The State of THE WORLD’S LAND AND WATER RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2025

Enabler 1: Policy coherence across sectors

For the assessment of policy coherence, a range of methodological approaches exist, such as scoring and ranking, trade-offs assessment, and quantitative modelling across policy priorities and planned actions. Different methods and mechanisms can be used to facilitate policy coherence and cross-sectoral coordination, including establishing a high-level committee or a coordinated institutional mechanism; building formal or informal partnerships and processes for sharing and learning across sectors and actors; aligning incentives; and conducting simulation and mapping exercises, integrated, multistakeholder consultations and strategic impact assessments.

While these methods often describe a “staged” approach to policy coherence and joint cross-sectoral planning, the reality of policymaking is often a more chaotic process, comprising a wide range of inputs, values and priorities that are both internal and external to the government and require mediation, negotiation and brokering. It is therefore essential to apply a flexible, inclusive and analytical approach that is adapted to the specific national, institutional and historical socioeconomic and political context. In addition, it is necessary to establish innovative governance mechanisms and promote measures for coherence and cross-sectoral planning that will be politically feasible and considered legitimate, accepted and owned by all key actors.

It is important to ensure that land and water are mainstreamed in national food systems pathways and country sectoral planning, including agriculture, environment and land use. FAO supports countries in developing their actions and policies including their nationally determined contributions (especially for the agriculture, livestock, fishery and forestry sectors), National Adaptation Plans, UNCCD National Action Plans, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, National Drought Management Plans, national water road maps and national food security programmes. FAO specifically promotes the national water road maps for all the SDGs (FAO, 2023a).

The partial or complete lack of coherence between sectoral public policies and interinstitutional linkages hampers the ability to address key interdependences between food, land and water resources, and the three pillars of sustainable development: environment, economy and society. Food systems face challenges arising from unintended consequences and systemic conflicts among multiple objectives. Often, subsidies and incentives aimed at achieving a specific objective result in practices that have negative impacts in other areas. For example, the development of irrigation has improved food security and nutrition in many countries, but expansion of irrigation has also contributed to the loss of wetlands and inland fisheries, excessive groundwater withdrawals and changes in surface water flows and ecosystems, as well as to increasing inequalities in access to resources.

The management of land and water resources has implications for multiple societal objectives. Agricultural productivity-led models rarely address environmental concerns and the need to promote resilient and inclusive rural transformation (Davis et al., 2024). In many cases, focusing exclusively on productivity tends to favour large-scale commercial operations and neglect environmental and social considerations. Policy coherence means adopting or adjusting policy measures to achieve multiple goals, while preventing the unintended consequences of sector-focused approaches. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – a central voice on policy coherence – has extended the definition of the Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development concept beyond the fostering of synergies and trade-offs across sectors in a jurisdiction; it also reconciles domestic policy with internationally agreed objectives and considers the transboundary and long-term effects of policies in order to address trade-offs and enhance synergies.

Evidence demonstrates that restoring degraded resources, promoting sustainable intensification and increasing resilience can be achieved through joint cross-sectoral planning and implementation, greater policy coherence and multistakeholder initiatives. This can be done through territorial approaches such as watershed or river basin management, integrated landscape management and restoration, and integrated land-use planning, or through approaches such as the Water–Energy–Food–Ecosystems nexus. These approaches need to be supported by long-term strategies, investments, financing and partnerships.

Finding appropriate pathways to make these approaches work in practice is challenging (FAO, 2023b): policy coherence is not just a techno-managerial issue, but also a political one. Indeed, greater policy coherence and joint cross-sectoral planning involve taking into account the perspectives of different actors with often contradictory interests and objectives. This is further complicated by the significant rise in interconnected economic, environmental, social and geopolitical crises, all of which have had serious implications for countries’ prospects for developing sustainability in line with their international commitments.

