The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project was designed to strengthen support to combat land degradation in response to the need identified by the UN-CCD.
During its first phase (2002-2004), LADA aims to generate up-to-date ecological, social, and economic and technical information, including a combination of traditional knowledge and modern science, to guide integrated and cross-sector management planning in drylands. The principal objective of the LADA project is the development of tools and methods to assess and quantify the nature, extent, severity and impacts of land degradation on ecosystems, livelihood systems, watersheds and river basins, and carbon storage in drylands, at a range of spatial and temporal scales. The project will also build national, regional and global assessment capacities enabling the design and planning of interventions to mitigate land degradation and establish sustainable land use and management practices.
The project started with an exploratory workshop in Rome in December 2000, followed by a workshop where in January 2002 that established the general strategy and operational details, and dealt with pilot country selection (Argentina, China and Senegal). Details of these meetings are available on the Internet (http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/lada/home.stm). Draft papers were produced on key issues such as the sources of biophysical and socio-economic data, methodologies available to assess land degradation and desertification, and a discussion paper on land quality, socio-economic and institutional indicators, in preparation for the LADA E-mail conference held October 9 to 4 November, 2002.
This E-mail conference was designed as a forum to exchange ideas on potential land degradation indicators and integrated methods; disseminate documents reviewing data and information on land degradation in drylands; and initiate the development of a network among national, regional and international teams involved and interested in land degradation assessment of drylands. Specific goals of the E-mail conference were to raise awareness on LADA, exchange expert views on land degradation assessment, and start identifying at relevant scales:
data sets that can be used to assess land degradation,
biophysical, socio-economic and institutional indicators that explain the root causes, driving forces, status, and impacts of and responses to land degradation,
feasible methodologies to assess land degradation, and
key issues regarding indicator and method development for land degradation assessment.
In response to the invitation (Annex 1) sent to more than 1 000 experts in land degradation and related fields, 148 persons (Annex 2) subscribed to the LADA E-mail conference. For each of the four weeks of the conference, an agenda with a set of discussion items (Annex 4) was sent to subscribers to solicit input on specific aspects of land degradation assessment. A background document on indicators for land degradation assessment and two sets of tables listing potentially useful indicators were made available to subscribers (Annex 6). In some instances additional questions and discussion items were sent to subscribers, depending on issues raised in contributions.
Since different scales have important and different implications on how land degradation is assessed and on how to best support improved management of land resources, the themes of the agenda highlighted scale issues. Four groups of themes were discussed during the LADA E-mail conference:
Week 1 (October 9 - 14, 2002): general discussion on land degradation methods and indicators;
Week 2 (October 15 - 21): national land degradation assessment;
Week 3 (October 22 - 28): local land degradation indicators and assessment; and
Week 4 (October 29 - November 4): global land degradation indicators, network for drylands, and next steps.
The weekly agendas, background papers (e.g., on indicator development and methods for land degradation assessment), summaries, contributions, suggested readings, and supporting documents (e.g., reports on specific types of indicators) were regularly posted on the LADA E-mail conference web site: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/agll/lada/emailconf.stm. Background materials on the LADA project, documents and results of the project until end 2002 are available at the following web site: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/agll/lada.
Annex 3 lists all persons who contributed comments and information to the conference. Contributions were obtained from individuals working for:
national agencies (e.g., Centro Nacional Patagónico, Argentina; Centre de Suivi Ecologique, Senegal; and CSIRO Land and Water, Australia);
international organizations (e.g., FAO, UNEP, and OECD);
universities (e.g., Wageningen University; University of East Anglia, and Trent University);
research institutions (e.g., Institut des Régions Arides, Tunisia; Laboratoire National de Recherches sur les Productions Végétales, Senegal; and ITC, The Netherlands); and
private agencies (e.g., EARS Environmental Analysis and Remote Sensing Ltd).
The LADA E-mail conference initiated discussion on a number of key issues regarding land degradation assessment. Issues raised and suggestions provided during the E-mail conference will contribute to indicator and methods development and more specifically to the pilot studies - currently being developed for Argentina, Senegal, and China. The LADA E-mail conference facilitated dialogue among numerous stakeholders, especially among experts with experience in conducting global, national or local land degradation assessments. It is anticipated that the LADA E-mail conference web site will become a continuing forum for the exchange of ideas on land degradation. Subscribers of the E-mail conference were, for example, encouraged to continue providing contributions for posting on the web site. An update to the web site in the near future should allow participants to post contributions directly on the web.
