short essay about land degradation

Geography Notes

Essay on land degradation | geography.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is an essay on ‘Land Degradation’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Land Degradation’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Land Degradation

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Extent of Soil Degradation by Erosion

Essay # 1. Introduction to Land Degradation:

Land degradation is a composite term, which mainly refers to the worse change in land resources including soil, water, vegetation, rocks, air, climate, relief etc., because of any reason. The occurrence of landslide is also considered as a kind of land degradation phenomena.

The land degradation signifies, the temporary or permanent declination in the productive potential of the land. In other words, it describes the view of “aggregate diminution of the productive potential of the land, including its major uses (rain-fed, arable, irrigated, rangeland, forest etc.), its farming systems and its value as an economic resource.”

The productivity of grassland and forest resources in addition to the cropland is also taken into consideration for evaluation of land degradation. As for as its extent is concerned, it depends on various agents causing degradation. Fig. 26.1 indicates the extent of the area falling under different causing agents at global level.

ADVERTISEMENTS: (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Essay # 2. Definition of Land Degradation :

As per definition of land degradation is concerned, there have been introduced numerous terms and definitions. However, the common terms amongst them are the soil degradation, land degradation and desertification. The term desertification refers to the land degradation in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas due to anthropic activities.

On this view of desertification the researchers have opinioned that it is very narrow, because severe land degradation resulting from anthropic activities can also occur in temperate humid regions and in humid tropics. Similarly, the term degradation or desertification refers to irreversible declination in the ‘biological potential’ of the land. The biological potential depends on several interacting factors; which is difficult to define them.

Soil degradation by accelerated water and wind-induced erosion is a serious problem, and found from several decades, especially in developing countries (tropics and subtropics). Erosion is a natural geomorphic process occurring continuously over the earth’s surface. Accelerated soil erosion has adverse economic and environmental impacts.

Economic effects are due to on-site and off-site reductions in income and other losses with adverse impact on crop/animal production. As per regional food production statistics for 1995 with and without soil erosion of the world, there is total loss in food production of about 31 M Mg in Africa; 190M Mg in Asia and 18 M Mg in tropical America.

Essay # 3. Global Land Degradation :

Fig. 26.1 illustrates the view of global land and soil degradations. Amongst various sources of land degradation the highest share is of desertification which is about 2.6 billions ha, followed by about 2.0 billion ha by soil degradation and 0.5 billion ha from deforestation. The shares of soil degradation at global level under different sources (water & wind erosion and physical and chemical deterioration) are shown in Table 26.1.

Similarly, the degree of variations (slight, moderate, severe and extreme) in soil degradation is also shown in Table 26.2, which reveals that amongst soil erosion sources the water erosion is major source of soil degradation amounting 56%. While wind erosion involves 28%. The soil degradations because of physical and chemical deteriorations are in the range of 12 and 4%, respectively. As for as variations in degree of soil degradation is concerned, it is 38% under slight to extreme 0.5%.

Essay # 4. Causes of Soil Degradation :

It is mainly because of following causes:

i. Soil Erosion by Water:

Under this reason the land degradation is caused due to continuous and long-term removal of soil mass and nutrients from the land by the action of water. Under water erosion the processes may be the sheet erosion in which a more or less uniform removal of thin layer of topsoil gets happen during storm event; rill erosion in which small channels are formed in the field when sheet erosion is not checked; and the gully erosion which accompanies the formation of bigger channels similar to incised rivers in the area. The gully erosion (gully formation) ultimately causes soil degradation.

ii. Soil Erosion by Wind:

This type of soil erosion accomplishes the removal of soil particles by wind action. Usually this is the kind of sheet erosion, in which soil is removed in thin layers, mainly. This source of land degradation is very prominent in the area having very fine to medium size sand particles; normally in deserts areas. In India this type of occurrence is very common in Rajasthan.

The soil erosion leads to reduce the soil productivity in following way:

a. Reduction in soil organic matter, resulting into declination in soil biological activities.

b. Development of bad effects on physical properties of the soil (structure, aeration, water-holding capacity etc.) due to reduced organic matter.

c. Development of nutrients deficiencies or increase in toxic levels in the soil.

d. Creation of toxic substances due to incorrect application of fertilizers in the field.

iii. Soil Fertility Declination:

The declination in soil fertility causes soil degradation because of development of bad effects on physical, biological and chemical properties of the soil.

iv. Water Logging:

This type of soil degradation is caused due to rise in groundwater table close to the soil surface, because of inadequate drainage system in the area or poor irrigation management practices. In water logging situation the soil gets completely saturate with water, as result there is development of oxygen deficiency for plant growth.

v. Increase in Salts:

Development of this problem could be due to salinization. The salinization increases the salt level in the soil water solution or sodification, i.e., increase of sodium cations (Na+) on the soil particles. The soil salinization often takes place in conjunction with poor irrigation management. The soil sodification tends to occur naturally. The areas prone to high water table fluctuation have the problem of soil sodification.

vi. Sedimentation:

The problem of sedimentation takes place through water flooding or wind blowing. Under sedimentation the fertile soil gets covered by less fertile sediments; and leading to make the soil unfit for cultivation.

vii. Lowering of Water Table:

This problem mainly arises when withdrawal of ground water exceeds the amount of water recharged in the aquifer. An area with very deep water table is also considered unfit for cultivation. The area with prolonge deep water table is treated as degraded soil.

viii. Loss of Vegetative Cover:

The vegetations are important in many ways. They protect the soil from erosion by wind and water; and also provide organic materials to maintain the nutrients level, essential for healthy plant growth. Plant roots maintain soil structure and facilitate water infiltration. A poor vegetative cover in the land is considered an important cause of land degradation.

ix. Increased Stoniness and Rock Cover:

Development of this type of problem is usually associated to the extreme level of soil erosion causing exposure of stones and rock.

A degraded soil is more likely to get further degradation as compared to the similar soil. The organic matter affects the level of soil erodibility. In normal case the level of soil organic matter judges the soil erodibility. In soil if the level of organic matter falls below 2% then soil is more prone to erosion, because soil aggregates become very weak and individual particles are more likely to get dislodge. Also, few environmental factors cause very significant risk to land degradation than the others.

Steep slope, high intensity rainfall etc., influence the likelihood of occurrence of soil degradation. The management practices also cause significant effect on susceptibility of a landscape to degradation. For example – an extensive and poorly managed land use system is more likely to get degrade than the intensive and intricately managed fields. The phenomena of serious and prolonge soil erosion cause land degradation, provided that the rate of soil formation is at very slow rate than the rate of soil erosion.

In general, in moist and warm weather conditions the formation of a few centimeter of soil may take thousands of years; while in cold and dry climates it can take more than the above. Also, when soil is without vegetative cover then rate of soil loss through erosion can go up to 300 times faster. In this way, the soil erosion is the most widely recognized and most common source of land degradation; and also is a major cause of declining the soil productivity.

Essay # 5. Causes of Land Degradation:

The most commonly recognized causes of land degradation are given as under:

1. Overgrazing of rangeland.

2. Over-cultivation of cropland.

3. Water logging and salinization of irrigated land.

4. Deforestation.

5. Pollution and industrial causes.

6. Inappropriate land management practices.

These causes result the conversion of suitable and high potential lands into unsuitable and low potential lands; failure of using soil conservation measures in the areas of high degradation risks, and removal of crop residues resulting into ‘soil mining’, i.e., extraction of nutrients at greater rate than the supply rate. Many badlands such as extremely bare, de-vegetated and eroded slopes are badly degraded. However, such lands can be rehabilitated by using improved technologies.

The effect of land degrading process differs depending on the inherent characteristics of land such as soil type, slope, vegetation and climate. An activity at a given place may be degrading, while same at another place may not be degrading, because of variations in soil characteristics, topography, climatic conditions etc. Similarly, a rainfall of a given erosivity can cause the soil erosion at varying rates in the soils of different inherent characteristics.

Essay # 6. Extent and Rate of Land Degradation :

The extent of degraded lands in dry areas of the world is reported as 3.6 billion ha or 70% of the total 5.2 billion ha of the total land falling under dry regions (Table 26.3.). And the global extent of land degradation is reported about 1.9 billion ha, as shown in Table 26.4. The change in extent of land-degraded area is mainly due to variations in status of vegetations. The estimates presented in Table 26.3 also includes the status of vegetative cover of rangeland. As an example the vegetation degradation in Australia is presented in Table 26.5.

Essay # 7. Global Extent of Soil Degradation :

The total land area subject to human-induced soil degradation is estimated to the tune of 2billion ha, shown in Table 26.6. Of this, the land area affected by soil degradation due to erosion is about 1100 Mha by water erosion and 550 Mha by wind erosion. South Asia is one of the regions in the world, where soil erosion by water and wind is a severe problem (Table 26.6). Fig. 26.1 also presents the global scenario of land degradation.

Essay # 8. Land Degradation Processes:

The principal processes of land degradation are given as under:

1. Erosion by water and wind

2. Chemical degradation –

i. Acidification

ii. Salinization

iii. Leaching etc.

3. Physical degradation –

i. Crusting

ii. Compaction

iii. Hard-setting etc.

The above listed processes of land degradation may act singly or in combination, depending on the situation. Few lands or landscape units may be affected by more than one process of water or wind erosion, salinization and crusting or compaction. An example of combination of land degradation process and area affected under them is outlined in Table 26.7.

Essay # 9. Land Degradation Control:

Various measures for control of land degradation are explained as under:

Control of Water Erosion:

i. Agronomical Measures:

These measures are the first line of action for soil erosion/loss control. The agronomical measures control the soil erosion/loss by creating soil cover. Which can be done by using mulch, growing crops and artificial stabilizers. These covers intercept the raindrops and reduce the overland flow/runoff. Apart from above the cropping practices such as contour cropping, strip cropping, cropping pattern, crop rotation, fertilization etc., are also means of agronomical measures to control the soil erosion.

ii. Mechanical Measures:

Under this category of soil erosion/loss measures, the bunding and terracing are the main. These measures are used, only when agronomical measures are not effective to control the soil loss. However, they involve limitations regarding involvement of heavy cost, design and construction.

iii. Tillage Practice:

These practices are performed for creating surface roughness to reduce the flow velocity of rainwater over the soil surface. This causes soaking of large amount of rainwater into the soil; and thus reducing the volume of rainwater, their flow velocity and ultimately the soil scouring or soil erosion. The conservation tillage, strip cropping and safe disposal of rainwater through grassed waterways are the main measures considered under this head of practice.

The control measures for physical degradation are listed as under:

i. Using the farm machineries of lesser weight.

ii. Reducing the number of passes of implements during tillage operations.

iii. Keeping off the soil when it is in wet condition.

iv. Reducing the soil compaction by deep ploughing, occasionally.

v. Reducing soil crusting by light cultivation, adding Gypsum (Ca SO 4 ) and mulching.

Essay # 10. Land Degradation and Productive:

There is very close relation between land degradation and productivity. As the degree of land degradation gets decrease the level of productivity also gets increase, accordingly. The degree of land degradation is divided into low, moderate and high categories based on the land properties rather their impact on productivity. The International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM) presented the relation between cumulative soil loss and runoff in relation to crop yield shown in Table 26.8.

The table value indicates that the data of China shows that despite significant differences in cumulative soil loss and runoff, there is no difference in corn yield. Similar inference is also found in Thailand. In addition, the erosion (and other degradative processes) effects on crop yield or biomass potential depend on changes in land quality with respect to specific parameters.

Essay # 11. Desertification   of Land :

It is a form of land degradation occurring particularly, but not exclusively in semi-arid regions. Table 26.9. Indicates the areas of few Asian countries vulnerable to desertification. The semi-arid to weakly arid areas of Africa are particularly vulnerable, as they have fragile soils. About 33% of the global land (42 million km 2 ) is subject to desertification. Many of the countries cannot afford the losses in agricultural periodicity due to desertification.

The Mediterranean countries of North Africa are very highly prone to desertification. In Sahel, there are several pockets of very high-risk areas. The West African countries with their dense populations have a major problem of land degradation. The reason is that, they have high propensity along the desert margins and occupy about 5% of the landmass. Cumulatively, desertification affects about 550 million Africans. Although, good soil resources are there, but their productivity is seriously undermined by the land degradation and desertification.

The matrix of risk assessment about human induced desertification is presented in Table 26.10. Also, the risk classes of African lands is presented in Table 26.11.

Essay # 12. Extent of Soil Degradation by Erosion:

As per report presented in Table 26.12 the total area affected by soil erosion in Asian countries is 81.74 Mha under water erosion and 59 Mha under wind erosion. In India the area suffering from water erosion is maximum to the tune of 32.8 Mha, followed by 26.4 Mha in Iran; 11.2 Mha in Afghanistan; 7.2 Mha in Pakistan; 1.6 Mha in Nepal; 1.5 Mha in Bangladesh and 1.0 Mha in Sri Lanka.

In case of wind erosion the maximum affected area is in Iran, i.e.35.4Mha, followed by 10.8 Mha in India, 10.7 Mha in Pakistan and 2.1 Mha in Afghanistan. The maximum affected area under soil erosion is in India about 328.8 Mha, 165.3 Mha in Iran, 79.6 Mha in Pakistan, 65.3 Mha in Afghanistan, 14.7 in Nepal, 14.4 in Bangladesh, 6.6 Mha in Sri Lanka and 4.7 Mha in Bhutan.

Related Articles:

• Rise in Sea Level and Global Warming | Essay | Geography
• Essay on Land Transport and Its Forms | Geography
• Essay on Land Resources | India | Geography
• Infiltration: Essay on Infiltration | Land Surface | Geography

Essay , Geography , Land Degradation , Essay on Land Degradation

Privacy Overview

Special Report: Special Report on Climate Change and Land

Land degradation, coordinating lead authors.

• Lennart Olsson (Sweden)
• Humberto Barbosa (Brazil)

Lead Authors

• Suruchi Bhadwal (India)
• Annette Cowie (Australia)
• Kenel Delusca (Haiti)
• Dulce Flores-Renteria (Mexico)
• Kathleen Hermans (Germany)
• Esteban Jobbagy (Argentina)
• Werner Kurz (Canada)
• Diqiang Li (China)
• Denis Jean Sonwa (Cameroon)
• Lindsay Stringer (United Kingdom)

Contributing Authors:

• Timothy Crews (United States)
• Martin Dallimer (United Kingdom)
• Joris Eekhout (Netherlands)
• Karlheinz Erb (Italy)
• Eamon Haughey (Ireland)
• Richard Houghton (United States)
• Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal (Pakistan)
• Francis X. Johnson (Sweden)
• Woo-Kyun Lee (South Korea)
• John Morton (United Kingdom)
• Felipe Garcia Oliva (Mexico)
• Jan Petzold (Germany)
• Mohammad Rahimi (Iran)
• Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland)
• Anna Tengberg (Sweden)
• Louis Verchot (Colombia, United States)
• Katharine Vincent (South Africa)

Review Editors

• José Manuel Moreno (Spain)
• Carolina Vera (Argentina)

Chapter Scientist:

• Aliyu Salisu Barau (Nigeria)

FAQ 4.1 | How do climate change and land degradation interact with land use?

Climate change, land degradation and land use are linked in a complex web of causality. One important impact of climate change on land degradation is that increasing global temperatures intensify the hydrological cycle, resulting in more intense rainfall, which is an important driver of soil erosion. This means that sustainable land management (SLM) becomes even more important with climate change. Land-use change in the form of clearing of forest for rangeland and cropland (e.g., for provision of bio-fuels), and cultivation of peat soils, is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from both biomass and soils. Many SLM practices (e.g., agroforestry, perennial crops, organic amendments, etc.) increase carbon content of soil and vegetation cover and hence provide both local and immediate adaptation benefits, combined with global mitigation benefits in the long term, while providing many social and economic co-benefits. Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation has a large potential to mitigate climate change and help communities to adapt to climate change.

FAQ 4.2 | How does climate change affect land-related ecosystem services and biodiversity?

Climate change will affect land-related ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, resilience to extreme climate events, water yield, soil conservation, carbon storage, etc.) and biodiversity, both directly and indirectly. The direct impacts range from subtle reductions or enhancements of specific services, such as biological productivity, resulting from changes in temperature, temperature variability or rainfall, to complete disruption and elimination of services. Disruptions of ecosystem services can occur where climate change causes transitions from one biome to another, for example, forest to grassland as a result of changes in water balance or natural disturbance regimes. Climate change will result in range shifts and, in some cases, extinction of species. Climate change can also alter the mix of land-related ecosystem services, such as groundwater recharge, purification of water, and flood protection. While the net impacts are specific to time as well as ecosystem types and services, there is an asymmetry of risk such that overall impacts of climate change are expected to reduce ecosystem services. Indirect impacts of climate change on land-related ecosystem services include those that result from changes in human behaviour, including potential large-scale human migrations or the implementation of afforestation, reforestation or other changes in land management, which can have positive or negative outcomes on ecosystem services.

Executive Summary

Land degradation affects people and ecosystems throughout the planet and is both affected by climate change and contributes to it. In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity , ecological integrity, or value to humans. Forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Deforestation is the conversion of forest to non-forest land and can result in land degradation. {4.1.3}

Land degradation adversely affects people’s livelihoods ( very high confidence ) and occurs over a quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land area ( medium confidence ). The majority of the 1.3 to 3.2 billion affected people ( low confidence ) are living in poverty in developing countries ( medium confidence ).

Land-use changes and unsustainable land management are direct human causes of land degradation ( very high confidence ), with agriculture being a dominant sector driving degradation ( very high confidence ). Soil loss from conventionally tilled land exceeds the rate of soil formation by >2 orders of magnitude ( medium confidence ). Land degradation affects humans in multiple ways, interacting with social, political, cultural and economic aspects, including markets, technology, inequality and demographic change ( very high confidence ). Land degradation impacts extend beyond the land surface itself, affecting marine and freshwater systems, as well as people and ecosystems far away from the local sites of degradation ( very high confidence ). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.3, 4.6.1, 4.7, Table 4.1}

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation processes and introduces new degradation patterns ( high confidence ). Human-induced global warming has already caused observed changes in two drivers of land degradation: increased frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation ( medium confidence ); and increased heat stress ( high confidence ). In some areas sea level rise has exacerbated coastal erosion ( medium confidence ). Global warming beyond present day will further exacerbate ongoing land degradation processes through increasing floods ( medium confidence ), drought frequency and severity ( medium confidence ), intensified cyclones ( medium confidence ), and sea level rise ( very high confidence ), with outcomes being modulated by land management ( very high confidence ). Permafrost thawing due to warming ( high confidence ), and coastal erosion due to sea level rise and impacts of changing storm paths ( low confidence ), are examples of land degradation affecting places where it has not typically been a problem. Erosion of coastal areas because of sea level rise will increase worldwide ( high confidence ). In cyclone prone areas, the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones will cause land degradation with serious consequences for people and livelihoods ( very high confidence ). {4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.9.6, Table 4.1}

Land degradation and climate change, both individually and in combination, have profound implications for natural resource-based livelihood systems and societal groups ( high confidence )

The number of people whose livelihood depends on degraded lands has been estimated to be about 1.5 billion worldwide ( very low confidence ). People in degraded areas who directly depend on natural resources for subsistence, food security and income, including women and youth with limited adaptation options, are especially vulnerable to land degradation and climate change ( high confidence ). Land degradation reduces land productivity and increases the workload of managing the land, affecting women disproportionally in some regions. Land degradation and climate change act as threat multipliers for already precarious livelihoods ( very high confidence ), leaving them highly sensitive to extreme climatic events, with consequences such as poverty and food insecurity ( high confidence ) and, in some cases, migration, conflict and loss of cultural heritage ( low confidence ). Changes in vegetation cover and distribution due to climate change increase the risk of land degradation in some areas ( medium confidence ). Climate change will have detrimental effects on livelihoods, habitats and infrastructure through increased rates of land degradation ( high confidence ) and from new degradation patterns ( low evidence, high agreement ). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.7}

Land degradation is a driver of climate change through emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduced rates of carbon uptake ( very high confidence ). Since 1990, globally the forest area has decreased by 3% ( low confidence ) with net decreases in the tropics and net increases outside the tropics ( high confidence ). Lower carbon density in re-growing forests, compared to carbon stocks before deforestation, results in net emissions from land-use change ( very high confidence ). Forest management that reduces carbon stocks of forest land also leads to emissions, but global estimates of these emissions are uncertain. Cropland soils have lost 20–60% of their organic carbon content prior to cultivation, and soils under conventional agriculture continue to be a source of GHGs ( medium confidence ). Of the land degradation processes, deforestation, increasing wildfires, degradation of peat soils, and permafrost thawing contribute most to climate change through the release of GHGs and the reduction in land carbon sinks following deforestation ( high confidence ). Agricultural practices also emit non-CO 2 GHGs from soils and these emissions are exacerbated by climate change ( medium confidence ). Conversion of primary to managed forests, illegal logging and unsustainable forest management result in GHG emissions ( very high confidence ) and can have additional physical effects on the regional climate including those arising from albedo shifts ( medium confidence ). These interactions call for more integrative climate impact assessments. {4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5.4, 4.6}

Large-scale implementation of dedicated biomass production for bioenergy increases competition for land with potentially serious consequences for food security and land degradation ( high confidence) . Increasing the extent and intensity of biomass production, for example, through fertiliser additions, irrigation or monoculture energy plantations, can result in local land degradation. Poorly implemented intensification of land management contributes to land degradation (e.g., salinisation from irrigation) and disrupted livelihoods ( high confidence ). In areas where afforestation and reforestation occur on previously degraded lands, opportunities exist to restore and rehabilitate lands with potentially significant co-benefits ( high confidence ) that depend on whether restoration involves natural or plantation forests. The total area of degraded lands has been estimated at 10–60 Mkm 2 ( very low confidence ). The extent of degraded and marginal lands suitable for dedicated biomass production is highly uncertain and cannot be established without due consideration of current land use and land tenure. Increasing the area of dedicated energy crops can lead to land degradation elsewhere through indirect land-use change ( medium confidence ). Impacts of energy crops can be reduced through strategic integration with agricultural and forestry systems ( high confidence ) but the total quantity of biomass that can be produced through synergistic production systems is unknown. {4.1.6, 4.4.2, 4.5, 4.7.1, 4.8.1, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.9.3}

Reducing unsustainable use of traditional biomass reduces land degradation and emissions of CO 2 while providing social and economic co-benefits ( very high confidence ). Traditional biomass in the form of fuelwood, charcoal and agricultural residues remains a primary source of energy for more than one-third of the global population, leading to unsustainable use of biomass resources and forest degradation and contributing around 2% of global GHG emissions ( low confidence ). Enhanced forest protection, improved forest and agricultural management, fuel-switching and adoption of efficient cooking and heating appliances can promote more sustainable biomass use and reduce land degradation, with co-benefits of reduced GHG emissions, improved human health, and reduced workload especially for women and youth ( very high confidence ). {4.1.6, 4.5.4}

Land degradation can be avoided, reduced or reversed by implementing sustainable land management, restoration and rehabilitation practices that simultaneously provide many co-benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change ( high confidence ). Sustainable land management involves a comprehensive array of technologies and enabling conditions, which have proven to address land degradation at multiple landscape scales, from local farms ( very high confidence ) to entire watersheds ( medium confidence ). Sustainable forest management can prevent deforestation, maintain and enhance carbon sinks and can contribute towards GHG emissions-reduction goals. Sustainable forest management generates socio-economic benefits, and provides fibre, timber and biomass to meet society’s growing needs. While sustainable forest management sustains high carbon sinks, the conversion from primary forests to sustainably managed forests can result in carbon emission during the transition and loss of biodiversity ( high confidence ). Conversely, in areas of degraded forests, sustainable forest management can increase carbon stocks and biodiversity ( medium confidence ). Carbon storage in long-lived wood products and reductions of emissions from use of wood products to substitute for emissions-intensive materials also contribute to mitigation objectives. {4.8, 4.9, Table 4.2}

Lack of action to address land degradation will increase emissions and reduce carbon sinks and is inconsistent with the emissions reductions required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. ( high confidence ). Better management of soils can offset 5–20% of current global anthropogenic GHG emissions ( medium confidence ). Measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation are available but economic, political, institutional, legal and socio-cultural barriers, including lack of access to resources and knowledge, restrict their uptake ( very high confidence ). Proven measures that facilitate implementation of practices that avoid, reduce, or reverse land degradation include tenure reform, tax incentives, payments for ecosystem services, participatory integrated land-use planning, farmer networks and rural advisory services. Delayed action increases the costs of addressing land degradation, and can lead to irreversible biophysical and human outcomes ( high confidence ). Early actions can generate both site-specific and immediate benefits to communities affected by land degradation, and contribute to long-term global benefits through climate change mitigation ( high confidence ). {4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.7.1, 4.8, Table 4.2}

Even with adequate implementation of measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation, there will be residual degradation in some situations ( high confidence ). Limits to adaptation are dynamic, site specific and determined through the interaction of biophysical changes with social and institutional conditions. Exceeding the limits of adaptation will trigger escalating losses or result in undesirable changes, such as forced migration, conflicts, or poverty. Examples of potential limits to adaptation due to climate-change-induced land degradation are coastal erosion (where land disappears, collapsing infrastructure and livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost), and extreme forms of soil erosion. {4.7, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.9.6, 4.9.7, 4.9.8}

Land degradation is a serious and widespread problem, yet key uncertainties remain concerning its extent, severity, and linkages to climate change ( very high confidence ). Despite the difficulties of objectively measuring the extent and severity of land degradation, given its complex and value-based characteristics, land degradation represents – along with climate change – one of the biggest and most urgent challenges for humanity ( very high confidence ). The current global extent, severity and rates of land degradation are not well quantified. There is no single method by which land degradation can be measured objectively and consistently over large areas because it is such a complex and value-laden concept ( very high confidence ). However, many existing scientific and locally-based approaches, including the use of indigenous and local knowledge, can assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies. Remote sensing, corroborated by other data, can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data that can be used as proxies over relevant time scales (several decades). Few studies have specifically addressed the impacts of proposed land-based negative emission technologies on land degradation. Much research has tried to understand how livelihoods and ecosystems are affected by a particular stressor – for example, drought, heat stress, or waterlogging. Important knowledge gaps remain in understanding how plants, habitats and ecosystems are affected by the cumulative and interacting impacts of several stressors, including potential new stressors resulting from large-scale implementation of negative emission technologies. {4.10}

Introduction

Scope of the chapter.

This chapter examines the scientific understanding of how climate change impacts land degradation, and vice versa, with a focus on non-drylands. Land degradation of drylands is covered in Chapter 3. After providing definitions and the context (Section 4.1) we proceed with a theoretical explanation of the different processes of land degradation and how they are related to climate and to climate change, where possible (Section 4.2). Two sections are devoted to a systematic assessment of the scientific literature on status and trend of land degradation (Section 4.3) and projections of land degradation (Section 4.4). Then follows a section where we assess the impacts of climate change mitigation options, bioenergy and land-based technologies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), on land degradation (Section 4.5). The ways in which land degradation can impact on climate and climate change are assessed in Section 4.6. The impacts of climate-related land degradation on human and natural systems are assessed in Section 4.7. The remainder of the chapter assesses land degradation mitigation options based on the concept of sustainable land management: avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation (Section 4.8), followed by a presentation of eight illustrative case studies of land degradation and remedies (Section 4.9). The chapter ends with a discussion of the most critical knowledge gaps and areas for further research (Section 4.10).

Perspectives of land degradation

Land degradation has accompanied humanity at least since the widespread adoption of agriculture during Neolithic time, some 10,000 to 7,500 years ago (Dotterweich 2013 2 ; Butzer 2005 3 ; Dotterweich 2008 4 ) and the associated population increase (Bocquet-Appel 2011 5 ). There are indications that the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) – particularly carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) – in the atmosphere already started to increase more than 3,000 years ago as a result of expanding agriculture, clearing of forests, and domestication of wild animals (Fuller et al. 2011 6 ; Kaplan et al. 2011 7 ; Vavrus et al. 2018 8 ; Ellis et al. 2013 9 ). While the development of agriculture (cropping and animal husbandry) underpinned the development of civilisations, political institutions and prosperity, farming practices led to conversion of forests and grasslands to farmland, and the heavy reliance on domesticated annual grasses for our food production meant that soils started to deteriorate through seasonal mechanical disturbances (Turner et al. 1990 10 ; Steffen et al. 2005 11 ; Ojima et al. 1994 12 ; Ellis et al. 2013 13 ). More recently, urbanisation has significantly altered ecosystems (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 2). Since around 1850, about 35% of human-caused CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere has come from land as a combined effect of land degradation and land-use change (Foley et al. 2005 14 ) and about 38% of the Earth’s land area has been converted to agriculture (Foley et al. 2011 15 ). See Chapter 2 for more details.

Not all human impacts on land result in degradation according to the definition of land degradation used in this report (Section 4.1.3). There are many examples of long-term sustainably managed land around

the world (such as terraced agricultural systems and sustainably managed forests) although degradation and its management are the focus of this chapter. We also acknowledge that human use of land and ecosystems provides essential goods and services for society (Foley et al. 2005 16 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 17 ).

Land degradation was long subject to a polarised scientific debate between disciplines and perspectives in which social scientists often proposed that natural scientists exaggerated land degradation as a global problem (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987 18 ; Forsyth 1996 19 ; Lukas 2014 20 ; Zimmerer 1993 21 ). The elusiveness of the concept in combination with the difficulties of measuring and monitoring land degradation at global and regional scales by extrapolation and aggregation of empirical studies at local scales, such as the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation database (GLASOD) (Sonneveld and Dent 2009 22 ) contributed to conflicting views. The conflicting views were not confined to science only, but also caused tension between the scientific understanding of land degradation and policy (Andersson et al. 2011 23 ; Behnke and Mortimore 2016 24 ; Grainger 2009 25 ; Toulmin and Brock 2016 26 ). Another weakness of many land degradation studies is the exclusion of the views and experiences of the land users, whether farmers or forest-dependent communities (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987 27 ; Fairhead and Scoones 2005 28 ; Warren 2002 29 ; Andersson et al. 2011 30 ). More recently, the polarised views described above have been reconciled under the umbrella of Land Change Science, which has emerged as an interdisciplinary field aimed at examining the dynamics of land cover and land-use as a coupled human-environment system (Turner et al. 2007 31 ). A comprehensive discussion about concepts and different perspectives of land degradation was presented in Chapter 2 of the recent report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on land degradation (Montanarella et al. 2018 32 ).

In summary, agriculture and clearing of land for food and wood products have been the main drivers of land degradation for millennia ( high confidence ). This does not mean, however, that agriculture and forestry always cause land degradation ( high confidence ); sustainable management is possible but not always practised ( high confidence ). Reasons for this are primarily economic, political and social.

Definition of land degradation

To clarify the scope of this chapter, it is important to start by defining land itself. The Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) defines land as ‘the terrestrial portion of the biosphere that comprises the natural resources (soil, near surface air, vegetation and other biota, and water), the ecological processes, topography, and human settlements and infrastructure that operate within that system’ (Henry et al. 2018 33 , adapted from FAO 2007 34 ; UNCCD 1994 35 ).

Land degradation is defined in many different ways within the literature, with differing emphases on biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (e.g., Montanarella et al. 2018 36 ). In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity, ecological integrity or value to humans. This definition applies to forest and non-forest land: forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Soil degradation refers to a subset of land degradation processes that directly affect soil.

The SRCCL definition is derived from the IPCC AR5 definition of desertification, which is in turn taken from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): ’Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas is a reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and integrity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns, such as (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/ or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical, biological, or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation’ (UNCCD 1994 37 , Article 1).

For this report, the SRCCL definition is intended to complement the more detailed UNCCD definition above, expanding the scope to all regions, not just drylands, providing an operational definition that emphasises the relationship between land degradation and climate. Through its attention to the three aspects – biological productivity, ecological integrity and value to humans – the SRCCL definition is consistent with the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) concept, which aims to maintain or enhance the land-based natural capital, and the ecosystem services that flow from it (Cowie et al. 2018 38 ).

In the SRCCL definition of land degradation, changes in land condition resulting solely from natural processes (such as volcanic eruptions and tsunamis) are not considered land degradation, as these are not direct or indirect human-induced processes. Climate variability exacerbated by human-induced climate change can contribute to land degradation. Value to humans can be expressed in terms of ecosystem services or Nature’s Contributions to People.

The definition recognises the reality presented in the literature that land-use and land management decisions often result in trade-offs between time, space, ecosystem services, and stakeholder groups (e.g., Dallimer and Stringer 2018 39 ). The interpretation of a negative trend in land condition is somewhat subjective, especially where there is a trade-off between ecological integrity and value to humans. The definition also does not consider the magnitude of the negative trend or the possibility that a negative trend in one criterion may be an acceptable trade-off for a positive trend in another criterion. For example, reducing timber yields to safeguard biodiversity by leaving on site more wood that can provide habitat, or vice versa, is a trade-off that needs to be evaluated based on context (i.e. the broader landscape) and society’s priorities. Reduction of biological productivity or ecological integrity or value to humans can constitute degradation, but any one of these changes need not necessarily be considered degradation. Thus, a land-use change that reduces ecological integrity and enhances sustainable food production at a specific location is not necessarily degradation. Different stakeholder groups with different world views value ecosystem services differently. As Warren (2002) 40 explained: land degradation is contextual. Further, a decline in biomass carbon stock does not always signify degradation, such as when caused by periodic forest harvest. Even a decline in productivity may not equate to land degradation, such as when a high-intensity agricultural system is converted to a lower-input, more sustainable production system.

In the SRCCL definition, degradation is indicated by a negative trend in land condition during the period of interest, thus the baseline is the land condition at the start of this period. The concept of baseline is theoretically important but often practically difficult to implement for conceptual and methodological reasons (Herrick et al. 2019 41 ; Prince et al. 2018 42 ; also Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1). Especially in biomes characterised by seasonal and interannual variability, the baseline values of the indicators to be assessed should be determined by averaging data over a number of years prior to the commencement of the assessment period (Orr et al. 2017 43 ) (Section 4.2.4).

Forest degradation is land degradation in forest remaining forest. In contrast, deforestation refers to the conversion of forest to non-forest that involves a loss of tree cover and a change in land use. Internationally accepted definitions of forest (FAO 2015 44 ; UNFCCC 2006 45 ) include lands where tree cover has been lost temporarily, due to disturbance or harvest, with an expectation of forest regrowth. Such temporary loss of forest cover, therefore, is not deforestation.

Land degradation in previous IPCC reports

Several previous IPCC assessment reports include brief discussions of land degradation. In AR5 WGIII land degradation is one factor contributing to uncertainties of the mitigation potential of land-based ecosystems, particularly in terms of fluxes of soil carbon (Smith et al. 2014, p. 817). In AR5 WGI, soil carbon was discussed comprehensively but not in the context of land degradation, except forest degradation (Ciais et al. 2013 46 ) and permafrost degradation (Vaughan et al. 2013 47 ). Climate change impacts were discussed comprehensively in AR5 WGII, but land degradation was not prominent. Land-use and land-cover changes were treated comprehensively in terms of effects on the terrestrial carbon stocks and flows (Settele et al. 2015 48 ) but links to land degradation were, to a large extent, missing. Land degradation was discussed in relation to human security as one factor which, in combination with extreme weather events, has been proposed to contribute to human migration (Adger et al. 2014 49 ), an issue discussed more comprehensively in this chapter (Section 4.7.3). Drivers and processes of degradation by which land-based carbon is released to the atmosphere and/or the long-term reduction in the capacity of the land to remove atmospheric carbon and to store this in biomass and soil carbon, have been discussed in the methodological reports of IPCC (IPCC 2006 50 , 2014a 51 ) but less so in the assessment reports.

The Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (SR-LULUCF) (Watson et al. 2000 52 ) focused on the role of the biosphere in the global cycles of GHG. Land degradation was not addressed in a comprehensive way. Soil erosion was discussed as a process by which soil carbon is lost and the productivity of the land is reduced. Deposition of eroded soil carbon in marine sediments was also mentioned as a possible mechanism for permanent sequestration of terrestrial carbon (Watson et al. 2000, p. 194). The possible impacts of climate change on land productivity and degradation were not discussed comprehensively. Much of the report was about how to account for sources and sinks of terrestrial carbon under the Kyoto Protocol.

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC 2012 53 ) did not provide a definition of land degradation. Nevertheless, it addressed different aspects related to some types of land degradation in the context of weather and climate extreme events. From this perspective, it provided key information on both observed and projected changes in weather and climate (extremes) events that are relevant to extreme impacts on socio-economic systems and on the physical components of the environment, notably on permafrost in mountainous areas and coastal zones for different geographic regions, but few explicit links to land degradation. The report also presented the concept of sustainable land management as an effective risk-reduction tool.

Land degradation has been treated in several previous IPCC reports, but mainly as an aggregated concept associated with GHG emissions, or as an issue that can be addressed through adaptation and mitigation.

Sustainable land management (SLM) and sustainable forest management (SFM)

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions’ – adapted from World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT n.d.). Achieving the objective of ensuring that productive potential is maintained in the long term will require implementation of adaptive management and ‘triple loop learning’, that seeks to monitor outcomes, learn from experience and emerging new knowledge, modifying management accordingly (Rist et al. 2013 54 ).

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’ (Forest Europe 1993 55 ; Mackey et al. 2015 56 ). This SFM definition was developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and has since been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Forest management that fails to meet these sustainability criteria can contribute to land degradation.

Land degradation can be reversed through restoration and rehabilitation. These terms are defined in the Glossary, along with other terms that are used but not explicitly defined in this section of

the report. While the definitions of SLM and SFM are very similar and could be merged, both are included to maintain the subtle differences in the existing definitions. SFM can be considered a subset of SLM – that is, SLM applied to forest land.

Climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome (Figure 4.1). Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts). To avoid, reduce or reverse degradation, land management activities can be selected to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, climate change. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term. For example, longer growing seasons due to climate warming can lead to higher forest productivity (Henttonen et al. 2017 57 ; Kauppi et al. 2014 58 ; Dragoni et al. 2011 59 ), but warming alone may not increase productivity where other factors such a water supply are limiting (Hember et al. 2017 60 ).

The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation can result in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks (Figure 4.1).

The transition from natural to managed forest landscapes usually results in an initial reduction of landscape-level carbon stocks. The magnitude of this reduction is a function of the differential in frequency of stand-replacing natural disturbances (e.g., wildfires) and harvest disturbances, as well as the age-dependence of these disturbances (Harmon et al. 1990 61 ; Kurz et al. 1998 62 ; Trofymow et al. 2008 63 ).

SFM applied at the landscape scale to existing unmanaged forests can first reduce average forest carbon stocks and subsequently increase the rate at which CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere, because net ecosystem production of forest stands is highest in intermediate stand ages (Kurz et al. 2013 64 ; Volkova et al. 2018 65 ; Tang et al. 2014 66 ). The net impact on the atmosphere depends on the magnitude of the reduction in carbon stocks, the fate of the harvested biomass (i.e. use in short – or long-lived products and for bioenergy, and therefore displacement of emissions associated with GHG-intensive building materials and fossil fuels), and the rate of regrowth. Thus, the impacts of SFM on one indicator (e.g., past reduction in carbon stocks in the forested landscape) can be negative, while those on another indicator (e.g., current forest productivity and rate of CO 2 removal from the atmosphere, avoided fossil fuel emissions) can be positive. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density than unmanaged forest, but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks than older forests (Trofymow et al. 2008 67 ; Volkova et al. 2018 68 ; Poorter et al. 2016 69 ).

Selective logging and thinning can maintain and enhance forest productivity and achieve co-benefits when conducted with due care for the residual stand and at intensity and frequency that does not exceed the rate of regrowth (Romero and Putz 2018 70 ). In contrast, unsustainable logging practices can lead to stand-level degradation. For example, degradation occurs when selective logging (high-grading) removes valuable large-diameter trees, leaving behind damaged, diseased, non-commercial or otherwise less productive trees, reducing carbon stocks and also adversely affecting subsequent forest recovery (Belair and Ducey 2018 71 ; Nyland 1992 72 ).

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and […]

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation typically results in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks. In forest land, reduction in biomass carbon stocks alone is not necessarily an indication of a reduction in carbon sinks. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks, than older forests. Ranges of carbon sinks in forest and agricultural lands are overlapping. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term.

SFM is defined using several criteria (see above) and its implementation will typically involve trade-offs among these criteria. The conversion of primary forests to sustainably managed forest ecosystems increases relevant economic, social and other functions but often with adverse impacts on biodiversity (Barlow et al. 2007 73 ). In regions with infrequent or no stand-replacing natural disturbances, the timber yield per hectare harvested in managed secondary forests is typically lower than the yield per hectare from the first harvest in the primary forest (Romero and Putz 2018 74 ).

The sustainability of timber yield has been achieved in temperate and boreal forests where intensification of management has resulted in increased growing stocks and increased harvest rates in countries where forests had previously been overexploited (Henttonen et al. 2017 75 ; Kauppi et al. 2018 76 ). However, intensification of management to increase forest productivity can be associated with reductions in biodiversity. For example, when increased productivity is achieved by periodic thinning and removal of trees that would otherwise die due to competition, thinning reduces the amount of dead organic matter of snags and coarse woody debris that can provide habitat, and this loss reduces biodiversity (Spence 2001 77 ; Ehnström 2001 78 ) and forest carbon stocks (Russell et al. 2015 79 ; Kurz et al. 2013 80 ). Recognition of adverse biodiversity impacts of high-yield forestry is leading to modified management aimed at increasing habitat availability through, for example, variable retention logging and continuous cover management (Roberts et al. 2016 81 ) and through the re-introduction of fire disturbances in landscapes where fires have been suppressed (Allen et al. 2002 82 ). Biodiversity losses are also observed during the transition from primary to managed forests in tropical regions (Barlow et al. 2007 83 ) where tree species diversity can be very high – for example, in the Amazon region, about 16,000 tree species are estimated to exist (ter Steege et al. 2013 84 ).

Forest certification schemes have been used to document SFM outcomes (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003 85 ) by assessing a set of criteria and indicators (e.g., Lindenmayer et al. 2000 86 ). While many of the certified forests are found in temperate and boreal countries (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003 87 ; MacDicken et al. 2015 88 ), examples from the tropics also show that SFM can improve outcomes. For example, selective logging emits 6% of the tropical GHG annually and improved logging practices can reduce emissions by 44% while maintaining timber production (Ellis et al. 2019 89 ). In the Congo Basin, implementing reduced impact logging (RIL-C) practices can cut emissions in half without reducing the timber yield (Umunay et al. 2019 90 ). SFM adoption depends on the socio-economic and political context, and its improvement depends mainly on better reporting and verification (Siry et al. 2005 91 ).

The successful implementation of SFM requires well-established and functional governance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to eliminate deforestation, illegal logging, arson, and other activities that are inconsistent with SFM principles (Nasi et al. 2011 92 ). Moreover, following human and natural disturbances, forest regrowth must be ensured through reforestation, site rehabilitation activities or natural regeneration. Failure of forests to regrow following disturbances will lead to unsustainable outcomes and long-term reductions in forest area, forest cover, carbon density, forest productivity and land-based carbon sinks (Nasi et al. 2011 93 ).

Achieving all of the criteria of the definitions of SLM and SFM is an aspirational goal that will be made more challenging where climate change impacts, such as biome shifts and increased disturbances, are predicted to adversely affect future biodiversity and contribute to forest degradation (Warren et al. 2018 94 ). Land management to enhance land sinks will involve trade-offs that need to be assessed within their spatial, temporal and societal context.

The human dimension of land degradation and forest degradation

Studies of land and forest degradation are often biased towards biophysical aspects, both in terms of its processes, such as erosion or nutrient depletion, and its observed physical manifestations, such as gullying or low primary productivity. Land users’ own perceptions and knowledge about land conditions and degradation have often been neglected or ignored by both policymakers and scientists (Reed et al. 2007 95 ; Forsyth 1996 96 ; Andersson et al. 2011 97 ). A growing body of work is nevertheless beginning to focus on land degradation through the lens of local land users (Kessler and Stroosnijder 2006 98 ; Fairhead and Scoones 2005 99 ; Zimmerer 1993 100 ; Stocking et al. 2001 101 ) and the importance of local and indigenous knowledge within land management is starting to be appreciated (Montanarella et al. 2018 102 ). Climate change impacts directly and indirectly on the social reality, the land users, and the ecosystem, and vice versa. Land degradation can also have an impact on climate change (Section 4.6).

The use and management of land is highly gendered and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future (Kristjanson et al. 2017 103 ). Women often have less formal access to land than men and less influence over decisions about land, even if they carry out many of the land management tasks (Jerneck 2018a 104 ; Elmhirst 2011 105 ; Toulmin 2009 106 ; Peters 2004 107 ; Agarwal 1997 108 ; Jerneck 2018b 109 ). Many oft-cited general statements about women’s subordination in agriculture are difficult to substantiate, yet it is clear that gender inequality persists (Doss et al. 2015 110 ). Even if women’s access to land is changing formally (Kumar and Quisumbing 2015 111 ), the practical outcome is often limited due to several other factors related to both formal and informal institutional arrangements and values (Lavers 2017 112 ; Kristjanson et al. 2017 113 ; Djurfeldt et al. 2018 114 ). Women are also affected differently than men when it comes to climate change, having lower adaptive capacities due to factors such as prevailing land tenure frameworks, less access to other capital assets and dominant cultural practices (Vincent et al. 2014 115 ; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 116 ; Gabrielsson et al. 2013 117 ). This affects the options available to women to respond to both land degradation and climate change. Indeed, access to land and other assets (e.g., education and training) is key in shaping land-use and land management strategies (Liu et al. 2018b 118 ; Lambin et al. 2001 119 ). Young people are also often disadvantaged in terms of access to resources and decision-making power, even though they carry out much of the day-to-day work (Wilson et al. 2017 120 ; Kosec et al. 2018 121 ; Naamwintome and Bagson 2013 122 ).

Land rights differ between places and are dependent on the political-economic and legal context (Montanarella et al. 2018 123 ). This means that there is no universally applicable best arrangement. Agriculture in highly erosion-prone regions requires site-specific and long-lasting soil and water conservation measures, such as terraces (Section 4.8.1), which may benefit from secure private land rights (Tarfasa et al. 2018 124 ; Soule et al. 2000 125 ). Pastoral modes of production and community-based forest management systems are often dominated by, and benefit from, communal land tenure arrangements, which may conflict with agricultural/forestry modernisation policies implying private property rights (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 126 ; Benjaminsen and Lund 2003 127 ; Itkonen 2016 128 ; Owour et al. 2011 129 ; Gebara 2018 130 ).

Cultural ecosystem services, defined as the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 131 ) are closely linked to land and ecosystems, although often under-represented in the literature on ecosystem services (Tengberg et al. 2012 132 ; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013 133 ). Climate change interacting with land conditions can impact on cultural aspects, such as sense of place and sense of belonging (Olsson et al. 2014 134 ).

Land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation results from a complex chain of causes making the clear distinction between direct and indirect drivers difficult. In the context of climate change, an additional complex aspect is brought by the reciprocal effects that both processes have on each other (i.e. climate change influencing land degradation and vice versa). In this chapter, we use the terms ‘processes’ and ‘drivers’ with the following meanings:

Processes of land degradation are those direct mechanisms by which land is degraded and are similar to the notion of ‘direct drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 135 ). A comprehensive list of land degradation processes is presented in Table 4.1.

Drivers of land degradation are those indirect conditions which may drive processes of land degradation and are similar to the notion of ‘indirect drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework. Examples of indirect drivers of land degradation are changes in land tenure or cash crop prices, which can trigger land-use or management shifts that affect land degradation.

An exact demarcation between processes and drivers is not possible. Drought and fires are described as drivers of land degradation in the next section but they can also be a process: for example, if repeated fires deplete seed sources, they can affect regeneration and succession of forest ecosystems. The responses to land degradation follow the logic of the LDN concept: avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation (Orr et al. 2017 136 ; Cowie et al. 2018 137 ).

In research on land degradation, climate and climate variability are often intrinsic factors. The role of climate change, however, is less articulated. Depending on what conceptual framework is used, climate change is understood either as a process or a driver of land degradation, and sometimes both.

Processes of land degradation

A large array of interactive physical, chemical, biological and human processes lead to what we define in this report as land degradation (Johnson and Lewis 2007 138 ). The biological productivity, ecological integrity (which encompasses both functional and structural attributes of ecosystems) or the human value (which includes any benefit that people get from the land) of a given territory can deteriorate as the result of processes triggered at scales that range from a single furrow (e.g., water erosion under cultivation) to the landscape level (e.g., salinisation through raising groundwater levels under irrigation). While pressures leading to land degradation are often exerted on specific components of the land systems (i.e., soils, water, biota), once degradation processes start, other components become affected through cascading and interactive effects. For example, different pressures and degradation processes can have convergent effects, as can be the case of overgrazing leading to wind erosion, landscape drainage resulting in wetland drying, and warming causing more frequent burning; all of which can independently lead to reductions of the soil organic matter (SOM) pools as a second-order process. Still, the reduction of organic matter pools is also a first-order process triggered directly by the effects of rising temperatures (Crowther et al. 2016 139 ) as well as other climate changes such as precipitation shifts (Viscarra Rossel et al. 2014 140 ). Beyond this complexity, a practical assessment of the major land degradation processes helps to reveal and categorise the multiple pathways in which climate change exerts a degradation pressure (Table 4.1).

Conversion of freshwater wetlands to agricultural land has historically been a common way of increasing the area of arable land. Despite the small areal extent – about 1% of the earth’s surface (Hu et al. 2017 141 ; Dixon et al. 2016 142 ) – freshwater wetlands provide a very large number of ecosystem services, such as groundwater replenishment, flood protection and nutrient retention, and are biodiversity hotspots (Reis et al. 2017 143 ; Darrah et al. 2019 144 ; Montanarella et al. 2018 145 ). The loss of wetlands since 1900 has been estimated at about 55% globally (Davidson 2014 146 ) ( low confidence ) and 35% since 1970 (Darrah et al. 2019 147 ) ( medium confidence ) which in many situations pose a problem for adaptation to climate change. Drainage causes loss of wetlands, which can be exacerbated by climate change, further reducing the capacity to adapt to climate change (Barnett et al. 2015 148 ; Colloff et al. 2016 149 ; Finlayson et al. 2017 150 ) ( high confidence ).

Types of land degradation processes

Land degradation processes can affect the soil, water or biotic components of the land as well as the reactions between them (Table 4.1). Across land degradation processes, those affecting the soil have received more attention. The most widespread and studied land degradation processes affecting soils are water and wind erosion, which have accompanied agriculture since its onset and are still dominant (Table 4.1). Degradation through erosion processes is not restricted to soil loss in detachment areas but includes impacts on transport and deposition areas as well (less commonly, deposition areas can have their soils improved by these inputs). Larger-scale degradation processes related to the whole continuum of soil erosion, transport and deposition include dune field expansion/ displacement, development of gully networks and the accumulation of sediments in natural and artificial water-bodies (siltation) (Poesen and Hooke 1997 151 ; Ravi et al. 2010 152 ). Long-distance sediment transport during erosion events can have remote effects on land systems, as documented for the fertilisation effect of African dust on the Amazon (Yu et al. 2015 153 ).

Coastal erosion represents a special case among erosional processes, with reports linking it to climate change. While human interventions in coastal areas (e.g., expansion of shrimp farms) and rivers (e.g., upstream dams cutting coastal sediment supply), and economic activities causing land subsidence (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 154 ; Allison et al. 2016 155 ) are dominant human drivers, storms and sea-level rise have already left a significant global imprint on coastal erosion (Mentaschi et al. 2018 156 ). Recent projections that take into account geomorphological and socioecological feedbacks suggest that coastal wetlands may not be reduced by sea level rise if their inland growth is accommodated with proper management actions (Schuerch et al. 2018 157 ).

Other physical degradation processes in which no material detachment and transport are involved include soil compaction, hardening, sealing and any other mechanism leading to the loss of porous space crucial for holding and exchanging air and water (Hamza and Anderson 2005 158 ). A very extreme case of degradation through pore volume loss, manifested at landscape or larger scales, is ground subsidence. Typically caused by the lowering of groundwater or oil levels, subsidence involves a sustained collapse of the ground

surface, which can lead to other degradation processes such as salinisation and permanent flooding. Chemical soil degradation processes include relatively simple changes, like nutrient depletion resulting from the imbalance of nutrient extraction on harvested products and fertilisation, and more complex ones, such as acidification and increasing metal toxicity. Acidification in croplands is increasingly driven by excessive nitrogen fertilisation and, to a lower extent, by the depletion of cation like calcium, potassium or magnesium through exports in harvested biomass (Guo et al. 2010 159 ). One of the most relevant chemical degradation processes of soils in the context of climate change is the depletion of its organic matter pool. Reduced in agricultural soils through the increase of respiration rates by tillage and the decline of below-ground plant biomass inputs, SOM pools have been diminished also by the direct effects of warming, not only in cultivated land, but also under natural vegetation (Bond-Lamberty et al. 2018 160 ). Debate persists, however, on whether in more humid and carbon-rich ecosystems the simultaneous stimulation of decomposition and productivity may result in the lack of effects on soil carbon (Crowther et al. 2016 161 ; van Gestel et al. 2018 162 ). In the case of forests, harvesting – particularly if it is exhaustive, as in the case of the use of residues for energy generation – can also lead to organic matter declines (Achat et al. 2015 163 ). Many other degradation processes (e.g., wildfire increase, salinisation) have negative effects on other pathways of soil degradation (e.g., reduced nutrient availability, metal toxicity). SOM can be considered a ‘hub’ of degradation processes and a critical link with the climate system (Minasny et al. 2017 164 ).

Land degradation processes can also start from alterations in the hydrological system that are particularly important in the context of climate change. Salinisation, although perceived and reported in soils, is typically triggered by water table-level rises, driving salts to the surface under dry to sub-humid climates (Schofield and Kirkby 2003 165 ). While salty soils occur naturally under these climates (primary salinity), human interventions have expanded their distribution, secondary salinity with irrigation without proper drainage being the predominant cause of salinisation (Rengasamy 2006 166 ). Yet, it has also taken place under non-irrigated conditions where vegetation changes (particularly dry forest clearing and cultivation) have reduced the magnitude and depth of soil water uptake, triggering water table rises towards the surface. Changes in evapotranspiration and rainfall regimes can exacerbate this process (Schofield and Kirkby 2003 167 ). Salinisation can also result from the intrusion of sea water into coastal areas, both as a result of sea level rise and ground subsidence (Colombani et al. 2016 168 ).

Recurring flood and waterlogging episodes (Bradshaw et al. 2007 169 ; Poff 2002 170 ), and the more chronic expansion of wetlands over dryland ecosystems, are mediated by the hydrological system, on occasions aided by geomorphological shifts as well (Kirwan et al. 2011 171 ). This is also the case for the drying of continental water bodies and wetlands, including the salinisation and drying of lakes and inland seas (Anderson et al. 2003 172 ; Micklin 2010 173 ; Herbert et al. 2015 174 ). In the context of climate change, the degradation of peatland ecosystems is particularly relevant given their very high carbon storage and their sensitivity to changes in soils, hydrology and/or vegetation (Leifeld and Menichetti 2018 175 ). Drainage for land-use conversion together with peat mining are major drivers of peatland degradation, yet other factors such as the extractive use of their natural vegetation and the interactive effects of water table levels and fires (both sensitive to climate change) are important (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 176 ; Lilleskov et al. 2019 177 ).

The biotic components of the land can also be the focus of degradation processes. Vegetation clearing processes associated with land-use changes are not limited to deforestation but include other natural and seminatural ecosystems such as grasslands (the most cultivated biome on Earth), as well as dry steppes and shrublands, which give place to croplands, pastures, urbanisation or just barren land. This clearing process is associated with net carbon losses from the vegetation and soil pool. Not all biotic degradation processes involve biomass losses. Woody encroachment of open savannahs involves the expansion of woody plant cover and/or density over herbaceous areas and often limits the secondary productivity of rangelands (Asner et al. 2004 178 ; Anadon et al. 2014 179 ). These processes have accelerated since the mid-1800s over most continents (Van Auken 2009 180 ). Change in plant composition of natural or semi-natural ecosystems without any significant vegetation structural changes is another pathway of degradation affecting rangelands and forests. In rangelands, selective grazing and its interaction with climate variability and/or fire can push ecosystems to new compositions with lower forage value and a higher proportion of invasive species (Illius and O ́Connor 1999 181 ; Sasaki et al. 2007 182 ), in some cases with higher carbon sequestration potential, yet with very complex interactions between vegetation and soil carbon shifts (Piñeiro et al. 2010 183 ). In forests, extractive logging can be a pervasive cause of degradation, leading to long-term impoverishment and, in extreme cases, a full loss of the forest cover through its interaction with other agents such as fires (Foley et al. 2007 184 ) or progressive intensification of land use. Invasive alien species are another source of biological degradation. Their arrival into cultivated systems is constantly reshaping crop production strategies, making agriculture unviable on occasions. In natural and seminatural systems such as rangelands, invasive plant species not only threaten livestock production through diminished forage quality, poisoning and other deleterious effects, but have cascading effects on other processes such as altered fire regimes and water cycling (Brooks et al. 2004 185 ). In forests, invasions affect primary productivity and nutrient availability, change fire regimes, and alter species composition, resulting in long-term impacts on carbon pools and fluxes (Peltzer et al. 2010 186 ).

Other biotic components of ecosystems have been shown as a focus of degradation processes. Invertebrate invasions in continental waters can exacerbate other degradation processes such as eutrophication, which is the over-enrichment of nutrients, leading to excessive algal growth (Walsh et al. 2016a 187 ). Shifts in soil microbial and mesofaunal composition – which can be caused by pollution with pesticides or nitrogen deposition and by vegetation or disturbance regime shifts – alter many soil functions, including respiration rates and carbon release to the atmosphere (Hussain et al. 2009 188 ; Crowther et al. 2015 189 ). The role of the soil biota in modulating the effects of climate change on soil carbon has been recently demonstrated (Ratcliffe et al. 2017 190 ), highlighting the importance of this lesser-known component of the biota as a focal point of land degradation. Of special relevance as both indicators and agents of land degradation recovery are mycorrhiza, which are root-associated fungal organisms (Asmelash et al. 2016 191 ; Vasconcellos et al. 2016 192 ). In natural dry ecosystems, biological soil crusts composed of a broad range of organisms, including mosses, are a particularly sensitive focus for degradation (Field et al. 2010 193 ) with evidenced sensitivity to climate change (Reed et al. 2012 194 ).

Land degradation processes and climate change

While the subdivision of individual processes is challenged by their strong interconnectedness, it provides a useful setting to identify the most important ‘focal points’ of climate change pressures on land degradation. Among land degradation processes, those responding more directly to climate change pressures include all types of erosion and SOM declines (soil focus), salinisation, sodification and permafrost thawing (soil/water focus), waterlogging of dry ecosystems and drying of wet ecosystems (water focus), and a broad group of biologically-mediated processes like woody encroachment, biological invasions, pest outbreaks (biotic focus), together with biological soil crust destruction and increased burning (soil/biota focus) (Table 4.1). Processes like ground subsidence can be affected by climate change indirectly through sea level rise (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 195 ).

Even when climate change exerts a direct pressure on degradation processes, it can be a secondary driver subordinated to other overwhelming human pressures. Important exceptions are three processes in which climate change is a dominant global or regional pressure and the main driver of their current acceleration. These are: coastal erosion as affected by sea level rise and increased storm frequency/intensity ( high agreement, medium evidence ) (Johnson et al. 2015 196 ; Alongi 2015 197 ; Harley et al. 2017 198 ; Nicholls et al. 2016 199 ); permafrost thawing responding to warming ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (Liljedahl et al. 2016 200 ; Peng et al. 2016 201 ; Batir et al. 2017 202 ); and increased burning responding to warming and altered precipitation regimes ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (Jolly et al. 2015 203 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 204 ; Taufik et al. 2017 205 ; Knorr et al. 2016 206 ). The previous assessment highlights the fact that climate change not only exacerbates many of the well-acknowledged ongoing land degradation processes of managed ecosystems (i.e., croplands and pastures), but becomes a dominant pressure that introduces novel degradation pathways in natural and seminatural ecosystems. Climate change has influenced species invasions and the degradation that they cause by enhancing the transport, colonisation, establishment, and ecological impact of the invasive species, and also by impairing their control practices ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Hellmann et al. 2008 207 ).

Major land degradation processes and their connections with climate change.

For each process a ‘focal point’ (soil, water, biota) on which degradation occurs in the first place is indicated, acknowledging that most processes propagate to other land components and cascade into or interact with some of the other processes listed below. The impact of climate change on each process is categorised based on the proximity (very direct = high, very indirect = low) and dominance (dominant = high, subordinate to other pressures = low) of effects. The major effects of climate change on each process are highlighted together with the predominant pressures from other drivers. Feedbacks of land degradation processes on climate change are categorised according to the intensity (very intense = high, subtle = low) of the chemical (GHG emissions or capture) or physical (energy and momentum exchange, aerosol emissions) effects. Warming effects are indicated in red and cooling effects in blue. Specific feedbacks on climate change are highlighted.

References in Table 4.1: (1) Bärring et al. 2003 1580 ; Munson et al. 2011 1581 ; Sheffield et al. 2012 1582 , (2) Nearing et al. 2004 1583 ; Shakesby 2011 1584 ; Panthou et al. 2014 1585 , (3) Johnson et al. 2015 1586 ; Alongi 2015 1587 ; Harley et al. 2017 1588 , (4) Bond-Lamberty et al. 2018 1589 ; Crowther et al. 2016 1590 ; van Gestel et al. 2018 1591 , (5) Colombani et al. 2016 1592 , (6) Schofield and Kirkby 2003 1593 ; Aragüés et al. 2015 1594 ; Benini et al. 2016 1595 , (7) Jobbágy et al. 2017 1596 , (8) Liljedahl et al. 2016 1597 ; Peng et al. 2016 1598 ; Batir et al. 2017 1599 , (9) Piovano et al. 2004 1600 ; Osland et al. 2016 1601 , (10) Burkett and Kusler 2000 1602 ; Nielsen and Brock 2009 1603 ; Johnson et al. 2015 1604 ; Green et al. 2017 1605 , (11) Panthou et al. 2014 1606 ; Arnell and Gosling 2016 1607 ; Vitousek et al. 2017 1608 , (12) Van Auken 2009 1609 ; Wigley et al. 2010 1610 , (13) Vincent et al. 2014 1611 ; Gonzalez et al. 2010 1612 ; Scheffers et al. 2016 1613 , (14) Pritchard 2011 1614 ; Ratcliffe et al. 2017 1615 , (15) Reed et al. 2012 1616 ; Maestre et al. 2013 1617 , (16) Hellmann et al. 2008 1618 ; Hulme 2017 1619 , (17) Pureswaran et al. 2015 1620 ; Cilas et al. 2016 1621 ; Macfadyen et al. 2018 1622 , (18) Jolly et al. 2015 1623 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 1624 ; Taufik et al. 2017 1625 ; Knorr et al. 2016 1626 , (19) Davin et al. 2010 1627 ; Pinty et al. 2011 1628 , (20) Wang et al. 2017b 1629 ; Chappell et al. 2016 1630 , (21) Pendleton et al. 2012 1631 , (22) Oertel et al. 2016 1632 , (23) Houghton et al. 2012 1633 ; Eglin et al. 2010 1634 , (24) Schuur et al. 2015 1635 ; Christensen et al. 2004 1636 ; Walter Anthony et al. 2016 1637 ; Abbott et al. 2016 1638 , (25) Belnap, Walker, Munson & Gill, 2014 1639 ; Rutherford et al. 2017 1640 , (26) Page et al. 2002 1641 ; Pellegrini et al. 2018 1642 .

Drivers of land degradation

Drivers of land degradation and land improvement are many and they interact in multiple ways. Figure 4.2 illustrates how some of the most important drivers interact with the land users. It is important to keep in mind that natural and human factors can drive both degradation and improvement (Kiage 2013 208 ; Bisaro et al. 2014 209 ).

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept […]

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept broadly in balance for functional coevolution of the components. Modified with permission from Stafford Smith et al. (2007) 1643 .

Land degradation is driven by the entire spectrum of factors, from very short and intensive events, such as individual rain storms of 10 minutes removing topsoil or initiating a gully or a landslide (Coppus and Imeson 2002 210 ; Morgan 2005b 211 ) to century-scale slow depletion of nutrients or loss of soil particles (Johnson and Lewis 2007, pp. 5–6). But, instead of focusing on absolute temporal variations, the drivers of land degradation can be assessed in relation to the rates of possible recovery. Unfortunately, this is impractical to do in a spatially explicit way because rates of soil formation are difficult to measure due to the slow rate, usually <5mm/century (Delgado and Gómez 2016 212 ). Studies suggest that erosion rates of conventionally tilled agricultural fields exceed the rate at which soil is generated by one to two orders of magnitude (Montgomery 2007a 213 ).

The landscape effects of gully erosion from one short intensive rainstorm can persist for decades and centuries (Showers 2005 214 ). Intensive agriculture under the Roman Empire in occupied territories in France is still leaving its marks and can be considered an example of irreversible land degradation (Dupouey et al. 2002 215 ).

The climate-change-related drivers of land degradation are gradual changes of temperature, precipitation and wind, as well as changes of the distribution and intensity of extreme events (Lin et al. 2017 216 ). Importantly, these drivers can act in two directions: land improvement and land degradation. Increasing CO 2 level in the atmosphere is a driver of land improvement, even if the net effect is modulated by other factors, such as the availability of nitrogen (Terrer et al. 2016 217 ) and water (Gerten et al. 2014 218 ; Settele et al. 2015 219 ; Girardin et al. 2016 220 ).

The gradual and planetary changes that can cause land degradation/ improvement have been studied by global integrated models and Earth observation technologies. Studies of global land suitability for agriculture suggest that climate change will increase the area suitable for agriculture by 2100 in the Northern high latitudes by 16% (Ramankutty et al. 2002 221 ) or 5.6 million km 2 (Zabel et al. 2014 222 ), while tropical regions will experience a loss (Ramankutty et al. 2002 223 ; Zabel et al. 2014 224 ).

Temporal and spatial patterns of tree mortality can be used as an indicator of climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. Episodic mortality of trees occurs naturally even without climate change, but more widespread spatio-temporal anomalies can be a sign of climate-induced degradation (Allen et al. 2010 225 ). In the absence of systematic data on tree mortality, a comprehensive meta-analysis of 150 published articles suggests that increasing tree mortality around the world can be attributed to increasing drought and heat stress in forests worldwide (Allen et al. 2010 226 ).

Other and more indirect drivers can be a wide range of factors such as demographic changes, technological change, changes of consumption patterns and dietary preferences, political and economic changes, and social changes (Mirzabaev et al. 2016 227 ). It is important to stress that there are no simple or direct relationships between underlying drivers and land degradation, such as poverty or high population density, that are necessarily causing land degradation (Lambin et al. 2001 228 ). However, drivers of land degradation need to be studied in the context of spatial, temporal, economic, environmental and cultural aspects (Warren 2002 229 ). Some analyses suggest an overall negative correlation between population density and land degradation (Bai et al. 2008 230 ) but we find many local examples of both positive and negative relationships (Brandt et al. 2018a, 2017 231 ). Even if there are correlations in one or the other direction, causality is not always the same.

Land degradation is inextricably linked to several climate variables, such as temperature, precipitation, wind, and seasonality. This means that there are many ways in which climate change and land degradation are linked. The linkages are better described as a web of causality rather than a set of cause–effect relationships.

Attribution in the case of land degradation

The question here is whether or not climate change can be attributed to land degradation and vice versa. Land degradation is a complex phenomenon often affected by multiple factors such as climatic (rainfall, temperature, and wind), abiotic ecological factors (e.g., soil characteristics and topography), type of land use (e.g., farming of various kinds, forestry, or protected area), and land management practices (e.g., tilling, crop rotation, and logging/thinning). Therefore, attribution of land degradation to climate change is extremely challenging. Because land degradation is highly dependent on land management, it is even possible that climate impacts would trigger land management changes reducing or reversing land degradation, sometimes called transformational adaptation (Kates et al. 2012 232 ). There is not much research on attributing land degradation explicitly to climate change, but there is more on climate change as a threat multiplier for land degradation. However, in some cases, it is possible to infer climate change impacts on land degradation, both theoretically and empirically. Section 4.2.3.1 outlines the potential direct linkages of climate change on land degradation based on current theoretical understanding of land degradation processes and drivers. Section 4.2.3.2 investigates possible indirect impacts on land degradation.

Direct linkages with climate change

The most important direct impacts of climate change on land degradation are the results of increasing temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and intensification of rainfall. These changes will, in various combinations, cause changes in erosion rates and the processes driving both increases and decreases of soil erosion. From an attribution point of view, it is important to note that projections of precipitation are, in general, more uncertain than projections of temperature changes (Murphy et al. 2004 233 ; Fischer and Knutti 2015 234 ; IPCC 2013a 235 ). Precipitation involves local processes of larger complexity than temperature, and projections are usually less robust than those for temperature (Giorgi and Lionello 2008 236 ; Pendergrass 2018 237 ).

Theoretically the intensification of the hydrological cycle as a result of human-induced climate change is well established (Guerreiro et al. 2018 238 ; Trenberth 1999 239 ; Pendergrass et al. 2017 240 ; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018 241 ) and also empirically observed (Blenkinsop et al. 2018 242 ; Burt et al. 2016a 243 ; Liu et al. 2009 244 ; Bindoff et al. 2013 245 ). AR5 WGI concluded that heavy precipitation events have increased in frequency, intensity, and/or amount since 1950 ( likely ) and that further changes in this direction are likely to very likely during the 21st century (IPCC 2013 246 ). The IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at the global scale (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 247 ). As an example, in central India, there has been a threefold increase in widespread extreme rain events during 1950–2015 which has influenced several land degradation processes, not least soil erosion (Burt et al. 2016b 248 ). In Europe and North America, where observation networks are dense and extend over a long time, it is likely that the frequency or intensity of heavy rainfall have increased (IPCC 2013b 1644 ). It is also expected that seasonal shifts and cycles such as monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) will further increase the intensity of rainfall events (IPCC 2013 249 ).

When rainfall regimes change, it is expected to drive changes in vegetation cover and composition, which may be a cause of land degradation in and of itself, as well as impacting on other aspects of land degradation. Vegetation cover, for example, is a key factor in determining soil loss through water (Nearing et al. 2005 250 ) and wind erosion (Shao 2008 251 ). Changing rainfall regimes also affect below-ground biological processes, such as fungi and bacteria (Meisner et al. 2018 252 ; Shuab et al. 2017 253 ; Asmelash et al. 2016 254 ).

Changing snow accumulation and snow melt alter volume and timing of hydrological flows in and from mountain areas (Brahney et al. 2017 255 ; Lutz et al. 2014 256 ), with potentially large impacts on downstream areas. Soil processes are also affected by changing snow conditions with partitioning between evaporation and streamflow and between subsurface flow and surface runoff (Barnhart et al. 2016 257 ). Rainfall intensity is a key climatic driver of soil erosion. Early modelling studies and theory suggest that light rainfall events will decrease while heavy rainfall events increase at about 7% per degree of warming (Liu et al. 2009 258 ; Trenberth 2011 259 ). Such changes result in increased intensity of rainfall, which increases the erosive power of rainfall (erosivity) and hence enhances the likelihood of water erosion. Increases in rainfall intensity can even exceed the rate of increase of atmospheric moisture content (Liu et al. 2009 260 ; Trenberth 2011 261 ). Erosivity is highly correlated to the product of total rainstorm energy and the maximum 30-minute rainfall intensity of the storm (Nearing et al. 2004 262 ) and increased erosivity will exacerbate water erosion substantially (Nearing et al. 2004 263 ). However, the effects will not be uniform, but highly variable across regions (Almagro et al. 2017 264 ; Mondal et al. 2016 265 ). Several empirical studies around the world have shown the increasing intensity of rainfall (IPCC 2013b 266 ; Ma et al. 2015 267 , 2017 268 ) and also suggest that this will be accentuated with future increased global warming (Cheng and AghaKouchak 2015 269 ; Burt et al. 2016b 270 ; O’Gorman 2015 271 ).

The very comprehensive database of direct measurements of water erosion presented by García-Ruiz et al. (2015) 272 contains 4377 entries (North America: 2776, Europe: 847, Asia: 259, Latin America: 237, Africa: 189, Australia and Pacific: 67), even though not all entries are complete (Figure 4.3).

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015). The map was published by Li and Fang (2016).

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015) 1645 . The map was published by Li and Fang (2016) 1646 .

An important finding from that database is that almost any erosion rate is possible under almost any climatic condition (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 273 ). Even if the results show few clear relationships between erosion and land conditions, the authors highlighted four observations (i) the highest erosion rates were found in relation to agricultural activities – even though moderate erosion rates were also found in agricultural settings, (ii) high erosion rates after forest fires were not observed (although the cases were few), (iii) land covered by shrubs showed generally low erosion rates, (iv) pasture land showed generally medium rates of erosion. Some important findings for the link between soil erosion and climate change can be noted from erosion measurements: erosion rates tend to increase with increasing mean annual rainfall, with a peak in the interval of 1000 to 1400 mm annual rainfall (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 274 ) ( low confidence ). However, such relationships are overshadowed by the fact that most rainfall events do not cause any erosion, instead erosion is caused by a few high-intensity rainfall events (Fischer et al. 2016 275 ; Zhu et al. 2019 276 ). Hence, mean annual rainfall is not a good predictor of erosion (Gonzalez-Hidalgo et al. 2012, 2009 277 ). In the context of climate change, it means that the tendency for rainfall patterns to change towards more intensive precipitation events is serious. Such patterns have already been observed widely, even in cases where the total rainfall is decreasing (Trenberth 2011 278 ). The findings generally confirm the strong consensus about the importance of vegetation cover as a protection against soil erosion, emphasising how extremely important land management is for controlling erosion.

In the Mediterranean region, the observed and expected decrease in annual rainfall due to climate change is accompanied by an increase of rainfall intensity, and hence erosivity (Capolongo et al. 2008 279 ). In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the on-site impacts of soil erosion dominate, and are manifested in very high rates of soil loss, in some cases exceeding 100 t ha–1 yr–1 (Tadesse 2001 280 ; García-Ruiz et al. 2015 281 ). In temperate regions, the off-site costs of soil erosion are often a greater concern, for example, siltation of dams and ponds, downslope damage to property, roads and other infrastructure (Boardman 2010). In cases where water erosion occurs, the downstream effects, such as siltation of dams, are often significant and severe in terms of environmental and economic damages (Kidane and Alemu 2015 282 ; Reinwarth et al. 2019 283 ; Quiñonero-Rubio et al. 2016 284 ; Adeogun et al. 2018 285 ; Ben Slimane et al. 2016 286 ).

The distribution of wet and dry spells also affects land degradation, although uncertainties remain depending on resolution of climate models used for prediction (Kendon et al. 2014 287 ). Changes in timing of rainfall events may have significant impacts on processes of soil erosion through changes in wetting and drying of soils (Lado et al. 2004 288 ).

Soil moisture content is affected by changes in evapotranspiration and evaporation, which may influence the partitioning of water into surface and subsurface runoff (Li and Fang 2016 289 ; Nearing et al. 2004 290 ). This portioning of rainfall can have a decisive effect on erosion (Stocking et al. 2001 291 ).

Wind erosion is a serious problem in agricultural regions, not only in drylands (Wagner 2013 292 ). Near-surface wind speeds over land areas have decreased in recent decades (McVicar and Roderick 2010 293 ), partly as a result of changing surface roughness (Vautard et al. 2010 294 ). Theoretically (Bakun 1990 295 ; Bakun et al. 2015 296 ) and empirically (Sydeman et al. 2014 297 ; England et al. 2014 298 ) average winds along coastal regions worldwide have increased with climate change ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Other studies of wind and wind erosion have not detected any long-term trend, suggesting that climate change has altered wind patterns outside drylands in a way that can significantly affect the risk of wind erosion (Pryor and Barthelmie 2010 299 ; Bärring et al. 2003 300 ). Therefore, the findings regarding wind erosion and climate change are inconclusive, partly due to inadequate measurements.

Global mean temperatures are rising worldwide, but particularly in the Arctic region ( high confidence ) (IPCC 2018a 301 ). Heat stress from extreme temperatures and heatwaves (multiple days of hot weather in a row) have increased markedly in some locations in the last three decades ( high confidence ), and are virtually certain to continue during the 21st century (Olsson et al. 2014a 302 ). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused more frequent heatwaves in most of land regions, and that climate models project robust differences between present-day and global warming up to 1.5°C and between 1.5°C and 2°C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 303 ). Direct temperature effects on soils are of two kinds. Firstly, permafrost thawing leads to soil degradation in boreal and high-altitude regions (Yang et al. 2010 304 ; Jorgenson and Osterkamp 2005 305 ). Secondly, warming alters the cycling of nitrogen and carbon in soils, partly due to impacts on soil microbiota (Solly et al. 2017 306 ). There are many studies with particularly strong experimental evidence, but a full understanding of cause and effect is contextual and elusive (Conant et al. 2011a 307 ,b 308 ; Wu et al. 2011 309 ). This is discussed comprehensively in Chapter 2.

Climate change, including increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels, affects vegetation structure and function and hence conditions for land degradation. Exactly how vegetation responds to changes remains a research task. In a comparison of seven global vegetation models under four representative concentration pathways, Friend et al. (2014) 310 found that all models predicted increasing vegetation carbon storage, however, with substantial variation between models. An important insight compared with previous understanding is that structural dynamics of vegetation seems to play a more important role for carbon storage than vegetation production (Friend et al. 2014 311 ). The magnitude of CO 2 fertilisation of vegetation growth, and hence conditions for land degradation, is still uncertain (Holtum and Winter 2010 312 ), particularly in tropical rainforests (Yang et al. 2016 313 ). For more discussion on this topic, see Chapter 2 in this report.

In summary, rainfall changes attributed to human-induced climate change have already intensified drivers of land degradation ( robust evidence, high agreement ) but attributing land degradation to climate change is challenging because of the importance of land management ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Changes in climate variability modes, such as in monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, can also affect land degradation ( low evidence, low agreement ).

Indirect and complex linkages with climate change

Many important indirect linkages between land degradation and climate change occur via agriculture, particularly through changing outbreaks of pests (Rosenzweig et al. 2001 314 ; Porter et al. 1991 315 ; Thomson et al. 2010 316 ; Dhanush et al. 2015 317 ; Lamichhane et al. 2015 318 ), which is covered comprehensively in Chapter 5. More negative impacts have been observed than positive ones (IPCC 2014b 319 ). After 2050, the risk of yield loss increases as a result of climate change in combination with other drivers ( medium confidence ) and such risks will increase dramatically if global mean temperatures increase by about 4°C ( high confidence ) (Porter et al. 2014). The reduction (or plateauing) in yields in major production areas (Brisson et al. 2010 320 ; Lin and Huybers 2012 321 ; Grassini et al. 2013 322 ) may trigger cropland expansion elsewhere, either into natural ecosystems, marginal arable lands or intensification on already cultivated lands, with possible consequences for increasing land degradation.

Precipitation and temperature changes will trigger changes in land and crop management, such as changes in planting and harvest dates, type of crops, and type of cultivars, which may alter the conditions for soil erosion (Li and Fang 2016 323 ).

