1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. “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…………….

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.”