MDG EXPERIENCE REGARDING LAND RELATED …...Asia (excluding China and India), while forest cover...

MDG EXPERIENCE REGARDING LAND-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POST-2015 AGENDA

Background Paper Prepared for the

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Laszlo Pinter (CEU and IISD)

Dora Almassy (CEU)

Livia Bizikova (IISD)

Winnipeg, MB, Canada

2015

Working draft – do not reference. 2

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 2. Review of experience with land-related issues in MDG-7 ........................................ 5

2.1. Overall trends in land-related environmental issues since the adoption of the MDGs 6 2.1.1. Target 7.1: Proportion of land area covered by forest ............................... 6 2.2. Target 7.6: Protection of terrestrial areas and Target 7.7: Proportion of species threatened with extinction ........................................................................... 15 2.3. National targets related to MDG indicator 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7. ........................ 22 2.4. National policy and institutional frameworks to tackle land-related MDG7 goals 24

3. Land related issues and targets in selected international conventions ..................... 32 3.1.The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) ......................................... 32

3.1.1.TheConvention ............................................................................................ 32 3.1.2. Outcomes of implementation efforts ......................................................... 33 3.1.3.Policy instruments to protect manage wetlands .......................................... 34

3.2. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification ............................. 37 3.2.1. The Convention .......................................................................................... 38 3.2.2. National-level policy approaches relevant for the UNCCD ...................... 42

3.3. Convention on Biological Diversity ................................................................. 44 3.3.1. The Convention .......................................................................................... 44 3.3.2. Policy instruments for implementation ...................................................... 44 3.3.3. Outcomes of implementation efforts ......................................................... 46

4. Lessons from the implementation of land-related international policy mechanisms 47

4.1. Institutional design and capacity building ........................................................ 48 4.2. Aligning global and national goals, targets and indicators ............................... 48 4.3. Balancing the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of land use .................. 49 4.4 Interlinkages and integrated management ......................................................... 49 4.5 Data, indicators and reporting ............................................................................ 50

5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 51 6. References ................................................................................................................ 52 7. Appendix 1. Country groups .................................................................................... 58 8. Appendix 2. .............................................................................................................. 63

List of Abbreviations

BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South-America CBD Convention in Biological Diversity DPSIR driving force-pressutre-state-impact-response EU European Union GBO Global Biodiversity Outlook GEO Global Environment Outlook IFS Integrated Financing Strategy LDCs Least Development Countries LEIDCs Large Environmentally Important Developing Countries LLDCs Landlocked Developing Countries SIDS Small Islands Developing States MDGs Millennium Development Goals MoI Means of Implementation NAP National Action Plans NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SIDS Small Island Developing States UN United Nations UNCCD Convention to Combat Desertification UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UN GA United Nations General Assembly WESS World Economic and Social Survey


1. Introduction

This background paper has been prepared to inform the preparation of land resources related content of the 2015 World Economic and Social Survey (WESS) that will focus on lessons from the MDGs for the formulation and implementation of the post-2015 development agenda.

Through the sustainable development goals (SDGs) the environment promises to be a more integral element of the post-2015 development agenda than in the period prior to 2015. Land-related issues are centrally important elements of this agenda, not only for their own sake, but because the status and trends of these resources are foundational for the sustainability of human wellbeing.

Land-related issues cover a very wide range of concerns relevant for several natural resources sectors such as agriculture, forestry or mining and other land uses such as transport or human settlements. While all of these will be relevant for the post-2015 development agenda and represented at least in the present (February 2015) version of the SDGs, they were not all represented in the MDGs that took a much narrower approach. This paper will thus cover only the MDGs that are the most closely related to land resources, namely forestry (MDG Goal 7.1), protected areas (MDG Goal 7.6) and species loss (MDG Goal 7.7.)

In order to complement the fragmentary perspective offered by the review of relevant MDGs, the report will also look at experience with the implementation of two of the perhaps most important international conventions relevant for these goals, the Ramsar Convention on wetlands and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The review of the MDGs and the two Conventions will look at adoption and implementation success, as data availability allows. In cases where adequate data is not available (such as the two Conventions) relevant policy mechanisms to implement the conventions will be reviewed.

The review of progress towards relevant, land-related MDG-7 indicators is based on official statistical data (UN Statistics Division, 2013) and national MDG progress reports. In the absence of relevant quantitative targets set by 2015, the section reviews global and regional trends between 1990-2010. Chapter 2 also looks at national level progress and identifies countries that had made the most significant progress or witnessed a decline compared to their national baseline at the beginning of the MDG implementation period. Based on the analysis of national reports country-level land-related targets have also been identified and analysed.

Chapter 3 will review the implementation of the Ramsar and UNCCD Conventions. In the absence of clear, up to date quantitative data on their impacts on actual trends, emphasis will be on participation and implementation efforts, but without a quantification of their impact. Lack of data or inadequate data related to the performance assessment of these international environmental conventions is a known problem and will require more attention in the post-2015 implementation period.


Chapter 4 pulls together key points from the experience with land related MDG-7 goals and targets and the two reviewed conventions and relates them to land-related aspects of the SDGs. Chapter 5 provides some overall conclusions.

2. Review of experience with land-related issues in MDG-7

MDG 7 covers selected high-level environmental sustainability objectives and it includes ten indicators grouped under four targets (Table 1).

Table 1: MDG-7 targets and indicators (UN GA, 2000)

Targets Indicators Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

7.1 Proportion of land area covered by forest (percentage) 7.2 CO2 emissions (metric tons CO2 per capita/kg CO2 per $1 GDP in PPP)

7.3 Consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODP metric tons) 7.4 Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits (percentage) 7.5 Proportion of total water resources used (percentage)

Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss

7.6 Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected (percentage) 7.7 Proportion of species threatened with extinction (percentage)

Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

7.8 Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source (percentage) 7.9 Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility (percentage)

Target 7.D: Achieve, by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

7.10 Proportion of urban population living in slumsb

(percentage)

Source: UN GA, 2000

MDG-7 targets were selected in a UN Secretary General-driven process with limited participation and primary focus on poverty and they were not grounded in an explicit and systems-oriented conceptual framework. As a result, these targets in the area of the environment are fragmentary and reflect only a subset of the important aspects of environmental sustainability (Pinter et al. 2015). For instance, several of the issues which are known today as planetary boundaries or perspectives such as ecosystem based management or climate resilience are missing, as does for example the entire field of energy (Rockstrom et al. 2009; Pinter et al. 2015).

Land and land-use related issues are covered by some of the MDG 7 goals and targets directly and others indirectly. This background paper covers targets that are directly focused on land use (e.g., proportion of land area covered by forests), but we acknowledge that other MDG 7 targets also have secondary relevance, even if indirect. Secondary impacts may results from changes in land use on another non-land


use related MDG 7 target or impact of another target on land use and quality. An example for the former would be the impact of deforestation (Goal 7.1) and other land-use changes on soil erosion that may then cause increased siltation and water quality degradation harmful for fisheries (Goal 7.4) (e.g., Chapman and Chapman 2002). Likewise, the increase of slums and related poverty (linked to Goal 7.10) is often a contributing factor of habitat loss and degradation and a factor of species diversity (Goal 7.7) (e.g., Hoffman and Todd 2000).

Changes in landuse and land quality are of course also resulting from factors that are associated with other MDG targets or factors that are outside of the MDG framework altogether. An example for this would be population growth that results in growing demand for natural resources such as firewood in many poor countries with already marginal land quality. The resulting vicious circle of increasing demand for land resources and land based products such as food and firewood could end up fuelling tension and become a source of conflict. Interactions are complex, often contextually determined, and analysing them in depth is beyond the scope of this paper. At the global and regional level UNEP’s GEO-5 provided a recent assessment using the driving force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework (UNEP 2012).

2.1. Overall trends in land-related environmental issues since the adoption of the MDGs

In this section we discuss progress and current status of three of the ten MDG7 indicators that focus specifically on land-related issues:

• Target 7A. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

o Indicator 7.1 Proportion of land area covered by forest (percentage)

• Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss

o Indicator 7.6 Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected (percentage)

o Indicator 7.7 Proportion of species threatened with extinction (percentage)

Since at the global scale no quantitative targets have been established for the MDG indicators related to Target 7A and 7B, including the three land-related indicators of 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7, in the next section we will discuss general global and regional trends and related national performance. We will also cover how countries responded to these global MDG 7 indicators and whether they set quantitative targets.

2.1.1. Target 7.1: Proportion of land area covered by forest

Globally, the proportion of land area covered by forest decreased one percent (from 32% to 31%) between 1990 and 2010: total forest cover was reduced from 4 168 million ha in 1990 to 4 085 million ha in 2000 and 4 033 million ha in 2010. This trend confirms that the loss forest areas has been continuing although at a slower pace: the annual rate of forest area loss decreased from 8.3 million ha in the 1990s to 5.2 million hectares per year over the last decade (UN, 2013).


Deforestation primarily happened in developing regions: in Africa, Latin-America and Asia (excluding China and India), while forest cover slightly increased in developed regions. The rate of forest loss between 1990 and 2010 was considerable in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, South-Eastern Asia and Oceania. Significant positive change (4% increase) was observed only in Eastern Asia as a result of major reforestation efforts in China, India and Vietnam (OXFAM, 2013).

Figure 1: Proportion of land area covered by forest between 1990 and 2010 (%) Source: United Nations Statistics Division, 2013 (Latest available data from the Millennium Development Goal Indicators database)

If present trends continue, it is estimated that global forest cover will further decrease to below 4 000 million ha by 2015 (30.8% of global land area) and most regions will face further deforestation (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Estimated forest cover trends between 1990 and 2015 (%)

Source: Authors’ calculation based on United Nations Statistics Division, 2013 (Latest available data from the Millennium Development Goal Indicators database)

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f lan

d ar

ea c

over

ed b

y fo

rest

(%)

199020002010Change 1990-2010

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f lan

d ar

ea c

over

ed b

y fo

rest

1990200020102015(est.)Change 1990-2015


Looking at forest cover trends at the country-level, one can conclude that all global deforestation has happened in 52 countries, while almost half of all countries (101) have only experienced minimal changes (+/-1%) and 71 countries succeeded in increasing their forest areas (Figure 3).

Figure 3: National trends in land area covered by forest between 1990-2010 (number of countries)

Source: Calculation of the authors based on the United Nations Statistics Division, 2013

Since only one quarter of all countries are responsible for global forest losses, in some cases significant deforestation was observed. Figure 4 below presents those countries that experienced the largest forest cover losses between 1990 and 2010.

Figure 4: Largest forest area losses between 1990 and 2010 (in 1 000 ha)


52

101

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Deforestation Stagnation (+1/-1%change)

Afforestation

Num

ber

of c

ount

ries

wit

h di

ffere

nt

fore

st a

rea

tren

ds b

etw

een

1990

-20

10

-60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0

MozambiqueCameroonArgentina

MexicoBolivia

VenezuelaDemocratic Republic of the Congo

Sudan (former)ZimbabweMyanmar

United Republic of TanzaniaNigeria

IndonesiaBrazil

Tota

l for

est c

over

loss

es in

1 0

00

ha b

etw

een

1990

-201

0


In terms of severity, between 1990 and 2010 deforestation was above 5% in 41 countries. Out of these 41, deforestation was between 10% and 15% in 8 countries and above 15% in 6 countries. Figure 5 presents countries with population over one million, with the highest deforestation rates.

