private sectorand policy-/decision-makers (also being released inlate 2015), serves as a foundation for a collective

path forward to increase investments in improvedland management and land degradation neutrality,through economic insights and realities, grounded

in a comprehensive compendium of knowledge onthe topic.

Based on this broader understanding of movementstoward corrective actions on a variety of land issues,this report forms the core of the ELD Initiative’sknowledge outputs as it pertains to the economicsof land degradation and sustainable landmanagement. This report is structured to providean overview of the economics of land degradationand the benets of sustainable land management.It describes the setup of the ELD Initiative and itscollaborations, networks, and partners, and the roleof ELD in international efforts on climate changeand the upcoming SDGs, before zooming the lensfrom the global scale through the regional to thenational and local level, and nally connectingthe dots to the wider context of collaborations andmutual progress. Chapter 2 provides a technicaloverview of the ELD economic tools, approachand methodology, and the economic benetsof sustainable land management. Chapter 3 addresses the broader global picture through anunderstanding of the ecosystem services that landprovides, with novel global and national scenariosdemonstrating the value of land and land-basedecosystems. Chapter 4 scales the focus down, and

looks at regional and national contexts for theeconomics of land degradation. Chapter 5 focusesthe lens further, and looks at national and locallevels, inclusive of the outcomes and identiedneeds and priorities from ELD Initiative stakeholderconsultations held in different countries across theworld. Chapter 6 identies conditions for success, toprovide a context to ensure that sustainable landmanagement processes are actually put into place.Finally, Chapter 7 concludes with a summary of andrecommendations from the ELD Initiative ndingsand steps forward to a land degradation neutralworld, with economics as an empowering tool forsustainable land management.


25/170


21

References

1 Ellis, E.C., Goldewijk, K.K., Siebert, S., Lightman,D., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Anthropogenictransformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global

Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5) : 589–606.2 Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy,

E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D.,O'Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C.,Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda,

C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert,S., Tilman, D., & Zaks, D.P.M. (2011). Solutions for acultivated planet. Nature, 478 : 337–342.

3 U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n t o C o m b a tDesertication (UNCCD). (2015). Re ap in g the

rewards: Financing land degradation neutrality . Bonn,Germany: UNCCD.

4 Le, Q.B., Nkonya, E., & Mirzabaev, A. (2014). Biomass productivity-based mapping of global land degradation hotspots. ZEF-Discussion papers on development policy No. 193. Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn.

5 Global Environment Faci l i t y (GEF). (2005) . Scientic and technical advisory panel to the Global En vir on me nt Fa ci li t y: La nd ma na ge me nt and its ben et s – the cha lle nge , and the rationa l forsustainable management of drylands. Retrieved on[2015, 10/07] from [www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/les/documents/C.27.Inf_.11.Rev_.1%20STAP.pdf].

6 Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243–1248.

7 Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N.,Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg, J.,Peterson, G.D., & Pritchard, R. (2002). Resiliencemanagement in social-ecological systems: aworking hypothesis for a participatory approach.Conservation Ecology, 6 : 14.

8 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecos ys te ms an d Huma n Well -B ei ng: Sy nt hesi s.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

9 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).(2012). Inc lusive Wea lth Repor t 2012 . Mea suri ng

progress toward sus tai nabil ity. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

10 Von Braun, J., Gerber, N., Mirzabaev, A., & Nkonya,E. (2013).The economics of land degradation. ZEFWorking Paper Series, Working paper 109. Bonn,Germany: University of Bonn.

11 Low, P.S. (Ed). (2013). Economic and social impactsof desertication, land degradation and drought.White Paper I. UNCCD 2nd Scientic Conference.Retrieved on [2015, 07/07] from [http://2sc.unccd.int ].

12 ELD Initiative. (2013).The rewards of investing insustainable land management. Scientic Interim

Re po rt fo r the Ec on om ic s of La nd De gr ad at ion Init iat ive : A glo ba l st rat egy for sustainable land management. Available at: www.eld-initiative.org .

13 Barbier, E., & Hochard, J.P. (2014). Land degradation, less favored lands and the rural poor: A spatial andeconomic analysis.” A report for the Economics of

Land Degradation Initiative. Available at: www.eld- initiative.org .

