Content uploaded by Magdi T. Abdelhamid
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Magdi T. Abdelhamid
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coordinating lead authors: Carol Hunsberger and Tom P. Evans
Lead authors: T. Mitchell Aide, Juan Albaladejo Montoro, Saturnino (Jun) M. Borras Jr.,
Héctor Francisco del Valle, Tahia Devisscher, Jason Jabbour, Shashi Kant,
David López-Carr, Hillary Masundire, Narcisa G. Pricope (GEO Fellow) and
Roberto Sánchez-Rodriguez
Contributing authors: Magdi T. Abdelhamid, Björn Alfthan, Fethi Ayache,
Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, Chizoba Chinweze, Jana Frélichová, Lawrence Hislop,
William K. Pan, Björn Schulte-Herbrüggen, Jessica Smith, Carlos Souza Jr.,
Tracy L. Timmins (GEO Fellow) and Leo C. Zulu
Principal scientific reviewer: Jean-Pierre Ometto
Chapter coordinator: Jason Jabbour
© AVTG/iStock
Land
3
CHAPTER
Part 1: State and Trends66 Part 1: State and Trends66
Pressure on land resources has increased during
recent years despite international goals to improve
their management. The fourth Global Environment
Outlook (UNEP 2007) highlighted the unprecedented
land-use changes created by a burgeoning
population, economic development and global
markets. The outcome of those drivers continues
to cause resource depletion and ecosystem
degradation.
Economic growth has come at the expense of
natural resources and ecosystems. Many terrestrial
ecosystems are being seriously degraded because
land-use decisions often fail to recognize non-
economic ecosystem functions and biophysical
limits to productivity. For example, deforestation
and forest degradation alone are likely to cost the
global economy more than the losses of the 2008
financial crises. The current economic system, built
on the idea of perpetual growth, sits uneasily within
an ecological system that is bound by biophysical
limits. However, some market-based approaches that
attach value to ecosystem services offer incentives to
reduce environmental damage.
Competing demands for food, feed, fuel, fibre
and raw materials are intensifying pressures on
land. Demands for food and livestock feed are
increasing rapidly due to human population growth
and changing diets. Demand for biofuels and raw
materials have also risen sharply, driven by the
increased population, greater consumption and
biofuel-friendly policies. This simultaneous growth
is causing land conversion, land degradation and
pressure on protected areas. Climate change is
placing additional stress on productive areas. One
result is heightened tension between goals related to
production and those related to conservation.
Globalization and urbanization are aggravating
competing demands on land. These processes
expand and intensify the pressure on land systems
by increasing the distances between places where
products originate and where they are consumed.
The greater distances can obscure the drivers of
resource depletion and ecosystem degradation,
produce higher environmental costs due to
transport and infrastructure, and complicate the
negotiation of sustainable land management
practices. Large-scale international land deals are
both an emerging outcome of and a contributor to
this trend. Internationally coordinated responses
are needed to address related social and
environmental pressures.
Improved governance and capacity building are
crucial to achieving sustainable land management.
Many interventions meant to protect ecosystems
have failed because they were created without
recognizing local values or engaging local
communities in their design and implementation.
Capacity building across spatial and temporal
scales is needed to improve land management.
Current governance approaches include market-
based strategies such as the collaborative
UN programme for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD),
centralized institutional strategies such as
certification, and decentralized strategies such as
community-based resource management. All offer
both opportunities and challenges for improving
land governance.
Potential exists to create more sustainable land
systems. To solve these complex problems, it
is critical to understand how diverse social and
ecological drivers affect land systems at local,
regional, national and global scales. A concerted
effort by international organizations, the scientific
community, and national and local institutions to
coordinate their actions can create the policy options
needed to achieve this goal.
Main Messages
Land 67
Table 3.1 Selected internationally agreed goals and themes related to land
Major themes from internationally
agreed goals
Johannesburg
Plan of
Implementation
(WSSD 2002)
Paragraph 40b
Millennium
Development
Goal 1
(UN 2000)
Millennium
Development
Goal 7
(UN 2000)
World Food Summit
Plan of Action (FAO
1996) Paragraph
33g
Ramsar
Convention
on Wetlands
(1971)
United Nations
Convention to Combat
Desertification
(UNCCD 1994)
Article 2
Promote food security X X
Reduce the proportion of people
who suffer from hunger X
Improve access to food X X
Increase food production X
Reverse the loss of environmental
resources X X X X
Reduce the deforestation rate and
increase forest coverage X
Halt the destruction of tropical
forests X
Stem the loss of wetlands X
Combat desertification and
mitigate the effects of drought X
Practise integrated land-use
planning and management X X X X X
Integrate the principles of
sustainable development into
country policies and programmes X X X
Recognize, maintain and develop
the multiple benefits of ecosystem
services (in addition to their
economic value)
X X
INTRODUCTION
Changing climate patterns, economic globalization, population
growth, increasing use of natural resources and rapid
urbanization are putting pressure on terrestrial ecosystems
as never before, and virtually all of them are under stress.
Biophysical limits on what is available for human use are real
and there are strong signals that these limits are close to being
reached or have already been exceeded (Rockström et al. 2009).
Even so, the fact that some areas show recent gains in forested
area or land reclamation (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2010; Nepstad
et al. 2009; Bai et al. 2008) suggests that declines are not
inevitable, and indeed that recovery may be possible – even
though original ecosystem functions may be modified or pressure
on ecosystems may shift elsewhere (Meyfroidt et al. 2010).
Growing demands for food, feed, fuel, fibre and raw materials
create local and distant pressures for land-use change (Lambin
and Meyfroidt 2011). The cascade of outcomes resulting from
these demands is complicated by urbanization and globalization,
which separate the production of goods from their consumption
over vast distances (Barles 2010; Kissinger and Rees 2010). The
central question is how these demands can be met – or managed
– in ways that recognize the joint imperatives of human well-
being and environmental sustainability. Addressing this requires
careful examination of the social relations and biophysical
processes involved in managing terrestrial ecosystems, setting
priorities for policies and policy instruments, and considering the
likely distribution of implications, both positive and negative.
The fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) (UNEP 2007)
noted that increased demand for water, waste disposal and
food had led to unsustainable patterns of land use and land
degradation. It identified forest cover and composition, cropland
expansion, intensification of agriculture, desertification and
urban development as key topics in land-use change. GEO-4
concluded that continued inaction on land stewardship,
combined with increased climate change, would reduce social
resilience, making recovery from future stresses difficult or
impossible. This chapter provides an update on the state and
trends of global land systems including wetlands, explores
major and emerging issues influencing changes in land use,
examines the implications of recent changes for achieving
international accords, and suggests some broad responses.
INTERNATIONAL GOALS
The international goals selected to guide this chapter cover
vital targets related to food security, poverty reduction
and environmental sustainability (Table 3.1). This chapter
identifies biophysical, social, economic and political
factors that may enable or constrain their attainment.
Part 1: State and Trends68
Figure 3.1 Area in use for cropland and pasture in 2009, by region, and global change between 1960 and 2010
The stakes are high: as Chapter 16 demonstrates, failure
to achieve these targets could have severe impacts on
human well-being and environmental integrity.
STATE AND TRENDS
This section uses selected indicators to gauge the
current state of agricultural land, forests, drylands,
wetlands, polar areas and human settlements, and
recent changes to these land covers and uses.
Agriculture
Demands for food and livestock feed are rising rapidly due
to population growth, urbanization and changing diets that
include more animal products. One of the consequences of
these changes is the widespread expansion of agricultural
land allocated to livestock, both directly and indirectly through
cropland dedicated to animal feed production (Rudel et al.
2009; Naylor et al. 2005). At a time when water shortage and
land degradation remain threats to food security, accelerated
interest in biofuel, feeds and fibre in recent years imposes
competing demands on how agricultural land is used.
Agricultural land and production trends
In 2009, there were approximately 3.3 billion hectares of pasture
and 1.5 billion hectares of cropland globally, with the extent
and proportion of total land area varying greatly across regions
(Figure 3.1) (FAO 2012). In 2009, all regions except Europe
had a greater proportion of land area devoted to pasture than
to cropland. Although there has been only a slight increase in
total cropland extent over the past decade, there has been a
Related goals
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Indicators
Proportion of malnourished people
Global trends
Proportion decreasing, but absolute number increasing
Most vulnerable communities
People who are food insecure due to chronic poverty, climate
variation or food price fluctuations
Regions of greatest concern
Africa, Asia and the Pacific
Box 3.1 Eradicating hunger
considerable change in the crops grown (Figure 3.2) (FAO 2012).
Maize is an important crop in all regions other than West Asia,
with the area harvested increasing by more than 25 per cent
across Africa and Asia and the Pacific between 2001 and 2010.
In total, approximately 160 million hectares of maize were
harvested in 2010. Asia and the Pacific have the largest area of
rice, but Europe and Africa experienced the greatest percentage
increases between 2001 and 2010 – about 30 and 20 per cent
respectively. The dominant soybean-producing regions are Latin
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
10
8
6
4
2
12
0
Change in area, %
Cropland
Pasture
Source: FAO 2012
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
2.0
Pasture
Cropland
Area in 2009, billion hectares
Africa Asia and
the Pacific
Europe Latin America
and
the Caribbean
North
America
West Asia
30.7%
8.5%
36.0%
15.7%
8.5%
13.9%
26.9%
8.4%
13.6%
12.1% 54.3%
4.6%
Land 69
America and the Caribbean and North America, with the United
States, Brazil and Argentina the three largest producers. Asia
and the Pacific and Europe are the primary producers of wheat.
Increases in the area used for these crops have been
accompanied by overall growth in yields (FAO 2012). Globally,
the current yields of wheat, maize and rice have been estimated
at 64, 50 and 64 per cent of their potential respectively, but
the size of the yield gap varies greatly from region to region
under the influence of different factors (Neumann et al. 2010).
Larger gaps between actual and potential yields tend to occur
where low-input agriculture is practised (Licker et al. 2010).
Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean – two regions where
crop area has expanded since 2001– still have relatively low
yields compared to North America and Europe; if region-specific
constraints can be assessed and overcome (Neumann et al.
2010), there may be potential to increase food production
in these regions while minimizing cropland expansion.
Agricultural productivity is limited by biophysical and other
factors. Extending conventional agriculture into uncultivated
lands requires mechanization to modify the surface, and
supplements in the form of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides
and irrigation water. Excessive use of machinery and chemical
supplements, however, breaks up soil structure, increases
erosion, chemically pollutes soil, contaminates groundwater
and surface water, changes greenhouse gas fluxes, destroys
habitat and builds genetic resistance to chemical supplements
(Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2010; Foley et al. 2005; Buol 1995).
With widespread adoption of intensive, mechanized, high-
input agricultural practices, the rate of soil erosion has greatly
increased. Erosion in conventional agricultural systems
is now over three times higher than in systems practising
conservation agriculture, and over 75 times higher than in
systems with natural vegetation (Montgomery 2007). Globally,
soil erosion is contributing to the decline in agricultural land
available per person (Boardman 2006) as degraded land is
abandoned (Bakker et al. 2005; Lal 1996). Thus, the yield
gains achieved by these methods come with ecological costs.
In continuously cultivated, low-input agricultural systems, rapid
declines in soil fertility and yield, together with international
commodity price changes, continue to impact human well-
being in agricultural communities (Koning and Smaling 2005).
Sustainable intensification techniques offer the potential to
improve soil fertility and yields in some situations while avoiding
some of the problems of high-input agriculture just presented.
While the future impact of climate change on global food
production is difficult to specify, substantial evidence suggests
that an increasing number of people will be directly affected by
climate change impacts on agricultural areas (World Bank 2010).
Maize field in the foreground of an ethanol plant in Midwest United States, where the most common feedstock used for ethanol production
continues to be maize. © iStock/SimplyCreativePhotography
Part 1: State and Trends70
Figure 3.2 Area harvested in 2010 and the change between 2001 and 2010, selected crops
Source: FAO 2012
-20
0
40
20
100
120
140
160
180
60
80
Change in area harvested, %
2001 2005 2010 2001 2005 2010 2001 2005 2010 2001 2005 2010
SOYBEAN WHEAT
0
RICEMAIZE
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Area harvested in 2010, million hectares
Africa Asia and the Pacific Europe Latin America and the Caribbean North America West Asia
Land 71
Box 3.2 Forests
Figure 3.3 Average food supply in 2007 and the change between 1998 and 2007, by region
Africa Asia and
the Pacific
Europe Latin America
and the
Caribbean
North
America
West Asia
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
2007, kilocalories per person per day
Source: FAO 2011
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Asia and the Pacific
Africa
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Europe
North America
West Asia
Change in kilocalories per person per day, %
Consumption trends
While the proportion of undernourished people has been
declining – from 14 per cent of world population in 1995–1997
to 13 per cent in 2010 – the absolute number rose over the
same period from 788 million to an estimated 925 million
due to population growth (Box 3.1) (FAO 2010b). Areas with
chronic food insecurity face many obstacles, including regional
conflicts, weak governance structures and a breakdown of
local institutions, all of which affect access to and distribution
of food (FAO 2010a). Many of the world’s undernourished
people live in areas that are also particularly vulnerable to
climate variability. Africa and Asia and the Pacific were the
regions with the lowest average food consumption in 2007
(Figure 3.3) (FAO 2012), but they were also the regions that
had experienced the highest percentage increase. While
the Asia and Pacific region is home to the largest number of
undernourished people, at 578 million, sub-Saharan Africa
has the highest proportion of undernourished people –
about 30 per cent of its population in 2010 (FAO 2010b).
Forests
Forests play a crucial role in terrestrial ecosystems and
provide a multitude of services such as shelter, habitats,
fuel, food, fodder, fibre, timber, medicines, security and
employment; regulating freshwater supplies; storing carbon
and cycling nutrients; and helping to stabilize the global
climate. Historically, forests have been under pressure due
to increasing demands for shelter, agricultural land, meat
production, and fuel and timber extraction, but in recent
decades this pressure has increased due to competing
demands for agricultural expansion and biofuel production,
rapid urbanization and infrastructure development, and
increased global demand for forest products. Forests are
also under increasing stress from changes in mean annual
temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and more frequent
and extreme weather events (Allen et al. 2010; Tiwari 2009).
Related goals
Reduce deforestation and increase forest cover
Indicators
Net forest change
Global trends
Some forest gains in temperate areas; deforestation slowing
in some tropical countries; overall tropical deforestation
remains high
Most vulnerable communities
Forest-dependent people in tropical countries
Regions of greatest concern
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean
Part 1: State and Trends72
Figure 3.4 Change in forest area by region, 1990–2010
-5-4-3-2-10123
1990–2000
2000–2005
2005–2015 North America
Europe
Asia and the Pacific
Africa
Latin America and the Caribbean
Net change, million hectares per year Source: UNEP 2011c; FAO 2010a
Forest area
Forests cover just over 4 billion hectares, 31 per cent of the
world’s total land area (FAO 2011). The majority of these are
boreal forests extending across northern and central Russia and
much of Canada and Alaska. Large expanses of tropical forest are
found in the Amazon, Africa’s Congo Basin and parts of South
East Asia. Temperate forests remain in a patchy distribution
across the United States, Europe and the Asian mid-latitudes.