Figure 5: Highest level of deforestation rate between 1990-2010 in countries with population over 1 million (%)


Most of these countries, that have lost a significant percent of their forest areas, are less developed and have extensive forest areas, where as a result a large percent of the (in many cases growing) population depends on the use of natural resources as a livelihood. This is true both for the formal economy involving the harvesting and use of commercially valuable timber, and the informal economy as a direct consumer of non-timber forest products and as a user of forest-related ecosystem services. Significant forest areas have also been cleared with the aim of making land available for economically more attractive activities or to provide urban or agricultural land for growing populations. Furthermore, extensive timber harvesting has further contributed to deforestation, as wood is often one of the few commercially valuable resources that the country can sell.,

In Honduras, the country with the highest forest percent loss (26.3% between 1990 and 2010), the observed deforestation was mostly the result of livelihood-related activities, such as forest cleaning for farming and fuelwood collection. Other, often illegal and thus uncontrolled timber production, mining and forest fires have further accelerated the losses (Mongabay.com, 2013). Similarly, in the DPR of Korea, where the observed deforestation between 1990 and 2010 has reached 21% of the country’s total forest land area, rural population extensively converted forest areas to agricultural lands and cut forests for fuelwood and building materials (Pang et al., 2013). In Zimbabwe, where forest cover has decreased by 16,9% between 1990 and 2010, deforestation was also the result of intensifying livelihood activities, but land clearing for tobacco production also accelerated the negative trends (FAO, 2010).

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enag

e of

land

are

a co

vere

d by

fo

res

1990200020052010Change 1990-2000


Confirming that deforestation has been especially severe in poorer economies, we found that overall, out of the 52 countries that have been facing an above 1% deforestation between 1990 and 2010, 43 belong to one or two of the groups of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or Small Islands Developing States (SIDSs). 29 countries affected are listed among the LDCs. 10 of the LDCs countries were also listed among the LLDCs, while 4 of the LDCs countries also belong to the SIDS group. Besides this, another 5 LLDCs and 9 SIDSs have experienced significant deforestation. Conflict, such as in the case of Timor-Leste, can also be identified as a potential factor.

Table 2: LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS with the highest levels of deforestation rate between 1990-2010 (%)

Countries 1990 (%) 2010 (%) Change between 1990-2010 (%)

LDCs Cambodia 73,3 57,2 -16,1 Timor-Leste 65 49,9 -15,1 Myanmar 59,6 48,3 -11,3

LLDCs

Zimbabwe 57,3 40,4 -16,9 Paraguay 53,3 44,3 -9 Uganda 24,1 15,2 -8,9

SIDS Montserrat 36,4 20 -16,4 Timor-Leste 65 49,9 -15,1 US Virgin Islands 68,6 58,8 -9,8


Most of these countries have had rich natural forest endowments that came under pressure due to demographic changes, poverty and logging by domestic or international forest companies. Rapid deforestation, often associated with poverty, places further pressure on the rural poor’s living conditions. In Cambodia, where timber is one of the few resources with commercial value, 16% of deforestation between 1990 and 2010 has negatively affected water resources and as a result the agriculture and fisheries sector (UNDP, 2014). In Zimbabwe deforestation threatens both food and income security of the rural population (FAO, 2014). In Timor-Leste, where the forest cover decreased by 15.1% between 1990 and 2010 as a result of intensive use of wood for various livelihood activities, forest fires, land clearing and uncontrolled grazing (FAO, 2010), deforestation lead to landslides and chronic soil erosion, reduced water quality, threatens wildlife and represents a risk to the food supply (CBD, 2014). Weak institutions, poverty, and access to potentially lucrative forest resources are a potent mix for corruption, which has also been shown to be a factor in deforestation (Kuyuncu and Yilmaz 2009).

While deforestation was characteristic of several poor countries, emerging and advanced countries were less affected and instead most of them increased its forest area coverage.


Figure 6: Forest area trends in LDCs, emerging and advanced economies (%)

Source: Calculation of the authors based on United Nations Statistics Division, 2013 data

Forest areas have only decreased in ten emerging economies between 1990 and 2010: one of the BRICS countries, Brazil. Two other large, environmentally important developing countries (LEIDCs) , Indonesia and Mexico have suffered considerable deforestation. In absolute terms, Brazil suffered the largest deforestation in the world. As a result of intensive land conversion, clearing and logging, it has lost 55.3 million hectares of forests, which is 6.6% of its total forest cover. Indonesia and Mexico have also lost 24.1 million and 5.48 million hectares of forest, 13.3% and 2.9% of total forest cover, respectively. Among emerging economies Venezuela, Malaysia, Argentina, Columbia, Peru, Thailand and Pakistan have also lost 1-7% of their forest areas.

Among developing and transitional economies the net loss of forest cover was to some extent mitigated by natural and anthropogenic reforestation (UN, 2014). A few of the frontrunners achieved a considerable increase in their forest cover: afforestation in 12 countries was above 5% and out of these 12, in 4 it was above 10%, as shown on Figure 7. 5.2% or 19.86 million hectares was recorded in China as a result of the Great Green Wall program that aimed to tackle desertification and land degradation in Inner Mongolia and Western China that resulted in major sandstorms and contributed to the worsening of urban air quality in the megacities of the Eastern seaboard. The Philippines, India and several Eastern European countries, such as Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia also increased forest cover by 3-6%.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LDCs Emerging economies Advanced economies

Prop

orti

on o

f cou

ntri

es w

ith

diffe

rent

fo

rest

are

a tr

ends

bet

wee

n 19

90-

2010

DeforestationMinor or no changeAfforestation


Table 3: Deforestation trends in the BRICS and Large, environmentally important developing countries (LEIDCs), with highest deforestation between 1990 and 2010 (%)

Countries 1990 (%) 2010 (%) Change between 1990-2010 (%)

BRICS

Brazil 69 62,4 -6,6 Russian Federation 49,4 49,4 0 South Africa 7,6 7,6 0 India 21,5 23 1,5 China 16,7 21,9 5,2

LEIDCs Indonesia 65,4 52,1 -13,3 Brazil 69 62,4 -6,6 Mexico 36,2 33,3 -2,9 Congo 66,5 65,6 -0,9 Russian Federation 49,4 49,4 0 India 21,5 23 1,5 China 16,7 21,9 5,2


Forest cover in North America and European countries generally increased and only two advanced economies, Australia and the Republic of Korea experienced minimal forest losses between 1990-2010. It is to be noted however, that many of the advanced economies have already lost much of their traditional forests prior to 1990 and have stable institutional regimes and property rights where changes are only incremental and subject to administrative controls. Afforestation is influenced both by landscape protection and conservation priorities that in some countries encourage landowners to plant forest on farmland.

Figure 7: Highest level of afforestation rate between 1990-2010 in countries, with above 1 million population (%)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f lan

d ar

ea c

over

ed b

y fo

rest

1990200020052010Change 1990-2010


In 1945, only 9% of the Puerto Rican island was covered with forest, but after abandonment of pasture and coffee plantations, the forest areas have started to dramatically increase as result of natural regeneration and by 2010 62% of the country was forested. While other countries in South-East Asia (such as Cambodia, Timor-Leste and Myanmar) experienced rapid deforestation, according to official data, Viet Nam has reached a 14.3% (4,43 million ha) increase in afforestation between 1990 and 2010. The common view is that this was accomplished through a series of national policies, partnership initiatives and legal mechanisms that enforce forestry certification standards, encourage dialogue between different stakeholders, and grant land tenure rights to local communities. More details studies however, question this perspective and pointed to inefficiencies in the system due to weak accountability and enforcement mechanisms related to the provincial and local level implementation of national policies (Clement and Amezaga 2009). In addition, more than half of the total reforested areas are industrial (coffee, tea and rubber) plantations with a significantly lower biodiversity value. Overall, the value and the quality of natural (moderate and mangrove) forests have continued to decline (CBD, 2014).

As a footnote to forest cover trends, it is important to note the role of forest quality and the trade of forest products. Forests serve multiple purposes both from the ecological and socio-economic perspective and structural aspects such as species mix, age class of trees and other biophysical factors play a role in determining how forests can play these roles. These functions are particularly important for people who live in and directly live off the forest, such as many indigenous groups. Forest quality aspects are not captured by macro scale forest cover data without which these aspects could not be adequately represented in policy and management.

When considering the driving forces of deforestation, it is important to note the role of foreign investment and trade in forest products as aspects of economic growth and structural changes in the forest industry. Besides forest cleared for farming, much of the timber in countries that experience severe deforestation is harvested for export by large multinational forest companies or by illegal loggers. Thus the drivers of deforestation cannot be explained only on the basis of domestic factors as supply chains usually extend to overseas markets. Assessment based only on direct measures of forest cover, quality and forest sector production often miss trade aspects.

Currently countries in the industrialized North consume more than three-quarters of global timber production (Dudley et al. 2014). The combination of continuing emphasis on economic growth as a driver of market demand both in the global North and South, insufficient decoupling between growth and its environmental impacts, high levels of enduring poverty in the countries with remaining tracts of primary forests, and free trade agreements that ensure the unhindered flow of raw materials mean that the conditions for continuing deforestation in the future are still in place. Over the last few decades the forest sector has gone through considerable consolidation. Through mergers and acquisitions a small number of transnational corporations control most of the global trade in forest products and given their size have significant leverage on the policies and politics related to the industry. Added to these factors, institutional weaknesses, including corruption in countries most affected by deforestation ensure attempts to control resource extraction and represent the broader and longer-term public – including sustainability – interests remain weak and ineffective (Koyuncu and Yilmaz 2009).


Keeping in mind the above caveats with regards to forest cover, the following general observations have emerged from the analysis and regional/national MDG reports:

• The highest rates of deforestation are often closely linked to population growth and poverty. Meanwhile, since natural resources are the only potential livelihood for many people, deforestation can heavily impact the rural poor.

• The observed deforestation trends are a combined result of several pressures that are changing over time. While still happening, the earlier pattern of deforestation, characterized mainly by government-assisted land clearing by small-scale farmers has given more way to large-scale, better capitalized landowners who clear the land for cattle ranching or forest plantations (Rudel et al. 2009). Since globalization and economic growth-driven demand for timber doubled in terms of value during the first decade of the new millennium, with a structural shift to secondary wood products, it also indicates that the remaining forest is of lower quality with reduced biodiversity (Earth Policy Institute 2012).

• When examining forest cover trends, global and regional interlinkages and impacts should be taken into consideration. For example, China has increased its forest cover, but the country increasingly relies on imported timber, transferring the ecological pressure to other countries (UN ESCAP, 2013).

• Besides quantitative assessment of forests, quality aspects should also be studied and more carefully considered. Forest quality for instance has important implications on soil quality and biodiversity. One key but still inadequately understood area is the continuing growth of commercial forest plantations. Between 1990 and 2005 there has been a 40% increase in forest plantations, with a continuing trend (Rekacewicz 2009). While there are outstanding questions about assessment methods, the value of plantation forests for biological diversity and related ecosystem services is believed to be significantly below that of natural and old-growth forests (Brockerhoff et al. 2008; Stephens and Wagner 2007).