Much research has tried to understand how plants are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging, including effects on below-ground processes. But less research has tried to understand how plants are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which of course is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 2006 324 ; Kerns et al. 2016 325 ) and from a hazards point of view (Section 7.2.1). From an attribution point of view, such a complex web of causality is problematic if attribution is only done through statistically-significant correlation. It requires a combination of statistical links and theoretically informed causation, preferably integrated into a model. Some modelling studies have combined several stressors with geomorphologically explicit mechanisms – using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model – and realistic land-use scenarios, and found severe risks of increasing erosion from climate change (Mullan et al. 2012 326 ; Mullan 2013 327 ). Other studies have included various management options, such as changing planting and harvest dates (Zhang and Nearing 2005 328 ; Parajuli et al. 2016 329 ; Routschek et al. 2014 330 ; Nunes and Nearing 2011 331 ), type of cultivars (Garbrecht and Zhang 2015 332 ), and price of crops (Garbrecht et al. 2007 333 ; O’Neal et al. 2005 334 ) to investigate the complexity of how new climate regimes may alter soil erosion rates.

In summary, climate change increases the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequence, but the exact attribution to climate change is challenging due to several confounding factors. But since climate change exacerbates most degradation processes, it is clear that, unless land management is improved, climate change will result in increasing land degradation ( very high confidence ).

Approaches to assessing land degradation

In a review of different approaches and attempts to map global land degradation, Gibbs and Salmon (2015) 335 identified four main approaches to map the global extent of degraded lands: expert opinions (Oldeman and van Lynden 1998 336 ; Dregne 1998 337 ; Reed 2005 338 ; Bot et al. 2000 339 ); satellite observation of vegetation greenness – for example, remote sensing of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Plant Phenology Index (PPI) – (Yengoh et al. 2015 340 ; Bai et al. 2008c 341 ; Shi et al. 2017 342 ; Abdi et al. 2019 343 ; JRC 2018 344 ); biophysical models (biogeographical/ topological) (Cai et al. 2011b 345 ; Hickler et al. 2005 346 ; Steinkamp and Hickler 2015 347 ; Stoorvogel et al. 2017 348 ); and inventories of land use/ condition. Together they provide a relatively complete evaluation, but none on its own assesses the complexity of the process (Vogt et al. 2011 349 ; Gibbs and Salmon 2015 350 ). There is, however, a robust consensus that remote sensing and field-based methods are critical to assess and monitor land degradation, particularly over large areas (such as global, continental and sub-continental) although there are still knowledge gaps to be filled (Wessels et al. 2007 351 , 2004 352 ; Prince 2016 353 ; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017 354 ) as well as the problem of baseline values (Section 4.1.3).

Remote sensing can provide meaningful proxies of land degradation in terms of severity, temporal development, and areal extent. These proxies of land degradation include several indexes that have been used to assess land conditions, and monitoring changes of land conditions – for example, extent of gullies, severe forms of rill and sheet erosion, and deflation. The presence of open-access, quality controlled and continuously updated global databases of remote sensing data is invaluable, and is the only method for consistent monitoring of large areas over several decades (Sedano et al. 2016 355 ; Brandt et al. 2018b 356 ; Turner 2014 357 ).The NDVI, as a proxy for Net Primary Production (NPP) (see Glossary), is one of the most commonly used methods to assess land degradation, since it indicates land cover, an important factor for soil protection. Although NDVI is not a direct measure of vegetation biomass, there is a close coupling between NDVI integrated over a season and in situ NPP ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (see Higginbottom et al. 2014 358 ; Andela et al. 2013 359 ; Wessels et al. 2012 360 ).

Distinction between land degradation/improvement and the effects of climate variation is an important and contentious issue (Murthy and Bagchi 2018 361 ; Ferner et al. 2018 362 ).There is no simple and straightforward way to disentangle these two effects. The interaction of different determinants of primary production is not well understood. A key barrier to this is a lack of understanding of the inherent interannual variability of vegetation (Huxman et al. 2004 363 ; Knapp and Smith 2001 364 ; Ruppert et al. 2012 365 ; Bai et al. 2008a 366 ; Jobbágy and Sala 2000 367 ). One possibility is to compare potential land productivity modelled by vegetation models and actual productivity measured by remote sensing (Seaquist et al. 2009 368 ; Hickler et al. 2005 369 ; van der Esch et al. 2017 370 ), but the difference in spatial resolution, typically 0.5 degrees for vegetation models compared to 0.25–0.5 km for remote sensing data, is hampering the approach. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) provides higher spatial resolution (up to 0.25 km), delivers data for the EVI, which is calculated in the same way as NDVI, and has showed a robust approach to estimate spatial patterns of global annual primary productivity (Shi et al. 2017 371 ; Testa et al. 2018 372 ).

Another approach to disentangle the effects of climate and land use/ management is to use the Rain Use Efficiency (RUE), defined as the biomass production per unit of rainfall, as an indicator (Le Houerou 1984 373 ; Prince et al. 1998 374 ; Fensholt et al. 2015 375 ). A variant of the RUE approach is the residual trend (RESTREND) of a NDVI time series, defined as the fraction of the difference between the observed NDVI and the NDVI predicted from climate data (Yengoh et al. 2015 376 ; John et al. 2016 377 ). These two metrics aim to estimate the NPP, rainfall and the time dimensions. They are simple transformations of the same three variables: RUE shows the NPP relationship with rainfall for individual years, while RESTREND is the interannual change of RUE; also, both consider that rainfall is the only variable that affects biomass production. They are legitimate metrics when used appropriately, but in many cases they involve oversimplifications and yield misleading results (Fensholt et al. 2015 378 ; Prince et al. 1998 379 ).

Furthermore, increases in NPP do not always indicate improvement in land condition/reversal of land degradation, since this does not account for changes in vegetation composition. It could, for example, result from conversion of native forest to plantation, or due to bush encroachment, which many consider to be a form of land degradation (Ward 2005 380 ). Also, NPP may be increased by irrigation, which can enhance productivity in the short to medium term while increasing risk of soil salinisation in the long term (Niedertscheider et al. 2016 381 ).

Recent progress and expanding time series of canopy characterisations based on passive microwave satellite sensors have offered rapid progress in regional and global descriptions of forest degradation and recovery trends (Tian et al. 2017 382 ). The most common proxy is vertical optical depth (VOD) and has already been used to describe global forest/savannah carbon stock shifts over two decades, highlighting strong continental contrasts (Liu et al. 2015a 383 ) and demonstrating the value of this approach to monitor forest degradation at large scales. Contrasting with NDVI, which is only sensitive to vegetation ‘greenness’, from which primary production can be modelled, VOD is also sensitive to water in woody parts of the vegetation and hence provides a view of vegetation dynamics that can be complementary to NDVI. As well as the NDVI, VOD also needs to be corrected to take into account the rainfall variation (Andela et al. 2013 384 ).

Even though remote sensing offers much potential, its application to land degradation and recovery remains challenging as structural changes often occur at scales below the detection capabilities of most remote-sensing technologies. Additionally, if the remote sensing is based on vegetation index data, other forms of land degradation, such as nutrient depletion, changes of soil physical or biological properties, loss of values for humans, among others, cannot be inferred directly by remote sensing. The combination of remotely sensed images and field-based approach can give improved estimates of carbon stocks and tree biodiversity (Imai et al. 2012 385 ; Fujiki et al. 2016 386 ).

Additionally, the majority of trend techniques employed would be capable of detecting only the most severe of degradation processes, and would therefore not be useful as a degradation early-warning system (Higginbottom et al. 2014 387 ; Wessels et al. 2012 388 ). However, additional analyses using higher-resolution imagery, such as the Landsat and SPOT satellites, would be well suited to providing further localised information on trends observed (Higginbottom et al. 2014 389 ). New approaches to assess land degradation using high spatial resolution are developing, but the need for time series makes progress slow. The use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data has been shown to be advantageous for the estimation of soil surface characteristics, in particular, surface roughness and soil moisture (Gao et al. 2017 390 ; Bousbih et al. 2017 391 ), and detecting and quantifying selective logging (Lei et al. 2018 392 ). Continued research effort is required to enable full assessment of land degradation using remote sensing.

Computer simulation models can be used alone or combined with the remote sensing observations to assess land degradation. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) can be used, to some extent, to predict the long-term average annual soil loss by water erosion. RUSLE has been constantly revisited to estimate soil loss based on the product of rainfall–runoff erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness factor, conservation factor, and support practice parameter (Nampak et al. 2018 393 ). Inherent limitations of RUSLE include data-sparse regions, inability to account for soil loss from gully erosion or mass wasting events, and that it does not predict sediment pathways from hillslopes to water bodies (Benavidez et al. 2018 394 ). Since RUSLE models only provide gross erosion, the integration of a further module in the RUSLE scheme to estimate the sediment yield from the modelled hillslopes is needed. The spatially distributed sediment delivery model, WaTEM/SEDEM, has been widely tested in Europe (Borrelli et al. 2018 395 ). Wind erosion is another factor that needs to be taken into account in the modelling of soil erosion (Webb et al. 2017a 396 , 2016 397 ). Additional models need to be developed to include the limitations of the RUSLE models.

Regarding the field-based approach to assess land degradation, there are multiple indicators that reflect functional ecosystem processes linked to ecosystem services and thus to the value for humans. These indicators are a composite set of measurable attributes from different factors, such as climate, soil, vegetation, biomass, management, among others, that can be used together or separately to develop indexes to better assess land degradation (Allen et al. 2011 398 ; Kosmas et al. 2014 399 ).

Declines in vegetation cover, changes in vegetation structure, decline in mean species abundances, decline in habitat diversity, changes in abundance of specific indicator species, reduced vegetation health and productivity, and vegetation management intensity and use, are the most common indicators in the vegetation condition of forest and woodlands (Stocking et al. 2001 400 ; Wiesmair et al. 2017 401 ; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017 402 ; Alkemade et al. 2009 403 ).

Several indicators of the soil quality (SOM, depth, structure, compaction, texture, pH, C:N ratio, aggregate size distribution and stability, microbial respiration, soil organic carbon, salinisation, among others) have been proposed (Schoenholtz et al. 2000 404 ) (Section 2.2). Among these, SOM directly and indirectly drives the majority of soil functions. Decreases in SOM can lead to a decrease in fertility and biodiversity, as well as a loss of soil structure, causing reductions in water-holding capacity, increased risk of erosion (both wind and water) and increased bulk density and hence soil compaction (Allen et al. 2011 405 ; Certini 2005 406 ; Conant et al. 2011a 407 ). Thus, indicators related with the quantity and quality of the SOM are necessary to identify land degradation (Pulido et al. 2017 408 ; Dumanski and Pieri 2000 409 ). The composition of the microbial community is very likely to be positive impacted by both climate change and land degradation processes (Evans and Wallenstein 2014 410 ; Wu et al. 2015 411 ; Classen et al. 2015 412 ), thus changes in microbial community composition can be very useful to rapidly reflect land degradation (e.g., forest degradation increased the bacterial alpha-diversity indexes) (Flores-Rentería et al. 2016 413 ; Zhou et al. 2018 414 ). These indicators might be used as a set of site-dependent indicators, and in a plant-soil system (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005 415 ).

Useful indicators of degradation and improvement include changes in ecological processes and disturbance regimes that regulate the flow of energy and materials and that control ecosystem dynamics under a climate change scenario. Proxies of dynamics include spatial and temporal turnover of species and habitats within ecosystems (Ghazoul et al. 2015 416 ; Bahamondez and Thompson 2016 417 ). Indicators in agricultural lands include crop yield decreases and difficulty in maintaining yields (Stocking et al. 2001 418 ). Indicators of landscape degradation/improvement in fragmented forest landscapes include the extent, size and distribution of remaining forest fragments, an increase in edge habitat, and loss of connectivity and ecological memory (Zahawi et al. 2015 419 ; Pardini et al. 2010 420 ).

In summary, as land degradation is such a complex and global process, there is no single method by which land degradation can be estimated objectively and consistently over large areas ( very high confidence ). However, many approaches exist that can be used to assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies of land degradation. Remote sensing, complemented by other kinds of data (i.e., field observations, inventories, expert opinions), is the only method that can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data over time scales relevant for land degradation (several decades).

Status and current trends of land degradation

The scientific literature on land degradation often excludes forest degradation, yet here we attempt to assess both issues. Because of the different bodies of scientific literature, we assess land degradation and forest degradation under different sub-headings and, where possible, draw integrated conclusions.

Land degradation

There are no reliable global maps of the extent and severity of land degradation (Gibbs and Salmon 2015 421 ; Prince et al. 2018 422 ; van der Esch et al. 2017 423 ), despite the fact that land degradation is a severe problem (Turner et al. 2016 424 ). The reasons are both conceptual – that is, how land degradation is defined, using what baseline (Herrick et al. 2019 425 ) or over what time period – and methodological – that is, how it can be measured (Prince et al. 2018 426 ). Although there is a strong consensus that land degradation is a reduction in productivity of the land or soil, there are diverging views regarding the spatial and temporal scales at which land degradation occurs (Warren 2002 427 ), and how this can be quantified and mapped. Proceeding from the definition in this report, there are also diverging views concerning ecological integrity and the value to humans. A comprehensive treatment of the conceptual discussion about land degradation is provided by the recent report on land degradation from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Montanarella et al. 2018 428 ).

A review of different attempts to map global land degradation, based on expert opinion, satellite observations, biophysical models and a database of abandoned agricultural lands, suggested that between <10 Mkm2 to 60 Mkm2 (corresponding to 8–45% of the ice-free land area) have been degraded globally (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015 429 ) ( very low confidence ).

One often-used global assessment of land degradation uses trends in NDVI as a proxy for land degradation and improvement during the period 1983 to 2006 (Bai et al. 2008b 430 ,c 431 ) with an update to 2011 (Bai et al. 2015 432 ). These studies, based on very coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR data with a resolution of 8 km), indicated that, between 22% and 24% of the global ice-free land area was subject to a downward trend, while about 16% showed an increasing trend. The study also suggested, contrary to earlier assessments (Middleton and Thomas 1997 433 ), that drylands were not among the most affected regions. Another study using a similar approach for the period 1981–2006 suggested that about 29% of the global land area is subject to ‘land degradation hotspots’, that is, areas with acute land degradation in need of particular attention. These hotspot areas were distributed over all agro-ecological regions and land cover types. Two different studies have tried to link land degradation, identified by NDVI as a proxy, and number of people affected: Le et al. (2016) 434 estimated that at least 3.2 billion people were affected, while Barbier and Hochard (2016 435 , 2018 436 ) estimated that 1.33 billion people were affected, of which 95% were living in developing countries.

Yet another study, using a similar approach and type of remote-sensing data, compared NDVI trends with biomass trends calculated by a global vegetation model over the period 1982–2010 and found that 17–36% of the land areas showed a negative NDVI trend, while a positive or neutral trend was predicted in modelled vegetation (Schut et al. 2015 437 ). The World Atlas of Desertification (3rd edition) includes a global map of land productivity change over the period 1999 to 2013, which is one useful proxy for land degradation (Cherlet et al. 2018 438 ). Over that period, about 20% of the global ice-free land area shows signs of declining or unstable productivity, whereas about 20% shows increasing productivity. The same report also summarised the productivity trends by land categories and found that most forest land showed increasing trends in productivity, while rangelands had more declining trends than increasing trends (Figure 4.4). These productivity assessments, however, do not distinguish between trends due to climate change and trends due to other factors. A recent analysis of ‘greening’ of the world using MODIS time series of NDVI 2000–2017, shows a striking increase in the greening over China and India. In China the greening is seen over forested areas, 42%, and cropland areas, in which 32% is increasing (Section 4.9.3). In India, the greening is almost entirely associated with cropland (82%) (Chen et al. 2019 439 ).

All these studies of vegetation trends show that there are regionally differentiated trends of either decreasing or increasing vegetation. When comparing vegetation trends with trends in climatic variables, Schut et al. (2015 440 ) found very few areas (1–2%) where an increase in vegetation trend was independent of the climate drivers, and that study suggested that positive vegetation trends are primarily caused by climatic factors.

In an attempt to go beyond the mapping of global vegetation trends for assessing land degradation, Borelli et al. (2017) 441 used a soil erosion model (RUSLE) and suggested that soil erosion is mainly caused in areas of cropland expansion, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. The method is controversial for conceptual reasons (i.e., the ability of the model to capture the most important erosion processes) and data limitations (i.e., the availability of relevant data at regional to global scales), and its validity for assessing erosion over large areas has been questioned by several studies (Baveye 2017 442 ; Evans and Boardman 2016a 443 ,b 444 ; Labrière et al. 2015 445 ).

An alternative to using remote sensing for assessing the state of land degradation is to compile field-based data from around the globe (Turner et al. 2016 446 ). In addition to the problems of definitions and baselines, this approach is also hampered by the lack of standardised methods used in the field. An assessment of the global severity of soil erosion in agriculture, based on 1673 measurements around the world (compiled from 201 peer-reviewed articles), indicated that the global net median rate of soil formation (i.e., formation minus erosion) is about 0.004 mm yr –1 (about 0.05 t ha –1 yr –1 ) compared with the median net rate of soil loss in agricultural fields, 1.52 mm yr –1 (about 18 t ha –1 yr –1 ) in tilled fields and 0.065 mm yr –1 (about 0.8 t ha–1 yr –1 ) in no-till fields (Montgomery 2007a 447 ). This means that the rate of soil erosion from agricultural fields is between 380 (conventional tilling) and 16 times (no-till) the natural rate of soil formation ( medium agreement, limited evidence ). These approximate figures are supported by another large meta-study including over 4000 sites around the world (see Figure 4.4) where the average soil loss from agricultural plots was about 21 t ha –1 yr –1 (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 448 ). Climate change, mainly through the intensification of rainfall, will further increase these rates unless land management is improved ( high agreement, medium evidence ).

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus […]

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus Global Land SPOT VGT, 1999–2013, adapted from (Cherlet et al. 2018 1647 ).

Soils contain about 1500 Gt of organic carbon (median across 28 different estimates presented by Scharlemann et al. (2014)), which is about 1.8 times more carbon than in the atmosphere (Ciais et al. 2013 449 ) and 2.3–3.3 times more than what is held in the terrestrial vegetation of the world (Ciais et al. 2013 450 ). Hence, land degradation, including land conversion leading to soil carbon losses, has the potential to impact on the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 substantially. When natural ecosystems are cultivated they lose soil carbon that accumulated over long time periods.The loss rate depends on the type of natural vegetation and how the soil is managed. Estimates of the magnitude of loss vary but figures between 20% and 59% have been reported in several meta studies (Poeplau and Don 2015 451 ; Wei et al. 2015 452 ; Li et al. 2012 453 ; Murty et al. 2002 454 ; Guo and Gifford 2002 455 ). The amount of soil carbon lost explicitly due to land degradation after conversion is hard to assess due to large variation in local conditions and management, see also Chapter 2.

From a climate change perspective, land degradation plays an important role in the dynamics of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ). N 2 O is produced by microbial activity in the soil and the dynamics are related to both management practices and weather conditions, while CH 4 dynamics are primarily determined by the amount of soil carbon and to what extent the soil is subject to waterlogging (Palm et al. 2014 456 ), see also Chapter 2.

Several attempts have been made to map the human footprint on the planet (Čuček et al. 2012 457 ; Venter et al. 2016 458 ) but, in some cases, they confuse human impact on the planet with degradation. From our definition it is clear that human impact (or pressure) is not synonymous with degradation, but information on the human footprint provides a useful mapping of potential non-climatic drivers of degradation.

In summary, there are no uncontested maps of the location, extent and severity of land degradation. Proxy estimates based on remote sensing of vegetation dynamics provide one important information source, but attribution of the observed changes in productivity to climate change, human activities, or other drivers is hard. Nevertheless, the different attempts to map the extent of global land degradation using remotely sensed proxies show some convergence and suggest that about a quarter of the ice-free land area is subject to some form of land degradation ( limited evidence, medium agreement ) affecting about 3.2 billion people ( low confidence ). Attempts to estimate the severity of land degradation through soil erosion estimates suggest that soil erosion is a serious form of land degradation in croplands closely associated with unsustainable land management in combination with climatic parameters, some of which are subject to climate change ( limited evidence, high agreement ). Climate change is one among several causal factors in the status and current trends of land degradation ( limited evidence, high agreement ).

Forest degradation

Quantifying degradation in forests has also proven difficult. Remote sensing based inventory methods can measure reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks more easiliy than reductions in biological productivity, losses of ecological integrity or value to humans. However, the causes of reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks can be many (Curtis et al. 2018 459 ), including natural disturbances (e.g., fires, insects and other forest pests), direct human activities (e.g., harvest, forest management) and indirect human impacts (such as climate change) and these may not reduce long-term biological productivity. In many boreal, some temperate and other forest types natural disturbances are common, and consequently these disturbance-adapted forest types are comprised of a mosaic of stands of different ages and stages of stand recovery following natural disturbances. In those managed forests where natural disturbances are uncommon or suppressed, harvesting is the primary determinant of forest age-class distributions.

Quantifying forest degradation as a reduction in productivity, carbon stocks or canopy cover also requires that an initial condition (or baseline) is established, against which this reduction is assessed (Section 4.1.4). In forest types with rare stand-replacing disturbances, the concept of ‘intact’ or ‘primary’ forest has been used to define the initial condition (Potapov et al. 2008 460 ) but applying a single metric can be problematic (Bernier et al. 2017 461 ). Moreover, forest types with

frequent stand-replacing disturbances, such as wildfires, or with natural disturbances that reduce carbon stocks, such as some insect outbreaks, experience over time a natural variability of carbon stocks or canopy density, making it more difficult to define the appropriate baseline carbon density or canopy cover against which to assess degradation. In these systems, forest degradation cannot be assessed at the stand level, but requires a landscape-level assessment that takes into consideration the stand age-class distribution of the landscape, which reflects natural and human disturbance regimes over past decades to centuries and also considers post-disturbance regrowth (van Wagner 1978 462 ; Volkova et al. 2018 463 ; Lorimer and White 2003 464 ).

The lack of a consistent definition of forest degradation also affects the ability to establish estimates of the rates or impacts of forest degradation because the drivers of degradation are not clearly defined (Sasaki and Putz 2009 465 ). Moreover, the literature at times confounds estimates of forest degradation and deforestation (i.e., the conversion of forest to non-forest land uses). Deforestation is a change in land use, while forest degradation is not, although severe forest degradation can ultimately lead to deforestation.

Based on empirical data provided by 46 countries, the drivers for deforestation (due to commercial agriculture) and forest degradation (due to timber extraction and logging) are similar in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Hosonuma et al. 2012 466 ). More recently, global forest disturbance over the period 2001–2015 was attributed to commodity-driven deforestation (27 ± 5%), forestry (26 ± 4%), shifting agriculture (24 ± 3%) and wildfire (23 ± 4%). The remaining 0.6 ± 0.3% was attributed to the expansion of urban centres (Curtis et al. 2018 467 ).

The trends of productivity shown by several remote-sensing studies (see previous section) are largely consistent with mapping of forest cover and change using a 34-year time series of coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR) (Song et al. 2018 468 ). This study, based on a thematic classification of satellite data, suggests that (i) global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million km 2 between 1982 and 2016 (corresponding to +7.1%) but with regional differences that contribute a net loss in the tropics and a net gain at higher latitudes, and (ii) the fraction of bare ground decreased by 1.16 million km 2 (corresponding to –3.1%), mainly in agricultural regions of Asia (Song et al. 2018 469 ), see Figure 4.5. Other tree or land cover datasets show opposite global net trends (Li et al. 2018b 470 ), but high agreement in terms of net losses in the tropics and large net gains in the temperate and boreal zones (Li et al. 2018b 471 ; Song et al. 2018 472 ; Hansen et al. 2013 473 ). Differences across global estimates are further discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.1.2.3) and Chapter 2.

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 2018). Source of […]

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 2018 1648 ). Source of data: NOAA AVHRR.

The changes detected from 1982 to 2016 were primarily linked to direct human action, such as land-use changes (about 60% of the observed changes), but also to indirect effects, such as human-induced climate change (about 40% of the observed changes) (Song et al. 2018 474 ), a finding also supported by a more recent study (Chen et al. 2019 475 ). The climate-induced effects were clearly discernible in some regions, such as forest decline in the US Northwest due to increasing pest infestation and increasing fire frequency (Lesk et al. 2017 476 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 477 ; Seidl et al. 2017 478 ), warming-induced

vegetation increase in the Arctic region, general greening in the Sahel probably as a result of increasing rainfall and atmospheric CO 2 , and advancing treelines in mountain regions (Song et al. 2018 479 ). Keenan et al. (2015) 480 and Sloan and Sayer (2015) 481 studied the 2015 Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO 2016 482 ) and found that the total forest area from 1990 to 2015 declined by 3%, an estimate that is supported by a global remote-sensing assessment of forest area change that found a 2.8% decline between 1990–2010 (D’Annunzio et al. 2017 483 ; Lindquist and D’Annunzio 2016 484 ). The trend in deforestation is, however, contradicted between these two global assessments, with FAO (2016) suggesting that deforestation is slowing down, while the remote sensing assessments finds it to be accelerating (D’Annunzio et al. 2017 485 ). Recent estimates (Song et al. 2018 486 ) owing to semantic and methodological differences (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.2.3) suggest that global tree cover has increased over the period 1982–2016, which contradicts the forest area dynamics assessed by FAO (2016) 487 and Lindquist and D’Annunzio (2016) 488 . The loss rate in tropical forest areas from 2010 to 2015 is 55,000 km 2 yr -1 . According to the FRA, the global natural forest area also declined from 39.61 Mkm 2 to 37.21 Mkm 2 during the period 1990 to 2015 (Keenan et al. 2015 489 ).

Since 1850, deforestation globally contributed 77% of the emissions from land-use and land-cover change while degradation contributed 10% (with the remainder originating from non-forest land uses) (Houghton and Nassikas 2018 490 ). That study also showed large temporal and regional differences with northern mid-latitude forests currently contributing to carbon sinks due to increasing forest area and forest management. However, the contribution to carbon emissions of degradation as percentage of total forest emissions (degradation and deforestation) are uncertain, with estimates varying from 25% (Pearson et al. 2017 491 ) to nearly 70% of carbon losses (Baccini et al. 2017 492 ). The 25% estimate refers to an analysis of 74 developing countries within tropical and subtropical regions covering 22 million km 2 for the period 2005–2010, while the 70% estimate refers to an analysis of the tropics for the period 2003–2014, but, by and large, the scope of these studies is the same. Pearson et al. (2017) 493 estimated annual gross emissions of 2.1 GtCO 2 , of which 53% were derived from timber harvest, 30% from woodfuel harvest and 17% from forest fire. Estimating gross emissions only, creates a distorted representation of human impacts on the land sector carbon cycle. While forest harvest for timber and fuelwood and land-use change (deforestation) contribute to gross emissions, to quantify impacts on the atmosphere, it is necessary to estimate net emissions, that is, the balance of gross emissions and gross removals of carbon from the atmosphere through forest regrowth (Chazdon et al. 2016a 494 ; Poorter et al. 2016 495 ; Sanquetta et al. 2018 496 ).

Current efforts to reduce atmospheric CO 2 concentrations can be supported by reductions in forest-related carbon emissions and increases in sinks, which requires that the net impact of forest management on the atmosphere be evaluated (Griscom et al. 2017 497 ). Forest management and the use of wood products in GHG mitigation strategies result in changes in forest ecosystem carbon stocks, changes in harvested wood product carbon stocks, and potential changes in emissions resulting from the use of wood products and forest biomass that substitute for other emissions-intensive materials such as concrete, steel and fossil fuels (Kurz et al. 2016 498 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 499 ; Nabuurs et al. 2007 500 ). The net impact of these changes on GHG emissions and removals, relative to a scenario without forest mitigation actions, needs to be quantified, (e.g., Werner et al. 2010 501 ; Smyth et al. 2014 502 ; Xu et al. 2018 503 ). Therefore, reductions in forest ecosystem carbon stocks alone are an incomplete estimator of the impacts of forest management on the atmosphere (Nabuurs et al. 2007 504 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 505 ; Kurz et al. 2016 506 ; Chen et al. 2018b 507 ). The impacts of forest management and the carbon storage in long-lived products and landfills vary greatly by region, however, because of the typically much shorter lifespan of wood products produced from tropical regions compared to temperate and boreal regions (Earles et al. 2012 508 ; Lewis et al. 2019 509 ; Iordan et al. 2018 510 ) (Section 4.8.4).

Assessments of forest degradation based on remote sensing of changes in canopy density or land cover, (e.g., Hansen et al. 2013 511 ; Pearson et al. 2017 512 ) quantify changes in above-ground biomass carbon stocks and require additional assumptions or model-based analyses to also quantify the impacts on other ecosystem carbon pools including below-ground biomass, litter, woody debris and soil carbon. Depending on the type of disturbance, changes in above-ground biomass may lead to decreases or increases in other carbon pools, for example, windthrow and insect-induced tree mortality may result in losses in above-ground biomass that are (initially) offset by corresponding increases in dead organic matter carbon pools (Yamanoi et al. 2015 513 ; Kurz et al. 2008 514 ), while deforestation will reduce the total ecosystem carbon pool (Houghton et al. 2012 515 ).

A global study of current vegetation carbon stocks (450 Gt C), relative to a hypothetical condition without land use (916 Gt C), attributed 42–47% of carbon stock reductions to land management effects without land-use change, while the remaining 53–58% of carbon stock reductions were attributed to deforestation and other land-use changes (Erb et al. 2018 516 ). While carbon stocks in European forests are lower than hypothetical values in the complete absence of human land use, forest area and carbon stocks have been increasing over recent decades (McGrath et al. 2015 517 ; Kauppi et al. 2018 518 ). Studies by Gingrich et al. (2015) 519 on the long-term trends in land use over nine European countries (Albania, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) also show an increase in forest land and reduction in cropland and grazing land from the 19th century to the early 20th century. However, the extent to which human activities have affected the productive capacity of forest lands is poorly understood. Biomass Production Efficiency (BPE), i.e. the fraction of photosynthetic production used for biomass production, was significantly higher in managed forests (0.53) compared to natural forests (0.41) (and it was also higher in managed (0.63) compared to natural (0.44) grasslands) (Campioli et al. 2015 521 ). Managing lands for production may involve trade-offs. For example, a larger proportion of NPP in managed forests is allocated to biomass carbon storage, but lower allocation to fine roots is hypothesised to reduce soil carbon stocks in the long term (Noormets et al. 2015 522 ). Annual volume increment in Finnish forests has more than doubled over the last century, due to increased growing stock, improved forest management and environmental changes (Henttonen et al. 2017 523 ).

As economies evolve, the patterns of land-use and carbon stock changes associated with human expansion into forested areas often include a period of rapid decline of forest area and carbon stocks, recognition of the need for forest conservation and rehabilitation, and a transition to more sustainable land management that is often associated with increasing carbon stocks, (e.g., Birdsey et al. 2006 524 ). Developed and developing countries around the world are in various stages of forest transition (Kauppi et al. 2018 525 ; Meyfroidt and Lambin 2011 526 ). Thus, opportunities exist for SFM to contribute to atmospheric carbon targets through reduction of deforestation and degradation, forest conservation, forest restoration, intensification of management, and enhancements of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood products (Griscom et al. 2017 527 ) ( medium evidence, medium agreement ).

Projections of land degradation in a changing climate

Land degradation will be affected by climate change in both direct and indirect ways, and land degradation will, to some extent, also feed back into the climate system. The direct impacts are those in which climate and land interact directly in time and space. Examples of direct impacts are when increasing rainfall intensity exacerbates soil erosion, or when prolonged droughts reduce the vegetation cover of the soil, making it more prone to erosion and nutrient depletion. The indirect impacts are those where climate change impacts and land degradation are separated in time and/or space. Examples of such impacts are when declining agricultural productivity due to climate change drives an intensification of agriculture elsewhere, which may cause land degradation. Land degradation, if sufficiently widespread, may also feed back into the climate system by reinforcing ongoing climate change.

Although climate change is exacerbating many land degradation processes ( high to very high confidence ), prediction of future land degradation is challenging because land management practices determine, to a very large extent, the state of the land. Scenarios of climate change in combination with land degradation models can provide useful knowledge on what kind and extent of land management will be necessary to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation.

Direct impacts on land degradation

There are two main levels of uncertainty in assessing the risks of future climate-change-induced land degradation. The first level, where uncertainties are comparatively low, involves changes of the degrading agent, such as erosive power of precipitation, heat stress from increasing temperature extremes (Hüve et al. 2011 528 ), water stress from droughts, and high surface wind speed. The second level of uncertainties, and where the uncertainties are much larger, relates to the above – and below-ground ecological changes as a result of changes in climate, such as rainfall, temperature, and increasing level of CO 2 . Vegetation cover is crucial to protect against erosion (Mullan et al. 2012 529 ; García-Ruiz et al. 2015 530 ).

Changes in rainfall patterns, such as distribution in time and space, and intensification of rainfall events will increase the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequences ( high agreement, medium evidence ). Climate-induced vegetation changes will increase the risk of land degradation in some areas (where vegetation cover will decline) ( medium confidence ). Landslides are a form of land degradation, induced by extreme rainfall events. There is a strong theoretical reason for increasing landslide activity due to intensification of rainfall, but so far, the empirical evidence that climate change has contributed to landslides is lacking (Crozier 2010 1649 ; Huggel et al. 2012 532 ; Gariano and Guzzetti 2016 533 ). Human disturbance may be a more important future trigger than climate change (Froude and Petley 2018 534 ).

Erosion of coastal areas as a result of sea level rise will increase worldwide ( very high confidence ). In cyclone-prone areas (such as the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and the Bay of Bengal) the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones (Walsh et al. 2016b 535 ) and, in some areas, land subsidence (Yang et al. 2019 536 ; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018 537 ; Wang et al. 2018 538 ; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019 539 ; Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 540 ), will pose a serious risk to people and livelihoods ( very high confidence ), in some cases even exceeding limits to adaption (Sections 4.8.4.1, 4.9.6 and 4.9.8).

Changes in water erosion risk due to precipitation changes

The hydrological cycle is intensifying with increasing warming of the atmosphere. The intensification means that the number of heavy rainfall events is increasing, while the total number of rainfall events tends to decrease (Trenberth 2011 541 ; Li and Fang 2016 542 ; Kendon et al. 2014 543 ; Guerreiro et al. 2018 544 ; Burt et al. 2016a 545 ; Westra et al. 2014 546 ; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018 547 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ). Modelling of the changes in land degradation that are a result of climate change alone is hard because of the importance of local contextual factors. As shown above, actual erosion rate is extremely dependent on local conditions, primarily vegetation cover and topography (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 548 ). Nevertheless, modelling of soil erosion risks has advanced substantially in recent decades, and such studies are indicative of future changes in the risk of soil erosion, while actual erosion rates will still primarily be determined by land management. In a review article, Li and Fang (2016) 549 summarised 205 representative modelling studies around the world where erosion models were used in combination with downscaled climate models to assess future (between 2030 to 2100) erosion rates. The meta-study by Li and Fang, where possible, considered climate change in terms of temperature increase and changing rainfall regimes and their impacts on vegetation and soils. Almost all of the sites had current soil loss rates above 1 t ha–1 (assumed to be the upper limit for acceptable soil erosion in Europe) and 136 out of 205 studies predicted increased soil erosion rates. The percentage increase in erosion rates varied between 1.2% to as much as over 1600%, whereas 49 out of 205 studies projected more than 50% increase. Projected soil erosion rates varied substantially between studies because the important of local factors, hence climate change impacts on soil erosion, should preferably be assessed at the local to regional scale, rather than the global (Li and Fang 2016 550 ).

Mesoscale convective systems (MCS), typically thunder storms, have increased markedly in the last three to four decades in the USA and Australia and they are projected to increase substantially (Prein et al. 2017 551 ). Using a climate model with the ability to represent MCS, Prein and colleagues were able to predict future increases in frequency, intensity and size of such weather systems. Findings include the 30% decrease in number of MCS of <40 mm h -1 , but a sharp increase of 380% in the number of extreme precipitation events of >90 mm h –1 over the North American continent. The combined effect of increasing precipitation intensity and increasing size of the weather systems implies that the total amount of precipitation from these weather systems is expected to increase by up to 80% (Prein et al. 2017 552 ), which will substantially increase the risk of land degradation in terms of landslides, extreme erosion events, flashfloods, and so on.

The potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion can be assessed by modelling the projected changes in particular variables of climate change known to cause erosion, such as erosivity of rainfall. A study of the conterminous United States based on three climate models and three scenarios (A2, A1B, and B1) found that rainfall erosivity will increase in all scenarios, even if there are large spatial differences – a strong increase in the north-east and north-west, and either weak or inconsistent trends in the south-west and mid-west (Segura et al. 2014 553 ).

In a study of how climate change will impact on future soil erosion processes in the Himalayas, Gupta and Kumar (2017) 554 estimated that soil erosion will increase by about 27% in the near term (2020s) and 22% in the medium term (2080s), with little difference between scenarios. A study from Northern Thailand estimated that erosivity will increase by 5% in the near term (2020s) and 14% in the medium term (2080s), which would result in a similar increase of soil erosion, all other factors being constant (Plangoen and Babel 2014 555 ). Observed rainfall erosivity has increased significantly in the lower Niger Basin (Nigeria) and is predicted to increase further based on statistical downscaling of four General Circulation Models (GCM) scenarios, with an estimated increase of 14%, 19% and 24% for the 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s respectively (Amanambu et al. 2019 556 ).

Many studies from around the world where statistical downscaling of GCM results have been used in combination with process-based erosion models show a consistent trend of increasing soil erosion.

Using a comparative approach, Serpa et al. (2015) 557 studied two Mediterranean catchments (one dry and one humid) using a spatially explicit hydrological model – soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) – in combination with land-use and climate scenarios for 2071–2100. Climate change projections showed, on the one hand, decreased rainfall and streamflow for both catchments, whereas sediment export decreased only for the humid catchment; projected land-use change, from traditional to more profitable, on the other hand, resulted in increase in streamflow. The combined effect of climate and land-use change resulted in reduced sediment export for the humid catchment (–29% for A1B; –22% for B1) and increased sediment export for the dry catchment (+222% for A1B; +5% for B1). Similar methods have been used elsewhere, also showing the dominant effect of land-use/land cover for runoff and soil erosion (Neupane and Kumar 2015 558 ).

A study of future erosion rates in Northern Ireland, using a spatially explicit erosion model in combination with downscaled climate projections (with and without sub-daily rainfall intensity changes), showed that erosion rates without land management changes would decrease by the 2020s, 2050s and 2100s, irrespective of changes in intensity, mainly as a result of a general decline in rainfall (Mullan et al. 2012 559 ). When land management scenarios were added to the modelling, the erosion rates started to vary dramatically for all three time periods, ranging from a decrease of 100% for no-till land use, to an increase of 3621% for row crops under annual tillage and sub-days intensity changes (Mullan et al. 2012 560 ). Again, it shows how crucial land management is for addressing soil erosion, and the important role of rainfall intensity changes.

There is a large body of literature based on modelling future land degradation due to soil erosion concluding that, in spite of the increasing trend of erosive power of rainfall, ( medium evidence, high agreement ) land degradation is primarily determined by land management ( very high confidence ).

Climate-induced vegetation changes, implications for land degradation

The spatial mosaic of vegetation is determined by three factors: the ability of species to reach a particular location, how species tolerate the environmental conditions at that location (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind, the topographic and soil conditions), and the interaction between species (including above/below ground species (Settele et al. 2015 562 ). Climate change is projected to alter the conditions and hence impact on the spatial mosaic of vegetation, which can be considered a form of land degradation. Warren et al. (2018) 563 estimated that only about 33% of globally important biodiversity conservation areas will remain intact if global mean temperature increases to 4.5°C, while twice that area (67%) will remain intact if warming is restricted to 2°C. According to AR5, the clearest link between climate change and ecosystem change is when temperature is the primary driver, with changes of Arctic tundra as a response to significant warming as the best example (Settele et al. 2015 564 ). Even though distinguishing climate-induced changes from land-use changes is challenging, Boit et al. (2016) 565 suggest that 5–6% of biomes in South America will undergo biome shifts until 2100, regardless of scenario, attributed to climate change. The projected biome shifts are primarily forests shifting to shrubland and dry forests becoming fragmented and isolated from more humid forests (Boit et al. 2016 566 ). Boreal forests are subject to unprecedented warming in terms of speed and amplitude (IPCC 2013b 567 ), with significant impacts on their regional distribution (Juday et al. 2015 568 ). Globally, tree lines are generally expanding northward and to higher elevations, or remaining stable, while a reduction in tree lines was rarely observed, and only where disturbances occurred (Harsch et al. 2009 569 ). There is limited evidence of a slow northward migration of the boreal forest in eastern North America (Gamache and Payette 2005 570 ). The thawing of permafrost may increase drought-induced tree mortality throughout the circumboreal zone (Gauthier et al. 2015 571 ).

Forests are a prime regulator of hydrological cycling, both fluxes of atmospheric moisture and precipitation, hence climate and forests are inextricably linked (Ellison et al. 2017 572 ; Keys et al. 2017 573 ). Forest management influences the storage and flow of water in forested

watersheds. In particular, harvesting, forest thinning and the construction of roads increase the likelihood of floods as an outcome of extreme climate events (Eisenbies et al. 2007 574 ). Water balance of at least partly forested landscapes is, to a large extent, controlled by forest ecosystems (Sheil and Murdiyarso 2009 575 ; Pokam et al. 2014 576 ). This includes surface runoff, as determined by evaporation and transpiration and soil conditions, and water flow routing (Eisenbies et al. 2007 577 ). Water-use efficiency (i.e., the ratio of water loss to biomass gain) is increasing with increased CO 2 levels (Keenan et al. 2013 578 ), hence transpiration is predicted to decrease which, in turn, will increase surface runoff (Schlesinger and Jasechko 2014 579 ). However, the interaction of several processes makes predictions challenging (Frank et al. 2015 580 ; Trahan and Schubert 2016 581 ). Surface runoff is an important agent in soil erosion.

Generally, removal of trees through harvesting or forest death (Anderegg et al. 2012 582 ) will reduce transpiration and hence increase the runoff during the growing season. Management-induced soil disturbance (such as skid trails and roads) will affect water flow routing to rivers and streams (Zhang et al. 2017 583 ; Luo et al. 2018 584 ; Eisenbies et al. 2007 585 ).

Climate change affects forests in both positive and negative ways (Trumbore et al. 2015 586 ; Price et al. 2013 587 ) and there will be regional and temporal differences in vegetation responses (Hember et al. 2017 1650 ; Midgley and Bond 2015 589 ). Several climate-change-related drivers interact in complex ways, such as warming, changes in precipitation and water balance, CO 2 fertilisation, and nutrient cycling, which makes projections of future net impacts challenging (Kurz et al. 2013 590 ; Price et al. 2013 591 ) (Section 2.3.1.2). In high latitudes, a warmer climate will extend the growing seasons. However, this could be constrained by summer drought (Holmberg et al. 2019 592 ), while increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 will increase water-use efficiency but not necessarily tree growth (Giguère-Croteau et al. 2019 593 ). Improving one growth-limiting factor will only enhance tree growth if other factors are not limiting (Norby et al. 2010 594 ; Trahan and Schubert 2016 595 ; Xie et al. 2016 596 ; Frank et al. 2015 597 ). Increasing forest productivity has been observed in most of Fennoscandia (Kauppi et al. 2014 598 ; Henttonen et al. 2017 599 ), Siberia and the northern reaches of North America as a response to a warming trend (Gauthier et al. 2015 600 ) but increased warming may also decrease forest productivity and increase risk of tree mortality and natural disturbances (Price et al. 2013 601 ; Girardin et al. 2016 602 ; Beck et al. 2011 603 ; Hember et al. 2016 604 ; Allen et al. 2011 605 ). The climatic conditions in high latitudes are changing at a magnitude faster than the ability of forests to adapt with detrimental, yet unpredictable, consequences (Gauthier et al. 2015 606 ).

Negative impacts dominate, however, and have already been documented (Lewis et al. 2004 607 ; Bonan et al. 2008 608 ; Beck et al. 2011 609 ) and are predicted to increase (Miles et al. 2004 610 ; Allen et al. 2010 611 ; Gauthier et al. 2015 612 ; Girardin et al. 2016 613 ; Trumbore et al. 2015 614 ). Several authors have emphasised a concern that tree mortality (forest dieback) will increase due to climate-induced physiological stress as well as interactions between physiological stress and other stressors, such as insect pests, diseases, and wildfires (Anderegg et al. 2012 615 ; Sturrock et al. 2011 616 ; Bentz et al. 2010 617 ; McDowell et al. 2011 618 ). Extreme events such as extreme heat and drought, storms, and floods also pose increased threats to forests in both high – and low-latitude forests (Lindner et al. 2010 619 ; Mokria et al. 2015 620 ). However, comparing observed forest dieback with modelled climate-induced damages did not show a general link between climate change and forest dieback (Steinkamp and Hickler 2015 621 ). Forests are subject to increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires which is projected to increase substantially with continued climate change (Price et al. 2013 622 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2, and Chapter 2). In the tropics, interaction between climate change, CO 2 and fire could lead to abrupt shifts between woodland – and grassland-dominated states in the future (Shanahan et al. 2016 623 ).

Within the tropics, much research has been devoted to understanding how climate change may alter regional suitability of various crops. For example, coffee is expected to be highly sensitive to both temperature and precipitation changes, both in terms of growth and yield, and in terms of increasing problems of pests (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 624 ). Some studies conclude that the global area of coffee production will decrease by 50% (Bunn et al. 2015 625 ). Due to increased heat stress, the suitability of Arabica coffee is expected to deteriorate in Mesoamerica, while it can improve in high-altitude areas in South America. The general pattern is that the climatic suitability for Arabica coffee will deteriorate at low altitudes of the tropics as well as at the higher latitudes (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 626 ). This means that climate change in and of itself can render unsustainable previously sustainable land-use and land management practices, and vice versa (Laderach et al. 2011 627 ).

Rangelands are projected to change in complex ways due to climate change. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 directly stimulate plant growth and can potentially compensate for negative effects from drying by increasing rain-use efficiency. But the positive effect of increasing CO 2 will be mediated by other environmental conditions, primarily water availability, but also nutrient cycling, fire regimes and invasive species. Studies over the North American rangelands suggest, for example, that warmer and dryer climatic conditions will reduce NPP in the southern Great Plains, the Southwest, and northern Mexico, but warmer and wetter conditions will increase NPP in the northern Plains and southern Canada (Polley et al. 2013 628 ).

Coastal erosion

Coastal erosion is expected to increase dramatically by sea level rise and, in some areas, in combination with increasing intensity of cyclones (highlighted in Section 4.9.6) and cyclone-induced coastal erosion. Coastal regions are also characterised by high population density, particularly in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam), whereas the highest population increase in coastal regions is projected in Africa (East Africa, Egypt, and West Africa) (Neumann et al. 2015 629 ). For coastal regions worldwide, and particularly in developing countries with high population density in low-lying coastal areas, limiting the warming to 1.5°C to 2.0°C will have major socio-economic benefits compared with higher temperature scenarios (IPCC 2018a 630 ; Nicholls et al. 2018 631 ). For more in-depth discussions on coastal process, please refer to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC).

Despite the uncertainty related to the responses of the large ice sheets of Greenland and west Antarctica, climate-change-induced sea level rise is largely accepted and represents one of the biggest threats faced by coastal communities and ecosystems (Nicholls et al. 2011 632 ; Cazenave and Cozannet 2014 633 ; DeConto and Pollard 2016 634 ; Mengel et al. 2016 635 ). With significant socio-economic effects, the physical impacts of projected sea level rise, notably coastal erosion, have received considerable scientific attention (Nicholls et al. 2011 636 ; Rahmstorf 2010 637 ; Hauer et al. 2016 638 ).

Rates of coastal erosion or recession will increase due to rising sea levels and, in some regions, also in combination with increasing oceans waves (Day and Hodges 2018 639 ; Thomson and Rogers 2014 640 ; McInnes et al. 2011 641 ; Mori et al. 2010 642 ), lack or absence of sea-ice (Savard et al. 2009 643 ; Thomson and Rogers 2014 644 ) thawing of permafrost (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 645 ), and changing cyclone paths (Tamarin-Brodsky and Kaspi 2017 646 ; Lin and Emanuel 2016a 647 ). The respective role of the different climate factors in the coastal erosion process will vary spatially. Some studies have shown that the role of sea level rise on the coastal erosion process can be less important than other climate factors, like wave heights, changes in the frequency of the storms, and the cryogenic processes (Ruggiero 2013 648 ; Savard et al. 2009 649 ). Therefore, in order to have a complete picture of the potential effects of sea level rise on rates of coastal erosion, it is crucial to consider the combined effects of the aforementioned climate controls and the geomorphology of the coast under study.

Coastal wetlands around the world are sensitive to sea level rise. Projections of the impacts on global coastlines are inconclusive, with some projections suggesting that 20% to 90% (depending on sea level rise scenario) of present day wetlands will disappear during the 21st century (Spencer et al. 2016 650 ). Another study, which included natural feedback processes and management responses, suggested that coastal wetlands may actually increase (Schuerch et al. 2018 651 ).

Low-lying coastal areas in the tropics are particularly subject to the combined effect of sea level rise and increasing intensity of tropical cyclones, conditions that, in many cases, pose limits to adaptation (Section 4.8.5.1).

Many large coastal deltas are subject to the additional stress of shrinking deltas as a consequence of the combined effect of reduced sediment loads from rivers due to damming and water use, and land subsidence resulting from extraction of ground water or natural gas, and aquaculture (Higgins et al. 2013 652 ; Tessler et al. 2016 653 ; Minderhoud et al. 2017 654 ; Tessler et al. 2015 655 ; Brown and Nicholls 2015 656 ; Szabo et al. 2016 657 ; Yang et al. 2019 658 ; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018 659 ; Wang et al. 2018 660 ; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019 661 ). In some cases the rate of subsidence can outpace the rate of sea level rise by one order of magnitude (Minderhoud et al. 2017 662 ) or even two (Higgins et al. 2013 663 ). Recent findings from the Mississippi Delta raise the risk of a systematic underestimation of the rate of land subsidence in coastal deltas (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 664 ).

In sum, from a land degradation point of view, low-lying coastal areas are particularly exposed to the nexus of climate change and increasing concentration of people (Elliott et al. 2014 665 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ) and the situation will become particularly acute in delta areas shrinking from both reduced sediment loads and land subsidence ( robust evidence, high agreement ).

Indirect impacts on land degradation

Indirect impacts of climate change on land degradation are difficult to quantify because of the many conflating factors. The causes of land-use change are complex, combining physical, biological and socio-economic drivers (Lambin et al. 2001 666 ; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011 667 ). One such driver of land-use change is the degradation of agricultural land, which can result in a negative cycle of natural land being converted to agricultural land to sustain production levels. The intensive management of agricultural land can lead to a loss of soil function, negatively impacting on the many ecosystem services provided by soils, including maintenance of water quality and soil carbon sequestration (Smith et al. 2016a 668 ). The degradation of soil quality due to cropping is of particular concern in tropical regions, where it results in a loss of productive potential of the land, affecting regional food security and driving conversion of non-agricultural land, such as forestry, to agriculture (Lambin et al. 2003 669 ; Drescher et al. 2016 670 ; Van der Laan et al. 2017 671 ). Climate change will exacerbate these negative cycles unless sustainable land management practices are implemented.

Climate change impacts on agricultural productivity (see Chapter 5) will have implications for the intensity of land use and hence exacerbate the risk of increasing land degradation. There will be both localised effects (i.e., climate change impacts on productivity affecting land use in the same region) and teleconnections (i.e., climate change impacts and land-use changes that are spatially and temporally separate) (Wicke et al. 2012 672 ; Pielke et al. 2007 673 ). If global temperature increases beyond 3°C it will have negative yield impacts on all crops (Porter et al. 2014 674 ) which, in combination with a doubling of demands by 2050 (Tilman et al. 2011 675 ), and increasing competition for land from the expansion of negative emissions technologies (IPCC 2018a 676 ; Schleussner et al. 2016 677 ), will exert strong pressure on agricultural lands and food security.

In sum, reduced productivity of most agricultural crops will drive land-use changes worldwide ( robust evidence, medium agreement ), but predicting how this will impact on land degradation is challenging because of several conflating factors. Social change, such as widespread changes in dietary preferences, will have a huge impact on agriculture and hence land degradation ( medium evidence, high agreement ).

Impacts of bioenergy and technologies for CO2 removal (CDR) on land degradation

Potential scale of bioenergy and land-based cdr.

In addition to the traditional land-use drivers (e.g., population growth, agricultural expansion, forest management), a new driver will interact to increase competition for land throughout this century: the potential large-scale implementation of land-based technologies for CO 2 removal (CDR). Land-based CDR includes afforestation and reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), soil carbon management, biochar and enhanced weathering (Smith et al. 2015 678 ; Smith 2016 679 ).

Most scenarios, including two of the four pathways in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (IPCC 2018a 680 ), compatible with stabilisation at 2°C involve substantial areas devoted to land-based CDR, specifically afforestation/reforestation and BECCS (Schleussner et al. 2016 681 ; Smith et al. 2016b 682 ; Mander et al. 2017 683 ). Even larger land areas are required in most scenarios aimed at keeping average global temperature increases to below 1.5°C, and scenarios that avoid BECCS also require large areas of energy crops in many cases (IPCC 2018b 684 ), although some options with strict demand-side management avoid this need (Grubler et al. 2018 685 ). Consequently, the addition of carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems to bioenergy facilities enhances mitigation benefits because it increases the carbon retention time and reduces emissions relative to bioenergy facilities without CCS. The IPCC SR15 states that, ‘When considering pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, the full set of scenarios shows a conversion of 0.5–11 Mkm 2 of pasture into 0–6 Mkm 2 for energy crops, a 2 Mkm 2  reduction to 9.5 Mkm 2  increase [in] forest, and a 4 Mkm 2  decrease to a 2.5 Mkm 2 increase in non-pasture agricultural land for food and feed crops by 2050 relative to 2010.’ (Rogelj et al. 2018, p. 145). For comparison, the global cropland area in 2010 was 15.9 Mkm 2 (Table 1.1), and Woods et al. (2015) 686 estimate that the area of abandoned and degraded land potentially available for energy crops (or afforestation/reforestation) exceeds 5 Mkm 2 . However, the area of available land has long been debated, as much marginal land is subject to customary land tenure and used informally, often by impoverished communities (Baka 2013 687 , 2014 688 ; Haberl et al. 2013 689 ; Young 1999 690 ). Thus, as noted in SR15, ‘The implementation of land-based mitigation options would require overcoming socio-economic, institutional, technological, financing and environmental barriers that differ across regions.’ (IPCC, 2018a 691 , p. 18).

The wide range of estimates reflects the large differences among the pathways, availability of land in various productivity classes, types of negative emission technology implemented, uncertainties in computer models, and social and economic barriers to implementation (Fuss et al. 2018 692 ; Nemet et al. 2018 693 ; Minx et al. 2018 694 ).

Risks of land degradation from expansion of bioenergy and land-based CDR

The large-scale implementation of high-intensity dedicated energy crops, and harvest of crop and forest residues for bioenergy, could contribute to increases in the area of degraded lands: intensive land management can result in nutrient depletion, over-fertilisation and soil acidification, salinisation (from irrigation without adequate drainage), wet ecosystems drying (from increased evapotranspiration), as well as novel erosion and compaction processes (from high-impact biomass harvesting disturbances) and other land degradation processes described in Section 4.2.1.

Global integrated assessment models used in the analysis of mitigation pathways vary in their approaches to modelling CDR (Bauer et al. 2018 695 ) and the outputs have large uncertainties due to their limited capability to consider site-specific details (Krause et al. 2018 696 ). Spatial resolutions vary from 11 world regions to 0.25 degrees gridcells (Bauer et al. 2018 697 ). While model projections identify potential areas for CDR implementation (Heck et al. 2018 698 ), the interaction with climate-change-induced biome shifts, available land and its vulnerability to degradation are unknown. The crop/forest types and management practices that will be implemented are also unknown, and will be influenced by local incentives and regulations. While it is therefore currently not possible to project the area at risk of degradation from the implementation of land-based CDR, there is a clear risk that expansion of energy crops at the scale anticipated could put significant strain on land systems, biosphere integrity, freshwater supply and biogeochemical flows (Heck et al. 2018 699 ). Similarly, extraction of biomass for energy from existing forests, particularly where stumps are utilised, can impact on soil health (de Jong et al. 2017 700 ). Reforestation and afforestation present a lower risk of land degradation and may in fact reverse degradation (Section 4.5.3) although potential adverse hydrological and biodiversity impacts will need to be managed (Caldwell et al. 2018 701 ; Brinkman et al. 2017 702 ). Soil carbon management can deliver negative emissions while reducing or reversing land degradation. Chapter 6 discusses the significance of context and management in determining environmental impacts of implementation of land-based options.

Potential contributions of land-based CDR to reducing and reversing land degradation

Although large-scale implementation of land-based CDR has significant potential risks, the need for negative emissions and the anticipated investments to implement such technologies can also create significant opportunities. Investments into land-based CDR can contribute to halting and reversing land degradation, to the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded and marginal lands (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016 703 ; Fritsche et al. 2017 704 ) and can contribute to the goals of LDN (Orr et al. 2017 705 ).

Estimates of the global area of degraded land range from less than 10 to 60 Mkm2 (Gibbs and Salmon 2015 706 ) (Section 4.3.1). Additionally, large areas are classified as marginal lands and may be suitable for the implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR (Woods et al. 2015 707 ). The yield per hectare of marginal and degraded lands is lower than on fertile lands, and if CDR will be implemented on marginal and degraded lands, this will increase the area demand and costs per unit area of achieving negative emissions (Fritsche et al. 2017 708 ). The selection of lands suitable for CDR must be considered carefully to reduce conflicts with existing users, to assess the possible trade-offs in biodiversity contributions of the original and the CDR land uses, to quantify the impacts on water budgets, and to ensure sustainability of the CDR land use.

Land use and land condition prior to the implementation of CDR affect climate change benefits (Harper et al. 2018 709 ). Afforestation/ reforestation on degraded lands can increase carbon stocks in vegetation and soil, increase carbon sinks (Amichev et al. 2012 710 ), and deliver co-benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, particularly if a diversity of local species are used. Afforestation and reforestation on native grasslands can reduce soil carbon stocks, although the loss is typically more than compensated by increases in biomass and dead organic matter carbon stocks (Bárcena et al. 2014 711 ; Li et al. 2012 712 ; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 713 ; Shi et al. 2013 714 ), and may impact on biodiversity (Li et al. 2012 715 ).

Strategic incorporation of energy crops into agricultural production systems, applying an integrated landscape management approach, can provide co-benefits for management of land degradation and other environmental objectives. For example, buffers of Miscanthus and other grasses can enhance soil carbon and reduce water pollution (Cacho et al. 2018 716 ; Odgaard et al. 2019 717 ), and strip-planting of short-rotation tree crops can reduce the water table where crops are affected by dryland salinity (Robinson et al. 2006 718 ). Shifting to perennial grain crops has the potential to combine food production with carbon sequestration at a higher rate than annual grain crops and avoid the trade-off between food production and climate change mitigation (Crews et al. 2018 719 ; de Olivera et al. 2018 720 ; Ryan et al. 2018 721 ) (Section 4.9.2).

Changes in land cover can affect surface reflectance, water balances and emissions of volatile organic compounds and thus the non-GHG impacts on the climate system from afforestation/reforestation or planting energy crops (Anderson et al. 2011 722 ; Bala et al. 2007 723 ; Betts 2000 724 ; Betts et al. 2007 725 ) (see Section 4.6 for further details). Some of these impacts reinforce the GHG mitigation benefits, while others offset the benefits, with strong local (slope, aspect) and regional (boreal vs. tropical biomes) differences in the outcomes (Li et al. 2015 726 ). Adverse effects on albedo from afforestation with evergreen conifers in boreal zones can be reduced through planting of broadleaf deciduous species (Astrup et al. 2018 727 ; Cai et al. 2011a 728 ; Anderson et al. 2011 729 ).

Combining CDR technologies may prove synergistic. Two soil management techniques with an explicit focus on increasing the soil carbon content rather than promoting soil conservation more broadly have been suggested: addition of biochar to agricultural soils (Section 4.9.5) and addition of ground silicate minerals to soils in order to take up atmospheric CO 2 through chemical weathering (Taylor et al. 2017 730 ; Haque et al. 2019 731 ; Beerling 2017 732 ; Strefler et al. 2018 733 ). The addition of biochar is comparatively well understood and also field tested at large scale, see Section 4.9.5 for a comprehensive discussion. The addition of silicate minerals to soils is still highly uncertain in terms of its potential (from 95 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Strefler et al. 2018) to only 2–4 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Fuss et al. 2018 734 )) and costs (Schlesinger and Amundson 2018 735 ).

Effectively addressing land degradation through implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR will require site-specific local knowledge, matching of species with the local land, water balance, nutrient and climatic conditions, ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, adaptation of land management to ensure sustainability under global change (Fritsche et al. 2017 736 ). Effective land governance mechanisms including integrated land-use planning, along with strong sustainability standards could support deployment of energy crops and afforestation/reforestation at appropriate scales and geographical contexts (Fritsche et al. 2017 737 ). Capacity-building and technology transfer through the international cooperation mechanisms of the Paris Agreement could support such efforts. Modelling to inform policy development is most useful when undertaken with close interaction between model developers and other stakeholders including policymakers to ensure that models account for real world constraints (Dooley and Kartha 2018 738 ).

International initiatives to restore lands, such as the Bonn Challenge (Verdone and Seidl 2017 739 ) and the New York Declaration on Forests (Chazdon et al. 2017 740 ), and interventions undertaken for LDN and implementation of NDCs (see Glossary) can contribute to NET objectives. Such synergies may increase the financial resources available to meet multiple objectives (Section 4.8.4).

Traditional biomass provision and land degradation

Traditional biomass (fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural residues, animal dung) used for cooking and heating by some 2.8 billion people (38% of global population) in non-OECD countries accounts for more than half of all bioenergy used worldwide (IEA 2017 741 ; REN21 2018 742 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Cooking with traditional biomass has multiple negative impacts on human health, particularly for women, children and youth (Machisa et al. 2013 743 ; Sinha and Ray 2015 744 ; Price 2017 745 ; Mendum and Njenga 2018 746 ; Adefuye et al. 2007 747 ) and on household productivity, including high workloads for women and youth (Mendum and Njenga 2018 748 ; Brunner et al. 2018 749 ; Hou et al. 2018 750 ; Njenga et al. 2019 751 ). Traditional biomass is land-intensive due to reliance on open fires, inefficient stoves and overharvesting of woodfuel, contributing to land degradation, losses in biodiversity and reduced ecosystem services (IEA 2017 752 ; Bailis et al. 2015 753 ; Masera et al. 2015 754 ; Specht et al. 2015 755 ; Fritsche et al. 2017 756 ; Fuso Nerini et al. 2017 757 ). Traditional woodfuels account for 1.9–2.3% of global GHG emissions, particularly in ‘hotspots’ of land degradation and fuelwood depletion in eastern Africa and South Asia, such that one-third of traditional woodfuels globally are harvested unsustainably (Bailis et al. 2015 758 ). Scenarios to significantly reduce reliance on traditional biomass in developing countries present multiple co-benefits ( high evidence, high agreement ), including reduced emissions of black carbon, a short-lived climate forcer that also causes respiratory disease (Shindell et al. 2012 759 ).

A shift from traditional to modern bioenergy, especially in the African context, contributes to improved livelihoods and can reduce land degradation and impacts on ecosystem services (Smeets et al. 2012 760 ; Gasparatos et al. 2018 761 ; Mudombi et al. 2018 762 ). In Sub-Saharan Africa, most countries mention woodfuel in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) but fail to identify transformational processes to make fuelwood a sustainable energy source compatible with improved forest management (Amugune et al. 2017 763 ). In some regions, especially in South and Southeast Asia, a scarcity of woody biomass may lead to excessive removal and use of agricultural wastes and residues, which contributes to poor soil quality and land degradation (Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009 764 ; Mateos et al. 2017 765 ).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, forest degradation is widely associated with charcoal production, although in some tropical areas rapid re-growth can offset forest losses (Hoffmann et al. 2017 766 ; McNicol et al. 2018 767 ). Overharvesting of wood for charcoal contributes to the high rate of deforestation in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is five times the world average, due in part to corruption and weak governance systems (Sulaiman et al. 2017 768 ). Charcoal may also be a by-product of forest clearing for agriculture, with charcoal sale providing immediate income when the land is cleared for food crops (Kiruki et al. 2017 769 ; Ndegwa et al. 2016 770 ). Besides loss of forest carbon stock, a further concern for climate change is methane and black carbon emissions from fuelwood burning and traditional charcoal-making processes (Bond et al. 2013 771 ; Patange et al. 2015 772 ; Sparrevik et al. 2015 773 ).

A fundamental difficulty in reducing environmental impacts associated with charcoal lies in the small-scale nature of much charcoal production in Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to challenges in regulating its production and trade, which is often informal, and in some cases illegal, but nevertheless widespread since charcoal is the most important urban cooking fuel (Zulu 2010 774 ; Zulu and Richardson 2013 775 ; Smith et al. 2015 776 ; World Bank 2009 777 ). Urbanisation combined with population growth has led to continuously increasing charcoal production. Low efficiency of traditional charcoal production results in a four-fold increase in raw woody biomass required and thus much greater biomass harvest (Hojas-Gascon et al. 2016 778 ; Smeets et al. 2012 779 ). With continuing urbanisation anticipated, increased charcoal production and use will probably contribute to increasing land pressures and increased land degradation, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa ( medium evidence, high agreement ).

Although it could be possible to source this biomass more sustainably, the ecosystem and health impacts of this increased demand for cooking fuel would be reduced through use of other renewable fuels or, in some cases, non-renewable fuels (LPG), as well as through improved efficiency in end-use and through better resource and supply chain management (Santos et al. 2017 780 ; Smeets et al. 2012 781 ; Hoffmann et al. 2017 782 ). Integrated response options such as agro-forestry (Chapter 6) and good governance mechanisms for forest and agricultural management (Chapter 7) can support the transition to sustainable energy for households and reduce the environmental impacts of traditional biomass.

Impacts of land degradation on climate

While Chapter 2 has its focus on land cover changes and their impacts on the climate system, this chapter focuses on the influences of individual land degradation processes on climate (see Table 4.1) which may or may not take place in association with land cover changes. The effects of land degradation on CO 2 and other GHGs as well as those on surface albedo and other physical controls of the global radiative balance are discussed.

Impact on greenhouse gases (GHGs)

Land degradation processes with direct impact on soil and terrestrial biota have great relevance in terms of CO 2 exchange with the atmosphere, given the magnitude and activity of these reservoirs in the global carbon cycle. As the most widespread form of soil degradation, erosion detaches the surface soil material, which typically hosts the highest organic carbon stocks, favouring the mineralisation and release as CO 2 . Yet complementary processes such as carbon burial may compensate for this effect, making soil erosion a long-term carbon sink ( low agreement, limited evidence ), (Wang et al. (2017b) 783 , but see also Chappell et al. (2016) 784 ). Precise estimation of the CO 2 released from eroded lands is challenged by the fact that only a fraction of the detached carbon is eventually lost to the atmosphere. It is important to acknowledge that a substantial fraction of the eroded material may preserve its organic carbon load in field conditions. Moreover, carbon sequestration may be favoured through the burial of both the deposited material and the surface of its hosting soil at the deposition location (Quinton et al. 2010 785 ). The cascading effects of erosion on other environmental processes at the affected sites can often cause net CO 2 emissions through their indirect influence on soil fertility, and the balance of organic carbon inputs and outputs, interacting with other non-erosive soil degradation processes (such as nutrient depletion, compaction and salinisation), which can lead to the same net carbon effects (see Table 4.1) (van de Koppel et al. 1997 786 ).

As natural and human-induced erosion can result in net carbon storage in very stable buried pools at the deposition locations, degradation in those locations has a high C-release potential. Coastal ecosystems such as mangrove forests, marshes and seagrasses are at typical deposition locations, and their degradation or replacement with other vegetation is resulting in a substantial carbon release (0.15 to 1.02 GtC yr –1 ) (Pendleton et al. 2012 787 ), which highlights the need for a spatially integrated assessment of land degradation impacts on climate that considers in-situ but also ex-situ emissions.

Cultivation and agricultural management of cultivated land are relevant in terms of global CO 2 land–atmosphere exchange (Section 4.8.1). Besides the initial pulse of CO 2 emissions associated with the onset of cultivation and associated vegetation clearing (Chapter 2), agricultural management practices can increase or reduce carbon losses to the atmosphere. Although global croplands are considered to be at a relatively neutral stage in the current decade (Houghton et al. 2012 788 ), this results from a highly uncertain balance between coexisting net losses and gains. Degradation losses of soil and biomass carbon appear to be compensated by gains from soil protection and restoration practices such as cover crops, conservation tillage and nutrient replenishment favouring organic matter build-up. Cover crops, increasingly used to improve soils, have the potential to sequester 0.12 GtC yr –1 on global croplands with a saturation time of more than 150 years (Poeplau and Don 2015 789 ). No-till practices (i.e., tillage elimination favouring crop residue retention in the soil surface) which were implemented to protect soils from erosion and reduce land preparation times, were also seen with optimism as a carbon sequestration option, which today is considered more modest globally and, in some systems, even less certain (VandenBygaart 2016 799 ; Cheesman et al. 2016 791 ; Powlson et al. 2014 792 ). Among soil fertility restoration practices, lime application for acidity correction, increasingly important in tropical regions, can generate a significant net CO 2 source in some soils (Bernoux et al. 2003 793 ; Desalegn et al. 2017 794 ).

Land degradation processes in seminatural ecosystems driven by unsustainable uses of their vegetation through logging or grazing lead to reduced plant cover and biomass stocks, causing net carbon releases from soils and plant stocks. Degradation by logging activities is particularly prevalent in developing tropical and subtropical regions, involving carbon releases that exceed by far the biomass of harvested products, including additional vegetation and soil sources that are estimated to reach 0.6 GtC yr –1 (Pearson et al. 2014, 2017 795 ). Excessive grazing pressures pose a more complex picture with variable magnitudes and even signs of carbon exchanges. A general trend of higher carbon losses in humid overgrazed rangelands suggests a high potential for carbon sequestration following the rehabilitation of those systems (Conant and Paustian 2002 796 ) with a global potential sequestration of 0.045 GtC yr -1 . A special case of degradation in rangelands is the process leading to the woody encroachment of grass-dominated systems, which can be responsible for declining animal production but high carbon sequestration rates (Asner et al. 2003 797 ; Maestre et al. 2009 798 ).

Fire regime shifts in wild and seminatural ecosystems can become a degradation process in itself, with high impact on net carbon emission and with underlying interactive human and natural drivers such as burning policies (Van Wilgen et al. 2004 1651 ), biological invasions (Brooks et al. 2009 800 ), and plant pest/disease spread (Kulakowski et al. 2003 801 ). Some of these interactive processes affecting unmanaged forests have resulted in massive carbon release, highlighting how degradation feedbacks on climate are not restricted to intensively used land but can affect wild ecosystems as well (Kurz et al. 2008 802 ).

Agricultural land and wetlands represent the dominant source of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Chen et al. 2018d 803 ). In agricultural land, the expansion of rice cultivation (increasing CH 4 sources), ruminant stocks and manure disposal (increasing CH 4 , N 2 O and NH 3 fluxes) and nitrogen over-fertilisation combined with soil acidification (increasing N 2 O fluxes) are introducing the major impacts ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) and their associated emissions appear to be exacerbated by global warming ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Oertel et al. 2016 804 ).

As the major sources of global N 2 O emissions, over-fertilisation and manure disposal are not only increasing in-situ sources but also stimulating those along the pathway of dissolved inorganic nitrogen transport all the way from draining waters to the ocean ( high agreement, medium evidence ). Current budgets of anthropogenically fixed nitrogen on the Earth System (Tian et al. 2015 805 ; Schaefer et al. 2016 806 ; Wang et al. 2017a 807 ) suggest that N 2 O release from terrestrial soils and wetlands accounts for 10–15% of the emissions, yet many further release fluxes along the hydrological pathway remain uncertain, with emissions from oceanic ‘dead-zones’ being a major aspect of concern (Schlesinger 2009; Rabalais et al. 2014 808 ).

Environmental degradation processes focused on the hydrological system, which are typically manifested at the landscape scale, include both drying (as in drained wetlands or lowlands) and wetting trends (as in waterlogged and flooded plains). Drying of wetlands reduces CH 4 emissions (Turetsky et al. 2014 812 ) but favours pulses of organic matter mineralisation linked to high N 2 O release (Morse and Bernhardt 2013 813 ; Norton et al. 2011 814 ). The net warming balance of these two effects is not resolved and may be strongly variable across different types of wetlands. In the case of flooding of non-wetland soils, a suppression of CO 2 release is typically overcompensated in terms of net greenhouse impact by enhanced CH 4 fluxes that stem from the lack of aeration but are aided by the direct effect of extreme wetting on the solubilisation and transport of organic substrates (McNicol and Silver 2014 815 ). Both wetlands rewetting/restoration and artificial wetland creation can increase CH 4 release (Altor and Mitsch 2006 816 ; Fenner et al. 2011 817 ). Permafrost thawing is another major source of CH 4 release, with substantial long-term contributions to the atmosphere that are starting to be globally quantified (Christensen et al. 2004 818 ; Schuur et al. 2015 819 ; Walter Anthony et al. 2016 820 ).

Physical impacts

Among the physical effects of land degradation, surface albedo changes are those with the most evident impact on the net global radiative balance and net climate warming/cooling. Degradation processes affecting wild and semi-natural ecosystems, such as fire regime changes, woody encroachment, logging and overgrazing, can trigger strong albedo changes before significant biogeochemical shifts take place. In most cases these two types of effects have opposite signs in terms of net radiative forcing, making their joint assessment critical for understanding climate feedbacks (Bright et al. 2015 821 ).

In the case of forest degradation or deforestation, the albedo impacts are highly dependent on the latitudinal/climatic belt to which they belong. In boreal forests, the removal or degradation of the tree cover increases albedo (net cooling effect) ( medium evidence, high agreement ) as the reflective snow cover becomes exposed, which can exceed the net radiative effect of the associated carbon release to the atmosphere (Davin et al. 2010 822 ; Pinty et al. 2011 823 ). On the other hand, progressive greening of boreal and temperate forests has contributed to net albedo declines ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Planque et al. 2017 824 ; Li et al. 2018a 825 ). In the northern treeless vegetation belt (tundra), shrub encroachment leads to the opposite effect as the emergence of plant structures above the snow cover level reduce winter-time albedo (Sturm 2005 826 ).

The extent to which albedo shifts can compensate for carbon storage shifts at the global level has not been estimated. A significant but partial compensation takes place in temperate and subtropical dry ecosystems in which radiation levels are higher and carbon stocks smaller compared to their more humid counterparts ( medium agreement, medium evidence ). In cleared dry woodlands, half of the net global warming effect of net carbon release has been compensated by albedo increase (Houspanossian et al. 2013 827 ), whereas in afforested dry rangelands, albedo declines cancelled one-fifth of the net carbon sequestration (Rotenberg and Yakir 2010 828 ). Other important cases in which albedo effects impose a partial compensation of carbon exchanges are the vegetation shifts associated with wildfires, as shown for the savannahs, shrublands and grasslands of Sub-Saharan Africa (Dintwe et al. 2017 829 ). Besides the net global effects discussed above, albedo shifts can play a significant role in local climate ( high agreement, medium evidence ), as exemplified by the effect of no-till agriculture reducing local heat extremes in European landscapes (Davin et al. 2014 830 ) and the effects of woody encroachment causing precipitation rises in the North American Great Plains (Ge and Zou 2013 831 ). Modelling efforts that integrate ground data from deforested areas worldwide accounting for both physical and biogeochemical effects, indicate that massive global deforestation would have a net warming impact (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015 832 ) at both local and global levels with highlight non-linear effects of forest loss on climate variables.

Beyond the albedo effects presented above, other physical impacts of land degradation on the atmosphere can contribute to global and regional climate change. Of particular relevance, globally and continentally, are the net cooling effects of dust emissions ( low agreement, medium evidence ) (Lau and Kim (2007) 833 , but see also Huang et al. (2014) 834 ). Anthropogenic emission of mineral particles from degrading land appear to have a similar radiative impact than all other anthropogenic aerosols (Sokolik and Toon 1996 835 ). Dust emissions may explain regional climate anomalies through reinforcing feedbacks, as suggested for the amplification of the intensity, extent and duration of the low precipitation anomaly of the North American Dust Bowl in the 1930s (Cook et al. 2009 836 ). Another source of physical effects on climate are surface roughness changes which, by affecting atmospheric drag, can alter cloud formation and precipitation (low agreement, low evidence), as suggested by modelling studies showing how the massive deployment of solar panels in the Sahara could increase rainfall in the Sahel (Li et al. 2018c 837 ), or how woody encroachment in the Arctic tundra could reduce cloudiness and raise temperature (Cho et al. 2018 838 ). The complex physical effects of deforestation, as explored through modelling, converge into general net regional precipitation declines, tropical temperature increases and boreal temperature declines, while net global effects are less certain (Perugini et al. 2017 839 ). Integrating all the physical effects of land degradation and its recovery or reversal is still a challenge, yet modelling attempts suggest that, over the last three decades, the slow but persistent net global greening caused by the average increase of leaf area in the land has caused a net cooling of the Earth, mainly through the rise in evapotranspiration (Zeng et al. 2017 840 ) ( low confidence ).

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods

Unravelling the impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods is highly challenging. This complexity is due to the interplay of multiple social, political, cultural and economic factors, such as markets, technology, inequality, population growth, (Barbier and Hochard 2018 841 ) each of which interact and shape the ways in which social-ecological systems respond (Morton 2007 842 ). We find limited evidence attributing the impacts of climate-related land degradation to poverty and livelihoods, with climate often not distinguished from any other driver of land degradation. Climate is nevertheless frequently noted as a risk multiplier for both land degradation and poverty ( high agreement, robust evidence ) and is one of many stressors people live with, respond to and adapt to in their daily lives (Reid and Vogel 2006 843 ). Climate change is considered to exacerbate land degradation and potentially accelerate it due to heat stress, drought, changes to evapotranspiration rates and biodiversity, as well as a result of changes to environmental conditions that allow new pests and diseases to thrive (Reed and Stringer 2016 844 ). In general terms, the climate (and climate change) can increase human and ecological communities’ sensitivity to land degradation. Land degradation then leaves livelihoods more sensitive to the impacts of climate change and extreme climatic events ( high agreement, robust evidence ). If human and ecological communities exposed to climate change and land degradation are sensitive and cannot adapt, they can be considered vulnerable to it; if they are sensitive and can adapt, they can be considered resilient (Reed and Stringer 2016 845 ). The impacts of land degradation will vary under a changing climate, both spatially and temporally, leading some communities and ecosystems to be more vulnerable or more resilient than others under different scenarios. Even within communities, groups such as women and youth are often more vulnerable than others.

Relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty

This section sets out the relationships between land degradation and poverty, and climate change and poverty, leading to inferences about the three-way links between them. Poverty is multidimensional and includes a lack of access to the whole range of capital assets that can be used to pursue a livelihood. Livelihoods constitute the capabilities, assets and activities that are necessary to make a living (Chambers and Conway 1992 846 ; Olsson et al. 2014b 847 ).