The rate of forest loss from both deforestation and natural
causes is slowing, but remains alarmingly high (Box 3.2). At
the global level, annual forest loss decreased from 16 million
hectares in the 1990s to approximately 13 million hectares
between 2000 and 2010 (FAO 2011). The highest rates of
tropical forest loss over this period occurred in South America
and Africa (Figure 3.4). Some rapidly developing countries
that suffered extensive deforestation in the 1990s, including
Brazil and Indonesia, have significantly reduced their rates
of tropical forest loss (FAO 2011; Ometto et al. 2011), while
less developed nations in Latin America and Africa continue to
experience high rates of loss. Although much of the developed
world has experienced net reforestation since the late 1800s
as a result of rural-urban migration and farm abandonment
(Walker 1993; Mather 1992), natural factors such as drought,
forest fire and insect attacks have exacerbated forest loss in
recent decades. However, the key drivers of forest loss are
population growth, poverty, economic growth, land pricing,
international demand for timber and other forest products,
insecurity of the rights of local people, and incomplete valuation
of forest ecosystems (Carr et al. 2005; Lambin et al. 2001).
Plantations
Forest plantations, generally cultivated for industrial purposes,
increased by 50 million hectares globally between 2000
and 2010, reaching 264 million hectares or 7 per cent of
the total forest area (Table 3.2) (FAO 2011). Asia accounted
for 28 million hectares, or 58 per cent of this increase.
Generally, monoculture plantations tend not to enrich local
biodiversity, but they do provide ecosystem services including
timber, carbon and water storage and soil stabilization.
Clearance in the Amazon, where a substantial portion of deforestation
is attributed to cattle ranching and large-scale soybean production.
© iStock/luoman
Land 73
Table 3.2 Plantation area in 2010 and the increase between 2000 and 2010, by region
Africa Asia and the
Pacific Europe Latin America and
the Caribbean North America West Asia World
Plantation area 2010, thousand
hectares 15 409 121 802 69 318 14 952 37 529 5 073 264 084
Annual increase, thousand
hectares 245 2 948 401 407 809 115 4 925
Annual increase, % 1.75 2.82 0.6 3.23 2.46 2.6 2.09
Note: FAO data has been applied to GEO regional categories, except for Afghanistan, Turkey and Iran, which are included in West Asia.
Source: FAO 2011
Productive and protective forest area
The global forest area designated for the production of timber
and non-timber products declined from about 1.16 billion
hectares in 2000 to about 1.13 billion hectares in 2010, an
annual decrease of about 2.91 million hectares or 0.25 per cent
(FAO 2011). However, the global forest area designated for
protection of soil and water increased from about 272 million
hectares in 2000 to about 299 million hectares in 2010, an
annual increase of some 2.77 million hectares or 0.97 per cent
(FAO 2011). Similarly, the global forest area designated for
biodiversity conservation has increased from around 303
million hectares to about 366 million hectares, an annual
increase of about 6.33 million hectares or 1.92 per cent
(FAO 2011). The main reason for the decrease in forest area
designated for production is deforestation, and for the increase
in protective forest area is afforestation (FAO 2010a).
Forest management and certification
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for
the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) are the two
main forest management certification organizations. There
was an increase in certified forests of about 20 per cent per
year between 2002 and 2010 under these two agencies (UNEP
2011c). However, in 2010 about 10 per cent of the total forest
area was under FSC- or PEFC-certified forest management (UNEP
2011c). These trends indicate that while there is improvement
in forest management, much work remains to be done.
Forest carbon stock
Forests are considered an important sink for atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) because of their ability to store carbon
in their biomass and soil (Anderson et al. 2011). More than
75 per cent of the total terrestrial biomass carbon stock and
more than 40 per cent of the soil organic carbon stock are
found in forest ecosystems (Jandl et al. 2007). In the 1990s,
forest carbon sequestration was equivalent to approximately
one-third of carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion
and land-use change (Bonan 2008). Boreal forests store
more carbon in their soils than tropical forests, while tropical
forests store much more carbon in their plant biomass
(Prentice et al. 2001). Pan et al. (2011) estimate that global
forest systems constituted a total carbon sink of 2.4±0.4
billion tonnes of carbon per year from 1990 to 2007.
Fires are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions from forests
(van der Werf et al. 2010). Boreal forest ecosystems are prone to
frequent and severe wildfires leading to large carbon emissions.
Amiro et al. (2001) estimated that during the period 1949–1999,
on average 2 million hectares of the Canadian boreal forest
burnt annually (ranging from 0.3 to 7.5 million hectares in any
given year), emitting a yearly average of 27±6 million tonnes
of carbon (ranging from 3 to 115 million tonnes in any given
year). Sukhinin et al. (2004) estimated that on average 7.7 million
hectares of area burnt annually between 1995 and 2002 in eastern
Russia and that 55 per cent, 4.2 million hectares, of that area was
forest. Gillett et al. (2004) found that recent increases in area burnt
in Canada are a result of anthropogenic climate change. In the
future more fires, more area burnt and longer fire seasons may be
expected in temperate and boreal regions (Flannigan et al. 2009).
Drylands, grasslands and savannahs
Drylands, grasslands and savannahs experience high spatial
and temporal variability in rainfall, resulting in dramatic
differences in plant growth, habitats and human livelihoods.
Drylands cover approximately 40 per cent of the world’s land
surface and are home to more than 2 billion people, 90 per cent
of whom are in developing countries (UNEP 2007). However,
the spatial extent of drylands remains uncertain due to
variations in ecosystem sub-types, data variability and the
different classes and thresholds applied to remotely sensed
data, making global comparisons challenging (Reynolds et al.
2007). Grasslands range from very dry, almost desert-like, to
humid types. Savannahs are mixed tree-grass ecosystems,
ranging from almost treeless grasslands to closed-canopy
woodlands that occupy large areas in the tropics and sub-tropics,
particularly in Africa, Latin America and Australia (Mistry 2000).
Trends in drylands, grasslands and savannahs
Fluctuations in precipitation are a major driver of change
in plant cover, but grazing intensity has also been directly
linked to long-term dryland degradation (Miehe et al. 2010).
Transformation of rangelands to cultivated croplands is
Part 1: State and Trends74
Figure 3.5 Global extent of drylands and human-induced dryland degradation
leading to a significant, persistent decrease in overall
dryland plant productivity. Sietz et al. (2011) indicated
that the most important factors causing vulnerability in
drylands are water stress, poverty, soil degradation, natural
agronomic constraints and isolation from political centres.
Net primary productivity (NPP) is the net amount of carbon
captured by vegetation through photosynthesis each year
(Melillo et al. 1993). Approximately 2 per cent of global
terrestrial NPP is lost yearly due to dryland degradation,
equivalent to 4–10 per cent of dryland potential NPP (Zika
and Erb 2009). Figure 3.5 shows how dryland degradation,
measured in terms of NPP loss, is most widespread in the
Sahelian and Chinese arid and semi-arid regions, followed by
the Iranian and Middle Eastern drylands and to a lesser extent
the Australian and Southern African regions. Sustainable
development in drylands will rely on techniques that improve
soil fertility, conserve soil and water and increase agricultural
efficiency, such as mulch farming, conservation tillage
and diverse cropping systems (Mortimore et al. 2009).
Dry sub-humid
Dryland areas
Semi-arid
Arid
Loss of net primary productivity
Dryland degradation
More than 70%
Source: Zika and Erb 2009
50%-70%
40%-50%
30%-40%
20%-30%
10%-20%
5%-10%
1%-5%
0%
Land 75
As an international response to desertification, land degradation
and drought in drylands, the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was adopted in 1995 and
has since been signed by 194 Parties – 193 countries plus
the European Union. Following mixed results in its initial
implementation phase (UNCCD 2007), Parties to the Convention
adopted a ten-year strategic plan for 2008–2018 to revitalize
it. The plan includes a results-based management approach
built on a set of specific objectives and indicators, and a
new monitoring, assessment and reporting process – the
performance review and assessment of implementation system.
Wetlands
In 2003, the European Space Agency, in collaboration with
the secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar Convention), launched the GlobWetland
project to demonstrate the current capabilities of Earth
observation technology to support inventorying, monitoring
and assessment of wetland ecosystems. The project revealed
a major gap between the findings of the Earth observation and
wetland communities (Jones et al. 2009), with considerable
inconsistency in global wetlands estimations (Table 3.3).
The conversion of wetlands continues. For both inland and
coastal wetlands, the most salient drivers of change are
population growth and increasing economic development,
which in turn promote infrastructure development and land
conversion including agricultural expansion (Wood and van
Halsema 2008). Other direct drivers affecting wetlands are
deforestation, increased withdrawal of freshwater, diversion of
freshwater flows, disruption and fragmentation of the landscape,
nitrogen loading, overharvesting, siltation, changes in water
temperatures and invasion by alien species (Fraser and Keddy
2005). In 14 deltas analysed by Coleman et al. (2008), over
Figure 3.6 UNCCD operational objectives and achievements, 2010
30% of global population informed about
desertification, land degradation and drought and/or
synergies with climate change and biodiversity
Advocacy,
awareness and
education
Operational
objective
Performance
indicator
Current achievement level Overall
target
Target
due
2018
80% of affected country Parties with a
formulated/revised national action plan aligned to the
2008–2018 Strategic Plan
Policy
framework
National
action plan
alignment
2014
100% of affected country Parties with joint national
action plans in place or functional mechanisms to
ensure synergies between the three Rio conventions
Joint planning
of the
Rio conventions*
2014
60% affected country Parties with
established and supported national dryland
monitoring systems
Science,
technology
knowledge
Dryland
monitoring 2018
90% of affected country Parties
implementing dryland-specific
capacity-building initiatives
Capacity
building
Dryland
capacity-building2014
50% of affected country
Parties with
integrated investment frameworks
Finance and
technology
transfer
Integrated
investment
framework
2014
Information
and awareness 25%
5%
72%
38%
71%
15%
* Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Source: Prepared by UNEP-WCMC
The figure evaluates progress towards the UNCCD targets, showing substantial progress in some areas and highlighting a need for improvement in
others. Particularly encouraging is the high level of awareness about dryland degradation globally. Challenges have been encountered in aligning
national action plans and developing integrated investment frameworks. The assessment process has also revealed problems in data availability and
reporting methods (UNEP-WCMC 2011), potentially enabling UNCCD to address these lessons learnt prior to the next reporting cycle in 2012.
Part 1: State and Trends76
half of the studied wetland area of 1.6 million hectares had
been irretrievably lost over a 14-year period due to natural
causes, conversion to agriculture or industrial use. Global
climate change may exacerbate the loss and degradation
of coastal wetlands. For example, Syvitski et al. (2009)
analysed the effects of human activities on delta subsidence,
susceptibility to flooding and vulnerability to sea level rise,
concluding that the area of deltas at risk of flooding could
increase by more than 50 per cent by the end of this century.
The deforestation, drainage and conversion to agriculture
of peatland results in substantial emissions of CO2 and
nitrous oxide (Mitra et al. 2005). Globally, peatlands cover
3 per cent of the world’s land surface, about 400 million
hectares, of which 50 million hectares are being drained
and degraded, producing the equivalent of 6 per cent of all
global CO2 emissions (Crooks et al. 2011). Avoiding further
wetland degradation could result in significant climate
change mitigation (Wetlands International 2011).
Because of increasing demand for land for food, feed,
biofuels and materials, the loss of wetlands and associated
ecosystem services is likely to continue (CA 2007). Globally,
coastal wetlands such as mangroves are continuing to decline
by more than 100 000 hectares, over 0.7 per cent, per year,
but that rate of loss has slowed relative to the 1 per cent
per year of the 1980s. Although, in most regions, rates
of loss have decreased compared to the 1980s and
1990s, mangrove losses in Asia accelerated again during
2000–2005 (UNEP-WCMC 2010). Despite these losses, the
Asia and Pacific region holds the largest spatial extent of
mangrove systems – more than 50 per cent of the global
total. Other major mangrove areas are in northern Latin
America, Eastern and Western Africa, and the Red Sea.
Polar regions
The Arctic’s permafrost – the top 3.5 metres of soil that remains
permanently frozen for 24 months or more – contains the
largest deposits of organic carbon on Earth. But due to some
of the most rapid warming on the planet (McGuire et al. 2009;
Tarnocai et al. 2009), with temperatures in the permafrost having
already risen by up to 2oC over the past two to three decades
(AMAP 2011), this is likely to become a substantial source of
carbon emissions over the next century (Schuur et al. 2008).
The Arctic’s tundra and boreal forest ecosystems currently act
as a carbon sink (McGuire et al. 2009), but it is possible that
the Arctic region will become a net emitter over the course of
the 21st century (Schuur et al. 2008; Zimov et al. 2006) as
up to 90 per cent of near-surface permafrost is expected to
disappear due to thawing by 2100 (Lawrence et al. 2008).
Methane emissions, primarily from wetlands, also play an
important role in the carbon balance of the Arctic (O’Connor
et al. 2010). Although just 2 per cent of global methane
emissions originate in the Arctic, this region has seen the
largest proportional increase in emissions, rising by nearly
a third between 2003 and 2007 (Bloom et al. 2010). Some
of these emissions originate in the escape of methane from
sequestration within hydrate crystals frozen beneath permafrost.
These methyl hydrates also occur in abundance beneath the
deep ocean floor and within continental shelves (O’Connor et al.
2010). Methane is 25 times more effective at trapping heat in
the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year horizon (IPCC 2007).
Other climate-related land changes occurring in the Arctic
include the northward movement of tree lines, woody vegetation
encroachment into the tundra, and a longer growing season
– resulting in an increase in plant productivity (Figure 3.7)
(Epstein et al. 2012; Walker et al. 2012; Callaghan et al.
2011; Wang and Overland 2004; Zhou et al. 2001; Myneni
et al. 1998). Whilst these processes remove CO2 from the
atmosphere, it is likely that the release of carbon from thawing
permafrost and other processes will outpace CO2 sequestration
by vegetation (Schuur et al. 2008; Zimov et al. 2006).
Environmental changes such as the northward advance of tree
lines, combined with rapid industrial development, create
challenges for traditional livelihoods such as reindeer herding.
Table 3.3 Estimates of global wetland area
Region Global review of wetlands resources
(MA 2005b; Finlayson et al. 1999)
Global lakes and wetlands database
(Lehner and Döll 2004)
Million hectares % of global wetland area Million hectares % of global wetland area
Africa 125 10 131 14
Asia 204 16 286 32
Europe 258 20 26 3
Neotropics 415 32 159 17
North America 242 19 287 31
Oceania 36 3 28 3
Total 1 280 100 917 100
Drivers 77
Access to many areas on land, especially in northern Canada
and Russia, is becoming more difficult as ice roads melt earlier
and freeze later, severely affecting communities and industrial
development (AMAP 2011; Stephenson et al. 2011). At the
same time, because the seasonal Arctic Ocean ice cover is
decreasing in area, volume and duration, new economic
opportunities are presenting themselves, including increased
tourism, forestry, agriculture, and expanding oil, gas and mining
developments. Nonetheless, some communities in the Arctic
most affected by thawing permafrost and/or coastal erosion
are being forced to relocate (ACIA 2005), and further research
is needed to foresee how living conditions are likely to change
and to evaluate possible adaptation options, taking the region’s
indigenous peoples into particular consideration (AMAP 2011).
