it? UNCCD has developed the so-called “conceptual framework” which also provides recommendations on the necessary three categories of actions to achieve LDN.
The “conceptual framework” uses the term “The LDN response hierarchy”.
38 The
necessary three categories of actions to achieve LDN are “avoid”, “reduce” and
“reverse”.
39 Avoid is intended that degradation is prevented, in other words, no
degradation occurs Reduce means that the negative effects of an activity for soils
are minimized to the level possible. “Reverse” should include measure to restore or to
rehabilitate degradation processes. Restoration in the view of UNCCD seeks to “reestablish the pre-existing biotic integrity” and rehabilitation aims to “reinstate the
ecosystem functionality with the focus on provision of goods and services”.
40 In
addition the “conceptual framework” sees a need for “a pro-active focus on planning”
by which “anticipated losses” should be counterbalanced by “planned gains”.
41
The “conceptual framework” is a very helpful tool in order to promote the
implementation of LDN as it provides a plausible structuring of ways and means
of its implementation. However, not all questions have to be solved in application of
the “conceptual framework”. As the LDN objective was only approved in 2015, the
already existing legislation has to be evaluated and assessed whether it complies
with the requirements of the conceptual framework. Thus states will have to analyze
their national legislation whether it provides for suitable mechanism to
achieve LDN.
Such an analytical assessment requires the following steps. First it has to be
analyzed whether the current legislation provides measures to “avoid” and “reduce”
land/soil degradation.
42 Such an analysis could not be undertaken generally but has
to be driver and threat specific. The question actually is whether and to which extent
degradation is excluded for a certain threat of a driver of soil/land degradation, for
example for the operation of an industrial site. If the analysis concludes that for this
issue no degradation could occur, no further actions are needed. If this is not the case,
the analysis must go on to check whether there are legal provisions in place to ensure
that the anticipated losses are to be compensated on a project level. For example in
case of the industrial site it has to be analyzed whether the national provisions require
that the contamination which will be caused by the industrial activity has to be offset
by compensation measures. If this is the case land degradation neutrality is achieved.
If not, it has to be analyzed whether additional planning instruments are in place to
38 In addition many other matters have to be clarified, defined and arranged, i.a. the following points:
A baseline has to be defined, the status of soil/land have to be assessed, indicators for the assessment
of the status, of land degradation and of restoration/rehabilitation actions as well as monitoring
requirements have to be defined. Further information see Ehlers (2016), Minelli et al. (2016) and
Cowie (2018).
39 Cowie (2018), p. 30.
40 Cowie (2018), p. 31.
41 Cowie (2018), p. 31.
42 To completely avoid soil/land degradation it is often necessary to prohibit a human activity,
because most human activities cause—at least to a certain extent—degradation of soils. Thus it
might be reasonable to see “avoid” and “reduce” as one category.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
43
The “conceptual framework” uses the term “The LDN response hierarchy”.
38 The
necessary three categories of actions to achieve LDN are “avoid”, “reduce” and
“reverse”.
39 Avoid is intended that degradation is prevented, in other words, no
degradation occurs Reduce means that the negative effects of an activity for soils
are minimized to the level possible. “Reverse” should include measure to restore or to
rehabilitate degradation processes. Restoration in the view of UNCCD seeks to “reestablish the pre-existing biotic integrity” and rehabilitation aims to “reinstate the
ecosystem functionality with the focus on provision of goods and services”.
40 In
addition the “conceptual framework” sees a need for “a pro-active focus on planning”
by which “anticipated losses” should be counterbalanced by “planned gains”.
41
The “conceptual framework” is a very helpful tool in order to promote the
implementation of LDN as it provides a plausible structuring of ways and means
of its implementation. However, not all questions have to be solved in application of
the “conceptual framework”. As the LDN objective was only approved in 2015, the
already existing legislation has to be evaluated and assessed whether it complies
with the requirements of the conceptual framework. Thus states will have to analyze
their national legislation whether it provides for suitable mechanism to
achieve LDN.
Such an analytical assessment requires the following steps. First it has to be
analyzed whether the current legislation provides measures to “avoid” and “reduce”
land/soil degradation.
42 Such an analysis could not be undertaken generally but has
to be driver and threat specific. The question actually is whether and to which extent
degradation is excluded for a certain threat of a driver of soil/land degradation, for
example for the operation of an industrial site. If the analysis concludes that for this
issue no degradation could occur, no further actions are needed. If this is not the case,
the analysis must go on to check whether there are legal provisions in place to ensure
that the anticipated losses are to be compensated on a project level. For example in
case of the industrial site it has to be analyzed whether the national provisions require
that the contamination which will be caused by the industrial activity has to be offset
by compensation measures. If this is the case land degradation neutrality is achieved.
If not, it has to be analyzed whether additional planning instruments are in place to
38 In addition many other matters have to be clarified, defined and arranged, i.a. the following points:
A baseline has to be defined, the status of soil/land have to be assessed, indicators for the assessment
of the status, of land degradation and of restoration/rehabilitation actions as well as monitoring
requirements have to be defined. Further information see Ehlers (2016), Minelli et al. (2016) and
Cowie (2018).
39 Cowie (2018), p. 30.
40 Cowie (2018), p. 31.
41 Cowie (2018), p. 31.
42 To completely avoid soil/land degradation it is often necessary to prohibit a human activity,
because most human activities cause—at least to a certain extent—degradation of soils. Thus it
might be reasonable to see “avoid” and “reduce” as one category.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
43