Solutions Volume 7, Issue 5

September-October 2016, Volume 7, Issue 5

For a sustainable and desirable future

Solutions Sustainable Land Solutions

Putting Economic and Environmental Sustainability Hand in Hand

by Richard Thomas, Mark Schauer, and Naomi Stewart Decision-Focused Agricultural Research

by Eike Luedeling and Keith Shepherd Involving the Mining Sector in Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality

by Simone Quatrini, Ralf Barkemeyer, and Lindsay C. Stringer A Healthier Food Future

by Krishna B. KC, Evan D.G. Fraser, and Samantha Pascoal

www.thesolutionsjournal.com USD $5.99 CAD $6.99 EURO â‚Ź4.99

The Jigsaw Approach to Land Degradation in Central Asia

by Stefanie Ettling, Hannes Etter, and Paul Schumacher

Solu%ons is housed at:

Sponsors

Adam J Lewis Family Founda<on

The Lewis Founda*on is a 501(c)(3) organiza*on established in 2002 by philanthropist Adam J. Lewis. The Lewis Founda*on seeks to award grants to nonprofit organiza*ons and/or individuals that are involved in environmental responsibility, green space issues and research, in addi*on to helping preserve wilderness and natural resources.

Na<onal Council for Science and the Environment’s goal is to improving the scien*fic basis for environmental decisionmaking.

Crawford School of Public Policy at Australian Na<onal University,

serving and influencing Australia, Asia, and the Pacific through advanced policy research, graduate, & execu*ve educa*on.

U.S. Environmental Protec<on Agency (US EPA) has the mission to protect human health and the environment in the United States.

Ins<tute for Sustainable Solu<ons, Portland State University provides leadership and cataly*c investment from a diverse array of academic disciplines.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

serves the na*on by providing reliable scien*fic informa*on to describe and understand the Earth.

Become part of the solu<on!

Become a sponsor!

As a sponsor or partner of Solu%ons, you will be helping to foster solu*ons to the world’s most pressing problems. There are many ways to support Solu%ons, ranging from monetary to editorial to promo*onal. To learn how you can become part of the solu*on, go to www.thesolu*onsjournal.com/sponsor

Barbut, M. (2016). Finding Solutions from Land for the Future. Solutions 7(5): 1. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/finding-solutions-from-land-for-the-future/

Editorial by Monique Barbut

Finding Solutions from Land for the Future “Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”

—Niels Bohr, Danish philosopher and Nobel-Prize-winning physicist

W

ith at least 9.5 billion people on earth by 2050, population pressure, higher consumer expectations, and climate change will degrade and tax our limited natural resources, especially that of the land. Our capacity to transform the environment, and the services it provides, has untold repercussions. The world is fast approaching, perhaps, the last fork in the road. If we follow one path, often referred to as ‘business as usual,’ the difficulties will continue to mount, perhaps irreversibly. As Bohr suggests, we need to change our thinking to find a better way. If we change our thinking to follow the path of sustainable land management, we can and will find practical solutions for many of our most pressing challenges. So, faced with the land degradation and water scarcity that is set to leave millions hungry, destitute, and defenseless, this special issue of Solutions drafted with the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative lays out practical ways to minimize the intensity and perhaps avoid this fate.

In September 2015, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by world leaders at the United Nations in New York. These goals are our global roadmap for the next 15 years, however right now they are merely a statement of intent. The challenge is to move from ambition to

action, especially to successfully deliver Goal 15, “Life on Land.” Efforts to create productive, resilient landscapes are important to growth and prosperity, and we must further maintain and increase the amount of healthy land to achieve land degradation neutrality (SDG target 15.3). It is the simplest and most cost-effective response to our most pressing global challenges, a recipe for sustainable and equitable growth, and in fact, healthy land ecosystems will contribute to many other development goals.

our landscapes, and the solutions presented here aim to achieve exactly that. Two billon hectares of degraded land and terrestrial ecosystems are available to kick-start a real green economy with enormous impacts on employment, food security, social stability, and reducing poverty. We can support vulnerable communities to rehabilitate their land, help governments provide secure land tenure rights, create new jobs for migrants, and increase local opportunities for land-based investments.

Our future prosperity and well-being depend upon whether we are able to protect and restore our landscapes, and the solutions presented here aim to achieve exactly that.

Within this special issue, people from around the world working on solutions to sustainable land management have shared their innovative ideas and findings. This includes using economic tools to motivate the replanting of orchards in Russia, the greening of deserts, a novel framework called “four returns,” sustainably intensifying agricultural yields, involving the mining sector in land degradation neutrality, restoring and sustaining soil functions, and linking sectors and countries in Central Asia to combat land degradation. There is also a look back on the ancient terracing systems in Israel to see how they can guide us now, an exploration into setting up payment services for sustainable water supplies in Uganda, and research on how open-cast mining affects farming revenues in South Africa.

Our future prosperity and well-being depend upon whether we are able to protect and restore

Perhaps most striking is the case for land users to have a larger role in tackling climate change, while delivering many co-benefits. Land can help with emission reductions, as well as the removal of greenhouse gasses.

Already, more than a hundred countries have included agricultural and/or land-based mitigation and adaptation actions in their contributions, as they recognize that good land management practices can help manage emissions and build resilience to climate impacts by providing protection against droughts, flooding, landslides, and erosion.

Circumstances are forcing us to change our thinking about how we use land, but in managing it better, we will find solutions to the difficulties we face. An integrated land management approach is our best bet, and the ideas presented here will help play a role in securing a world with healthy, sustainable, and productive land for all.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 1

Contents

September/October 2016

Features

The search for real answers begins with Solutions Join the Solutions Team Become a part of the global Solutions Team. Have Solutions delivered to your door or devices with our new PDF subscription.

Keep up to date on our latest articles and gain exclusive access to online and face to face Solutions events.

Submit Join the dialogue.

Submit your thoughts in the form of articles, news stories, features, or online comments.

What are your solutions?

Become a Partner Your contribution will help bring together people from all walks of life in creating innovative solutions.

46

Decision-Focused Agricultural Research

55

Involving the Mining Sector in Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality by Simone Quatrini,

by Eike Luedeling and Keith Shepherd

The value of agriculture’s many products and services are often ignored in decision making, causing land degradation and economic losses.

Decision Analysis is a useful solution to get at a holistic understanding of the impacts of decisions even where there are data gaps.

Ralf Barkemeyer, and Lindsay C. Stringer

Land degradation neutrality will require the efforts of businesses with large land footprints like the mining sector. There is ample opportunity to implement certification systems and financing options through newly established funds to allow a flow of finances for sustainable land management.

64

Paying for Water in Uganda: Is Paying Upstream Land Users a Possible Solution?

by Tom Sengalama and Emmanuelle Quillérou

The sustainability of livelihoods in Uganda is dependent on water management and impacted by land degradation. In the Chuho watershed of Kisoro, a payment for ecosystem services scheme could improve water management between upstream and downstream users.

74

www.thesolutionsjournal.com

2 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Making Money after Mining: Farming on Rehabilitated Open Cast Mines

by Teresa McNeill and Emmanuelle Quillérou

South Africa requires mining companies to rehabilitate land after open cast mining, but it is costly. Estimating the farming revenue of land prior to and after open-cast mining can establish what the value of land use will be after mining, and can shift scenarios to a win-win situation for all land users.

On the Web

Perspectives Putting Economic and Environmental Sustainability Hand in Hand to Protect Our Lands by Richard Thomas, Mark Schauer, and Naomi Stewart

17

Restoring and Sustaining the Soil We Farm

by Edmundo Barrios and Fergus Sinclair

21

The Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture by Romano De Vivo, Alexandru Marchis, Emilio J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, and Ettore Capri

24

Pathways to Sustainable Intensification: Participatory Designing of Adapted Farming System Innovations by Shalander Kumar, Anthony Whitbread, and Thomas Falk 32 www.thesolutionsjournal.org Explore the Solutions website for more content and interactivity. What are your solutions? Share your vision for a sustainable and desirable future and learn more about the Solutions community.

Envisioning

Four Returns: A Long-Term Holistic Framework for Integrated Landscape Management and Restoration Involving Business by Willem Ferwerda and Simon Moolenaar 36 Replanting Orchards: Is It Worth It? A Case Study from Russia by Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev, Alexey Bryzzhev, Alexey Sorokin, Pavel Krasilnikov, and Sergey Kiselev 42

On the Ground

The Jigsaw Approach: Linking Sectors and Countries to Combat Land Degradation in Central Asia by Stefanie Ettling, Hannes Etter, and

10

Paul Schumacher The arid lands of Central Asia face extreme pressure from land degradation. Linking sectors and countries to work together in enhanced cooperation, as well as generating powerful economic arguments for sustainable land management will be key in this region.

Pathways Leading to a More Sustainable and Healthy Global Food System by Krishna B. KC, Evan D.

G. Fraser, and Samantha Pascoal With an exploding human population, the question of how our lands will be able to feed everyone is of utmost importance. Going forward will require a shift in our diets away from animal protein, to reduce land pressures, and increase the healthy, sustainable calories available.

88

Solutions in History

82

Terracing: A Double-Edged Solution for Farming Difficult Landscapes by Wilko Duprez

Thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia, people were developing innovative methods to sustainably farm in harsh dryland landscapes. Terracing is an ancient solution that can still apply to degraded lands today.

Idea Lab In Review

80 Interview

Land Matters by Robert Costanza

Noteworthy

More than Cattle in the Kalahari: The Complex Mosaic of Shifting Solutions Needed for Sustainable Land Management

by Naomi Stewart Having worked in arid and semiarid regions for 35 years, Professor David Thomas has learned a thing or two about dryland environments. Here, he offers insights from his experiences in the Kalahari Desert, emphasizing the importance of outside-the-box solutions to address ever changing environmental and social systems.

06

Swedish Foreign Minister Blazes Feminist Agenda Peace Bloc: Advocating for Academics in Turkey Campaign for Wild Horse Protection Gains Traction UK Party for Women Lays Stepping Stones for Gender Equality

13

Editorial

01

Finding Solutions from Land for the Future by Monique Barbut

The world is desperately in need of solutions to land degradation to meet its most pressing challenges. Monique Barbut, Executive Secretary to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, outlines the case for sustainable land management, highlighting the value of future prosperity and well-being. www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 3

Solutions Editors-in-Chief: Robert Costanza, Ida Kubiszewski Associate Editors: David Orr, Jacqueline McGlade Managing Editor: Colleen Maney Senior Editors: Christina Asquith, Jack Fairweather History Section Editor: Frank Zelko Book & Envisioning Editor: Bruce Cooperstein Editor: Naomi Stewart Photo Editors: Marc Fader, Marcello Hernandez Graphic Designer: Kelley Dodd Copy Editors: Anna Sottile, Nadine Ledesme Business Manager: Ian Chambers Intern: Devin Windelspecht Editorial Board: Gar Alperovitz, Vinya Ariyaratne, Robert Ayres, Peter Barnes, William Becker, Lester Brown, Alexander Chikunov, Cutler Cleveland, Raymond Cole, Rita Colwell, Robert Corell, Herman Daly, Thomas Dietz, Josh Farley, Jerry Franklin, Susan Joy Hassol, Paul Hawken, Richard Heinberg, Jeffrey Hollender, Buzz Holling, Terry Irwin, Jon Isham, Wes Jackson, Tim Kasser, Tom Kompas, Frances Moore Lappé, Rik Leemans, Wenhua Li, Thomas Lovejoy, Hunter Lovins, Manfred Max-Neef, Peter May, Bill McKibben, William J. Mitsch, Mohan Munasinghe, Norman Myers, Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir, Bill Rees, Wolfgang Sachs, Peter Senge, Vandana Shiva, Anthony Simon, Gus Speth, Larry Susskind, David Suzuki, John Todd, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Alvaro Umaña, Sim van der Ryn, Peter Victor, Mathis Wackernagel, John Xia, Mike Young

Subscriptions: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/subscribe Email: solutions@thesolutionsjournal.com

Sponsoring Inquiries: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/sponsor Email: ida.kub@thesolutionsjournal.com

On the Cover A student carries her seedling to where it will be planted.

To commemorate International Environment Day on June 5th, hundreds of students took part in a day of activities including the planting of several hundred trees in one of Haiti’s last forests- the Pine Forest. Located nearly four hours’ drive from Port au Prince, the once great forest has been depleted to make room for farm land, with trees also being felled to make charcoal. Photo

by Logan Abassi UN/MINUSTAH Solutions is subject to the Creative Commons license except where otherwise stated.

4 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Contributors 1. Mark Schauer, Guest Editor—Mark is the Coordinator for the

Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative’s Secretariat at GIZ, responsible for the initiation and the overall coordination of the ELD project. He previously worked for the United Nations Environment Program as the Head of the Central Office of TEEB and the Division for International Nature Conservation of the German Federal Ministry for Environment. He holds a Master’s Degree in Forestry Management and still enjoys cutting his own firewood. After his graduation, he worked in Europe, southern Africa, and southern Asia on natural resource and land management, focusing on the interconnectedness of land related issues with economics, poverty alleviation, and institutional support programs.

2. Richard Thomas, Guest Editor—Richard is the Program

Director of the CGIAR Research Program on Dryland Systems. He has previously served as the Assistant Director at the United Nations University—Institute for Water, Environment and Health based at McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, where he led the Drylands Threatened Ecosystem program, and as Director of the Natural Resources Management Programme at the International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas. He spent 12 years at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia.

In 2001 his research team at CIAT received the CGIAR’s Excellence in Science Award for Outstanding Partnership. Richard is currently the scientific coordinator for the Global Economics of Land Degradation Initiative.

3. Naomi Stewart, Guest Editor—Naomi is currently completing

her M.Sc. in Science Communication at Imperial College. Formerly a Project Associate at the United Nations University - Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in the Water & Ecosystems program working in economics and land degradation, she also worked in hydrometric monitoring and water chemistry research for the Government of Canada. Naomi was Managing Editor for the Water Quality Journal of Canada, and is a long-time freelance editor, writer, blogger, and communicator with a research background in water, land, environment, and policies. Naomi holds a H.B.Sc. from the University of Toronto.

4. Monique Barbut—Monique

Barbut, Executive Secretary, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), has over 30 years’ experience in sustainable development, international diplomacy, governance, and finance. From 2006 to 2012, she was Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and World Bank Vice President. Prior to that she was a UNEP director, preceding which she oversaw diverse functions in the French Aid system, ranging from aid evaluation to serving as Executive Director of Agence Française de Dévéloppement. She played a key role in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit finance negotiations and GEF’s creation thereafter.

5. Eike Luedeling—Eike is a

Senior Decision Analyst at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya, and a Senior Scientist at the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn, Germany. His work focuses on exploring and applying innovative decision analysis approaches to enable holistic and solution-oriented research for impact in the face of system complexity, risk, and uncertainty.

Eike has also done extensive work on climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, on fruit tree phenology, hydrology, agricultural sustainability, and various other topics. He has published more than 65 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

6. Keith Shepherd—Keith is

a Principal Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi where he leads the Science Domain on Land Health Decisions. He is a founder of the Africa Soil Information Service and has pioneered a Soil-Plant Spectral Diagnostics Laboratory that uses only light to analyze soils. Keith’s research on decision analytics focuses on the use of Bayesian approaches and value-of-information analysis to improve development decision-making in datalimited environments. He contributes this work to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and leads Information Systems Strategic Research in the CGIAR Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems.

7. Simone Quatrini—Simone

currently leads the development of the Investment Fund for Land Degradation Neutrality for the UNCCD in collaboration with Mirova, the responsible investment subsidiary of Natixis. He is a board member of

Contributors the Ecosystem Services Partnership, affiliated member of the University of Zurich Research Priority Programme on Global Change and Biodiversity, and a PhD candidate in the Department of Environmental Systems Science at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

His expertise is on blended finance for sustainable development. Previously, Simone coordinated the Private Sector Engagement, Policy/Investment Analysis and Innovative Finance Programs at the UN Global Mechanism.

8. Lindsay Stringer—Lindsay

is Professor in Environment and Development at the Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.

Her research focuses on sustainable land management solutions and the environmental governance mechanisms that can advance sustainable development. In 2013 Lindsay was awarded a Philip Leverhulme Prize for her work on environmental change and sustainable development in drylands. In 2015 she was presented with a Women of Achievement Award. She is currently a Coordinating Lead Author for both the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Regional Assessment for Africa and the IPBES Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment.

9. Ralf Barkemeyer—Ralf is an

Associate Professor of Corporate Social Responsibility at KEDGE Business School. Previously, Ralf has lectured at the University of Leeds and Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, from where he received his PhD. Ralf’s research focuses on the interface of business, environment, and society. He has published in journals such as Journal of World Business, Environmental Science & Policy and Nature Climate Change. Ralf is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy and Associate Editor of Business Ethics: European Review.

10. Emmanuelle Quillérou—

Emmanuelle is an environmental economist and has been working with ELD Initiative since 2011. She recently joined the University of Brest as a lecturer in economics. She also works with the Centre for Development, Environment and Policy, SOAS, University of London. She originally trained as an agronomist before becoming an economist. Emma holds a MSc in Applied Environmental Economics from Imperial College London and a PhD in Agri-Environmental Economics from the

University of Kent. She has worked in France, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Canada on a range of environment and natural resource management problems.

11. Tom Sengalama—Tom is an

environmental specialist with wide experience in environmental projects management, whose main interest is promoting innovative approaches that seek to reconcile sound environmental management practices with improved community livelihoods. He has background in Forestry and holds two MSc., in Environmental Economics from the University of London, SOAS and Environmental Management from the University of Nottingham. He has worked in Uganda, Rwanda, Haiti, and Democratic Republic of Congo. His work aims to advance environmental policy dialogue in conservation financing.

12. Stefanie Ettling—Stefanie is a

participant of the Young Professional Programme of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. She currently works in the Department for Environment and Biodiversity in the Federal Ministry.

She previously worked for the Regional Programme for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia, where she coordinated the political implementation of the ELD study.

Stefanie holds a MSc in Biology, and after university she started working in the field of development cooperation for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH in Eschborn in the Sectorial Project on Sustainable Agriculture.

13. Edmundo Barrios—Edmundo

is a Senior Soil Ecosystem Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre based in Nairobi, Kenya. His work focuses on applying soil ecological knowledge to restore ecosystems services in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of local knowledge systems to the capacity to adapt to disturbance and to shape change in natural resource management.

He leads the Living Soil Laboratory which studies the role of agroforestry trees in restoring and sustaining ecological functions that underpin soil-mediated ecosystem services. He also leads the development of participatory tools to blend local and scientific knowledge on soils and their management to enhance research relevance, credibility, and legitimacy.

14. Romano De Vivo—Romano

is the Global Head of Environmental Policy for Syngenta, a leading

agricultural technology company. He is responsible for providing strategic direction and environmental analysis and support for the implementation of multi-stakeholder initiatives in 90 countries. He provides sustainable solutions for the long-term coexistence of food production and environmental protection. Before joining Syngenta, Romano spent eight years at Johnson & Johnson. He has lived and worked in Rome and Milan, and his current base is in Basel, Switzerland.

15. Simon Moolenaar—Simon

is a sustainability professional who combines his knowledge base, practical experience, and analytical abilities in complex projects that address strategic issues. His main field of expertise is the sustainable management of soil and land. As Head of Science & Education at Commonland, Simon acts as a boundary worker between academia, business, governments, and NGOs. His main tasks are setting up an Academy for Business & Landscapes, implementing a Monitoring & Evaluation framework, and producing a Field Guide & Toolbox for landscape restoration projects based on returns of inspiration and of social, natural, and financial capital.

16. Willem Ferwerda—Willem is

director and founder of Commonland, a multidisciplinary organization of experts that develops landscape restoration projects based on a four returns business approach, providing inspirational, social, natural, and financial returns.

Willem has both managed a rainforest conservation fund at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and served as executive director of IUCN Netherlands. In 2005, he started Leaders for Nature, an international business network on biodiversity and ecosystems. Willem is an Executive Fellow in Business and Ecosystems at the Rotterdam School of Management and a special advisor of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.

17. Anton Strokov—Anton received

his Ph.D. at the Russian Institute of Agrarian Problems and Informatics, where he researched development issues in the potato and vegetable sectors. There he also participated in several projects on such topics as trade policy and integration, modelling and projections, and productivity analysis.

Anton is now the Head of the Economics Department at the Eurasian Center for Food Security at Lomonosov Moscow State University, and a senior researcher

at the Economics of Land Degradation Laboratory. Dr. Strokov has publications in such journals as Studies on Russian Economic Development and Journal of Economic Integration.

18. Shalander Kumar—Shalander

is the scientist for Dryland Systems in South Asia at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, and the regional coordinator of CRP Dryland Systems for South Asia. He has worked for more than two decades on analyzing smallholders farming and livestock production systems, value chains, farm systems intensification, conservation agriculture, and climate change and institutional issues. He has over 40 journal articles and more than 75 conference and other publications to his credit.

19. Krishna Bahadur KC—KC is a

Research Scientist in the Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Canada. He is a Development Geographer widely published in the field of development geography, addressing issues like local and global environmental change, economics of land use, and management practices. He is an interdisciplinary scientist with expertise in agriculture, natural resources management, and Geographic Information System.

20. Robert Costanza—Robert

Costanza is a Chair of Public Policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University.

Costanza is cofounder and former president of the International Society for Ecological Economics. He has authored or coauthored over 350 scientific papers and reports on his work have appeared in Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, the Economist, The New York Times, Science, Nature, Nat ional Geographic, and National Public Radio.

21. Wilko Duprez—Wilko Duprez

is a biomedical researcher, science writer, and burgeoning radio producer.

He holds a PhD in pharmaceutical design and degrees in bioengineering and science journalism. He has worked in France, Australia, the US, and the UK on vaccines and antiviral drugs against papillomaviruses and SARS as well as investigating new generations of antibiotics. He now covers science news for various outlets on a wide range of topics including environmental science. When not in the laboratory or recording in the radio studio, he can be found freelancing for the BBC World Service.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 5

Noteworthy. (2016). Solutions 7(5): 6-9.

Idea Lab Noteworthy Swedish Foreign Minister Blazes Feminist Agenda

by Zeynep Karatas and Christina Asquith Millions of women in developing nations still lack basic human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and access to capital. And, while first world countries talk about the importance of women’s rights, they often do little beyond making speeches.

Not so with Sweden.

Sweden’s Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, has been executing a “feminist foreign policy” since she entered office in 2014. It showed once more that she is sticking to this approach during the World Humanitarian Summit, held in Istanbul in late May, where she spoke on several panels about the importance of her strategy.

So, what is feminist foreign policy? The Scandinavian country states that it is executing a foreign policy that considers and gives support to issues that specifically affect women, such as maternal health, reproductive rights, and sexual violence. The government’s official website goes so far as to state that “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim of Swedish foreign policy.”

The Swedish Foreign Service outlined a wide range of ways to tackle the struggles of women in its 2015–2018 action plan. Their published strategy mentions increasing the agency of women and girls by promoting their rights and opportunities in civil society organizations.

The Foreign Service will also aid women’s access to productive and economic resources, promote a gender-equitable division of unpaid housework, and increase access to legal and safe abortions.

Mikael Wiman

A girl at play in Sweden.

Sweden takes pride in being a self-proclaimed “humanitarian superpower,” and is the world’s sixth largest development aid donor, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Minister Wallström stated during the World Humanitarian Summit that this policy of gender equality will be executed in the country’s aid efforts.

“Sweden will continue to only finance humanitarian projects that take into account the different needs of women and men, girls and boys according to [the] UN’s Gender Marker system. We find that creating financial incentives has significantly increased the number of projects designed to meet the needs of women and men, girls and boys,” she explained.

“Humanitarian partners need to ensure that gender-based violence is included in cluster response plans, reports, projects, programs and pooled funds,” Minister Wallström outlined.

6 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

These methods for gender equality are not limited to the country’s humanitarian efforts. The foreign minister has also been furthering a feminist approach for Sweden’s relations with foreign countries.

Peace Bloc: Advocating for Academics in Turkey

by Devin Windelspecht

In January of this year, a collection of 1,128 Turkish citizens, 90 of whom were members of Turkish universities, unitarily stood in protest to the Turkish government through a petition entitled, “We Will Not Be a Party to this Crime!” Stylizing themselves as the “Academicians for Peace,” they declared that the Turkish government had forsaken the rights of life, liberty, security, and freedom from torture through its actions in towns such as Sur, Silvan, Silopi, and others in the Kurdish province of the country.

Idea Lab Noteworthy

Beyza Kural, Bianet

Academics Esra Mungan, Muzaffer Kaya, Kıvanç Ersoy, and Meral Camcı were held in Istanbul after this press conference in March 2016.

Demanding an end to the “deliberate massacre and deportation of Kurdish and other peoples in the region,” the self-titled Academicians soon found themselves under criminal investigation, potentially facing up to five years in prison for alleged “terror propaganda.” Accused of being “fifth columns” for foreign powers, sympathizing with terrorists, and undermining national security, these signatories quickly became the subjects of threats, intimidation, and potential expulsion from their respective universities.

Situations like these are the reason for the creation of Peace Bloc,

a non-profit, non-partisan organization that brings together residents of the United States and Canada to advocate for peace and democracy in Turkey and the Middle East. In an article entitled “A Statement by Peace Bloc on Academics in Turkey,” Peace Bloc extended solidarity to the Academics of Turkey by demanding secession to the policies of intimidation, persecution, and prosecution by the Turkish government against the Academicians. In addition, Peace Bloc called for a reorganization of the Council of Higher Education, in order to preclude influence by political parties or government,

renew respect for the nation’s commitment to the rule of law and democracy, protect human rights by international treaties and the Turkish Constitution, and restart the peace process with Kurdish representatives.

With the current political situation in Turkey, international support is needed for local actors who risk challenging the established powers for the sake of democracy, peace, and human rights. Peace Bloc is one of these very advocates, and its solidarity with the Academicians of Turkey could prove vital to the democratic future of the country.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 7

Idea Lab Noteworthy Campaign for Wild Horse Protection Gains Traction

by Zeynep Karatas

A massive campaign to vaccinate wild horses in the American West has gained momentum, with over threedozen advocacy groups signing on.

Over 36 wild horse advocacy groups are demanding that the human fertility control PZP vaccine is used as a substitute to removing wild horses from the range in the American West.

According to the American Wild Horse Preservation campaign, the US Bureau of Land Management’s policy of rounding up, removing, and stockpiling wild horses in holding facilities is leading up to a USD$1 billion crisis.

Currently, up to USD$80 million is being budgeted for the collection and removal of wild horses.

Over three dozen advocacy groups believe that the more humane and cost effective solution is to vaccinate these horses with PZP, an immunocontraceptive vaccine.

The American Wild Horse Preservation campaign highlights that the use of the reversible vaccination, which is applied by dart, would save millions in US tax dollars. For example, for each mustang removed from wildlife and not adopted, a cost of about USD$49,000 is incurred.

Meanwhile, to vaccinate a single horse will cost about USD$27 per year.

PZP is a biodegradable vaccine and does not pass through the food chain.

Its side effects are limited.

James Marvin Phelps

Wild horses in Cold Creek, Nevada.

8 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Idea Lab Noteworthy UK Party for Women Lays Stepping Stones for Gender Equality

by Zeynep Karatas

The Women’s Equality Party (WE Party) came to life in the United Kingdom in the spring of 2015, and has not looked back since. The party, with its selfexplanatory name, is saying, “WE are not going to wait for equality, WE are going to make it happen—now.”

The party was co-founded by author and journalist, Catherine Mayer, and broadcaster and author, Sandi Toksvig. The party is currently led by former Reuters journalist, Sophie Walker. Walker participated in the London Mayoral elections in May 2016, and was able to gain 5.2 percent of the vote. She is adamant to continue as an active politician.

While women make up 51 percent of the UK population, they are still a minority in terms of voices heard in political, judicial, and business spheres.

Even in the UK, one of the most developed and progressive regions of the world, women only comprise a sliver of representation, at only 28 percent of Members of Parliament, 25 percent of judges, and 24 percent of FTSE 100 directors. It is not difficult to see how a party giving a spotlight to women would be necessary.

The Women’s Equality Party has focused on creating solutions for the obvious gender equality gap, which has been extensively discussed with few substantial gains to show for it.

The feminist political party demands equal representation in politics, business, and industry. They press for equal pay, and also for equal parenting responsibilities, standing for equal opportunities both at home and in the workplace. The party is also pushing for a massive change in the

Fiona Hanson

Sophie Walker

education system for girls and boys to learn about the discrimination females face, and the importance of facing these issues head-on. Finally, the WE Party has complete intolerance for violence against women and seeks its termination as a priority.

“With our policies, we could have an equal parliament in just two elections.

We could ensure every woman fleeing abuse was safe and got justice. We could ensure every working woman had access to childcare. We could ensure dads no longer felt stigmatized for looking after their children. We could ensure that every child grew up thinking gender equality is normal,” the party’s official website states.

So, why a political party focused strictly on gender equality instead of working within other parties?