• Deforestation was observed to negatively affect ecosystem services connected with biodiversity, soil and water resources. Deforestation also has a significant impact on regional climate and in some regions such as Latin-America, on land productivity. To address these interlinked challenges, integrated policy and management approaches are needed.

• On the positive side, many countries are becoming aware of the negative consequences of deforestation and have been introducing natural resource management policies, including forest protection and reforestation strategies and programs. By 2012 almost 75% of global forest area was covered by national forest programmes (UN, 2013a). This is likely a factor in the overall slowing rates of deforestation after 2000.

• Enforcement of legislation (e.g., tackling illegal logging), successful implementation of strategies and programmes (e.g., via engagement of stakeholders, ensuring adequate financing and human resources or introducing effective market incentives, such as payments for ecosystem services), as well as reliable monitoring of forested areas remains a challenge.

• Given the continuing presence of conditions that drive deforestation, including the primacy of economic growth and inadequate decoupling, the erosion of the world’s remaining forest capital and related biodiversity loss will not be possible to halt.


2.2. Target 7.6: Protection of terrestrial areas and Target 7.7: Proportion of species threatened with extinction

Biodiversity protection is considered crucial for sustaining healthy ecosystems and preserving plant and animal genetic resources. While originally no quantitative targets were set for protected areas within the MDGs, the biodiversity targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have been incorporated into the MDG framework: in 2010, the CBD established a 17% target of global protected terrestrial areas and a 10% target of coastal and marine areas by 2020 (UN, 2014).

Globally, the proportion of total terrestrial and marine protected areas increased from 8.3% in 1990 to 11.9% in 2000 and to 14.6% by 2012. Despite the positive trends, six out of the fourteen global biomes (major habitat types)1 are still failing to meet the relevant Aichi target and further accelerated efforts are required in protected area designations (UNEP, 2012).

In line with the global trend, protected areas have increased in all regions, but at different rates in different parts of the world: the highest increase was from 8.7% in 1990 to 20.3% in 2012 in Latin America and the Caribbean, while the lowest improvement, from 2.8 to 3.6% between 1990-2012 happened in the Caucasus and Central Asia (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Increase in protected terrestrial areas between 1990 and 2012 (%)

1 According to the classification of the World Wide Fund, the fourteen global biomes (or major habitat types include): Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests, Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests, Tropical and subtropical coniferous forests; Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests; Temperate coniferous forests; Boreal forests/taiga; Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands; Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands; Flooded grasslands and savannas; Montane grasslands and shrublands; Tundra, Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub or sclerophyll forests; Deserts and xeric shrublands and Mangrove.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al te

rrit

oria

l are

a 1990

20002012Change 1990-2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclerophyll_forest


Data source: United Nations Statistics Division, 2013

Assuming that current trends in implementation continue, according to the CBD Secretariat (2014) the share of both terrestrial and marine protected areas will significantly increase by 2020 (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Recent trends in the share of global terrestrial and marine protected areas and their extrapolation to 2020 (%)

Data source: UN Secretariat of CBD, 2014

While at the global level protected area trends are positive in general, at the country level there is a more nuanced picture. In 2012, 37 countries had higher than 25% of their total area under protection, 115 had protected 10% or more, while half of the countries, 111 have fallen below the global average and had less then 10% protected. As these numbers show, progress in protected area designation was relatively slow in many countries. If we consider trends based on the number of countries, more than half of them (141) had a less than 5% protected area increase between 1990-2012, and only 51 increased coverage by more than 10%.


Figure 10: Increase in protected areas between 1990 – 2012 (number of countries)


Figure 11 presents developing countries, with population over 1 million that reached the most progress in protected area cover (more than 25%) and now protect more than one quarter of their total territory. However, as for forest cover, the idea that protection is a straightforward and uniformly effective way of biodiversity conservation can be called into question (Rodrigues et al. 2004). In particular, there are knowledge gaps related to the setting of biodiversity targets, translating targets to the national or ecosystem level, institutional mechanisms and capacity issues involved in implementing the targets and finally measuring the effectiveness of conservation efforts.

Figure 11: Highest level of increase in protected areas between 1990 and 2012 in countries with population over 1 million (%)


141

34 34

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Lower than 5%increase

5%-10% increase 10%-20% increase Higher than 20%increase

Num

ber

of c

ount

ries

wit

h di

ffere

nt

prot

ecte

d ar

ea tr

ends

bet

wee

n 19

90-2

010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al p

rote

cted

te

rrit

oria

l are

a

1990200020102012Change 1990-2012


Since Bulgaria and Slovenia became members of the European Union (EU) in 2007 and 2004 respectively, they were required to designate protected areas under the EU’s Natura 2000 ecological network. Having some of the richest biodiversity in the EU, they had to considerably increase their national protected areas to comply with the Natura 2000 requirements. , However, despite their success in the transposition of EU directives to national legislation, in reality when protection status came into conflict with economic and political interests, the latter usually prevailed. This indicates inconsistencies in the enforcement of the legislation and the effective management of the protected sites, and calls into question assumptions about the effectiveness of protected area designation alone as a biodiversity conservation measure (Keulartz 2009; Duprey 2014).

Considerable increase in designated protected areas was also achieved in a few LDCs, LLDCs or SIDS. Table 4provides a summary of countries with the highest progress achieved.

Table 4: LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS with highest level of increase in protected areas between 1990 and 2012 (%)

Countries 1990 (%) 2012 (%) Change between 1990-2012

LDCs Congo 5,38 30,44 25,06 Cambodia 0,03 23,76 23,73 Guinea-Bissau 6,26 27,12 20,86

LLDCs Lao PDR 1,47 16,68 15,21 Bhutan 14,25 28,35 14,1 Bolivia 8,76 20,83 12,07

SIDS New Caledonia 1,4 30,5 29,1 Palau 0,45 28,2 27,75 Guinea-Bissau 6,26 27,12 20,86


Meanwhile, looking at the overall national trends in these groups of countries, it is clear that many of those, facing development challenges have failed to considerably increase their protected areas. For instance, 32 of the LDCs have increased protected area coverage by less than 5%, while countries in emerging and especially in advanced economies were more likely to increase their protected areas by more than 5% or 10%, even when starting from a higher base (Figure 12).


Figure 12: Protection area increase in LDCs, emerging and advanced economies between 1990 and 2012 (%)


In the majority of BRICS and LEIDCs, where protection area designation would be also crucial from the global point of view due to their size and biodiversity value, only limited progress could be observed. Higher than average protected area designation increase was recorded only in Brazil and Congo.

Table 5: Increase in protected areas in BRICS and LEIDCs between 1990 and 2012 (%)

BRICS 1990 (%) 2010 (%) Change 1990-2012

BRICS Brazil 7,06 25,97 18,91

Russian Federation 4,82 11,35 6,53

China 13,05 16,12 3,07

India 4,55 5 0,45

South Africa 6,24 6,56 0,32

LEIDCs Congo 5,38 30,44 25,06

Brazil 7,06 25,97 18,91

Mexico 2,32 13,69 11,37

Russian Federation 4,82 11,35 6,53

Indonesia 3,93 9,05 5,12

China 13,05 16,12 3,07

India 4,55 5 0,45 Data source: United Nations Statistics Division, 2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LDCs Emerging economies Advanced economies

Perc

enta

ge o

f cou

ntri

es w

ith

diffe

rent

pr

otec

tion

are

a tr

ends

bet

wee

n 19

90-2

010

Below 5% increase in protectionareasBetween 5%-10% increase inprotection areasBetween 10%-20% increase inprotection areas


The assessment of species loss indicators as proxy measures for the overall condition of biodiversity is currently available only at the global level via the IUCN Red List Index, and is not calculated at the national level (CBD 2013).

At the global level the percentage of endangered species expected to become extinct in the near future has slightly increased from 7.9 to 8.7% between 1990 and 2012. While the percentage of threatened species is still increasing, the rate of increase has somewhat slowed down, due possibly to improved protection efforts (OXFAM, 2013).

Figure 13:Proportion of species threatened by extinction (%)


The largest increase in the percentage of threatened species was experienced in Northern Africa, Western Asia and in Latin America and the Caribbean.

According to UNEP (2012), the main reasons for biodiversity loss include habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation of wild species, spread of alien invasive species, climate change, and pollution. The increasing percentage of threatened species indicates that current efforts to reverse these trends are insufficient (UNDG, 2010). However, another perspective that also needs to be taken into account is the differences in baseline: many developed economies have already lost a significant part of their biodiversity during their early development stage, while many of the developing nations where significant losses are recorded had a higher level of their original biodiversity and thus a higher base to start with.

With regards to protected area coverage and biodiversity loss the following global patterns have emerged from the analysis and regional/national MDG reports:

• Many countries recognized interlinkages between poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation and introduced programs to assess and improve the status of major biomes and species.

• The majority of the countries lags behind with designating protected areas and if current trends continue will not reach the 2015 Aichi targets, which requires

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Perc

enta

ge o

f spe

cies

exp

ecte

d to

be

com

e ex

tinc

t in

the

near

futu

re

199020002012Absolute change between 1990-2012


the protection of 17% and 10% terrestrial and marine protected areas, respectively.

• The ratification of relevant MEAs such as the CBD or CITES and the incorporation of protected areas into national legislation is crucial to successfully increasing protection areas. At the same time, it is important that significant biomes and endangered sites are all protected (UNDG, 2010).

Figure 14: Comparison of total protected terrestrial area and species expected not to become extinct in the near future (%)


• As shown on Figure 14, although the percentage of protected areas has been increasing in all regions, the percent of species not threatened by extinction in the near future is decreasing. These trends indicate that even though protected areas have been increasing globally, key biodiversity hotspots may not have been placed under adequate protection (UNDG 2010), or protected areas have not been managed effectively.

• The importance of international and regional co-operation has been highlighted as crucial for improving capacity and facilitating knowledge transfer and for managing and protecting transboundary biodiversity resources.

• The availability of resources and capacity necessary for the long-term and effective management and monitoring of protection areas should be ensured, as this is a precondition for tackling biodiversity loss (UNDG, 2010 and UN, 2010). Even with recent advances of science, there are entire biomes such as the deep seas or soil whose biodiversity remains very poorly understood, even though it plays an important, even critical part not only in local ecosystem-level but even in global processes, such as the carbon and nutrient cycles.

• As a next step towards a more informed assessment and efficient protection of threatened species, Red List indicators will need be developed, monitored, and regularly updated at the national-level (UNDG 2010). Extracted from the

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al p

rote

cted

are

as a

nd

spec

ies

expe

cted

not

to b

ecom

e ex

tinc

t in

the

near

futu

re

1990 Percentage of total protected terrestrial area2000 Percentage of total protected terrestrial area2012 Percentage of total protected terrestrial area1990 Percentage of species expected not to become extinct in the near future2000 Percentage of species expected not to become extinct in the near future2012 Percentage of species expected not to become extinct in the near future


global IUCN list, most countries’ National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NBSAP and/or National Report contains a list of threatened species but these lists cannot be considered comprehensive and cannot substitute regular national assessments.