The literature shows high agreement in terms of speculation that there are potential links between land degradation and poverty. However, studies have not provided robust quantitative assessments of the extent and incidence of poverty within populations affected by land degradation (Barbier and Hochard 2016 848 ). Some researchers, for example, Nachtergaele et al. (2011) 849 estimate that 1.5 billion people were dependent upon degraded land to support their livelihoods in 2007, while >42% of the world’s poor population inhabit degraded areas. However, there is overall low confidence in the evidence base, a lack of studies that look beyond the past and present, and the literature calls for more in-depth research to be undertaken on these issues (Gerber et al. 2014 850 ). Recent work by Barbier and Hochard (2018) 851 points to biophysical constraints such as poor soils and limited rainfall, which interact to limit land productivity, suggesting that those farming in climatically less-favourable agricultural areas are challenged by poverty. Studies such as those by Coomes et al. (2011) 852 , focusing on an area in the Amazon, highlight the importance of the initial conditions of land holding in the dominant (shifting) cultivation system in terms of long-term effects on household poverty and future forest cover, showing that initial land tenure and socio-economic aspects can make some areas less favourable too.

Much of the qualitative literature is focused on understanding the livelihood and poverty impacts of degradation through a focus on subsistence agriculture, where farms are small, under traditional or informal tenure and where exposure to environmental (including climate) risks is high (Morton 2007 853 ). In these situations, poorer people lack access to assets (financial, social, human, natural and physical) and in the absence of appropriate institutional supports and social protection, this leaves them sensitive and unable to adapt, so a vicious cycle of poverty and degradation can ensue. To further illustrate the complexity, livelihood assessments often focus on a single snapshot in time. Livelihoods are dynamic and people alter their livelihood activities and strategies depending on the internal and external stressors to which they are responding (O’Brien et al. 2004 854 ). When certain livelihood activities and strategies are no longer tenable as a result of land degradation (and may push people into poverty), land degradation can have further effects on issues such as migration (Lee 2009 855 ), as people adapt by moving (Section 4.7.3); and may result in conflict (Section 4.7.3), as different groups within society compete for scarce resources, sometimes through non-peaceful actions. Both migration and conflict can lead to land-use changes elsewhere that further fuel climate change through increased emissions.

Similar challenges as for understanding land degradation–poverty linkages are experienced in unravelling the relationship between climate change and poverty. A particular issue in examining climate change–poverty links relates to the common use of aggregate economic statistics like GDP, as the assets and income of the poor constitute a minor proportion of national wealth (Hallegatte et al. 2018 856 ). Aggregate quantitative measures also fail to capture the distributions of costs and benefits from climate change. Furthermore, people fall into and out of poverty, with climate change being one of many factors affecting these dynamics, through its impacts on livelihoods. Much of the literature on climate change and poverty tends to look backward rather than forward (Skoufias et al. 2011 857 ), providing a snapshot of current or past relationships (for example, Dell et al. (2009) 858 who examine the relationship between temperature and income (GDP) using cross-sectional data from countries in the Americas). Yet, simulations of future climate change impacts on income or poverty are largely lacking.

Noting the limited evidence that exists that explicitly focuses on the relationship between land degradation, climate change and poverty, Barbier and Hochard (2018b) 859 suggest that those people living in less-favoured agricultural areas face a poverty–environment trap that can result in increased land degradation under climate change conditions. The emergent relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty are shown in Figure 4.6 (see also Figure 6.1).

Schematic representation of links between climate change, land management and socio-economic conditions.

The poor have access to few productive assets – so land, and the natural resource base more widely, plays a key role in supporting the livelihoods of the poor. It is, however, hard to make generalisations about how important income derived from the natural resource base is for rural livelihoods in the developing world (Angelsen et al. 2014 860 ). Studies focusing on forest resources have shown that approximately one quarter of the total rural household income in developing countries stems from forests, with forest-based income shares being tentatively higher for low-income households (Vedeld et al. 2007 861 ; Angelsen et al. 2014 862 ). Different groups use land in different ways within their overall livelihood portfolios and are, therefore, at different levels of exposure and sensitivity to climate shocks and stresses. The literature nevertheless displays high evidence and high agreement that those populations whose livelihoods are more sensitive to climate change and land degradation are often more dependent on environmental assets, and these people are often the poorest members of society. There is further high evidence and high agreement that both climate change and land degradation can affect livelihoods and poverty through their threat multiplier effect. Research in Bellona, in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (Reenberg et al. 2008 863 ) examined event-driven impacts on livelihoods, taking into account weather events as one of many drivers of land degradation and links to broader land use and land cover changes that have taken place. Geographical locations experiencing land degradation are often the same locations that are directly affected by poverty, and also by extreme events linked to climate change and variability.

Much of the assessment presented above has considered place-based analyses examining the relationships between poverty, land degradation and climate change in the locations in which these outcomes have occurred. Altieri and Nicholls (2017) 864 note that, due to the globalised nature of markets and consumption systems, the impacts of changes in crop yields linked to climate-related land degradation (manifest as lower yields) will be far reaching, beyond the sites and livelihoods experiencing degradation. Despite these teleconnections, farmers living in poverty in developing countries will be especially vulnerable due to their exposure, dependence on the environment for income and limited options to engage in other ways to make a living (Rosenzweig and Hillel 1998 865 ). In identifying ways in which these interlinkages can be addressed, Scherr (2000) 866 observes that key actions that can jointly address poverty and environmental improvement often seek to increase access to natural resources, enhance the productivity of the natural resource assets of the poor, and engage stakeholders in addressing public natural resource management issues. In this regard, it is increasingly recognised that those suffering from, and being vulnerable to, land degradation and

poverty need to have a voice and play a role in the development of solutions, especially where the natural resources and livelihood activities they depend on are further threatened by climate change.

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on food security

How and where we grow food, compared to where and when we need to consume it, is at the crux of issues surrounding land degradation, climate change and food security, especially because more than 75% of the global land surface (excluding Antarctica) faces rain-fed crop production constraints (Fischer et al. 2009 867 ), see also Chapter 5. Taken separately, knowledge on land degradation processes and human-induced climate change has attained a great level of maturity. However, their combined effects on food security, notably food supply, remain underappreciated (Webb et al. 2017b 868 ), and quantitative information is lacking. Just a few studies have shown how the interactive effects of the aforementioned challenging, interrelated phenomena can impact on crop productivity and hence food security and quality (Karami et al. 2009 869 ; Allen et al. 2001 870 ; Högy and Fangmeier 2008 871 ) ( low evidence ). Along with socio-economic drivers, climate change accelerates land degradation due to its influence on land-use systems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 872 ; UNCCD 2017 873 ), potentially leading to a decline in agri-food system productivity, particularly on the supply side. Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns are expected to have impacts on soil quality, including nutrient availability and assimilation (St.Clair and Lynch 2010 874 ). Those climate-related changes are expected to have net negative impacts on agricultural productivity, particularly in tropical regions, though the magnitude of impacts depends on the models used. Anticipated supply-side issues linked to land and climate relate to biocapacity factors (including e.g., whether there is enough water to support agriculture); production factors (e.g., chemical pollution of soil and water resources or lack of soil nutrients) and distribution issues (e.g., decreased availability of and/or accessibility to the necessary diversity of quality food where and when it is needed) (Stringer et al. 2011 875 ). Climate-sensitive transport infrastructure is also problematic for food security (Islam et al. 2017), and can lead to increased food waste, while poor siting of roads and transport links can lead to soil erosion and forest loss (Xiao et al. 2017 877 ), further feeding back into climate change.

Over the past decades, crop models have been useful tools for assessing and understanding climate change impacts on crop productivity and food security (White et al. 2011 878 ; Rosenzweig et al. 2014 879 ). Yet, the interactive effects of soil parameters and climate change on crop yields and food security remain limited, with low evidence of how they play out in different economic and climate settings (e.g., Sundström et al. 2014 880 ). Similarly, there have been few meta-analyses focusing on the adaptive capacity of land-use practices such as conservation agriculture in light of climate stress (see e.g., Steward et al. 2018 881 ), as well as low evidence quantifying the role of wild foods and forests (and, by extension, forest degradation) in both the global food basket and in supporting household-scale food security (Bharucha and Pretty 2010 882 ; Hickey et al. 2016 883 ).

To be sustainable, any initiative aimed at addressing food security – encompassing supply, diversity and quality – must take into consideration the interactive effects between climate and land degradation in a context of other socio-economic stressors. Such socio-economic factors are especially important if we look at demand-side issues too, which include lack of purchasing power, large-scale speculation on global food markets, leading to exponential price rises (Tadesse et al. 2014 884 ), competition in appropriation of supplies and changes to per capita food consumption (Stringer et al. 2011 885 ) (Chapter 5). Lack of food security, combined with lack of livelihood options, is often an important manifestation of vulnerability, and can act as a key trigger for people to migrate. In this way, migration becomes an adaptation strategy.

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on migration and conflict

Land degradation may trigger competition for scarce natural resources, potentially leading to migration and/or conflict, though, even with medium evidence, there is low agreement in the literature. Linkages between land degradation and migration occur within a larger context of multi-scale interaction of environmental and non-environmental drivers and processes, including resettlement projects, searches for education and/or income, land shortages, political turmoil, and family-related reasons (McLeman 2017 886 ; Hermans and Ide 2019 887 ). The complex contribution of climate to migration and conflict hampers retrieving any level of confidence on climate-migration and climate-conflict linkages, therefore constituting a major knowledge gap (Cramer et al. 2014 888 ; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 889 ).

There is low evidence on the causal linkages between climate change, land degradation processes (other than desertification) and migration. Existing studies on land degradation and migration – particularly in drylands – largely focus on the effect of rainfall variability and drought, and show how migration serves as adaptation strategy (Piguet et al. 2018 890 ; McLeman 2017 891 ; Chapter 3). For example, in the Ethiopian highlands, severe topsoil erosion and forest degradation is a major environmental stressor which is amplified by recurring droughts, with migration being an important household adaptation strategy (Morrissey 2013 892 ). In the humid tropics, land degradation, mainly as a consequence of deforestation, has been a reported reason for people leaving their homes during the Amazonian colonisation (Hecht 1983 894 ) but was also observed more recently, for example in Guatemala, where soil degradation was one of the most frequently cited migration pushes (López-Carr 2012 895 ) and Kenya, where households respond to low soil quality by sending temporary migrants for additional income generation (Gray 2011 896 ). In contrast, in the Andean highlands and the Pacific coastal plain, migration increased with land quality, probably because revenues from additional agricultural production was invested in costly forms of migration (Gray and Bilsborrow 2013 897 ). These mixed results illustrate the complex, non-linear relationship of land degradation–migration linkages and suggest that explaining land degradationand migration linkages requires considering a broad range of socio-ecological conditions (McLeman 2017 898 ).

In addition to people moving away from an area due to ‘lost’ livelihood activities, climate-related land degradation can also reduce the availability of livelihood safety nets – environmental assets that people use during times of shocks or stress. For example, Barbier (2000) 899 notes that wetlands in north-east Nigeria around Hadejia–Jama’are floodplain provide dry season pastures for seminomadic herders, agricultural surpluses for Kano and Borno states, groundwater recharge of the Chad formation aquifer and ‘insurance’ resources in times of drought. The floodplain also supports many migratory bird species. As climate change and land degradation combine, delivery of these multiple services can be undermined, particularly as droughts become more widespread, reducing the utility of this wetland environment as a safety net for people and wildlife alike.

Early studies conducted in Africa hint at a significant causal link between land degradation and violent conflict (Homer-Dixon et al. 1993 900 ). For example, Percival and Homer-Dixon (1995) 901 identified land degradation as one of the drivers of the crisis in Rwanda in the early 1990s, which allowed radical forces to stoke ethnic rivalries. With respect to the Darfur conflict, some scholars and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that land degradation, together with other environmental stressors, constitute a major security threat for the Sudanese people (Byers and Dragojlovic 2004 902 ; Sachs 2007 903 ; UNEP 2007 904 ). Recent studies show low agreement, suggesting that climate change can increase the likelihood of civil violence if certain economic, political and social factors, including low development and weak governance mechanisms, are present (Scheffran et al. 2012 905 ; Benjaminsen et al. 2012 906 ). In contrast, Raleigh and Urdal (2007) 907 found in a global study that land degradation is a weak predictor for armed conflict. As such, studies addressing possible linkages between climate change – a key driver of land degradation – and the risks of conflict have yielded contradictory results, and it remains largely unclear whether land degradation resulting from climate change leads to conflict or cooperation (Salehyan 2008 908 ; Solomon et al. 2018 909 ).

Land degradation–conflict linkages can be bi-directional. Research suggests that households experiencing natural resource degradation often engage in migration for securing livelihoods (Kreamer 2012 910 ), which potentially triggers land degradation at the destination, leading to conflict there (Kassa et al. 2017 911 ). While this indeed holds true for some cases, it may not for others, given the complexity of processes, contexts and drivers. Where conflict and violence do ensue, it is often as a result of a lack of appreciation for the cultural practices of others.

4.8 Addressing land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation in the form of soil carbon loss is estimated to have been ongoing for at least 12,000 years, but increased exponentially in the last 200 years (Sanderman et al. 2017 912 ). Before the advent of modern sources of nutrients, it was imperative for farmers to maintain and improve soil fertility through the prevention of runoff and erosion, and management of nutrients through vegetation residues and manure. Many ancient farming systems were sustainable for hundreds and even thousands of years, such as raised-field agriculture in Mexico (Crews and Gliessman 1991 913 ), tropical forest gardens in Southeast Asia and Central America (Ross 2011 914 ; Torquebiau 1992 915 ; Turner and Sabloff 2012 916 ), terraced agriculture in East Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean basin (Turner and Sabloff 2012 917 ; Preti and Romano 2014 918 ; Widgren and Sutton 2004 919 ; Håkansson and Widgren 2007 920 ; Davies and Moore 2016 921 ; Davies 2015 922 ), and integrated rice–fish cultivation in East Asia (Frei and Becker 2005 923 ).

Such long-term sustainable farming systems evolved in very different times and geographical contexts, but they share many common features, such as: the combination of species and structural diversity in time and space (horizontally and vertically) in order to optimise the use of available land; recycling of nutrients through biodiversity of plants, animals and microbes; harnessing the full range of site-specific micro-environments (e.g., wet and dry soils); biological interdependencies which help suppression of pests; reliance on mainly local resources; reliance on local varieties of crops, and sometimes incorporation of wild plants and animals; the systems are often labour and knowledge intensive (Rudel et al. 2016 924 ; Beets 1990 925 ; Netting 1993 926 ; Altieri and Koohafkan 2008 927 ). Such farming systems have stood the test of time and can provide important knowledge for adapting farming systems to climate change (Koohafkann and Altieri 2011 928 ).

In modern agriculture, the importance of maintaining the biological productivity and ecological integrity of farmland has not been a necessity in the same way as in pre-modern agriculture because nutrients and water have been supplied externally. The extreme land degradation in the US Midwest during the Dust Bowl period in the 1930s became an important wake-up call for agriculture and agricultural research and development, from which we can still learn much in order to adapt to ongoing and future climate change (McLeman et al. 2014 929 ; Baveye et al. 2011 930 ; McLeman and Smit 2006 931 ).

SLM is a unifying framework for addressing land degradation and can be defined as the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions. It is a comprehensive approach comprising technologies combined with social, economic and political enabling conditions (Nkonya et al. 2011 932 ). It is important to stress that farming systems are informed by both scientific and local/traditional knowledge. The power of SLM in small-scale diverse farming was demonstrated effectively in Nicaragua after the severe cyclone Mitch in 1998 (Holt-Giménez 2002 933 ). Pairwise analysis of 880 fields with and without implementation of SLM practices showed that the SLM fields systematically fared better than the fields without SLM in terms of more topsoil remaining, higher field moisture, more vegetation, less erosion and lower economic losses after the cyclone. Furthermore, the difference between fields with and without SLM increased with increasing levels of storm intensity, slope gradient, and age of SLM (Holt-Giménez 2002 934 ).

When addressing land degradation through SLM and other approaches, it is important to consider feedbacks that impact on climate change. Table 4.2 shows some of the most important land degradation issues, their potential solutions, and their impacts on climate change. This table provides a link between the comprehensive lists of land degradation processes (Table 4.1) and land management solutions.

Interaction of human and climate drivers can exacerbate desertification and land degradation.

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation and desertification processes. Human drivers of land degradation and desertification include expanding agriculture, agricultural practices and forest management. In turn, land degradation and desertification are also drivers of climate change through GHG emissions, reduced rates of carbon uptake, and reduced capacity of ecosystems to act as carbon sinks into the future. Impacts on climate change are either warming (in red) or cooling (in blue).

4.8.1 Actions on the ground to address land degradation

Concrete actions on the ground to address land degradation are primarily focused on soil and water conservation. In the context of adaptation to climate change, actions relevant for addressing land degradation are sometimes framed as ecosystem-based adaptation (Scarano 2017 935 ) or Nature-Based Solutions (Nesshöver et al. 2017 936 ), and in an agricultural context, agroecology (see Glossary) provides an important frame. The site-specific biophysical and social conditions, including local and indigenous knowledge, are important for successful implementation of concrete actions.

Responses to land degradation generally take the form of agronomic measures (methods related to managing the vegetation cover), soil management (methods related to tillage, nutrient supply), and mechanical methods (methods resulting in durable changes to the landscape) (Morgan 2005a 937 ). Measures may be combined to reinforce benefits to land quality, as well as improving carbon sequestration that supports climate change mitigation. Some measures offer adaptation options and other co-benefits, such as agroforestry, involving planting fruit trees that can support food security in the face of climate change impacts (Reed and Stringer 2016 938 ), or application of compost or biochar that enhances soil water-holding capacity, so increases resilience to drought.

There are important differences in terms of labour and capital requirements for different technologies, and also implications for land tenure arrangements. Agronomic measures and soil management require generally little extra capital input and comprise activities repeated annually, so have no particular implication for land tenure arrangements. Mechanical methods require substantial upfront investments in terms of capital and labour, resulting in long-lasting structural change, requiring more secure land tenure arrangements (Mekuriaw et al. 2018 939 ). Agroforestry is a particularly important strategy for SLM in the context of climate change because of the large potential to sequester carbon in plants and soil and enhance resilience of agricultural systems (Zomer et al. 2016 940 ).

Implementation of SLM practices has been shown to increase the productivity of land (Branca et al. 2013 941 ) and to provide good economic returns on investment in many different settings around the world (Mirzabaev et al. 2015 942 ). Giger et al. (2018) 943 showed, in a meta study of 363 SLM projects over the period 1990 to 2012, that 73% of the projects were perceived to have a positive or at least neutral cost-benefit ratio in the short term, and 97% were perceived to have a positive or very positive cost-benefit ratio in the long term ( robust evidence, high agreement ). Despite the positive effects, uptake is far from universal. Local factors, both biophysical conditions (e.g., soils,

drainage, and topography) and socio-economic conditions (e.g., land tenure, economic status, and land fragmentation) play decisive roles in the interest in, capacity to undertake, and successful implementation of SLM practices (Teshome et al. 2016 944 ; Vogl et al. 2017 945 ; Tesfaye et al. 2016 946 ; Cerdà et al. 2018 947 ; Adimassu et al. 2016 948 ). From a landscape perspective, SLM can generate benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, for entire watersheds, but challenges remain regarding coordinated and consistent implementation ( medium evidence, medium agreement ) (Kerr et al. 2016 949 ; Wang et al. 2016a 950 ).

4.8.1.1 Agronomic and soil management measures

Rebuilding soil carbon is an important goal of SLM, particularly in the context of climate change (Rumpel et al. 2018 951 ). The two most important reasons why agricultural soils have lost 20–60% of the soil carbon they contained under natural ecosystem conditions are the frequent disturbance through tillage and harvesting, and the change from deep- rooted perennial plants to shallow-rooted annual plants (Crews and Rumsey 2017 952 ). Practices that build soil carbon are those that increase organic matter input to soil, or reduce decomposition of SOM.

Agronomic practices can alter the carbon balance significantly, by increasing organic inputs from litter and roots into the soil. Practices include retention of residues, use of locally adapted varieties, inter-cropping, crop rotations, and green manure crops that replace the bare field fallow during winter and are eventually ploughed before sowing the next main crop (Henry et al. 2018 953 ). Cover crops (green manure crops and catch crops that are grown between the main cropping seasons) can increase soil carbon stock by between 0.22 and 0.4 t C ha –1 yr –1 (Poeplau and Don 2015 954 ; Kaye and Quemada 2017 955 ).

Reduced tillage (or no-tillage) is an important strategy for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss by wind and water (Van Pelt et al. 2017 956 ; Panagos et al. 2015 957 ; Borrelli et al. 2016 958 ). But the evidence that no-till agriculture also sequesters carbon is not compelling (VandenBygaart 2016 959 ). Soil sampling of only the upper 30 cm can give biased results, suggesting that soils under no-till practices have higher carbon content than soils under conventional tillage (Baker et al. 2007 960 ; Ogle et al. 2012 961 ; Fargione et al. 2018 962 ; VandenBygaart 2016 963 ).

Changing from annual to perennial crops can increase soil carbon content (Culman et al. 2013 964 ; Sainju et al. 2017 965 ). A perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) was, on average, over four years a net carbon sink of about 13.5 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 (de Oliveira et al. 2018 966 ). Sprunger et al. (2018) 967 compared an annual winter wheat crop with a perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) and found that the perennial grain root biomass was 15 times larger than winter wheat, however, there was no significant difference in soil carbon pools after the four-year experiment. Exactly how much, and over what time period, carbon can be sequestered through changing from annual to perennial crops depends on the degree of soil carbon depletion and other local biophysical factors (Section 4.9.2).

Integrated soil fertility management is a sustainable approach to nutrient management that uses a combination of chemical and organic amendments (manure, compost, biosolids, biochar), rhizobial nitrogen fixation, and liming materials to address soil chemical constraints (Henry et al. 2018 968 ). In pasture systems, management of grazing pressure, fertilisation, diverse species including legumes and perennial grasses can reduce erosion and enhance soil carbon (Conant et al. 2017 969 ).

Mechanical soil and water conservation

In hilly and mountainous terrain, terracing is an ancient but still practised soil conservation method worldwide (Preti and Romano 2014 970 ) in climatic zones from arid to humid tropics (Balbo 2017 981 ). By reducing the slope gradient of hillsides, terraces provide flat surfaces. Deep, loose soils that increase infiltration, reduce erosion and thus sediment transport. They also decrease the hydrological connectivity and thus reduce hillside runoff (Preti et al. 2018 972 ; Wei et al. 2016 973 ; Arnáez et al. 2015 974 ; Chen et al. 2017 975 ). In terms of climate change, terraces are a form of adaptation that helps in cases where rainfall is increasing or intensifying (by reducing slope gradient and the hydrological connectivity), and where rainfall is decreasing (by increasing infiltration and reducing runoff) ( robust evidence, high agreement ). There are several challenges, however, to continued maintenance and construction of new terraces, such as the high costs in terms of labour and/or capital (Arnáez et al. 2015 976 ) and disappearing local knowledge for maintaining and constructing new terraces (Chen et al. 2017 977 ). The propensity of farmers to invest in mechanical soil conservation methods varies with land tenure; farmers with secure tenure arrangements are more willing to invest in durable practices such as terraces (Lovo 2016 978 ; Sklenicka et al. 2015 979 ; Haregeweyn et al. 2015 980 ). Where the slope is less severe, erosion can be controlled by contour banks, and the keyline approach (Duncan 2016 1652 ; Stevens et al. 2015 982 ) to soil and water conservation.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is defined as a collective name for land-use systems in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, etc.) are grown in association with herbaceous plants (crops, pastures) and/or livestock in a spatial arrangement, a rotation, or both, and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the tree and non-tree components of the system (Young, 1995, p. 11 983 ). At least since the 1980s, agroforestry has been widely touted as an ideal land management practice in areas vulnerable to climate variations and subject to soil erosion. Agroforestry holds the promise of improving soil and climatic conditions, while generating income from wood energy, timber and non-timber products – sometimes presented as a synergy of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (Mbow et al. 2014 984 ).

There is strong scientific consensus that a combination of forestry with agricultural crops and/or livestock, agroforestry systems can provide additional ecosystem services when compared with monoculture crop systems (Waldron et al. 2017 985 ; Sonwa et al. 2011 986 , 2014 987 , 2017 988 ; Charles et al. 2013 989 ). Agroforestry can enable sustainable intensification by allowing continuous production on the same unit of land with higher productivity without the need to use shifting agriculture systems to maintain crop yields (Nath et al. 2016 990 ). This is especially relevant where there is a regional requirement to find a balance between the demand for increased agricultural production and the protection of adjacent natural ecosystems such as primary and secondary forests (Mbow et al. 2014 991 ). For example, the use of agroforestry for perennial crops such as coffee and cocoa is increasingly promoted as offering a route to sustainable farming, with important climate change adaptation and mitigation co-benefits (Sonwa et al. 2001 992 ; Kroeger et al. 2017 993 ). Reported co-benefits of agroforestry in cocoa production include increased carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, improved water and nutrient use efficiency and the creation of a favourable micro-climate for crop production (Sonwa et al. 2017 994 ; Chia et al. 2016 995 ). Importantly, the maintenance of soil fertility using agroforestry has the potential to reduce the practice of shifting agriculture (of cocoa) which results in deforestation (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011 996 ). However, positive interactions within these systems can be ecosystem and/or species specific, but co-benefits such as increased resilience to extreme climate events, or improved soil fertility are not always observed (Blaser et al. 2017 997 ; Abdulai et al. 2018 998 ). These contrasting outcomes indicate the importance of field-scale research programmes to inform agroforestry system design, species selection and management practices (Sonwa et al. 2014 999 ).

Despite the many proven benefits, adoption of agroforestry has been low and slow (Toth et al. 2017 1000 ; Pattanayak et al. 2003 1001 ; Jerneck and Olsson 2014 1002 ). There are several reasons for the slow uptake, but the perception of risks and the time lag between adoption and realisation of benefits are often important (Pattanayak et al. 2003 1003 ; Mercer 2004 1004 ; Jerneck and Olsson 2013 1005 ).

An important question for agroforestry is whether it supports poverty alleviation, or if it favours comparatively affluent households. Experiences from India suggest that the overall adoption is low, with a differential between rich and poor households. Brockington el al. (2016) 1006 , studied agroforestry adoption over many years in South India and found that, overall, only 18% of the households adopted agroforestry. However, among the relatively rich households who adopted agroforestry, 97% were still practising it after six to eight years, and some had expanded their operations. Similar results were obtained in Western Kenya, where food-secure households were much more willing to adopt agroforestry than food-insecure households (Jerneck and Olsson 2013 1007 , 2014). Other experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa illustrate the difficulties (such as local institutional support) of having a continued engagement of communities in agroforestry (Noordin et al. 2001 1008 ; Matata et al. 2013 1009 ; Meijer et al. 2015 1010 ).

Crop–livestock interaction as an approach to managing land degradation

The integration of crop and livestock production into ‘mixed farming’ for smallholders in developing countries became an influential model, particularly for Africa, in the early 1990s (Pritchard et al. 1992 1011 ; McIntire et al. 1992 1012 ). Crop–livestock integration under this model was seen as founded on three pillars: improved use of manure for crop fertility management; expanded use of animal traction (draught animals); and promotion of cultivated fodder crops. For Asia, emphasis was placed on draught power for land preparation, manure for soil fertility enhancement, and fodder production as an entry point for cultivation of legumes (Devendra and Thomas 2002 1013 ). Mixed farming was seen as an evolutionary process to expand food production in the face of population increase, promote improvements in income and welfare, and protect the environment. The process could be further facilitated and steered by research, agricultural advisory services and policy (Pritchard et al. 1992 1014 ; McIntire et al. 1992 1015 ; Devendra 2002 1016 ).

Scoones and Wolmer (2002) 1017 place this model in historical context, including concern about population pressure on resources and the view that mobile pastoralism was environmentally damaging. The latter view had already been critiqued by developing understandings of pastoralism, mobility and communal tenure of grazing lands (e.g., Behnke 1994 1018 ; Ellis 1994 1019 ). They set out a much more differentiated picture of crop–livestock interactions, which can take place either within a single-farm household, or between crop and livestock producers, in which case they will be mediated by formal and informal institutions governing the allocation of land, labour and capital, with the interactions evolving through multiple place-specific pathways (Ramisch et al. 2002 1020 ; Scoones and Wolmer 2002 1021 ). Promoting a diversity of approaches to crop–livestock interactions does not imply that the integrated model necessarily leads to land degradation, but increases the space for institutional support to local innovation (Scoones and Wolmer 2002 1022 ).

However, specific managerial and technological practices that link crop and livestock production will remain an important part of the repertoire of on-farm adaptation and mitigation. Howden and coauthors (Howden et al. 2007 1023 ) note the importance of innovation within existing integrated systems, including use of adapted forage crops. Rivera-Ferre et al. (2016) 1024 list as adaptation strategies with high potential for grazing systems, mixed crop–livestock systems or both: crop–livestock integration in general; soil management, including composting; enclosure and corralling of animals; improved storage of feed. Most of these are seen as having significant co-benefits for mitigation, and improved management of manure is seen as a mitigation measure with adaptation co-benefits.

Local and indigenous knowledge for addressing land degradation

In practice, responses are anchored in scientific research, as well as local, indigenous and traditional knowledge and know-how. For example, studies in the Philippines by Camacho et al. (2016) 25 examine how traditional integrated watershed management by indigenous people sustain regulating services vital to agricultural productivity, while delivering co-benefits in the form of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a landscape scale. Although responses can be site specific and sustainable at a local scale, the multi-scale interplay of drivers and pressures can nevertheless cause practices that have been sustainable for centuries to become less so. Siahaya et al. (2016) 1026 explore the traditional knowledge that has informed rice cultivation in the uplands of East Borneo, grounded in sophisticated shifting cultivation methods ( gilir balik ) which have been passed on for generations (more than 200 years) in order to maintain local food production. Gilir balik involves temporary cultivation of plots, after which, abandonment takes place as the land user moves to another plot, leaving the natural (forest) vegetation to return. This approach is considered sustainable if it has the support of other subsistence strategies, adapts to and integrates with the local context, and if the carrying capacity of the system is not surpassed (Siahaya et al. 2016 1027 ). Often gilir balik cultivation involves intercropping of rice with bananas, cassava and other food crops. Once the abandoned plot has been left to recover such that soil fertility is restored, clearance takes place again and the plot is reused for cultivation. Rice cultivation in this way plays an important role in forest management, with several different types of succession forest being found in the study by Siahaya et al. (2016). Nevertheless, interplay of these practices with other pressures (large-scale land acquisitions for oil palm plantation, logging and mining), risk their future sustainability. Use of fire is critical in processes of land clearance, so there are also trade-offs for climate change mitigation, which have been sparsely assessed.

Interest appears to be growing in understanding how indigenous and local knowledge inform land users’ responses to degradation, as scientists engage farmers as experts in processes of knowledge co-production and co-innovation (Oliver et al. 2012 1028 ; Bitzer and Bijman 2015 1029 ). This can help to introduce, implement, adapt and promote the use of locally appropriate responses (Schwilch et al. 2011 1030 ). Indeed, studies strongly agree on the importance of engaging local populations in both sustainable land and forest management. Meta-analyses in tropical regions that examined both forests in protected areas and community-managed forests suggest that deforestation rates are lower, with less variation in deforestation rates presenting in community-managed forests compared to protected forests (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012 1031 ). This suggests that consideration of the social and economic needs of local human populations is vital in preventing forest degradation (Ward et al. 2018 1032 ). However, while disciplines such as ethnopedology seek to record and understand how local people perceive, classify and use soil, and draw on that information to inform its management (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 2003 1033 ), links with climate change and its impacts (perceived and actual) are not generally considered.

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing afforestation

Improved stewardship of forests through reduction or avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks can all contribute to land-based natural climate solutions (Angelsen et al. 2018 1034 ; Sonwa et al. 2011 1035 ; Griscom et al. 2017 1036 ). While estimates of annual emissions from tropical deforestation and forest degradation range widely from 0.5 to 3.5 GtC yr –1 (Baccini et al. 2017 1037 ; Houghton et al. 2012 1038 ; Mitchard 2018 1039 ; see also Chapter 2), they all indicate the large potential to reduce annual emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Recent estimates of forest extent for Africa in 1900 may result in downward adjustments of historic deforestation and degradation emission estimates (Aleman et al. 2018 1040 ). Emissions from forest degradation in non-Annex I countries have declined marginally from 1.1 GtCO 2 yr –1 in 2001–2010 to 1 GtCO 2 yr –1 in 2011–2015, but the relative emissions from degradation compared to deforestation have increased from a quarter to a third (Federici et al. 2015 1041 ). Forest sector activities in developing countries were estimated to represent a technical mitigation potential in 2030 of 9 GtCO 2 (Miles et al. 2015). This was partitioned into reduction of deforestation (3.5 GtCO 2 ), reduction in degradation and forest management (1.7 GtCO 2 ) and afforestation and reforestation (3.8 GtCO 2 ). The economic mitigation potential will be lower than the technical potential (Miles et al. 2015 1042 ).

Natural regeneration of second-growth forests enhances carbon sinks in the global carbon budget (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016 1043 ). In Latin America, Chazdon et al. (2016) 1044 estimated that, in 2008, second-growth forests (up to 60 years old) covered 2.4 Mkm 2 of land (28.1% of the total study area). Over 40 years, these lands can potentially accumulate 8.5 GtC in above-ground biomass via low-cost natural regeneration or assisted regeneration, corresponding to a total CO 2 sequestration of 31.1 GtCO 2 (Chazdon et al. 2016b). While above-ground biomass carbon stocks are estimated to be declining in the tropics, they are increasing globally due to increasing stocks in temperate and boreal forests (Liu et al. 2015b), consistent with the observations of a global land sector carbon sink (Le Quéré et al. 2013 1045 ; Keenan et al. 2017 1046 ; Pan et al. 2011).

Moving from technical mitigation potentials (Miles et al. 2015 1047 ) to real reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation required transformational changes (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2018 1048 ). This transformation can be facilitated by two enabling conditions: the presence of already initiated policy change; or the scarcity of forest resources combined with an absence of any effective forestry framework and policies. These authors and others (Angelsen et al. 2018 1049 ) found that the presence of powerful transformational coalitions of domestic pro-REDD+ (the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) political actors combined with strong ownership and leadership, regulations and law enforcement, and performance-based funding, can provide a strong incentive for achieving REDD+ goals.

Implementing schemes such as REDD+ and various projects related to the voluntary carbon market is often regarded as a no-regrets investment (Seymour and Angelsen 2012 1050 ) but the social and ecological implications (including those identified in the Cancun Safeguards) must be carefully considered for REDD+ projects to be socially and ecologically sustainable (Jagger et al. 2015 1051 ). In 2018, 34 countries have submitted a REDD+ forest reference level and/ or forest reference emission level to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Of these REDD+ reference levels, 95% included the activity ‘reducing deforestation’ while 34% included the activity ‘reducing forest degradation’ (FAO 2018). Five countries submitted REDD+ results in the technical annex to their Biennial Update Report totalling an emission reduction of 6.3 GtCO 2 between 2006 and 2015 (FAO 2018).

Afforestation is another mitigation activity that increases carbon sequestration (Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1). Yet, it requires careful consideration about where to plant trees to achieve potential climatic benefits, given an altering of local albedo and turbulent energy fluxes and increasing night-time land surface temperatures (Peng et al. 2014 1052 ). A recent hydro-climatic modelling effort has shown that forest cover can account for about 40% of the observed decrease in annual runoff (Buendia et al. 2016 1053 ). A meta-analysis of afforestation in Northern Europe (Bárcena et al. 2014 1054 ) concluded that significant soil organic carbon sequestration in Northern Europe occurs after afforestation of croplands but not grasslands. Additional sequestration occurs in forest floors and biomass carbon stocks. Successful programmes of large-scale afforestation activities in South Korea and China are discussed in-depth in a special case study (Section 4.9.3).

The potential outcome of efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in Indonesia through a 2011 moratorium on concessions to convert primary forests to either timber or palm oil uses was evaluated against rates of emissions over the period 2000 to 2010. The study concluded that less than 7% of emissions would have been avoided had the moratorium been implemented in 2000 because it only curtailed emissions due to a subset of drivers of deforestation and degradation (Busch et al. 2015 1055 ).

In terms of ecological integrity of tropical forests, the policy focus on carbon storage and tree cover can be problematic if it leaves out other aspects of forests ecosystems, such as biodiversity – and particularly fauna (Panfil and Harvey 2016 1056 ; Peres et al. 2016 1057 ; Hinsley et al. 2015 1058 ). Other concerns of forest-based projects under the voluntary carbon market are potential negative socio-economic side effects (Edstedt and Carton 2018 1059 ; Carton and Andersson 2017 1060 ; Osborne 2011 1061 ; Scheidel and Work 2018 1062 ; Richards and Lyons 2016 1063 ; Borras and Franco 2018 1064 ; Paladino and Fiske 2017 1065 ) and leakage (particularly at the subnational scale), that is, when interventions to reduce deforestation or degradation at one site displace pressures and increase emissions elsewhere (Atmadja and Verchot 2012 1066 ; Phelps et al. 2010 1067 ; Lund et al. 2017 1068 ; Balooni and Lund 2014 1069 ).

Maintaining and increasing forest area, in particular native forests rather than monoculture and short-rotation plantations, contributes to the maintenance of global forest carbon stocks (Lewis et al. 2019 1070 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ).

Sustainable forest management (SFM) and CO2 removal (CDR) technologies

While reducing deforestation and forest degradation may directly help to meet mitigation goals, SFM aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities, reduce the risk of forest conversion to non-forest uses (settlement, crops, etc.), and maintain land productivity, thus reducing the risks of land degradation (Putz et al. 2012 1071 ; Gideon Neba et al. 2014 1072 ; Sufo Kankeu et al. 2016 1073 ; Nitcheu Tchiadje et al. 2016 1074 ; Rossi et al. 2017 1075 ).

Developing SFM strategies aimed at contributing towards negative emissions throughout this century requires an understanding of forest management impacts on ecosystem carbon stocks (including soils), carbon sinks, carbon fluxes in harvested wood, carbon storage in harvested wood products, including landfills and the emission reductions achieved through the use of wood products and bioenergy (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1076 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 1077 ; Kurz et al. 2016 1078 ; Law et al. 2018 1079 ; Nabuurs et al. 2017 1080 ). Transitions from natural to managed forest landscapes can involve a reduction in forest carbon stocks, the magnitude of which depends on the initial landscape conditions, the harvest rotation length relative to the frequency and intensity of natural disturbances, and on the age-dependence of managed and natural disturbances (Harmon et al. 1990 1081 ; Kurz et al. 1998 1082 ). Initial landscape conditions, in particular the age-class distribution and therefore carbon stocks of the landscape, strongly affect the mitigation potential of forest management options (Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2013 1083 ; Kilpeläinen et al. 2017 1084 ). Landscapes with predominantly mature forests may experience larger reductions in carbon stocks during the transition to managed landscapes (Harmon et al. 1990 1085 ; Kurz et al. 1998 1086 ; Lewis et al. 2019 1087 ). In landscapes with predominantly young or recently disturbed forests, SFM can enhance carbon stocks (Henttonen et al. 2017 1088 ).

Forest growth rates, net primary productivity, and net ecosystem productivity are age-dependent, with maximum rates of CO 2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere occurring in young to medium-aged forests and declining thereafter (Tang et al. 2014 1089 ). In boreal forest ecosystem, estimation of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes indicate that old growth stands are typically small carbon sinks or carbon sources (Gao et al. 2018 1090 ; Taylor et al. 2014 1091 ; Hadden and Grelle 2016 1092 ). In tropical forests, carbon uptake rates in the first 20 years of forest recovery were 11 times higher than uptake rates in old-growth forests (Poorter et al. 2016 1093 ). Age-dependent increases in forest carbon stocks and declines in forest carbon sinks mean that landscapes with older forests have accumulated more carbon but their sink strength is diminishing, while landscapes with younger forests contain less carbon but they are removing CO 2 from the atmosphere at a much higher rate (Volkova et al. 2017 1094 ; Poorter et al. 2016 1095 ). The rates of CDR are not just age-related but also controlled by many biophysical factors and human activities (Bernal et al. 2018 1096 ). In ecosystems with uneven-aged, multispecies forests, the relationships between carbon stocks and sinks are more difficult and expensive to quantify.

Whether or not forest harvest and use of biomass is contributing to net reductions of atmospheric carbon depends on carbon losses during and following harvest, rates of forest regrowth, and the use of harvested wood and carbon retention in long-lived or short-lived products, as well as the emission reductions achieved through the substitution of emissions-intensive products with wood products (Lemprière et al. 2013 1097 ; Lundmark et al. 2014 1098 ; Xu et al. 2018b 1099 ; Olguin et al. 2018 1100 ; Dugan et al. 2018 1101 ; Chen et al. 2018b 1102 ; Pingoud et al. 2018 1103 ; Seidl et al. 2007 1104 ). Studies that ignore changes in forest carbon stocks (such as some lifecycle analyses that assume no impacts of harvest on forest carbon stocks), ignore changes in wood product pools (Mackey et al. 2013 1105 ) or assume long-term steady state (Pingoud et al. 2018 1106 ), or ignore changes in emissions from substitution benefits (Mackey et al. 2013 1107 ; Lewis et al. 2019 1108 ) will arrive at diverging conclusions about the benefits of SFM. Moreover, assessments of climate benefits of any mitigation action must also consider the time dynamics of atmospheric impacts, as some actions will have immediate benefits (e.g., avoided deforestation), while others may not achieve net atmospheric benefits for decades or centuries. For example, the climate benefits of woody biomass use for bioenergy depend on several factors, such as the source and alternate fate of the biomass, the energy type it substitutes, and the rates of regrowth of the harvested forest (Laganière et al. 2017 1109 ; Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2014 1110 ; Smyth et al. 2017 1111 ). Conversion of primary forests in regions of very low stand-replacing disturbances to short-rotation plantations where the harvested wood is used for short-lived products with low displacement factors will increase emissions. In general, greater mitigation benefits are achieved if harvested wood products are used for products with long carbon retention time and high displacement factors.

With increasing forest age, carbon sinks in forests will diminish until harvest or natural disturbances, such as wildfire, remove biomass carbon or release it to the atmosphere (Seidl et al. 2017 1112 ). While individual trees can accumulate carbon for centuries (Köhl et al. 2017 1113 ), stand-level carbon accumulation rates depend on both tree growth and tree mortality rates (Hember et al. 2016 1114 ; Lewis et al. 2004 1115 ). SFM, including harvest and forest regeneration, can help maintain active carbon sinks by maintaining a forest age-class distribution that includes a share of young, actively growing stands (Volkova et al. 2018 1116 ; Nabuurs et al. 2017 1117 ). The use of the harvested carbon in either long-lived wood products (e.g., for construction), short-lived wood products (e.g., pulp and paper), or biofuels affects the net carbon balance of the forest sector (Lemprière et al. 2013 1118 ; Matthews et al. 2018 1119 ). The use of these wood products can further contribute to GHG emission-reduction goals by avoiding the emissions from the products with higher embodied emissions that have been displaced (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1120 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 1121 ). In 2007 the IPCC concluded that ‘[i]n the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit’ (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1122 ). The apparent trade-offs between maximising forest carbon stocks and maximising ecosystem carbon sinks are at the origin of ongoing debates about optimum management strategies to achieve negative emissions (Keith et al. 2014 1123 ; Kurz et al. 2016 1124 ; Lundmark et al. 2014 1125 ). SFM, including the intensification of carbon-focused management strategies, can make long-term contributions towards negative emissions if the sustainability of management is assured through appropriate governance, monitoring and enforcement. As specified in the definition of SFM, other criteria such as biodiversity must also be considered when assessing mitigation outcomes (Lecina-Diaz et al. 2018 1126 ). Moreover, the impacts of changes in management on albedo and other non-GHG factors also need to be considered (Luyssaert et al. 2018 1127 ) (Chapter 2). The contribution of SFM for negative emissions is strongly affected by the use of the wood products derived from forest harvest and the time horizon over which the carbon balance is assessed. SFM needs to anticipate the impacts of climate change on future tree growth, mortality and disturbances when designing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (Valade et al. 2017 1128 ; Seidl et al. 2017 1129 ).

Policy responses to land degradation

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, recognised land degradation as a major challenge to sustainable development, and led to the establishment of the UNCCD, which specifically addressed land degradation in the drylands. The UNCCD emphasises sustainable land use to link poverty reduction on one hand and environmental protection on the other. The two other ‘Rio Conventions’ emerging from the UNCED – the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – focus on climate change and biodiversity, respectively. The land has been recognised as an aspect of common interest to the three conventions, and SLM is proposed as a unifying theme for current global efforts on combating land degradation, climate change and loss of biodiversity, as well as facilitating land-based adaptation to climate change and sustainable development.

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds developing countries to undertake activities that meet the goals of the conventions and deliver global environmental benefits. Since 2002, the GEF has invested in projects that support SLM through its Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy, to address land degradation within and beyond the drylands.

Under the UNFCCC, parties have devised National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that identify medium- and long-term adaptation needs. Parties have also developed their climate change mitigation plans, presented as NDCs. These programmes have the potential of assisting the promotion of SLM. It is understood that the root causes of land degradation and successful adaptation will not be realised until holistic solutions to land management are explored. SLM can help address root causes of low productivity, land degradation, loss of income-generating capacity, as well as contribute to the amelioration of the adverse effects of climate change.

The ‘4 per 1000’ (4p1000) initiative (Soussana et al. 2019 1130 ) launched by France during the UNFCCC COP21 in 2015 aims at capturing CO 2 from the atmosphere through changes to agricultural and forestry practices at a rate that would increase the carbon content of soils by 0.4% per year (Rumpel et al. 2018 1131 ). If global soil carbon content increases at this rate in the top 30–40 cm, the annual increase in atmospheric CO 2 would be stopped (Dignac et al. 2017 1132 ). This is an illustration of how extremely important soils are for addressing climate change. The initiative is based on eight steps: stop carbon loss (priority #1 is peat soils); promote carbon uptake; monitor, report and verify impacts; deploy technology for tracking soil carbon; test strategies for implementation and upscaling; involve communities; coordinate policies; and provide support (Rumpel et al. 2018 1133 ). Questions remain, however, about the extent that the 4p1000 is achievable as a universal goal (van Groenigen et al. 2017 1134 ; Poulton et al. 2018 1135 ; Schlesinger and Amundson 2018 1136 ).

LDN was introduced by the UNCCD at Rio +20, and adopted at UNCCD COP12 (UNCCD 2016a 1137 ). LDN is defined as ‘a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems’(Cowie et al. 2018 1138 ). Pursuit of LDN requires effort to avoid further net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. LDN encourages a dual-pronged effort involving SLM to reduce the risk of land degradation, combined with efforts in land restoration and rehabilitation, to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital, and its associated ecosystem services (Orr et al. 2017 1139 ; Cowie et al. 2018 1140 ). Planning for LDN involves projecting the expected cumulative impacts of land-use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains, within individual land types (where land type is defined by land potential). Under the LDN framework developed by UNCCD, three primary indicators are used to assess whether LDN is achieved by 2030: land cover change; net primary productivity; and soil organic carbon (Cowie et al. 2018 1141 ; Sims et al. 2019 1142 ). Achieving LDN therefore requires integrated landscape management that seeks to optimise land use to meet multiple objectives (ecosystem health, food security, human well-being) (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016 1143 ). The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. LDN provides the impetus for widespread adoption of SLM and efforts to restore or rehabilitate land. Through its focus, LDN ultimately provides tremendous potential for mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change by halting and reversing land degradation and transforming land from a carbon source to a sink. There are strong synergies between the concept of LDN and the NDCs of many countries, with linkages to national climate plans. LDN is also closely related to many Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the areas of poverty, food security, environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources (UNCCD 2016b 1144 ). The GEF is supporting countries to set LDN targets and implement their LDN plans through its land degradation focal area, which encourages application of integrated landscape approaches to managing land degradation (GEF 2018 1145 ).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, comprises 17 SDGs. Goal 15 is of direct relevance to land degradation, with the objective to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Target 15.3 specifically addresses LDN. Other goals that are relevant for land degradation include Goal 2 (Zero hunger), Goal 3 (Good health and well-being), Goal 7 (Affordable and clean energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), and Goal 12 (Responsible production and consumption). Sustainable management of land resources underpins the SDGs related to hunger, climate change and environment. Further goals of a cross-cutting nature include 1 (No poverty), 6 (Clean water and sanitation) and 13 (Climate action). It remains to be seen how these interconnections are dealt with in practice.

With a focus on biodiversity, IPBES published a comprehensive assessment of land degradation in 2018 (Montanarella et al. 2018 1146 ). The IPBES report, together with this report focusing on climate change, may contribute to creating a synergy between the two main global challenges for addressing land degradation in order to help achieve the targets of SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss).

Market-based mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UNFCCC and the voluntary carbon market provide incentives to enhance carbon sinks on the land through afforestation and reforestation. Implications for local land use and food security have been raised as a concern and need to be assessed (Edstedt and Carton 2018 1147 ; Olsson et al. 2014b 1148 ). Many projects aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradations (not to be confused with the national REDD+ programmes in accordance with the UNFCCC Warsaw Framework) are being planned and implemented to primarily target countries with high forest cover and high deforestation rates. Some parameters of incentivising emissions reduction, quality of forest governance, conservation priorities, local rights and tenure frameworks, and sub-national project potential are being looked into, with often very mixed results (Newton et al. 2016 1149 ; Gebara and Agrawal 2017 1150 ).

Besides international public initiatives, some actors in the private sector are increasingly aware of the negative environmental impacts of some global value chains producing food, fibre, and energy products (Lambin et al. 2018 1151 ; van der Ven and Cashore 2018 1152 ; van der Ven et al. 2018 1153 ; Lyons-White and Knight 2018 1154 ). While improvements are underway in many supply chains, measures implemented so far are often insufficient to be effective in reducing or stopping deforestation and forest degradation (Lambin et al. 2018 1155 ). The GEF is investing in actions to reduce deforestation in commodity supply chains through its Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact Program (GEF 2018 1156 ).

Limits to adaptation

SLM can be deployed as a powerful adaptation strategy in most instances of climate change impacts on natural and social systems, yet there are limits to adaptation (Klein et al. 2014 1157 ; Dow, Berhout and Preston 2013 1158 ). Such limits are dynamic and interact with social and institutional conditions (Barnett et al. 2015 1159 ; Filho and Nalau 2018 1160 ). Exceeding adaptation limits will trigger escalating losses or require undesirable transformational change, such as forced migration. The rate of change in relation to the rate of possible adaptation is crucial (Dow et al. 2013 1161 ). How limits to adaptation are defined, and how they can be measured, is contextual and contested. Limits must be assessed in relation to the ultimate goals of adaptation, which is subject to diverse and differential values (Dow et al. 2013 1162 ; Adger et al. 2009 1163 ). A particularly sensitive issue is whether migration is accepted as adaptation or not (Black et al. 2011 1164 ; Tacoli 2009 1165 ; Bardsley and Hugo 2010 1166 ). If migration were understood and accepted as a form of successful adaptation, it would change the limits to adaptation by reducing, or even avoiding, future humanitarian crises caused by climate extremes (Adger et al. 2009 1167 ; Upadhyay et al. 2017 1168 ; Nalau et al. 2018 1169 ).

In the context of land degradation, potential limits to adaptation exist if land degradation becomes so severe and irreversible that livelihoods cannot be maintained, and if migration is either not acceptable or not possible. Examples are coastal erosion where land disappears (Gharbaoui and Blocher 2016 1170 ; Luetz 2018 1171 ), collapsing livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost (Landauer and Juhola 2019 1172 ), and extreme forms of soil erosion, (e.g., landslides (Van der Geest and Schindler 2016 1173 ) and gully erosion leading to badlands (Poesen et al. 2003 1174 )).

Resilience and thresholds

Resilience refers to the capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems, such as farming systems, to absorb disturbance (e.g., drought, conflict, market collapse), and respond or reorganise, to maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience can be described as ‘coping capacity’. The disturbance may be a shock – sudden events such as a flood or disease epidemic – or it may be a trend that develops slowly, like a drought or market shift. The shocks and trends anticipated to occur due to climate change are expected to exacerbate risk of land degradation. Therefore, assessing and enhancing resilience to climate change is a critical component of designing SLM strategies.

Resilience as an analytical lens is particularly strong in ecology and related research on natural resource management (Folke et al. 2010 1175 ; Quinlan et al. 2016 1176 ) while, in the social sciences, the relevance of resilience for studying social and ecological interactions is contested

(Cote and Nightingale 2012 1177 ; Olsson et al. 2015 1178 ; Cretney 2014 1179 ; Béné et al. 2012 1180 ; Joseph 2013 1181 ). In the case of adaptation to climate change (and particularly regarding limits to adaptation), a crucial ambiguity of resilience is the question of whether resilience is a normative concept (i.e., resilience is good or bad) or a descriptive characteristic of a system (i.e., neither good nor bad). Previous IPCC reports have defined resilience as a normative (positive) attribute (see AR5 Glossary), while the wider scientific literature is divided on this (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 1182 ; Strunz 2012 1183 ; Brown 2014 1184 ; Grimm and Calabrese 2011 1185 ; Thorén and Olsson 2018 1186 ). For example, is outmigration from a disaster-prone area considered a successful adaptation (high resilience) or a collapse of the livelihood system (lack of resilience) (Thorén and Olsson 2018 1187 )? In this report, resilience is considered a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation.

Furthermore, ‘resilience’ and the related terms ‘adaptation’ and ‘transformation’ are defined and used differently by different communities (Quinlan et al. 2016 1188 ). The relationship and hierarchy of resilience with respect to vulnerability and adaptive capacity are also debated, with different perspectives between disaster management and global change communities, (e.g., Cutter et al. 2008 1189 ). Nevertheless, these differences in usage need not inhibit the application of ‘resilience thinking’ in managing land degradation; researchers using these terms, despite variation in definitions, apply the same fundamental concepts to inform management of human-environment systems, to maintain or improve the resource base, and sustain livelihoods.

Applying resilience concepts involves viewing the land as a component of an interlinked social-ecological system; identifying key relationships that determine system function and vulnerabilities of the system; identifying thresholds or tipping points beyond which the system transitions to an undesirable state; and devising management strategies to steer away from thresholds of potential concern, thus facilitating healthy systems and sustainable production (Walker et al. 2009 1190 ).

A threshold is a non-linearity between a controlling variable and system function, such that a small change in the variable causes the system to shift to an alternative state. Bestelmeyer et al. (2015) 1191 and Prince et al. (2018) 1192 illustrate this concept in the context of land degradation. Studies have identified various biophysical and socio-economic thresholds in different land-use systems. For example, 50% ground cover (living and dead plant material and biological crusts) is a recognised threshold for dryland grazing systems (e.g., Tighe et al. 2012 1193 ); below this threshold, the infiltration rate declines, risk of erosion causing loss of topsoil increases, a switch from perennial to annual grass species occurs and there is a consequential sharp decline in productivity. This shift to a lower-productivity state cannot be reversed without significant human intervention. Similarly, the combined pressure of water limitations and frequent fire can lead to transition from closed forest to savannah or grassland: if fire is too frequent, trees do not reach reproductive maturity and post-fire regeneration will fail; likewise, reduced rainfall/increased drought prevents successful forest regeneration (Reyer et al. 2015 1194 ; Thompson et al. 2009 1195 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2).

In managing land degradation, it is important to assess the resilience of the existing system, and the proposed management interventions. If the existing system is in an undesirable state or considered unviable under expected climate trends, it may be desirable to promote adaptation or even transformation to a different system that is more resilient to future changes. For example, in an irrigation district where water shortages are predicted, measures could be implemented to improve water use efficiency, for example, by establishing drip irrigation systems for water delivery, although transformation to pastoralism or mixed dryland cropping/livestock production may be more sustainable in the longer term, at least for part of the area. Application of SLM practices, especially those focused on ecological functions (e.g., agroecology, ecosystem-based approaches, regenerative agriculture, organic farming), can be effective in building resilience of agro-ecosystems (Henry et al. 2018). Similarly, the resilience of managed forests can be enhanced by SFM that protects or enhances biodiversity, including assisted migration of tree species within their current range limit (Winder et al. 2011 1197 ; Pedlar et al. 2012 1198 ) or increasing species diversity in plantation forests (Felton et al. 2010 1199 ; Liu et al. 2018a 1200 ). The essential features of a resilience approach to management of land degradation under climate change are described by O’Connell et al. (2016) 1201 and Simonsen et al. (2014) 1202 .

Consideration of resilience can enhance effectiveness of interventions to reduce or reverse land degradation ( medium agreement, limited evidence ). This approach will increase the likelihood that SLM/SFM and land restoration/rehabilitation interventions achieve long-term environmental and social benefits. Thus, consideration of resilience concepts can enhance the capacity of land systems to cope with climate change and resist land degradation, and assist land-use systems to adapt to climate change.

Barriers to implementation of sustainable land management (SLM)

There is a growing recognition that addressing barriers and designing solutions to complex environmental problems, such as land degradation, requires awareness of the larger system into which the problems and solutions are embedded (Laniak et al. 2013 1203 ). An ecosystem approach to sustainable land management (SLM) based on an understanding of land degradation processes has been recommended to separate multiple drivers, pressures and impacts (Kassam et al. 2013 1204 ), but large uncertainty in model projections of future climate, and associated ecosystem processes (IPCC 2013a 1205 ) pose additional challenges to the implementation of SLM. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many SLM practices, including technologies and approaches, are available that can increase yields and contribute to closing the yield gap between actual and potential crop or pasture yield, while also enhancing resilience to climate change (Yengoh and Ardö 2014 1206 ; WOCAT n.d.). However, there are often systemic barriers to adoption and scaling up of SLM practices, especially in developing countries.

Uitto (2016) 1207 identified areas that the GEF, the financial mechanism of the UNCCD, UNFCCC and other multilateral environmental agreements, can address to solve global environmental problems. These include: removal of barriers related to knowledge and information; strategies for implementation of technologies and approaches; and institutional capacity. Strengthening these areas would drive transformational change, leading to behavioural change and broader adoption of sustainable environmental practices. Detailed analysis of barriers as well as strategies, methods and approaches to scale up SLM have been undertaken for GEF programmes in Africa, China and globally (Tengberg and Valencia 2018 1208 ; Liniger et al. 2011 1209 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1210 ). A number of interconnected barriers and bottlenecks to the scaling up of SLM have been identified in this context and are related to:

• limited access to knowledge and information, including new SLM technologies and problem-solving capacities
• weak enabling environment, including the policy, institutional and legal framework for SLM, and land tenure and property rights
• inadequate learning and adaptive knowledge management in the project cycle, including monitoring and evaluation of impacts
• limited access to finance for scaling up, including public and private funding, innovative business models for SLM technologies and financial mechanisms and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), insurance and micro-credit schemes(see also Shames et al. 2014).Adoption of innovations and new technologies are increasingly analysed using the transition theory framework (Geels 2002 1211 ), the starting point being the recognition that many global environmental problems cannot be solved by technological change alone, but require more far-reaching change of social-ecological systems. Using transition theory makes it possible to analyse how adoption and implementation follow the four stages of sociotechnical transitions,

from predevelopment of technologies and approaches at the niche level, take-off and acceleration, to regime shift and stabilisation at the landscape level. According to a recent review of sustainability transitions in developing countries (Wieczorek 2018 1212 ), three internal niche processes are important, including the formation of networks that support and nurture innovation, the learning process, and the articulation of expectations to guide the learning process. While technologies are important, institutional and political aspects form the major barriers to transition and upscaling. In developing and transition economies, informal institutions play a pivotal role, and transnational linkages are also important, such as global value chains. In these countries, it is therefore more difficult to establish fully coherent regimes or groups of individuals who share expectations, beliefs or behaviour, as there is a high level of uncertainty about rules and social networks or dominance of informal institutions, which creates barriers to change. This uncertainty is further exacerbated by climate change. Landscape forces comprise a set of slow-changing factors, such as broad cultural and normative values, long-term economic effects such as urbanisation, and shocks such as war and crises that can lead to change.

A study on SLM in the Kenyan highlands using transition theory concluded that barriers to adoption of SLM included high poverty levels, a low-input/low-output farming system with limited potential to generate income, diminishing land sizes, and low involvement of the youth in farming activities. Coupled with a poor coordination of government policies for agriculture and forestry, these barriers created negative feedbacks in the SLM transition process. Other factors to consider include gender issues and lack of secure land tenure. Scaling up of SLM technologies would require collaboration of diverse stakeholders across multiple scales, a more supportive policy environment and substantial resource mobilisation (Mutoko et al. 2014 1213 ). Tengberg and Valencia (2018) 1214 analysed the findings from a review of the GEF’s integrated natural resources management portfolio of projects using the transition theory framework (Figure 4.7).

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002), adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018).

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002) 1653 , adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018) 1654 .

They concluded that to remove barriers to SLM, an agricultural innovations systems approach that supports co-production of knowledge with multiple stakeholders, institutional innovations, a focus on value chains and strengthening of social capital to facilitate shared learning and collaboration could accelerate the scaling up of sustainable technologies and practices from the niche to the landscape level. Policy integration and establishment of financial mechanisms and incentives could contribute to overcoming barriers to a regime shift. The new SLM regime could, in turn, be stabilised and sustained at the landscape level by multi-stakeholder knowledge platforms and strategic partnerships. However, transitions to more sustainable regimes and practices are often challenged by lock-in mechanisms in the current system (Lawhon and Murphy 2012 1215 ) such as economies of scale, investments already made in equipment, infrastructure and competencies, lobbying, shared beliefs, and practices, that could hamper wider adoption of SLM.

Adaptive, multi-level and participatory governance of social-ecological systems is considered important for regime shifts and transitions to take place (Wieczorek 2018 1216 ) and essential to secure the capacity of environmental assets to support societal development over longer time periods (Folke et al. 2005 1217 ). There is also recognition that effective environmental policies and programmes need to be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the biophysical, social, and economic components and processes of a system, their complex interactions, and how they respond to different changes (Kelly (Letcher) et al. 2013). But blueprint policies will not work, due to the wide diversity of rules and informal institutions used across sectors and regions of the world, especially in traditional societies (Ostrom 2009 1218 ).

The most effective way of removing barriers to funding of SLM has been mainstreaming of SLM objectives and priorities into relevant policy and development frameworks, and combining SLM best practices with economic incentives for land users. As the short-term costs for establishing and maintaining SLM measures are generally high and constitute a barrier to adoption, land users may need to be compensated for generation of longer-term public goods, such as ecosystem services. Cost-benefit analyses can be conducted on SLM interventions to facilitate such compensations (Liniger et al. 2011 1219 ; Nkonya et al. 2016 1220 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1221 ). The landscape approach is a means to reconcile competing demands on the land and remove barriers to implementation of SLM (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013 1222 ; Bürgi et al. 2017 1223 ). It involves an increased focus on participatory governance, development of new SLM business models, and innovative funding schemes, including insurance (Shames et al. 2014 1224 ). The LDN Fund takes a landscape approach and raises private finance for SLM and promotes market-based instruments, such as PES, certification and carbon trading, that can support scaling up of SLM to improve local livelihoods, sequester carbon and enhance the resilience to climate change (Baumber et al. 2019 1225 ).

Case studies

Climate change impacts on land degradation can be avoided, reduced or even reversed, but need to be addressed in a context-sensitive manner. Many of the responses described in this section can also provide synergies of adaptation and mitigation. In this section we provide more in-depth analysis of a number of salient aspects of how land degradation and climate change interact. Table 4.3 is a synthesis of how of these case studies relate to climate change and other broader issues in terms of co-benefits.

Synthesis of how the case studies interact with climate change and a broader set of co-benefits.

Urban green infrastructure

Over half of the world’s population now lives in towns and cities, a proportion that is predicted to increase to about 70% by the middle of the century (United Nations 2015 1226 ). Rapid urbanisation is a severe threat to land and the provision of ecosystem services (Seto et al. 2012 1227 ). However, as cities expand, the avoidance of land degradation, or the maintenance/enhancement of ecosystem services is rarely considered in planning processes. Instead, economic development and the need for space for construction is prioritised, which can result in substantial pollution of air and water sources, the degradation of existing agricultural areas and indigenous, natural or semi-natural ecosystems both within and outside of urban areas. For instance, urban areas are characterised by extensive impervious surfaces. Degraded, sealed soils beneath these surfaces do not provide the same quality of water retention as intact soils. Urban landscapes comprising 50–90% impervious surfaces can therefore result in 40–83% of rainfall becoming surface water runoff (Pataki et al. 2011 1228 ). With rainfall intensity predicted to increase in many parts of the world under climate change (Royal Society 2016 1229 ), increased water runoff is going to get worse. Urbanisation, land degradation and climate change are therefore strongly interlinked, suggesting the need for common solutions (Reed and Stringer 2016 1230 ).

There is now a large body of research and application demonstrating the importance of retaining urban green infrastructure (UGI) for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (DG Environment News Alert Service, 2012; Wentworth, 2017 1231 ) as an important tool to mitigate and adapt to climate change. UGI can be defined as all green elements within a city, including, but not limited to, retained indigenous ecosystems, parks, public greenspaces, green corridors, street trees, urban forests, urban agriculture, green roofs/walls and private domestic gardens (Tzoulas et al. 2007 1232 ). The definition is usually extended to include ‘blue’ infrastructure, such as rivers, lakes, bioswales and other water drainage features. The related concept of Nature-Based Solutions (defined as: living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptable manner and to provide simultaneously economic, social, and environmental benefits ) has gained considerable traction within the European Commission as one approach to mainstreaming the importance of UGI (Maes and Jacobs 2017 1233 ; European Union 2015 1234 ).

Through retaining existing vegetation and ecosystems, revegetating previous developed land or integrating vegetation into buildings in the form of green walls and roofs, UGI can play a direct role in mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. However, compared to overall carbon emissions from cities, effects will be small. Given that UGI necessarily involves the retention and management of non-sealed surfaces, co-benefits for land degradation (e.g., soil compaction avoidance, reduced water runoff, carbon storage and vegetation productivity (Davies et al. 2011 1235 ; Edmondson et al. 2011 1236 , 2014 1237 ; Yao et al. 2015 1238 ) will also be apparent. Although not currently a priority, its role in mitigating land degradation could be substantial. For instance, appropriately managed innovative urban agricultural production systems, such as vertical farms, could have the potential to meet some of the food needs of cities and reduce the production (and therefore degradation) pressure on agricultural land in rural areas, although thus far this is unproven (for a recent review, see Wilhelm and Smith 2018).

The importance of UGI as part of a climate change adaptation approach has received greater attention and application (Gill et al. 2007 1239 ; Fryd et al. 2011 1240 ; Demuzere et al. 2014 1241 ; Sussams et al. 2015 1242 ). The EU’s Adapting to Climate Change white paper emphasises the ‘crucial role in adaptation in providing essential resources for social and economic purposes under extreme climate conditions’ (CEC, 2009, p. 9). Increasing vegetation cover, planting street trees and maintaining/expanding public parks reduces temperatures (Cavan et al. 2014 1243 ; Di Leo et al. 2016 1244 ; Feyisa et al. 2014 1245 ; Tonosaki and Kawai 2014 1246 ; Zölch et al. 2016 1247 ). Further, the appropriate design and spatial distribution of greenspaces within cities can help to alter urban climates to improve human health and comfort (e.g., Brown and Nicholls 2015 1248 ; Klemm et al. 2015 1249 ). The use of green walls and roofs can also reduce energy use in buildings (e.g., Coma et al. 2017 1250 ). Similarly, natural flood management and ecosystem-based approaches of providing space for water, renaturalising rivers and reducing surface runoff through the presence of permeable surfaces and vegetated features (including walls and roofs) can manage flood risks, impacts and vulnerability (e.g., Gill et al. 2007 1251 ; Munang et al. 2013 1252 ). Access to UGI in times of environmental stresses and shock can provide safety nets for people, and so can be an important adaptation mechanism, both to climate change (Potschin et al. 2016 1253 ) and land degradation.

Most examples of UGI implementation as a climate change adaptation strategy have centred on its role in water management for flood risk reduction. The importance for land degradation is either not stated, or not prioritised. In Beira, Mozambique, the government is using UGI to mitigate increased flood risks predicted to occur under climate change and urbanisation, which will be done by improving the natural water capacity of the Chiveve River. As part of the UGI approach, mangrove habitats have been restored, and future phases include developing new multi-functional urban green spaces along the river (World Bank 2016 1254 ). The retention of green spaces within the city will have the added benefit of halting further degradation in those areas. Elsewhere, planning mechanisms promote the retention and expansion of green areas within cities to ensure ecosystem service delivery, which directly halts land degradation, but are largely viewed and justified in the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation. For instance, the Berlin Landscape Programme includes five plans, one of which covers adapting to climate change through the recognition of the role of UGI (Green Surge 2016 1255 ). Major climate-related challenges facing Durban, South Africa, include sea level rise, urban heat island, water runoff and conservation (Roberts and O’Donoghue 2013 1256 ). Now considered a global leader in climate adaptation planning (Roberts 2010 1257 ), Durban’s Climate Change Adaptation plan includes the retention and maintenance of natural ecosystems, in particular those that are important for mitigating flooding, coastal erosion, water pollution, wetland siltation and climate change (eThekwini Municipal Council 2014 1258 ).

Perennial grains and soil organic carbon (SOC)

The severe ecological perturbation that is inherent in the conversion of native perennial vegetation to annual crops, and the subsequent high frequency of perturbation required to maintain annual crops, results in at least four forms of soil degradation that will be exacerbated by the effects of climate change (Crews et al. 2016 1259 ). First, soil erosion is a very serious consequence of annual cropping, with median losses exceeding rates of formation by one to two orders of magnitude in conventionally plowed agroecosystems, and while erosion is reduced with conservation tillage, median losses still exceed formation by several fold (Montgomery 2007 1260 ). More severe storm intensity associated with climate change is expected to cause even greater losses to wind and water erosion (Nearing et al. 2004 1261 ). Second, the periods of time in which live roots are reduced or altogether absent from soils in annual cropping systems allow for substantial losses of nitrogen from fertilised croplands, averaging 50% globally (Ladha et al. 2005 1262 ). This low retention of nitrogen is also expected to worsen with more intense weather events (Bowles et al. 2018 1263 ). A third impact of annual cropping is the degradation of soil structure caused by tillage, which can reduce infiltration of precipitation, and increase surface runoff. It is predicted that the percentage of precipitation that infiltrates into agricultural soils will decrease further under climate-change scenarios (Basche and DeLonge 2017 1264 ; Wuest et al. 2006 1265 ). The fourth form of soil degradation that results from annual cropping is the reduction of soil organic matter (SOM), a topic of particular relevance to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Undegraded cropland soils can theoretically hold far more SOM (which is about 58% carbon) than they currently do (Soussana et al. 2006 1266 ). We know this deficiency because, with few exceptions, comparisons between cropland soils and those of proximate mature native ecosystems commonly show a 40–75% decline in soil carbon attributable to agricultural practices. What happens when native ecosystems are converted to agriculture that induces such significant losses of SOM? Wind and water erosion commonly results in preferential removal of light organic matter fractions that can accumulate on or near the soil surface (Lal 2003 1267 ). In addition to the effects of erosion, the fundamental practices of growing annual food and fibre crops alters both inputs and outputs of organic matter from most agroecosystems, resulting in net reductions in soil carbon equilibria (Soussana et al. 2006 1268 ; McLauchlan 2006 1269 ; Crews et al. 2016 1270 ). Native vegetation of almost all terrestrial ecosystems is dominated by perennial plants, and the below-ground carbon allocation of these perennials is a key variable in determining formation rates of stable soil organic carbon (SOC) (Jastrow et al. 2007 1271 ; Schmidt et al. 2011 1272 ). When perennial vegetation is replaced by annual crops, inputs of root-associated carbon (roots, exudates, mycorrhizae) decline substantially. For example, perennial grassland species allocate around 67% of productivity to roots, whereas annual crops allocate between 13–30% (Saugier 2001 1273 ; Johnson et al. 2006 1274 ).

At the same time, inputs of SOC are reduced in annual cropping systems, and losses are increased because of tillage, compared to native perennial vegetation. Tillage breaks apart soil aggregates which, among other functions, are thought to inhibit soil bacteria, fungi and other microbes from consuming and decomposing SOM (Grandy and Neff 2008 1275 ). Aggregates reduce microbial access to organic matter by restricting physical access to mineral-stabilised organic compounds as well as reducing oxygen availability (Cotrufo et al. 2015 1276 ; Lehmann and Kleber 2015 1277 ). When soil aggregates are broken open with tillage in the conversion of native ecosystems to agriculture, microbial consumption of SOC and subsequent respiration of CO 2 increase dramatically, reducing soil carbon stocks (Grandy and Robertson 2006 1278 ; Grandy and Neff 2008 1279 ).

Many management approaches are being evaluated to reduce soil degradation in general, especially by increasing mineral-protected forms of SOC in the world’s croplands (Paustian et al. 2016 1280 ). The menu of approaches being investigated focuses either on increasing below-ground carbon inputs, usually through increases in total crop productivity, or by decreasing microbial activity, usually through reduced soil disturbance (Crews and Rumsey 2017 1281 ). However, the basic biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems managed for production of annual crops presents serious challenges to achieving the standing stocks of SOC accumulated by native ecosystems that preceded agriculture. A novel new approach that is just starting to receive significant attention is the development of perennial cereal, legume and oilseed crops (Glover et al. 2010 1282 ; Baker 2017 1283 ).

There are two basic strategies that plant breeders and geneticists are using to develop new perennial grain crop species. The first involves making wide hybrid crosses between existing elite lines of annual crops, such as wheat, sorghum and rice, with related wild perennial species in order to introgress perennialism into the genome of the annual (Cox et al. 2018 1284 ; Huang et al. 2018 1285 ; Hayes et al. 2018 1286 ). The other approach is de novo domestication of wild perennial species that have crop-like traits of interest (DeHaan et al. 2016 1287 ; DeHaan and Van Tassel 2014 1288 ). New perennial crop species undergoing de novo domestication include intermediate wheatgrass, a relative of wheat that produces grain known as Kernza (DeHaan et al. 2018 1289 ; Cattani and Asselin 2018 1290 ) and Silphium integrifolium , an oilseed crop in the sunflower family (Van Tassel et al. 2017 1291 ). Other grain crops receiving attention for perennialisation include pigeon pea, barley, buckwheat and maize (Batello et al. 2014 1292 ; Chen et al. 2018c 1293 ) and a number of legume species (Schlautman et al. 2018 1294 ). In most cases, the seed yields of perennial grain crops under development are well below those of elite modern grain varieties. During the period that it will take for intensive breeding efforts to close the yield and other trait gaps between annual and perennial grains, perennial proto-crops may be used for purposes other than grain, including forage production (Ryan et al. 2018 1295 ). Perennial rice stands out as a high-yielding exception, as its yields matched those of elite local varieties in the Yunnan Province for six growing seasons over three years (Huang et al. 2018 1296 ).

In a perennial agroecosystem, the biogeochemical controls on SOC accumulation shift dramatically, and begin to resemble the controls that govern native ecosystems (Crews et al. 2016 1297 ). When erosion is reduced or halted, and crop allocation to roots increases by 100–200%, and when soil aggregates are not disturbed thus reducing microbial respiration, SOC levels are expected to increase (Crews and Rumsey 2017 1298 ). Deep roots growing year round are also effective at increasing nitrogen retention (Culman et al. 2013 1299 ; Jungers et al. 2019 1300 ). Substantial increases in SOC have been measured where croplands that had historically been planted to annual grains were converted to perennial grasses, such as in the US Conservation Reserve Program or in plantings of second-generation perennial biofuel crops. Two studies have assessed carbon accumulation in soils when croplands were converted to the perennial grain Kernza. In one, researchers found no differences in soil labile (permanganate-oxidisable) carbon after four years of cropping to perennial Kernza versus annual wheat in a sandy textured soil. Given that coarse textured soils do not offer the same physicochemical protection against microbial attack as many finer textured soils, these results are not surprising, but these results do underscore how variable the rates of carbon accumulation can be (Jastrow et al. 2007 1301 ). In the second study, researchers assessed the carbon balance of a Kernza field in Kansas, USA over 4.5 years using eddy covariance observations (de Oliveira et al. 2018). They found that the net carbon accumulation rate of about 1500 gC m –2 yr –1 in the first year of the study corresponding to the biomass of Kernza, increasing to about 300 gC m –2 yr –1 in the final year, where CO 2 respiration losses from the decomposition of roots and SOM approached new carbon inputs from photosynthesis. Based on measurements of soil carbon accumulation in restored grasslands in this part of the USA, the net carbon accumulation in stable organic matter under a perennial grain crop might be expected to sequester 30–50 gC m –2 yr –1 (Post and Kwon 2000 1302 ) until a new equilibrium is reached. Sugar cane, a highly productive perennial, has been shown to accumulate a mean of 187 gC m–2 yr –1 in Brazil (La Scala Júnior et al. 2012 1303 ).

Reduced soil erosion, increased nitrogen retention, greater water uptake efficiency and enhanced carbon sequestration represent improved ecosystem functions, made possible in part by deep and extensive root systems of perennial crops (Figure 4.8).

Comparison of root systems between the newly domesticated intermediate wheatgrass (left) and annual wheat (right). Photo: Copyright © Jim Richardson.

When compared to annual grains like wheat, single species stands of deep-rooted perennial grains such as Kernza are expected to reduce soil erosion, increase nitrogen retention, achieve greater water uptake efficiency and enhance carbon sequestration (Crews et al. 2018 1304 ) (Figure 4.8). An even higher degree of ecosystem services can, at least theoretically, be achieved by strategically combining different functional groups of crops such as a cereal and a nitrogen-fixing legume (Soussana and Lemaire 2014 1305 ). Not only is there evidence from plant-diversity experiments that communities with higher species richness sustain higher concentrations of SOC (Hungate et al. 2017 1306 ; Sprunger and Robertson 2018 1307 ; Chen, S. 2018 1308 ; Yang et al. 2019 1309 ), but other valuable ecosystem services such as pest suppression, lower GHG emissions, and greater nutrient retention may be enhanced (Schnitzer et al. 2011 1310 ; Culman et al. 2013 1311 ).

Similar to perennial forage crops such as alfalfa, perennial grain crops are expected to have a definite productive lifespan, probably in the range of three to 10 years. A key area of research on perennial grains cropping systems is to minimise losses of SOC during conversion of one stand of perennial grains to another. Recent work demonstrates that no-till conversion of a mature perennial grassland to another perennial crop will experience several years of high net CO 2 emissions as decomposition of copious crop residues exceed ecosystem uptake of carbon by the new crop (Abraha et al. 2018 1312 ). Most, if not all, of this lost carbon will be recaptured in the replacement crop. It is not known whether mineral-stabilised carbon that is protected in soil aggregates is vulnerable to loss in perennial crop succession.

Perennial grains hold promises of agricultural practices, which can significantly reduce soil erosion and nutrient leakage while sequestering carbon. When cultivated in mixes with N-fixing species (legumes) such polycultures also reduce the need for external inputs of nitrogen – a large source of GHG from conventional agriculture.

Reversing land degradation through reforestation

South korea case study on reforestation success.

In the first half of the 20th century, forests in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) were severely degraded and deforested during foreign occupations and the Korean War. Unsustainable harvest for timber and fuelwood resulted in severely degraded landscapes, heavy soil erosion and large areas denuded of vegetation cover. Recognising that South Korea’s economic health would depend on a healthy environment, South Korea established a national forest service (1967) and embarked on the first phase of a 10-year reforestation programme in 1973 (Forest Development Program), which was followed by subsequent reforestation programmes that ended in 1987, after 2.4 Mha of forests were restored (Figure 4.9).