Walker argues that while the UK has established the Sex Discrimination Act, legally mandating equal pay and shared parental leave, these are only statuses that do not work so well in practice. In a previous interview, Walker stated, “We very deliberately set out to adopt the same model that was used so effectively by the Green Party and by UKIP, which is to put a political party around our goal; to use it as an electoral force. Because when you start threatening the vote share of the other parties, that’s when your agenda becomes their agenda.”

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 9

Krishna, B.K.C, E.D. Fraser, and S. Pascoal. (2016). Pathways Leading to a More Sustainable and Healthy Global Food System. Solutions 7(5): 10-12. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/pathways-leading-to-a-more-sustainable-and-healthy-global-food-system/

Envisioning

Pathways Leading to a More Sustainable and Healthy Global Food System

by Krishna B. KC, Evan D.G. Fraser, Goretty Dias, Trudi Zundel, and Samantha Pascoal

This article is part of a regular section in Solutions in which the author is challenged to envision a future society in which all the right changes have been made.

What follows is a hypothetical executive summary from an imagined Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report on the state of the world’s food systems, written from the perspective of the 2050s.

Executive Summary: FAO State of World Agriculture in 2050 Draft Report While significant challenges still remain, this FAO report presents evidence that the international food system of the second half of the 21st century is more sustainable than the food system of the late 20th or early 21st centuries. In particular, United Nations data illustrate that today more people are being fed on less land and that agriculture is requiring fewer inputs. For instance, despite there being 10 billion people on the planet, today agriculture requires 438 million hectares less land than it did in 2015,1 yet produces more adequate nutrition for all.

In part, technological developments have helped achieve this milestone and the application of big data analytics

Dana Styber

A young boy cradles his harvest of produce at a community garden in Washington, US.

to farming systems in the 2010s and 2020s brought about a new agricultural revolution that was as significant for the early 21st century as the Green Revolution was in the 20th century.

Although technological advancement provided numerous benefits in terms of boosting production while minimizing inputs, the impact of these tools was probably less than the effect that a change in consumer demand, linked with a change in policy, had on the nature of food and farming systems.

For instance, the 2010s were marked by a systemic overproduction of cereals and starches, oils and fats, and sugars.

This meant that although there were enough calories (and UN estimates from the early 21st century suggest that there were close to 3,000 dietary calories per person per day on the planet) these calories were disproportionately cereals, fats, and sugars. By contrast, food systems only produced one third of the fruits and vegetables needed for everyone to enjoy a nutritious diet.

1. Authors’ note: This figure was arrived at by assuming that: (1) agricultural production shifts away from the current over production of cereals, oils, and sugars, thus saving land from farming, but increases the amount of fruit and vegetables to ensure that we produce nine servings of fruit and vegetable / person / day; (2) the world population reaches 10 billion by 2050, as per one of the UN’s medium population scenarios; (3) agricultural yields increase an average of one percent / year between now and 2050. This yield increase is based on the past 30 years of yield data that show an approximate two percent / year increase but also accounts for possible problems caused by climate change that suggests a one percent / decade decline; (4) protein consumption shifts from today where 86 percent of global protein (measured in dietary servings) come from animals and 14 percent comes from plants such as legumes, to a situation where protein consumption is split between 50 percent animal and 50 percent plant-based proteins. Please contact the authors for references etc. pertaining to these calculations.

10 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Envisioning This mismatch between the nutritional requirements of the global human population and the agricultural production of the global food system had at least two major implications. First, the overproduction of fats, cereals, and sugars underpinned the rising tide of obesity and Type 2 diabetes that was so prevalent in the early 21st century. The second implication was that significant amounts of land were being used to produce agricultural products that were undermining human health, thus imposing both environmental and public health sector costs. The conclusion that many scholars from the time drew was that if agriculture were to shift away from sugars, fats, and cereals and rather prioritized fruits and vegetables, then agriculture’s footprint would shrink.

Luckily for humanity, starting in 2020, things shifted. Today, food and farming systems produce better food, on less land, and for more people. The specific drivers of this change have been debated by academics and policymakers around the world ever since.

In particular, five core factors seem to have been at work.

Consumer Education Much like it took a generation for education around the public health impacts of smoking to take effect, by the late 2020s there was an observable shift by middle class consumers around the world towards diets that were better for overall health. In part this was stimulated by a global initiative to promote better food literacy (including cooking skills) amongst middle class urban children as well as a global agreement by the industry to eliminate the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. These policies aimed at enhancing consumer education helped cause the demand for fruit and vegetables to rise faster than anticipated. Producers responded to this rising demand by shifting

cultivation away from cereals, sugars, and oils replacing these lands with new areas devoted to fruits and vegetables.

This shift in demand was amplified by the industry, as it developed and marketed new food products based on fruits and vegetables. Additionally, food literacy and cooking skills had an impact on reducing food waste at the household level.

Policies Aimed at Increasing the Cost of Unhealthy Food The global food literacy program referred to in the previous paragraph was itself funded by a combination of industry and public funds set up following a landmark US Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that declared the industry, in part, responsible for fueling the public health crisis associated with rising obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and other chronic public health problems associated with diets. This ruling, in combination with a fear of similar rulings from other G8 nations, led to an unprecedented global agreement between industry and nation-states under the auspices of the World Health Organization. After over 10 years of negotiation, the World Health Organization was able to bring about a global “junk food tax,” severe restrictions on marketing, and the dedication of funds to promote food literacy.

Overall, these policies had the effect of increasing the cost of unhealthy food, and the industry responded through research and innovation that marketed healthier food products as alternatives.

Policies Geared at Capturing the Hidden Environmental Costs Associated with Farming The initiatives described above were further reinforced by two key environmental initiatives. The first of these was a comprehensive price on carbon executed through the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Early in the 21st century, agriculture had been responsible for approximately 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting up a global carbon market, low-input farming became more competitive, and this in particular favored perennial farming systems such as berries, tree fruits, nuts, and low carbon emission protein sources such as legumes.

Policy also affected the livestock industry through restrictions on antibiotic use. One of the key public health problems of the early 21st century was the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Livestock production, which in the 2010s used approximately 75 percent of all antibiotics worldwide, was one of the causes of this problem. Starting in the late 2010s, governments around the world increasingly restricted the use of antibiotics in livestock as a way of reducing the speed at which antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread.

These policies had the effect of raising the costs associated with animal-based proteins. Much like the price on carbon created an opportunity for lowemission proteins to enter the market, restrictions on antibiotic use created an opportunity for non-animal-based proteins to become established in the minds of the consumer.

A Reduction in the American Corn Subsidy The effect of the first three initiatives described in this report was to either raise awareness or costs associated with unhealthy food. At the same time, a comprehensive reform to the US Farm Bill resulted in a long-term decline in the extent to which the US government subsidized domestic corn production. Reforms to the Farm Bill began during the Barack Obama administration in the 2010s and continued throughout the 2020s. In the end, these policy changes caused

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 11

Envisioning bring it to market, and an economic opportunity to diversify farms away from a narrow focus on cereal production.

Conclusion

Liz West

Agricultural producers of 2050 respond to higher demand for fruits and vegetables by shifting cultivation back to fruits and vegetables, like this red pepper.

prices to rise for livestock feed and products like high fructose corn syrup and cornstarch—both major components of processed foods. On its own, the reduction in the US corn subsidy would probably not have been sufficient to shift consumer demand away from conventional livestock and sugary foods. However, in conjunction with the already mentioned initiatives—and in combination with new food products that featured low input and low antibiotic production methods entering the market—a momentum emerged that swung consumers away from dietary patterns that were conventional at the turn-of-the-century and towards a food and farming system that used less animal protein and occupied a smaller amount of land.

Enhanced Storage and Processing Facilities in the Developing World While the majority of the policies described above changed the relative prices and demand for healthy diets amongst middle class and urban consumers, concurrent strategies were also affecting the ability of poor rural consumers in the Global South to obtain more healthy diets.

In particular, development interventions as well as economic growth meant increasing investments in food storage and processing facilities across Asia, Latin America, and Africa. This meant a significant reduction in postharvest losses, an increase in the ability of farmers to store their food long enough to

12 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

While disagreement exists on the relative strength of the aforementioned drivers, a broad consensus has emerged in the literature.

In particular, there is undeniable evidence that the food and farming systems of the early 21st century overproduced cereals, oils, and sugars and under-produced fruits and vegetables.

Hence, there was a mismatch between what the world needed for everyone to enjoy a nutritious diet and what the world was actually producing. Shifting this scenario towards a system that ensured farmers produced the right kinds of food for balanced nutrition resulted in more healthy food being produced on less land. This shift itself required a combination of the following: 1. economic incentives for healthy food, 2. financial penalties and restrictions on marketing unhealthy food, 3. policies designed to protect the environment and public health (and in particular restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock combined with a global carbon price mechanism), 4. better infrastructure for food processing and storage in poor parts of the world, and 5. innovations made by food processors that resulted in food products that made use of lower input ingredients and, in particular, lower input and non-animal-based proteins.

Stewart, N. (2016). More than Cattle in the Kalahari: The Complex Mosaic of Shifting Solutions Needed for Sustainable Land Management. Solutions 7(5): 13-16. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/more-than-cattle-in-the-kalahari-the-complex-mosaic-of-solutions-needed-for-sustainable-land-management/

Idea Lab Interview

More than Cattle in the Kalahari: The Complex Mosaic of Shifting Solutions Needed for Sustainable Land Management David Thomas, interviewed by Naomi Stewart

P

rofessor David Thomas is a renowned drylands scientist with a background in geomorphology and extensive field experience in arid and semi-arid regions. He has authored over 80 peer-reviewed articles and many books on drylands. Much of his current research work is in collaboration with social scientists to understand how we interact with our environment. In this interview, Professor Thomas shares his experience in the remote Kalahari Desert, offering unique, ground-truth insights into the much-needed solutions for land degradation.

You’ve been working in dryland environments for 35 years, largely in Africa.

What would you say are the biggest changes you’ve seen over that period?

I’d say the two primary things are the expansion of bush encroachment, which is a big, interesting issue in many global semi-arid regions, and, the other is the increase of reliance on groundwater as a means to support agriculture and even pastoralism. The latter is pronounced in environments with uncertain precipitation. I also think it’s partially being pushed by the desire to have production in areas otherwise unsuited to it. I’ve done a lot of my work in the Kalahari. That has been transformed by very simple extraction of groundwater at a large spatial scale, which has meant that environments that people only dipped into in years of good rain are now available 24/7 for pastoralism.

OUCE

David Thomas

So this push for productivity has really affected the water table, then?

Yes, it has. It’s really hard to calculate it. There was an attempt some years ago to try and calculate recharge rates in the Kalahari, and they are way below extraction rates. Of course, this is the same elsewhere. In the US, with the Ogallala Aquifer, for example, you can see two things happening: the water table dropping, and the water quality diminishing.

Do you think these problems with unsustainably demanding more of land is on the rise, or is it more of a steady change in land use?

I think it’s happened for different reasons in different places, and at different scales. In the Kalahari, it kicked off postindependence, and was part of a great

attempt to free up the use of resources and increase productivity. There was a strong cultural element in Botswana, because people love cattle, and it meant that people could graze cattle all year round, in places that had only been used seasonally. As a very old friend of mine who still lives and works out there always describes it, it’s cattle mining. It has big implications on an environmental system that is not naturally used to grazing pressure all year round, and it’s unsustainable in the medium to long term. In the case of the US, it’s linked to issues of food security and satisfying the insatiable demand for products to feed livestock, rather than cereal to be directly consumed by people, which in terms of energy, and environmentally, is far more efficient.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 13

Idea Lab Interview In the areas where you work in Botswana, would you say these landuse changes are driven by policy?

Yes, it was enhanced and enforced by policy changes. Really, what gave it weight was European subsidies to the Botswanan beef market. Under the Lomé Convention, Europe paid above market rate for beef as a development tool, so it encouraged people to have more cows in places where they weren’t previously. In other places, it’s been bizarre the way countries that don’t need to produce food, like Saudi Arabia, have been keen to test out their potential to tap groundwater and grow crops. You have scenes of center-pivot irrigation in the middle of areas with very large sand dunes. It is very unsustainable, and salinization soon results. I think, given that water is a driver, above all, in drylands, if you have access to water year round, then at the local, national, and even international scale it’s seen as a panacea to increase productivity.

David Thomas

Professor David Thomas drills in Sua Pan, Kalahari, for cores to analyze long-term climate and vegetation change data.

14 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

So ultimately, what are the biggest challenges for future land use, not just in Botswana, but in all dryland regions?

Well, my views have changed dramatically over 35 years. I would have said back then that the biggest challenge is land degradation. But, the challenges of growing populations, and the need to feed people make things very different. So, if I were to name two, first I would say urbanization. We can look at the developed world too in this regard: look at the environmental folly of Las Vegas, for example. But, there are equally significant, even larger scale, issues in the developing world from the huge increase of urbanization. This has the dual impact of more people who aren’t producing food, but need feeding, and less labor available in rural areas.

Idea Lab Interview However, I think the biggest challenge of all has to be global warming and its impacts. Particularly in dryland regions, this is one of the biggest uncertainties that prevails. The scale of uncertainty and the unpredictability of the climate system in low-latitude contexts creates an extra burden—it’s really hard to forecast and plan for the future when these are some of the most difficult areas to model future climate changes in.

Are there any easy solutions or quick fixes to implement sustainable land management?

I think looking for quick fixes is the wrong way around. You have to look mid-term, because quick fixes in uncertain and volatile climactic contexts can easily be quick disasters as well.

It’s all about increasing resilience, and not just of the land, but of the people, as that, in turn, has positive impacts on land. Some of the work I’ve been interested and involved in is looking at how people are diversifying livelihoods, as this creates a big buffer against shocks. A positive effect of urbanization is the fact that people are generating income and sending remittances back home. For me, we need to think outside the box for fixes, which really involves looking at the bigger livelihood resilience issue, rather than land degradation in an isolated way.

So what have you seen work, in helping communities and areas become resilient against land degradation and livelihood loss?

We’ve found that a common component to being successful is diversification—not putting all your eggs in one basket. Microcredit has really helped people set up, and think, and actually move in an informed way to improve their agriculture, by taking

out loans for fertilizer, buying better seeds, and so on. Those ways all put less pressure on land, so it can be a win-win for people and the environment. A lot of the solutions to pressure on the land aren’t, per se, to do with the land, but to do with the larger economic and social contexts that people live and exist in.

The final bit is the notion of education, not just to improve basic skills, but allowing people to learn from others with similar experiences.

Linked to the latter is the expansion of interest in traditional practices and local knowledge. There’s been some wonderful work by people like Mark Reed at Newcastle University, looking at how traditional practices are in tune with the environment, including ways of reading the environment, using the land, and recognizing risk. I think local, rather than global, is often good, but you have to have the opportunity to empower people to use what they know. When desertification and land degradation came to the fore of global issues in the 70s and 80s, I think it was being looked at, at the wrong scale.

It was coming out of a colonial era where people hadn’t been able to do what they had traditionally done, or constraints were being put on them, sometimes by new political regimes or even through development. So, giving people opportunities, encouraging and assisting them to have empowerment of activity and more control over their own destinies, can only be good.

we’re in a climax ecosystem world where there’s a default perfect case. In reality, the key dynamic is variability.

So, we don’t want to enforce a single state, but recognise that the natural state varies. In the Kalahari, one of the big problems over large tracts has become bush encroachment—it’s seen as a terrible thing. But, in some conversations we’ve had with local farmers, they saw some benefits of it: shrubs provide fodder in the dry season, and can actually be a real buffer before grass reappears at the beginning of the west season. Some form of enforced stability has come about because of the impacts of bush encroachment and groundwater extraction. But, stability isn’t the right context for me, and I don’t have an ideal scenario.

If I was a dreamer, I would take down the fences, remove the cattle, stop the groundwater being pumped and allow natural systems, with their migratory wildlife herds, to recover.

But, that will, of course, not happen, so we have to deal with a situation of increased human engagement with areas that were once less ‘used’. So, what I do have is a concern of the risk of imposing a rigid solution, especially with the impacts of global warming, on these notoriously difficult-to-pinpoint systems. An ‘ideal’ scenario might be palatable now, but could turn around and bite us in ten years if climate system dynamics lead to, say, a different precipitation regime than was anticipated.

If you were to wake up tomorrow in a new world, what would your dream scenario for a stable Kalahari landscape look like?

Well, you’ve touched upon one of the big dilemmas, because the landscape is not naturally stable. That’s where a lot of land degradation problems come into drylands—this assumption that

You’ve mentioned the idea of resilience and diversification in terms of income and economics.

The Economics of Land Degradation Initiative works with the idea of total economic value of ecosystem services to ascertain more understanding of the value of land. Do you think calculating this value proves useful?

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 15

Idea Lab Interview

David Thomas

Access to water remains a major issue in African drylands, even here in the Kalahari’s wettest part, in western Zambia.

It’s an attractive way of looking at things, but the risk attached to it in a rural, developing-world context is that it gives emphasis to putting people in the hands of those who are making the policies. You’re attaching a value to things in a volatile system that may have a different value later on. It’s also really important to understand what economics means at the local scale. I’m an advocate of valuing local knowledge and information, so I think there needs to be a lot of care attached to that, as to whose economics is being used to attach values to things. A lot of

dryland systems and rural economies are not part of the global economic system. They operate at a much more local scale, and there’s a danger that as this scales up to being valued at a national scale, it loses definition at the local scale. One thing I have learned in my 35 years in drylands, is that difference and variability are the only two words you can use to characterise dryland environmental and social systems. They are not temporally stable, and they are not spatially consistent, and I think that’s a real challenge from an economic model.

16 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

It’s a complex task, going between all the scales and trying to find a common language between them. How do you feel about the future?

The more hands to the pump the better it is, because that’s where the controversies and differences arise.

If I look back at early concerns about land degradation, there were too many singular voices shouting loudly about the right way to do things and what the problem is. I think the big thing we have learned in 35 years is that difference, and appreciating differences, is key to finding the right solutions.

Thomas, R., M. Schauer, and N. Stewart. (2016). Putting Economic and Environmental Sustainability Hand in Hand to Protect Our Lands. Solutions 7(5): 17-20. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/putting-economic-and-environmental-sustainability-hand-in-hand-to-protect-our-lands/

Perspectives Putting Economic and Environmental Sustainability Hand in Hand to Protect Our Lands

by Richard Thomas and Mark Schauer

Mark Schauer

Paddy fields near Hetauda, Nepal, with the Himalayas in the background.

L

and degradation is an under- estimated global concern with far-reaching implications affecting the ability of land to provide food and incomes. Globally, a large portion of the vulnerable human populations— the rural poor—live on degrading and less-favored agricultural lands without market access. Heterogeneous solutions that ensure both economic and environmental sustainability are needed at multiple scales.

On a policy level, awareness of land and soil degradation is increasing.

Last year all countries adopted a set of goals as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The specific goal on land degradation includes a commitment for countries to take steps to achieve a land-degradation neutral world. This commitment is universal; it will apply to developed as well as developing countries and covers lands with sufficient rainfalls

for agriculture as well as drylands across political borders.

However, a recent publication claims ‘the end of desertification’ and calls for a more nuanced approach to the serious problem of global land degradation that moves away from the emotional rhetoric of expanding deserts and sand-covered villages, forcing people to migrate into an uncertain future.1 Such doom and gloom stories dominated international discussions

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 17

Perspectives in the late 20th century and provided the arguments for the establishment of a UN Convention to Combat Desertification, which is now specifically addressing this issue. Others have countered this direction of thoughts with a more optimistic view of how populations can survive by building on traditional knowledge in a new paradigm for people, ecosystems, and development.

Despite these debates, no one contends that land degradation is not a very real and serious problem. This is especially so for the sectors of society who are mainly smallholder farmers in drylands and characterized as being the poorest, hungriest, least healthy, and most marginalized people on Earth. These people depend on land as the basis for their economic development and opportunities, as small as they might be. A sustainable management and rehabilitation approach of land must thus be engaged for their survival and well-being.

Technical solutions to preventing and/or reversing land degradation abound, and yet the problem persists.

This is mainly due to a lack of enabling institutions and policies, which can facilitate the investments needed as well as limited knowledge exchange and dissemination amongst people affected by the impacts of land degradation. Economic arguments based around the total economic value and the use of robust cost–benefit analyses can provide a common language for stakeholders to work from. It can also help determine the most equitable and fair distribution of benefits that often result from sustainable land management. This is why the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative was set up—it is an international collaboration of researchers and stakeholders that aims to establish a network of practitioners sharing knowledge and tools to enable better decision making

in land management, using the most robust economic understandings hand in hand with understandings of socioeconomic drivers and outcomes.

For example, people living in marginalized rural areas have survived for centuries by coping with adverse conditions of climate and political isolation. Many of them still rely heavily on agricultural and especially livestock production. Rangeland grazing is often the most efficient means to harvest and concentrate the meager, but very widespread nutrients found in range vegetation into useful

In the meantime, a booming population of young people who will not be able to find employment in traditional agriculture and other landmanagement systems is developing.

Land deterioration, depletion of both water and land, deforestation, and desertification are slow-onset processes that can become a factor for mobility. Migration and urbanization are already happening, and are complex and diverse phenomena with multiple drivers leading to them. Widespread land degradation (in terms of loss of nutrients, soil erosion, salinization, and

There is a need to define ‘future farmers’ and ensure that society supports their stewardship activities and that they reap sufficient benefits that can attract them to remain on the land, as developing countries’ long-term economic growth is highly dependent on natural resources.

products such as meat, milk, and fiber. Still, in general terms, only 50 percent or less of household income in these regions comes from this form of extensive agriculture. It also can be supplemented by more intensive production where water is available near river courses and oases, or when groundwater is tapped—which is often unsustainable.

When we look into the future, it is probable that this type of livelihood will not support the expected numbers of people populating the regions in dryland areas, especially when considering that areas such as North Africa and the Middle East have some of the highest birth rates. We need powerful economic arguments to shift the policies that influence land use decisions to sustainable land management.

18 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

pollution) is one of these drivers and is likely to add to outmigration from rural areas, general discontent, and possible linkages to overseas migration.

A different approach of managing the land can mitigate the issue. So what types of farmers will be needed in the near and longer term? In this debate, the link between land, its valuation, and misuse comes into play. It is clear from the studies of the ELD Initiative that we generally underestimate the value of land, and in some locations there is a large disconnect between the financial and true value of land.

The cost of land degradation does not only include the loss of harvests and declined livelihoods but also the loss of ecosystem services provided by the land. Given that agriculture, although the mainstay, is increasingly

Perspectives

Mark Schauer

A farmer on a water buffalo in Southern Terai, Nepal.

insufficient to provide viable livelihoods, we need to look at land from its multifunctional and multisectoral aspects. The approach of the ELD Initiative, which embraces a total economic valuation methodology, addresses this multifaceted approach through a cost–benefit analysis. This approach includes land as a provider of ecosystem services, therefore including its value and additional income generation through the energy, water, and food sectors and potential for tourism in expansive areas that attract visitors.

In developing solutions to something as complex as land degradation, it is important to understand the nature of how factors like the environment and socio-economics interact,

and then create knowledge portals while building capacity globally. To contribute to these efforts, the ELD Initiative has undertaken case studies in regions across the world to support the knowledge base that underscores enhanced, accurate land valuations.

This includes studies on the value of ecosystem services and scenarios of land use in different places around the world as well as stakeholder consultations globally. It also supports the ongoing work of the scientific community through reports highlighting the latest research, policy-makers through targeted briefs, and the private sector through guidelines for sustainable business practices and strategies. The ELD Initiative also endeavors to build capacity with stakeholders through

the development of practitioners’ and users’ guides that share step-by-step outlines on how to undertake a total economic valuation for an individual area or region.

Understanding the many ecosystem services provided and valuing them, even when they are normally not included in the market and decision-making processes, then leads to the concept not of farmers tilling these degraded lands, but rather a concept of farmers and other land managers as stewards of the land who ought to be rewarded for their multifaceted activities in preserving ecosystem habitats, of safeguarding water supplies, of contributing to carbon sequestration, and all the many aspects connected to the sustainable management of land.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 19

Perspectives

Mark Schauer

A Taru woman selling homegrown produce at a local market in Rajbiraj, Nepal.

There is a need to define ‘future farmers’ and ensure that society supports their stewardship activities and that they reap sufficient benefits that can attract them to remain on the land, as developing countries’ long-term economic growth is highly dependent on natural resources. Their continued support in the management of land can indeed create new centers of sustainable activity that are likely to be a major source of economic growth and advancement in newly developing economies. They will also attract young people to remain in rural towns, thus securing much-needed resource bases while developing communitylevel capacity and resilience against fluxes in the market or environmental

shifts. These areas must also be seen as new progress regions for the private sector, well supported by congenial, enabling environments, to encourage diverse and healthy investments.

The establishment of these regions is largely the responsibility of national governments, as they provide a larger framework for land uses. The ELD Initiative aims to work with ministers and nations to support their understanding of these types of economic contexts before making decisions around land use, change, and management.

Economics can be used as a universal language, helping both to raise awareness for the issue of degrading land and the loss of the basis of

20 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

production to policy makers, and to support good decision making in this context. It pays to invest in the rehabilitation of land, as the results of the ELD Initiative studies in a number of different projects indicate. This, and other on-going efforts to produce economic understanding of terrestrial ecosystem value will result in the sustainable management and conservation of land as the crucial resource for economic development and food security for future generations, and contribute greatly to land degradation neutrality.

References 1. Behkne, R & Mortimore, M (eds). The End of Desertification? Disputing Environmental Changes in the Drylands (Springer, New York, 2016).

Barrios, E. and F. Sinclair. (2016). Restoring and Sustaining the Soil We Farm. Solutions 7(5): 21-23. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/restoring-and-sustaining-the-soil-we-farm/

Perspectives Restoring and Sustaining the Soil We Farm

by Edmundo Barrios and Fergus Sinclair

T

he sight of brown water running down farmland during heavy rains immediately brings to mind the question: how much soil is being lost through erosion? What is less obvious is that the top layer of soil being eroded contains a lot of soil carbon.

This is because the top soil has higher soil organic matter content and associated living soil organisms than deeper soil layers.

Soil tillage also generates large losses of soil carbon. This is because soil is clumped together, in lumps that contain organic matter that is protected from the action of soil microbes responsible for decomposition. Tillage operations break up these soil aggregates and the microbial decomposition of the newly exposed organic matter results in gaseous losses of carbon.

Furthermore, the same decomposition process also results in the production of soil nitrate, which is a very mobile form of nitrogen that can easily contribute to leaching or gaseous losses that negatively affect the environment.

Soil carbon loss is a central aspect of soil degradation and restoring these stocks is a key global priority.

Realizing the full benefits from recovering soil organic carbon stocks during restoration hinges on nurturing a community of soil organisms that are able to perform a diverse set of key ecological functions. In many degraded soils, its capacity to function normally is impaired and crop yields do not respond to mineral fertilizer inputs. This ‘nonresponsiveness’ is often, at least partly, the result of a reduction in the diversity of organisms during degradation causing the loss of critical

soil functions. These degraded soils occupy up to 60 percent of arable land in densely populated smallholder communities, removing any incentive farmers might have had to apply fertilizer.1,2 The low use of fertilizer on farms is a widespread problem in Africa and has resulted in ‘mining’ soil nutrients as successive crops receive little or no nutrient input, but nutrients are removed in harvested products.

Cropping without sufficient nutrient replenishment is unsustainable and leads to soil degradation. The soil can be conceived of as a savings account in a bank. If money is taken out continuously, without putting any money back in, will eventually run out.

retention of trees within agricultural systems.4 The continuous supply of organic materials to the soil through aboveground and belowground organic inputs by trees is one key benefit of agroforestry. But, trees differ in the quantity and quality of organic inputs that they supply, which in turn influences soil organic matter dynamics and soil carbon storage.

How trees are managed affects other plant characteristics, like canopy size, that affect their impact on microclimatic conditions near trees, which in turn affects the abundance and activity of soil organisms.5 We are building our capacity to understand how the chemical characteristics of organic inputs derived from

Trees in farms and agricultural landscapes constitute resource islands that provide shelter to soil organisms.

Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) involves using fertilizers, organic inputs, and improved germplasm, combined with the knowledge to adapt these practices to local conditions to increase crop productivity and biomass production.3 Providing the continuous supply of organic inputs required to restore soil carbon stocks and soil health is often a challenge. This is particularly so when relying on residues of annual crops that are often in high demand for other on-farm uses like animal feed or as fuel for cooking.

