Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Home , Conservation grazing

United NationsEnvironmentProgramme ..Bx352Nioi 00 Kenya 00100 Nairobi, 30552 Box P.O. www.unep.org E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (25420)7623927 e: (254 20) 7621234 Tel: web: www.unep.org

U NITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGIES ANDTOOLS SYSTEMS, EVALUATION LAND RESOURCES OF POTENTIAL SUSTAINABLE THE UNLOCKING Acknowledgments Editor The International Resource Panel (IRP) Working Group on Land and Soils Lead Authors J.E. Herrick (US – [email protected]; [email protected]) Contributor list (alphabetical order with Panel members in bold) O. Arnalds (Iceland), B. Bestelmeyer (US), S. Bringezu (IRP/Germany), G. Han (China), M.V. Johnson (US), D. Kimiti (Kenya), Yihe Lu (China), L. Montanarella (EC), W. Pengue (IRP/Argentina), G. Toth (Hungary), J. Tukahirwa (Uganda), K. Urama (IRP/Nigeria), M. Velayutham (India), G. Zeleke (IRP/Ethiopia), L. Zhang (China). Kara Shervanick, Holly Baker and Caitlin Holmes made significant contributions to the editing and preparation of this report. The following individuals participated in a workshop which resulted in the development some of the concepts outlined in the chapter on “Promoting innovation”: Susan Andrews, Matt Levi, Lee Norfleet, Dave Smith, Dennis Thompson, Norm Widman and Skye Wills. The authors would like to thank the staff of the USDA-ARS Research Unit @ The Jornada for extensive logistical support. David Dent, David Rossiter and Keith Shepherd all provided helpful suggestions at several points in the revision process, and international participants in the UNU Land Restoration Training Course in Iceland provided feedback on presentation of some of the key concepts. We gratefully acknowledge USAID’s support for synergistic activities. The report went through a peer review process coordinated by Yonglong Lu with the support of the IRP Secretariat. The authors thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Special thanks go to Janez Potočnik and Ashok Khosla as Co-Chairs of the IRP during the preparation of this report for their dedication and commitment, as well as to all members of the IRP and its Steering Committee for their constructive comments. The Secretariat of the IRP coordinated the preparation of this report with the technical support of María José Baptista. The main responsibility for errors remains with the authors. Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2016 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Design/layout: Marie Moncet, SOURIBLE Printed by: UNESCO Cover photos@: 1. Galyna Andrushko, Shutterstock.com; 2. Ev Thomas, Shutterstock.com; 3. Jeffrey Herrick; 4. Ecuadorpostales, Shutterstock.com. Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

The full report should be referenced as follows UNEP UNEP (2016) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land promotes environ- Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. A Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the mentally sound practices International Resource Panel. Herrick, J.E., O. Arnalds, globally and in its own activities. B. Bestelmeyer, S. Bringezu, G. Han, M.V. Johnson, D. Kimiti, This publication is printed on 100% Yihe Lu, L. Montanarella, W. Pengue, G. Toth, J. Tukahirwa, M. Velayutham, L. Zhang. recycled paper, using vegetable -based inks and other eco-friendly practices. Job Number: DTI/2002/PA Our distribution policy aims to reduce ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9 UNEP’s carbon footprint. and remanufacturing. implications, economic and prospects efficiency resource global urbanization, future of implications resourceanalysis, and database flow materialdemand, resource future of integratedscenarios on focus will IRP the by work Upcoming systems. food global of requirements and use resource the and embedded; of usage is natural and of institutionally resources much socially the current unsustainable which in ‘node’ societal a as city the flows; and use resource natural on trade of impacts embedded) (or indirect and direct the include These use. resource to approaches systematic examine to begun now natural has Panel the base, from knowledge this upon Building growth degradation. environmental and use resource economic to ‘decoupling’ as of well perspective as the of resources, application individual and of development scarcities the and stocks use, the to related issues its of to much research devoted first Panel the establishment, its Following incentives. strategic and innovation encourage to policies implement technological more investment, planning, better through and including resource management, sustainable create to together work to businesses and governments for opportunities numerous the demonstrate date to IRP the of assessments The growth. economic from Green support to REDD+ impacts relatedand use resource environmental for decoupling potential untapped the and Economy; decoupling; city-level decoupling; and accounting water opportunities; production; electricity metals stocks for in society, their risks environmental and Technologies their challenges, resource rates of recycling and recycling Low-Carbon sustainable of for trade-offs and materials risks and benefits, management; sectors economic priority management; land biofuels; sustainable covered reports Earlier published. been have assessments fifteen 2007, in launch Resource Panel’s International the Since (UNEP). Programme Environment Nations United the by hosted is Secretariat The effectiveness. policy of monitoring and evaluation International supporting and the development and in contained information The issues. Resource Panel’s reports is intended to management be evidence based and resource policy relevant, informing policy address framing to expertise of from all the world, and multidisciplinary parts scientists bringing their of experts eminent constituted environmental from degradation. growth Benefiting from the broad economic support of governments and decouple scientific the communities, to Panel is how of understanding better cycle a life to full contribute the and over impacts environmental its and resources natural of use scientific the on authoritative assessments and coherent Resource independent, provide International to the established of was Soils IRP and The (IRP). Land Panel on Group Working the by prepared was report This About the International Reso urce Panel 1

UNLOCKING THE SUSTAINABLE POTENTIAL OF LAND RESOURCES Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

www.unep.org United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, 00100 Kenya Tel: (254 20) 7621234 Fax: (254 20) 7623927 E-mail: [email protected] web: www.unep.org Preface 4 Dr. Janez Poto Preface (b)promotinginnovation sustainably to increase productivity resource andefficiency, including through redistribution, and land and tenure land guiding (a) by levels consumption per-capita and population ecosystemservicescontextthein climateof change, persistent landdegradation andincreasing global specifically,More landpotential evaluation systems areneededsustainto increase and provisionthe of management. and planning use land for foundation restoration of degraded land”. The current report focuses on land potential evaluation andsystems land management as “ina ordercritical to minimize expansion of built-up land on fertile soils, and to invest in the report identified several options for minimizing cropland expansion, including improved land usemanagement landplanning sustainablestrategies apply (1)to all pursued: land, and be (2) mustcontrol strategies the complementarydemand for the two number of that(cropland) concluded hectares.Supply” The “AssessingSoil,BalancingUse:SustainableConsumption withLand& Global Land on reportfirst The few the of one is strategiespotential availableland with to decoupleuse human developmentland andmatching economic growth fromeffectively land degradation.More uses. land unsustainable halt to necessary,where and,management and use land guide to necessary understanding,is this sharing generatingand forholistic toolscost-effective andmore additiontopotential, landinunderstanding of improvedAn needs. human meet requiredtoland of amount reducingthe infactor key a potentialas and the demand for non-food uses of biomass, the Panel identified better matching of land use with land allows the inherent long-term land potentialland realized. to sustainably inherentbe allowsthe long-term willcontribute to thedevelopment ofthe next generation ofland potential evaluation systems, onewhich Weare confident that the the principles set out in this report paired with the technology developed therewith supports We thank Jeffrey report Herrick and the rest of the this working group for putting together this innovative assessment. Resources”, Future We Want” and in the agreed Agenda Natural 2030 for Sustainable Development. and to implement Systems the concept of “land degradation neutrality” “Food included in the Rio+20 outcome factors.document report “The More threespecifically, first thethis addressing IRP report by Challenge’provides Hunger ‘Zero Secretary-General’sbackground new UN information, the of tools,implementation and the policy options necessary with Together preferences. dietary infrastructure, and markets, landevaluation. These constraints include, butare notlimited to, land tenure, transportation and storage constraints to land use and management must be addressed after or at the same time as the biophysical potential landincreaseresource throughinproductivity.an increaseFinally,importantly, most culturalandsocioeconomic and could that systems management innovative of development the constraining emphasizeproductionlimitscurrentto basedon technologies cases,even somewhileignoring inand, existingthatpotentialisland second evaluationresilience. they accountthatforthirdto fail istools The The tools. appropriate, available currently apply and select to how of understanding of lack a is first applicationevaluationTheland planningofmanagementuse limitedland andfactors. tofouris by The varietiesalready adapted environments.land to specific food locally-utilized of knowledge increase can they Moreover, intensification.sustainable Co-Chairs, International Resource Panel č nik nik Alicia Bárcena In addition to changing diets and reducing food waste equal to over 50% of the current cropland area. as usual’ ‘business conditions. under This projected Mha new cropland 850 area is and 320 between of infrastructure will result in a gross expansionurban, industrialof (includingcropland energy) and transportation with cropland for replacement of Compensating degradation and land Mha. 500 and 120 between cropland of of expansion net a be will there 2005 in starting years 45 the during predicted that Soil and The International Resource Panel’s first report on Land Foreword thank the authors for this important effort in the roadthank the authors foreffort towards this important a landand degradation-neutral world. congratulate I guidance. this of application the for solutions technological and guidance policy Co-Chairs of AliciaPotoJanezBárcenaand leadership the under producing, for Panel, Resource International the to grateful am I tax and sustainable, is conservation. land system permanent or long-term for exchange in breaks production insured the where lands to limited subsidies insurance some crop include for Panel the by proposed tools policy qualifying Other 2007.and 1982 to betweencroplands US on pre-requisite a as practices conservation programs. This government requirement to contributed a dramatic 40 per cent policy reduction in soil erosion apply targeted to required through were past land” the in erodible “highly as classified achieved land private of owners States, United been the in example, For have interventions. degradation in reductions Important implementation of innovative systems and technologies that increase resource use efficiency. the and inputs increased through achieved be can latter The exceeded. be can services ecosystem multiple support to land the of potential natural the that acknowledges and systems), considered current in all not at is which of second (the resilience and resistance degradation addresses potential, land control that factors the in variability at looks framework This potential. evaluateto land framework new a suggests IRP the System, Zoning FAO the Agroecological and system Classification Capability options. Land likesystems USDA the the knowledge of potential existing land analysis a on comprehensive of Based one as potential, this exceeding even cases some in and potential, its with use land matching proposes Panel Tools,the and Strategies Systems, Evaluation Resources: Land of Potential The IRP seeks answers to this critical question. In this the Unlocking scientific assessment, Sustainable resources? land finite our depleting further without demand future meet to fibre and fuel food, produce sustainably we can How challenge. fundamental a with confronted are Policymakers Development Goals, in particular SDG 15, which calls of for a land degradation-neutral expansion world unsustainable by 2030. This 2050. cropland bywith coupled the of effects climate change would the impede achievement of the cropland Sustainable to converted be may land natural of million 849 hectares and 320 between continue, conditions current if (IRP), Panel Resource International the for by noted demand previously As base. resource land the our on pressure the increase increases, only will fuel and fibre food, population world’s the as and, forests, and grasslands savannahs, our č nik, a new kind of scientific assessment, one that provides practical practical provides that one assessment, scientific of kind new a nik, We are rapidly expanding global cropland at the expense of of expense the at cropland global expanding rapidly are We billion. $40 around economy the costing trees, billion 15 and soil fertile of tonnes salinization, compaction and chemical pollution. acidification, Each year we lose 24 billion depletion, nutrient erosion, to due highly-degraded to moderately is soil of cent per 33 estimated An pace. alarming an at degraded being are resources These consumed in Asia and Africa.Sub-Saharan million small 500 farms, providing more than 80 per cent of food around manage worldwide smallholders agricultural billion 2.5 Some thrive. to economies and societies our help and us feed They gifts. precious most nature’s of one are resources Land UNEP Deputy Executive Director Ibrahim Thiaw Thiaw Ibrahim 5

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

SECTION I Introduction Objectives, scope and audience Executive Summary Abstract Glossary abbreviations and Acronyms Foreword Preface About the International Resource Panel Acknowledgments Contents of Table and developing the next generation systems evaluation potential land existing improving for Principles – II SECTION

1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4

–

Existing land potential evaluation systems: review and applications and Highly Erodible Lands (HEL) and Erodible Highly Lands Classi Capability USDA Land Introduction existing land evaluation systems evaluation land existing conclusions: and Summary resources: a Sub-surface footnote Land potential evaluation for valuation and taxation: the European experience GlobalZoning Agro-ecological (GAEZ) (AEZ) Zoning Agro-ecological System GAEZ) and Overview (AEZ Zoning Agro-Ecological FAO Factors determining potential resilience potential determining Factors Introduction Resilience Disturbance, degradation and recovery Overview A brief introduction toscale introduction A brief Spatial scale

cation (LCC) System (LCC) System cation

44 44 38 35 35 35 45 43 43 33 33 39 48 48 32 42 37 37 18 12 13 14 17 11 5 4 1 ii 7

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Table of Contents 8 resources land of potential sustainable the unleashing for strategy a and Tools, resources – III SECTION management and planning use land to evaluation potential land applying for options Policy – IV SECTION 4.3 4.3 2.5 4.1 3.1 4.2. 4.2. 3.3 3.2

Increasing adoption rates adoption Increasing rates innovation Increasing policy through innovation Promoting Climate adaptation change Integrating ecosystem services into land potential evaluation systems systems evaluation potential into land services ecosystem Integrating services ecosystem key addressing for systems evaluations potential land existing of Limitations Introduction Services Ecosystem systems evaluation potential into land scale of spatial an understanding Integrating Maps may lie (or, rather, the user may lie if the map is misinterpreted) Spatial context: location matters Spatial patterns and interactions: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts Raising the bar Climate mitigation change planning restoration and conservation Biodiversity and climateand adaptation mitigation change planning, restoration conservation, biodiversity opportunities: Additional awareness-raising and building Capacity Degradation and other land use disincentives Land use and land management incentives Taxation Land investments and land grabs: pricing fairness and sustainability Land reform and redistribution: equity, sufficiency and sustainability Land use planning – agricultural energy production) mining, urban, agricultural, (including general - planning use Land neutrality degradation land and space safe operating targets: International speci opportunities: Policy phones mobile via delivered systems knowledge and tools integrative - generation Next analyses mapping-based digital (GIS) and Systems Information Geographic - generation Third attributes future multiple addressing and often programs computer dedicated – generation Second current historical, – and photos, maps, – paper generation First evaluation land for Tools to improve estimates for TOMORROW TOMORROW for estimates to improve TODAY continuing while potential land evaluating for strategy practical simple, A and current links) sources additional for LandPotential.org see (please sources Selected

c issues

! eld observations for a single attribute

66 66 66 66 66 64 64 64 64 64 60 54 48 65 65 63 63 63 55 55 55 55 62 50 50 50 50 49 49 56 59 67 67 67 52 Figure 11.Figure Figure 10.Figure Figure 9.Figure Figure 8. Figure Figure 7.Figure 6. Figure 3. Figure Land resource surveys in current and former British overseas territories. 2. Appendix Figure 5. Figure 4. Figure 2. Figure 1.Figure of ﬁgures List Country and regional case studies 1. Appendix References Relationship between factors determining long-term land potential and the land’s Effect of soil type on relative declines in potential grass production with lowering lowering with production grass potential in declines relative on type soil of Effect

Three legged sustainability stool showing land potential as the foundation of the the of foundation the as potential land showing stool sustainability legged Three

Land potential knowledge applications and scales at which the knowledge is is knowledge the which at scales and applications knowledge potential Land

Reduction in cultivated cropland between 1982 and 2012 for each of three types types three of 2012 each and for 1982 between cropland cultivated in Reduction Case Study #2: Hungary #2: Hungary Study Case #1: Study Case China 4.5 4.4 Expert System for Mediterranean Europe Index: Sensitivity Environmental #6: Study Case #5: Study Case Argentina #4: Study Case Uganda #3: India Study Case

USDA Land Capability Classi Capability Land USDA Conceptual framework for the Agro-ecological zones methodology. to low (Class VIII) (Class to low potential for land land declines with use high (Classoptions sustainable environmental leg for terrestrial ecosystems Terraced hillsides in Northern Germany (a) and Ethiopia (b) Ethiopia and (a) Germany Northern in hillsides Terraced of the water table for four soils in the Netherlands the in for four soils waterof the table short-term potential to generate ecosystem services. commonly applied Classi Capability Land of the by application guided of land Modeled average annual soil loss in arable lands in EU countries The United States of America’s “Dust Bowl” Expansion of Addis Ababa onto fertile agricultural land

Developing a national land potential evaluation system Land potential evaluation Soil surveys Applications Principles Introduction Challenges zonalRecent land use change National scale land use zoning Introduction Conclusions UN Sustainable Development Goals

! cation system matrix showing that the range of of range the that showing matrix system cation

cation system

34 36 84 80 86 69 89 85 22 83 83 83 83 22 82 82 82 82 28 20 26 27 25 23 27 72 87 78 78 78 78 70 9

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Table of Contents 10 Figure 30. Figure Figure 29. Figure Figure 28. Figure 27.Figure 26. Figure 25. Figure 24.Figure Figure 23. Figure Figure 22. Figure Figure 21.Figure Figure 20. Figure Table 8. Table 7. Table 6. Table 5 Table 19.Figure Figure 18.Figure Table 4. Table Figure 17.Figure 16.Figure 15.Figure 14.Figure 13.Figure 12.Figure Table 3. Table 2. Table 1. Table of TablesList .

Impacts of different land uses on land potential over the short-, short-, the over potential land on uses land different of Impacts Indicators that can be used to predict resilience to the dominant forms of of forms dominant the to resilience predict to used be can that Indicators

Average percent of years when various crops can be grown without irrigation irrigation without grown be can crops various when years of percent Average Typical impacts of some relatively static soil properties on resilience in semi-arid semi-arid in resilience on properties soil static relatively some of impacts Typical

Illustration of how site-speci how of Illustration

Map predicting where shrubby reed mustard, a rare plant species, is most likely likely most is species, plant rare a mustard, reed shrubby where predicting Map

Sub-surface resources should be considered when applying land evaluation evaluation land applying when considered be should resources Sub-surface Land near Berlin, Germany with low potential for agricultural production due due production agricultural for potential low with Germany Berlin, near Land

Possible outcomes following abandonment of an innovation or inputs that that inputs or innovation an of abandonment following outcomes Possible

The net land use change in the e h t n i e g n a h c e s u d n a l t e n e h T

Indicators used to calculate the Environmental Sensitivity Index Sensitivity Environmental the to calculate used Indicators Major soil types in Argentina according to Soil Taxonomy orders. and 2010 in China Land Use Change Intensity index. Map of land resources zoning in China Exceeding land potential limitations due to climate: quinoa had increased the provision of one or more ecosystem services. Typical variability within a GIS soil polygon soil GIS a within variability Typical Soils with contrasting potential in Namibia northeast land potential from central north-west Namibia The Land-Potential Knowledge System Overview of land evaluation Systems in Uganda Land cover in India (Indiastat 2000). 2010 and China in 2000 between characteristics change use land Zonal The twelve land use regions of the land use zoning scheme in China land degradation. potential land on based USA, Utah, Northeast in to occur Evolution of cultivated systems from pre-industrial to contemporary times contemporary to pre-industrial from systems cultivated of Evolution Changes in Changes 1982soil fromerosion between US croplands and 2007 planning use to land drainage to poor to sub-humid regions. to sub-humid England Norfolk, in soils different for medium- and long-term managed (estimated values) and converted (measured values) states Examples of contrast in estimated economic value of ecosystems in sustainably Examples of results from restoration treatments in Ethiopia and Kenya services ecosystem in changes temporal Conceptual illustration of the impacts of resistance and resilience on

! c soil information can be used to interpret interpret to used be can information soil c ! rst 12 land zones (parts of the country) between 2000 2000 between country) the of (parts zones 12 land rst

88 80 80 68 69 44 84 38 38 85 58 58 46 40 56 79 87 25 79 57 57 21 81 47 47 51 51 Acronyms and abbreviations and Acronyms m l kW kha kg kcal ha cm of List Units WOCAT USLE USDA-NRCS USDA-ARS USDA US UNEP UNCCD UN SQI SOS SKBP RUSLE REDD+ RCMRD NASIS MEA LUT LQI LCC LandPKS IRP INTA GIS GAEZ FAO-LADA FAO ESI/DIS4ME ESI ESA DOS CQI ALES AEZ AEC W Mt Mha m 2 3 Litre Kilowatt Thousand hectares Kilograms Kilocalories Hectare Centimeters Technologies and Approaches Conservation of Overview World SoilUniversal Equation Loss Service Conservation Resources Natural - Agriculture of Department States United Service Research Agricultural - Agriculture of Department States United Agriculture of Department States United America of States United United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Convention to Desertification Combat United Nations Soil Quality Index Safe Space Operating Scientific BrokeringKnowledge Portal Equation Loss Soil Universal Revised Countries Developing in Deforestation from Emissions Reducing Development for Resources of Mapping for Center Regional System Information Soil National Assessment Millennium Ecosystem Land Utilization Type Land Quality Index Land Capability Classification system (USDA) Land-Potential Knowledge System Resource PanelInternational (Argentina) Technology of Agricultural Institute National Information Systems Geographic Zoning Agro-Ecological Global Assessment Degradation - Land Nations United of the Organization Agricultural and Food Nations United of the Organization Agricultural and Food Europe Mediterranean for System Indicator Index/Desertification Sensitivity Environmental Index Sensitivity Environmental Areas Sensitive Environmentally System Disk Operating Climate Index Quality Automated EvaluationLand System (FAO) Zoning Agro-Ecological Cell Agro-Ecological Watt Million tones Million hectares Cubic meter Square meters