At the southern pole, the landmass of Antarctica also has a
profound effect on the Earth’s climate and ocean systems.
However, in contrast to the Arctic, the Antarctic land mass is
99 per cent covered by glacial ice. The changes occurring in this
region are discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 7.
Urban areas and human infrastructure
Urbanization has progressed at an extraordinary rate in recent
decades and this growth is projected to continue throughout the
century. Urban areas are the hubs of social processes, driving
many changes through material demands that affect land use
and cover, biodiversity and water resources, locally to globally.
Nevertheless, if well planned, urban areas can reduce the
overall pressure on land resources of a growing population.
Satellite-based studies calculate urban land cover at less than
1 per cent of the planet’s total land surface (Schneider et al. 2009).
However, the impact of urban areas on the global environment
cannot be measured only by their physical expansion. Some studies
estimate that 60–70 per cent of total anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions are directly or indirectly related to urban areas,
with a few wealthy cities contributing the majority of emissions
(Dodman 2009). It is the concentration of population, economic
activities and wealth generation in urban areas that drives their
impact on the global environment, with demands for food, energy,
water and production materials that have significant consequences
for land-use change around the world (Grimm et al. 2008).
Most of the understanding of urbanization as a land-change
process is based on individual case studies (Seto et al. 2010)
that reveal significant differences in urbanization processes
between regions and countries, and even within countries.
Ecological footprint analyses of cities provide a symbolic
parameter illustrating the impacts of those differences on the
local and global environment. For example, the inhabitants
of a typical city of 650 000 inhabitants in the United States
collectively require 3 million hectares of land to meet their
domestic needs, while those of a similar-sized city in India
require just 280 000 hectares (Newman 2006).
Urban trends
The UN Population Division projects that between 2007 and
2050, the world’s urban population will increase by more than
3 billion, with almost all future population growth expected
to take place in the cities and towns of developing countries
(Montgomery 2008). By 2050, more than 70 per cent of China’s
population and 50 per cent of India’s is likely to be urban, with
China expected to have 30 additional cities of more than 1 million
inhabitants and India 26 (Seto et al. 2010).
Urbanization is not a homogeneous process (Seto et al. 2010).
Recent studies suggest a significant increase in land requirements
for urban uses in the next 40 years – potentially an additional
100–200 million hectares (Bettencourt et al. 2007) (Figure 3.8).
This increase is expected to occur primarily in sprawled patterns
and to have major effects on greenhouse gas emissions, air
pollution and waste management (Lobo et al. 2009).
Very large cities exert local and global impacts on the environment,
for example the emission of greenhouse gases or aerosols that
have a dimming effect in the atmosphere. Small and medium
cities, despite their own environmental impacts, may have better
opportunities to improve their relationship with the environment
and social well-being, particularly in low-income and middle-
income countries, where population will concentrate in the future
(Seto et al. 2010, Martine et al. 2008). Only 12 per cent of the total
urban population in developing countries lives in very large urban
areas of more than 10 million people, while 40 per cent lives in
cities of less than 1 million (Figure 3.9) (Montgomery 2008).
Figure 3.7: Changes in Arctic vegetation, 1982–2005
Decline in productivity (forested
areas not recently disturbed by fire)
Increases in peak productivity
and growing season
Source: CAFF 2010
Part 1: State and Trends78
Figure 3.8 Urban expansion in the Pearl River Delta, China, 1990–2009
MAJOR ISSUES IN LAND CHANGE
The changes in land use presented in this chapter are a
product of complex interactions between human actions
and biophysical processes. International goals provide one
set of guidelines for land management, but these are often
overshadowed by other pressures and competing demands.
Here, four major themes are explored that help to explain the
apparent movement away from achieving land-related goals:
Ǯ HFRQRPLFJURZWKDWWKHH[SHQVHRIQDWXUDOFDSLWDO
Ǯ FRPSHWLQJGHPDQGVIRUODQG
Ǯ LQFUHDVHGVHSDUDWLRQRISURGXFWLRQIURPFRQVXPSWLRQDQG
Ǯ JRYHUQDQFHFKDOOHQJHVUHODWHGWRVXVWDLQDEOHODQG
management.
Each is illustrated with examples of impacts on land
resulting from these pressures, as well as opportunities
to move land management decisions towards social and
ecological outcomes in line with international goals.
Economic growth and natural capital
The global economic system is based on the pursuit of
perpetual and unsustainable growth. Distorted incentives
have reduced natural capital, while often rendering attempts
The upper delta area shown in the left-hand image had over 7 million people in 1990, but has since more than tripled to over 25 million, with
the cities of Dongguan, Foshan, Guangzhou and Shenzhen beginning to merge into one continuous city. This intense urbanization has led to
the loss of productive farmland and natural areas, as well as creating a variety of environmental problems.
USGS EROS Data Center 2010 and UNEP 2011c
Figure 3.9 Distribution of the urban population of
developing countries, by city size
1–5 million
100 000–500 000
500 000–1 million
5–10 million
More than 10 million
36%
24%
16%
12%
12%
Source: Montgomery 2008
Land 79
Box 3.4 The Mau Forests complex, Kenya
to curtail resource or energy use politically problematic
(Chapter 1) (Daly and Farley 2010; Dasgupta 2009). Simply put,
economic growth has come at the expense of natural capital.
Today, many terrestrial ecosystems exhibit degradation and
reduced resilience. This can be linked to the failure to account for
the vital functions of these ecosystems in economic cost-benefit
analyses. For example, financial pressures have encouraged
the irrigation and subsequent salinization of vast dryland
areas, making them very difficult to rehabilitate (Sakadevan
and Nguyen 2010). Wetlands continue to be drained for
agriculture and urban development, destroying their ability to
regulate water quantity and quality and buffer against extreme
weather events (Box 3.3). Deforestation and forest degradation
produce financially attractive short-term returns, but global
natural capital losses have been recently estimated at between
US$2 trillion and US$ 4.5 trillion each year (Kumar 2010).
Ecosystems have priceless spiritual, aesthetic and cultural
dimensions. They are also the cornerstones of economies, but
their real value remains effectively invisible in national profit
and loss accounts (TEEB 2010). Allowing the privatization of
profits from the extraction of natural capital at the expense of
more innovative and equitable land management approaches
is a pervasive problem across all land covers and uses.
Incentives that are narrowly focused on economic growth often
encourage land management that degrades ecosystem services,
Wetlands can help control floods by absorbing and storing
high levels of precipitation. However, the Mississippi River
basin in the United States has historically been managed
by draining wetlands for agriculture and building dams and
levees to contain floodwaters, a strategy that has worsened
the impacts of flood events (Hey and Philippi 1995). The
coastal wetlands of the Mississippi Delta have likewise been
replaced with artificial flood control structures, compromising
ecosystem services such as soil formation, provision of
habitat for fish and crustaceans, and protection against
severe storms (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2009).
In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought into focus
the importance of maintaining wetlands as buffers against
natural hazards. The State of Louisiana has since assigned
37 per cent of revenues from new oil and gas projects to
coastal protection and restoration; combined with other
funds, this could provide up to US$1 billion per year over the
next 30 years (Day et al. 2007). Research suggests that an
investment of US$10–15 billion in restoring the Mississippi
Delta could generate the equivalent of US$62 billion by avoiding
losses from storm damage and reduced ecosystem functions
while gaining additional ecological benefits (Batker et al. 2010).
Box 3.3 Restoring wetlands along the Mississippi
The Mau Forests complex in Kenya provides goods and services worth US$1.5 billion a year through water for hydroelectricity,
agriculture, tourism and urban and industrial use, as well as erosion control and carbon sequestration (TEEB 2010). Alternative
accounting has helped spur the government of Kenya to invest in rehabilitating the area and its vital ecological services, though
challenges remain in addressing the interests of people living there (UNEP 2011a).
© Christian Lambrechts
Part 1: State and Trends80
while including and valuing ecosystem services in accounting
systems can help protect and enhance them. Successful
strategies rest on improving understanding of ecosystem
functions and building that understanding into policies and
institutions (Daily et al. 2009). Indeed, recognition of the
multiple uses and multiple values of ecosystems can be used
to leverage resources for their protection (Boxes 3.3 and 3.4).
Over the past two decades, payment for ecosystem services
(PES) has gained attention as a mechanism with the potential
to account for services provided by ecosystems in market
transactions, build bridges and balance interests between the
users and providers of these services, and deal with the linked
challenges of conservation and poverty alleviation (Pascual
and Corbera 2011; Engel et al. 2008). Payment for ecosystem
services involves a suite of approaches linked to a broad
central idea: “the transfer of resources among social actors
with the objective of creating incentives to align individual and/
or collective land-use decisions with the social interest in the
management of natural resources” (Muradian et al. 2010).
The concept of PES offers several advantages over conventional
conservation approaches: it complements command-and-
control and polluter-pays principles with more flexible,
incentive-based approaches; it is conditional and voluntary,
with the potential to promote equity, accountability and cost
effectiveness; and it can produce co-benefits for livelihoods
and contribute to poverty alleviation (Borner et al. 2010; van
Hecken and Bastiansen 2010). Positive land-use outcomes
have been achieved through some PES initiatives in, for
example, Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, where tree
cover has increased and degraded pasture decreased due
to a regionally integrated PES project (Chapter 12).
However, groups who oppose the idea of nature being
commoditized or traded have criticized the concept (Pascual
and Corbera 2011; Corbera et al. 2007). Furthermore, despite
promising initial benefits such as increased land-tenure
security, current evidence of PES’s cost effectiveness and
the conditions under which it has positive environmental
and socio-economic impacts remains inconclusive,
particularly in developing countries with weak governance
(Pattanayak et al. 2010; Wunder et al. 2008).
Challenges ahead for PES focus on cost effectiveness,
monitoring capacity, enforcement, transparency and
accountability, and clear boundaries to land access and
tenure rights (Borner et al. 2010). Taking into account
social norms and culture, building trust between actors
and dealing with power relations will ultimately define
benefit allocation strategies and successful long-term
implementation of PES (Bille 2010; van Hecken et al. 2010).
Competing demands for land
The challenge of feeding a growing human population has
been compounded by rising affluence in some regions.
Changing diets and increasing demand for biofuels and
other industrial materials such as timber have intensified
competition for land and pressures on terrestrial ecosystems.
Food security
To meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1c on reducing
hunger, global food production will have to increase and food
distribution improve. To meet MDG 7 and other environmental
goals, agriculture needs to reduce its current environmental
impacts (Figure 3.10).
Although estimates vary, the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO) projects that to reduce the proportion
of developing countries’ populations that are chronically
undernourished to 4 per cent in the year 2050, world food
production will need to increase by 70 per cent from 2005 levels
(Bruinsma 2009). Although food consumption per person is
increasing across all regions, it is unevenly distributed and the
number of malnourished people continues to rise as more grain
is diverted to produce meat for those who can afford it. Livestock
and poultry can serve as an important source of protein in areas
of chronic food insecurity and provide an important buffer in
times of crop failure, but a disproportionate share of agricultural
land is dedicated to meat and dairy production for consumption
in developed countries. Such land use is less efficient in meeting
global food needs and comes with greater environmental
consequences than cropland (Steinfeld et al. 2006). For
Figure 3.10 Food security and environmental goals
for agriculture by 2050
Real food production Food distribution and access
Minimum goals for 2050
Food security
Environmental impacts
Water pollution
Water pollution
Greenhouse
gas emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions
Unsustainable water
withdrawals
Unsustainable water withdrawals
Biodiversity loss
Biodiversity loss
Real food production Food distribution and access
Total agricultural production Resilience of food system
Food security
Environmental impacts
Minimum goals for 2050
Total agricultural production
Resilience of food system
Source: Adapted from Foley et al. 2011
Each lobe represents the status of a particular theme, with the circle
defining the balance required to meet the goals. The upper figure
shows the current situation, reflecting a shortfall on food security
goals and excessive environmental impacts; the lower figure shows a
hypothetical situation in which all goals for 2050 are achieved.
Land 81
example, it is estimated that the amount of grain fed to livestock
in the United States is more than seven times that consumed
directly by the population (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003).
Meanwhile, about one-third of all food that is produced for
human consumption is wasted or lost – approximately 1 300
million tonnes annually (Toulmin et al. 2011). The concept of food
security moves beyond the question of whether adequate food
is available and considers whether people have physical and
economic access to food (FAO 2008). This draws attention to a
broad set of social and political issues related to food distribution.
It will be challenging to meet future global demand for food
while avoiding, or at least mitigating, negative impacts on
forests, wetlands and other ecosystems – and at the same
time reducing poverty, supporting livelihoods, and ensuring
food safety and animal welfare. There is little debate that
more land will have to be allocated to agriculture, but this
will not be sufficient without increasing yields and reducing
losses along the food supply chain. Climate change is likely
to complicate matters further by affecting crop yields in many
areas (Figure 3.11) (Ringler et al. 2010; Lobell et al. 2008).
A variety of agricultural approaches is likely to provide the
best outcomes for food security and environmental well-being.
High-input, intensive agricultural methods undeniably increase
agricultural yields, though these gains may come at the expense
of long-term soil fertility (Foley et al. 2005). Location-specific
approaches are also needed in order to achieve sustainable
land use based on biophysical as well as socio-economic
considerations (Chapter 12) (DeFries and Rosenzweig 2010),
while agroecology and urban agriculture can contribute to the
global food supply (Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010; Zezza and
Tasciottia 2010). Agricultural practices that conserve soils and
nutrients such as no-till farming (Chapter 12) can complement
efforts to restore degraded and abandoned agricultural land.
Meeting the global need for food will be one of the most
important challenges of this century, and a portfolio
of solutions including conservation agriculture, high-
yielding cultivars, and efficient and carefully managed use
of fertilizers is needed rather than promotion of a single
strategy. Advocates of genetically modified crops point out
their potential to increase yields while reducing the use of
agricultural chemicals (Brookes and Barfoot 2010; Fedoroff et
al. 2010), although resistance to their use remains, in part,
due to the uncertainty of potential risks to human health
and further loss of agricultural biodiversity (Chapter 5).
Meat production
Meat production has increased significantly during the past
two decades, outpacing the rate of population growth over
the same period (Figure 3.12). Large differences in meat
consumption exist both within and between countries,
ranging from an average of 83 kg per person per year in North
America and Europe to 11 kg per person per year in Africa
(FAO 2009). Population growth, urbanization and increasing
incomes are expected to continue to raise demand for meat,
particularly in developing countries (Delgado 2010).