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South […]

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South Korea. (Photos: Copyright © Korea Forest Service)

As a consequence of reforestation, forest volume increased from 11.3 m 3 ha–1 in 1973 to 125.6 m 3 ha–1 in 2010 and 150.2 m 3 ha–1 in 2016 (Korea Forest Service 2017 1313 ). Increases in forest volume had significant co-benefits such as increasing water yield by 43% and reducing soil losses by 87% from 1971 to 2010 (Kim et al. 2017 1314 ).

The forest carbon density in South Korea has increased from 5–7 MgC ha–1 in the period 1955–1973 to more than 30 MgC ha –1 in the late 1990s (Choi et al. 2002 1315 ). Estimates of carbon uptake rates in the late 1990s were 12 TgC yr –1 (Choi et al. 2002 1316 ). For the period 1954 to 2012, carbon uptake was 8.3 TgC yr –1 (Lee et al. 2014 1317 ), lower than other estimates because reforestation programmes did not start until 1973. Net ecosystem production in South Korea was 10.55 ± 1.09 TgC yr −1 in the 1980s, 10.47 ± 7.28 Tg C yr −1 in the 1990s, and 6.32 ± 5.02 Tg C yr −1 in the 2000s, showing a gradual decline as average forest age increased (Cui et al. 2014 1318 ). The estimated past and projected future increase in the carbon content of South Korea’s forest area during 1992–2034 was 11.8 TgC yr –1 (Kim et al. 2016 1319 ).

During the period of forest restoration, South Korea also promoted inter-agency cooperation and coordination, especially between the energy and forest sectors, to replace firewood with fossil fuels, and to reduce demand for firewood to help forest recovery (Bae et al. 2012 1320 ). As experience with forest restoration programmes has increased, emphasis has shifted from fuelwood plantations, often with exotic species and hybrid varieties to planting more native species and encouraging natural regeneration (Kim and Zsuffa 1994 1321 ; Lee et al. 2015 1322 ). Avoiding monocultures in reforestation programmes can reduce susceptibility to pests (Kim and Zsuffa 1994 1323 ). Other important factors in the success of the reforestation programme were that private landowners were heavily involved in initial efforts (both corporate entities and smallholders) and that the reforestation programme was made part of the national economic development programme (Lamb 2014 1324 ).

The net present value and the cost-benefit ratio of the reforestation programme were 54.3 billion and 5.84 billion USD in 2010, respectively. The breakeven point of the reforestation investment appeared within two decades. Substantial benefits of the reforestation programme included disaster risk reduction and carbon sequestration (Lee et al. 2018a 1325 ).

In summary, the reforestation programme was a comprehensive technical and social initiative that restored forest ecosystems, enhanced the economic performance of rural regions, contributed to disaster risk reduction, and enhanced carbon sequestration (Kim et al. 2017 1326 ; Lee et al. 2018a 1327 ; UNDP 2017 1328 ).

The success of the reforestation programme in South Korea and the associated significant carbon sink indicate a high mitigation potential that might be contributed by a potential future reforestation programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) (Lee et al. 2018b 1329 ).

China case study on reforestation success

The dramatic decline in the quantity and quality of natural forests in China resulted in land degradation, such as soil erosion, floods, droughts, carbon emission, and damage to wildlife habitat (Liu and Diamond 2008 1330 ). In response to failures of previous forestry and land policies, the severe droughts in 1997, and the massive floods in 1998, the central government decided to implement a series of land degradation control policies, including the National Forest Protection Program (NFPP), Grain for Green or the Conversion of Cropland to Forests and Grassland Program (GFGP) (Liu et al. 2008 1331 ; Yin 2009 1332 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1333 ; Zhang et al. 2000 1334 ). The NFPP aimed to completely ban logging of natural forests in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers as well as in Hainan Province by 2000 and to substantially reduce logging in other places (Xu et al. 2006 1335 ). In 2011, NFPP was renewed for the 10-year second phase, which also added another 11 counties around Danjiangkou Reservoir in Hubei and Henan Provinces, the water source for the middle route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (Liu et al. 2013 1336 ). Furthermore, the NFPP afforested 31 Mha by 2010 through aerial seeding, artificial planting, and mountain closure (i.e., prohibition of human activities such as fuelwood collection and lifestock grazing) (Xu et al. 2006 1337 ). China banned commercial logging in all natural forests by the end of 2016, which imposed logging bans and harvesting reductions in 68.2 Mha of forest land – including 56.4 Mha of natural forest (approximately 53% of China’s total natural forests).

GFGP became the most ambitious of China’s ecological restoration efforts, with more than 45 billion USD devoted to its implementation since 1990 (Kolinjivadi and Sunderland 2012 1338 ) The programme involves the conversion of farmland on slopes of 15–25° or greater to forest or grassland (Bennett 2008 1339 ). The pilot programme started in three provinces – Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu – in 1999 (Liu and Diamond 2008 1340 ). After its initial success, it was extended to 17 provinces by 2000 and finally to all provinces by 2002, including the headwaters of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers (Liu et al. 2008).

NFPP and GFGP have dramatically improved China’s land conditions and ecosystem services, and thus have mitigated the unprecedented land degradation in China (Liu et al. 2013 1341 ; Liu et al. 2002 1342 ; Long et al. 2006 1343 ; Xu et al. 2006 1344 ). NFPP protected 107 Mha forest area and increased forest area by 10 Mha between 2000 and 2010. For the second phase (2011–2020), the NFPP plans to increase forest cover by a further 5.2 Mha, capture 416 million tons of carbon, provide 648,500 forestry jobs, further reduce land degradation, and enhance biodiversity (Liu et al. 2013 1345 ). During 2000–2007, sediment concentration in the Yellow River had declined by 38%. In the Yellow River basin, it was estimated that surface runoff would be reduced by 450 million m3 from 2000 to 2020, which is equivalent to 0.76% of the total surface water resources (Jia et al. 2006). GFGP had cumulatively increased vegetative cover by 25 Mha, with 8.8 Mha of cropland being converted to forest and grassland, 14.3 Mha barren land being afforested, and 2.0 Mha of forest regeneration from mountain closure. Forest cover within the GFGP region has increased 2% during the first eight years (Liu et al. 2008 1346 ). In Guizhou Province, GFGP plots had 35–53% less loss of phosphorus than non-GFGP plots (Liu et al. 2002 1347 ). In Wuqi County of Shaanxi Province, the Chaigou Watershed had 48% and 55% higher soil moisture and moisture-holding capacity in GFGP plots than in non-GFGP plots, respectively (Liu et al. 2002 1348 ). According to reports on China’s first national ecosystem assessment (2000–2010), for carbon sequestration and soil retention, coefficients for the GFGP targeting forest restoration and NFPP are positive and statistically significant. For sand fixation, GFGP targeting grassland restoration is positive and statistically significant. Remote sensing observations confirm that vegetation cover increased and bare soil declined in China over the period 2001 to 2015 (Qiu et al. 2017 1349 ). But, where afforestation is sustained by drip irrigation from groundwater, questions about plantation sustainability arise (Chen et al. 2018a 1350 ). Moreover, greater gains in biodiversity could be achieved by promoting mixed forests over monocultures (Hua et al. 2016 1351 ).

NFPP-related activities received a total commitment of 93.7 billion yuan (about 14 billion USD at 2018 exchange rate) between 1998 and 2009. Most of the money was used to offset economic losses of forest enterprises caused by the transformation from logging to tree plantations and forest management (Liu et al. 2008 1352 ). By 2009, the cumulative total investment through the NFPP and GFGP exceeded 50 billion USD2009 and directly involved more than 120 million farmers in 32 million households in the GFGP alone (Liu et al. 2013 1353 ). All programmes reduce or reverse land degradation and improve human well-being. Thus, a coupled human and natural systems perspective (Liu et al. 2008 1354 ) would be helpful to understand the complexity of policies and their impacts, and to establish long-term management mechanisms to improve the livelihood of participants in these programmes and other land management policies in China and many other parts of the world.

Degradation and management of peat soils

Globally, peatlands cover 3–4% of the Earth’s land area (about 430 Mha) (Xu et al. 2018a 1355 ) and store 26–44% of estimated global SOC (Moore 2002 1356 ). They are most abundant in high northern latitudes, covering large areas in North America, Russia and Europe. At lower latitudes, the largest areas of tropical peatlands are located in Indonesia, the Congo Basin and the Amazon Basin in the form of peat swamp forests (Gumbricht et al. 2017 1357 ; Xu et al. 2018a 1358 ). It is estimated that, while 80–85% of the global peatland areas is still largely in a natural state, they are such carbon-dense ecosystems that degraded peatlands (0.3% of the terrestrial land) are responsible for a disproportional 5% of global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions – that is, an annual addition of 0.9–3 GtCO 2 to the atmosphere (Dommain et al. 2012 1359 ; IPCC 2014c 1360 ).

Peatland degradation is not well quantified globally, but regionally peatland degradation can involve a large percentage of the areas. Land-use change and degradation in tropical peatlands have primarily been quantified in Southeast Asia, where drainage and conversion to plantation crops is the dominant transition (Miettinen et al. 2016 1361 ). Degradation of peat swamps in Peru is also a growing concern and one pilot survey showed that more than 70% of the peat swamps were degraded in one region surveyed (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 1362 ). Around 65,000 km2 or 10% of the European peatland area has been lost and 44% of the remaining European peatlands are degraded (Joosten, H., Tanneberger 2017 1363 ). Large areas of fens have been entirely ‘lost’ or greatly reduced in thickness due to peat wastage (Lamers et al. 2015 1364 ).

The main drivers of the acceleration of peatland degradation in the 20th century were associated with drainage for agriculture, peat extraction and afforestation related activities (burning, over-grazing, fertilisation) with a variable scale and severity of impact depending on existing resources in the various countries (O’Driscoll et al. 2018 1365 ; Cobb, A.R. et al. Dommain et al. 2018 1366 ; Lamers et al. 2015 1367 ). New drivers include urban development, wind farm construction (Smith et al. 2012 1368 ), hydroelectric development, tar sands mining and recreational uses (Joosten and Tanneberger 2017 1369 ). Anthropogenic pressures are now affecting peatlands in previously geographically isolated areas with consequences for global environmental concerns and impacts on local livelihoods (Dargie et al. 2017 1370 ; Lawson et al. 2015 1371 ; Butler et al. 2009 1372 ).

Drained and managed peatlands are GHG-emission hotspots (Swails et al. 2018 1373 ; Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a, 2017b 1374 ; Roman-Cuesta et al. 2016 1375 ). In most cases, lowering of the water table leads to direct and indirect CO 2 and N 2 O emissions to the atmosphere, with rates dependent on a range of factors, including the groundwater level and the water content of surface peat layers, nutrient content, temperature, and vegetation communities. The exception is nutrient-limited boreal peatlands (Minkkinen et al. 2018 1376 ; Ojanen et al. 2014 1377 ). Drainage also increases erosion and dissolved organic carbon loss, removing stored carbon into streams as dissolved and particulate organic carbon, which ultimately returns to the atmosphere (Moore et al. 2013 1378 ; Evans et al. 2016 1379 ).

In tropical peatlands, oil palm is the most widespread plantation crop and, on average, it emits around 40 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 ; Acacia plantations for pulpwood are the second most widespread plantation crop and emit around 73 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 (Drösler et al. 2013 1380 ). Other land uses typically emit less than 37 tCO 2 ha -1 yr -1 . Total emissions from peatland drainage in the region are estimated to be between 0.07 and 1.1 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Houghton and Nassikas 2017 1381 ; Frolking et al. 2011 1382 ). Land-use change also affects the fluxes of N 2 O and CH 4 . Undisturbed tropical peatlands emit about 0.8 MtCH 4 yr -1 and 0.002 MtN 2 O yr -1 , while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH 4 yr –1 and 0.2 MtN 2 O–N yr –1 (Frolking et al. 2011 1383 ). These N 2 O emissions are probably low, as new findings show that emissions from fertilised oil palm can exceed 20 kgN 2 O–N ha –1 yr –1 (Oktarita et al. 2017 1384 ).

In the temperate and boreal zones, peatland drainage often leads to emissions in the order of 0.9 to 9.5 tCO 2 ha –1 y –1 in forestry plantations and 21 to 29 tCO 2 ha –1 y –1 in grasslands and croplands. Nutrient-poor sites often continue to be CO 2 sinks for long periods (e.g., 50 years) following drainage and, in some cases, sinks for atmospheric CH 4 , even when drainage ditch emissions are considered (Minkkinen et al. 2018 1385 ; Ojanen et al. 2014 1386 ). Undisturbed boreal and temperate peatlands emit about 30 MtCH 4 yr -1 and 0.02 MtN 2 O–N yr -1 , while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH 4 yr –1 and 0.2 MtN 2 O–N yr –1 (Frolking et al. 2011 1387 ).

Fire emissions from tropical peatlands are only a serious issue in Southeast Asia, where they are responsible for 634 (66–4070) MtCO 2 yr –1 (van der Werf et al. 2017 1388 ). Much of the variability is linked with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which produces drought conditions in this region. Anomalously active fire seasons have also been observed in non-drought years and this has been attributed to the increasing effect of high temperatures that dry vegetation out during short dry spells in otherwise normal rainfall years (Fernandes et al. 2017 1389 ; Gaveau et al. 2014 1390 ). Fires have significant societal impacts; for example, the 2015 fires caused more than 100,000 additional deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and this event was more than twice as deadly as the 2006 El Niño event (Koplitz et al. 2016 1391 ).

Peatland degradation in other parts of the world differs from Asia. In Africa, for large peat deposits like those found in the Cuvette Centrale in the Congo Basin or in the Okavango inland delta, the principle threat is changing rainfall regimes due to climate variability and change (Weinzierl et al. 2016 1392 ; Dargie et al. 2017 1393 ). Expansion of agriculture is not yet a major factor in these regions. In the Western Amazon, extraction of non-timber forest products like the fruits of Mauritia flexuosa (moriche palm) and Suri worms are major sources of degradation that lead to losses of carbon stocks (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 1394 ).

The effects of peatland degradation on livelihoods have not been systematically characterised. In places where plantation crops are driving the conversion of peat swamps, the financial benefits can be considerable. One study in Indonesia found that the net present value of an oil palm plantation is between 3,835 and 9,630 USD per ha to land owners (Butler et al. 2009 1395 ). High financial returns are creating incentives for the expansion of smallholder production in peatlands. Smallholder plantations extend over 22% of the peatlands in insular Southeast Asia compared to 27% for industrial plantations (Miettinen et al. 2016 1396 ). In places where income is generated from extraction of marketable products, ecosystem degradation probably has a negative effect on livelihoods. For example, the sale of fruits of M. flexuosa in some parts of the western Amazon constitutes as much as 80% of the winter income of many rural households, but information on trade values and value chains of M. flexuosa is still sparse (Sousa et al. 2018 1397 ; Virapongse et al. 2017 1398 ).

There is little experience with peatland restoration in the tropics. Experience from northern latitudes suggests that extensive damage and changes in hydrological conditions mean that restoration in many cases is unachievable (Andersen et al. 2017 1399 ). In the case of Southeast Asia, where peatlands form as raised bogs, drainage leads to collapse of the dome, and this collapse cannot be reversed by rewetting. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to develop solutions, or at least partial solutions in Southeast Asia, for example, by the Indonesian Peatland Restoration Agency. The first step is to restore the hydrological regime in drained peatlands, but so far experiences with canal blocking and reflooding of the peat have been only partially successful (Ritzema et al. 2014 1400 ). Market incentives with certification through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil have also not been particularly successful as many concessions seek certification only after significant environmental degradation has occurred (Carlson et al. 2017 1401 ). Certification had no discernible effect on forest loss or fire detection in peatlands in Indonesia. To date there is no documentation of restoration methods or successes in many other parts of the tropics. However, in situations where degradation does not involve drainage, ecological restoration may be possible. In South America, for example, there is growing interest in restoration of palm swamps, and as experiences are gained it will be important to document success factors to inform successive efforts (Virapongse et al. 2017 1402 ).

In higher latitudes where degraded peatlands have been drained, the most effective option to reduce losses from these large organic carbon stocks is to change hydrological conditions and increase soil moisture and surface wetness (Regina et al. 2015 1403 ). Long-term GHG monitoring in boreal sites has demonstrated that rewetting and restoration noticeably reduce emissions compared to degraded drained sites and can restore the carbon sink function when vegetation is re-established (Wilson et al. 2016 1404 ; IPCC 2014a 1405 ; Nugent et al. 2018 1406 ) although, restored ecosystems may not yet be as resilient as their undisturbed counterparts (Wilson et al. 2016 1407 ). Several studies have demonstrated the co-benefits of rewetting specific degraded peatlands for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, (Parry et al. 2014 1408 ; Ramchunder et al. 2012 1409 ; Renou-Wilson et al. 2018 1410 ) and other ecosystem services, such as improvement of water storage and quality (Martin-Ortega et al. 2014 1411 ) with beneficial consequences for human well-being (Bonn et al. 2016 1412 ; Parry et al. 2014 1413 ).

Biochar is organic matter that is carbonised by heating in an oxygen-limited environment, and used as a soil amendment. The properties of biochar vary widely, dependent on the feedstock and the conditions of production. Biochar could make a significant contribution to mitigating both land degradation and climate change, simultaneously.

Role of biochar in climate change mitigation

Biochar is relatively resistant to decomposition compared with fresh organic matter or compost, so represents a long-term carbon store ( very high confidence ). Biochars produced at higher temperature (>450°C) and from woody material have greater stability than those produced at lower temperature (300–450°C), and from manures ( very high confidence ) (Singh et al. 2012 1414 ; Wang et al. 2016b 1415 ). Biochar stability is influenced by soil properties: biochar carbon can be further stabilised by interaction with clay minerals and native SOM ( medium evidence ) (Fang et al. 2015 1416 ). Biochar stability is estimated to range from decades to thousands of years, for different biochars in different applications (Singh et al. 2015 1417 ; Wang et al. 2016 1418 ). Biochar stability decreases as ambient temperature increases ( limited evidence ) (Fang et al. 2017 1419 ).

Biochar can enhance soil carbon stocks through ‘negative priming’, in which rhizodeposits are stabilised through sorption of labile carbon on biochar, and formation of biochar-organo-mineral complexes (Weng et al. 2015 1420 , 2017 1421 , 2018 1422 ; Wang et al. 2016b). Conversely, some studies show increased turnover of native soil carbon (‘positive priming’) due to enhanced soil microbial activity induced by biochar. In clayey soils, positive priming is minor and short-lived compared to negative priming effects, which dominate in the medium to long term (Singh and Cowie 2014 1421 ; Wang et al. 2016b 1422 ). Negative priming has been observed particularly in loamy grassland soil (Ventura et al. 2015 1423 ) and clay-dominated soils, whereas positive priming is reported in sandy soils (Wang et al. 2016b 1424 ) and those with low carbon content (Ding et al. 2018 1425 ).

Biochar can provide additional climate-change mitigation by decreasing nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from soil, due in part to decreased substrate availability for denitrifying organisms, related to the molar H/C ratio of the biochar (Cayuela et al. 2015 1426 ). However, this impact varies widely: meta-analyses found an average decrease in N 2 O emissions from soil of 30–54%, (Cayuela et al. 2015 1427 ; Borchard et al. 2019 1428 ; Moore 2002 1429 ), although another study found no significant reduction in field conditions when weighted by the inverse of the number of observations per site (Verhoeven et al. 2017 1430 ). Biochar has been observed to reduce methane emissions from flooded soils, such as rice paddies, though, as for N 2 O, results vary between studies and increases have also been observed (He et al. 2017 1431 ; Kammann et al. 2017 1432 ). Biochar has also been found to reduce methane uptake by dryland soils, though the effect is small in absolute terms (Jeffery et al. 2016 1433 ).

Additional climate benefits of biochar can arise through: reduced nitrogen fertiliser requirements, due to reduced losses of nitrogen through leaching and/or volatilisation (Singh et al. 2010 1434 ) and enhanced biological nitrogen fixation (Van Zwieten et al. 2015 1435 ); increased yields of crop, forage, vegetable and tree species (Biederman and Harpole 2013 1436 ), particularly in sandy soils and acidic tropical soils (Simon et al. 2017 1437 ); avoided GHG emissions from manure that would otherwise be stockpiled, crop residues that would be burned or processing residues that would be landfilled; and reduced GHG emissions from compost when biochar is added (Agyarko-Mintah et al. 2017 1438 ; Wu et al. 2017a 1439 ).

Climate benefits of biochar could be substantially reduced through reduction in albedo if biochar is surface-applied at high rates to light-coloured soils (Genesio et al. 2012 1440 ; Bozzi et al. 2015 1441 ; Woolf et al. 2010 1442 ), or if black carbon dust is released (Genesio et al. 2016 1443 ). Pelletising or granulating biochar, and applying below the soil surface or incorporating into the soil, minimises the release of black carbon dust and reduces the effect on albedo (Woolf et al. 2010 1444 ).

Biochar is a potential ‘negative emissions’ technology: the thermochemical conversion of biomass to biochar slows mineralisation of the biomass, delivering long-term carbon storage; gases released during pyrolysis can be combusted for heat or power, displacing fossil energy sources, and could be captured and sequestered if linked with infrastructure for CCS (Smith 2016 1445 ). Studies of the lifecycle climate change impacts of biochar systems generally show emissions reduction in the range 0.4 –1.2 tCO 2 e t –1 (dry) feedstock (Cowie et al. 2015 1446 ). Use of biomass for biochar can deliver greater benefits than use for bioenergy, if applied in a context where it delivers agronomic benefits and/or reduces non-CO 2 GHG emissions (Ji et al. 2018 1447 ; Woolf et al. 2010 1448 , 2018; Xuetal.2019).A global analysis of technical potential, in which biomass supply constraints were applied to protect against food insecurity, loss of habitat and land degradation, estimated technical potential abatement of 3.7–6.6 GtCO 2 e yr –1 (including 2.6–4.6 GtCO 2 e yr –1 carbon stabilisation), with theoretical potential to reduce total emissions over the course of a century by 240–475 GtCO 2 e (Woolf et al. 2010). Fuss et al. (2018) propose a range of 0.5–2 GtCO 2 e per year as the sustainable potential for negative emissions through biochar. Mitigation potential of biochar is reviewed in Chapter 2.

Role of biochar in management of land degradation

Biochars generally have high porosity, high surface area and surface-active properties that lead to high absorptive and adsorptive capacity, especially after interaction in soil (Joseph et al. 2010 1450 ). As a result of these properties, biochar could contribute to avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation through the following documented benefits:

• Improved nutrient use efficiency due to reduced leaching of nitrate and ammonium (e.g., Haider et al. 2017 1451 ) and increased availability of phosphorus in soils with high phosphorus fixation capacity (Liu et al. 2018c 1452 ), potentially reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser requirements.
• Management of heavy metals and organic pollutants: through reduced bioavailability of toxic elements (O’Connor et al. 2018 1453 ; Peng et al. 2018 1454 ), by reducing availability, through immobilisation due to increased pH and redox effects (Rizwan et al. 2016 1455 ) and adsorption on biochar surfaces (Zhang et al. 2013 1456 ) thus providing a means of remediating contaminated soils, and enabling their utilisation for food production.
• Stimulation of beneficial soil organisms, including earthworms and mycorrhizal fungi (Thies et al. 2015 1457 ).
• Improved porosity and water-holding capacity (Quin et al. 2014 1458 ), particularly in sandy soils (Omondi et al. 2016 1459 ), enhancing microbial function during drought (Paetsch et al. 2018 1460 ).
• Amelioration of soil acidification, through application of biochars with high pH and acid-neutralising capacity (Chan et al. 2008 1461 ; Van Zwieten et al. 2010 1462 ).

Biochar systems can deliver a range of other co-benefits, including destruction of pathogens and weed propagules, avoidance of landfill, improved handling and transport of wastes such as sewage sludge, management of biomass residues such as environmental weeds and urban greenwaste, reduction of odours and management of nutrients from intensive livestock facilities, reduction in environmental nitrogen pollution and protection of waterways. As a compost additive, biochar has been found to reduce leaching and volatilisation of nutrients, increasing nutrient retention through absorption and adsorption processes (Joseph et al. 2018 1463 ).

While many studies report positive responses, some studies have found negative or zero impacts on soil properties or plant response (e.g., Kuppusamy et al. 2016 1464 ). The risk that biochar may enhance polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in soil or sediments has been raised (Quilliam et al. 2013 1465 ; Ojeda et al. 2016 1466 ), but bioavailability of PAH in biochar has been shown to be very low (Hilber et al. 2017 1467 ) Pyrolysis of biomass leads to losses of volatile nutrients, especially nitrogen. While availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar is lower than in fresh biomass, (Xu et al. 2016 1468 ) the impact of biochar on plant uptake is determined by the interactions between biochar, soil minerals and activity of microorganisms (e.g., Vanek and Lehmann 2015 1655 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 1469 ). To avoid negative responses, it is important to select biochar formulations to address known soil constraints, and to apply biochar prior to planting (Nguyen et al. 2017 1470 ). Nutrient enrichment improves the performance of biochar from low nutrient feedstocks (Joseph et al. 2013 1471 ). While there are many reports of biochar reducing disease or pest incidence, there are also reports of nil or negative effects (Bonanomi et al. 2015 1472 ). Biochar may induce systemic disease resistance (e.g., Elad et al. 2011 1473 ), though Viger et al. (2015) 1474 reported down-regulation of plant defence genes, suggesting increased susceptibility to insect and pathogen attack. Disease suppression where biochar is applied is associated with increased microbial diversity and metabolic potential of the rhizosphere microbiome (Kolton et al. 2017 1475 ). Differences in properties related to feedstock (Bonanomi et al. 2018 1476 ) and differential response to biochar dose, with lower rates more effective (Frenkel et al. 2017 1477 ), contribute to variable disease responses.

The constraints on biochar adoption include: the high cost and limited availability due to limited large-scale production; limited amount of unutilised biomass; and competition for land for growing biomass. While early biochar research tended to use high rates of application (10 t ha –1 or more) subsequent studies have shown that biochar can be effective at lower rates, especially when combined with chemical or organic fertilisers (Joseph et al. 2013 1478 ). Biochar can be produced at many scales and levels of engineering sophistication, from simple cone kilns and cookstoves to large industrial-scale units processing several tonnes of biomass per hour (Lehmann and Joseph 2015 1479 ). Substantial technological development has occurred recently, though large-scale deployment is limited to date.

Governance of biochar is required to manage climate, human health and contamination risks associated with biochar production in poorly designed or operated facilities that release methane or particulates (Downie et al. 2012 1480 ; Buss et al. 2015 1481 ), to ensure quality control of biochar products, and to ensure that biomass is sourced sustainably and is uncontaminated. Measures could include labelling standards, sustainability certification schemes and regulation of biochar production and use. Governance mechanisms should be tailored to context, commensurate with risks of adverse outcomes.

In summary, application of biochar to soil can improve soil chemical, physical and biological attributes, enhancing productivity and resilience to climate change, while also delivering climate-change mitigation through carbon sequestration and reduction in GHG emissions ( medium agreement, robust evidence ). However, responses to biochar depend on the biochar’s properties, which are in turn dependent on feedstock and biochar production conditions, and the soil and crop to which it is applied. Negative or nil results have been recorded.Agronomic and methane-reduction benefits appear greatest in tropical regions, where acidic soils predominate and suboptimal rates of lime and fertiliser are common, while carbon stabilisation is greater in temperate regions. Biochar is most effective when applied in low volumes to the most responsive soils and when properties are matched to the specific soil constraints and plant needs. Biochar is thus a practice that has potential to address land degradation and climate change simultaneously, while also supporting sustainable development. The potential of biochar is limited by the availability of biomass for its production. Biochar production and use requires regulation and standardisation to manage risks ( strong agreement ).

Management of land degradation induced by tropical cyclones

Tropical cyclones are normal disturbances that natural ecosystems have been affected by and recovered from for millennia. Climate models mostly predict decreasing frequency of tropical cyclones, but dramatically increasing intensity of the strongest storms, as well as increasing rainfall rates (Bacmeister et al. 2018 1482 ; Walsh et al. 2016b 1483 ). Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity complicate both the detection and attribution of tropical cyclones to climate change (Lin and Emanuel 2016b). Yet, the force of high-intensity cyclones has increased and is expected to escalate further due to global climate change ( medium agreement, robust evidence ) (Knutson et al. 2010 1484 ; Bender et al. 2010 1485 ; Vecchi et al. 2008 1486 ; Bhatia et al. 2018 1487 ; Tu et al. 2018 1488 ; Sobel et al. 2016 1489 ). Tropical cyclone paths are also shifting towards the poles, increasing the area subject to tropical cyclones (Sharmila and Walsh 2018 1490 ; Lin and Emanuel 2016b 1491 ). Climate change alone will affect the hydrology of individual wetland ecosystems, mostly through changes in precipitation and temperature regimes with great global variability (Erwin 2009 1492 ). Over the last seven decades, the speed at which tropical cyclones move has decreased significantly, as expected from theory, exacerbating the damage on local communities from increasing rainfall amounts and high wind speed (Kossin 2018 1493 ). Tropical cyclones will accelerate changes in coastal forest structure and composition. The heterogeneity of land degradation at coasts that are affected by tropical cyclones can be further enhanced by the interaction of its components (for example, rainfall, wind speed, and direction) with topographic and biological factors (for example, species susceptibility) (Luke et al. 2016 1494 ).

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are particularly affected by land degradation induced by tropical cyclones; recent examples are Matthew (2016) in the Caribbean, and Pam (2015) and Winston (2016) in the Pacific (Klöck and Nunn 2019 1495 ; Handmer and Nalau 2019 1496 ). Even if the Pacific Ocean has experienced cyclones of unprecedented intensity in recent years, their geomorphological effects may not be unprecedented (Terry and Lau 2018 1497 ).

Cyclone impacts on coastal areas is not restricted to SIDS, but a problem for all low-lying coastal areas (Petzold and Magnan 2019 1498 ). The Sundarbans, one of the world’s largest coastal wetlands, covers about one million hectares between Bangladesh and India. Large areas of the Sundarbans mangroves have been converted into paddy fields over the past two centuries and, more recently, into shrimp farms (Ghosh et al. 2015 1499 ). In 2009, cyclone Aila caused incremental stresses on the socio-economic conditions of the Sundarbans coastal communities through rendering huge areas of land unproductive for a long time (Abdullah et al. 2016 1500 ). The impact of Aila was widespread throughout the Sundarbans mangroves, showing changes between the pre- and post-cyclonic period of 20–50% in the enhanced vegetation index (Dutta et al. 2015 1501 ), although the magnitude of the effects of the Sundarbans mangroves derived from climate change is not yet defined (Payo et al. 2016 1502 ; Loucks et al. 2010 1503 ; Gopal and Chauhan 2006 1504 ; Ghosh et al. 2015 1505 ; Chaudhuri et al. 2015 1506 ). There is high agreement that the joint effect of climate change and land degradation will be very negative for the area, strongly affecting the environmental services provided by these forests, including the extinction of large mammal species (Loucks et al. 2010 1507 ). The changes in vegetation are mainly due to inundation and erosion (Payo et al. 2016 1508 ).

Tropical cyclone Nargis unexpectedly hit the Ayeyarwady River delta (Myanmar) in 2008 with unprecedented and catastrophic damages to livelihoods, destruction of forests and erosion of fields (Fritz et al. 2009 1509 ) as well as eroding the shoreline 148 m compared with the long-term average (1974–2015) of 0.62 m yr -1 . This is an example of the disastrous effects that changing cyclone paths can have on areas previously not affected by cyclones (Fritz et al. 2010 1510 ).

Management of coastal wetlands

Tropical cyclones mainly, but not exclusively, affect coastal regions, threatening maintenance of the associated ecosystems, mangroves, wetlands, seagrasses, and so on. These areas not only provide food, water and shelter for fish, birds and other wildlife, but also provide important ecosystem services such as water-quality improvement, flood abatement and carbon sequestration (Meng et al. 2017 1511 ).

Despite their importance, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most heavily damaged of natural ecosystems worldwide. Starting in the 1990s, wetland restoration and re-creation became a ‘hotspot’ in the ecological research fields (Zedler 2000 1512 ). Coastal wetland restoration and preservation is an extremely cost-effective strategy for society, for example, the preservation of coastal wetlands in the USA provides storm protection services, with a cost of 23.2 billion USD yr –1 (Costanza et al. 2008 1513 ).

There is a high agreement with medium evidence that the success of wetland restoration depends mainly on the flow of the water through the system, the degree to which re-flooding occurs, disturbance regimes, and the control of invasive species (Burlakova et al. 2009 1514 ; López-Rosas et al. 2013 1515 ). The implementation of the Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation protocol (López-Portillo et al. 2017 1516 ) that includes monitoring and reporting tasks, has been proven to deliver successful rehabilitation of wetland ecosystem services.

Figure 4.10

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (modified from bosire et al. 2008.).

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (Modified from Bosire et al. 2008. 1656 )

Saltwater intrusion

Current environmental changes, including climate change, have caused sea levels to rise worldwide, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions (Fasullo and Nerem 2018 1517 ). Combined with scarcity of water in river channels, such rises have been instrumental in the intrusion of highly saline seawater inland, posing a threat to coastal areas and an emerging challenge to land managers and policymakers. Assessing the extent of salinisation due to sea water intrusion at a global scale nevertheless remains challenging. Wicke et al. (2011) 1518 suggest that across the world, approximately 1.1 Gha of land is affected by salt, with 14% of this categorised as forest, wetland or some other form of protected area. Seawater intrusion is generally caused by (i) increased tidal activity, storm surges, cyclones and sea storms due to changing climate, (ii) heavy groundwater extraction or land-use changes as a result of changes in precipitation, and droughts/floods, (iii) coastal erosion as a result of destruction of mangrove forests and wetlands, (iv) construction of vast irrigation canals and drainage networks leading to low river discharge in the deltaic region; and (v) sea level rise contaminating nearby freshwater aquifers as a result of subsurface intrusion (Uddameri et al. 2014 1519 ).

The Indus Delta, located in the south-eastern coast of Pakistan near Karachi in the North Arabian Sea, is one of the six largest estuaries in the world, spanning an area of 600,000 ha. The Indus delta is a clear example of seawater intrusion and land degradation due to local as well as up-country climatic and environmental conditions (Rasul et al. 2012 1520 ). Salinisation and waterlogging in the up-country areas including provinces of Punjab and Sindh is, however, caused by the irrigation network and over-irrigation (Qureshi 2011 1521 ).

Such degradation takes the form of high soil salinity, inundation and waterlogging, erosion and freshwater contamination. The interannual variability of precipitation with flooding conditions in some years and drought conditions in others has caused variable river flows and sediment runoff below Kotri Barrage (about 200 km upstream of the Indus delta). This has affected hydrological processes in the lower reaches of the river and the delta, contributing to the degradation (Rasul et al. 2012 1657 ).

Over 480,000 ha of fertile land is now affected by sea water intrusion, wherein eight coastal subdivisions of the districts of Badin and Thatta are mostly affected (Chandio et al. 2011 1658 ). A very high intrusion rate of 0.179 ± 0.0315 km yr -1 , based on the analysis of satellite data, was observed in the Indus delta during the 10 years between 2004 and 2015 (Kalhoro et al. 2016 1522 ). The area of agricultural crops under cultivation has been declining, with economic losses of millions of USD (IUCN 2003 1523 ). Crop yields have reduced due to soil salinity, in some places failing entirely. Soil salinity varies seasonally, depending largely on the river discharge: during the wet season (August 2014), salinity (0.18 mg L –1 ) reached 24 km upstream, while during the dry season (May 2013), it reached 84 km upstream (Kalhoro et al. 2016 1524 ). The freshwater aquifers have also been contaminated with sea water, rendering them unfit for drinking or irrigation purposes. Lack of clean drinking water and sanitation causes widespread diseases, of which diarrhoea is most common (IUCN 2003 1525 ).

Lake Urmia in northwest Iran, the second-largest saltwater lake in the world and the habitat for endemic Iranian brine shrimp, Artemia urmiana , has also been affected by salty water intrusion. During a 17- year period between 1998 and 2014, human disruption, including agriculture and years of dam building affected the natural flow of freshwater as well as salty sea water in the surrounding area of Lake Urmia. Water quality has also been adversely affected, with salinity fluctuating over time, but in recent years reaching a maximum of 340 g L –1 (similar to levels in the Dead Sea). This has rendered the underground water unfit for drinking and agricultural purposes and risky to human health and livelihoods. Adverse impacts of global climate change as well as direct human impacts have caused changes in land use, overuse of underground water resources and construction of dams over rivers, which resulted in the drying-up of the lake in large part. This condition created sand, dust and salt storms in the region which affected many sectors including agriculture, water resources, rangelands, forests and health, and generally presented desertification conditions around the lake (Karbassi et al. 2010 1526 ; Marjani and Jamali 2014 1527 ; Shadkam et al. 2016 1528 ).

Rapid irrigation expansion in the basin has, however, indirectly contributed to inflow reduction. Annual inflow to Lake Urmia has dropped by 48% in recent years. About three-fifths of this change was caused by climate change and two-fifths by water resource development and agriculture (Karbassi et al. 2010 1529 ; Marjani and Jamali 2014 1530 ; Shadkam et al. 2016 1531 ).

In the drylands of Mexico, intensive production of irrigated wheat and cotton using groundwater (Halvorson et al. 2003 1532 ) resulted in sea water intrusion into the aquifers of La Costa de Hermosillo, a coastal agricultural valley at the centre of Sonora Desert in Northwestern Mexico. Production of these crops in 1954 was on 64,000 ha of cultivated area, increasing to 132,516 ha in 1970, but decreasing to 66,044 ha in 2009 as a result of saline intrusion from the Gulf of California (Romo-Leon et al. 2014 1533 ). In 2003, only 15% of the cultivated area was under production, with around 80,000 ha abandoned due to soil salinisation whereas in 2009, around 40,000 ha was abandoned (Halvorson et al. 2003 1534 ; Romo-Leon et al. 2014 1535 ). Salinisation of agricultural soils could be exacerbated by climate change, as Northwestern Mexico is projected to be warmer and drier under climate change scenarios (IPCC 2013a 1536 ).

In other countries, intrusion of seawater is exacerbated by destruction of mangrove forests. Mangroves are important coastal ecosystems that provide spawning bed for fish, timber for building, and livelihoods to dependent communities. They also act as barriers against coastal erosion, storm surges, tropical cyclones and tsunamis (Kalhoro et al. 2017 1537 ) and are among the most carbon-rich stocks on Earth (Atwood et al. 2017 1538 ). They nevertheless face a variety of threats: climatic (storm surges, tidal activities, high temperatures) and human (coastal developments, pollution, deforestation, conversion to aquaculture, rice culture, oil palm plantation), leading to declines in their areas. In Pakistan, using remote sensing, the mangrove forest cover in the Indus delta decreased from 260,000 ha in 1980s to 160,000 ha in 1990 (Chandio et al. 2011 1539 ). Based on remotely sensed data, a sharp decline in the mangrove area was also found in the arid coastal region of Hormozgan province in southern Iran during 1972, 1987 and 1997 (Etemadi et al. 2016 1540 ). Myanmar has the highest rate (about 1% yr –1 ) of mangrove deforestation in the world (Atwood et al. 2017). Regarding global loss of carbon stored in the mangrove due to deforestation, four countries exhibited high levels of loss: Indonesia (3410 GgCO 2 yr –1 ), Malaysia (1288 GgCO 2 yr –1 ), US (206 GgCO 2 yr –1 ) and Brazil (186 GgCO 2 yr –1 ). Only in Bangladesh and Guinea Bissau was there no decline in the mangrove area from 2000 to 2012 (Atwood et al. 2017 1541 ).

Frequency and intensity of average tropical cyclones will continue to increase (Knutson et al. 2015 1543 ) and global sea level will continue to rise. The IPCC (2013) 1544 projected with medium confidence that the sea level in the Asia Pacific region will rise from 0.4 to 0.6 m, depending on the emission pathway, by the end of this century. Adaptation measures are urgently required to protect the world’s coastal areas from further degradation due to saline intrusion. A viable policy framework is needed to ensure that the environmental flows to deltas in order to repulse the intruding seawater.

Avoiding coastal maladaptation

Coastal degradation – for example, beach erosion, coastal squeeze, and coastal biodiversity loss – as a result of rising sea levels is a major concern for low lying coasts and small islands ( high confidence ). The contribution of climate change to increased coastal degradation has been well documented in AR5 (Nurse et al. 2014 1545 ; Wong et al. 2014 1546 ) and is further discussed in Section 4.4.1.3 as well as in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). However, coastal degradation can also be indirectly induced by climate change as the result of adaptation measures that involve changes to the coastal environment, for example, coastal protection measures against increased flooding and erosion due to sea level rise, and storm surges transforming the natural coast to a ‘stabilised’ coastline (Cooper and Pile 2014 1547 ; French 2001 1548 ). Every kind of adaptation response option is context-dependent, and, in fact, sea walls play an important role for adaptation in many places. Nonetheless, there are observed cases where the construction of sea walls can be considered ‘maladaptation’ (Barnett and O’Neill 2010 1549 ; Magnan et al. 2016 1659 ) by leading to increased coastal degradation, such as in the case of small islands where, due to limitations of space, coastal retreat is less of an option than in continental coastal zones. There is emerging literature on the implementation of alternative coastal protection measures and mechanisms on small islands to avoid coastal degradation induced by sea walls (e.g., Mycoo and Chadwick 2012; Sovacool 2012 1551 ).

In many cases, increased rates of coastal erosion due to the construction of sea walls are the result of the negligence of local coastal morphological dynamics and natural variability as well as the interplay of environmental and anthropogenic drivers of coastal change ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Sea walls in response to coastal erosion may be ill-suited for extreme wave heights under cyclone impacts and can lead to coastal degradation by keeping overflowing sea water from flowing back into the sea, and therefore affect the coastal vegetation through saltwater intrusion, as observed in Tuvalu (Government of Tuvalu 2006 1552 ; Wairiu 2017 1553 ). Similarly, in Kiribati, poor construction of sea walls has resulted in increased erosion and inundation of reclaimed land (Donner 2012 1554 ; Donner and Webber 2014 1555 ). In the Comoros and Tuvalu, sea walls have been constructed from climate change adaptation funds and ‘often by international development organisations seeking to leave tangible evidence of their investments’ (Marino and Lazrus 2015 1556 , p. 344). In these cases, they have even increased coastal erosion, due to poor planning and the negligence of other causes of coastal degradation, such as sand mining (Marino and Lazrus 2015; Betzold and Mohamed 2017 1557 ; Ratter et al. 2016 1558 ). On the Bahamas, the installation of sea walls as a response to coastal erosion in areas with high wave action has led to the contrary effect and has even increased sand loss in those areas (Sealey 2006 1559 ). The reduction of natural buffer zones – such as beaches and dunes – due to vertical structures, such as sea walls, increased the impacts of tropical cyclones on Reunion Island (Duvat et al. 2016 1560 ). Such a process of ‘coastal squeeze’ (Pontee 2013 1561 ) also results in the reduction of intertidal habitat zones, such as wetlands and marshes (Zhu et al. 2010 1562 ). Coastal degradation resulting from the construction of sea walls, however, is not only observed in SIDS, as described above, but also on islands in the Global North, for example, the North Atlantic (Muir et al. 2014 1563 ; Young et al. 2014 1564 ; Cooper and Pile 2014 1565 ; Bush 2004 1566 ).

The adverse effects of coastal protection measures may be avoided by the consideration of local social-ecological dynamics, including critical study of the diverse drivers of ongoing shoreline changes, and the appropriate implementation of locally adequate coastal protection options (French 200 1567 1; Duvat 2013 1568 ). Critical elements for avoiding maladaptation include profound knowledge of local tidal regimes, availability of relative sea level rise scenarios and projections for extreme water levels. Moreover, the downdrift effects of sea walls need to be considered, since undefended coasts may be exposed to increased erosion (Zhu et al. 2010 1569 ). In some cases, it may be possible to keep intact and restore natural buffer zones as an alternative to the construction of hard engineering solutions. Otherwise, changes in land use, building codes, or even coastal realignment can be an option in order to protect and avoid the loss of the buffer function of beaches (Duvat et al. 2016 1570 ; Cooper and Pile 2014 1571 ). Examples in Barbados show that combinations of hard and soft coastal protection approaches can be sustainable and reduce the risk of coastal ecosystem degradation while keeping the desired level of protection for coastal users (Mycoo and Chadwick 2012 1572 ). Nature-based solutions and approaches such as ‘building with nature’ (Slobbe et al. 2013 1573 ) may allow for more sustainable coastal protection mechanisms and avoid coastal degradation. Examples from the Maldives, several Pacific islands and the North Atlantic show the importance of the involvement of local communities in coastal adaptation projects, considering local skills, capacities, as well as demographic and socio-political dynamics, in order to ensure the proper monitoring and maintenance of coastal adaptation measures (Sovacool 2012 1574 ; Muir et al. 2014 1575 ; Young et al. 2014 1576 ; Buggy and McNamara 2016 1577 ; Petzold 2016 1578 ).

Knowledge gaps and key uncertainties

The co-benefits of improved land management, such as mitigation of climate change, increased climate resilience of agriculture, and impacts on rural areas/societies are well known in theory, but there is a lack of a coherent and systematic global inventory of such integrated efforts. Both successes and failures are important to document systematically.

Efforts to reduce climate change through land-demanding mitigation actions aimed at removing atmospheric carbon, such as afforestation, reforestation, bioenergy crops, intensification of land management and plantation forestry can adversely affect land conditions and lead to degradation. However, they may also lead to avoidance, reduction and reversal of degradation. Regionally differentiated, socially and ecologically appropriate SLM strategies need to be identified, implemented, monitored and the results communicated widely to ensure climate effective outcomes.

Impacts of new technologies on land degradation and their social and economic ramifications need more research.

Improved quantification of the global extent, severity and rates of land degradation by combining remote sensing with a systematic use of ancillary data is a priority. The current attempts need better scientific underpinning and appropriate funding.

Land degradation is defined using multiple criteria but the definition does not provide thresholds or the magnitude of acceptable change. In practice, human interactions with land will result in a variety of changes; some may contribute positively to one criterion while adversely affecting another. Research is required on the magnitude of impacts and the resulting trade-offs. Given the urgent need to remove carbon from the atmosphere and to reduce climate change impacts, it is important to reach agreement on what level of reduction in one criterion (biological productivity, ecological integrity) may be acceptable for a given increase in another criterion (ecological integrity, biological productivity).

Attribution of land degradation to the underlying drivers is a challenge because it is a complex web of causality rather than a simple cause–effect relationship. Also, diverging views on land degradation in relation to other challenges is hampering such efforts.

A more systematic treatment of the views and experiences of land users would be useful in land degradation studies.

Much research has tried to understand how social and ecological systems are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging. But less research has tried to understand how such systems are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 2006 1 ).

More realistic modelling of carbon dynamics, including better appreciation of below-ground biota, would help us to better quantify the role of soils and soil management for soil carbon sequestration.