Specific barriers to policy coherence need to be recognized and identified upfront. While often of a similar nature, they differ in function of the context. Coherence challenges can arise from insufficient communication and coordination; from lack of data, funding, knowledge, shared goals or institutional spaces to meet and coordinate; and as a result of stakeholder resistance. In most cases, such challenges are driven by patterns rooted in formal and informal institutions, tenure regimes, routines or standard operating procedures in government administrations. There may be inherently contradictory interests and mandates such as conflicts between resources, conservation concerns and infrastructure development interests. Therefore, policy coherence is not only about optimization, but also about the design and facilitation of never-perfect processes of decision-making through which two or more objectives and means can be redefined, so that new (temporary) compromises can be determined.

The role of governance and political economy to support policy coherence

Governance plays a specific and crucial role in navigating interactions and collective action, especially through decision-making processes that consider potential consequences across domains and impacts on different stakeholders and actors, in particular, small-scale producers and other actors who are economically or politically vulnerable. The question of how to recognize rights and give agency and voice to those actors in decision-making processes is perhaps the most challenging and the one that deserves the most urgent attention (Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck, 2016).

Coherence and joint cross-sectoral planning generate important benefits, but they also come with some potential downsides, from the perspective of a specific sector or agency. Such concerns include blurred lines of accountability, more time-consuming processes, uprooting of existing routines and practices, difficulties in measuring impact or effectiveness, loss of control, influence or autonomy, and dilution of priorities.

Facilitating policy coherence and joint cross-sectoral planning across food, land and water systems in a territory thus requires a good understanding of the local context in terms of governance and political economy. Such an understanding can be helpful in developing innovative institutional arrangements and processes to manage and coordinate policies, budgeting and regulatory development across sectors. It is also important for strengthening capacities to build on synergies, address trade-offs, and manage processes that may involve (re)allocating limited resources, addressing inequalities and changing the way of empowering actors at different levels of decision-making. Required actions include strengthening of capacity for public institutions, implementation of coordination and consultation mechanisms across ministries, adoption of appropriate planning and monitoring tools, and realization of upgraded and integrated data and information systems.

For example, improving the design of irrigation investments to include gender, health and nutrition outcomes can make irrigation an integral part of strategies to reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition. Targeted subsidies can spur the adoption of more appropriate irrigation technology, and the provision of environmental services and measures for maintaining and restoring healthy freshwater and soil systems. Paying for environmental services – that is, payments to farmers or landowners who agree to manage their land or watersheds for environmental protection – can also help to ensure the proper valuation of well-functioning ecosystems (see Box 21).

Initiatives aimed at advancing policy coherence have emerged globally and regionally to address the challenges related to water and food security. A promising approach to coordinating water and agriculture sector policies has been adopted in the Arab region. The League of Arab States, with support from FAO and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, has institutionalized coordination between the water and agriculture sectors through the establishment of a High-Level Joint Technical Committee. The joint ministerial resolution led to the 2019 Cairo Declaration,^l which stresses the importance of enhancing policy coherence by reviewing sectoral policies on cross-cutting issues such as water allocation, non-conventional water resources, trade and social protection, with the goal of achieving water and food security in the Arab region.

At the International Soil and Water Forum in Bangkok, held in December 2024, representatives from 27 countries endorsed the Ministerial Declaration on managing water scarcity and reversing soil degradation for sustainable and resilient agrifood systems. The declaration recognizes the importance of “strengthening cross-sectoral coordination, cooperation mechanisms and the consistency of policies, planning, investment and implementation across land, soil, water, agriculture, climate change, biodiversity, environment, and energy” as the first urgent action to accelerate agrifood systems transformation (FAO, 2024a).

Enabler 2: Governance of natural resources

Land tenure

Land tenure security is a key enabling factor to address climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation (IPCC, 2019, 2022; IPBES, 2018; Verburg et al., 2019). UNCCD Decision 26/COP14, Decision 27/COP15 and Decision 28/COP16 repeatedly acknowledged the relevance of land tenure to achieve land degradation neutrality (UNCCD, 2019, 2022). Safeguarding legitimate tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples has also been integrated under the the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2022, Target 22).