Figure 3.11 Projected changes in sub-Saharan African
crop yields due to climate change, 2050
Cassava
Maize
Rice
Sugarcane Millet Sorghum
Change in yield, %
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Wheat
Sweet potato
and yam
Source: Ringler et al. 2010
The world’s food system faces increasingly complex and interconnected
challenges. © Ralf Hettler/iStock
Part 1: State and Trends82
The environmental impacts of meat production depend on
intensity, extent and management. Nonetheless, growing
demand for meat worldwide has been an important driver of
deforestation in South America, as forest is cleared to plant
soy for livestock feed (Box 3.5). As meat production has grown,
so has the area harvested for soybean crops, which expanded
to 98.8 million hectares in 2009 from 74.3 million hectares in
2000, and 50.4 million hectares 30 years ago (FAO 2012).
An increasing demand for meat has the potential to compound
rangeland degradation. Livestock production accounts for
over 8 per cent of global freshwater use and is among the
largest sources of water pollution leading to eutrophication,
algal blooms, coral reef degradation, human health issues,
antibiotic resistance and disruption of nutrient cycling
(Steinfeld et al. 2006). Considering the entire commodity chain,
including deforestation for grazing and forage production,
meat production accounts for 18–25 per cent of the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than global transport
(UNEP 2009b; Fiala 2008; Steinfeld et al. 2006). Reducing meat
consumption in regions where it is relatively high could thus
bring a range of environmental benefits (Marlow et al. 2009).
Biofuels
An urgent search for renewable sources of energy has resulted
in policies that promote the use of biofuels. Increased
production of crops that can be used for multiple purposes
including food, feed or fuel – such as oil palm, soy, maize
and sugar cane – is indicative of this trend (Figure 3.14).
However, subsidies that promote biofuels have been linked to
distortions in the world food system, leading to increases in
food prices (Pimentel et al. 2009). Recent changes in the linked
production of food, feed and fuel have far-reaching impacts
for ecology as well as for social relations and vulnerability
(Bernstein and Woodhouse 2010; McMichael and Scoones
2010). While no energy source is completely problem-free,
biofuels present particular challenges to land use and terrestrial
ecosystems. This, combined with the recent rapid increase
in their production, is the reason for examining them here.
While a major motivation for promoting and investing in
biofuels has been the desire to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, recent research shows that their emissions balance
varies widely depending on which crops are grown, where,
and which production methods are used (Cerri et al. 2011;
Johnston et al. 2009; Pimentel et al. 2009). Biofuel crops
have been linked to deforestation, for example in Indonesia
(Box 3.6), and to encroachment into conservation lands.
Once these land-use changes are taken into account, the
biofuel carbon balance can become negative, meaning that
more carbon is released producing and using biofuels than
the equivalent amount of energy from fossil fuels (Melillo et
al. 2009; Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008).
Crop-use changes stemming from demand for biofuels have
already been observed. For example, in 2007, the United
States converted 24 per cent of its corn to ethanol, supported
by government subsidies. The US Renewable Fuels Standard
of 2007 mandated an increase in biofuel production from
around 6.5 billion litres (1.7 billion US gallons) per year in
2001 to 136 billion litres (36 billion US gallons) per year by
2022 (US Government 2007). Also in 2007, US farmers planted
the largest area in maize since 1944: 37.8 million hectares,
an area 20 per cent bigger than in 2006 (Gillon 2010). This
crop change, which was subsidized, resulted in calling back
into production many set-aside lands in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) that used to help check surpluses,
maintain price levels and promote an ecological balance.
Between late 2007 and March 2009, the total area of CRP land
in the United States dropped from 14.9 million to 13.6 million
Figure 3.12 Change in global population and in
meat, fish and seafood supplies, 1992–2007
0
1992 1997 2002 2007
20
40
Fish and
seafood
+32%
Meat
+26%
Global
Population
+22%
Source: UNEP 2011c
10
Change, %
30
Meat and dairy production systems account for a large proportion of
the global land area. © Anna Kontorov/UNEP
Land 83
Box 3.5 Brazil’s forest policy and soy moratorium
While most Amazonian deforestation is linked to cattle
pasture and ranching, forest conversion for cropland
– especially soy – increased in Mato Grosso during
2000–2004 (Morton et al. 2006), and evidence suggests
that by displacing pastures, soy production may also drive
deforestation (Barona et al. 2010). A sharp decline in annual
deforestation during 2004–2009 (Figure 3.13) coincided with
the introduction of new policies as part of the Action Plan
for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon
(PPCDAm). These include:
Ǯ FUHDWLQJQHZSURWHFWHGDUHDVLQGHIRUHVWDWLRQKRW
spots;
Ǯ HVWDEOLVKLQJDGHIRUHVWDWLRQPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPPHXVLQJ
satellite imagery;
Ǯ DQDVVHUWLYHODZHQIRUFHPHQWVWUDWHJ\DOORZLQJIRUSURSHUW\
apprehension, forfeiture or even destruction;
Ǯ ZLWKKROGLQJSXEOLFUXUDOFUHGLWIURPSURGXFHUVZKREUHDN
environmental regulations; and
Ǯ DQREOLJDWLRQRQPXQLFLSDOLWLHVWRUHGXFHGHIRUHVWDWLRQ
rates below a certain threshold and register protected
areas in a GIS database to make illegal deforestation
promptly apparent (BRASIL 2009).
Pressure from consumers in Europe and a Greenpeace
campaign against illegal deforestation also led the Brazilian
Vegetable Oil Industry Association (ABIOVE) and National
Cereal Exporters’ Association (ANEC) to sign an agreement in
July 2006 in which members pledge not to acquire soybeans
from newly deforested areas in the Amazon. The success of
this moratorium has prompted efforts to persuade the beef
industry to make its own commercial agreement.
Despite the apparent success of these and other policies and
agreements in reducing deforestation, challenges remain. For
example, many are concerned that proposed changes to Brazil’s
forest code may reduce forest protection (Tollefson 2011). The
rise of deforestation in other biomes and countries is also a
concern, which has led the Brazilian government to launch an
action plan for the Cerrado biome (BRASIL 2010) and disseminate
lessons learned to neighbouring Amazonian countries.
Figure 3.13 Clear-cut deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, 1988–2011
Source: INPE 2012
19921988 1997 2002 2007 2011
Annual deforestation by state, million hectares
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
Pará
Brazil, total
Mato Grosso
Rondônia
Amazonas
Maranhão
Acre
Amapá
Roraima
Tocantins
hectares (Gillon 2010). In other words, close to 1.3 million
hectares of conservation lands were lost in just over a year.
A similar trend can be seen in the European Union (EU),
particularly Germany, whose production capacity for biodiesel
increased fivefold between 2004 and 2008 (Franco et al.
2010). Although Germany’s rapeseed cultivation reached
1.53 million hectares in 2007, a little over half of which was
used for fuel to meet its EU mandatory biodiesel blending
target, Germany needs an additional 1.8 million hectares of
rapeseed, which can be done only by increasing the conversion
of permanent grassland – similar to the US CRP. However,
Part 1: State and Trends84
Figure 3.14 Area under cultivation for selected crops in humid tropical countries, 1960–2010
Germany has already used its maximum allowable 5 per cent
of grassland under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (Franco
et al. 2010). Such constraints on agricultural expansion in the
United States and European Union help explain the push to
outsource biofuel (and food) production to other countries.
Critiques of biofuels have been accompanied by the emergence
of alternatives. For example, under certain conditions,
community-based biofuel production for local consumption
can be desirable, such as in Brazil where some small-scale
farmers produce fuel for their own vehicles and equipment
(Fernandes et al. 2010). To be considered beneficial, biofuel
production should satisfy multiple criteria, including real
energy gains, greenhouse gas reductions, preservation of
biodiversity and maintenance of food security (Tilman et al.
2009). Indeed, the principles of ecoagriculture (Milder et al.
2008) can be applied to help guide biofuel production towards
the mutual attainment of production, livelihood and conservation
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
20
40
Million hectares
60
120
80
100
Source: UNEP 2011c
Soybeans Sugarcane Oil palm
Box 3.6 Palm oil expansion and rainforest destruction in Indonesia
The expansion of oil palm plantations, both for food and fuel,
is one of the most significant causes of rainforest destruction
in South East Asia, where the area under oil palm increased
from 4.2 million to 7.1 million hectares between 2000
and 2009 (FAO 2012). In Indonesia, two-thirds of oil palm
expansion has occurred by converting rainforest (UNEP 2009a).
Clearing tropical forests produces a carbon debt that lasts from
decades to centuries, contradicting one of the main reasons for
pursuing biofuels in the first place (Gibbs et al. 2008). It also
compromises vital ecosystem functions provided by rainforests
that cannot be replaced by plantations.
In 2009 the Indonesian government projected a dramatic
increase in the area planted to oil palm during the next one or
two decades – up to 20 million hectares – mostly on cleared
forest land (UNEP 2009a). This target was based on two linked
assumptions:
Ǯ LQFUHDVLQJGHPDQGLQ&KLQDDQG,QGLDIRUFRRNLQJRLODQG
other consumer goods, from chocolate to shampoo, that
use palm oil; and
Ǯ LQFUHDVLQJGHPDQGIRUELRIXHOVLQ(XURSHDQGHOVHZKHUH
(McCarthy 2010; White and Dasgupta 2010).
In May 2011 the President of Indonesia signed a two-year
moratorium on new permits to clear primary forests and
peatlands, potentially slowing oil palm expansion; however,
secondary forests and existing contracts remain exempt
(USDA 2011).
Land 85
objectives. While such systems represent only a tiny portion
of overall biofuel production, they provide an opportunity for
equitably distributed alternative fuels to benefit land-based
ecosystems, for example by reducing charcoal production.
Timber and wood products
Forests are the main source of timber for fuel, industry, pulp,
paper and wood-based composites (Table 3.4). Key factors
contributing to the rise in consumption are population and
economic growth (FAO 2011). In addition, an increase in
the absolute number of people living in poverty, especially
in rural areas, and continued urbanization contribute to
the growth in consumption of wood fuels, while enhanced
economic growth in emerging economies contributes to the
increase in consumption of paper and paper products.
Protected areas
Protected areas are an important mechanism for the conservation
of vulnerable environmental resources, although there are
controversies as to whether they sometimes come at the expense
of the livelihoods of local people. Rates of deforestation are
much lower within reserves than outside them (Scharlemann
et al. 2010; Nagendra 2008), and some research cites the
positive benefits that protected areas have on the conservation
of ecosystem services (Stolton and Dudley 2010). But when
the underlying pressures imposed by local populations are not
adequately considered, substantial monitoring and enforcement
are needed to enforce rules designed to sustain natural resources,
and governance has been found to be most effective when local
users participate in the design and implementation of natural
resource governance. There is also some evidence of spill-over
effects in countries that enact conservation policies, for example
by increasing cereal imports from elsewhere (Rudel et al. 2009).
Protection in a given area has also been found to contribute to
deforestation on the adjacent land to which displaced human
populations have moved (Wittemyer et al. 2008). Despite the
growing area of land with protected status – currently almost
13 per cent of the planet’s terrestrial area is under some degree
of protection (Chapter 5) – policy makers should not rely solely
on this mechanism to preserve natural resources (Ostrom and
Cox 2010). Instead, they should develop capacity for adaptive
management strategies that produce the best institutional fit
for natural resource problems while taking into consideration
the need to protect local property rights and local livelihoods.
The separation of consumption from
the impacts of production
Urbanization and globalization contribute to the separation
between places where resources and goods originate and
where products are consumed. Recent research suggests that
the spatial distance between production and consumption is
both significant and growing (Erb et al. 2009). As a result, many
of the ecological costs of consumption are borne by people
and places increasingly far from consumption sites. While
urbanization draws people into densely populated spaces and
concentrates demand for food, materials and consumer products,
globalization and trade facilitate the movement of people and
goods, making both regional and international transfers of
resources and finished products possible. Large-scale land
acquisitions to supply food, fodder and other forest products as
well as other natural resources to markets in distant countries
are both a recent outcome of and a contributor to the separation
of production and consumption (Toulmin et al. 2011). If carefully
planned and managed, urbanization and globalization can
present opportunities to increase efficiency of resource use.
Drivers of increased separation
Urbanization affects land use and land cover, water use and
biodiversity at local and regional scales through social processes
that drive consumption patterns and material demands. Higher
purchasing power among many urban workers contributes to
improved quality of life, but at the cost of new challenges for
natural resources and environmental management. For example,
Western-style diets are increasingly being adopted globally in
urban areas (Pingali 2006). Similarly, improved urban lifestyles
are accompanied by higher consumption of water and energy
and increased carbon emissions. These urban consumption
patterns intensify stresses on distant as well as local ecosystems.
Globalization is not new, but its current iteration has some
distinct features (Chapter 1). Lower trade barriers, improved
communication technologies and relatively cheap transport have
all encouraged countries to become increasingly specialized in
their economic activities and reliant on international trade to
connect products and services with distant markets (Gibbon et
al. 2008). While international trade can make use of strategic
advantages to produce goods in an efficient way, it also makes
it easier to externalize both environmental and social costs.
The well-being of individuals in one place is often based on
the degradation of the environment elsewhere, for example by
non-renewable resource extraction. Meanwhile, both resources
and pollution are embedded in trade (Chapter 4), and countries
that place greater emphasis on free-market economic policies
have been linked to higher levels of environmental degradation
(Özler and Obach 2009). The challenge for the global economy
Table 3.4 Timber and fibre consumption, 2002
and 2008
Type 2002
Million m3
2008
Million m3
2002–2008
% change
Fuelwood 1 795 1 867 +4
Industrial wood 1 595 1 544 -3
Wood-based panels 197 263 +34
Pulp for paper 185 191 +3
Paper and pa per board 324 388 +20
Source: FAO 2011b, 2005
Part 1: State and Trends86
is to encourage the best of what it can offer in terms of efficient
resource use while taking measures to reduce the occurrence,
concentration and transfer of environmental and social costs.
Land deals
Recent changes in production patterns can be linked to the
convergence of food, energy, environmental and financial
crises, and a continuing surge in the mineral and timber
industries (Tables 3.2 and 3.4; Chapter 1). These interactions
have brought corporations and some national governments,
based in the global North and South, to forge widespread
land deals, sometimes referred to as land grabs, in distant
countries. The UN Committee on Food Security suggests that
such large-scale land acquisition now involves close to 100
million hectares (Toulmin et al. 2011). Concentrated in the
global South, these land deals are intended to produce food,
feed, biofuels, timber and minerals, usually for export. This
ongoing global rush for land is altering land-use patterns and
social relations, and involves a new combination of people
and pressures. Given the rapid pace of recent developments
and projected growth in demands for food, feed, biofuels and
materials, it is likely to have major impacts on future land use.