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Glossary 12 sustainable and meet the needs of society. of needs the meet and sustainable are productivity, their increase that options selecting in users land assist and encourage to as way a Land use planning specified within scales. spatial increases and or temporal stable remains services, ecosystem support to necessary resources, neutrality degradation Land evapotranspiration. Growingperiod (T). tolerance indexErodibility management. Disturbance Discount rates Degradation crops. drop per Crop practices systems and you plan to use, develop, ranch your farm maintain and or on plans Conservation government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. Conservation easements country. Cadastral. external Accuracy without report this to specific are that hyperlinks. definitions with provided are terms following The Glossary analysis of major causes of rural poverty. the for information gap production and yield provides grown, currently crops of production and yield gaps Yield destroyed. or damaged, Restoration Resistance Resilience Precision not be a risk. may or may that action an taking those on falls harmful not is it that proof of burden the harmful), not is policy or action (that the consensus scientific of absence the in environment, the to or public, the to principle Precautionary Opportunity costs byherbivores. consumed is some while during energy that of producers, some of primary reproduction and toward goes growth production use net primary Some respiration. they which at rate the and (GPP) energy ecosystem chemical an in useful plants produce the which at rate the between difference the to equal is it energy; chemical productivity primary Net setting. social and economic physical, given a in descriptors technical (LUT) typeutilization Land . A description of systematic errors, a measure of statistical bias. statistical of measure a errors, systematic of description A . . A description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability. statistical of measure a errors, random of description A . . The capacity to recover capacity . The disturbance. from A comprehensive register of the real estate or real property’s metes-and-bounds of a of metes-and-bounds property’s real or estate real the of register comprehensive A . The comparison between simulated potential yields and production with observed observed with production and yields potential simulated between comparison The . . The capacity of a system to maintain function through a disturbance. disturbance. a through function maintain to system a of capacity The . . The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, degraded, been has that ecosystem an of recovery the assisting of process The . . Broadly includes anything that causes a change to the state of a system, including including system, a of state the to change a causes that anything includes Broadly . . A negative change in the capacity of the system to provide ecosystem services. ecosystem provide to system the of capacity the in change negative A . . Theoretical or observed rates at which people discount future payoffs. future discount people which ratesat observed or Theoretical . . An initiative to utilize water more efficiently and in lesser quantities to produce produce to quantities lesser in and efficiently more water utilize to initiative An . . The period (in days) during a year when precipitation exceeds half the potential potential the half exceeds precipitation when year a days)during (in period The . . Determined by dividing the potential erodibility for the soil map unit by the loss loss the by unit map soil the for erodibility potential the dividing by Determined . . The loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. is alternative one when alternatives other of loss The . . The systematic assessment of physical, social and economic factors in such such in factors economic and social physical, of assessment systematic The . . A written record of your management decisions and the conservation conservation the and decisions management your of record written A . . States that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm harm causing of risk suspected a has policy or action an if that States . . The rate at which all the plants in an ecosystem produce net useful useful net produce ecosystem an in plants the all which at rate The . . . A legal voluntary agreement a between and landowner a land trust or . A kind of land use defined in more detail, according to a set of of set a to according detail, more in defined use land of kind A . . A state whereby the amount of healthy and productive land land productive and healthy of amount the whereby state A . 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. to: limited not are but include, evaluation land applying for options Policy century. 20th the of part early the in expansion agricultural ill-informed war in II post-world scheme Tanzania,peanut and the United Bowl, Dust which States resulted from an to both increase returns on investments, while minimizing risks of catastrophic failures, such as Britain’s management.Policymakers have tremendousa numberofopportunities to leverage landevaluations to similarly respond therefore should potential similar with Land degradation. from to recover capacity realized. sustainably is potential long-term inherent depends on (1)Sustainability potential the degradation resistance, and (2) potential resilience, which is whether the determines potential its with use land Matching cover). vegetation current compaction, fertility, (e.g. land the of condition current the and weather, potential, long-term of combination a on depends years) (1-5 potential land Short-term potential. higher has tree, and forage crop, including production, vegetation of levels higher support sustainably can that land based on and topography soils, climate. land services, to generate In ecosystem sustainably general, the of (decades) potential long-term inherent the on is report the of focus The neutrality). degradation (land global 15.3 addressing particularly and Goals, time Development same Sustainable land-related the through at defined objectives while profitability, and productivity long-term increase to use can policymakers and landowners private both that information strategy.provides this It implement to This report provides an introduction to land potential evaluation systems, strategies and tools necessary services. ecosystem generate sustainably to land the of potential long-term inherent, the as defined is potential Land initiatives. conservation biodiversity guiding and successful, most be to sustainably for strategy “no-regrets” are to they likely where efforts restoration a targeting existing land, on production agricultural increasing is potential sustainable its with use land of matching Better Abstract

for applying land evaluation to policy. to evaluation land applying for existing land evaluation systems, for options them more making useful by of integrating resilience, and overview an provides report The occur. to likely are investments on returns greatest the where to resources targeting by effectively initiatives mitigation and adaptation change climate optimizing agricultural land use planning to sustainably increase food security and the profitability of the the of profitability the and security food increase sustainably to planning use land agricultural designing incentive and other programs to minimize degradation risk, and and risk, degradation minimize to programs other and incentive designing land, their to specific practices management available best the on information appropriate (c)and units, with production landowners providing new economic minimum for requirements meet to land reform and ensure redistribution that (a) are met and (b) for equitability objectives tract sizes sector, farming biodiversity conservation, conservation, biodiversity general land use planning to decide which lands be should for reserved agricultural and production neutrality, degradation land for targets practical realistic, setting 13

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Executive Summary 14 ` ` ` apply land evaluation can land including managers, and conservationists, and farmers to: Land potential evaluations help people make better decisions. Policymakers, development organizations, 2. potential. can that land general, In climate. crop, including levels higher production, of forage vegetation and tree, support has higher and sustainably topography soils, on based services, ecosystem generate inherent the on is report this of focus The 1. Goals, and particularly 15.3 (land degradation neutrality). Development Sustainable land-related through deﬁned objectives global addressing time at same the while proﬁtability, and productivity long-term increase to use can landowners private that information provides report The lands. degraded already restore cost-effectively and degradation, land minimize needs, human meet to required land use of amount land the match reduce to better order in to potential, how sustainable future its on with of strongly focuses ability text the The needs.” compromising own their without meet present necessary to the generations tools of and needs strategies the systems, meets that evaluation “development land for to introduction an provides report This Executive Summary similarly tomanagement. similarly resilience, potential (2) and which resistance, is the to capacity recover from degradation. Land with similar potential should therefore respond degradation potential (1) on depends Sustainability realized. is sustainably potential long-term inherent the whether determines potential its with use land Matching cover). vegetation current (e.g.compaction, land fertility, the of condition current the weather,and

Increase restoration and biodiversity conservation success conservation Increaserestoration biodiversity and Minimize social, economic, and environmental risks of land use change change climate to adapting while productivity Increase

What is land potential? What are the benefits of land potential evaluation? • • • • • • • • • • Short-term greatestpredicted investment return on the with combinations climate x soil the to investments adaptation change climate Target as such limitations drainage. and overcome salinity, to fertility, required are inputs of level, what and what, Determine land of piece particular a for system management and crop productive most the Identify crop particular a for lands productive most the Identify Understand the restoration limitations for a particular piece of land animals that depend on them the and biota soil plants, foroccur, to likely most are species endangered where Predict Determine where restoration is most likely to be successful to areas these of out settlements urban minimize plan environmental impacts of next urbanization wave and productivity high with lands Identify risk degradation reduce cost-effectively can that practices management Identify risk degradation high with lands Identify land potential (1-5 years) depends on a combination of long-term potential, potential, long-term of combination a on depends years) (1-5 potential land long-term dcds ptnil f h ln to land the of potential (decades) sustainably

include, but are not limited to: limited are not but include, ` ` ` ` agricultural expansion in the early part of the 20 the of part early the in expansion agricultural in Tanzania, scheme II resulted which Bowl, from war groundnut an Dust and ill-informed the United States post-world Britain’s as such failures, catastrophic of risks minimizing while investments, on returns Policymakers have a number tremendous of to opportunities leverage land evaluations to both increase 4. maps. soil generalized with possible currently is that evaluations localized more much be provide help to increasingly sensors inexpensive small, bywill supplemented tools These applications. mobile through information and knowledge local with in cloud the available by increasingly is dominated that systems integrate and knowledge-bases data- is that tools of generation fourth The (GIS)packages.System Information sophisticatedGeographic increasingly including objectives, use land and computer attributes dedicated land multiple include address often tools that programs generation third and Second slope. attribute, to due single risk a erosion on as focusing such measurements and observations field and photographs, aerial and with the two major land evaluation systems. First together generation or tools independently, still applied useful todaybe can include that paper mapsevaluation land for tools of number large a are There production. agricultural to addition in services ecosystem consider also must systems Future management. for scale spatial of importance the and resilience, determine processes recovery and degradation of how disturbance, integrating include an for understanding improvement Principles information. crop-specific provide to apply.to designed However, not was it The risk and degradation is system simpler much resilience. considers Classification Capability Land USDA’sand 8-class resistance degradation on information no to little provides It planning. use land agricultural regional for used often is It production world. the of potential part every the virtually in crops on of variety broad focuses a of that system comprehensive more much Classification a Capability is Land AEZ USDA’s The system. the and approach (AEZ) Zoning Agroecological FAO’s the include decades several past the during applied globally been have that systems available Currently evaluation. land for used for be can that principles tools of range wide defines the about I), information practical (Section provides then and systems, II), (Section available improvement currently applied widely reviews report The 3.

Agricultural land use planning to sustainably increase food security and the proﬁtability of the the of proﬁtability the and security sector. food farming increase sustainably to planning use land Agricultural conservation. biodiversity General land use planning to decide Setting realistic targets for safe operating space and land degradation neutrality. Promote innovation and knowledge sharing

Systems, strategies and tools and strategies Systems, Policy options Policy • • • most likely to be successful are innovations the where areas targeting by innovations of upscaling of rate the Increase conditions similar under innovations evaluatepotential rapidly to ability the Provide on similar types of land and exchange best practices innovatorsAllow differentwith perspectives collaborators quicklyconnect,toﬁnd working which lands should be reserved for agricultural production and for be lands should reserved agricultural production th century. Policy options for applying land evaluation evaluation land applying for options Policy century. 15

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Executive Summary 16 ` ` ` ` not by themselves allow us to live within theyour means—but can make it easier. will institutions strong and policies developed carefully by supported innovation increased and lands vegetation has been removed. native A matching better of systems production with which land potential on existing agricultural from land of use primary the be to continues Agriculture potential. with different land on work, not did or worked, they how and innovations existing of sharing the accelerating evaluationsLand alsosupportcandevelopment innovativeof systems to including provided those by ecosystem impacts other services, the on biodiversity, are likely to be. predict of production which types systems are likely to be of sustainable land on which and types what can we cases, most In inevitable. virtually is project the of part least at across failure that variable so system continue to occur across areas in which soil, topography, and sometimes climate conditions are management and crop single a to conversions land this, Despite ignore information. and thatknowledge existing systems management land in invest to afford can nation or farmer No implemented. are Land potential evaluations must be completed and applied 5.

Designing incentive and other programs to minimize degradation risk. Taxation. with appropriate information on the best available management practices speciﬁc to their land. provided are landowners (c) new and unit, production size tract economic (b)minimum for met, requirements are meets equitability for objectives (a) that ensure to redistribution and reform Land the greatest returns investmentson are likely to occur. where to resources targeting effectively by optimization mitigation and adaptation change Climate

Conclusions before changes in land use or management increase land potential by potential land land managers and policymakers. policymakers. and managers land to addition in issues, use-related land on working scientists resource natural and workers, extension target The evaluation. potential land of benefits the predicts quantitatively that analysis scenario a in engaged havenot we reason, same the For strategies. planning land use land or management land prescribe reviewto explicitly or attempt not will of understanding an applying report for this focus, and length of reasons For planning. use policies land and management facilitate to potential of identification includes report assessment This they vary not address does factors. factors these report The because markets capital, and socioeconomic other makers must then decide what is on of thatecosystemand amounts are services types sustainablythe impacts similar have that factors biophysical by defined as potential land on focuses report The process. planning use land of a formal outside operating landowner, investor, individual government national or these decisions are made through a multi-stakeholder land use planning process, or by a corporate or will report be equally useful to all and involved individuals organizations in land whether use decisions, Ourfocus onland potential rather than sequestration. carbon and quantity, water and quality conservation, natural biodiversity resource extraction, habitation, human production, or one more of including, but not limited a to:support broad of services, variety ecosystem agricultural planning use to resources land target to or influence facilitate of implementation these land use tools These may decisions decisions. be designed multi-stakeholder to the use through may organizations as development and well Governments processes. as landowners, corporate and communal individual, by made be may decisions These scales. multiple at decisions use land of variety diverse The 4. 3. 2. 1. The Objectives, scope and audience

(Section III). (Section policy Identify options for land applyxing potential evaluation to land use planning and management Define principles and strategies for improving the next generation of these systems (Section II). providing an overview of those that address other ecosystem services (Section I). (Section services ecosystem other address that those of overview an providing land on focus will report The potential evaluation systems. systems that address evaluation the potential to support potential agricultural production land while also emerging and existing Review management. and policy use toland potential land of to apply an understanding necessary to Provide an the keyintroduction and definitions concepts scope objectives locally is limited to for land as a potential reviewing the for foundation and tools improving defining audience of this report are to:are report this of , while the basic principles affecting biophysical potential are relevantare potential biophysical affecting principles basic the while , for this report includes civil society organizations, university students, teachers, teachers, students, university organizations, society civil includes report this for realistic land use planning use land and and desirable based on governance, land tenure, access to tenure, access land governance, on based is designed to ensure that this assessment assessment this that ensure to designed is !"#$% possible. &'(#)%" Local land use decision- use land Local globally . 17

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Introduction !"#$%&'(#)%"

Credit: Ecuadorpostales, Shutterstock.com What is land potential?

Land potential is defined as the inherent, long- not integrate potential production and socio- term potential of the land to sustainably generate economic variables. They also do not effectively ecosystem services. Management determines address resilience. whether the inherent potential is sustainably This report is based on a functional definition of realized. Sustainability depends on (1) potential land potential relative to sustainable net primary degradation resistance, and (2) potential production (i.e. how much vegetation can be resilience, which is the capacity to recover from produced in a year with a management system degradation. Land with similar potential should that does not degrade the land), while recognizing therefore respond similarly to management. that land use decisions must also consider the Historically, land potential has been evaluated value of land for other uses, including urban based almost exclusively on inherent potential and the extraction of sub-surface resources. production and/or resistance to degradation These considerations are briefly addressed (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961, Helms 1997, in the sections on “Land potential evaluation Dent and Young 1981, FAO 1976). Specific for valuation and taxation” and “Sub-surface tools and indicator systems exist to predict the resources: a footnote”. Our definition of land degradation risk (resistance) given a particular potential, however, is not as limited as it might suite of drivers (ESI/DIS4ME, USLE, RUSLE, appear. In addition to agricultural production, and FAO - LADA). Most of these methods all of the following ecosystem services depend for degradation risk assessment are either almost entirely on the types and amounts of geographically specialized (e.g. Environmental vegetation that can be potentially produced: the Sensitivity Index or ESI) or are limited to a provision of safe and reliable water supplies, air particular discipline (e.g. soil science, Revised quality (especially in drylands), timber, biofuel Universal Soil Loss Equation or RUSLE) and do and peat production, and carbon sequestration.

Social, economic and environmental benefits of land potential evaluation

Our next meal, homes, clothing and energy all surface. Consumption of land-based products depend in whole or in part on the land. Land- and services is increasing, while the amount of derived resources support the majority of our undegraded land available to generate these food and energy demands. Nearly all of the goods and services is declining due to a number materials used to make our clothes and to build of factors including expansion of urban and and ﬁll our homes and workplaces with objects industrial uses (Preface; Figure 1). are grown on land or extracted from beneath its Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

19 Figure 1. Expansion of Addis Ababa onto fertile agricultural land Introduction

Source: G. Zeleke. Note: The expansion of Addis Ababa onto some of the most fertile agricultural lands illustrates a challenge experienced by virtually every country, as cities were often established in areas with high potential for agricultural production.

We have three options. All of them require the value of future ecosystem services from the an understanding of land potential. (1) We land. Evaluation of land potential is necessary can better match land use and management to target efforts to maintain and restore natural with land potential to reduce the rate of land ecosystems. Evaluation may also enable land degradation. (2) We can increase the production managers to increase the factor productivity of currently managed lands by setting attainable of land while reducing land degradation and targets based on an understanding of the increasing resilience. potential of each hectare of land. (3) We can This document briefly reviews existing tools for increase the potential production of currently land potential evaluation, how they have been managed lands through the development of applied and how their application can have innovative management systems and improved significant, positive impacts on national food crop varieties. Each of these new technologies security (Section I). It highlights opportunities must be carefully evaluated and adapted for for improvement of these tools to make them each type of land in order to (a) maximize their more useful and relevant to changing societal impact, and (b) avoid unintended consequences, challenges (Section II), and introduces specific including both degradation of the land itself, and policy options for applying land potential off-site impacts. For example, a technology that evaluations at hectare to national scales increases corn production but also increases soil (Section III). erosion on some types of land must be promoted only for those lands where it is sustainable. Land potential evaluation for decoupling Virtually all land has the potential to support increased agricultural production from land multiple ecosystem services. In some cases, degradation provision of these services is non-exclusive (e.g. Knowledge and understanding of land potential the provision of clean water and wood products is can be used in at least five ways to decouple complementary in sustainably managed forests), increased agricultural production from additional while in others it is exclusive only for the period of land use change (including surface sealing use (Table 1). Pavement (sealing) and many types associated with urbanization and infrastructure of land degradation, including but not limited development) and land degradation. For to soil erosion, result in high opportunity costs additional discussion of policy opportunities for unless very high discount rates are assumed for decoupling, please see Section III.

20 Table 1. Impacts of different land uses on land potential over the short-, medium- and long-term *

Short-term (during Medium-term (next Long-term (future period of use) human generation) generations) Biodiversity + watershed conservation Moderate None None Crop production (nutrient replacement; High Low Low limited soil loss)** Crop production (no nutrient replacement; High Moderate Low limited soil loss)** Crop production (no nutrient replacement; High High Moderate high soil loss)** Mining (with regulation - soil stored and High Moderate Moderate replaced) Housing, industrial, commercial and High High High infrastructure Notes: *Actual extent and duration of impacts will vary, depending on the precise nature of the land use, local and regional variability in soils, topography and climate. **Crop production scenarios assumes re-colonization by plant, animal, microbial communities by the next (human) generation

1. Identify existing agricultural lands of time. Additionally, these high yields are where current production systems generally located on soils with the highest are unsustainable. A series of relatively production potential in the region and are not high rainfall years in a semi-arid or dry sub- generalizable to the region’s yield potential as a humid region can make some agricultural whole. These types of estimations are not only production systems appear to be sustainable misleading as regional generalizations, but are in areas where, when long-term weather also imprecise at the farmer field scale because patterns are considered, they are not. of local variability in land potential. Note that the Catastrophic examples of the impacts of application of yield gaps should be used with ignoring land potential and the sustainability of caution to avoid unintended consequences, production systems include the degradation (e.g. CIAT 2014). See also the discussion of of southwestern United States rangelands current land use and land cover above. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 3. Carefully match land use and Unsustainable land use and the resultant management with land potential, “Dust Bowl” stripped billions of tons of fertile ensuring the maximum sustainable benefit grassland soil from cultivated fields in the is achieved from each hectare of land, and United States Great Plains during the 1930’s target soil conservation to those lands with (Figure 2). This application requires careful the greatest degradation risk. The concept of risk analysis, including long-term climate data sustainable land use efficiency is similar to that for predicting probabilities of extreme events. of water use efficiency through greater “crop 2. Identify existing agricultural land per drop”. It has been most effectively applied where “yield gaps” exist. A yield gap through policies designed to limit soil erosion

results when yields are below the sustainable on cultivated lands. For example, targeted Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools potential based on current technologies incentives and other measures promoted and management systems. Current national through the EU’s Common Agricultural and global estimates of yield gaps are Policy contributed to a 20% reduction in soil often inaccurate because they are typically erosion on arable lands, and a 9.5% reduction calculated by comparing observed yields to overall (Panagos et al. 2015; Figure 4). This the region’s highest yield. The highest yielding included the adoption of innovative farming ﬁelds may be managed in unsustainable ways systems tailored to farmers’ unique needs that enable high yields for a limited period and objectives.

21 In the United States, Farm Bill policies focusing System contributed to a much higher reduction on reducing cultivation of highly erodible lands in the area of these lands that were cultivated based on the Land Capability Classiﬁcation between 1982 and 2012 (Figure 3).

Figure 2. The United States of America’s “Dust Bowl” Introduction

Source: USDA. Note: Crop failure and soil erosion on land that lacked the potential for sustainable crop production resulted in signiﬁcant environmental disaster, economic upheavel, and social dislocations in the central United States during the 1930’s “Dust Bowl”.

Figure 3. Reduction in cultivated cropland between 1982 and 2012 for each of three types of land guided by application of the Land Capability Classiﬁcation system

15 Area

5 % ReductioninCultivated Cropland 0 Class I All Cultivated HEL*

Source: USDA. Notes: Figure shows that reductions were highest for land at highest risk of degradation. Class I land has no limitations to crop production (including low erosion risk). HEL (Highly Erodible Lands) were deﬁned for this ﬁgure to

22 include classes IIIe, IVe, VI, VII, and VIII.

4. Promote innovation for new management developed under similar conditions. These systems and technologies designed to innovations should have a higher probability exceed current production potential (See of success on their own land than new Section II “Innovation”). management systems developed under 5. Promote innovation by facilitating much different conditions. more rapid knowledge and Each of these beneﬁts may be individually information sharing among individuals and often synergistically achieved through the managing similar types of land. One of the development of new tools for generating and key factors limiting the rate of innovation is the sharing knowledge and information about land rate of relevant knowledge and information potential (Section II) and through targeted policy sharing among innovators. By linking new interventions, education, and both public and management systems to land potential, private investments (Section III). individuals can rapidly identify innovations

Figure 4. Modeled average annual soil loss in arable lands in EU countries Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: Panagos et al. 2015. 23 Land potential evaluation for targeting Land evaluation as a tool for supporting efforts to maintain and restore natural ecosystem services at landscape and semi-natural ecosystems to regional scales Knowledge and understanding of land potential One of the most promising opportunities is to use can also be used to increase the short- and the next generation of land potential evaluation long-term returns of conservation and restoration tools to support and promote the development initiatives, including those designed to support of agricultural production systems that match biodiversity conservation, restoration and land potential at landscape to regional scales. Introduction forest management (e.g. REDD+ ;UNEP 2014). In addition to increasing production while Applications include: maintaining, or increasing, soil quality at the field scale, land potential-based management at 1. Prediction of current and future threats of land landscape to regional scales can, for example, conversion based on the potential value of the result in increased air and water quality, healthier same land for other uses. fisheries and estuarine systems, and prolonged 2. Prediction of the resilience of natural and production of hydroelectric power through semi-natural ecosystems to future stressors. reduced sedimentation of reservoirs. This is a critical, but often ignored, element of biodiversity conservation plans, with the exception of recent increased awareness Land evaluation for forestry of climate change. However, even these Short-term forestry decisions are based on the analyses often ignore how soil variability age, condition and species present. As forest mediates climate impacts, including drought. production increasingly shifts to plantations, 3. Targeting of restoration investments in areas however, soil information can be used to help with both high potential to support ecosystem predict potential productivity and fertilizer services and a high probability of restoration requirements. Land evaluations can also be success, while avoiding those areas with a used to predict the risk that catastrophic drought low probability of success. may either kill the trees directly, or significantly 4. Identification of areas with the highest increase susceptibility to insects and disease. probability for supporting rare and While irrigation is not generally practical, species endangered species (e.g. Baker et al. 2016). selection may vary across soil types, following an analysis similar to that in Table 2 below.

Specific applications of land potential evaluation

Land potential evaluation is most commonly land potential to sustainably increase agricultural used by (1) governments for land use planning production while maintaining or increasing other and taxation at local to national scales, (2) ecosystem services. We will argue that existing agribusiness for selecting and guiding large- land potential knowledge and information could scale land investments, (3) individual farmers, be more effectively applied by a number of ranchers, and private consultants for on-farm other groups, including local and international planning at a number of different scales (Figure 9). development organizations, to increase returns In this report, we will show how each of these on investment. groups can use an improved understanding of

24 Key concepts and definitions

What determines long-term land potential and resistance and resilience. For example, land how is it related to short-term potential, and with deeper soils and higher precipitation will relatively static and dynamic soil properties? usually support more vegetation production, which offers both greater resistance to erosion Lands with similar long-term potential have through protection of the soil surface and similar (1) inherent (relatively static) soil properties greater resilience through quick regeneration of including soil texture, depth and mineralogy, soil organic matter and soil structure. Soils with (2) topography, and (3) climate. These are the higher water holding capacity (clays and loams) fundamental intrinsic properties of the land require irrigation less frequently than those that control primary production. Together, with low capacity (e.g. Table 2). Table 2 also these properties and the primary production shows that individual crops vary in response to they support determine potential degradation soil properties.