Governance of tenure and land tenure are interrelated but distinct concepts. A responsible governance of tenure relates to mechanisms and processes that articulate the interests of different actors, mediate their differences and ensure that their rights and duties with respect to land, water or other natural resources are exercised with transparency and equity. Land tenure can be defined as “the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land”, or in simpler terms: “tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions” (FAO, 2022a). Another relevant concept when discussing the importance of land tenure to achieve food security and global environmental goals is tenure security, which can be defined as “the guarantee of continued occupancy or use rights whether by virtue of formal rights, customary rules or other forms of assurance” (AGROVOC, 2022 in FAO and UNCCD, 2022). In short, it could be said that land tenure security is a result of the responsible governance of tenure of lands.

The adoption of the VGGT by the Committee on World Food Security in 2012 – and their revision in 2022 – enabled the definition of the concept of “legitimate tenure rights” (FAO, 2022a). This concept invites states to review the customary tenure rights in use and socially accepted, and to promote their recognition through the revision of their legal frameworks, offering a pathway to address the dichotomy between formal and informal tenure arrangements.

In 2022, FAO and the UNCCD Secretariat produced a technical guide supporting the integration of tenure into implementation of the UNCCD and Land Degradation Neutrality framework (FAO and UNCCD, 2022) and launched a joint initiative on tenure security for land restoration to support the integration of tenure in the achievement of LDN targets and programmes at national level.^m, ⁿ More than 30 countries have applied to join the initiative. National consultations in a first group of countries (Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, Senegal, Sri Lanka) demonstrated the relevance of gathering stakeholders from both the tenure and the land management communities (FAO and UNCCD, 2024) to advance concrete recommendations to tackle land tenure insecurity.

At national level, improving tenure security and its governance can be addressed by reviewing the policy and legal framework to sustain the recognition of legitimate tenure rights and plan for tenure security enhancements. Land or water governance raises questions of resource-related rights, risks, responsibilities, benefits and incomes, as well as of voice, power and authority. The evolution of land and water resources on the ground corresponds to the history and evolution of related institutions. In most – if not all – countries, several legal regimes related to water and land management and use have coexisted in the past and often continue to do so today.

Since the adoption of the VGGT, a series of methodologies, tools and approaches have been developed (Cotula and Knight, 2021; FAO, 2016a). They include legal assessments (Davies, 2015) and governance assessments providing practical approaches to understand the institutional contexts, asymmetry of power and bottlenecks (Batchelor et al., 2016; Bojić, Clark and Urban, 2022; FAO, 2024b) and governance of tenure (Deininger, Selod and Burns, 2012).

To be effective, the delivery of these reviewed policy and legal frameworks must be supported through modernized and organizational frameworks that are fit for purpose (digital cadaster, land administration), while reinforcing monitoring of its effects on the ground. A key question to ask should be: Is tenure security improving? Since most land degradation happens on agricultural land, insecure land tenure can be a major obstacle to adopting better farming practices that increase production without exhausting soil and water resources.

Water tenure

Over the past few years, FAO and partners have explored the concept of water tenure through a series of publications (FAO, 2016b), expert roundtables (FAO, 2020, 2024c) and seminars (Hodgson et al., eds, 2024). Monitoring the allocation of water resources is complex and costly, and water abstractions are often not quantified. This is particularly true of the irrigation sector, which in many countries accounts for the bulk of water abstracted. A further challenge is to consider all legitimate water users in water balances, including small-scale and instream uses. Nevertheless, a clear assessment of all water uses is required if water tenure is to be addressed in an effective and just manner.

FAO has developed a methodological framework to assess water tenure arrangements as part of a comprehensive water resources assessment, with a view to improving water allocation systems (Hodgson et al., 2024). The methodology has been tested in five countries (Indonesia, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam) and is currently being applied in Cambodia, Colombia and Thailand (Al’Afghani, Lê Văn Chính and Hodgson, 2024).^o

The water tenure assessment methodology developed by FAO allows the identification of water tenure arrangements based on formal law as well as customs and local practices in a given area, together with the legal status and perceived security of these arrangements (Hodgson et al., 2024). The process of water tenure assessment has been shown to empower local and marginalized water users and unmask inequalities in water access and distribution (Espinosa and Kiersch, 2024). Of particular importance are: i) the clear prioritization of water uses; and ii) the protection of small-scale users who abstract water for domestic and small-scale productive uses such as home gardening. These uses are often exempt from permit requirements or other formal tenure arrangements and, as a result, frequently lack adequate legal protection.