While the E-mail conference provided an excellent forum to exchange ideas among numerous land degradation experts, finding ways to further this dialogue and broadening this exchange to a larger group of stakeholders (e.g., to include land users and farmers' associations) is crucial.
Overview
A number of recurrent themes were emphasized throughout the E-mail conference. These include the need:
to use indicators with caution. While indicators have the potential to provide important and relevant information, they need to be selected, used and interpreted with extreme caution, since local conditions (and the underlying relationships that influence land degradation) widely vary. An indicator may actually point at differences in the natural state rather than at an inferred process of degradation or improvement.
for indicator and methods development to be purpose- or demand-driven. To facilitate the ultimate use of land degradation assessments (i.e., to improve land conditions), indicator and method development should respond to key issues and questions raised by end users (e.g., farmers and national decision makers). The purpose of land degradation assessment should determine the methods chosen to achieve that purpose. Conducting user needs assessments and explicitly linking land degradation evaluations to decision making processes (e.g., policy development) helps ensure that assessments are demand-driven.
to acknowledge land user perspectives. Local perspectives on issues, conditions, and priorities influencing land degradation -including the meaning and impact of land degradation for farmers and their livelihoods- need to be captured by technical staff implementing LADA.
to develop a sufficiently flexible methodology. Because of the complexity of land degradation, LADA needs to develop a sufficiently flexible methodology that recognizes both the varying biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional factors that contribute to land degradation (and its rehabilitation) and allows for adaptation if or when conditions change.
for harmonization and standardization. It was recommended that standard definitions, guidelines, and a menu of options (e.g., from which to choose indicators and methods) are used to help facilitate exchange of data and information (e.g., among countries) and to ensure integration of land degradation assessment results (e.g., for regional and global evaluation).
for up- and down-scaling between the varying scales. Participants noted that further research is needed to develop methods and mechanisms to facilitate integration of and comparison between data and information obtained at varying scales.
for synergy with existing land degradation and related initiatives. It was recommended that LADA link with existing land degradation and related initiatives: global (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Millennium Assessment, and the FAO Forest Resource Assessment); national (e.g., National Action Plans and State of the Environment Reporting activities); and local (e.g., local government, farmers' organizations, and extension services).
to retain modest ambitions and clear objectives. Respondents highlighted that activities should be developed within the scope of LADA's objective -namely to develop comprehensive baseline assessment at the national scale-, keeping in view simplicity and relevance to the aim of the LADA methodology.
While these results indicate issues that participants agreed upon as important for comprehensive and integrated land degradation assessments, some key differences were noted. These include:
financing land degradation monitoring: while some participants emphasized the need for long-term investment (e.g., donor funds), others noted that land monitoring initiatives need to sustain themselves (where areas being monitored pay for their own conservation).
using existing vs. collecting new data: while some respondents emphasized that existing data should be used, others expressed that poor data quality warrants new data collection.
conducting a user needs assessment: although all participants called for linking land degradation assessment with the needs of decision makers, different levels of effort were considered adequate for this: from conducting an extensive needs assessment of land users, to referring to needs already articulated in LADA project documents.
Contributions from Week 1 focused on the use of indicators, methods and tools for land degradation assessment. In Week 2 specific types of national-level indicators and methods were proposed. During Week 3, types of local indicators and approaches for their development were indicated. In Week 4, inputs for global assessments were discussed and next steps on how LADA may proceed were suggested. Results for each weekly group of themes are summarized below
Part II of this volume comprises extensive extracts, and in some cases summaries, from the contributions to the conference. They have been grouped under the specific issues discussed within the four successive groups of themes. The full contributions, as well as a technical background document dealing with land qualities and indicators for LADA, can be viewed on the LADA conference Web site: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/agll/lada/emailconf.stm and on the CD-ROM in the back pocket of this volume.
Types of methods and tools, possible indicators (and their criteria), and the usefulness of the DPSIR framework for land degradation assessment were discussed during Week 1.