• Mittler, R., 2006: Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci., 11, 15–19, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2005.11.002. ↩
• Dotterweich, M., 2013: The history of human-induced soil erosion: Geomorphic legacies, early descriptions and research, and the development of soil conservation – A global synopsis. Geomorphology, 201, 1–34, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.07.021. ↩
• Butzer, K.W., 2005: Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: Cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32, 1773–1800, doi:10.1016/J.JAS.2005.06.001. ↩
• Dotterweich, M., 2008: The history of soil erosion and fluvial deposits in small catchments of central Europe: Deciphering the long-term interaction between humans and the environment – A review. Geomorphology, 101, 192–208, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2008.05.023. ↩
• Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., 2011: When the world’s population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Science, 333, 560–561, doi:10.1126/science.1208880. ↩
• Fuller, D.Q. et al. 2011: The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism to prehistoric methane levels. The Holocene, 21, 743–759, doi:10.1177/0959683611398052. ↩
• Kaplan, J.O. et al. 2011: Holocene carbon emissions as a result of anthropogenic land cover change. The Holocene, 21, 775–791, doi:10.1177/0959683610386983. ↩
• Vavrus, S.J., F. He, J.E. Kutzbach, W.F. Ruddiman, and P.C. Tzedakis, 2018: Glacial inception in marine isotope stage 19: An orbital analog for a natural holocene climate. Sci. Rep., 8, 10213, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28419-5. ↩
• Ellis, E.C. et al. 2013: Used planet: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 7978–7985, doi:10.1073/pnas.1217241110. ↩
• Turner, B.L. (Billie L., W.C. Clark, R.W. Kates, J.F. Richards, T. Mathews, Jessica, and W.B. Meyer, eds.,) 1990: The Earth as transformed by human action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press with Clark University, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, 713 pp. ↩
• Steffen, W.L. et al. 2005: Global Change and The Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 336 pp. ↩
• Ojima, D.S., K.A. Galvin, and B.L. Turner, 1994: The global impact of land-use change. Bioscience, 44, 300–304, doi:10.2307/1312379. ↩
• Foley, J.A. et al. 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/science.1111772. ↩
• Foley, J.A. et al. 2011: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342, doi:10.1038/nature10452. ↩
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp. ↩
• Blaikie, P.M., and H.C. Brookfield, 1987: Land degradation and society. [P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookfield, (eds.)]. Methuen, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK, 222 pp. ↩
• Forsyth, T., 1996: Science, myth and knowledge: Testing himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand. Geoforum, 27, 375–392, doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(96)00020-6. ↩
• Lukas, M.C., 2014: Eroding battlefields: Land degradation in Java reconsidered. Geoforum, 56, 87–100, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2014.06.010. ↩
• Zimmerer, K.S., 1993: Soil erosion and social (dis)courses in Cochabamba, Bolivia: Perceiving the nature of environmental degradation. Econ. Geogr., 69, 312, doi:10.2307/143453. ↩
• Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., and D.L. Dent, 2009: How good is GLASOD? J. Environ. Manage., 90, 274–283, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2007.09.008. ↩
• Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179. ↩
• Behnke, R., and M. Mortimore, 2016: Introduction: The End of Desertification? Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–34. ↩
• Grainger, A., 2009: The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: The case of desertification. L. Degrad. Dev., 20, 410–430, doi:10.1002/ldr.898. ↩
• Toulmin, C. and K. Brock, 2016: Desertification in the Sahel: Local Practice Meets Global Narrative. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 37–63. ↩
• Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones, 2005: Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land use policy, 22, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2003.08.004. ↩
• Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532. ↩
• Turner, B.L., E.F. Lambin, and A. Reenberg, 2007: The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 20666–20671, doi:10.1073/pnas.0704119104. ↩
• Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392. ↩
• Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp. ↩
• FAO, 2007: Land Evaluation: Towards a Revised Framework. Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 6. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 124 pp. ↩
• UNCCD, 1994: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations General Assembly, New York City, 54 p. ↩
• Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35. ↩
• Dallimer, M., and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Informing investments in land degradation neutrality efforts: A triage approach to decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy, 89, 198–205, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.004. ↩
• Herrick, J.E. et al. 2019: A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments. Ecol. Indic., 97, 225–230, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.06.065. ↩
• Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338. ↩
• Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp. ↩
• FAO, 2015: FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 1–81 pp. ↩
• UNFCCC, 2006: Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, 103 pp. ↩
• Ciais, P. et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 467–570. ↩
• Vaughan, D.G. et al. 2013: Observations: Cryosphere. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 317. ↩
• Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360. ↩
• Adger, N.W. et al. 2014: Human Security. In: Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, [C.B. Field and V.R. Barros, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 755–791. ↩
• IPCC, 2006: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – A Primer. [Eggleston H.S., K. Miwa, N. Srivastava, and K. Tanabe (eds.)]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IGES, Japan, 20 pp. ↩
• IPCC, 2014a: 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. [Blain, D. Boer, R., Eggleston S., Gonzalez, S., Hiraishi, T., Irving, W., Krug, T., Krusche, A., Mpeta, E.J., Penman, J., Pipatti, R., Sturgiss, R., Tanabe, K., Towprayoon, S.], IPCC Geneva, 354 pp. ↩
• Watson, R.T. et al. (eds.) 2000: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 370 pp. ↩
• IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 582 pp. ↩
• Rist, L., A. Felton, L. Samuelsson, C. Sandström, and O. Rosvall, 2013: A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecol. Soc., 18, doi:10.5751/ES-06183-180463. ↩
• Forest Europe, 1993: Resolution H1: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 16–17 June 1993, Helsinki. 5 pp. ↩
• Mackey, B. et al. 2015: Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv. Lett., 8, 139–147, doi:10.1111/conl.12120. ↩
• Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044. ↩
• Kauppi, P.E., M. Posch, and P. Pirinen, 2014: Large impacts of climatic warming on growth of boreal forests since 1960. PLoS One, 9, 1–6, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111340. ↩
• Dragoni, D. et al. 2011: Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 886–897, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02281.x. ↩
• Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Increasing net ecosystem biomass production of Canada’s boreal and temperate forests despite decline in dry climates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 31, 134–158, doi:10.1002/2016GB005459. ↩
• Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin, 1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science, 247, 699–702. ↩
• Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 2, 405–421, doi:10.1023/b:miti.0000004486.62808.29. ↩
• Trofymow, J.A., G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz, 2008: Derivation of a spatially explicit 86-year retrospective carbon budget for a landscape undergoing conversion from old-growth to managed forests on Vancouver Island, BC. For. Ecol. Manage., 256, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.056. ↩
• Kurz, W.A. et al. 2013: Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest – A synthesis. Environ. Rev., 21, 260–292, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0041. ↩
• Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309. ↩
• Tang, J., S. Luyssaert, A.D. Richardson, W. Kutsch, and I.A. Janssens, 2014: Steeper declines in forest photosynthesis than respiration explain age-driven decreases in forest growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 8856–8860, doi:10.1073/pnas.1320761111. ↩
• Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214. ↩
• Romero, C. and F.E. Putz, 2018: Theory-of-change development for the evaluation of forest stewardship council certification of sustained timber yields from natural forests in Indonesia. Forests, 9, doi:10.3390/f9090547. ↩
• Belair, E.P., and M.J. Ducey, 2018: Patterns in forest harvesting in New England and New York: Using FIA data to evaluate silvicultural outcomes. J. For., 116, 273–282, doi:10.1093/jofore/fvx019. ↩
• Nyland, R.D., 1992: Exploitation and greed in eastern hardwood forests. J. For., 90, 33–37, doi:10.1093/jof/90.1.33. ↩
• Barlow, J. et al. 2007: Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 18555–18560, doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104. ↩
• Kauppi, P.E., V. Sandström, and A. Lipponen, 2018: Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One, 13, e0196248, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196248. ↩
• Spence, J.R., 2001: The new boreal forestry: Adjusting timber management to accommodate biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol., 16, 591–593, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02335-7. ↩
• Ehnström, B., 2001: Leaving dead wood for insects in boreal forests – suggestions for the future. Scand. J. For. Res., 16, 91–98, doi:10.1080/028275801300090681. ↩
• Russell, M.B. et al. 2015: Quantifying carbon stores and decomposition in dead wood: A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 350, 107–128, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.033. ↩
• Roberts, M.W., A.W. D’Amato, C.C. Kern, and B.J. Palik, 2016: Long-term impacts of variable retention harvesting on ground-layer plant communities in Pinus resinosa forests. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 1106–1116, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12656. ↩
• Allen, C.D. et al. 2002: Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecol. Appl., 12, 1418–1433, doi:10.2307/3099981. ↩
• ter Steege, H. et al. 2013: Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. Science 342, 1243092–1243092, doi:10.1126/science.1243092. ↩
• Rametsteiner, E. and M. Simula, 2003: Forest certification – An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manage., 67, 87–98, doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3. ↩
• Lindenmayer,  D.B.,  C.R. Margules, and  D.B. Botkin, 2000: Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv. Biol., 14, 941–950, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x. ↩
• MacDicken, K.G. et al. 2015: Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 47–56, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005. ↩
• Ellis, P.W. et al. 2019: Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 438, 255–266, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2019.02.004. ↩
• Umunay, P.M., T.G. Gregoire, T. Gopalakrishna, P.W. Ellis, and F.E. Putz, 2019: Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin. For. Ecol. Manage., 437, 360–371, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.01.049. ↩
• Siry, J.P., F.W. Cubbage, and M.R. Ahmed, 2005: Sustainable forest management: Global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ., 7, 551–561, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003. ↩
• Nasi, R., F.E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, and S. Anta, 2011: Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests, 2, 200–217, doi:10.3390/f2010200. ↩
• Warren, R., J. Price, J. VanDerWal, S. Cornelius, and H. Sohl, 2018: The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas. Clim. Change, 147, 395–409, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6. ↩
• Reed, M.S., A.J. Dougill, and M.J. Taylor, 2007: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. L. Degrad. Dev., 18, 249–268, doi:10.1002/ldr.777. ↩
• Andersson, E., S. Brogaard, and L. Olsson, 2011: The political ecology of land degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 36, 295–319, doi:10.1146/ annurev-environ-033110-092827. ↩
• Kessler, C.A. and L. Stroosnijder, 2006: Land degradation assessment by farmers in Bolivian mountain valleys. L. Degrad. Dev., 17, 235–248, doi:10.1002/ldr.699. ↩
• Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p. ↩
• Kristjanson, P. et al. 2017: Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15, 482–500, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411. ↩
• Jerneck, A., 2018a: What about gender in climate change? Twelve feminist lessons from development. Sustainability, 10, 627, doi:10.3390/su10030627. ↩
• Elmhirst, R., 2011: Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum, 42, 129–132, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006. ↩
• Toulmin, C., 2009: Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local institutions. Land use policy, 26, 10–19, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2008.07.006. ↩
• Peters, P.E., 2004: Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. J. Agrar. Chang., 4, 269–314, doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00080.x. ↩
• Agarwal, B., 1997: Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev. Change, 28, 1–44, doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00033. ↩
• Jerneck, A., 2018b: Taking gender seriously in climate change adaptation and sustainability science research: views from feminist debates and sub-Saharan small-scale agriculture. Sustain. Sci., 13, 403–416, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0464-y. ↩
• Doss, C., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold, 2015: Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myth and reality. Agric. Econ., 46, 403–434, doi:10.1111/agec.12171. ↩
• Kumar, N. and A.R. Quisumbing, 2015: Policy reform toward gender equality in Ethiopia: Little by little the egg begins to walk. World Dev., 67, 406–423, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.10.029. ↩
• Lavers, T., 2017: Land registration and gender equality in Ethiopia: How state-society relations influence the enforcement of institutional change. 
J. Agrar. Chang., 17, 188–207, doi:10.1111/joac.12138. ↩
• Djurfeldt, A.A., E. Hillbom, W.O. Mulwafu, P. Mvula, and G. Djurfeldt, 2018: “The family farms together, the decisions, however are made by the man” – Matrilineal land tenure systems, welfare and decision making in rural Malawi. Land use policy, 70, 601–610, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.048. ↩
• Vincent, K.E., P. Tschakert, J. Barnett, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, and A. Woodward, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on Gender and Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 105–107. ↩
• Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land use policy, 49, 203–212, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.08.007. ↩
• Gabrielsson, S., S. Brogaard, and A. Jerneck, 2013: Living without buffers – illustrating climate vulnerability in the Lake Victoria basin. Sustain. Sci., 8, 143–157, doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0191-3. ↩
• Liu, T., R. Bruins, and M. Heberling, 2018b: Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability, 10, 432, doi:10.3390/su10020432. ↩
• Lambin, E.F. et al. 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3. ↩
• Wilson, G.A. et al. 2017: Social memory and the resilience of communities affected by land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 383–400, doi:10.1002/ldr.2669. ↩
• Kosec, K., H. Ghebru, B. Holtemeyer, V. Mueller, and E. Schmidt, 2018: The effect of land access on youth employment and migration decisions: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 100, 931–954, doi:10.1093/ajae/aax087. ↩
• Naamwintome, B.A. and E. Bagson, 2013: Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net J. Agric. Sci., 1, 60–68. ↩
• Tarfasa, S. et al. 2018: Modeling smallholder farmers’ preferences for soil management measures: A case study from South Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ., 145, 410–419, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.027. ↩
• Soule, M.J., A. Tegene, and K.D. Wiebe, 2000: Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 82, 993–1005, doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00097. ↩
• Benjaminsen, T.A., and C. Lund, 2003: Securing Land Rights in Africa. Frank Cass Publishers, London, UK, 175 pp. ↩
• Itkonen, P., 2016: Land rights as the prerequisite for Sámi culture: Skolt Sámi’s changing relation to nature in Finland. In: Indigenous Rights in Modern Landscapes, Elenius, L., Allard, C. and Sandström, C. (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 94–105. ↩
• Owour, B., W. Mauta, and S. Eriksen, 2011: Sustainable adaptation and human security: Interactions between pastoral and agropastoral groups in dryland Kenya. Clim. Dev., 3, 42–58, doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0063. ↩
• Gebara, M.F., 2018: Tenure reforms in indigenous lands: Decentralized forest management or illegalism? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 32, 60–67, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.04.008. ↩
• Tengberg, A., S. Fredholm, I. Eliasson, I. Knez, K.Saltzman, and O. Wetterberg, 2012: Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv., 2, 14–26. ↩
• Hernández-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling, 2013: An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic., 29, 434–444, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2013.01.013. ↩
• Olsson, L. et al. 2014a: Cross-Chapter Box on Heat Stress and Heat Waves. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 109–111. ↩
• Johnson, D.L. and L.A. Lewis, 2007: Land degradation: Creation and destruction. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 303 pp. ↩
• Crowther, T.W. et al. 2016: Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540, 104–108, doi:10.1038/nature20150. ↩
• Viscarra Rossel, R.A., R. Webster, E.N. Bui, and J.A. Baldock, 2014: Baseline map of organic carbon in Australian soil to support national carbon accounting and monitoring under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2953–2970, doi:10.1111/gcb.12569. ↩
• Hu, S., Z. Niu, Y. Chen, L. Li, and H. Zhang, 2017: Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci. Total Environ., 586, 319–327, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001. ↩
• Dixon, M.J.R. et al. 2016: Tracking global change in ecosystem area: The Wetland Extent Trends index. Biol. Conserv., 193, 27–35, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023. ↩
• Reis, V. et al. 2017: A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience, 67, 523–533, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix045. ↩
• Darrah, S.E. et al. 2019: Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic., 99, 294–298, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.12.032. ↩
• Davidson, N.C., 2014: How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res., 65, 934, doi:10.1071/MF14173. ↩
• Barnett, J. et al. 2015: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc., 20, art5, doi:10.5751/ES-07698-200305. ↩
• Colloff, M.J. et al. 2016: Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. Ecol. Appl., 26, 1003–1017, doi:10.1890/15-0848. ↩
• Finlayson, C.M. et al. 2017: Policy considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Mar. Freshw. Res., 68, 1803, doi:10.1071/MF16244. ↩
• Poesen, J.W.A. and J.M. Hooke, 1997: Erosion, flooding and channel management in Mediterranean environments of southern Europe. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 21, 157–199, doi:10.1177/030913339702100201. ↩
• Ravi, S., D.D. Breshears, T.E. Huxman, and P. D’Odorico, 2010: Land degradation in drylands: Interactions among hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology, 116, 236–245, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.11.023. ↩
• Yu, H. et al. 2015: The fertilizing role of African dust in the Amazon rainforest: A first multiyear assessment based on data from Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1984–1991, doi:10.1002/2015GL063040. ↩
• Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019. ↩
• Allison, M. et al. 2016: Global risks and research priorities for coastal subsidence. Eos Earth and Space Science News, (Washington. DC)., 97, doi:org/10.1029/2016EO055013. ↩
• Mentaschi, L., M.I. Vousdoukas, J.-F. Pekel, E. Voukouvalas, and L. Feyen, 2018: Global long-term observations of coastal erosion and accretion. Sci. Rep., 8, 12876, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30904-w. ↩
• Schuerch, M. et al. 2018: Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature, 561, 231–234, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5. ↩
• Hamza, M.A., and W.K. Anderson, 2005: Soil compaction in cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res., 82, 121–145, doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009. ↩
• Guo, J.H. et al. 2010: Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327, 1008–1010, doi:10.1126/science.1182570. ↩
• Bond-Lamberty, B., V.L. Bailey, M. Chen, C.M. Gough, and R. Vargas, 2018: Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature, 560, 80–83, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x. ↩
• van Gestel, N. et al. 2018: Predicting soil carbon loss with warming. Nature, 554, E4–E5, doi:10.1038/nature25745. ↩
• Achat, D.L., M. Fortin, G. Landmann, B. Ringeval, and L. Augusto, 2015: Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci. Rep., 5, 15991, doi:10.1038/srep15991. ↩
• Minasny, B. et al. 2017: Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59–86, doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2017.01.002. ↩
• Schofield, R.V. and M.J. Kirkby, 2003: Application of salinization indicators and initial development of potential global soil salinization scenario under climatic change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, doi:10.1029/2002GB001935. ↩
• Rengasamy, P., 2006: World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot., 57, 1017–1023, doi:10.1093/jxb/erj108. ↩
• Colombani, N., A. Osti, G. Volta, and M. Mastrocicco, 2016: Impact of climate change on salinization of coastal water resources. Water Resour. Manag., 30, 2483–2496, doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1292-z. ↩
• Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, K.S.-H. Peh, and B.W. Brook, 2007: Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob. Chang. Biol., 13, 2379–2395, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x. ↩
• Poff, N.L., 2002: Ecological response to and management of increased flooding caused by climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 360, 1497–1510, doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1012. ↩
• Kirwan, M.L., A.B. Murray, J.P. Donnelly, and D.R. Corbett, 2011: Rapid wetland expansion during European settlement and its implication for marsh survival under modern sediment delivery rates. Geology, 39, 507–510, doi:10.1130/G31789.1. ↩
• Anderson, R.L., D.R. Foster, and G. Motzkin, 2003: Integrating lateral expansion into models of peatland development in temperate New England. J. Ecol., 91, 68–76, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00740.x. ↩
• Micklin, P., 2010: The past, present, and future Aral Sea. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag., 15, 193–213, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1770.2010.00437.x. ↩
• Herbert, E.R. et al. 2015: A global perspective on wetland salinization: Ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere, 6, art206, doi:10.1890/ES14-00534.1. ↩
• Leifeld, J., and L. Menichetti, 2018: The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat. Commun., 9, 1071, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6. ↩
• Hergoualc’h, K., V.H. Gutiérrez-vélez, M. Menton, and L. V Verchot, 2017a: Forest ecology and management characterizing degradation of palm swamp peatlands from space and on the ground: An exploratory study in the Peruvian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage., 393, 63–73, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.016. ↩
• Lilleskov, E. et al. 2019: Is Indonesian peatland loss a cautionary tale for Peru? A two-country comparison of the magnitude and causes of tropical peatland degradation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 24, 591–623, doi:10.1007/s11027-018-9790-3. ↩
• Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris, 2004: Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261–299, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142. ↩
• Van Auken, O.W., 2009: Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2931–2942, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023. ↩
• Illius, A.W., O’Connor, T.G., 1999. On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems. Ecological Applications 9(3), 798–813, doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0798:OTRONC]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Sasaki, T., T. Okayasu, U. Jamsran, and K. Takeuchi, 2007: Threshold changes in vegetation along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. J. Ecol., 96(1), 145–154, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01315.x. ↩
• Piñeiro, G., J.M. Paruelo, M. Oesterheld, and E.G. Jobbágy, 2010: Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 63, 109–119, doi:10.2111/08-255.1. ↩
• Foley, J. et al. 2007, Amazonia Revealed: Forest Degradation And Loss Of Ecosystem Goods And Services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32, doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[25:ARFDAL]2.0.CO;2 ↩
• Brooks, M.L. et al. 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience, 54, 677–688, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2. ↩
• Peltzer, D.A., R.B. Allen, G.M. Lovett, D. Whitehead, and D.A. Wardle, 2010: Effects of biological invasions on forest carbon sequestration. Glob. Chang. Biol., 16, 732–746, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02038.x. ↩
• Walsh, J.R., S.R. Carpenter, and M.J. Vander Zanden, 2016a: Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 4081–4085, doi:10.1073/pnas.1600366113. ↩
• Hussain, S., T. Siddique, M. Saleem, M. Arshad, and A. Khalid, 2009: Impact of pesticides on soil microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical reactions. Adv. Agron., 102, 159–200, doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(09)01005-0. ↩
• Crowther, T.W. et al. 2015: Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 7033–7038, doi:10.1073/pnas.1502956112. ↩
• Ratcliffe, S. et al. 2017: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecol. Lett., 20, 1414–1426, doi:10.1111/ele.12849. ↩
• Asmelash, F., T. Bekele, and E. Birhane, 2016: The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of degraded lands. Front. Microbiol., 7, 1095, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01095. ↩
• Vasconcellos, R.L.F., J.A. Bonfim, D. Baretta, and E.J.B.N. Cardoso, 2016: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin-related soil protein as potential indicators of soil quality in a recuperation gradient of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 325–334, doi:10.1002/ldr.2228. ↩
• Field, J.P. et al. 2010: The ecology of dust. Front. Ecol. Environ., 8, 423–430, doi:10.1890/090050. ↩
• Reed, S.C. et al. 2012: Changes to dryland rainfall result in rapid moss mortality and altered soil fertility. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 752–755, doi:10.1038/nclimate1596. ↩
• Johnson, J.M. et al. 2015: Recent shifts in coastline change and shoreline stabilization linked to storm climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 40, 569–585, doi:10.1002/esp.3650. ↩
• Alongi, D.M., 2015: The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 30–39, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x. ↩
• Harley, M.D. et al. 2017: Extreme coastal erosion enhanced by anomalous extratropical storm wave direction. Sci. Rep., 7, 6033, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05792-1. ↩
• Nicholls, R.J., C. Woodroffe, and V. Burkett, 2016: Chapter 20 – Coastline degradation as an indicator of global change. Clim. Chang., 309–324, doi:10.1016/B978–0-444–63524-2.00020-8. ↩
• Liljedahl, A.K. et al. 2016: Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology. Nat. Geosci., 9, 312–318, doi:10.1038/ngeo2674. ↩
• Peng, X. et al. 2016: Response of changes in seasonal soil freeze/thaw state to climate change from 1950 to 2010 across China. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 121, 1984–2000, doi:10.1002/2016JF003876. ↩
• Batir, J.F., M.J. Hornbach, and D.D. Blackwell, 2017: Ten years of measurements and modeling of soil temperature changes and their effects on permafrost in Northwestern Alaska. Glob. Planet. Change, 148, 55–71, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2016.11.009. ↩
• Jolly, W.M. et al. 2015: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun., 6, 7537, doi:10.1038/ncomms8537. ↩
• Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113. ↩
• Taufik, M. et al. 2017: Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 428–431, doi:10.1038/nclimate3280. ↩
• Knorr, W., L. Jiang, and A. Arneth, 2016: Climate, CO2 and human population impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences, 13, 267–282, doi:10.5194/bg-13-267-2016. ↩
• Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes, 2008: Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv. Biol., 22, 534–543, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x. ↩
• Kiage, L.M., 2013: Perspectives on the assumed causes of land degradation in the rangelands of Sub-Saharan Africa. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 37, 664–684, doi:10.1177/0309133313492543. ↩
• Bisaro, A., M. Kirk, P. Zdruli, and W. Zimmermann, 2014: Global drivers setting desertification research priorities: Insights from a stakeholder consultation forum. L. Degrad. Dev., 25, 5–16, doi:10.1002/ldr.2220. ↩
• Coppus, R., and A.C. Imeson, 2002: Extreme events controlling erosion and sediment transport in a semi-arid sub-andean valley. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 27, 1365–1375, doi:10.1002/esp.435. ↩
• Morgan, R.P.C., and Royston P.C., 2005b: Soil Erosion And Conservation. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Harlow, Essex, UK, 198 pp. ↩
• Delgado, A., and J.A. Gómez, 2016: The Soil. Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties. Principles of Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 15–26. ↩
• Montgomery, D.R., 2007a: Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268–13272, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104. ↩
• Showers, K.B., 2005: Imperial Gullies: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Lesotho. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA, 346 pp. ↩
• Dupouey, J.L., E. Dambrine, J.D. Laffite, and C. Moares, 2002: Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology, 83, 2978–2984, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2978:IIOPLU]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Lin, K.-C. et al. 2017: Impacts of increasing typhoons on the structure and function of a subtropical forest: Reflections of a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 4911, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05288-y. ↩
• Terrer, C., S. Vicca, B.A. Hungate, R.P. Phillips, and I.C. Prentice, 2016: Mycorrhizal association as a primary control of the CO2 fertilization effect. Science, 353, 72–74, doi:10.1126/science.aaf4610. ↩
• Gerten, D., R. Betts, and P. Döll, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on the Active Role of Vegetation in Altering Water Flows Under Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 157–161. ↩
• Girardin, M.P. et al. 2016: No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, E8406–E8414, doi:10.1073/pnas.1610156113. ↩
• Ramankutty, N., J.A. Foley, J. Norman, and K. McSweeney, 2002: The global distribution of cultivable lands: Current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 11, 377–392, doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x. ↩
• Zabel, F., B. Putzenlechner, and W. Mauser, 2014: Global agricultural land resources – a high resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PLoS One, 9, e107522, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107522. ↩
• Allen, C.D. et al. 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.001. ↩
• Mirzabaev, A., E. Nkonya, J. Goedecke, T. Johnson, and W. Anderson, 2016: Global Drivers of Land Degradation and Improvement. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 167–195. ↩
• Bai, Y. et al. 2008a: Primary production and rain use efficiency across a precipitation gradient on the mongolia plateau. Ecology, 89, 2140–2153, doi:10.1890/07-0992.1. ↩
• Brandt, M. et al. 2017: Human population growth offsets climate-driven increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 0081, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0081. ↩
• Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 7156–7161, doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109. ↩
• Murphy, J.M. et al. 2004: Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 430, 768–772, doi:10.1038/nature02771. ↩
• Fischer, E.M., and R. Knutti, 2015: Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 560–564, doi:10.1038/nclimate2617. ↩
• IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp. ↩
• Giorgi, F., and P. Lionello, 2008: Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change, 63, 90–104, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2007.09.005. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G., 2018: What precipitation is extreme? Science, 360, 1072–1073, doi:10.1126/science.aat1871. ↩
• Guerreiro, S.B. et al. 2018: Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 803–807, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3. ↩
• Trenberth, K.E., 1999: Conceptual Framework for Changes of Extremes of the Hydrological Cycle With Climate Change. Weather and Climate Extremes, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 327–339. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G., R. Knutti, F. Lehner, C. Deser, and B.M. Sanderson, 2017: Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 17966, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G. and R. Knutti, 2018: The uneven nature of daily precipitation and its change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11,980–11,988, doi:10.1029/2018GL080298. ↩
• Blenkinsop, S. et al. 2018: The INTENSE project: using observations and models to understand the past, present and future of sub-daily rainfall extremes. Adv. Sci. Res., 15, 117–126, doi:10.5194/asr-15-117-2018. ↩
• Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868. ↩
• Liu, S.C., C. Fu, C.-J. Shiu, J.-P. Chen, and F. Wu, 2009: Temperature dependence of global precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17702, doi:10.1029/2009GL040218. ↩
• Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M. AchutaRao, M.R. Allen, N. Gillett, D. Gutzler, K. Hansingo, G. Hegerl, Y. Hu, S. Jain, I.I. Mokhov, J. Overland, J. Perlwitz, R. Sebbari and X. Zhang, 2013: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [T.F. Stocker et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 867–940. ↩
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press. ↩
• IPCC, 2013b: Summary for Policy Makers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, p. 1535. ↩
• Nearing, M.A. et al. 2005: Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. CATENA, 61, 131–154, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.03.007. ↩
• Shao, Y., 2008: Physics and Modelling Of Wind Erosion. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 452 pp. ↩
• Meisner, A., S. Jacquiod, B.L. Snoek, F.C. ten Hooven, and W.H. van der Putten, 2018: Drought legacy effects on the composition of soil fungal and prokaryote communities. Front. Microbiol., 9, 294, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.00294. ↩
• Shuab, R., R. Lone, J. Ahmad, and Z.A. Reshi, 2017: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: A Potential Tool for Restoration of Degraded Land. Mycorrhiza – Nutrient Uptake, Biocontrol, Ecorestoration, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 415–434. ↩
• Brahney, J., F. Weber, V. Foord, J. Janmaat, and P.J. Curtis, 2017: Evidence for a climate-driven hydrologic regime shift in the Canadian Columbia Basin. Can. Water Resour. J. / Rev. Can. des ressources hydriques, 42, 179–192, doi:10.1080/07011784.2016.1268933. ↩
• Lutz, A.F., W.W. Immerzeel, A.B. Shrestha, and M.F.P. Bierkens, 2014: Consistent increase in high Asia’s runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 587–592, doi:10.1038/nclimate2237. ↩
• Barnhart, T.B. et al. 2016: Snowmelt rate dictates streamflow. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8006–8016, doi:10.1002/2016GL069690. ↩
• Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346. ↩
• Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50. ↩
• Almagro, A., P.T.S. Oliveira, M.A. Nearing, and S. Hagemann, 2017: Projected climate change impacts in rainfall erosivity over Brazil. Sci. Rep., 7, 8130, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08298-y. ↩
• Mondal, A., D. Khare, and S. Kundu, 2016: Change in rainfall erosivity in the past and future due to climate change in the central part of India. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 4, 186–194, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2016.08.004. ↩
• Ma, S. et al. 2015: Observed changes in the distributions of daily precipitation frequency and amount over China from 1960 to 2013. J. Clim., 28, 6960–6978, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0011.1. ↩
• Ma, S. et al. 2017: Detectable anthropogenic shift toward heavy precipitation over eastern China. J. Clim., 30, 1381–1396, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0311.1. ↩
• Cheng, L., and A. AghaKouchak, 2015: Nonstationary precipitation intensity-duration-frequency curves for infrastructure design in a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 4, 7093, doi:10.1038/srep07093. ↩
• O’Gorman, P.A., 2015: Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 49–59, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0009-3. ↩
• García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008. ↩
• Fischer, F. et al. 2016: Spatio-temporal variability of erosivity estimated from highly resolved and adjusted radar rain data (RADOLAN). Agric. For. Meteorol., 223, 72–80, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2016.03.024. ↩
• Zhu, Q. et al. 2019: Estimation of event-based rainfall erosivity from radar after wildfire. L. Degrad. Dev., 30, 33–48, doi:10.1002/ldr.3146. ↩
• Gonzalez-Hidalgo, J.C., M. de Luis, and R.J. Batalla, 2009: Effects of the largest daily events on total soil erosion by rainwater. An analysis of the USLE database. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 34, 2070–2077, doi:10.1002/ esp.1892. ↩
• Capolongo, D., N. Diodato, C.M. Mannaerts, M. Piccarreta, and R.O. Strobl, 2008: Analyzing temporal changes in climate erosivity using a simplified rainfall erosivity model in Basilicata (southern Italy). J. Hydrol., 356, 119–130, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2008.04.002. ↩
• Tadesse, G., 2001: Land degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia. Environ. Manage., 27, 815–824, doi:10.1007/s002670010190. ↩
• Kidane, D. and B. Alemu, 2015: The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag., 4, 55–68. ↩
• Reinwarth, B., R. Petersen, and J. Baade, 2019: Inferring mean rates of sediment yield and catchment erosion from reservoir siltation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa: An uncertainty assessment. Geomorphology, 324, 1–13, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2018.09.007. ↩
• Quiñonero-Rubio, J.M., E. Nadeu, C. Boix-Fayos, and J. de Vente, 2016: Evaluation of the effectiveness of forest restoration and check-dams to reduce catchment sediment yield. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 1018–1031, doi:10.1002/ldr.2331. ↩
• Adeogun, A.G., B.A. Ibitoye, A.W. Salami, and G.T. Ihagh, 2018: Sustainable management of erosion prone areas of upper watershed of Kainji hydropower dam, Nigeria. J. King Saud Univ. – Eng. Sci., doi:10.1016/J.JKSUES.2018.05.001. ↩
• Ben Slimane, A. et al. 2016: Relative contribution of rill/interrill and gully/channel erosion to small reservoir siltation in mediterranean environments. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 785–797, doi:10.1002/ldr.2387. ↩
• Kendon, E.J. et al. 2014: Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 570–576, doi:10.1038/nclimate2258. ↩
• Lado, M., M. Ben-Hur, and I. Shainberg, 2004: Soil wetting and texture effects on aggregate stability, seal formation, and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 1992, doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.1992. ↩
• Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004. ↩
• Wagner, L.E., 2013: A history of Wind Erosion Prediction Models in the United States Department of Agriculture: The Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). Aeolian Res., 10, 9–24, doi:10.1016/J.AEOLIA.2012.10.001. ↩
• McVicar, T.R. and M.L. Roderick, 2010: Winds of change. Nat. Geosci., 3, 747–748, doi:10.1038/ngeo1002. ↩
• Vautard, R., J. Cattiaux, P. Yiou, J.-N. Thépaut, and P. Ciais, 2010: Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. Nat. Geosci., 3, 756–761, doi:10.1038/ngeo979. ↩
• Bakun, A., 1990: Global climate change and intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. Science, 247, 198–201, doi:10.1126/science.247.4939.198. ↩
• Bakun, A. et al. 2015: Anticipated effects of climate change on coastal upwelling ecosystems. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 85–93, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0008-4. ↩
• Sydeman, W.J. et al. 2014: Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems. Science, 345, 77–80, doi:10.1126/science.1251635. ↩
• England, M.H. et al. 2014: Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 222–227, doi:10.1038/nclimate2106. ↩
• Pryor, S.C., and R.J. Barthelmie, 2010: Climate change impacts on wind energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 430–437, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2009.07.028. ↩
• Bärring, L., P. Jönsson, J.O. Mattsson, and R. Åhman, 2003: Wind erosion on arable land in Scania, Sweden and the relation to the wind climate: A review. CATENA, 52, 173–190, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00013-4. ↩
• IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press. ↩
• Yang, M., F.E. Nelson, N.I. Shiklomanov, D. Guo, and G. Wan, 2010: Permafrost degradation and its environmental effects on the Tibetan Plateau: A review of recent research. Earth-Science Rev., 103, 31–44, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2010.07.002. ↩
• Jorgenson, M.T. and T.E. Osterkamp, 2005: Response of boreal ecosystems to varying modes of permafrost degradation. Can. J. For. Res., 35, 2100–2111, doi:10.1139/x05-153. ↩
• Solly, E.F. et al. 2017: Experimental soil warming shifts the fungal community composition at the alpine treeline. New Phytol., 215, 766–778, doi:10.1111/nph.14603. ↩
• Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011a: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 3392–3404, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x. ↩
• Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011b: Measuring and monitoring soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural lands for climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 169–173, doi:10.1890/090153. ↩
• Wu, Z., P. Dijkstra, G.W. Koch, J. Peñuelas, and B.A. Hungate, 2011: Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: A meta-analysis of experimental manipulation. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 927–942, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02302.x. ↩
• Friend, A.D. et al. 2014: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3280–3285, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222477110. ↩
• Holtum, J.A.M., and K. Winter, 2010: Elevated CO2 and forest vegetation: More a water issue than a carbon issue? Funct. Plant Biol., 37, 694, doi:10.1071/FP10001. ↩
• Yang, Y., R.J. Donohue, T.R. McVicar, M.L. Roderick, and H.E. Beck, 2016: Long-term CO2 fertilization increases vegetation productivity and has little effect on hydrological partitioning in tropical rainforests. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 121, 2125–2140, doi:10.1002/2016JG003475. ↩
• Rosenzweig, C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang, P.R. Epstein, and E. Chivian, 2001: Climate change and extreme weather events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Glob. Chang. Hum. Heal., 2, 90–104, doi:10.1023/A:1015086831467. ↩
• Porter, J.H., M.L. Parry, and T.R. Carter, 1991: The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol., 57, 221–240, doi:10.1016/0168-1923(91)90088-8. ↩
• Thomson, L.J., S. Macfadyen, and A.A. Hoffmann, 2010: Predicting the effects of climate change on natural enemies of agricultural pests. Biol. Control, 52, 296–306, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2009.01.022. ↩
• Dhanush, D. et al. 2015: Impact of climate change on African agriculture: focus on pests and diseases. CCAFS Info Note, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4 pp. ↩
• Lamichhane, J.R. et al. 2015: Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 443–459, doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9. ↩
• IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., pp. 1–34. ↩
• Brisson, N. et al. 2010: Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. F. Crop. Res., 119, 201–212, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2010.07.012. ↩
• Lin, M., and P. Huybers, 2012: Reckoning wheat yield trends. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 024016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024016. ↩
• Grassini, P., K.M. Eskridge, and K.G. Cassman, 2013: Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. Nat. Commun., 4, 2918, doi:10.1038/ncomms3918. ↩
• Kerns, B.K., J.B. Kim, J.D. Kline, and M.A. Day, 2016: US exposure to multiple landscape stressors and climate change. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, 2129–2140, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-0934-2. ↩
• Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004. ↩
• Mullan, D., 2013: Soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change: Assessing the statistical significance of future changes and the potential on-site and off-site problems. CATENA, 109, 234–246, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2013.03.007. ↩
• Zhang, X.C. and M.A. Nearing, 2005: Impact of climate change on soil erosion, runoff, and wheat productivity in central Oklahoma. CATENA, 61, 185–195, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2005.03.009. ↩
• Parajuli, P.B., P. Jayakody, G.F. Sassenrath, and Y. Ouyang, 2016: Assessing the impacts of climate change and tillage practices on stream flow, crop and sediment yields from the Mississippi River Basin. Agric. Water Manag., 168, 112–124, doi:10.1016/J.AGWAT.2016.02.005. ↩
• Routschek, A., J. Schmidt, and F. Kreienkamp, 2014: Impact of climate change on soil erosion – A high-resolution projection on catchment scale until 2100 in Saxony/Germany. CATENA, 121, 99–109, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2014.04.019. ↩
• Nunes, J.P., and M.A. Nearing, 2011: Modelling Impacts of Climate Change: Case studies using the new generation of erosion models. Handbook of Erosion Modelling, [R.P.C. Morgan and M.A. Nearing, (eds.)]. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, p. 400. ↩
• Garbrecht, J.D., and X.C. Zhang, 2015: Soil erosion from winter wheat cropland under climate change in central Oklahoma. Appl. Eng. Agric., 31, 439–454, doi:10.13031/aea.31.10998. ↩
• Garbrecht, J.D., J.L. Steiner, and A. Cox, Craig, 2007: The times they are changing: Soil and water conservation in the 21st century. Hydrol. Process., 21, 2677–2679. ↩
• O’Neal, M.R., M.A. Nearing, R.C. Vining, J. Southworth, and R.A. Pfeifer, 2005: Climate change impacts on soil erosion in Midwest United States with changes in crop management. CATENA, 61, 165–184, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2005.03.003. ↩
• Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024. ↩
• Oldeman, L.R. and G.W.J. van Lynden, 1998: Revisiting the Glasod Methodology. Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation [R. Lal, W.H. Blum, C. Valentine, and B.A. Stewart, (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington D.C., 423–440. ↩
• Dregne, H.E., 1998: Desertification Assessment. In: Methods for Assessment Of Soil Degradation, [Lal, R., (ed.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington DC, pp. 441–458. ↩
• Reed, M.S., 2005: Participatory Rangeland Monitoring and Management in the Kalahari, Botswana. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 267 pp. ↩
• Bot, A., F. Nachtergaele, and A. Young, 2000: Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 114 pp. ↩
• Yengoh, G.T., D. Dent, L. Olsson, A. Tengberg, and C.J. Tucker, 2015: Use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Assess Land Degradation at Multiple Scales: Current Status, Future Trends, and Practical Considerations. Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 110 pp. ↩
• Bai, Z.G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman, 2008c: Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manag., 24, 223–234, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x. ↩
• Shi, H. et al. 2017: Assessing the ability of MODIS EVI to estimate terrestrial ecosystem gross primary production of multiple land cover types. Ecol. Indic., 72, 153–164, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.08.022. ↩
• Abdi, A.M. et al. 2019: First assessment of the plant phenology index (PPI) for estimating gross primary productivity in African semi-arid ecosystems. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 78, 249–260, doi:10.1016/J.JAG.2019.01.018. ↩
• JRC, 2018: World Atlas of Desertification. [Cherlet, M., Hutchinson, C., Reynolds, J., Hill, J., Sommer, S., von Maltitz, G. (Eds.)] Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018. 237 pp. doi: 10.2760/06292. ↩
• Cai, X., X. Zhang, and D. Wang, 2011b: Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 334–339, doi:10.1021/es103338e. ↩
• Hickler, T. et al. 2005: Precipitation controls Sahel greening trend. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21415, doi:10.1029/2005GL024370. ↩
• Steinkamp, J. and T. Hickler, 2015: Is drought-induced forest dieback globally increasing? J. Ecol., 103, 31–43, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12335. ↩
• Stoorvogel, J.J., M. Bakkenes, A.J.A.M. Temme, N.H. Batjes, and B.J.E. ten Brink, 2017: S-World: A global soil map for environmental modelling. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 22–33, doi:10.1002/ldr.2656. ↩
• Vogt, J.V. et al. 2011: Monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertification: Towards new conceptual and integrated approaches. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 150–165, doi:10.1002/ldr.1075. ↩
• Wessels, K.J. et al. 2007: Can human-induced land degradation be distinguished from the effects of rainfall variability? A case study in South Africa. J. Arid Environ., 68, 271–297, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.05.015. ↩
• Wessels, K., S. Prince, P. Frost, and D. van Zyl, 2004: Assessing the effects of human-induced land degradation in the former homelands of northern South Africa with a 1 km AVHRR NDVI time-series. Remote Sens. Environ., 91, 47–67, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.005. ↩
• Prince, S.D., 2016: Where Does Desertification Occur? Mapping Dryland Degradation at Regional to Global Scales. The End of Desertification, [R. Behnke and M. Mortimore, (eds.)]. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Gernmany, pp. 225–263. ↩
• Ghazoul, J., and R. Chazdon, 2017: Degradation and recovery in changing forest landscapes: A multiscale conceptual framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42, 161–188, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ. ↩
• Sedano, F. et al. 2016: The impact of charcoal production on forest degradation: A case study in Tete, Mozambique. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 094020, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094020. ↩
• Brandt, M. et al. 2018b: Satellite passive microwaves reveal recent climate-induced carbon losses in African drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 827–835, doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0530-6. ↩
• Turetsky, M.R. et al. 2014: A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2183–2197, doi:10.1111/gcb.12580. ↩
• Turner, W., 2014: Conservation. Sensing biodiversity. Science, 346, 301–302, doi:10.1126/science.1256014. ↩
• Andela, N. et al. 2013:. Global changes in dryland vegetation dynamics (1988–2008) assessed by satellite remote sensing: Comparing a new passive microwave vegetation density record with reflective greenness data. Biogeosciences, 10, 6657–6676, doi.org/10.5194/bg-10–6657–2013,  2013. ↩
• Wessels, K.J., F. van den Bergh, and R.J. Scholes, 2012: Limits to detectability of land degradation by trend analysis of vegetation index data. Remote Sens. Environ., 125, 10–22, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.022. ↩
• Murthy, K. and S. Bagchi, 2018: Spatial patterns of long-term vegetation greening and browning are consistent across multiple scales: Implications for monitoring land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 2485–2495, doi:10.1002/ldr.3019. ↩
• Ferner, J., S. Schmidtlein, R.T. Guuroh, J. Lopatin, and A. Linstädter, 2018: Disentangling effects of climate and land-use change on West African drylands’ forage supply. Glob. Environ. Chang., 53, 24–38, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.08.007. ↩
• Huxman, T.E. et al. 2004: Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Nature, 429, 651–654, doi:10.1038/nature02561. ↩
• Knapp, A.K. and M.D. Smith, 2001: Variation among biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground primary production. Science, 291, 481–484, doi:10.1126/science.291.5503.481. ↩
• Ruppert, J.C. et al. 2012: Meta-analysis of ANPP and rain-use efficiency confirms indicative value for degradation and supports non-linear response along precipitation gradients in drylands. J. Veg. Sci., 23, 1035–1050, doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01420.x. ↩
• Jobbágy, E.G. and O.E. Sala, 2000: Controls of grass and shrub aboveground production in the Patagonian steppe. Ecol. Appl., 10, 541–549, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0541:COGASA]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Seaquist, J.W., T. Hickler, L. Eklundh, J. Ardö, and B.W. Heumann, 2009: Disentangling the effects of climate and people on Sahel vegetation dynamics. Biogeosciences, 6, 469–477, doi:10.5194/bg-6-469-2009. ↩
• van der Esch, S. et al. 2017: Exploring future changes in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change and biodiversity: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, 116 pp. ↩
• Testa, S., K. Soudani, L. Boschetti, and E. Borgogno Mondino, 2018: MODIS-derived EVI, NDVI and WDRVI time series to estimate phenological metrics in French deciduous forests. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 64, 132–144, doi:10.1016/j.jag.2017.08.006. ↩
• Le Houerou, H.N., 1984: Rain use efficiency: a unifying concept in arid-land ecology. J. Arid Environ., 7, 213–247. ↩
• Prince, S.D., E.B. De Colstoun, and L.L. Kravitz, 1998: Evidence from rain-use efficiencies does not indicate extensive Sahelian desertification. Glob. Chang. Biol., 4, 359–374, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00158.x. ↩
• Fensholt, R. et al. 2015: Assessing Drivers of Vegetation Changes in Drylands from Time Series of Earth Observation Data. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 183–202. ↩
• John, R. et al. 2016: Differentiating anthropogenic modification and precipitation-driven change on vegetation productivity on the Mongolian Plateau. Landsc. Ecol., 31, 547–566, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0261-x. ↩
• Ward, D., 2005: Do we understand the causes of bush encroachment in African savannas? African J. Range Forage Sci., 22, 101–105, doi:10.2989/10220110509485867. ↩
• Niedertscheider, M. et al. 2016: Mapping and analysing cropland use intensity from a NPP perspective. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 014008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014008. ↩
• Tian, F., M. Brandt, Y.Y. Liu, K. Rasmussen, and R. Fensholt, 2017: Mapping gains and losses in woody vegetation across global tropical drylands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1748–1760, doi:10.1111/gcb.13464. ↩
• Liu, Y.Y. et al. 2015: Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 470–474, doi:10.1038/nclimate2581. ↩
• Imai, N. et al. 2012: Effects of selective logging on tree species diversity and composition of Bornean tropical rain forests at different spatial scales. Plant Ecol., 213, 1413–1424, doi:10.1007/s11258-012-0100-y. ↩
• Fujiki, S. et al. 2016: Large-scale mapping of tree-community composition as a surrogate of forest degradation in Bornean tropical rain forests. Land, 5, 45, doi:10.3390/land5040045. ↩
• Higginbottom, T., E. Symeonakis, T.P. Higginbottom, and E. Symeonakis, 2014: Assessing land degradation and desertification using vegetation index data: current frameworks and future directions. Remote Sens., 6, 9552–9575, doi:10.3390/rs6109552. ↩
• Gao, Q. et al. 2017: Synergetic Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data for soil moisture mapping at 100 m resolution. Sensors, 17, 1966, doi:10.3390/s17091966. ↩
• Bousbih, S. et al. 2017: Potential of Sentinel-1 radar data for the assessment of soil and cereal cover parameters. Sensors, 17, 2617, doi:10.3390/s17112617. ↩
• Lei, Y. et al. 2018: Quantification of selective logging in tropical forest with spaceborne SAR interferometry. Remote Sens. Environ., 211, 167–183, doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2018.04.009. ↩
• Nampak, H., B. Pradhan, H. Mojaddadi Rizeei, and H.-J. Park, 2018: Assessment of land cover and land use change impact on soil loss in a tropical catchment by using multitemporal SPOT-5 satellite images and Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation model. L. Degrad. Dev., 29(10), 3440–3455, doi:10.1002/ldr.3112. ↩
• Benavidez, R., B. Jackson, D. Maxwell, and K. Norton, 2018: A review of the (Revised) Universal Soil Loss Equation (R/USLE): with a view to increasing its global applicability and improving soil loss estimates. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 6059–6086, doi:10.5194/hess-22-6059-2018. ↩
• Borrelli, P. et al. 2018: A step towards a holistic assessment of soil degradation in Europe: Coupling on-site erosion with sediment transfer and carbon fluxes. Environ. Res., 161, 291–298, doi:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2017.11.009. ↩
• Webb, N.P. et al. 2017a: Enhancing wind erosion monitoring and assessment for U.S. rangelands. Rangelands , 39 , 85–96, doi:10.1016/J. RALA.2017.04.001. ↩
• Webb, N.P. et al. 2016: The National Wind Erosion Research Network: Building a standardized long-term data resource for aeolian research, modeling and land management. Aeolian Res., 22, 23– 36 , doi:10.1016/J. AEOLIA.2016.05.005. ↩
• Allen, D.E., B.P. Singh, and R.C. Dalal, 2011: Soil Health Indicators Under Climate Change: A Review of Current Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 25–45. ↩
• Kosmas, C. et al. 2014: Evaluation and selection of indicators for land degradation and desertification monitoring: Methodological approach. Environ. Manage., 54, 951–970, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0109-6. ↩
• Wiesmair, M., A. Otte, and R. Waldhardt, 2017: Relationships between plant diversity, vegetation cover, and site conditions: Implications for grassland conservation in the Greater Caucasus. Biodivers. Conserv., 26, 273–291, doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1240-5. ↩
• Alkemade, R. et al. 2009: GLOBIO3: A framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems, 12, 374–390, doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5. ↩
• Schoenholtz, S., H.V. Miegroet, and J. Burger, 2000: A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: Challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manage., 138, 335–356, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00423-0. ↩
• Certini, G., 2005: Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia, 143, 1–10, doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8. ↩
• Pulido, M., S. Schnabel, J.F.L. Contador, J. Lozano-Parra, and Á. Gómez-Gutiérrez, 2017: Selecting indicators for assessing soil quality and degradation in rangelands of Extremadura (SW Spain). Ecol. Indic., 74, 49–61, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.11.016. ↩
• Dumanski, J., and C. Pieri, 2000: Land quality indicators: Research plan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 81, 93–102, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00183-3. ↩
• Evans, S.E., and M.D. Wallenstein, 2014: Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol. Lett., 17, 155–164, doi:10.1111/ele.12206. ↩
• Wu, J. et al. 2015: Temperature sensitivity of soil bacterial community along contrasting warming gradient. Appl. Soil Ecol., 94, 40–48, doi:10.1016/J.APSOIL.2015.04.018. ↩
• Classen, A.T. et al. 2015: Direct and indirect effects of climate change on soil microbial and soil microbial-plant interactions: What lies ahead? Ecosphere, 6, art130, doi:10.1890/ES15-00217.1. ↩
• Flores-Rentería, D., A. Rincón, F. Valladares, and J. Curiel Yuste, 2016: Agricultural matrix affects differently the alpha and beta structural and functional diversity of soil microbial communities in a fragmented Mediterranean holm oak forest. Soil Biol. Biochem., 92, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.015. ↩
• Zhou, Z., C. Wang, and Y. Luo, 2018: Effects of forest degradation on microbial communities and soil carbon cycling: A global meta-analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 27, 110–124, doi:10.1111/geb.12663. ↩
• Ehrenfeld, J.G., B. Ravit, and K. Elgersma, 2005: Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 75–115, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212. ↩
• Ghazoul, J., Z. Burivalova, J. Garcia-Ulloa, and L.A. King, 2015: Conceptualizing forest degradation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 30, 622–632, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.001. ↩
• Bahamondez, C., and I.D. Thompson, 2016: Determining forest degradation, ecosystem state and resilience using a standard stand stocking measurement diagram: Theory into practice. Forestry, 89, 290–300, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpv052. ↩
• Zahawi, R.A., G. Duran, and U. Kormann, 2015: Sixty-seven years of land-use change in Southern Costa Rica. PLoS One, 10, e0143554, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143554. ↩
• Pardini, R., A. de A. Bueno, T.A. Gardner, P.I. Prado, and J.P. Metzger, 2010: Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: Regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS One, 5, e13666, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013666. ↩
• Turner, K.G. et al. 2016: A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol. Modell., 319, 190–207, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2015.07.017. ↩
• Bai, Z.G. et al. 2015: A longer, closer, look at land degradation. Agric. Dev., 24, 3–9. ↩
• Middleton, N.J. and D.S. Thomas, 1997: World Atlas of Desertification. Arnold, London, 181 pp. ↩
• Le, Q.B., E. Nkonya and A. Mirzabaev, 2016: Biomass Productivity-Based Mapping of Global Land Degradation Hotspots. In: Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development [E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, and J. Von Braun, (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 55–84. ↩
• Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2016: Does land degradation increase poverty in developing countries? PLoS One, 11, e0152973, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152973. ↩
• Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2018: Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain., 1, 623–631, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4. ↩
• Schut, A.G.T., E. Ivits, J.G. Conijn, B. ten Brink, and R. Fensholt, 2015: Trends in global vegetation activity and climatic drivers indicate a decoupled response to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0138013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138013. ↩
• Cherlet, M. et al. 2018: World Atlas of Desertification. 3rd edition. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxemburg, 248 pp. ↩
• Chen, J. et al. 2018a: Prospects for the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) on the Mongolian plateau: Five critical issues. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 123004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf27b. ↩
• Borrelli, P. et al. 2017: An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun., 8, 2013, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7. ↩
• Baveye, P.C., 2017: Quantification of ecosystem services: Beyond all the “guesstimates”, how do we get real data? Ecosyst. Serv., 24, 47–49, doi:10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.02.006. ↩
• Evans, R., and J. Boardman, 2016a: A reply to panagos et al. 2016. (Environ. Sci. Policy 59, 2016, 53–57). Environ. Sci. Policy, 60, 63–68, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.03.004. ↩
• Evans, R., and J. Boardman, 2016b: The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Panagos P. et al. 2015 Environmental Science & Policy 54, 438–447—A response. Environ. Sci. Policy, 58, 11–15, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.013. ↩
• Labrière, N., B. Locatelli, Y. Laumonier, V. Freycon, and M. Bernoux, 2015: Soil erosion in the humid tropics: A systematic quantitative review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 203, 127–139, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.01.027. ↩
• Poeplau, C., and A. Don, 2015: Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 200, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2014.10.024. ↩
• Wei, X., M. Shao, W. Gale, and L. Li, 2015: Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Sci. Rep., 4, 4062, doi:10.1038/srep04062. ↩
• Li, Y. et al. 2015: Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun., 6, doi:10.1038/ncomms7603. ↩
• Murty, D., M.U.F. Kirschbaum, R.E. Mcmurtrie, and H. Mcgilvray, 2002: Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Glob. Chang. Biol., 8, 105–123, doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00459.x. ↩
• Guo, L.B., and R.M. Gifford, 2002: Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 8, 345–360, doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x. ↩
• Palm, C., H. Blanco-Canqui, F. DeClerck, L. Gatere, and P. Grace, 2014: Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 187, 87–105, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2013.10.010. ↩
• Čuček, L., J.J. Klemeš, and Z. Kravanja, 2012: A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod., 34, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.02.036. ↩
• Venter, O. et al. 2016: Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun., 7, 12558, doi:10.1038/ncomms12558. ↩
• Curtis, P.G., C.M. Slay, N.L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M.C. Hansen, 2018: Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361, 1108–1111, doi:10.1126/science.aau3445. ↩
• Potapov, P. et al. 2008: Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecol. Soc., 13, art51, doi:10.5751/ES-02670-130251. ↩
• Bernier, P.Y. et al. 2017: Moving beyond the concept of “primary forest” as a metric of forest environment quality. Ecol. Appl., 27, 349–354, doi:10.1002/eap.1477. ↩
• van Wagner, C.E., 1978: Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle. Can. J. For. Res., 8, 220–227, doi:10.1139/x78-034. ↩
• Lorimer, C.G. and A.S. White, 2003: Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: Implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. For. Ecol. Manage., 185, 41–64, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00245-7. ↩
• Sasaki, N., and F.E. Putz, 2009: Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conserv. Lett., 2, 226–232, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.x. ↩
• Hosonuma, N. et al. 2012: An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 044009, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009. ↩
• Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9. ↩
• Li, W. et al. 2018b: Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015). Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, doi:10.5194/essd-10-219-2018. ↩
• Hansen, M.C. et al. 2013: High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342, 850–853. ↩
• Chen, C. et al. 2019: China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain., 2, 122–129, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7. ↩
• Lesk, C., E. Coffel, A.W. D’Amato, K. Dodds, and R. Horton, 2017: Threats to North American forests from southern pine beetle with warming winters. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 713–717, doi:10.1038/nclimate3375. ↩
• Seidl, R. et al. 2017: Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 395–402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303. ↩
• Keenan, R.J. et al. 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014. ↩
• Sloan, S. and J.A. Sayer, 2015: Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 134–145, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.013. ↩
• FAO, 2016: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 : How Are The World’s Forests Changing? K. MacDicken, Ö. Jonsson, L. Pina, and S. Maulo, Eds. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 44 pp. ↩
• D’Annunzio, R., E.J. Lindquist, and K.G. MacDicken, 2017: Global Forest Land­Use Change from 1990 to 2010: An Update to a Global Remote Sensing Survey Of Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy., 6 pp. ↩
• Lindquist, E.J. and R. D’Annunzio, 2016: Assessing global forest land-use change by object-based image analysis. Remote Sens., 8, doi:10.3390/rs8080678. ↩
• Houghton, R.A. and A.A. Nassikas, 2018: Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 350–359, doi:10.1111/gcb.13876. ↩
• Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2. ↩
• Baccini, A. et al. 2017: Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358, 230–234, doi:10.1126/science.aam5962. ↩
• Chazdon, R.L. et al. 2016a: Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv., 2, e1501639–e1501639, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501639. ↩
• Sanquetta, C.R. et al. 2018: Dynamics of carbon and CO2 removals by Brazilian forest plantations during 1990–2016. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0106-4. ↩
• Griscom, B.W. et al. 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114. ↩
• Kurz, W.A., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: Principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67. ↩
• Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039. ↩
• Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584. ↩
• Werner, F., R. Taverna, P. Hofer, E. Thürig, and E. Kaufmann, 2010: National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: A model-based assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 72–85, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004. ↩
• Smyth, C.E. et al., 2014: Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences, 11, 3515–3529, doi:10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014. ↩
• Xu, Z., C.E. Smyth, T.C. Lemprière, G.J. Rampley, and W.A. Kurz, 2018: Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: Biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 23, 257–290, doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7. ↩
• Chen, J., M.T. Ter-Mikaelian, P.Q. Ng, and S.J. Colombo, 2018b: Ontario’s managed forests and harvested wood products contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation from 2020 to 2100. For. Chron., 43, 269–282, doi:10.5558/tfc2018-040. ↩
• Earles, J.M., S. Yeh, and K.E. Skog, 2012: Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 682–685, doi:10.1038/nclimate1535. ↩
• Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28. ↩
• Iordan, C.M., X. Hu, A. Arvesen, P. Kauppi, and F. Cherubini, 2018: Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: Historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0101-9. ↩
• Yamanoi, K., Y. Mizoguchi, and H. Utsugi, 2015: Effects of a windthrow disturbance on the carbon balance of a broadleaf deciduous forest in Hokkaido, Japan. Biogeosciences, 12, 6837–6851, doi:10.5194/bg-12-6837-2015. ↩
• Kurz, W.A. et al. 2008: Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature, 452, 987–990, doi:10.1038/nature06777. ↩
• Houghton, R.A. et al. 2012: Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–5142, doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012. ↩
• Erb, K.-H.H. et al. 2018: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature, 553, 73–76, doi:10.1038/nature25138. ↩
• McGrath, M.J. et al. 2015: Reconstructing European forest management 
from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 12, 4291–4316, doi:10.5194/bg-12-4291-2015. ↩
• Gingrich, S. et al. 2015: Exploring long-term trends in land use change and aboveground human appropriation of net primary production in nine European countries. Land use policy, 47, 426–438, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.04.027. ↩
• Campioli, M. et al. 2015: Biomass production efficiency controlled by management in temperate and boreal ecosystems. Nat. Geosci., 8, 843–846, doi:10.1038/ngeo2553. ↩
• Noormets, A. et al. 2015: Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis. For. Ecol. Manage., 355, 124–140, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.019. ↩
• Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and A. Lucier, 2006: Forest carbon management in the United States. J. Environ. Qual., 35, 1461, doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0162. ↩
• Meyfroidt, P. and E.F. Lambin, 2011: Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation. Ann. Rev. Env. Res., 36, 343–371 pp. ↩
• Hüve, K., I. Bichele, B. Rasulov, and Ü. Niinemets, 2011: When it is too hot for photosynthesis: Heat-induced instability of photosynthesis in relation to respiratory burst, cell permeability changes and H2O2 formation. Plant. Cell Environ., 34, 113–126, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02229.x. ↩
• Crozier, M.J., 2010: Deciphering the effect of climate change on landslide activity: A review. Geomorphology, 124, 260–267, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2010.04.009. ↩
• Huggel, C., J.J. Clague, and O. Korup, 2012: Is climate change responsible for changing landslide activity in high mountains? Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 37, 77–91, doi:10.1002/esp.2223. ↩
• Gariano, S.L., and F. Guzzetti, 2016: Landslides in a changing climate. Earth-Science Rev., 162, 227–252, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.08.011. ↩
• Froude, M.J., and D.N. Petley, 2018: Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2161–2181, doi:10.5194/nhess-18-2161-2018. ↩
• Walsh, K.J.E. et al. 2016b: Tropical cyclones and climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 65–89, doi:10.1002/wcc.371. ↩
• Yang, J. et al. 2019: Deformation of the aquifer system under groundwater level fluctuations and its implication for land subsidence control in the Tianjin coastal region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 191, 162, doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7296-4. ↩
• Shirzaei, M. and R. Bürgmann, 2018: Global climate change and local land subsidence exacerbate inundation risk to the San Francisco Bay Area. Sci. Adv., 4, eaap9234, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aap9234. ↩
• Wang, J., S. Yi, M. Li, L. Wang, and C. Song, 2018: Effects of sea level rise, land subsidence, bathymetric change and typhoon tracks on storm flooding in the coastal areas of Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ., 621, 228–234, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.11.224. ↩
• Fuangswasdi, A., S. Worakijthamrong, and S.D. Shah, 2019: Addressing Subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand and Houston, Texas: Scientific Comparisons and Data-Driven Groundwater Policies for Coastal Land-Surface Subsidence. IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018 – Volume 5, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 51–60. ↩
• Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346 ↩
• Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004. ↩
• Westra, S. et al. 2014: Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys., 52, 522–555, doi:10.1002/2014RG000464. ↩
• Prein, A.F. et al. 2017: Increased rainfall volume from future convective storms in the US. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 880–884, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0007-7. ↩
• Segura, C., G. Sun, S. McNulty, and Y. Zhang, 2014: Potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the conterminous United States. J. Soil Water Conserv., 69, 171–181, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.171. ↩
• Gupta, S., and S. Kumar, 2017: Simulating climate change impact on soil erosion using RUSLE model − A case study in a watershed of mid-Himalayan landscape. J. Earth Syst. Sci., 126 , 43, doi:10.1007/s12040-017-0823-1. ↩
• Plangoen, P. and M.S. Babel, 2014: Projected rainfall erosivity changes under future climate in the Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change, 5. ↩
• Amanambu, A.C. et al. 2019: Spatio-temporal variation in rainfall-runoff erosivity due to climate change in the Lower Niger Basin, West Africa. CATENA, 172, 324–334, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2018.09.003. ↩
• Serpa, D. et al. 2015: Impacts of climate and land use changes on the hydrological and erosion processes of two contrasting Mediterranean catchments. Sci. Total Environ., 538, 64–77, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.08.033. ↩
• Neupane, R.P., and S. Kumar, 2015: Estimating the effects of potential climate and land use changes on hydrologic processes of a large agriculture dominated watershed. J. Hydrol., 529, 418–429, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2015.07.050. ↩
• Ward, C., L. Stringer, and G. Holmes, 2018: Changing governance, changing inequalities: Protected area co-management and access to forest ecosystem services – a Madagascar case study. Ecosyst. Serv., 30, 137–148, doi:10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.01.014. ↩
• Boit, A. et al. 2016: Large-scale impact of climate change vs. land-use change on future biome shifts in Latin America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 3689–3701, doi:10.1111/gcb.13355. ↩
• Juday, G.P., C. Alix, and T.A. Grant, 2015: Spatial coherence and change of opposite white spruce temperature sensitivities on floodplains in Alaska confirms early-stage boreal biome shift. For. Ecol. Manage., 350, 46–61, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.04.016. ↩
• Harsch, M.A., P.E. Hulme, M.S. McGlone, and R.P. Duncan, 2009: Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol. Lett., 12, 1040–1049, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01355.x. ↩
• Gamache, I., and S. Payette, 2005: Latitudinal response of subarctic tree lines to recent climate change in eastern Canada. J. Biogeogr., 32, 849–862. ↩
• Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092. ↩
• Ellison, D. et al. 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.01.002. ↩
• Keys, P.W., L. Wang-Erlandsson, L.J. Gordon, V. Galaz, and J. Ebbesson, 2017: Approaching moisture recycling governance. Glob. Environ. Chang., 45, 15–23, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.04.007. ↩
• Eisenbies, M.H., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams, 2007: Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians – A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 242, 77–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.051. ↩
• Sheil, D. and D. Murdiyarso, 2009: How forests attract rain: An examination of a new hypothesis. Bioscience, 59, 341–347, doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.12. ↩
• Pokam, W.M. et al. 2014: Identification of processes driving low-level westerlies in West Equatorial Africa. J. Clim., 27, 4245–4262, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00490.1. ↩
• Keenan, T.F. et al. 2013: Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature, 499, 324–327, doi:10.1038/nature12291. ↩
• Schlesinger, W.H. and S. Jasechko, 2014: Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agric. For. Meteorol., 189–190, 115–117, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2014.01.011. ↩
• Frank, D.C. et al. 2015: Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 579–583, doi:10.1038/nclimate2614. ↩
• Trahan, M.W. and B.A. Schubert, 2016: Temperature-induced water stress in high-latitude forests in response to natural and anthropogenic warming. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 782–791, doi:10.1111/gcb.13121. ↩
• Anderegg, W.R.L., J.A. Berry, and C.B. Field, 2012: Linking definitions, mechanisms, and modeling of drought-induced tree death. Trends Plant Sci., 17, 693–700, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2012.09.006. ↩
• Zhang, M. et al. 2017: A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: Importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. J. Hydrol., 546, 44–59, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2016.12.040. ↩
• Luo, P. et al. 2018: Impact of forest maintenance on water shortages: Hydrologic modeling and effects of climate change. Sci. Total Environ., 615, 1355–1363, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.09.044. ↩
• Trumbore, S., P. Brando, and H. Hartmann, 2015: Forest health and global change. Science, 349, 814–818, doi:10.1126/science.aac6759. ↩
• Price, D.T. et al. 2013: Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’ s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 21, 322–365, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0042. ↩
• Midgley, G.F. and W.J. Bond, 2015: Future of African terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems under anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 823–829, doi:10.1038/nclimate2753. ↩
• Holmberg, M. et al. 2019: Ecosystem services related to carbon cycling – modeling present and future impacts in boreal forests. Front. Plant Sci., 10. ↩
• Giguère-Croteau, C. et al. 2019: North America’s oldest boreal trees are more efficient water users due to increased CO2, but do not grow faster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116, 2749–2754, doi:10.1073/pnas.1816686116. ↩
• Norby, R.J., J.M. Warren, C.M. Iversen, B.E. Medlyn, and R.E. McMurtrie, 2010: CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 19368–19373, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006463107. ↩
• Xie, J. et al. 2016: Ten-year variability in ecosystem water use efficiency in an oak-dominated temperate forest under a warming climate. Agric. For. Meteorol., 218–219, 209–217, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2015.12.059. ↩
• Beck, P.S.A. et al. 2011: Changes in forest productivity across Alaska consistent with biome shift. Ecol. Lett., 14, 373–379, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01598.x. ↩
• Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2016: Relationships between individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1691–1710, doi:10.1111/gcb.13428. ↩
• Lewis, S.L., Y. Malhi, and O.L. Phillips, 2004: Fingerprinting the impacts of global change on tropical forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 359, 437–462, doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1432. ↩
• Bonan, G.B. et al. 2008: Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320, 1444–1449, doi:10.1126/science.1155121. ↩
• Miles, L. et al. 2015: Mitigation Potential from Forest-Related Activities and Incentives for Enhanced Action in Developing Countries. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 44–50 pp. ↩
• Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092. ↩
• Sturrock, R.N. et al. 2011: Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol., 60, 133–149, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x. ↩
• Bentz, B.J. et al. 2010: Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. Bioscience, 60, 602–613, doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6. ↩
• McDowell, N.G. et al. 2011: The interdependence of mechanisms underlying climate-driven vegetation mortality. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 523–532, doi:10.1016/J.TREE.2011.06.003. ↩
• Lindner, M. et al. 2010: Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 698–709, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.023. ↩
• Mokria, M., A. Gebrekirstos, E. Aynekulu, and A. Bräuning, 2015: Tree dieback affects climate change mitigation potential of a dry afromontane forest in northern Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manage., 344, 73–83, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.008. ↩
• Shanahan, T.M. et al. 2016: CO2 and fire influence tropical ecosystem stability in response to climate change. Sci. Rep., 6, 29587, doi:10.1038/srep29587. ↩
• Ovalle-Rivera, O., P. Läderach, C. Bunn, M. Obersteiner, and G. Schroth, 2015: Projected shifts in coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0124155, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155. ↩
• Bunn, C., P. Läderach, O. Ovalle Rivera, and D. Kirschke, 2015: A bitter cup: Climate change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Clim. Change, 129, 89–101, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1306-x. ↩
• Laderach, P. et al. 2011: Predicted Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Supply Chains. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 703–723. ↩
• Polley, H.W. et al. 2013: Climate change and North American rangelands: Trends, projections, and implications. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 66, 493–511, doi:10.2111/REM-D-12-00068.1. ↩
• Neumann, B., A.T. Vafeidis, J. Zimmermann, and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding – A global assessment. PLoS One, 10, e0118571, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118571. ↩
• Nicholls, R.J. et al. 2018: Stabilization of global temperature at 1.5°C and 2.0°C: Implications for coastal areas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Eng. Sci., 376, 20160448, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0448. ↩
• Nicholls, R.J. et al. 2011: Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4°C world” in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 369, 161–181, doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0291. ↩
• Cazenave, A., and G. Le Cozannet, 2014: Sea level rise and its coastal impacts. Earth’s Futur., 2, 15–34, doi:10.1002/2013EF000188. ↩
• DeConto, R.M., and D. Pollard, 2016: Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature, 531, 591–597, doi:10.1038/nature17145. ↩
• Mengel, M. et al. 2016: Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 2597–2602, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1500515113. ↩
• Rahmstorf, S., 2010: A new view on sea level rise. Nat. Reports Clim. Chang., 44–45, doi:10.1038/climate.2010.29. ↩
• Hauer, M.E., J.M. Evans, and D.R. Mishra, 2016: Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 691–695, doi:10.1038/nclimate2961. ↩
• Day, J.J., and K.I. Hodges, 2018: Growing land-sea temperature contrast and the intensification of arctic cyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3673–3681, doi:10.1029/2018GL077587. ↩
• Thomson, J. and W.E. Rogers, 2014: Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 3136–3140, doi:10.1002/2014GL059983. ↩
• McInnes, K.L., T.A. Erwin, and J.M. Bathols, 2011: Global Climate Model projected changes in 10m wind speed and direction due to anthropogenic climate change. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 325–333, doi:10.1002/asl.341. ↩
• Mori, N., T. Yasuda, H. Mase, T. Tom, and Y. Oku, 2010: Projection of extreme wave climate change under global warming. Hydrol. Res. Lett., 4, 15–19, doi:10.3178/hrl.4.15. ↩
• Savard, J.-P., P. Bernatchez, F. Morneau, and F. Saucier, 2009: Vulnérabilité des communautés côtières de l’est du Québec aux impacts des changements climatiques. La Houille Blanche, 59–66, doi:10.1051/lhb/2009015. ↩
• Tamarin-Brodsky, T., and Y. Kaspi, 2017: Enhanced poleward propagation of storms under climate change. Nat. Geosci., 10, 908–913, doi:10.1038/s41561-017-0001-8. ↩
• Lin, N., and K. Emanuel, 2016a: Grey swan tropical cyclones. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 106–111, doi:10.1038/nclimate2777. ↩
• Ruggiero, P., 2013: Is the intensifying wave climate of the u.s. pacific northwest increasing flooding and erosion risk faster than sea-level rise? J. Waterw. Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 139, 88–97, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000172. ↩
• Spencer, T. et al. 2016: Global coastal wetland change under sea-level rise and related stresses: The DIVA Wetland Change Model. Glob. Planet. Change, 139, 15–30, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2015.12.018. ↩
• Higgins, S., I. Overeem, A. Tanaka, and J.P.M. Syvitski, 2013: Land subsidence at aquaculture facilities in the Yellow River delta, China. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3898–3902, doi:10.1002/grl.50758. ↩
• Tessler, Z.D., C.J. Vörösmarty, M. Grossberg, I. Gladkova, and H. Aizenman, 2016: A global empirical typology of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change in deltas. Sustain. Sci., 11, 525–537, doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0357-5. ↩
• Minderhoud, P.S.J. et al. 2017: Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 064006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7146. ↩
• Tessler, Z.D. et al. 2015: Environmental science. Profiling risk and sustainability in coastal deltas of the world. Science, 349, 638–643, doi:10.1126/science.aab3574. ↩
• Brown, S., and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Subsidence and human influences in mega deltas: The case of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna. Sci. Total Environ., 527–528, 362–374, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.04.124. ↩
• Szabo, S. et al. 2016: Population dynamics, delta vulnerability and environmental change: Comparison of the Mekong, Ganges–Brahmaputra and Amazon delta regions. Sustain. Sci., 11, 539–554, doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0372-6. ↩
• Elliott, M., N.D. Cutts, and A. Trono, 2014: A typology of marine and estuarine hazards and risks as vectors of change: A review for vulnerable coasts and their management. Ocean Coast. Manag., 93, 88–99, doi:10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2014.03.014. ↩
• Lambin, E.F. and P. Meyfroidt, 2011: Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 3465–3472, doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108. ↩
• Smith, P. et al. 2016a: Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1008–1028, doi:10.1111/gcb.13068. ↩
• Lambin, E.F., H.J. Geist, and E. Lepers, 2003: Dynamics of land – use and land – cover change in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 28, 205–241, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459. ↩
• Drescher, J. et al. 2016: Ecological and socio-economic functions across tropical land use systems after rainforest conversion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 371, 20150275, doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0275. ↩
• Van der Laan, C., B. Wicke, P.A. Verweij, and A.P.C. Faaij, 2017: Mitigation of unwanted direct and indirect land-use change – an integrated approach illustrated for palm oil, pulpwood, rubber and rice production in North and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 429–444, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12353. ↩
• Wicke, B., P. Verweij, H. van Meijl, D.P. van Vuuren, and A.P. Faaij, 2012: Indirect land use change: Review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels, 3, 87–100, doi:10.4155/bfs.11.154. ↩
• Pielke, R.A. et al. 2007: An overview of regional land-use and land-cover impacts on rainfall. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol., 59, 587–601, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00251.x. ↩
• Porter, J. et al. 2014: In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, pp. 485–533. ↩
• Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort, 2011: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 20260–20264, doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108. ↩
• Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 2016: Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 827–835, doi:10.1038/nclimate3096. ↩
• Smith, H.E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M.D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, 2015: Criminals by necessity: The risky life of charcoal transporters in Malawi. For. Trees Livelihoods, 24, 259–274, doi:10.1080/14728028.2015.1062808. ↩
• Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178. ↩
• Smith, P. et al. 2016b: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/nclimate2870. ↩
• Mander, S., K. Anderson, A. Larkin, C. Gough, and N. Vaughan, 2017: The role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage in meeting the climate mitigation challenge: A whole system perspective. Energy Procedia, 114, 6036–6043, doi:10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.1739. ↩
• IPCC, 2018b: Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press. ↩
• Grubler, A. et al. 2018: A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy, 3, 515–527, doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6. ↩
• Woods, J. et al. 2015: Land and Bioenergy. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps – Scope Bioenergy, [G.M. Souza, R.L. Victoria, C.A. Joly, and L.M. Verdade, (eds.)]. SCOPE, Paris, 258–300. ↩
• Baka, J., 2013: The political construction of wasteland: Governmentality, land acquisition and social inequality in South India. Dev. Change, 44, 409–428, doi:10.1111/dech.12018. ↩
• Baka, J., 2014: What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India. Geoforum, 54, 315–323, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2013.08.007. ↩
• Haberl, H. et al. 2013: Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050? Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 031004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004. ↩
• Young, A., 1999: Is there really spare land? A critique of estimates of available cultivable land in developing countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1, 3–18, doi:10.1023/A:1010055012699. ↩
• Fuss, S. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2 : Costs, potentials and side effects, Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 6 (2018): 063002, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f. ↩
• Nemet, G.F. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4. ↩
• Minx, J.C. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b. ↩
• Bauer, N. et al. 2018: Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: Overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Clim. Change, 1–16, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y. ↩
• Krause, A. et al. 2018: Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 3025–3038, doi:10.1111/gcb.14144. ↩
• Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y. ↩
• de Jong, J., C. Akselsson, G. Egnell, S. Löfgren, and B.A. Olsson, 2017: Realizing the energy potential of forest biomass in Sweden – How much is environmentally sustainable? For. Ecol. Manage., 383, 3–16, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2016.06.028. ↩
• Caldwell, P.V. et al. 2018: Woody bioenergy crop selection can have large effects on water yield: A southeastern United States case study. Biomass and Bioenergy, 117, 180–189, doi:10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2018.07.021. ↩
• Brinkman, E.P., R. Postma, W.H. van der Putten, and A.J. Termorshuizen, 2017: Influence of Growing Eucalyptus Trees for Biomass on Soil Quality. 1–39. ↩
• Chazdon, R.L., and M. Uriarte, 2016: Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Biotropica, 48, 709–715, doi:10.1111/btp.12409. ↩
• Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp. ↩
• Harper, A.B. et al. 2018: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun., 9, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z. ↩
• Amichev, B.Y., W.A. Kurz, C. Smyth, and K.C.J. Van Rees, 2012: The carbon implications of large-scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short-rotation willow in Saskatchewan. GCB Bioenergy, 4, doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01110.x. ↩
• Bárcena, T.G. et al. 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576. ↩
• Li, D., S. Niu, and Y. Luo, 2012: Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: A meta-analysis. New Phytol., 195, 172–181, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x. ↩
• Shi, S., W. Zhang, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, and F. Ding, 2013: A synthesis of change in deep soil organic carbon stores with afforestation of agricultural soils. For. Ecol. Manage., 296, 53–63, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.026. ↩
• Cacho, J.F., M.C. Negri, C.R. Zumpf, and P. Campbell, 2018: Introducing perennial biomass crops into agricultural landscapes to address water quality challenges and provide other environmental services. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 7, e275, doi:10.1002/wene.275. ↩
• Odgaard, M.V., M.T. Knudsen, J.E. Hermansen, and T. Dalgaard, 2019: Targeted grassland production – A Danish case study on multiple benefits from converting cereal to grasslands for green biorefinery. J. Clean. Prod., 223, 917–927, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.03.072. ↩
• Robinson, N., R.J. Harper, and K.R.J. Smettem, 2006: Soil water depletion by Eucalyptus spp. integrated into dryland agricultural systems. Plant Soil, 286, 141–151, doi:10.1007/s11104-006-9032-4. ↩
• Crews, T., W. Carton, and L. Olsson, 2018: Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sustain., 1, e11, doi: 10.1017/sus.2018.11. ↩
• de Oliveira, G., N.A. Brunsell, C.E. Sutherlin, T.E. Crews, and L.R. DeHaan, 2018: Energy, water and carbon exchange over a perennial Kernza wheatgrass crop. Agric. For. Meteorol., 249, 120–137, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.11.022. ↩
• Ryan, M.R. et al. 2018: Managing for multifunctionality in perennial grain crops. Bioscience, 68, 294–304, doi:10.1093/biosci/biy014. ↩
• Bala, G. et al. 2007: Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 6550–6555, doi:10.1073/pnas.0608998104. ↩
• Betts, R.A., 2000: Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature, 408, 187–190, doi:10.1038/35041545. ↩
• Betts, R.A. et al. 2007: Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide. Nature, 448, 1037–1041, doi:10.1038/nature06045. ↩
• Astrup, R., P.Y. Bernier, H. Genet, D.A. Lutz, and R.M. Bright, 2018: A sensible climate solution for the boreal forest. Nat. Clim. Chang., doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0043-3. ↩
• Cai, T., D.T. Price, A.L. Orchansky, and B.R. Thomas, 2011a: Carbon, water, and energy exchanges of a hybrid poplar plantation during the first five years following planting. Ecosystems, 14, 658–671, doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9436-8. ↩
• Taylor, L.L., D.J. Beerling, S. Quegan, and S.A. Banwart, 2017: Simulating carbon capture by enhanced weathering with croplands: An overview of key processes highlighting areas of future model development. Biol. Lett., 13, 20160868, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0868. ↩
• Haque, F., R.M. Santos, A. Dutta, M. Thimmanagari, and Y.W. Chiang, 2019: Co-benefits of wollastonite weathering in agriculture: CO2 sequestration and promoted plant growth. ACS Omega, 4, 1425–1433, doi:10.1021/acsomega.8b02477. ↩
• Beerling, D.J., 2017: Enhanced rock weathering: Biological climate change mitigation with co-benefits for food security? Biol. Lett., 13, 20170149, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0149. ↩
• Strefler, J., T. Amann, N. Bauer, E. Kriegler, and J. Hartmann, 2018: Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 034010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c4. ↩
• Schlesinger, W.H. and R. Amundson, 2018: Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol., 25, gcb.14478, doi:10.1111/gcb.14478. ↩
• Dooley, K., and S. Kartha, 2018: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 18, 79–98, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9. ↩
• Verdone, M. and A. Seidl, 2017: Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol., 25, 903–911, doi:10.1111/rec.12512. ↩
• Chazdon, R.L. et al. 2017: A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett., 10, 125–132, doi:10.1111/conl.12220. ↩
• IEA, 2017: World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris. 763 pp. ↩
• REN21, 2018: Renewables 2018: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy for the 21st Century Policy Network, Paris, France, 325 pp. ↩
• Machisa, M., J. Wichmann, and P.S. Nyasulu, 2013: Biomass fuel use for household cooking in Swaziland: Is there an association with anaemia and stunting in children aged 6–36 months? Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg., 107, 535–544, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trt055. ↩
• Sinha, D. and M.R. Ray, 2015: Health Effects of Indoor Air Pollution Due to Cooking with Biomass Fuel. Humana Press, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 267–302. ↩
• Price, R., 2017: “Clean” Cooking Energy in Uganda – Technologies, Impacts, and Key Barriers and Enablers to Market Acceleration. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. ↩
• Mendum, R. and M. Njenga, 2018: Recovering bioenergy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Gender Dimensions, Lessons and Challenges. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 1–83. ↩
• Adefuye, B.O. et al. 2007: Practice and perception of biomass fuel use and its health effects among residents in a sub urban area of southern Nigeria: A qualitative study. Niger. Hosp. Pract., 22, 48–54. ↩
• Brunner, K.-M., S. Mandl, and H. Thomson, 2018: Energy Poverty: Energy equity in a world of high demand and low supply. In: The Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society, [D.J. Davidson and M. Gross, (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, New York, United States, pp. 297–316. ↩
• Hou, B., H. Liao, and J. Huang, 2018: Household cooking fuel choice and economic poverty: Evidence from a nationwide survey in China. Energy Build., 166, 319–329, doi:10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.02.012. ↩
• Njenga, M. et al. 2019: Innovative biomass cooking approaches for sub-Saharan Africa. African J. Food, Agric. Nutr. Dev., 19, 14066–14087. ↩
• Bailis, R., R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera, 2015: The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 266–272, doi:10.1038/nclimate2491. ↩
• Masera, O.R., R. Bailis, R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and I. Ruiz-Mercado, 2015: Environmental burden of traditional bioenergy use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 40, 121–150, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021318. ↩
• Specht, M.J., S.R.R. Pinto, U.P. Albuquerque, M. Tabarelli, and F.P.L. Melo, 2015: Burning biodiversity: Fuelwood harvesting causes forest degradation in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 3, 200–209, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.002. ↩
• Fuso Nerini, F., C. Ray, and Y. Boulkaid, 2017: The cost of cooking a meal. The case of Nyeri County, Kenya. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 65007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6fd0. ↩
• Shindell, D. et al. 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science, 335, 183 LP-189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026. ↩
• Smeets, E., F.X. Johnson, and G. Ballard-Tremeer, 2012: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa, [R. Janssen and D. Rutz, (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 3–12. ↩
• Gasparatos, A. et al. 2018: Survey of local impacts of biofuel crop production and adoption of ethanol stoves in southern Africa. Sci. data, 5, 180186, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.186. ↩
• Mudombi, S. et al. 2018: Multi-dimensional poverty effects around operational biofuel projects in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. Biomass and Bioenergy, 114, 41–54, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.09.003 . ↩
• Amugune, I., P. Cerutti, H. Baral, S. Leonard, and C. Martius, 2017: Small flame but no fire: Wood fuel in the (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Amugune, I., Cerutti, P.O., Baral, H., Leonard, S., Martius, C., Working Paper 232, [Center for International Forestry Research] Bogor, Indonesia, 35 pp. ↩
• Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal, 2009: Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 28, 139–163, doi:10.1080/07352680902776507. ↩
• Mateos, E., J.M. Edeso, and L. Ormaetxea, 2017: Soil erosion and forests biomass as energy resource in the basin of the Oka River in Biscay, Northern Spain. Forests, 8, 258, doi:10.3390/f8070258. ↩
• Hoffmann, H.K., K. Sander, M. Brüntrup, and S. Sieber, 2017: Applying the water-energy-food nexus to the charcoal value chain. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 84. ↩
• McNicol, I.M., C.M. Ryan, and E.T.A. Mitchard, 2018: Carbon losses from deforestation and widespread degradation offset by extensive growth in African woodlands. Nat. Commun., 9, 3045, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05386-z. ↩
• Sulaiman, C., A.S. Abdul-Rahim, H.O. Mohd-Shahwahid, and L. Chin, 2017: Wood fuel consumption, institutional quality, and forest degradation in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from a dynamic panel framework. Ecol. Indic., 74, 414–419, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.045 . ↩
• Kiruki, H.M., E.H. van der Zanden, Ž. Malek, and P.H. Verburg, 2017: Land cover change and woodland degradation in a charcoal producing semi-arid area in Kenya. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 472–481, doi:10.1002/ldr.2545. ↩
• Ndegwa, G.M., U. Nehren, F. Grüninger, M. Iiyama, and D. Anhuf, 2016: Charcoal production through selective logging leads to degradation of dry woodlands: A case study from Mutomo District, Kenya. J. Arid Land, 8, 618–631, doi:10.1007/s40333-016-0124-6. ↩
• Bond, T.C. et al. 2013: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171. ↩
• Patange, O.S. et al. 2015: Reductions in indoor black carbon concentrations from improved biomass stoves in rural India. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 4749–4756, doi:10.1021/es506208x. ↩
• Sparrevik, M., C. Adam, V. Martinsen, Jubaedah, and G. Cornelissen, 2015: Emissions of gases and particles from charcoal/biochar production in rural areas using medium-sized traditional and improved “retort” kilns. Biomass and Bioenergy, 72, 65–73, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.016. ↩
• Zulu, L.C., 2010: The forbidden fuel: Charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply dynamics, community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy Policy, 38, 3717–3730, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.050 . ↩
• Zulu, L.C. and R.B. Richardson, 2013: Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev., 17, 127–137, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007 . ↩
• World Bank, 2009: Environmental Crisis or Sustainable Development Opportunity? Transforming the Charcoal Sector in Tanzania. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 72 pp. ↩
• Hojas-Gascon, L. et al. 2016: Urbanization and Forest Degradation In East Africa: A Case Study Around Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Beijing, pp. 7293–7295. ↩
• Santos, M.J., S.C. Dekker, V. Daioglou, M.C. Braakhekke, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2017: Modeling the effects of future growing demand for charcoal in the tropics. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 28. ↩
• Wang, Z. et al. 2017b: Human-induced erosion has offset one-third of carbon emissions from land cover change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 345–349, doi:10.1038/nclimate3263. ↩
• Chappell, A., J. Baldock, and J. Sanderman, 2016: The global significance of omitting soil erosion from soil organic carbon cycling schemes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 187–191, doi:10.1038/nclimate2829. ↩
• Quinton, J.N. et al. 2010: The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci., 3, 311–314, doi:10.1038/ngeo838. ↩
• van de Koppel, J., M. Rietkerk, and F.J. Weissing, 1997: Catastrophic vegetation shifts and soil degradation in terrestrial grazing systems. Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 352–356, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01133-6. ↩
• Pendleton, L. et al. 2012: Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One, 7, e43542, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043542. ↩
• VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.09.013. ↩
• Cheesman, S., C. Thierfelder, N.S. Eash, G.T. Kassie, and E. Frossard, 2016: Soil carbon stocks in conservation agriculture systems of Southern Africa. Soil Tillage Res., 156, 99–109, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2015.09.018. ↩
• Powlson, D.S. et al. 2014: Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 678–683, doi:10.1038/nclimate2292. ↩
• Bernoux, M., B. Volkoff, M. da C.S. Carvalho, and C.C. Cerri, 2003: CO2 emissions from liming of agricultural soils in Brazil. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2001GB001848. ↩
• Desalegn, T., Alemu, G., Adella, A., & Debele, T. (2017). Effect of lime and phosphorus fertilizer on acid soils and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Experimental Agriculture, 53(3), 432–444., doi:10.1017/S0014479716000491. ↩
• Conant, R.T., and K. Paustian, 2002: Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 90–1-90–99, doi:10.1029/2001GB001661. ↩
• Maestre, F.T. et al. 2009: Shrub encroachment can reverse desertification in semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands. Ecol. Lett., 12, 930–941, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01352.x. ↩
• VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J. AGEE.2015.09.013. ↩
• Kulakowski, D., T.T. Veblen, and P. Bebi, 2003: Effects of fire and spruce beetle outbreak legacies on the disturbance regime of a subalpine forest in Colorado. J. Biogeogr., 30, 1445–1456, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00912.x. ↩
• Chen, Z. et al. 2018d: Source partitioning of methane emissions and its seasonality in the U.S. Midwest. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 123, 646–659, doi:10.1002/2017JG004356. ↩
• Oertel, C., J. Matschullat, K. Zurba, F. Zimmermann, and S. Erasmi, 2016: Greenhouse gas emissions from soils – A review. Chemie der Erde – Geochemistry, 76, 327–352, doi:10.1016/J.CHEMER.2016.04.002. ↩
• Tian, H. et al. 2015: North American terrestrial CO2 uptake largely offset by CH4 and N2O emissions: toward a full accounting of the greenhouse gas budget. Clim. Change, 129, 413–426, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1072-9. ↩
• Schaefer, H. et al. 2016: A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH. Science, 352, 80–84, doi:10.1126/science.aad2705. ↩
• Wang, W. et al. 2017a: Relationships between the potential production of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O and soil concentrations of C, N and P across 26 paddy fields in southeastern China. Atmos. Environ., 164, 458–467, doi:10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2017.06.023. ↩
• Schlesinger, W.H., 2009: On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 203 LP-208. ↩
• Rabalais, N.N. et al. 2014: Eutrophication-driven deoxygenation in the Coastal Ocean. Oceanography, 27, 172–183, doi:10.2307/24862133. ↩
• Morse, J.L. and E.S. Bernhardt, 2013: Using15N tracers to estimate N2O and N2 emissions from nitrification and denitrification in coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land-uses. Soil Biol. Biochem., 55, 635–643, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.025. ↩
• Norton, J.B. et al. 2011: Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in upper montane riparian meadows. Ecosystems, 14, 1217–1231, doi:10.1007/s10021-
011-9477-z. ↩
• McNicol, G. and W.L. Silver, 2014: Separate effects of flooding and anaerobiosis on soil greenhouse gas emissions and redox sensitive biogeochemistry. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 119, 557–566, doi:10.1002/2013JG002433. ↩
• Altor, A.E. and W.J. Mitsch, 2006: Methane flux from created riparian marshes: Relationship to intermittent versus continuous inundation and emergent macrophytes. Ecol. Eng., 28, 224–234, doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.006. ↩
• Fenner, N. et al. 2011: Decomposition ‘hotspots’ in a rewetted peatland: Implications for water quality and carbon cycling. Hydrobiologia, 674, 51–66, doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0733-1. ↩
• Christensen, T.R. et al. 2004: Thawing sub-arctic permafrost: Effects on vegetation and methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L04501, doi:10.1029/2003GL018680. ↩
• Schuur, E.A.G. et al. 2015: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179, doi:10.1038/nature14338. ↩
• Walter Anthony, K. et al. 2016: Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nat. Geosci., 9, 679–682, doi:10.1038/ngeo2795. ↩
• Bright, R.M., K. Zhao, R.B. Jackson, and F. Cherubini, 2015: Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings of forestry activities. Glob. Chang. Biol., 21, 3246–3266, doi:10.1111/gcb.12951. ↩
• Davin, E.L., N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, E.L. Davin, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010: Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: Radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim., 23, 97–112, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3102.1. ↩
• Pinty, B. et al. 2011: Snowy backgrounds enhance the absorption of visible light in forest canopies. Geoph. Res. Lett. 38(6), 1–5 doi:10.1029/2010GL046417. ↩
• Planque, C., D. Carrer, and J.-L. Roujean, 2017: Analysis of MODIS albedo changes over steady woody covers in France during the period of 2001–2013. Remote Sens. Environ., 191, 13–29, doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2016.12.019. ↩
• Li, Q., M. Ma, X. Wu, and H. Yang, 2018a: Snow cover and vegetation-induced decrease in global albedo from 2002 to 2016. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, 124–138, doi:10.1002/2017JD027010. ↩
• Sturm, M., 2005: Changing snow and shrub conditions affect albedo with global implications. J. Geophys. Res., 110, G01004, doi:10.1029/2005JG000013. ↩
• Houspanossian, J., M. Nosetto, and E.G. Jobbágy, 2013: Radiation budget changes with dry forest clearing in temperate Argentina. Glob. Chang. Biol., 19, 1211–1222, doi:10.1111/gcb.12121. ↩
• Rotenberg, E. and D. Yakir, 2010: Contribution of semi-arid forests to the climate system. Science, 327, 451–454, doi:10.1126/science.1179998. ↩
• Dintwe, K., G.S. Okin, and Y. Xue, 2017: Fire-induced albedo change and surface radiative forcing in sub-Saharan Africa savanna ecosystems: Implications for the energy balance. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122, 6186–6201, doi:10.1002/2016JD026318. ↩
• Davin, E.L., S.I. Seneviratne, P. Ciais, A. Olioso, and T. Wang, 2014: Preferential cooling of hot extremes from cropland albedo management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 9757–9761, doi:10.1073/pnas.1317323111. ↩
• Ge, J., and C. Zou, 2013: Impacts of woody plant encroachment on regional climate in the southern Great Plains of the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 9093–9104, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50634. ↩
• Lawrence, D. and K. Vandecar, 2015: Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 27–36, doi:10.1038/nclimate2430. ↩
• Lau, K.M. and K.M. Kim, 2007: Cooling of the Atlantic by Saharan dust. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2007GL031538. ↩
• Huang, J., T. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Li, and H. Yan, 2014: Climate effects of dust aerosols over East Asian arid and semiarid regions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 11,398–11,416, doi:10.1002/2014JD021796. ↩
• Sokolik, I.N. and O.B. Toon, 1996: Direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic airborne mineral aerosols. Nature, 381, 681–683, doi:10.1038/381681a0. ↩
• Li, Y. et al. 2018c: Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation. Science, 361, 1019–1022, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.AAR5629. ↩
• Cho, M.-H. et al. 2018: Vegetation-cloud feedbacks to future vegetation changes in the Arctic regions. Clim. Dyn., 50, 3745–3755, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3840-5. ↩
• Perugini, L. et al. 2017: Biophysical effects on temperature and precipitation due to land cover change. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 053002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6b3f. ↩
• Zeng, Z. et al. 2017: Climate mitigation from vegetation biophysical feedbacks during the past three decades. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 432–436, doi:10.1038/nclimate3299. ↩
• Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 19680–19685, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701855104. ↩
• Reid, P. and C. Vogel, 2006: Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa – Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal. Glob. Environ. Chang., 16, 195–206, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2006.01.003. ↩
• Reed, M.S., and L. Stringer, 2016: Land Degradation, Desertification and Climate Change: Anticipating, Assessing and Adapting to Future Change. New York, NY: Routledge,178 pp. ↩
• Chambers, R., and G. Conway, 1992: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK,, 42 pp. ↩
• Olsson, L. et al. 2014b: Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 793–832. ↩
• Nachtergaele, F.O. et al. 2011: Global Land Degradation Information System (GLADIS) Version 1.0. An Information database for Land Degradation Assessment at Global Level. LADA Technical Report 17. Rome, Italy, pp. 1–110. ↩
• Gerber, N., E. Nkonya, and J. von Braun, 2014: Land Degradation, Poverty and Marginality. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 181–202. ↩
• Coomes, O.T., Y. Takasaki, and J.M. Rhemtulla, 2011: Land-use poverty traps identified in shifting cultivation systems shape long-term tropical forest cover. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 13925–13930, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1012973108. ↩
• O’Brien, K. et al. 2004: Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: Climate change and globalization in India. Glob. Environ. Chang., 14, 303–313, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2004.01.001. ↩