Figure 5. Land potential knowledge applications and scales at which the knowledge is commonly applied

Fertilizer rates

Land management/restoration system Crop variety selection Crop type selection

Biodiversity conservation design

Targeting incentives & subsidies

Land use planning

0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 >1,000,000 hectares

Table 2. Average percent of years when various crops can be grown without irrigation for different soils in Norfolk, England

Soil Type Spring barley Sugar beets Potatoes ------% ------Peat 80 60 15 40 cm peat on compact till 55 35 15 Fine sandy loam 40 20 10 40 cm ﬁne sandy loam over sand 30 10 5 Fine loamy over clay 20 15 5

Sand 5 5 0 Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: Calculated from data in Dent and Scammell, 1981. Note: This illustrates that some soils have lower potential than others (e.g. Sand), and that potential varies by crop, with spring barley being most tolerant to droughty soils. For example, spring barley can be grown on a ﬁne sandy loam soil without irrigation 4 of 10 years (40%), but only 1 out of 20 years (5%) on sandy soils.

25 The short-term potential for an area of land profile, (2) Topography can be changed through to provide specific ecosystem services at the modification of the land surface, provided that a particular point in time depend on: (1) the modification is geomorphically stable without relatively static soil and climate properties that maintenance. Terraces that are not maintained, also determine land potential, (2) dynamic however, can ultimately increase soil erosion soil properties, and (3) the condition and (Figure 8). (3) Climate change permanently productivity of the vegetation itself. Vegetation modifies land potential, but irrigation does productivity depends on soil and climate, but not. Like fertilization and terracing, irrigation is also independently affected by management represents an attempt by humans to temporarily Introduction (Figure 1). Relatively dynamic soil properties exceed land potential. change rapidly with time and can usually be Land potential can be temporarily increased managed through the use of external inputs, through the provision of inputs that reduce limits plant cover and species composition (e.g. cover to plant growth, such as fertilizers and irrigation. crops), and disturbance (e.g. tillage). Dynamic Where the problem is too much water, excess properties include water table depth (Figure 7), amounts can be removed by installing and soil organic matter, nutrient availability, structure, maintaining sub-surface tile drains, or even and often salinity. Salinity can also be a relatively through active pumping, as occurs in many low- static property if the material from which the soil lying areas of northern Europe. is derived is saline. Instead of increasing plant limiting resource Can land potential be permanently or availability through water and nutrient inputs, temporarily increased? which is a temporary solution, land potential can also be permanently exceeded by increasing Sometimes. The inherent potential of a particular resource use efficiency. This can be achieved piece of land can be relatively permanently by breeding plants that are better able to increased or decreased through a change in the extract, conserve and utilize these resources, following three groups of factors. (1) Relatively and through the development and adoption of static soil properties change with erosion, innovative management systems that do the deposition, mechanical inversion of the soil same. Please see “Raising the bar” below.

Figure 6. Relationship between factors determining long-term land potential and the land’s short-term potential to generate ecosystem services.

Current availability of (most) ecosystem services

Current plant production

Water and nutrient availability to plants

Relatively dynamic Current land soil properties management including inputs Land degradation Weather

Historic land management including inputs

Topography Relatively static soil properties !"#$%&' FACTORS DETERMINING LAND POTENTIAL

Note: Inputs include nutrients, water, organic matter and energy 26 Figure 7. Effect of soil type on relative declines in potential grass production with lowering of the water table for four soils in the Netherlands

Figure 8. Terraced hillsides in Northern Germany (a) and Ethiopia (b) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: J. Herrick and G. Zeleke. Note: Lack of terrace maintenance, likely associated with changes in the ratio of the value of agricultural production and the cost of labor necessary for maintenance, resulted in destabilization of terraced hillsides in northern Germany (a), while they are being maintained in this photo from Ethiopia (b). This demonstrates that terraces allow land potential to be exceeded only while they are maintained. When abandoned, they can leave the land susceptible to even greater rates of erosion than before it was converted to agriculture until the original slope is re-formed and stabilized by native vegetation. 27 Does soil biodiversity contribute to land through, for example, soil biota contribute to soil potential? nutrient cycling, which is necessary to maintain soil fertility. For more information on the role Soil biodiversity is a dynamic property of the of soil biodiversity in supporting ecosystem soil, like soil organic matter and soil fertility, services, please see Wall et al. 2012 and the which depends on long-term land potential. The new Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas. vast majority of soil biota ultimately depends on photosynthetically fixed carbon (i.e. plants). Where there are no plants or other organic matter, What is the role of current land use and land Introduction there are virtually no soil biota. Additionally, cover in determining land potential? the potential biomass and diversity of the soil There is a strong tendency to confound current biota community depends on the physical land use and land cover with inherent land factors that determine overall land potential, potential. This confusion exists in many of the including climate and soil texture, mineralogy existing land potential evaluation systems. and depth. Feedbacks between plant and soil For this reason, it is critical to first define land biota communities and soil disturbance (e.g. by potential for a particular piece of land, then management) determine the soil biodiversity at identify potential land uses, and only then select any particular point in time. from among the sustainable land uses that is based on potential. Evaluation of land potential Potential soil biodiversity is much higher, for is therefore an element of land use planning example, in the Amazon than in Antarctica. Like processes, which are frequently designed to vegetation, managing for soil biodiversity is address specific land use objectives based necessary to realize the full potential to support on social and economic factors (Jones et al. many ecosystem services (Wall et al. 2012). In 2005; Figure 9). See also the discussion of yield summary, soil biota depend on long-term land gaps below. potential, and contribute to short-term potential

Figure 9. Three legged sustainability stool showing land potential as the foundation of the environmental leg for terrestrial ecosystems

28 What is the relationship between land potential land through external inputs and technology, or and land evaluation? may limit potential uses based on, for example, the impacts of a particular land use on the use of In 1985, the Food and Agriculture Organization adjacent land (Rossiter 1996, FAO 2007). of the United Nations (FAO) defined land evaluation as “the process of assessment of land performance when [the land is] used for What is the relationship between land potential specific purposes” (FAO 1984). Land evaluation and “safe operating space”? was later defined as “all methods to explain or The concept of a safe operating space (SOS) predict the use potential of land” (van Diepen has been proposed for a number of earth et al. 1991), while Rossiter (1996) defined land system processes, including land use change evaluation as the “process of predicting the use (Rockström et al. 2009, UNEP 2014). An potential of land on the basis of its attributes”. understanding of land potential is necessary to maintain land use within the SOS. From Land evaluation aims to answer the following local to global levels, an understanding of land questions (FAO 1976): potential can be used to reduce the amount of 1. How is land presently managed, and what land required to meet human needs by taking will happen if present practices remain advantage of unexploited opportunities to unchanged? sustainably increase generation of ecosystem 2. What possible improvements of management services per unit area. practices are feasible within the present use? 3. What other uses of land are physically possible, economically and socially relevant, Additional definitions and which of these offers sustained production Hyperlinks are provided for other key terms used in and benefits? this report where commonly accepted definitions exist. Where necessary, we have also included in- This report focuses on the potential net primary text definitions the first time a term is used. The production of the land as the foundation for primary sources for these definitions are: use-specific land evaluations. Evaluations must http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/ consider social and economic factors that may Portals/24102/PDFs/IRP_Draft_Glossary.pdf increase the potential for a particular piece of and Oxford Dictionaries.

Existing literature

There is a large body of literature that includes literature. Some have been scanned, but many textbooks describing, promoting, and assessing of the earlier ones are slowly disappearing into individual land evaluation systems (e.g. Dent and refuse and recycling heaps. Land resource Young 1981, EUROCONSULT 1989, McKenzie surveys in current and former British overseas et al. 2008). The FAO completed a review of the territories were cataloged in a fascinating book Agro-ecological zoning system that included by Young (2007). The summary in Appendix recommendations for the system’s enhancement 2, together with the WOSSAC.com and Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools (FAO 2007). This included a strong emphasis ISRIC.org websites can be used as a starting on participatory land use planning processes. point for locating archived copies of these maps This literature, and the earlier development of and publications. The survey dates reﬂects the the Land Capability Classiﬁcation and Agro- global decline of work on land evaluation (Dent Ecological Zoning Systems (see Section I), and Dalal-Clayton 2014; Young 2007). supported the generation of a large number A recent review of the current status of of local to national studies between 1960 and land resource information (Dent and Dalal- 1990 that were generally published in the grey

29 Clayton 2014), concludes that (a) the amount immediately, while acknowledging that many of of information necessary to complete land the ideas proposed by Rossiter remain relevant evaluations that is currently being collected and merit further research. is woefully inadequate (page 9), and (b) the Recent conversations with national policymakers technical capacity necessary to generate involved in land use planning in several and interpret this information has declined countries indicate that a review is necessary to significantly (page 45). Both of these conclusions provide policymakers with the capacity to select are supported by the decline of soil survey and appropriate land evaluation tools for informing land evaluation in countries such as the United Introduction decisions based on land potential. These tools Kingdom, Australia and Namibia. The Namibian need to be able to (1) advise on solutions to Ministry of Agriculture, for example, employed emerging land use conflicts, (2) take advantage just one soil scientist in 2015. of newly available technologies and sources of Our report is influenced by a theoretical information, (3) evolve with the development of framework for land evaluation (Rossiter 1996), innovative technologies and climate change, and and by published responses to it (Bouma 1996, (4) explicitly consider land resilience in addition Burrough 1996, de Gruijter 1996, van Ranst to land potential production and degradation 1996, Johnson 1996, McBratney 1996). In resistance. particular, we took note of the observation that, All of the literature cited in this report is available “the theoretical approach, does not provide on the report’s website at http://landpotential. “…answers to often-asked questions, such as org/additional-resources.html. This website how to determine weighting factors or how to is being continuously updated with links to rate land-use requirements” (van Ranst 1996). additional relevant reports and websites. The Recognizing this limitation, we have focused entire contents of the literature database can be this report on providing practical policy and downloaded to both commercial and free (e.g. management options that can be applied Mendeley) bibliographic software programs.

Public website and embedded hyperlinks

Website Hyperlinks This report is supported by a publicly-available In addition to the hyperlinks to cited publications, website (http://landpotential.org), which provides the electronic version of the article will include additional information, including links to the tools numerous links to directly connect readers with described in this report. It also allows users to additional online resources, including deﬁnitions, connect directly from the electronic version of this and relevant webpages. report to cited articles and publications (subject to access limitations). The authors, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) Jornada Research Unit, will continue to update this website as resources allow.

Credit: DnDavis, Shutterstock.com Credit: 8*9:!;< ! *+),#)"-./0"&.1%#2"#)0/. 230/'0#)%".,4,#25,6. $23)27.0"&.011/)(0#)%", 1.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of two of the application. This section is limited, in part, by the more widely applied land potential evaluation dwindling number of individuals engaged in land systems (1.2 and 1.3). This is followed by a brief potential evaluation, and qualiﬁed to provide case overview of applications of land evaluations. A studies. A somewhat more extensive and even set of case studies illustrating the global diversity more critical review of the current status of land of applications is provided in the Appendix. The evaluation globally is provided in the International summary and conclusions consider the utility of Institute for Environment and Development report existing systems and identify challenges to their (Dent and Dalal-Clayton 2014).

1.2 USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) System and Highly Erodible Lands (HEL)

The Land Capability Classification (LCC; Figure ` Class III soils have severe limitations that 10) system, developed in the United States in reduce the crop options and/or require special the 1930s, was one of the first widely applied conservation practices. land potential evaluation systems designed ` Class IV soils have very severe limitations that specifically to inform appropriate land use in restrict the crop options and/or require robust efforts to prevent land degradation. The LCC conservation management plans. provided a framework for classifying land by ` Class V soils are not prone to erosion, but grouping soils on the basis of their capacity agronomic production is restricted by other for producing commonly cultivated crops and limitations that are impractical to remedy; these pastures relative to the capacity of other soils soils are typically used as pasture, rangeland, in the same region (Klingebiel and Montgomery forestland, or wildlife habitat. 1961, NRCS 1973). The LCC system parses land ` Class VI soils have severe limitations that into eight classes based on broad interpretations make them unsuitable for cultivation; these of soil and topographic factors that affect soils are more suitably managed as pasture, agricultural yields and soil erosion. Criteria rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. include location in the landscape, soil texture ` Class VII soils have very severe limitations that and depth, slope, and other soil properties that make them unsuitable for cultivation; these impact plant growth and erosion risk. Classes soils are typically managed as rangeland, I to IV are considered suitable for agronomic forestland, or wildlife habitat. production and cultivation, with varying levels ` Class VIII soils are unsuitable for cultivated of conservation treatments required to ensure cropland production or grazing management, sustainable yield and minimize environmental but may be used for recreation, wildlife habitat, impacts based on the above criteria. Classes V water supplies, and/or aesthetic purposes. to VII have limitations associated with them that

All soils, except Class I, exhibit one or more Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools make the land more suitable for pasture, range, limitations that must be managed for agronomic or other management uses. Limitations of Class production to be sustainable. These limitations VIII land are so severe that it generally cannot be are defined by four “capability subclasses” sustainably and productively managed for any which are defined based on the factor causing type of resource extraction. the limitation. They include erosion susceptibility, There are eight classes: excess water, climatic limitations, and other soil ` Class I soils have only slight limitations that limitations. Soil limitations can include stoniness, restrict their agronomic use. low-moisture holding capacity, low levels of ` Class II soils have moderate limitations, which fertility that are difficult to correct, high salinity, reduce the producer’s crop selection and/or rooting restrictions, or tendency for shrinking require moderate conservation practices. and cracking when drying. 33 Figure 10. USDA Land Capability Classification system matrix showing that the range of sustainable land use options declines for land with high (Class I) to low (Class VIII) potential Section I Increase in intensity of land use Land capability Grazing Cultivation Wildlife Forestry Very class Limited Moderate Intense Limited Moderate Intense Intense I

Decreased III Increased adaptability IV limitations and and freedom of V hazard choice of uses VI

VII

VIII

Land in each subclass may be further divided to be used as a decision support tool across into “capability units” on the basis of common large areas, but rather to contextualize land response to management. The soils in each use decision-making in a specific geographical capability unit are similar enough that their area. In other words, a specific soil series may production and conservation plans will be the be classified as a class II soil in one location, same: they will be suited to grow similar crops, while in a distant location the same soil might be require similar conservation management, classified as a class III soil. Where required, the respond similarly to the same management, and extent of inconsistency can easily be evaluated, provide similar production. at least for soil erosion, by applying soil erosion models to a range of soil types in each of several

Existing land potential evaluation systems: review and applications Soil class determinations in the LCC system can states with similar soils, climate, and topography. change over time due to management-induced changes. For example, accelerated erosion and In 1985 the application of LCC as a soil salt accumulation can reduce soil potential, conservation policy tool was largely replaced while new crop varieties or new farming in the United States by use of “Highly Erodible technologies, such as no till, may support Lands” designations: land with an erodibility sustainable production on land where it was not index of 8 or more. In order to receive government previously possible. support for crop production on these lands, producers must develop a conservation plan, In his review of the LCC, Helms (Helms 1997) and maintain a conservation system of practices emphasizes that the system was designed to that keep erosion rates low (USDA-FSA 2012). support farm-scale soil and water conservation. The qualitative LCC system is based on However, the LCC assessments continue to local observations, local farmer and rancher be made available for most land in the United knowledge, and science, enabling provision States through the Web Soil Survey (USDA- of sound management guidance at the land- NRCS 2013). It is used in the development of manager scale. However, the qualitative and some farm-level conservation plans, which subjective nature of the assessment, while are required for some government support making the system adaptable to local conditions, programs, including the Conservation Reserve also contributes to a limitation— inconsistency at Program, which pays farmers not to farm highly larger spatial scales. The LCC was not designed erodible lands, wetlands, and land with high

34 value for wildlife habitat. It is also used in some New Zealand, which developed 1:63,360 scale areas for land valuation for taxation, and has maps for the entire nation (New Zealand Ministry also been applied by other countries, including of Works and Development 1979).

1.3 FAO Agro-Ecological Zoning (AEZ and GAEZ) System

Overview agro-environment and accounting for problems, The FAO has developed both a framework for both environmental and socio-economic, arising land evaluation (FAO 1976, FAO 1996, Verheye from the competition among land uses. It is still, 2007) and a system for predicting the potential however, based on the understanding that land production of a wide variety of crops for specific use options are ultimately constrained by the different types of land. biophysical potential of the land. This biophysical potential is operationally defined through the The original FAO evaluation framework was first Agro-ecological Zoning system. presented at a meeting in Wageningen, the Netherlands, in 1972. The framework was further Agro-ecological Zoning (AEZ) discussed and refined, and eventually published The 1976 framework established the conceptual in 1976 as “A framework for Land evaluation” in and methodological basis for land evaluation an FAO soils bulletin (FAO 1976, Verheye 2007). (Figure 11). In 1978, the FAO Agro-ecological This framework differed from earlier systems by zones project was initiated (FAO 1976). This starting with the requirements for a particular land was an early application of land evaluation to utilization type (LUT), which was then matched to large areas based on biophysical potential. It the land under evaluation. A land utilization type involved land characterization using quantified is a “kind of land use defined in more detail [than information on climate, soils, and other physical a major land use], according to a set of technical factors. The end product was aimed at descriptors…in a given physical, economic and predicting the potential production for various social setting” (FAO 1976). The term LUT is often crops according to their specific combination of equated with the “farming system”. management and environmental needs. The framework describes land evaluation as An Agro-ecological Zone is a land resource being concerned with the assessment of land mapping unit, defined in terms of climate, performance when used for specified purposes, landform, soils, and/or land cover, and therefore and stresses that alternative land use types with a specific range of potentials and constraints have not only to be limited by climate, soils for land use. and vegetation, but also physical, social and economic context of the area being considered The essential elements for classification are: (FAO 1976). ` Land resource inventory ` Inventory of land utilization types and crop The 2007 revision emphasizes the need for a requirements bottom up approach to evaluation, involving

` Land suitability evaluation, including: Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools stakeholders at all stages of the process and • Potential maximum yield calculation including the addition of an environmental impact • Matching of constraints and and risk assessment section to the valuation requirements process. It expands on many of the criteria from the first framework, reflecting contemporary The Agro-ecological Cell (AEC) is the basic problems like carbon sequestration and the processing unit for physical analysis in an AEZ value of biodiversity. The revised framework study. An AEC is defined by a unique combination also reflects the importance of monitoring the of landform, soil, and climatic characteristics. In

35 theory, the methodology and input variables into in land resource appraisal. In many tropical the AEZ are scale independent. The objectives areas, conditions are too dry during part of the of the study and the map scale deﬁne the level year for crop growth without irrigation, while in

Section I of detail to which factors, such as soils, climate, temperate climatic regimes cold temperatures and land utilization types, are deﬁned. limit crop production in winter. The growing period deﬁnes the period of the year when The concept of the growing period is essential to both moisture and temperature conditions are AEZ, and provides a way of including seasonality suitable for crop production.

Figure 11. Conceptual framework for the Agro-ecological zones methodology.

Land Land use and (primary agronomic data climate, soil, terrain, and land cover data)

Land utilization Data analysis types 1 (secondary 2 (LUT) data)

LUT (crop) Land resources requirements database Yield calculator Matching of LUT 3 requirements with land resources

Existing land potential evaluation systems: review and applications Socioeconomics and Crop suitability demography 4 5 Applications for Land productivity of agricultural cropping systems development planning

Source: FAO

For estimation of potential productivity, AEZ The FAO has done an impressive job of uses the concept of a maximum attainable total developing thousands of LUT’s and effectively biomass and yield. For a specified Land Utilization documenting the range of variability in current Type (LUT), the potential maximum yield is agricultural production systems. The result, determined by: (1) the radiation and temperature however, also illustrates the practical limitations characteristics of a particular location, (2) the of any classification system that mixes land use photosynthetic efficiency of the crop, and (3) the with land potential. First, the number of possible fraction of net biomass that the crop can convert to combinations is virtually infinite. A commonly cited economically useful yield. This potential maximum example from Kenya illustrates that despite the yield is used as an input to the process of matching complexity of the system, the recommendations of agro-climatic and edaphic requirements with remain quite general. Even at this finest level of the qualities and characteristics of the land units definition, statements such as the following are defined in the inventory. necessarily common: “…The major constraint

36 is the unreliable rainfall in both short and long powerful, web-based tool that allows anyone to rainy seasons. Shallow stony soils may occur, determine the potential production of hundreds which render ox-farming both technically and of crops virtually anywhere in the world based economically impossible, as well as slopes…” on global soil and climate databases (Fisher (FAO 2014). Second, like the LCC, the FAO AEZ et al. 2002). Accessing the “Agro-ecological system has the potential to stiﬂe innovation by suitability and productivity” sub-section of the forcing innovative land management systems “Suitability and Potential Yield” section of the into pre-existing boxes, rather than dynamically GAEZ Data Portal allows the user to select from evaluating each new system (see Section II). three different levels of inputs. Please note that The AEZ has been adapted for application for simple registration with FAO is required, with a number of countries, including Canada, where subsequent guest login (located in the upper it was used to develop the “Land Potential Data right corner of portal as of 7 October 2014). Base” (Kirkwood et al. 2013). This system enables general predictions of potential production of different crops. Unlike the Global Agro-ecological Zoning (GAEZ) LCC, which focused on sustainable long-term production and minimal soil deterioration, the Advances in information technology since GAEZ focus is on agricultural productivity rather 2000 have made classiﬁcation of Global Agro- than sustainability. ecological zones possible. The GAEZ is a

1.4 Land potential evaluation for valuation and taxation: the European experience

Europe provides numerous examples of towards a multi-purpose cadaster, detailed soil how land evaluation has been used to guide assessment data have been recorded in German resettlement, reclamation, and especially cadasters since 1934 (Mohr and Ratzke 2009). taxation. It has been an integral part of many To the extent that different types of land were cadastral surveys. Recorded use of surveys valued differently based on their characteristics, dates back to the Roman Empire and there the current use and condition or status of the are numerous examples of how land potential land, rather than its potential, historically received was implicitly or explicitly integrated into land sometimes more attention. This was particularly valuations. “The Cadastral Map in the Service of the case for forested land where tree cover the State: A History of Property Mapping” (Kain could be viewed as an asset, because of the and Baigent 1992) provides a thorough review of value for timber (e.g. France, ibid, p. 210 ff), or land mapping, and includes a large number of as a liability, where removal of woody vegetation specific examples. A 1:15000 map of a lowland was a cost of conversion to agriculture. area in Italy commissioned in 1570, identified land susceptible to flooding (ibid, p. 332). Today, the contribution of biophysical land potential to land valuation in wealthy, densely There are a number of historical examples of

populated countries is often minimal relative to Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools potential-based land evaluations being used to other considerations, such as location of the support cadastral registries. Russia has been land in relation to markets, infrastructure, and using a land rating system based on potential other amenities. This is due to the premium yields and underlying soil information since placed on land for residential and commercial 1859 (Goryelik 1967). The Austro-Hungarian purposes. It also reﬂects the extent to which monarchy introduced land cadaster and 1:2.880 some factors limiting land potential, such as scale map sheets, including yield capacity- low rainfall, soils with low nutrient retention based land values dating back to 1875 (http:// capacity, steep slopes, and poor drainage, can www.cadastraltemplate.org/). As a ﬁrst step be overcome with management inputs, such as

37 irrigation, slow-release and split applications land potential limitations can, however, result in of fertilizers, terracing, and drainage systems catastrophic degradation in the future if inputs (Figure 12). The use of technology to overcome are not maintained (e.g. Figure 2). Section I

1.5 Sub-surface resources: a footnote

Deﬁning potential of land for “above ground land uses” by implication can help inform decisions Figure 12. Land near Berlin, Germany with low potential for agricultural regarding the use of the land for other competing production due to poor drainage uses, such as mining of sub-surface resources. The land-potential evaluation systems described here do not address potential for sub-surface resource development. However, they can be used together with additional information to support beneﬁt-cost analyses of different sub-surface resource exploitation strategies. For example, directional drilling is much more expensive, but allows for a much smaller footprint on the land surface per unit resource extracted because a larger volume of oil and gas is accessed with multiple wells from a single platform than is possible from a single, vertical well. An evaluation of surface land potential can Source: J. Herrick. be used to help decide whether to make a larger investment in minimizing surface impacts. Existing land potential evaluation systems: review and applications Figure 13. Sub-surface resources should be considered when applying land evaluation to land use planning

Crédit: HildeAnna, Shutterstock.com.