Indicators
The advantage of using well-established indicators for land degradation assessment was recognized by all respondents. Yet these indicators require: the ability to integrate aspects of complicated issues, a broad acceptance by the stakeholders to ensure their effective use, and the use of accurate data to avoid unwarranted manipulation. Important criteria for indicator selection were their causal relationship with land degradation, their availability, and their user-friendliness. Some contributors noted the tendency to develop too long a list of indicators, which impedes a proper identification of priorities. Others pointed to the limitations of selecting a too restricted number of indicators, which might hamper a proper analysis of the causes of land degradation hazard. Many participants highlighted the need for local community input (e.g., of land users) in the development of indicators.
Methods and tools
Suggestions on methods and tools for land degradation assessment varied from concrete examples (e.g., participatory monitoring and evaluation) to a flexible approach that considers a variety of methods (e.g., rural appraisals, GIS spatial modelling, remote sensing, and aerial images). Application of models was generally encouraged although it was emphasized that their limitations and uncertainty should be clearly understood by both modellers and policy makers. The need to choose indicators and methods that acknowledge user needs and the selection of cost-effective data sampling and modelling exercises were emphasized.
DPSIR
While the DPSIR framework is helpful in conceptually linking the causes, state, and responses to the land degradation processes, the framework may be too complicated and inadequately capture complex relationships and the linkages between indicators. While most participants noted the DPSIR as helpful to LADA, some alternative frameworks were suggested (e.g., the Human Ecosystem Model).
During Week 2, participants provided input on specific types of national-level indicators and methods that may be useful to LADA and described a number of key issues of relevance to their development.
Proposed national-level indicators and methods
Various indicators of potential use to LADA were proposed. These include indicators on soil moisture, soil depth and productivity, organic carbon, nutrient balance, erosion (including wind and water erosion), biodiversity, accumulation of salts, waterlogging, land use and cover change, economic productivity, poverty, crop yield forecasting, and land pollution.
Indicators and methods currently being used
Several participants provided information on indicators and methods that are currently being used to monitor land degradation that may potentially be useful in the LADA context. These include indicators and methods being used: in national assessment (e.g., Australia's National Land and Resources Audit and land degradation assessment in Senegal and Mexico); for regional and global monitoring (e.g., OECD, WOCAT, and WRI); and in case studies (e.g., use of panchromatic images to detect early signs of desertification in Patagonian Monte, Argentina).
National-level indicator development
Numerous contributors recommended that national level indicators be framed about key issues, questions, and/or processes relating to land degradation. End users (e.g., national decision makers) should identify and prioritize such key issues and questions. National capacity (e.g., existing data collection and institutional capacity) needs to be acknowledged in identifying and prioritizing such indicators and synergies with existing monitoring initiatives are required.
Indicator criteria
In addition to selecting indicators that are cost-effective and SMART, participants highlighted that indicators need to be based on local conditions and used in context/combination with other indicators (e.g., an infant mortality indicator used in context with other indicators may be useful for land degradation evaluation, while by itself it may simply indicate a general lack of medical services).
Development of land monitoring systems
Participants noted the urgent need to develop comprehensive environmental systems to monitor land degradation (e.g., to respond to donor, international convention, and national government needs). While ideally such a system should use a representative set of indicators, the constraints and limitations of many countries (e.g., lack of data) need to be critically acknowledged in developing such a system.
Financing indicator development and monitoring
Participants provided suggestions on the financing of land degradation monitoring that ranged from the development of systems that are self-sustaining (e.g., where areas being monitored pay for their own conservation), to those that require long-term financing.
Key issues raised during Week 3 regarded: specific types of indicators and methods for local-level land degradation assessment; how a local focus can be feasible for national assessment, advantages of local-level assessment, development of local indicators, methods for field-based land degradation assessment, and the importance of monitoring hot and bright spots in local assessments.
Types of local indicators
A number of local indicators were proposed, ranging from the use of indicator plants, to observation of tree and root exposure, gullies, change in soil colour, and salt spots. Participants noted that the identification and selection of these indicators should be based on stakeholders' perceptions (and local conditions) and that ideally such indicators are monitored by land users themselves.