The reforms of legal, policy and organizational frameworks and their monitoring need to be linked to coordination mechanisms that support the meaningful and informed participation of multiple sectors and stakeholders. To achieve their effective participation, stakeholders – especially vulnerable groups – should be supported to counterbalance asymmetries of power in negotiation processes. At the local level, a nuanced understanding of formal and customary tenure arrangements improves knowledge and empowers local users of natural resources. This can be a first step to improving the tenure security of local land and water users, smallholders, pastoralists and fisherfolk, who largely depend on customary tenure arrangements to support their livelihoods. In Rwanda and Sri Lanka, water tenure assessment processes have motivated government agencies responsible for water allocation to reach out to local water users to formalize their legitimate claim to water resources (Espinosa and Kiersch, 2024).

In 2022, the FAO Committee on Agriculture reviewed FAO’s work on water tenure (FAO, 2022b). It encouraged countries to participate in a Global Dialogue on Water Tenure,^p with a view to discussing principles for responsible governance of water tenure. The aim was to strengthen the secure and equitable access to water resources of all legitimate water users, including women and marginalized groups, in support of the wider goals of health, food security, social inclusion and climate resilience (FAO, 2022c). Within this framework, a regional consultation on water tenure was held at the International Soil and Water Forum in Bangkok in December 2024.^q

Enabler 3: Data, information and technology

The availability, quality and accessibility of data at all levels are prerequisites for the effective and sustainable management of land and water resources. Good progress has been made recently, in particular through remote sensing and communication technologies, allowing the collection of much better knowledge on water and land resources and their use, including real-time or near real-time data. Challenges remain, however, regarding the collection of specific types of data and ensuring that the right data are accessible to the right people at the right time. Integration across the data domain is still in its infancy. Different types of data are needed at different levels of management:

• At local level, farmers need access to real-time information on soil moisture, soil nutrient content, weather forecasts, water availability and reliability of supply, as well as early warning data on pests and pest control, to ensure good harvests. Real-time evolution of market prices is critical to ensure the best return from investments. Seasonal weather forecasts provide insights into production potential. Mapping trends associated with climate change is critical to ensure the resilience of long-term investments.
• At national and river basin level, developing effective and coordinated strategies requires good knowledge of the accessible resources and the trends in their use and availability, as well as monitoring of economic, social and environmental performance. More efforts must be made to invest in systematic soil, water and land-use surveys. Here, integration across sectors plays a critical role in supporting cross-sectoral coordination. Data need to be made available across ministries at minimal or no cost to their users.
• At global level, more and better understanding of status and trends is needed to guide global discussions and support evidence-based guidance in relation to major conventions and global initiatives. Substantial efforts are required for better monitoring of land degradation, biodiversity, progress towards sustainable agricultural practices and the impact of climate adaptation approaches.

The agroinformatics platform (previously called Hand-in-Hand Geospatial Platform)^r gathers over 2 million data layers in support of evidence-based interventions in the field of agriculture and food security. This digital public good provides open access geographic information, key food and agriculture indicators, and agricultural statistics sourced from FAO and other organizations.

The use of digital platforms or decision support systems, based on satellite imagery, maps, drones and internet of things sensors, is gaining traction in many countries. These technologies enable farmers to optimize the use of natural resources and agricultural inputs. Mobile apps and platforms, such as FAO’s AquaCrop and Water Productivity Open-access Portal (WaPOR),^s provide real-time data on soil moisture conditions. WaPOR monitors and reports on water productivity of terrestrial vegetation in near real time, with global coverage and a 10-day time interval. Analyses of WaPOR information can also help to identify areas with potential to increase water productivity. Box 22 presents an example of a web-based decision support system for irrigation management.

