Advancing land degradation neutrality through local action and global integration

Feed, care, and protect are the three pillars for anchoring sustainable land management to achieve land degradation neutrality, ensure food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Applying a sustainable land use systems approach will support the achievement of land degradation neutrality and several other SDGs.
These were the key messages emerging from a high-level panel discussion at a side event on land degradation neutrality on 5 December 2024 at UNCCD COP 16, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Annette Cowie, a senior principal researcher and scientist at the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and an adjunct professor at the University of New England, shared insights from the most recent report from Objective 1 of the Science Policy Interface (SPI) of the UNCCD. The report, “Sustainable Land Use Systems: The Path Forward to Collectively Achieve Land Degradation Neutrality.”
“Our aim was to provide scientific evidence on sustainable land use systems and their potential to achieve land degradation neutrality while supporting other sustainable development goals (SDGs). This task was assigned to us by the COP at its previous session,” said Cowie, who co-led the study.
Cowie noted that the concept of sustainable land use systems is relatively new to the UNCCD but builds on previous SPI work. Over the years, the SPI has produced several significant reports, including the Land Degradation Neutrality Conceptual Framework, studies on sustainable land management practices, guidance on building soil organic carbon, and recommendations on implementing integrated land use planning. Sustainable land use systems apply these concepts with a fresh emphasis on viewing land within its broader landscape context.
Sustainable land use systems are defined as a dynamic mosaic of integrated land uses within a landscape, designed to balance competing demands while promoting environmental sustainability, economic viability, and social justice, particularly for those relying on the land for their livelihoods.
“The novelty lies in adopting a systems-level approach, focusing on social-ecological systems, and emphasizing local context and participatory governance,” said Cowie, adding that their approach is rooted in three key objectives: Economic viability that involves fostering market development and enhancing productivity; environmental sustainability whose key elements include improving soil health and nutrient cycling; and social justice where the emphasis is on community involvement and participatory governance across all levels. By integrating these elements, sustainable land use systems can deliver critical outcomes, including food security and resilience in agricultural systems.
However, success requires an enabling environment. “We recommend embedding this approach within existing land use planning and management processes. Furthermore, it must be tailored to the specific ecological context and participatory governance,” she said.
Reflecting on science-policy interfaces and collective intelligence, Patrick Caron, Vice Chair of the CGIAR Integrated Partnership Board, and chair of the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on the Committee of World Food Security (CFS) emphasized the role of science in shaping agendas. He gave the example of IPCC that has been pivotal in bringing climate change to global attention. Similarly, scientific evidence is essential for addressing desertification and other crises.
He lamented that while decision-makers increasingly recognize the need for convergence, especially as food systems intersect with economic, environmental, and social justice concerns, knowledge landscapes remain fragmented. “Today’s crises-be it climate change, desertification, or biodiversity loss-are interconnected, often described as a ‘perfect storm.’ Each expert panel operates within its own constituency, governance, and reporting structures. This fragmentation makes it challenging to integrate insights across sectors.”
Caron reiterated the importance of local-level initiatives that offer fertile ground for learning and integration. Organizing dialogue at the local level helps identify obstacles, trade-offs, and costs, fostering collective plans that integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions. He cited the Montpellier Process as a model for collective intelligence. “The Montpellier Process exemplifies efforts to stimulate dialogue and reinforce the role of scientific communities in cross-sectoral collaboration. By fostering convergence across stakeholders, sectors, and scales, this process seeks to co-design knowledgeable actions to address complex crises.”
(From left): Cargele Masso, Director of the CGIAR Impact Area Platform on Environmental Health and Biodiversity; Manon Albagnac, a desertification project officer at CARI and coordinator, RESAD; Jean-Luc Schott, a soil scientist and senior researcher at the French Research Institute for Sustainable Development; Annette Cowie, a senior principal researcher and scientist at the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and an adjunct professor at the University of New England. Photo credit: CGIAR/Wandera Ojanji
Stefano Fautou, Director of the Office of Sustainable Development Goals at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the Director of the UN Food System Coordination Hub elaborated on three opportunities for local action in food systems areas that can create opportunities for actionable dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and communities at the local scale.
One action is using local action as a catalyst for systemic change. Fautou argued that sectoral and linear approaches have proven ineffective in transforming food systems. “What we need is systemic change, which must start at the local level. This is because systemic change thrives on field-proven solutions and scalable models. Like biological evolution, systemic change requires a diversity of ideas. These ideas undergo variation, selection, and application processes, leading to the establishment of institutional rules, policies, and business models. By fostering diverse ideas at the local level, we can identify what works and what doesn’t, laying the foundation for systemic transformation.”
The second action area is multiple co-benefits from local efforts. Local initiatives offer significant opportunities to achieve multiple co-benefits. For instance, local actions addressing land degradation often simultaneously enhance biodiversity, improve nutrition, and increase climate efficiency. These efforts highlight that investments in sustainable food systems should not be evaluated solely based on monetary costs. Instead, we must consider their broader benefits.
On the third action, integrating local needs with a global perspective, Stefano noted that addressing local needs requires a global perspective that brings together scientists, policymakers, and society. “Creating these opportunities necessitates a global lens to align local actions with broader scientific and policy frameworks. This is a crucial aspect of the work being done by your institution and others involved in fostering actionable dialogues within the science-policy-society interface.”
Cargele Masso, Director of the CGIAR Impact Area Platform on Environmental Health and Biodiversity shared key messages from CBD COP16 on addressing challenges at the local scale biodiversity and sustainable food systems. One critical issue raised during COP16 is the need for benefit and cost-sharing mechanisms regarding the digital sequencing of genetic information. This is especially important for smallholder farmers in developing countries, who often face financial constraints. Incentives can motivate biodiversity conservation efforts, extending beyond genetic resources to include the ecosystems in which they evolve. The discussions in Cali achieved a consensus on providing greater visibility to indigenous peoples and local communities for their contributions to the global biodiversity framework.
Another key point emphasized the connection between biodiversity and climate resilience. Sustaining genetic diversity ensures resilience against climate challenges, such as droughts or pests, by maintaining crops with different resistance traits. However, gaps remain in monitoring and evaluation systems. While national-level strategies may look robust, implementation at the local level often falls short. Practical, user-friendly monitoring systems must be co-developed with local communities to ensure effective biodiversity conservation and restoration.
He further expounded on the role of biodiversity in resilience. “Biodiversity acts as a proxy for resilience against land degradation and climate change. When biodiversity declines, it often correlates with increased land degradation and climate impacts. Inclusive land-use planning and governance are essential for maintaining local biodiversity. Unfortunately, these practices often fail to achieve their full potential. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework offers a new opportunity for countries to update their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Advocating for indigenous peoples, marginalized groups, and local communities to actively participate in these updates is crucial.”
The session – the Agropolis International/French Scientific Committee on Desertification – a focus on local scales – was moderated by Jean-Luc Schott, a soil scientist and senior researcher at the French Research Institute for Sustainable Development, a former UNCCD SBI member and chair of the French Scientific Committee on Desertification.