Agroforestry is a diverse set of land management practices that involve the introduction or selective

trees (leaves, leaf litter, and roots) affects their speed of decomposition, through the development of an organic resource database for agroforestry tree species. The total nitrogen, lignin, and polyphenols are plant tissue chemical parameters that have been the most reliable indicators of the speed of decomposition and nutrient release from organic inputs.6,7 These indicators relate the quality of organic inputs derived from different trees to their residence time on the soil surface when applied as mulch, which is of particular importance for soil moisture conservation in drier environments. The decomposition

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 21

Perspectives

Kyle Spradley | © 2014 - Curators of the University of Missouri

Agroforestry research plots at the Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Center in New Franklin, Missouri. Interdisciplinary cooperation at the Center allows researchers from multiple disciplines to combine research efforts to address an array of issues.

patterns of organic inputs also allow us to predict the timing of nitrogen release so that additional measures can be put in place to efficiently utilize the nitrogen as it is released, such as early crop planting, or the selection of crops or crop varieties with appropriate duration. A greater predictive capacity fosters a more efficient use of nutrient resources through land management that increase synchrony of nutrient supply and demand, and thus minimize nutrient losses.8 The study of the way different soil organisms are distributed in relation to different tree species; that is, how many are found close to rather than further away from trees, and how active they are in these different

locations, is helpful in understanding how trees influence important soil functions and hence their role in sustaining soil functions in farmer’s fields.9 A recent review showed that agroforestry consistently generated important increases in the mean number of soil organisms of different sizes when compared to adjacent continuous cropping without trees.

Further, it also showed that soil biological activity was greater near rather than away from trees, but the magnitude of the response varied with tree species.5 This study and other evidence in the literature support the idea that trees in farms and agricultural landscapes constitute resource islands that provide shelter

22 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

to soil organisms.10,11 By protecting soil organisms, particularly during periods of environmental stress (e.g., drought and floods), trees also protect the functions performed by such organisms. Given the expected increase in frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events in the next decades resulting from climate change, the sheltering role of trees for soil organisms becomes increasingly important for sustaining critical soil functions in agricultural landscapes that generate benefits for society.

A number of studies have highlighted the wealth of soil knowledge and experience held by local farmers as an essential complement to scientific knowledge.12–14 We use research

Perspectives tools that encourage knowledge sharing and thus promote co-learning among farmers, agricultural professionals, and researchers to guide the selection of study trees in agricultural farms and landscapes.15,16 This approach not only strengthens the relevance, credibility, and legitimacy of our research but also provides a solid basis for the selection of tree species to be studied from the large pool of tree species usually found in tropical agricultural landscapes. We are systematically characterizing and linking selected tree characteristics with the abundance, diversity, and activity of soil organisms that drive ecosystem functions and services mediated by the soil. For instance, by studying the way in which soil aggregation processes occur, assessing soil carbon stocks, and the abundance, diversity, and activity of key soil organisms (e.g., earthworms) under and away from native and exotic trees, we evaluate the net effect of tree species on soil. We use soil’s concentration of carbon and its stability when in contact with water to indicate overall health, as these characteristics reflect the influence of trees on the regulation of carbon storage.17 Tree characteristics mentioned earlier are systematically compared to indicators of soil health to enhance our understanding of how above and below ground biodiversity influence each other.18 We aim to address the central question of what tree densities, arrangements, and species are needed to maintain essential ecosystem functions provided by soil organisms in agricultural landscapes.

Furthermore, the combined use of modern technologies, such as molecular tools, are increasing our ability to identify and characterize the role of trees in fostering “hotspots” of biological activity across gradients of agricultural intensification.19

Beyond sustaining soil function, agroforestry has been increasingly recognized and practiced as a restorative land management option that can simultaneously contribute to income, food security, and the conservation of biodiversity, including important pollinators, that underpin a range of ecosystem services.20 It has also been identified as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture.21 Here we have highlighted evidence that trees are multifunctional entities critical for sustaining beneficial impacts of ISFM implementation, given their capacity for continuous supply of organic inputs, their deep rooting ability that tightens nutrient cycles and minimizes nutrient losses, and their role in sustaining soil biodiversity and function while simultaneously buffering agroecosystems against climatic and economic changes.

8. Cobo, JG, Barrios, E, Kass, D & Thomas, RJ. Nitrogen mineralization and crop uptake from surfaceapplied leaves of green manure species on a tropical volcanic-ash soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 36(2), 87–92 (2002).

9. Pauli, N, Oberthur, T, Barrios, E & Conacher, A. Finescale spatial and temporal variation in earthworm surface casting activity in agroforestry fields, western Honduras. Pedobiologia 53(2), 127–139 (2010).

10. Liu, R, Zhao, H, Zhao, X & Drake, S. Facilitative effects of shrubs in shifting sand on soil macrofaunal community in Horqin Sand Land of Inner Mongolia, Northern China. European Journal of Soil Biology 47, 316–321 (2011).

11. Dossa, EL et al. Crop productivity and nutrient dynamics in a shrub-based farming system of the Sahel. Agronomy Journal 105(4), 1237–1246 (2013).

12. Barrios, E & Trejo, MT. Implications of local soil knowledge for integrated soil fertility management in Latin America. Geoderma 111(3–4), 217–231 (2003).

13. Pauli, N, Barrios, E, Conacher, AJ & Oberthur, T. Farmer knowledge of the relationships among soil macrofauna, soil quality, and tree species in a small holder agroforestry system of western Honduras.

Geoderma 189–190 (2008).

14. Junqueira, AB, Almekinders, CJM, Stomph, TJ, Clement, CR & Struik, PC. The role of Amazonian anthropogenic soils in shifting cultivation: learning

References

from farmers’ rationales. Ecology and Society 21(1), 12

1. Zingore, S, Murwira, HK, Delve, RJ & Giller, KE. Soil type, management history and current resource

(2016).

15. Barrios, E, Coutinho, HL & Medeiros, CA. InPaC-S:

allocation: three dimensions regulating variability

Participatory knowledge integration on indicators

in crop productivity on African smallholder farms.

of soil quality–methodological guide [online] (2012).

Field Crops Research 101, 296–305 (2007).

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/

2. Tittonell, P, Corbeels, M, van Wijk, MT, Vanlauwe, B & Giller, KE. Combining organic and mineral

publications/PDFs/B17459.PDF. 16. Coe, R, Sinclair, FL & Barrios, E. Scaling up

fertilizers for integrated soil fertility management

agroforestry requires a research ‘in’ rather than

in smallholder farming systems of Kenya:

‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental

Explorations using the crop-soil model FIELD. Agronomy Journal 100, 1511–1526 (2008).

3. Vanlauwe, B et al. Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8, 15–22 (2014).

4. Sinclair, FL. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems 46, 161-180 (1999).

5. Barrios, E, Sileshi, GW, Shepherd, K & Sinclair, F. Agroforestry and soil health: linking trees, soil biota and ecosystem services in Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services (eds Wall, DH. et al.) 315–330 (Oxford

Sustainability 6, 73–77 (2014).

17. Fonte, SJ, Barrios, E & Six, J. Earthworms, soil fertility and aggregate-associated soil organic matter dynamics in the Quesungual agroforestry system.

Geoderma 155, 320–328 (2010).

18. van der Putten, WH et al. Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground-belowground ecology.

Oecologia 161, 1–14 (2009).

19. Barrios, E. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics 64(2), 269–285 (2007).

20. Steffan-Dewenter, I et al. Trade-offs between income,

University Press, Oxford, 2012).

6. Cobo, JG, Barrios, E, Kass, D & Thomas, RJ.

biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during

Decomposition and nutrient release by green

tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry

manures in a tropical hillside agroecosystem. Plant

intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104(12), 4973–4978 (2007).

and Soil 240, 331–342 (2002).

7. Vanlauwe, B et al. Laboratory validation of a

21. Schoeneberger, M et al. Branching out: Agroforestry

resource quality-based conceptual framework for

as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool

organic matter management. Soil Science Society of

for agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

America Journal 69, 1135–1145 (2005).

67(5), 128A–136A (2012).

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 23

De Vivo, R., A. Marchis, E.J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, and E. Capri (2016). The Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Solutions 7(5): 24-31. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/the-sustainable-intensification-of-agriculture/

Perspectives The Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture

by Romano De Vivo, Alexandru Marchis, Emilio J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, and Ettore Capri

N. Pavese, Syngenta 2016

Biodiversity enhancement.

C

limate change, water scarcity, and the limited availability of arable land while demand is on the continuous rise, make it clear that we need alternatives to conventional farming.

With the Earth’s population predicted to rise to nine billion by 2050, we must increase the yields of global agriculture without environmental degradation or cultivating more land.

Producing 70 percent more food for an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050, while at the same time combating poverty and hunger, using scarce natural resources more efficiently, and adapting to climate change are the main challenges world agriculture will face in the coming decades.

Given these challenges, current approaches are or may become unsustainable. We must find new methods that address all elements of the agricultural system, encompassing better soil and land management, as well as the enhancement of soil structure and biodiversity. The sustainable intensification of crop production approach focuses on the need to feed a growing population while coping with an increasingly degraded environment and uncertainties resulting from climate change. This concept provides opportunities for optimizing crop production per unit area, taking into consideration the range of sustainability aspects including potential and/

24 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

or real social, political, economic and environmental impacts.

Securing the food supply requires a coordinated effort with a clear vision of both the challenges and the potential of proposed solutions. New efforts must be resource efficient, or in other words, to produce more with less, primarily with regard to soil and water, but also with regards to other inputs such as fertilizers, plant protection products, energy, and labor. The realization of this goal—that clearly depends upon the ability to activate the knowledge transfer needed to support and strengthen the rural communities and improved collaboration in the value chain—would not only

Perspectives contribute to competitiveness and economic sustainability, but would support the investments in ecosystem resilience necessary to sustain future productivity and the productive capacity of future generations.

Biodiversity determines health and resilience of ecosystems. In fact, biodiversity enhanced in uncropped field margins supports multiple other ecosystem services such as erosion control, soil formation, nutrient cycling, pollination, and biological control, as well as climate regulation.1-3 Biodiversity loss is a serious threat to food safety and health. Habitat loss and fragmentation are among the most important elements of this threat.1,2,4 These translate into a population of ‘smaller size’ and ‘greater isolation.’ Size and isolation limit species’ genetic variation, reduce their potential of evolutionary adaption, and increase the possibility of extinction, which climate change may further accelerate.5 Surprisingly, the policy framework on biodiversity considers the lack of landscape connectivity in a marginal way. Environmental legislation on biodiversity is fragmented and mainly related to species and spaces protection (e.g., specific species, habitats, and resource frameworks), and rarely includes ecological corridors or systematic opportunities of leveraging the cultural and natural heritage of ecological systems.

Innovation vs. Innovative Implementation To implement the learning of an agricultural innovation requires itself an innovative process. Learning proceeds through stages, but for that to happen, the farmer needs to be motivated to devote the necessary effort.

Motivation can come from individuals or be imposed from the outside, most often by markets or regulation.

In both cases, individuals need to be aware of the new solution and of the potential reward systems attached.

As the depth of intrinsic interest and curiosity increases, awareness turns into understanding, and learning barriers are breached and progressively removed throughout practical optimization and refinement.

In conclusion, the real implementation is only happening when effective knowledge transfer systems can enable farmers to put forward the theoretical innovation, and the learning process is only complete when deep learning drives the understanding, turning into commitments first, and then into actions, unleashing a virtuous cycle.

For this reason, implementation may sometimes generate ‘innovative changes’ decades from the genesis of the innovative idea.

The Solution: Sustainable Intensification as a New Production System The continued development of a sustainable intensification of agriculture is essential to maintain the future quality and supply of agricultural products, while respecting the integrity of the land and the people who work it.

Improving farming techniques—the way we till, rotate crops, cover the ground, fertilize, and handle plant protection products—can contribute significantly towards enhancing soil and water conservation, as well as biodiversity.6,7 At the same time, using available land more efficiently (i.e., zero tillage) can help us abate greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, avoid further destruction of natural habitats, and contribute to stored soil carbon.

Improved use of un-cropped areas can halt habitat loss while landscape connectivity can avoid fragmentation and species isolation that, through a reduced evolutionary adaption, increases the possibility of extinction.6

Sustainable intensification builds on combining and creating synergies between existing individual solutions, while selecting those elements that provide multiple benefits to the various societal challenges. In recent history, we have had green revolution policies that created production systems focused on increasing output.

Policies were first meant to open markets and increase opportunities for farmers to improve their income and social status. More recently, policies are aimed at reducing environmental impacts. The future will be reserved for production systems that are able to produce multiple benefits responding to more than one societal challenge. The value added of these new solutions is to find the right combination of elements that reply to this objective.

While sustainable practices are making inroads into farming communities, work is needed to make them more widespread and to adapt them to local needs and indigenous knowledge. We need convincing evidence that the methods produce quality crops in sufficient quantities, and that this approach can support a competitive and healthy rural community. Research and development, investment in new technologies, and strategized agricultural policy, as well as capacity-building to put these tools into practice, will help support a competitive farming sector that is able to balance productivity with the protection of natural resources.

A number of projects have been implemented by several different multi-stakeholder platforms, such as LIFE+ Agricarbon and LIFE+ ClimAgri that support the transformation of our agricultural systems towards resource-use optimization, ecosystem resilience, knowledge transfer, and climate adaptation.8,9

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 25

Perspectives

N. Pavese, Syngenta 2016

Soil management.

Within these projects we explored: (i) Conservation Agriculture (CA) from the farmer’s perspective and determined how guidelines are best applied in the field; (ii) multifunctional landscape issues, and, (iii) the integration of the protection of biodiversity with that of soil and water through vegetative strips that not only provide valuable habitats, but also capture runoff and prevent erosion from fields, while supporting landscape connectivity. Such approaches are an integral part of the Sustainable Intensive Agriculture of the future.

Overall, data collected from the above projects shows that the combination of intensive farming and sustainability practices can promote

an economically viable system of intensive agricultural production.

It meets the demands of the coming decades while reducing pressure on habitat and enhancing the conservation of water and soil. These findings also suggest that a range of approaches is required that are specific to crops, climates, and cultures found around the globe.

These broad avenues of scientific research are observed in light of social, economic, and political considerations. We nonetheless believe our experience shows that this form of sustainable intensification creates many opportunities for continued improvement in agricultural productivity, environmental stewardship, and human well-being.

26 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Field Margins: One Element of a System to Address Many Challenges in Agriculture We need biodiversity policy to go beyond the identification and conservation of species and spaces by considering instead the link between biodiversity in agriculture and the role of farmers as custodians of this biodiversity.

In this direction, the concept of habitats based on vegetation types should give way to inter-connected functional habitats, adapted to local land uses and opportunities for conservation. The restoration of landscape connectivity would be a valid measure to generate diversity, evolution, and improved landscape adaptation.10 This would help

Perspectives

N. Pavese, Syngenta 2016

Soil management.

enormously in terms of anticipation and prevention (e.g., act well before the genetic diversity and the evolutionary potential of the species have been eroded: once genetically impoverished, populations can count on a very limited adaptability).

Field margins, and other rural landscape features, can make a significant contribution to the restoration of landscape connectivity and the achievement of food security without compromising resource conservation.

Indeed, the management of field margins, or other uncropped areas next to or near fields, is one of the most important environmental assets that a farmer can provide. Today, it is widely acknowledged that field margins are crucial for the protection of soil

and water and, where appropriately managed, boost biological diversity in farming landscapes.11-13 The intervention of farmers to use marginal land, traditionally ignored, to produce multiple effects for cropping areas and simultaneously for the environment is, in itself, an innovation in agricultural production.

Further synergies sought with cropping technologies and considerations of the landscape and connectivity of green infrastructures are a further contribution that transforms the farmer from a resource-consuming actor to a custodian of land and landscapes.

Hence, farmers’ social roles and positions need to be reconsidered.

Agricultural landscapes are primarily dictated by the activities of farming

communities making their living within the physical constraints of the land. They vary with geography, topography, cropping systems, and intensity of management. In most farming systems, for example, the landscape presents a myriad of cultivated and uncultivated elements, separated by linear features including field margins, verges, and watercourses. These linear features create the rich mosaic of farmers’ fields, defining the diversity of agricultural landscapes across the regions.

Field margins are typified by having some form of boundary structure—typically a hedge, fence, wall, bank, ditch, drain, or water course.

In most instances, this is accompanied by some form of associated

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 27

Perspectives herbaceous vegetation adjacent to the crop. A margin strip is any clearly defined strip established in the field or at the edge of the field, between the crop and the boundary.

The purpose of this area may be for access or for wildlife and environmental objectives and may have agronomic, recreational, or cultural functions.14 In recent years, there has been a close look at the positive roles played by field margins, hedges, and ponds on farmland. New approaches to creating and managing these areas have shown how they can deliver greater benefits for the environment and for the public good.1-3

Although a better understanding of the complex interactions between fauna and flora, cropped and noncropped areas, and semi-natural habitat and crops is still needed, there are some noteworthy observations:10 • Sown strips of selected perennial species, between arable fields and alongside hedges, can supplement and enrich existing natural herbaceous flora. This can provide potential environmental benefits for plant species diversity and supporting larger insect populations, along with agricultural benefits for improved weed management.

The future will be reserved for production systems that are able to produce multiple benefits responding to more than one societal challenge.

Today, it is broadly acknowledged that measures to enhance farmland biodiversity and to protect essential resources—primarily clean water and soil—are as important as the need for food and feed production. Indeed, they are seen as key to the sustainability of such production systems.12,15 Not surprisingly then, the focus of a number of recent studies has been the development of proactive techniques to create and manage areas of farmland biodiversity.16 This scientific research and detailed monitoring has shown that it is possible to significantly enhance beneficial insects, biodiversity, and environmental protection, while enabling farmers to retain practical options for increased productivity and the profitable use of farmed lands.1,4,14,17

• Positive management of flora on field margins and banks of watercourses adjacent to crop fields can have substantial benefits, such as soil erosion and enhanced water quality.

• The importance of field margins and hedges in providing habitat and food sources for farmland birds has been researched and highlighted. It has been shown that modification of field margin management—specifically, to help target species of declining farmland birds—may help in their conservation.

• These land features are also important for pollinating insects, such as bees and butterflies. Studies have indicated that relatively small areas of carefully selected and sited

28 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

farmland specifically managed for biodiversity enhancement or environmental protection can provide significant gains and meet clear objectives, with little or no impact on physical production from the farmed area.

Although counter-intuitive, field margins are beneficial for agricultural production: many beneficial predators, such as spiders and ground beetles which feed on a variety of foods, especially traditional crop pests such as aphids, are dependent upon field margins for part of the year.17,18 The high number of invertebrates provides food for farmland birds and mammals, such as bats. Field margins and hedges are also important as refuges for arthropods in winter, and may even influence the soil macrofauna, notably earthworms, which can be beneficial for the quality of the soils.14,15,19,20 Importantly, field margins may also influence the flow of nutrients and water within agricultural landscapes.3 Studies have shown that margins alongside watercourses can act as buffers to stop the movement of soil from fields to adjacent watercourses and wetland habitats, including rivers, streams, ditches, and marshlands. This, in turn, can help prevent any contaminants within the soil particles from reaching the watercourse.11,21,22 With this new emphasis on environmental protection, combined with a renewed desire from consumers to understand and appreciate the production systems from which their food comes, farmers are starting to be recognized as custodians and conservers of their land and providers of an irreplaceable resource managed for the public good.

In addition to measures that can assist farmers with the creation of beneficial field margins, further initiatives should ensure that other

Perspectives areas of non-farmed land, such as road and rail embankments, are fully utilized to achieve the best possible environmental benefit.

Furthermore, initiatives to encourage the public to manage homes and gardens towards providing habitats for pollinators and others could prove entirely complementary to the actions being taken on farms.

Conservation Agriculture: A Breakthrough in Three Simple Steps In general, conventional farming practices are based on the tillage of soil in order to control weeds and prepare a proper seedbed. Unfortunately, the implements utilized to plough degrade topsoil. The UNCCD estimates that 12 million hectares per year of productive land are being degraded globally, with some of this degradation being induced by agricultural practices.23 Tillage-based agriculture is unable to deliver many environmental ecosystem services due to its high and cumulative externalities, as well as its inability to serve the needs of resource-poor farmers. Tillage degrades the natural soil structure and depletes soil organic matter, as well as the associated soil life and biodiversity, along with many of the soil-mediated ecosystem functions that provide, regulate, and protect environmental services.6,7,20 Ploughing also causes many off-site damages to infrastructure (e.g., sedimentation in water courses and dams), in downstream watercourses, and in water bodies (due to the pollution with sediments, nutrients, and agri-chemicals that are diluted in water or fixed in the particles of soil).

In addition, soil tillage causes a decrease in soil quality due to organic matter loss. Certainly, tillage operations significantly reduce soil fertility and productivity. Conventional agriculture CO2 emissions originate from

ploughing operations, for which high power tractors are needed at almost full capacity, consuming large amounts of fuel. But, ploughing also promotes the contact between soil organic carbon and atmospheric oxygen. This interaction results in a microbiological oxidation that leads to the formation of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. By substituting conventional practices with conservation practices, carbon emissions can be substantially abated.6 Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a so-called emerging agro-science and encompasses techniques that minimize or eliminate tillage and, thus, maintain a vegetative cover that protects soil from degradation.

CA principles emanate from conservation tillage (CT), which includes no tillage (NT), reduced tillage (RT), and groundcovers (GC) in perennial crops. Nevertheless, CA is not the same as CT. Certainly, CA goes beyond CT, and is defined by three linked core principles that must be jointly applied to create synergies: minimum soil disturbance, permanent organic soil cover, and crop rotations. CA relies on NT as the best practice for arable crops, and on GC for perennial crops.

Therefore, a proper management of crop residues is key to CA. Crop residues are the tools through which many of the benefits of CA are reached.6 Maintaining the straw over the soil fulfils a series of functions that help agriculture to be turned into a sustainable activity: • Protect soil against erosion: crop residues are a physical barrier to the impact of drops. These impacts can disaggregate soil particles that move downstream easily. Residues also block wind erosion.

• Wildlife refuge: straw is a refuge itself for many microorganisms, insects, small animals, and birds.

• Physical barrier to downstream movement of water, soil particles, and contaminants.

• Increase of organic matter level: vegetal residues are decomposed by soil microorganisms and become part of the soil, increasing its organic matter level and providing soil a better structure by making up more stable soil aggregates.

• Carbon sequestration: soil acts as a sink/store of C if crop residues are not removed from a field or burned.

• Improved water balance: leaving crop residues in the plot prevents solar radiation from reaching the ground and, therefore, evaporation decreases.

Over the past forty years, empirical and scientific evidence from different parts of the world in the tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate regions has been accumulating to show that CA, translated into locally devised practices to address prevailing ecological and socio-economic constraints and opportunities, can work successfully to provide a range of productivity, socioeconomic, and environmental benefits to producers and society at large.7 There is a need to make an effective technology transfer to farmers and technicians using a combination of scientific and practical expertise, in order to avoid abandoning the application of CA techniques due to a lack of training.

Programs at the national and regional levels should be developed in order to adapt existing knowledge to local conditions. Incentive funds should also be implemented wherever possible.

The implementation of long-term agronomic research projects on CA systems would contribute to the improvement and adaptation of CA to local conditions, and would reinforce already running programs.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 29

Perspectives Findings 1. Projects have demonstrated that landscape connectivity and CA can indeed protect ecosystem resilience. Over time, biodiversity is enhanced, soil health and structure improved, and soil erosion and diffuse water pollution reduced. In the long run, labor and energy costs decline, and inputs are reduced to optimal levels.

2. The benefits to the environment and the potential rewards to society and to future generations of farmers are substantial. It is clear that sustainable intensive agriculture can be more widely adopted. We have also learned that no single set of technologies and practices work in all places.

Approach must be tailored to the local landscape conditions and indigenous knowledge. Halting the loss of biodiversity and reducing soil and land degradation is a shared responsibility.

3. There is room for improvement in current policies and incentives to promote investments in agriculture. It is possible and feasible to enhance the resilience of our ecosystems by helping farmers through multi-stakeholder platforms, inclusive of different roles and professional abilities.

4. The agriculture of tomorrow has to solve a number of very complicated equations where outputs in terms of food products, raw materials for renewables, biomass for energy, carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation, biodiversity and public goods need to rise, while inputs in natural resources, labor, and external inputs need to decrease.

5. Adaptation of agricultural practices to these new challenges has started with scientifically-based solutions and approaches being developed.

6.

7.

8.

9.

However, there is no one-size-fitsall practice that will deliver on all objectives and do so immediately.

New approaches need to be considered with local specificities and conditions in mind.

The two examples mentioned here: field margins and CA, should be integrated with other solutions to deliver a mix of sustainable intensive agriculture that is suitable to and delivers on the objectives for the area where the farmer operates.

Field margins have been proven to provide multiple benefits to agriculture, the environment, and the society in general, however their implementation is not straight forward as there are numerous criteria of geography, climate, soil morphology, biodiversity, etc., that need to be taken into account.

CA produces a number of benefits for the environment, for the conservation of soil and water resources, and for climate change mitigation and adaptation, however, its application is dependent upon a number of natural conditions that need to be met to be able to produce these benefits.

The mix of approaches, technologies, and solutions needs to be finally judged through the balanced filter of sustainability, which will weigh the environmental benefits with social impacts and the economic sustainability of the approach.

Final thoughts Sustainable intensification is moving towards agricultural systems that actively contribute to higher food, feed, fiber, and fuel production, and simultaneously help to protect biodiversity, improve soil health and fertility, clean and regulate water supplies, and enhance other ecosystem services.

30 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Growers should not only be stewards of their croplands, but also of non-cropped habitats in and around cropped land—preserving and managing these habitats to extract benefits for crop production—and should be supported in this by multiple actors.

At the same time, simply engaging growers with technologies will not guarantee the desired and overall value creation at ground level. In order to understand the relevance of soil management and biodiversity conservation and then take conducive actions, growers need support from multiple actors: agronomists, input providers, banks, and farm insurance agencies. Value chain engagements, local community involvement, and government support are also recognized to be crucial.

The sustainable intensification of agricultural practices is a team effort and only possible if socio-economic means facilitate simple and practical implementation linking progressive growers to value chain partners, and up to consumers, in order to reward the best efforts.

References 1. Hoehn, P, Tscharntke, T, Tylianakis, JM & SteffanDeweter, I. Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 275 (2008).

2. Potts, SG et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (2012).

3. Stutter MI, Chardon, WJ & Kronvang, B. Riparian buffer strips as a multi-functional management tool in agricultural landscapes: introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality 41 (2012).

4. Biesmeijer, JC et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insectpollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313 (2006).

5. Steffan-Dewenter, I, Münzenberg, U, Bürger, C, Thies, C & Tscharntke, T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83 (2002).

6. Blanc, H & Lal, R. Principles of Soil Conservation and Management (Springer Press, New York, 2008).

7. Gómez, JA et al. Comparing the effects of cover crops and conventional tillage on soil and runoff losses in vineyards and olive groves in several Mediterranean countries. Soil Use and Management (2011).

Perspectives

Mike Lewinski

Field margins and other non-farmed lands provide important habitats for pollinators.

8. LIFE+ Agricarbon. Sustainable Agriculture in Carbon Aritmetics [online]. www.agricarbon.eu.

9. LIFE+ ClimAgri. Best agricultural practices

18. Carreck, NL & Williams, IH. Observations on two

Ecosystem and Environment 89 (2002).

13. Maillet-Mezeray, J, Thierry, J & Marquet, N. La Fontaine du Theil catchment area: conserving

for Climate Change: Integrating strategies for

water quality. Assessment after 9 years of

mitigation and adaptation [online]. www.climagri.

experimentation. Pesticide Behaviour in Soils, Water

eu.

10. Carvell, C, Meek, WR, Pywell, RF, Goulson, D &

northern Europe: their functions and interactions

agrienvironment schemes to enhance bumble bee

with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and

abundance and diversity on arable field margins.

Environment 89 (2002).

Journal of Applied Ecology 44 (2007). practices for protection and productivity.

XIII Symposium of Pesticide Chemistry – Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects.

Piacenza, Italy (2011).

12. Backman, JPC & Tiainen, J. Habitat quality of field

beneficial insects in the UK. Journal of Agriculture Science 128 (1997).

19. Cheesman, OD. The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development

and Air Conference (York, 2009).

14. Marshall, EJP & Moonen, AC. Field margins in

Nowakowski, M. Comparing the efficiency of

11. Dyson, JS. Agricultural runoff and best management

commercial flower mixtures as food sources for

of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 68 (1998).

20. White, RE. Principles and Practice of Soil Science

15. Lagerhöf, J, Stark, J, & Svensson, B. Margins of agricultural field as habitats for pollinating insects.

Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 40 (1992).

16. Dosskey, MG, Helmers, MJ & Eisenhauer, DE. A design aid for sizing filter strips using buffer area ratio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66 (2011).

17. Williams, PH & Osborne, JL. Bumblebee

margins in a Finnish farmland area for bumblebees

vulnerability and conservation worldwide.

(Hymenoptera: Bombus and Psithyrus). Agriculture,

Apidologie 40 (2009).

(Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2006).

21. Reichenburger, S et al. Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness: a review. Science of the Total Environment 384 (2007).

22. Train Operators to Promote Best Practices and Sustainability. ECPA [online]. www.TOPPS-life.org.

23. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [online] (2016). www.unccd.int.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 31

Kumar, S., A. Whitbread, and T. Falk. (2016). Pathways to Sustainable Intensification: Participatory Designing of Adapted Farming System Innovations.