38 1.6 Summary and conclusions: existing land evaluation systems

Land potential evaluations based on both the LCC with policymakers in several countries reinforces and AEZ systems have been widely applied at the importance of the fourth limitation, while at farm to national levels throughout the world. More the same time reflecting concerns that the more complex, and in some cases comprehensive, detailed system (AEZ) is too complicated to evaluations have been generated using systems both implement and interpret. This is despite the such as ALES (Section 3.1) and by applying the fact that the GAEZ has made generalized AEZ basic concepts of land evaluation as described in predictions easily available to anyone with basic textbooks (e.g. Dent and Young 1981, McKenzie et internet navigation skills. al. 2008). A subset of these evaluations has been Nevertheless, where land evaluations have been used to guide land use planning. An even smaller applied to policy and management, they have subset of these plans appears to have been used often had a tremendous impact. Australia, for to guide management (Bacic et al. 2003). example, has effectively applied its soil surveys The widespread application of the simpler LCC and land evaluation systems through a wide system long after the introduction of the AEZ variety of legislation (Capelin 2008). Some of and other more sophisticated approaches is the largest impacts have been achieved with the perplexing. There are two possible explanations simplest systems. For example, the USDA has why it, together with the US Bureau of a relatively simple definition of “highly erodible Reclamation’s classification system for irrigated lands” to require the application of conservation land (FAO 1985), remain the most widely practices to millions of hectares of private used systems land evaluation systems (Dent lands in the United States as a pre-requisite to and Dalal-Clayton 2014). One is that the LCC qualifying for some government programs. This addresses both sustainability (erosion) and requirement, together with the application of productivity limitations, while AEZ focuses on minimum tillage technologies to limit erosion, is potential productivity. The second is that it is often cited to explain the dramatic 40% reduction simpler to apply and understand. In Zambia, for in soil erosion on US croplands between 1982 example “soil maps and land evaluation following and 2007 (Figure 14). the latest FAO guidelines were eschewed by Similarly, the reduction of freshwater wetland planners who continued to use the familiar Land loss in the continental United States excluding Capability Classification” (Woode 1981 cited in the state of Alaska from approximately 100,000 Dent and Dalal-Clayton 2014). ha/year between the mid-1970s to the mid- In one of the few published studies attempting 1980s (calculated from Dahl and Johnson 1991) to explain the lack of application of land use to less than 2,000 ha/year between 2004 and decision support tools, agricultural extension 2009 (Dahl 2011) was achieved in part by the specialists were surveyed to determine the willingness of policymakers to acknowledge that “success of a large land evaluation exercise wetlands provide sufficient ecosystem services undertaken as part of micro-catchment project to justify preservation and federal support, of Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools in the Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil” scientists to accept a relatively simple definition (Bacic et al. 2003). The primary limitations of wetlands, and of landowners to adopt wetland cited included the lack of: (1) risk assessments construction, remediation, and/or conservation of environmental degradation, weather, yields, on their privately held agricultural lands. The profits, and markets, (2) financial analysis, (3) decision to accept a simple definition was at social analysis of decision-makers’ attitudes and odds with the recommendation of many land preferences, and (4) lack of a specific definition of evaluation experts who wanted to increase land use types. Our own informal conversations complexity of the definition.

39 Figure 14. Changes in soil erosion from US croplands between 1982 and 2007 Section I

Source: Based on USDA-NRCS National Resource Inventory data.

Based on these observations together with the based on soil erosion risk, can result in massive rates of land degradation described in the first reductions in land degradation. As the Brazilian IRP report on land (UNEP 2014), we conclude study (Bacic et al. 2003) demonstrates, however, that there are significant benefits to applying application of the biophysical land potential existing (including simple) tools now while evaluation is necessary, but not sufficient step

Existing land potential evaluation systems: review and applications also continuing to develop more sophisticated to applying the results: they must applied with evaluation systems. Even the simplest tools, an understanding of socioeconomic and cultural such as a land use classiﬁcation systems factors that ultimately drive land use decisions.

40 Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

41 Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation =$)"()1/2,.>%$.)51$%3)"-. 230/'0#)%".,4,#25,.0"&. 2+),#)"-./0"&.1%#2"#)0/. 8*9:!;< &232/%1)"-.#?2."2+#.

Credit: ndphoto, Shutterstock.com !! -2"2$0#)%" . 2.1 Overview

Land potential evaluation requires an This section begins with a brief overview of the understanding of numerous biophysical biophysical processes that link disturbance, processes interacting at multiple spatial degradation, and recovery. The discussion of recovery is expanded to include resilience in the and temporal scales. Ideally, it also requires following chapter. Suggestions are provided on foresight to predict the climate, human needs, how to incorporate an understanding of spatial land management systems, and technologies scale into land potential evaluations. These over the next 10, 50, 100 years and beyond. suggestions are followed by an introduction to While this is clearly impossible, we can increase ecosystem services, land potential evaluation our ability to accurately predict the response tools, and how land potential can be used to of the land to different types of disturbance, promote innovation. The section concludes because the response of the land depends on a by integrating the information provided into a fundamental set of biophysical processes. simple, practical strategy for estimating land potential today, while continuing to improve estimates for the future.

2.2 Disturbance, degradation and recovery

Disturbance broadly includes anything that that allows tools such as at the Automated Land causes a change to the state of a system, Evaluation System (ALES) and the global Land- including management. Degradation occurs Potential Knowledge System (Section 3.1) to be when the disturbance causes a negative change applied globally. in the capacity of the system to provide ecosystem The same principle applies to recovery. Soils services. Whether or not a disturbance causes that have a high capacity to recover fertility degradation depends on the properties of both through weathering under a particular climate the disturbance and the system being disturbed. will have that capacity, regardless of the cause There are 5 types of properties that deﬁne a of the fertility loss. This of course assumes the disturbance: type, timing, frequency, intensity soil biota that contribute to soil weathering are and duration. The impact of disturbance on the still present, or can re-colonize the site. Finally, land is governed by a relatively limited set of well- this ability to extrapolate based on physical understood biological and physical forces and principles also extends to landscape processes, such as gully formation. In summary, while processes. The impact of new disturbances on it is impossible to predict land response to soils can often be predicted simply by analogy disturbance with certainty, an understanding of with past disturbances through their cumulative soil and landscape processes can be used to effects on these processes. For example, soils improve predictions of land potential. that are sensitive to compaction from livestock Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools trampling when wet are also likely to be easily The relative importance of different types of land compacted by vehicle trafﬁc. Similarly, an degradation therefore varies widely depending understanding of how a particular soil and on the disturbance regime and recovery climate combination respond to a management capacity (see Resilience). In much of the world, system in one part of the world can be applied soil erosion is the primary form of relatively to predict the response of similar soil and climate irreversible land degradation. In parts of China combinations to similar management systems in and other areas with a history of intensive another part of the world. This is the principle and relatively unregulated industrial activity,

43 however, soil contamination is believed to be soil contamination. The Chinese government as great or greater of a challenge due to both recently reported that 16.1% of its soil and 19.4% point-source and diffuse deposition. Pesticides of its farmland has been contaminated by one or

Section II and other agricultural inputs can also cause more pollutants (Strub 2014).

2.3 Resilience

Introduction The factors and processes that confer resistance are often quite different from those Land can maintain its potential to provide that support resilience. For example, while the ecosystem services by either resisting or rapidly most important factors contributing to long-term while undergoing change so as to still retain erosion resistance are slope and ground cover, essentially the same function, structure, identity, long-term resilience primarily depends more on and feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004); Figure soil depth, which ensures that material remains 15). From a practical perspective, however, the to re-generate topsoil lost to erosion, while high concepts of resistance and resilience are more plant productivity provides the organic matter effectively applied independently following the inputs necessary to support the regeneration definitions used by engineers (Seybold et al. 1999, of soil structure and nutrient cycling processes. Pimm 1984, Lal 1997), with resistance defined Degradation resistance is already integrated into as the capacity of a system to maintain function some widely applied land potential evaluation through a disturbance and resilience defined systems, including the LCC (Chapter 1.2) and as the capacity to recover from disturbance. ALES (Section 3.1), so the focus of this section is Resilience can be quantified either in terms of the on recovery capacity (resilience). rate or extent of recovery within a specified time period at one or more spatial scales.

Figure 15. Conceptual illustration of the impacts of resistance and resilience on temporal changes in ecosystem services Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation

44 Factors determining potential resilience weathering, which tends to increase soil nutrient availability, enabling more biomass production, The potential resilience of land and soil depends which enhances site productivity with positive on the same factors that determine potential feedback loops. Furthermore, topography and productivity: topography, relatively static soil geology affect factors such as soil depth, with properties, and climate. All three of these soft sedimentary rocks more likely to result in factors affect resilience primarily through their resilient ecosystems than shallow soils over hard effects on water and nutrient availability to bedrock. Finally, geology is the ultimate control plants, which provide the organic matter inputs on soil mineralogy. While mineralogy is also necessary to support nutrient cycling and soil affected by the duration and types of weathering structure development. As for productivity, the of the parent material, the physical material from actual resilience of an area at a particular point which the soil is composed of limits the types in time depends on vegetation and the status and relative amounts of minerals that can occur of relatively dynamic soil properties (below). in a soil. These minerals, and particularly the Finally, both potential and actual resilience can clay minerals, have an overriding effect on both vary depending on the type, timing, frequency, water holding capacity and the ability of the soil and intensity of the disturbance (White and to retain and make available plant nutrients, in Jentsch 2004). addition to serving as the ultimate source of Climate virtually all of these nutrients.

Climate is clearly the primary factor controlling Relatively static soil properties potential productivity at the global scale. For this Relatively static soil properties contribute to long- reason it is also the primary factor controlling term soil resilience. These include soil texture recovery potential. and depth (Table 3). Soils rich in clay can store Topography and geology large amounts of nutrients, while those high in silt are better for storing plant-available water, but Topography affects resilience primarily through soils high in sand generally have higher potential the effect of slope, slope shape and landscape water infiltration rates. Therefore, soils with high position on water runoff rate. Runoff rates are clay content tend to be more productive and generally higher on steeper, convex slopes, resilient than shallow sandy soils on shallow which reduce water infiltration relative to gentler, slopes, in which, if waterlogging is not an issue, concave slopes in lower landscape positions, nutrients tend to be more limiting than water. which tend to have higher water infiltration rates. Lower water infiltration rates mean less water Soil depth affects resilience both directly and available to plants and therefore slower soil indirectly. Very deep (>2m) homogenous soils organic matter production. Slope and aspect have higher potential resilience to soil erosion also affect resilience by controlling water loss than shallow soils. However, deep soils that are due to evapotranspiration, particularly at higher not homogenous vary in their potential resilience. latitudes. In colder climates aspect may also For example, water infiltration rate of a soil with impact snow accumulation, depending on the 20cm of sand over a clay layer drops precipitously dominant wind direction. Therefore, all of these as the soil surface is removed. Soils with coarser factors affect plant water availability. Over surfaces are quite common throughout the world Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools longer periods, higher soil moisture content because clay is translocated to deeper depths also generally results in higher rates of soil as soils form over time.

45 Table 3. Typical impacts of some relatively static soil properties on resilience in semi-arid to sub-humid regions. Texture High clay content Ability to store nutrients increases resilience* Section II High silt content Ability to store water increases resilience High sand content A higher potential water inﬁltration rate increases resilience, but lower water storage decreases. Depth Deep vertically homogeneous soils Higher potential resilience Deep non-homogenous soils Vary in potential resilience Shallow soils Low potential resilience *Can also reduce resilience where clays reduce availability of nutrient inputs (e.g. from organic matter decomposition and mineralization).

Relatively dynamic properties years under cold and/or dry conditions where Relatively dynamic soil properties, such as soil inputs and nutrient cycling (biological activity) organic matter, also contribute to resilience. are slow. Similarly, natural nitrogen recovery may Because they are dynamic, however, they be slow where the natural substrate is poor (sand, are often impaired as part of the degradation rocks, etc.). Nitrogen cycling rates can clearly process. Consequently, while they may be accelerated and directed by human inputs contribute to degradation resistance, their of various kinds (Aradottir and Hagen 2013). contribution to resilience depends on their Finally, current species composition, a dynamic resistance to the particular disturbance. property of the system, has a major effect on Relatively static properties are therefore better the rate of vegetation changes associated with predictors of long-term resilience. restoration of natural systems (Whisenant 1999). This in turn, has significant impacts on dynamic In forest and rangeland systems, vegetation soil properties, including soil structure and also contributes to resilience (Bestelmeyer and organic matter content and composition. Briske 2012). Plant communities of all types can be, and usually are, dynamic at management Speci!ed vs. general resilience timescales. The contribution of different types A distinction between specified and general of vegetation to resilience depends on their resilience (Walker et al. 2009) can help more persistence through time and response to clearly define the resilience of the system to different types of disturbance, as well as their specific threats, vs. the overall resilience of the impacts on key ecosystem processes, such system relative to a broad range of disturbances. as slowing runoff on sloping soils, or cycling While all of the factors discussed above are nutrients in low-fertility systems. important for a broad range of disturbances, some are more important than others for resilience Variability and interactions to more types of disturbance. For example, deep The impact of topography, soils, and climate on soils with uniform texture throughout the profile resilience vary widely. An Arctic system may be often have higher general resilience because the adapted to drought and have adequate to large soil profile can be reconstructed following soil nutrient reserves in belowground biomass, but surface loss or degradation simply through the the system may be quite susceptible to wind accumulation of soil organic matter. However, Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation erosion and trampling. A dryland system with low a soil with a higher clay content may have a annual rainfall may be susceptible to overgrazing higher specified resilience to contamination by or cropping, as the organic matter reserves are particular types of chemicals because of the easily depleted; these same systems may be larger number of available exchange surfaces. well adapted to moderate grazing pressures, droughts and other disturbances. For a comprehensive guide to integrating resilience into development projects that For example nitrogen recovery through natural takes into account both specified and general processes can take tens or even hundreds of resilience, please see O’Connell et al. 2016.

46 Limitations of existing land potential degradation can be predicted through application evaluation systems or frameworks in of a relatively small number of indicators (Table 4). addressing resilience These predictions are necessarily general, and Some widely applied land potential evaluation there are many exceptions. systems address degradation resistance (e.g. the LCC). None, however, reﬂect resilience: the In general, deeper soils, with high soil water ability of the land to recover, or the potential rate holding and nutrient retention capacity, tend of recovery. to recover from disturbances faster and more completely than shallower soils. The relationships Integrating resilience into land potential also vary with climate. Topographic positions evaluation systems with high solar insolation will tend to have higher Consideration of all of the factors that affect resilience in systems where production is limited resilience related to all possible types of by low temperatures, while those with lower degradation is clearly impossible. However, insolation will tend to be more productive, and resilience to the dominant forms of land therefore more resilient, where water is limiting.

Table 4. Indicators that can be used to predict resilience to the dominant forms of land degradation.

Degradation Type Erosion Salinization due to elevated Salinization due to Compaction (wind, water, tillage) saline groundwater saline irrigation water Resilience • Precipitation* • Drainage • Precipitation • Precipitation+ Indicators • Soil depth and • Freshwater ﬂooding • Clay mineralogy texture by depth • Soil water holding • Climate with freeze-

capacity thaw cycles

+higher plant root production and organic matter inputs to support biological activity *higher plant production following degradation increases recovery, but precipitation can also cause degradation, especially when plant cover is low.

Figure 16. Examples of results from restoration treatments in Ethiopia and Kenya

a b c Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: G. Zeleke (a, b) and J. Herrick (c). Note: A combination of differences in soil, climate and management can all help explain the very different responses of a gully in Ethiopia (a) and (b) which resulted in a dramatic response after just 1 year, and a drier region of Kenya (c) which had not recovered after more than three years of restoration treatments.

47 2.4 Spatial scale

Scale matters. This phrase has been uttered that managers and policymakers should bear Section II many times, but its implications for land in mind as they consider land potential are management continue to be poorly recognized outlined below. (Cumming et al. 2013). Scale matters because it determines the patterns and processes we Spatial patterns and interactions: the whole is perceive and act upon through management and greater than the sum of its parts policy (Wiens 1989). If we restrict the scales at The significance of a land area may not be which we perceive, measure, and communicate adequately assessed by considering only its about land, we limit our understanding of the internal or local characteristics (Rossiter 1996). processes affecting land conditions and the The arrangement of distinct land areas within management options to be considered. The a landscape mosaic may produce emergent goal of this section is to illustrate the kinds of properties as a consequence of spatial decisions that are influenced by scale and interactions among adjacent land areas. Spatial how to account for scale in managing for land interactions include processes such as the potential and resilience (Figure 15). transport of water, sediment, seeds, or animals among land areas. Thus, in order to “scale up” A brief introduction to scale our understanding of land potential to an entire Spatial scale refers to the “spatial dimension of landscape or watershed, it may not be enough a measured attribute or process, characterized to know only the total area of different classes of by its grain (smallest resolved unit) and extent land. We also have to know how those classes (the area across which measurements are taken) are spatially arranged, if spatial interactions (Turner et al. 2001). Spatial scale affects the are important and if the arrangements of land spatial patterns that we recognize and, therefore, classes vary among landscapes, which is the ecological processes that we consider. For usually the case. The combination of class, example, if we view a plot of land at the scale area, and arrangement comprise a whole that is of a typical human observer, say a single small greater than, or at least different than, the sum or field, we may perceive it as homogeneous and its average of its parts. vegetation characteristics as being determined by how it is used (e.g. grazing or cropland For example, in Mongolian grazing systems use) and its soils (e.g., soil water availability). where certain pastures are grazed in summer By viewing the same area at other scales, we and others in winter, the spatial proximity of those can perceive the effects of other important pastures can have important consequences processes. Finer scaled patterns in the field, for cooperative herd management. Seasonal such as patches of bare ground interspersed pastures that are too close to one another may with patches of vegetation, can reveal the effects facilitate out-of-season grazing, compromising of erosion processes that may expand to the field the ability of winter pastures to provide needed scale, or the effects of fine-scaled soil variations forage in periods of high herder vulnerability such as areas of poorly-drained soil. Viewing and causing societal dysfunction (Fernandez-

Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation the field as part of a broader landscape mosaic Gimenez 2002). Furthermore, traditional can reveal the contributions of its soils and norms, such as the reciprocal sharing of forage vegetation to the viability of a farming enterprise, resources among herder groups occupying habitat for a population of grassland birds, and different landscapes, can moderate the effects the stream flow and nutrient movement within of localized, temporary forage limitations a watershed. Conversely, we can detect how (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2012). In a similar way, the characteristics of adjacent fields affect our key resource areas are spatially localized but focal field. Three fundamental scaling principles play a critical role as dry season forage reserves

48 in African rangelands (Ngugi and Conant 2008). can influence the properties, and therefore These small, productive areas play an outsized potential, of localized areas. The importance role in the social-ecological systems in which of spatial context is evident at the Jornada they occur. Thus, planning for resilience may Experimental Range in New Mexico, USA. Due require an understanding of the spatial patterns to historical episodes of overgrazing through the of resource availability at broad spatial scales, 1950s, eroding shrublands became sufficiently rather than just average conditions. The health extensive that many remaining grassland areas of certain parts of a landscape may be far more were converted to coppice-dune shrublands important than the health of other parts. even when domestic grazers (and native grazers) were excluded via fencing (Peters et al. Averaging land and soil characteristics without 2006). Overgrazing no longer directly caused consideration of spatial variability may lead to grassland-to-shrubland transitions after the unrealistic assumptions about land potential. As 1950s. Instead, they were controlled by broad- demonstrated in the previous paragraph, spatial scale erosion and sediment movement which interactions across the landscape determine the led to local soil instability with abrasion, burial, sustainability of managed animal populations. and mortality of grasses, occurring even in These spatial patterns are also important for grazing exclosures (Okin et al. 2009). A similar wild animal populations, particularly in the mechanism occurred during the Dust Bowl of context of habitat loss and fragmentation the United States in the 1930s (Phillips 1999). In (Fahrig 2003). Similarly, shrub encroachment such cases, the local management of vegetation into landscapes fragmented by residential or soils may not be adequate to predict the development may be related to the disruption trajectory of vegetation change. Understanding of natural fire cycles that are suppressed in the and managing patterns in the broader landscape fragmented landscape (Morton et al. 2010). In would be required. Management of land potential northeastern Australia, the spatial arrangement has to be considered at a sufficiently broad of vegetated and bare patches had a significant scale to ensure that all of the factors that affect influence on erosion and sediment loss on two land potential are considered. It also has to be experimental watersheds with similar vegetation applied at a sufficiently broad scale to ensure cover (Ludwig et al. 2007). The catchment with that destabilization of upslope or upwind areas vegetation cover arranged into only a few large do not compromise what would otherwise be patches had 43 times greater sediment loss than sustainable management of the target area. . the watershed with comparable cover spread out more evenly in many smaller patches. This is because the watershed featuring large Maps may lie (or, rather, the user may lie vegetation patches also had highly connected if the map is misinterpreted) bare ground areas allowing resources to move Thus far the focus has been on expanding our through the site. With similar amounts of total perception of spatial extent, but it is equally cover, vegetation patches can be arranged such important to understand the spatial grain of the that they either slow runoff and retain sediment information that is available. In what geographers or allow it to leave the site. In a similar way, the have termed the “modifiable areal unit problem”, increasing connectivity of multiple eroding farm the classifications and data provided in maps

fields contributed to the American Dust Bowl are often modifiable relative to natural units or Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools and influenced atmospheric processes (Peters point data (e.g., soil bodies, plant communities) et al. 2014). occurring in an area (Jelinski and Wu 1996). That is, maps may represent landscape Spatial context: location matters features at a more coarse (aggregating together adjacent features) or more fine resolution A complementary principle to the role of spatial (more closely approximating natural features). pattern in “scaling up” to broad-scale processes One consequence of this problem is that soil is that spatial context provided by the landscape

49 maps may be created at varying resolutions heterogeneity, spatially-explicit hypotheses for and according to different aggregation rules. landscape change, and replication is a common Thus, the results of analyses conducted using source of failure in assessment and monitoring.