14 Mooney, C. (2015). The staggeringly large benets

of conserving nature. The Washington Post, July13, 2015. Retrieved on [2015, 15/07] from [www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-nally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/ ].

15 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertication(UNCCD). (2012). Ze ro net land de gr ada t ion .

A sustainable development goal for Rio+20. UNCCDSecretariat Policy Brief. Bonn, Germany: UNCCD.

16 Nkonya, E., Gerber, N., Baumgartner, P., von Braun,J., De Pinto, A., Graw, V., Kato, E., Kloos, J., & Walter,T. (2011).The economics of land degradation: Towardsan integrated global assessment. Frankfurt, Germany:Peter Lang.

17 Thomas, R., Stewart, N., & Schaaf, T., Drylands: Sus tai ning liveli hoo ds and conser ving ecosyste mservices. A policy brief based on the Sustainable

Management of Mar gina l Dr yla nds (SU MA MAD) proj ect . Hamilton, Canada: United NationsUniversity.

18 Myint, M.M., & Westerberg, V. (2015). An economicvaluation of a large-scale rangeland restoration projectthrough the Hima system in Jordan. Report for the

ELD Initiative by International Union for Conservationof Nature, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: www.eld- initiative.org .

http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.27.Inf_.11.Rev_.1%2520STAP.pdfhttp://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.27.Inf_.11.Rev_.1%2520STAP.pdfhttp://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/13/were-finally-starting-to-realize-what-nature-is-really-worth/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.27.Inf_.11.Rev_.1%2520STAP.pdfhttp://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.27.Inf_.11.Rev_.1%2520STAP.pdf


26/170

E F E R E N C E S

22

19 Aymeric, R., Myint. M.M., & Westerberg, V. (2015). Aneconomic valuation of sustainable land managementthrough agroforestry in eastern Sudan. Report forthe Economics of Land Degradation Initiative bythe International Union for Conservation of Nature,

Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: www.eld-initiative.org .20 Pagiola, S. (2008). Payments for ecosystem services

in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 65(4) : 712–724.21 Pereira, S. (2010). Payment for environmental

se rv ices in the Amazon Fores t : How canconservation and development be reconciled?The Journal of Environment and Development, 19(2) :171–190.

22 International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD). (2015). Land tenur e securi ty and pover ty

reduction. Rome, Italy: IFAD.23 Malik, S.J., & Nazli, H. (1998). Rural poverty and

land degradation: A review of the current state ofknowledge. The Pakistan Development Review, 37(4) :1053–1070.

24 United State Agency for International Development(USAID). (2015). Securing land tenure and resourcerights. Retrieved on [2015, 10/07] from [www.usaid.gov/land-tenure ].

25 Ferweda, W.H. (2015, in print), Four Returns, ThreeZones, 20 years: A systemic and practical approachto scale up landscape restoration by business and

investors to create a restoration industry. In Chabay,I., Frick, M., & Helgeson, J., (Eds.). Land Restoration: Rec laiming Lands cap es for a Sus tainable Fut ure. Elsevier.

26 Juepner, A., & Noel, S. (2014). Support towards the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative. Reporton the ELD Kenya Consultations. Available at: www.eld-initiative.org .

27 Kopecky, A. (2015). Title Fight. The Walrus. Retrievedon [2015, 12/07] from [http://thewalrus.ca/title-ght ].

28 Dregne, H.E. (1977).Generalized map of the status ofdesertication of arid lands. Report presented in the1977 United Nations Conference on Desertication. Rome, Italy: FAO, UNESCO, & WMO.

29 Eswaran, H., Lal, R., & Reich, P. (2001). Landdegradation: An overview. In Bridges, E., Hannam,I., Oldeman, L., Penning de Vries, F., Scherr, S., &Sompatpanit , S., (Eds.). Responses to land degradation.

Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on land degradat ion and desert ication in Khon Kaen,Thailand. New Delhi, India: Oxford Press.

30 Williams, T. (1998). Multiple uses of common poolresources in semi-arid West Africa: A survey ofexisting practices and options for sustainabler e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t . N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e

Perspectives, 38 : 1–8.31 Global Risk Forum (GRF) Davos. (2013).The economics

of desertication, land degradation and drought: Methodologies and analysi s for decisi on-mak ing . Background paper prepared for the UNCCD. Bonn,Germany: UNCCD.