Integration of datasets across sectors and with sustainability objectives remains a challenge. For instance, despite increasing documentation on agroecology’s contributions to sustainable agriculture, there is still a critical need for harmonized evidence. The Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation, which is rooted in the 10 elements of agroecology (FAO, 2019), produces multidimensional evidence of the performance of agroecology across the social, ecological and economic dimensions of sustainability. It facilitates harmonized, evidence-driven decisions that can guide transformational change towards more sustainable agricultural practices (Mottet et al., 2020). The use of visual narratives representing the 10 elements of agroecology can enhance food systems policy analysis by identifying intervention points, discovering co-benefit opportunities and developing integrated policy packages (FAO, 2023c).

Resilience assessment, although widely recognized as a critical development and emergency objective, remains difficult to put into practice. The Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP+) offers a comprehensive and integrated approach to analysing and measuring resilience. It is grounded in the 13 agroecosystem resilience indicators developed by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) and adopts a holistic approach to analysing and measuring an agroecosystem’s resilience at the household level. The tool is designed to support evidence-based decision-making at household, project and national levels by identifying specific areas of vulnerability. It can also be used to monitor and evaluate changes in resilience over time, providing insights into the long-term impact of interventions. By targeting these weak points, SHARP+ helps to inform strategies aimed at strengthening resilience and enhancing the capacity of smallholder farmers to produce sustainably in the face of climate change (Hernández Lagana, Phillips and Poisot, 2022).

Another example of the need for more integrated monitoring relates to the role of family farming in the sustainable use of forests. More robust mapping of forest foods, which estimates the nutritional and economic value that non-wood forest products provide to rural families, is needed. It should include improved valuing of the use and conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services linked to Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge. Information is also needed on the potential to strengthen value chains and markets for the responsible consumption of promising products, through which Indigenous Peoples could improve their livelihoods, while recognizing their traditional knowledge. Box 23 provides an example of a decision support system for forest restoration based on geospatial datasets from Google Earth Engine.

Enabler 4: Risk management systems including early warning and adaptation and resilience strategies

Over the past 30 years, an estimated USD 3.8 trillion in crop and livestock production have been lost due to disaster events, averaging USD 123 billion per year, or about 5 percent of annual global agricultural GDP (FAO, 2023d). As highlighted in Chapter 1, agriculture and the associated natural resources on which it depends are increasingly at risk due to a range of hazards and threats, including flooding, drought, water scarcity, declining agricultural yields and fisheries resources, biodiversity loss, sand and dust storms, and environmental degradation. Additionally, pandemics, epidemics and conflicts are disrupting agricultural production, value chains and food security, placing agrifood systems under escalating pressure.

Climate change is compounding these challenges by intensifying the frequency and severity of extreme events such as droughts, heatwaves and water scarcity. It also contributes to rising food prices and long-term risks. According to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, under a high-emissions scenario (well above 1.5 °C warming), large areas currently used for crops and livestock could become unsuitable due to climate impacts – potentially affecting 10 percent of these areas by 2050 and more than 30 percent by 2100.

Understanding and addressing interconnected, systemic risks and their underlying drivers is essential for building resilient and sustainable agrifood systems that can support long-term food security and nutrition and human well-being for a growing population. Tackling these complex, overlapping challenges requires integrated, cross-sectoral solutions aligned with the objectives of the three Rio Conventions, and incorporating disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies alongside humanitarian policies to ensure that no one is left behind.

Proactive policies, enabling incentives and increased investments in disaster prevention and preparedness yield significant returns. Farm-level DRR good practices provide, on average, 2.2 times the benefits of previous farming methods (FAO, 2019). Moreover, anticipatory action in agriculture has a return-on-investment ratio of 7:1, meaning that every USD 1 invested generates up to USD 7 in avoided losses and additional benefits (FAO, 2023c).

Natural resource management – particularly of land, water and biodiversity – plays a key role in building resilience and preventing harm from disasters and crises. Sustainable agricultural practices such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry, soil moisture management and rainwater harvesting serve both to reduce disaster risk and to enhance productivity. These are widely recognized as effective DRR good practices.

