Attachments
Executive summary
Land and water management approaches that address environmental and social challenges, such as land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, health, climate change and the decline in biodiversity, have been gaining importance in recent years. Several of these approaches are well known, while others have been only recently developed. While these approaches are being employed in countries around the world, the Parties of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) acknowledge that some “may not yet be formally recognized in intergovernmental frameworks” (UNCCD Decision 19/COP.15/23/Add.1). These approaches have different names, specific objectives and principles and may employ different methods and technologies. At their core, however, all have the potential to address land degradation and desertification, to mitigate drought and to deliver many other environmental, economic and/or social co-benefits.
The internationally recognized framework of land degradation neutrality (LDN)—whereby the amount and quality of land for supporting ecosystem functions and services remains stable or increases relative to a baseline— was developed to help overcome many of these same land-related challenges. Similarly, sustainable land management (SLM) is globally acknowledged as a land-based solution to desertification, land degradation and drought and as a means to address the causes and impacts of climate change. SLM refers to the use of land resources—including soils, water, plants and other biodiversity—to produce goods that meet human needs while ensuring the long-term productivity of these resources and maintaining their environmental function.
The well-known concepts of LDN and SLM offer benchmarks against which land and water management approaches can be assessed. Understanding how well aligned these approaches are with SLM and LDN can help different communities that solve similar problems to work together to remedy global environmental challenges. It can also advance the formal recognition of these approaches by multiple intergovernmental processes. Alignment with LDN and SLM means these approaches can be more readily and more appropriately incorporated into the “integrated strategies” (described in Article 2 of the UNCCD Convention text) that improve land productivity while ensuring the rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water and improved livelihoods for communities around the world.
To explore this opportunity more systematically, the Parties of the UNCCD requested “a coherence and alignment assessment of the expanding number of approaches that may contribute to the sustainable management of land and water resources … [and] to addressing desertification/ land degradation and drought and the achievement of land degradation neutrality” (UNCCD Decision 19/COP.15/23/Add.1). Against this background, the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) prepared this report to better understand the alignment of different land and water management approaches with SLM and LDN. This alignment was assessed using criteria that comprise three pillars essential to SLM and LDN: ecosystem health, food security and human well-being. Other socioeconomic criteria used in the assessment are known to simultaneously contribute to all three pillars (i.e., cross-cutting criteria). Accordingly, this report addresses the following questions: 1. How do selected land and water management approaches align with the pillars and criteria of SLM and LDN? 2. Where do gaps in alignment occur? 3. How can these gaps in alignment be addressed to achieve the highest possible contribution of each approach to implementing SLM and achieving LDN? By demonstrating the alignment of the approaches with SLM and LDN and by identifying entry points for addressing gaps in alignment, this report can guide UNCCD Parties in planning and evaluating land and water management projects, leverage policy and donor support and increase the potential to advance SLM and achieve LDN.
Importantly, this report provides the results of its coherence and alignment assessment without comparing the land and water management approaches with each other. The report does not evaluate the effectiveness of any of the approaches under consideration. Similarly, it does not provide guidance regarding the application or context specificity of any of the approaches. Instead, the report is focused solely on assisting policy makers, project designers and land managers/users to understand the alignment of each approach with the pillars and criteria of SLM and LDN. Its aim is to help all countries to contribute to the multiple mutual co-benefits of addressing desertification, land degradation and drought in a coordinated way.
A qualitative participatory and formative research framework was used to i) select and characterize the land and water management approaches for analysis; ii) review literature to assess the alignment of each approach with SLM and LDN framework criteria; iii) consult experts to evaluate and complement the literature-based assessment; and iv) develop recommendations, using the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, to address identified gaps and improve alignment.
The following seven land and water management approaches were identified and assessed: agroecology, integrated agriculture, conservation agriculture, regenerative agriculture, climatesmart agriculture, rewilding and forest landscape restoration. Other approaches addressing more specific management areas (e.g., integrated water management) or targeting specific land use systems (e.g., sustainable rangeland management) were not included, but these could be analysed in a similar way in the future.
The assessment revealed five key findings:
All seven selected land and water management approaches align with many, but not all, of the SLM and LDN criteria.
Each of the selected land and water management approaches was found to contribute to SLM and to achieving LDN in different ways and to varying degrees. Agroecology, as a holistic approach addressing a broad range of objectives, was assessed to have the highest degree of alignment with SLM and LDN criteria. Regenerative agriculture and integrated agriculture are approaches strongly aligned with many SLM and LDN criteria, especially those related to improving the biophysical conditions of agroecosystems and the sustainable use of resources. Forest landscape restoration also aligns with SLM and LDN criteria, but some gaps in alignment result from its failure, in practice, to address several human well-being criteria.