Section II geographic information systems software may The lesson here is that managers need a depend strongly on the rules by which the conceptual model of physical or ecological map was produced and how the mapped units processes in order to interpret mapping data are interpreted. Furthermore, coarsely-scaled and manage land effectively. maps may obscure important features (such as key resource areas described above) that Integrating an understanding of spatial scale into are ecologically important yet spatially minor land potential evaluation systems components of a map unit. Finally, it is important When considering land classifications and to recognize that point samples gathered in map making management decisions, it is important to units without sufficient replication or internal ask the following questions related to the three stratification to different patch, soil, or community scaling principles described above: 1) What types can lead to misinterpretations about is the role of a land unit vs. the aggregation of resource conditions when extrapolated to a map units for landscape-level outcomes? 2) How unit or averaged across map units (Bestelmeyer can spatial interactions from the surrounding et al. 2011). For example, a sampling strategy in landscape affect my management objectives for Western Australia based on placing transects a particular land unit? 3) How does the mapped in only the most common upland landforms information I have represent, or misrepresent, effectively missed important erosion processes the spatial features of primary interest? There taking place in adjacent swales. The erosion is more to scaling than represented in this short occurring in swales eventually spreads to affect contribution (Liu and Taylor 2002, Bestelmeyer the uplands, but this process would be detected et al. 2011), but attention to the basic scaling too late to prevent landscape degradation if principles outlined here can improve land monitoring is focused only on uplands (Pringle management and the development of land et al. 2006). Sampling that ignores spatial potential evaluation tools.

2.5 Ecosystem Services

Introduction soil formation, nutrient cycling and water An ecosystem is a “dynamic complex of plant, cycling. animal, and microorganism communities and Limitations of existing land potential evaluations the non-living environment interacting as a systems for addressing key ecosystem services functional unit” (MEA 2005). Ecosystem services are benefits obtained from ecosystems that are Nearly all existing major land potential evaluation essential for human existence. The Millennium systems, including the USDA’s LCC (Section 1.1) Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) grouped and the FAO’s AEZ (Section 1.2) were designed, ecosystem services into four broad categories: or have been primarily applied, to prioritize Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation 1. Provisioning (food, fiber, wood, gene, etc.) food production over other ecosystem services. 2. Regulatory (flood control, climate change, The case studies in Section I reflect this bias. health, hydrology, etc.) For instance, both the FAO and USDA systems 3. Cultural services (culture, religion, aesthetic classify wetlands as temporarily or permanently values, etc.) not suitable for crop production while ignoring 4. Supporting services which are vital for the the value of wetlands in providing other functioning of all other ecosystem services ecosystem services (Figure 17). This agricultural such as primary production (photosynthesis), production bias is mirrored in the economic valuation of most non-urban lands, except

50 where land-dependent cultural values, such as for land conversion to agriculture (UNEP recreation, can be commoditized. Global trends 2014; Figure 18). reﬂect humans’ continuously growing demand

Figure 17. Examples of contrast in estimated economic value of ecosystems in sustainably managed (estimated values) and converted (measured values) states

Source: MEA 2005.

Figure 18. Evolution of cultivated systems from pre-industrial to contemporary times Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: MEA 2005 after Ramankutty et al. 2002.

51 Integrating ecosystem services into land Step 2. To the extent possible, determine potential evaluation systems the maximum level of each ecosystem service that can be supported on a per-hectare basis We propose a three-step approach to facilitate Section II without reducing the future potential of the land the consideration of multiple ecosystem services to support other ecosystem services. Identify in next generation land potential evaluation tradeoffs and synergies when managing for systems. This approach recognizes that, while it multiple ecosystem services within the land’s is clearly impossible to consider all ecosystem potential. Note that this approach is consistent services provided by a particular piece of with the definition of sustainability included in land, virtually all ecosystem services ultimately the Brundtland report (UNEP 1987). depend on vegetation cover and production. In general, soil and climate combinations that have Step 3. Determine the optimum level of each higher potential productivity also have a higher service that can be supported for the set of potential to support most other ecosystem ecosystem services of interest, taking into services. account tradeoffs and synergies, within the land’s potential. Quantitative and participatory Step 1. Determine potential net primary strategies for Step 3 should be considered productivity for the native ecosystem associated here, but are beyond the scope of this report: with a soil and climate combination. A range their application depends on the objective of the of values should reflect temporal variability land evaluation, and the specific socioeconomic in response to both weather variability (e.g. conditions of the area being evaluated. drought cycles) and the successional stage or plant community phase of the undegraded state (Caudle et al. 2013). Remote sensing analysis can increasingly be used to provide this type of information (Bai et al. 2008; Bai et al. 2015) provided that it is carefully ground-truthed and interpreted with soil information from the field. (Brammer and Nachtergaele 2015). Principles for improving existing land potential evaluation systems and developing the next generation

52 Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

53 #?2.,',#0)"0A/2.1%#2"#)0/. Tools, resources and a strategy for unleashing the sustainable potential of land resources ,#$0#2-4.>%$.'"/20,?)"-. :%%/,@.$2,%'$(2,.0"&.0. 8*9:!;<

%>./0"&.$2,%'$(2, Credit: Yongyut Kumsri, Shutterstock.com !!! The amount of information, and the number a brief overview of the history and current and power of the tools available to apply this status of these tools, along with some links to information to land evaluation is increasing speciﬁc tools that were available at the time this dramatically every year. This section provides document was published.

3.1 Tools for land evaluation – historical, current and future

First generation – paper maps, photos, and ﬁeld it. According to Rossiter (1990), ALES was observations for a single attribute developed with the objective of allowing agricultural scientists to present natural resource The ﬁrst generation of tools generally addressed a data to land use planners in a usable form, single attribute of land potential, such as potential and to facilitate the analysis of soil and other productivity, or soil erosion resistance. These biophysical data, which are often publicly systems, and the tools that supported them, are available but underutilized in most countries. still used, and are useful, today, particularly for Unfortunately, as of the writing of this report, farm-scale planning. Printed aerial photographs it appeared that while ALES is still available, with available soil mapping units printed on neither it nor the GIS system with which it was them can be a very powerful tool for completing connected (ILWIS) was being actively updated. land potential evaluations at the farm or small ALES and other dedicated land evaluation watershed scale. A trained technician with a solid systems, including MicroLEIS, together with their understanding of soil-landscape relationships and the effects of local soil variability on productivity user documentation, continue to serve as useful and erosion risk can work with land managers frameworks for applying third-generation land to create additional very useful maps tailored to evaluation systems using increasingly powerful individual requirements. Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Second generation – dedicated computer Third generation - Geographic Information programs often addressing multiple attributes Systems (GIS) and digital mapping-based The next generation of tools were designed to analyses be adapted to address one or more speciﬁc Virtually any Geographic Information System objectives, including limiting land degradation (GIS) can be used to organize and analyze while optimizing production. The Automated the information required to complete a land Land Evaluation System (ALES; Rossiter 1990, evaluation. Application of GIS to land potential Rossiter 1996, Rossiter 2012) is a DOS-based evaluation requires a team of individuals with computer program that allows land evaluators to expertise in both GIS and land evaluation, build their own knowledge-based systems with including soil science. which to compute the physical and economic A wide variety of both open-source and suitability of individual land mapping units in commercial systems are available. Wikipedia accordance with the FAO’s framework (Rossiter

lists dozens of GIS products and provides Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools and van Wambeke 1991). ALES is a framework limited information on the attributes of each. within which it is possible to build one’s own As of the writing of this report, the list was model of the local speciﬁc conditions. It also being updated on a regular basis. Many of allows the economic potential per unit area of these systems provide descriptions of recent a particular land use to be estimated based on applications of their software, including those predicted annual gross margins. for land evaluation. These can serve as a useful The relevance of the program varies with the starting point. However, caution is required as evaluation models that are incorporated in many applications are ﬂawed. One of the most

55 common errors is making the assumption that Next generation - integrative tools and an attribute assigned to a map unit or polygon, knowledge systems delivered via mobile phones such as soil texture, applies to the entire The Land-Potential Knowledge System

Section III polygon. There is nearly always variability within (LandPKS) is one of the first tools being map units. This variability is lost in GIS map units developed to provide real-time estimates of because they are forced to use the average or site-specific potential productivity, degradation dominant value for a particular attribute (Figure resistance, and resilience via mobile technology. 23; Brammer and Nachtergaele 2015). This is It integrates user inputs (soil and topography) a very significant limitation of the use of GIS. with cloud-based geospatial layers and It can cause catastrophic errors, particularly analytics to generate land potential estimates for where two soils with very different properties specific locations. Future versions will integrate occur in the same map unit. For example, the local and scientific knowledge to provide more two soils in Figure 22 co-occur in northeastern detailed management options, including links Namibia at a scale that is too fine to be mapped to sustainable land management knowledge separately, but only one has the potential for bases (such as WOCAT) and portals (such as crop production. the UNCCD’s SKBP) (Figure 20). It can also be Combining traditional soil maps with remote used as a crowd-sourcing tool to support remote sensing and digital soil mapping tools can be sensing calibration and improve GAEZ estimates extremely effective for addressing very specific and GIS-based land evaluations (Figure 21). questions, such as identifying the potential habitat of rare species (Baker et al. 2016; Figure 19).

Figure 19. Map predicting where shrubby reed mustard, a rare plant species, is most likely to occur in Northeast Utah, USA, based on land potential Tools, resources and a strategy for unleashing the sustainable potential of land resources

Source: Baker et al. 2016 for detail. Note: The original model based on ﬁeld soil properties had an error rate of 10%, and the rate increased to just 23% when extrapolated using a spectral-topographic model.

56 Figure 20. The Land-Potential Knowledge System

Source: Adapted from Herrick et al., 2016. Note: Flowchart shows how the Land-Potential Knowledge System (LandPKS – landpotential.org) combines user input from mobile apps with cloud-based knowledge and information will provide site-speciﬁc knowledge and information that is relevant to the user’s needs.

Figure 21. Illustration of how site-speciﬁc soil information can be used to interpret land potential from north-west central Namibia Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Source: http://landpotential.org (accessed 3 May 2016). Created by M. Buenneman. Note: The sandier soils, which have less water-holding capacity necessary to support plant growth during droughts, show higher bare ground values. This type of information can be used together with more general GAEZ information to help determine what should be generally possible for soils in the region (GAEZ) and possible for a speciﬁc location (LandPKS – see Chapter 3.3).

57 Figure 22. Soils with contrasting potential in northeast Namibia Section III

Source: Jeff Herrick. Note: The loamy soil (lower left) will support both perennial grass and annual crop production, even during dry years, due to its high water holding capacity. Annual crop production is possible on the sandy soil (upper right) only during wet years.

Figure 23. Typical variability within a GIS soil polygon Tools, resources and a strategy for unleashing the sustainable potential of land resources

Source: Matt Levi. Note: The soil map unit in the center of the photograph incudes several soil types. Potential net primary production for these soils for native rangeland vegetation ranges from 336 to 560 kg/ha for a year with average rainfall. The area is in Southeast Arizona, USA in the Malpai Borderlands area. Map unit 91 (center) is Kahn-Zapolote complex receiving 12-16” ppt/year at elevation of 3700-4200’. 58 3.2 Selected sources (please see LandPotential.org for additional sources and current links)

For the latest available information and tools, we sensing imagery is most appropriate based recommend visiting one or more of the growing on objectives. number of web portals, including ISRIC.org, ` JournalMap.org. The ability to search for articles LandscapeToolbox.org, JournalMap.org, as well based on where the research was completed, as LandPotential.org, the website where the online rather than where the author’s office has resources for this report are housed. Landon been, is nearly impossible in Google Scholar (2014) provides a concise, practical reference for and other bibliographic search engines. much of the technical knowledge necessary to JournalMap allows users to search for articles implement land evaluation and management. based on location, as well as the biophysical ` FAO.org The Food and Agriculture Organization characteristics of a location. of the United Nations provides a tremendous ` UNEP.org. UNEP is continuing to increase and constantly increasing amout of tools, access to tools, data and knowledge resources, data, information and knowledge relevant to including through UNEPLive. sustainably increasing food production. Please ` National departments and ministries of see Section 1.3 above for just one of its many agriculture and the environment, and related resources and the Global Soil Partnership to NGO’s. In addition to knowledge and information, connect with the international community in and tools tailored to national conditions, these promoting and supporting sustainable land organizations provide access to people. While management. impossible to list them all here, relevant sources ` ISRIC.org (ISRIC World Soil Information). This can increasingly be found through the UNCCD’s website currently serves as the primary global Knowledge Portal and Capacity Building repository for soil information. As of 2014, it Marketplace. provided access to over 25,000 articles and ` Another useful website is the LandscapeToolbox. 8,000 maps. It also provides a constantly In addition to land inventory and monitoring improving global soil map at the 1km pixel methods and GIS-based sampling design scale that is based on cutting edge digital soil tools, it provides a summary of the attributes of mapping technology. One of the strengths of different types of remote sensing imagery. these maps is that they provide not only the ` The GAEZ described in Chapter 1.3 allows best available prediction of the dominant soil for users to access previously-run evaluations every point on the globe, they also include the using a geospatial interface. The evaluations level of confidence. No soil map is perfect and are based on the FAO’s Agro-ecological Zoning ISRIC’s are no exception. But they do provide system. This system is valuable for comparing an excellent starting point for field validation, the agricultural productivity potential for a and ISRIC is very interested in receiving user region, but was never designed to provide point- feedback to improve its predictions. scale estimates, consider sustainability issues ` LandPotential.org. In addition to hosting this (e.g. erosion risk) in detail, or consider the many report, this website is being continuously other factors involved in land use decisions.

updated with land evaluation resources, and Other tools are available that address many of Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools examples of how land evaluation has been these limitations. Each of these tools, however, successfully used around the world. requires additional input from the user and ` LandscapeToolBox.org. This web portal generally requires greater technical knowledge provides access to a wide variety of tools, than the GAEZ. including automated sampling design, data ` WOSSAC.com. The World Soil Archive and analysis and reporting, and some very simple Catalogue provides access to soil survey image analysis tools that anyone can learn in reports, maps, imagery and photographs from under an hour. It also includes a Wiki, which, 344 territories worldwide. among other things, helps decide what remote 59 3.3 A simple, practical strategy for evaluating land potential TODAY while continuing to improve

Section III estimates for TOMORROW

Even the simplest land potential evaluation 3. Review potential production predictions for tools presented in Section I can be used to the region on the Global Agro-ecological prevent the types of catastrophic degradation Zoning (GAEZ) website. This provides associated with previous societal collapses general estimates of potential production for (Liu and Diamond 2005). The principles and a wide variety of crops for the dominant soils strategies described in Section II can be used to in each area. FAO and other organizations, increase the quantity and quality of information such as the Regional Center for Mapping provided. This chapter provides a series of steps of Resources for Development (RCMRD), for estimating land potential at the ﬁeld scale. can be contracted to generate more precise The same principles and many of the same tools estimates by integrating the latest available can be applied at regional to national scales. GIS layers into the estimates. The steps are listed in order of simplest to most 4. Generate potential land degradation complex, with each step increasing the accuracy resistance (including erosion resistance, at or relevance of the estimate. a minimum) predictions for different types of land and management systems within the The list is intended to highlight the types of area. Unlike potential production, there are information that can be generated today, no global estimates for land degradation. while pointing out how these estimates can • Option 1: previous estimates be improved and made more useful. It is not (see Step 2). a replacement for books and manuals that • Option 2: sample locations using provide speciﬁc instructions. Please see the Land-Potential Knowledge “Existing Literature” and “Tools” for more explicit System (LandPKS) where it has been instructions using currently available tools, and implemented (see “Land-Potential check the “LandPotential.org” and UNEP’s Knowledge System”). websites for new systems.

The following steps are intended to be applied 5. Generate the information for Steps 3 and 4 using iteratively. They describe the basic process at local data using a framework such as ALES the ﬁeld, farm, or watershed scale. The strategy (“Second generation – dedicated computer and principles are the same across larger programs”) in conjunction with new tools scales, but much more powerful tools and larger (“Third generation – Geographic Information databases are required to complete the process. Systems (GIS)” and “Fourth generation –

Tools, resources and a strategy for unleashing the sustainable potential1. of land resourcesClearly identify the objective of the land mobile apps and cloud computing). potential evaluation, who will use it, how they 6. Modify the results based on the resilience will use it to make decisions, and what level (Section 2.3). For example, catastrophic of accuracy and precision are required. degradation risk due to soil erosion is far 2. Complete an Internet search and query local greater on shallow than deep soils assuming experts to determine if an evaluation has similar soil erosion rates. already been completed, or if an organization 7. Expand the analysis to consider where is already working on one. The authors of this the land is located relative to other land, review were astounded by the number of how the surrounding land is being used land evaluations that have been completed (spatial context), and how the scale of the in the past century that are virtually unknown land use may affect land potential (Section to current policymakers. While most could 2.4). This is particularly important when be updated, the information is often better a single management system is planned applied “as is” than ignored. for application across areas of land with

60 much different potential. Taken together, potential, by developing systems to rapidly considering spatial context and scale can communicate innovations and the soil and help avoid degradation of a large area due climate conditions under which they are to the mismanagement of a small, vulnerable successful (#10), and create policies that area embedded within the larger area, such ensure that new and existing land evaluation as land that is susceptible to gully initiation. systems (such as the LCC and AEZ) are 8. Integrate multiple ecosystem services into applied in a way that they in no way limit land the analysis (Section 2.5). This is by far managers’ ability to innovate (see “Raising the most complex part of the process. At a the bar”). minimum, a qualitative evaluation should be 10. Develop and provide access to tools, such completed on the impacts of the preferred as the LandPKS, that allow individuals to land use on major ecosystem services, rapidly access and share knowledge and including biodiversity conservation, and air information about how to sustainably manage and water quality. Please see the references speciﬁc types of land. in Section 2.4 for additional guidance. 9. Promote and accelerate innovation by clearly identifying the limiting biophysical processes that must be overcome to increase land Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

61 Credit: Peter Kunasz, Shutterstock.com Credit: 8*9:!;<

!"=%/)(4.%1#)%",. >%$.011/4)"-./0"&. 1%#2"#)0/.230/'0#)%". #%./0"&.',2.1/0"")"-. 0"&.50"0-252"# The scale at which each of these opportunities is relevant is listed at the end of each section.

4.1 Policy opportunities: specific issues

Land potential can be applied to partially decouple International targets: safe operating space and economic growth from (1) land degradation, (2) land degradation neutrality conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture, Land potential can be used to define safe and (3) conversion of natural and agricultural operating space for human-dominated land systems to biologically non-productive uses uses. Defining safe operating space requires including urban, infrastructure, and many forms an understanding of the extent to which of energy production. It can be used to decouple different land use by soil combinations results economic growth from land degradation by in permanent vs. non-permanent losses of limiting land management systems to those ecosystem services associated with natural that are sustainable for each type of land. ecosystems. As discussed above, the land Conversion of natural systems to agriculture can potential-informed policies below can be used be reduced using a knowledge of land potential to meet human needs without crossing planetary to maintain and increase production on existing boundaries. agricultural lands in three ways: (1) limitation of Land potential evaluation applied at local levels productivity declines caused by degradation, can help to achieve land degradation neutrality and (2) close yield gaps by better matching of at national levels, effectively contributing to the production systems with land potential, and (3) achievement of a land degradation neutral world. targeting inputs to where they will result in the This is key to staying within the safe operating greatest return on investment and least harm to space for land use. other ecosystem services. Relevant scale: regional to international. Land potential can be used to inform policy interventions in all three ways. The benefit of Land use planning - general (including applying an understanding of land potential agricultural, urban, mining, energy production) on the impact of these polices depends on the Land use planning based on this report’s broader amount of variability in, and level of understanding definition of land potential, including productivity, of, land potential. The decoupling benefits of an degradation resistance, and resilience allows for understanding of land potential are likely to be the consideration of both short- and long-term greatest when it is applied across large areas, tradeoffs. Other suggestions include: where there is high variability in land potential, ` Provide stakeholders with information on land and where land potential is well understood. How potential before soliciting input on desired an understanding of land potential is applied to land use. This helps limit the discussion to inform policies depends on a number of factors sustainable options. including the scale of the intervention, technical ` Provide information on potential production capacity, and governance. to inform trade-offs based on short-term opportunity costs. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools We have included general guidelines for applying ` Provide information on resistance and an understanding of land potential for each resilience, and restoration potential: for each type of policy tool. A constantly growing list of land use by land type combination, determine examples is available at http://landpotential.org. the extent and persistence of loss in potential The scale at which each of these opportunities is (Table 1). Persistence depends on both the relevant is listed at the end of each section. type of land use and the land itself. The extent of

63 loss is related to the inherent capacity of land to early 20th century were due to overestimates provide a variety of ecosystem services, which of land production potential based on yields in are disproportionately affected by different other areas and a misunderstanding of the types management systems. Replacement of a Section IV of production systems that could be sustained humid temperate grassland with a parking lot on previously uncultivated soils. will result in a persistent, total loss of potential Relevant scale: local to national. for crop production or ecosystem restoration on a shallow soil, but only a temporary, partial Land investments and land grabs: pricing loss on a deep soil with uniform soil texture fairness and sustainability throughout the profile. This is because the soil Knowledge of potential productivity is necessary profile remains intact; as soon as the asphalt for the market to price agricultural land and for is removed or maintenance is halted, recovery individual landowners to negotiate a fair price for begins. their land. Where leases are involved, potential Relevant scale: individual land management degradation, and resistance and resilience, are unit to national. critical to establishing constraints on what the Land use planning – agricultural land can and cannot be used for, to ensure that it is maintained. While an understanding of land Agricultural land use planning has been potential cannot be used to prevent land grabs, extensively discussed throughout this report it can increase transparency and fairness, as because it has been the primary historical emphasized in the recently published “Voluntary application of land potential evaluation, and Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of is extensively discussed in other documents. Tenure”, which stated that “States should ensure The key conclusion of this report for policy is that appropriate systems are used for the fair that agricultural land use planning, like more and timely valuation of tenure rights for specific general land use planning, should consider purposes, such as operation of markets, security crop and animal production as just one of many for loans, transactions in tenure rights as a result ecosystem services that agricultural lands of investments, expropriation and taxation” (FAO provide. Agricultural land use planning should 2012, p. 30). evaluate degradation risk and potential resilience associated with proposed management to Relevant scale: individual land management determine the likely persistence of degradation unit to national. associated with a particular production system applied to a particular type of land. Taxation Relevant scale: individual land management As the arguably oldest policy application of unit to national. land potential, traditional taxation requires little explanation. A comprehensive understanding of Land reform and redistribution: equity, resilience and potential to support ecosystems