32 United Nations Department of Economics andSocial Affairs (UN DESA). (2015). Sustainabledevelopment goals. Retrieved on [2015, 05/05] from[https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/ sustainabledevelopmentgoals ].

33 United Nations (UN). (2012).The Future We Want.

Retrieved on [2015, 10/07] from [www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf].

34 U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n t o C o m b a tDesertication (UNCCD). (2012). Thematic areas:Climate Change. Retrieved on [2015, 07/05] from[www.unccd. int /en/programmes/Themat ic-Priorities/CC/Pages/default.aspx].

35 Barbut, M. (2014). Ambitious SDGs are empty withoutbold action on land. DevEx. December 8, 2014.Retrieved on [2015, 14/05] from [www.devex.com/

news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004 ].36 International Land Coalition (ILC). (2015). Secure

and equitable land rights in the post-2015 agenda. Akey issue in the future we want. Retrieved on [2015,11/05] from [www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-want ].

37 Veit, P., & Hazelwood, P. (2014) Why communityland rights belong in the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals. Retrieved on [2015, 14/05] from [www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goals ].

38 Institute for the Advancement of SustainabilityStudies (IASS). (2015).Grounding the post-2015development agenda: Options for the protection ofour precious soil and land resources. Policy Briefpresented at Global Soil Week, Berlin, 2015.Potsdam, Germany: IASS.

39 Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). (2015).CGIAR Strategy and results

framework 2016–2030. Retrieved on [2015, 15/06]from [https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/

1 0 9 4 7 / 3 8 6 5 / C G I A R % 2 0 S t r a t e g y % 2 0 a n d % 2 0Results%20Framework.pdf].

http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.usaid.gov/land-tenurehttp://www.usaid.gov/land-tenurehttp://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Thematic-Priorities/CC/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Thematic-Priorities/CC/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/why-community-land-rights-belong-sustainable-development-goalshttp://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.oxfam.org/en/research/secure-and-equitable-land-rights-post-2015-agenda-key-issue-future-we-wanthttp://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.devex.com/news/ambitious-sdgs-are-empty-without-bold-action-on-land-84004http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Thematic-Priorities/CC/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Thematic-Priorities/CC/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%2520Future%2520We%2520Want%252019%2520June%25201230pm.pdfhttp://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.eld-initiative.org/http://www.usaid.gov/land-tenurehttp://www.usaid.gov/land-tenurehttp://www.eld-initiative.org/


27/170


23

40 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2006).World agriculture: Towards 2030/2050, Interim Report:

Prospect s for food, nutrition, agriculture, and majorcommodity groups. Rome, Italy: FAO.

41 Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K-H., Lauk,C., Harper, R., Tubiello, F.N., Pinto, A.D.S., Jafari,M., Sohi, S., Masera, O., Böttcher H., Berndes, G.,Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H.,Elsiddig, E.A., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice,C.W., Abad, C .R., Romanovskaya, A ., Sperling, F.,Herrero, M., House, J.I., & Rose, S. (2013). How muchland-based greenhouse gas mitigation can beachieved without compromising food security andenvironmental goals? Global Change Biology, 19(8) :2285–2302.

42 Ackerman, F., & Stanton, E. (2011).Climate economics:The state of the art. Somerville, Massachusetts, USA:Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S. Center.

43 Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., & Smith, P.(2008).Cool farming: Climate impacts of agricultureand mitigation potential. Amsterdam, Netherlands:Greenpeace International.

44 Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L., & Schapeman, M.E.(2008). Proxy global assessment of land degradation.

Soil use and management, 24(3) : 223–234.45 Wirsenius, S., Azar, C., & Berndes, G. (2010). How

much land is needed for global food production

under scenarios of dietary changes and livestockproductivity increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems,103(9): 621–638.

46 Neufeldt, H., Kissinger, G., & Alcamo, J. (2015). No-tillagriculture and climate change mitigation. NatureClimate Change, 5(6) : 488–489.

47 Sommer, R., & Bossio, D. (2014). Dynamics andclimate change

eld-main-report 05 web 72dpi

Documents