• Save
Alan GRAINGER "Is zero net land degradation in dry areas a feasible operational goal?"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Alan GRAINGER "Is zero net land degradation in dry areas a feasible operational goal?"

on

  • 925 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
925
Views on SlideShare
849
Embed Views
76

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 76

http://conftool.grforum.net 53
http://www.conftool.pro 23

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Alan GRAINGER "Is zero net land degradation in dry areas a feasible operational goal?" Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Is  Zero  Net  Land  Degrada0on  in  Dry   Areas  a  Feasible  Opera0onal  Goal?     Alan  Grainger   University  of  Leeds  
  • 2. Zero  Net  Land  Degrada0on   Reduce  the  rate  of  deser4fica4on  +       Increase  the  rate  of  restora4on  of   deser4fied  land     African  Union  (2012)    Rio  +  20    Conference   A  modest  intermediate  step  to  hal4ng  deser4fica4on:  "While  completely  hal4ng  [deser4fica4on]  by  2030  may  be  difficult,    seKng  a  target  of  Zero  Net  Land  Degrada4on  by  2030  is  realis4c."     UNCCD  Secretariat  (2012)  
  • 3. UNCCD  Dra>  Strategy  •  Adopt  sustainable  land  management  prac4ces  •  Avoid  degrada4on  on  non-­‐degraded  lands  by   intensifying  use  of  exis4ng  agricultural  lands  •  Employ  community-­‐based  implementa4on    •  Introduce  payments  for  ecosystem  services  •  Involve  governments,  private  sector,  farmers    •  Possibly  add  a  ZNLD  Protocol  to  the  UNCCD  
  • 4. Methods  for  Controlling  Deser0fica0on  (Grainger,  1990)   Alleviate   pressure   on   rangelands   by   more  Improve  rainfed  crop  produc0on intensive  cropping  on  exis4ng  arable  lands Develop  drought-­‐resistant  varie4es Improve  community  control  over  boreholes Increase  the  use  of  fer4lizers Promote  self-­‐regula4on  by  nomads Improve  the  resilience  of  cropping  system,   Increase  tree  cover Use   social   forestry   projects   with   mul4ple  Make  beYer  use  of  rainfall purpose  trees  that  supply  local  needs Promote   awareness,   wide   support,   and  Improve  irrigated  crop  produc4on trust  between  farmers  and  foresters Improve  the  quality  of  management Involve  NGOs  in  tree  plan4ng  schemes Maintain  equipment  and  canals  beYer Expand  tree  planta4ons  on  farms Improve  drainage  and  farmer  involvement Mix  Yrees  with  cropping/livestock  raising Favour  small-­‐scale  projects Give  farmers  beYer  technical  assistance Improve  livestock  raising Improve  natural  woodland  management Improve  animal  quality Improve  policies  and  planning Reduce  stocking  levels Improve  land-­‐use  planning Restore  village  fallow  land Give  greater  policy  priority  to  rainfed  crops Protect  folder  trees  from  illegal  browsing Promote  integrated  land  use  schemes
  • 5. Two  Challenges  for  ZNLD  •  Implementa0on    •  Monitoring  Progress  
  • 6. Challenges  in  Implementa0on  
  • 7. 1.  Poli0cal  Challenges:   Deser0fica0on  is  an  Ambiguous  Concept      •  Developing  countries   –  Development  constraints   –  Welcome    income  for  restoring  degraded  land  •  Developed  countries   –  Environmental  emphasis   –  Welcome  reduc4on  in  deser4fica4on  rate  
  • 8. 2.  Complexity:   ZNLD  has  a  Compound  Goal    rate  +  •  Reduce  deser4fica4on  •  Increase  restora4on  rate  •  Subtract  restored  area  from  deser4fied  area  •  Implement  and  monitor  separately    •  CBD    Target  2010    –  single  goal  -­‐  reduce   biodiversity  loss  rate  •  REDD+  -­‐  addi4ve  goals  -­‐  cut  deforesta4on  &                                                                                                                      degrada4on  rates    