2.3. National targets related to MDG indicator 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7.

According to recent research, progress in environmental issues is often the greatest where well-defined and quantifiable targets have been set, and where realistic implementation plans and actions have been created - and implemented - for achieving them (Jabbour et al. 2012). This section examines the extent to which countries responded to land-related goals of MDG 7 by setting quantitative targets and whether there is a recognizable pattern across countries with regard to such implementation efforts. Understanding these patterns will be interesting not only for MDG-7, but also for potential approaches to target setting for the upcoming SDGs. As noted by Pinter et al. (2013), goals, targets and indicators need to form a coherent ‘package’ in order to serve as a basis for effective implementation. Targets at the global level, by definition would have to be more generic, while national targets, building on their global equivalents would need to reflect specific ecosystem conditions and their costs and benefits (not only in economic terms) be accepted by decision-makers and society at large.

By 2005, 54 countries have adopted national targets based on MDG 7 issues (UNDP, 2006). From these, 23 countries have adopted targets related to indicator 7.1 and 22 related to indicator 7.6. (UNDP, 2006). In most cases, these targets were set for 2015, but in some instances mid-term targets (for 2010 or 2012) have also been defined.

Figure 15: Number of countries tailoring different MDG-7 targets to national conditions

Data source: UNDP, 2006

Among the MDG countries, the number of countries that have set quantitative targets related to indicator 7.1 and 7.6 was higher in emerging Europe and CIS and the Asia-Pacific regions. The number of countries that have tailored MDG 7 indicators to the national circumstances was lower in Latin-America and in Africa.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464512000784


As shown on Figure 16, among LDCs 14 countries have adopted a national target for indicator 7.1, 12 countries for indicator 7.6 and one country (Gambia) also established a target related to indicator 7.7. Among the LLDCs, 13, 9 and 1 country have established targets for indicator MDG 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7 respectively. Most of the SIDSs have not defined a quantitative target related to forestry, but have a few targets for protected areas for 2015. Among the BRICS countries, China has defined targets for forest cover and protected areas. Moreover, among the large and environmentally important developing countries, the Democratic Republic of Congo has set targets for forest area cover and protected areas.

Figure 16: Percentage of LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS that translated the MDG 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7 indicators to national targets.

Data source: National MDG reports

While originally only a few countries set quantitative target for biodiversity protection, in retrospect many of them linked target 7.6 on protected areas to the CBD targets. Certain countries also linked MDG 7 target setting to other regional initiatives. For instance, some SIDS in the Pacific linked the MDG 7.6 indicator to the Micronesian Challenge, issued in 2006 and signed by the Palau, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

In Asia, some countries have also introduced new country (and ecosystem) specific MDG 7 indicators related to biodiversity protection: for instance to measure and assess the status of fish stocks (Cambodia), the biodiversity of wetlands (Nepal), the acreage of protected wet-zone forests (Sri Lanka), and the number of endangered species (Viet Nam) (UN ESCAP 2013). Similar contextualization of global goals and targets can be expected related to the MDGs, and show that countries could look for more contextually precise goals and targets in existing policy mechanisms, as it was also proposed by recent research on the downscaling of SDGs to the national level (Pinter et al. 2013).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% National MDG 7.1 target(2015)


2.4. National policy and institutional frameworks to tackle land-related MDG7 goals

The level of progress in achieving biodiversity and protected area targets is an outcome of a complex suite of factors. From the governance perspective this includes the representation of the goals and targets in policy documents and programs that drive implementation programs and around which resources, capacity and participation are mobilized. In the context of this chapter this would include policy frameworks and documents related to forest management and protected area designation. In order to assess their role in MDG-7 implementation, relevant policy frameworks were reviewed in a number of countries.

With regards to deforestation, policy frameworks in Honduras, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, Cambodia and Timor-Leste were covered. In all these countries, the main underlying causes of deforestation were poverty and demographic changes: in some cases, wood represented an important commercial product (Cambodia) in other cases it was utilized as firewood (Zimbabwe, DPR Korea or Timor Leste). Forest was also cleared to create farmland for economically more valuable products (e.g., for tobacco in Zimbabwe or for drug production in Honduras) and to accommodate a growing population (Honduras). Extensive deforestation had severe impact on ecosystem services (e.g., on biodiversity and on the water supply) and it some cases also negatively impacted poverty reduction efforts and increased the risk of food insecurity.

Recognizing the scale of the problem, many of these countries accelerated afforestation/reforestation efforts and introduced related protection legislation in recent years. However, often these legal frameworks were abstruse, inconsistent with other laws or not strong enough, indicating the need for a strengthened legal framework. The development of dedicated national forest programs was also lagging behind or lacking, or it was embedded into national poverty reduction or climate strategies or overall development plans. Targets were set in some cases, but only one country (Cambodia) had a national MDG target related to deforestation. The implementation of laws and forestation programs faced various challenges. Illegal logging and lacking human, technical and financial resources were emphasized in many countries.

Table 6: Overview of implementation frameworks for forest-related issues in countries, facing the highest levels of deforestation

Countries with highest deforestation rates

National forest strategy

Forest legislation National targets Major implementation challenges

Honduras Embedded in poverty and climate strategy

Abstruse legal framework No MDG target on forestry, but there is a reforestation target in the National Climate Change Strategy

Illegal logging

Lack of administrative capacity and resources.

DPR of Korea Ten Year Plan for Afforestation/Reforestation

No data Rehabilitate two million hectares of degraded forests

Securing local people’s right to natural resources

Law enforcement

Lack of financial resources

Lack of methods for advanced forest management

Zimbabwe Afforestation projects, but no national forest programme

The Forest act established a Forestry Commission but no legislation related to harvesting firewood

No target on forestry Gaps in information management, technical capacities and financial resources.

Cambodia No comprehensive forestry strategy

Lack of legal clarity, fragmented legal framework

60% forest cover (also an MDG target for the country)

Low penalties and sanctions

Illegal logging

Lack of capacity to manage protected areas

Timor-Leste Forest Management Policy is under development

Weak forest legislation and enforcement

No quantitative target Ineffective enforcement

Disruption of customary laws, Source: Based on national MDG (UNDP, 2014) and CBD reports (CBD, 2014)

Countries with highest afforestation include Puerto Rico, Viet Nam, Cuba, Bulgaria, Rwanda and Swaziland. In most cases, afforestation was the result of extensive reforestation programs of previously deforested areas (Cuba or Viet Nam). This indicates that afforestation often results from high level, long-term political commitments and national prioritization of the problem. An exception is Puerto Rico where afforestation was a result a natural regeneration following abandonment of pasture and coffee plantation. In many cases, relevant legal and strategic framework were established early and were revised and updated over the years. Country-level MDG or other national targets have also been identified for some (Bulgaria, Rwanda and Swaziland). Factors of success of policy implementation include high level political commitment, co-ordinated but decentralized institutional framework, community ownership, reliance on science and consistent and standardized forest management practices.

Reforestation programs often aimed at tackling other environmental challenges, caused by deforestation such as water and soil quality problems, soil erosion or the need to restore carbon sinks. Meanwhile, reforestation in some cases have also changed the original composition of forests and resulted in overall lower forest quality. In Vietnam, recent reforestation contributed to a shift from native forests to industrial plantations. In Swaziland, due to increasing commercial timber plantation coverage, the country experienced severe wildfires in 2007 and 2008 (Swaziland MDG report 2012). To improve the quality of forests and tackle other forest management challenges, these countries have introduced various laws and strategies. For example, Puerto Rico has created a Model Forest Act (2014) to create an ecological corridor on one-third of its total area.

Table 7 provides an overview of implementation frameworks for forest related issues in these countries, which achieved highest level of afforestation between 1990 and 2010.

Table 7: Overview of implementation frameworks for forest-related issues in countries, achieving highest afforestation

Countries with highest afforestation rates

National forest strategy Forest legislation National targets Success factors Major implementation challanges

Puerto Rico Forest Resource Strategy (2008)

“Green Puerto Rico Reforestation Program,” (2013)

Puerto Rico Forest Act (1975)

Model Forest Act of Puerto Rico (2014) to create an ecological corridor

No data Natural regeneration following abandonment of pasture and coffee plantations

No data

Vietnam Wide range of forest development programmes

Law on Forest Protection and Development (2004), the Law on Biodiversity (2008)

39% and 44% forest cover by 2005 and 2010 respectively

By 2015: halt the decrease of forest areas

Community involvement

Support activities, such as training and education

Demographic changes Decreasing quality of natural forests.

Cuba National Forestry Action Plan (1992)

Forest management and protection laws from 1981.

No data Reforestation is undertaken in a scientific and organic manner.

No data

Bulgaria Various strategies targeting afforestation

Law of the Forests (1997) National MDG target: 35,9% by 2015 Planting of native species

Applying proper management

Unregulated felling and fires.

Rwanda First National Forest Policy in 2004.

Following the Forest Policy, a Forest Law was also introduced

MDG Target: 25% by 2015 High level political support

Extensive institutional framework

Stakeholder involvement

Increasing population

Land scarcity

Lack of resources Lack of standard forest management


practices

Swaziland Indigenous forests management activities

The Forestry Bill (2010) MDG target : 60% by 2015. This is also linked to the CBD Aichi targets.

No data Increasing commercial timber plantation coverage

Source: National MDG (UNDP, 2014) and CBD reports (CBD, 2014)

Table 8 shows a summary of policy frameworks and factors in implementation successes and challenges of countries with population over 1m and with the highest levels of protected area increase.

A strong legislative and strategic framework supported by policymakers and civil society seems to be a precondition for successful protected area designation. These frameworks are often in line or at least reflect the global CBD Strategic Action Plan on Biodiversity. At the same time, the designation of protected areas does not necessarily guarantee successful enforcement. Many of the studied countries have faced implementation challenges, such as lack of resources to create and implement management plans or to enforce legislation and reconcile conflicting interest around the use of different natural resources.

Table 8: Overview of implementation framework for forest-related issues in countries, achieving highest afforestation:

Countries Strategy Legislation National targets

Success factors Major implementation challenges Slovenia Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy (2002)

Decree on special protection areas (Natura 2000 sites) Relevant Aichi Targets

EU targets: 9000 ha NATURA 2000

Stakeholder involvement Development of management requirements

Institutional co-ordination

Agri-environmental schemes

Restrictions of forestry practices can generate conflicts

Bulgaria National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy,

National ecological network Aichi targets

EU Natura 2000 target: 34%

No data Lack of political will

Lack of stakeholder involvement Insufficient planning and management

Namibia The National Policy on Protected Areas, Neighbours and Resident Community (2013)

Legislation for sustainable biodiversity management (

MDG target: 20% Relevant Aichi targets

Investment in the management and infrastructure in protected areas

Law enforcement Lack of capacity

Insufficient designation of protected areas

Insufficient management of parks Congo National Biodiversity Strategy Law on the conservation of

nature Aichi targets, 10% No data N.d

Cambodia National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) (2006-2010)

Significant legislation related to biodiversity,

3.3 million hectares by 2015 (MDG targets)

No data Ineffective management Lack of protected areas management plans

Lao PDR Draft National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan from 2011-2020

Prime Minis-terial Decree No 164. Protected Areas but stricter laws are needed on environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs)

No data Improved local biodiversity knowledge

Improved land used planning and land allocation

Limited progress in the implementation of The Polluter Pays Principle and the Green Cities initiative.

