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.