Disasters are becoming increasingly easy to predict, thanks to technological advances that have made early warning information more accurate and accessible than ever before. Expanding early warning systems for agriculture enables anticipatory action – an approach that, based on risk analysis and forecasts, triggers interventions before a crisis escalates into a humanitarian emergency, protecting livelihoods and improving resilience.

Early warning systems also support the delivery of climate services, particularly participatory climate services, which combine local knowledge with scientific data from agrometeorological systems and models, providing agricultural recommendations that help farmers to make timely decisions on crop selection, planting schedules and water use.

Finally, risk-informed planning and governance in agriculture are essential to building resilience, requiring the integration of disaster risk considerations into policies and strategies. This includes conducting risk assessments for land and water management and promoting land-use planning that reduces exposure and vulnerability as part of the ILUP processes.

Enabler 5: Sustainable financing and investment

Investing in land and water development while catering for the seemingly contradictory objectives of increasing agricultural productivity and preserving natural resources is a challenge for every government. While there has been significant growth in financing for agricultural water management, the allocation of resources remains skewed towards conventional, large-scale projects, often focusing on irrigation (Ghosh et al., 2022; Huber-Lee et al., 2021). Too often, these investments prioritize short-term productivity gains over long-term sustainability, without considering the possible degradation of natural resources, particularly land, water and soil. Recent trends, however, indicate a shift towards more sustainable and inclusive investments, driven by the growing recognition of the interdependence among water management, environmental sustainability and socioeconomic development.

To scale up investments in sustainable land management, more capital is needed. Recent estimates of the natural capital financing gap have been in the range of USD 598–824 billion per year, with current levels of funding covering only 16 to 19 percent of the overall need to halt biodiversity loss (Deutz et al., 2020). The transition to sustainable investments in agricultural land and water management requires coordinated efforts from governments, financial institutions and the private sector. The pathway to a sustainable future lies in fostering an enabling environment that supports integrated, inclusive and forward-looking investments in land, soil and water resources.

In many cases, the financial instruments are inadequate. There is limited availability of financial products tailored to the needs of smallholders and community-based water management initiatives, and a lack of investments in land conservation and management. Conventional financial institutions tend to favour large-scale, capital-intensive projects, leaving small-scale sustainable practices underfunded. Innovative financial instruments that adequately consider the needs of farmers in land and water development investments must be developed. Blended finance models, green bonds and impact investing are examples of instruments that can attract private investment while promoting sustainability.

Climate financing, including the new mechanism for carbon credits (the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism), holds potential for smallholder farmers, offering a pathway to earn revenue through carbon credits by implementing sustainable agricultural practices. These practices can generate carbon credits and bring about additional benefits such as improved soil health, increased productivity and resilience to climate change. However, challenges remain in ensuring accessibility and fairness for smallholders, including high certification costs and market volatility. Aggregation models, digital platforms and financial support can help farmers to access carbon markets and maximize their economic and environmental gains.^t

Investments often prioritize short-term financial returns over long-term sustainability. This short-sighted approach leads to investments that may boost productivity temporarily but ultimately contribute to the degradation of land and water resources. Encouraging investors to adopt a long-term perspective is essential for the sustainability of land, soil and water resources. This can be achieved through formalizing land tenure regimes, tax incentives, subsidies and other financial mechanisms that reward sustainable practices and long-term investment strategies.

Boosting investment for biodiversity, conservation and ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change is becoming a priority. Investing in sustainable land management includes financing of businesses that contribute to biodiversity and adaptation, including sustainable forestry and agriculture, green infrastructure investments, climate mitigation projects and payment for ecosystem services (EIB, n.d.). Not only do such activities generate income for local communities, protect natural assets such as forests and water, and restore degraded lands, but the corresponding investments can also generate financial returns. Forward-looking banks, companies and other investors have in recent years made commitments to make capital available, taking into account not only financial returns, but also socially equitable and environmental returns (IDH, 2021).