The 2007–2008 food price spike inspired multi-sectoral investors
to purchase or lease land for food production and export (Toulmin
et al. 2011). At the same time, biofuel blending requirements in
the EU and many other countries have provided another impetus
for external land deals and land-use change. This has directly
and indirectly inspired the expansion of oil palm plantations
in Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia and Malaysia, sugar cane
ethanol production in Brazil and Southern Africa, soy cultivation
in Argentina and Brazil, and the planting of jatropha in Ghana
and India, amongst other developments (Franco et al. 2010). The
emerging pattern of production in these newly opened sites is
large-scale, industrial monoculture (Novo et al. 2010; Richardson
2010). Even in cases where contract growing with smallholders is
promoted as a key component of new enterprises, monoculture
and industrial production methods are adopted, for example
in the oil palm sector in Indonesia (McCarthy 2010).
In theory the term marginal lands, often applied to land
deals, refers to lands that are far from road networks, are
not irrigated, and are not used for intensive commercial
agriculture. However, in practice there are indications that
land deals have encroached on prime agricultural lands,
suggesting that investors do not want to invest in lands with
little access to water sources or transport infrastructure.
Displacement of local, including indigenous, people is a potential
outcome of these land deals. This becomes a problem if people
have nowhere go to seek employment or construct livelihoods
(Li 2011). This has happened in several sites of current land
deals, pushing people to further crowd urban spaces or into
more fragile environments such as remaining forest, higher
slopes or river banks. For example, in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, large-scale agricultural investment has reportedly
pushed local farmers into a national park (Deininger et al. 2011).
But not all land deals have led, or will lead, to dispossession.
Different outcomes of land deals for the rural poor are illustrated
by McCarthy (2010) in Jambi, Indonesia, where three villages
showed three broad trajectories: dispossession, relatively
successful incorporation into the oil palm enclave, and adverse
incorporation with precarious employment and livelihoods.
There are competing views on how to respond. One
position argues that land deals offer both opportunities
and threats, and that opportunities can be harnessed and
threats managed by promoting a voluntary land-deal code
of conduct (Deininger 2011). In contrast, proponents of
minimum human rights principles argue that voluntary codes
may be insufficient to ensure that agricultural investment
“benefits the poor in the South, rather than leading to a
transfer of resources to the rich in the North” (De Schutter
2011). An in-between position is reflected in the Voluntary
Guidelines for the Democratic Governance of Natural
Resources promoted by FAO, which, unlike corporate-
led codes of conduct, bind member states to mandatory
reporting. How these viewpoints unfold remains to be seen.
Land governance
Many of the challenges for sustainable land management stem
from underlying weaknesses in land governance systems.
Generally, there are three components of a governance system:
actors and organizations, institutions, and practices (GFI 2009).
Incompatibility between these is one of the most common
reasons for the lack of successful transition from resource-
extractive to sustainable management of land resources. For
example, various countries have redirected their policies and
Yasuni National Park on the fringes of the Amazon Basin in Ecuador
– believed to be the single most biodiverse place on the planet – has
come under severe threat following the discovery of rich oil deposits
beneath the park’s rivers. In December 2011, US$116 million payment
for ecosystem services was raised by crowd-sourcing, temporarily
halting ecological devastation and the release of more than 400 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). © Sebastian Liste
Land 87
management rules towards sustainable forest management, but
due to structural and cultural resistance in forestry organizations,
management practices have not changed to the expected level
(Kumar and Kant 2005). Other common features of poor land
governance are low levels of transparency, accountability and
participation in decision making, and a lack of capacity amongst
the actors and organizations responsible for land management.
Land governance includes structures ranging from totally
centralized to completely decentralized. A major challenge
is to find the best governance system, which depends on
existing governance alongside the social, economic and
environmental conditions and their dynamics (Kant 2000).
Market-based approaches
Heightened interest in carbon sequestration has inspired
new incentives and financing for ecosystem protection. Local
and global initiatives have started to invest in market-based
climate approaches that attach a financial value to the carbon
stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries
to invest in low-carbon development. One such opportunity –
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD) in developing countries – has emerged as an important
component of a global strategy to reduce emissions while
generating financial flows from North to South (Scharlemann
et al. 2010; Angelsen 2009). Since its inception, REDD has
evolved into REDD+, which now goes beyond deforestation
and forest degradation to include conservation, sustainable
forest management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Evidence of the potential for carbon sequestration in drylands
and grasslands is accumulating in support of REDD+ programmes
for these ecosystems as well as forests (Neely et al. 2009).
At this stage, REDD+ has not been incorporated into any
formal international carbon market, but it is likely to form a key
element of a post-Kyoto climate change treaty by promoting
the avoidance of deforestation and allied measures as eligible
activities for countries seeking to meet their obligations.
Carbon offset payments would encourage developing countries
to reduce national deforestation rates, while REDD+ could
include incentives to promote afforestation, reforestation
and improved forest management. Research suggests that
when appropriate techniques are used, forest restoration is a
cost-effective means of sequestering carbon while providing
abundant social and ecological benefits (Sasaki et al. 2011).
Proponents from both science and policy believe that REDD+
will not just conserve forests; they also consider it one of the
most cost-effective carbon abatement options worldwide
(Corbera et al. 2010; Dickson and Osti 2010; Sikor et al. 2010;
UN-REDD 2010; Kindermann et al. 2008; Thoms 2008). With
the right safeguards in place, REDD+ could offer crucial new
incentives for achieving sustainable development goals – which
have proved elusive since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit – by
simultaneously enabling biodiversity conservation, watershed
protection, capacity building in tropical forest nations and
poverty alleviation for rural communities (Sikor et al. 2010).
Much of the debate around REDD+ has focused on its
international aspects. However, its success will largely depend
on allocating benefits at the local to national levels and creating
domestic safeguards to prevent perverse incentives and the
marginalization of forest-dependent communities (Phelps et
al. 2010; Cotula and Mayers 2009; Daniel and Mittal 2009). To
this end, some stakeholders are concerned that REDD+ could
pose new risks to already vulnerable populations through
restricted access to land, tenure insecurity, conflict over
resources, centralization of power, and distortion effects in
local economic systems. These observers caution that REDD+
will only achieve lasting results if it is suitable for adaptation
to the particular circumstances of relevant countries and can
meet the needs of local people while building their capacity
(IUCN 2010/11; Mayers et al. 2010; Preskett et al. 2008).
The risks and opportunities for REDD+ will depend on several
factors, including how it will be financed and implemented. Many
challenges are shared by forest countries, but responses and
solutions will often have to be developed according to country-
specific and local characteristics. Ultimately, if REDD+ is to be
successful, it must generate substantial revenues to implement
conservation and sustainable forest management while
supporting rural poverty reduction and livelihoods. At the same
time, it must recognize the dynamic complexity of global systems,
where cause and effect are often distant in time and space.
Land management and decentralization
Governance plays a major role in how land resources are
monitored and used and how environmental protection
is enforced. Proponents of decentralized natural resource
management suggest that giving local-level officials greater
responsibilities should result in more efficient, flexible,
equitable, accountable and participatory governance (Blair
2000). Local-level decision makers often know more about
local conditions and are therefore well positioned to develop
new management solutions. This is important from the
perspective of adaptive management and providing decision
makers with the flexibility to quickly develop solutions to
unforeseen problems (Ostrom 2007). But decentralization is
only effective if local governments have the financial resources
and technical capacity to monitor environmental change
(Andersson 2004). Positive outcomes from decentralized
environmental governance are also unlikely in the absence
of public participation in local government decision making
(Larson 2002; Blair 2000); this emphasizes the importance
of developing the capacity of local-level stakeholders
in the sustainable management of land systems.
Capacity building for sustainable land management
Capacity building recognizes the knowledge systems, perspectives
and values of all stakeholders and uses an in-depth understanding
of how a resource system functions. As sustainable land
management requires a different set of organizational, technical,
economic, environmental and managerial skills from that of
many land managers, building the capacity of all actors and
organizations can be central to its successful integration.
Part 1: State and Trends88
Land degradation in dryland ecosystems provides an example
where the lack of capacity – scientific, technical and collaborative
– limits success in addressing environmental problems.
Degradation in dryland systems is driven by multiple causes
and characterized by complex feedbacks that are made worse
by global climate change (Ravi et al. 2010; Verstraete et al.
2009). Despite concerted efforts and a wide array of initiatives
(Box 3.7), drylands continue to be threatened because of lack of
agreement on the underlying driving mechanisms, characteristics
and consequences of degradation (Reynolds et al. 2007). Long-
term harmonized data are necessary not only to understand
the root causes of observed changes, but also to forecast and
disentangle those, possibly irrevocable, impacts of global change
from the often more temporary or local variability induced by
other human activity. These data gaps, and the subsequent
lack of capacity and common strategies among dryland
nations, can severely hamper progress towards internationally
agreed goals on dryland conservation and rehabilitation.
OUTLOOK
Complex forces are affecting land resources, some at dramatic
rates of change and with diverse regional and national
characteristics. Certainly some land conversion trends are
on an unsustainable trajectory, as global population growth
and rising consumption exert ever greater pressures on
land. Continued deforestation, wetland conversion and
dryland degradation are of particular concern. An increasing
portion of the pressure on tropical forests is shifting from
the activities of small household farms to large industrial
plantations producing soy, meat and dairy products, palm oil,
sugar cane and other products destined for global markets
(DeFries et al. 2010, 2008). Land degradation continues to
hamper soil productivity and ecological functions in many
regions. At the same time, there is significant potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production
(Smith et al. 2007). Two phenomena that have arisen since
GEO-4 are the expansion of biofuel production and a growing
number of land deals in developing countries. These and
other processes are unfolding rapidly. While their longer-term
implications remain uncertain, early evidence of their social and
environmental consequences should be closely considered.
In combination, these processes are seriously affecting the
environment in several regions and require urgent attention.
Data and monitoring gaps
One key to avoiding environmental damage is to effectively
monitor environmental trends, yet major data gaps limit the ability
to avert unwanted outcomes. Global data on land degradation
have not been updated for a long time, although new estimates
using satellite material are being developed. Datasets exist for
land cover but do not always adequately represent areas that
have experienced selective cutting or other types of modification.
Forest cover losses in boreal and temperate forests are not as
well studied as those in tropical forests, while evidence is still
emerging of the significant carbon sequestration potential of
rangelands and grasslands. Records of ecosystem change are
improving, mainly through remote sensing, but reliable data on
land-use change are still fragmented and often not comparable
– the extent of drylands, for example, is uncertain because
of the classifications and methodologies used by different
programmes. Similarly, there are discrepancies between a number
of wetland inventories (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2007)
and there is no comprehensive global wetlands database.
Satellite remote sensing is an essential tool for monitoring
global land resources, but no such technology exists for
population patterns. National census efforts, the best current
technique, are sporadic and underfunded in many countries,
and there is a significant data gap for population changes in
rural areas. Further, it is critical to track the consequences
for the environment of rapid and extensive urbanization,
with its uncertain implications for land resources.
Data on biofuels – including the extent of production and
use – are incomplete at the global level, although national
datasets can be found for some countries. Similarly, there is
a need for improved national and global monitoring of land
transactions including large-scale land deals. There are also
few standard indicators that governments can use to monitor
the environmental impacts of different patterns of land tenure.
Finally, standard methodologies for the badly needed valuation
of ecosystem services are at an early stage of development.
Goal gaps
Table 3.5 summarizes progress toward the themes expressed
in internationally agreed goals on land use and conservation.
However, some important topics are not reflected in them.
For example, there are no goals or targets that reflect the
vulnerabilities and challenges specific to the polar regions.
Promising management strategies for dryland ecosystems
across the world include afforestation to counteract chronic
carbon loss due to land degradation, with successful
examples in Israel (Tal and Gordon 2010), Iran (Amiraslani
and Dragovich 2011) and eastern Uganda (Buyinza et al.
2010). Other progressive strategies for adaptively managing
drylands include planting resilient nitrogen-fixing crops
(Saxena et al. 2010), dune stabilization measures, run-
off control, improved range management and integrated
land management, for example Iran’s National Plan to
Combat Desertification. Programmes that build community
resilience through watershed restoration in drylands, such
as the Watershed Organization Trusts in India, are also
promising, as are models of polycentric adaptive governance
increasingly adopted in Australia (Marshall and Smith 2010;
Smith et al. 2010). Enhanced monitoring programmes based
on vegetation indices and real-time climatic data are also
important in allowing for early-warning and management
interventions (Veron and Paruelo 2010).
Box 3.7 Sustainable dryland management
Land 89
Table 3.5 Progress towards goals (see Table 3.1)
A: Significant progress
B: Some progress
C: Very little to no progress
D: Deteriorating
X: Too soon to assess progress
?: Insufficient data
Key issues and goals State and trends Outlook Gaps
1. Promote food security
Reduce proportion of people
who suffer from hunger
B Proportion of malnourished people
decreasing, but absolute number
increasing
Depends on up-coming policy
decisions and interventions
See following entries on increasing food
production and access
Improve household economic
access to food
C Food per person is increasing
overall, but a large gap remains
between and within regions,
particularly for rural poor
households who now spend
more than half of their income on
food; one-third of food produced
for human consumption is lost
or wasted; land and food price
volatility is influenced by rising
demands for biofuels, among other
economic forces
Drivers remain in place for land and
food price volatility to continue;
without interventions, the gap in
food per person is likely to persist
Interventions to reduce post-harvest food
waste; stimulate smallholder farmer-centred
agricultural growth – promoting affordable
access to land, water and tenure rights for poor
households; coordinate domestic and regional
biofuel policies to avoid worsening global food
insecurity
Increase food production C Agricultural yields are generally
increasing but a large gap remains
between regions
Yields are unlikely to improve much
more in developed countries; with
efforts focusing on decreasing the
yield gap in developing countries,
much depends on how this is
accomplished
Location-specific approaches to increase yields
and achieve sustainable land use, for example
smallholder farmer-centred agricultural growth;
increased nutrient-use efficiency; improved
temporal and spatial matching of nutrient
supply with plant demand
2. Reverse loss of environmental resources
Reduce deforestation rate
and increase forest coverage
B Slight slowing of deforestation
but rate is still high; deforestation
is concentrated in the tropics;
temperate areas are experiencing
some forest regrowth
Demand for timber and fibre
is likely to rise; clearing for
agricultural expansion, including
biofuels, is likely to continue
without a change in policies
Improved understanding of forest degradation;
regional policy coordination to avoid leakage
shifting deforestation from regulated to
unregulated areas
Halt the destruction of
tropical forests
B Deforestation rate has slowed in
some tropical countries, but net
forest loss in Latin America and
the Caribbean and Africa remains
close to 7 million hectares per year
The area under the REDD+
programme and schemes for
payment for ecosystem services is
likely to increase, providing new
incentives to protect tropical forests
and their ecosystem services
Data and monitoring on carbon stocks/flux;
number and area of community-managed
REDD+ areas; national adaptation strategies
with ecosystem-based components
Stem the loss of wetlands C/D Continued conversion of wetlands
for agriculture, aquaculture and
human infrastructure
Pressure on wetlands is likely to
continue or increase as demand
for agricultural land and urban
expansion continues
Improved inventory and monitoring of global
wetlands; renewed commitment to the Ramsar
Convention at the national level
Combat desertification and
mitigate the effects of drought
C Net primary productivity is
decreasing in drylands
Pressure on drylands is likely to
continue
Improved inventory and monitoring of global
drylands
3. Practise integrated land-use planning and management
Integrate principles of
sustainable development
into country policies and
programmes
B Good progress in countries
affected by the UNCCD in
establishing mechanisms
to ensure synergy between
conventions on desertification,
biodiversity and climate change,
but few countries have integrated
investment frameworks
Depends on upcoming policy
decisions and interventions
Greater integration/collaboration between
sectors
Recognize, maintain and
develop the multiple benefits
of ecosystem services, for
example for biodiversity, and
for their cultural, scientific, and
recreational value in addition
to their economic value
CSome examples of valuing multiple
benefits of ecosystem services, but
overall still largely externalized
Depends on upcoming policy
decisions and interventions
Improved non-market valuation techniques;
capacity building to include multiple and local
values in land-use decision making
Part 1: State and Trends90
Issues of capacity building and stakeholder participation are
also inadequately represented in international goals. Several
of the land-related goals that do exist lack quantifiable targets,
complicating the task of assessing progress towards their
achievement. A particular challenge is to acknowledge the
interactions between different components of social-ecological
systems at different scales.