• Lee, H.-L., 2009: The impact of climate change on global food supply and demand, food prices, and land use. Paddy Water Environ., 7, 321–331, doi:10.1007/s10333-009-0181-y. ↩
• Hallegatte, S., M. Fay, and E.B. Barbier, 2018: Poverty and climate change: Introduction. Environ. Dev. Econ., 23, 217–233, doi:10.1017/S1355770X18000141. ↩
• Skoufias, E., M. Rabassa, and S. Olivieri, 2011: The Poverty Impacts Of Climate Change: A Review of the Evidence. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 38 pp.doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-5622. ↩
• Dell, M., B.F. Jones, and B.A. Olken, 2009: Temperature and income: Reconciling new cross-sectional and panel estimates. Am. Econ. Rev., 99, 198–204, doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.198. ↩
• Angelsen, A. et al. 2014: Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev., 64, S12–S28, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.03.006. ↩
• Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, J. Bojö, E. Sjaastad, and G. Kobugabe Berg, 2007: Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. For. Policy Econ., 9, 869–879, doi:10.1016/J.FORPOL.2006.05.008. ↩
• Reenberg, A., T. Birch-Thomsen, O. Mertz, B. Fog, and S. Christiansen, 2008: Adaptation of human coping strategies in a small island society in the SW Pacific—50 years of change in the coupled human-environment system on Bellona, Solomon Islands. Hum. Ecol., 36, 807–819, doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9199-9. ↩
• Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls, 2017: The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Change, 140, 33–45, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y. ↩
• Rosenzweig, C. and D. Hillel, 1998: Climate change and the global harvest: Potential impacts of the greenhouse effect on agriculture. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 324 pp. ↩
• Scherr, S.J., 2000: A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy, 25, 479–498, doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00022-1. ↩
• Fischer, G., M. Shah, H. van Velthuizen, and F. Nachtergaele, 2009: Agro-ecological Zones Assessment. Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences – Volume III: Land Use Planning, Eolss Publishers Co., Oxford, UK, pp. 61–81. ↩
• Webb, N.P. et al. 2017b: Land degradation and climate change: Building climate resilience in agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 450–459, doi:10.1002/fee.1530. ↩
• Karami, M., M. Afyuni, A.H. Khoshgoftarmanesh, A. Papritz, and R. Schulin, 2009: Grain zinc, iron, and copper concentrations of wheat grown in central Iran and their relationships with soil and climate variables. J. Agric. Food Chem., 57, 10876–10882, doi:10.1021/jf902074f. ↩
• Allen, H.M., J.K. Pumpa, and G.D. Batten, 2001: Effect of frost on the quality of samples of Janz wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 41, 641, doi:10.1071/EA00187. ↩
• Högy, P. and A. Fangmeier, 2008: Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on grain quality of wheat. J. Cereal Sci., 48, 580–591, doi:10.1016/J.JCS.2008.01.006. ↩
• UNCCD, 2017: The Global Land Outlook. 1st ed. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp. ↩
• St.Clair, S.B. and J.P. Lynch, 2010: The opening of Pandora’s Box: Climate change impacts on soil fertility and crop nutrition in developing countries. Plant Soil, 335, 101–115, doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0328-z. ↩
• Stringer, L.C. et al. 2011: Combating land degradation and desertification and enhancing food security: Towards integrated solutions. Ann. Arid Zone, 50, 1–23. ↩
• Islam, M.S., A.T. Wong, M.S. Islam, and A.T. Wong, 2017: Climate change and food in/security: A critical nexus. Environments, 4, 38, doi:10.3390/environments4020038. ↩
• Xiao, L. et al. 2017: The indirect roles of roads in soil erosion evolution in Jiangxi Province, China: A large scale perspective. Sustainability, 9, 129, doi:10.3390/su9010129. ↩
• White, J.W., G. Hoogenboom, B.A. Kimball, and G.W. Wall, 2011: Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. F. Crop. Res., 124, 357–368, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2011.07.001. ↩
• Rosenzweig, C. et al. 2014: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3268–3273, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110. ↩
• Sundström, J.F. et al. 2014: Future threats to agricultural food production posed by environmental degradation, climate change, and animal and plant diseases – a risk analysis in three economic and climate settings. Food Secur., 6, 201–215, doi:10.1007/s12571-014-0331-y. ↩
• Steward, P.R. et al. 2018: The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: A meta-regression of yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 251, 194–202, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.09.019. ↩
• Bharucha, Z., and J. Pretty, 2010: The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 365, 2913–2926, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0123. ↩
• Hickey, G.M., M. Pouliot, C. Smith-Hall, S. Wunder, and M.R. Nielsen, 2016: Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. Food Policy, 62, 122–132, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2016.06.001. ↩
• Tadesse, G., B. Algieri, M. Kalkuhl, and J. von Braun, 2014: Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility. Food Policy, 47, 117–128, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2013.08.014. ↩
• McLeman, R., 2017: Migration and Land Degradation: Recent Experience and Future Trends. Working paper for the Global Land Outlook, 1st edition. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 45 pp. ↩
• Hermans, K., and T. Ide, 2019: Advancing Research on Climate Change, Conflict and Migration. Die Erde, 150(1), 40–44, doi:10.12854/erde-2019-411. ↩
• Cramer, W. et al. 2014: Detection and attribution of observed impacts. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, 979–1037. ↩
• Piguet, E., R. Kaenzig, and J. Guélat, 2018: The uneven geography of research on “environmental migration.” Popul. Environ., 1–27, doi:10.1007/s11111-018-0296-4. ↩
• Morrissey, J.W., 2013: Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: The development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 23, 1501–1510, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.07.021. ↩
• Hecht, and S.B., 1983: Cattle Ranching in the eastern Amazon: Environmental and Social Implications. In: The Dilemma of Amazonian Development, [Moran, E.F. (ed.)]. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 155–188. ↩
• López-Carr, D., 2012: Agro-ecological drivers of rural out-migration to the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 045603, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045603. ↩
• Gray, C.L., 2011: Soil quality and human migration in Kenya and Uganda. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, 421–430, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.02.004. ↩
• Gray, C., and R. Bilsborrow, 2013: Environmental influences on human migration in rural Ecuador. Demography, 50, 1217–1241, doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0192-y. ↩
• Barbier, E.B., 2000: Valuing the environment as input: Review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol. Econ., 35, 47–61, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00167-1. ↩
• Homer-Dixon, T.F., J.H. Boutwell, and G.W. Rathjens, 1993: Environmental change and violent conflict. Sci. Am., 268, 38–45, doi:10.2307/24941373. ↩
• Percival, V. and T. Homer-Dixon, 1995: Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda. J. Env. Dev., 5(3), 270–291, doi: 10.1177/107049659600500302. ↩
• Byers, M., and N. Dragojlovic, 2004: Darfur: A climate change-induced humanitarian crisis? Hum. Secur. Bull., October 2004, 16–18. ↩
• Sachs, J.D., 2007: Poverty and environmental stress fuel Darfur crisis. Nature, 449, 24–24, doi:10.1038/449024a. ↩
• UNEP, 2007: Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 358 pp. ↩
• Scheffran, J., M. Brzoska, J. Kominek, P.M. Link, and J. Schilling, 2012: Disentangling the climate-conflict nexus: Empirical and theoretical assessment of vulnerabilities and pathways. Rev. Eur. Stud., 4, 1. ↩
• Benjaminsen, T.A., K. Alinon, H. Buhaug, and J.T. Buseth, 2012: Does climate change drive land-use conflicts in the Sahel? J. Peace Res., 49, 97–111, doi:10.1177/0022343311427343. ↩
• Raleigh, C. and H. Urdal, 2007: Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict. Polit. Geogr., 26, 674–694, doi:10.1016/J.POLGEO.2007.06.005. ↩
• Salehyan, I., 2008: From climate change to conflict? No consensus yet. J. Peace Res., 45, 315–326, doi:10.1177/0022343308088812. ↩
• Solomon, N. et al. 2018: Environmental impacts and causes of conflict in the Horn of Africa: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 177, 284–290, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.11.016. ↩
• Kreamer, D.K., 2012: The past, present, and future of water conflict and international security. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 149, 87–95, doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2012.03130.x. ↩
• Kassa, H., S. Dondeyne, J. Poesen, A. Frankl, and J. Nyssen, 2017: Transition from forest-based to cereal-based agricultural systems: A review of the drivers of land use change and degradation in Southwest Ethiopia. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 431–449, doi:10.1002/ldr.2575. ↩
• Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G.J. Fiske, 2017: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114, 9575–9580, doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114. ↩
• Crews, T.E., and S.R. Gliessman, 1991: Raised field agriculture in Tlaxcala, Mexico: An ecosystem perspective on maintenance of soil fertility. Am. J. Altern. Agric., 6, 9, doi:10.1017/S088918930000374X. ↩
• Ross, N.J., 2011: Modern tree species composition reflects ancient Maya “forest gardens” in northwest Belize. Ecol. Appl., 21, 75–84, doi:10.1890/09-0662.1. ↩
• Torquebiau, E., 1992: Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 41, 189–207, doi:10.1016/0167-8809(92)90109-O. ↩
• Turner, B.L. and J.A. Sabloff, 2012: Classic Period collapse of the Central Maya Lowlands: Insights about human–environment relationships for sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 13908–13914, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210106109. ↩
• Preti, F. and N. Romano, 2014: Terraced landscapes: From an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene, 6, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.ANCENE.2014.03.002. ↩
• Widgren, M., and J.E.G. Sutton, 2004: Islands of intensive agriculture in Eastern Africa: Past & present. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA, 160 pp. ↩
• Håkansson, N.T., and M. Widgren, 2007: Labour and landscapes: The political economy of landesque capital in nineteenth century Tanganyika. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B, Hum. Geogr., 89, 233–248, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00251.x. ↩
• Davies, M.I.J. and H.L. Moore, 2016: Landscape, time and cultural resilience: A brief history of agriculture in Pokot and Marakwet, Kenya. J. East. African Stud., 10, 67–87, doi:10.1080/17531055.2015.1134417. ↩
• Frei, M., and K. Becker, 2005: Integrated rice-fish culture: Coupled production saves resources. Nat. Resour. Forum, 29, 135–143, doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2005.00122.x. ↩
• Rudel, T. et al. 2016: Do smallholder, mixed crop-livestock livelihoods encourage sustainable agricultural practices? A meta-analysis. Land, 5, 6, doi:10.3390/land5010006. ↩
• Beets, W.C., 1990: Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics: A handbook of sustainable agricultural development. Agbe Publishing, Alkmaar, The Netherlands, 754 pp. ↩
• Netting, R.M., 1993: Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 389 pp. ↩
• Altieri, M.A. and P. Koohafkan, 2008: Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities. Penang, Malaysia, 72 pp. ↩
• Koohafkann, P., and M.A. Altieri, 2011: Agricultural Heritage Systems: A legacy for the Future. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 49 pp. ↩
• McLeman, R.A. et al. 2014: What we learned from the Dust Bowl: Lessons in science, policy, and adaptation. Popul. Environ., 35, 417–440, doi:10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z. ↩
• Baveye, P.C. et al. 2011: From dust bowl to dust bowl: Soils are still very much a frontier of science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 75, 2037, doi:10.2136/sssaj2011.0145. ↩
• McLeman, R. and B. Smit, 2006: Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change, 76, 31–53, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9000-7. ↩
• Nkonya, E., M. Winslow, M.S. Reed, M. Mortimore, and A. Mirzabaev, 2011: Monitoring and assessing the influence of social, economic and policy factors on sustainable land management in drylands. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 240–247, doi:10.1002/ldr.1048. ↩
• Holt-Giménez, E., 2002: Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 93, 87–105, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3. ↩
• Scarano, F.R., 2017: Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept, scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv., 15, 65–73, doi:10.1016/J.PECON.2017.05.003. ↩
• Nesshöver, C. et al. 2017: The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ., 579, 1215–1227, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2016.11.106. ↩
• Morgan, R.P.C., 2005a: Soil Erosion and Conservation. 3rd ed. Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden, USA. ↩
• Mekuriaw, A., A. Heinimann, G. Zeleke, and H. Hurni, 2018: Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 6, 23–30, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2017.12.006. ↩
• Zomer, R.J. et al. 2016: Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep., 6, 29987, doi:10.1038/srep29987. ↩
• Branca, G., L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, and M.C. Jolejole, 2013: Food security, climate change, and sustainable land management. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 33, 635–650, doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0133-1. ↩
• Mirzabaev, A., E. Nkonya, and J. von Braun, 2015: Economics of sustainable land management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 15, 9–19, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2015.07.004. ↩
• Giger, M., H. Liniger, C. Sauter, and G. Schwilch, 2018: Economic benefits and costs of sustainable land management technologies: An analysis of WOCAT’s global data. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 962–974, doi:10.1002/ldr.2429. ↩
• Teshome, A., J. de Graaff, C. Ritsema, and M. Kassie, 2016: Farmers’ perceptions about the influence of land quality, land fragmentation and tenure systems on sustainable land management in the north western Ethiopian highlands. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 884–898, doi:10.1002/ldr.2298. ↩
• Vogl, A.L. et al. 2017: Valuing investments in sustainable land management in the Upper Tana River basin, Kenya. J. Environ. Manage., 195, 78–91, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.10.013. ↩
• Tesfaye, A., R. Brouwer, P. van der Zaag, and W. Negatu, 2016: Assessing the costs and benefits of improved land management practices in three watershed areas in Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 4, 20–29, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2016.01.003. ↩
• Cerdà, A., J. Rodrigo-Comino, A. Giménez-Morera, and S.D. Keesstra, 2018: Hydrological and erosional impact and farmer’s perception on catch crops and weeds in citrus organic farming in Canyoles river watershed, Eastern Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 258, 49–58, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2018.02.015. ↩
• Adimassu, Z., S. Langan, and R. Johnston, 2016: Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments in sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 18, 1005–1023, doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9683-5. ↩
• Kerr, J.M., J.V. DePinto, D. McGrath, S.P. Sowa, and S.M. Swinton, 2016: Sustainable management of Great Lakes watersheds dominated by agricultural land use. J. Great Lakes Res., 42, 1252–1259, doi:10.1016/J.JGLR.2016.10.001. ↩
• Wang, G. et al. 2016a: Integrated watershed management: Evolution, development and emerging trends. J. For. Res., 27, 967–994, doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0293-3. ↩
• Rumpel, C. et al. 2018: Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32–34, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4. ↩
• Crews, T.E., and B.E. Rumsey, 2017: What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review. Sustain., 9, 1–18, doi:10.3390/su9040578. ↩
• Kaye, J.P., and M. Quemada, 2017: Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 4, doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x. ↩
• Van Pelt, R.S. et al. 2017: The reduction of partitioned wind and water erosion by conservation agriculture. CATENA, 148, 160–167, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2016.07.004. ↩
• Panagos, P. et al. 2015: Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land use policy, 48, 38–50, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.05.021. ↩
• Borrelli, P. et al. 2016: Effect of good agricultural and environmental conditions on erosion and soil organic carbon balance: A national case study. Land use policy, 50, 408–421, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.09.033. ↩
• Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Griffis, 2007: Tillage and soil carbon sequestration: What do we really know? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 118, 1–5, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2006.05.014. ↩
• Ogle, S.M., A. Swan, and K. Paustian, 2012: No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 149, 37–49, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2011.12.010. ↩
• Fargione, J.E. et al. 2018: Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv., 4, eaat1869, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869. ↩
• Culman, S.W., S.S. Snapp, M. Ollenburger, B. Basso, and L.R. DeHaan, 2013: Soil and water quality rapidly responds to the perennial grain Kernza wheatgrass. Agron. J., 105, 735–744, doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0273. ↩
• Sainju, U.M., B.L. Allen, A.W. Lenssen, and R.P. Ghimire, 2017: Root biomass, root/shoot ratio, and soil water content under perennial grasses with different nitrogen rates. F. Crop. Res., 210, 183–191, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2017.05.029. ↩
• Sprunger, C.D., S.W. Culman, G.P. Robertson, and S.S. Snapp, 2018: Perennial grain on a Midwest Alfisol shows no sign of early soil carbon gain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 33, 360–372, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000138. ↩
• Conant, R.T., C.E.P. Cerri, B.B. Osborne, and K. Paustian, 2017: Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecol. Appl., 27, 662–668, doi:10.1002/eap.1473. ↩
• Balbo, A.L., 2017: Terrace landscapes. Editorial to the special issue. J. Environ. Manage., 202, 495–499, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2017.02.001. ↩
• Preti, F. et al. 2018: Conceptualization of water flow pathways in agricultural terraced landscapes. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 651–662, doi:10.1002/ldr.2764. ↩
• Wei, W. et al. 2016: Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Science Rev., 159, 388–403, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.06.010. ↩
• Arnáez, J., N. Lana-Renault, T. Lasanta, P. Ruiz-Flaño, and J. Castroviejo, 2015: Effects of farming terraces on hydrological and geomorphological processes. A review. CATENA, 128, 122–134, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2015.01.021. ↩
• Chen, D., W. Wei, and L. Chen, 2017: Effects of terracing practices on water erosion control in China: A meta-analysis. Earth-Science Rev., 173, 109–121, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.08.007. ↩
• Lovo, S., 2016: Tenure insecurity and investment in soil conservation. Evidence from Malawi. World Dev., 78, 219–229, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.10.023. ↩
• Sklenicka, P. et al. 2015: Owner or tenant: Who adopts better soil conservation practices? Land use policy, 47, 253–261, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.04.017. ↩
• Haregeweyn, N. et al. 2015: Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 39, 750–774, doi:10.1177/0309133315598725. ↩
• Duncan, T., 2016: Case Study: Taranaki farm regenerative agriculture. Pathways to integrated ecological farming. L. Restor., 2016, 271–287, doi:10.1016/B978–0-12–801231-4.00022-7. ↩
• Stevens, P., T. Roberts, and S. Lucas, 2015: Life on Mars: Using Micro-topographic Relief to Secure Soil, Water and Biocapacity. Engineers Australia, Barton ACT, Australia, pp. 505–519. ↩
• Young, A., 1995: Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 194 pp. ↩
• Mbow, C., P. Smith, D. Skole, L. Duguma, and M. Bustamante, 2014: Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 8–14, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002. ↩
• Waldron, A. et al. 2017: Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 10, 194008291772066, doi:10.1177/1940082917720667. ↩
• Sonwa, D.J., S. Walker, R. Nasi, and M. Kanninen, 2011: Potential synergies of the main current forestry efforts and climate change mitigation in Central Africa. Sustain. Sci., 6, 59–67, doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0119-8. ↩
• Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, G. Schroth, M.J.J. Janssens, and Howard-Yana Shapiro, 2014: Plant diversity management in cocoa agroforestry systems in West and Central Africa – effects of markets and household needs. Agrofor. Syst., 88, 1021–1034, doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9714-5. ↩
• Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, B.A. Nkongmeneck, M. Tchatat, and M.J.J. Janssens, 2017: Structure and composition of cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst., 91, 451–470, doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9942-y. ↩
• Charles, R.L., P.K.T. Munushi, and E.F. Nzunda, 2013: Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Int. J. Environ. Prot., 3, 29–38. ↩
• Nath, T.K., M. Jashimuddin, M. Kamrul Hasan, M. Shahjahan, and J. Pretty, 2016: The sustainable intensification of agroforestry in shifting cultivation areas of Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst., 90, 405–416, doi:10.1007/s10457-015-9863-1. ↩
• Sonwa, F. et al. 2001: The Role of Cocoa Agroforests in Rural and Community Forestry in Southern Cameroon. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK, 1–10 pp. ↩
• Kroeger, A. et al. 2017: Forest – and Climate-Smart Cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, Aligning Stakeholders to Support Smallholders in Deforestation-Free Cocoa. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 57 pp. ↩
• Chia, E. et al. 2016: Exploring opportunities for promoting synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation in forest carbon initiatives. Forests, 7, 24, doi:10.3390/f7010024. ↩
• Gockowski, J., and D. Sonwa, 2011: Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO2 emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea rain forest of West Africa. Environ. Manage., 48, 307–321, doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9602-3. ↩
• Blaser, W.J., J. Oppong, E. Yeboah, and J. Six, 2017: Shade trees have limited benefits for soil fertility in cocoa agroforests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 243, 83–91, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.04.007. ↩
• Abdulai, I. et al. 2018: Cocoa agroforestry is less resilient to sub-optimal and extreme climate than cocoa in full sun. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 273–286, doi:10.1111/gcb.13885. ↩
• Toth, G.G., P.K. Ramachandran Nair, M. Jacobson, Y. Widyaningsih, and C.P. Duffy, 2017: Malawi’s energy needs and agroforestry: Adoption potential of woodlots. Hum. Ecol., 45, 735–746, doi:10.1007/s10745-017-9944-z. ↩
• Pattanayak, S.K., D. Evan Mercer, E. Sills, and J.-C. Yang, 2003: Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor. Syst., 57, 173–186, doi:10.1023/A:1024809108210. ↩
• Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2014: Food first! Theorising assets and actors in agroforestry: Risk evaders, opportunity seekers and ‘the food imperative’ in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 12, 1–22, doi:10.1080/14735903.2012.751714. ↩
• Mercer, D.E., 2004: Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agrofor. Syst., 61–62, 311–328, doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70. ↩
• Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2013: More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: Insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J. Rural Stud., 32, 114–125, doi:10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2013.04.004. ↩
• Brockington, J.D., I.M. Harris, and R.M. Brook, 2016: Beyond the project cycle: A medium-term evaluation of agroforestry adoption and diffusion in a south Indian village. Agrofor. Syst., 90, 489–508, doi:10.1007/s10457-015-9872-0. ↩
• Noordin, Q., A. Niang, B. Jama, and M. Nyasimi, 2001: Scaling up adoption and impact of agroforestry technologies: Experiences from western Kenya. Dev. Pract., 11, 509–523, doi:10.1080/09614520120066783. ↩
• Matata, P.Z., L.W. Masolwa, S. Ruvuga, and F.M. Bagarama, 2013: Dissemination pathways for scaling-up agroforestry technologies in western Tanzania. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 5, 31–36. ↩
• Meijer, S.S., D. Catacutan, O.C. Ajayi, G.W. Sileshi, and M. Nieuwenhuis, 2015: The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 13, 40–54, doi:10.1080/14735903.2014.912493. ↩
• Pritchard, W.R. et al. 1992: Assessment of Animal Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton: Winrock International, Washington D.C., 169 p. ↩
• McIntire, J., D. (Daniel) Bourzat, and P.L. Pingali, 1992: Crop-livestock interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 246 pp. ↩
• Devendra, C., 2002: Crop–animal systems in Asia: Implications for research. Agric. Syst., 71, 169–177, doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00042-7. ↩
• Ramisch, J., J. Keeley, I. Scoones, and W. Wolmer, 2002: Crop-Livestock policy in Africa: What is to be done? In: Pathways of change in Africa: crops, livestock & livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)], James Currey Ltd., Oxford, pp. 183–210. ↩
• Behnke, R., 1994: Natural resource management in pastoral Africa. Dev. Policy Rev., 12, 5–28, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.1994.tb00053.x. ↩
• Ellis, J.E., 1994: Climate variability and complex ecosystem dynamics: Implications for pastoral development. In: Living with uncertainty: New directions in pastoral development in Africa, [Scoones, I. (ed.)]. Internmediate Technology Publications, London, UK, pp. 37–46. ↩
• Scoones, I. and W. Wolmer, 2002: Pathways of Change: Crop-Livestock Integration in Africa. Pathways of Change In Africa: Crops, Livestock & Livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)]. James Currey Ltd. Oxford, 236 p. ↩
• Howden, S.M. et al. 2007: Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 19691–19696, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701890104. ↩
• Rivera-Ferre, M.G. et al. 2016: Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: Mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 869–892, doi:10.1002/wcc.421. ↩
• Camacho, L.D., D.T. Gevaña, Antonio P. Carandang, and S.C. Camacho, 2016: Indigenous knowledge and practices for the sustainable management of Ifugao forests in Cordillera, Philippines. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 5–13, doi:10.1080/21513732.2015.1124453. ↩
• Siahaya, M.E., T.R. Hutauruk, H.S.E.S. Aponno, J.W. Hatulesila, and A.B. Mardhanie, 2016: Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation and forest management in East Borneo, Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 14–23, doi:10.1080/21513732.2016.1169559. ↩
• Oliver, D.M. et al. 2012: Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: Farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environ. Model. Softw., 36, 76–85, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2011.09.013. ↩
• Bitzer, V., and J. Bijman, 2015: From innovation to co-innovation? An exploration of African agrifood chains. Br. Food J., 117, 2182–2199, doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0403. ↩
• Schwilch, G. et al. 2011: Experiences in monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 214–225, doi:10.1002/ldr.1040. ↩
• Porter-Bolland, L. et al. 2012: Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manage., 268, 6–17, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2011.05.034. ↩
• Barrera-Bassols, N., and J.A. Zinck, 2003: Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma, 111, 171–195, doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00263-X. ↩
• Angelsen, A. et al. 2018: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),, Bonn, Germany, 229 p. ↩
• Mitchard, E.T.A., 2018: The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature, 559, 527–534, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0300-2. ↩
• Aleman, J.C., M.A. Jarzyna, and A.C. Staver, 2018: Forest extent and deforestation in tropical Africa since. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 26–33, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0406-1. ↩
• Federici, S., F.N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore, H. Jacobs, and J. Schmidhuber, 2015: Forest ecology and management new estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990 – 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 89–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.022. ↩
• Le Quéré, C. et al. 2013: The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 165–185, doi:10.5194/essd-5-165-2013. ↩
• Keenan, T.F. et al. 2017: Corrigendum: Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun., 8, 16137, doi:10.1038/ncomms16137. ↩
• Korhonen-Kurki, K. et al. 2018: What drives policy change for REDD+? A qualitative comparative analysis of the interplay between institutional and policy arena factors. Clim. Policy, 1–14, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.
1507897. ↩
• Seymour, F. and A. Angelsen, 2012: Summary and Conclusions: REDD+ without regrets. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, 317–334. ↩
• Jagger, P. et al. 2015: REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. In: Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, [Angelsen, L., Brockhaus, A., Sunderlin, M., Verchot, W.D. (eds.)]. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 301–316. ↩
• Peng, S.-S. et al. 2014: Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 2915–2919, doi:10.1073/pnas.1315126111. ↩
• Buendia, C., R.J. Batalla, S. Sabater, A. Palau, and R. Marcé, 2016: Runoff trends driven by climate and afforestation in a Pyrenean Basin. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 823–838, doi:10.1002/ldr.2384. ↩
• Busch, J. et al. 2015: Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 1328–1333, doi:10.7910/DVN/28615. ↩
• Panfil, S.N. and C.A. Harvey, 2016: REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv. Lett., 9, 143–150, doi:10.1111/conl.12188. ↩
• Peres, C.A., T. Emilio, J. Schietti, S.J.M. Desmoulière, and T. Levi, 2016: Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 892–897, doi:10.1073/pnas.1516525113. ↩
• Hinsley, A., A. Entwistle, and D.V. Pio, 2015: Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity? Oryx, 49, 216–221, doi:10.1017/S0030605314000507. ↩
• Edstedt, K., and W. Carton, 2018: The benefits that (only) capital can see? Resource access and degradation in industrial carbon forestry, lessons from the CDM in Uganda. Geoforum, 97, 315–323, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2018.09.030. ↩
• Carton, W., and E. Andersson, 2017: Where forest carbon meets its maker: Forestry-based offsetting as the subsumption of nature. Soc. Nat. Resour., 30, 829–843, doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1284291. ↩
• Osborne, T.M., 2011: Carbon forestry and agrarian change: Access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. J. Peasant Stud., 38, 859–883, doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.611281. ↩
• Scheidel, A. and C. Work, 2018: Forest plantations and climate change discourses: New powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia. Land use policy, 77, 9–18, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.04.057. ↩
• Richards, C. and K. Lyons, 2016: The new corporate enclosures: Plantation forestry, carbon markets and the limits of financialised solutions to the climate crisis. Land use policy, 56, 209–216, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.05.013. ↩
• Borras, S.M., and J.C. Franco, 2018: The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: Towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Q., 39, 1308–1325, doi:10.1080/01436597.2018.1460592. ↩
• Paladino, S., and S.J. Fiske, 2017: The Carbon Fix: Forest Carbon, Social Justice, and Environmental Governance. Routledge, New York, United States, 320 pp. ↩
• Atmadja, S., and L. Verchot, 2012: A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 17, 311–336, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9328-4. ↩
• Phelps, J., E.L. Webb, and A. Agrawal, 2010: Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science, 328, 312–313, doi:10.1126/science.1187774. ↩
• Lund, J.F., E. Sungusia, M.B. Mabele, and A. Scheba, 2017: Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Dev., 89, 124–139, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.08.005. ↩
• Balooni, K., and J.F. Lund, 2014: Forest rights: The hard currency of REDD+. Conserv. Lett., 7, 278–284, doi:10.1111/conl.12067. ↩
• Putz, F.E. et al. 2012: Sustaining conservation values in selectively logged tropical forests: The attained and the attainable. Conserv. Lett., 5, 296–303, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00242.x. ↩
• Gideon Neba, S., M. Kanninen, R. Eba’a Atyi, and D.J. Sonwa, 2014: Assessment and prediction of above-ground biomass in selectively logged forest concessions using field measurements and remote sensing data: Case study in South East Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manage., 329, 177–185, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2014.06.018. ↩
• Sufo Kankeu, R., D.J. Sonwa, R. Eba’a Atyi, and N.M. Moankang Nkal, 2016: Quantifying post logging biomass loss using satellite images and ground measurements in Southeast Cameroon. J. For. Res., 27, 1415–1426, doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0277-3. ↩
• Nitcheu Tchiadje, S., D.J. Sonwa, B.-A. Nkongmeneck, L. Cerbonney, and R. Sufo Kankeu, 2016: Preliminary estimation of carbon stock in a logging concession with a forest management plan in East Cameroon. J. Sustain. For., 35, 355–368, doi:10.1080/10549811.2016.1190757. ↩
• Rossi, V. et al. 2017: Could REDD+ mechanisms induce logging companies to reduce forest degradation in Central Africa? J. For. Econ., 29, 107–117, doi:10.1016/J.JFE.2017.10.001. ↩
• Law, B.E. et al. 2018: Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 3663–3668, doi:10.1073/pnas.1720064115. ↩
• Nabuurs, G.J. et al. 2017: By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests, 8, 1–14, doi:10.3390/f8120484. ↩
• Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., S.J. Colombo, and J. Chen, 2013: Effects of harvesting on spatial and temporal diversity of carbon stocks in a boreal forest landscape. Ecol. Evol., 3, 3738–3750, doi:10.1002/ece3.751. ↩
• Kilpeläinen, A. et al. 2017: Effects of initial age structure of managed Norway spruce forest area on net climate impact of using forest biomass for energy. Bioenergy Res., 10, 499–508, doi:10.1007/s12155-017-9821-z. ↩
• Gao, B. et al. 2018: Carbon storage declines in old boreal forests irrespective of succession pathway. Ecosystems, 21, 1–15, doi:10.1007/s10021-017- 0210-4. ↩
• Taylor, A.R., M. Seedre, B.W. Brassard, and H.Y.H. Chen, 2014: Decline in net ecosystem productivity following canopy transition to late-succession forests. Ecosystems, 17, 778–791, doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9759-3. ↩
• Hadden, D., and A. Grelle, 2016: Changing temperature response of respiration turns boreal forest from carbon sink into carbon source. Agric. For. Meteorol., 223, 30–38, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.020. ↩
• Volkova, L., H. Bi, J. Hilton, and C.J. Weston, 2017: Impact of mechanical thinning on forest carbon, fuel hazard and simulated fire behaviour in Eucalyptus delegatensis forest of south-eastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manage., 405, 92–100, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.032. ↩
• Bernal, B., L.T. Murray, and T.R.H. Pearson, 2018: Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8. ↩
• Lundmark, T. et al. 2014: Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests, 5, 557–578, doi:10.3390/f5040557. ↩
• Xu, Z., C.E. Smyth, T.C. Lemprière, G.J. Rampley, and W.A. Kurz, 2018: Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: Biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 23, 257–290, doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7. ↩
• Olguin, M. et al. 2018: Applying a systems approach to assess carbon emission reductions from climate change mitigation in Mexico’s forest sector. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa03. ↩
• Dugan, A.J. et al. 2018: A systems approach to assess climate change mitigation options in landscapes of the United States forest sector. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0100-x. ↩
• Pingoud, K., T. Ekholm, R. Sievänen, S. Huuskonen, and J. Hynynen, 2018: Trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and harvests in a steady state – A multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ. Manage., 210, 96–103, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.076. ↩
• Seidl, R., W. Rammer, D. Jäger, W.S. Currie, and M.J. Lexer, 2007: Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For. Ecol. Manage., 248, 64–79, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.035 . ↩
• Mackey, B. et al. 2013: Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 552–557, doi:10.1038/nclimate1804. ↩
• Laganière, J., D. Paré, E. Thiffault, and P.Y. Bernier, 2017: Range and uncertainties in estimating delays in greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy sourced from Canadian forests. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 358–369, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12327. ↩
• Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., S.J. Colombo, and J. Chen, 2014: The burning question: Does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? A review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting. J. For., 113, 57–68, doi:10.5849/jof.14-016. ↩
• Smyth, C., W.A. Kurz, G. Rampley, T.C. Lemprière, and O. Schwab, 2017: Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 817–832, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12387. ↩
• Köhl, M., P.R. Neupane, and N. Lotfiomran, 2017: The impact of tree age on biomass growth and carbon accumulation capacity: A retrospective analysis using tree ring data of three tropical tree species grown in natural forests of Suriname. PLoS One, 12, e0181187, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181187. ↩
• Matthews, R., G. Hogan, and E. Mackie, 2018: Carbon impacts of biomass consumed in the EU. Res. Agency For. Comm., 61. ↩
• Keith, H. et al. 2014: Managing temperate forests for carbon storage: Impacts of logging versus forest protection on carbon stocks. Ecosphere, 5, art75, doi:10.1890/ES14-00051.1. ↩
• Lecina-Diaz, J. et al. 2018: The positive carbon stocks-biodiversity relationship in forests: Co-occurrence and drivers across five subclimates. Ecol. Appl., 28, 1481–1493, doi:10.1002/eap.1749. ↩
• Luyssaert, S. et al. 2018: Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature, 562, 259–262, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0577-1. ↩
• Valade, A., V. Bellassen, C. Magand, and S. Luyssaert, 2017: Sustaining the sequestration efficiency of the European forest sector. For. Ecol. Manage., 405, 44–55, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.009. ↩
• Soussana, J.-F. et al. 2019: Matching policy and science: Rationale for the 
‘4 per 1000 – soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res., 188, 3–15, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2017.12.002. ↩
• Dignac, M.-F. et al. 2017: Increasing soil carbon storage: Mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 14, doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0421-2. ↩
• Rumpel, C. et al. 2018: Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32–34, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4. ↩
• van Groenigen, J.W. et al. 2017: Sequestering soil organic carbon: A nitrogen dilemma. Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 4738–4739, doi:10.1021/acs. est.7b01427. ↩
• Poulton, P., J. Johnston, A. Macdonald, R. White, and D. Powlson, 2018: Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 2563–2584, doi:10.1111/gcb.14066. ↩
• Schlesinger, W.H. and R. Amundson, 2018: Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol., 25, gcb.14478, doi:10.1111/gcb.14478. ↩
• UNCCD, 2016a: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twelfth Session, held in Ankara from 12 to 23 October 2015. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany, ↩
• Sims, N.C. et al. 2019: Developing good practice guidance for estimating land degradation in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Sci. Policy, 92, 349–355, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2018.10.014. ↩
• Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S., 2016: Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland, xiii + 97 pp. ↩
• UNCCD, 2016b: Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting – A Technical Guide. Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany. ↩
• GEF, 2018: GEF-7 Replenishment, Programming Directions. Global Environment Facility (GEF), Washington DC,, 155 pp. ↩
• Newton, P., J. A Oldekop, G. Brodnig, B.K. Karna, and A. Agrawal, 2016: Carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods in forest commons: Synergies, trade-offs, and implications for REDD+. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 044017, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044017. ↩
• Gebara, M., and A. Agrawal, 2017: Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests, 8, 66, doi:10.3390/f8030066. ↩
• Lambin, E.F. et al. 2018: The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 109–116, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1. ↩
• van der Ven, H. and B. Cashore, 2018: Forest certification: The challenge of measuring impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 32, 104–111, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.06.001. ↩
• an der Ven, H., C. Rothacker, and B. Cashore, 2018: Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Glob. Environ. Chang., 52, 141–151, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.07.002. ↩
• Lyons-White, J. and A.T. Knight, 2018: Palm oil supply chain complexity impedes implementation of corporate no-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Chang., 50, 303–313, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.04.012. ↩
• Klein, R.J.T. et al. 2014: Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 899–943. ↩
• Dow, K., F. Berkhout, and B.L. Preston, 2013a: Limits to adaptation to climate change: A risk approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 384–391, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.07.005. ↩
• Filho, W.L., and J. Nalau, (eds.) 2018: Limits to Climate Change Adaptation. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–410 pp. ↩
• Adger, W.N. et al. 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Change, 93, 335–354, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z. ↩
• Black, R., S.R.G. Bennett, S.M. Thomas, and J.R. Beddington, 2011: Climate change: Migration as adaptation. Nat. 2011 4787370. ↩
• Tacoli, C., 2009: Crisis or adaptation? Migration and climate change in a context of high mobility. Environ. Urban., 21, 513–525, doi:10.1177/0956247809342182. ↩
• Bardsley, D.K., and G.J. Hugo, 2010: Migration and climate change: examining thresholds of change to guide effective adaptation decision-making. Popul. Environ., 32, 238–262, doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0126-9. ↩
• Upadhyay, H., D. Mohan, and D. Mohan, 2017: Migrating to adapt? Climate Change, Vulnerability and Migration, Routledge India, pp. 43–58. ↩
• Nalau, J., J. Handmer, J. Nalau, and J. Handmer, 2018: Improving development outcomes and reducing disaster risk through planned community relocation. Sustainability, 10, 3545, doi:10.3390/su10103545. ↩
• Gharbaoui, D., and J. Blocher, 2016: The Reason Land Matters: Relocation as Adaptation to Climate Change in Fiji Islands. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 149–173. ↩
• Luetz, J., 2018: Climate Change and Migrationin Bangladesh: Empirically Derived Lessons and Opportunities for Policy Makers and Practitioners. In: Limits to Climate Change Adaptation [W.L. Filho and J. Nalau (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, Heidelberg, 59–105. ↩
• Landauer, M. and S. Juhola, 2019: Loss and Damage in the Rapidly Changing Arctic. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 425–447. ↩
• Van der Geest, K., and M. Schindler, 2016: Case Study Report: Loss And Damage From a Catastrophic Landslide in Sindhupalchok District, Nepal. Report No.1. United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn, Germany, 1–96 pp. ↩
• Poesen, J., J. Nachtergaele, G. Verstraeten, and C. Valentin, 2003: Gully erosion and environmental change: Importance and research needs. CATENA, 50, 91–133, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00143-1. ↩
• Folke, C. et al. 2010: Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc., 15. ↩
• Quinlan, A.E., M. Berbés-Blázquez, L.J. Haider, and G.D. Peterson, 2016: Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 677–687, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12550. ↩
• Cote, M., and A.J. Nightingale, 2012: Resilience thinking meets social theory. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 36, 475–489, doi:10.1177/0309132511425708. ↩
• Olsson, L., A. Jerneck, H. Thoren, J. Persson, and D. O’Byrne, 2015: Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Sci. Adv., 1, e1400217–e1400217, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400217. ↩
• Cretney, R., 2014: Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience. Geogr. Compass, 8, 627–640, doi:10.1111/gec3.12154. ↩
• Béné, C., R.G. Wood, A. Newsham, and M. Davies, 2012: Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Work. Pap., 2012, 1–61, doi:10.1111/j.2040-0209.2012.00405.x. ↩
• Joseph, J., 2013: Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience, 1, 38–52, doi:10.1080/21693293.2013.765741. ↩
• Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman, 2015: Geographies of resilience. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 39, 249–267, doi:10.1177/0309132513518834. ↩
• Strunz, S., 2012: Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of resilience. Ecol. Econ., 76, 112–118, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2012.02.012. ↩
• Brown, K., 2014: Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience? Prog. Hum. Geogr., 38, 107–117, doi:10.1177/0309132513498837. ↩
• Grimm, V., and J.M. Calabrese, 2011: What Is Resilience? A Short Introduction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 3–13. ↩
• Thorén, H., and L. Olsson, 2018: Is resilience a normative concept? Resilience, 6, 112–128, doi:10.1080/21693293.2017.1406842. ↩
• Cutter, S.L. et al. 2008: A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang., 18, 598–606, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2008.07.013. ↩
• Tighe, M., C. Muñoz-Robles, N. Reid, B. Wilson, and S. V Briggs, 2012: Hydrological thresholds of soil surface properties identified using conditional inference tree analysis. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 37, 620–632, doi:10.1002/esp.3191. ↩
• Reyer, C.P.O. et al. 2015: Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: Approaches and challenges. J. Ecol., 103, 5–15, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12337. ↩
• Thompson, I., B. Mackey, S. McNulty, and A. Mosseler, 2009: Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series, Vol. 43 of, 67. ↩
• Winder, R., E. Nelson, and T. Beardmore, 2011: Ecological implications for assisted migration in Canadian forests. For. Chron., 87, 731–744, doi:10.5558/tfc2011-090. ↩
• Pedlar, J.H. et al. 2012: Placing forestry in the assisted migration debate. Bioscience, 62, 835–842, doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.10. ↩
• Felton, A., M. Lindbladh, J. Brunet, and Ö. Fritz, 2010: Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For. Ecol. Manage., 260, 939–947, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011. ↩
• Liu, C.L.C., O. Kuchma, and K.V. Krutovsky, 2018a: Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 15, e00419, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00419. ↩
• O’Connell, D. et al. 2016: Designing projects in a rapidly changing world: Guidelines for embedding resilience, adaptation and transformation into sustainable development projects.C Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C. ↩
• Simonsen, S.H. et al. 2014: Applying resilience thinking: Seven principles for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Stockholm Resilience Centre, 20 p. ↩
• Laniak, G.F. et al. 2013: Integrated environmental modeling: A vision and roadmap for the future. Environ. Model. Softw., 39, 3–23, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.006. ↩
• Kassam, A. et al. 2013: Sustainable soil management is more than what and how crops are grown. In: Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems, [R. Lal and B.A. Stewart, (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl, USA, 337–400. ↩
• Yengoh, G.T., and J. Ardö, 2014: Crop Yield Gaps in Cameroon. Ambio, 43, 175–190, doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0428-0. ↩
• Uitto, J.I., 2016: Evaluating the environment as a global public good. Evaluation, 22, 108–115, doi:10.1177/1356389015623135. ↩
• Tengberg, A., and S. Valencia, 2018: Integrated approaches to natural resources management – Theory and practice. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 1845–1857, doi:10.1002/ldr.2946. ↩
• Liniger, H.P., M. Studer, R.C. Hauert, and M. Gurtner, 2011: Sustainable Land Management in Practice. Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 13 pp. ↩
• Tengberg, A., F. Radstake, K. Zhang, and B. Dunn, 2016: Scaling up of sustainable land management in the Western People’s Republic of China: Evaluation of a 10-year partnership. L. Degrad. Dev., 27(2), 134–144, doi:10.1002/ldr.2270. ↩
• Geels, F.W., 2002: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy, 31, 1257–1274, doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8. ↩
• Wieczorek, A.J., 2018: Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy, 84, 204–216, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2017.08.008. ↩
• Mutoko, M.C., C.A. Shisanya, and L. Hein, 2014: Fostering technological transition to sustainable land management through stakeholder collaboration in the western highlands of Kenya. Land use policy, 41, 110–120, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2014.05.005. ↩
• Lawhon, M. and J.T. Murphy, 2012: Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 36, 354–378, doi:10.1177/0309132511427960. ↩
• Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg, 2005: Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441–473, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. ↩
• Ostrom, E., 2009: A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422, doi:10.1126/science.1172133. ↩
• Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, and J. von Braun, 2016: Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, and J. Von Braun (Eds.) Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 695 pp. ↩
• Sayer, J. et al. 2013: Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 8349–8356, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110. ↩
• Bürgi, M. et al. 2017: Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the gap between theory and application. Sustainability, 9, 1371, doi:10.3390/su9081371. ↩
• Shames, S., M. Hill Clarvis, and G. Kissinger, 2014: Financing Strategies for Integrated Landscape Investment. EcoAgriculture Partners, Washington DC, USA, 1–60 pp. ↩
• Baumber, A., E. Berry, and G. Metternicht, 2019: Synergies between land degradation neutrality goals and existing market-based instruments. Environ. Sci. Policy, 94, 174–181, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.01.012. ↩
• United Nations, 2015: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, NewYork, 517 pp. ↩
• Seto, K.C. et al. 2012: Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 7687–7692, doi:10.1073/pnas.1117622109. ↩
• Pataki, D.E. et al. 2011: Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 27–36, doi:10.1890/090220. ↩
• Royal Society, 2016: Resilience to Extreme Weather. The Royal Society, London, 124 pp. ↩
• Wentworth, J., 2017: Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services. POSTbrief from UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology London, UK, 26 pp. ↩
• Tzoulas, K. et al. 2007: Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan., 81, 167–178, doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2007.02.001. ↩
• Maes, J., and S. Jacobs, 2017: Nature-based solutions for europe’s sustainable development. Conserv. Lett., doi:10.1111/conl.12216. ↩
• European Union, 2015: Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Nature-Based Solut. Re-Naturing Cities, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels, Belgium, 74 pp. doi:10.2777/765301. ↩
• Davies, Z.G., J.L. Edmondson, A. Heinemeyer, J.R. Leake, and K.J. Gaston, 2011: Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 1125–1134, doi:10.1111/ Chapter 4 Land degradation 410 j.1365-2664.2011.02021.x. ↩
• Edmondson, J.L., Z.G. Davies, S.A. McCormack, K.J. Gaston, and J.R. Leake, 2011: Are soils in urban ecosystems compacted? A citywide analysis. Biol. Lett., 7(5), 771–774, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0260. ↩
• Edmondson, J.L., Z.G. Davies, S.A. McCormack, K.J. Gaston, and J.R. Leake, 2014: Land-cover effects on soil organic carbon stocks in a European city. Sci. Total Environ., 472, 444–453, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.025. ↩
• Yao, L., L. Chen, W. Wei, and R. Sun, 2015: Potential reduction in urban runoff by green spaces in Beijing: A scenario analysis. Urban For. Urban Green., 14(2), 300–308, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.014. ↩
• Gill, S., J. Handley, A. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, 2007: Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ., 33, 115–133, doi:10.2148/benv.33.1.115. ↩
• Fryd, O., S. Pauleit, and O. Bühler, 2011: The role of urban green space and trees in relation to climate change. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour., 6, 1–18, doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20116053. ↩
• Demuzere, M. et al. 2014: Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage., 146, 107–115, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2014.07.025. ↩
• Sussams, L.W., W.R. Sheate, and R.P. Eales, 2015: Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? J. Environ. Manage., 147, 184–193, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2014.09.003. ↩
• Cavan, G. et al. 2014: Urban morphological determinants of temperature regulating ecosystem services in two African cities. Ecol. Indic., 42, 43–57, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2014.01.025. ↩
• Di Leo, N., F.J. Escobedo, and M. Dubbeling, 2016: The role of urban green infrastructure in mitigating land surface temperature in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 18, 373–392, doi:10.1007/s10668- 015-9653-y. ↩
• Feyisa, G.L., K. Dons, and H. Meilby, 2014: Efficiency of parks in mitigating urban heat island effect: An example from Addis Ababa. Landsc. Urban Plan., 123, 87–95, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.008. ↩
• Tonosaki K, Kawai S, T.K., 2014: Cooling Potential of Urban Green Spaces in Summer. Designing Low Carbon Societies in Landscapes. [Nakagoshi N, Mabuhay AJ. (eds.)]. Springer, Tokyo, pp. 15–34. ↩
• Zölch, T., J. Maderspacher, C. Wamsler, and S. Pauleit, 2016: Using green infrastructure for urban climate-proofing: An evaluation of heat mitigation measures at the micro-scale. Urban For. Urban Green., 20, 305–316, doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2016.09.011. ↩
• Brown, S., and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Subsidence and human influences in mega deltas: The case of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna. Sci. Total Environ., 527–528, 362–374, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.04.124. ↩
• Klemm, W., B.G. Heusinkveld, S. Lenzholzer, and B. van Hove, 2015: Street greenery and its physical and psychological impact on thermal comfort. Landsc. Urban Plan., 138, 87–98, doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.02.009. ↩
• Coma, J. et al. 2017: Vertical greenery systems for energy savings in buildings: A comparative study between green walls and green facades. Build. Environ., 111, 228–237, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.014. ↩
• Gill, S., J. Handley, A. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, 2007: Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ., 33, 115–133, doi:10.2148/benv.33.1.115. ↩
• Munang, R., I. Thiaw, K. Alverson, and Z. Han, 2013: The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 47–52, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.02.002. ↩
• Potschin, M., R.H. 2016: Routledge Handbook Of Ecosystem Services. [Roy H. . Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R.K. Turner, (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 629 pp. ↩
• World Bank, 2016: The Role of Green Infrastructure Solutions in Urban Flood Risk Management. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 18 pp. ↩
• Green Surge, 2016: Advancing Approaches And Strategies For UGI Planning And Implementation. Green Surge Report D5.2, Brussels, 204 pp. ↩
• Roberts, D. and S. O’Donoghue, 2013: Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban., 25, 299–319, doi:10.1177/0956247813500904. ↩
• Roberts, D., 2010: Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban. 22(2), 397–413, doi:10.1177/0956247810379948. ↩
• eThekwini Municipal Council, 2014: The Durban Climate Change Strategy. Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCPD) and the Energy Office (EO) of eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa. 54 pp. ↩
• Crews, T.E. et al. 2016: Going where no grains have gone before: From early to mid-succession. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 223, 223–238, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.012. ↩
• Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six, and C. van Kessel, 2005: Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. Adv. Agron., 87, 85–156, doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87003-8. ↩
• Bowles, T.M. et al. 2018: Addressing agricultural nitrogen losses in a changing climate. Nat. Sustain., 1, 399–408, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0106-0. ↩
• Basche, A., and M. DeLonge, 2017: The impact of continuous living cover on soil hydrologic properties: A meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 81, 1179, doi:10.2136/sssaj2017.03.0077. ↩
• Wuest, S.B., J.D. Williams, and H.T. Gollany, 2006: Tillage and perennial grass effects on ponded infiltration for seven semi-arid loess soils. J. Soil Water Conserv., 61, 218–223. ↩
• Soussana, J.-F. et al. 2006: Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag., 20, 219–230, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00362.x. ↩
• Lal, R., 2003: Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Int., 29, 437–450, doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00192-7. ↩
• McLauchlan, K., 2006: The nature and longevity of agricultural impacts on soil carbon and nutrients: A review. Ecosystems, 9, 1364–1382, doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0135-1. ↩
• Jastrow, J.D., J.E. Amonette, and V.L. Bailey, 2007: Mechanisms controlling soil carbon turnover and their potential application for enhancing carbon sequestration. Clim. Change, 80, 5–23, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9178-3. ↩
• Schmidt, M.W.I. et al. 2011: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478, 49–56, doi:10.1038/nature10386. ↩
• Saugier, B., 2001: Estimations of Global Terrestrial Productivity: Converging Toward a Single Number? Terrestrial Global Productivity, [J. Roy, (ed.)]. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, CA, USA, pp. 543–556. ↩
• Johnson, J.M.-F., R.R. Allmaras, and D.C. Reicosky, 2006: Estimating source carbon from crop residues, roots and rhizodeposits using the National Grain-Yield database. Agron. J., 98, 622, doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0179. ↩
• Grandy, A.S., and J.C. Neff, 2008: Molecular C dynamics downstream: The biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter structure and function. Sci. Total Environ., 404, 297–307, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.11.013. ↩
• Cotrufo, M.F. et al. 2015: Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci., 8, 776–779, doi:10.1038/ngeo2520. ↩
• Lehmann, J. and M. Kleber, 2015: The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528, 60, doi:10.1038/nature16069. ↩
• Grandy, A.S., and G.P. Robertson, 2006: Aggregation and organic matter protection following tillage of a previously uncultivated soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 1398, doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0313. ↩
• Paustian, K. et al. 2016: Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532, 49–57, doi:10.1038/nature17174. ↩
• Glover, J.D. et al. 2010: Harvested perennial grasslands provide ecological benchmarks for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 137, 3–12, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.001. ↩
• Baker, B., 2017: Can modern agriculture be sustainable? Bioscience, 67, 325–331, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix018. ↩
• Cox, S., P. Nabukalu, A. Paterson, W. Kong, and S. Nakasagga, 2018: Development of Perennial Grain Sorghum. Sustainability, 10, 172, doi:10.3390/su10010172. ↩
• Huang, G. et al. 2018: Performance, economics and potential impact of perennial rice PR23 relative to annual rice cultivars at multiple locations in Yunnan Province of China. Sustainability, 10, 1086, doi:10.3390/su10041086. ↩
• Hayes, R. et al. 2018: The performance of early-generation perennial winter cereals at 21 sites across four continents. Sustainability, 10, 1124, doi:10.3390/su10041124. ↩
• DeHaan, L.R. et al. 2016: A pipeline strategy for grain crop domestication. Crop Sci., 56, 917–930, doi:10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0356. ↩
• DeHaan, L.R., and D.L. Van Tassel, 2014: Useful insights from evolutionary biology for developing perennial grain crops. Am. J. Bot., 101, 1801–1819, doi:10.3732/ajb.1400084. ↩
• DeHaan, L., M. Christians, J. Crain, and J. Poland, 2018: Development and evolution of an intermediate wheatgrass domestication program. Sustainability, 10, 1499, doi:10.3390/su10051499. ↩
• Cattani, D., and S. Asselin, 2018: Has selection for grain yield altered intermediate wheatgrass? Sustainability, 10, 688, doi:10.3390/su10030688. ↩
• Van Tassel, D.L. et al. 2017: Accelerating silphium domestication: An opportunity to develop new crop ideotypes and breeding strategies informed by multiple disciplines. Crop Sci., 57, 1274–1284, doi:10.2135/ cropsci2016.10.0834. ↩
• Batello, C. et al. 2014: Perennial Crops for Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, 390 p. ↩
• Chen, S. et al. 2018: Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 4027–4032, doi:10.1073/ pnas.1700298114. ↩
• Schlautman, B., S. Barriball, C. Ciotir, S. Herron, and A. Miller, 2018: Perennial grain legume domestication phase I: Criteria for candidate species selection. Sustainability, 10, 730, doi:10.3390/su10030730. ↩
• Post, W.M. and K.C. Kwon, 2000: Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: Processes and potential. Glob. Chang. Biol., 6, 317–327, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x. ↩
• La Scala Júnior, N., E. De Figueiredo, and A. Panosso, 2012: A review on soil carbon accumulation due to the management change of major Brazilian agricultural activities. Brazilian J. Biol., 72, 775–785, doi:10.1590/S1519- 69842012000400012. ↩
• Soussana, J.-F. and G. Lemaire, 2014: Coupling carbon and nitrogen cycles for environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 190, 9–17, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2013.10.012. ↩
• Hungate, B.A. et al. 2017: The economic value of grassland species for carbon storage. Sci. Adv., 3, e1601880, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601880. ↩
• Schnitzer, S.A. et al. 2011: Soil microbes drive the classic plant diversity–productivity pattern. Ecology, 92, 296–303. ↩
• Abraha, M., S.K. Hamilton, J. Chen, and G.P. Robertson, 2018: Ecosystem carbon exchange on conversion of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands to annual and perennial cropping systems. Agric. For. Meteorol., 253–254, 151–160, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2018.02.016. ↩
• Korea Forest Service, 2017: Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Korea Forest Service, Ed. Deajeon, Korea. ↩
• Kim, G.S. et al. 2017: Effect of national-scale afforestation on forest water supply and soil loss in South Korea, 1971–2010. Sustainability, 9, 1017, doi:10.3390/su9061017. ↩
• Choi, S.-D., K. Lee, and Y.-S. Chang, 2002: Large rate of uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by planted forest biomass in Korea. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 1089, doi:10.1029/2002GB001914. ↩
• Lee, J. et al. 2014: Estimating the carbon dynamics of South Korean forests from 1954 to 2012. Biogeosciences, 11, 4637–4650, doi:10.5194/bg-11-4637-2014. ↩
• Cui, G. et al. 2014: Estimation of forest carbon budget from land cover change in South and North Korea between 1981 and 2010. J. Plant Biol., 57, 225–238, doi:10.1007/s12374-014-0165-3. ↩
• Kim, M. et al. 2016: Estimating carbon dynamics in forest carbon pools under IPCC standards in South Korea using CBM-CFS3. iForest – Biogeosciences For., 10, 83–92, doi:10.3832/ifor2040-009. ↩
• Bae, J.S., R.W. Joo, Y.-S. Kim, and Y.S. Kim Yeon-Su., 2012: Forest transition in South Korea: Reality, path and drivers. Land use policy, 29, 198–207, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.007. ↩
• Kim, K.H. and L. Zsuffa, 1994: Reforestation of South Korea: The history and analysis of a unique case in forest tree improvement and forestry. 
For. Chron., 70, 58–64, doi:10.5558/tfc70058-1. ↩
• Lee, D.K., P.S. Park, and Y.D. Park, 2015: Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation in the Republic of Korea. In: Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests [J.A. Stanturf, (ed.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 230–245. ↩
• Lamb, D., 2014: Large-scale Forest Restoration. Routledge, London, UK, 302 pp. ↩
• Lee, J. et al. 2018a: Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea. Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 40–46, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.001. ↩
• UNDP, 2017: Valuation of Reforestation in Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction: A Technical Study From the Republic of Korea. Sustainable Development Goals Policy Brief Series No. 1, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA, 80 pp. ↩
• Lee, S.G. et al. 2018b: Restoration plan for degraded forest in the democratic people’s republic of Korea considering suitable tree species and spatial distribution. Sustain., 10, 856, doi:10.3390/su10030856. ↩
• Liu, J., and J. Diamond, 2008: Science and government: Revolutionizing China’s environmental protection. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1150416. ↩
• Yin, R., 2009: An Integrated Assessment of China’s Ecological Restoration Programs. Springer, NewYork, USA, 254 pp. ↩
• Zhang, P. et al. 2000: China’s forest policy for the 21st century. Science, doi:10.1126/science.288.5474.2135. ↩
• Xu, J., R. Yin, Z. Li, and C. Liu, 2006: China’s ecological rehabilitation: Unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008. ↩
• Liu, J.Z., W. Ouyang, W. Yang, and S.L. Xu, 2013: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, S.A. Levin, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, ed. 2. 372–384. ↩
• Kolinjivadi, V.K. and T. Sunderland, 2012: A review of two payment schemes for watershed services from China and Vietnam: The interface of government control and PES theory. Ecol. Soc., 17(4), doi:10.5751/ES-05057-170410. ↩
• Bennett, M.T., 2008: China’s sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecol. Econ., 65(4), 699–711 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.017. ↩
• Liu, F. et al. 2002: Role of Grain to Green Program in reducing loss of phosphorus from yellow soil in hilly areas. J. Soil Water Conserv. 16, 20–23. ↩
• Long, H.L. et al. 2006: Land use and soil erosion in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: Some socio-economic considerations on China’s Grain-for-Green Programme. L. Degrad. Dev., 17(6), 589–603, doi:10.1002/ldr.736. ↩
• Qiu, B. et al. 2017: Assessing the Three-North Shelter Forest Program in China by a novel framework for characterizing vegetation changes. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 133, 75–88, doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.10.003. ↩
• Hua, F. et al. 2016: Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun., 7, doi:10.1038/ncomms12717. ↩
• Xu, J., P.J. Morris, J. Liu, and J. Holden, 2018a: PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. Catena, 160, 134–140, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2017.09.010. ↩
• Moore, P.D., 2002: The future of cool temperate bogs. Environmental Conservation. 29, 3–20. ↩
• Gumbricht, T. et al. 2017: An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 3581–3599, doi:10.1111/gcb.13689. ↩
• Dommain, R. et al. 2012: Peatlands – Guidance For Climate Change Mitigation Through Conservation, Rehabilitation And Sustainable Use. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme series 5, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Wetlands International, Rome, Italy, 114 pp. ↩
• IPCC, 2014: Annex II, 2014c: Glossary. In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 117–130 pp. ↩
• Miettinen, J., C. Shi, and S.C. Liew, 2016: Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 6, 67–78, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.004. ↩
• Joosten, H., Tanneberger, F., 2017: Peatland use in Europe. In: Mires and Peatlands of Europe: Status, Distribution And Conservation. [Joosten H., Tanneberger F., Moen A., (eds.)]. Schweizerbart Science Publisher. Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 151–173. ↩
• Lamers, L.P.M. et al. 2015: Ecological restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: From trial and error to an evidence-based approach. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc., 90(1), 182–203, doi:10.1111/brv.12102. ↩
• O’Driscoll, C. et al. 2018: National scale assessment of total trihalomethanes in Irish drinking water. J. Environ. Manage., 212, 131–141, doi:10.1016/j. jenvman.2018.01.070. ↩
• Dommain, R. et al. 2018: A radiative forcing analysis of tropical peatlands before and after their conversion to agricultural plantations. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 5518–5533, doi:10.1111/gcb.14400. ↩
• Smith, J., D.R. Nayak, and P. Smith, 2012: Renewable energy: Avoid constructing wind farms on peat. Nature, 489(7414), p.33. doi:10.1038/489033d. ↩
• Dargie, G.C. et al. 2017: Age, extent and carbon storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature, 542, 86–90, doi:10.1038/nature21048. ↩
• Lawson, I.T. et al. 2015: Improving estimates of tropical peatland area, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas fluxes. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., doi:10.1007/s11273-014-9402-2. ↩
• Butler, R.A., L.P. Koh, and J. Ghazoul, 2009: REDD in the red: Palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes. Conserv. Lett., 2, 67–73, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00047.x. ↩
• Swails, E. et al. 2018: Will CO2 emissions from drained tropical peatlands decline over time? Links between soil organic matter quality, nutrients, and C mineralization rates. Ecosystems, 21, 868–885, doi:10.1007/s10021-017-0190-4. ↩
• Hergoualc’h, K., D.T. Hendry, D. Murdiyarso, and L.V. Verchot, 2017b: Total and heterotrophic soil respiration in a swamp forest and oil palm plantations on peat in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biogeochemistry, 135, 203–220, doi:10.1007/s10533-017-0363-4. ↩
• Roman-Cuesta, R.M. et al. 2016: Hotspots of gross emissions from the land use sector: Patterns, uncertainties, and leading emission sources for the period 2000–2005 in the tropics. Biogeosciences, 13, 4253–4269, doi:10.5194/bg-13-4253-2016. ↩
• Minkkinen, K. et al. 2018: Persistent carbon sink at a boreal drained bog forest. Biogeosciences, 15, 3603–3624, doi:10.5194/bg-15-3603-2018. ↩
• Ojanen, P., A. Lehtonen, J. Heikkinen, T. Penttilä, and K. Minkkinen, 2014: Soil CO2 balance and its uncertainty in forestry-drained peatlands in Finland. For. Ecol. Manage., 325, 60–73, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.049. ↩
• Moore, S. et al. 2013: Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes. Nature, 493, 660–663, doi:10.1038/nature11818. ↩
• Evans, C.D., F. Renou-Wilson, and M. Strack, 2016: The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and re-wetted peatlands. Aquat. Sci., 78(3), 573–590, doi:10.1007/s00027-015-0447-y. ↩
• Drösler, M., L.V. Verchot, A. Freibauer, G. Pan, 2014. Drained Inland Organic Soils, 2013. In: Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC, [Hiraishi T., T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, B. Jamsranjav, M. Fukuda, and T. Troxler (eds.)]. Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Wetlands. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ↩
• Houghton, R.A. and A.A. Nassikas, 2017: Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 31, 456–472, doi:10.1002/2016GB005546. ↩
• Frolking, S. et al. 2011: Peatlands in the Earth’s 21st century climate system. Environ. Rev., 19, 371–396, doi:10.1139/a11-014. ↩
• Oktarita, S., K. Hergoualc’h, S. Anwar, and L. V Verchot, 2017: Environmental Research Letters Substantial N2O emissions from peat decomposition and N fertilization in an oil palm plantation exacerbated by hotspots Substantial N2O emissions from peat decomposition and N fertilization in an oil palm plantation exac. Environ. Res. Lett, 12. ↩
• an der Werf, G.R. et al. 2017: Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 697–720, doi:10.5194/essd-9-697- 2017. ↩
• Fernandes, K. et al. 2017: Heightened fire probability in Indonesia in non-drought conditions: The effect of increasing temperatures. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6884. ↩
• Gaveau, D.L. a et al. 2014: Major atmospheric emissions from peat fires in Southeast Asia during non-drought years: Evidence from the 2013 Sumatran fires. Sci. Rep., 4, 1–7, doi:10.1038/srep06112. ↩
• Koplitz, S.N. et al. 2016: Public health impacts of the severe haze in Equatorial Asia in September –October 2015: Demonstration of a new framework for informing fire management strategies to reduce downwind smoke exposure. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094023. ↩
• Weinzierl, T., J. Wehberg, J. Böhner, and O. Conrad, 2016: Spatial assessment of land degradation risk for the Okavango river catchment, Southern Africa. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 281–294, doi:10.1002/ldr.2426. ↩
• Sousa, F.F. de, C. Vieira-da-Silva, and F.B. Barros, 2018: The (in)visible market of miriti ( Mauritia flexuosa L.f.) fruits, the “winter acai”, in Amazonian riverine communities of Abaetetuba, Northern Brazil. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 14, e00393, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00393. ↩
• Virapongse, A., B.A. Endress, M.P. Gilmore, C. Horn, and C. Romulo, 2017: Ecology, livelihoods, and management of the Mauritia flexuosa palm in South America. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 10, 70–92, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2016.12.005. ↩
• Andersen, R. et al. 2017: An overview of the progress and challenges of peatland restoration in Western Europe. Restor. Ecol., 25, 271–282, doi:10.1111/rec.12415. ↩
• Ritzema, H., S. Limin, K. Kusin, J. Jauhiainen, and H. Wösten, 2014: Canal blocking strategies for hydrological restoration of degraded tropical peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Catena, 114, 11–20, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2013.10.009. ↩
• Carlson, K.M. et al. 2017: Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 115, 201704728, doi:10.1073/pnas.1704728114. ↩
• Regina, K., J. Sheehy, and M. Myllys, 2015: Mitigating greenhouse gas fluxes from cultivated organic soils with raised water table. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 20, 1529–1544, doi:10.1007/s11027-014-9559-2. ↩
• Wilson, D. et al. 2016: Greenhouse gas emission factors associated with rewetting of organic soils. Mires Peat, 17(4), 1–28, doi:10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.222. ↩
• Nugent, K.A., I.B. Strachan, M. Strack, N.T. Roulet, and L. Rochefort, 2018: Multi-year net ecosystem carbon balance of a restored peatland reveals a return to carbon sink. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24(12), 5751–5768, doi:10.1111/gcb.14449. ↩
• Parry, L.E., J. Holden, and P.J. Chapman, 2014: Restoration of blanket peatlands. J. Environ. Manage., 133, 193–205, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.033. ↩
• Ramchunder, S.J., L.E. Brown, and J. Holden, 2012: Catchment-scale peatland restoration benefits stream ecosystem biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol., 49(1), 182–191, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02075.x. ↩
• Renou-Wilson, F. et al. 2018: Rewetting degraded peatlands for climate and biodiversity benefits: Results from two raised bogs. Ecological Engineering, 127, 547–560, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.014. ↩
• Martin-Ortega, J., T.E.H. Allott, K. Glenk, and M. Schaafsma, 2014: Valuing water quality improvements from peatland restoration: Evidence and challenges. Ecosyst. Serv., 9, 34–43, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.00. ↩
• Bonn, A., Allott, T., Evans, M., Joosten, H., Stoneman, R., 2016: Peatland restoration and ecosystem services: nature-based solutions for societal goals. In: Peatland restoration and ecosystem services: Science, policy and practice. [Bonn A., Allott T., Evans M., Joosten H., Stoneman R., (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. pp. 402–417. ↩
• Singh, B.P., A.L. Cowie, and R.J. Smernik, 2012: Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol., 46(21), 11770–11778 doi:10.1021/es302545b. ↩
• Wang, J., Z. Xiong, and Y. Kuzyakov, 2016b: Biochar stability in soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 512–523, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12266. ↩
• Fang, Y., B.P.B. Singh, and B.P.B. Singh, 2015: Effect of temperature on biochar priming effects and its stability in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem., 80, 136–145, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.006. ↩
• Singh, B.P. et al. 2015: In situ persistence and migration of biochar carbon and its impact on native carbon emission in contrasting soils under managed temperate pastures. PLoS One, 10, e0141560, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141560. ↩
• Fang, Y., B.P. Singh, P. Matta, A.L. Cowie, and L. Van Zwieten, 2017: Temperature sensitivity and priming of organic matter with different stabilities in a Vertisol with aged biochar. Soil Biol. Biochem., 115, 346–356, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.09.004. ↩
• Weng, Z.H. (Han) et al. 2015: Plant-biochar interactions drive the negative priming of soil organic carbon in an annual ryegrass field system. Soil Biol. Biochem., 90, 111–121, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.08.005. ↩
• Weng, Z. et al. 2017: Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 371–376, doi:10.1038/nclimate3276 ↩
• Wang, J., Z. Xiong, and Y. Kuzyakov, 2016b: Biochar stability in soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 512–523, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12266. ↩
• Singh, B.P. and A.L. Cowie, 2014: Long-term influence of biochar on native organic carbon mineralisation in a low-carbon clayey soil. Sci. Rep., 4, 3687, doi:10.1038/srep03687. ↩
• Ventura, M. et al. 2015: Biochar mineralization and priming effect on SOM decomposition in two European short rotation coppices. GCB Bioenergy,7(5), 1150–1160, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12219. ↩
• Ding, F. et al. 2018: A meta-analysis and critical evaluation of influencing factors on soil carbon priming following biochar amendment. J. Soils Sediments, 18(4), 1507–1517, doi:10.1007/s11368-017-1899-6. ↩
• Cayuela, M.L., S. Jeffery, and L. Van Zwieten, 2015: The molar H: Corg ratio of biochar is a key factor in mitigating N2O emissions from soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 202, 135–138. ↩
• Borchard, N. et al. 2019: Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ., 651, 2354–2364, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.10.060. ↩
• Verhoeven, E. et al. 2017: Toward a better assessment of biochar–nitrous oxide mitigation potential at the field scale. J. Environ. Qual., 46(2), 237–246, doi:10.2134/jeq2016.10.0396. ↩
• He, Y. et al. 2017: Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 743–755, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12376. ↩
• Kammann, C. et al. 2017: Biochar as a tool to reduce the agricultural greenhouse-gas burden – knowns, unknowns and future research needs. 
J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag., 25, 114–139, doi:10.3846/16486897.2017.
1319375. ↩
• Jeffery, S., F.G.A. Verheijen, C. Kammann, and D. Abalos, 2016: Biochar effects on methane emissions from soils: A meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem., 101, 251–258, doi:10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2016.07.021. ↩
• Singh, B.P., B.J. Hatton, S. Balwant, and A.L. Cowie, 2010: The role of biochar in reducing nitrous oxide emissions and nitrogen leaching from soil. Proceedings from the 19th World Congress of Soil Science Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia. 3 p. ↩
• Van Zwieten, L. et al. 2015: Enhanced biological N2 fixation and yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in an acid soil following biochar addition: Dissection of causal mechanisms. Plant Soil, 395, 7–20, doi:10.1007/s11104-015- 2427-3. ↩
• Biederman, L.A., and W. Stanley Harpole, 2013: Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy, 5(2), 202–214 doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037. ↩
• Simon, J. et al. 2017: Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 53001. ↩
• Agyarko-Mintah, E. et al. 2017: Biochar increases nitrogen retention and lowers greenhouse gas emissions when added to composting poultry litter. Waste Manag., 61, 138–149, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.027. ↩
• Wu, H. et al. 2017a: The interactions of composting and biochar and their implications for soil amendment and pollution remediation: A review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol., 37, 754–764, doi:10.1080/07388551.2016.1232696. ↩
• Genesio, L. et al. 2012: Surface albedo following biochar application in durum wheat. Environ. Res. Lett., 7(1) 014025, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014025. ↩
• Bozzi, E., L. Genesio, P. Toscano, M. Pieri, and F. Miglietta, 2015: Mimicking biochar-albedo feedback in complex Mediterranean agricultural landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 084014, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084014. ↩
• Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 
2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 56. ↩
• Genesio, L., F.P. Vaccari, and F. Miglietta, 2016: Black carbon aerosol from biochar threats its negative emission potential. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22(7), 2313–2314, doi:10.1111/gcb.13254. ↩
• Cowie, A. et al. 2015: Biochar, carbon accounting and climate change. In: Biochar for Environmental Management Science, Technology and Implementation. [Joseph, S., Lehmann, J., (eds.)]. Taylor and Francis, London, UK, pp. 763–794. ↩
• Ji, C., K. Cheng, D. Nayak, and G. Pan, 2018: Environmental and economic assessment of crop residue competitive utilization for biochar, briquette fuel and combined heat and power generation. J. Clean. Prod., 192, 916–923, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.05.026. ↩
• Woolf, D. et al. 2018: Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation. Soil and Climate, Series: Advances in Soil Science, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 219–248. ↩
• Joseph, S.D. et al. 2010: An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil. Soil Research. 48(7), 501–515. doi: 10.1071/SR10009. ↩
• Haider, G., D. Steffens, G. Moser, C. Müller, and C.I. Kammann, 2017: Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four-year field study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 237, 80–94, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.019. ↩
• Liu, Y. et al. 2018c: Mechanisms of rice straw biochar effects on phosphorus sorption characteristics of acid upland red soils. Chemosphere, 207, 267–277, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.086. ↩
• O’Connor, D. et al. 2018: Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: A review of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ., 619, 815–826, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.132. ↩
• Peng, X., Y. Deng, Y. Peng, and K. Yue, 2018: Effects of biochar addition on toxic element concentrations in plants: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ., 616–617, 970–977. ↩
• Rizwan, M. et al. 2016: Mechanisms of biochar-mediated alleviation of toxicity of trace elements in plants: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 23, 2230–2248, doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5697-7. ↩
• Zhang, X. et al. 2013: Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 20(12), 8472–8443, doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1659-0. ↩
• Thies, J.E., M.C. Rillig, and E.R. Graber, 2015: Biochar effects on the abundance, activity and diversity of the soil biota. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation [Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. Eds.], Routledge, Abingdon, 907 p. ↩
• Quin, P.R. et al. 2014: Oil mallee biochar improves soil structural properties – A study with x-ray micro-CT. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 191, 142–149, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.022. ↩
• Omondi, M.O. et al. 2016: Quantification of biochar effects on soil hydrological properties using meta-analysis of literature data. Geoderma, 274, 28–34, doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2016.03.029. ↩
• Paetsch, L. et al. 2018: Effect of in-situ aged and fresh biochar on soil hydraulic conditions and microbial C use under drought conditions. Sci. Rep., 8(1), 6852, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25039-x. ↩
• Chan, K.Y., L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph, 2008: Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Soil Res., 46, 437, doi:10.1071/SR08036. ↩
• Van Zwieten, L. et al. 2010: Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil, 327, 235–246, doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x. ↩
• Joseph, S. et al. 2018: Microstructural and associated chemical changes during the composting of a high temperature biochar: Mechanisms for nitrate, phosphate and other nutrient retention and release. Sci. Total Environ., 618, 1210–1223, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.200. ↩
• Kuppusamy, S., P. Thavamani, M. Megharaj, K. Venkateswarlu, and R. Naidu, 2016: Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of applying biochar to soil: Current knowledge and future research directions. Environ. Int., 87, 1–12, doi:10.1016/J.ENVINT.2015.10.018. ↩
• Quilliam, R.S., S. Rangecroft, B.A. Emmett, T.H. Deluca, and D.L. Jones, 2013: Is biochar a source or sink for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds in agricultural soils? GCB Bioenergy, 5, 96–103, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12007. ↩
• Ojeda, G., J. Patrício, S. Mattana, and A.J.F.N. Sobral, 2016: Effects of biochar addition to estuarine sediments. J. Soils Sediments, 16, 2482–2491, doi:10.1007/s11368-016-1493-3. ↩
• Hilber, I. et al. 2017: Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from (post-pyrolytically treated) biochars. Chemosphere, 174, 700–707, doi:10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2017.02.014. ↩
• Xu, G., Y. Zhang, H. Shao, and J. Sun, 2016: Pyrolysis temperature affects phosphorus transformation in biochar: Chemical fractionation and 31P NMR analysis. Sci. Total Environ., 569, 65–72, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.081. ↩
• Nguyen, T.T.N. et al. 2017: Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic nitrogen: A review and meta-analysis. Geoderma, 288, 79–96 doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.004. ↩
• Bonanomi, G. et al. 2018: Biochar chemistry defined by13C-CPMAS NMR explains opposite effects on soilborne microbes and crop plants. Appl. Soil Ecol., 124, 351–361, doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.027. ↩
• Elad, Y. et al. 2011: The biochar effect: Plant resistance to biotic stresses. Phytopathol. Mediterr., 50(3), 335–349, doi:10.14601/Phytopathol_ Mediterr-9807. ↩
• Viger, M., R.D. Hancock, F. Miglietta, and G. Taylor, 2015: More plant growth but less plant defence? First global gene expression data for plants grown in soil amended with biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 7(4), 658–672, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12182. ↩
• Kolton, M., E.R. Graber, L. Tsehansky, Y. Elad, and E. Cytryn, 2017: Biochar-stimulated plant performance is strongly linked to microbial diversity and metabolic potential in the rhizosphere. New Phytol., 213(3), 1393–1404, doi:10.1111/nph.14253. ↩
• Bonanomi, G. et al. 2018: Biochar chemistry defined by13C-CPMAS NMR explains opposite effects on soilborne microbes and crop plants. Appl. Soil Ecol., 124, 351–361, doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.027. ↩
• Frenkel, O. et al. 2017: The effect of biochar on plant diseases: What should we learn while designing biochar substrates? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag., 25(2), 105–113, doi:10.3846/16486897.2017.1307202. ↩
• Downie, A., P. Munroe, A. Cowie, L. Van Zwieten, and D.M.S. Lau, 2012: Biochar as a geoengineering climate solution: Hazard identification and risk management. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.,42, 225–250, doi:10.1080/10643389.2010.507980. ↩
• Buss, W., O. Mašek, M. Graham, and D. Wüst, 2015: Inherent organic compounds in biochar: Their content, composition and potential toxic effects. J. Environ. Manage., 156, 150–157, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.035. ↩
• Bacmeister, J.T. et al. 2018: Projected changes in tropical cyclone activity under future warming scenarios using a high-resolution climate model. Clim. Change, 146, 547–560, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1750-x. ↩
• Knutson, T.R. et al. 2010: Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat. Geosci., 3, 157–163, doi:10.1038/ngeo779. ↩
• Bender, M.A. et al. 2010: Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science, 327, 454 LP-458. ↩
• Vecchi, G.A. et al. 2008: Climate change. Whither hurricane activity? Science, 322, 687–689, doi:10.1126/science.1164396. ↩
• Bhatia, K. et al. 2018: Projected response of tropical cyclone intensity and intensification in a global climate model. J. Clim., 31, 8281–8303, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0898.1. ↩
• Tu, S., F. Xu, and J. Xu, 2018: Regime shift in the destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the western North Pacific. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 094021, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aade3a. ↩
• Sobel, A.H. et al. 2016: Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science, 353, 242–246, doi:10.1126/science.aaf6574. ↩
• Sharmila, S. and K.J.E. Walsh, 2018: Recent poleward shift of tropical cyclone formation linked to Hadley cell expansion. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 730–736, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0227-5. ↩
• Erwin, K.L., 2009: Wetlands and global climate change: The role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 17, 71–84, doi:10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1. ↩
• Kossin, J.P., 2018: A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature, 558, 104–107, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0158-3. ↩
• Luke, D., K. McLaren, and B. Wilson, 2016: Modeling hurricane exposure in a Caribbean lower montane tropical wet forest: The effects of frequent, intermediate disturbances and topography on forest structural dynamics and composition. Ecosystems, 19, 1178–1195, doi:10.1007/s10021-
016-9993-y. ↩
• Klöck, C. and P.D. Nunn, 2019: Adaptation to climate change in small island developing states: A systematic literature review of academic research. J. Environ. Dev., 28(2), 196–218, 107049651983589, doi:10.1177/1070496519835895. ↩
• Handmer, J., and J. Nalau, 2019: Understanding Loss and Damage in Pacific Small Island Developing States. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 365–381 ↩
• Terry, J.P. and A.Y.A. Lau, 2018: Magnitudes of nearshore waves generated by tropical cyclone Winston, the strongest landfalling cyclone in South Pacific records. Unprecedented or unremarkable? Sediment. Geol., 364, 276–285, doi:10.1016/J.SEDGEO.2017.10.009. ↩
• Petzold, J. and A.K. Magnan, 2019: Climate change: Thinking small islands beyond Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Clim. Change, 152, 145–165, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2363-3. ↩
• Ghosh, A., S. Schmidt, T. Fickert, and M. Nüsser, 2015: The Indian sundarbans mangrove forests: History, utilization, conservation strategies and local perception. Diversity, 7, 149–169, doi:10.3390/d7020149. ↩
• Abdullah, A.N.M., K.K. Zander, B. Myers, N. Stacey, and S.T. Garnett, 2016: A short-term decrease in household income inequality in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh, following Cyclone Aila. Nat. Hazards, 83, 1103–1123, doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2358-1. ↩
• Dutta, D., P.K. Das, S. Paul, J.R. Sharma, and V.K. Dadhwal, 2015: Assessment of ecological disturbance in the mangrove forest of Sundarbans caused by cyclones using MODIS time-series data (2001–2011). Nat. Hazards, 79, 775–790, doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1872-x. ↩
• Payo, A. et al. 2016: Projected changes in area of the Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh due to SLR by 2100. Clim. Change, 139, 279–291, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1769-z. ↩
• Loucks, C., S. Barber-Meyer, M.A.A. Hossain, A. Barlow, and R.M. Chowdhury, 2010: Sea level rise and tigers: Predicted impacts to Bangladesh’s Sundarbans mangroves. Clim. Change, 98, 291–298, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9761-5. ↩
• Gopal, B., and M. Chauhan, 2006: Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarbans Mangrove Ecosystem. Aquat. Sci., 68, 338–354, doi:10.1007/s00027-006-0868-8. ↩
• Chaudhuri, P., S. Ghosh, M. Bakshi, S. Bhattacharyya, and B. Nath, 2015: A review of threats and vulnerabilities to mangrove habitats: With special emphasis on East Coast of India. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change, 06, 270, doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000270. ↩
• Fritz, H.M., C.D. Blount, S. Thwin, M.K. Thu, and N. Chan, 2009: Cyclone Nargis storm surge in Myanmar. Nat. Geosci., 2, 448–449, doi:10.1038/ngeo558. ↩
• Fritz, H.M., C. Blount, S. Thwin, M.K. Thu, and N. Chan, 2010: Cyclone Nargis Storm Surge Flooding in Myanmar’s Ayeyarwady River Delta. Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 295–303. ↩
• Meng, W. et al. 2017: Status of wetlands in China: A review of extent, degradation, issues and recommendations for improvement. Ocean Coast. Manag., 146, 50–59, doi:10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2017.06.003. ↩
• Zedler, J.B., 2000: Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol., 15, 402–407, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01959-5. ↩
• Costanza, R. et al. 2008: The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ., 37, 241–248, doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[241:TVOCWF]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Burlakova, L.E., A.Y. Karatayev, D.K. Padilla, L.D. Cartwright, and D.N. Hollas, 2009: Wetland restoration and invasive species: Apple snail (Pomacea insularum) feeding on native and invasive aquatic plants. Restor. Ecol., 17, 433–440, doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00429.x. ↩
• López-Rosas, H. et al. 2013: Interdune wetland restoration in central Veracruz, Mexico: plant diversity recovery mediated by the hydroperiod. Restoration of Coastal Dunes, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 255–269. ↩
• López-Portillo, J. et al. 2017: Mangrove Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation. Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Biogeographic Perspective, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 301–345. ↩
• Fasullo, J.T., and R.S. Nerem, 2018: Altimeter-era emergence of the patterns of forced sea-level rise in climate models and implications for the future. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 12944–12949, doi:10.1073/pnas.1813233115. ↩
• Wicke, B. et al. 2011: The global technical and economic potential of bioenergy from salt-affected soils. Energy Environ. Sci., 4, 2669, doi:10.1039/c1ee01029h. ↩
• Uddameri, V., S. Singaraju, and E.A. Hernandez, 2014: Impacts of sea-level rise and urbanization on groundwater availability and sustainability of coastal communities in semi-arid South Texas. Environ. Earth Sci., 71, 2503–2515, doi:10.1007/s12665-013-2904-z. ↩
• Rasul, G., A Mahmood, A Sadiq, and S.I. Khan, 2012: Vulnerability of the Indus Delta to Climate Change in Pakistan. Pakistan J. Meteorol., 8, 89–107. ↩
• Chandio, N.H., M.M. Anwar, and A.A. Chandio, 2011: Degradation of Indus Delta, removal of mangroves forestland; its causes. A case study of Indus River Delta. Sindh Univ. Res. Jour. (Sci. Ser.), 43. 1. ↩
• Kalhoro, N. et al. 2016: Vulnerability of the Indus River Delta of the North Arabian Sea, Pakistan. Glob. Nest J. (gnest). 18, 599–610. ↩
• IUCN, 2003: Environmental Degradation And Impacts On Livelihood: Sea Intrusion – A Case Study. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Sindh Programme Office, Pakistan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 77 pp. ↩
• Karbassi, A., G.N. Bidhendi, A. Pejman, and M.E. Bidhendi, 2010: Environmental impacts of desalination on the ecology of Lake Urmia. J. Great Lakes Res., 36, 419–424, doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2010.06.004. ↩
• Marjani, A. and M. Jamali, 2014: Role of exchange flow in salt water balance of Urmia Lake. Dyn. Atmos. Ocean., 65, 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2013.10.001. ↩
• Shadkam, S., F. Ludwig, P. van Oel, Ç Kirmit, and P. Kabat, 2016: Impacts of climate change and water resources development on the declining inflow into Iran’s Urmia Lake. J. Great Lakes Res., 42, 942–952, doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2016.07.033. ↩
• Halvorson, W.L., A.E. Castellanos, and J. Murrieta-Saldivar, 2003: Sustainable land use requires attention to ecological signals. Environ. Manage., 32, 551–558, doi:10.1007/s00267-003-2889-6. ↩
• Romo-Leon, J.R., W.J.D. van Leeuwen, and A. Castellanos-Villegas, 2014: Using remote sensing tools to assess land use transitions in unsustainable arid agro-ecosystems. J. Arid Environ., 106, 27–35, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.03.002. ↩
• Kalhoro, N.A., Z. He, D. Xu, I. Muhammad, and A.F. Sohoo, 2017: Seasonal variation of oceanographic processes in Indus River estuary. Seas. Var. Oceanogr. Process. Indus river estuary. MAUSAM, 68, 643–654. ↩
• Atwood, T.B. et al. 2017: Global patterns in mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 523–528, doi:10.1038/nclimate3326. ↩
• Etemadi, H., S.Z. Samadi, M. Sharifikia, and J.M. Smoak, 2016: Assessment of climate change downscaling and non-stationarity on the spatial pattern of a mangrove ecosystem in an arid coastal region of southern Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 126, 35–49, doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1552-5. ↩
• Knutson, T.R. et al. 2015: Global projections of intense tropical cyclone activity for the late twenty-first century from dynamical downscaling of CMIP5/RCP4.5 scenarios. J. Clim., 28, 7203–7224, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0129.1. ↩
• IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp. ↩
• Nurse, L.A. et al. 2014: Small Islands. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability [V.R. Barros et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1613–1654. ↩
• Wong, P.P. et al. 2014: Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. C.B. Field et al. Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 361–409. ↩
• Cooper, J.A.G., and J. Pile, 2014: The adaptation-resistance spectrum: A classification of contemporary adaptation approaches to climate-related coastal change. Ocean Coast. Manag., 94, 90–98, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.006. ↩
• French, P.W., 2001: Coastal Defences: Processes, Problems and Solutions. Routledge, London, 350 pp. ↩
• Barnett, J., and S. O’Neill, 2010: Maladaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20, 211–213, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004. ↩
• Magnan, A.K. et al. 2016: Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 646–665, doi:10.1002/wcc.409. ↩
• Sovacool, B.K., 2012: Perceptions of climate change risks and resilient island planning in the Maldives. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 17, 731–752, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9341-7. ↩
• Government of Tuvalu, 2006: National Action Plan to Combat Land Degradation and Drought. Funafuti, Tuvalu,. 38 pp. ↩
• Wairiu, M., 2017: Land degradation and sustainable land management practices in Pacific Island Countries. Reg. Environ. Chang., 17, 1053–1064, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1041-0. ↩
• Donner, S., 2012: Sea level rise and the ongoing battle of Tarawa. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 93, 169–170, doi:10.1029/2012EO170001. ↩
• Donner, S.D., and S. Webber, 2014: Obstacles to climate change adaptation decisions: A case study of sea-level rise and coastal protection measures in Kiribati. Sustain. Sci., 9, 331–345, doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0242-z. ↩
• Marino, E., and H. Lazrus, 2015: Migration or Forced Displacement? The complex choices of climate change and disaster migrants in Shishmaref, Alaska and Nanumea, Tuvalu. Hum. Organ., 74, 341–350, doi:10.17730/0018-7259-74.4.341. ↩
• Betzold, C., and I. Mohamed, 2017: Seawalls as a response to coastal erosion and flooding: A case study from Grande Comore, Comoros (West Indian Ocean). Reg. Environ. Chang., 17, 1077–1087, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1044-x. ↩
• Ratter, B.M.W., J. Petzold, and K. Sinane, 2016: Considering the locals: Coastal construction and destruction in times of climate change on Anjouan, Comoros. Nat. Resour. Forum, 40, 112–126, doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12102. ↩
• Sealey, N.E., 2006: The cycle of casuarina-induced beach erosion – A case study from Andros, Bahamas. 12th Symp. Geol. Bahamas other Carbonate Reg. San Salvador. Bahamas, 196–204. ↩
• Duvat, V.K.E., A.K. Magnan, S. Etienne, C. Salmon, and C. Pignon-Mussaud, 2016: Assessing the impacts of and resilience to Tropical Cyclone Bejisa, Reunion Island (Indian Ocean). Nat. Hazards, 83, 601–640, doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2338-5. ↩
• Pontee, N., 2013: Defining coastal squeeze: A discussion. Ocean Coast. Manag., 84, 204–207, doi:10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2013.07.010. ↩
• Zhu, X., M.M. Linham, and R.J. Nicholls, 2010: Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation – Coastal Erosion and Flooding. Roskilde: Danish Technical University, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy. TNA Guidebook Series. ↩
• Muir, D., J.A.G. Cooper, and G. Pétursdóttir, 2014: Challenges and opportunities in climate change adaptation for communities in Europe’s northern periphery. Ocean Coast. Manag., 94, 1–8, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.017. ↩
• Young, E., D. Muir, A. Dawson, and S. Dawson, 2014: Community driven coastal management: An example of the implementation of a coastal defence bund on South Uist, Scottish Outer Hebrides. Ocean Coast. Manag., 94, 30–37, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.01.001. ↩
• Bush, D.M., 2004: Living with Florida’s Atlantic beaches: coastal hazards from Amelia Island to Key West. Duke University Press, 338 pp. ↩
• Duvat, V., 2013: Coastal protection structures in Tarawa Atoll, Republic of Kiribati. Sustain. Sci., 8, 363–379, doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0205-9. ↩
• Mycoo, M. and A. Chadwick, 2012: Adaptation to climate change: The coastal zone of Barbados. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Marit. Eng., 165, 159–168, doi:10.1680/maen.2011.19. ↩
• Slobbe, E. et al. 2013: Building with nature: In search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Nat. Hazards, 65, 947–966, doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0342-y. ↩
• Buggy, L. and K.E. McNamara, 2016: The need to reinterpret “community” for climate change adaptation: A case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Clim. Dev., 8, 270–280, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1041445. ↩
• Petzold, J., 2016: Limitations and opportunities of social capital for adaptation to climate change: A case study on the Isles of Scilly. Geogr. J., 182, 123–134, doi:10.1111/geoj.12154. ↩
• Munson, S.M., J. Belnap, and G.S. Okin, 2011: Responses of wind erosion to climate-induced vegetation changes on the Colorado Plateau. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 3854–3859, doi:10.1073/pnas.1014947108. ↩
• Sheffield, J., E.F. Wood, and M.L. Roderick, 2012: Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature, 491, 435–438, doi:10.1038/ 4 nature11575. ↩
• Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50. ↩
• Shakesby, R.A., 2011: Post-wildfire soil erosion in the Mediterranean: Review and future research directions. Earth-Science Rev., 105, 71–100, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2011.01.001. ↩
• Panthou, G., T. Vischel, and T. Lebel, 2014: Recent trends in the regime of extreme rainfall in the Central Sahel. Int. J. Climatol., 34, 3998–4006, doi:10.1002/joc.3984. ↩
• Johnson, J.M. et al. 2015: Recent shifts in coastline change and shoreline stabilization linked to storm climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 40, 569–585, doi:10.1002/esp.3650. ↩
• Alongi, D.M., 2015: The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 30–39, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x. ↩
• Harley, M.D. et al. 2017: Extreme coastal erosion enhanced by anomalous extratropical storm wave direction. Sci. Rep., 7, 6033, doi:10.1038/s41598- 017-05792-1. ↩
• Bond-Lamberty, B., V.L. Bailey, M. Chen, C.M. Gough, and R. Vargas, 2018: Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature, 560, 80–83, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x. ↩
• Crowther, T.W. et al. 2016: Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540, 104–108, doi:10.1038/nature20150. ↩
• van Gestel, N. et al. 2018: Predicting soil carbon loss with warming. Nature, 554, E4–E5, doi:10.1038/nature25745. ↩
• Colombani, N., A. Osti, G. Volta, and M. Mastrocicco, 2016: Impact of climate change on salinization of coastal water resources. Water Resour. Manag., 30, 2483–2496, doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1292-z. ↩
• Schofield, R.V. and M.J. Kirkby, 2003: Application of salinization indicators and initial development of potential global soil salinization scenario under climatic change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, doi:10.1029/2002GB001935. ↩
• Aragüés, R. et al. 2015: Soil salinization as a threat to the sustainability of deficit irrigation under present and expected climate change scenarios. Irrig. Sci., 33, 67–79, doi:10.1007/s00271-014-0449-x. ↩
• Benini, L., M. Antonellini, M. Laghi, and P.N. Mollema, 2016: Assessment of water resources availability and groundwater salinization in future climate and land use change scenarios: A case study from a coastal drainage basin in Italy. Water Resour. Manag., 30, 731–745, doi:10.1007/s11269-015- 1187-4. ↩
• Jobbágy, E.G., T. Tóth, M.D. Nosetto, and S. Earman, 2017: On the fundamental causes of high environmental alkalinity (pH ≥ 9): An assessment of its drivers and global distribution. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 1973–1981, doi:10.1002/ldr.2718. ↩
• Liljedahl, A.K. et al. 2016: Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology. Nat. Geosci., 9, 312–318, doi:10.1038/ngeo2674. ↩
• Peng, X. et al. 2016: Response of changes in seasonal soil freeze/thaw state to climate change from 1950 to 2010 across China. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 121, 1984–2000, doi:10.1002/2016JF003876. ↩
• Batir, J.F., M.J. Hornbach, and D.D. Blackwell, 2017: Ten years of measurements and modeling of soil temperature changes and their effects on permafrost in Northwestern Alaska. Glob. Planet. Change, 148, 55–71, doi:10.1016/J. GLOPLACHA.2016.11.009. ↩
• Piovano, E.L., D. Ariztegui, S.M. Bernasconi, and J.A. McKenzie, 2004: Stable isotopic record of hydrological changes in subtropical Laguna Mar Chiquita (Argentina) over the last 230 years. The Holocene, 14, 525–535, doi:10.1191/0959683604hl729rp. ↩
• Osland, M.J. et al. 2016: Beyond just sea-level rise: Considering macroclimatic drivers within coastal wetland vulnerability assessments to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1–11, doi:10.1111/gcb.13084. ↩
• Burkett, V., and J. Kusler, 2000: Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in wetlands in the United States. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 36, 313–320, doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04270.x. ↩
• Nielsen, D.L. and M.A. Brock, 2009: Modified water regime and salinity as a consequence of climate change: Prospects for wetlands of Southern Australia. Clim. Change, 95, 523–533, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9564-8. ↩
• Green, A.J. et al. 2017: Creating a safe operating space for wetlands in a changing climate. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 99–107, doi:10.1002/ fee.1459. ↩
• Arnell, N.W., and S.N. Gosling, 2016: The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Clim. Change, 134, 387–401, doi:10.1007/ s10584-014-1084-5. ↩
• Vitousek, S. et al. 2017: Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise. Sci. Rep., 7, 1399, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01362-7. ↩
• Van Auken, O.W., 2009: Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2931–2942, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023. ↩
• Wigley, B.J., W.J. Bond, and M.T. Hoffman, 2010: Thicket expansion in a South African savanna under divergent land use: Local vs. global drivers? Glob. Chang. Biol., 16, 964–976, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02030.x. ↩
• Vincent, K.E., P. Tschakert, J. Barnett, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, and A. Woodward, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on Gender and Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 105–107. ↩
• Gonzalez, P., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek, 2010: Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 19, 755–768, doi:10.1111/j.1466- 8238.2010.00558.x. ↩
• Scheffers, B.R. et al. 2016: The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science, 354, aaf7671, doi:10.1126/science.aaf7671. ↩
• Pritchard, S.G., 2011: Soil organisms and global climate change. Plant Pathol., 60, 82–99, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02405.x. ↩
• Ratcliffe, S. et al. 2017: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecol. Lett., 20, 1414–1426, doi:10.1111/ele.12849. ↩
• Reed, S.C. et al. 2012: Changes to dryland rainfall result in rapid moss mortality and altered soil fertility. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 752–755, doi:10.1038/ nclimate1596. ↩
• Maestre, F.T. et al. 2013: Changes in biocrust cover drive carbon cycle responses to climate change in drylands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 19, 3835–3847, doi:10.1111/gcb.12306. ↩
• Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes, 2008: Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv. Biol., 22, 534–543, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x. ↩
• Hulme, P.E., 2017: Climate change and biological invasions: evidence, expectations, and response options. Biol. Rev., 92, 1297–1313, doi:10.1111/ brv.12282. ↩
• Pureswaran, D.S. et al. 2015: Climate-induced changes in host tree–insect phenology may drive ecological state-shift in boreal forests. Ecology, 96, 1480–1491, doi:10.1890/13-2366.1. ↩
• Cilas, C., F.-R. Goebel, R. Babin, and J. Avelino, 2016: Tropical Crop Pests and Diseases in a Climate Change Setting—A Few Examples. Climate Change and Agriculture Worldwide, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 73–82. ↩
• Macfadyen, S., G. McDonald, and M.P. Hill, 2018: From species distributions to climate change adaptation: Knowledge gaps in managing invertebrate pests in broad-acre grain crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 253, 208–219, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2016.08.029. ↩
• Jolly, W.M. et al. 2015: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun., 6, 7537, doi:10.1038/ncomms8537. ↩
• Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113. ↩
• Taufik, M. et al. 2017: Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 428–431, doi:10.1038/ nclimate3280. ↩
• Knorr, W., L. Jiang, and A. Arneth, 2016: Climate, CO2 and human population impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences, 13, 267–282, doi:10.5194/bg-13-267-2016. ↩
• Davin, E.L., N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, E.L. Davin, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010: Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: Radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim., 23, 97–112, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3102.1. ↩
• Pinty, B. et al. 2011: Snowy backgrounds enhance the absorption of visible light in forest canopies. Geoph. Res. Lett. 38(6), 1–5 doi:10.1029/2010GL046417. ↩
• Wang, Z. et al. 2017b: Human-induced erosion has offset one-third of carbon emissions from land cover change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 345–349, doi:10.1038/nclimate3263. ↩
• Chappell, A., J. Baldock, and J. Sanderman, 2016: The global significance of omitting soil erosion from soil organic carbon cycling schemes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 187–191, doi:10.1038/nclimate2829. ↩
• Pendleton, L. et al. 2012: Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One, 7, e43542, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043542. ↩
• Oertel, C., J. Matschullat, K. Zurba, F. Zimmermann, and S. Erasmi, 2016: Greenhouse gas emissions from soils – A review. Chemie der Erde – Geochemistry, 76, 327–352, doi:10.1016/J.CHEMER.2016.04.002. ↩
• Houghton, R.A. et al. 2012: Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–5142, doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012. ↩
• Eglin, T. et al. 2010: Historical and future perspectives of global soil carbon response to climate and land-use changes. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol., 62, 700–718, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2010.00499.x. ↩
• Schuur, E.A.G. et al. 2015: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179, doi:10.1038/nature14338. ↩
• Christensen, T.R. et al. 2004: Thawing sub-arctic permafrost: Effects on vegetation and methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L04501, doi:10.1029/2003GL018680. ↩
• Walter Anthony, K. et al. 2016: Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nat. Geosci., 9, 679–682, doi:10.1038/ngeo2795. ↩
• Abbott, B.W. et al. 2016: Biomass offsets little or none of permafrost carbon release from soils, streams, and wildfire: an expert assessment. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 034014, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034014. ↩
• Belnap, J., B.J. Walker, S.M. Munson, and R.A. Gill, 2014: Controls on sediment production in two U.S. deserts. Aeolian Res., 14, 15–24, doi:10.1016/J. AEOLIA.2014.03.007. ↩
• Rutherford, W.A. et al. 2017: Albedo feedbacks to future climate via climate change impacts on dryland biocrusts. Sci. Rep., 7, 44188, doi:10.1038/ srep44188. ↩
• Page, S.E. et al. 2002: The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature, 420, 61–65, doi:10.1038/nature01131. ↩
• Pellegrini, A.F.A. et al. 2018: Fire frequency drives decadal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen and ecosystem productivity. Nature, 553, 194–198. doi:10.1038/nature24668. ↩
• Smith, H.E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M.D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, 2015: Criminals by necessity: The risky life of charcoal transporters in Malawi.For.TreesLivelihoods,24,259–274,doi:10.1080/14728028.201 5.1062808. ↩
• Van Wilgen, B.W., N. Govender, H.C. Biggs, D. Ntsala, and X.N. Funda, 2004: Response of savanna fire regimes to changing fire-management policies in a large African national park. Conserv. Biol., 18, 1533–1540, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00362.x. ↩
• Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Increasing net ecosystem biomass production of Canada’s boreal and temperate forests despite decline in dry climates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles , 31 , 134–158, doi:10.1002/2016GB005459. ↩
• Van Wilgen, B.W., N. Govender, H.C. Biggs, D. Ntsala, and X.N. Funda, 2004: Response of savanna fire regimes to changing fire-management policies in a large African national park. Conserv. Biol., 18, 1533–1540, doi:10.1111/ j.1523-1739.2004.00362.x. ↩
• Duncan, T., 2016: Case Study: Taranaki farm regenerative agriculture. Pathways to integrated ecological farming. L. Restor., 2016, 271–287, doi:10.1016/B978–0-12–801231-4.00022-7. ↩
• Vanek, S.J., and J. Lehmann, 2015: Phosphorus availability to beans via interactions between mycorrhizas and biochar. Plant Soil, 395(1–2), 105–123, doi:10.1007/s11104-014-2246-y. ↩
• Bosire, J.O. et al. 2008: Functionality of restored mangroves: A review. Aquat. Bot., 89, 251–259, doi:10.1016/J.AQUABOT.2008.03.010. ↩
• Rasul, G., A Mahmood, A Sadiq, and S.I. Khan, 2012: Vulnerability of the Indus Delta to Climate Change in Pakistan. Pakistan J. Meteorol., 8, 89–107. ↩

