The Global Impacts of Land Degradation: Final Report and Peer Review Michael Stocking Vice-Chair, STAP-GEF International Workshop GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Indicators FAO, Rome 8 January 2007

Purpose Three papers commissioned by STAP on behalf of the IA Task Force on Land Degradation This meeting to: Present final outputs, especially scientific and technical findings Contribute to the development of global indicators for the focal area Peer review the papers prior to publication as GEF documents

Global Impacts of Land Degradation Objectives of paper: A typology of impacts, including synergistic Current state of knowledge of impacts Analysis of degree of certainty Gap analysis of what scientific inputs now needed

“GEF activities in the in the area of land degradation clearly produce global benefits through promoting ecosystem integrity even though the challenges being addressed most often have their origin in local and national activities.” Source: Scope and Coherence of the Land Degradation Activities in the GEF, page 10 [GEF/C.24/6, October 19, 2004] A quote from the conclusion of the Scope and Coherence document. Do GEF activities clearly produce global beneficial impacts? We would not be here if we didn’t buy into the statement. But “clearly”? I wonder. How do we prove it? What is the science behind it? Next sentence: “The GEF role is to finance the incremental costs of additional activities that project proponents have to undertake to design and implement an “integrated ecosystem based” approach to land management.” Fine – this implies linkages, but gives us little to go on. What is this ‘integrated ecosystem approach’? Look at this later under models…………….

Typology of Global Impacts Impact on global systems Climate, biodiversity, human development Impact on ecosystem services Cf. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment goods/services By land-related processes E.g. deforestation By production systems Rainfed, irrigated, rangeland, forest By type of management system causing LD E.g. over-grazing, vegetation clearance GO THROUGH When I take over as the GEF-STAP member for Land Degradation, I hope I can follow up some of these linkages.

Impacts by process LD creates impacts through its process Impacts generated by overland flow, sedimentation and pollution Impacts where the loss in soil quality reduces above and below-ground biodiversity

Impacts on ecosystem services Pictures of starving in Africa, or trees burning in Asia – evocative of how land degradation causes poverty and poverty causes land degradation. But essentially about how LD impacts ecosystem services

Impacts on biophysical components There are two competing interpretations to the poverty and land degradation discourse. It is clear, however, poor people and land degradation co-exist. Is this therefore the necessary and sufficient evidence to say that here there is cause and effect. First, the view of those who do believe that poverty and land degradation are cause and effect – BOTH WAYS

Impacts by production systems OP15 uses a production system framework (rainfed, irrigated agriculture, rangelands, forests). It is one viable way to analyse impacts of LD on ecosystem structure and function

Impacts by type of practice causing land degradation Examples – deforestation, over-grazing, inappropriate tillage, farming slopes too steep. These are essentially management-related drivers. Plots near Landruk, W. Nepal

Ecosystem Services and Global Impacts Service Type Climate change Biodiversity International Waters POPs Human well-being Provisioning GHGs emission from crop production Expansion intensive agriculture Non-point source pollution Agro-chemicals Food security; income; drinking water Regulating Land surface albedo; carbon storage; frequency and extent of dust storms Pollination and seed dispersal Soil erosion and sediment-ation Micro-organism activity Disease control; deforest-ation Cultural Indigenous farming systems Holy hills and sacred trees Knowledge & skills Supporting Photosynthesis; global nutrient cycling Soil formation and soil biodiversity Dust storms; ocean fertilization Bio-remediation Support to other ecosystem services

A simple impact matrix …on…. LD CC BD √√√ √√ √ The lilac representing positive feedback loops – so where LD causes more LD, often of a very different type The green representing the major linkages that are probably greatest and best recognised. But only very simple – we could discuss and debate even this one for hours. In our draft report we have tried to do a more complex version. Major and best-recognised linkages Important positive (reinforcing) feedback loops

Global Environmental and Developmental Impacts Useful to distinguish An enormous scientific literature especially on climate change impact However, not many inter-linkages defined explicitly Few frameworks – but note LADA’s DPSIR GO THROUGH When I take over as the GEF-STAP member for Land Degradation, I hope I can follow up some of these linkages.

LD linkages made operational A further model emphasising how the LD linkages can be made operational? The way we are doing so in the new GEF project Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (FAO-UNEP) is to adapt the OECD’s DPSIR framework It seems a good way to bring together the huge variety of factors, linkages and components in some sort of consistent framework. So here we pigeonhole particular issues into one or more process boxes – DRIVING FORCES; PRESSURES, STATE, IMPACTS and RESPONSES. I feel this is useful because it directs us to where we might intervene to achieve global and local benefits. But for our purposes it does bring out that environmental and developmental issues are so intertwined as to be inseparable. Source: Gisladottir & Stocking, 2005

The MA Model – Feedback Loops in Global Change Must mention the MA model – of which this is a slightly adapted version. It has got some useful process linkages. Many feedback loops. We also know that process linkages within the biosphere are complex. This was the model derived from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In a paper where I discussed this model I concluded that to tackle LD we would need to target the synergies with biodiversity and climate change. BUT now I would also add that we would need to target poverty, malnutrition and conflict, if we are to get lasting solutions to LD. Source: MA, 2004; Gisladottir & Stocking, 2005

LD and human development impact GEF and MDGs “Land degradation has triggered large-scale population movements, disrupted economic development prospects, aggravated regional conflicts, and threatened the lives and livelihoods of people living under its shadow. The GEF sees the path to ending poverty and hunger as one that must involve sound environmental management and sustainable development practices.” (GEF, 2005b)

A conceptual view of LD/SLM linkages Biodiversity Climate Change Land Degradation Control World’s Land Resources Sustainable Land Management Techniques & approaches Knowledge & research Strategies & policies Laws & institutions Poverty alleviation Food security Livelihoods Global 3 4 2 5 1 Future R&D agendas Local Global environmental change components Priority topics in SLM Finally, a conceptual diagram I have been playing with. It picks up many of the relevant themes in the poverty/LD discourse The core global env issues of SLM, biodiversity and climate change; we shall develop these synergistic links The central focus of LD control/SLM and world’s soil resources The global developmental agenda – poverty, food and livelihoods The local/national/regional actions (where I believe the future agendas for R&D must lie) to support LD control to achieve SLM. So how then do we make this operational? Where are the gaps. Takes to the present report we are preparing

Certainty and Knowledge Gaps Impact Know with some certainty Likely and/or known but less certain Need to know LD on CC Carbon pool; global C cycle Many – e.g. changes in soil/land/forest management Feedback loops; fate of C in eroded soil LD on BD Deforestation; habitat loss; effect of pollution Indicators for measuring impact Impact on below-ground biodiversity LD on IW Land use on pollution sources; effect on global hydrological cycle Atmospheric dust deposition; pathways Integrated strategies; land-ocean-atmosphere linkages LD on POPs Soil as a major pool, effect of soil organic matter Conditions where soils release POPs; effect of burning Synergies between soil management and POPs damages LD on ecosystem integrity Measurement of LD impacts on ecosystems Services at global level

Some conclusions……. A rich literature – we cited 170 papers A matrix of impacts (Table 30, p.53): light, medium, strong Impacts, direct and indirect, vary hugely Scale of impact is a key consideration Linkage of spatial and temporal scales important Most persuasive impacts are those that impact on global processes But practically all impacts have indirect global impacts Very difficult to calculate incremental benefits – precision is impossible

Our final words….. “It is possible to make a claim for the global impact of land degradation in all major instances of unsustainable land management. The question will be whether this is what the international community wants – and that is an economic and political issue, not a scientific one.”