Goals cannot be considered in isolation. Due to tensions and
synergies, progress towards one goal must be viewed in light
of implications for others. For example, Figure 3.10 highlights
friction between MDG 1 on reducing hunger and MDG 7 on
environmental sustainability: if food production is increased
through agricultural expansion, it directly compromises
the protection of forests, wetlands and other ecosystems.
Meanwhile, efforts to address the education and health issues
expressed in MDGs 2–6 can indirectly help achieve MDGs 1
and 7 in the long term. Thus, an integrated perspective on goal
achievement is crucial.
Discussion of key issues
Economic growth and land resources
The global economy has quadrupled during the last 25 years
(IMF 2006), but 60 per cent of the world’s major ecosystem
goods and services underpinning livelihoods have been
degraded or used unsustainably (MA 2005a). This means
that traditional economic growth cannot be the foundation
of sustainable development. A new paradigm of economic
welfare is required – one that is focused on improving human
welfare and social equity, and reducing environmental risks and
ecological scarcities. One such approach, the green economy
proposed by UNEP in 2010, includes:
Ǯ YDOXDWLRQRIQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGHQYLURQPHQWDODVVHWV
Ǯ SULFLQJSROLFLHVDQGUHJXODWRU\PHFKDQLVPVWKDWWUDQVODWH
these values into market and non-market incentives; and
Ǯ PHDVXUHVRIHFRQRPLFZHOIDUHWKDWDUHUHVSRQVLYHWRWKH
use, degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services
(UNEP 2011).
The transition from traditional economic growth to the green
economy will require changes to national regulations, policies,
subsidies, incentives and accounting systems, as well as
to global legal and market infrastructures, an appropriate
international trade structure and targeted development aid.
Meeting the growing demand for food
Both global population and per-person consumption continue
to grow. The achievement of MDG 1, the eradication of extreme
Coon Creek Watershed in southwest Wisconsin, once one of the most heavily eroded regions in the United States, is now an impressive and
integrated farmland mosaic thanks to advances in soil and farmland restoration. © Jim Richardson
Land 91
hunger and poverty, will require getting more food to more
people. How this is accomplished will have important
implications for MDG 7 – environmental sustainability.
Population growth is an important part of this complex
interaction, but changing lifestyles and consumption patterns,
particularly the increasing global demand for animal products,
are also significant. Friction between these two MDG goals could
be reduced by:
Ǯ LPSURYLQJHȪFLHQF\DORQJWKHZKROHIRRGFKDLQE\LQFUHDVLQJ
crop yields through research and extension, and reducing
food waste and spoilage by improving transport, storage
and distribution infrastructure in developing countries and
changing behaviour in wealthier societies, where much food
waste occurs in food retail markets and homes;
Ǯ LPSOHPHQWLQJIXOOFRVWDFFRXQWLQJIRUIRRGSURGXFWV
that reflects the environmental and social costs of their
production in order to facilitate a shift in consumption
patterns;
Ǯ HQFRXUDJLQJZKHUHDSSURSULDWHLQQRYDWLYHDSSURDFKHVWR
food production to shorten food supply chains and enhance
food security;
Ǯ HYDOXDWLQJWKHHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHDQGFDUERQEDODQFH
implications of potential biofuel production to inform land-
use planning and management, and reducing competition
between food and biofuel production, particularly in areas
with the highest crop production potential.
Growing demand for non-food resources
Crop- and plantation-based biofuel production has increased
rapidly in recent years and the land-use transitions associated
with this could have strong environmental and social impacts.
Fuel-blending targets in numerous countries mandate the
continued expansion of biofuel production. Next-generation
biofuels – from, for example, algae or cellulose – are still
under development and are not likely to contribute a significant
share of biofuel production in the near future. Governments
should recognize that targets for biofuel production have both
direct and indirect implications for land use at national and
global scales.
Large-scale land acquisitions are growing with potentially major
impacts on land-use change and social relations. Recent reports
have advocated the establishment of an observatory of land
tenure and rights to food to monitor access to land and ensure
that land investments result in decreased hunger and poverty
in host communities and countries (Toulmin et al. 2011).
United Nations organizations could play an important role in
creating precedents that could help improve food access
in developing countries.
Complexity and policy challenges
An important step towards addressing these challenges is to
monitor, study and understand how social and biophysical
drivers interact, and the diversity of social, economic and
environmental consequences they generate at local, regional and
global levels. A concerted effort by international organizations,
the scientific community, and national and local institutions
could create the comprehensive monitoring network needed to
achieve this goal – but to be effective there needs to be strong
coordination between these actors.
Limitations in the assessment of land-change processes cannot
and should not delay action to address their driving forces, with
the precautionary principle being applied to reduce their negative
impacts. Current evidence of their consequences highlights the
need to act in the short term to avoid potentially irreversible
negative outcomes in the long term. There are no easy answers
to these complex problems, and single and isolated actions
might achieve only limited positive outcomes rather than broad
solutions. New governance approaches to land management
could help incorporate adaptive management, capacity building
and more efficient valuation of ecosystem services and natural
resources by combining market-based tools with a bigger role for
community agency and bottom-up approaches. New governance
approaches could also help foster the changes in consumption
patterns needed to reduce pressure on land systems and create
better knowledge and awareness of the multiple values of
ecosystems. While the leadership of UN organizations and other
international institutions is a central element in these efforts,
governments have a crucial role, responsibility and opportunity
to act as agents of change.
New governance approaches could foster the changes in consumption
patterns needed to reduce pressure on land systems and create better
knowledge and awareness of the multiple values of ecosystems.
© Frank van den Bergh/iStock
Part 1: State and Trends92
ACIA (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M.,
Kitzberger, T., Rigling, A., Breshears, D.D., Hogg, E.H., Gonzalez, P., Fensham, R., Zhang, Z.,
Castro, J., Demidova, N., Lim, J.-H., Allard, G., Running, S.W., Semerci, A. and Cobb, N. (2010).
A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change
risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 660–684
AMAP (2011). Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): Executive Summary. Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Secretariat, Oslo
Amiraslani, F. and Dragovitch, D. (2011). Combating desertification in Iran over the last 50 years:
an overview of changing approaches. Journal of Environmental Management 92(1), 1–13
Amiro, B.D., Todd, J.B., Wotton, B.M., Logan, K.A., Flannigan, M.D., Stocks, B.J., Mason, J.A.,
Martell, D.L. and Hirsch, K.G. (2001). Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires,
1949–1999. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31, 512–525
Anderson, R.G., Canadell, J.G., Randerson, J.T., Jackson, R.B., Hungate, B.A., Baldocchi, D.D.,
Ban-Weiss, G.A., Bonan, G.B., Caldeira, K., Cao, L., Diffenbaugh, N.S., Gurney, K.R., Kueppers,
L.M., Law, B.E., Luyssaert, S. and O’Halloran, T.L. (2011). Biophysical considerations in
forestry for climate protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(3), 174–182.
doi:10.1890/090179
Andersson, K. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized
forest governance. World Development 32(2), 233–249
Angelsen, A. (ed.) (2009). Realising REDD+. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor
Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L. and Schaepman, M.E. (2008). Global Assessment of Land
Degradation and Improvement: 1. Identification by Remote Sensing. GLADA Report 5. ISRIC –
World Soil Information, Wageningen
Bakker, M.M., Govers, G., Kosmas, C., Vanacker, V., van Oost, K. and Rounsevell, M. (2005).
Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
105(3), 467–481
Barles, S. (2010). Society, energy and materials: the contribution of urban metabolism studies
to sustainable urban development issues. Journal of Environmental and Planning Management
53(4), 439–455
Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. and Coomes, O.T. (2010). The role of pasture and
soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5,
124002–124009.
Batker, D., de la Torre, I., Costanza, R., Swedeen, P., Day, J., Boumans, R. and Bagstad, K. (2010).
Gaining Ground: Wetlands, Hurricanes, and the Economy: the Value of Restoring the Mississippi
River Delta. Earth Economics, Tacoma
Bernstein, H. and Woodhouse, P. (eds.) (2010). Productive forces in capitalist agriculture:
political economy and political ecology. Special issue of Journal of Agrarian Change 10(3)
Bettencourt, L.M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C. and West, G.B. (2007). Growth, innovation,
scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 104(17), 7301–7306
Bille, R. (2010). Action without change? On the use and usefulness of pilot experiments in
environmental management. Veolia Environment 3, 1–6
Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance
in six countries. World Development 28(1), 21–39
Blanco-Canqui, H. and Lal, R. (2010). Principles of Soil Conservation and Management.
pp.493–512. Springer
Bloom, A., Palmer, P.I., Fraser, A.D., Reay, S. and Frankenberg, C. (2010). Large-scale controls
of methanogenesis inferred from methane and gravity spaceborne data. Science 327(5963),
322–325
Boardman, J. (2006). Soil erosion science: reflections on the limitations of current approaches.
Catena 68, 73–86
Bonan, G. (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of
forests. Science 320, 1444–1449
Borner, J., Wunder, S.,Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Tito, M.R., Pereira, L. (2010). Direct conservation
payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69,
1272–1282
BRASIL (2010). Plano de ação para prevenção e controle do desmatamento e das queimadas no
Cerrado –PPCerrado. Presidência da República. Casa Civil. Brasília. http://www.casacivil.gov.
br/.arquivos/101116%20-%20PPCerrado_Vfinal.pdf
BRASIL (2009). Plano de ação para a prevenção e o controle do desmatamento na Amazônia
Legal – PPCDAm, 2ª fase (2000–2011) Rumo ao desmatamento ilegal zero. Presidência da
República. Casa Civil. Brasília. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/168/_publicacao/168_
publicacao02052011030251.pdf
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2010). Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects,
1996–2008. AgBioForum 13(1), 76–94
Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and crop
yields need to increase by 2050? In How to Feed the World in 2050: Proceedings of the Expert
Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050 24–26 June 2009, FAO Headquarters, Rome. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
ak542e/ak542e00.htm
Buol, S.W. (1995). Sustainability of soil use. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26, 25–44
Buyinza, M., Senjonga, M. and Lusiba, B. (2010). Economic valuation of a tamarind (Tamarindus
indica L.) production system: green money from drylands of eastern Uganda. Small-Scale
Forestry 9(3), 317–329
CA (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, Battaramulla
CAFF (2010). Trends in Arctic vegetation productivity 1982–2005 (Greening of the Arctic). Figure
produced by Ahlenius, H., using data from Goetz et al. 2007. In Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010:
Selected Indicators of Change. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri. http://maps.grida.no/
go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-vegetation-productivity-1982-2005-greening-of-the-arctic
Callaghan, T.V., Tweedie, C.E., Åkerman, J., Andrews, C., Bergstedt, J., Butler, M.G., Christensen,
T.R., Cooley, D., Dahlberg, U., Danby, R.K., Daniëls, F.J.A., de Molenaar, J.G., Dick, J., Mortensen,
C.E., Ebert-May, D., Emanuelsson, U., Eriksson, H., Hedenås, H., Henry, G.H.R., Hik, D.S.,
Hobbie, J.E., Jantze, E.J., Jaspers, C., Johansson, C., Johansson, M., Johnson, D.R., Johnstone,
J.F., Jonasson, C., Kennedy, C., Kenney, A.J., Keuper, F., Koh, S., Krebs, C.J., Lantuit, H., Lara,
M.J., Vanessa D.L., Lougheed, L., Madsen, J., Matveyeva, N., McEwen, D.C., Myers-Smith, I.H.,
Narozhniy, Y.K., Olsson, H., Pohjola, V.A., Price, L.W., Rigét, F., Rundqvist, S., Sandström, A.,
Tamstorf, M., Bogaert, R.V., Villarreal, S., Webber, P.J., Zemtsov. V.A. (2011). Multi-decadal
changes in tundra environments and ecosystems: synthesis of the International Polar Year –
Back to the Future project (IPYBTF). Ambio 40, 705–716
Carr, D.L., Suter, L. and Barbieri, A. (2005). Population dynamics and tropical deforestation:
state of the debate and conceptual challenges. Population and Environment 27(1), 89–113
Cerri, C.C., Galdos, M.V., Maia, S.M.F., Bernoux, M., Feigl, B.J., Powlson, D. and Cerri, C.E.P.
(2011). Effect of sugarcane harvesting systems on soil carbon stocks in Brazil: a review.
European Journal of Soil Science 62, 23–28
Coleman, J.M., Huh, O.K. and Braud, D.J. (2008). Wetland loss in world deltas. Journal of Coastal
Research 24(1A), 1–14
Corbera, E., Estrada, M. and Brown, K. (2010). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions.
Climatic Change 100, 355–388
Corbera, E., Brown, K. and Adger, W.N. (2007). The equity and legitimacy of markets for
ecosystem services. Development and Change 38(4), 587–613
Cotula, L. and Mayers, J. (2009). Tenure in REDD: Start-point or Afterthought? International
Institute for Environment and Development, London
Crooks, S., Herr, D., Tamelander, J., Laffoley, D. and Vandever, J. (2011). Mitigating Climate
Change through Restoration and Management of Coastal Wetlands and Near-shore Marine
Ecosystems: Challenges and Opportunities. Environment Department Paper 121. World Bank,
Washington, DC
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H.,
Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1), 21–28
Daly, H. and Farley, J. (2010). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. Island
Press, Washington, DC
Daniel, S. and Mittal, A. (2009). The Great Land Grab: Rush for World’s Farmland Threatens Food
Security for the Poor. The Oakland Institute, Oakland, CA
Dasgupta, P. (2009). The place of nature in economic development. In Development Economics
(eds. Rodrik, D. and Rosenzweig, M.) 5, 4977–5046. Handbooks in Economics series (eds.
