Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for Land Degradation Neutrality

The health and productivity of global land resources are declining, while demand for those resources is increasing. The aim of land degradation neutrality (LDN) is to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital and its associated ecosystem services. The Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality has been developed to provide a scientific approach to planning, implementing and monitoring LDN. The Science-Policy Interface of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) led the development of the conceptual framework, drawing in expertise from a diverse range of disciplines. The LDN conceptual framework focuses on the supporting processes required to deliver LDN, including biophysical and socio-economic aspects, and their interactions. Neutrality implies no net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. Planning for neutrality involves projecting the likely cumulative impacts of land use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains. Counterbalancing should occur only within individual land types, distinguished by land potential, to ensure “like for like” exchanges. Actions to achieve LDN include sustainable land management (SLM) practices that avoid or reduce degradation, coupled with efforts to reverse degradation through restoration or rehabilitation of degraded land. The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. The implementation of LDN is managed at the landscape level through integrated land use planning, while achievement is assessed at national level. Monitoring LDN status involves quantifying the balance between the area of gains (significant positive changes in LDN indicators) and area of losses (significant negative changes in LDN indicators), within each land type across the landscape. The LDN indicators (and associated metrics) are land cover (physical land cover class), land productivity (net primary productivity, NPP) and carbon stocks (soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks). The LDN conceptual framework comprises five modules: A: Vision of LDN describes the intended outcome of LDN; B: Frame of Reference clarifies the LDN baseline; C: Mechanism for Neutrality explains the counterbalancing mechanism; D: Achieving Neutrality presents the theory of change (logic model) articulating the impact pathway; and E: Monitoring Neutrality presents the LDN indicators. Principles that govern application of the framework provide flexibility while reducing risk of unintended outcomes.

[1]  J. Kiesecker,et al.  Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks , 2010, Environmental management.

[2]  F. Chapin,et al.  Drylands: Coping with Uncertainty, Thresholds, and Changes in State , 2009 .

[3]  Jing Li,et al.  Land use efficiency: anticipating future demand for land‐sector greenhouse gas emissions abatement and managing trade‐offs with agriculture, water, and biodiversity , 2015, Global change biology.

[4]  M. Obersteiner,et al.  The land‐potential knowledge system (landpks): mobile apps and collaboration for optimizing climate change investments , 2016 .

[5]  Nadia Papadopoulou,et al.  Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status , 2014, Front. Mar. Sci..

[6]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting , 2016 .

[7]  Luca Montanarella,et al.  Potential synergies between existing multilateral environmental agreements in the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities , 2007 .

[8]  A. Newton,et al.  Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Science.

[9]  Michael Schmidt,et al.  Separating grazing and rainfall effects at regional scale using remote sensing imagery: A dynamic reference-cover method , 2012 .

[10]  Luca Montanarella,et al.  World's soils are under threat , 2015 .

[11]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[12]  Chris Wilcox,et al.  FORUM: Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies , 2015 .

[13]  James R.A. Butler,et al.  Designing projects in a rapidly changing world: guidelines for embedding resilience, adaptation and transformation into sustainable development projects (version 1.0). , 2016 .

[14]  Nick Abel,et al.  The Resilience, Adaptation and Transformation Assessment Framework: From Theory to Application , 2015 .

[15]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies , 2012 .

[16]  George D. Gann,et al.  International standards for the practice of ecological restoration – including principles and key concepts. , 2016 .

[17]  Uriel Safriel,et al.  Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in drylands and beyond – where has it come from and where does it go , 2017 .

[18]  M. Patterson,et al.  A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils , 2010 .

[19]  Carol H. Weiss,et al.  Nothing as Practical as Good Theory : Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families , 2011 .

[20]  Bradley D. Parrish,et al.  What is social learning , 2010 .

[21]  R. Weterings,et al.  Environmental indicators: Typology and overview , 1999 .

[22]  C. Tucker,et al.  Analysis of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAA-AVHRR NDVI data from 1981–2003 , 2005 .