It is becoming increasingly important to improve the environment for private sector investments. A promising approach to increase farmers’ active participation in investing in irrigation is being promoted by the World Bank under the concept of Farmer-Led Irrigation Development (FLID),^u which aims to improve the environment for private sector investments by empowering smallholder farmers to design and manage their irrigation systems. It fosters collaborative partnerships between farmers, government agencies and private investors, creating a more secure investment climate. By reducing risks and increasing returns through sustainable practices, FLID catalyses further investment in rural infrastructure. This innovative model builds trust, encourages technological adoption and establishes a replicable framework for scaling private sector-led rural development initiatives, driving sustainable economic growth.

Finally, investing in soft capital, including capacity building, extension services and digital platforms, can provide farmers with the knowledge they need to adopt sustainable practices. Public–private partnerships can play a significant role in disseminating technology and information to rural communities. Investing in rural infrastructure, including internet connectivity and affordable energy solutions, is critical to address communication barriers. Public–private partnerships can support these processes, and governments can provide incentives for technology providers to extend services to underserved areas. In addition, crowdfunding models, where farmers pool resources to share technology, can also be effective. It is also urgent to invest in early warning systems and climate information services, which provide farmers with timely and accurate data, enabling them to make informed, real-time decisions and better adapt to increasingly unpredictable and changing environmental conditions, ultimately safeguarding their livelihoods and enhancing food security.

Enabler 6: Innovation

The right environment is needed to foster innovation in sustainable land and water management. Making more productive use of irrigation water, for instance, can be achieved through increasing crop yields and reducing evapotranspiration. Significant differences in water productivity (output per unit of water consumed) across countries can be explained by farmers’ access to modern agricultural inputs, efficient irrigation systems and better soil and water management.

One common mistake in seeking to increase water productivity is to focus exclusively on reducing losses at farm level, without considering implications at the level of the water system. Typically, in conventional irrigation, a substantial part of the water that is applied to crops percolates in the soil and is not used by the plant. Efforts and incentives to reduce this “loss” do not consider that the water that is not used can recharge aquifers or flow in drains and be reused further downstream. Reduction of losses at farm level therefore does not necessarily translate into more efficient use of water at the level of the basin and may lead to unintended change in water allocation across the basin.

Enhanced reliability of deliveries and greater flexibility in the timing and amount of irrigation water are important factors in farmers’ investment decisions. When the supply of water is unpredictable, farmers tend to cultivate crops that are resilient to water stress and variable irrigation timing. Typically, these crops have low yields and low monetary value.

Modernization of irrigation systems can contribute to greater irrigation efficiency amid rising water scarcity, as well as to more reliable and cost-effective services that match farmers’ needs and ensure increased productivity to meet growing demand. In more demand-driven, service-oriented irrigation systems, innovative tools can help farmers by indicating the optimum time and volume for irrigation. Such tools can use real-time information on evapotranspiration and soil moisture to optimize on-farm irrigation practices. Innovation, therefore, lies as much in changes in managerial capacities as in technological upgrades – sometimes even more.

There are several key innovations that enhance sustainable land management, particularly in the areas of technology, land-use practices, governance, and finance. Technological advances such as precision agriculture make use of Global Positioning System (GPS), sensors and data analytics to optimize inputs and boost productivity, while remote sensing supports land condition monitoring. Sustainable farming methods – like agroforestry, conservation agriculture, and integrated soil fertility management – help maintain soil health and productivity. On sloped land, terracing and contour farming are effective in reducing erosion. Governance innovations include secure land tenure, which encourages long-term investment, and community-based land-use planning, which promotes local stewardship. Financial tools such as climate-smart subsidies support land restoration and sustainable practices. At a broader level, integrated land-use planning and landscape management align efforts across sectors, while the Land Degradation Neutrality framework aims to offset degradation through restoration, ensuring no net loss of productive land.

Enabler 7: Institutionalized capacity development

Modern extension approaches aim to equip farmers, communities and technicians with the tools and skills needed to enhance income and food security while promoting environmental sustainability. The integration of participatory approaches, digital tools and innovative agricultural techniques, while recognizing the critical value of local knowledge, forms the backbone of modern efforts to address the complex challenges of sustainable resource management.