Arrow, K.J. and Intriligator, M.D.). North-Holland, Amsterdam
Day, J.W. Jr., Boesch, D.F., Ellis, J., Clairain, E.J., Kemp, G.P., Shirley, B., Laska, S.B., Mitsch, W.J.,
Orth, K., Hassan Mashriqui, H., Reed, D.J., Shabman, L., Simenstad, C.A., Streever, B.J., Twilley,
R.R., Watson, C.C., Wells, J.T. and Whigham, D.F. (2007). Restoration of the Mississippi delta:
lessons from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 315(5819), 1679–1684
DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C. (2010). Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable
land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 107(46), 19627–19632
DeFries, R.S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M. and Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban
population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience 3,
178–181
DeFries, R.S., Morton, D.C., van der Werf, G.R., Giglio, L., Collatz, G.J., Randerson, J.T., Houghton,
R.A., Kasibhatla, P.K. and Shimabukuro, Y. (2008). Fire-related carbon emissions from land use
transitions in southern Amazonia. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L22705.
Deininger, K. (2011). Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment. The Journal of
Peasant Studies 38(2), 217–247
Deininger, K., Byerlee, D., Lindsay, J., Norton, A., Selod, H. and Stickler, M. (2011). Rising Global
Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? World Bank, Washington, DC
REFERENCES
Land 93
Delgado, C.L. (2010). Future of animal agriculture: demand. In Encyclopedia of Animal Science,
2nd ed. (eds. Pond, W.G. and Bell, A.W.). Marcel Dekker, New York
De Schutter, O. (2011). How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale
investments in farmland. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(2), 249–279
Dickson, B. and Osti, M. (2010). What are the Ecosystem-Derived Benefits of REDD+ and Why do
they Matter? Multiple Benefits Series 1. UN-REDD Programme, Nairobi
Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas
emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization 21(1), 185–201
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in
theory and practice: an overview of the issue. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674
Epstein, H.E., Raynolds, M.K., Walker, D.A., Bhatt, U.S., Tucker, C.J., and Pinzon, J.E. (2012).
Dynamics of aboveground phytomass of the circumpolar Arctic tundra during the past three
decades. Environmental Research Letters 7(1)
Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W. and Haberl, H. (2009). Embodied HANPP: mapping the
spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption. Ecological Economics
69(2), 328–334
FAO (2012). FAO Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO (2011). 2011: State of the World’s Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome
FAO (2010a). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper No. 163. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/
i1757e.pdf
FAO (2010b). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted
Crises. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Livestock in the Balance. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rom e. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf
FAO (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Practical Guides series. Food
Security Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://
www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf
FAO (2005). State of the world’s forests 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome
FAO (1996). World Food Summit Plan of Action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238
Fedoroff, N.V., Battisti, D.S., Beachy, R.N., Cooper, P.J.M., Fischhoff, D.A. and Hodges, C.N.
(2010). Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Science 327(5967), 833–834
Fernandes, B.M., Welch, C.A. and Gonçalves, E.C. (2010). Agrofuel policies in Brazil:
paradigmatic and territorial disputes. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 793–819
Fiala, N. (2008). Meeting the demand: an estimation of potential future greenhouse gas
emissions from meat production. Ecological Economics 67(3), 412–419
Finlayson, C.M., Davidson, N.C., Spiers, A.G. and Stephenson, N.J. (1999). Global wetland
inventory – current status and future priorities. Marine and Freshwater Research 50, 717–727
Flannigan, M.D., Krawchuk, M.A., de Groot, W.J., Wotton, B.M. and Gowman, L.M. (2009). Implications
of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 483–507
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller,
N.S., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, F.,
Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. and Zaks, D.P.M.
(2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342
Foley, J., DeFries, R., Asner, G., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T.,
Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C.,
Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. and Snyder, P.K. (2005). Global consequences of land
use. Science 309(5734), 570–574
Franco, J., Levidow, L., Fig, D., Goldfarb, L., Honicke, M. and Mendonça, M.L. (2010).
Assumptions in the European Union biofuels policy: frictions with experiences in Germany,
Brazil and Mozambique. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 661–698
Fraser, L.H. and Keddy, P.A. (eds.) (2005). The World’s Largest Wetlands: Ecology and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York
GFI (2009). The governance of forests tool kit (version 1). http://www.wri.org/gfi (accessed 6
September 2011)
Gibbon, P., Bair, J. and Ponte, S. (2008). Governing global value chains: an introduction.
Economics and Society 37(3), 315–338
Gibbs, H.K., Johnston, M., Foley, J., Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. and Zaks, D.
(2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of
changing yield and technology. Environmental Research Letters 3, 034001
Gillett, N.P., Weaver, A.J., Zwiers, F.W. and Flannigan, M.D. (2004). Detecting the effect of
climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophysical Research Letters 31(18), L18211.
doi:10.1029/2004GL020876
Gillon, S. (2010). Fields of dreams: negotiating an ethanol agenda in the Midwest United States.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 723–748
Goetz, S.J., Mack, M.C., Gurney, K.R., Randerson, J.T. and Houghton, R.A. (2007). Ecosystem
responses to recent climate change and fire disturbance at northern high latitudes:
observations and model results contrasting northern Eurasia and North America. Environmental
Research Letters 2(4), 045031
Grimm, N., Faeth, S., Golubiewski, N., Redman, C., Wu, J., Bai, X. and Briggs, J. (2008). Global
change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760
Hey, D.L. and Philippi, N.S. (1995). Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the Upper
Mississippi River basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3(1), 4–17
IMF (2006). World economic outlook database. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/download.aspx
INPE (2012). Prodes Project: Monitoring the Brazilian Amazon Forest by Satellite (in Portuguese).
National Institute for Space Research, São José dos Campos. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribution
to the Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
IUCN (2010/11). IUCN’s Thematic Work on REDD: Community Forest Resource Planning – The
Building of a Community of REDD Practitioners. International Union for the Conservation of
Nature, Gland. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/forest/fp_our_work/fp_our_
work_thematic/redd/iucn_s_thematic_work_on_redd?/
Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L., Bauwens, B., Baritz, R., Hagedorn, F., Johnson, D.W.,
Minkkinen, K. and Bryne, K.A. (2007). How strongly can forest management influence soil
carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137, 253–268
Johnston, M., Foley, J.A., Holloway, T., Kucharik, C. and Monfreda, C. (2009). Resetting global
expectations from agricultural biofuels. Environmental Research Letters 4(1), 014004.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014004
Jones, K., Lanthier, Y., van der Voet, P., van Valkengoed, E., Taylor, D. and Fernández-Prieto, D.
(2009). Monitoring and assessment of wetlands using earth observation: the GlobWetland
project. Journal of Environmental Management 90(7), 2154–2169
Kant, S. (2000). A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing countries. Ecological
Economics 32(2), 287–300
Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., Sathaye, J., Andrasko, K., Ewald, R.,
Schlamadinger, B., Wunder, S. and Beach, R. (2008). Global cost estimates of reducing carbon
emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 105(30), 10302–10307
Kissinger, M. and Rees, W. (2010). An interregional ecological approach for modelling
sustainability in a globalizing world: reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions.
Ecological Modelling 221, 2615–2623
Koning, N. and Smaling, E.M.A. (2005). Environmental crisis or “lie of the land”? The debate on
soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22(1), 3–11
Kumar, P. (ed.) 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Earthscan, Washington
Kumar, S. and Kant, S. (2005). Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling
foresters’ perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India. Forest Policy
and Economics 7(4), 651–669
Lal, R. (1996). Deforestation and land-use effects on soil degradation and rehabilitation in western
Nigeria. III. Runoff, soil erosion and nutrient loss. Land Degradatio n and Deve lopment 7, 99–119
Lambin, E. and Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the
looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 108(9), 3465–3472
Lambin, E. and Meyfroidt, P. (2010). Land use transitions: socio-ecological feedback versus
socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27, 108–118
Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J.W., Coomes, O.T., Dirzo,
R., Fischer, G., Folke, C., George, P.S., Homewood, K., Imbernon, J., Leemans, R., Li, X., Moran,
E.F., Mortimore, M., Ramakrishnan, P.S., Richards, J.F., Skånes, H., Steffen, W., Stone, G.D.,
Svedin, U., Veldkamp, T.A., Vogel, C. and Xu, J. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover
change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11(4), 261–269
Larson, A.M. (2002). Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: are local governments
up to the job? World Development 30(1), 17–31
Lawrence, D.M., Slater, A.G., Tomas, R.A., Holland, M.M. and Deser, C. (2008). Accelerated Arctic
land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss. Geophysical Research
Letters 35, L11506. doi:10.1029/2008GL033985
Lehner, B. and Döll, P. (2004). Development and validation of a global database of lakes,
reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296, 1–22
Part 1: State and Trends94
Li, M.T. (2011). Forum on global land grabbing: centering labour in the land grab debate. The
Journal of Peasant Studies 38(2), 281–298
Licker, R., Johnston, M., Barford, C., Foley, J.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C. and Ramankutty, N.
(2010). Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of
croplands around the world? Global Ecology and Biogeography 19(6), 769–782
Lobell, D.B., Burke, M.B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M.D., Falcon, W.P. and Naylor, R.L. (2008).
Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610
Lobo, J., Strumsky, D. and Bettencourt, L.M.A. (2009). Metropolitan Areas and CO2 Emissions:
Large is Beautiful. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto
MA (2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.356.aspx.pdf
MA (2005b). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water: Synthesis. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.maweb.org/
documents/document.358.aspx.pdf
Marlow, H.J., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, E.R. and Sabaté, J. (2009). Diet and
the environment: does what you eat matter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (89)5,
1699S–1703S
Marshall, G.R. and Smith, D.M.S. (2010). Natural resources governance for the drylands of the
Murray-Darling basin. Rangeland Journal 32(3), 267–282
Martine, G., McGranahan, G., Montgomery, M. and Fernandez-Castilla, R. (2008). Introduction.
In The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and Environment in the 21st Century (ed.
Martine, G., McGranahan, G., Montgomery, M. and Fernandez-Castilla, R.) pp.1-16. Earthscan
Mather, A.S. (1992). The forest transition. Area 24, 367–379
Mayers, J., Maginnis, S. and Arthur, E. (2010). REDD Readiness Requires Radical Reform:
Prospects for Making the Big Changes Needed to Prepare for REDD-Plus in Ghana. TFD
Publication No. 1. The Forests Dialogue, Yale University, New Haven, CT. http://cmsdata.iucn.
org/downloads/tfd_reddreadiness_ghana_report_lo_res__1_.pdf
McCarthy, J. (2010). Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: oil palm and agrarian
change in Sumatra, Indonesia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 821–850
McGuire, A.D., Anderson L.G., Christensen, T.R., Dallimore, S., Guo, L., Hayes, D.J., Heimann,
M., Lorenson, T.D., Macdonald, R.W. and Roulet, N. (2009). Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the
Arctic to climate change. Ecological Monographs 79(4), 523–555
McMichael, P. and Scoones, I. (eds.) (2010). Special issue on biofuels, land and agrarian
change. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 575–962
Melillo, J.M., Reilly, J.M., Kicklighter, D.W., Gurgel, A.C., Cronin, T.W., Paltsev, S., Felzer, B.S.,
Wang, X., Sokolov, A.P. and Schlosser, C.A. (2009). Indirect emissions from biofuels: how
important? Science 326, 1397–1399
Melillo, J.M., McGuire, A.D., Kicklighter, D.W., Moore, B., Vorosmarty, C.J., Schloss, A.L. (1993).
Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Global Change Biology 363,
234–240
Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T.K. and Lambin, E.F. (2010). Forest transitions, trade, and the global
displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 107(49), 20917–20922
Miehe, S., Kluge, J., von Wehrden, H. and Retzer, V. (2010). Long-term degradation of Sahelian
rangeland detected by 27 years of field study in Senegal. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(3),
692–700
Milder, J.C., McNeely, J.A., Shames, S.A. and Scherr, S.J. (2008). Biofuels and ecoagriculture: can
bioenergy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods?
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6(2), 105–121
Mistry, J. (2000). World Savannas: Ecology and Human Use. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow
Mitra, S., Wassmann, R. and Vlek, P.L.G. (2005). An appraisal of global wetland area and its
organic carbon stock. Current Science 88(1), 25–35
Montgomery, M. (2008). The urban transformation of the developing world. Science 319, 761–764
Montgomery, D.R. (2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(33), 13268–13272
Mortimore, M., Anderson, S., Cotula, L., Davies, J., Faccer, K., Hesse, C., Morton, J., Nyangena,
W., Skinner, J. and Wolfangel, C. (2009). Dryland Opportunities: A New Paradigm for People,
Ecosystems and Development. International Union for the Conser vation of Nature, Gland. http://
pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02572.pdf
Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Shimabukuro, Y.E., Anderson, L.O., Arai, E., del Bon Espirito-Santo,
F., Freitas, R. and Morisette, J. (2006). Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics
in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(39),
14637–14641.
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. and May, P.H. (2010). Reconciling theory and
practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental
services. Ecological Economics 69, 1202–1208
Myneni, R.B., Tucker, C.J., Asrar, G. and Keeling, C.D. (1998). Interannual variations in satellite
sensed vegetation index data from 1981 to 1991. Journal of Geophysical Research 103, 6145–6160
Nagendra, H. (2008). Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio
37, 330–337
Naylor, R., Steinfeld, H., Falcon, W., Galloway, J., Smil, V., Bradford, E., Alder, J. and Mooney, H.
(2005). Losing the links between livestock and land. Science 310, 1621–1622
Neely, C., Running, S. and Wilkes, A. (eds.) (2009). Review of Evidence on Drylands Pastoral
Systems and Climate Change: Implications and Opportunities for Mitigation and Adaptation.
Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1135e/i1135e00.pdf
Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B.S., Merry, F., Lima, A., Moutinho, P., Carter, J., Bowman, M.,
Cattaneo, A., Rodrigues, H., Schwartzman, S., McGrath, D.G., Stickler, C.M., Lubowski, R., Piris-
Cabezas, P., Rivero, S., Alencar, A., Almeida, O. and Stella, O. (2009). The end of deforestation in
the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326, 1350–1351
Neumann, K., Verburg, P.H., Stehfest, E. and Müller, C. (2010). The yield gap of global grain
production: a spatial analysis. Agricultural Systems 103(5), 316–326
Newman, P. (2006). The environmental impact of cities. Environment and Urbanization 18(2),
275–295
Novo, A., Jansen, K., Slingerland, M. and Giller, K. (2010). Biofuel, dairy production and beef in
Brazil: competing claims on land use in Sao Paulo state. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4),
769–792
O’Connor, F.M., Boucher, O., Gedney, N., Jones, C.D., Folberth, G.A., Coppell, R., Friedlingstein,
P., Collins, W.J., Chappellaz, J., Ridley, J. and Johnson C.E. (2010). Possible role of wetlands,
permafrost, and methane hydrates in the methane cycle under future climate change: a review.