Solutions 7(5): 32-35. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/pathways-to-sustainable-intensification-participatory-designing-of-adapted-farming-system-innovations/

Perspectives Pathways to Sustainable Intensification: Participatory Designing of Adapted Farming System Innovations

by Shalander Kumar, Anthony Whitbread, and Thomas Falk

ICRISAT/GRAVIS

This native medicinal plant called shankhpushpi has been introduced for cultivation in Barmer.

M

ost farmers in Western Rajasthan, India face an uncertain, impoverished future. The region is affected by frequent droughts, over-exploitation of groundwater, deteriorating soil and water quality, low productivity, weak institutions, malnutrition, continuously decreasing landholding size, and a burgeoning population of 28 million. With negative water balance for all but a few months of the year, Rajasthani farmers are on the cutting edge of climate change. In this situation,

common property resources, such as fodder, herbs, and water, ease stress on livelihoods. By the same token, the social and environmental cost of the poor management of these resources is keenly felt. That is why the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), as part of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Program on Dryland Systems, has teamed up with rural dryland communities to find integrated approaches to resource management.

32 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Critical for developing effective and efficient solutions, is the acknowledgement of the specific needs of each community. Using data from primary surveys and focused group discussions in Jodhpur, Barmer, and Jaisalmer districts, we developed maps of how farming communities share resources to allow us to understand both the potential and the limitations of each community. NGOs, local government departments, and the farmers themselves were then brought together to brainstorm for greater efficiency and to add value to their work.

Perspectives

ICRISAT/GRAVIS

Participatory appraisal and planning with the community.

As a result of these discussions, a number of community-led solutions were designed and implemented during 2014 and 2015. One of the preferred solutions that emerged was the cultivation of high-value, low-maintenance medicinal plants for extra income.

Identifying medicinal plants that grow wild in the region, motivating farmers to grow them as an intercrop that requires virtually no maintenance, and linking them to a manufacturer of Ayurvedic (traditional Indian system of medicine) products has hugely benefited farmers. The shankhpushpi (Convolvulus pluricaulis), a native and naturally-occurring plant, was not cultivated by farmers due to lack of awareness and market. We facilitated a tripartite agreement in 2014 with Dabur India Ltd., the largest herbal medicine manufacturing company in India, to buy back the produce. Technical

backstopping in terms of training the farmers is also being done by ICRISAT and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, in Barmer, one of many agricultural extension centers financed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

In the first year, 25 farmers came forward for shankhpushpi cultivation. The additional income earned by farmers who grew shankhpushpi has attracted many other farmers. In the next year, 2015, more than 300 farmers in five to six villages of the Barmer district started cultivating shankhpushpi. The famers could earn an additional annual income of USD$75 to USD$600 by introducing this medicinal plant as an intercrop under arid rain-fed conditions. Another medicinal plant, jivanti (Leptadenia reticulata), was introduced in 2015, and is being cultivated by 15 farmers.

Jivanti is a climber and is planted as an intercrop with fruit trees. A

farmer can earn around USD$4.50 to USD$6 per plant. Another droughttolerant medicinal plant, arna (Clerodendrum phlomidis), which was used for fencing and roofing, now has a buyback market providing an additional annual income of USD$90 to USD$320 per household.

Furthermore, organizing these farmers into a medicinal plant growers group better facilitated the capacity building and collective marketing to the herbal medicine industry. One of the farmers, Giana Ram, from Dhirasar village in Barmer, says, “We never expected that we could grow fruits and an orchard unit with a new tanka [a rainwater harvesting structure], as well as medicinal plants. It has changed my family’s life and provides us nutrition, water, and additional income. Now, neighboring farmers and villagers regularly visit my farm and appreciate me.”

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 33

Perspectives

ICRISAT/GRAVIS

Farmers selling goats by weight in Jodhpur.

Another solution hit upon in community-led talks was the use of rainwater harvesting for perennial fruit-tree cultivation. Frequent failure of annual crops, millets, and legumes due to drought is common in this region, so farmers were encouraged to integrate fruit trees in order to stabilize farm income and enhance local nutrition. Intercropping legumes like moth bean, green gram, and cluster bean with local fruit trees—ber (Ziziphus mauritiana), gunda (Cordia myxa), and medicinal plants—is adding to the income of farmers. The leaves of the ber tree are used as fodder and gunda leaves are lopped and applied to fields for their anti-termite properties and for improving the organic content of the soil.

Water for the plants was harvested using earthen pots buried in the root zone of the plant to help conserve water. In addition, traditional water harvesting structures (a cistern, sized 15'x15'x15') called tankas are being improved with scientific inputs. One unit of 150 fruit plants as intercrop, along with tankas, would generate an additional income of USD$376 to USD$526 per annum per household starting from the third year.

In addition, women were encouraged to grow fruit trees for improving household nutrition. In one women’s group, 20 women were given 20 fruit plants each and in another, 50 women were given 10 plants each. These units were started in 2014 in Govindpura

34 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

and Mansagar villages in the Jodhpur district; Dhirasar and Dhok villages in the Barmer district; and, Didhu and Sankaria villages in the Jaisalmer district.

Female help has also been enlisted to help manage common grazing areas which have become severely degraded due to poor governance. Our project created awareness amongst key stakeholders for the challenges in common property resources management.

Communities were encouraged to design rules which gave every subgroup of the community equitable, but restricted, access and use rights to the land. The scale of decision making was decreased to the hamlet level. Women have played a key role

Perspectives

ICRISAT/GRAVIS

Local women have begun keeping nutritional kitchen gardens.

in managing community-owned silvopastures where fodder grasses like dhaman (Cenchrus ciliaris) and sewan (Lasiurus scindicus), along with fodder and fruit trees, are grown. Four women sub-groups in Jodhpur and Barmer actively manage the pastures and harvesting, and sell the grass as livestock feed.

The improved condition of pastures has enabled farmers, especially women, to herd goats and sheep.

Breeding bucks provided to two women’s self-help groups helped to improve herd productivity. High middlemen’s market margin (10 percent to 35 percent) on the sale of

live animals was a major constraint, so a weighing machine was introduced so that the locals could sell their own animals on the basis of weight. This improved their bargaining power and market integration. The women now earn 25 to 30 percent more than what they were previously making.

Integrated dryland farming is helping farmers improve productivity and income. The complexity it entails is a challenge for government and nongovernment agents. Impact is difficult to predict and measure where multiple system components interact. As a consequence, simple and standardized impact pathways are often preferred,

which ignore side effects and potential synergies. In Western Rajasthan, a participatory approach, which allowed all involved parties to identify innovative solutions, has helped strengthen farmers’ earning potential and has facilitated self-organization among stakeholders.

Acknowledgements The research for development was funded by the CGIAR Research Program on Dryland Systems. GRAVIS, an NGO, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, and Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Barmer were the key partners of ICRISAT in this effort.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 35

Ferwerda, W. and S. Moolenaar. (2016). Four Returns: A Long-Term Holistic Framework for Integrated Landscape Management and Restoration Involving Business. Solutions 7(5): 36-41. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/four-returns-a-long-term-holistic-framework-for-integrated-landscape-management-and-restoration-involving-business/

Perspectives Four Returns: A Long-term Holistic Framework for Integrated Landscape Management and Restoration Involving Business

by Willem H. Ferwerda and Simon W. Moolenaar

H

ealthy landscapes and water systems are essential if we are to secure the livelihoods and wellbeing of future generations and our environment. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ratified these points in 2015. In particular, the goal of a Land Degradation Neutral world is explicitly mentioned in SDG 15: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.” However, many other SDGs are related to landscape (or ecosystem) restoration, as a quarter of the world’s land is seriously degraded from centuries of unsustainable human activity, and this degradation is interlinked with other major global environmental themes like climate change, food and water security, and biodiversity decline. These larger biophysical themes then directly influence ongoing shifts in human well-being, security, poverty, and migration, and not always for the better.

The United Nations Environmental Program, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the World Resources Institute estimate that there are two billion hectares (double the size of China) of severely degraded land suitable for rehabilitation through ecological restoration.

Of that, 1.5 billion hectares are suited for mosaic landscape restoration, in which forests and trees are combined with other land uses, including regenerative forms of agroforestry and agriculture.

The private sector has an undeniably large role in land management.

However, business investments in

land rehabilitation and restoration are still new and relatively untested at large spatial and temporal scales.

Their benefits are often still not obvious because of immediate costs.

Further, the market does not factor in land degradation as a cost and healthy ecosystems as a value, so unsustainable practices are often still preferably profitable in the short term. For businesses to further engage in scaling up sustainable land practices, they need to explore and pilot smart, scalable models aiming for land degradation neutrality and restoration that also secure returns on investment.1 Further, a common language that business and local stakeholders understand is urgently needed. The Tragedy of the Commons must be changed into a Promise of the Commons by understanding all stakeholder’s needs and perspectives on land.

To achieve this, three groups came together in 2013: a business school (Rotterdam School of Management of the Erasmus University), an international network of ecologists (the Commission on Ecosystem Management of IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature), and a private family office.

Together, they formed the new organization Commonland.

Commonland envisions largescale landscape restoration activities involving businesses by building transformative business cases with local farmers, land users, and experts.2 In this way, the urgent need for project pipelines towards (institutional) investors will be bridged. Commonland unites four roles: mobilization of stakeholders,

36 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

development of business cases on the land, bringing in knowledge and expertise, and connecting it to finance and investments. It consists of a foundation and social impact companies and is currently setting up an investment fund.

A Holistic Approach and Speaking a Common Language in Partnerships Large-scale restoration projects are complex and require joint understanding and action from stakeholders.

There needs to be a mutually agreed upon and clear vision of a sustainable future, where economic activity operates within the functional planetary boundaries and capabilities, based on a solid understanding of how natural systems work. Designing and implementing restoration projects and programs that are effective, efficient, and engaging will enable businesses and investors to reduce risks and cost-effectively scale-up restoration efforts.

In the coming years, public and private sector collaboration will likely be a key component in furthering work on landscape restoration. Private sector decision-makers will need to understand ecosystem concepts. Public sector decision-makers will need to understand corporate processes.3 This type of joint effort was codified in SDG 17, which is about creating partnerships as a critical success factor to achieve any of the other goals, like that of SDG 15 on land. SDG 17.17 states: to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.” That is

Perspectives

GOVERNMENT & GRANT FUNDING

INVESTMENT

4 RETURNS

RETURN OF INSPIRATION

RETURN OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

RETURN OF NATURAL CAPITAL

RETURN OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL CASH VALUE

20 YEARS

1 Commonland

The “four returns, three zones, 20 years” Commonland framework.

exactly what we want to realize on the ground: multistakeholder partnerships that realize large-scale landscape restoration projects based upon viable business cases. An innovative framework with a common language is needed so that the landscape is viewed in a holistic way taking a long-term (intergenerational) viewpoint.

Commonland Framework: Four Returns, Three Zones, and 20 Years Involving businesses and investors in partnerships with farmers, land users, scientists, and other stakeholders is critical to effectively restore degraded ecosystem functions to a state in which they support a balanced and diverse socio-economy. The aim of the “four returns, three zones, 20 years” Commonland framework that is presented here is to be practical, measurable, and understandable. It is intended to function as a basis for working with all stakeholders for years to come.4

Four returns We start with the assumption that degradation causes four losses per hectare: loss of meaningfulness, jobs, biodiversity, and financial profit.5 To reverse these, successful restoration partnerships should be based on the optimization of four returns per hectare: • Return of Inspiration: hope, engagement, awareness, and passion • Return of Social Capital: jobs, income, security, and social cohesion • Return of Natural Capital: soil and water quality and biodiversity • Return of Financial Capital: financial performance (profit)

Three zones To implement this framework in landscapes, we use an integrated approach of three defined landscaping zones that in the end will produce the four returns:

• Natural Zone: Restores the ecological fundament and biodiversity. In this zone there will be rich biodiversity; soil for ecosystem services; carbon sequestration; forest products; and opportunities for leisure and hunting.

• Combined Zone: Delivers low economic productivity. In this zone there will be partially restored biodiversity; soil recovery, carbon sequestration, and timber supply by agroforestry; fruit trees; water supplies; and opportunities for leisure.

• Economic Zone: Delivers high economic productivity. In this zone there will be productive zones for sustainable agriculture and dedicated zones for real estate and infrastructure.

The restoration of these zones as components of a singular integrated ‘four returns’ masterplan creates landscapes in which an increase of

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 37

Perspectives biodiversity and vegetation cover goes hand-in-hand with developing new and established agricultural lands in a sustainable way. The plan is made in close consultation with local stakeholders by zooming in and out. Within those mosaic landscapes that are established and customized for each project, ecological, sustainable agricultural, and economic zones coexist in balance and losses are replaced by the four returns.

20 years The creation of landscape restoration partnerships that have the flexibility to constantly develop creative solutions to combat complex stakeholder challenges requires a long-time horizon. Restoration of ecological functions also can take decennia. For the sake of providing clarity to longterm investors (like pension funds), we have chosen a one-generation time frame of 20 years.

Implementation on the Ground Since 2013, Commonland has started projects in Spain, South Africa, and Australia to understand how the four returns framework would be perceived and could be implemented. Each case presents a unique set of issues, discussed below.

Altiplano, Spain The Altiplano region in Eastern Andalusia (Spain, 630,000 hectares) is one of the largest production areas in the world for rainfed organic almonds.

It contains 100,000 hectares of superior quality almond groves, of which 45,000 hectares are certified organic.

However, like many other areas in the Mediterranean Basin, the region suffers from severe land degradation, desertification, rural abandonment, and unemployment. The area has become less attractive for younger generations and lacks support for entrepreneurs.

Commonland

Almond blossoms in Altiplano, Spain, where the AlVelAl Association has implemented initiatives to promote four returns restoration.

People are leaving the area in search of a better living. In September 2014, Commonland started working with a local group of passionate farmers, landowners, and entrepreneurs to jointly develop a path to eco-social restoration. The farmers have now established the AlVelAl Association (named after the counties involved: Altiplano, Los Vélez and Alto Almanzora), to promote the four returns restoration initiatives and support business and farm development.6 Together with the local groups, we have developed the ‘Almendrehesa’ concept. The ‘Almendrehesa’ is an integrated production system: a combination of almond and local trees, aromatic oils crops, active bee-hiving, and lamb farming, complemented by joint processing and marketing. This productive ecosystem decreases erosion, restores water balance, enhances biodiversity, and beautifies the landscape. Altogether this enhances the local economy while promoting local pride and inspiration.

38 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

The Western Australian Wheatbelt The Western Australian Wheatbelt is an ancient, immense, and dry landscape covering over 15 million hectares (more than four times the size of the Netherlands), with only 75,000 inhabitants. Intensive agriculture (monocropping wheat and overgrazing) has resulted in the clearing of 75 percent of the natural vegetation in the past 200 years and severe soil degradation (mainly salinity, wind erosion, soil loss, and falling soil fertility). Failure to attract investment to the Wheatbelt has resulted in a stagnation of innovation in farming and land-care practices. The area is overcleared, depopulating, and the remaining family farmers are under significant financial pressure.

They are often trapped in a cycle of debt that forces them to apply conventional, chemically-led farming practices.

Commonland’s Australian business partner Wide Open Agriculture is

Perspectives

Integrated Productive Ecosystem for Large Scale Restoration based on Business Cases Endemic Segureño Lambs • Aerate and fertilize soil • Mow weeds • Feed on almond husks

Organic, rainfed almond groves with interspersed local tree species Create habitat for biodiversity

Almonds and by-products Biomass Compost

Organic meat

Aromatic Plants • Prevent erosion • Promote insect diversity

Organic wool

Medicinal Plants

Leather

Milk and derivatives

Organic Essential Oils

Bees Promote pollination and production of high quality organic honey and other bee products

Pollinizers Act as bridges between the natural zone and agromix zone

Organic honey

Polen, royal jelly, wax

Commonland

An example of an integrated productive ecosystem for large scale land restoration, based on the business case of the ‘Almendrehesa’ system developed by the AlVelAl Association in Altiplano, Spain.

a future-focused company that has identified innovative solutions to regenerate the Wheatbelt landscape and its economy. These solutions include: (i) innovative biological farming practices enabled by sustainable water management systems; (ii) measures to restore the soils and biodiversity; bringing migrants—the ‘new Australians’—to the area as employees or business partners; and (iii) an approach to scale up, through listing on the Australian Stock Exchange, which makes it possible to attract equity from retail and institutional investors.7

Baviaanskloof, South Africa With one million inhabitants, Port Elizabeth is the largest city in the Eastern Cape province in South Africa.

Seventy percent of the water supply to the city comes from the Baviaans, Kouga, and Krom catchments, which cover a total of 500,000 hectares.

These catchments are suffering from the effects of 120 years of overgrazing and unsustainable land management, leading to decreased water absorption by the land. The first business opportunities materializing are in the Baviaans catchment, where the focus of activities is in the Baviaanskloof

Hartland. The area is home to approximately 2,500 people and has 13 active farms owned by both commercial and emerging farmers. The NGO Living Lands had already been working in the Baviaanskloof before Commonland joined the process by building a professional team, bringing additional expertise, and providing finance and investment for the sustainable and collectively owned farming enterprise established by the farmers. This Baviaanskloof Development Company provides an alternative income stream that allows the farmers to remove their goats from the degraded

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 39

Perspectives

Commonland

People walk along the road in the Australian Wheatbelt, a dry landscape suffering from the effects of intensive, unsustainable agriculture.

hillsides. These hillsides have now been made available for restoration.

The initial focus of the Baviaanskloof Development Company is to establish an organically certified essential oil production, processing, and marketing business. By the end of 2016, 100 hectares of lavender and rosemary will be planted, bringing a total of 20,000 hectares of land under improved management. This will be scaled up to a potential of 750 hectares of essential oils, bringing 46,000 hectares of land under improved management by the end of 2018. Improved management involves replanting over 2,100 hectares of degraded land with the dominant canopy tree Spekboom and the restoration of small dams and alluvial fans for better water distribution, improved infiltration, and stabilized ground water levels.8

While we can see the positive results from this on-the-ground work, it is still important to retain a unique forum for the private sector in these efforts. We are thus also establishing an ‘Academy for Business and Landscapes’ with respective partners and the aim of educating business developers.

Academy for Business and Landscapes To effect real change, it is essential to train the next generation of business leaders and developers in such a way that they realize business’ interdependency with ecosystems. As a result, the Academy for Business and Landscapes is being established now as a partnership of Commonland, Rotterdam School of Management—Erasmus University, IUCN–Commission on

40 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Ecosystem Management, the World Business Council on Sustainable Management, and the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative.9 The curriculum of the Academy will blend online, classroom, and on-the-ground learning by developing Massive Open Online Courses, experiential learning during field trips and summer schools, and executive education.

While the Academy will draw from a wide range of disciplines and sources, the on-the-ground experience and first-hand insights can be provided by Commonland projects.

Students of the Academy for Business and Landscapes will understand the value and materiality of land-based (ecosystem) resources and learn how to incorporate a four returns approach into the strategic and operational decisions of their current

Perspectives

Commonland

The intervention approach in the Baviaanskloof is to take the goats off the hills, replacing the income from goats with income from an alternative, in this case aromatics. Above, an image from before intervention, and below, a photoshop impression of the landscape after intervention.

or future business. These people will serve as agents of change in their respective business sectors (e.g., agrifood, water, beverages, infrastructure, insurance) since they will be trained to speak and understand the common language needed to successfully orchestrate, negotiate, and facilitate four returns business development as well as large-scale land management and restoration projects.

Final Thoughts Overall, our strategy is to build bridges between farmers and local landowners, investors, companies, and governments. That is our way to restore living and productive landscapes. It is not an easy way and requires much effort, but we believe that our four returns approach is a viable way to achieve long-term

landscape restoration success, which is sorely needed in a world of degraded lands. We are open to working with future partners and stakeholders and their ideas about alternative or complementary approaches to achieve integrated landscape management and landscape restoration: solutions that are easy to communicate to stakeholders, that can effectively be implemented, and that are scalable as well. We welcome communication on such.

Commission on Ecosystem Management [online] (2015). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/45831.

3. Waage, S. The benefit multiplier of investing in nature: solving business problems and realizing multiple returns through working with ecological systems. Business Brief in collaboration with Restore the Earth Foundation, Ithaca, New York.

(BSR, San Francisco, California, 2016).

4. Commonland. 4 returns: a systemic and practical approach to restore degraded landscapes [online] (2015). http://www.commonland.com/_doc/ Commonlandpublication2015_1821500594.pdf.

5. Commonland. 4 returns from landscape restration.

Youtube [online] (2015). https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=e0oJtuljYRo. 6. Spain: Los Vélez-Altiplano. Commonland [online]. www.commonland.com/en/projects/187/los-v-lez-

References

altiplano.

1. Land Degradation Neutrality. A business perspective. WBCSD (2015) [online]. http://www. wbcsdservers.org/web/org/Land_Degradation_ Neutrality_Issue_Brief.pdf.

7. Australia: Western Australian Wheatbelt.

Commonland [online]. www.commonland.com/en/ projects/188/western-australian-wheatbelt.

8. South Africa: Bavianskloof. Commonland

2. Ferwerda, WH. 4 returns, 3 zones, 20 years: a holistic framework for ecological restoration by people and business for next generations. Rotterdam School of Management–Erasmus University / IUCN

[online]. www.commonland.com/en/projects/186/ baviaanskloof.

9. Commonland [online]. www. academyforbusinessandlandscapes.com.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 41

Strokov, A. (2016). Replanting Orchards: Is It Worth It? A Case Study from Russia. Solutions 7(5): 42-45. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/replanting-orchards-is-it-worth-it-a-case-study-from-russia/

Perspectives Replanting Orchards: Is It Worth It? A Case Study from Russia

by Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev, Alexey Bryzzhev, Alexey Sorokin, Pavel Krasilnikov, and Sergey Kiselev

L

and use and cover changes are highly influenced by the food demands of increasing populations the world over. The continual conversion of land for agricultural use has destroyed or degraded many habitats and poses a threat to biological diversity.1,2 Not only are forests being converted into cropland to meet these demands, causing land degradation and the loss of ecosystem services, but so are orchards. Orchards are intentional plantings of perennial fruit, berry, or nut bearing trees and shrubs maintained for food production. This unique land cover is converted to cropland for several reasons: food security, age, high costs, etc.

As a type of land cover, orchards provide numerous direct and indirect ecosystem goods and services, and studies show they often provide more ecosystem services than cropland.3 For example, in a 25-year period, managed orchards produce more carbon, total nitrogen, and available phosphate than corn and soybean systems. Another group of researchers showed how forestry and orchard habitat supports both biological diversity and timber production more than cropland.4 Evidence from Germany shows that orchards produce more biomass than cropland and further provide erosion protection, drought risk regulation, and flood regulation.5 High recreational and cultural values were also found in Spain.6 Given their importance to many ecosystem services, awareness of their fragility and threatened status should be raised in order to protect these trees and shrubs from being cut unsustainably.

Unfortunately, little data exists as to

what extent they have already been removed or converted.

So in order to safeguard these unique ecosystems, we should be looking at what could incentivize society to protect them. Losing the many ecosystem services they provide is very costly for society, as low crop yields usually result in production shortages for consumers and income losses for farmers. Despite significant progress in the area, there are still gaps in analyzing the monetary values of ecosystem service losses for numerous biomes and ecosystems, including orchards.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, which is the largest database of ecosystem valuations from around the world, contains 1,310 cases.

However, there is only one example of the total economic value (TEV) of orchards—TEV being the summary of all the values humans derive from natural resources.7 It is essential to put more emphasis on the role of orchards in ecosystems.

More research needs to be conducted on the TEV of ecosystem services provided by orchards to fully understand the benefits they offer, as this will provide a better understanding of how to protect them and secure their future sustainability. Currently, there is uncertainty with estimating local TEV for orchards and croplands because of their extensive variety of ecosystem services and lack of existing data to calculate the different values from. To begin addressing this gap, we undertook a case study on southern Russian orchards. It provides an example of how TEVs can be used as a starting step to understanding the value of orchards and protecting otherwise threatened landscapes.

42 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Over the period from 2000 to 2010 in the Azov district of the Rostov region, 3,000 hectares of orchards were transformed into cropland, causing much land degradation. There were three main reasons for the conversion: 1) some of the trees were older and no longer fruiting; 2) cropland has shorter investment cycles and during that time, wheat and sunflower crops were more profitable than fruits; and 3) there was national demand in Russia to fulfill a need for grain and sunflower and stabilize food security after the economic collapse of the 1990s.

Removing the orchards increased the overall cropland area by only 3,000 ha, to 210,000 ha. As a result of this land use and cover change, the amount of phosphorous and humus in the soil declined, and other ecosystem services, such as fruit production, soil formation, and water balance were also lost. Only one ecosystem service—potassium content—increased under the conversion of cropland as a consequence of particular fertilizer application.

We thus set out to calculate what comparative market prices of orchards and cropland yields were over a 20-year period to provide incentives from both economic and ecological points of view to restore the orchards. To achieve this, the cost of action versus cost of inaction method proposed by Joachim von Braun and Ephraim Nkonya was applied.8,9 This method uses data on prices and costs to compare possible outcomes of different scenarios, ranging from leaving the current land use as is to investing in sustainable land management. This tool often shows that sustainable land management is much more effective from both ecological and economic

Perspectives points of view, and this is what we expected in these Russian orchards.

The absence of ecosystem value data in Russia, and particularly the Azov district gave us an incentive to calculate several versions of TEV, each with justification. To accomplish this, we took one ecosystem service with a market price, which in this case was food production. We then multiplied this price by so-called coefficients of importance for other ecosystem services (in research literature, this is sometimes called the basic transfer approach). As what actual land use changes will be in the future is unclear, we calculated the TEV for three probable scenarios with different types and quantities of ecosystem services.

We used multiple scenarios as their differences would result in comparable estimates of TEV and provide a range of understanding. As we don’t know what ecosystem services will be used in the future, multiple TEVs can show the potential outcomes of different land management decisions and guide us towards an optimal and sustainable management strategy.

The first scenario had valued one ecosystem service—food production—and in it orchards were actually more valuable than cropland. Orchards were valued at USD$842 per hectare compared to $550 per hectare for cropland. In the second scenario we valued nine types of ecosystem services: food production, raw materials, water regulation, increased air quality through the capturing of fine dust, climate regulation, maintenance of soil structure, water purification, biodiversity protection, and recreation services.

The coefficients here were based on a survey where 200 ecologists were interviewed on the value of ecosystem services of different land types in China.10,11 We thought it was acceptable to transfer these values in our case, because Chinese orchards produce a lot of pome fruits, as do the Russian ones.

Jeremy Hiebert

An orchard in bloom.

Finally the third scenario was based on a survey in Russia that involved 20 scientists and a large array of ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water regulation, disturbance regulation, water supply, erosion control, nutrient cycling, maintenance of habitat for resident and transient populations, genetic resources, biological control, pollination, waste treatment, food production, raw materials and feed production, cultural functions, and recreational functions.

The results in Table 1 show that TEV for cropland in the three scenarios ranges from USD$550 to $3,803 (2010) per hectare. On the other hand, the TEV for orchards ranged from USD$842 to $8,004 (2010) per hectare. Based on this, we can see in all scenarios that orchards are more highly valued than cropland.

The next step was to use these TEV estimates to calculate the costs of either taking action or not taking action against land degradation. This will help determine the value from ecological and economical points of

view of regrowing orchards. In all scenarios, there was a fairly high cost of action, due to the establishment and maintenance costs for sustainable land management in orchards. The cost of action was estimated using establishment price of orchards at USD$983 per hectare and maintenance at $871 per hectare, which are values based on studies of Russian scientists already working in this region.

In the first and third scenarios, orchards were valued 1.53 and 1.19 times higher than cropland, respectively. However, in both cases this value is not enough to be an incentive for farmers to plant orchards, because the cost of taking action is higher than the cost of inaction in a 20 year period.

In the first scenario, every dollar invested in the orchards would only bring back USD$0.2, and in the third scenario it was only $0.1.

Our results show that cost of action in all three scenarios is higher than costs of inaction, largely because establishment and maintenance costs were high. Only in the second scenario

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 43

Perspectives Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 1: Chinese ecosystem Russian ecosystem Provisional services coefficient services coefficient service estimates estimates estimates Inputs (per ha) TEV for orchards

842

8,004

2,006

TEV for cropland

550

3,803

1,681

Ratio: TEV orchards / TEV cropland

1.53

2.10

1.19

Establishment cost

983

983

983

Maintenance cost

871

871

871

20,472,686

67,160,417

36,697,504

4,186,695

60,314,861

4,677,720

0.20

0.90

0.13

Outputs Cost of action over 20 years Cost of inaction over 20 years Inaction vs action (per ha)

Table 1. Economic effects of land degradation counteraction in the Azov district of the Rostov region, Russia, in constant 2010 US dollars.

is the cost of inaction/action ratio close to 1, at USD$0.9. To incentivize society to replant these orchards, the ratio will need to be bigger than 1, which means lowering establishment and maintenance costs or increasing our understanding of the full value of orchards.