Lack of resources


Expansion of ecotourism Lack of management plans.

Guinea-Bissau NBSAP (2006)

The Institute of Biodiversity and Protected Areas is responsible for the strategy implementation.

1st Framework Law on Protected Areas (1997).

Update in 2007

.

National System of Protected Areas: 26 % of the national territory.

No data Fishing Deforestation, Poaching

Exploitation of mangroves Increasing demographics

Source: National MDG (UNDP, 2014) and CBD reports (CBD, 2014)

3. Land related issues and targets in selected international conventions

This section reviews experience with the implementation of three multilateral environmental agreements, the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the Convention of Biological Diversity. All of these conventions are focused on ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable due to multiple, interacting forces of natural and anthropogenic change. While they are the Conventions that are most directly focused on land use with regard to specific land use categories, other MEAs also have land use implications.

3.1. The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention)

Overall, wetlands are particularly sensitive types of ecosystems, as are often the people who rely on their goods and services. Wetlands are affected by land conversion due to population growth and increasing economic development accompanied by infrastructure expansion and other indirect drivers such as deforestation, increased withdrawal of freshwater, diversion of freshwater flows, disruption and fragmentation of the landscape, nitrogen loading, overharvesting, siltation, changes in water temperatures and invasion by alien species (Wetlands International Africa Office, 2007).

3.1.1. The Convention

The Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. It was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and came into force in 1975. The Convention's mission is "the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world".2 The focus of the Convention is broad and the term ‘wetland’ covers swamps and marshes, lakes and rivers, wet grasslands and peatlands, oases, estuaries, deltas and tidal flats, near-shore marine areas, mangroves and coral reefs, and human-made sites such as fish ponds, rice paddies, reservoirs, and salt pans.

Currently there are 168 Contracting Parties.3 There are 2,186 designated sites that cover an area of 208,674,247 hectares in total.4 The large size of designated sites is explained by the fact that some sites are seasonal and may also have other uses and be classified under other types of landuse. Under the Convention, the Parties have committed themselves to working towards a wise use of all their wetlands through national land-use planning, appropriate policies and legislation, management actions,

2 http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-about-introductory-ramsar/main/ramsar/1-36%5E16849_4000_0__ 3 http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/sitelist.pdf 4 http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/sitelist.pdf


and public education. They also agreed to designate suitable wetlands for the List of Wetlands of International Importance ("Ramsar List") and ensure their effective management.

3.1.2. Outcomes of implementation efforts

In terms of the studied group of countries, LLDCs, LDCs, SIDS and large, environmentally important developing countries have increased their number of designated sites by approximately three-fold both in terms of the number of sites and size since 2000. The number of wetlands designated in the BRICS grew by the same rate as prior to 2000, however these wetlands cover a much smaller area than those designated prior 2000. Countries such as LDCs and LLDCs that started with a lower base i.e., a smaller set of designated wetlands compared to, for example large, environmentally important developing countries have especially increased the number of sites. ly important developing countries increased the number of wetlands most significantly compared to baselines prior to 2000 (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Overview of the key trends for the Convention prior to and after MDGs

Source: Based on data from the convention website;5 authors’ calculations and summaries per the studied countries and areas

5 http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/sitelist.pdf

0

50

100

150

200

250

LDCs LLCs SIDSs BRICKS LEIDCs

No. of sites prior 2000

No. of sites after 2000


Many countries designated new sites under the Convention, especially between 2005 – 2009. (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Overview of site number increase across the studied groups of countries .

Source: Based on data from the convention website;6 authors’ calculations and summaries per the studied countries and areas

As a general point, one can observe that information about the current status and health of wetlands is limited. Working with a set of closely monitored wetlands, Chapter 3 of UNEP’s GEO 5 assessment (2011) indicated that from the approximately 3 million hectares of these regularly monitored wetlands half had been irretrievably lost over a 14-year period due to natural causes, and conversion to agriculture or industrial use (Hunsberger et al. 2011). From the types of wetlands it seems that coastal wetlands such as mangroves are the most vulnerable and they continue to decline globally by more than 100 000 hectares, equivalent to 0.7 %/year. That high rate of loss represented a slowdown, relative to the 1 %/year of the 1980s, though the base by the 1990s was already lower – there was less to lose. There are also exceptions to this relatively positive trend, as for example in most places in Asia the rate of loss has increased again between 2000 – 2005 after the decline in the 1980s (UNEP-WCMC 2010).3.1.3. Policy instruments to protect manage wetlands

While globally the number of wetland sites and their locations is known, there is limited information on the environmental quality at these sites. Lack of information was brought up in a number of wetland inventories (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2007). As UNEP’s GEO-5 report also pointed out, there is yet no comprehensive global wetlands database (UNEP 2011).


0102030405060708090

100

No. of sites prior2000

No. of sitesbetween 2000 -

2004

No. of sitesbetween 2005 -

2009

No. of sites after2009

No.

of S

ites

LDCs

LLDCs

SIDS

BRICs

LEIDCs


This section takes an in-depth look at policy approaches in a selected developing countries with significant development challenges i.e., excluding BRICs and LEIDs, countries that have a large overall number of designated sites, but designated a large number of new sites after 2000 (Table 9). As said, the selected countries made considerable progress strides in increasing the number of their designated Ramsar sites, adding between 6 - 14 sites since 2000. We reviewed the potential role of policies and other instruments in advancing efforts with the application of the Convention. We based this information on the information in reports that these countries submitted to the Convention Secretariat.

Table 9: Overview of countries with both a large overall number of Ramsar sites and a significant number of new sites added since 2000

Selected countries Total no. of sites Sites designated since 2000 Honduras

9 5

Burkina Faso 15 14

Ecuador 18 14

Indonesia 7 7

Kazakhstan 10 8

Niger 7 11 Ghana

6 6

Nepal 12 11

Guinea 11 10

Zimbabwe 7 7

In terms of governance, most of these countries have a number of strategies and policies focused on wetland conservation and management. Information on the policy aspects on wetland management is available in national reports to the Ramsar convention secretariat by Nicaragua, Ecuador, Indonesia, Ghana, Uganda and Zimbabwe. This seems to indicate that countries that perform well integrate wetland protection and management into high-level national strategies such as development plans and overall environmental strategies. These countries also started mainstreaming wetland protection and management into relevant sectorial strategies such as poverty reduction, and coastal development. There is also increased awareness of actions and policies that negatively impact wetlands due to the lack of mainstreaming and coordination.

Besides mainstreaming, about half of the countries in this batch developed or are working on their Wetland Protection/Management strategies. It seems that this is effective when there is general support for wetland protection at the national level and the strategy is more an operational document. However, the countries emphasize implementation challenges associated with these strategies. Beyond issues related to financing, they also stressed the lack of skills and information available at local sites


on proper management practices. There is a need to train managers of Ramsar wetland sites to improve their skills in management. Furthermore, there is a challenge associated with reconciling site-specific management priorities with the requirements of the Convention. There is no standardized protocols to report on the status of wetland. In the absence of that, responsible agencies usually report on actual or potential problems that arise at the site level, in order to facilitate the finding of possible solutions.

Table 10: Overview of key policy processes to ensure wetland protection and in the studied countries.

Selected countries

Included in national legislation

Mainstreamed to sectorial strategies

Operational plans and policies developed

Monitoring system

Honduras Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Ecuador Yes Yes Yes Yes

Indonesia Yes Yes Partially Partially

Nicaragua Yes Partially Partially Initiated

Ghana Yes Yes Partially

Partially

Zimbabwe Yes Yes Partially Planned

Guinea Yes Yes Partially Planned

Uganda Yes Yes Advanced Planned

Kazakhstan Yes Partially Partially

Partially

Nepal Yes Yes Partially Partially

Niger Yes Yes Partially Planned

Burkina Faso

Yes Yes Partially Planned

Report of the Democratic Republic of Korea was not accessible on the Convection web-site

In terms of wetland management, one of the largest challenges in ensuring wetland protection at the site-level is that wetlands could fall under different legislation and zoning. They may be part of protected areas but they may also fall under rural or urban areas designated for various forms and levels of development. For many countries, this makes effective protection and management of wetlands very challenging, especially those outside of protected areas. In cases like that the need for protection is often in conflict with economic development priorities, and usually falls victim to it. The decline in wetlands is also a result of encroachment from farming and, increasingly, surface mining activities.

While most countries have developed at least a basic understating that the health of their wetlands declining. But only a very few have monitoring system in place and even in these cases data collection at specific sites level may not be effective. As in many of the studied regions the policies focused on wetlands tend to be mainstreamed into broader environmental legislation and strategy, this is also valid for the


monitoring system. There are cases when wetland monitoring is integrated into broader environmental issues/sites monitoring systems (Lowry, 2010; CBD, 2006). While countries more advanced in wetland protection developed or continue to develop their monitoring systems, there is a long way to go.

3.2. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

Similar to wetlands, assessing the current status of land degradation and desertification is challenging due to conflicting definitions, uncertainty about baselines and understanding of the complexity of ecological of socio-economic factors that play a role in the process of desertification (Veron et al. 2006). According to the UNCCD (2014) the status of land degradation of all terrestrial areas excluding Greenland and Antarctica can be described as follow:

• 25% of land is highly degraded • 8% is moderately degraded • 36% of total land area is stable or slightly degraded • 10% are improving.

Due to drought and desertification each year 12 million hectares are lost (23 hectares/minute). Among anthropogenic causes deforestation, overgrazing, mismanagement of agricultural land, overuse of vegetative cover for domestic use and industrial activities are mentioned (Gabriels and Cornelis n.d.). While most degraded land can in principle be restored, restoration takes time and may be complicated by area-specific technical, institutional, economic and ecological factors. Also, while with some effort restoring land productivity may be possible, some attributes, the assemblage of species and ecological functions usually cannot be restored to pre-degradation conditions.

In terms of regional perspectives, UNCCD reports that that two-thirds of African land has already been degraded to some degree. Land degradation affects at least 485 million people - 65% of the entire African population. By the 2050s, 50% of agricultural land in Latin America will also be subject to desertification (UNCCD, 2014).

The need and potential for restoring the Earth’s degraded land was summarized by UNCCD as follows (UNCCD, n. d.):

• World forest cover continues to shrink by 13 million ha a year; currently more than 2 billion hectares worldwide are available for forest and landscape restoration.

• Over 715 million ha of deforested and degraded lands in Africa offer opportunities for restoration; over 550 million ha in Latin America and 400 million ha in southern and eastern Asia.

• Agroforestry, the combined use of land by trees and for agricultural purposes offers promising options for restoration while feeding the poor and provides


environmental advantages – it helps increase carbon sequestration, increases biodiversity, improves soil, water and air quality (Jose 2009).


The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was adopted in June 1994. It received 115 signatures prior to the start of ratification. Since then, it has been signed by 194 Parties – 193 countries plus the European Union.