Food Security

Summary for policymakers.

• 1 Introduction
• A People, land and climate in a warming world
• B Adaptation and mitigation response options
• C Enabling response options
• D Action in the near-term
• + Acknowledgements
• + SPM in UN Languages

Technical Summary

Framing and context.

• ES Executive Summary
• 1.1.1 Objectives and scope of the assessment
• 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.1 Land ecosystems and climate change
• 1.1.2.2 Current patterns of land use and land cover
• 1.1.2.3 Past and ongoing trends
• 1.2.1.1 Future trends in the global land system
• 1.2.1.2 Land degradation
• 1.2.1.3 Desertification
• 1.2.1.4 Food security, food systems and linkages to land-based ecosystems
• 1.2.1.5 Challenges arising from land governance
• 1.2.2.1 Concepts related to risk, uncertainty and confidence
• 1.2.2.2 Nature and scope of uncertainties related to land use
• 1.2.2.3 Uncertainties in decision-making
• 1.3.1 Targeted decarbonisation relying on large land-area need
• 1.3.2.1 Agricultural, forest and soil management
• 1.3.3.1 Supply management
• 1.3.3.2 Demand management
• 1.3.4 Risk management
• 1.3.5 Economics of land-based mitigation pathways: Costs versus benefits of early action under uncertainty
• 1.3.6 Adaptation measures and scope for co-benefits with mitigation
• 1.4.1 Governance to enable the response
• 1.4.2 Gender agency as a critical factor in climate and land sustainability outcomes
• 1.4.3.1 Legal and regulatory instruments
• 1.4.3.2 Economic and financial instruments
• 1.4.3.3 Rights-based instruments and customary norms
• 1.4.3.4 Social and cultural norms
• 1.5 The interdisciplinary nature of the SRCCL

Land–Climate interactions

• 2.1.1 Recap of previous IPCC and other relevant reports as baselines
• 2.1.2 Introduction to the chapter structure
• 2.2.1.1 Climate drivers of land form and function
• 2.2.1.2 Changes in global land surface air temperature
• 2.2.2 Climate-driven changes in aridity
• 2.2.3 The influence of climate change on food security
• 2.2.4 Climate-driven changes in terrestrial ecosystems
• 2.2.5.1 Changes in extreme temperatures, heatwaves and drought
• 2.2.5.2 Impacts of heat extremes and drought on land
• 2.2.5.3 Changes in heavy precipitation
• 2.2.5.4 Impacts of precipitation extremes on different land cover types
• 2.3.1.1 The total net flux of CO2 between land and atmosphere
• 2.3.1.2 Separation of the total net land flux into AFOLU fluxes and the land sink
• 2.3.1.3 Gross emissions and removals contributing to AFOLU emissions
• 2.3.1.4 Gross emissions and removals contributing to the non-anthropogenic land sink
• 2.3.1.5 Potential impact of mitigation on atmospheric CO 2 concentrations
• 2.3.2.1 Atmospheric trends
• 2.3.2.2 Land use effects
• 2.3.3.1 Atmospheric trends
• 2.3.3.2 Land use effects
• 2.4.1.1 Mineral dust as a short-lived climate forcer from land
• 2.4.1.2 Effects of past climate change on dust emissions and feedbacks
• 2.4.1.3 Future changes of dust emissions
• 2.4.2.1 Carbonaceous aerosol precursors of short-lived climate forcers from land
• 2.4.2.2 Effects of past climate change on carbonaceous aerosols emissions and feedbacks
• 2.4.2.3 Future changes of carbonaceous aerosol emissions
• 2.4.3.1 BVOC precursors of short-lived climate forcers from land
• 2.4.3.2 Historical changes of BVOCs and contribution to climate change
• 2.4.3.3 Future changes of BVOCs
• 2.5.1.1 Impacts of global historical land cover changes on climate
• 2.5.1.2 Impacts of future global land cover changes on climate
• 2.5.2.1 Impacts of deforestation and forestation
• 2.5.2.2 Impacts of changes in land management
• 2.5.3.1 Effects of changes in land cover and productivity resulting from global warming
• 2.5.3.2 Feedbacks to climate from high-latitude land-surface changes
• 2.5.3.3 Feedbacks related to changes in soil moisture resulting from global warming
• 2.5.4 Non-local and downwind effects resulting from changes in land cover
• 2.6.1.1 Land management in agriculture
• 2.6.1.2 Land management in forests
• 2.6.1.3 Land management of soils
• 2.6.1.4 Land management in other ecosystems
• 2.6.1.5 Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
• 2.6.1.6 Enhanced weathering
• 2.6.1.7 Demand management in the food sector (diet change, waste reduction)
• 2.6.2 Integrated pathways for climate change mitigation
• 2.6.3 The contribution of response options to the Paris Agreement
• 2.7.1 Temperature responses of plant and ecosystem production
• 2.7.2 Water transport through soil-plant-atmosphere continuum and drought mortality
• 2.7.3 Soil microbial effects on soil nutrient dynamics and plant responses to elevated CO2
• 2.7.4 Vertical distribution of soil organic carbon
• 2.7.5 Soil carbon responses to warming and changes in soil moisture
• 2.7.6 Soil carbon responses to changes in organic matter inputs by plants

Desertification

• 3.1.1 Introduction
• 3.1.2 Desertification in previous IPCC and related reports
• 3.1.3 Dryland populations: Vulnerability and resilience
• 3.1.4.1 Processes of desertification and their climatic drivers
• 3.1.4.2 Anthropogenic drivers of desertification under climate change
• 3.1.4.3 Interaction of drivers: Desertification syndrome versus drylands development paradigm
• 3.2.1.1 Global scale
• 3.2.1.2 Regional scale
• 3.2.2 Attribution of desertification
• 3.3.1.1 Off-site feedbacks
• 3.3.2 Changes in surface albedo
• 3.3.3 Changes in vegetation and greenhouse gas fluxes
• 3.4.1.1 Impacts on ecosystems and their services in drylands
• 3.4.1.2 Impacts on biodiversity: Plant and wildlife
• 3.4.2.1 Impacts on poverty
• 3.4.2.2 Impacts on food and nutritional insecurity
• 3.4.2.3 Impacts on human health through dust storms
• 3.4.2.4 Impacts on gender equality
• 3.4.2.5 Impacts on water scarcity and use
• 3.4.2.6 Impacts on energy infrastructure through dust storms
• 3.4.2.7 Impacts on transport infrastructure through dust storms and sand movement
• 3.4.2.8 Impacts on conflicts
• 3.4.2.9 Impacts on migration
• 3.4.2.10 Impacts on pastoral communities
• 3.5.1.1 Future vulnerability and risk of desertification
• 3.5.2 Future projections of impacts
• 3.6.1.1 Integrated crop–soil–water management
• 3.6.1.2 Grazing and fire management in drylands
• 3.6.1.3 Clearance of bush encroachment
• 3.6.1.4 Combating sand and dust storms through sand dune stabilisation
• 3.6.1.5 Use of halophytes for the re-vegetation of saline lands
• 3.6.2.1 Socio-economic responses for combating desertification under climate change
• 3.6.2.2 Socio-economic responses for economic diversification
• 3.6.3.1 Policy responses towards combating desertification under climate change
• 3.6.3.2 Policy responses supporting economic diversification
• 3.6.4 Limits to adaptation, maladaptation, and barriers for mitigation
• 3.7.1.1 Soil erosion under changing climate in drylands
• 3.7.1.2 No-till practices for reducing soil erosion in central Chile
• 3.7.1.3 Combating wind erosion and deflation in Turkey: The greening desert of Karapınar
• 3.7.1.4 Soil erosion in Central Asia under changing climate
• 3.7.2.1 The experiences of combating desertification in China
• 3.7.2.2 The Green Dam in Algeria
• 3.7.2.3 The Great Green Wall of the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative
• 3.7.3.1 Introduction
• 3.7.3.2 Ethiopia
• 3.7.3.3 Mexico
• 3.7.3.4 United States of America
• 3.7.3.5 Pakistan
• 3.7.4 Oases in hyper-arid areas in the Arabian Peninsula and northern Africa
• 3.7.5.1 Jordan
• 3.7.5.2 India
• 3.7.5.3 Limpopo River Basin
• 3.8 Knowledge gaps and key uncertainties
• 4.1.1 Scope of the chapter
• 4.1.2 Perspectives of land degradation
• 4.1.3 Definition of land degradation
• 4.1.4 Land degradation in previous IPCC reports
• 4.1.5 Sustainable land management (SLM) and sustainable forest management (SFM)
• 4.1.6 The human dimension of land degradation and forest degradation
• 4.2.1.1 Types of land degradation processes
• 4.2.1.2 Land degradation processes and climate change
• 4.2.2 Drivers of land degradation
• 4.2.3.1 Direct linkages with climate change
• 4.2.3.2 Indirect and complex linkages with climate change
• 4.2.4 Approaches to assessing land degradation
• 4.3.1 Land degradation
• 4.3.2 Forest degradation
• 4.4.1.1 Changes in water erosion risk due to precipitation changes
• 4.4.1.2 Climate-induced vegetation changes, implications for land degradation
• 4.4.1.3 Coastal erosion
• 4.4.2 Indirect impacts on land degradation
• 4.5.1 Potential scale of bioenergy and land-based CDR
• 4.5.2 Risks of land degradation from expansion of bioenergy and land-based CDR
• 4.5.3 Potential contributions of land-based CDR to reducing and reversing land degradation
• 4.5.4 Traditional biomass provision and land degradation
• 4.6.1 Impact on greenhouse gases (GHGs)
• 4.6.2 Physical impacts
• 4.7.1 Relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty
• 4.7.2 Impacts of climate-related land degradation on food security
• 4.7.3 Impacts of climate-related land degradation on migration and conflict
• 4.8.1.1 4.8.1.1 Agronomic and soil management measures
• 4.8.1.2 Mechanical soil and water conservation
• 4.8.1.3 Agroforestry
• 4.8.1.4 Crop–livestock interaction as an approach to managing land degradation
• 4.8.2 Local and indigenous knowledge for addressing land degradation
• 4.8.3 Reducing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing afforestation
• 4.8.4 Sustainable forest management (SFM) and CO2 removal (CDR) technologies
• 4.8.5.1 Limits to adaptation
• 4.8.6 Resilience and thresholds
• 4.8.7 Barriers to implementation of sustainable land management (SLM)
• 4.9.1 Urban green infrastructure
• 4.9.2 Perennial grains and soil organic carbon (SOC)
• 4.9.3.1 South Korea case study on reforestation success
• 4.9.3.2 China case study on reforestation success
• 4.9.4 Degradation and management of peat soils
• 4.9.5.1 Role of biochar in climate change mitigation
• 4.9.5.2 Role of biochar in management of land degradation
• 4.9.6.1 Management of coastal wetlands
• 4.9.7 Saltwater intrusion
• 4.9.8 Avoiding coastal maladaptation
• 4.10 Knowledge gaps and key uncertainties
• 5.1.1.1 Food security as an outcome of the food system
• 5.1.1.2 Effects of climate change on food security
• 5.1.2.1 Trends in the global food system
• 5.1.2.2 Food insecurity status and trends
• 5.1.3 Climate change, gender and equity
• 5.1.4.1 Food systems in AR5 and SR15
• 5.1.4.2 Food systems and the Paris Agreement
• 5.1.4.3 Charting the future of food security
• 5.2.1.1 Short-lived climate pollutants
• 5.2.2.1 Impacts on crop production
• 5.2.2.2 Impacts on livestock production systems
• 5.2.2.3 Impacts on pests and diseases
• 5.2.2.4 Impacts on pollinators
• 5.2.2.5 Impacts on aquaculture
• 5.2.2.6 Impacts on smallholder farming systems
• 5.2.3.1 Impacts on prices and risk of hunger
• 5.2.3.2 Impacts on land use
• 5.2.4.1 Impacts on food safety and human health
• 5.2.4.2 Impacts on food quality
• 5.2.5.1 Impacts of extreme events
• 5.2.5.2 Food aid
• 5.3.1 Challenges and opportunities
• 5.3.2.1 Autonomous, incremental, and transformational adaptation
• 5.3.2.2 Risk management
• 5.3.2.3 Role of agroecology and diversification
• 5.3.2.4 Role of cultural values
• 5.3.3.1 Crop production
• 5.3.3.2 Livestock production systems
• 5.3.3.3 Aquaculture, fisheries, and agriculture interactions
• 5.3.3.4 Transport and storage
• 5.3.3.5 Trade and processing
• 5.3.4 Demand-side adaptation
• 5.3.5.1 Global initiatives
• 5.3.5.2 National policies
• 5.3.5.3 Community-based adaptation
• 5.3.6.1 Early warning systems
• 5.3.6.2 Financial resources
• 5.4.1 Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems
• 5.4.2 Greenhouse gas emissions from croplands and soils
• 5.4.3 Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock
• 5.4.4 Greenhouse gas emissions from aquaculture
• 5.4.5 5.4.5 Greenhouse gas emissions from inputs, processing, storage and transport
• 5.4.6 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with different diets
• 5.5.1.1 Greenhouse gas mitigation in croplands and soils
• 5.5.1.2 Greenhouse gas mitigation in livestock systems
• 5.5.1.3 Greenhouse gas mitigation in agroforestry
• 5.5.1.4 Integrated approaches to crop and livestock mitigation
• 5.5.1.5 Greenhouse gas mitigation in aquaculture
• 5.5.1.6 Cellular agriculture
• 5.5.2.1 Mitigation potential of different diets
• 5.5.2.2 Role of dietary preferences
• 5.5.2.3 Uncertainties in demand-side mitigation potential
• 5.5.2.4 Insect-based diets
• 5.5.2.5 Food loss and waste, food security, and land use
• 5.5.2.6 Shortening supply chains
• 5.6.1 Land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and bioenergy
• 5.6.2 Mitigation, food prices, and food security
• 5.6.3.1 Can dietary shifts provide significant benefits?
• 5.6.4.1 Agroecology
• 5.6.4.2 Climate-smart agriculture
• 5.6.4.3 Conservation agriculture
• 5.6.4.4 Sustainable intensification
• 5.6.5 Role of urban agriculture
• 5.6.6 Links to the Sustainable Development Goals
• 5.7.1.1 Agriculture and trade policy
• 5.7.1.2 Scope for expanded policies
• 5.7.1.3 Health-related policies and cost savings
• 5.7.1.4 Multiple policy pathways
• 5.7.2.1 Capital markets
• 5.7.2.2 Insurance and re-insurance
• 5.7.3 Just Transitions to sustainability
• 5.7.4.1 Indigenous and local knowledge
• 5.7.4.2 Citizen science
• 5.7.4.3 Capacity building and education
• 5.7.5.1 Impacts and adaptation
• 5.7.5.2 Emissions and mitigation
• 5.7.5.3 Synergies and trade-offs
• 5.8.1 Food price spikes
• 5.8.2.1 Migration
• 5.8.2.2 Conflict
• SM Supplementary Material

Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and GHG fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options

• 6.1.1 Context of this chapter
• 6.1.2.1 Enabling conditions
• 6.1.3 Challenges and response options in current and historical interventions
• 6.1.4 Challenges represented in future scenarios
• 6.2.1.1 Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture
• 6.2.1.2 Integrated response options based on land management in forests
• 6.2.1.3 Integrated response options based on land management of soils
• 6.2.1.4 Integrated response options based on land management of all/other ecosystems
• 6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
• 6.2.2.1 Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management
• 6.2.2.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management
• 6.2.3.1 Risk management options
• 6.3.1.1 Integrated response options based on land management
• 6.3.1.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management
• 6.3.1.3 Integrated response options based on risk management
• 6.3.2.1 Integrated response options based on land management
• 6.3.2.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management
• 6.3.2.3 Integrated response options based on risk management
• 6.3.3.1 Integrated response options based on land management
• 6.3.3.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management
• 6.3.3.3 Integrated response options based on risk management
• 6.3.4.1 Integrated response options based on land management
• 6.3.4.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management
• 6.3.4.3 Integrated response options based on risk management
• 6.3.5.1 Integrated response options based on land management
• 6.3.5.2 Integrated response options based on value chain management
• 6.3.5.3 Integrated response options based on risk management
• 6.3.6 Summarising the potential of the integrated response options across mitigation, adaptation, desertification land degradation and food security
• 6.4.1 Feasibility of the integrated response options with respect to costs, barriers, saturation and reversibility
• 6.4.2 Sensitivity of the integrated response options to climate change impacts
• 6.4.3.2 Impacts of integrated response options on the UNSDGs
• 6.4.3.1 Impacts of integrated response options on NCP
• 6.4.4.1 Where can the response options be applied?
• 6.4.4.2 Interlinkages and response options in future scenarios
• 6.4.4.3 Resolving challenges in response option implementation
• 6.4.5 Potential consequences of delayed action

Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development

• ES Executive summary
• 7.1.1 Findings of previous IPCC assessments and reports
• 7.1.2 Treatment of key terms in the chapter
• 7.1.3 Roadmap to the chapter
• 7.2.1 Assessing risk
• 7.2.2.1 Crop yield in low latitudes
• 7.2.2.2 Food supply instability
• 7.2.2.3 Soil erosion
• 7.2.2.4 Dryland water scarcity
• 7.2.2.5 Vegetation degradation
• 7.2.2.6 Fire damage
• 7.2.2.7 Permafrost
• 7.2.2.8 Risks of desertification, land degradation and food insecurity under different Future Development Pathways
• 7.2.3.1 Risk associated with land-based adaptation
• 7.2.3.2 Risk associated with land-based mitigation
• 7.2.4 Risks arising from hazard, exposure and vulnerability
• 7.3.1 What is at stake for food security?
• 7.3.2 Risks to where and how people live: Livelihood systems and migration
• 7.3.3 Risks to humans from disrupted ecosystems and species
• 7.3.4.1 Windows of opportunity
• 7.4.1 Multi-level policy instruments
• 7.4.2.1 Policies to ensure availability, access, utilisation and stability of food
• 7.4.2.2 Policies to secure social protection
• 7.4.3.1 Risk management instruments
• 7.4.3.2 Drought-related risk minimising instruments
• 7.4.3.3 Fire-related risk minimising instruments
• 7.4.3.4 Flood-related risk minimising instruments
• 7.4.4.1 GHG fluxes and climate change mitigation
• 7.4.4.2 Mitigation instruments
• 7.4.4.3 Market-based instruments
• 7.4.4.4 Technology transfer and land-use sectors
• 7.4.4.5 International cooperation under the Paris Agreement
• 7.4.5 Policies responding to desertification and degradation – Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN)
• 7.4.6.1 Land-use zoning
• 7.4.6.2 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES)
• 7.4.6.3 Standards and certification for sustainability of biomass and land-use sectors
• 7.4.6.4 Energy access and biomass use
• 7.4.7.1 Financing mechanisms for land mitigation and adaptation
• 7.4.7.2 Instruments to manage the financial impacts of climate and land change disruption
• 7.4.7.3 Innovative financing approaches for transition to low-carbon economies
• 7.4.8 Enabling effective policy instruments – policy portfolio coherence
• 7.4.9.1 Barriers to adaptation
• 7.4.9.2 Barriers to land-based climate mitigation
• 7.4.9.3 Inequality
• 7.4.9.4 Corruption and elite capture
• 7.4.9.5 Overcoming barriers
• 7.5.1.1 Formal Decision Making
• 7.5.1.2 Informal decision-making
• 7.5.2.1 Problem structuring
• 7.5.2.2 Decision-making tools
• 7.5.2.3 Cost and timing of action
• 7.5.3 Best practices of decision-making toward sustainable land management (SLM)
• 7.5.4 Adaptive management
• 7.5.5 Performance indicators
• 7.5.6.1 Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services (ES)
• 7.5.6.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Synergies and trade-offs
• 7.5.6.3 Forests and agriculture
• 7.5.6.4 Water, food and aquatic ecosystem services (ES)
• 7.5.6.5 Considering synergies and trade-offs to avoid maladaptation
• 7.6.1 Institutions building adaptive and mitigative capacity
• 7.6.2 Integration – Levels, modes and scale of governance for sustainable development
• 7.6.3 Adaptive climate governance responding to uncertainty
• 7.6.4 Participation
• 7.6.5 Land tenure
• 7.6.6 Institutional dimensions of adaptive governance
• 7.6.7 Inclusive governance for sustainable development
• 7.7 Key uncertainties and knowledge gaps

Annex-I Glossary

Annex-ii acronyms, annex-iii contributors, annex-iv reviewers, annex-v index.

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Observatory
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Questions and answers /

Climate change: Land degradation and desertification

Land degradation is caused by multiple forces, including extreme weather conditions, particularly drought. It is also caused by human activities that pollute or degrade the quality of soils and land utility. It negatively affects food production, livelihoods, and the production and provision of other ecosystem goods and services. Desertification is a form of land degradation by which fertile land becomes desert.

Land degradation has accelerated during the 20 th and 21 st centuries due to increasing and combined pressures of agricultural and livestock production (over-cultivation, overgrazing, forest conversion), urbanization, deforestation and extreme weather events such as droughts and coastal surges, which salinate land.

These social and environmental processes are stressing the world's arable lands and pastures essential for the provision of food and water and quality air. Land degradation and desertification can affect human health through complex pathways. As land is degraded and deserts expand in some places, food production is reduced, water sources dry up and populations are pressured to move to more hospitable areas.

The potential impacts of desertification on health include:

• higher threats of malnutrition from reduced food and water supplies;
• more water- and food-borne diseases that result from poor hygiene and a lack of clean water;
• respiratory diseases caused by atmospheric dust from wind erosion and other air pollutants;
• the spread of infectious diseases as populations migrate.

WHO's Technical work on climate change and health

• Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis (2005) [pdf 3Mb]  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
• Global Environment Outlook: environment for development GEO-4 assessment is a comprehensive and authoritative UN report on environment, development and human well-being, providing incisive analysis and information for decision making.

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Land degradation and climate change

The multiple benefits of sustainable land management in the drylands

• The world’s soils store more carbon than the planet’s biomass and atmosphere combined.
• An increase of just 1% of the carbon stocks in the top metre of soils would be higher than the amount corresponding to the annual anthropogenic CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.
• Many innovations in sustainable land management are now known and recognised for their multiple environmental, social and economic benefits.
• Sustainable land management can be mainstreamed in national development and conservation planning based on existing commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
• Urgent improvements are needed to monitor soil organic carbon and increase awareness of, and capacity to pursue, the many opportunities of sustainable land management.

November 2015

What is the issue?

Soil is the biggest terrestrial carbon sink. The world’s soils store more carbon than the planet’s biomass and atmosphere combined. This includes soil organic carbon, which is essentially biodiversity: microbes, fungi and invertebrates, as well as root matter and decomposing vegetation. Soil carbon stocks can be increased through appropriate land management to provide many benefits besides offsetting greenhouse gas emissions.

Loss of soil organic carbon is one of the principal signs of land degradation, and land degradation is one of the leading challenges for sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and mitigating and adapting to climate change. It is defined as a reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of land. In drylands, land degradation is known as desertification.

When land is degraded, soil carbon can be released into the atmosphere, along with nitrous oxide, making land degradation one of the biggest contributors to climate change. An estimated two-thirds of all terrestrial carbon stores from soils and vegetation have been lost since the 19 th century through land degradation. Agriculture, forest and other land-use sectors generate roughly a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Why is it important?

Recent estimates of the global loss of ecosystem services due to land degradation and desertification are between US$ 6.3 and 10.6 trillion annually. These high costs have not received adequate attention, partly due to the complexity of accurately measuring the knock-on effects and externalities of land degradation. There is a tendency by countries to only consider the impact on food production and to overlook ecosystem services such as water supply and regulation or reduction in carbon sequestration. IUCN’s work in Jordan has shown that these values can dwarf the value of food production by an order of magnitude.

Managing land sustainably means less carbon emissions and more carbon capture. Soil organic carbon contributes to the fertility of the soil and to its capacity to hold water, and therefore to a large extent determines the capacity of the soil to produce food and to support other biodiversity. The resilience of societies and ecosystems is increased where soil productivity, and hence carbon stock, is increased.

What can be done?

A broad suite of agro-ecology practices can be used to increase carbon in the soil, including agroforestry, fallows (resting soil for a year or more), and sustainable pasture management through managed herd mobility. In many countries these are known – and even Indigenous – practices that can be revived with the right support.

Recent studies suggest that soil carbon management presents one of the most cost-effective climate change mitigation options. Rangelands, for example, contain more than a third of all the terrestrial above- and below-ground carbon reserves. With improved rangeland management they could potentially sequester a further 1,300-2,000 million metric tons of CO 2 by 2030.

Small increases in global soil organic carbon will have a high impact on the global carbon cycle and on the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 . An increase of just 1% of the carbon stocks in the top metre of soils would be higher than the amount corresponding to the annual anthropogenic CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. Reversing land degradation and increasing soil organic carbon provides one of the surest and lowest-cost multiple-wins: climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation of biodiversity, and increased food production.

There are several options that countries can consider to increase soil organic carbon stocks.

Sustainable land management can be accelerated through policy and financial instruments, to increase soil organic carbon in a way that simultaneously combats desertification, prevents biodiversity loss and helps climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Other measures include treating land-based approaches to climate change mitigation as integral to global and national strategies; promoting awareness and sharing experience of the multiple benefits provided by sustainable land management; and ensuring that soil organic carbon is fully accounted for across all sectors as an indicator of the multiple benefits of sustainable land management.

Moving ahead, countries can improve monitoring and reporting by fulfilling their commitment to the three priority land-based progress indicators of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): trends in land cover; trends in land productivity or functioning of the land; and trends in carbon stock above and below ground.

More information:

• iucn.org/drylands
• UNCCD Science-Policy Interface  
• Technical Brief  

This is Legal Brief 4: IUCN WCEL legal brief INC Intersessional Expert Group 2 Criteria…

This is Legal Brief 3: IUCN WCEL legal brief for the INC Intersessional Expert Group 2…

This is Legal Brief 2: IUCN WCEL legal brief INC Intersessional Expert Group 1 Financing

Wind erosion causes topsoil loss on over-used or improperly managed farmland, leading to widescale land damage around the world.

75% of Earth's Land Areas Are Degraded

A new report warns that environmental damage threatens the well-being of 3.2 billion people. Yet solutions are within reach.

MEDELLIN, COLOMBIA — More than 75 percent of Earth’s land areas are substantially degraded, undermining the well-being of 3.2 billion people, according to the world’s first comprehensive, evidence-based assessment. These lands that have either become deserts , are polluted, or have been deforested and converted to agricultural production are also the main causes of species extinctions.

If this trend continues, 95 percent of the Earth’s land areas could become degraded by 2050. That would potentially force hundreds of millions of people to migrate, as food production collapses in many places, the report warns. ( Learn more about biodiversity under threat .)

“Land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural environment,” said Sir Robert Watson, chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which produced the report (launched Monday in Medellin, Colombia).

IPBES is the "IPCC for biodiversity"—a scientific assessment of the status of non-human life that makes up the Earth’s life-support system. The land degradation assessment took three years and more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries.

Rapid expansion and unsustainable management of croplands and grazing lands is the main driver of land degradation, causing significant loss of biodiversity and impacting food security, water purification, the provision of energy, and other contributions of nature essential to people. This has reached “critical levels” in many parts of the world, Watson said in an interview.

Underlying Causes

Wetlands have been hit hardest, with 87 percent lost globally in the last 300 years. Some 54 percent have been lost since 1900. Wetlands continue to be destroyed in Southeast Asia and the Congo region of Africa, mainly to plant oil palm .

Underlying drivers of land degradation, says the report, are the high-consumption lifestyles in the most developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies. High and rising per capita consumption, amplified by continued population growth in many parts of the world, are driving unsustainable levels of agricultural expansion, natural resource and mineral extraction, and urbanization.

“We’ve know about this for over 20 years but it is only getting worse,” said Luca Montanarella, a soil scientist from Italy and co-chair of the assessment.

Land degradation is rarely considered an urgent issue by most governments, even though many have signed an international agreement to reach land degradation neutrality by 2030. “We need to find a stable balance between our lifestyle and our impacts on nature,” Montanarella said in an interview in Medellin.

Ending land degradation and restoring degraded land would get humanity one third of the way to keeping global warming below 2°C, the target climate scientists say we need to avoid the most devastating impacts. Deforestation alone accounts for 10 percent of all human-induced emissions.

Solutions Abound

For developing regions like parts of Asia and Africa, the cost of inaction in the face of land degradation is at least three times higher than the cost of action. And the benefits of restoration are 10 times higher than the costs, the report found.

Ending production subsidies in agriculture, fisheries, energy, and other sectors would go a long way to reducing pressure on nature. Roughly 25 percent of Africa has shifted out of cattle and sheep production simply because it has become too dry and unproductive to be profitable, said Robert Scholes, a South African ecologist and co-chair of the assessment.

“These lands are reverting back to wildlife, which are better adapted to those conditions,” Scholes said. “The same things is happening in Australia.”

Logging scars mar rainforest in Borneo.

There are many proven approaches to reversing these trends, including urban planning, replanting with native species, green infrastructure development, remediation of contaminated and sealed soils (e.g. under asphalt), wastewater treatment, and river channel restoration . Land needs to be managed at a landscape scale, where the needs of agriculture, industry, and urban areas can be balanced in a holistic way, Scholes said.

Better, more open-access information on the impacts of traded commodities is also needed, he adds. Many rich countries “offshore” their environmental impacts by importing huge quantities of food, resources, and products from other countries. The European Union imports 30 to 40 percent of its food, for example.

“Through this report, the global community of experts has delivered a frank and urgent warning, with clear options to address dire environmental damage,” said Watson.

Related Topics

• AGRICULTURE

You May Also Like

Meet Emiliano Zapata: hero and martyr of the Mexican Revolution

Mongolia became a global leader in conservation by returning to its Indigenous roots

Aboriginal women are reclaiming traditions of fire

Deb Haaland: A new era for tribal nations and the U.S. government

Newly found 12,000-year-old burial may belong to a female ‘shaman’

• Environment

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Paid Content
• Here Not There
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Land Degradation: Causes, Impacts, and Interlinks with the Sustainable Development Goals

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 22 June 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Md Shahidulla Kaiser 7  

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals ((ENUNSDG))

475 Accesses

4 Citations

Climate change ; Environment pollution ; Land pollution ; Soil degradation ; Soil erosion

Definitions

Land degradation has been an elusive term in geographical literature and environmental studies because of its association with similar natural occurrences, such as deforestation, desertification, and soil erosion. In an understandable sentence, land degradation is perceived as the impairment of the quality of the land and its surrounding associate elements because of natural or human-made causes. This is a process in which the value of the biophysical environment is affected, and the changes or disturbances to the land and its related components have been identified as deleterious or undesirable for the whole environment and its inhabitants.

Land degradation affects people and ecosystems across the planet. The term can also be referred to as soil degradation, but there are some basic differences between the concepts of land and soil. The land comprises soil and also consists of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Aleksakhin RM (2009) Radioactive contamination as a type of soil degradation. Eurasian Soil Sci 42(12):1386–1396

Article   Google Scholar  

Alloway BJ (ed) (2012) Heavy metals in soils: trace metals and metalloids in soils and their bioavailability, vol 22. Springer Science & Business Media

Google Scholar  

Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L, Schaepman ME (2008) Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manag 24(3):223–234

Blaikie P, Brookfield H (eds) (2015) Land degradation and society. Routledge

Cherlet M, Hutchinson C, Reynolds J, Hill J, Sommer S, Von Maltitz G (eds) (2018) World atlas of desertification: rethinking land degradation and sustainable land management. Publications Office of the European Union

Clark M (2012) Deforestation in Madagascar: consequences of population growth and unsustainable agricultural processes. Global Majority E-J 3(1):61–71

Dooley E, Roberts E, Wunder S, Sgorbati G, Dotti N, Verschuuren J, … Berthier A (2015) Land degradation neutrality under the SDGs: national and international implementation of the land degradation neutral world target. Elni Rev 1(2):2015

ELD Initiative (2015) The value of land quick guide to the report. https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/The_Value_of_Land_Quick_guide_to_the_report.pdf . Retrieved 23 Oct 2020

ELD Initiative & UNEP (2015) The economics of land degradation in Africa: benefits of action outweigh the costs. Available from http://www.eld-initiative.org

Elmi AA (2017) Food security in the Arab Gulf Cooperation Council States. In: Sustainable agriculture reviews. Springer, Cham, pp 89–114

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Elum ZA, Mopipi K, Henri-Ukoha A (2016) Oil exploitation and its socioeconomic effects on the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(13):12880–12889

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Eswaran H, Lal R, Reich PF (2001) Land degradation: an overview. In: Bridges EM, Hannam ID, Oldeman LR, de Vries FWTP, Scherr SJ, Sompatpanit S (eds) Responses to land degradation. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on land degradation and desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi

Gilbey B, Davies J, Metternicht G, Magero C (2019) Taking land degradation neutrality from concept to practice: early reflections on LDN target setting and planning. Environ Sci Pol 100:230–237

Gisladottir G, Stocking M (2005) Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits. Land Degrad Dev 16(2):99–112

Giuliani G, Chatenoux B, Benvenuti A, Lacroix P, Santoro M, Mazzetti P (2020) Monitoring land degradation at national level using satellite earth observation time-series data to support SDG15–exploring the potential of data cube. Big Earth Data 4(1):3–22

Gonzalez-Roglich M, Zvoleff A, Noon M, Liniger H, Fleiner R, Harari N, Garcia C (2019) Synergizing global tools to monitor progress towards land degradation neutrality: trends. Earth and the world overview of conservation approaches and technologies sustainable land management database. Environ Sci Policy 93:34–42

Gupta GS (2019) Land degradation and challenges of food security. Rev Eur Stud 11:63

Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington, DC

Heger MP, Zens G, Bangalore M (2020) Land and poverty: the role of soil fertility and vegetation quality in poverty reduction. Environ Dev Econ 25(4):315–333

Hilker T, Natsagdorj E, Waring RH, Lyapustin A, Wang Y (2013) Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Glob Chang Biol 20(2):418–428

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2017) Deforestation and forest degradation, issue brief, November. Available at https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest-degradation . Retrieved 08 Oct 2020

Issaka S, Ashraf MA (2017) Impact of soil erosion and degradation on water quality: a review. Geol Ecol Landsc 1(1):1–11

Jackson H, Prince SD (2016) Degradation of net primary production in a semiarid rangeland. Biogeosciences 13(16):4721

Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Worbes M, Botman E, Vlek PLG (2006) Assessing the potential of trees for afforestation of degraded landscapes in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan. Agrofor Syst 66(2):129–141

Khor M (1996) Land degradation causes $10 billion loss to South Asia annually. Third World Resurgence:5–6

Kirui OK (2016) Impact of land degradation on household poverty: evidence from a panel data simultaneous equation model (No. 310-2016-5325)

Kust G, Andreeva O, Cowie A (2017) Land degradation neutrality: concept development, practical applications and assessment. J Environ Manag 195:16–24

Lorenz K, Lal R, Ehlers K (2019) Soil organic carbon stock as an indicator for monitoring land and soil degradation in relation to United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Land Degrad Dev 30(7):824–838

McLeman R (2017) Migration and land degradation. Global Land Outlook working paper. UNCCD

Milesi O, Jarroud M (2016) Combating desertification and drought soil degradation threatens nutrition in Latin America, IPS News Agency Report. Available at http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/06/soil-degradation-threatens-nutrition-in-latin-america/ . Retrieved 03 Oct 2020

Minelli S, Erlewein A, Castillo V (2017) Land degradation neutrality and the UNCCD: from political vision to measurable targets. In: International yearbook of soil law and policy 2016. Springer, Cham, pp 85–104

Mirzabaev A, Nkonya E, von Braun J (2015) Economics of sustainable land management. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 15:9–19

Motavalli P, Nelson K, Udawatta R, Jose S, Bardhan S (2013) Global achievements in sustainable land management. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 1(1):1–10

Nachtergaele F, Petri M, Biancalani R (2011) Land degradation. SOLAW background thematic report, 3

Nunez C (2019) Desertification, explained, National Geographic Environment Reference. Available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/desertification . Retrieved 11 Oct 2020

Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek WG (1991) World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation: an explanatory note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD), 2nd edn. Winand Staring Center, International Society for Soil Science, FAO, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science, Wageningen

Pacheco FAL, Fernandes LFS, Junior RFV, Valera CA, Pissarra TCT (2018) Land degradation: multiple environmental consequences and routes to neutrality. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 5:79–86

Pohit S (2009) Land degradation and trade liberalization: an Indian perspective. Available at SSRN 1457666

Prince SD (2016) Where does desertification occur? Mapping dryland degradation at regional to global scales. In R. Behnke & M. Mortimore (Eds.), In The End of Desertification? Disputing Environmental Change in the Drylands. Springer-Praxis Earth System Science Series.

Rowntree K, Duma M, Kakembo V, Thornes J (2004) Debunking the myth of overgrazing and soil erosion. Land Degrad Dev 15(3):203–214

Saad AMA, Shariff NM, Gairola S (2011) Nature and causes of land degradation and desertification in Libya: need for sustainable land management. Afr J Biotechnol 10(63):13680–13687

Safriel UN (2007) The assessment of global trends in land degradation. In: Climate and land degradation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–38

Scherr SJ (1999) Poverty-environment interactions in agriculture: key factors and policy implications. United Nations Development Programme

Singh K, Pandey VC, Singh B, Singh RR (2012) Ecological restoration of degraded sodic lands through afforestation and cropping. Ecol Eng 43:70–80

Sonneveld BGJS, Keyzer MA, Ndiaye D (2016) Quantifying the impact of land degradation on crop production: the case of Senegal. Solid Earth 7(1):93

Stavi I, Lal R (2015) Achieving zero net land degradation: challenges and opportunities. J Arid Environ 112:44–51

Sutton PC, Anderson SJ, Costanza R, Kubiszewski I (2016) The ecological economics of land degradation: impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecol Econ 129:182–192

Symeonakis E, Drake N (2004) Monitoring desertification and land degradation over sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Remote Sens 25(3):573–592

Teketay D (2001) Deforestation, wood famine, and environmental degradation in Ethiopia’s highland ecosystems: urgent need for action. Northeast Afr Stud 8:53–76

The Lancet P. H (2018) Land degradation: a solution is possible. The Lancet 2(5):e184

Thomas DS, Middleton NJ (1994) Desertification: exploding the myth. Wiley

Tóth G, Hermann T, da Silva MR, Montanarella L (2018) Monitoring soil for sustainable development and land degradation neutrality. Environ Monit Assess 190(2):57

UN Stats (2020). https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ . Retrieved 10 Oct 2020

UNCCD (2017a) The global land outlook. Available at https://knowledge.unccd.int/glo/GLO_first_edition . Retrieved 10 Oct 2020

UNCCD (2017b) Land degradation neutrality transformative action, tapping opportunities. Available at https://www.unccd.int/publications/land-degradation-neutrality-transformative-action-tapping-opportunities . Retrieved 04 Oct 2020

UNCCD (2020). https://www.unccd.int/actions/achieving-land-degradation-neutrality#:~:text=Land%20Degradation%20Neutrality%20(LDN)%20has,and%20spatial%20scales%20and%20ecosystems . Retrieved 10 Oct 2020

UNDP (2020) Goal 15: life on land. Available at https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-15-life-on-land.html . Retrieved 05 Oct 2020

Uyigue E, Agho M (2007) Coping with climate change and environmental degradation in the Niger Delta of southern Nigeria, vol 1(30). Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria (CREDC)

Wessels, K. J., van den Bergh, F., & Scholes, R. J. (2012). Limits to detectability of land degradation by trend analysis of vegetation index data. Remote Sens Environ, 125(0), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.022

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2005) Climate and Land Degradation, WMO-No 989. Available at http://www.wamis.org/agm/pubs/brochures/wmo989e.pdf . Retrieved 06 Oct 2020

Wunder S, Kaphengst T, Frelih-Larsen A (2018) Implementing land degradation neutrality (SDG 15.3) at national level: general approach, indicator selection and experiences from Germany. In: International yearbook of soil law and policy 2017. Springer, Cham, pp 191–219

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration, University of Chittagong, Chattogram, 4331, Bangladesh

Md Shahidulla Kaiser

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Shahidulla Kaiser .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

European School of Sustainability, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Walter Leal Filho

Center for Neuroscience & Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Anabela Marisa Azul

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Passo Fundo University Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Passo Fundo, Brazil

Luciana Brandli

Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey

Pinar Gökcin Özuyar

International Centre for Thriving, University of Chester, Chester, UK

Section Editor information

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Ulla A. Saari

Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kaiser, M.S. (2021). Land Degradation: Causes, Impacts, and Interlinks with the Sustainable Development Goals. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T. (eds) Responsible Consumption and Production. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71062-4_48-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71062-4_48-1

Received : 29 January 2021

Accepted : 16 March 2021

Published : 22 June 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-71062-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-71062-4

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Earth and Environm. Science Reference Module Physical and Materials Science Reference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Data & knowledge
• News & stories
• Press releases

Chronic land degradation: UN offers stark warnings and practical remedies in Global Land Outlook 2

26 April 2022

Press release

Sustainable land management & restoration

Up to 40 % of the planet’s land is degraded, directly affects half of humanity, threatens roughly half of global GDP (US$44 trillion)

If business as usual continued through 2050, report projects additional degradation of an area almost the size of South America

Nations’ current pledge to restore 1 billion degraded hectares by 2030 requires $US 1.6 trillion this decade – a fraction of annual $700 billion in fossil fuel and agricultural subsidies

As food prices soar amid rapid climate and other planetary changes, “crisis footing” needed to conserve, restore and use land sustainably

Most comprehensive report on topic ever released shortly before UNCCD’s COP15 in Africa

The way land resources – soil, water and biodiversity – are currently mismanaged and misused threatens the health and continued survival of many species on Earth, including our own, warns a stark new report from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 

It also points decision makers to hundreds of practical ways to effect local, national and regional land and ecosystem restoration.

UNCCD’s evidence-based flagship Global Land Outlook 2 (GLO2) report, five years in development with 21 partner organizations, and with over 1,000 references, is the most comprehensive consolidation of information on the topic ever assembled.

It offers an overview of unprecedented breadth and projects the planetary consequences of three scenarios through 2050: business as usual, restoration of 50 million square km of land, and restoration measures augmented by the conservation of natural areas important for specific ecosystem functions.

It also assesses the potential contributions of land restoration investments to climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, poverty reduction, human health and other key sustainable development goals.

Warns the report: “At no other point in modern history has humanity faced such an array of familiar and unfamiliar risks and hazards, interacting in a hyper-connected and rapidly changing world. We cannot afford to underestimate the scale and impact of these existential threats.”

“Conserving, restoring, and using our land resources sustainably is a global imperative, one that requires action on a crisis footing…Business as usual is not a viable pathway for our continued survival and prosperity.”

GLO2 offers hundreds of examples from around the world that demonstrate the potential of land restoration. It is being released before the UNCCD’s 15th session of the Conference of Parties to be held in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (COP15, 9-20 May).

Says Ibrahim Thiaw, Executive Secretary of the UNCCD: “Modern agriculture has altered the face of the planet more than any other human activity.  We need to urgently rethink our global food systems, which are responsible for 80% of deforestation, 70% of freshwater use, and the single greatest cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss.”

“Investing in large-scale land restoration is a powerful, cost-effective tool to combat desertification, soil erosion, and loss of agricultural production.  As a finite resource and our most valuable natural asset, we cannot afford to continue taking land for granted.”

Future scenarios

The report predicts the outcomes by 2050 and risks involved under three scenarios:

Baseline:  Business as usual, continuing current trends in land and natural resource  degradation, while demands for food, feed, fiber, and bioenergy continue to rise. Land management practices and climate change continue to cause widespread soil erosion, declining fertility and growth in yields, and the further loss of natural areas due to expanding agriculture.

• 16 million square kilometers show continued land degradation (the size of South America)
• A persistent, long-term decline in vegetative productivity is observed for 12-14% of agricultural, pasture and grazing land, and natural areas – with sub-Saharan Africa worst affected.
• An additional 69 gigatonnes of carbon is emitted from 2015 to 2050 due to land use change and soil degradation  This represents 17% of current annual greenhouse gas emissions: soil organic carbon (32 gigatonnes), vegetation (27 gigatonnes), peatland degradation/conversion (10 gigatonnes).

Restoration: Assumes the restoration of around 5 billion hectares (50 million square kilometers or 35% of the global land area) using measures such as agroforestry, grazing management, and assisted natural regeneration. (Current international pledges: 10 million square kilometers).

• Crop yields increase by 5-10% in most developing countries compared to the baseline. Improved soil health leads to higher crop yields, with the largest gains in the Middle East and North Africa, Latin America, and subSaharan Africa, limiting food price increases.
• Soil water holding capacity would increase by 4% in rainfed croplands.
• Carbon stocks rise by a net 17 gigatonnes between 2015 and 2050 due to gains in soil carbon and reduced emission
•  Biodiversity continues to decline, but not as quickly, with 11% of biodiversity loss averted.

Restoration and Protection: This scenario includes the restoration measures, augmented with protection measures of areas important for biodiversity, water regulation, conservation of soil and carbon stocks, and provision of critical ecosystem functions.

• An additional 4 million square kilometers of natural areas (the size of India and Pakistan); largest gains expected in South and Southeast Asia and Latin America. Protections would prevent land degradation by logging, burning, draining, or conversion.
• About a third of the biodiversity loss projected in the baseline would be prevented
• An additional 83 gigatonnes of carbon are stored compared to the baseline.  Avoided emission and increased carbon storage would be equivalent to more than seven years of total current global emissions.

See below for additional scenario projections and information

Other key points in the report include:

• $US 44 trillion – roughly half the world’s annual economic output – is being put at risk by the loss of finite natural capital and nature’s services, which underpin human and environmental health by regulating climate, water, disease, pests, waste and air pollution, while providing numerous other benefits such as recreation and cultural benefits.
• The economic returns of restoring land and reducing degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss could be as high as $US 125-140 trillion every year - up to 50% more than the $93 trillion global GDP in 2021
• Repurposing in the next decade just $US 1.6 trillion of the annual $700 billion in perverse subsidies given to the fossil fuel and agricultural industries would enable governments to meet current pledges to restore by 2030 some 1 billion degraded hectares – an area the size of the USA or China – including 250 million hectares of farmland
• Restoring land, soils, forests and other ecosystems would contribute more than one-third of the cost-effective climate change mitigation needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C while supporting biodiversity conservation, poverty reduction, human health and other key sustainable development goals
• Many traditional and modern regenerative food production practices can enable agriculture to pivot from being the primary cause of degradation to the principal catalyst for land and soil restoration
• Poor rural communities, smallholder farmers, women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, and other at-risk groups are disproportionately affected by desertification, land degradation, and drought. At the same time, traditional and local knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, proven land stewards, represent a vast store of human and social capital that must be respected and can be used to protect and restore natural capital
• Immediate financial support is needed to fund conservation and restoration in those developing countries with a greater share of the global distribution of intact, biodiverse, and carbon-rich ecosystems
• Restoration projects and programs tend to have long-term multiplier effects that strengthen rural economies and contribute to wider regional development. They generate jobs that cannot be outsourced, and investments stimulate demand that benefits local economies and communities
• Bringing together national action plans currently siloed under the UNCCD, Convention on Biological Diversity, and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change represents an immediate opportunity to align targets and commitments to implement land restoration, realize multiple benefits, and maximize returns on investment
• Land and resource rights, secured through enforceable laws and trusted institutions, can transform underperforming land assets into sustainable development opportunities, helping maintain equitable and cohesive societies
• Inclusive and responsible land governance, including tenure security, is an effective way to balance trade-offs and harness synergies that optimize restoration outcomes
• Grasslands and savannas are productive, biodiverse ecosystems that match forests both in their global extent and their need for protection and restoration. Equally important are wetlands, which are in long-term decline averaging losses at three times the rate of global forest loss in recent decades. Sustaining their capacity to absorb and store carbon is key to a climate-resilient future
• Intensive monocultures and the destruction of forests and other ecosystems for food and commodity production generate the bulk of carbon emissions associated with land use change
•  If current land degradation trends continue, food supply disruptions, forced migration, rapid biodiversity loss and species extinctions will increase, accompanied by a higher risk of zoonotic diseases like COVID-19, declining human health, and land resource conflicts

GLO2 offers hundreds of good practice snapshots from around the world that illustrate context-specific measures to combat environmental degradation, restore land health, and improve living conditions.

Many regenerative agriculture practices have the potential to increase crop yields and improve their nutritional quality while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and drawing down carbon from the atmosphere, it says.

Examples include rewilding – reducing the human footprint to allow natural ecological processes to re-establish themselves – in the Greater Côa Valley in northern Portugal and the Iberá wetlands in Argentina; drought preparedness and risk reduction through national programmes in Mexico, the USA, and Brazil; sand and dust storm source mitigation in Iraq, China, and Kuwait; and gender-responsive land restoration in Mali, Nicauragua, and Jordan. There are also cases of integrated flood and drought strategies as well as forest landscape restoration using high-value crops.

Good practices can involve terrace and contour farming, conserving and restoring watersheds, and rainwater harvesting and storage. In addition to their economic benefits, these measures  improve water retention and availability, prevent soil erosion and landslides, reduce flood risk, sequester carbon, and protect biodiversity habitat.

Africa’s Great Green Wall , meanwhile, which aims to restore the continent’s degraded landscapes, exemplifies “a regional restoration initiative that embraces an integrated approach with the promise of transforming the lives of millions of people,” says the report.

“The case studies from around the world showcased in GLO2 make clear that land restoration can be implemented in almost all settings and at many spatial scales, suggesting that every country can design and implement a tailored land restoration agenda to meet their development needs,” says Mr. Thiaw.

Many of the cases, he adds, underscore the value of education, training, and capacity building, not just for local communities, but also for government officials, land managers, and development planners. Linking local engagement to national policies and budgets will help ensure a responsive and well-aligned restoration agenda that delivers tangible outcomes for people, nature, and the climate.  

Preventing, halting, and reversing the degradation of ecosystems worldwide is the focus of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), which calls for a broad and balanced response, addressing all ecosystems and their connectivity to reestablish a healthy landscape mosaic. These efforts are closely aligned with SDG target 15.3, which calls on countries to strive to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) by 2030.

“Hope remains as the decade of restoration has begun,” says Mr. Thiaw. “Now is the time to harness political will, innovation, and collective action to restore our land and soil for short-term recovery and long-term regeneration to ensure a more stable and resilient future.”

By the numbers, GLO2:

• 50%: Proportion of humanity affected by land degradation
• $US 7-30: benefits returned for every dollar invested in restoring degraded land
• Four: planetary boundaries (used to define a ‘safe operating space for humanity’) already exceeded: climate change, biodiversity loss, land use change, and geochemical cycles, breaches directly linked to human-induced desertification, land degradation, and drought
• 40%+: global land area occupied by agriculture
• 15%: proportion of the $US 700 billion paid out in commercial subsidies each year that positively impact natural capital, biodiversity, long-term job stability, or livelihoods
• 70%+: Tropical forest cleared for agriculture between 2013 and 2019 in violation of national laws or regulations
• 1%: Farms that control more than 70% of the world’s agricultural land
• 80%: Farms smaller than two hectares, representing 12% of total farmland
• 50%: Reduction of degraded land by 2040 pledged by G20 leaders in November 2020
• 115+: countries that had made quantitative, area-based commitments by the end of 2021, collectively a pledge to restore 1 billion hectares of farms, forests, and pastures
• 100+: Countries with plans for Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) by 2030: ‘frameworks for action’ by local and national authorities, civil society, and the private sector
• 130: Countries that reaffirmed in the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use (Nov. 2021) their respective individual and collective commitments under the three Rio Conventions – on Desertification (UNCCD), Biological Diversity (CBD), and Climate Change (UNFCCC), supported by unprecedented corporate and donor pledges. It also includes commitments to facilitate trade and development policies that avoid deforestation and land degradation, especially regarding internationally-traded agricultural commodities, such as beef, soy, palm oil, and timber. 

Land degradation: The persistent or long-term loss of land-based natural capital. It gives rise to poverty, hunger, and environmental pollution, while making communities more vulnerable to disease and disasters like drought, floods, or wildfires. This is especially true in the drylands that cover more than 45% of the Earth’s land surface, home to one in three people.

Land restoration: A continuum of sustainable land and water management practices that can be applied to conserve or ‘rewild’ natural areas, ‘up-scale’ nature-positive food production in rural landscapes, and ‘green’ urban areas, infrastructure, and supply chains.

Regenerative land use practices employed to boost soil health or recharge groundwater also enhance our ability to cope with drought, floods, wildfires, and sand and dust storms.

“The second edition of the Global Land Outlook is a must-read for the biodiversity community. The future of biodiversity is precarious. We have already degraded nearly 40 % and altered 70 % of the land. We cannot afford to have another “lost decade” for nature and need to act now for a future of life in harmony with nature. The GLO2 shows pathways, enablers and knowledge that we should apply to effectively implement the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.”

Elizabeth Mrema, Executive Secretary, UN Convention on Biological Diversity

“Land is the operative link between biodiversity loss and climate change, and therefore must be the primary focus of any meaningful intervention to tackle these intertwined crises. Restoring degraded land and soil provides fertile ground on which to take immediate and concerted action.” 

Andrea Meza Murillo, Deputy Executive Secretary, UNCCD

“As a global community we can no longer rely on incremental reforms within traditional planning and development frameworks to address the profound development and sustainability challenges we are facing in coming decades. A rapid transformation in land use and management practices that place people and nature at the center of our planning is needed,  prioritizing job creation and building vital skill sets while giving voice to women and youth who have been traditionally marginalized from decision making.”

Nichole Barger, report steering committee member, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, USA 

“Just as COVID-19 vaccines were developed, tested, and rolled out at unprecedented speed and scale, so too must land restoration and other nature-based solutions be undertaken to prevent further environmental decline and ensure a healthy and prosperous future.  We can reduce the risk of zoonotic disease transmission, increase food and water security, and improve human health and livelihoods by managing, expanding, and connecting protected and natural areas, improving soil, crop, and livestock health in food systems, and creating green and blue spaces in and around cities.”

Barron Orr, Lead Scientist, UNCCD

“Restoring long term health and productivity in food landscapes is a top priority to ensure future sustainability.  Much as an investor uses financial capital to generate profits, regenerating a forest or improving soil health provides returns in the form of a future supply of timber or food.”

 Louise Baker, Director, Global Mechanism, UNCCD

“Indigenous Peoples and local communities are proven land stewards. The recognition of their rights and their involvement in the long-term management of their lands and of protected areas will be vital to success.”

Miriam Medel, Chief, External Relations, Policy and Advocacy, UNCCD

“By designing an innovative, customized land restoration agenda that suits their needs, capacities, and circumstances, countries and communities can recover lost natural resources and better prepare for climate change and other looming threats.”

Johns Muleso Kharika, Chief, Science, Technology and Innovation, UNCCD

GLO2: Baseline Scenario projections

• A slowing in the growth of agricultural yields While agricultural yields are still projected to rise in all regions, land degradation will curb increases, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. The loss of soil organic carbon and the soil’s ability to hold water and nutrients, such as phosphorus or nitrogen, will be primarily responsible for this slowing, while the associated risks of drought and water scarcity are expected to increase.
• The demand for food, expected to rise by 45% between 2015 and 2050, will have to be met by further intensification and expansion of agricultural land, resulting in the further loss of 3 million square kilometers of natural areas (the size of India), mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
• Other contemporary scenario analyses explicitly consider factors such as environmental governance, land distribution, and access to resources.
• Restoration Scenario projections

The restoration scenario assumes that land restoration is done on a massive scale – across a potential 50 million square kilometers (5 billion hectares) with measures such as:

• Conservation agriculture (low- or no-till farming)
• Agroforestry and silvopasture (combining trees with crops, livestock, or both)
• Improved grazing management and grassland rehabilitation
• Forest plantations
• Assisted natural regeneration
• Cross-slope barriers to prevent soil erosion

The restoration scenario envisions these measures applied to roughly 16 million square kilometers of cropland, 22 million of grazing land, and 14 million of natural areas. Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are estimated to have the largest areas with the potential for land restoration.

Compared to the baseline scenario, restoration means by 2050:

• Crop yields increase by 5-10% in most developing countries compared to the baseline Improved soil health leads to higher crop yields, with the largest gains in the Middle East and North Africa, Latin America, and subSaharan Africa, limiting food price increases.
• Carbon stocks rise by a net 17 gigatonnes between 2015 and 2050 due to gains in soil carbon and reduced emissions.  This is the balance of a net increase in soil organic carbon, increased carbon in agroforestry, and a continued loss of vegetation carbon due to land conversion. It does not account for the potential carbon storage gains above ground from forest restoration. Soil carbon stocks would be 55 gigatonnes larger in 2050 compared to the baseline, with the largest gains in Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Latin America, while the biggest losses would be avoided in sub-Saharan Africa.
• Slowed biodiversity decline and loss of natural areas.  Globally, the extent of natural areas continues to decline due to the expansion of agricultural and urban areas, except in Latin America where natural areas are projected to increase by 3%. Biodiversity would continue to decline, but not as quickly, with 11% of biodiversity loss averted.

Restoration and Protection Scenario projections

This scenario includes the restoration measures, augmented with protection measures expanded to cover close to half of the Earth’s land surface by 2050 – a threefold increase on the current coverage. These protected areas are important for biodiversity, water regulation, conservation of soil and carbon stocks, and provision of critical ecosystem functions.

However, significantly increasing the extent of protected land would limit the expansion of agriculture. Under this constraint, current yields would have to be 9% higher by 2050 than in the baseline scenario to meet expected demand. Nonetheless, food prices are projected to increase, particularly in South and Southeast Asia, where a scarcity of agricultural land is already impacting food security.

Under this scenario, most of the new protected areas would have to be in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. When compared to the baseline, the restoration and protection scenario means by 2050:

• An additional 4 million square kilometers of natural areas (the size of India and Pakistan).  With the largest gains expected in South and Southeast Asia and Latin America, protected areas would prevent land degradation by logging, burning, draining, or conversion.
• While biodiversity would continue to decline, about a third of the loss projected in the baseline would be prevented under restoration and protection measures.
• An additional 83 gigatonnes are stored compared to the baseline.  Avoided emission and increased carbon storage would be equivalent to more than seven years of total current global emissions.

Additional resources:

The global potential for land restoration: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook 2

https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/the-global-potential-for-land-restoration-scenarios-for-the-global-landoutlook-2

Restoration Commitments and Scenarios Goals and Commitments for the Restoration Decade: A global overview of countries’ restoration commitments under the Rio Conventions and other pledges

https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/goals-and-commitments-for-the-restoration-decade

Images, video (credit: UNCCD):

High-resolution video of northern Kenya drought 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FOU5Z-F6Q9cQsXjKxtghC5zFDqX1XYS5/view?usp=sharing  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNe57V1wCStw5kSLAebmYc0MYH2ZY3Dn/view?usp=sharing  

Photos and captions: 

https://bit.ly/3rRSpY2 

Social Media Assets

Infographics / related social media assets (credit: UNCCD):

https://trello.com/b/sAbqXGl2/global-land-oulook-2nd-edition

The GLO2 summary for decision makers is available  at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pG5dDn8cyWGGXZ6hZIZx-vfNMZS2HKOy/view?usp=sharing

The full report is available at  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NfxqrezhaB30eh1FUPrXpka4-SQAjBWp/view?usp=sharing

Two new regional reports, covering Central and Eastern Europe and Southern Africa, will also be released at COP15.

COP15 programme, registration and other media information: https://www.unccd.int/cop15

About the UN Convention to Combat Desertification ( UNCCD.int )

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) is the global vision and voice for land. We unite governments, scientists, policymakers, private sector and communities around a shared vision and global action to restore and manage the world’s land for the sustainability of humanity and the planet. Much more than an international treaty signed by 197 parties, UNCCD is a multilateral commitment to mitigating today’s impacts of land degradation and advancing tomorrow’s land stewardship in order to provide food, water, shelter and economic opportunity to all people in an equitable and inclusive manner.

• GLO2 summary for decision-makers
• Global Land Outlook 2nd edition

Select file

Related stories

In this triple COP year, leaders must align efforts to ensure planetary health

UNCCD COP16 side events deadline: 6 September 2024

Press Office

Other links

Press/media links.

• Press request for interviews
• Send inquiry to media/press office

Land Degradation, Meaning, Causes, Impact and Prevention

Land Degradation is caused by multiple forces, including extreme weather conditions. Read all about Land Degradation, its Meaning, Causes, Impact and Prevention for UPSC Exam.

Table of Contents

Land degradation means the soil is getting worse because it is being used in the wrong way, like for farming, grazing animals, building factories, or cities. This is a big problem around the world and can get worse with climate change. It includes things like soil erosion, salty or polluted soil, and the loss of plants that grow on the land.

Land degradation happens because of many reasons, like extreme weather, especially drought. Just like air and water, land is very important for people. When land gets worse, it can cause problems like not having enough food, higher food prices, climate change, environmental risks, loss of different plants and animals, and fewer natural services from the land. This means the soil can not produce as well now and in the future.

Land Degradation Meaning

Land Degradation happens when the quality of the land gets degraded because of natural or human reasons. This can lead to less productive soil, fewer plants and animals, and fewer natural benefits from the land, which can greatly affect the environment and human societies. Common causes include cutting down trees, overgrazing by animals, soil erosion, pollution, building cities, and climate change.

Land degradation can make the soil less fertile, reduce its ability to grow crops, and support livestock, which can hurt local economies and food security. Environmental impacts include soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and poorer water quality. These problems, like flooding, drought, and desertification, can make climate change worse and also be worsened by it.

Land Degradation Causes

• Monoculture farming practices.
• Overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
• Improper irrigation techniques.
• Poor soil management.
• Clearing forests for agriculture, logging, and urbanization.
• Disrupts ecosystems and increases soil erosion.
• Alters water cycles and reduces biodiversity.
• Excessive grazing by livestock.
• Leads to vegetation degradation.
• Causes soil compaction, erosion, and loss of fertility.
• Expansion of cities and infrastructure.
• Converts productive land into impervious surfaces.
• Results in soil sealing and disrupts water cycles.
• Extraction of minerals and resources.
• Causes habitat destruction and deforestation.
• Contaminates soil and water with toxic chemicals.
• Industrial waste disposal.
• Pesticides, heavy metals, and other pollutants contaminate soil.
• Renders land unsuitable for agriculture and poses health risks.
• Alters temperature and precipitation patterns.
• Increases frequency of extreme weather events.
• Exacerbates processes such as desertification and soil erosion.
• Improper land-use planning.
• Inadequate soil conservation practices.
• Lack of land-use regulations.
• Intensifies erosion and habitat destruction.

Types of Land Degradation

Land degradation refers to the deterioration of land quality and productivity. There are various types of land degradation, each caused by different factors and processes. Here are some of the main types:

Land Degradation Effects

Land deterioration threatens agricultural productivity and worsens soil health, affecting the quality of life for rural residents. It also makes climate change events worse, causing more damage. For example, degraded land can not absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Land degradation has also reduced the quantity and quality of surface and groundwater. With 1.5°C warming, 178 million people in dry areas could face water stress and intense drought by 2050. Insecure land ownership makes it harder for people and communities to fight climate change, increasing the risk of land degradation.

Land Degradation Neutrality

Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) is a goal to stop and reverse land degradation. It means keeping the amount and quality of land stable or better over time. LDN is part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and aims to combat desertification and restore land by 2030.

LDN objectives include:

• Maintaining or improving ecosystem services
•  Enhancing land productivity for global food security
•  Increasing the resilience of land and its dependent populations

The UNCCD and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 include LDN. The GEF has helped over 60 countries integrate LDN into their plans.

Land Degradation in India

From 2015 to 2019, 30.51 million hectares of land were degraded, which is 9.45% of India’s land. An estimate shows that 96.40 million hectares, or 29.32% of India’s total land, were degraded between 2011 and 2013. In comparison, 94.53 million hectares were degraded between 2003 and 2005. Agricultural land and forests are the most affected. Climate change and human activities make this worse, reducing the land’s productivity, health, and biodiversity.

• According to the UNCCD, 32% of India’s land is degraded, and 25% is turning into desert.
• Natural causes include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and heavy rain. Human causes include deforestation, overgrazing, and poor land management.
• Land degradation harms farmers and forest dwellers, reducing land productivity, health, and biodiversity.
• India has schemes like the Green India Mission and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
• India also joined the Bonn Challenge, aiming to restore 13 million hectares by 2020 and 8 million more by 2030.
• Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Telangana have reduced degraded land in the last 15 years. Delhi still has a high percentage of degraded land, with nearly 62% affected.

To tackle this, the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad has created an online portal to show degraded areas and their causes.

Some strategies to reduce land degradation include:

• Rooftop rainwater harvesting: In places like Junagarh, Gujarat, small houses collect rainwater for household use.
• Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF): This helps farmers use sustainable farming methods to improve soil fertility and cut costs.
• Soil Health Cards (SHC): Farmers get information about their soil’s condition to help restore its health.

Land Degradation Prevention

To fight land degradation, we can use methods like planting trees, controlling erosion, and practicing sustainable farming. We can also reduce the causes of land degradation by limiting deforestation and improving waste management.

Land Degradation UPSC

The term “land degradation” describes the deterioration of the condition of the land, which can be brought on by human activity or by natural processes such soil erosion or climate change. The causes and effects of land degradation may be covered in the UPSC exam. Studying land degradation for the UPSC exam is crucial because it has a big impact on environmental preservation and sustainable development. Students can read all the details related to UPSC visiting the official website of StudyIQ  UPSC Online Coaching.

Sharing is caring!

Land Degradation FAQs

What is land degradation.

Land degradation is defined as the temporary or permanent decline in the productive capacity of the land.

What are the 5 causes of land degradation?

• Deforestation • Excessive Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides • Overgrazing • Salination • Water-logging

What is land degradation and its types?

Land degradation is caused by multiple forces, including extreme weather conditions, particularly drought.

What is the main land degradation?

Land degradation is a global problem largely related to agricultural use, deforestation and climate change.

What are effects of land degradation?

The loss of fertile soil makes land less productive for agriculture, creates new deserts, pollutes waterways and can alter how water flows through the landscape, potentially making flooding more common.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Trending Event

• RPSC RAS Apply Online 2024
• SSC MTS Admit Card 2024
• TNPSC Group 2 Answer Key 2024
• SSC GD Apply Online 2025

Recent Posts

UPSC Exam 2024

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2025
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form
• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

SSC CGL 2024

• SSC CGL Exam 2024
• SSC CGL Syllabus 2024
• SSC CGL Cut off
• SSC CGL Apply Online
• SSC CGL Salary
• SSC CGL Previous Year Question Paper
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• SSC MTS 2024
• SSC MTS Apply Online 2024
• SSC MTS Syllabus 2024
• SSC MTS Salary 2024
• SSC MTS Eligibility Criteria 2024
• SSC MTS Previous Year Paper

SSC Stenographer 2024

• SSC Stenographer Notification 2024
• SSC Stenographer Apply Online 2024
• SSC Stenographer Syllabus 2024
• SSC Stenographer Salary 2024
• SSC Stenographer Eligibility Criteria 2024

SSC GD Constable 2025

• SSC GD Salary 2025
• SSC GD Constable Syllabus 2025
• SSC GD Eligibility Criteria 2025

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

• CEO and Chairperson
• Focal Points
• Secretariat Staff

Stakeholder Engagement

• GEF Agencies
• Conventions
• Civil Society Organizations
• Private Sector
• Feature Stories
• Press Releases
• Publications

Land Degradation

• Desertification & Drought
• Landscape Restoration
• More Land Degradation LDN

Land is a complex mixture of soil, water , and biodiversity . Working together, these three elements create goods and services that provide a foundation for sustainable livelihoods and peaceful co-existence between peoples. Yet land degradation is putting the health, livelihoods, and security of an estimated 3.2 billion people at risk.

Pressure on global land resources is increasing due to agriculture and land use change. The dominant drivers for land degradation worldwide include unsustainable management or over-exploitation of resources, natural vegetation clearance, nutrient depletion, overgrazing, inappropriate irrigation, excessive use of agrochemicals, urban sprawl, pollution, mining and quarrying, and many others.

The problems are particularly severe in the driest parts of the world. Dryland landscapes cover approximately 40 percent of the world’s land area and support two billion people. The vast majority of people who depend on drylands live in developing countries, where women and children are most vulnerable to the impacts of land degradation and drought.

Land Degradation Neutrality Knowledge Management and Learning Initiative: Learning from the GEF Portfolio of Projects

Lessons from the land

The Great Green Wall Initiative: Supporting Resilient Livelihoods and Landscapes in the Sahel

What we do - the gef-8 approach.