Conservation agriculture, meanwhile, aligns with criteria in all SLM and LDN pillars by addressing the biophysical conditions of agroecosystems and soil conservation, but the approach’s frequent use of environmentally detrimental glyphosate and a lack of attention to local knowledge and communities result in alignment gaps. Rewilding, which emphasizes natural processes, aligns with fewer human well-being and cross-cutting criteria, but efforts to include human activities and sustainable agriculture can increase alignment. Climate-smart agriculture, with its narrow emphasis on greater productivity, emissions mitigation and climate adaptation in agricultural systems, consequently shows the lowest degree of alignment with SLM and LDN criteria.
All seven land and water management approaches show the most alignment with criteria comprising the ecosystem health and the food security pillars of SLM and LDN.
Among the 15 SLM criteria and 20 LDN criteria against which the alignment of the seven approaches was assessed, criteria of the ecosystem health and food security pillars are the most frequently aligned. All approaches align with SLM and LDN criteria pertaining to ecosystem health because they aim to minimize land degradation (i.e., contribute to the LDN response hierarchy: avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation) and improve ecological conditions. All approaches were also found to align most with food security criteria, thanks to their emphasis on maintaining and enhancing land quality and potential. Nearly all approaches were found to align with cross-cutting criteria that address climate change, drought and extreme weather events, as well as those aimed at policy, institutional goals and planning and development. Most approaches promote carbon capture and sequestration, targets central to LDN and to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. Many approaches have dimensions that also contribute to one or more of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to the aim of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
All seven land and water management approaches show the most gaps in alignment with criteria comprising the human well-being pillar of SLM and LDN, as well as with certain cross-cutting socioeconomic criteria that span all the pillars.
While none of the approaches embrace principles or practices that directly conflict with the criteria of SLM and LDN, some gaps in alignment were identified where the specific objectives and methodologies of the approaches did not address particular environmental, social and economic criteria. This report considered gaps in alignment to occur where approaches were assessed as not aligned with criteria by all or any of the literature and experts consulted for this study. Gaps in alignment of the seven approaches with SLM and LDN criteria mostly relate to the LDN criterion “protects all human rights and right to property”. Evidence from the literature and experts suggests that several approaches (e.g., climate-smart agriculture, rewilding and integrated agriculture) fail to explicitly safeguard land tenure, in theory or in practice, because tenure is unclear or existing land-use agreements are inaccessible (e.g., for forest landscape restoration).
Other common gaps in alignment were revealed through evidence that, in certain contexts, the needs and livelihoods of local communities, smallholders and/or vulnerable groups, such as women, are not considered by many approachbased projects. The gaps include, for example, a frequent lack of project focus on SLM and LDN criteria related to the need for inclusive, representative participation by multiple levels of government and stakeholders to ensure projects are socially accepted. For many approaches, identifying and bringing together all relevant actors and accommodating individual interests is challenging. Several approaches showed gaps in alignment related to insufficiently integrating or prioritizing context-specific social and economic needs. This was often attributed to their narrowly defined objectives and scope. While almost all the assessed approaches recognize the need for gender responsiveness (i.e., an important LDN criteria ), it is not always translated into practice.
Gaps in alignment of land and water management approaches with SLM and LDN criteria are best addressed during project planning and implementation by employing supplementary activities that directly target the gaps and by applying recognized principles and guidelines.
All of the assessed approaches can potentially support SLM and LDN interventions if the identified gaps in alignment are addressed through locally appropriate supplementary activities by project designers and implementing agencies. For example, an approach such as integrated agriculture may not explicitly address gender responsiveness, but gender-related activities can be incorporated within a project’s design, implementation and monitoring to ensure equality and empowerment. Approaches can also improve alignment by integrating sitespecific activities into larger landscape-scale interventions involving other approaches. For example, integrating regenerative agriculture practices within rewilding projects can ensure both approaches achieve their aims to restore natural ecological processes, improve livelihoods and increase food security.
Some identified gaps can be addressed by more rigorous adherence to approach principles. Some approaches (e.g., rewilding, agroecology and forest landscape restoration) have defined principles that align with SLM and LDN criteria, but these are not always translated into practice. Once principles and guidelines are incorporated in a project’s design, project monitoring and evaluation can ensure they are subsequently followed. Where an approach needs to address gaps in alignment with certain criteria, established, internationally vetted guidelines can also help to address these shortcomings, including the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure and the Gender and Land Rights Database.
Context matters. Conclusions about the degree of alignment or about gaps in alignment between each land and water management approach and SLM and LDN criteria should not be considered universal and may depend on where and how projects are implemented.
Projects applying practices of land and water management approaches may align with SLM or LDN criteria in one context and location but not in others. Thus, the conclusions of this report should not be considered universally valid for every context. Ultimately, the effective application of each approach depends on highquality, spatially explicit data on environmental, economic and social factors to ensure the evidence-based design and implementation of practices that have the potential to achieve multiple environmental, economic and social benefits.