The objective of the Convention is “to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the framework of an integrated approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas”.7 To address this objective, the Parties commit to using long-term integrated strategies targeting affected areas, and aiming at an improved productivity of land. They also commit to the rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water resources, leading to improved living conditions, in particular at the community level.8 These strategies are formalized in National Action Plans (NAPs) and aim to bring together actions and policies in an integrated manner with the ultimate goal of promoting sustainable development in both developed and developing countries.

In 2007, Parties to Convention adopted a 10-Year Strategic Plan to revitalise its implementation (2008–2018, decision 3/COP.8). The 2008-2018 UNCCD Strategic Plan introduced the ‘Performance Review and Assessment of Implementation System’ (PRAIS), which developed and piloted a new monitoring, assessment, reporting and review system. The system is built around a set of quantitate indicators to provide the data for a baseline related to the UNCCD’s objectives presented on Figure 19. Besides data and indicators, operational objectives also allow countries to complement quantitative data with a narrative and qualitative details. The reporting system provides quantified insights on capacity-building efforts, consultation and awareness raising, policy and strategy development and implementation. Reporting based on the new system started in 2014 and most of parties to the Convention have already submitted their completed templates.

A recent evaluation of the 10-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the implementation of the Convention during the 2008-2018 period concluded that significant improvements are needed if the strategic plan is to be implemented successfully. Among others, the evaluation points out that while some progress has been made, there is still insufficient evidence to draw direct connections between the activities directly associated with the strategy and the outcomes. It also calls for stronger connection between the strategic and operational objectives (UN CCD 2013). Other evaluations pointed to the lack of evidence from monitoring and assessment and inadequate reporting systems that were poorly harmonised across countries

7 http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf; p. 6 8 http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf; p. 6

http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf

http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf


(ICCD/COP(8)/INF.5; in PRAIS Briefing Document, n.d.). Information during the previous three reporting periods was largely qualitative listing of policy instruments, strategies and actions directly or indirectly influencing desertification and land degradation such as development, agricultural and poverty reduction strategies. Clearly identifying steps taken in direct response to the requirements of the Convention and assessing the current status of desertification was challenging.

Figure 19: Overview of the targets of the UNCCD and reported progress

Source: PRAIS Briefing Document (n.d.)

In terms of the more detailed progress achieved, most of the information is available on the implementation of the NAPs, their integration with national strategies and other conventions and monitoring (


Figure 20 and

Table 11).

Figure 20 also presents the percentage of issues addressed in the last reports submitted in 2014 by country groups. It seems that from all the countries the group of LLDCs are the weakest in terms of implementing their NAP actions, developing and regularly making use of dedicated monitoring systems. The strongest performance was reported by BRICS and by large and environmentally important developing countries that are advanced especially in terms of their functioning monitoring systems. In terms of the NAPs implementation, BRICS, LDCs and large and environmentally important developing countries are performing similarly, however there could be differences in the extent of the implementation.

00102030405060708090

100

NAP is beingimplemented

Joint programingwith the 3 Rioconventions

Dedicatedmonitoring system

exists

Monitoring onUNCCD is done

regulalry

LDCs LLDCs BRICS Large, Environmentally Important Developig Countries

00102030405060708090

100




exists


regulalry



Figure 20: Performance across key implementation and monitoring efforts by country groups (%)

Source: Author calculations, based on reports submitted by the Parties to the UNCCD in 201

Table 11: Summary of key practices in the studied countries to reduce land degradation

Countries

Number of countries

NAP is being implemented

Joint programing with the 3 Rio conventions

Dedicated monitoring system exists

Monitoring on UNCCD is done regularly

LDCs 43 * 35 25.5 13 24

LLDCs 35 ** 17 13 5 16

BRICS 5 5 3 3 4

LEIDC 5 4 3 2 5 *2 countries did not submit a report; one was available only in Arabic) ** 3 countries did not submit a report)

Finally, as part of the reporting framework to the UNCCD, the Parties are also asked to report on the adequacy, timeliness and predictability of bilateral assistance received to implement their NAPs. It seems that regardless of the country’s developmental status, they felt that the available support is barely or not adequate, and there were also problems with timeliness and predictability (Table 12).

00102030405060708090

100




exists


regulalry



Table 12: Rating of the bilateral assistance received for the implementation of the Convention and its Strategy during the reporting period

Adequacy of bilateral assistance received (number of countries: 43)

Timeliness of bilateral assistance received

Predictability of bilateral assistance received

Ade

quat

e

Fairl

y ad

equa

te

Not

ad

equa

te

Tim

ely

Fairl

y tim

ely

Not

tim

ely

Pred

icta

ble

Fairl

y pr

edic

tabl

e

Not

pr

edic

tabl

e

LDCs (n=43) 3 27 13 2 23 17 2 17 24

LLDCs (n= 35) 3 12 20 2 19 14 2 12 29

BRICS (n = 5) 0 2 4 1 2 3 0 2 4

LEIDC (n=5) 0 2 4 1 2 3 0 2 4

Source: Author calculations, based on reports submitted by the Parties to the UNCCD

Considering the central importance of capacity for many of the countries most affected by desertification and land degradation, problems with external assistance can explain some of the ongoing implementation challenges. At the same time, however, implementation also suffers from persistent problems at the domestic level related to weaknesses in institutional mechanisms, particularly the mainstreaming of land degradation prevention policies. In contrast with the advances in our understanding of the processes related to land degradation, the weak integration of scientific knowledge into policy is still a particularly perennial problem. Stronger scientific and technical support institutions are required that can interface with line ministries and implementing entities on the ground using participatory methods (Akhtar-Schuster et al. 2010; Stringer et al. 2007).

Ultimately, the symptoms of land degradation and desertification can be related to the paradigm that values economic growth above all else, without accounting for in either monetary or non-monetary terms for its costs in terms of damages to ecosystems (Hunsberger et al. 2011). Other factors, such as competition for food and various land-based natural resources, urbanization and implementation capacity gaps are important but they are only symptoms of a development paradigm that does not recognize limits characteristic of biophysical systems.

3.2.2. National-level policy approaches relevant for the UNCCD

Based on submitted reports, major national policy framework-related challenges in advancing activities under UNCCD includ the following:

• Developing national plans of actions (NAP) and their implementations • Integration of NAP priorities and activities relevant for reducing

desertification into other development and sector priorities • Limitations of existing monitoring systems to measure issues related to

desertification which in most cases include monitoring land-use change especially deforestation, land conversion and erosion rate.


Based on reports submitted by the Parties, the following trends can be noted:

• Challenges with advancing NAP, including institutional procedures such as approvals that are often labour-intensive and require a lot of time. Based on reports by Honduras, and Ecuador the most important contribution to advancing NAPs is through national development mechanisms such as a Ten-Year Strategy and planning framework of Honduras, or the National Plan for Good Living in Ecuador. Integration with such high-level policy mechanisms provides opportunities to stress the importance of reducing desertification and to advance specific measures.

• Countries made progress in developing their Integrated Financing Strategy (IFS). The IFS focuses on identifying and channeling internal and external financing for initiatives to combat desertification, land degradation and drought, and for the implementation of sustainable land management. The report stressed the importance of strengthening the implementation of the priorities outlined in IFSs through financial and technical assistance and help with effective resource allocations. In most countries the IFS advanced to a different extent,,however, in most cases there are limited national and international resources for their implementation.

• Most of the analysed countries have not completed the assessment of available capacities and capacity gaps necessary for the implementation of NAP activities. In some countries where NAP was integrated with other Rio conventions and/or into broader national strategic plans, such assessment was in some cases conducted under the umbrella of these efforts. However, many countries seem to lack detailed understanding of what are their specific capacity needs and gaps.

• In most of the countries, the major focus of international agencies in combating desertification is on supporting policy development and implementing specific projects. Such projects include sustainable land management, agroforestry, forest management and governance of vulnerable land areas. One of the key challenges associated with this mode of support is lack of continuity, including discontinuities in financing.

• Finally engagement in monitoring is low at the national level and trends relevant for UNCCD are often measured together with other environmental issues focusing mostly on land-use and land-cover change and extent of erosion.

Most of the countries seem to have challenges in implementing priorities and legislation relevant for reducing desertification. Coordination between the UNCCD and other Rio convention is often the most significant step in achieving progress with the Convention’s commitments. Furthermore, as observed in case of the Ramsar Convention, linking the priorities of UNCCD with overall development plans and strategies is also a key mechanism. Unfortunately, countries strongly depend on donor-initiated and donor-financed projectsin implementation, which limits ownership and represents a risk to continuity, if the external partner’s foreign aid priorities shift. Finally engagement in monitoring is often low and trends relevant for UNCCD are often measured together with other environmental issues.


3.3. Convention on Biological Diversity


The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) initiated the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1988 and it was opened for signature at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio "Earth Summit") in 1992. Signed by 168 Parties, it entered into force on the 29th December 1993.

According to text of the Convention, the CBD aims to promote “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding” (UN, 1992).

Today the CBD has 195 Parties. The Parties’ obligation is to adopt national biodiversity strategies and actions in line with the CBD decisions and regularly report to the Convention on progress. The Conference of the Parties holds biennial meetings to oversee implementation and revise or update the work programme of the Convention.

In October 2010, during the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Nagoya, Aichi, Japan, the Parties adopted a revised global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and agreed to translate the global strategic plan into national biodiversity strategies and action plans. The Plan also included a set of targets for the 2011-2020 period, which are known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Grouped under 5 Strategic Goals, the Aichi targets encompass 20 targets. The following are targets relevant to and in line with the land-related MDG-7 targets (7.1, 7.6 and 7.7):

• Target 5 aims to at least halve and where feasible bring close to zero the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, and significantly reduce their degradation and fragmentation by 2020;

• Target 11 requires that at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved by 2020;

• Target 12 aspires to prevent the extinction of known threatened species and improve and sustain their conservation status by 2020.

3.3.2. Policy instruments for implementation

At the national level, the main instrument for the implementation of the CBD are the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP). Since 1992, out of the 195 Parties, 183 have developed a NBSAP.

Aichi Target 17 requires that by 2015 all Parties adopt an updated national strategy and action plan and start implementing it. Out of the 183 NBSAP developed, 38 have been updated by January 2015, and 90% are expected to be updated by the end of 2015 (Secretariat of the CBD, 2014).

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets


With regard to the land-related Aichi Targets (5,11 and 12), so far only 20 countries have set and adopted targets. An even lower number, only 11 countries have adopted both a post-Nagoya NBSAP in line with the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and incorporated land-related Aichi targets into their strategy.

Figure 21 shows the percentage of countries from LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS, BRICS and LEIDCs groups that have adopted at least one NBSAP, prepared a post-Nagoya NBSAP and adopted land-related Aichi Targets.

Figure 21: Performance across key CBD implementation efforts in LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS, BRICS and LEIDCs (percentage of countries within country groups)

Data source: Authors calculation based on CBD (2014)

Among the LDCs and LLDCs, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nepal, Timor Leste and Tuvalu developed and adopted NSBAP so far. Six of the SIDS countries have also adopted NSBAPs, including Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Suriname, Timor Leste and Tuvalu; the latter two are also included in the LDCs group.