As a financial mechanism for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the GEF is well-placed to help countries in fulfilling their commitments under the convention. GEF-8 funding for the land degradation focal area addresses the drivers of land degradation through several Integrated Programs (IPs), multi-focal area and stand-alone projects, as well as through enabling activities, capacity building, and exchange of experience and existing knowledge.

The GEF’s land degradation focal area funds are directed towards the goal of avoiding, reducing, and reversing land degradation, desertification, and mitigating the effects of drought with four objectives:

• Avoid and reduce land degradation through sustainable land management (SLM).
• Reverse land degradation through landscape restoration.
• Address desertification, land degradation, and drought issues, particularly in drylands.
• Improve the enabling policy and instrumental framework for land degradation neutrality (LDN).

Integrated Programming in GEF-8 to Maximize Global Environmental Benefits in the Land Degradation Focal Area

IPs form a major component of the GEF-8 delivery towards SLM, land restoration, addressing desertification, land degradation, and drought issues, and in improving the enabling policy and institutional framework for LDN. For example, the Food Systems IP’s transformational approach is reducing environmental degradation and negative externalities in food production systems and across supply chains. The Amazon, Congo, and Critical Forest Biomes IP is increasing and strengthening the protection and governance of intact forest landscapes, tackling the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation at the jurisdictional or landscape level. The Ecosystem Restoration IP is designed to generate multiple environmental and social benefits by applying integrated approaches for restoration of degraded ecosystems.

UNCCD Enabling Activities

The GEF also provides financing for UNCCD enabling activities to support countries to fulfill obligations to the convention, focusing on reporting and formulation of national strategies and plans in line with current and upcoming COP decisions and the UNCCD strategy.

Enabling activities are financed out of global set-asides on top of the GEF’s STAR allocation. In GEF-8, eligible countries can apply for support of up to $120,000 including GEF agency fees. The funding can be made available up to two years in advance of the 2026 reporting deadlines to allow for sufficient time to collect and analyze the necessary data for parties’ reporting to the UNCCD. See this announcement for more details.

Parties’ applications simply require a letter of endorsement of the GEF Operational Focal Point of the country. The funding disbursement will be handled by a GEF partner agency. For further information about the application process, please contact: [email protected] .

Cumulative results of GEF land degradation projects and programs since 2014 show that 19.7 million hectares of land and ecosystems are under restoration and 74.8 million hectares are brought under SLM in production systems ( Sub-indicator 4.3 ). During this period, 101.4 million people have benefited from restored ecosystems and SLM, of whom 49.6 million are women.

Since 2014, GEF-funded Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) sector projects have reduced 510 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Data as of April 2024.

The international community is working to halt and reverse land degradation, restore degraded ecosystems, and sustainably manage our resources through a commitment to land degradation neutrality (LDN).

The concept of LDN emerged from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012. LDN responds to an immediate challenge: intensifying the production of food, fuel, and fiber to meet future demand without further degrading our finite land resource base. In other words, LDN envisions a world where human activity has a neutral, or even positive, impact on the land.

In 2015, the 12th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification ( UNCCD COP12 ) adopted 35 decisions related to desertification, land degradation, and drought. These included how to pursue LDN within the framework of the  Sustainable Development Goals  (SDGs) and how to align UNCCD goals and the action of Parties with the SDGs. As a follow-up, the UNCCD Secretariat and the Global Mechanism established the LDN Target Setting Program , which has been enshrined in the SDGs as target 15.3 on achieving a land degradation neutral world by 2030.

Featured Content

Promoting sustainable land management through evidence-based decision support

In Ecuador, learning about Land Degradation Neutrality in practice

As a financial mechanism for UNCCD, the GEF is supporting land degradation neutrality implementation. Initially, the LDN Target Setting Program provided technical assistance to a voluntary group of more than 60 countries to help mainstream LDN into their National Action Programs and plan recovery of landscapes.

Through its LDN implementation projects, the GEF supports countries to achieve LDN in the short- and medium-term.

More than 120 countries have set voluntary LDN targets as a result of this initiative.

The GEF’s LDN portfolio comprises 67 projects approved between 2016 and 2022 during the GEF-6 and GEF-7 replenishment cycles, implemented in a total of 56 countries covering all regional UNCCD Annexes. The projects are implemented by nine different GEF agencies and are in various stages of implementation ranging from project preparation to mid-term evaluation stage. The total investment in these projects is $320 million in GEF grants and over $2.5 billion in co-financing.

The main lessons emerging from the portfolio – also captured within the 2024 LDN learning report - are the following:

• LDN is a complex scientific concept that needs to be tailored to national and local realities and adjusted to each country’s context.
• Numerous challenges and information gaps still exist in setting, updating, revising, and monitoring voluntary LDN targets.
• LDN guidelines for GEF projects have a positive impact on effective integration of the LDN concept in project design.
• Governance for LDN is multi-dimensional and needs to take into consideration vertical and horizontal (cross-sectoral) coordination as a first step for better policy coherence; participatory planning processes; potential trade-offs and competing land uses; land tenure security; and accurate monitoring.
• The LDN framework provides countries with the opportunity to work - and address enhanced policy coherence - across ministries and agencies on multi-sectoral topics related to biodiversity, climate change mitigation, adaptation, drought, agriculture and livestock, and forests through various means including integrated land use planning.
• Fostering inclusivity through LDN is crucial to ensure sustainability and impact.

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined by the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit as “the use of land resources, including soil, water, animals and plant, for the production of goods to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential.”

For many countries, the challenge of achieving SLM comes down to trade-offs between short-term profitability and long-term sustainability. Those ready to adopt SLM approaches may face economic and institutional barriers or lack knowledge and technology innovations to overcome them. In most developing countries, SLM can open up major opportunities for both the land as a natural resource and the people who depend on it.

The three Rio Conventions have overlapping concerns regarding  biodiversity  loss,  land degradation ,  and deforestation , including implications for livelihoods and food security. As a result, there is potential for greater synergy among the Convention for Biological Diversity  (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD ),  and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Through adoption of SLM, countries can implement the conventions in a comprehensive way that address  climate change , introduce renewable energy technologies, and combat deforestation.

Partner Content

• WOCAT - South-South Cooperation for Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Restoration

As financial mechanism of the Rio Conventions, the GEF is the world’s largest source of funding for SLM. The GEF channels most of its investments in SLM through the  land degradation focal area . Investment priorities are aligned with the UNCCD objectives, enabling countries to deliver on commitments toward implementation of the convention. We help strengthen national-level processes for SLM such as capacity building, institutional collaboration, knowledge management, and mainstreaming across sectors. On the ground, GEF projects improve livelihoods and economic well-being of local communities, and preserve and restore ecosystems.

The Global Environment Facility's land degradation focal area strategy for the GEF-8 replenishment cycle (2022-2026) aligns with the GEF’s vision to achieve healthy and resilient ecosystems by addressing agro-ecosystems in production landscapes. The goal of the land degradation focal area is to avoid, reduce, and reverse land degradation, desertification, and mitigate the effects of drought. Sustainable land management is the overarching approach to achieve this goal. GEF projects promote the wider application and scaling of SLM interventions that improve productivity and maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services that underpin food production and livelihoods.

GEF-eligible investments focus on:

• Agro-ecological methods and approaches including conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and agro-silvo-pastoral practices.
• Improving rangeland management and sustainable pastoralism, regulating livestock grazing pressure through sustainable intensification and rotational grazing systems, increasing diversity of animal and grass species, and managing fire disturbance.
• Strengthening community-based natural resource management, including legitimate tenure rights recognition and safeguards.
• Integrated watershed management, including wetlands where SLM interventions can improve hydrological functions and services for agro-ecosystem productivity.
• Implementing integrated pest management approaches to improve soil fertility and water management.

Many GEF projects worldwide are applying SLM approaches and technologies to improve land management in agricultural production landscapes. These results are collected in the WOCAT Global Database , which is the primary recommended database by the UNCCD for SLM. It provides free access to the documentation of field-tested SLM practices from different locations and offers practitioners the opportunity to share their own practices.

As an example of large-scale sustainable management investments, the Great Green Wall Initiative is establishing a wide belt of SLM schemes to tackle desertification. In so doing, it is helping communities in the sustainable management and use of landscapes including forests and trees, rangelands, and other natural resources.

To date, some 1.8 million hectares of lands and forests are being managed sustainably. This contributes to better carbon sequestration and increased resilience of the region’s ecosystems and livelihoods. To date, at least 22 million people have benefited. 

Desertification and drought put livelihoods and entire ecosystems at risk and, in extreme cases, cause famine, displacement, and conflict. Every year, 12 million hectares of land become unproductive due to desertification and drought, and the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people in some 100 countries are threatened by desertification. Drought is one of the major drivers of global food and water insecurity, affecting agricultural production and access to food and water. Drought can, in extreme cases, force people to abandon their land, resorting to migration as a last livelihood strategy. 

Dryland areas are particularly vulnerable to desertification, land degradation, and drought events. They make up 41 percent of the Earth’s surface, with populations in drylands projected to increase by 43 percent—from 2.7 billion in 2010 to 4.0 billion in 2050. Drylands face governance challenges such as low human resource capacity (e.g., low education attainment), low investment of public resources, weak penetration of government services, and insecure land tenure and resource rights for people in vulnerable situations such as women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and youth.

Climate change exacerbates desertification processes and drought and leads to variations in yields and income from agriculture, threatening the resilience of agro-ecosystems and stability of food production systems. In addition to meteorological causes, drought is aggravated by unsustainable land management, particularly degradation of the vegetative cover and soil.

Making people and productive landscapes resilient to drought is a core mandate of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which is fully supported by the Global Environment Facility through its strategy, and relevant programs and projects.

Combating Land Degradation

Nurturing landscapes, communities, and climate resilience in Kazakhstan

The Restoration Initiative: 2022 Year in Review

• Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program on Dryland Sustainable Landscapes
• UNCCD: Land management and drought mitigation: Science-policy brief

Investments on drought mitigation and adaptation are funded by three trust funds: the GEF Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), as well as multi-trust fund combinations of the three funds. Highest focal area contributions come from climate change, followed by land degradation, international waters, and biodiversity.

Programs and projects related to drought are characterized by integrated approaches towards proactive drought management, addressing all three pillars:

• Monitoring and Early Warning
• Vulnerability and Impact Assessment
• Drought Mitigation, Preparedness, and Response.

A frequent intervention applied in GEF projects is drought-smart land management , which improves the capacity of soil to accept, retain, release, and transmit water and increase plant water use efficiency. This type of land management increases the water supply where it is needed by living organisms (e.g., crop root systems) or by reducing water demand through drought-resistant crop varieties.

Since its inception, the GEF has invested about $531 million in 107 projects/programs related to drought mitigation/adaptation. The portfolio includes 60 different countries from all UNCCD Annexes and regional and global projects/programs.

Focal area contributions come from climate change, land degradation, international waters, and biodiversity, making the portfolio truly integrated. Indeed, proactive drought management is a complex issue that needs to be addressed through multi-sectoral and integrated approaches, reflecting meteorological, environmental, socio-economic, and development issues.

GEF investments in proactive drought management show a steady upward trend, peaking in the seventh replenishment cycle (GEF-7) with $176 million, and with GEF-8 investments likely to be higher at the end of its cycle in 2026. Starting in GEF-8 and in response to UNCCD COP decisions, the GEF is supporting the formulation and updating of national drought plans . Countries increasingly utilize their available GEF resources to implement elements of these national plans through projects focusing on drought mitigation and adaptation, such as in Mali, Namibia, Mauritania, and Argentina.

As another example, the GEF-7 Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program aims to avoid, reduce, and reverse further degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in drylands through the sustainable management of production landscapes. The program is transforming the management of drylands in selected regions and countries, establishing the basis for sustainable dryland management at regional and global levels. The program is being implemented with a specific focus on three dryland regions: the Miombo and Mopane ecosystems of southern Africa (with participating countries Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe); the savannas of West Africa (Burkina Faso); and the temperate grasslands, riparian forests, and shrublands of Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Mongolia).

Healthy landscapes support a huge variety of land uses — from agriculture and agroforestry to wildlife reserves and ecological corridors to forests and plantations. They provide clean water, food, and materials to build shelter for wildlife and humans alike. And they provide livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people.

Landscape restoration helps to reverse land degradation, combat climate change, and prevent biodiversity loss. It also addresses poverty as it can quickly provide financial reflow, create jobs, and is financially viable in the long run, promoting climate adaptation, food security, and increasing livelihood opportunities.

For all these reasons, landscape restoration has become a priority on the international policy agenda:

• The  UNFCC ,  CBD , and  UNCCD have all identified restoration as an important component of reaching their goals.
• The  Bonn Challenge seeks to restore 350 million hectares of the world’s deforested lands by 2030. More than 60 countries or jurisdictions have made pledges to the Bonn Challenge.
• Initiative 20x20 , which will also support the Bonn Challenge, aimed to restore 20 million hectares in Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020, and 50 million hectares by 2030.
• The  Africa Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100), launched at the Global Landscapes Forum in Paris in December 2015, has a target of restoring 100 million hectares across the continent by 2030.
• Initiatives such as  The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration unite governments, organizations, communities, and individuals with a common goal: restoring the world’s degraded and deforested lands. 
• The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration aims to halt the degradation of ecosystems and restore them to achieve global goals. The UN Decade from 2021 through 2030 will build a strong global movement to ramp up restoration.

How gender equality can make landscapes more sustainable

• The Restoration Initiative
• Society for Ecological Restoration - International Principles & Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration
• UNCCD - Restoring life to the land. The role of sustainable land management in ecosystem restoration

In GEF-8, the land degradation focal area enables countries to invest in land restoration through project activities aligned with Objective 2 of the Programming Directions :

• Restore agro-ecosytem services and avoid the reduction of trees and vegetative cover.
• Restore forests, avoid forest loss and degradation, including sustainable forest management (SFM). 

GEF projects invest in activities appropriate to local socio-economic conditions to improve vegetative cover and its functionality, assist natural regeneration of woodlands and planting of community woodlots, help establish shelterbelts, agro-forestry and agro-silvo-pastoral models, and practices to enhance soil and water conservation, erosion control, and ground water recharge. Countries can direct their investments also through the GEF-8 Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Program , which aims to generate multiple environmental and socioeconomic benefits by applying integrated approaches to restore degraded ecosystems. It focuses on restoration of ecosystem types with a high potential to generate multiple benefits, especially in landscapes with high values for biodiversity.

Another GEF supported restoration flagship is the Great Green Wall Initiative . It aims to establish a green belt of productive lands and forests along the edge of the Sahara Desert to battle desertification and soil degradation, while tackling poverty. It focuses on a strip of land of 15 km wide and 7,100 km long from Dakar to Djibouti. The Great Green Wall has the potential of restoring landscapes in 11 participating countries.

The GEF supported about 10 million hectares of degraded land under restoration through  sustainable forest management projects and programs with tree planting, natural regeneration, and agroforestry systems in GEF-6 and GEF-7. The GEF-8 target for restoration is an additional 10 million hectares, with the majority of contributions coming from the Integrated Programs .

Worsening land degradation impacts 3.2 billion people worldwide

Worsening land degradation caused by human activities is undermining the well-being of two fifths of humanity, driving species extinctions and intensifying climate change. It is also a major contributor to mass human migration and increased conflict, according to the world’s first comprehensive evidence-based assessment of land degradation and restoration. The dangers of land degradation, which cost the equivalent of about 10% of the world’s annual gross product in 2010 through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are detailed for policymakers, together with a catalogue of corrective options, in the three-year assessment report by more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries, launched today.

Produced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the report was approved at the 6th session of the IPBES Plenary in Medellín, Colombia. IPBES has 129 State Members and four UN Institutional Partners: UNESCO, UNEP, FAO and UNDP.

“ This report demonstrates the challenges we face due to global soil degradation, and the impact to human life if this critical issue is not urgently addressed. It is now essential to translate the report's recommendations into tangible action. To do this, we will need to put biodiversity and people's well-being at the heart of decision making, and foster interaction between all sectors of society. UNESCO will play its role by bringing experience and mobilizing its resources and networks to build these bridges between culture, education, science local and indigenous knowledge ” said Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO Director-General

Rapid expansion and unsustainable management of croplands and grazing lands is the most extensive global direct driver of land degradation, causing significant loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services – food security, water purification, the provision of energy and other contributions of nature essential to people. This has reached ‘critical’ levels in many parts of the world, the report says. According to the authors, land degradation manifests in many ways: land abandonment, declining populations of wild species, loss of soil and soil health, rangelands and fresh water, as well as deforestation.

“ Through this report, the global community of experts has delivered a frank and urgent warning, with clear options to address dire environmental damage ,” said Sir Robert Watson, Chair of IPBES. “ Land degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural environment. We cannot afford to tackle any one of these three threats in isolation – they each deserve the highest policy priority and must be addressed together. ”

Underlying drivers of land degradation, says the report, are the high-consumption lifestyles in the most developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies. High and rising per capita consumption, amplified by continued population growth in many parts of the world, can drive unsustainable levels of agricultural expansion, natural resource and mineral extraction, and urbanization – typically leading to greater levels of land degradation.

By 2014, more than 1.5 billion hectares of natural ecosystems had been converted to croplands. Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity – and by 2050, the IPBES experts estimate this will have fallen to less than 10%.

Crop and grazing lands now cover more than one third of the Earth´s land surface, with recent clearance of native habitats, including forests, grasslands and wetlands, being concentrated in some of the most species-rich ecosystems on the planet.

Avoidance of further agricultural expansion into native habitats can be achieved through yield increases on the existing farmlands, shifts towards less land degrading diets, such as those with more plant-based foods and less animal protein from unsustainable sources, and reductions in food loss and waste.

Given the importance of soil’s carbon absorption and storage functions, the avoidance, reduction and reversal of land degradation could provide more than a third of the most cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation activities needed by 2030 to keep global warming under the 2°C threshold targeted in the Paris Agreement on climate change, increase food and water security, and contribute to the avoidance of conflict and migration.

There are, however, many examples of successful land restoration. For example, well tested practices and techniques are implemented in many Biosphere Reserves , areas that promote solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use.

More on this subject

Other recent news

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 46, 2021, review article, open access, restoring degraded lands.

• Almut Arneth 1,2 , Lennart Olsson 3 , Annette Cowie 4,5 , Karl-Heinz Erb 6 , Margot Hurlbert 7 , Werner A. Kurz 8 , Alisher Mirzabaev 9 , and Mark D.A. Rounsevell 1,2,10
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; email: [email protected] [email protected] 2 Institute of Geography and Geo-ecology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany 3 Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden; email: [email protected] 4 New South Wales (NSW) Department of Primary Industries Armidale Livestock Industries Centre, Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia; email: [email protected] 5 School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia 6 Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1070 Vienna, Austria; email: [email protected] 7 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan S7N 5B8, Canada; email: [email protected] 8 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia V8Z 1M5, Canada; email: [email protected] 9 Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany; email: [email protected] 10 School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, United Kingdom
• Vol. 46:569-599 (Volume publication date October 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809
• First published as a Review in Advance on August 20, 2021
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Land degradation continues to be an enormous challenge to human societies, reducing food security, emitting greenhouse gases and aerosols, driving the loss of biodiversity, polluting water, and undermining a wide range of ecosystem services beyond food supply and water and climate regulation. Climate change will exacerbate several degradation processes. Investment in diverse restoration efforts, including sustainable agricultural and forest land management, as well as land set aside for conservation wherever possible, will generate co-benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation and morebroadly for human and societal well-being and the economy. This review highlights the magnitude of the degradation problem and some of the key challenges for ecological restoration. There are biophysical as well as societal limits to restoration. Better integrating policies to jointly address poverty, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions and removals is fundamental to reducing many existing barriers and contributing to climate-resilient sustainable development.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• 1.  Arneth A , Denton F , Agus F , Elbehri A , Erb K et al. 2019 . Framing and context. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 77– 129 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 2.  IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2019 . The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 3.  Olsson L , Barbosa H , Bhadwal S , Cowie A , Delusca K et al. 2019 . Land degradation. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 345– 436 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 4.  Mirzabaev A , Wu J , Evans J , García-Oliva F , Hussein IAG et al. 2019 . Desertification. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 249– 343 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 5.  Altieri AH , Harrison SB , Seemann J , Collin R , Diaz RJ , Knowlton N 2017 . Tropical dead zones and mass mortalities on coral reefs. PNAS 114 : 3660– 65 [Google Scholar]
• 6.  Haberl H , Erb K-H , Krausmann F. 2014 . Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 : 363– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 7.  Mottet A , de Haan C , Falcucci A , Tempio G , Opio C , Gerber PJ. 2017 . Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Secur. 14 : 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 8.  FAO. (United Nations Food and Agric. Organ.) 2020 . Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report Rome. Rep., FAO https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 9.  Erb K-H , Kastner T , Plutzar C , Bais ALS , Carvalhais N et al. 2018 . Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553 : 73– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 10.  Marzen M , Iserloh T , de Lima J , Fister W , Ries JB. 2017 . Impact of severe rain storms on soil erosion: experimental evaluation of wind-driven rain and its implications for natural hazard management. Sci. Total Environ. 590 : 502– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 11.  IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2018 . The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 12.  Anderegg WRL , Trugman AT , Badgley G , Anderson CM , Bartuska A et al. 2020 . Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368 : eaaz7005 [Google Scholar]
• 13.  Hember RA , Kurz WA , Girardin MP. 2019 . Tree ring reconstructions of stemwood biomass indicate increases in the growth rate of black spruce trees across boreal forests of Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124 : 2460– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 14.  Trant A , Higgs E , Starzomski BM. 2020 . A century of high elevation ecosystem change in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Sci. Rep. 10 : 9698 [Google Scholar]
• 15.  Bullock EL , Woodcock CE , Souza C , Olofsson P. 2020 . Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 26 : 2956– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 16.  Matricardi EAT , Skole DL , Costa OB , Pedlowski MA , Samek JH , Miguel EP 2020 . Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369 : 1378– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 17.  Maxwell SL , Evans T , Watson JEM , Morel A , Grantham H et al. 2019 . Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%. Sci. Adv. 5 : eaax2546 [Google Scholar]
• 18.  Pugh TAM , Lindeskog M , Smith B , Poulter B , Arneth A et al. 2019 . Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. PNAS 116 : 4382– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 19.  Mayer M , Prescott CE , Abaker WEA , Augusto L , Cecillon L et al. 2020 . Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: a knowledge synthesis. Forest Ecol. Manag. 466 : 118127 [Google Scholar]
• 20.  Thorn S , Seibold S , Leverkus AB , Michler T , Müller J et al. 2020 . The living dead: acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18 : 505– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 21.  Meyfroidt P , Lambin EF. 2011 . Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 : 343– 71 [Google Scholar]
• 22.  Koutroulis A. 2018 . Dryland changes under different levels of global warming. Sci. Total Environ. 655 : 482– 511 [Google Scholar]
• 23.  Prăvălie R. 2016 . Drylands extent and environmental issues. A global approach. Earth-Sci. Rev. 161 : 259– 78 [Google Scholar]
• 24.  FAO (United Nations Food Agric. Organ.) 2016 . Trees, Forests and Land Use in Drylands: The First Global Assessment—Preliminary Findings Rome: FAO [Google Scholar]
• 25.  Brandt M , Tucker CJ , Kariryaa A , Rasmussen K , Abel C et al. 2020 . An unexpectedly large count of trees in the West African Sahara and Sahel. Nature 587 : 78– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 26.  Murphy BP , Andersen AN , Parr CL. 2016 . The underestimated biodiversity of tropical grassy biomes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 : 20150319 [Google Scholar]
• 27.  Carbutt C , Henwood WD , Gilfedder LA. 2017 . Global plight of native temperate grasslands: going, going, gone?. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 : 2911– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 28.  van Oijen M , Bellocchi G , Hoglind M. 2018 . Effects of climate change on grassland biodiversity and productivity: the need for a diversity of models. Agronomy 8 : 14 [Google Scholar]
• 29.  Brandt M , Mbow C , Diouf A , Verger A , Samimi C , Fensholt R. 2014 . Ground and satellite-based evidence of the biophysical mechanisms behind the greening Sahel. Glob. Change Biol. 21 : 1610– 20 [Google Scholar]
• 30.  Rishmawi K , Prince S 2016 . Environmental and anthropogenic degradation of vegetation in the Sahel from 1982 to 2006. Remote Sens . 8 : 948 [Google Scholar]
• 31.  Lehman CER , Parr CL. 2016 . Tropical grassy biomes: linking ecology, human use and conservation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 : 20160329 [Google Scholar]
• 32.  Morton J. 2010 . Why should governmentality matter for the study of pastoral development?. Nomad. Peoples 14 : 6– 30 [Google Scholar]
• 33.  Ramankutty N , Evan AT , Monfreda C , Foley JA. 2008 . Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22 : GB1003 [Google Scholar]
• 34.  Gossner MM , Lewinsohn TM , Kahl T , Grassein F , Boch S et al. 2016 . Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities. Nature 540 : 266– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 35.  Shin Y-J , Arneth A , Roy-Chaudhury R , Midgley G , Boafo Y et al. 2019 . Plausible futures of nature, its contributions to people and their good quality of life. The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ipbes_global_assessment_chapter_4_unedited_31may.pdf [Google Scholar]
• 36.  Gang C , Zhou W , Chen Y , Wang Z , Sun Z et al. 2014 . Quantitative assessment of the contributions of climate change and human activities on global grassland degradation. Environ. Earth Sci. 72 : 4273– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 37.  McSherry ME , Ritchie ME. 2013 . Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19 : 1347– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 38.  Smith P. 2014 . Do grasslands act as a perpetual sink for carbon?. Glob. Change Biol. 20 : 2708– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 39.  Sanderman J , Hengl T , Fiske GJ 2017 . Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. PNAS 114 : 9575– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 40.  Bossio DA , Cook-Patton SC , Ellis PW , Fargione J , Sanderman J et al. 2020 . The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 3 : 391– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 41.  Humphreys J , Brye KR , Rector C , Gbur EE. 2019 . Methane emissions from rice across a soil organic matter gradient in Alfisols of Arkansas, USA. Geoderma Reg . 16 : e00200 [Google Scholar]
• 42.  da Silva Cardoso A , Quintana BG , Janusckiewicz ER , de Figueiredo Brito L , da Silva Morgado E et al. 2019 . How do methane rates vary with soil moisture and compaction, N compound and rate, and dung addition in a tropical soil?. Int. J. Biometeorol. 63 : 1533– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 43.  Tian H , Yang J , Xu R , Lu C , Canadell JG et al. 2019 . Global soil nitrous oxide emissions since the preindustrial era estimated by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models: magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty. Glob. Change Biol. 25 : 640– 59 [Google Scholar]
• 44.  Kayranli B , Scholz M , Mustafa A , Hedmark Å. 2010 . Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 30 : 111– 24 [Google Scholar]
• 45.  Page SE , Baird AJ. 2016 . Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 : 35– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 46.  Tootchi A , Jost A , Ducharne A. 2019 . Multi-source global wetland maps combining surface water imagery and groundwater constraints. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 : 189– 220 [Google Scholar]
• 47.  Prince S , Von Maltitz G , Zhang F , Byrne K , Driscoll C et al. 2018 . Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.), 315– 426 Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 48.  Darrah SE , Shennan-Farpón Y , Loh J , Davidson NC , Finlayson CM et al. 2019 . Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 99 : 294– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 49.  Colloff MJ , Lavorel S , Wise RM , Dunlop M , Overton IC , Williams KJ. 2016 . Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. Ecol. Appl. 26 : 1003– 17 [Google Scholar]
• 50.  Nisbet EG , Manning MR , Dlugokencky EJ , Fisher RE , Lowry D et al. 2019 . Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the 4 years 2014–2017: implications for the Paris Agreement. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33 : 318– 42 [Google Scholar]
• 51.  Mikaloff Fletcher SE , Schaefer H 2019 . Rising methane: a new climate challenge. Science 364 : 932– 33 [Google Scholar]
• 52.  Oh Y , Zhuang Q , Liu L , Welp LR , Lau MCY et al. 2020 . Reduced net methane emissions due to microbial methane oxidation in a warmer Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10 : 317– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 53.  Hemes KS , Chamberlain SD , Eichelmann E , Anthony T , Valach A et al. 2019 . Assessing the carbon and climate benefit of restoring degraded agricultural peat soils to managed wetlands. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 268 : 202– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 54.  Meli P , Benayas J , Balvanera P , Martinez-Ramos M. 2014 . Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 9 : e93507 [Google Scholar]
• 55.  Hogeboom RJ , de Bruin D , Schyns JF , Krol MS , Hoekstra AY. 2020 . Capping human water footprints in the world's river basins. Earths Future 8 : e2019EF001363 [Google Scholar]
• 56.  Bogardi JJ , Fekete BM , Vorosmarty CJ. 2013 . Planetary boundaries revisited: a view through the ‘water lens. ’. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 : 581– 89 [Google Scholar]
• 57.  Grill G , Lehner B , Thieme M , Geenen B , Tickner D et al. 2019 . Mapping the world's free-flowing rivers. Nature 569 : 215– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 58.  Sabater S , Bregoli F , Acuna V , Barcelo D , Elosegi A et al. 2018 . Effects of human-driven water stress on river ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 8 : 11462 [Google Scholar]
• 59.  Zarfl C , Berlekamp J , He F , Jähnig SC , Darwall W , Tockner K. 2019 . Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. 9 : 18531 [Google Scholar]
• 60.  Zhu ZC , Piao SL , Myneni RB , Huang MT , Zeng ZZ et al. 2016 . Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 791– 95 [Google Scholar]
• 61.  Liu YY , Yang Y , Wang Q , Khalifa M , Zhang ZY et al. 2019 . Assessing the dynamics of grassland net primary productivity in response to climate change at the global scale. Chinese Geogr. Sci. 29 : 725– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 62.  Le Quéré C , Andrew RM , Friedlingstein P , Sitch S , Hauck J et al. 2018 . Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10 : 2141– 94 [Google Scholar]
• 63.  Smith P , Calvin K , Nkem J , Campbell D , Cherubini F et al. 2019 . Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?. Glob. Change Biol. 26 : 1532– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 64.  Wilhite D , Pulwarty RS. 2017 . Drought and Water Crises, Integrating Science, Management, and Policy Boca Raton: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
• 65.  Mo K , Lettenmaier D. 2015 . Heat wave flash droughts in decline. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 : 2823– 29 [Google Scholar]
• 66.  Stroosnijder L. 2009 . Modifying land management in order to improve efficiency of rainwater use in the African highlands. Soil Tillage Res . 103 : 247– 56 [Google Scholar]
• 67.  Jia G , Shevliakova E , Artaxo P , De Noblet-Ducoudré N , Houghton R et al. 2019 . Land–climate interactions. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 131– 247 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 68.  Zheng J , Yingzhuo Y , Zhang X , Hao Z. 2018 . Variation of extreme drought and flood in North China revealed by document-based seasonal precipitation reconstruction for the past 300 years. Clim. Past 14 : 1135– 45 [Google Scholar]
• 69.  Ziese M , Schneider U , Meyer-Christoffer A , Schamm K , Vido J et al. 2014 . The GPCC Drought Index—a new, combined and gridded global drought index. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 6 : 285– 95 [Google Scholar]
• 70.  Byers E , Gidden M , Leclère D , Balkovič J , Burek P et al. 2018 . Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 71.  Hurlbert M , Krishnaswamy J , Davin E , Johnson FX , Mena CF et al. 2019 . Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 673– 800 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 72.  Shrestha S , Hoang NAT , Shrestha PK , Bhatta B. 2018 . Climate change impact on groundwater recharge and suggested adaptation strategies for selected Asian cities. APN Sci. Bull. 8 : 1 https://doi.org/10.30852/sb.2018.499 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 73.  Clarke H , Evans JP. 2018 . Exploring the future change space for fire weather in southeast Australia. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 136 : 513– 27 [Google Scholar]
• 74.  Williams AP , Allen CD , Millar CI , Swetnam TW , Michaelsen J et al. 2010 . Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. PNAS 107 : 21289– 94 [Google Scholar]
• 75.  McLauchlan KK , Higuera PE , Miesel J , Rogers BM , Schweitzer J et al. 2020 . Fire as a fundamental ecological process: research advances and frontiers. J. Ecol. 108 : 2047– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 76.  Ward M , Tulloch AIT , Radford JQ , Williams BA , Reside AE et al. 2020 . Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 : 1321– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 77.  Halofsky JE , Peterson DL , Harvey BJ. 2020 . Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecol 16 : 4 [Google Scholar]
• 78.  Kukavskaya EA , Buryak LV , Shvetsov EG , Conard SG , Kalenskaya OP. 2016 . The impact of increasing fire frequency on forest transformations in southern Siberia. Forest Ecol. Manag. 382 : 225– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 79.  Seidl R , Thom D , Kautz M , Martin-Benito D , Peltoniemi M et al. 2017 . Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 : 395– 402 [Google Scholar]
• 80.  Pellegrini AFA , Hobbie SE , Reich PB , Jumpponen A , Brookshire ENJ et al. 2020 . Repeated fire shifts carbon and nitrogen cycling by changing plant inputs and soil decomposition across ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 90 : e01409 [Google Scholar]
• 81.  Knorr K , Jiang L , Arneth A. 2016 . Climate, CO 2 , and demographic impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences 13 : 267– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 82.  Donat MG , Lowry AL , Alexander LV , O'Gorman PA , Maher N. 2016 . More extreme precipitation in the world's dry and wet regions. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 508– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 83.  Van Der Bolt B , Van Nes EH , Bathiany S , Vollebregt ME , Scheffer M. 2018 . Climate reddening increases the chance of critical transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 8 : 478– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 84.  Wang Z-H , Li S-X. 2019 . Nitrate N loss by leaching and surface runoff in agricultural land: a global issue (a review). Advances in Agronomy , Vol. 156 DL Sparks 159– 217 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
• 85.  Withers P , Neal C , Jarvie H , Doody D. 2014 . Agriculture and eutrophication: Where do we go from here?. Sustainability 6 : 5853– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 86.  Eekhout JP , De Vente J. 2020 . How soil erosion model conceptualization affects soil loss projections under climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 44 : 212– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 87.  Lee C-Y , Camargo SJ , Sobel AH , Tippett MK. 2020 . Statistical–dynamical downscaling projections of tropical cyclone activity in a warming climate: two diverging genesis scenarios. J. Clim. 33 : 4815– 34 [Google Scholar]
• 88.  Patricola CM , Wehner MF. 2018 . Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events. Nature 563 : 339– 46 [Google Scholar]
• 89.  Marsooli R , Lin N , Emanuel K , Feng K. 2019 . Climate change exacerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in spatially varying patterns. Nat. Commun. 10 : 3785 [Google Scholar]
• 90.  Aksha SK , Juran L , Resler LM. 2018 . Spatial and temporal analysis of natural hazard mortality in Nepal. Environ. Hazards 17 : 163– 79 [Google Scholar]
• 91.  IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2018 . Global Warming of 1.5°C Geneva: IPCC [Google Scholar]
• 92.  Hanssen SV , Daioglou V , Steinmann ZJN , Doelman JC , Van Vuuren DP , Huijbregts MAJ. 2020 . The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Change 10 : 1023– 29 [Google Scholar]
• 93.  Gregg JS , Izaurralde RC. 2010 . Effect of crop residue harvest on long-term crop yield, soil erosion and nutrient balance: trade-offs for a sustainable bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels 1 : 69– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 94.  Liska AJ , Yang H , Milner M , Goddard S , Blanco-Canqui H et al. 2014 . Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO 2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4 : 398– 401 [Google Scholar]
• 95.  Hof C , Voskamp A , Biber MF , Böhning-Gaese K , Engelhardt EK et al. 2018 . Bioenergy cropland expansion may offset positive effects of climate change mitigation for global vertebrate diversity. PNAS 115 : 13294– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 96.  Fuss S , Lamb WF , Callaghan MW , Hilaire J , Creutzig F et al. 2018 . Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 : 063002 [Google Scholar]
• 97.  Girardello M , Santangeli A , Mori E , Chapman A , Fattorini S et al. 2019 . Global synergies and trade-offs between multiple dimensions of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sci. Rep. 9 : 5636 [Google Scholar]
• 98.  Strassburg BBN , Beyer HL , Crouzeilles R , Iribarrem A , Barros P et al. 2019 . Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 : 62– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 99.  Palomo I , Dujardin Y , Midler E , Robin M , Sanz MJ , Pascual U 2019 . Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD plus funds. PNAS 116 : 22645– 50 [Google Scholar]
• 100.  Nilsson C , Riis T , Sarneel J , Svavarsdóttir K. 2018 . Ecological restoration as a means of managing inland flood hazards. BioScience 68 : 89– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 101.  Morecroft MD , Duffield S , Harley M , Pearce-Higgins JW , Stevens N et al. 2019 . Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366 : eaaw9256 [Google Scholar]
• 102.  Donatti CI , Harvey CA , Hole D , Panfil SN , Schurman H. 2020 . Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Clim. Change 158 : 413– 33 [Google Scholar]
• 103.  Seddon N , Chausson A , Berry P , Girardin CAJ , Smith A , Turner B. 2020 . Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 : 20190120 [Google Scholar]
• 104.  Rhodes CJ. 2017 . The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci. Prog. 100 : 80– 129 [Google Scholar]
• 105.  Montgomery DR. 2017 . Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life New York: WW Norton & Co. [Google Scholar]
• 106.  Kassam A , Friedrich T , Derpsch R. 2019 . Global spread of conservation agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 76 : 29– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 107.  Davis SC , Boddey RM , Alves BJR , Cowie AL , George BH et al. 2013 . Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy 5 : 623– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 108.  Witters N , Van Slycken S , Ruttens A , Adriaensen K , Meers E et al. 2009 . Short-rotation coppice of willow for phytoremediation of a metal-contaminated agricultural area: a sustainability assessment. BioEnergy Res 2 : 144– 52 [Google Scholar]
• 109.  Immerzeel DJ , Verweij PA , van der Hilst F , Faaij APC. 2014 . Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy 6 : 189– 209 [Google Scholar]
• 110.  De Stefano A , Jacobson MG. 2018 . Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Syst 92 : 285– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 111.  Wilson MH , Lovell ST. 2016 . Agroforestry—the next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability 8 : 574 [Google Scholar]
• 112.  Churkina G , Organschi A , Reyer CPO , Ruff A , Vinke K et al. 2020 . Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3 : 269– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 113.  Veldman JW , Overbeck GE , Negreiros D , Mahy G , Le Stradic S et al. 2015 . Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65 : 1011– 18 [Google Scholar]
• 114.  Abreu RCR , Hoffmann WA , Vasconcelos HL , Pilon NA , Rossatto DR , Durigan G. 2017 . The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna. Sci. Adv. 3 : e1701284 [Google Scholar]
• 115.  Brundu G , Richardson DM 2016 . Planted forests and invasive alien trees in Europe: a code for managing existing and future plantings to mitigate the risk of negative impacts from invasions. NeoBiota 30 : 5– 47 [Google Scholar]
• 116.  Wilson SJ , Schelhas J , Grau R , Nanni AS , Sloan S. 2017 . Forest ecosystem-service transitions: the ecological dimensions of the forest transition. Ecol. Soc. 22 : 38 [Google Scholar]
• 117.  Aerts R , Honnay O. 2011 . Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC Ecol 11 : 29 [Google Scholar]
• 118.  Liang JJ , Crowther TW , Picard N , Wiser S , Zhou M et al. 2016 . Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354 : aaf8957 [Google Scholar]
• 119.  Crouzeilles R , Curran M , Ferreira MS , Lindenmayer DB , Grelle CEV , Benayas JMR. 2016 . A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 7 : 11666 [Google Scholar]
• 120.  Cross SL , Bateman PW , Cross AT. 2020 . Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 21 : 4– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 121.  Jouquet P , Blanchart E , Capowiez Y. 2014 . Utilization of earthworms and termites for the restoration of ecosystem functioning. Appl. Soil Ecol. 73 : 34– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 122.  Schmitz OJ , Wilmers CC , Leroux SJ , Doughty CE , Atwood TB et al. 2018 . Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science 362 : eaar3213 [Google Scholar]
• 123.  Kimmerer R 2011 . Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration . Society for Ecological Restoration , ed . D Egan, EE Hjerpe, J Abrams 257– 76 Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• 124.  Nkonya E , Mirzabaev A , von Braun J 2016 . Economics of land degradation and improvement: an introduction and overview. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement — A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development E Nkonya, A Mirzabaev, J von Braun 1– 14 Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ. [Google Scholar]
• 125.  Mentis M. 2020 . Environmental rehabilitation of damaged land. Forest Ecosyst 7 : 19 [Google Scholar]
• 126.  Giger M , Liniger H , Sauter C , Schwilch G. 2018 . Economic benefits and costs of sustainable land management technologies: an analysis of WOCAT's global data. Land Degrad. Dev. 29 : 962– 74 [Google Scholar]
• 127.  Lambin E , Meyfroidt P , Rueda X , Blackman A , Börner J et al. 2014 . Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28 : 129– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 128.  Reed MS , Stringer LC , Dougill AJ , Perkins JS , Atlhopheng JR et al. 2015 . Reorienting land degradation towards sustainable land management: linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services in rangeland systems. J. Environ. Manag. 151 : 472– 85 [Google Scholar]
• 129.  Scown MW , Brady MV , Nicholas KA. 2020 . Billions in misspent EU agricultural subsidies could support the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth 3 : 237– 50 [Google Scholar]
• 130.  Wolff S , Schrammeijer EA , Schulp C , Verburg PH. 2018 . Meeting global land restoration and protection targets: What would the world look like in 2050?. Glob. Environ. Change 52 : 259– 72 [Google Scholar]
• 131.  Metzger JP , Esler K , Krug C , Arias M , Tambosi L et al. 2017 . Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration planning. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29 : 14– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 132.  Folke C. 2016 . Resilience (Republished). Ecol . Soc 21 : 44 [Google Scholar]
• 133.  Acosta LA , Virk A , Kumar R , Sharma S , Ikeda T et al. 2018 . Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors. The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific M Karki, SS Sellamuttu, W Suzuki, S Okayasu 429– 536 Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 134.  George C , Reed MG. 2015 . Operationalising just sustainability: towards a model for place-based governance. Local Environ 22 : 1105– 23 [Google Scholar]
• 135.  Parlee CE , Wiber MG. 2018 . Using conflict over risk management in the marine environment to strengthen measures of governance. Ecol. Soc. 23 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 136.  Cowie AL , Orr BJ , Castillo Sanchez VM , Chasek P , Crossman ND et al. 2018 . Land in balance: the scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy 79 : 25– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 137.  Fagan ME , Reid JL , Holland MB , Drew JG , Zahawi RA. 2020 . How feasible are global forest restoration commitments?. Conserv. Lett. 13 : e12700 [Google Scholar]
• 138.  Seddon N , Sengupta S , García-Espinosa M , Hauler I , Herr D , Rizvi AR. 2019 . Nature-Based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and Recommendations for Enhancing Climate Ambition and Action by 2020 Gland, Switz./Oxford: Int. Union Conserv. Nat., Univ. Oxford [Google Scholar]
• 139.  Metzger MJ , Dick J , Gardner A , Bellamy C , Blackstock K et al. 2019 . Knowledge sharing, problem solving and professional development in a Scottish Ecosystem Services Community of Practice. Reg. Environ . Change 19 : 2275– 86 [Google Scholar]
• 140.  Eakin H , York A , Aggarwal R , Waters S , Welch J et al. 2016 . Cognitive and institutional influences on farmers’ adaptive capacity: insights into barriers and opportunities for transformative change in central Arizona. Reg. Environ. Change 16 : 801– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 141.  Wreford A , Ignaciuk A , Gruere G. 2017 . Overcoming barriers to the adoption of climate-friendly practices in agriculture . Pap. 101 Food, Agric. Fish., Org. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Paris: [Google Scholar]
• 142.  Barnett J , Evans LS , Gross C , Kiem AS , Kingsford RT et al. 2015 . From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc . 20 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 143.  Dow K , Berkhout F , Preston BL , Klein RJT , Midgley G , Shaw MR. 2013 . Limits to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3 : 305– 7 [Google Scholar]
• 144.  Arneth A , Shin Y-J , Leadley P , Rondinini C , Bukvareva E et al. 2020 . Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. PNAS 117 : 30882– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 145.  Kwakkel JH , Haasnoot M , Walker WE. 2016 . Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environ. Model. Software 86 : 168– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 146.  Otto IM , Wiedermann M , Cremades R , Donges JF , Auer C , Lucht W. 2020 . Human agency in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167 : 106463 [Google Scholar]
• 147.  Pörtner HO , Scholes RJ , Agard J , Archer E , Arneth A et al. 2021 . Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change Rep., IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) Bonn, Ger: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 148.  Bullock JM , Aronson J , Newton AC , Pywell RF , Rey-Benayas JM. 2011 . Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 : 541– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 149.  Kollmann J , Meyer ST , Bateman R , Conradi T , Gossner MM et al. 2016 . Integrating ecosystem functions into restoration ecology—recent advances and future directions. Restor. Ecol. 24 : 722– 30 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions, climate change and food systems, wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability, global water pollution and human health, adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework, i ndustrial s ymbiosis : literature and taxonomy, environmental governance, c arbon d ioxide e missions from the g lobal c ement i ndustry 1, global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review.

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental law and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

Seven ways to restore land, halt desertification and combat drought

Land sustains life on Earth. Natural spaces such as forests, farmlands, savannahs, peatlands and mountains, provide humanity with the food, water and raw materials it needs to survive. 

Yet, more than 2 billion hectares of the world’s land is degraded, affecting more than 3 billion people . Vital ecosystems and countless species are under threat. In the face of more severe and prolonged droughts , sandstorms and rising temperatures , it is crucial to find ways to stop dry land from becoming desert, fresh water sources from evaporating and fertile soil from turning to dust. 

While that might sound like an insurmountable task, it is not, say experts. On 5 June, the planet will celebrate World Environment Day 2024 , which will cast a spotlight on how everyone can help end land degradation and restore blighted landscapes. 

“Governments and businesses have a leading role to play in reversing the damage humanity has done to the Earth,” says Bruno Pozzi, the Deputy Director of the Ecosystems Division of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “But everyday people also have a vital role to play in restoration, which is crucial to our future as a species.” 

Here are seven ways to get involved in ecosystem restoration on World Environment Day as outlined in the practical guide We Are #Generation Restoration .

  1. Make agriculture sustainable  

Globally, at least 2 billion people , particularly from rural and poorer areas, depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. However, our current food systems are unsustainable and a prime driver of land degradation. There is a lot we can do to fix this. Governments and the finance sector can promote regenerative agriculture to increase food production while preserving ecosystems.  

Right now, agricultural producers receive US$540 billion a year in financial support from countries. Some 87 per cent of these subsidies either distort prices or harm nature and human health. With that in mind, governments could redirect agricultural subsidies towards sustainable practices and small-scale farmers.  

Agricultural businesses can develop climate-resilient crops, harness Indigenous knowledge to develop sustainable farming methods and better manage the use of pesticides and fertilizers to avoid harming soil health. Consumers can embrace regional, seasonal and plant-rich diets, and include more soil-friendly food in meals, such as beans, lentils, chickpeas and peas. 

2. Save the soil  

Soil is more than just the dirt under our feet. It is the planet’s most biodiverse habitat. Almost 60 per cent of all species live in soil and 95 per cent of the food we eat is produced from it. Healthy soil acts as a carbon sink, locking in greenhouse gases that would otherwise enter the atmosphere, playing a vital role in climate mitigation.  

To keep soil healthy and productive, governments and the finance sector can support organic and soil-friendly farming. Agricultural businesses can practise zero-tillage , a technique that involves cultivating crops without disturbing the soil through tillage to maintain organic soil cover. Compost and organic materials could be added to soil to improve its fertility. Irrigation techniques, such as drip irrigation or mulching, could be used to help maintain soil moisture levels and prevent drought stress. Individuals could make compost from leftover scraps of fruit and vegetables for use in their gardens and balcony plant pots.  

3. Protect the pollinators  

Three out of four crops producing fruit and seeds depend on pollinators. Bees are the most prolific pollinators but they get a lot of help from bats, insects, butterflies, birds and beetles. In fact, without bats, we can say goodbye to bananas, avocados and mangoes. Despite their importance, all pollinators are in serious decline, bees especially.  

To protect them, people need to reduce air pollution, minimize the adverse impact of pesticides and fertilizers, and conserve the meadows, forests and wetlands where pollinators thrive. Authorities and individuals could mow fewer green spaces in cities and introduce more pollinator-friendly ponds to allow nature to return. Planting a diverse variety of native flowers in city and home gardens will also attract birds, butterflies and bees. 

4. Restore freshwater ecosystems  

Freshwater ecosystems sustain the water cycles that keep land fertile. They supply food and water to billions of people, protect us from droughts and floods, and provide a habitat for countless plants and animals. Yet they are disappearing at an alarming rate due to pollution, climate change, overfishing and over-extraction. 

People can stop this by improving water quality, identifying sources of pollution and monitoring the health of freshwater ecosystems. Countries can join the Freshwater Challenge to accelerate the restoration of degraded rivers and wetlands by 2030. Invasive species could be removed from degraded freshwater habitats and native vegetation replanted. Cities could champion wastewater innovation that addresses sewage management, stormwater runoff and urban flooding.   

5. Renew coastal and marine areas  

Oceans and seas provide humanity with oxygen, food and water, while mitigating climate change and helping communities adapt to extreme weather. More than 3 billion people , primarily in developing nations, rely on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods. 

To secure this precious asset for generations to come, governments can accelerate implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework . Countries can restore blue ecosystems – including mangroves, salt marshes, kelp forests and coral reefs – while enforcing strict regulations on pollution, excess nutrients, agricultural runoff, industrial discharge and plastic waste to prevent them leaching into coastal areas. 

Countries could adopt a life-cycle approach to redesign plastic products to ensure they can be reused, repurposed, repaired, recycled – and ultimately kept out of the ocean. Businesses can invest in recovering nutrients from wastewater and livestock waste to use as fertilizers. 

6. Bring nature back to cities  

More than half of the world’s population lives in cities. By 2050, it is projected that two in three people will live in an urban centre. Cities consume 75 per cent of the planet’s resources, produce more than half its global waste and generate at least 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. As cities grow, they transform the natural world around them, potentially leading to droughts and land degradation. 

But cities do not need to be concrete jungles. Urban forests can improve air quality, provide more shade and reduce the need for mechanical cooling. Preserving cities’ canals, ponds and other water bodies can alleviate heatwaves and increase biodiversity. Installing more roof and vertical gardens in our buildings can provide habitats for birds, insects and plants.  

7. Generate financing for restoration  

Investments in nature-based solutions need to more than double to US$542 billion by 2030 to meet the world’s climate, biodiversity and ecosystem restoration goals.  

To close the existing finance gap, governments could invest in early warning systems to prevent the worst impacts of drought, as well as fund land restoration activities and nature-based solutions. The private sector could integrate ecosystem restoration into their business models, implement efficient waste management practices and invest in social enterprises focused on sustainable agriculture, eco-tourism and green technology. 

Individuals can move their bank accounts to finance institutes that invest in sustainable enterprises, donate to restoration or crowd-fund for innovations that can help save the planet.  

World Environment Day  on 5 June is the biggest international day for the environment. Led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and held annually since 1973, the event has grown to be the largest global platform for environmental outreach, with millions of people from across the world engaging to protect the planet. World Environment Day in 2024 focuses on land restoration, desertification and drought resilience.  

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030    

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030, led by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and partners covers terrestrial as well as coastal and marine ecosystems. A global call to action, it will draw together political support, scientific research and financial muscle to massively scale up restoration. 

• Ocean & coasts
• World Environment Day
• Biodiversity
• Restoration

Further Resources

• UNEP's work on nature
• UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
• World Environment Day Practical Guide

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Desertification, land degradation and drought

Related sdgs, protect, restore and promote sustainable use ....

Description

Publications.

Paragraph 33 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focuses on the linkage between sustainable management of the planet’s natural resources and social and economic development as well as on “strengthen cooperation on desertification, dust storms, land degradation and drought and promote resilience and disaster risk reduction” .

Sustainable Development Goal 15 of the 2030 Agenda aims to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss” .

The economic and social significance of a good land management, including soil and its contribution to economic growth and social progress is recognized in paragraph 205 of the Future We Want. In this context, Member States express their concern on the challenges posed to sustainable development by desertification, land degradation and drought, especially for Africa, LDCs and LLDCs. At the same time, Member States highlight the need to take action at national, regional and international level to reverse land degradation, catalyse financial resources, from both private and public donors and implement both the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and its 10- Year Strategic Plan and Framework (2008-2018).

Furthermore, in paragraphs 207 and 208 of the Future We Want, Member States encourage and recognize the importance of partnerships and initiatives for the safeguarding of land resources, further development and implementation of scientifically based, sound and socially inclusive methods and indicators for monitoring and assessing the extent of desertification, land degradation and drought. The relevance of efforts underway to promote scientific research and strengthen the scientific base of activities to address desertification and drought under the UNCCD is also addressed.

Combating desertification and drought were discussed by the Commission on Sustainable Development in several sessions. In the framework of the Commission's multi-year work programme, CSD 16-17 focused, respectively in 2008 and 2009, on desertification and drought along with the interrelated issues of Land, Agriculture, Rural development and Africa.

In accordance with its multi-year programme of work, CSD-8 in 2000 reviewed integrated planning and management of land resources as its sectoral theme. In its decision 8/3 on integrated planning and management of land resources, the Commission on Sustainable Development noted the importance of addressing sustainable development through a holistic approach, such as ecosystem management, in order to meet the priority challenges of desertification and drought, sustainable mountain development, prevention and mitigation of land degradation, coastal zones, deforestation, climate change, rural and urban land use, urban growth and conservation of biological diversity.

The sectoral cluster of land, desertification, forests and biodiversity, as well as mountains (chapters 10-13 and 15 of Agenda 21) were considered by CSD-3 in 1995 and again at the five-year review in 1997.

The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) called upon the United Nations General Assembly to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INCD) to prepare, by June 1994, an international convention to combat desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. The Convention was adopted in Paris on 17 June 1994 and opened for signature there on 14-15 October 1994. It entered into force on 26 December 1996.

Deserts are among the "fragile ecosystems" addressed by Agenda 21, and "combating desertification and drought" is the subject of Chapter 12. Desertification includes land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Desertification affects as much as one-sixth of the world's population, seventy percent of all drylands, and one-quarter of the total land area of the world. It results in widespread poverty as well as in the degradation of billion hectares of rangeland and cropland.

Integrated planning and management of land resources is the subject of chapter 10 of Agenda 21, which deals with the cross-sectoral aspects of decision-making for the sustainable use and development of natural resources, including the soils, minerals, water and biota that land comprises. This broad integrative view of land resources, which are essential for life-support systems and the productive capacity of the environment, is the basis of Agenda 21's and the Commission on Sustainable Development's consideration of land issues.

Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of resources. By examining all uses of land in an integrated manner, it makes it possible to minimize conflicts, to make the most efficient trade-offs and to link social and economic development with environmental protection and enhancement, thus helping to achieve the objectives of sustainable development. (Agenda 21, para 10.1) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is the task manager for chapter 10 of Agenda 21.

Publication - Making Peace with Nature A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies

Part I of the report addresses how the current expansive mode of development degrades and exceeds the Earth’s finite capacity to sustain human well-being. The world is failing to meet most of its commitments to limit environmental damage and this increasingly threatens the achievement of the Sustain...

Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom, We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for su...

Transforming Land Management Globally

Combatting land degradation is a key component of the post 2015 development agenda. The linkage between land degradation and other global environmental challenges is more recognized than ever before. We must leverage the increasing attention being given to land to further promote sustainable land ma...

“Combating desertification/land degradation and drought for poverty reduction and sustainable development: the contribution of science, technology, traditional knowledge and practices” Preliminary conclusions

The effects of demographic pressure and unsustainable land management practices on land degradation and desertification are being exacerbated worldwide due to the effects of climate change, which include (but are not limited to) changing rainfall patterns, increased frequency and intensity of drough...

Climate change and desertification: Anticipating, assessing &amp; adapting to future change in drylands - Impulse Report

Climate change and desertification: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change in drylands The ‘Impulse report’, a preparatory document for the Third Scientific Conference of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), to be held in Cancún Mexico this 9-12 March 2015 has been pub...

WHITE PAPER II: Costs and Benefits of Policies and Practices Addressing Land Degradation and Drought in the Drylands

- Drylands are complex social-ecological systems, characterized by non-linearity of causation, complex feedback loops within and between the many different social, ecological, and economic entities, and potential of regime shifts to alternative stable states as a result of thresholds. As such, dryla...

Brazil Low-carbon - Country Case Study

In order to mitigate the impacts of climate change, the world must drastically reduce global GHG emissions in the coming decades. According to the IPCC, to prevent the global mean temperature from rising over 3oC, atmospheric GHG concentrations must be stabilized at 550 ppm. By 2030, this will requi...

Trends in Sustainable Development 2008-2009

This report highlights key developments and recent trends in agriculture, rural development, land, desertification and drought, five of the six themes being considered by the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) at its 16th and 17th sessions (2008-2009). A separate Trends Report addresses de...

Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs: Issue 8

Foreign land purchases for agriculture: what impact on sustainable development? Private investors and governments have recently stepped up foreign investment in farmlandin the form of purchases or long-term lease of large tracks of arable land, notably in Africa. This brief examines the implication...

Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs: Issue 7

The contribution of sustainable agriculture and land management to sustainable development....

Sustainable land use for the 21st century

This study is part of the Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21) project. The project is implemented by the Division for Sustainable Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and funded by the European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment - T...

Expert Group Meeting on SDG 15 (Life on land) and its interlinkages with other SDGs

In preparation for the review of SDG 15— “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”—and its role in advancing sustainable development across the 2030 Ag

Expert Group Meetings on 2022 HLPF Thematic Review

&nbsp; &nbsp; The theme of the 2022 high-level political forum on sustainable development (HLPF) is “Building back better from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) while advancing the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. The 2022 HLPF will have an

UNEP Environment Assembly

United nations forum on forests, fourteenth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (cop14), expert group meeting on sustainable development goal 15: progress and prospects.

In preparation for the 2018 HLPF, the Division for Sustainable Development Goals of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DSDG-DESA) organized an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on SDG 15 and its role in advancing sustainable development through implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in partnership

IYS Closure Event

The World Soil Day 2015 will host the 'closure' event of the International Year of Soils. It will also coincide with the launch of the first 'Status of the World Soil Resources Report'.

21st Session of the Conference of the Parties and 11th Session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol- UNFCCC COP 21/ CMP 11

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or “UNFCCC”, was adopted during the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. It entered into force on 21 March 1994 and has been ratified by 196 States, which constitute the “Parties” to the Convention – its stakeholders. This Framework Conven

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) - 12th Session

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) will host its Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP12) in Ankara, Turkey, from 12 October to 23 October 2015. The conference will take place at the Congresium Ankara-ATO International Convention and Exhibition Centre. De

Third Plenary Assembly of the Global Soil Partnership

The Food and Agriculture Organization extends an invitation to attend the Third Plenary Assembly of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) to be held from 22 to 24 June 2015 at FAO headquarters in Rome. The opening meeting will commence at 09.00 hours on Monday 22 June. The Provisional Agenda is attach

• January 2015 SDG 15 - Desertification SDG 15 aims at protecting, restoring and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Target 15.3 in particular reads to achieve "by 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world".
• January 2012 Future We Want (Para 205-209) The economic and social significance of a good land management, including soil and its contribution to economic growth and social progress is also recognized in paragraph 205 of the Future We Want. In this context, Member States express their concern on the challenges posed to sustainable development by desertification, land degradation and drought, especially for Africa, LDCs and LLDCs. At the same time, Member States highlight the need to take action at national, regional and international level to reverse land degradation, catalyze financial resources, from both private and public donors and implement both the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and its 10- Year Strategic Plan and Framework (2008-2018). Furthermore, in paragraphs 207 and 208 of the Future We Want, Member States encourage and recognize the importance of partnerships and initiatives for the safeguarding of land resources, further development and implementation of scientifically based, sound and socially inclusive methods and indicators for monitoring and assessing the extent of desertification, land degradation and drought. The relevance of efforts underway to promote scientific research and strengthen the scientific base of activities to address desertification and drought under the UNCCD is also taken into account by paragraph 208.
• January 2010 UN Decade on Desertification Launched by the General Assembly with the adoption of Resolution A/RES/64/201, the UN Decade for Deserts and the Fight Against Desertification was designed to address the Parties'concern about the worsening of the situation of desertification and its negative impact on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The Decade started in January 2010 and will end in December 2020 with the aim of promoting action ensuring the protection of dry-lands.
• January 2008 CSD-16 (Chap.2 C,D,E) CSD-16 focused on the thematic cluster of agriculture, rural development, land, drought, desertification and Africa.
• January 2006 Int. Year of Deserts and Desertification The International Year of Deserts and Desertification was launched to highlight the threat represented by the advancing of deserts and the loss it may cause to biodiversity. Through this International Year, the UN aimed at raising public awareness on this issue and at reversing the trend of desertification, setting the world on a safer and more sustainable path of development.
• January 2000 CSD-8 (Chap. 4) As decided at UNGASS, the economic, sectoral and cross-sectoral themes under consideration for CSD-8 were sustainable agriculture and land management, integrating planning and management of land resources and financial resources, trade and investment and economic growth.CSD-6 to CSD-9 annually gathered at the UN Headquarters for spring meetings. Discussions at each session opened with multi-stakeholder dialogues, in which major groups were invited to make opening statements on selected themes followed by a dialogue with government representatives.
• January 1996 UNCCD The only legally binding international agreement connecting environment and development to sustainable land management, UNCCD addresses the arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, known as the drylands, where some of the most vulnerable ecosystems and peoples can be found. In 2007 the 10-Year Strategy of the UNCCD (2008-2018) was adopted and on that occasion, parties to the Convention further specified their goals: "to forge a global partnership to reverse and prevent desertification/land degradation and to mitigate the effects of drought in affected areas in order to support poverty reduction and environmental sustainability". The Convention was adopted in Paris on 17 June 1994 and entered into force on 26 December 1996, 90 days after the 50th ratification was received. 194 countries and the European Union are Parties as at April 2015.
• January 1992 Agenda 21 (Chap. 10 and 12) Integrated planning and management of land resources is the subject of chapter 10 of Agenda 21, which deals with the cross-sectoral aspects of decision-making for the sustainable use and development of natural resources, including the soils, minerals and water that land comprises. Included in the sections devoted to the management of fragile ecosystems, chapter 12 has focused on combating desertification and droughts. The priority to keep in mind while combating desertification is identified by Chap 12.3 in the need to implement "preventive measures for lands that are not yet degraded, or which are only slightly degraded. However, the severely degraded areas should not be neglected. In combating desertification and drought, the participation of local communities, rural organizations, national Governments, non-governmental organizations and international and regional organizations is essential".

Self Study Mantra

• Essay for IBPS PO Mains
• Essay for State PSC
• Essay for Banking Exam
• Important Essays
• Letter Writing
• हिन्दी निबंध
• One Word Substitution
• Computer Knowledge
• Important Days
• जीवन परिचय
• Government Schemes List

Essay on Land Restoration, Desertification, and Drought Resilience

Essay on Land Restoration, Desertification, and Drought Resilience is one of the important essay topics as Land Restoration, Desertification, and Drought Resilience is theme of World Environment Day 2024 . Lets see Essay on Land Restoration, Desertification, and Drought Resilience.

In an era marked by environmental degradation and climate change , the imperative to restore and conserve land, combat desertification, and enhance drought resilience has never been more pressing. Land restoration, the process of reversing the degradation of soils and ecosystems, holds the key to sustaining livelihoods, preserving biodiversity, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Coupled with efforts to combat desertification and build resilience to drought, it forms a crucial pillar of global environmental sustainability initiatives.

Land Restoration:

Land restoration involves a range of practices aimed at rehabilitating degraded landscapes, revitalizing ecosystems, and improving soil health. Afforestation and reforestation efforts play a vital role in restoring degraded lands by enhancing carbon sequestration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitats for diverse flora and fauna. Additionally, sustainable land management practices such as agroforestry, conservation agriculture, and watershed management promote soil conservation, water retention, and biodiversity conservation.

Furthermore, restoring degraded ecosystems through measures like wetland restoration, grassland rehabilitation, and mangrove reforestation not only enhances ecosystem services but also supports local communities' resilience to climate-related hazards such as floods and storms. By restoring the functionality of ecosystems, land restoration contributes to the conservation of biodiversity , the provision of clean water, and the mitigation of climate change impacts.

Desertification:

Desertification, the process by which fertile land becomes increasingly arid and degraded, poses significant challenges to human well-being, biodiversity, and ecosystem stability. It is often exacerbated by unsustainable land use practices, deforestation , overgrazing, and climate variability. Addressing desertification requires integrated approaches that combine sustainable land management, reforestation, soil conservation, and community engagement.

Efforts to combat desertification include the establishment of protected areas, the promotion of sustainable land management practices, and the implementation of reforestation and afforestation initiatives in arid and semi-arid regions. Sustainable land management practices such as agroforestry, terracing, and water harvesting help restore soil fertility, prevent erosion, and enhance water availability , thereby reversing the process of desertification.

Moreover, empowering local communities through capacity building, land tenure reforms, and participatory decision-making processes is essential for ensuring the sustainability of desertification mitigation efforts. By addressing the root causes of desertification and promoting ecosystem resilience, we can safeguard livelihoods, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in vulnerable dryland areas.

Drought Resilience:

Drought, a recurring natural phenomenon characterized by prolonged periods of low precipitation, poses significant challenges to agriculture, water security , and food production. Building resilience to drought involves a combination of mitigation and adaptation measures that enhance water efficiency, promote sustainable land management, and improve community resilience.

Investing in water-saving technologies such as drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, and soil moisture conservation helps improve water use efficiency and mitigate the impacts of drought on agricultural productivity. Additionally, promoting drought-resistant crop varieties, implementing agroforestry practices, and restoring degraded watersheds contribute to enhancing ecosystem resilience and reducing vulnerability to drought.

Furthermore, enhancing early warning systems, strengthening drought preparedness and response mechanisms, and providing social safety nets for vulnerable communities are essential components of drought resilience-building efforts. By adopting a holistic approach that integrates climate-smart agriculture, sustainable land management, and community-based adaptation strategies, we can enhance resilience to drought and ensure the well-being of communities in drought-prone regions.

Conclusion:

Land restoration, desertification mitigation, and drought resilience-building are integral components of global efforts to address environmental degradation, combat climate change, and promote sustainable development. By restoring degraded lands, combating desertification, and building resilience to drought, we can protect ecosystems, support livelihoods, and safeguard the well-being of present and future generations. It is imperative that governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector collaborate to implement integrated solutions that promote land restoration, prevent desertification, and enhance drought resilience, thereby contributing to a more sustainable and resilient future for all.

You may like these posts

Post a comment.

• Download PDF Essay for All Exams

Download PDF Essay for All Exams Most important essays ranging from 250 words to 1000 …

Popular this Month

Trending Essay Topics | Important Essay Topics for Competitive Exams

My School Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My School

20 Most expected essay topics for IBPS PO Mains Exam | Important Essay Topics for IBPS PO Mains Exam | Essay for IBPS PO Mains

My Family Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My Family

Essay for Bank Exams | Essay Topics for Banking Exams

20 Most Important Essay Topics for CAPF 2024 | UPSC CAPF Essay Topics 2024

20 Most expected essay topics for SBI PO 2024 | Important Essay Topics for SBI PO Mains Exam

Important Days in 2024 | Important National and International Days | Important Days and Dates

Essay on Electric Vehicles: The Future of Transport, Benefits of Electric Vehicles uses, Electric Vehicles

One word substitution (download here👇👇).

Essay Writing in English

Important Topics

• Essay in English
• Essay in Hindi
• 20 Essays for IBPS PO Descriptive Paper
• Trending Essay Topics
• IBPS PO Previous Year Descriptive Paper
• Important Essays for UPSC
• Essay Topics for UPSC CAPF AC Exam
• How To Crack SSC CGL In First Attempt?
• 100 Most Important One Word Substitution
• Essay on Artificial Intelligence
• Latest Jobs | Admit Card | Result
• Essay on Global Warming
• पर्यावरण प्रदूषण: नियंत्रण के उपाय
• Essay on Women Empowerment
• Daily Homework for Class 1 to 5

Blog Archive

Quick links.

• Paragraph in English
• Advertise With Us
• Career with Us
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer, Terms and Condition
• Shipping and Delivery Policy
• Cancellation and Refund Policy
• Products and Pricing
• 10 Lines 13
• Best Books for SSC CGL 2
• Biography 6
• Education System 6
• English Grammar 1
• Essay in Hindi 18
• Essay Topics 32
• essay writing 154
• Farmer Welfare Schemes 1
• Important National and International Days 34
• Mathematics 5
• One Word Substitution 2
• Online Classes 3
• Paragraph Writing 19
• Political Science 1
• Pollution 7
• Republic Day 1
• Speech in Hindi 1
• SSC Exams 5
• Study Tips 7
• जीवन परिचय 6

Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav Essay in English

Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Classes

Copyright (c) 2019-24 Self Study Mantra All Rights Reseved

Not all forest loss is equal: what is the difference between deforestation and forest degradation?

Deforestation and forest degradation are not the same. how do they differ.

The world loses around 24 million hectares of forest every year – an area the size of the UK. This metric, while important, combines two different types of forest loss: deforestation, the permanent conversion of primary forests into another land use, and degradation, the temporary thinning of forests which then later regrow. The environmental impacts of deforestation are more severe and permanent than degradation. Just over one-quarter of loss is deforestation – the replacement of forests to grow crops such as palm, soybeans and cocoa, and pasture to raise livestock. 95% of deforestation occurs in the tropics. The massive losses of carbon and biodiversity which result from tropical deforestation means that tackling this should be our primary concern.

15 billion trees are cut down every year. 1 The Global Forest Watch project – using satellite imagery – estimates that global tree loss in 2019 was 24 million hectares. That’s an area the size of the United Kingdom.

These are big numbers, and important ones to track: forest loss creates a number of negative impacts, ranging from carbon emissions to species extinctions and biodiversity loss. But distilling changes to this single metric – tree or forest loss – comes with its own issues.

The problem is that it treats all forest loss as equal. It assumes the impact of clearing primary rainforest in the Amazon to produce soybeans is the same as logging planted forests in the UK. The latter will experience short-term environmental impacts, but will ultimately regrow. When we cut down primary rainforest we are transforming this ecosystem forever.

When we treat these impacts equally we make it difficult to prioritize our efforts in the fight against deforestation. Decisionmakers could give as much of our attention to European logging as to destruction of the Amazon. As we will see later, this would be a distraction from our primary concern: ending tropical deforestation. The other issue that arises is that ‘tree loss’ or ‘forest loss’ data collected by satellite imagery often doesn’t match the official statistics reported by governments in their land use inventories. This is because the latter only captures deforestation – the replacement of forest with another land use (such as cropland). It doesn’t capture trees that are cut down in planted forests; the land is still forested, it’s now just regrowing forest.

In the article we will look at the reasons we lose forest; how these can be differentiated in a useful way; and what this means for understanding our priorities in tackling forest loss.

Understanding and seeing the drivers of forest loss

‘Forest loss’ or ‘tree loss’ captures two fundamental impacts on forest cover: deforestation and forest degradation .

Deforestation is the complete removal of trees for the conversion of forest to another land use such as agriculture, mining, or towns and cities. It results in a permanent conversion of forest into an alternative land use. The trees are not expected to regrow . Forest degradation measures a thinning of the canopy – a reduction in the density of trees in the area – but without a change in land use. The changes to the forest are often temporary and it’s expected that they will regrow.

From this understanding we can define five reasons why we lose forests:

• Commodity-driven deforestation is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to other land uses such as agriculture (including oil palm and cattle ranching), mining, or energy infrastructure.
• Urbanization is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to towns, cities and urban infrastructure such as roads.
• Shifting agriculture is the small to medium-scale conversion of forest for farming, that is later abandoned so that forests regrow. This is common of local, subsistence farming systems where populations will clear forest, use it to grow crops, then move on to another plot of land.
• Forestry production is the logging of managed, planted forests for products such as timber, paper and pulp. These forests are logged periodically and allowed to regrow.
• Wildfires destroy forests temporarily. When the land is not converted to a new use afterwards forests can regrow in the following years.

Thanks to satellite imagery, we can get a birds-eye view of what these drivers look like from above. In the figure we see visual examples from the study of forest loss classification by Philip Curtis et al. (2018), published in Science . 2

Commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization are deforestation : the forested land is completely cleared and converted into another land use – a farm, mining site, or city. The change is permanent. There is little forest left. Forestry production and wildfires usually result in forest degradation – the forest experiences short-term disturbance but if left alone is likely to regrow. The change is temporary. This is nearly always true of planted forests in temperate regions – there, planted forests are long-established and do not replace primary existing forests. In the tropics, some forestry production can be classified as deforestation when primary rainforests are cut down to make room for managed tree plantations. 3

'Shifting agriculture’ is usually classified as degradation because the land is often abandoned and the forests regrow naturally. But it can bridge between deforestation and degradation depending on the timeframe and permanence of these agricultural practices.

One-quarter of forest loss comes from tropical deforestation

We’ve seen the five key drivers of forest loss. Let’s put some numbers to them.

In their analysis of global forest loss, Philip Curtis and colleagues used satellite images to assess where and why the world lost forests between 2001 and 2015. The breakdown of forest loss globally, and by region, is shown in the chart. 2

Just over one-quarter of global forest loss is driven by deforestation. The remaining 73% came from the three drivers of forest degradation: logging of forestry products from plantations (26%); shifting, local agriculture (24%); and wildfires (23%).

We see massive differences in how important each driver is across the world. 95% of the world’s deforestation occurs in the tropics [we look at this breakdown again later]. In Latin America and Southeast Asia in particular, commodity-driven deforestation – mainly the clearance of forests to grow crops such as palm oil and soy, and pasture for beef production – accounts for almost two-thirds of forest loss.

In contrast, most forest degradation – two-thirds of it – occurs in temperate countries. Centuries ago it was mainly temperate regions that were driving global deforestation [we take a look at this longer history of deforestation in a related article ] . They cut down their forests and replaced it with agricultural land long ago. But this is no longer the case: forest loss across North America and Europe is now the result of harvesting forestry products from tree plantations, or tree loss in wildfires.

Africa is also different here. Forests are mainly cut and burned to make space for local, subsistence agriculture or for fuelwood for energy. This ‘shifting agriculture’ category can be difficult to allocate between deforestation and degradation: it often requires close monitoring over time to understand how permanent these agricultural practices are.

Africa is also an outlier as a result of how many people still rely on wood as their primary energy source. Noriko Hosonuma et al. (2010) looked at the primary drivers of deforestation and degradation across tropical and subtropical countries specifically. 4  The breakdown of forest degradation drivers is shown in the following chart. Note that in this study, the category of subsistence agriculture was classified as a deforestation driver, and so is not included. In Latin America and Asia the dominant driver of degradation was logging for products such as timber, paper and pulp – this accounted for more than 70%. Across Africa, fuelwood and charcoal played a much larger role – it accounted for more than half (52%).

This highlights an important point: less than 20% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa have access to clean fuels for cooking, meaning they still rely on wood and charcoal. With increasing development, urbanization and access to other energy resources, Africa will shift from local, subsistence activities into commercial commodity production – both in agricultural products and timber extraction. This follows the classic ‘forest transition’ model with development, which we look at in more detail in a related article .

Tropical deforestation should be our primary concern

The world loses almost six million hectares of forest each year to deforestation. That’s like losing an area the size of Portugal every two years. 95% of this occurs in the tropics. The breakdown of deforestation by region is shown in the chart. 59% occurs in Latin America, with a further 28% from Southeast Asia. In a related article we look in much more detail at what agricultural products, and which countries are driving this.

As we saw previously, this deforestation accounts for around one-quarter of global forest loss. 27% of forest loss results from ‘commodity-driven deforestation’ – cutting down forests to grow crops such as soy, palm oil, cocoa, to raise livestock on pasture, and mining operations. Urbanization, the other driver of deforestation accounts for just 0.6%. It’s the foods and products we buy, not where we live, that has the biggest impact on global land use.

It might seem odd to argue that we should focus our efforts on tackling this quarter of forest loss (rather than the other 73%). But there is good reason to make this our primary concern.

Philipp Curtis and colleagues make this point clear. At their Global Forest Watch platform they were already presenting maps of forest loss across the world. But they wanted to contribute to a more informed discussion about where to focus forest conservation efforts by understanding why forests were being lost. To quote them, they wanted to prevent “a common misperception that any tree cover loss shown on the map represents deforestation”. And to “identify where deforestation is occurring; perhaps as important, show where forest loss is not deforestation”.

Why should we care most about tropical deforestation? There is a geographical argument (why the tropics?) and an argument for why deforestation is worse than degradation.

Tropical forests are home to some of the richest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Over half of the world’s species reside in tropical forests. 5 Endemic species are those which only naturally occur in a single country. Whether we look at the distribution of endemic mammal species , bird species , or amphibian species , the map is the same: subtropical countries are packed with unique wildlife. Habitat loss is the leading driver of global biodiversity loss. 6 When we cut down rainforests we are destroying the habitats of many unique species, and reshaping these ecosystems permanently. Tropical forests are also large carbon sinks, and can store a lot of carbon per unit area. 7

Deforestation also results in larger losses of biodiversity and carbon relative to degradation. Degradation drivers, including logging and especially wildfires can definitely have major impacts on forest health: animal populations decline, trees can die, and CO 2 is emitted. But the magnitude of these impacts are often less than the complete conversion of forest. They are smaller, and more temporary. When deforestation happens, almost all of the carbon stored in the trees and vegetation – called the ‘aboveground carbon loss’ –  is lost. Estimates vary, but on average only 10-20% of carbon is lost during logging, and 10-30% from fires. 8 In a study of logging practices in the Amazon and Congo, forests retained 76% of their carbon stocks shortly after logging. 9 Logged forests recover their carbon over time, as long as the land is not converted to other uses (which is what happens in the case of deforestation).

Deforestation tends to occur on forests that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Cutting them down disrupts or destroys established, species-rich ecosystems. The biodiversity of managed tree plantations which are periodically cut, regrown, cut again, then regrown is not the same.

That is why we should be focusing on tropical deforestation. Since agriculture is responsible for 60 to 80% of it, what we eat, where it’s sourced from, and how it is produced is our strongest lever to bring deforestation to an end.

Crowther, T. W., Glick, H. B., Covey, K. R., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D. S., Thomas, S. M., ... & Tuanmu, M. N. (2015). Mapping tree density at a global scale . Nature , 525 (7568), 201-205.

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss . Science , 361 (6407), 1108-1111.

Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., & Kastner, T. (2019). Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition . Environmental Research Letters , 14 (5), 055003.

Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R. S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., ... & Romijn, E. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries . Environmental Research Letters , 7(4), 044009.

Hosonuma et al. (2012) gathered this data from a range of sources including country submissions as part of their REDD+ readiness activities, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) country profiles, UNFCCC national communications and scientific studies.

Scheffers, B. R., Joppa, L. N., Pimm, S. L., & Laurance, W. F. (2012). What we know and don’t know about Earth's missing biodiversity . Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 27(9), 501-510.

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. (2016). Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers . Nature, 536(7615), 143.

Lewis, S. L. (2006). Tropical forests and the changing earth system . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 361(1465), 195-210.

Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Stehman, S. V., Smith-Rodriguez, K., Okpa, C., & Aguilar, R. (2017). Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013 . Science Advances , 3 (4), e1601047.

Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P., & Galbraith, D. (2015). Increasing human dominance of tropical forests . Science , 349 (6250), 827-832.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.