LDN as an integral indicator for sustainable land management
(SLM)
The achievement of LDN is sufficiently linked with SLM applications to
ensure ecological balance, food security and economic efficiency.
However, the methods of assessment sustainability and related criteria
remains important. It is obvious (and this is emphasized in a large
number of works) that SLM approaches and technologies can be considered
as a direct tool for achieving LDN, but in many cases the opposite is
also true: LDN concept and indicators can be used to assess the
sustainability of land use and land management (Andreeva et al. 2021;
Kust et al. 2017; Orr et al. 2017). Despite the seeming simplicity of
this nexus, which was first expressed in (Andreeva and Kust 2014), it
appears to be an effective tool for decision makers at national and
subnational level. For example, considering the multidirectional variety
of degradation and restoration trends in different climatic and economic
conditions of Russia’s territory, the “LDN Index” serves as a simple
and effective tool for indicating SLM, effective land policy and
reducing the risk of LD for any region. Negative values of the Index
indicate a high proportion of degraded and vulnerable land and the need
for sharing SLM good practices (Andreeva and Kust 2020, Kust et al.
2021a). The same principle is useful for individual farms: joint LDN and
SLM assessment and mapping conducted in pilot sites of agricultural
areas in the Kursk, Samara and Rostov regions demonstrated that
territories with a positive LDN Index are characterized by effective SLM
practices. For example, reducing soil erosion, decompaction of topsoil
and SOC growth in the soils of the Samara region resulted from no-till
technology (IGRAS, 2021).
The consistent development of the idea of using LDN for SLM assessment
and the analysis of good SLM practices sets in Russia and in the world,
have made it possible to classify land management models, and to
determine the criteria for the sustainability of land management
practices based on the analysis of land natural potential, risks of
degradation processes and human impact. A hierarchy of land management
practices was described with the determination of categories
“practice”, “model”, “type”, and “class” (Andreeva et al. 2021).
Fifteen types of land management were combined into four classes,
including three classes of models (9 types in total) characterized by
SLM practices, and one class (6 types) included practices, which are not
sustainable. A detailed analysis of land management types showed that
not all practices contribute to LDN achievement, and vice versa, not
every LDN case is associated with any SLM model. This seemingly
paradoxical and unexpected conclusion allowed us to rethink the SLM-LDN
nexus.
Land management practices demonstrate growing human impact on the
environment. However, they cannot considerably change dominating natural
background processes but may act as triggers for shifting these
processes to positive or negative direction and determining the
intensity of soil erosion, salinization-desalinization,
compaction-decompaction of soils, accumulation or loss of organic
matter, etc. It was further proposed (Andreeva et al. 2022) to assess
the “risks of not reaching” LDN due to the weakness of SLM
practices against the background of dominating degradation processes.
The latter is forming the basis for including the previously mentioned
salinity, density, alkalinity, soil erosion as additional LDN
indicators. This proposal is fully in line with the LDN response
hierarchy and emphasizes that preventing and reducing degradation risks
are more effective and less costly compared to land
rehabilitation/restoration.
Further analysis puts forward a hypothesis that the achievement of LDN
in a certain territory is determined not so much by the coverage of this
territory with effective SLM practices, as by keeping an ecological
frame of certain SLM type (core SLM areas and networks). Such frames
maintain the sustainability of specific SLM models at minimal cost due
to high natural potential or efficient land management technologies
(Andreeva et al. 2022). These include, for example, agricultural areas
using adaptive landscape and soil conservation technologies, networks of
forest shelterbelts, hydrological networks of river basins, including
their floodplains and valleys, etc. Such frames and core areas
contribute not only to reducing LD risks, but also conserving
biodiversity and mitigating climate change effects. The development of
this hypothesis is the subject of further research.
Application of ecological standards and principles in achieving LDN
becomes essential as the UN announced 2021-2030 as a Decade for
Ecosystem Restoration. As the world is embracing a new paradigm of
ecological restoration, rewilderness and nature-based solutions, some
practical tools such as landscape restoration approaches or integrated
land use planning (ILUP) could serve as useful decision-making tools
which allow for optimization of SLM measures and planning for
sustainable multifunctional landscapes. However, the spatial planning
tools are not yet sufficiently discussed in the reviewed publications.
This is reinforced by the analysis of the LDN targets in twelve
countries of Europe and Central Asia (UNCCD 2021) which revealed that
ILUP has not been considered as an entry point for LDN implementation.
Current LDN targets in these countries largely represent the collection
of isolated SLM interventions across various ecosystems.