In each case the NSBAPs defined strategic directions related to biodiversity conservation, but only Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan and Dominica translated the relevant land-related Aichi targets into national targets. Some countries have integrated biodiversity constitutions into their constitution (Bhutan) or into their legislative framework (Burkina Faso or Mauritania). In some cases Biodiversity objectives are also integrated with other strategies e.g., with the National Action Programme to Combat Land Degradation, and the Forestry Sector Plan in Timor Leste; with the National Action Plan for Environment, the Strategic Framework for Poverty Reduction (CSLP) and the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification (PAN/LCD) in Mauritania; or, with the National Environmental Policy and the National Sustainable Development Strategy in Myanmar. Institutional co-ordination and/or financial mechanisms were also established in a few cases e.g., Antigua and Barbuda and Myanmar. Some strategies have emphasized the importance of local

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Parties that havedeveloped at least

one NBSAP

Updated NBSAP(post-Nagoya)

National AichiTargets

Countries that havesubmitted an

unpdated NBSAP andadopted land-related

Aichi Targets

LDCsLLDCsSIDSBRICSLarge, environmentally important developing countries


actions and introduced local strategies (Nepal) or stakeholder consultations (Suriname).

Among the BRICS and LEIDCs, Brazil, India and South Africa have defined national Aichi Targets and India also updated its NBSAP in line with the Nagoya requirements.

In the 4th Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO), the CBD Secretariat (2014) emphasized that once the NBSAPs and the national targets are developed and adopted, adequate institutional mechanisms will be important to ensure successful implementation. These should include mechanisms that ensure horizontal co-ordination between ministries and across sectors and the securing of sufficient human and financial resources.

3.3.3. Outcomes of implementation efforts

According to the GBO, progress towards the specific land-related Aichi Targets (5,11 and 12) has been mixed (Secretariat of CBD, 2014). The majority of countries aim to reduce habitat loss, but have not specified the scale of reduction. Progress is also limited with regards to reducing tropical forest losses.

Figure 22:The extent of deforestation and forest degradation worldwide

Source: CBD Secretariat, 2014

At the same time, most countries have adopted targets related to protected area coverage, but limited focus on improving the coverage of biodiversity hotspots or management effectiveness Two thirds of the countries have also taken some action to prevent the extinction of species, yet there is no evidence of a reduction in the rate of extinctions.


4. Lessons from the implementation of land-related international policy mechanisms

The review of progress related to land-related MDGs and relevant international conventions offers a number of lessons for the consideration of goal definition, implementation and monitoring and reporting discussions. One of the most important questions is whether the results provide any insight into the differences in progress by issue, country or country groups. Due to the complexity of the underlying problem, simple cause-effect linkages are hard to identify, but there are patterns that can offer interesting lessons about strategies that may also be more effective in the case of the SDGs. Some of these lessons are related to the broader aspects of institutions and institutional design, while others are more specific to the scientific and technical understanding and treatment of land use and land degradation processes. In most cases a cognitive dissonance between the intentions of the MDGs and the reviewed conventions and the primacy and belief in unlimited economic growth was identified as an underlying problem.

Compared with the MDGs, the SDGs offer a much more nuanced perspective on land use and degradation (Table 13). In contrast with the MDGs, the SDGs include a goal dedicated entirely to terrestrial ecosystems ad biodiversity. SDG 15 and its targets express aspirations both in terms of actual outcomes related to various biomes and landuse types (e.g., forests, freshwater ecosystems, mountain areas etc.), but also related to the mechanisms required for implementation. In comparison with the MDGs, in the case of the SDGs there is more explicit and much earlier attention to Means of Implementation, including capacity issues, technical assistance, institutional design, financing and monitoring and review.

Table 13: SDG 15 as approved by the Open Working Group in September 2014.

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

15.1 by 2020 ensure conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

15.2 by 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests, and increase afforestation and reforestation by x% globally

15.3 by 2020, combat desertification, and restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation neutral world

15.4 by 2030 ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, to enhance their capacity to provide benefits which are essential for sustainable development

15.5 take urgent and significant action to reduce degradation of natural habitat, halt the loss of biodiversity, and by 2020 protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

15.6 ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, and promote appropriate access to genetic resources

15.7 take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna, and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products

15.8 by 2020 introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems, and control or eradicate the priority species

15.9 by 2020, integrate ecosystems and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes and poverty reduction strategies, and accounts

15.a mobilize and significantly increase from all sources financial resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems


15.b mobilize significantly resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management, and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance sustainable forest management, including for conservation and reforestation

15.c enhance global support to efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities

Source: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal.html Keeping in mind the similarities and differences in the MDGs and the reviewed MEAs on the one hand and the still evolving SDG agenda on the other, the following key insights are identified based on the current assessment.

4.1. Institutional design and capacity building

Based on the review of the land-related global goal implementation experience there is clearly a case for attention to institutional design and capacity building. Many of the countries involved in MDG implementation struggled with institutional capacity problems, but those that ‘transposed’ the expectation of the Conventions into national laws were somewhat more effective in mobilizing capacity and actual implementation. Often, as it was shown in the case of biodiversity, countries chose to link their MDG implementation to existing regional programs, as in the case of SIDS, thereby probably preventing unnecessary duplication and making use of structures that already exist

Besides building legal ‘institutions’ that support implementation, there was also a need for developing organizational capacity to translate laws and regulations into action, including monitoring and enforcement. In the case of land resources extension services that work at the ground level with farmers, forest communities, landowners and conservation officers play a particularly important role. As far as these institutions may appear to result from from the global ambitions as expressed by global goals, it is ownership and ability to act at the national and local level that may be a decisive factor. Strong external incentives and expectations, such as the necessity of transposing EU laws into domestic policy ensured new member states had to designate a large number of Natura 2000 protected areas. But weak ownership as documented in the case of Bulgaria meant protection could easily be sacrificed when it came into conflict with development interests. In contrast, Namibia’s more domestically-driven, systematic protection efforts that combined strong state leadership with recognizing the economic value of protected areas for tourism lead to the creation of a state-managed protected area network that is considered exemplary (CBD 2010).

4.2. Aligning global and national goals, targets and indicators

SDGs, expressed in more generic terms at the global level will have to be translated into more specific goals and targets at the country or even below the organizational level. As the analysis showed countries that took this route not only developed country specific targets, but they also tried in some cases to align MDG targets with targets already made under existing conventions. This would of course be necessary at the global scale, as already clear in the area of climate change where the SDGs will need to be in sync with UNFCCC commitments of biodiversity, where the SDGs have to reflect the already accepted Aichi Targets.


While countries will adjust their aspirations and commitments – goals and targets – for the SDGs, keeping the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in mind, they will also need to ensure they are pulling in the same direction and that they are pulling as hard as they proportionally should. In order to align implementation measures and levels of effort, common indicators will be needed, connecting the global with the local level and public with private institutions on a shared landscape. Alignment will not happen by itself, it will have to be constructed through a process of participation (Hoekstra et al. 2014; Pinter 1998).

4.3. Balancing the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of land use

As the review of progress has shown, goals, targets and indicators that cover only quantitative aspects of land use and degradation (e.g., changes in forest cover, size and number of protected areas) may miss a significant part of the story on the ground. Qualitative aspects, a was shown for the case of forests can be crucially important, even if they represent complex issues where scientific knowledge is still evolving.

Qualitative issues can be related to biophysical properties of land resources, such as soil fertility or the age classes and species diversity of forests, but also of institutions. In the case of protected areas the apparent contradiction between the increase in protected areas and continuing increase in the number of species threatened by extinction, at least in some parts of the world indicates that simply having protected status is not enough. There is a need for institutions that can clearly focus on delivering the expected results in terms of halting the decline in species abundance and habitat and land degradation as an outcome.

4.4. Interlinkages and integrated management

While having a small set of distinct goals and targets helps focus attention, resources and management action, goals and targets that appear as distinct entities are of course inherently and often inseparably linked on the landscape. Deforestation can jeopardize the success of poverty reduction efforts, while through soil loss it can also undermine the potential for long-term sustainable agriculture. There is much evidence in the literature that integrated management that is able to address issues with interlinkages between land resources, water, biodiversity and other relevant factors tends to be more effective. It is, in fact at the heart of the recently emerged idea of the food-water-energy nexus whose elements are of course directly linked to land resources (e.g., Hoff 2011).

As an example of interlinkages, forest cover can be closely linked to climate change, as it is seen particularly in South-East Asia. Although land degradation is not among the official Millennium Development Goal 7 indicators, it is also a significant environmental problem in the LAC region. It consists of loss of productive capacity in the soil, and affects human activity and certain ecological functions, as well as compromising the future potential of ecosystems to supply goods and services. Countries in the region that struggle with deforestation are also the ones that have the highest amount of degraded land as a proportion of total national area.


4.5. Data, indicators and reporting

Data is a perennial issue, and the review of progress on land resources again underlines not only that consistent, high resolution time series data on several key indicators are missing, but also that without adequate data the quality of reporting and review suffers. And without adequate reporting and evidence base it is much less feasible to put in place credible enforcement and accountability mechanisms.

There is a significant gap between monitoring policy processes, their effectiveness and actual impacts; while monitoring a policy process as a proxy to actual impacts can be acceptable, more research/understanding is needed to see how this relates to changes that are happening on the ground.

Data related to qualitative aspects of land resources need to be developed. For instance, we seem to have good information on the number and size of designated wetlands. There was a strong increase since 2000, however we have much less information on the health status of these areas. There are only limited and non-conclusive reports and studies that make suggestions if the quality of these areas is improving or not.

While some qualitative aspects can be measured through remote sensing, there is still a need and room for ground-based monitoring and ground-truthing geospatial data. Capacity for such monitoring has often been lost or never installed. Land use and degradation monitoring needs to be systematic, harmonized, regular and focused on the right parameters, and this requires investment.

4.6. Addressing root causes of unsustainable land management

As UNEP’s GEO-5 report pointed out, the state and capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to provide good and services is eroded away not only as a result of weak institutions, inadequate capacity, absence of political will or lack of appropriate technology (Hunsberger et al. 2011). Global commitments to addressing the interlocking problems of deforestation, biodiversity loss and the disappearance of wetlands have been turned into strategies and action plans. Inadequate as they may be, financing mechanisms have been in place. Far from enough, but there has been education and outreach, capacity building and training, partnerships with sustainability-oriented companies, and the science and Earth observation and statistical community has been brought in to monitor and report on progress – or as it may be, the lack of it.

Despite these efforts and better public awareness of the crisis of biodiversity and natural ecosystems, there has been further backsliding. While weaknesses in the individual response and implementation measures are in part to blame, the fact that at the global level the success of land and biodiversity conservation efforts is the exception and not the rule suggest there is something else at work. The theories and practice of economic growth continue to come in front of concerns for ecosystems. Some progress has been made: for some time there’s been an understanding that the social and economic cost of the loss of ecosystem functions and services is very high (Daily 1997; Costanza 2000). Yet neither these costs nor the fact that terrestrial ecosystems covered by the Conventions and MDG-7 targets reviewed in this paper


have hard biophysical limits are reflected in the models and balance sheets that underpin economic decision-making.

Political and technical discussions on the SDGs’ means of implementation (MoI) have started early. They will focus on the many technical and policy details associated with individual goals and targets. Considering the experience with the MDG-7 targets reviewed, these discussions should also extend to understanding and tackling the underlying causes of ecosystem degradation. They should involve rethinking the concept and primacy of economic growth in decision-making so that consumption and production is decoupled from its environmental effects. More than that: the economy should start contributing to the regeneration of the natural capital that has been and that is being lost.