Based on our research, we are suggesting that orchard restoration is both economically and environmentally optimal. It does not need to affect crop production outputs, as there is high potential to increase yield for agricultural producers in the region, up to 40 to 50 percent according to some estimates,12 and simply requires increased inputs such as fertilizers, irrigation, and/or seeds of better quality.

The conversion of 3,000 hectares could be easily compensated by a slight yield increase of seven percent on the remaining 207,000 hectares in the Azov district.

This range of TEV for potential future land uses can be used to justify new policy actions in the Azov region.

As orchards are clearly more valuable than croplands, but have high start-up and on-going costs, the government could subsidize farmers to motivate replanting. Based on the outcome of our studies on these orchards, our solutions for orchard management and protection in this region of southern Russia are thus a mixture of analytical, research, and practical recommendations: • First, not to further cut down existing orchards. They are unique biomes and provide several ecosystem services that although not always yet clear, serve many functions in nature and provide value to humans. Further, our TEV shows that their restoration costs

44 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

are currently too high, although their land value is higher than cropland. Thus, it makes sense to maintain all orchards that currently exist, in order to reap their benefits.

• To re-establish orchards in the region, we need to further define these ecosystem services and their values. This will require research work in different fields like soil and biological sciences as well as ecological and economic studies. Economically, we must not only estimate the value of the provisional services of orchards that are on the market, but other ecosystem services too—such as regulating, supporting, and cultural services.

• The TEV method, along with cost– benefit analyses, may not always show the efficiency or profitability

Perspectives Degradation in Eurasia,” at Lomonosov Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia) with financial assistance from the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 14-38-00023.

References 1. Nkonya, E, Mirzabaev, A & von Braun, J. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (Springer, Netherlands, 2014).

2. von Braun, J, Gerber, N, Mirzabaev, A & Nkonya, E. The economics of land degradation. An issue paper for Global Soil Week (2012).

3. Zhang, X, Chen, L, Li, Q, Qi, X & Yang, S. Increase in soil nutrients in intensively managed cash-crop agricultural ecosystems in the Guanting Reservoir catchment, Beijing, China. Geoderma 193–194, 102–108 (2013).

4. Polasky, S, Nelson, E, Pennington, D & Johnson, KA. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem

Liz West

An apple orchard in Massachusetts.

services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 48, 219–242 (2011).

5. Koschke, L, Furst, C, Lorenz, M, Witt, A, Frank, S & Makeschin, F. The integration of crop rotation and

of sustainable land management methods if the full data is not available, as in our situation.

However, this doesn’t mean that orchards shouldn’t be protected; we should make additional efforts to research and undertake novel estimates to grasp the essence and significance of these orchards (and other threatened biomes). Bolstered with further data, the range of TEVs we have already established here can help stakeholders and policymakers eventually understand the benefits of restoration.

Two practical and immediately implementable solutions are to: • Have policy-makers increase subsidies for replanting orchards, as establishment costs and maintenance costs are high, and farmers struggle independently to manage them sustainably.

• Spread information about existing orchards and their many ecosystem

services—which we are just beginning to understand—so that everyone can understand their significance.

tillage practices in the assessment of ecosystem services provision at the regional scale. Ecological Indicators 32, 152–171 (2013).

6. Garcia-Llorente, M et al. The role of multifunctionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach.

Understanding the difference in costs and benefits between taking action and not taking action is a powerful tool that can protect threatened landscapes and establish sustainable land management practices. Here, in the case of the diminishing orchards of southern Russia, we can see that orchards are ultimately more valuable than the cropland that is replacing them, but the cost of re-establishing and maintaining them is too high for farmers. Gaining more knowledge can thus help governments set policies that protect this unique ecosystem from further degradation and even re-establish them so that their benefits can be sustainably reaped.

Acknowledgments This article was prepared while working on a project, “Assessing Land

Environmental Science and Policy 19–20, 136–146 (2012).

7. van der Ploeg, S & de Groot RS. The TEEB Valuation Database – a searchable database of 1310 estimates of monetary values of ecosystem services.

Foundation for Sustainable Development [online] (2012). http://es-partnership.org/services/dataknowledge-sharing/ecosystem-service-valuationdatabase/.

8. Nkonya, E et al. Global cost of land degradation in Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement (eds Nkonya, E, Mirzabaev, A & von Braun, J). Ch. 5, pp 117-165 (Springer, Netherlands, 2016).

9. von Braun, J, Gerber, N, Mirzabaev, A & Nkonya, E. The economics of land degradation. ZEF Working Paper Series 109, University of Bonn (2013).

10. Tianhong, L, Wenkai, L & Zhenghan, Q. Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen. Ecological Economics 69, 1427–1435 (2008).

11. Xie, GD et al. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources 18, 189–196 (2003).

12. Schierhorn, F, Faramarzi, M, Prishchepov, A, Koch, F & Muller, D. Quantifying yield gaps in wheat production in Russia. Environmental Research Letters 9 (2014).

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 45

Luedeling, E., and K. Shepherd. (2016). Decision-Focused Agriculture Research. Solutions 7(5): 46-54. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/decision-focused-agriculture-research/

Feature

Decision-Focused Agricultural Research

by Eike Luedeling and Keith Shepherd

Trees for the Future

Farmers learn how to prune branches in Kenya.

In Brief Agriculture provides most of our food and many other products. It also affects ecosystem services, such as water regulation, soil protection, and biodiversity conservation. Decision-makers on agricultural systems, from farmers to agricultural ministers, should consider all these functions and their trade-offs, but this rarely happens. Many of agriculture’s products and services are regularly ignored in decision-making, mainly because they are difficult to appraise.

This easily leads to decisions with adverse side effects, such as land degradation, pollution, or loss of cultural heritage.

‘Holistic’ decision-making needs decision support approaches that consider factors that are difficult to quantify.

Decision Analysis can potentially solve this problem. It recognizes that rational decisions do not normally require precise information on all factors of interest. Decision Analysis harnesses the knowledge of system experts to produce a high-level model of a decision, which reflects the best available information on plausible decision impacts. The model should include all factors experts consider relevant and all important decision impacts, regardless of data availability.

Since most variables cannot be precisely quantified, experts estimate their state of uncertainty as confidence intervals or probability distributions. These allow an initial model run, in which these inputs are translated into decision impact forecasts. These are imprecise, but they allow estimating a plausible range of decision outcomes. Often, this is sufficient for selecting one of the decision alternatives. When no clear recommendation emerges, Value of Information analysis can identify key uncertainties that decision-supporting research should address.

Decision Analysis solves the problem of data gaps, which has often prevented research from comprehensively and holistically forecasting decision impacts. It also allows explicit consideration of risks and variability. We present several applications of Decision Analysis in agricultural development, demonstrating its ability to convey a holistic understanding of likely decision impacts, in the face of risk and imperfect information.

46 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

A

griculture serves a wide range of purposes, and new requirements and objectives continue to be added. Besides food and fiber production, we expect modern agricultural systems to conserve soils and biodiversity, regulate water and carbon cycles, provide fuel, generate employment, and offer many other ecosystem services.1 Whether agriculture succeeds in delivering all these services depends on a complex array of cultural, technological, educational, political, legal, demographic, sociological, climatic, and economic drivers. The goals and values of people working on farms also influence agricultural outcomes.2 Predicting how farms respond to changes—such as new farming practices, price shocks, or climatic events—is very difficult. There is normally no way of knowing with precision how such changes will play out.

This dilemma has often left people making decisions on agricultural systems with little certainty that these decisions are right.

But it is not only decision-makers that struggle with the complexity of agricultural systems. Researchers are also challenged by how to study them effectively. Many common research methods are not well equipped to deal with complexity. They are designed for investigating systems that can easily be controlled and manipulated and for testing hypotheses about their behavior, aiming to identify generally applicable rules that help us understand how these systems work. While there continues to be great need for research that follows these principles, such work rarely allows comprehensive assessment of system dynamics. When it comes to supporting practical decisions on complex agricultural systems affected by many uncertain, related, and dynamically changing variables, classical hypothesis testing based on controlled experiments is of little relevance.

Key Concepts • Agricultural systems are influenced by a host of environmental, economic, and socio-cultural factors, and they are expected to provide many products and services to humanity. The complexity that arises from this requires decisionsupporting research to consider a wide range of issues, spanning many disciplines. Classic research approaches struggle with this challenge.

• There is rarely sufficient high-quality data to form a robust foundation for precise data-driven decision support. Since many research approaches cannot deal with missing and uncertain information, policymakers and other development professionals find themselves making decisions without meaningful scientific guidance.

• Research for agricultural development should embrace methods that are designed for supporting decisions on complex systems in the face of uncertainty. Decision Analysis methods have been used for similar purposes in numerous fields, including computer science, public health, business decisionmaking, and natural resource management, but they are new to agricultural research.

• Decision Analysis is based on the following principles: 1) focus research on a particular decision, 2) use the current state of knowledge to forecast decision impacts, 3) include experts, stakeholders, and decision-makers in the analysis, 4) explicitly express uncertainty, 5) consider everything that matters to the decision, and 6) use the concept of Value of Information to identify information needs.

• The World Agroforestry Centre has completed several case studies that have used Decision Analysis procedures in research for agricultural development. It aims to strengthen the capacity of development-oriented researchers to apply these methods, to increase the share of development decisions that receive robust and contextspecific scientific support.

The Unsurmountable Complexity Challenge Many studies have tried to precisely predict agricultural outcomes, often using complex models fed with large datasets.3,4 It is striking that virtually all successful simulations dealt with relatively simple settings, mostly working on highly mechanized singlecrop systems, with homogeneous soils and advanced management of nutrients, water, pests, diseases, and weeds.5 Simulations also generally assume well-functioning input and output markets and predictable social and economic environments.

We suspect that successful simulations for fairly simple systems are the main reason many agricultural scientists have confidence in their models.

While many models convincingly describe photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, or light competition,6,7 the impacts of pests and diseases, labor constraints, and weather extremes are often either excluded or not captured sufficiently. Many researchers have seen opportunities for precise modeling, even when some components of systems get a little more complex.8,9 For instance, we could possibly make models that describe tree-crop interactions,10 other intercropping situations,11 or biotic stresses.12 However, such models will probably never be able to become sufficiently complex for simulating many real-life agricultural systems.

We work on agroforestry systems, which are agricultural systems that integrate trees (or shrubs) with crops and/or livestock.13 Such systems are widespread throughout the tropics and subtropics, especially among smallholder farmers. In addition to their biophysical settings, smallholder farms are normally shaped by a host of economic, social, and cultural factors that influence farm performance. They are also highly variable,14 so that generalizations about them become very problematic (Figure 1). There is little hope for making precise predictions

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 47

Eike Luedeling and Cathy Watson, ICRAF

Figure 1. Complex agroforestry systems in Africa—difficult to study with purely data-driven research approaches.

for such systems. Fortunately, we probably don’t need such predictions for good decision making.

A possible answer to the challenge of modelling complex systems could be a massive increase in data collection.

Unfortunately, this strategy is often not promising for complex systems, because it would devour far more resources—time and money—than are available in most contexts. Complex models can also be quite error-prone because they often involve the simulation of many processes, each of which may introduce inaccuracies.15 System analysts should therefore aspire to initially build lean but balanced models (Figure 2), in which all major processes are adequately represented, rather than models that cover some parts of the system in detail but largely ignore others.

Towards Meeting the Complexity Challenge: Accept Inevitable Limitations In the face of system complexity and data scarcity, which seem ubiquitous throughout much of the developing world (but not only there), it is hard to be optimistic about the ability of research to deliver meaningful decision support. This is not helped by reports indicating that most ‘research for development’ is never actually considered in decisionmaking processes.16 In many cases, better communication by researchers could amend the situation, but we suspect that quite often decisionmakers realize that studies do not address systems as comprehensively as they should. Where research fails to consider impacts on critical stakeholders, site-specific risk factors,

48 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

or institutional constraints, people with intimate knowledge of the local context may easily dismiss the research findings.

This leaves researchers who aim to facilitate development with a problem: how can research meaningfully support decision processes?

The first step towards a solution is accepting the inevitable limitations: no matter how hard we try, we cannot eliminate uncertainty on complex agricultural systems!

Accepting that complexity and uncertainty are part of the systems that we are attempting to manage is the first step towards a solution. In fact, research approaches that can accommodate complexity and uncertainty do exist in other disciplines but are not yet commonly used in Agricultural Sciences.

Decision Analysis, have been developed to support real-life decisions. Decision Analysis is widely applied in many contexts, including business decision support,17,18 public health intervention planning,19,20 legal reasoning,21 policy process support,22 and natural resource management.23 So far, research for agricultural development has not seen broad application of Decision Analysis methods.

We posit that embracing this discipline and its principles could constitute a solution for the difficulty agricultural research has been having with supporting decisions. We are working to introduce pragmatic Decision Analysis approaches into research for development in order to overcome the disconnect between research and practice that has been standing in the way of evidence-based decision-making.

The Principles of Decision Analysis

Graphic by Eike Luedeling

Figure 2. ‘Liebig’s barrel’ of model precision (borrowing from an illustration commonly used to illustrate the concept of essential plant nutrients). The precision we can expect from our model is limited by the process we understand least (where the barrel loses water). More detailed information on aspects we already understand well will not make our models much more precise.

Decision Analysis: A Promising Solution for the Complexity Challenge Having to understand complex systems sufficiently well to make decisions on them, even without perfect information, is a very common challenge.

Similar situations are regularly faced by entrepreneurs deciding on whether to launch new products, by judges having to decide on court cases, by governments contemplating new policies, and in a large number of other contexts.

In fact, we meet similar decision challenges in our everyday lives all the time.

Such decision dilemmas are the object of interest of Decision Theory.

This discipline has a long history of working on exactly the kind of problem agricultural decision-makers face: how to make risky decisions on complex systems with limited information. This problem has attracted the attention of researchers working in many scientific fields, including economics, psychology, sociology, mathematics, computer science, and statistics. Thanks to the combined efforts of this community and the abundance of potential applications, pragmatic approaches, known as

Focus on a Decision ‘Decision Analysis’ is concerned with making rational recommendations on how decisions should be taken.

Decisions are situations where a decision-maker or decision-making body can choose between at least two alternative options, with some uncertainty as to which option is preferable.

Decision Analysis aims to identify the rational choice, based on the current state of knowledge and preferences of decision-makers. This motivation draws our attention away from the classic scientific pursuit of trying to understand how the system works towards the more focused context determined by a particular decision question. The analysis then no longer needs to describe all parts of a system but can instead focus on the parts that stand to be affected.

Use the Current State of Knowledge Much modern research, including research for development, is very much focused on empirical data, as opposed

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 49

to other sources of information. We often assume that we know next to nothing about a particular issue until we have collected data on it. On the other hand, we place great—and probably often unwarranted—trust in results from surveys or experiments.

This so-called ‘frequentist’ mindset originates from the common belief that science should be objective and that scientists’ beliefs and values should not be allowed to interfere with analyses. The problem with this mindset is that studying complex systems is very difficult if our starting point is a blank slate. Even given that most frequentist researchers naturally consider earlier work in designing their studies, it is difficult to comprehensively describe systems with this approach.

An alternative mindset is the so-called ‘Bayesian’ approach to research, which allows analysts to insert their initial state of knowledge—their prior beliefs—into their studies. These prior beliefs, which can be updated through additional information, can serve as a starting point for systems analysis.

The difference between these views on the scientific process has substantial implications for our ability to study complex systems. While the frequentist approach requires us to first invest significant effort in data collection, before we can say anything at all about a system, the Bayesian approach allows us to progress towards a coarse understanding of system dynamics relatively quickly and much more cheaply. This cost and time effectiveness is a prerequisite for research that supports decisions in real time.

Include Experts, Stakeholders, and Decision-Makers If researchers without much knowledge on a particular system make a model of that system, the results are often not very useful. This is why decision analysts engage subject matter experts and stakeholders—often the best available source of information—in participatory processes to harvest their knowledge

and construct models that reflect their beliefs and priorities. Besides improving the models, this participation allows for considering different perspectives on the decision and—especially if decisionmakers themselves participate—it also raises the chance that research outputs will be considered when the decision is finally made.

Explicitly Express Uncertainty In working with expert knowledge, it is crucial to adopt robust procedures to acknowledge that the information we use is uncertain. We can express uncertainty about variable values by using probability distributions that describe our beliefs about the true values. If we adopt simulation techniques that can work with such distributions, we can then also express our expectations of decision outcomes in a similar manner.

We cannot offer certainty about what the outcome of the decision will be, but we can produce a plausible range for its impacts. Given that uncertainty about decision outcomes is inevitable in practice, this may be the most honest answer science can provide. Common methodologies used to implement such analyses are Monte Carlo simulation or Bayesian Networks, which allow representing uncertainty in variable values and to some extent even in the processes involved in translating decisions into outcomes.

An important obstacle to including uncertainty in simulations is the observation that most people, including experts, are not very good at accurately expressing their state of knowledge in quantitative terms.17,24 Experts are commonly overconfident, meaning they think they know more than they actually know. For instance, an expert who says she is 90 percent confident that a value is within a specified range, is likely to be right less than 90 percent of the time. Overconfidence is only one of a large number of cognitive biases that have been described.25 Decision analysts often attempt to counteract such biases by subjecting experts to

50 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

so-called calibration training, where they are made aware of their biases and instructed in techniques that help to overcome them.17,21 Consider Everything that Matters The capacity to work with uncertain information opens new opportunities for taking holistic perspectives on systems that consider everything the experts, stakeholders, and decisionmakers that we work with think should be included. This may often include factors for which there are no hard data or that are difficult to measure in principle. However, if they are expected to affect system dynamics, it is possible to express these expected effects in quantitative terms. Decision analysts have referred to such factors as ‘intangibles,’ and many instances of their successful inclusion into decision models have been reported.17 Not having to be absolutely precise also opens opportunities for expanding the range of outcome dimensions we consider. If, for instance, we want to predict the impacts of a decision to adopt agroforestry practices, we now no longer have to restrict our assessment to outcomes that can be precisely measured, such as the yields of annual crops. Instead, we can now estimate other outcome dimensions, such as the benefits of soil conservation, sequestered carbon, fuelwood, etc., even though in the absence of data these estimates may initially remain quite uncertain. For reliable decision support, inclusion of such factors is critical.

Use the Value of Information to Prioritize Decision-Specific Research A key concept in Decision Analysis is the Value of Information. It expresses that not all uncertainties associated with a decision need to be reduced to reach a good decision. There are normally many knowledge gaps whose closure would contribute very little additional clarity to the decision

Trees for the Future

Farmers in Senegal discuss a young, income-generating papaya tree.

challenge. Conversely, some variables typically stand out with substantial information values, meaning that investments in their measurement could significantly facilitate decisionmaking. Value of Information analysis aims to identify such decision-specific research priorities. It has often been shown that the most pertinent knowledge gaps only become apparent after reaching an initial understanding of the overall decision context and analyzing the uncertainties. One might therefore look at Decision Analysis as a transdisciplinary umbrella for systems analysis, which serves to first appreciate the way the entire system works, before evaluating its performance based on the current state of knowledge and then pointing out where measurements would be most useful. In this way, Decision Analysis can integrate

expert knowledge with available data, providing a much better basis for supporting decisions than either source of information on its own.

Decision Analysis in Development Practice For the past four years, we have been applying Decision Analysis methods in research for agricultural development. We started by using the well-established procedures of Applied Information Economics in partnership with the developer of this approach.17 The process starts with participatory analysis of the decision problem.

Decision analysts convene decisionmakers, stakeholders, and potentially additional experts to jointly develop a decision model (Figure 3). Participants are encouraged to bring up any factors they deem important for the decision,

in particular the various costs, benefits, and risks, as well as the objectives and concerns of decision-makers and stakeholders. This information is arranged into a conceptual model, which aims for a balanced representation of the entire decision context. It should not include excessive detail on some parts of the model while disregarding other important parts (Figure 2).

The analyst converts the conceptual model into a mathematical model, translating stakeholder inputs into equations as accurately as possible.

The members of the model-building team, and possibly additional experts, are critical informants in parameterizing the model, especially where no reliable data are available. Even when there are data, they often need to be filtered or adapted to the given context. All experts are subjected to

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 51

Graphic by Eike Luedeling

Figure 3. Illustration of the Decision Analysis process used at the World Agroforestry Centre. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and analysts join hands in a participatory analysis of the decision in question. This joint understanding is translated into a transdisciplinary decision model. After parameterizing the model based on the current state of knowledge, using various sources of information, probabilistic simulation can indicate plausible ranges of outcomes for decision alternatives. Models can be refined based on supporting research on key knowledge gaps identified by Value of Information analysis.

calibration training to make their estimates as reliable as possible. The major techniques we apply are based on a substantial body of research in cognitive psychology and have been described in detail by Douglas Hubbard and others.17,24,26 Experts are then requested to estimate their state of knowledge for all uncertain variables. With this information, simulations can be run, producing plausible outcome ranges for alternative decision options. In many cases, these simulations reveal a preferred course of action. Where no clearly preferable option emerges, Value of Information analysis can identify the most important knowledge gaps, which can then be narrowed by targeted research. With the new information, the model can be run again.

The process is repeated until decisionmakers feel confident that they can make a well-informed decision.27

Applications in Development Over the past four years, we have used this process in a number of decision contexts. In one of the first applications, we built a simple decision model for estimating the yield benefits that African smallholder farmers can expect from introducing Conservation Agriculture principles. Unlike most other studies, our decision model considered not only biophysical factors that can easily be measured but also less tangible aspects, such as land tenure or access to markets and information. Including these influences, which were considered in the form of calibrated expert estimates, we found that, in many types of socio-economic settings, farmers stand to gain little from introducing Conservation Agriculture, even though their biophysical setting appears favorable.28 Working with teams of scientists involved in water, land, and

52 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

ecosystem research, we evaluated several potential development decisions, ranging from establishment of a large dam in Laos to the use of payments for ecosystem services to manage urban water supply in Kenya. Addressing a controversial decision in northern Kenya, we modeled plans to ensure the water supply to a dryland city by tapping an aquifer and transporting water through a 100-km pipeline. We convened stakeholder workshops and worked with local experts to model outcomes of this intervention for several stakeholder groups. Our main finding was that implementing this project carried high risks for all stakeholders.

Key uncertainties included the feasibility of a commercial water supply business, the extent and valuation of a reduction in infant mortality, and the risk of political interference (Figure 4).27

We have also evaluated the potential of several agricultural interventions in East Africa, the applicability of a Decision Analysis framework for monitoring and evaluating development projects, and the prospects of strengthening resilience through large-scale irrigation, watering boreholes for livestock, or improving roads with innovative technology. Current projects include a cost–benefit analysis for small reservoirs in West Africa and the nutrition impacts of tree-based agriculture in East Africa. We have also reflected on the benefits of using Decision Analysis methods for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which could provide a lowcost alternative to large-scale data collection, while actually supporting decision-makers aiming to further the cause of the SDGs.29 We have published some of our tools in an open-access analysis package and started exploring the use of Bayesian Networks as an additional Decision Analysis strategy, including for project management.30,31

The Way Forward We feel confident that the tools and methods of Decision Analysis can lead to major progress in the analysis of complex systems, especially where concrete decisions are contemplated.

The ability to make projections even in the absence of precise information opens opportunities to support a much wider range of decisions than would be feasible with a purely datadriven approach. Working directly with decision-makers on the concrete decisions they face can bridge the gap between science and practice, fostering a solution-oriented dialogue that allows science to truly inform decision-processes.

This dialogue requires decisionmakers and experts to make explicit their expectations of how the impacts of the decision will unfold, with particular focus on trade-offs and risks.

This allows for identifying potential weaknesses in the intervention that is decided on and strengthening it by modifying the intervention design.

Decision models can also explicitly capture decision-makers’ preferences by eliciting directly from these decision-makers value estimates or utility weights to be assigned to various costs and benefits. This can be critically important for capturing real constraints to the adoption of new technologies.

Decision models can be of value even after a decision has been made.

As an intervention is implemented, measurements can be taken on many variables that are uncertain in the beginning, allowing continuous updating of impact projections.

Expected impacts can be adjusted for the effects of variable factors, such as the weather or political stability, which may strongly impact intervention outcomes. Decision models are useful tools for intervention impact evaluation, because they allow comparison of actual project outcomes with targets that are realistic given the occurrence of influential events beyond the project’s control.

Such ‘random’ factors are difficult to account for when impact evaluation relies on before–after comparisons that do not consider causal relationships in the intervention’s impact pathway.

Decision Analysis principles have potential as an entry point to transdisciplinary systems analysis.

They allow analyses to start with a coarse understanding of the system of interest before zooming in to the detailed system components on which research is needed. This forms a contrast to traditional multidisciplinary approaches that start with robust research on particular system elements but often struggle to put the various pieces together to generate system understanding.

There have been challenges in applying Decision Analysis in

development. Most researchers and many stakeholders in development have been trained in data-driven research approaches, making many uncomfortable with making estimates and with using information that is not thoroughly supported by data.

Moreover, when given the freedom to insert into models everything they think worthy of inclusion, stakeholders may come up with models that are far from accurate. They can fail to consider important processes, dedicate attention to unimportant ones, and—intentionally or inadvertently— introduce their personal biases and opinions. Good facilitation can safeguard against this to some extent, but a residual risk remains. Where initial models are wrong and analysts fail to recognize this, the Decision Analysis approach to knowledge generation may not produce useful results. Finally, analysts may introduce their own biases and interpretations into the decision model because they normally have to make at least some choices when translating participatory models into computer code.

In light of these challenges, however, it is important to recognize that the primary motivation of Decision Analysis is to improve the way people make decisions. Hence, its use has to lead to better decisions than unaided intuition, which is often the only alternative. Decision models should not be compared to hypothetical resourceintensive research projects serving the same purpose, because such projects are very rarely a realistic possibility.

Our experience so far has shown that decision analysts should be skilled in facilitation, mathematical modeling, and ideally in the subject matter of the model—skills that rarely coincide in one person. Teams of analysts with complementary skills can be an effective solution. In the longer term, the necessary skill base for wider deployment of Decision Analysis in research for development could be produced through a shift in

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 53

development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6, 73–77 (2014).

15. Passioura, JB. Simulation models: Science, snake oil, education, or engineering? Agronomy Journal 88(5), 690–694 (1996).

16. Clapp, A, DauSchmidt, N, Millar, M, Hubbard, D & Shepherd, K. A survey and analysis of the data requirements for stakeholders in African agriculture (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, 2013).

17. Hubbard, DW. How to Measure Anything - Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business (Wiley, Hoboken, 2014).

18. Howard, RA & Abbas, AE. Foundations of Decision Analysis (Prentice Hall, 2015).

19. Konijeti, GG, Sauk, J, Shrime, MG, Gupta, M & Ananthakrishnan, AN. Cost-effectiveness of competing strategies for management of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a decision analysis.

Clinical Infectious Diseases 58(11): 1507–1514 (2014).

20. Claxton, K, Griffin, S, Koffijberg, H & McKenna, C. How to estimate the health benefits of additional research and changing clinical practice. BMJ 351:

Graphic by Eike Luedeling

Figure 4. Distribution of projected overall net impacts of constructing a groundwater-fed water supply pipeline for Wajir, a town in northern Kenya, and key uncertainties determined through Decision Analysis procedures.

h5987 (2015).

21. Fenton, N & Neil, M. Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012).

22. Carley, M. Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis: Policy Studies Institute (Heinemann Educational Books,

the educational focus of developmentrelated study courses, away from an exclusive reliance on data-driven research methods and towards more systems-oriented approaches. This could produce a generation of decision analysts, which could make full use of pragmatic Decision Analysis methods to further the cause of sustainable development.

6. Keating, BA et al. An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. European Journal of Agronomy 18(3–4), 267–288 (2003).

7. Van Noordwijk, M, Khasanah, N, Lusiana, B & Mulia, R. WaNuLCAS 4.0. Background on a model of water, nutrient and light capture in agroforestry systems (World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Indonesia, 2011).

8. Huth, NI, Carberry, PS, Poulton, PL, Brennan, LE & Keating, BA. A framework for simulating agroforestry options for the low rainfall areas of Australia using APSIM. European Journal of Agronomy 18(1–2), 171–185 (2002).

References 1. De Groot, RS, Alkemade, R, Braat, L, Hein, L &

9. Araya, A et al. Assessment of maize growth and yield using crop models under present and future

Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept

climate in southwestern Ethiopia. Agricultural and

of ecosystem services and values in landscape

Forest Meteorology 214, 252–265 (2015).

planning, management and decision making.

Ecological Complexity 7(3), 260–272 (2010).

2. McConnell, DJ & Dillon, JL. Farm management for Asia: a systems approach (FAO Farm Systems

10. Luedeling, E et al. Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: Challenges and development needs.

Agricultural Systems 142, 51–69 (2016).