Policy options for applying land potential evaluation to use planning and management sufficiency and sustainability that are currently either not valued or are undervalued can, however, be used to design a Land potential knowledge can be used to ensure that land reform is equitable by adjusting the taxation system to support broader sustainability land area allocated to each beneficiary based goals, as described in the following section. on potential productivity differences. It can Relevant scale: local to national. be used in the same way to support equitable compensation schemes for privately owned land. Land use and land management incentives Ensuring that sufficient land is provided based Both taxation and other financial incentives can on sustainable potential production levels is also be used to encourage landowners to match critical to the success of land and redistribution land use with land potential. These incentives policies. The 1930s Dust Bowl and other less can be applied broadly to promote sustainable extensive social dislocations in the US in the land management, or to promote specific

64 practices that, in addition to being sustainable, wetland conservation policy, using soil map to may increase the provision of other ecosystem prohibit development in all map units that include services (e.g. integrated cropping systems and potential wetlands (based on soil features) will other agro-ecological approaches). unnecessarily exclude non-wetland areas from ` Crop insurance subsidies can be limited to development. Alternatively, a policy that only lands where the insured production system is prohibits development on map units where sustainable. wetlands are the dominant component will result ` Tax breaks in exchange for long-term in unnecessary loss of wetlands in units where or permanent land conservation (e.g. they are subdominant. conservation easements) can be targeted Relevant scale: local to national. and priced based on both conservation and alternative land use values. Capacity building and awareness-raising ` Drought de-stocking subsidies, including Applying an understanding of land potential, subsidized livestock purchases, can target and the limitations to land potential at multiple grazing lands with high potential production scales can increase the effectiveness of and low resilience. policies designed to promote capacity ` Agro-ecological and Organic Practices building and awareness-raising. At the national Promotion. Production systems based on scale, information on potential production an understanding of agroecology, including and resilience, together with predictions of many organic production systems, often changes in drivers of land use change and land result in more diverse biologically diverse management can be used to target both the agroecosystems with higher soil carbon and location and type of capacity building required. improved watershed function than landscapes At the local level, generic extension materials, dominated by monocultures. where available, can be replaced with materials ` Please see Section 5.3 in ASSESSING specifically designed to address resource GLOBAL LAND USE: Balancing Consumption limitations for specific local soils and land uses. with Sustainable Supply (UNEP 2014) for additional examples. Providing land potential evaluation training and Relevant scale: local to national. tools to farmers can empower them to experiment with new production systems and technologies. Degradation and other land use disincentives An often-cited barrier to the adoption of new technologies is perceived risk due to uncertainty Both legal and market-based disincentives to about whether the technology will work on the land degradation must be carefully designed farmer’s own land. Many farmers will wait to to avoid unnecessarily limiting production on watch for successful adoption by a neighbor. In lands that are already human-appropriated. addition to slowing adoption, it only works if the Legal disincentives are often based on some neighbor is farming similar soils. Land potential interpretation of the precautionary principle. evaluation can help reassure farmers that the This often causes conflicts with landowners technology has been tested under conditions who believe that they can sustainably apply a that are similar to their own. It can also help them prohibited management practice. Fine-scale identify other farmers facing similar challenges. spatial differentiation based on land potential Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools can increase effectiveness by increasing Relevant scale: local to national. compliance. For example, implementation of a

65 4.2. Additional opportunities: biodiversity conservation, restoration planning, and climate change mitigation

Section IV and adaptation

Biodiversity conservation, restoration planning, on assumptions about the rate at which a given and climate change mitigation and adaptation amount of carbon can be stored in a particular are relatively new applications of land potential soil, and the rate of carbon accumulation under evaluation that have received relatively little different management systems. Mitigation attention. Instead, all three tend to rely on current therefore also requires knowledge of both current land cover or land use as the primary basis for soil carbon content and the potential storage. decision-making. Integrating knowledge of land Current estimates tend to generalize and fail to potential can help identify hidden opportunities, consider variability in both the soil carbon storage while avoiding costly errors associated with potential and resilience of a soil. Improved land unbridled optimism for what is desired, but not potential information generated to support land possible. use planning can also be used to target climate change mitigation investments, and to reduce Biodiversity conservation and uncertainty. This should reduce the discount rate restoration planning applied by investors in carbon trading schemes. Reducing the discount rates by reducing future The types of habitat that can be supported uncertainty increases the amount that investors determine alpha diversity, which is the number are willing to pay for carbon credits: they are more of species that can be supported on a particular conﬁdent that the carbon will (still) be in the soil at piece of land. The number of species that can the end of the contract (Herrick et al. 2016). be supported at the landscape scale, is higher Relevant scale: individual land management where (1) there are different types of land with unit to international. the potential to support different soil, plant, and animal communities, (2) there is land that Climate change adaptation can sustainably support multiple communities, Land potential evaluations for speciﬁc soil and that are, for example, in different successional climate combinations can be easily adjusted states. The same information can be used for to identify sustainable production systems restoration planning and for determining the under predicted climate change scenarios. In feasibility of creating wildlife habitat corridors. light of funding projections for climate change Relevant scale: individual land management adaptation, this is an area where land potential unit to international. evaluations could have an extraordinary impact. Climate change mitigation Relevant scale: individual land management unit to international. Land-based climate change mitigation relies Policy options for applying land potential evaluation to use planning and management

4.3 Promoting innovation through policy

The most common way that an understanding Land management innovations that increase of land potential can be used to sustainably productivity have typically been driven by a increase production, without expanding onto desire to overcome a particular limitation on a non-agricultural lands, is better matching particular type of land: new irrigation systems of land use with land potential. But what if where water is limited, development of salt- an understanding of land potential could be tolerant cultivars for saline soils, and terraces to used to make the production of ecosystem control runoff and erosion on hillslopes. services increase beyond the current potential?

66 One of the risks of applying traditional land This emphasizes the importance of promoting evaluation systems is that they are based on understanding of land potential in capacity current assumptions of sustainability based on building and awareness raising programs (see today’s technologies and land management Policy Opportunities). systems. Because these land management systems are finite, they tend to address only the Increasing adoption rates dominant technologies for the most widespread Providing information about the factors that define soil-climate combinations. Existing systems tend land potential (soil, climate, and topography) for to focus on technologies and exclude integrated the locations where the innovative technologies management systems, such as multi-species and systems are tested is one of the simplest agricultural production systems, simply because ways to accelerate the rate of innovation while they are so complex and diverse. In part because reducing the costs. It is also one of the best ways of this complexity, integrated management to increase adoption of effective new systems. systems often require higher levels of adaptation Innovators frequently complain that farmers are to different soil and climate conditions in order conservative. Research has shown that farmers to be successful. This is because each of the are more likely to adopt systems they can easily components of the management system (e.g. test at relatively low cost (Pannell et al. 2006). different species) responds uniquely to soil and This is due in part to the fact that innovations are climate. While one component may be adapted often promoted as universally applicable, when to a wide range of conditions, another may not, in fact they only work under certain conditions. or may interact differently with other components This creates skepticism and doubt among (e.g. plant species with soil microbial community) farmers. Providing contextual information about under different conditions. In this section we the conditions under which the innovation has, discuss how applying an understanding of land and has not, been successful should increase potential, and a more flexible approach to land rates of successful adoption. This, in turn, potential evaluation, can be used to increase the should increase willingness to invest in new development of innovation and dissemination of technologies in the future. both technologies and management systems. Due to cost limitations, innovations can only be Increasing innovation rates tested under a few soil-climate combinations. Linking tests of an innovation to the factors that One of the simplest ways to accelerate innovation determine land potential also opens the door is to create knowledge sharing systems that for early adopters to contribute to testing and allow innovators to easily and rapidly share their further innovation. Even if the early adopters are successes and failures. Rather than wasting limited to those with similar land potential, they time unknowingly replicating an existing system, will necessarily include untested conditions. The innovators with access to knowledge can build on development of global crowdsourcing systems, previous successes and avoid the failures. This which includes the ability to document or access accelerated communication is now occurring existing soil, climate, and topography information thanks to the Internet: news articles, blog posts, for a given field location, now allows the results and videos quickly go viral. The problem is that of these early adopters’ tests of an innovation to this information is rarely contextualized by the Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools be shared (e.g. the Land-Potential Knowledge conditions of where the innovation did or did not System described in Section 3.1). work. For example, conservation tillage systems can be used to sustainably produce annual crops on low slopes, but are ineffective on steep slopes Raising the bar unless they are combined with other types of soil Traditional land potential evaluation systems conservation measures. Even the steepness of explicitly set an upper limit to what is possible. As the slope where they are sustainable depends discussed in the introduction, this potential can on erodibility and infiltration capacity of the soil. be exceeded by changing the relatively static

67 properties that define the inherent potential. In response to this concern, we propose a It can be temporarily modified with water and conceptual framework, illustrated by Figure 24 fertilizer inputs, or drainage systems. that (1) addresses variability in the factors that control land potential (see “Key Concepts and Section IV Perhaps most exciting from a sustainability Definitions”), (2) addresses both degradation perspective, is that land potential can be increased resistance and resilience by integrating using through the implementation of innovative thresholds, and (3) acknowledges that the practices that effectively change the way that the natural potential of the land to support multiple plants growing on a piece of land use existing ecosystem services can, in fact, be exceeded. water and nutrient resources. In other words, Exceeding the current potential can be achieved increasing resource use efficiency. Joel Salatin through permanently or temporarily modifying (Salatin 2007) is just one of many farmers who the inherent potential, through increased inputs, have been frustrated with the limitations imposed and through the implementation of innovative by assumptions of land potential based on current systems and technologies that increase resource production systems, particularly where these use efficiency. limits are implemented through subsidy programs and environmental regulations. While the specific This new framework must, however, be applied claims included in his book “Everything I Want to extremely carefully by considering (1) the impacts do is Illegal” are often debated, his basic point that on a broad range of ecosystem services (Chapter simple classification systems tend to exclude and 2.5), and (2) in the case of temporary changes, even penalize innovators, is accepted by all of the what happens when the inputs are withdrawn or land managers and policymakers with whom we the management system is abandoned. reviewed this issue.

Figure 24. Possible outcomes following abandonment of an innovation or inputs that had increased the provision of one or more ecosystem services. Policy options for applying land potential evaluation to use planning and management

Note: Please see text for further explanation.

68 There are three general possible outcomes. The conditions (Lightfoot and Eddy 1994; Figure 25). ﬁrst (Figures 24, line A) is that the new level is The second possible outcome (Figure 24, line sustained. An example would be removal of rocks B) is that the land returns to something closer to from the soil. This has been done by farmers its inherent potential. This is a typical outcome throughout the world to make soil easier to till. where, for example, phosphorous is applied to It has persistent positive impacts on potential soils with a high phosphorous ﬁxation capacity. production by increasing the plant-available Over time, the excess phosphorous is retained water and the nutrient-holding capacity of the by the soil in a form that is inaccessible to plants. topsoil. There are, of course, other situations An example of the third possible outcome, where increasing soil rock content, especially degradation (Figure 24, line C), was presented in at the surface, can improve plant growth the discussion of terraces (Figure 5).

Figure 25. Exceeding land potential limitations due to climate: quinoa

Source: J. Herrick, Nov 2006 near the Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia Note: Quinoa plants in the Bolivian altiplano are sometimes planted next to rocks, which retain heat during the night, to protect them from freezing in the high Bolivian plateau. This allows the farmer to exceed land potential limitations due to climate.

4.4 UN Sustainable Development Goals Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Land potential evaluation is key to the successful ` 12.1 Implement the 10-Year Framework of achievement of several of the UN Sustainable Programmes on Sustainable Consumption Development Goals (SDG’s). It can help address and Production Patterns, all countries taking nearly all of those that depend on food security, action, with developed countries taking the and air and water quality. lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.

69 ` 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable degraded land and soil, including land affected management and efficient use of natural by desertification, drought and floods, and resources. strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral ` 12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally world. Land potential evaluation is essential Section IV sound management of chemicals and all wastes to 15.3. The determination of degradation risk, throughout their life cycle, in accordance and what lands can be restored, and to what with agreed international frameworks, and level of function, depends on land potential. significantly reduce their release to air, water Well-meaning efforts to plant trees where they and soil in order to minimize their adverse will not grow, or produce crops where the soil impacts on human health and the environment. is highly susceptible to erosion, can only result ` 12.a Support developing countries to in failure, or worse. The US Dust Bowl and strengthen their scientific and technological other environmental and social catastrophes capacity to move towards more sustainable remain tragic reminders of the perils of patterns of consumption and production arrogant ignorance. ` 15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore

4.5 Conclusions

In 1909 during a period of rapid agricultural access to the knowledge, information, and tools land expansion, US President Theodore necessary to avoid the types of catastrophic Roosevelt said, “It is an irrefutable proof that land degradation that occurred during the Dust the conservation of our natural resources is Bowl, while increasing production on existing the fundamental question before this nation, agricultural land. and that our first and greatest task is to set The primary conclusion of the authors is that our house in order and begin to live within our land potential evaluations must be completed means” (Roosevelt 1909). “Our means” referred and applied before changes in land use or to the potential of the land to sustainably support management are implemented. We can no agricultural production and resource extraction. longer afford to perform large-scale experiments This may seem ironic given the subsequent that ignore existing knowledge and information. devastation of the Dust Bowl, which was caused In most cases, we can predict which types of by the land settlement policies of the Roosevelt production systems are likely to be sustainable and subsequent administrations. The seeming on which types of land, and what the impacts contradiction provides a strong warning that on other ecosystem services, including those a general awareness and commitment to provided by biodiversity, are likely to be. conservation is useless without a specific understanding of the potential of every area of Completing these evaluations also facilitates land, and the willingness and ability to act on this Policy options for applying land potential evaluation to use planning and management development of innovative systems to increase understanding. land potential by accelerating the sharing of existing innovations and how they worked, or Living within our means requires both an did not work, on land with different potential understanding of what those means are (land throughout the world. Agriculture continues to potential) and a willingness to limit consumption be the primary use of land from which native to avoid exceeding them. Yet most of the vegetation has been removed. A better matching farmland that was abandoned during the Dust of production systems with land potential Bowl of the 1930s was first cultivated during on existing agricultural lands and increased the 25 years following Roosevelt’s speech. innovation supported by carefully developed This failure to apply an understanding of land policies and strong institutions will not by potential was due to a combination of ignorance, themselves allow us to live within our means— overconfidence, and the desire of an expanding but they can make it easier. population for a better life. This report provides

70 Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

71 References 72 Cumming, G. S., P. Olsson, F. S. Chapin Iii, and C. S. Holling (2013). Resilience, experimentation, and scale scale and experimentation, Resilience, (2013). Holling S. C. and Iii, Chapin S. F. Olsson, P. S., G. Cumming, TalbotC. and(2013). Sanchez,for H. Karl, handbook Interagencysite M. ecological Dibenedetto,Caudle,D., J. McKenzie, resources. and land soil for surveying In Guidelines framework. and planning Legal M. (2008). Capelin, (3):72evaluation. landRossiter,Geoderma theoretical forframeworkBurrough,P. G.(1996). aD. of: Discussion A. International monitoring. environmental for complexity soil of Implications 2015. F.O. H., Nachtergaele. Brammer, Bouma, J. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation.Bouma, J. Geoderma1986. Using 72 soil survey(3): information 190-191. to characterizeNimkhedkar S. the soil-water S. state.and JournalNagar, P. of SoilA. Science 37:Gajbhiye, 1-7. S. K. Velayutham, M. Sehgal, L. J. Sarkar, D. T., Bhattacharyya, S. G. Srivastava, A. T., P. Ray, K. C. Mandal, Pal, Velmourougane, S. D. D. K. K. Sarkar, Chandran, Bhattacharyya, Bestelmeyer,B.T., D. P. Goolsby, andArcherR.S. (2011). Spatial perspectives instate-and-transition models: A P.D. C. Ohman, D. M. Laney, M. C. Holbrook, J. S. Gorman, B. K. Fraser, R. W. Ellison, M. T.,A. B. Bestelmeyer, Bestelmeyer,Briske(2012).D.D.T. and challengesresilience-basedB. Grand for rangelands. management of Berry, L., J. Olson, and D. Campbell (2003). Assessing the extent, cost and impact of land degradation at the national Baker, J.B., B.B Fonnesbeck, J.L. Boettinger. 2016. Modeling rare endemic shrub habitat in the Uinta Basin using longer, A Tucker,Tengberg, C. 2015. Yengoh. G. A. and Olsson, L. D.Dent, Z., Bai, of assessment global Proxy 2008. Schaepman. M.E. and Olsson, L. Dent, D.L. G., Z. Bai, planners use land by information evaluation land of use The (2003). Bregt K. A. and Rossiter, G. D. Z., L. I. Bacic, and soils vegetation, on impacts and approaches restoration: Ecological (2013). Hagen D. and L. A. Aradottir, 65. Resources: ofLand Department evaluation. o. (1986). ofland M. H. Agriculture, Tables implementation the for Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography 24 (3): 347-364. District. Jinja the agriculture in fed rain for case a assessment: resource land Automated (2008). E. Abongo, final The available. where links pdf including bibliography, searchable for http://landpotential.org/IRP see Please References mismatches inlandscapes. social-ecological Landscape Ecology 28 (6): 1139-1150. 109. NRCS. U. and USFS BLM, rangelands. J., M. J. Grundy, N. R. Webster, A. J. Ringrose-Voase. 2nd ed. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing. 515-524. 191-193. Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(1) 56-73. 266. 143: Publication LUP & NBSS scale). (1: 250,000 states the and India of database taxonomic Soil (2009). Science 104 (10): 1308-1323. and Sidhu, R. S. and Current Singh (2013).recent advances. classification of Soils perspective, India: historical missing link to land Journal management? of Applied Ecology(3): 48 746-757. in transitions abrupt of (2011).Analysis Sharma S. ecological systems. and Ecosphere 2 (12): Schmitt, 26. J. R. Rassweiler, A. Pillsbury, C. F. Peters, Rangeland Ecology & Management 65 (6): 654-663. level: findings and lessons learned from seven pilot case studies. Global Mechanism and the World Bank. soil, spectral, and topographic data. Soil Science Society of America Jorunal 80: 395-408. 24, 3-9. Development, for Agriculture degradation. flatland closer, look 24(3) management, and 223-234. use Soil degradation. land and decision society. Advances in Agronomy 120: 173-222. Kampala, Makerere University. printed version will include a printed bibliography. makers: a case study in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Soil Use and Management 19 (1): 12-18. Herrick, J.E., A. Beh, E. Barrios, I. Bouvier, M. Coetzee, D. Dent, E. Elias, T. Hengl, J. W. Karl, H. Liniger, J. J. Liniger, H. Karl, W. J. Hengl, T. Elias, E. Dent, D. Coetzee, M. Bouvier, I. Barrios, E. Beh, A. J.E., Herrick, Helms, D. (1997). Land capability classification: the U.S. experience. In Advances in Geoecology (29): 159-175. Goryelik, L. A. (1967). Land Cadaster of the USSR (Zemelniy Kadastr CCCR). Moscow, Izdatellstvo Ekonomiya. Godagnone,R. E., H. Bertola, M. Ancarola, J. C. de la Fuente, V. Nakama, D. Maldonado Pinedo, R. R. Mansilla, China. in management ecosystem and Ecoregions (2004). Ma M. K. and Chen, D. L. Y. Lu, Liu, H. for H. G. J., B. Fu, assessment agro-ecological Global 2002. Nachtergaele. F. and Shah, M. Velthuizen, van H. G., Fischer, key a of assessment cost and evaluation Performance (2012). A. Nolè, & A., Sateriano, L., Salvati, A., Ferrara, dynamics cross-level and Cross-boundary (2012). Batbuyan B. and Batkhishig, B. E., M. Fernandez-Gimenez, case a tenure: land pastoral of paradox the and boundaries social and Spatial (2002). E. M. Fernandez-Gimenez, Feng, Z. M. (2001). Land use zoning scheme of Budapest, China based on detailed land surveys. of Journal Natural Resources földértékeléshez). gyakorlati a (Direktívák Evaluation Soil Practical to Directives (1965). Z. 5. Chapter Fekete, http://www.fao.org/ Evaluation. Land for Rome. Framework A In tenure. Kenya. in types land utilization of Land (2014). FAO governance responsible the on guidelines Voluntary 6. (2012). Paper FAO Discussion Water and Land framework. revised a towards evaluation: Land (2007). FAO 73. Bulletin Soils FAO for guidelines. zoning: evaluation land Agro-ecological (1996). FAO. Guidelines: 1985 In system. classification land Reclamation of Bureau US The (1985). FAO FAO. Rome, Nations. requirements. water United Crop the of (1984). FAO Organization Agriculture and Food Rome, evaluation. land for framework and A (1976). FAO Evolution, Ecology, of Review Annual biodiversity. on fragmentation habitat of Effects Subtropics. (2003). and L. TropicsFahrig, the in Development Rural For Compendium: Agricultural (1989). EUROCONSULT Development, N. Z. M. o. W. a. (1979). Our Land Resources. Wellington, New Zealand, Water and Soil Division. Dent, D. and A. Young (1981). Soil survey and land evaluation. George Allen & Unwin. not. or - 21st century the in information resources land for need the (2014). Meeting Dalal-Clayton B. D.and and Dent, replacement grassland pampa Semiarid (2008). Steinaker F. D. and Suarez, Aguado I. R., M. Demaria, Gruijter,de (1996).J.J. Rossiter, G.D.Discussion of:theoretical evaluation. alandframework for(3):72 Geoderma mid-1970s States, United conterminous the in wetlands of trends (1991). and Status Johnson E. C. T. and E. Dahl, T.Dahl, U.S.F.W. to E. (2011).2009. Service. 2004 States United and of trends in wetlands Status the conterminous change change investments. Ecosystem 2(3) climate & Sustainability Health optimizing for collaboration and apps mobile (landPKS): system knowledge land-potential The 2016. N.P. R. van Bosch, den K.C. Urama, J.C.Webb. L.W. Shepherd, K.D. Neff, M. Obersteiner, Ndungu, Matuszak, de Instituto Aires, Buenos 1:2.500.000. escala : Argentina Suelos, Centro de de Investigación suelos de Recursos de Naturales, Mapa INTA. (2002). Gutierrez M. J. and and 11World Development Ecology of Sustainable International Journal (4): 397-409. 119).(p. results and methodology 21st century: the in agriculture 123-129. Indicators 23: vulnerability. Ecological indicator system desertification to monitor (4): 22 Change Environmental Global Mongolia. in 836-851. (dzud) disasters winter severe to vulnerability increase (1): 30 Ecology Human 49-78. Mongolia. postsocialist from study 325-333. (4): 16 Press. Agricultural docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf soils-bulletins/en/. irrigated agriculture. FAO: Chapter 10. Systematics 34: 487-515. Amsterdam.ELSEVIER: Environmental Governance. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. 115. fragmentation in Luis,San Argentina. Ecología Austral 18 (1): 55-70. 193-196. pages. 28 D.C., U.S.F.W. Service. Washington, mid-1980s. to D.C. Washington Interior: the of Department U.S. http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/resources/ 73