Methods for local land assessment
Various methods were described that may be used for local land degradation assessment - namely the use of rural appraisals and community focus groups. Specific steps on the use of an adapted sustainable livelihood analytical process were also described.
Feasibility of a local focus for national assessment
While various participants acknowledged that local-level assessments may be costly and time-consuming, such a local focus can feasibly be used for national land degradation assessment (the scale at which LADA is focusing) if indicators are monitored by land users themselves and if data for such indicators are collected in hot and bright spots.
Advantages of local indicators
Numerous advantages of using a local focus for land degradation assessment were mentioned, including that local-level indicators: link better and more directly to land degradation intervention; encourage grass-roots action; facilitate early detection of land degradation (vs. remote sensing techniques that monitors degradation after it has occurred); highlight local conditions; are cost-effective (e.g., by using existing local infrastructure and services); and provide more reliable results (e.g., for field-based assessments).
Key issues for local indicator development
Participants again emphasized that indicators need to be based on and developed about key issues and questions (e.g., described in user needs assessment). A "good" local level indicator was noted to be one that captures the complexity (vs. a single aspect) of land degradation.
Hot and bright spots
Various participants noted the importance of using hot and bright spots for cost-effective and timely land degradation assessment.
The discussion in week 4 focused on global-level land degradation indicators, next steps on how LADA may proceed, and the development of a network for drylands.
Global assessment
Participants emphasized that global assessments should heavily rely on national data collection and analysis. Such national assessments require a harmonization of results to ensure that data can be compared and exchanged among different countries and linked to global and regional assessments. In addition, such assessments call for the use of sufficiently flexible methodologies that can capture varying national and local conditions. Because of the importance of national assessments for global land degradation evaluation, it was recommended that LADA focus on providing sufficient support to the development of such national assessments.
It was further noted that a growing number of global data sets containing sub-national information are invaluable for global assessment. These include the FAO TERRASTAT and other databases on agro-ecological zones, soil moisture, soil type, nutrient supply, population density, and food self-sufficiency (ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/ladadocs/terrastatbetamapslist.doc and ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/ladadocs/faocoredatasetslist2.doc), the WCMC database on protected areas (http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protectedareas/), and the IFPRI data set on arable land (http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/page/maps.htm).
In view of the clear linkages among land degradation, ecosystem functioning, and biodiversity, synergy with international, regional, and national initiatives will be critical. It was recommended that LADA establish linkages with such initiatives as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Millennium Assessment (MA), and the FAO Forest Resource Assessment. Such synergy will not only be important to the development of LADA itself, but will also help ensure that LADA findings are used to strengthen existing land degradation and rehabilitation initiatives (e.g., the International Scheme for African Land Rehabilitation).
Upscaling local and sub-national data for global (and regional) assessment was identified as a major challenge. One participant recommended that LADA refer to an upcoming MA workshop that will deal with mechanisms and methods on how to link local knowledge and global assessments. While few specifics were given on types of global indicators, the use of a desertification/dusty events indicator as well as agro-ecological zones sampling units were indicated as potentially useful.
Next steps
Various proposals were tabled on how LADA should proceed with its next steps. While there are some differences among these proposals, all call for clarifying objectives, assessing user needs, selecting appropriate sampling units, conducting data inventories and collecting data, identifying hot and bright spots, selecting and developing indicators, and analysing and disseminating information on land degradation. Key differences between the proposals concern the extent to which land degradation assessment should rely on new vs. existing data, and the need to review the existing national capacity (e.g., institutional capacity, data availability, etc.) before conducting a user needs assessment (to help ensure that user needs are addressed within the confines of existing capacity).
Whereas some participants emphasized using existing data, others expressed that poor quality of existing data and its poor documentation warrant new data collection. Respondents emphasized that LADA should retain modest ambitions with respect to its key objective: the development of comprehensive baseline assessments at national scale. Specifically, it was noted that user needs assessments should be conducted within the scope of LADA in a way that will not inhibit timely land degradation assessment.
Network on drylands: While a drylands network will ultimately be important to encourage collaboration, data harmonization, and policy development, its development at this stage may be premature. Some participants recommended that LADA should initially give priority towards convincing countries of the value of routine and collaborative land degradation monitoring by e.g., collecting baseline data, developing policy tools, and conducting pilot studies.