11. Tsubo, M, Walker, S & Ogindo, H. A simulation

Management Series - 13) (Food and Agriculture

model of cereal–legume intercropping systems for

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1997).

semi-arid regions: I. Model development. Field Crops

3. van Ittersum, MK et al. Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—a review. Field Crops Research 143, 4–17 (2013).

4. Rosenzweig, C et al. Assessing agricultural risks of

Research 93(1), 10–22 (2005).

12. Munier-Jolain, N, Guyot, S & Colbach, N. A 3D model for light interception in heterogeneous crop: weed canopies: Model structure and

climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded

evaluation. Ecological Modelling 250, 101–110

crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the

(2013).

National Academy of Sciences 111(9), 3268–3273 (2014).

5. Asseng, S et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nature Climate Change 3(9), 827–832 (2013).

13. Nair, PKR. An Introduction to Agroforestry (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993).

14. Coe, R, Sinclair, F & Barrios, E. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’

54 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

London, 2013).

23. Williams, BK & Johnson, FA. Value of information in natural resource management: technical developments and application to pink‐footed geese. Ecology and Evolution 5(2), 466–474 (2015).

24. Tversky, A & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131(1974).

25. Croskerry, P, Singhal, G & Mamede, S. Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.

BMJ Quality & Safety 22(Suppl 2), ii58–ii64 (2013).

26. Klein, G. Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review 85(9), 18–19 (2007).

27. Luedeling, E et al. Fresh groundwater for Wajir – exante assessment of uncertain benefits for multiple stakeholders in a water supply project in Northern Kenya. Frontiers in Environmental Science 3, Article 16 (2015).

28. Rosenstock, TS et al. Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 47–51 (2014).

29. Shepherd, K et al. Policy: Development goals should enable decision-making. Nature 523(7559), 152–154 (2015).

30. Göhring, L & Luedeling, E. decisionSupport: Quantitative Support of Decision Making under Uncertainty. CRAN archive [online] (2015). https:// cran.r-project.org/web/packages/decisionSupport/.

31. Yet, B et al. A Bayesian network framework for project cost, benefit and risk analysis with an agricultural development case study. Expert Systems with Applications 60, 141–155 (2016).

Quatrini, S., R. Barkemeyer, and L. Stringer. (2016). Involving the Mining Sector in Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality. Solutions 7(5): 55-63. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/involving-the-mining-sector-in-achieving-land-degradation-neutrality/

Feature

Involving the Mining Sector in Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality

by Simone Quatrini, Ralf Barkemeyer, and Lindsay C. Stringer

M

ining companies drive economic growth and progress, but can contribute significantly to environmental degradation if their operations are not carefully managed.6–8 The industry itself cannot operate without disturbing land, so it has direct impact on land quality. While there are several ways of assessing carbon, water, or ecological footprints, there is no comprehensive methodology to assess the whole impact of mining operations on land, including its renewable and abiotic resources. This lack of metrics and knowledge could help to explain the limited engagement by mining companies in sustainable land management (SLM) to date. Tackling this issue could also open up new opportunities for broader engagement of the mining sector in the collective efforts of the international community to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the years ahead.

The main international policy framework addressing land degradation is the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

Since the Rio+20 Conference in 2012, the UNCCD has embraced the concept of land degradation neutrality. Land degradation neutrality (LDN) is further enshrined in policy in SDG target 15.3, which by 2030 aims to “combat desertification, and restore degraded

land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation neutral world.”9 LDN demands that land degradation is reduced through the use of SLM practices and that degraded land is restored. In practice, however, rehabilitation may be more achievable than restoration.

The mining sector must contribute to efforts towards LDN for two main reasons. First, the sheer scale of environmental disruption means the industry could help make significant progress towards LDN. For example, the mining sector alone uses two-thirds of the overall electricity consumed in Zambia,10 while mining concessions account for more than 10 percent of the total landmass in countries such as Peru and Mexico.11 Only a fraction of these concessions is actively mined at any given point in time, so the proportion of land used for mining is much smaller than that used for agriculture. A crucial difference, however, is that mining uses land very intensively. In many cases, landscapes are altered so much that conventional restoration of disrupted ecosystems becomes difficult, if not impossible.12 Second, large multinational corporations (MNCs) dominate the mining sector. This means vast progress could potentially be made by focusing on just a small subset of actors.

In Brief Businesses that have large land footprints, like those in the mining sector, need to participate in efforts to achieve the international Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) target. Evidence shows that LDN also makes good business sense in terms of profitability, sustainability, and social responsibility.

The current policy and economic contexts are nevertheless lacking in terms of both incentives and finance options. Solutions are needed to target these gaps. A certification system for LDN and/or sustainable land management (SLM) could stimulate interest in economic sectors that have otherwise not yet centrally engaged with SLM issues at a policy level, while also helping businesses to comply with new legislation on LDN. Similarly, lack of financing options for SLM and land rehabilitation could be addressed by a LDN fund. This could be constructed in an innovative public–private way that provides commercial loans and equity in investments, allowing new flows of finance into SLM and land rehabilitation.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 55

Still, the size and severity of environmental impacts from mining make it difficult to develop effective solutions. Land is affected by mining throughout exploration, construction, operation, closure, and post-closure stages of a mine’s life cycle.6, 13 Even establishing the impact of mining operations on the environment throughout each stage already poses a significant challenge. The environmental disruption is not only linked to the extraction of minerals but typically includes a range of other impacts such as clearing of large areas of vegetation and thus loss of biodiversity, construction of access roads and other infrastructure, excavation and disposal of vast amounts of waste rock and tailings, water pollution through chemical leakages, changes to the architecture of water bodies, and soil erosion.14 For this reason, the UNCCD commissioned a pilot study focusing on large mining MNCs to see how aware and interested mining companies are in LDN and SLM. The pilot study also identified existing best practices and looked at how they are perceived to be linked to corporate financial performance.5 Initial findings showed that SLM and LDN attract clear interest. SLM and LDN are seen as key processes and targets in global efforts to combat land degradation where public and private interests converge: public interests focus on the global benefits delivered; private interests see benefits to companies’ reputations.

However, both concepts have not yet gained traction within the mining sector. A range of existing good SLM practices can be identified within corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, only they are often labelled differently. Companies have started to report on their SLM performance in their nonfinancial reports, but as it is fairly novel, this reporting is not very well developed yet.

Importantly, there is limited understanding of the financial

Key Concepts • LDN is “a state whereby the amount of healthy and productive land resources, necessary to support ecosystem services, remains stable or increases within specified temporal and spatial scales.”1 • LDN was adopted as one of the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved by 2030.2 • LDN requires complementary measures to minimize current degradation and avoid future degradation by practicing SLM, rehabilitating and restoring degraded and abandoned land that provide vital benefits to people and sustain working landscapes.

• Land restoration and rehabilitation differ.

Restoration initiates or accelerates recovery of a degraded terrestrial ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability. It aims to return land to a close approximation of its condition before disturbance. Rehabilitation regenerates land’s capacity to provide certain ecosystem goods and services, without necessarily returning them to pre-disturbance conditions. 3, 4 • SLM can be defined as: the use of land, soils, water, and biodiversity to produce goods and services that meet human needs. SLM should be socially acceptable, economically viable, and ensure land is productive in the long-term by maintaining ecosystem services and their environmental functions.5 • The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) business case describes a positive relationship between corporate, social, and financial performance. In the mining sector, a business case for SLM and the rehabilitation of degraded land could trigger transformational changes in corporate land management practices, leading the sector to make a significant contribution towards LDN. • Despite evidence that demonstrates a business case for the mining sector to engage in SLM, mining companies’ CSR reports show insignificant uptake.5 Lack of enabling conditions, such as incentives, or inadequate financial architecture to turn the business case into practice, partly explain lack of uptake. Certification and funding solutions we outline here target the development of these enabling conditions.

56 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

implications of SLM practices in the mining sector. A positive link between corporate social performance and financial performance is vital if SLM and CSR activities more generally are to become mainstreamed into standard company behavior. For example, potential benefits can be expected to include increased productive potential of restored and rehabilitated ecosystems, improved risk management, better relations with government officials and local communities, more efficient resource use, improved compliance with local rules and regulations, and reputational benefits. All of these would in turn be expected to have a positive impact on corporate financial performance.15 Making the business case for SLM-related CSR in the mining sector gives additional, strong evidence to present to private and state mining enterprises. This kind of evidence could stimulate socially responsible corporate behaviors, including investments in SLM. Showing that SLM policies affect the financial viability of mining projects could catalyze behavior and disclosure at national and corporate levels. Indeed, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has already recognized the need for a clear framework to be put in place to help businesses to engage in and contribute to LDN. They note that “land degradation can directly impact a company’s cost structure and profitability by affecting the availability and cost of its resources, among other factors. Land degradation neutrality therefore needs to be recognized as an investment that can help companies sustain their operations in the long run.”15 In our pilot research,5 mining company representatives as well as their stakeholders pointed to case-based examples where specific SLM activities were perceived to have a positive impact on corporate financial performance. In this context,

Before and after matting, seeding, and mulching at the Tilcon–Suffern Quarry in Rockland County, New York.

NYS DEC www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 57

respondents specifically mentioned improved compliance with nationallevel rules and regulations and thus better risk management, improved relations with government bodies, and better relations with local communities.5 Yet, while results showed there is unlikely to be a negative relationship between SLM and corporate financial performance, more empirical evidence is needed to generate a robust general business case—as is the case in other fields of corporate sustainability, too.

The pilot study’s findings suggest an urgent need for solutions that promote a common understanding of SLM and LDN, upscaling existing good practices, and providing incentives and an enabling policy context for mining companies to effectively engage in SLM and contribute towards LDN. Solutions should enable mining companies to gradually neutralize the ‘land footprint’ of their operations in all stages of mineral exploration and development. Crucially, solutions should provide incentives for mining companies to mainstream SLM practices and enable them to do so in a financially viable way, in turn strengthening the business case for SLM and ultimately moving towards LDN. The next section sets out two possible solutions: i) certification of SLM practices (preventing degradation and improving land, but also providing the metrics and incentives towards virtuous land management approaches and LDN); and ii) development of a LDN fund (providing competitive finance for projects that contribute to LDN through land rehabilitation and companies that invest in SLM practices both on- and off-site).

Certification Certification is a procedure that provides written assurance that a product, process, or service complies with certain standards.16 Compliance is certified by agreed methods that are recognized and approved by a third-party certification body or

Eldorado Gold

Reclamation and rehabilitation of tailings (dump areas) at Eldorado Gold’s Olympias mine in Greece.

Over 2.4 million tons of tailings and arsenopyrite concentrate generated by a previous mine operator has been removed and cleaned.

certifier that has no direct interest in the economic relationship between the supplier and the buyer. These standards can be established by the industry, including exporter/retailer groups. Certification is already used in the forestry sector where, for example, the Forest Stewardship

58 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Council provides a certification system for timber and forest products.

Similarly, soil management and land use management are already at the core of sustainability certifications such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Responsible Soy

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

Roundtable on Responsible Soy

(RTRS), and Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). Another example is the Fairtrade Foundation, which uses certification to claim that products meet certain environmental, labor, and developmental standards.

An example in the mining sector is “Fairtrade gold and precious metals,”17 an initiative that links consumers of jewelry with the source of their purchase through standards and certification, thereby aiming to safeguard

small miners in the supply chain. A well-known issue with certification and standards is that lots of different private standards can emerge, each covering different issues within the same sector.18 Furthermore, while certification can help raise the environmental performance bar,19 it can also create niches and reduce the perception of particular standards and behaviors as being normal or mainstream.20 Despite these challenges, certification of SLM and land rehabilitation/ restoration efforts could incentivize mining companies to invest in SLM practices, helping to engage them in moving towards LDN. The range of existing commodity standards needs to be assessed in order to identify which aspects of SLM are being addressed. To achieve this will require the use of indicators.

Crucially, these indicators should capture actual SLM impacts rather than merely focusing on management processes or practices, which is often the case in CSR reports. In other words, indicators should focus directly on actual SLM performance on the ground and processes that are implemented in order to manage SLM performance. Indicators used in the certification process would need to be site-specific, given the wide range of SLM and restoration practices that could be undertaken to address particular types of land degradation and degraded land. The UNCCD already uses three general LDN indicators: i) trends in land cover and land use change; ii) trends in land productivity, and; iii) trends in soil organic carbon stocks. These could be complemented through the certification to include (using the RSPO as an example) SLM practices such as no use of fire when preparing land, avoidance of extensive development on fragile and marginal soils and steep slopes, soil fertility maintenance and prevention of erosion, water table management, and

subsidence prevention in peat soils.

Assessment using these kinds of indicators would allow gaps in SLM coverage to be identified in existing certification schemes, identifying opportunities for existing standards to become more closely aligned with SLM. The scale of certification in the mining sector would also need careful consideration. SLM would need to be certified at project level, as companies with many concessions across multiple countries may not achieve the necessary standards as a whole business, even though particular projects within particular mining operations may do so. However, a company could be certified LDN if it meets the necessary standards of zero net land degradation across all of its operations.

Certification may be a particularly useful solution if it is linked to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards that the mining sector is already working towards, as it is important that any SLM or LDN certification solution does not place too much of an additional burden on companies.

In addition to current schemes that already contain some element of SLM within their indicators, existing organizations such as the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) have requirements for membership that cross-cut many of the aspects of the definition of SLM (see Table 1). Implementing a certification scheme linked to the ICMM could therefore be an achievable and realistic way forward, particularly because some of the world’s largest mining companies already have internal standards relating to land. For example, Rio Tinto has a land-use stewardship standard that is applied to all its operations with a view to fulfilling corporate, community, and other stakeholders’ expectations around sustainable land use.21

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 59

Principle 1

Implement and maintain ethical business practices and sound systems of corporate governance.

2

Integrate sustainable development considerations within the corporate decisionmaking process.

3

Uphold fundamental human rights and respect cultures, customs, and values in dealings with employees and others who are affected by our activities.

4

Implement risk management strategies based on valid data and sound science.

5

Seek continual improvement of our health and safety performance.

6

Seek continual improvement of our environmental performance.

7

Contribute to conservation of biodiversity and integrated approaches to land use planning.

8

Facilitate and encourage responsible product design, use, reuse, recycling, and disposal of our products.

9

Contribute to the social, economic, and institutional development of the communities in which we operate.

10

Implement effective and transparent engagement, communication, and independently verified reporting arrangements with our stakeholders.

Table 1. ICMM principles that underpin requirements for membership

LDN Fund A second solution that could advance LDN in the mining sector, as well as in other sectors, is the establishment of a public–private sector fund that would help spur the development of bankable projects that deliver social and environmental benefits while providing market (or above) average financial returns to investors.

Spearheaded by the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, the idea for a LDN fund emerged in 2014, following consultations involving several different groups engaged in identifying sustainable solutions to the problem of land degradation. A first concept note on the Impact Investment Fund for Land Degradation Neutrality was presented

during the World Investment Forum in Geneva on 14 October 2014.22, 23 Creation of a fund is important for two reasons. First, regulatory pressures in national legislation are likely to increase and tighten for companies that have a large land footprint, particularly since countries have adopted SDG 15.3 on LDN. Second, market demands for SLM are intensifying from consumers and shareholders who are demanding more socially responsible operations. Whatever the driver, finance for SLM and land rehabilitation—particularly in developing countries—is currently a bottleneck.24, 25 Conventional financing instruments and investment strategies can inadvertently penalize responsible

60 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

operations compared with unsustainable ones.26–28 At the same time, the dual drivers mentioned above are now creating conditions for a more conducive financial architecture to emerge; one which has the potential to support a systemic transition towards LDN. A LDN fund could help to finance companies’ compliance, particularly where there is no robust and competitive financial market for that. It could also open a route for some companies that identify sustainability as a source of comparative advantage to engage in ‘more than compliance’ strategies, by channeling more into SLM/LDN activities. Indeed, the WBCSD notes that it makes business sense for mining companies to internalize SLM within

NYS DEC

Seeding at the Milton Avenue mine in Onondaga County, New York.

their operations to ensure future profitability.15 A mining site (or entire mining company) can move towards land degradation neutrality by using SLM practices throughout its operations and investing in land rehabilitation to compensate for the residual land footprint it generates.1, 29, 30 A LDN fund could provide commercial finance (e.g., nonconcessional loans) to those mining companies that need external capital to restore the mining site after closure and/or rehabilitate degraded land elsewhere—under rigorous conditions of equivalence—to compensate for their land footprint.

Alternatively, a mining company could choose to invest in the LDN fund as part of its CSR activities. This

extends a company’s efforts to tackle land degradation beyond the largely on-site focus required for its license to operate, providing the opportunity for more systematic protection of landbased ecosystem services throughout a mine’s operations.

While the modus operandi of such a LDN fund is currently evolving under the leadership of the UNCCD’s Global Mechanism, it is expected that the fund would operate as a public–private partnership for blended finance and that it will generate financial returns from interest paid on loans or dividends from equity investments.

While managed by a private sector investment management firm, and mainly targeting private institutional investors, public resources (e.g.,

from governments and development agencies) would cover investment risks of a relatively new LDN ‘space,’ particularly in emerging markets, and provide technical assistance for bankable project development.

Because of the significant environmental and social risks involved, the fund will have to follow strict sustainability standards and responsible investment criteria.

Land ownership and land tenure considerations, for instance, will have to be carefully assessed for each investment decision. Existing safeguards and performance standards (such as the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability; the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 61

Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, etc.) could be used to support rigorous due diligence processes, ensuring the fund only supports projects that contribute to LDN and allaying environmental and social risks posed by the project throughout its life cycle.31 The LDN Fund is a promising solution because of three of its inherent characteristics that distinguish it from other funds already in place: i) its scale—after an initial starting phase, the ambition of the fund is to mobilize more than USD$1 billion to significantly contribute towards achieving LDN by the year 2030 through efforts that might need to be deployed over 12 million hectares each year; ii) the blended capital structure of the fund, which would pool resources from public and private investors with different risks/returns; and iii) a triple bottom-line business model, designed to pursue financial returns alongside environmental and social benefits, while at the same time contributing to multiple SDGs (e.g., ecosystem restoration, habitat/biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation and adaptation, ‘green’ employment opportunities, increased food and water security, and the empowerment of local communities and of female small-scale landholders).

Final Thoughts Achieving LDN at a global level as targeted by the SDGs would imply the introduction of SLM practices and land rehabilitation and restoration projects over a combined surface of approximately 12 million hectares of land, representing the current land degradation footprint of the global economy.

This is a vast endeavor that cannot be handled by a single institution and will inevitably require the combination of an array of instruments, mechanisms, and entities deployed across a range of different sectors of the economy. In the absence of a politically practicable,

legally binding global agreement forcing compliance with the international UN target, market forces offer a useful solution to generate the necessary transformational change at the appropriate level and scale. In this regard, public policies and announcements, such as the voluntary SDG targets, can play an instrumental role in sending a signal to market operators, the effectiveness of which will ultimately depend on the public commitments that follow.

Our analysis of the mining sector revealed a potentially vast, largely untapped opportunity for engaging mining companies in socially and environmentally responsible operations compatible with SLM and LDN. Mining companies would engage in such activities for at least one of two reasons: i) compliance and/or ii) convenience. With no legally binding regulatory frameworks in place, we argue that they would ultimately engage if there is an enabling context that creates or reinforces the business case for SLM/LDN. Such an enabling context may result from both public and private sector policies and strategies and would not necessarily need to depend on centralized governance structures or institutions.

Market-driven solutions such as industry standards for sustainable land management or land stewardship certifications, together with innovative financial solutions to mobilize adequate patient capital, could provide the right incentives to trigger the necessary response.

Certification, combined with an independent, private-sector managed LDN Fund could together create the enabling context that would help bring the mining sector more centrally into efforts to enhance land quality. While our focus here has been on mining, the solutions we propose would also be suitable for application in other land-based sectors such as forestry, agriculture, tourism, and energy.

62 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Acknowledgments This work was funded by the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. Many thanks to Alison Eskesen, Siv Øystese, and Ashim Paun for their inputs to the discussions that informed this paper.

References 1. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the follow-up to the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) [online] (2015). http:// www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/ cop12/4eng.pdf.

2. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Land Degradation Neutrality: Resilience at local, national and regional levels (UNCCD, Bonn, 2014).

3. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Land Degradation Neutrality: Issue Brief for Business (WBCSD, Geneva, 2015).

4. Society for Ecological Restoration. International Science & Policy Working Group. International Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER, Tucson AZ, 2004).

5. Barkemeyer, R, Stringer, LC, Hollins, JA & Josephi, F. Corporate reporting on solutions to wicked problems: Sustainable land management in the mining sector. Environmental Science & Policy 48, 196–209 (2015).

6. International Council on Mining and Metals.

The role of mining and metals in land use and adaptation [online] (2011). http://www.icmm.com/ document/2662.

7. International Council on Mining and Metals.

Mining’s contribution to sustainable development – an overview [online] (2012). https://www.icmm. com/document/3716.

8. Bridge, G. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29, 205–259 (2004).

9. UN General Assembly. A/RES/70/1 – Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [online] (2015). https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/ transformingourworld.

10. International Monetary Fund. Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, 2007).

11. How does large-scale mining affect agriculture?

MiningFacts.Org [online] (2016). http://www. miningfacts.org/economy/how-does-large-scalemining-affect-agriculture/.

12. Doley, D & Audet, P in Ecological Restoration: Global Challenges, Social Aspects and Environmental Benefits (ed. Squires, VR). Chapter 4: 57-88 (Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2016).

13. Hilson, G & Murck, B. Sustainable development

THE MINING SECTOR

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABILITY CSR-Led Sustainability

In Indonesia, the mining industry has been contributing 8-13% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually since the 1980s.

In Peru, the mining industry is the fourth largest contributor to the economy, and the export of minerals is a large proportion of national exports.

In Zambia extractive exports make up for approximately 86% of the total exports with a contribution of US$822m

Innovative Financing The availability of funding to support SLM is insufficient to reach the scale necessary to achieve LDN. Innovative financing approaches can help enlarge the resource base by scaling SLM activities and crowding-in new investors, such as impact investors.

Mining companies’ CSR teams work with local and international NGOs, microfinance organizations, and community-based organizations to ensure social and economic development of the communities in which they operate. Typical activities include provision of basic services such as education, healthcare, energy, and clean water to the communities, enterprise development and capacity building programs, and support for local microfinance and savings groups.

In Australia, mineral resources account for 39.4% of merchandize exports (tangible exports).

Operations-Led Sustainability Operations-led sustainability refers to changes in corporate practices that reduce the direct and indirect environmental footprint of the business. This can both using a mine’s purchasing power to influence SLM-friendly changes in its value chain and also making changes to how the mine is operated, thereby creating positive SLM impact and/or neutralizing negative SLM impact. It also includes sustainable waste and water management.

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) SLM is not a term used prominently within the mining sector. This means that SLM actions being taken run the risk of being under-reported as emphasis remains on other comprehensive concepts There is a need to develop standard definitions of SLM and land degradation neutrality which would help improve clarity of terminology for stakeholders and enhance the po-

Water and Waste Management Mining companies minimize the use of water, recycle and reuse water, or ensure that all the waste water generated as a part of their production process is treated appropriately before being discharged into the ground or water bodies. Most companies must at least treat their water to meet the environmental protection standards set forth by the national government or international associations. most large companies have strategies to recycle waste materials like tires, waste oil, and metal that is generated as a part of their production process.

tential for cross-company comparability of progress towards SLM and LDN.

Sustainability Reporting Sustainability reporting has generally become more comprehensive and a widespread practice among multi-nationals in the mining sector. Companies are reporting on a wide range of aspects relevant for SLM performance, although coverage of soil production is lacking, due largely to the guidelines and indicators supported by core reporting initiatives.

Christina Wollesen

in the mining industry: clarifying the corporate

United States. Journal of Business Ethics 92, 267–285

perspective. Resources Policy 26, 227–238 (2000).

(2010).

14. Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW).

25. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Report of the thirteenth

21. Rio Tinto. Land [online] (2012). http://www.riotinto.

session of the Committee for the Review of the

Guidebook for Evaluating Mining Project EIAs:

com/sustainabledevelopment2012/environment/

Implementation of the Convention, held in Bonn

Overview of Mining and its Impacts 3–18 (ELAW,

land.html.

from 25 to 27 March 2015 (ICCD/CRIC(13)/9)

Eugene, OR, 2010).

15. World Business Council for Sustainable

22. Quatrini, S. Towards an impact investment fund for land degradation neutrality. Side event held at the

Development. Land Degradation Neutrality: A

World Investment Forum in Geneva on 14 October

Business Perspective (WBCSD, Geneva, 2015).

2014. The World Investment Forum 2014 Review, p. 38

16. International Organization for Standardization.

[online]. http://unctad-worldinvestmentforum.org/

ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996 (ISO, Geneva, 1996).

17. Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International [online] (2016). www.fairgold.org.

18. Tallontire, A, Nelson, V, Dixon, J & Benton, TG. A

wp-content/uploads/2015/11/WIF_REVIEW14_

[online] (2015). http://www.unccd.int/Lists/ OfficialDocuments/cric13/9eng.pdf.

26. Costanza, R et al. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285 (2014).

27. Cukierman, A. Reflections on the crisis and on its lessons for regulatory reform and for central bank policies. Journal of Financial Stability 7, 26–37 (2011).

web.pdf.

23. United Nations Conference on Trade and

28. Bansal, P & Knox-Hayes, J. The Time and Space

Development. The World Investment

of Materiality in Organizations and the Natural

review of the literature and knowledge of standards

Forum 2014 review: Investing in sustainable

Environment. Organization & Environment 26, 61–82

and certification systems in agricultural production

development [online] (2014). http://unctad-

and farming systems [online] (2012). http://www.

worldinvestmentforum.org/wp-content/

nri.org/projects/tradestandards/docs/assessing_the_ governance.pdf.

19. Blackman, A & Naranjo, MA. Does Eco-certification

uploads/2015/11/WIF_REVIEW14_web.pdf.

24. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Report of the eleventh session of the

(2013).

29. The Global Mechanism – UNCCD. Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund: White Paper (Global Landscapes Forum, London, 2015).

30. World Business Council for Sustainable

have Environmental Benefits? Organic Coffee in Costa

Committee for the Review of the Implementation

Rica (Resources for the Future, Washington DC,

of the Convention, held in Bonn from 15 to 19

Solution Overview (WBCSD, Geneva, 2015).

2010).

April 2013 (ICCD/CRIC(11)/19) [online] (2013).

31. UNCCD Global Mechanism and Mirova. Land

20. Jaffee, D. Fair trade standards, corporate participation, and social movement responses in the

Development. Restoring Degraded Land: Business

http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/

Degradation Neutrality Fund: An Innovative Investment

cric11/19eng.pdf.

Fund Project (GM, Bonn/Paris, 2015).

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 63

Sengalama, T. (2016). Paying for Water in Uganda: Is Paying Upstream Land Users a Possible Solution? Solutions 7(5): 64-73. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/paying-for-water-in-uganda-is-paying-upstream-land-users-a-possible-solution/

Feature

Paying for Water in Uganda: Is Paying Upstream Land Users a Possible Solution?

by Tom Sengalama and Emmanuelle Quillérou IAEA

Chuho Springs, located north of Kisoro town in southwestern Uganda, are being tapped as a local water supply.

In Brief The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has generated greater official recognition that ecosystems provide valuable services to humankind. For example, watersheds provide water supply and water purification services by acting as primary receivers of rainwater and channeling water flows within water basins. Traditional economic markets however fail to capture the full value of such services, limiting the effectiveness of market-based projects for improved natural watersheds management. Market-based instruments can help to rationalize the benefits provided by ecosystems against the cost of natural resource conservation, but only when encompassing the full range of ecosystem services provided.

The Chuho springs watershed in Kisoro District, Uganda presents an example of upstream land degradation due to intensive agricultural practices. Such upstream land degradation results in a lowered water supply to downstream users. The objective of this study is to assess the potential for the establishment of a payment for ecosystem services (PES) approach, with downstream water users paying upstream land users for improved water supply. Such a PES approach would ensure that upstream land users have an incentive to adapt their agricultural practices so as to allow for an improved water supply downstream and indirectly contributing to reduce upstream land degradation.

This assessment is based on responses from focus groups with respondents selected from official local project documents and population registers. Trends and patterns are identified in the group discussions after coding and frequency analysis. While the study revealed clear potential for PES establishment, the fragmented landscape and historical lack of collaboration between the upstream and downstream communities would hinder successful implementation. A possible solution could be to use intermediaries to represent each group. Such a set up would have upstream land users selling improved practices, possibly through NGOs already working with the users acting as intermediaries, to only one buyer representing downstream consumers such as the National Water and Sewerage Corporation.

64 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

T

he Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines ecosystem services as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.1 They are the multiple commodities that are supplied by ecosystems and constitute the natural processes by which nature sustains human life.2 They not only provide direct satisfaction such as clean water to humans but also contribute to its renewal—in the case of clean water through continued water recharge from natural watersheds.1 To sustain such benefits, there is a need to include the value of such services into the cost of goods and services provided by ecosystems.

