EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When dominant or mainstream perceptions and
concepts have an undesired impact on nature and
its contributions to people, promoting alternative
perceptions and concepts may transform practices
towards more desired impacts (established but
incomplete). Individual perceptions of the surrounding world
are organized into concepts that vary depending on the
knowledge, norms, values and beliefs of the community to
which an individual belongs (Figure 2.1). These perceptions
and concepts influence the way a society builds its own reality
and acts on it (well established) {2.1, 2.2.1.2}. The dominant
worldviews of a given society or community can affect,
positively or negatively, nature and nature’s contributions
to people {2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4}. To achieve Sustainable
Development Goal 15.3 of a land degradation neutral world,
a shift in worldviews in necessary: from one where land
degradation is seen as collateral damage or an externality
of desired development, to one where land degradation to
achieve development is unacceptable {2.2.1.5, 2.3.3).
Sustainable development is based on three
pillars: social, environmental and economic. In
its implementation, however, economic growth is
often considered as the overarching driver of social
and environmental progress (well established).
Land degradation is sometimes perceived as a result of
underdevelopment, while the impacts of development on
land degradation tend to be disregarded (e.g., public policies
supporting export crops or huge infrastructures) {Box 2.4}. For
example, in 2012, 26 out of 40 Agenda 21 targets were “far
from being reached” and six were in recession {2.2.4}. Among
the six were “fighting global climate change” and “changing
consumption patterns” {2.2.4}. Development and economic
activity can also cause negative externalities and degradation
{2.2.1.5}. A successful example of creating disincentives for
negative externalities is the “polluter pays principle” {2.2.1.5}.
Widening the scope of this principle to make it more broadly
applicable to land degradation might be considered.
People are often uninformed about the undesirable
environmental impacts of goods and commodities
(well established). Raising awareness on how individual
consumption choices can have unintended consequences
in distant locations is a necessity (well established) {2.2.1.3}.
Marketing disinformation about environmental impacts is
a rule, not an exception {2.2.3.3, 2.3.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4}.
Trade competition externalizes social-environmental
impacts to lower the prices {2.2.1.5, 2.2.3}. Internalizing
the environmental costs of staple, clothes and other
goods would raise public awareness, create a strong
demand for low-impact products and promote more equity
between people in developed and developing countries
{2.2.1.5, 2.2.2.3}. Farmers and agribusiness corporations
have a major role to play in inventing products and
practices reflecting people’s expectation for low footprint
agriculture (2.2.3).
When land degradation affects cultural diversity and
its associated biodiversity, not only are unique socialecological
systems threatened, but society also risks
losing the local cultural knowledge that can inspire
more sustainable practices (well established). The
pervasive absorption or loss of traditional knowledge and
management systems, which have proven sustainable over
decades or centuries, affects cultural, biological, agricultural
diversity and ecosystem services {2.2.2.1}. Land and water
degradation in or around traditional territories is mainly
caused by external population pressure and development
programmes such as dams or monoculture {2.2.2.3, 2.3.1.1}.
The precarious situation of many indigenous and local people,
and their knowledge systems, is an environmental as well
as a social issue. Indigenous and local practices and values
are embedded in worldviews and can provide alternatives
to mainstream practices. For example, indigenous and local
value that link the “good life” or “Buen Vivir” {2.2.2.1} to a
fulfilling social life in a non-degraded environment point to more
sustainable pathways through new worldviews, such as the
expansion of traditional and/or agroecological practices along
with new conscious consumption patterns. These have already
been adopted by growing segments of civil society around the
world and could be further promoted {2.3.1.2, 2.3.2.1}.
High and rising population numbers in many
parts of the world pose profound challenges for
environmental sustainability in both developed and
developing countries (well established). While human
demography is predominantly seen as a matter of
2. CONCEPTS AND PERCEPTIONS OF LAND
DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION
56
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION
poverty and underdevelopment to be dealt with
by increasing food production, it is nonetheless a
crucial but tabooed environmental issue (unresolved).
Successful closing of the transnational development gap
and eradication of the difference in per capita consumption
highlights the importance of the population size. Thus,
the focus on reducing consumption might be extended
to embrace an inclusive demographic policy. In 1972, the
declaration of Stockholm acknowledged the environmental
problems caused by overpopulation and stated that
countries should control their demography without affecting
basic human rights. Soon after Stockholm, however, the
population problem was deemed a social and educational
problem, and was addressed as an underdevelopment
issue. Measures to curb population growth are available and
can deliver significant and lasting environmental and social
benefits. These include improved access to education,
family planning and gender equality (well established),
and improved access to social welfare to support ageing
populations (established but incomplete). The role of
subsidies that may be further stimulating population
growth in more developed nations should also come under
scrutiny as one of the measures to curb population growth
{2.2.4.2, 2.3.1.4}.
