Conclusion
LDN is an evolving concept that is gradually moving beyond the originally designated UNCCD framework approaches, and developing in different, often unexpected directions, which is clearly manifested in its interaction with traditional national scientific schools. This paper analyzes the results of the development of the LDN concept in Russia, and in particular, in the Russian-language scientific literature over the past 6-7 years. The main conclusions are that with the application of LDN concept the issue of LD has gone beyond the narrow categorization of desertification, the drylands mandate of the UNCCD, the concept of “rational” or “effective” land use and land management dominated in Russia. LD has now received a new emphasis associated with the ideas of sustainability, neutrality and maintaining the balance between natural and economic potential of land.
Studies of the applicability of LDN methods using three proxy indicators demonstrated that despite the fact that global LD assessment framework requires a thorough harmonization with the national land monitoring systems, the LDN concept along with Trend.Earth plugin could be considered as a holistic and effective decision-support approach and tool for monitoring LD processes at national and sub-national levels. For this purpose and to support decision-making, the LDN Index was proposed, which assesses the degree of LDN achievement in specific territories. Reconstruction of transition matrices for identification of land cover and land productivity changes is an important element in identifying critical trends and should be carried out selectively for various locations, at district and provincial levels respecting local conditions and adding specific land sub-categories.
As the review of publications shows that most attention has been directed to the application of global and national LDN indicators while all three LDN global indicators show substantial deviation with national data. This is underpinned by a different approach of national land assessment which has the task of identifying quality of lands used for certain administrative and economic activities, which leads to an incompatibility between the global dynamic LDN indicators and the national static data. The authors highlight the importance of factoring natural background trends like climate change, natural succession cycles linked with geological and geomorphological processes, which could act as more powerful drivers of change than anthropogenic impact.
At present, in Russia the only effective way to integrate LDN-based approaches and national sectoral systems for assessing land quality is their joint use, simultaneously with separating tasks for each of the assessment systems. This requires the development of an LDN “superstructure”, an add-on for different-quality sectoral systems, allowing them to gradually converge through the use of alternative and additional indicators. Soil erosion is the most cited national indicator identified as an additional parameter to assess LDN, followed by the aridity indicator. Soil salinity, biological diversity and land within protected areas are also among the indicators suggested for either specific ecosystems or at sub-national level.
As LD is a multi-dimensional phenomenon relying only on bio-physical indicators, and without the application of economic valuation methods, it does not provide a nuanced picture of LDN attainment. Authors argue that connecting primary land productivity indicators alone to economic value is a drawback of the global LDN methodology and point to a need for applying a broader approach and accounting for total value of ecosystem services.
Attention to the limitations of LDN baseline setting is given by highlighting the main causes as: inconsistency in land cover trends caused by massive land reforms, large forest areas with long recovery period, and long-term landscape Holocene evolution. Authors further discuss the uncertainties in defining “baseline condition”, arguing that no intervention can restore ecosystems to their original state, and therefore suggest a definition of “optimal conditions” which can support a series of ecosystem services. Approaches for baseline assessment in Russia should differentiate from the global methodology, particularly at regional and local level. The choice of dynamic and target (benchmark) indicators for LDN baseline assessment depends on the objective of LDN monitoring. In addition, the territory of biosphere reserves is suggested as a benchmark for comparative assessment using LDN indicators for the adjacent areas or for the territories with similar bio-climatic conditions.
The development of the LDN concept makes it possible to introduce new aspects into the concept of ”sustainability” of land management, which contributes to preventing LD and reducing the land potential and the sustainable functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. LDN can serve as an indicator of sustainability of land use within the boundaries of certain territories, as well as a criterion for the SLM typology described in terms of “practice”, “model”, “type”, and “class”. Studies of the SLM-LDN interactions led to the conclusion that not all SLM practices contribute to the achievement of LDN, and conversely, not every case of LDN is associated with any SLM model. Based on this, the idea of the importance of assessing the risks of “not achieving” LDN, and the hypothesis of a SLM “frame” and “core areas” important for the achievement of LDN in a certain territory were put forward.