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) seeks to rationalize incentives associated with ecosystem management by explicitly specifying the benefits and giving an indication of their “true” economic value to ecosystem service providers and users.2 In this case, the benefit that downstream water users would expect as a result of a well-managed watershed would be an improved water supply. In return, the upstream land users would receive payment for undertaking agricultural practices that help better conserve the watershed structure and functioning, thereby indirectly leading to an improved water supply downstream.

These practices would be in addition to their current agricultural practices.

This differs from other policy instruments such as taxes and subsidies that address only one side of a problem at a time. PES allows for additionality to enhance ecosystem service availability: one payment based on downstream users’ willingness to pay for an improved water supply is made to upstream users to deliver such a service through adopting specific practices additional to their current ones.3 When contributing to reduce erosion and improve water infiltration, such add-on practices could not only help improve water supply downstream but also reduce upstream land degradation.

Establishing a payment for ecosystem services requires meeting five criteria (Figure 1): Criterion 1. Well-defined environmental services Criterion 2. At least one buyer Criterion 3. At least one environmental service in the transaction Criterion 4. At least one service provider Criterion 5. Conditionality

Key Concepts • Water management is key for Uganda’s livelihood sustainability.

• The Chuho watershed catchment in Kisoro, Uganda is affected by land degradation, impacting the water supply available to downstream users.

• A PES approach could be implemented as a possible solution for improved water management in the Chuho watershed.

• Representatives of upstream and downstream users acting as intermediaries could facilitate interaction between the two communities.

• Chuho’s communities have existing institutional capacity that could be adapted to support the implementation of a PES scheme.

In this study, the downstream communities would need to pay the upstream communities, especially around Kigezi wetland, to implement land use practices that enhance downstream water supply. Such practices include, for example, zero tillage, terracing, agroforestry, and improved fallow. Under such land use practices, Chuho water springs would have a stable source of water recharge and greater downstream water supply to water users. The provision of improved water supply through additional upstream land

use practices would meet Criterion 1, as a well-defined environmental service. Criterion 2 and 4 would be met if at least one upstream farmer and one downstream user complete a transaction, which would be assessed based on research results. The PES agreements would detail the practices implemented by the upstream community in addition to current land management practices as a payment precondition. The payment would correspond to demonstrable adoption based on agreed indicators. Criterion 3 would be met with at least one environmental service in the transaction, which would be the payment for additional land use practices under the Chuho PES approach to enhance water supply.Criterion 5 would be met as part of PES agreement implementation. Conditionality refers to a business-like principle where the beneficiaries would be required to pay only if the service is actually delivered.

This is considered the most innovative feature of PES vis-à-vis traditional conservation tools.3 In Uganda, ecosystem services are critical for over 90 percent of the population, who directly depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, with natural resources contributing over 50 percent of Uganda’s GDP.4 Regarding water supply services, 61 percent of the water is from ground water sources accessed through springs and boreholes.5 This is particularly significant in the Kisoro district, where all of the water supply to the municipality and townships is from natural springs. However, there is evidence that almost all the landscape outside national parks in Kisoro district have been transformed into agriculture land and 64 percent of the district wetlands had been drained by 1999.6 To respond to the declining watershed functions, a sustainable financing approach for improved management of watersheds in Kisoro is critical.

Figure 2 indicates the extent to which the landscape and the watershed has

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 65

well-defined environmental services

at least one buyer

at least one environmental service in the transaction

at least one service provider

conditionality

Adapted from Wunder (2005) and Khanal and Paudel (2012).3,14

Figure 1. Components of a PES scheme.

been transformed, requiring land management approaches that enhance water retention, purification, and recharge functions in order to sustain the supply of water to Chuho springs.

Chuho water is found in Kisoro District at an elevation of 1,829 meters above sea level, about four kilometers north of Kisoro town. Based on the isotope and hydrochemical results, the water from Chuho has similar characteristics to that of the Kigezi wetland.7 This report indicates that the stable oxygen and hydrogen isotope data eliminated Muhavura Crater Lake and the Cyahafi and Kayumbu lakes as possible sources of water to Chuho water, confirming that Kigezi wetland acts as the recharge for Chuho water springs. Chuho water has six springlets that deliver water to a basinlike depression from where a small river flows northwards towards Lake Mutanda (Figure 3).

The need to conserve Chuho watershed functions cannot be overemphasized, given that it is the only viable source of water supply to the 151,679 inhabitants of the Kisoro town council and the surrounding nine rural parishes in Kisoro District,8 yet it has been threatened by unsustainable land use practices. The communities in the upstream watershed are engaged in subsistence farming where seasonal crops are grown on steep slopes and marginal land with no soil and water conservation measures. The

terracing and strip cropping that once characterized the landscape are no longer practiced, leaving a degraded watershed with bare hills, scattered settlements, and no established farming system.9 This form of land use threatens the sustainable supply of water to Chuho water springs and the downstream water users.

While the hydrological studies indicate that the sustainability of the water supply to Chuho depends on how well the upper watershed is managed,10 these observations are not currently considered as part of sustainable water management by the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC). This government parastatal manages the collection and distribution of water to downstream water users, but does not have a program for negotiating land use practices that enhance watershed services.

The study aims to assess whether a PES approach could be a solution for improved management of the Chuho water catchment. Payment for upstream land use practices requires a clear understanding of the different factors that influence the integrity of the watershed, hence impacting the functions of water purification, flood risk mitigation, aquifer recharge, and erosion minimization that are offered by watersheds.11 The conceptualization of the PES approach envisaged for Chuho and

66 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

the criteria for assessing existing institutional and community capacity are detailed in the research design section. Results from analysis of focus group discussions are presented in the Results section, followed by a section discussing whether favorable conditions—including current institutional and community capacity—exist in Chuho for the establishment of the proposed PES approach.

Research Design This study is based on an assessment of whether there are conditions favorable to PES establishment and to determine whether there is sufficient existing institutional and community capacity to implement such a PES approach.

The study relies on three main sources of information: 1) a review of project documents, 2) focus group discussions with community groups, and 3) questionnaire interviews with key informants including representatives from 22 villages upstream. These include members of tap-stand committees and the subcounty agricultural farmers’ forum members.

Project documents on the Chuho water supply and unpublished reports from the NWSC-Kisoro district office provide information that help to establish the importance attached to the Chuho water supply by downstream beneficiaries.8 The level of dependence on the water from Chuho water springs and

Tom Sengalama

Figure 2. Densely populated rural landscape with diminished vegetation cover in Chuho watershed, Kisoro District, Uganda.

presence of a payment structure with recognized water supply buyers and sellers are assessed from the report on the design of the Chuho water supply.

This information is complemented by interviews with households and key informants. Discussions with district officials, NWSC representatives, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) reveal useful information about the existing conditions that would facilitate the implementation of a PES for land use practices, enhancing water supply services to downstream users.

Focus group discussions with water user groups (tap-stand committees)

were conducted in May 2015 to gain insights into their understanding of the links between upstream land management and downstream water supply. Such information is important in understanding the community appreciation of the link between watershed protection and the continued water supply, and what they considered an acceptable payment arrangement for land use practices that would enhance water supply services to downstream users.

Interviews with key informants on existing upstream land use practices were also conducted to understand existing upstream threats to

sustainable downstream water supply.

Group discussions and responses from household interviews were analyzed to identify patterns and similarities in terms of conditions favorable to PES establishment, and institutional and community capacity.

Results The Chuho water springs is a critical source of water for the residents of Kisoro District.8 The NWSC is responsible for the overall water management, and beneficiaries pay per volume of water consumed.

Figure 4 shows the percentage distribution of the direct beneficiaries,

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 67

Adapted from the National Forestry Authority

Figure 3. Study area with Chuho spring water basin, Kisoro District.

both local residents and institutions including schools, hospitals, prisons, and barracks, among others.

The results of key informants recognize that the current land use practices upstream do not support long-term and sustainable water catchment service provision. Upstream communities highlighted soil erosion as the biggest driver of catchment clearance as it quickly renders farmland unproductive, leading to the clearing of fresh land and encroachment of marginal areas, including wetlands. Figure 5 shows how drivers of land degradation are ranked, while Figure 6 shows the suggested solutions to improve the functionality of Chuho watershed.

The upstream communities recognize the responsibility of the government to fund practices for sustainable watershed management (Figure 8). The current practices are largely financed through NGOs and focus on improving livelihoods without any consideration for watershed-wide connections (Figure 9). Since the government (NWSC) is already managing water supply downstream, it could engage the upstream land users to discuss practices that could enhance downstream water supply that are additional to what communities are currently implementing, then negotiate payment arrangements.

68 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

The financing of livelihood initiatives by both government and NGOs must be based on how much one is willing to implement practices that enhance watershed services. Clear indicators to measure the additional effort to enhance watershed services as a condition for continued payment need to be included in the PES negotiations.

Use of the Chuho water supply is outlined by clear rules and procedures regarding water access and payment systems. In addition, there are national laws and procedures on land tenure systems that explain how land use change and land use rights are managed. The presence of NGOs already

working with upstream land users provides another institutional mechanism for the implementation of a PES approach, as they can easily mobilize communities and act as intermediaries in PES negotiations.

Local communities are able to identify watershed management challenges and are aware of the practices required to conserve watersheds through changing land management practices. The scientific recommendations that link the sustainable water supply to the improved management of the upstream watershed could be another good basis for establishing a PES approach.10 While there is no formal collaboration or coordination between the downstream water users and upstream land users, as confirmed by 80 percent of respondents, the results of focus group discussions and key informants express support for sustainable land use management through the promotion of agroforestry initiatives and the implementation of income generating practices that support watershed services. This could be a good starting point for PES negotiations.

Discussion: PES as a Possible Solution for Improved Water Management in Chuho?

In current land use practices, institutional and community capacity have direct influence on the sustainability of the Chuho water supply. Poor land use practices have led to increased watershed degradation, with communities driven to marginal lands, including wetlands. The draining of wetlands for agriculture has the potential to reduce the amount and quality of water available at Chuho water springs, as the Kigezi wetland acts as the main recharge for Chuho water.10 Therefore, there is a direct relationship between land use practices upstream and the longterm and sustainable availability of water at Chuho. While the upstream communities understand their land

28% Population in Institutions 72% Local Residents

Tom Sengalama

Figure 4. Distribution of water supply from Chuho.

0%

Poor land productivity 23%

Soil erosion Silting and sedimentation Land clearance

77%

Any other

Tom Sengalama

Figure 5. How communities rated the problems associated with the Chuho current watershed.

15%

Agro-forestry Zero-tillage

8%

Mixed intervention 77%

Tom Sengalama

Figure 6. Proposed activities for watershed conservation. www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 69

Any other 15%

Yourself 8% Funding from conservation NGOs and the Bwindi Trust Fund 8%

Government Programs 69% Tom Sengalama

Figure 7. Perceived responsibility for funding of sustainable water management.

Any other 8% Do not know 15%

Government Programs 15%

Community self-help scheme 8%

Funding from NGOs 54% Tom Sengalama

Figure 8. Actual current sources of funding for water management.

use challenges, they are not aware of the long-term impact of their practices on the sustainable water supply to downstream communities.

Implementation of a PES approach would need a facilitated negotiation between the upstream and downstream communities to enable them to understand their interdependence, and agree on how they can mutually benefit from improved watershed

management upstream. The problem with the current arrangement is that the NWSC is only abstracting water from the Chuho water springs and distributing it to end users. There is no focus on watershed management for its long-term supply, yet there is documented evidence that the sustainability of the supply will depend on how well the upstream water catchment, especially around

70 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Kigezi wetland, is conserved.10 This clearly justifies the need for a negotiated arrangement to implement land use practices upstream that enhance water supply downstream.

The right conditions for the establishment of a PES for water supply services do exist within the Chuho water supply arrangements, with Criteria 1 through 4 met: welldefined environmental services, at least one buyer, at least one environmental service in the transaction, and at least one service provider. A possible starting point in implementing a PES approach is understanding the costs and benefits of land use change. A PES approach will only be adopted when the benefits of land use change (from the payment plus other by-products such as reduced erosion) exceed the costs of adoption—a condition for upstream users to participate—and when the cost of water access is less than the payments required to effect land use change—a condition for downstream user participation. This information will be required as the starting point to PES establishment.

While there is a challenge of implementing a PES approach amongst small and fragmented land users, the upstream communities expressed interest in implementing land use practices that contribute to improved watershed management, and it is in the interest of downstream water users to secure a sustainable water source. Chuho has existing institutions and institutional structures for water management that could facilitate negotiations between the upstream land users and downstream water users. These institutions and structures include defined downstream water users represented by the NWSC with a clear payment system for water, national and district level water management institutions (the District Water Office), clearly defined land ownership upstream, and the presence of national and district land

Tom Sengalama

The author at work at the Chuho watershed catchment in Kisoro, Uganda.

use policies to guide land use change.

There are also NGOs with experience in engaging governments and local communities in natural resource use negotiations and land use planning.

The main focus of current water management institutions currently seems to be water supply and the collection of revenue, with less attention to watershed management.

The assessment report on the water source recognizes the threats from unsustainable land use practices in the upper catchment, but no action plan has been established.10 Policy provisions for watershed management exist, although they are not implemented in the Chuho watershed. The current legal framework for

selling and buying land use rights has been designed to facilitate easy land use transactions under willing seller– willing buyer arrangements, although discussions with the district and subcounty leadership indicated that government would be concerned if a land use change plan would lead to mass displacement of the local population. This means that land rights would seem to be clearly defined and secure for the Chuho communities.

While the practices of upstream communities have a potential negative impact on the water supply to downstream communities, there is no coordination between the two and there is no defined organizational structure for water-catchment

protection. The upstream communities, however, recognize that poor watershed management impacts their land productivity and are willing to accept land use change practices. This is a good opportunity for negotiating land use change practices that enhance watershed services despite the challenge of dealing with smallholder farms in a fragmented landscape. One challenge is the community’s ability to understand their interests and expectations and to be able to finance transaction costs of their participation in PES transactions.10 Such capacity may include the ability to define their roles in improved watershed management and benefits of their actions to themselves and others.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 71

Since the downstream water users already pay for water, there is a starting point for negotiating a payment to upstream land users. The current drawback is that the mode of payments by the water users is treated as a commercial transaction with no link between the payment and implementation of land use practices that enhance water supply services. This unlinks the ultimate beneficiaries of the water supply services from the actual water providers, leaving upstream communities unaware of the influence their practices have on the water supply to the downstream communities. In addition, the NWSC does not consider the upstream communities to be influential partners in the sustainable water supply.

This does not provide incentives for responsible watershed management.

A shift to a PES approach may, however, raise concerns with downstream water users. There would need to be very clear communication to downstream users over the transaction costs involved in linking upstream and downstream communities through a PES approach. Not all costs should be borne by the consumers, as upstream farmers would also benefit themselves from additional farming practices. Water is considered a utility service that should be accessible by all, rather than a commodity,13 thereby lowering payment levels that are socially acceptable.

Since NWSC already manages the water supply to the downstream users, it could be envisaged that NWSC negotiate on their behalf with upstream land users, directly or through an intermediary representing upstream smallholder farmers, to agree on payments for additional land use practices in order to protect the downstream water supply sustainably. Such an approach would rely on a one (downstream) buyer–many (upstream) sellers’ model. The buyer could be the NWSC, and the many sellers the

upstream smallholder farmers. NGOs already operating upstream and trusted by the communities could act as intermediaries mandated by upstream farmers. This means that the NWSC or government would have to make an annual budget commitment for the management of the watershed if it is to deliver payments to the communities in the upper watershed areas for restoration of wetlands and adoption of additional agricultural practices that conserve the watershed.

In return for the payment, the upstream communities (as ecosystem services providers) would need to demonstrate improved management practices that guarantee continued flow of water downstream. Being smallholder farmers in a fragmented landscape however, an intermediary to negotiate on the behalf of upstream communities would facilitate the negotiation process, as well as help bring them to agree on a common set of additional land use practices. Figure 9 provides a summary of how a possible PES for Chuho may be established.

Conclusions and Recommendations This study identified an ecosystem service of interest with clear buyers and sellers. The existing set up, however, is not aligned to support a PES approach, and the organizations involved in current water management do not have plans for supporting land use practices that enhance water supply services.

It is clearly documented that the sustainability of Chuho water springs depends on how well the watershed services are conserved, but no plan has been established to implement land use practices that enhance the watershed function. Establishing a PES approach is, however, possible, considering that the district leadership and water utility organizations recognize the importance of protecting the water catchment.

72 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

To better monitor the impact of such a PES approach, future studies could focus on trends analysis to study changes in watershed characteristics resulting from PES implementation.

This study could also be repeated with a larger sample size, or to compare different watersheds in Uganda in order to generate firm recommendations for national policy on payment for water supply services. A study that interviews both downstream water users and upstream land users will enable a comparison of perceptions and willingness to pay for land use change. Considering that this water flows through the subsurface, there is also a need to study the pathways through which the water is delivered to Chuho water springs and develop a plan for its protection.

Acknowledgements This research was self-financed due to the researcher’s interest to find innovative approaches to conservation financing in Uganda. Special recognition goes to Mr. James Byamukama whose professional experience in Chuho watershed helped to enrich this study. The leadership of Uplift the Rural Poor is appreciated for the support in introducing me to the local leadership and communities.

A number of people and institutions who have held keen interest in looking into the issues of the Chuho water supply from a conservation and land management perspective are greatly thanked for the encouragement. The leadership of Kisoro District Local Government and the Uganda National Water and Sewerage Corporation are thanked for allowing access to their official documents, publications, and project reports that provided in-depth understanding of the Chuho water supply. Special recognition goes to the two anonymous reviewers whose critical comments and guidance have helped improve the quality of this publication, as well as the editors for their support.

Upstream users being paid to adopt addi5onal farming prac5ces

Mandate to nego*ate payment and iden*fy prac*ces on their behalf

Intermediary mandated by upstream land users (many sellers)

By-product: reduced land degrada5on (as land degrada5on drives lower quality and supply of water downstream)

Possible op*on: NGOs already working with upstream land users to foster livelihoods

Intermediary (1 buyer) represen5ng downstream water users Possible op*on: NWSC

Downstream users paying for upstream land use prac5ces that enhance downstream water supply Tom Sengalama

Figure 9. Suggested model for the Chuho water supply PES establishment.

References 1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems

7. Directorate of Water Development. Isotope in the

Symposium on Isotope Hydrology and Integrated

and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis.

management of Kisoro Town water supply. Water

Water Resources Management. IAEA-CN-104

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC [online]

Resources Management Department, Directorate

[online] (2003). http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/

(2005). http://www.millenniumassessment.org/

of Water Development, Ministry of Water and

documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.

Environment, Government of Uganda (2004). Final

2. Salzman, J. Design payments for ecosystem services.

PERC Policy Series 48 (2010).

3. Wunder, S. Payments for environmental services:

project Report. Government of Austrian (through Southwestern Towns Water and Sanitation Project),

NCLCollectionStore/_Public/34/051/34051744.pdf.

11. Smith, S et al. Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide (Defra, London, 2013).

12. Simelton, E et al. Local capacity for implementing

the International Atomic Energy Agency and the

payments for environmental services schemes:

some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42.

Government of Uganda, Report prepared by Water

lessons from the RUPES project in northeastern Viet

Center for International Forestry Research (2005).

Resources Management Department Directorate of

Nam. Working Paper 163 (ICRAF Southeast Asia

4. Ruhweza, A & Masiga, M. Institutions for payment for environmental services: challenges and

Water Development.

Regional Program, Hanio, Vietnam, 2013).

8. Kisoro District Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

opportunities in Uganda. Paper prepared for the 9th

Project. Kisoro District Local Government in

BIOECON Conference, King’s College, Cambridge

conjunction with the Ministry of Water, Lands

(2007).

and Environment and the Austrian Bureau for

5. Nsubuga, FNW, Edith, N, Namutebi EN & NsubugaSsenfuma, M. Water resources of Uganda: an assessment and review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 6, 1297–1315 (2014).

13. Vatn, A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69, 1245–1252 (2010).

14. Khanal, R & Paudel, D. Payment for ecosystem

Development Cooperation (ND). Technical project

services (PES) schemes for conserving Sardu

document.

watershed in Nepal: Existing practices and future

9. Sabiiti, EN, Mpairwe, D, Rwakaikara, MS & Mugas,

prospects. Technical working paper. International

S. Restoration of degraded natural grassland

Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

to enhance soil fertility, pasture and animal

Resources [online] (2012) https://cmsdata.iucn.org/

Inspection Division. Ministry of Water Lands

productivity. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences

downloads/payment_for_ecosystem_services__

and Environment. Kampala, Uganda. Technical

9(1), 466–469 (2004).

pes__schemes_for_conserving_sardu_watershed_

6. National Wetlands Programme. Wetlands

assessment report [online] (2009) www.mwe.go.ug.

10. International Atomic Energy Agency. International

nepal_tec.pdf.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 73

Quillérou, E. and T. McNeill. (2016). Making Money after Mining: Farming on Rehabilitated Open Cast Mines. Solutions 7(5): 74-79. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/making-money-after-mining-farming-on-rehabilitated-open-cast-mines/

Feature

Making Money after Mining: Farming on Rehabilitated Open Cast Mines

by Teresa McNeill and Emmanuelle Quillérou In Brief Open cast mining causes huge amounts of physical damage to the geology of the land, which has direct implications on the extent to which it can be used after the ore has been extracted. In South Africa, mining companies are required to submit rehabilitation plans before permits are granted, but the guidelines they must follow are often loose and do not take into account how the land was used before mining took place. Generally, mining companies plan on returning land to grassland within three to five years, without recognizing that restoring a sustainable, healthy, mixed farming community can take decades. By pushing for accurate feasibility studies before mining commences, mining companies and communities can get a true sense of the cost of open cast mining and what a just and sustainable approach to the industry might look like.

Randfontein Mine, Johannesburg.

74 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

S

outh Africa is a commodity- based economy, with the mining sector not only a cornerstone of the economy but the very foundation on which the nation was built. Directly and indirectly, mining nominally contributed to 17 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2012.1 Both deep-level and open cast mining are used in South Africa to exploit various ores. The overburden (i.e., the rock, soil, and ecosystems that lie above an ore body or coal seam) often takes the form of high-potential agricultural land,2 concentrated according to the uneven rainfall distribution and which often overlaps with ore bodies.

Open cast mining not only causes a great deal of physical damage to the land, as seen in Figure1, but it can also cause chemical damage.3,4,5 This damage has the potential to be long term and irreversible, and while this could imply that post-mining

Key Concepts • Mining companies in South Africa are required by law to rehabilitate land after open cast mining, but this rarely leads to farming communities on affected lands being fully compensated.

• Feasibility studies by mining companies must recognize fully communities’ lost agricultural revenue potential so stakeholders can develop a sustainable and just approach to open cast mining.

• Estimates of farming revenue from former mining sites after rehabilitation would help inform the planning of prefeasibility studies, grant locals bargaining power, and lead to long-term community engagement by mining companies.

agricultural activities might not be profitable, to date, there is no evidence to support this.

Since the 1980s, statutory requirements for the granting of mining licenses in South Africa have become increasingly stringent. 6,7 Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Management Plans have become integral parts of the mining license application process, and must be budgeted and planned for. The definition of the degree to which land must be rehabilitated remains loose, however, and thus open to interpretation. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 contains no definition of what is considered to be a ‘natural’ or ‘pre-determined’ state.

Rehabilitation plans for open cast mines usually involve the replacement of (degraded) topsoil and a grass seed mix, which must then be maintained for only three to five years. In comparing agricultural areas and mining areas, the main mining areas are to be found in what is predominantly maize and sugar cane farming regions.

Paul Saad

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 75

Emmanuelle Quillérou

Figure 1. Open cast mining in South Africa as visible from the sky in September 2013.

Environmental Impact Assessments do not require that the type of grassland to be mined is categorized as natural grassland or cultivated pasture. The fundamental difference between the two types of pasture are the yields of dry forage matter for cattle consumption, which in turn affects the number of cattle that can graze on the land, as cultivated pastures have a higher potential density of cattle. Mining companies typically only restore exploited land back to pasture-standard, without recognizing the lost revenue that the land would have earned had it been returned to cultivated purposes. This

helps to explain why prefeasibility studies involving a comparison of mining versus non-mining economic returns usually come out as more favorable for mining.

One way to create a better outcome from open cast mining is to ensure that land is accurately valued for lost revenue. This starts with a simple formula, such as: Farming revenue in baseline year = Yield * Price * Hectarage This formula is then multiplied by the years of the mine’s life and the planned rehabilitation period. This is applied to pre-mining farming activities

76 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

so as to estimate lost revenue and compare it to similarly estimated revenue from post-mining farming activities.

Furthermore, to ensure estimates are comparable in time, baseline revenue estimates are projected using the GDP deflator index up to and including 2013.8 An average of the index is used for projections beyond 2013.

Although this approach remains theoretical, studies indicates that where pre-mining natural grassland was improved to cultivated pastures post-mining, the potential increase in revenue can be very large. On the other hand, if left to revert to natural

ZAR 25,000,000.00

ZAR 20,000,000.00

ZAR 15,000,000.00

ZAR 10,000,000.00

ZAR 5,000,000.00

ZAR 0.00 Mine 1

Mine 2

Mine 3

Mine 4

Mine 5

Mine 6

Mine 7*

Pre-Mining land use: Natural Grassland & Maize

Mine 8

Mine 9

Mine 10

Mine 11

Mine 12

Mine 13

Mine 14*

Post-Mining land use: Rehabilitated Cultivated Pastures

Post-Mining land use: Rehabilitated Natural Grassland

Authors

Figure 2. Farming revenue estimates for a pre-mining combination of natural grassland and maize, compared with post-mining cultivated pastures and with post-mining natural grassland.

ZAR 25,000,000.00

ZAR 20,000,000.00

ZAR 15,000,000.00

ZAR 10,000,000.00

ZAR 5,000,000.00

ZAR 0.00 Mine 1

Mine 2

Mine 3

Mine 4

Mine 5

Pre-Mining land use: Cultivated Pastures & Maize

Mine 6

Mine 7

Mine 8

Mine 9

Mine 10

Mine 11

Mine 12

Mine 13

Mine 14

Post-Mining land use: Rehabilitated Cultivated Pastures

Post-Mining land use: Rehabilitated Natural Grassland

Authors

Figure 3. Farming revenue estimates for a pre-mining combination of cultivated pastures and maize, compared with post-mining cultivated pastures and with post-mining natural grassland.

grassland—that is, if the rehabilitation program was discontinued—revenue potential could be almost halved (Figure 2).

Where pre-mining agriculture was a combination of cultivated pastures and maize, the revenue potential using the land only for cattle grazing on continually rehabilitated land was

more conservative, with much smaller increases. If left to revert to natural grassland, however, the losses were more severe: less than one third of the original pre-mining estimate, and sometimes even less than one quarter (Figure 3).

This shows that assessing the level of potential farming returns at a future

mining site, derived from land once mining operations cease and land is rehabilitated, is not an exact science.

Estimating such farming returns, and more specifically the potential level of lost farming revenue, could help mining companies better determine the minimum level of efforts and investments required for land rehabilitation.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 77

© jbdodane.com

Wollastonite mine near Garies, South Africa.

Mining companies’ obligations should not stop there. There is clearly a fundamental need for the quality of the rehabilitation to be maintained in order to benefit the post-mining farmer over the long-term, and this speaks to property rights. When land is purchased in advance of a mining rights application, and the farmer is a tenant until mining commences, he may not necessarily be considered in the public consultation process.9 This means he may not be privy to crucial information he would need when returning to farm the land once mining has ceased.

This has implications for the mineplanning process, more specifically with regard to the rehabilitation plans, budgets, and the public consultation process. Sharing such information at the public consultation stage could allow for a collective and long-term rehabilitation strategy that would

involve ongoing active community engagement and a sustained involvement in the rehabilitation of the land.

It would be easy to assume that the communities are well versed in the nuances of the impacts that such land disturbance has on farming.

Consultations should therefore include an education program that would assist the community in understanding the rehabilitation process, how it works, and how the potential for improved revenues can be maximized.

One of the key results of the study is the need for ongoing rehabilitation for improved revenue streams with post-mining farming, and so budgets would need to be set aside in order to continue the rehabilitation. As rehabilitation occurs on a rolling basis throughout the life of the mining, the opportunity exists to set aside funds on an ongoing basis as mining continues,

78 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

as well as into the future. Coupled with improved knowledge within the community, not only will the mines develop a closer relationship with their communities, but their corporate social responsibility will ensure an ongoing and sustained duty of care.

Acknowledgments This paper is based on research undertaken as part of Teresa McNeill’s master’s dissertation with The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, made possible by Anglo American (South Africa) through its sponsorship and access to its data, for which we are most grateful. We are also grateful to Dr. Wayne Truter of the University of Pretoria, who provided excellent local insight into agriculture and land rehabilitation through his extensive experience. Further thanks are extended to the Land Rehabilitation

David Brossard

The Kimberly Diamond Mine Museum in South Africa. This is where diamonds were discovered in 1879. De Beers eventually stopped mining the pit, which was allowed to fill with water, and dug shafts down into the diamond-bearing rocks below. They stopped mining altogether in 1914. This site is now part of the museum.