Reviews of Geophysics 48, RG4005. doi:10.1029/2010RG000326
Ometto, J.P., Aguiar, A.P.D. and Martinelli, L.A. (2011). Amazon deforestation in Brazil: effects,
drivers and challenges. Carbon Management 2(5), 575–585
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39), 15181–15187
Ostrom, E. and Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for
social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37, 451–463
Özler, .. and Obach, B.K. (2009). Capitalism, state economic policy and ecological footprint:
an international comparative analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9(1), 79–108
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L., Shvidenko,
A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W., McGuire, A.D., Piao, S.,
Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S. and Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s
forests. Science 333, 988–993
Pascual, U. and Corbera, E. (2011). Pagos por servicios ambientales: perspectivas y
experiencias innovadoras para la conservación de la naturaleza y el desarrollo rural (Payment
for ecosystem services: perspectives and experiences for conservation and rural development).
Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 228, 11–29
Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S. and Ferraro, P.J. (2010). Show me the money: do payments supply
environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy
4(2), 254–274
Perfecto, I. and Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-
sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 107(13), 5786–5791
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. and Agrawal, A. (2010). Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest
governance? Science 328(5976), 312–313
Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and
the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(3), 6605–6635
Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M.A., Karpoff, M.N., Paul, G.S., McCormack, R., Kyriazis, J. and
Krueger, T. (2009). Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology
37(1), 1–12
Pingali, P. (2006). Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems:
implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32, 281–298
Prentice, I.C., Farquhar, G.D., Fasham, M.J.R., Goulden, M.L., Heimann, M., Jaramillo, V.J., Kheshgi,
H.S., Le Quéré, C., Scholes, R.J. and Wallace, D.W.R. (2001). The carbon cycle and atmospheric
carbon dioxi de. In Climate Chang e 2001: The Scientific Basis (ed. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs,
D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C.A.). pp.183–237.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambr idge Unive rsity Press, Cambridge h ttp://unfccc .int/resour ce/cd_roms/na 1/
mitigation/Resource_materials/IPCC_TAR_Climate_Change_2001_Scientific_Basis/TAR-03.pdf
Preskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E., Edwards, G. and Brown, J. (2008). Making REDD
Work for the Poor. A Poverty Environment Partnership (PEP) report. http://www.cbd.int/doc/
meetings/for/wscb-fbdcc-01/other/wscb-fbdcc-01-oth-10-en.pdf
Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2007). Wetland Inventory: A Ramsar Framework for Wetland
Inventory. Ramsar Handbooks for the Wise Use of Wetlands, 3rd ed. vol. 12. Ramsar Convention
Secretariat, Gland. http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/lib_handbooks2006_e12.pdf
Land 95
Ramsar Convention Secretariat (1971). Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
especially as Waterfowl Habitat (as amended in 1982 and 1987). Ramsar Convention
Secretariat, Gland. http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on/
main/ramsar/1-31-38%5E20671_4000_0
Ravi, S., Breshears, D.D., Huxman, T.E. and D’Odorico, P. (2010). Land degradation in drylands:
interactions among hydrologic-aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology 116,
236–245
Reynolds, J.F., Stafford Smith, M., Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L. II, Mortimore, M., Batterbury, S.P.J.,
Downing, T.E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernández, R.J., Herrick, J.E., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jiang, H.,
Leemans, R., Lynam, T., Maestre, F.T., Ayarza, M. and Walker, B. (2007). Global desertification:
building a science for dryland development. Science 316, 847–851
Richardson, B. (2010). Big sugar in southern Africa: rural development and the perverted
potential of sugar/ethanol exports. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 917–938
Ringler, C., Zhu, T., Cai, X., Koo, J. and Wang, D. (2010). Climate Change Impacts on Food
Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from Comprehensive Climate Change Scenarios. IFPRI
Discussion Paper No. 1042. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S. III, Lambin, E., Lenton, T.M.,
Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw,
S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L.,
Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and
Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology
and Society 14(2), 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Rudel, T.K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner, B.L. II, DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., Geoghegan, J.,
Hecht, S., Ickowitz, A., Lambin, E.F., Birkenholtz, T., Baptista, S. and Grau, R. (2009). Agricultural
intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 20675–20680
Sakadevan, K. and Nguyen, M.-L. (2010). Extent, impact, and response to soil and water salinity
in arid and semiarid regions. In Advances in Agronomy (ed. Sparks, D.L.) 109, 55–74. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA
Sasaki, N., Asner, G.P., Knorr, W., Durst, P.B. and Piriyadi, H.R. (2011). Approaches to classifying
and restoring degraded tropical forests for the anticipated REDD+ climate change mitigation
mechanism. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 4, 1–6. http://www.sisef.it/iforest/pdf/
Sasaki_556.pdf
Saxena, K.B., Mula, M.G., Sugui, F.P., Layaoen, H.L., Domoguen, R.L., Pascua, M.E., Mula,
R.P., Dar, W.D., Gowda, C.L.L., Kumar, R.V. and Eusebio, J.E. (2010). Pigeonpea: A Resilient
Crop for the Philippine Drylands. Information Bulletin No. 85. International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Andhra Pradesh. http://openaccess.icrisat.org/
bitstream/10731/3590/1/Pigeonpea-resilient-crop.pdf
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Kapos, V., Campbell, A., Lysenko, I., Burgess, N.D., Hansen, M.C., Gibbs,
H.K., Dickson, B. and Miles, L. (2010). Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of
protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44(3), 352–357
Schneider, A., Friedl, M.A. and Potere, D. (2009). A new map of global urban extent from
MODIS satellite data. Environmental Research Letters 4(4), 044003. doi:10.1088/1748-
9326/4/4/044003
Schuur, E.A.G., Bockheim, J., Canadell, J.G., Euskirchen, E., Field, C.B., Goryachkin, S.V.,
Hagemann, S., Kuhry, P., Lafleur, P., Lee, H., Mazhitova, G., Nelson, F.E., Rinke, A., Romanovsky,
V., Shiklomanov, N., Tarnocai, C., Venevsky, S., Vogel, J.G. and Zimov, J.G. (2008). Vulnerability
of permafrost carbon to climate change: implications for the global carbon cycle. BioScience
58, 701–714
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A. and Fabiosa, J. (2008). Use of
US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change.
Science 319, 1238–1240
Seto, K., Sanchez-Rodriguez, R. and Fragkias, M. (2010). The new geography of contemporary
urbanization and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35, 167–194
Sietz, D., Lüdeke, M.K.B. and Walther, C. (2011). Categorisation of typical vulnerability patterns
in global drylands. Global Environmental Change 21, 431–440
Sikor, T., Stahl, J., Enters, T., Ribot, J.C., Singh, N., Sunderlin, W.D. and Wollenberg, L. (2010).
REDD-Plus, forest people’s rights and nested climate governance. Global Environmental Change
20, 423–425
Smith, P., Gregory, P.J., van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlík, P., Rounsevell, M., Woods, J.,
Stehfest, E. and Bellarby, J. (2010). Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 365, 2941–2957
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara,
F., Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov,
V., Schneider, U. and Towprayoon, S. (2007). Policy and technological constraints to
implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystem
Environment 118, 6–28
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T.D., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan. C. (2006).
Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome
Stephenson, S.R., Smith, L.C. and Agnew, J.A. (2011). Divergent long-term trajectories of human
access to the Arctic. Nature Climate Change 1, 156–160
Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (eds.) (2010). Arguments for Protected Areas: Multiple Benefits for
Conservation and Use. Earthscan, London
Sukhinin, A.I., French, N.H.F., Kasischke, E.S., Hewson, J.H., Soja, A.J., Csiszar, I.A., Hyer, E.J.,
Laboda, T., Conard, S.G., Romasko, V.I., Pavlichenko, E.A., Miskiv, S.I. and Slinkina, O.A. (2004).
AVHRR-based mapping of fires in Russia: new products for fire management and carbon cycle
studies. Remote Sensing of Environment 93, 546–564
Syvitski, J.P.M., Kettner, A.J., Overeem, I., Hutton, E.W.H., Hannon, M.T., Brakenridge, G.R., Day,
J., Vörösmarty, C., Saito, Y., Giosan, L. and Nicholls, R.J. (2009). Sinking deltas due to human
activities. Nature Geoscience 2, 681–686
Tal, A. and Gordon, J. (2010). Carbon cautious: Israel’s afforestation experience and approach to
sequestration. Small-Scale Forestry 9(4), 409–428
Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J.G., Schuur, E.A.G., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G. and Zimov, S. (2009). Soil
organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 23, GB2023. doi:10.1029/2008GB003327
TEEB (2010). TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity, Bonn. http://www.teebweb.org/ForLocalandRegionalPolicy/tabid/1020/
Default.aspx
Thoms, C.A. (2008). Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local
livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39(3), 1452–1465
Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J.A ., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J., Searchinger,
T., Somerville, C. and Williams, R. (2009). Beneficial biofuels: the food, energy, and environment
trilemma. Science 325(5938), 270–271
Tiwari, P.C. (2009). Sustainable land use for adaptation to long term impacts of climate
change in Himalaya. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6, 342007.
doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/4/342007
Tollefson, J. (2011). Brazil revisits forest code. Nature 476, 259–260
Toulmin, C., Borras, S., Bindraban, P., Mwangi, E. and Sauer, S. (2011). Land Tenure and
International Investments in Agriculture: A Report by the UN Committee on Food Security High
Level Panel of Experts. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Twilley, R.R. and Rivera-Monroy, V. (2009). Sediment and nutrient tradeoffs in restoring
Mississippi River delta: restoration versus eutrophication. Journal of Contemporary Water
Research and Education 141(1), 39–44
UN (2000). Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
UNCCD (2010). Fostering Evidence-based Decision-Making in UNCCD Implementation: Initial
Results from PRAIS Reports in 2010. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,
Bonn. http://www.mediaterre.org/docactu,dW5pc2ZlcmEvZG9jcy9wcmFpcy1icmllZmluZ3BhcG
VyMnJlc3VsdHM=,1.pdf
UNCCD (2007). Follow-up to the Joint Inspection Unit Report and Strategy Development to Foster
Implementation of the Convention. Situational Analysis. ICCD/COP(8)/INF.5 Prepared by Unisféra
International Centre (Unisféra, Canada) and Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia
(IECN), Namibia. http://www.unccd.int/cop/officialdocs/cop8/pdf/inf5eng.pdf
UNCCD (1994). United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Especially in Africa. http://www.unccd.int/
convention/text/pdf/conv-eng.pdf and http://www.unccd.int/convention/text/convention.php
UNEP (2011a). European Commission and UNEP Announce New Partnership to Catalyze Green
Economy: Support for Kenya’s Mau Forest Restoration Project Spotlighted. Press Release. United
Nations Environment Programme, New York. http://hqweb.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/
Default.asp?DocumentID=659&ArticleID=6911&l=en&t=long
UNEP (2011b). Green Economy Report: Towards a Green Economy – Pathways to Sustainable
Development and Poverty Eradication. United Nations Environment Programme, New York.
http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx
UNEP (2011c). Keeping Track of our Changing Environment: from Rio to Rio+20 (1992–2012).
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi
UNEP (2009a). Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels.
International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi
UNEP (2009b). (eds. Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins,
A.G. and Kaltenborn, B.P.). The Environmental Food Crisis – The Environment’s Role in Averting
Future Food Crises. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, Arendal
UNEP (2007). Global Environment Outlook GEO-4: Environment for Development. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi
UNEP-WCMC (2011). PRAIS Briefing Paper: 3. Lessons. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/12/08/a2df8f9a/3.%20
LESSONS.pdf
UNEP-WCMC (2010). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and its Indicators of Effectiveness.
International Expert Workshop on the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators and Post-2010 Indicator
Development. A workshop convened by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-
WCMC), in cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 6–8 July 2009. UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge
Part 1: State and Trends96
UN-REDD (2010). Perspectives on REDD+. United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, Geneva
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2011). Indonesia Forest Moratorium 2011. Global Agricultural
Information Network Report Number ID1127. http://www.usdaindonesia.org/public/uploaded/
Indonesia%20Forest%20Moratorium_Jakarta_Indonesia_6-8-2011.pdf
US Government (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 110th Congress, United
States of America
van der Werf, G.R., Randerson, J.T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G.J., Mu, M., Kasibhatla, P.S., Morton, D.C.,
DeFries, R.S., Jin, Y. and van Leeuwen, T.T. (2010). Global fire emissions and the contribution of
deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics 16153–16230
van Hecken, G. and Bastiansen, J. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: do
market-based approaches work? Development and Change 41(3), 421–444
van Hecken, G., Bastiansen, J. and Vasquez, W.F. (2010). Institutional Embeddedness of
Local Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services: Evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua.
IDPM-UA Discussion Paper 2010-04. Institute of Development Policy and Management,
University of Antwerp
Veron, S.R. and Paruelo, J.M. (2010). Desertification alters the response of vegetation to
changes in precipitation. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(6), 1233–1241
Verstraete, M., Scholes, R. and Stafford Smith, M. (2009). Climate and desertification:
looking at an old problem through new lenses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
7(8), 421–428
Walker, R. (1993). Deforestation and economic development. Canadian Journal of Regional
Science XVI (3), 481–497
Walker, D.A., Epstein, H.E., Raynolds, M.K., Kuss, P., Kopecky, M.A., Frost, G.V., Daniëls, F.J.A ,
Leibman, M.O., Moskalenko, N.G., Matyshak, G.V., Khitun, O.V., Khomutov, A.V., Forbes, B.C.,
Bhatt, U.S., Kade, A.N., Vonlanthen C.M. and Tichý, L. (2012). Environment, vegetation and
greenness (NDVI) along the North America and Eurasia Arctic transects. Environmental Research
Letters 7(1)
Wang, M. and Overland, J.E. (2004). Detecting Arctic climate change using KoÅNppen climate
classification. Climatic Change 67, 43–62
Wetlands International (2011). Association and Foundation Wetlands International: annual plan
and budget 2011. Wetlands International, Wageningen
White, B. and Dasgupta, A. (2010). Agrofuels capitalism: a view from political economy. The
Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 593–607
Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Burton, A.C. and Brashares, J.S. (2008). Accelerated human
population growth at protected area edges. Science 321, 123–126
Wood, A. and van Halsema, G.E. (eds.) (2008). Scoping Agriculture-Wetland Interactions:
Towards a Sustainable Multiple-Response Strategy. FAO Water Report 33. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome
World Bank (2010). World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. The
World Bank, Washington, DC
WSSD (2002). Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. World Summit on Sustainable
Development. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm
Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments
for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological
Economics 65, 834–852
Zezza, A. and Tasciottia, L. (2010). Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: empirical
evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35(4), 265–273
Zhou, L.M., Tucker, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Slayback, D., Shabanov, N.V. and Myneni, R.B. (2001).
Variations in northern vegetation activity inferred from satellite data of vegetation index during
1981 to 1999. Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 106, 20069–20083
Zika, M. and Erb, K.H. (2009). The global loss of net primary production resulting from human-
induced soil degradation in drylands. Ecological Economics 69, 310–318
Zimov, S.A., Schuur, E.A.G. and Chapin, F.S. III (2006). Permafrost and the global carbon budget.
Science 312, 1612–1613
