FIGURE 1 Annual loss of per capita arable land in developing countries, 1961–2009
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
Source: Preliminary analysis based on linear regression model from data from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database.
issuing a declaration calling for zero land degrada- tion and for adopting sustainable land management as the way to achieve sustainable development.
New Evidence In pursuing these goals, we can draw on new evi- dence about causes of land degradation and solu- tions to it. Although the conventional wisdom holds that increasing population density is a major driver of land degradation, recent studies suggest that land improvement is possible even in countries with high population density. For example, there was a positive association between an increase in population density and land improvement between 1981 and 2006 globally and in East Asia, but a neg- ative association in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.2 Te land improvement in East Asia was atributed largely to policies promoting tree plant- ing and forest plantation programs in China and Korea. China, for example, has the largest number of certified emission reduction credits in the world. Tese credits, issued to developing countries that implement carbon-reducing projects, are certified according to standards set by the Clean Develop- ment Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. More is also being learned about how effective
governance—especially local governance—can reduce land degradation. Strong local institutions
64 LAND UNDER PRESSURE
and regulation, linked with national institutions and policies, can give local communities the tools they need to manage natural resources such as land, water, and forests. For example, a 2011 study of four African countries showed that the number of land and water management by-laws enacted by communities was strongly correlated with the level of decentralization in each country.3 Te findings suggested that the more decentralized a country is, the more likely local communities will take col- lective action to address natural resource chal- lenges. Of course, strong local governments and other local organizations alone are not sufficient for sustainable natural resource management. House- holds and communities also need access to mar- kets, remunerative prices, and other incentives. In the past 20 years, international cooperation
on natural resource management has risen rapidly because of increasing awareness of how the ben- efits of beter resource management and the costs of resource degradation cross boundaries. Carbon markets—valued at US$142 billion in 20104—and other international environmental programs have contributed to global efforts to reduce deforestation and other sustainable natural resource management programs in developing countries.
The Example of Brazil Brazil has dramatically reduced deforestation, thanks to actions taken by local and central gov- ernments in cooperation with the international community. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Brazil enacted laws and regulations to protect forests, but deforestation was rampant, reaching a peak of 72,000 square kilometers in 2003–04.5 Ten state and municipal governments, as well as the federal government, set laws and by-laws enforcing the deforestation moratorium. And Brazilians started participating in Clean Development Mecha- nism projects. With more than 180 such projects in operation, Brazil has the third-largest num- ber of certified emission reduction credits, aſter China and India.6 Land users who signed a bind- ing contract promising not to clear forests were compensated. By 2008–09, just five years later, deforestation had plummeted to 7,000 square kilometers—a reduction of 74 percent.7 Moreover,
Loss of arable land per capita (square meters/year)
Sub-Saharan Africa World South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean Southeast Asia
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126