Society of South Africa who kindly made their research and documentation available, Henk Lodewijks and Dave Morris of Anglo American South Africa, and Rusty Milne of Womiwu for their insights and guidance. Martin Platt, Teresa Steele, and Nikki Fisher at Anglo American Thermal Coal and Peter Gunther from the Anglo American corporate office provided additional insights. We are also extremely grateful to Jack Fairweather for his excellent editorial inputs.

References 1. Facts and Figures 2012. Chamber of Mines,

karst basin: a case study on the high- As coal mining area in Guizhou province. China Environmental Earth

Johannesburg [online] (2014). https:// commondatastorage.googleapis.com/comsa/factsand-figures-2013.pdf.

Sciences 65, 3 (2012).

5. Zhengfu, B et al. The impact of disposal and

2. van den Burgh, G. The impact of coal mining on agriculture—a pilot study. South Africa: Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy [online] (2014). http://bfap.co.za/documents/presentations/2012/ Impact%20of%20Mining%20Presentation%20 -%20BFAP.pdf.

treatment of coal mining wastes on environment and farmland. Environmental Geology 58, 3 (2009).

6. National Environmental Management Act. The Presidency, South Africa. Act 107 of 1998.

7. Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. The Presidency, South Africa. Act 28 of 2002.

3. Tiwary, RK. Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime and its management. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 132, 1–2 (2001).

8. Inflation, GDP Deflator (Annual %). World Bank [online] (2014). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG.

4. Xuizhen, T et al. Effect of acid mine drainage on a

9. Nieuwoudt, H. Personal communication, 2014.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 79

Costanza, R. (2016). Land Matters. Solutions 7(5): 80-81. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/land-matters/

Reviews Book Review

Land Matters

by Robert Costanza REVIEWING Land Restoration: Reclaiming Landscapes for a Sustainable Future edited by Ilan Chabay, Martin Frick, and Jennifer Helgeson, Academic Press, 2016

“Everything we have ever possessed, currently possess, or will possess stems from soil, the precious skin of the land. It is our most valuable geo-resource, and the mother of all other human resources; but it is finite and in acute danger.”

—Luc Gnacadja (p. 555)

E

conomics conventionally attributes all production to three types of inputs: land, labor, and capital. But, land has gotten short shrift in recent times, under the false assumption that these three factors are infinitely substitutable, and that marketed economic production is the only thing that matters. This has been partly responsible for the massive degradation of land worldwide. We now know better. The value of land, both for supporting conventional economic production and for supporting sustainable human well-being more broadly, is fast becoming better recognized for the essential contributor it has always been. Land, and the ecosystem services it provides, are, in fact, the major contributor to sustainable human well-being. The ecosystem services concept is partly responsible for this rediscovery of the value of land. Ecosystem services are all of the benefits that humans derive from functioning ecosystems. This includes land’s support of conventional, marketed agricultural production, but

it also includes many more benefits that never enter market transactions (and probably never should). Land-based ecosystems control climate, supply water, manage species interactions, manage nutrients, build and maintain soil, support recreation and traditional cultural practices, and much more. The value of these services, in terms of their contribution to sustainable human well-being, has been estimated to far exceed global GDP. Chabay, Frick, and Helgeson have produced a massive, 572-page, ten-part, 35-chapter, edited review of all the ways that land contributes to human well-being and how the massive land degradation that has occurred can be reversed at relatively low cost. The 58 contributing authors cover: (1) the social context for land restoration; (2) concepts and methodologies for restoration and maintenance; (3) the complex relationship between land restoration, water, and energy; (4) the relationship between economics, policy, and governance for land restoration; (5) the significance of community as a backbone for land restoration; (6) the relationship between gender and land restoration; (7) the connection between communities, land restoration, and resilience; (8) a series of case studies from various areas of the world that have implemented a variety of approaches; (9) suggestions for ways to apply the research; and, (10) recommendations for the way forward.

80 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Academic Press

A key overarching emphasis in the book is the importance of integrating ecological, social, political, and economic factors, both in recognizing the value of land and in developing and adopting sustainable land management practices.

The introductory chapter of the book

by Jes Weigelt and Alexander Müller lays out four hypotheses about what is needed for sustainable land restoration and the research needed to support it: 1. We need a multilateral response to land and soil degradation.

2. We need multi-stakeholder processes, but they need to include deliberate efforts to empower marginal groups.

Reviews Book Review 3. We need to secure the land rights of the most marginal groups in society.

4. We need transdisciplinary research that gets involved in the respective transformation processes.

too little return on investment, and the gains are only in the long term.

The accumulated evidence laid out in this book clearly shows that the benefits of land restoration and sustainable management outweigh,

by large margins, the costs of inaction, and that collaborative, multilateral, multi-stakeholder, transdisciplinary approaches can achieve amazing results at low cost.

Why, then, is progress so slow?

How do we overcome the inherent inertia in the complex social and

political systems in which we are embedded? Some of the case studies in part eight of the book point to examples, but a big part of the problem is that we are, in a very real sense, “addicted” to the current economic paradigm that overemphasizes consumption and GDP growth at the expense of broader social goals. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a massive step in the direction of broadening these social goals.

The 17 SDGs include reducing poverty and inequality, addressing climate change, and restoring terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Adopting these new goals can help societies better recognize the value of land in supporting sustainable well-being, and help to overcome our addiction to “growth at all costs.” This volume provides much of the evidence to support the needed societal therapy to help us rediscover just how much land matters to the survival and well-being of humans on planet earth.

images published for every development of a tragedy.

The world renowned newspaper recently stated: “While people kill each other in Syria, traffic children into Europe, beat slaves on ships in the South China Sea or just shoot each other dead in America, many, many more people are engaged in trying to address, fix or circumvent the big problems of our age.”

The newspaper will, of course, report on the true realities of the world, but will also offer a space for positive news to promote similar

acts in others. “If we publish more examples of people trying to do inspiring things, perhaps it can inspire us all to make our world a little better,” the paper has stated.

Solutions Journal, founded in 2009, has similarly reported positive, solution-driven journalism for years. It focuses on real, integrative solutions.

Our rule of thumb for articles is that no more than one-third of any article should describe the problem, while at least two-thirds should be devoted to solutions. Glad to see our approach is catching on.

The value of land, both for supporting conventional economic production and for supporting sustainable human well-being more broadly, is fast becoming better recognized for the essential contributor it has always been.

The rest of the book explores these hypotheses from a range of angles.

The weight of the evidence provided clearly supports all four. In particular, it clearly debunks the misconceptions about land degradation and sustainable land management—that land restoration is too costly, it involves

Media Review The Guardian Shines Spotlight on Positive News

by Zeynep Karatas The Guardian recently announced that it will devote an entire section to positive news stories to offer a glimpse at the lives and works of people offering solutions to many of the world’s problems.

It can be difficult to remember, or to even be made aware, that there are good things happening in a world where there are constant updates of daily horrors, with Tweets, videos, and

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 81

Duprez, W. (2016). Terracing: A Double-Edged Solution for Farming Difficult Landscapes. Solutions 7(5): 82-87. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/terracing-a-double-edged-solution-for-farming-difficult-landscapes/

Solutions in History

Terracing: A Double-Edged Solution for Farming Difficult Landscapes

by Wilko Duprez

Josh Slobin

A terraced field in Nepal.

L

et’s plan for a short trip back in time, shall we? Jump in your favorite time machine, check the gauges and spin the dial. Destination: the Mediterranean basin in the Stone Age, the initial prehistoric landscape that allegedly witnessed the birth of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle.

This auspicious and opportune location for long-lasting settlements from hunter-gatherers, who would colonize the area sometime around 12,000 BCE,1 is a landscape of grasslands, savannah, small hills, and low

mountain ranges covered with large coniferous forests. The Mediterranean basin is famously heterogeneous, a patchwork of different microclimates hosting a large biodiversity, which transited from subtropical conditions to the climate we know today.

Let’s hop a bit forward in time: now imagine yourself walking in ancient Mesopotamia, the place from which Israel, Palestine, and Syria will rise up 40 centuries later. It’s a rough and rugged terrain, large plains giving way to rising hills and steeper mountains as

82 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

you walk away from the ocean. Loam covers the soil everywhere, but if you were to dig you would quickly hit hard limestone within a meter. It’s a hot summer, although heavy rainfalls would come and last throughout the winter. Fields of ripening barley and lentils cover hillsides and riverbanks,1 cleared by the human hand of any forest, tree, or even scrubby bushes.

Artificial irrigation ditches spread from the riverbed to the nearby fields.

Agriculture flourishes, and the domestication of animals is in full swing.

Solutions in History In traditional sci-fi fashion, the passage of time now accelerates: around us harvests come and go, villages and cities are created, expanded, and deserted. Paths, then roads link communities together and witness increasing traffic as well as full-scale migrations. Time slows down: we are around 2000 BCE. The limestone bedrock is now clearly visible on the higher ground, the fertile soil dragged downslope by the rain and gravity with no native vegetation left to hold it back. Towards the rivers and the sea, swamps appeared from the accumulation of sediments, rendering the land inhospitable due to mosquito-borne diseases. The bare soil is scorched by the heat, having lost most of its ability to retain rainwater. The fields are not shining as much in the sunlight any longer, the yields decreasing with the exhaustion of the humus regeneration due to the cereal cropping technique (all mature crops are harvested and taken away for consumption, leaving none behind to replenish the soil).

Further up in the lower mountain ranges, it’s even worse: the declivity of the landscape sped up the rundown of fertile soil. Nonetheless, the ingenuity of humankind is at work: these uplands are now covered with rocky, winding terraces. These terraces, most often simply made from piled rocks, are uneven, narrow, and irregularly shaped, following the relief of the mountain. Each terrace holds a different crop variety, still allowing enough sustenance for the local population to thrive. Grazing goats bred for milk and meat are everywhere, eating any wild plant trying to conquer territory lost to human deforestation.

Back to the time machine for a final stop before heading home. Turning the dial forward 20 centuries, we find that the same land looks barely hospitable. Crops are scarcely to be seen.

Armies came and went; Assyrians,

Babylonians, and Romans conquered, destroyed, and enslaved. Populations were killed or displaced, the terraces not maintained, finally crumbling down the slopes along with all the fertile soil that was once retained. Each destroyed terrace makes the land even more inhospitable for crop husbandry, precipitating landscape degradation.

What we describe as the Fertile Crescent, the cradle of civilization, is now a mostly arid land where farmers struggle to survive.2

unanimous in reporting that terrace destruction is worse for landscape sustainability than not building these terraces in the first place.

As previously stated, terraces are an obvious solution for agriculture in high declivity terrain. However, they also offer much more than just being soil and water retainers. A controlled height allows for greater soil depth than the natural environment could offer, providing additional moisture to crops and potentially allowing crop

Combined with modern tools, terracing might provide us with methods that improve upon those of modern farming, although many parameters have to be considered carefully.

This kind of scenario is not limited to the Mediterranean basin, although it is by far the most studied location.

Terracing was an important concept in many agricultural traditions around the world. Along with the Mediterranean Basin, significant historical examples were found in Asia, Africa, and South America. It is highly unlikely that they influenced each other; rather, they are an example of how different cultures can hit upon the same solutions to solve similar environmental problems, in this case providing a sustainable agriculture by restraining, or even reversing, land degradation and erosion. This remains the single most efficient method against water-based erosion.

Combined with modern tools, terracing might provide us with methods that improve upon those of modern farming, although many parameters have to be considered carefully. There is indeed much at stake: studies are

varieties that could not flourish on shallow soil layers. A well-conceived terrace could retain water when needed or drain it according to a particular crop’s requirements.

Potentially this water drain rate could even be altered every year in case of a crop rotation policy. According to the topographical orientation and the declivity of the slope, terraces could be built to provide the required sunlight exposure and air drainage for specific crops.3 Some even theorize that crop yields could be improved by terracing agriculture compared to traditional plain farming, although not in the first 10 years.4 There are modern instances where proper planning and design made a tremendous difference between failed terracing that left the land even more sterile (like in some regions of Rwanda) and successful land development leading to increased life conditions for rural populations (as in the Central Province of Kenya).5

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 83

Solutions in History

Matt Spinner

Donkeys graze on terraces in Nepal.

The first obvious criterion is the terrain. Geology influences the type of terrace,6 but the cultural environment is also a factor.7 Terrace types can vary a lot. For example, they can be stepped, cross-channelled, or braided; they can have a narrow or a broad base, be parallel or perpendicular, and present different gradients and different outlets. A successful terracing project in a specific country is unlikely to be applicable on a different continent, in a different country, or even in a different region of the same country.

Therefore, a local investigation has to be performed every time to predict the most successful terracing infrastructure, which is a painstakingly long

process. Moreover, the local climate complicates things even further: in Iraq, without irrigation from natural springs, terracing for now is only economically viable in high precipitation areas with a seasonal rainfall of over 600 mm, where the gain would outweigh the high cost of construction and maintenance.8 In lower precipitation zones, terracing would only be worthwhile in higher declivity areas.

The second criterion is the required labour: besides the heavy machinery required for the initial drainage ditches and wall construction, conventional mechanized devices for plains farming obviously do not apply here— the shape and altitude of terraces are

84 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

natural hurdles for such exploitation.

However, the current development of precision farming might help to overcome these issues. Precision farming employs modern technology such as planes, GPS, and robotized devices to minimize the use of fertilizer and herbicide. Although such technology has mostly been applied to strip-cropping plains farming, it would surely be beneficial for terraces as well. Nonetheless, building the terraces themselves is not sufficient: additional agricultural practices must be standardized to maximize their use. Among them, the conservation of a permanent soil cover, the choice of adapted crops and their method of

Solutions in History

Christopher Rose

A terraced valley in Taray, Cusco, Peru.

cultivation (e.g., rotation, strip cropping, etc.) as well as adequate contour ploughing and sowing are the most critical.4 Therefore, since terracing requires substantial additional efforts to cultivate compared to traditional plains farming,5 it is best suited to heavily populated rural areas.

Beyond geological and technical concerns, investing in terracing requires social, political, and financial stability. By far the most studied terraces are located on different Greek islands, where archeologists have studied their link to population changes.9 Nonetheless, we still do not understand thoroughly the ancient social context that led to the extensive

building of these terraces. This point might deserve particular consideration to further ensure the local population in an area suitable for modern terrace farming fit a successful predictive model.9 Some terraces were in use up until the 20th century, suggesting the appearance and spread of terraces corresponds to increasing rural populations and more intensive farming. Their decline was largely due to massive urban migration, reducing the workforce and traditional knowledge of terrace building and maintenance.10 This is important to keep in mind for future development of terracing agriculture in developing countries. The African population

in particular is still expected to grow exponentially before stabilizing to 2.5 billion in 2050.11 A massive social exodus towards urban centers could have a disastrous effect on decades of investment in terraces in rural lands that could be deserted. In France, Italy, and Spain such abandonment of traditional farmlands led to the quick reconquering by native vegetation, transforming the landscape into scrubland.10 Such transformation could have irreversible consequence on the agricultural potential of the land. For terracing, the lack of manpower means the slow erosion of the terrace by sheet wash, creating gullies that will carry the topsoil to valleys downstream.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 85

Solutions in History

Rice terraces in Yuanyang, Yunnan, China.

Developing countries are also more likely to suffer from political instability. Terraces are infrastructure of strategic importance and likely worth fighting for. But once they have been taken down, whether through sabotage or the systematic destruction of a conquered territory, it has caused irreversible damage to the landscape, preventing any resettlement in a more peaceful future. Rwanda is a modern example of a civil war triggering serious setbacks in agricultural production when the genocide of 1994 prompted a sizeable part of the rural population to flee to neighbouring countries as refugees. The relative post-war stability, however, allowed for the

reconstruction of terraces supported by governmental policies and NGOs. Besides conflicts, the initial hefty investment into terracing a region in need would require a continuous injection of funds over several years and constant supervision. Due to the high cost of construction and maintenance, small landholders might only see benefits in the long run.12 State funding can be unreliable—the fast turnover of governments or the sudden appearance of politically more pressing matters might divert investments initially planned for such infrastructure development, especially if the benefits are not visible immediately. However, it is also unlikely that

86 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

a local government would give free rein to an international organization to dictate their agricultural practices.

Therefore, the origin of financial resources for such projects must be planned carefully.

In short, terracing agriculture is the most widespread traditional technique to enable farming in topographically difficult regions. Even now, terracing projects are envisaged in countries suffering severe drawbacks in their agricultural industry, such as erosion in Ethiopia and Iraq.8,13 Because terracing has huge potential both to slow down land degradation and improve the life conditions of local populations, it should be encouraged.

Solutions in History

Bethan Phillips

However, since failed terraces create severe and sometimes irreversible problems for the landscape, terracing requires careful long-term planning in which political and social stability plays a vital role.

References 1. Zeder, M. Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact. PNAS 105(33), 11597–11604 (2008).

2. Hillel, D. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the life of the soil (University of California Press, Berkely CA, 1992).

3. Field, CA. Reconnaissance of Southern Andean Agricultural Terracing. National Academies (1966).

4. Dorren, L & Rey, F. A review of the effect of terracing on erosion. Soil Conservation and Protection for Europe (SCAPE) [online] (2005). http://www.ecorisq.org/ docs/Dorren_Rey.pdf.

5. Johnson, DL & Lewis, LA. Land Degradation: Creation

the Mediterranean Basin: a case study of the

and Destruction (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

abandonment of cultivation terraces on Nisyros

MD, 2007).

Island, Greece. Environmental Management 41(2),

6. Grove, AT & Rackham, O. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History (Yale

250–266 (2008).

11. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population

University Press, London, 2001).

7. Frederick, C & Krahtopoulou, A. Deconstructing

prospects: the 2015 revision, key findings and

agricultural terraces: examining the influence of

advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241

construction method on stratigraphy, dating and

[online] (2015). https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

archaeological visibility in Landscape and Landuse in Postglacial Greece (Sheffield Academic Press,

publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf.

12. Angima, SD et al. Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE for central Kenyan highland conditions.

Sheffield UK, 2000).

8. Hussein, M et al. Designing terraces for the rainfed farming region in Iraq using the RUSLE and hydraulic principles. International Soil and Conservation Research 4(1), 39–44 (2016).

9. Bevan, A et al. The long-term ecology of agricultural

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97, 295–308 (2003).

13. Hurni et al. Ethiopia case study: soil degradation and sustainable land management in the rainfed agricultural areas of Ethiopia: an assessment

terrace enclosed fields from Antikythera, Greece.

of the economic implications. The Economics

Human Ecology 41(2), 252–272 (2013).

of Land Degradation (ELD) [online] (2015).

10. Petanidou, T et al. Socioeconomic dimensions of changes in the agricultural landscape of

http://eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/pdf/ELDethiopia_i_06_72dpi-D.pdf.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 87

Ettling, S., H. Etter, and P. Schumacher. (2016). The Jigsaw Approach: Linking Sectors and Countries to Combat Land Degradation in Central Asia.

Solutions 7(5): 88-92. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/the-jigsaw-approach-linking-sectors-and-countries-to-combat-land-degradation-in-central-asia/

On The Ground

The Jigsaw Approach: Linking Sectors and Countries to Combat Land Degradation in Central Asia

by Stefanie Ettling, Hannes Etter, and Paul Schumacher

Mariusz Kluzniak

Big Almaty Lake in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

I

am at Atatürk Airport in Istanbul, looking for my flight to appear on the departures timetable. There it is— Bishkek—the capital of Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia, where I am about to start my new job in the field of natural resource management. I chuckle at the thought that, for many people, the Central Asian region is a blind spot on the world map, even though this area was the heart of the famous Silk Road.

Nowadays, the region covers the area of the former Soviet republics of

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and is similar in size to Western Europe, with 60 million inhabitants. The oriental charm is still noticeable in the old trading centers, but has lost wider attention on the international stage.

I wonder what picture people today have of Central Asia. Some might make connotations with Russia, as it is still a big player in the region. Some might have seen yurts, the white felt tents used by herders.

88 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Some hours later, in the plane, I look down. I see small settlements located in a rather scarce, mainly brownish landscape changing from vast plains to rugged mountainous terrain. My first impression is that it seems to be the right place to join the global fight to combat land degradation. After some weeks working for Germany’s main government aid agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, or GIZ GmbH, on the ground in

On The Ground

Kyrgyzstan: High mountain pastures Tajikistan: Foothill pastures Kazakhstan: Forest Turkmenistan: Lowland pastures Uzbekistan: Irrigated agriculture Authors

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the jigsaw approach.

Kyrgyzstan and learning more about the challenges of natural resource management in the region, I recall the images from the flight and they become filled with other meanings.

The yurts, I know by now, are set up on the high mountain pastures that are used during summer. Pastures in many areas, though, provide less and less feed for livestock as they are overused.

I also learned that the landscape I saw from the plane is not fertile enough for extensive land use. This is mainly due to climate conditions. The predominant climate is continental with long, cold winters and dry, hot summers.

Therefore, vegetation is sparse, and needs time to grow. Inappropriate land management practices have contributed to a higher vulnerability to climate change, creating a vicious cycle further degrading crucial ecosystems.

Expected impacts of climate change mainly manifest in melting glaciers and changes in water flow regimes, and less predictable conditions. This is a problem, as most local people rely upon subsistence farming and keep a vast number of livestock as their only source of income, and the livestock must constantly graze on pastures.

Moreover, people intensively collect firewood to meet their energy needs for cooking and heating.

During my time here, one issue has become ubiquitous all over the region: land degradation that has been driven by human mismanagement of natural resources and exacerbated by the impact of climate change. A shepherd’s statement during a field trip describes the dilemma of the people very well: “We used to lead our sheep to the summer pasture in May or June.

Some years ago, we started to bring the sheep up here in April because we had less hay and it takes the sheep longer to grow fat on the pastures. But then, we realized that less grass grew every year.”

A month after my arrival, I compare my impressions from the shepherd’s village, a small settlement of only 500 people in the Bartang Valley of the Western Pamirs, Tajikistan, to the policies at the national level. I realize that there is a huge gap between the reality of people in rural areas and those in the country’s capital. Political awareness about the urgent need to combat land degradation is not prevalent. On the contrary, the sustainable and climatesmart management of land is low on the political agenda. Often, policies in place fuel the negative trend of land degradation rather than prevent it.

During my stay, I learned that this is not true in all cases, and that in most

of the Central Asian countries, efforts to combat land degradation are ongoing. However, the more important question is whether countries want to learn from each other.

While conducting interviews in a village close to the border with Uzbekistan, I asked how people in Uzbekistan solve these problems. The answer revealed a resistance to crossborder learning: “Uzbeks and Tajiks are not the same—they have their own ways and we have ours.”

Later, I learned that this is a very common point of view in the region.

Information exchange and cooperation among people in the national policies between countries, and among sectors and ministries, are rarely appreciated. Boundaries remain. Land degradation is made up of different components, such as salinization, soil erosion, and overgrazing, but in the end they represent one single transboundary and trans-sectoral problem, which is not recognized among the stakeholders. One challenge is that, in Central Asia, land use-related ministries are the least influential ones.

Economic arguments and measures are missing to convince the stronger finance and economics ministries to address the issue of land degradation in its full dimensions.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 89

On The Ground

Cows graze on Tastar-Ata, a mountain in Kyrgyzstan.

The Study In my office in Bishkek, I started to wonder how to tackle this manifold problem. I realized that the only way to promote motivation amongst the different groups across all countries would be to highlight that each individual sector, institution, and country would lose without jointly taking care of the natural resources in the region.

I determined three core issues to be tackled: 1. Raising awareness for the value of productive land.

2. Generating economic arguments to strengthen the position of land use-related ministries.

3. Enhancing cooperation between sectors and countries.

At this time, I came across the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative, an international collaboration launched in 2012 based in Bonn, Germany. The ELD strives to reach the same objectives and offers an approach that tackles land degradation not only from the natural resource perspective, but also from an economic point of view. The basic methodology of the ELD follows an approach that has been developed to guide users through a process of establishing scientifically-sound, cost-benefit analyses of the current land use and

90 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

sustainable alternatives to inform decision-making processes. It aims to promote sustainable land management by analyzing the economic value of productive land based on market and nonmarket values.

The methodology met our needs, but to tackle the third objective— enhancing regional cooperation—the framework needed to be adapted.

The Jigsaw Approach The idea of a jigsaw approach was developed jointly with representatives from different partners in the region. We looked at the common ecosystem configurations in each country in Central Asia. Most

On The Ground

Mzximvs VdB

striking was the altitudinal gradient throughout the region, and within each country. Along this gradient, the region exhibits a variety of ecosystems and different land use patterns. We wanted to capture as many of them as possible in order to create a representative picture of the situation in the area. It was decided to conduct one full ELD study in each country, each focusing on one specific altitudinal zone with the predominant ecosystem and related land degradation problems. In the end, to get a clear picture of the economic situation of land degradation in the region, the five national studies were put together into one jigsaw, bridging

national thinking and enhancing regional cooperation for managing natural resources.

The economic focus of the approach has helped us to attract the attention of key ministries in the region. As expected, it was difficult to for these ministries to agree on how to cooperate in the study. A longer discussion took place on the distribution of ecosystems among the countries. Every country put a strong emphasis on getting the “best” topic for their study, doubting that they could gain much from results produced in neighboring countries.

To avoid strong discrepancies, we had to omit the topic of water completely, as it presents such a sensitive issue in the region. Nevertheless, the idea of conducting country-specific studies first, thus creating puzzle pieces to be put together in the regional context later, met the reservations of the countries. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the regional approach of the study helps to shape a recognizable picture of the region and its “story” of land degradation to tell at international conferences, and to draw more attention to the region.

This jigsaw approach set a framework for the studies, and a series of workshops and field visits for conducting analyses followed to come up with a comprehensive ELD study.

Together with all partners, we decided that a regional expert would coordinate the study by collecting the information gathered by the field researchers. Only national experts were chosen for capacity development reasons and to build a regional network. Their capacity was built up during several workshops, with a special focus on the economic valuation of natural resources. In addition, a wider network of international organizations, including the ELD secretariat, GIZ GmbH, and the

International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, coordinated the logistics and provided the scientific backstopping.

Enhancing Regional and Sectoral Cooperation During the study, our partners and the researchers started to cooperate more closely. The first results showed how local populations gained from the use of ecosystems, and how they contributed to degradation at the same time. Moreover, alternatives for land use were developed and costs for implementation were considered.

As soon as the results were available, we conducted stakeholder consultations at the national level to bring actors from different sectors together to discuss the findings. All country representatives were not only interested in the economic figures from sustainable land management for their own countries, but also saw the benefit of gaining information from neighboring countries. The main benefits were that the delivered approaches represent blueprints that, when slightly adapted, can be applied to the respective ecosystems in the whole region. Those involved came to see that the regional ELD study strengthened the view of Central Asia as a connected economic region.

The regional study also helped to shape a common profile for the Central Asian countries to become more visible in international conferences, particularly within the three main Rio conventions of the UN, as it unites the topics of combating desertification, biodiversity preservation, and climate change adaptation. The Kyrgyz and Tajik delegations made use of this narrative at the last UN Climate conference and highlighted the crucial connection between land use, ecosystem services, and climate change impacts. Moreover, the economic

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | September-October 2016 | Solutions | 91

On The Ground

Gennadiy Ratushenko / World Bank

Working on a cotton farm in Tajikistan.

approach of the ELD studies facilitates cooperation between the weaker “green” ministries and the influential economic and finance ministries.

Sound economic arguments about the loss of productive land—generated by a cost-benefit analysis—show the close correlation between sustainable natural resource management and economic profitability. It thus opens up new fields for sustainable land use and gives reason to allocate more financial resources to the green ministries. In addition, scientific engagement of local experts in the study bridges the gap between scientists and practitioners,

and enhances interdisciplinary thinking, especially at the interface of the environment and the economy.

Putting the Puzzle Pieces Together After the series of workshops, field visits, and scientific analyses, the time is now to take action on a regional scale. Reflecting on what has happened since I started this job, I recall the expectations and risks connected with it. At first, we were not sure about the scientific culture that we would find in the region, as our approach is relatively new. Another fear, of course,

92 | Solutions | September-October 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

was that it would fall on deaf ears. In truth, it often did. Cooperation is not something you can enforce or easily measure, but we believe that one can create spaces for actors who would not normally meet in this arena and develop narratives jointly with the people who are willing to change something.

Unfortunately, I will have to leave the region before the final workshop.

I am sure, though, that I will come back, looking for the small signs of change in the process of bringing the pieces of the jigsaw of Central Asia closer together.

EARTHACTION

Gund Institute

for Ecological

Economics

University of Vermont

The Alliance for Appalachia

National Council for Science and the Environment Improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking

Associated Socie<es International Society for Ecological Economics

Andrew Martin / Creative Action Network

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Field.â&#x20AC;? Smallholder farmers face many, daunting challenges in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s markets. By adopting sustainable land management practices, farmers can increase efficiency while safeguarding the sustainability of their land.