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools References 74 Liu, J. G. and J. Diamond (2005). China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature (7046): 435 1179-1186. Liu, J. and W. UK, Cambridge, W. into management. natural resource Taylor ecology landscape Integrating (2002). GeoJournal, present. and Past gardens: lithic-mulch of utility agricultural The 1994. F.W.Eddy. R., D. Lightfoot, Leather, J. W. (1898). of Indian soils. the composition On Agricultural Ledger 4: 81-164. the in evaluation land agricultural and survey soil for handbook a manual: soil tropical Booker 2014. J.R., Landon, Biological B: Society Royal the of Transactions Philosophical soils. of resilience and Degradation (1997). R. Lal, DC., Washington, Service. C. S. U. Classification. (1961). P. Land-Capability and A. Montgomery H. A. Klingebiel, for Database Potential Land The (2013). Muma R. and Stewart, B. R. Bootsma, A. Dumanski, J. V., Kirkwood, mapping. property of history A state: the of service the in map cadastral (1992).The P.Baigent J. E. R. and Kain, no. 16 Decree of Legal the Amendment the on Council O.H. of Presidential the (1986). Decree Journal, Legal 27th and land C., Jones, M. assessment Baker, J. Carter, envrionmental S. Jay,Strategic and C. (2005). Wood M. Short, Geoderma evaluation. land for framework theoretical a Rossiter, G. D. of: Discussion (1996). L. K. A. ecology. Johnson, landscape for implications and problem unit areal modifiable The (1996). Wu J. and E. D. Jelinski, Jain, B. L. (2000). Agroecological assessment Change. of soil resources of Use Rajasthan for land use planning. Land Indian Council of Implications Environmental Victoria: Lake Around Evaluation Land (2005). M. Isabirye, “indiastat.com.”Indiastat. (2000). 2014, from Mohr, H. J. and U. Ratzke (2009). 75 Jahre einheitliche Bodenschätzung in Deutschland 1934 – 2009. 2009. – 1934 Deutschland in Bodenschätzung einheitliche Jahre 75 (2009). Ratzke U. and J. H. Mohr, Argentina. province, Pampa La in erosion wind to soil of Susceptibility (1995). Irurtia B. C. and O. R. Michelena, in systems tillage different under soils in agricultural risk (2010). erosion Wind J. D.M. and E. Buschiazzo Mendez, MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, and Soil DC.Surveying for Guidelines (2008). Ringrose-Voase J. A. and Webster, R. Grundy, J. M. J., N. McKenzie, 72 Geoderma evaluation. land for framework theoretical a Rossiter, G. D. of: Discussion (1996). B. A. McBratney, investment & strategy development sector Agricultural security: income and food for Agriculture (2010). MAAIF 11. 94: Publication LUP & NBSS India. of Soils LUP,(2002). N. Ludwig, J. A., R. Bartley, A. A. Hawdon, B. N. Abbott, and D. McJannet (2007). Patch configuration non-linearly affects J. Liu, Y., Y. Li, Xinliang, W.C. R. X. Yan, W. J. Z. Zhang, S. Zhang, Qin, Ning, Kuang, Jiang, N. Zhou, Wu, Shi, S. X. of Agricultural Research and NBSS and LUP, and NBSS and Udaipur. Research of Agricultural Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Warnkenhagen, Germany, Thünengut Tellow. Thünengut Germany, Warnkenhagen, Arid Land Research and Management 9 (3): 227-234. the semiarid Pampas of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research 106 (2): 311-316. Land Resources. Melbourne, CSIRO. 198. (3): 160. of Uganda. Republic Uganda, Kampala, plan. sediment loss across scales in a Australia.grazed catchment Ecosystems in north-east 10 (5): 839-845. in changes China since the oflate Journal 24Geographical Sciences 1980s. (2): 195-210. land-use of causes and patterns, characteristics, Spatiotemporal (2014). W. Chi and Pan, X. Yu, D. Cambridge University Press. 34(4) 425-437. tropics and subtropics. Routledge. Sciences 352 (1356): 997-1010. 210-221. Office. Print Government U.S. Canada ResearchAgriculture Branch. Ontario, Ottawa, Centre. R. R. L. 1983-4E. Bulletin Technical handbook. Users’ Canada: Chicago, ofUniversity Chicago Press. 1462-1466. Közlöny 54: Magyar Evaluation. Land on of 1980 use planning: an international evaluation. London, 320. Earthscan. (3): 197.72 Landscape Ecology 11 (3): 129-140. http://www.indiastat.com/default.aspx . Rossiter, D. G. and A. R. van Wambeke (1991). Automated land evaluation system (ALES). New York, CornellYork, New (1991).(ALES). evaluationWambekesystemland vanAutomated R. A. and G. Rossiter,D. Rossiter, D. G. (1996). A theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 165-190. Conservation Rossiter, National D. G. (1990). the ALES: A framework for of land evaluation using a microcomputer. Report Soil Use and Management Congress. of houses two the to message Special (1909). T. Roosevelt, J., Rockström, W.F. Å. Persson, K. Noone, Steffen, S. E. Chapin, F. T.Lambin, M. M. Lenton, Scheffer, C. Folke, and Raychaudhary, S. P. and S. V. Govindarajan (1971). lands: Soils cultivable of India. Technical of Bulletin (25). distribution global The (2002). K. McSweeney, & J., Norman, A., J. Foley, N., Ramankutty, – degradation ongoing or improvement, Landscape (2006). Tinley L. K. and Watson, W. I. R., J. H. Pringle, Pimm, S. L. (1984). complexity andThe stability of ecosystems. Nature 307: 321-326. and States United the in erosion soil and agriculture dryland Bowl: Dust the from Lessons (1999). T. S. Phillips, continent: a of pulse the (2014).Taking Havstad M. K. and SanClements, D. M. Loescher, W. P.H. D. C., Peters, (2006). Havstad M. K. and Monger, C. H. Fredrickson, L. E. Herrick, E. J. Bestelmeyer, T. B. C., P. D. Peters, D. Pannell, J., G. R., Marshall, Barr, N., A., Vanclay,Curtis, F., and promoting Understanding R. & (2006). Wilkinson, G. Okin, S., A. J. J. Parsons, J. Wainwright, B. E. T.Herrick, Bestelmeyer, D. C. Peters, and E. L. (2009). Fredrickson Obua, J., J. G. Agea, and J. J. Ogwal (2010). Status of forests in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 48 (4): 853-859. Walker, S., Ruhweza, R., B., Wise, Y., Stone-Jovicich, Maru, N., A., N.,Grigg, D.,J.,Butler, Cowie, Abel, O’Connell, NRCS (1973). Land-Capability Classification (LCC). USDA. Ni, S. X. (2003). Progress in the research on land evaluation in China Kenyan during in the latest areas ten years. resource Journal keyof Natural of characterization social and Ecological (2008). Conant T. R. and K. M. Ngugi, J. Udayakumar, M. K. Ramesh, Murugappan, V. S. Manoharan, Balasubramaniyan, A., M. Janakiraman, Natarajan, Mosi Dhanapalan, A., M. Janakiraman, and H. Eswaran (1991). Communicating soil survey information to desarrollo El al. et Osvaldo; traditional BARSKY, In Pampeana. Región la (1991). de suelos O. Barsky Los and G. Moscatelli, concerning landowners of Perceptions (2010). Harr N. R. and Miller, R. J. Engle, M. D. Regen, E. W., L. Morton, Morello, J., S. D. Matteuddi, F. Rodríguez, and M. Silvia (2012). Ecorregiones y complejos ecosistémicos argentinos. University. 6 (1-3): 7-20. Commission. The White House. H. J. Schellnhuber (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263): 472-475. current patterns and tosensitivity possible climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11(5), 377-392. 21: Ecology Landscape Australia. 1267–1279. Western of rangelands arid the from contradictions apparent reconciling South Africa, 1900-1950. Environmental History: 245-266. 29. (3): 5 Ecosphere ecology. continental-scale to regional- for infrastructure research site-based expanding 491-501. (6): 56 Bioscience dynamics. system semiarid and arid into insights New landscapes: complex Disentangling 1407-1424. 46: Science Production Animal landholders. byrural practices conservation of adoption Do Changes in Connectivity Explain Desertification? Bioscience 59 (3): 237-244. Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C. 1.0)”. (Version projects. development into sustainable and transformation adaptation resilience, for embedding L., A., P.,Ryan, Pearson, M. in (2016). Smith, projects a world: Stafford Guidelines rapidly changing “Designing Resources 18 (6): 672-683. 820-835. (5): 72 Environments Arid of Journal rangelands. Block. Sivagangai of Sivagangairesources District, Land Tamil Nadu.(2006). Vadivelu S. and P.Jagadeesan, Natarajan, S. Rajamannar, G. P. Krishnan, Kamaludeen, M. Thanikody, M. P. Sennimalai, Kirshnasamy, M. V.K. Niranjana, D. Chandramohan, (2): 31-33. 32 Horizons Survey Soil farmers. Latinoamericano. Editor Grupo IICA. INTA. INDEC. Aires: Buenos pampeano. agropecuario & EcologyManagement 63 Rangeland(6): prairie. 645-654. tallgrass in management redcedar eastern and fire, grazing, conservation, Buenos Aires, Ediciones FADU. 75

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools References 76 USDA-FSA. (2012). Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance. USDA. from from USDA. Compliance. Conservation Wetland and Conservation Land Erodible Highly the (2012). of systems USDA-FSA. food on group working the of report A Resources. Natural and Systems Food (2016). UNEP working the of supply. A report sustainable with consumption Balancing use: land global (2014). UNEP Assessing UNEP (1987). Report of the World Commission Lands. of on EnvironmentMinistry D. U. and a. Development: H. Policy. our Land common National future. Uganda Oslo, The (2013).World D. U. a. H. Lands, of Ministry Uganda Mineral and Energy of Ministry Uganda, Kampala, guide. investment energy Renewable (2012). o. G. Uganda, Uganda, G. o. (2010). The potential of inbio-fuel Uganda: an assessment of land resources for feedstockbio-fuel UBOS (2010). Statistical Abstract. Kampala, Government Printers. and pattern practice: and theory in ecology Landscape (2001). O’Neill V. R. system. and Gardner, H. evaluation R. G., land M. Turner, D-e-Meter the with Hungary in productivity cropland of Evaluation (2011). G. Toth, China Sz soil. poor China’s from spring to continue hazards health why growth: Metastasized (2014). W. Strub, Shome,andB.P.S.K. Raychaudhuri (1960). Rating ofsoils ofIndia. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Seybold, C. A., J. E. Herrick and J. J. Brejda (1999). Soil resilience: A fundamental component of soil quality. Soil Salatin, J. (2007). Everything I want to do is illegal. Polyface, Inc. Rossiter, D. G. (2012). A approach to pedometric valuing the soil resource. and In Beyond: Soil Digital Assessments Verheye, Willy H. (1997). Land use planning and national soils policies.” Agricultural Systems 53: 161-174. 53: Systems Agricultural Viswanath, B. andpolicies.” A. C. Ukil (1943).soils Soil Map of India.national Indianand Agricultural Researchplanning Institute, use New Delhi. Land (1997). H. Willy Verheye, planning for India of subregions (1999).Agro-ecological Sehgal J. and Mandal, C. Mandal, K. D. M., Velayutham, farm pragmatic and planning use land perspective level stat for survey use land and Soil (2015). M. Velayutham, land perspective for mapping resource land and (NASIS) System Information Soil (2012). M. National Velayutham, of the Vass, technology J., G. Tóth, Information T. F. (2003). Szilágyi, S. Bencze, C. and Horváth Szlávik Speiser, R. to (3): 72 intuition Geoderma evaluation. land from for framework theoretical a evaluation: Rossiter, G. D. of: Discussion (1996). Land E. Ranst, (1991). van Berkhout A. A. J. and Wolf, J. Keulen, Van H. A., C. Diepen, van US Fish and Wildlife Service; Fisheries and Habitat Conservation. 108. USDA-NRCS. (2013). Web Soil Survey. from cs, I., M. Fekete-Farkas, and S. Vinogradov (2008). A new methodology for the estimation of for A the land and estimation (2008). value. S. new cs, Bulletin I.,Vinogradov methodology M. Fekete-Farkas, Science 164 (4): 224-234. Proceedings of the 5th Global Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping 2012, Sydney, Australia (p. 25). CRC Press. prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20120412_consv_en_helcwc12.html ttp://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype= M. H. and O.L, V.B.J., I. S, W.H., Panel. Resource International group land and soils on of Panel. InternationalB. the S., Resource H., S. P. W. et al. Commission on Environment and Development. Kampala, Uganda, Republic of Uganda: 61. Development. suitability. and NARO. Kampala, Uganda, NEMA process. York,New Springer. 161-174. Talajtan és Agrokémia 60: II): 539-549. part Issue (Special University Istvan Szent of the Holdings. SinoMedia Online, Review. Economic Delhi. D-e-Meter on-line GIS-based land evaluation system. Informatika 6 (2): 47-56. 196-197. In Advances York,inNew Science. quantiﬁcation. Soil 139-204. Springer: and development. Publication NBSS (35). S. Babu, S. Chandra, and G. R. Chary, Apple Academic Press: 375. M. V. Rao, Development. V.and Rural Agriculture for Sustainable Use Planning Land Integrated level planning. use planning and pragmatic farm level planning. Madras Agricultural Journal(4/6): 99 147-154. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm . .

Young, A. (2007). Thin on the ground: land resource survey in British overseas territories. Stanhope, UK: The The UK: Stanhope, territories. overseas British in survey resource land ground: the on Thin (2007). A. Young, U.S. C., D. Washington, Service, C. S. Uganda. of areas resource land Major (1990). Eswaran H. and D. Yost, Wu, B., Q. Yuan, C. Yan, Z. Yu, Wang, Li, X. C. J. Y. X. C. J. Chen, L. Chang, Li, Liu, Ma, Zhang, R. Huang, A. Zeng, in surveys capability land of role the capability”: land us give just maps; soil want P.(1981). don’t R. Woode, “We Wiens, J. A. (1989). Spatial plant scaling in ecology. terrestrial Functional Ecology in 3 (4): 385-397. assembly community and succession, Disturbance, (2004). Jentsch approach. A. and landscape-scale S. P. process-oriented, White, a wildlands: damaged Repairing (1999). G. S. Whisenant, W.and Van H. D. Strong, J. R. Six, Ritz, T.K. J. Jones, E. Herrick, H. V. Wall, D. D. H., R. Behan-Pelletier, Bardgett, in transformability and adaptability Resilience, (2004). Kinzig A. and Carpenter, R. S. Holling, S. C. H., B. Walker, the in transformability and adaptability, Resilience, (2009). Ryan P. and Anderies, M. J. Abel, N. H., B. Spottiswoode. Walker, and Eyre agriculture. Indian of improvement the on Report (1893). A. J. Voelcker, Memoir Club. Club. Memoir Department of Agriculture. and Bao A. (2014). Land cover changes ofQuaternery ChinaSciences (4): 34 from 2000-2010. 723-731. Zambia. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation 1 (1): 2-5. 342-366. Press: Island U.S.A., Halle. S. and Nuttle, T. Hobbs, J. R. Temperton, V. practice. and M. theory between gap the Bridging ecology: restoration and rules In Assembly communities. Cambridge, Cambridge. Der Putten (2012). Soil ecology and ecosystem services. New York City, NY, Oxford University Press. social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5. Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 12. 77

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 78 management, ecosystem management, and and (Fu et al. 2004). environmental conservation management, ecosystem management, use land macro-scale for developed been has zoning spatial scale, national the At 2003). (Ni degradation land of and tourism, uses, valuationland urban economic the for also and crops specific and agriculture for evaluations include These objective. the on depending evaluation agriculture. and industry China has developed diverse approaches to land between use coordinating land and ways, efficient more in land protectingeffectivelycultivated usingbyfor land basis scientific a provide to and development guide to been has objective general The use. addition to socioeconomic factors that affect integratedland have China biophysical land potential with current land use in in evaluation classification land and Consequently, land millennia. its of for much modifying have intensively humans been and country ancient China an north. also is central the in Inner semi-arid plains the Mongolian arid and west, southwest, the the of deserts in Plateau Tibetan Mountains and Himalayan the lowlands to southeast, sub-tropical the of and tropical the from ranges climate variable China’s topography, highly and having soils to national addition and In local needs. both reflecting uses of variety land wide a with territory vast a is China Introduction Case Study #1: China Dalal-Clayton and are Dent review Readers to encouraged use classifications. cover land land related and and evaluations land of potential application global the in variability of range the illustrate studies case following The studies case regional and Country 1. Appendix

best practices will be continuously updated. where new case studies and examples of current the and countries, individual of reviews critical (2014)additional for based on detailed land surveys in China. An An China. in developed surveys land was detailed on scheme based zoning use land A National scalelandusezoning these regions into sub-regions. criteria These were in emphasized the of division degradation. to resilience and/or resistance low to due degradation environmental to sensitivity which regions, high and potential development use high both have land two as were highlighted 26) (Figure Mountains Tibet-Hengduan Southwest the and Areas Coastal Southeast The 26). (Figure sub-regions utilization land (Table sixty-seven 5) regions and utilization types. land 12 generate to used were analyses various Cluster of (f) development and for conditions, prospects economic and social (e) markets, and infrastructure to relative location (d) utilization, resource land of structure spatial degradation sensitivity, (c) the current status and potential (based on climate and topography), (b) (Feng 2001). The criteria included (a) biophysical utilization resource land for method grading and system zoning new the This create to and 1980s. modified was and China 1950s in the use between applied resource land of zoning historical using up set initially was system index landpotential.org website, Table 5 Table Source: Feng 2001 China in zoning resources 26. land of Figure Map Adapted from Feng (2001). VIII XII VII IX XI VI IV III X V II I Southeast Southeast coastal areas Plateau Yunnan-Guizhou south of the Yangtze River area Hilly and mountainous basins Sichuan-Shannan the Yangtze River Plain of reaches lower and Middle Loess Plateau China plain Northern mountains/plains Northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau arid lands Northwestern Inner Mongolian Plataeu Mountains Tibet-Hengduan Southeast . The twelve land use regions of the land use zoning scheme in China in scheme zoning use land the of regions use land twelve The . Geographic Location Geographic Woodland/paddy fields Woodland/paddy fields farmland/paddy Woodland/dry land industrial residential/ fields/waters/ Paddy woodland Dry farmland/grassland/ land residential/industrial and farmland Irrigated/dry farmland Woodland/dry residential/industrial land residential/industrial and fields/garden Woodland/paddy farmland Woodland/shrubby/dry Grassland/unused land Grassland/unused farmland land/grassland//irrigated Unused farmland Grassland/dry Woodland/grassland Type(s) of land Type(s) of construction region construction and fishing, forestry, Farming, region forestry and Farming region forestry and Farming region forestry and Farming region construction and fishery, Farming, region forest and husbandry, Farming, region construction and Farming region forestry and Farming Husbandry region Husbandry region farming oasis and Husbandry region Husbandry Forestry and husbandry region husbandry and Forestry Uses of land of Uses 79

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 80 country) between 2000 and 2010 and 2000 between China in country) the of (parts 12 zones land first the in change use land net 28.The Figure Note: Source: Feng 2001. LUCI index. 27.Figure Intensity Change Use Land the intensive most experienced land use change IV and III zones use land that indicated Results 27 and Table 6). al. 2014) (Figure regions 12 the in utilization land et (Liu (LUCI) intensity change use land of index an using quantified briefly were characteristics and 2010 2000 (Wu et al. 2014), land use change land use in dataset China from between the 30m resolution to the land use 250m data re-sampled using analysis transition use land the on Based Recent zonallandusechange Source: Liwei Zhang and Yihe Lu based on land use change between 2000 and 2010 in China with reference to the land use zoning scheme scheme zoning use land the to reference with China in 2010 by and Feng (2001). 2000 between change use land on based Lu Yihe and Zhang Liwei Source: years years for the land use conversion; and LU =(1/ i is the area of land use land of area the is t ) x 100% x ) x100% ∑ ij n i at the beginning of the period, period, the of beginning the at