  • 9. 3.  Societal  Constraints    •  Lack  of  internal  poli0cal  support  •  Conflicts  with  tradi0onal  ins0tu0ons     –  Conflicts  between  indigenous  property  rights  and   commercial  restora4on   –  Poor  capacity  to  channel  interna4onal  funds     –  Constrain  endogenous  ini4a4ves  •  Difficul0es  in  integra0ng  deser0fica0on  control  and   restora0on  into  na0onal  land  use  planning   –   Global  programmes  ofen  ignore  scien4fic    knowledge   about  complexity  of  human-­‐environment  phenomena  
  • 10. Deser0fica0on  Processes  in  Dryland   Development  Paradigm  (Reynolds,  2007)  •  Mul4ple  links  between  mul4ple  land  uses  and   socio-­‐economic  driving  and  controlling  forces    •  Reciprocal  ("coupled")  rela4onships  with  mul4ple   feedbacks    •  Cross-­‐scalar  rela4onships     –  Driven  by  intensifica4on   –  Unsustainable  intensifica4on  would  exacerbate  this  
  • 11. Challenges  in  Monitoring  
  • 12. 1.  Monitoring  Restora0on  •  Monitoring  revegeta4on  of  defined  areas  is   feasible  •  Monitoring  soil  improvement  will  be  harder  •  Establishing  baselines  for  deser4fied  areas  in   each  country  will  also  be  more  difficult  
  • 13. Areas  With  At  Least  Moderate   Deser0fica0on  (million  ha)   Dregne  (1983) Mabbu]  (1984) UNEP  Atlas  (1992) Africa 490 741 201 Asia 769 748 213 Australia 403 112 4 North  America 399 208 66 South  America 174 162 37 Europe 20 30 86 Total 2,255 2,001 607
  • 14. Limited  Land  Suitability  and  Availability      •  Only  some  degraded  land  suited  to  revegeta4on   –  0.3  billion  ha  of  all  2  billion  ha  of  deser4fied  land  •  Area  of  land  suited  to  soil  reclama4on  unknown    
  • 15. 2.  Establishing  Baselines  for  Deser0fica0on  Rates   is  Difficult  Too    •  Only  one  es4mate  of  deser4fica4on  rate   –  20  million  ha/annum  in  1970s  (Dregne,  1983)  •  LiYle  progress  since  then  •  Bai  et  al.  (2008)  coarse  (8  km)  resolu4on  images   –  NPP  change  –  vegeta4on  only   –  Assessed  "degrading  areas",  not  degraded  lands   –  "Drylands  do  not  feature  strongly  in  ongoing  land   degrada4on,  apart  from  in  Australia."    
  • 16. 3.  Measuring  Change  in  a  Mul0ple     A]ribute  Phenomenon  of  Deser0fica0on      •  Need  coherent  &  compact  set  of  indicators    •  Measure  on  severity  scale  0-­‐100%  
  • 17. Need  a  Coherent  and  Compact  Set  of  Indicators  for   These  Mul0ple  A]ributes  of  Deser0fica0on   Vegetation degradation Soil degradation Area Water erosion Percentage vegetation/tree cover Wind erosion Biomass density Compaction Carbon density Waterlogging Ecosystem type Salinization Species density Alkalinization
  • 18. Sets  of  Deser0fica0on  Indicators  Dregne  (1977) Dregne  (1983) GLASODMabbu]  (1984) Middleton  &  Thomas  (1992) LADA  (2005) Vegeta4on  degrada4on Bio4c  func4ons Aridity  index   Water  erosion Soil  erosion Rainfall  variability   Wind  erosion Terrain  suitability  for  farming Soil  moisture   Irrigated  crop  yields Farm  yields Soil  health   Ease  of  restoring  terrain Soil  loss   Ease  of  restoring  yields Soil  salinity   Soil  fer4lity   Soil  contamina4on   Vegeta4on  ac4vity Vegeta4on  density Water  availability   Groundwater  level   Water  salinity   Water  contamina4on  
  • 19. Difficul0es  With  Poli0cal    Indicator  Schemes  •  Indicators  not  coherent  or  compact  •  Nine  forest  criteria  and  indicator  schemes  not   used  (Grainger,  2012)  •  UNCBD  Target  2010  indicators  not  feasible   (Butchart  et  al.,  2010)  •  UNCCD  impact  indicators:  only  one  measures   status  