Understanding and approaching capacity development in its comprehensive dimension requires the use of integrated and multilevel approaches and the development of technical as well as functional skills. One valuable approach is knowledge sharing, where farmers team up and learn from each other through hands-on experiences, discussions and practical demonstrations. Another important integrated approach involves participatory training initiatives such as watershed management and integrated land-use planning, which engage communities in sustainable natural resource management.

FAO has developed two key peer-to-peer training programmes of relevance to land and water management: Farmer Field Schools (FFS, see Box 24) and the Global Soil Doctors Programme. The Farmer Field School approach not only builds the technical capacity of farmers, it makes a significant contribution to community development, including social dynamics, gender equality and social inclusion. A key to the success of FFS in tackling these challenges is a participatory learning model. Rather than delivering top-down solutions, the FFS approach empowers farmers to experiment, observe and learn by doing, helping them to understand vital processes such as soil–plant–water interactions, biodiversity and nutrient cycling. The strength of the FFS model lies in its collaborative nature. For example, in the Kagera River Basin, which is shared by Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, FFS groups have restored degraded lands, improved biodiversity and conserved water across entire watersheds (FAO, 2017b). In Andhra Pradesh, India, the FFS approach has supported the Community Managed Natural Farming initiative,^v showcasing its potential to regenerate ecosystems and improve livelihoods simultaneously.

To effectively address land, soil and water challenges, the FFS approach has adapted its methods to an integrated, landscape-wide perspective, encouraging farmers to view their farms as part of a broader ecosystem, learning to build organic matter, enhance soil structure and improve water retention. These practices help farmers to boost carbon sequestration and mitigate droughts, all crucial for building climate resilience. By empowering farmers to manage their natural resources wisely, FFS build resilient farming systems capable of withstanding environmental pressures, while safeguarding the planet’s long-term health.

Since 2020, FAO has also implemented the Global Soil Doctors Programme to solve issues such as improper use of organic and mineral fertilizers and pesticides, and limited knowledge of soil conditions, and to promote sustainable soil management.^w Among the programme’s strengths are its high adaptability to local conditions and capacity to collaborate with national stakeholders including academia, governments, the private sector and farming communities. The programme provides efficient solutions to soil management challenges and creates a self-sustaining system at national level. To date, over 15 000 farmers in 28 countries have been trained with educational materials translated into more than 20 local languages. The programme has several success stories of local champion farmers, known as soil doctors, who train other farmers in methods for overcoming soil threats. A case in point is in Xochimilco, Mexico, where farmers are learning to manage soil salinity using compost and water filters and to monitor it through soil pH measurement. In Togo, farmers are being shown how to monitor the negative effects of burning forests on soils, through visual soil assessment of soil organic matter, root development and water retention.

FAO peer-to-peer training programmes use communication strategies and tools to promote social change, development and the adoption of sustainable practices within communities. Communication for Development (ComDev) is instrumental in combining participatory processes with the use of adequate media and digital solutions that can be adopted by family farmers, rural communities and institutions. ComDev uses a variety of communication channels such as radio, mobile phones, social media, community meetings and participatory video to reach a wider audience, including those in remote or underserved areas. This multichannel strategy ensures that farmers with various levels of access to technology can benefit from the information provided. It also ensures that solutions are locally relevant and that farmers feel ownership of the changes being promoted. In addition, the ComDev approach enables the co-creation of knowledge by encouraging farmers to share their own experiences, as well as traditional or Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, which can be integrated into the training modules. In Zambia, global research partnership CGIAR has been supporting reality TV shows created by national broadcasters to teach climate-smart agriculture and provide climate information services to millions of farmers on a weekly basis (CGIAR, n.d.). Strengthening extension services through participatory capacity development, increasing the number of trained extension agents and integrating local languages into training materials are all essential. Given the success achieved by peer-to-peer learning models, these should be further promoted by broadening the approaches and thematic areas covered, reinforcing principles of inclusivity and gender responsiveness, and respecting local traditions, while promoting the knowledge and use of digital technologies. Adapting such approaches to targeted interventions can significantly accelerate the adoption of sustainable land, soil and water management practices, which will ultimately support long-term agricultural sustainability and resilience (see Box 25).