( ∆ LU LUCI LUCI ij / LU i is the land use change intensity in the intensity change use island the ) ∆ LU i − j is the total area of land use use land of area total the is n ubnzto o idsraiain (four expansion. farmland signiﬁcant industrialization or experienced X zone use land zones),only while, urbanization and (three covervegetative non-agricultural suffered zones use signiﬁcant loss land due to the ecological seven restoration of in farmland that 6 Table from clear also is It 6). (Table 2% than lower rate change a with change use land use intensive least the experienced XII and Land X zones industrialization; and by urbanization changed mainly was IV zone use land but use zone III was mainly changed by Land reforestation changed; use land the of 30% over with t years. years. i converted into land use land into converted j ; t

zones), is the the is Table 6. Zonal land use change charac teristics between 20 0 0 and 2010 in China in 2010 and 0 0 20 between teristics charac change use land Zonal 6. Table Zone VIII XII VII XI IX VI IV III X V II I intensity % intensity Land use use Land change change 25.65 24.04 30.12 30.13 10.16 15.10 5.36 8.27 8.42 5.78 1.92 1.76 Farmlands to artificial surfaces; The bidirectional transitions among farmlands, of decrease as the are farmlands, represented final results The among wetlands. and lands, forest transitions bidirectional The surfaces; artificial to Farmlands largest rate of loss, while artificial surface is the one with the largest increase rate. rate. increase largest the with one the is surface artificial while the loss, of with rate type use largest land the is Farmland land. forest and surfaces the artificial of and increase grasslands, and wetlands, farmlands, of decrease results the as final The represented are farmlands. within transitions the and surfaces, artificial to Farmlands rate. increase largest is the land with one forest the while loss, of rate largest the with type use land the is Farmland lands. artificial lands, andsurfaces, wetlands, andforest of the increase of artificial grasslands, andsurfaces, increase forest the and grasslands, and as farmlands of represented are decrease the results final The lands. forest and grasslands between bidirectional The transitions surfaces; artificial and lands, forest grasslands, to Farmlands rate. increase one the is largest the with surface artificial while loss, of rate largest the with type Farmland use rate. land the is increase largest the with one the is surface artificial while loss, of rate artificial of grasslands, andsurfaces, forest lands. Wetlandincrease isthe the landand use with type the largest wetlands, farmlands, of are decrease the as results final The represented lands. forest and grasslands, surfaces, artificial to Farmlands issurface the one with the largest increase rate. forest artificial and while of rate loss, largest the with type use land is the Wetland surfaces lands. artificial of increase the and grasslands, farmlands, wetlands, artificial surface is the one with the largest increase rate. rate. increase largest the with one the is surface while loss, of artificial rate largest the with type use land the is Grassland forestlands. and surfaces of artificial increase the and wetlands, and decrease grasslands the ofas farmlands, mainly represented are results final The wetlands. and surfaces, artificial to forestlands, Grasslands grasslands; and surfaces artificial to Farmlands rate. increase largest the with one the is surface artificial while the with loss, of rate type use largest land the is Farmland lands. forest and surfaces the artificial and of increase grasslands, and wetlands farmlands, of decrease the as mainly are results represented final The forestlands. to Grasslands grasslands; or lands farmlands forest between and transitions Bidirectional surfaces; artificial to Farmlands one only the is that experiencedFarmland loss,rate. while forest landincrease is the largest one the with the with largest one increasethe is rate. while surface loss, of rate artificial largest the with type use land the is Farmland and surfaces. wetlands, artificial grasslands, lands, forest of increase the and the as farmlands, of mainly decrease represented are results final The grasslands. and to surfaces farmlands and artificial lands, forest and farmlands between transition bidirectional The largest the with one increase rate.the is surface artificial while loss, of rate largest use the land the with is type Farmland lands. forest and wetlands, surfaces, artificial of the and increase farmlands, and grasslands of decrease the as results mainly final The represented are forestlands. and farmlands between transition farmlands, to bidirectional the grasslands and lands, forest to grasslands surfaces, artificial to Farmlands rate. increase largest the with one the is wetland the while with loss, of rate type use land largest the is Farmland surfaces. artificial and lands, forest of increase wetlands, the and farmlands, of decrease the as mainly final The represented are wetlands. and results grasslands, surfaces, artificial lands, forest to Farmlands rate of loss, while grassland is the one with the largest increase rate. rate. increase largest the with one the is grassland while loss, of rate Deforestation; farmlands; grasslands, of artificial wetlands,surfaces, andor other increase land uses. the Forestland and experienced the largest farmlands, and forestlands of grasslands decrease the represented as are mainly and results final The grasslands. and surfaces forestlands artificial to Farmlands between Transitions the rate. increase with largest one the is wetland while loss, of rate largest the experienced uses land uses, land and the other increase ofand wetlands, artificial grasslands, andsurfaces, forestlands. Other farmlands of decrease the as mainly represented final are The results wetlands. to Grasslands grasslands; and farmlands between Transitions Other land uses experienced the largest rate of loss, while farmland is the one with with one the is the largest increasefarmland rate.while loss, of rate largest the experienced uses forestlands. land and Other wetlands, surfaces, artificial farmlands, of increase the land and other uses, and grasslands of decrease the as mainly represented are results final The to farmlands. Forestlands surfaces; artificial wetlands, to farmlands, Grasslands Main characteristics of land use change use land of characteristics Main 81

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 82 n 80 I 17, praet aatr was cadaster permanent a 1875, In 1850. land in provisional preparation first The the Europe. of in of histories evaluation longest land the of one has Hungary Introduction Hungary #2: Study Case X of area dryland northwest the in farmland of expansion The China. in security food on risks potential implied zones use land the of most in rapid economic growth. The decrease of by and farmland motivated areas urbanization built-up other of the expansion and 1990s) of end the at launched Program Green to Grain the (e.g., restoration of ecological motivation policy strong very a to owing compromised largely havebeen objectives above the that clear is 21st it century, in the 12 land use zones in the first decade of the sectors analysis change use land 2001). the From (Feng socioeconomic different by use land of coordination while utilization, land efficiency high protection, farmland effective of objectives specific level the in and key meet which regions, to contribute land use can science-based development at national approach as macroscopic zoning use a land that claimed usually is It Challenges work work then began with the objective of developing Preparatory values. historic its on based land of re-privatisation the support to reintroduced was cadaster system the century-old regime in 1990, communist the of fall the After 1986). Agriculture factors of Ministry the (Hungarian formation soil on controlling based were which detailed maps, of soil content information the were on indices based new The 1986). Journal Official (Hungarian cadasters official were the indices in introduced capability soil and Evaluation 1986, Land in Act the in adapted was system rating capability soil (Fekete quantitative new A etc. 1965). management, nutrient systems, crop to plan out worked have systems new been War, World Second the after information soil of enhancement the With conditions. market and productivity soil on the based lands of of account profitability an including law, by ordered cadaster began began ecosystem services in particular. of methods quantification the of and general in science service ecosystem of development the on depends This methodologically. land zoning improve use to criteria functional as helpful are locations geographical and scales different at services, uses land to relevant services) regulating cultural and services, provisioning biophysical services their ecosystem and uses to need In be attributes this incorporated. sense, land beyond are unavoidable. Therefore, more considerations In land use planning and management, trade-offs management. and planning use land sustainable for approach macroscopic a as zoning use land the of challenge implementation great in a be to remains sectors regions and socioeconomic different from raised demands use land different of coordination the may risks Therefore, of induce degradation. land 3. 2. 1. system evaluations D- land the of Development Principles organization. survey soil state the and companies, private institutes, research universities, between effort joint a as 2000s early the in developed was 2011), which introduces D- the so-called use land according to climatic variability. This chapter of optimization to evaluation productivity from purposes, multiple serve and system, technologies evaluation information new of advantage take could land which comprehensive a

e The index should be based on a series of of series indices. cropspecific a on based be should index The specific and reflect general production production general potential. reflect and specific crop be should system evaluation land The Hungary. in lands arable possible or croplands, all to thus and types, soil as well as conditions terrain and for system all be must applicable climatic The -Meter was based on the following principles: (i.e., supporting services, services, supporting (i.e., e -Meter system -Meter (Toth

8. 7. of various types of black soils in South India is is India South in soils black of types various potential of in variability The wet. when vehicles to impassable be can and are cultivate to soils difficult cotton black However, fertility. relatively high with associated and flat usually are soils cotton black the Africa, and India both In Africa. of much throughout applied also is soils “red” and cotton” “black that between distinction the fact Its the by systems. illustrated is relevance classification global the simple illustrating thus of training, power soil no or little with individuals by even categorization understood, widely this is of significance and functional Soil, Red The 1898). Leather 1893, (Voelcker Soil, Soil Laterite Cotton Black Alluvium, Indo-Gangetic groups: soil major systems four included classification soil Indian earliest The Soil surveys needs. local also is country designing its The own innovative approaches to meet above. described LCC USDA and GAEZ existing FAO the of including systems, adaptation the in evaluation land and survey soil of history long a has also India India #3: Study Case The elements of the system are (Vass et al. Applications 6. 5. 4.

available on a detailed scale (at scale a detailed on available on a parcel level; therefore the system has to availablebe be must productivity on Information etc. bodies, of government farmers, including rights, access level different with stakeholders for various controllable and accessible be to have digital using maps (soil and cadastral) platform and an its functionalities GIS on implemented internet-based be must system The analysis. statistical on based and quantitative be must indices Productivity Land evaluation has to be performed on on performed be levels. input fertilizer different to has evaluation Land the effects of climatic variability. with cope should system evaluation land The

least

1:10,000).

2003): 2003): 67%) of the country is also needed. also is 67%)country the of approximately at (currently coverage map soil cadastral system, the completion of detailed digital introductionfulllegalframeworkthethefor the to stillishold(as on December of2014). fromApart farms. The country-wide introduction of the system tested large and smallboth inbeen used studiesandpilot in have system the of modules Various (Sz evaluations economic was comprehensive and with grassland) supplemented (forest, types use agricultural land other of evaluation productivity to Additionally, the D- 5. 4. scale is now available (NBSS&LUP 2002). isavailablescale now (NBSS&LUP et al. 2013). A soil map of Bhattacharyya India at the 1:1,000,000 2009, al. Govindarajan et and Bhattacharyya 1971, Raychaudhary 1943, and Ukil (Viswanath purposes and areas specific 3. 2. 1. Systematic soil survey investigations in India India 20 the during in investigations survey soil Systematic for limited. nutrient often are more but properties cultivation, physical better have generally management to 1991).al. et India in Dhanapalan soils Red (Mosi soils different of variable the responses on based farmers by developed was classification soil local a that known well so map of each state, detailed soil descriptions descriptions soil detailed state, each of map soil the to addition In planning. for developmental sub-regions Agro-Ecological divide 60 into to India FAO Approach the Zoning used Agro-Ecological More (1999) districts. Velayutham 640 India’s recently, of 294 in soils to factors 3 applied was It 1960). Raychaudhuri and (Shome used and system Storie modified a followed soils Indian of exercise rating early An Land potentialevaluation

Input intensity (fertilization) module (fertilization)module intensity Input Production risk (inland water, drought) module module evaluation productivity Land Soil map (GIS) module (GIS) module map Soil module registry use land and registry Land th century produced soil maps for for maps soil produced century cs et al. 2008). e -Meter -Meter system was extended 83

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 84 in conjunction with Indian remote sensing sensing remote Indian with conjunction (1:10,000) in maps cadastral using level village developing the at resources land on and soil of maps detailed focused have efforts Recent system Developing anationallandpotentialevaluation India in cover Land 7. Table was 43% 11.7 hectares, of area million sorghum fed rain total a of out that indicated map class LQI The soils. benchmark from obtained yields LQI The was well sorghum actual with correlated (SQI). index quality soil and (CQI) index quality semi- climate a Indian of function a is LQI the (SAT). tropics arid in sorghum for (LQI) index quality land a developed (2001) al. et Mandal (e.g. reports soil 2000). Jain independent in covered are prospects planning use land and of villages in Sivagangai Block of Tamil Nadu Nadu Tamil of Block cluster Sivagangai in the villages of for demonstrated the as GIS in frameworks of system Classification implementation Capability Land the through approach works new The evaluation. potential land and inventory resource land for a approach new of development supported and have Nadu Karnataka Tamil of states the in Experiences applied at and farm and individual watershed scales. developed be to strategies management soil-water-fertility for recommendations specific This will village. allow technology the transfer of based be on maps soil- soil can the on farms superimposed million of 120 all approximately completed, the When products. and data Subtotal Net sown lands agricultural Current fallow lands Long fallow lands Culturable waste land groves and crops Tree lands grazing and pastures Permanent land unculturable and Barren Area under non-agricultural uses Forests Land Cover Type Cover Land (Indiastat 2000) (Indiastat . (NAAS & ICAR 2010). ICAR & (NAAS degradation of severity the of degrees different with lands waste and degraded be to estimated the are ha 120 million area, geographical total the of of cover land Out 7).(Table applied being currently is country of classification 9-fold A areas. these in measures management soil better for need the indicating low, as 19% and moderate, as 38% LQI, high as classified Age” through e-Land use planning and and planning (Velayutham 2012, resources Velayutham use natural 2015). of management e-Land sustainable through Age” “Information the of advantage full take to India enable will This micro-level. a on management level, and pragmatic farm level planning and land land use planning and management on a macro- prospective affect will development The system. and a assessment system (NASIS) land potential information soil national a of development the in culminate to expected is initiative this 2020, By providers. technology and knowledge managers, and land dynamic farmers, a between facilitate interaction will It district centers. resource informatics village and centers, knowledge national village centers, at become accessible will based query and open-ended is which framework, This 2006). al. et (Natarajan Area (millions ha) (millions Area 305 143 25 70 10 10 14 13 17 3 Table 8. Over view of land evaluation Systems in Uganda in Systems evaluation land of view Over 8. Table 2000). Adger 2003, al. et Berry 2010, (MAAIF areas many in productivity land in declines associated with increasing, are use, land over conflicts and degradation, Land of history allocation. and planning a use land inappropriate by exacerbated 2010). is (UBOS situation practices The use land poor and %, a deforestation rate of 10% (Obua et al. 2010), 3.5 of growth population a including challenges, many faces also country the However, 2012). Uganda of (Government population growing fast a for infrastructure livelihood creating and production, employment oil and mining, tourism, support also Uganda’sresources natural million. the 250 of over is which Africa, population of region Lakes Great the of much feed farmers Ugandan 1990). Eswaran and (Yost production potential for high possesses levels of agricultural that land with endowed well is Uganda systems. the in evaluation of land of countries application and development number many by a faced illustrates challenges case Uganda The Case Study #4: Uganda No 5 4 3 2 1 Feedstock Feedstock Bio-fuel for assessment Resources Land Suitability system Farming zonation zonation ecological Agro systems Land potential potential Productivity Evaluation Evaluation System 1:1000,000 1: 250,000 1: 1:50,000 1:50,000 1:50,000 Scale on 1960 surveys) surveys) 1960 on data); (based 1961 on productivity soil and Rainfall (based Temperature Soils, rainfall, cropping characteristics (ii) Soil, topography, climate cropping system climate, use, land soils, Landscape, (i) Drainage vegetation, soil, Topography, soil erosion to accelerated liability tillage, (crops, Management (iii) drainage, nutrient status) structure, texture, (Depth, Soil (ii) relief) vegetation, (rainfall, (i)Environmental Evaluation criteria Evaluation customized to local Ugandan conditions conditions Ugandan local to customized (Isabirye 2005, Abongo 2008). 2008). Abongo 2005, (Isabirye ad vlain auto Sse (LS – (ALES System see Valuation Evaluation Land capability land suitability, includinginternationalsystems— common studies, academic targeted independence Through 1962. Ugandan in before since used evaluation and adopted been land have that 6) (Table systems quantitative and of qualitative range a by supported is Policy Land the of standards and Implementation 2010). Uganda of (Government principles international with comply to instruments national and regional of adaptation (3) and indicators, condition land of application and development (2) uses, specific for suitability and availability an land on of inventory maintenance and creation policy (1) The includes 2013). Lands of Ministry (Uganda Policy a Land challenges, these to response In eto 3.1 Section suitable suitable and Not Marginally Suitable; suitable; Highly 4 classes: 7 systems 9 Broad Zones1 Zones1 Broad 9 zones 14 into aggregated zones (detailed) 33 CSIRO) from (Adopted catena and series on based classes 22 (1951) USDA from (Adopted 10class Structure a aotd n eray 2013 February in adopted was ) — have been validated and and validated been have — ) production production feedstock Bio-fuel towards analysis Policy assessment; use Land planning policy and use land Agricultural targeting targeting management Land modeling; optimization use Land capacities; Carrying use Land yield calculation calculation yield Potentialinventory; resource Land assessment potential productivity Agricultural , and the Automated Automated the and , Application National NEMA 2010 2000 MFPED and MAAIF 2001, Komutunga and Musiitwa 2001 Komutunga and Musiitwa 1999 Eledu and Wortmann Ollier 1967 1960 Chenery land land Reference 85

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 86 areas, where this group comprises the most most the Aridisols and Entisols Pampas. of the soils fertile comprises group this where areas, humid most in significant is agriculture Dryland crop supports which Mollisol, the is order soil geology and soils (Figure 29). The most abundant diverse by increased further is potential land in Variability evapotranspiration. and precipitation, these Together, factors altitude. generate large differences of in temperature, 6900m over and country. diverse It extends through 32 degrees of extremely latitude an is Argentina China, Like Case Study #5: Argentina information. of dissemination smooth the limit that ambiguities creates and sites, and projects beyond sharing data undermines parameters classification of standardization of lack Finally, a lacking. generally is Third, resilience of services. concept the ecosystem other support land the to of potential the ignoring agriculture, arable towards skewed are and scenarios rigid second on based are The systems the that is factor qualitative. limiting are datasets these of many and 1960s the to back date that sets data old on based largely are they that The is first factors. of is, number a systems by limited however, these of application Successful due to their susceptibility to wind erosion erosion wind to and Michelena 2010, Buschiazzo susceptibility and (Mendez their to due cultivated when degradation for potential high a have also soils these 1991). of However, many where production rainfall is adequate (Moscatelli and Barsky potential high have the and States, China United in soils loess like soils, These currently 2008). al. et (Demaria is production crop annual region Pampas to grassland from conversion rapid undergoing the in Land of process conversion to agriculture. intense an undergoing are which of most lands, country’s the of 80% than more for account groups soil four These Argentina. northeastern of areas subtropical humid mainly the in located Alfisols, the is area, the occupied of terms in soil, dominant most fourth The areas. semiarid and arid in holding prevalentcapacity, water low with soils undeveloped are agriculture and intensive cattle operations. operations. cattle intensive and agriculture cash cash degradation resistance and resilience. with together production potential considering of importance the illustrates This 1995). Irurtia more fundamental changes in land use policy. require others while document, this of sections some in provided are challenges technical the of some for to solutions Possible common countries. are many that challenges of number a increase However,land management. sustainable it faces to apply systems of and evaluation potential number develop land to a opportunities has unique Uganda conclusion, In stakeholders. among difficulties technical low (2) (3) several levels; at and coordination capacities implementation; weakness policy (1) in include challenges Additional land potential with current use and land cover. land and use current with potential land confound they because planning use land for them use effectively evaluations todisaggregated be of must types these land, the of status current the describing for useful While conservation status. even and cover, land use, land current reflect that those with topography, and climate, soil, as such potential, land define one that the factors combines to it that in China, for similar described conceptually This is 13). initiative (Figure constraints of more identification a including provided potential, land of has assessment holistic 2012) approach al. “Ecoregions” et (Morello the recently, More 2002). al. et (Godagnone 1:2,500,000 of scale a at Nations country entire the United cover to project a under developed also was Argentina of Atlas Soil The potential. production Technology agricultural high with areas the on Agricultural focusing (INTA), by of developed Institute were National Projects Map Soil Severaltaxation. valuesforland assess to need government’s the and production, agricultural increasing in interest erosion), wind (especially around of combination concerns about land degradation a by started driven been have these Argentina time, Over 1850. in studies Land attempting to integrate parameters like “land “land like parameters integrate to attempting of challenges the and systems scoring of simple limitations the exposing while tools, on-line Zoning of value simple It potential illustrates the System. Agro-ecological the to production-focused than system, Classification Land Capability limitations-focused the to similar more conceptually is ESI the sense, this In resilience. or risks degradation on focus a with information, and knowledge potential land to access public provide to attempts and current many of strengths limitations the both an of is example It excellent region. specific a for developed tool 30) The Expert System Index: for MediterraneanSensitivity EuropeEnvironmental #6: Study Case Argentina. of Atlas Soil the on based areas, rocky and water continental urban, include “Others” Note: 2012. al. et Morello Source: Taxonomy to Soil according orders. Argentina in 29.Figure types soil Major is an example of an online decision support support decision online an of example an is Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) (ESI) (Figure (Figure or policymakers to identify Environmentally Environmentally identify Sensitive Areas (ESA) to (Figure 29). policymakers managers or land enables This degradation. to susceptibility area’s an calculate to indicators of suite a uses which system, key based a indicator is system Europe ESI The 2012). al. Mediterranean et (Ferrara for system indicator desertification a develop to project objective the with interdisciplinary and international - an project DESERTLINKS funded European the Commission under developed was ESI The as enforcement” “policy generic and intensity” use

inputs.

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools Appendix 1. Country and regional case studies 88 Soils: layers are used to provide these data: data general Four variables. economic system (1) this (2)physical, and vegetative, (3) socio- in essential are data of classes key Three Source: Modiﬁed from: Fererra et al. 2012. Index Sensitivity Environmental the to calculate used 30. Indicators Figure gives the user information about the following: the about information user the gives down drop of menus for series user input of the indicators. The output a uses system ESI The and land use enforcements. Management: surface byvegetation. covered soil the of proportion the cover, plant and resistance drought protection, erosion risk, Vegetation: rainfall, aspect, index. well aridity as the as Climate: texture, slope. and drainage, depth, soil material, parent This layer comprises information on on information comprises layer This

This layer includes information on on information includes layer This This layer includes data on ﬁre ﬁre on data includes layer This This layer describes policy policy describes layer This apply the tool, the underlying datasets datasets underlying outside areas Mediterranean for the obtained to be to order need tool, would in the but locations, apply spatial other to transferable theoretically questions is system the The posed. of complexity the involved on analysis depends data the of complexity The ` ` ` `

factors in the area. the in factors An evaluation of the critical interactions among factor(s) critical present most area. in the the of evaluation An ESA). and (ESI area the of desertiﬁcation to Sensitivity Environmental the of estimate The components main four 30). (Figure the for examined being land the of quality the of evaluation An

Europe. former British overseas territories. overseas British former and current in surveys resource Land 2. Appendix Zimbabwe Zambia Zambia Jamaica) than (other Indies West Indies West Uganda Tanzania: Zanzibar Tanzania: Tanzania Swaziland Sudan Sudan Myanmar Lesotho Hong Kong Guyana Ghana Gambia Sudan Samoa Guinea New Papua Pakistan (W. Nigeria Region) West) than other (regions Nigeria Malaysia: Sarawak Malaysia: Sabah Malaysia: Malaya Malawi Malawi Tanzania Uganda, Kenya, Jamaica India Fiji Brunei Botswana Bangladesh Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Solomon Islands Leone Sierra Leone Sierra Seychelles Kenya Somalia Belize Country

Government/Netherlands Government/Canada FAO/Government Government (NZ) Government Consultants/FAO CSIRO Australia Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Consultants Consultants Consultants Consultants Institutions Institutions University University Various FAO FAO LRD LRD LRD LRD LRD LRD LRD RRI RRI Full (excl. Full mts.) Coverage Limited Limited Limited Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Years (Publication) Years 1947 ongoing 1947 1936/1947 1955-1960 1966-1979 1964-1070 1950-1970 1966-1972 1965-1977 1958-1970 1963-1970 1958-1967 1970-1979 1965-1971 1962-1966 1959-1962 1969-1977 1963-1974 1969-1979 1975-1976 1937-1943 1967-1968 1961-1967 1961-1971 1930’s 1980 1936 1938 1960 1926 1968 1955 1965 1965 1963 1962 1962 1970 1945 1959 1972 1969 1967 1971 1974 89

Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

The International Resource Panel showed in its !rst report on Land and Soil that without signi!cant productivity increases, or decreases in the global per capita consumption of food and non-food biomass, the world’s growing population will necessarily lead to an expansion of global cropland. www.unep.org The gross expansion of cropland under business United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, 00100 Kenya as usual conditions will be 21 - 55% from 2005 Tel: (254 20) 7621234 Fax: (254 20) 7623927 to 2050. Matching land use with land potential is, E-mail: [email protected] therefore, a key factor in reducing the pressure on web: www.unep.org our land resources.

An improved understanding of land potential, in addition to more cost-effective and holistic tools for generating and sharing this understanding, is necessary to guide land use and management and, UNLOCKING THE SUSTAINABLE POTENTIAL OF LAND RESOURCES: EVALUATION SYSTEMS, STRATEGIES AND TOOLS where necessary, to halt unsustainable land uses. More speci!cally, land potential evaluation systems are needed to sustain and increase the provision of ecosystem services in the context of climate change, persistent land degradation and increasing global population and per-capita consumption levels by (a) guiding land tenure and land redistribution, and (b) promoting innovation to sustainably increase productivity and resource ef!ciency, including through sustainable intensi!cation. Matching more effectively land use with the land’s potential is one of the few strategies available to decouple human development and economic growth from land degradation.

This new IRP report provides background information, tools, and policy options necessary to implement the concept of “land degradation neutrality” included in target 15.3 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9 Job Number: DTI/2002/PA