  • 20. UNCCD  Impact  Indicators     a.  Provisional  indicators   b.  Refined  indicators  1   Water  availability  per  capita     Water  availability  per  capita    2   Change  in  land  use   Change  in  land  use  3   Propor4on  of  the  popula4on  in  affected   Propor4on  of  the  popula4on  in  affected  areas   areas  living  above  the  poverty  line     living  above  the  poverty  line    4   Childhood  malnutri4on  and/or  food   Food  consump4on  per  capita   consump4on/calorie  intake  per  capita  in   affected  areas  5   The  Human  Development  Index   Capacity  of  soils  to  sustain  agro-­‐pastoral  use  6   Level  of  land  degrada4on     Degree  of  land  degrada4on    7   Plant  and  animal  biodiversity   Plant  and  animal  biodiversity  8   Aridity  index     Drought  index    9   Land  cover  status   Land  cover  status  10   Carbon  stocks  above  and  below  ground   Carbon  stocks  above  and  below  ground  11   Land  under  sustainable  land  management   Land  under  sustainable  land  management  
  • 21. 3.  Measuring  Change  in  the     Mul0ple  A]ributes  of  Deser0fica0on  •    only  some  a]ributes:   Remote  sensing  measures   –  Vegeta4on  degrada4on  difficult:  sparse  tree  density   –  Water  erosion:  large  gullies  only       –  Wind  erosion:  not  measurable   –  Sandy  area  expansion:  feasible   –  Saliniza4on:  saline  areas  but  not  degree  of  saliniza4on  •  Ra0o  of  ground  data  to  remote  sensing  data  higher   than  for  other  global  environmental  phenomena  
  • 22. Solu0ons:  A  Three  Phase  Approach  
  • 23. Solu0ons:  Phase  1  1.  Focus  on  restoring  degraded  land      2.  Develop  integrated  land-­‐use  planning  tools/capaci4es.          3.  Develop  interna4onal/na4onal  monitoring  capaci4es.              *  Establish  interna4onal  scien4fic  network  to  advise                    the  UNCCD  and  iden4fy  a  credible  set  of  indicators            *  Establish  Global  Drylands  Observing  System  (GDOS)                  for  ini4al  global  and  na4onal  measurements                  and  technology  transfer  and  training      
  • 24. Solu0ons:  Phase  2  1.  Now  reduce  deser4fica4on  rate  too    2.  Begin  with  phased  targets,  e.g.  reduce  the  deser4fica4on  rate  by  10%  by  2020.      3.  Integrate  na4onal  land  use  planning  systems  and  na4onal  deser4fica4on  monitoring  systems.        
  • 25. Solu0ons:  Phase  3  Set  Target  Year  for  achieving  Zero  Net  Land  Degrada4on,  based  on  the  experiences  of  implemen4ng  Phases  1  and  2.    
  • 26. Which  Pilots?  •  ZNLD  Workshop,  4th  Interna0onal  Conference  on   Drylands,  Deserts  and  Deser0fica0on   –  Local  pilots   –  Ignore  na4onal/interna4onal  implementa4on  challenges   –  Conflate  restora4on  &  deser4fica4on  control  •  Need  na0onal  pilots  too:   –  Test  new  planning  and  monitoring  systems   –  Find  weaknesses  to  correct   –  Provide  models  for  many  countries  
  • 27. Conclusions  •  Zero  Net  Land  Degrada4on  a  good  idea  •  Risky  to  aim  to  reduce  both  the  deser4fica4on  rate  and  land   restora4on  rate  immediately  when  the  first  of  these  is  not   known  and  implementa4on  and  monitoring  capacity  is  minimal  •  A  phased  approach  would  restore  degraded  land  first,  and   reduce  the  deser4fica4on  rate  when  planning  and  monitoring   capaci4es  are  in  place  •  Get  joint  commitment  by  developing  &  developed  countries  –   all  vulnerable  to  climate  change.