The short-term financial costs of restoration are easy
to quantify and may seem high, while the short-,
medium-, and long-term effects of restoration on
nature’s contributions to people are less easy to
perceive and value (well established). The benefits of
avoiding and reversing land degradation are undeniable
and go beyond monetary valuation (well established).
Raising awareness of the multiple benefits of both
avoiding land degradation and restoring ecosystems
might justify raising the resources to achieve restoration
and land degradation neutrality targets. Moreover, a more
holistic approach to nature’s contributions to people
could embrace and meet the expectations of a part
of the civil society with knowledge systems that place
social-ecological harmony above other considerations.
While economic valuation of ecosystem services is
common, many of the nature’s contributions to people
have no market prices {2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.5} and are therefore
undervalued, if valued at all. This practice diminishes not
only the economic, but also the multiple non-monetary
and intrinsic values associated with nature and nature’s
contributions to people, be it spiritual, cultural or ethical
{2.2.2.1, 2.3.1.2}. In addition, the concrete benefits of
restoration might take longer to be achieved, while the
costs of restoration are rather immediate {2.2.1.3, 2.3.1}.
Costs and benefits of degrading or restoring can be
defined in monetary terms {2.2.1.5}, but the question is
multidimensional and includes the imperative to maintain
biological and cultural diversity {2.2.2.1}. Benefits will be
underestimated when the concept of “good quality of life”
is limited to purchasing power (well established) {2.2.4.3,
2.3.2, 2.3.2.2}. These benefits would be easier to perceive
if the dominant systems of value focused on the good
quality of life with individuals having a fulfilling social life in a
non-degraded environment {2.2.2.1, 2.3}.
The international community has recognized that
a collapse of ecosystem functions would not be
restrained by sovereign national borders. However,
decisions to address urgent environmental problems
are still guided by the incremental and discretionary
jurisprudence of international conventions
(well established). Since the 1970s, international
environmental law has been constantly developed and
enriched to account for both the progress of science
and environmental degradation. Nonetheless, global
ecological deterioration, including climate change, is
continuing (well established). Creating a proactive, new
ground for international negotiation could be a first step
to facilitate reversing land degradation, from which new
jurisprudence could arise. This would include overcoming
the old “environment versus development” dilemma
and foster cooperation policies motivated by a common
interest {2.2.4.1}. “Ecological solidarity” is a promising
legal principle, which could renew the perception
of the links between humans and their environment
{2.2.4.3}. This principle embraces three dimensions:
it recognizes the planetary interconnectedness of
ecosystems and ecological process {2.2.1.3}; it may
foster intergovernmental negotiations based on global
and mutual solidarity; and it has a fundamental moral
meaning emphasizing the common fate of humankind
and all living beings {2.3.1.2}. If human progress was
understood through these dimensions, efforts to prevent
land degradation and to restore degraded land might
be facilitated.
A global consensus on the definition and baseline for
land degradation does not exist (well established),
precluding sound scientific assessment of the extent
and severity of global degradation, as well as the
possibility of measuring success towards quantitative
restoration targets such as Aichi Biodiversity Target
15 reinforced in Sustainable Development Goal
15 (established but incomplete). Quantifying land
degradation and its reversal through restoration requires
assessment of the geographic extent and severity of
damage at the current and restored state of the ecosystem,
against a baseline (well established) {2.2.1.1}. Lack of
consensus over baselines has led to debates over what
constitutes degradation and subsequently to inconsistent
estimates of the extent and severity of land degradation
{2.2.1.2} (Figure 2.5, Figure 2.7, Figure 2.8). This,
in its turn, resulted in differing interpretations of the
consequences of degradation for human well-being. To
overcome this challenge, a shared global baseline could be
adopted (well established) and a good candidate would be
2. CONCEPTS AND PERCEPTIONS OF LAND
DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION
57
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION
the natural state of ecosystems, deviation from which would
be degradation {2.2.1.1} (Figure 2.5) (established but
incomplete). Adopting natural state of ecosystems as the
baseline against which to measure the extent and severity
of degradation ensures a comparable assessment of land
degradation in general, and a fair assessment of success
in meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets across countries
at different stages of economic and social development.
Without this, more developed countries – that have
transformed much of their environment centuries ago – are
able, in practice, to assume much less ambitious restoration
measures than less developed countries {2.2.1.1}
(Figure 2.5). For the aspiration to achieve land degradation
neutrality by 2030, as agreed in SDG 15.3, the baseline
for assessing success is different, namely the state of the
ecosystems at 2030.