5. Conclusions

The background paper provided an overview of the past trends and current status related to the implementation of land use and degradation related goals and targets of the MDGs and two related conventions. Besides reviewing progress, its ambition was to identify challenges and factors of success related to these existing policy mechanisms that could inform the ongoing and future discourse on SDG design and implementation on land resources related goals.

The review of progress focused, where allowed by data, on relevant country groupings, and identified strongest and weakest performers, trying to look for patterns of success or failure. Performance was found to be often determined by highly contextual – ecological, historic, economic, political – factors. Governance, capacity and political will are key aspects, as they allow a more disciplined and effective approach to implementation. Implementation is more effective where goals are translated into country specific commitments and targets and backed up with credible institutional commitments and the usual elements of capacity, including technical know-how, finance and infrastructure. Vietnam’s progress in maintaining forest cover or China’s afforestation in the Western provinces were instructive.

Yet assessing progress based on simple – or simplistic – uni-dimensional indicators alone can hide important details and be misleading. Forest cover is a key performance criteria, but forest quality is just as important, especially for biodiversity and for maintaining ecosystem functions and services. Replacing primary forest with plantation forest can lead to a severe reduction of these qualitative attributes and should be captured both in goals and targets and specifically addressed through MoI. This is more explicitly recognized by the draft SDGs by referring to both land cover but also land degradation; they are also covered by the Ramsar and Biodiversity Conventions.

Given the growing emphasis on MoI in the SDG process, experience with implementation in the MDGs and the Conventions can be instructive. While the success of implementation is related to governance, capacity and other factors directly targeting a particular goal, it is also a function of the macropolicy framework that provides the overall development context. A macropolicy framework rooted in an economic theory that does not recognize the biophysical constraints of natural


ecosystems and their direct relevance for human well-being often works against and undermines the effectiveness of conservation measures, especially because economic growth and its institutional representatives hold more power and have the final word when a conflict between conservation and economic development emerges. More emphasis on policy integration, mainstreaming and cross-compliance, without compromising fundamental land resource priorities will be needed. MoI discourses on specific topics should also cover contextual factors, most importantly a discussion on how the consumption – production system and economic theory itself can be revised to serve the priorities of sustainability and specifically the SDGs. This should take into the effects of trade, so that the interests of all actors along global supply chains can be taken into account.

Another important insight from this desk research is that even many years after the MDGs and the two conventions came into force, regular, systematic, transparent and evidence-based reporting on the progress towards the aspirations laid out in these policy instruments is still missing. While existing data allowed the comparison of some country groups and the identification of leaders and followers, there is much less information than necessary to go deeper into the details of both actual performance and reasons for such performance. Although MDG indicators have been reported regularly, a reporting mechanism for the two conventions was only recently established. The conclusion for the SDG process is clearly that capacity for reporting both at the global and national level must be installed early in the process, otherwise information on progress won’t be available and accountability and implementation effectiveness could suffer.

Despite these challenges, the background paper identified a number of factors that going forward could help strengthen the implementation mechanisms related to land resources. While some are specific to land resources, most are generic and would likely be applicable to SDGs related to other areas such as health or education.

6. References

Akhtar‐ Schuster, M., Thomas, R. J., Stringer, L. C., Chasek, P., & Seely, M. (2011). Improving the enabling environment to combat land degradation: Institutional, financial, legal and science‐ policy challenges and solutions. Land Degradation & Development, 22(2), 299-312.

Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P., & Sayer, J. (2008). Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity?. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(5), 925-951.

CBD. (2010) Celebrating the International Year of Biodiversity with Success Stories from the Field – Protected Areas Pay in Namibia. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/celebrations/iyb-Namibia-success-en.pdf

CBD (2006) Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. CBD Technical Series No. 22 / Ramsar Technical Report No. 1. Published jointly by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological


Diversity and the Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib_rtr01.pdf

CBD (2013) Biodiversity in the post-2015 development agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Ecosystem goods and services for human well being. Background paper for the Trondheim Conference. URL: http://www.cbd.int/sbstta/doc/trondheim-full-paper-2-sdgs-en.pdf

CBD (2014) National reports. URL: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, C. A. (2002). Tropical forest degradation and aquatic ecosystems: our current state of knowledge. Conservation of freshwater fishes: options for the future (MJ Collares-Pereira, IG Cowx & MM Coelho, ed.). Blackwell Science, Oxford, 237-249.

Clement, F., & Amezaga, J. M. (2009). Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: Analysing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 458-470.

Costanza, R. (2000). Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3(1), 4-10. Daily, G. (Ed.). (1997). Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press. Dudley, N., J.P. Jeanrenaud and F. Sullivan. (2014). Bad harvest: The timber trade and the degradation of global forests. Routledge.

Duprey, B. (2014) Natura 2000: Bulgaria’s Paper Park. PhD Thesis. Budapest: Central European University.

Earth Policy Institute (2012). Eco-Economy Indicators: Forest cover. Available at: http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56/forests_2012

FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Country Reports. FAO. Rome, Italy.

FAO (2014). FAO supports Zimbabwe National Forest Policy Formulation Process URL: http://www.fao.org/africa/news/detail-news/en/c/269781/

Gabriels, D. and W.M. Cornelis. N.d. Human-induced land degradation. Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences, Vol. III. Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems. Available at: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C19/E1-05-03-05.pdf

Grainger, A. (2008). Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,105(2), 818-823.

Hoekstra, R., J.P. Smits, K. Boone, W. van Everdingen, F. Mawire, B. Buck, A. Beutling and K. Kriege. (2014) Reporting on sustainable development at national, company and product levels: The potential for alignment of measurement systems in a post-2015 world. Statistics Netherlands: The Hague. Available at: http://measurewhatmatters.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Alignment-of-SD-reporting-at-national-company-and-product-levels-CBS-TSC-GRI.pdf

http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib_rtr01.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/sbstta/doc/trondheim-full-paper-2-sdgs-en.pdf

http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56/forests_2012

http://www.fao.org/africa/news/detail-news/en/c/269781/


Hoff, H. (2011). Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.

Hoffman, M. T., & Todd, S. (2000). A national review of land degradation in South Africa: the influence of biophysical and socio-economic factors. Journal of Southern African Studies, 26(4), 743-758.

Hunsberger C. and T.P. Evans (coordinating lead authors). (2011) Land. Global Environment Outlook 5. Nairobi: UNEP, pp. 32. Available at: http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/GEO5_report_C3.pdf

Jabbour, J.,, Keita-Ouane F., Hunsberger C., Sánchez-Rodríguez R., Gilruth P., Patel N., Singh A., Levy M., Schwarzer S. 2012. Internationally agreed environmental goals: A critical evaluation of progress. Environmental Development, Volume 3, 5–24.

Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry systems, 76(1), 1-10.

Keulartz, J. (2009). European nature conservation and restoration policy—Problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 446-450.

Lowry J. (2010) A Framework for a Wetland Inventory Metadatabase. Ramsar Technical Report No. 4. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib_rtr04.pdf

Mongabay.com (2013) Country Profiles. URL: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/countries.htm

Oxfam (2013). MDG Progress Report 2013: Goal 7 To ensure environmental sustainability. Oxfam Education, Great Britain.

Pang C., Yu H. , He Y. and Xu J. (2013) Deforestation and Changes in Landscape Patterns from 1979 to 2006 in Suan County, DPR Korea.

Pinter, L., Almassy, D., Antonio, E., Niestroy, I., Olsen, S., & Pulawska, G. (2013). Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators for a Small Planet.

Pinter, L., D. Almassy., K. Offerdahl and S. Czunyi. (2015) Global Goals and the Environment. Progress and Prospects. Winnipeg: IISD for UNEP. Working draft in preparation. Methodology and goal framework. Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation.

Pinter, L. (1998) Think Public, Act Private: Building Compatibility between Corporate and Public Visions of Sustainable Development. Working Paper. Winnipeg: IISD.

PRAIS Briefing Document (n.d.) Briefing Fostering evidence-based decision-making in UNCCD implementation: Initial results from PRAIS reports in 2010. PRAIS and UNCCD, p. 9.










http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib_rtr04.pdf


Ramsar Operational Guidelines (2013) Operational Guidelines 2013-2015 for Regional Initiatives in the framework of the Convention on Wetlands (2013) Approved by the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee (Decision SC46-28), April 2013. http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/regional-initiatives/Operational-guidelines-2013-2015.pdf

Rekacewicz, P. (2009) Vitl Forest Graphics. Arendal: GRID Arendal. Available at: http://grida.no/files/publications/vital_forest_graphics.pdf

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,461(7263), 472-475.

Rodrigues, A. S., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., ... & Yan, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640-643.

Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., & Laurance, W. F. (2009). Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation.Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1396-1405.

Stephens, S., & Wagner, M. R. (2007). Forest plantations and biodiversity: a fresh perspective. Journal of Forestry, 105(6), 307-313.

Stringer, L. C., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., Seely, M. K., & Rokitzki, M. (2007, August). Implementing the UNCCD: Participatory challenges. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 198-211). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

United Nations General Assembly (2000) Millennium Declaration. New York: UN

UN (2010) ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS WITH EQUALITY IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES. URL: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/LAC-Regional%20MDG%20Report%202010.pdf

UN (2012). Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

UN (2014) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. URL: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf

UN Statistics Division (2013) Millennium Development Goals Indicators. URL: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx

UN (2013b). Annex: Millennium Development Goals, targets and indicators, 2013: statistical tables. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2013/Statistical%20Annex.doc

http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/regional-initiatives/Operational-guidelines-2013-2015.pdf

http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/regional-initiatives/Operational-guidelines-2013-2015.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/LAC-Regional%20MDG%20Report%202010.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/LAC-Regional%20MDG%20Report%202010.pdf

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf


UN (2013a). The Millenium Development Progress Report. Available at : http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf

UN and League of Arab States (2013) The Arab Millennium Development Goals Report. Facing Challenges and Looking Beyond 2015. URL:http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbas/doc/MDGS%20publications/Arab_MDGR_2013_English.pdf

UN ESCAP (2013) Asia-Pacific Aspirations: Perspectives for a Post-2015 Development Agenda. Asia-Pacific Regional MDGs Report 2012/2013 URL: http://asia-pacific.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publications/mdg/RBAP-RMDG-Report-2012-2013.pdf

UNCCD (2014) THE LAND IN NUMBERS - LIVELIHOODS AT A TIPPING POINT. Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; Bonn, p. 22; ISBN: 978-92-95043-90-9

UNCCD (2013) Mid-term evaluation of the 10-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the implementation of the Convention (2008-2018). Report by the Intersessional Working Group. ICCD/COP(11)/21 Available at: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/10YearStrategy/IWG%20final%20report%20cop11-21.pdf

UNCCD (n.d) DESERTIFICATION LAND DEGRADATION &DROUGHT (DLDD) - SOME GLOBAL FACTS &FIGURES. UNCCD. http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD%20Facts.pdf

UNDG (United Nations Development Group) (2010). Thematic Paper on MDG-7 Environmental Sustainability.

UNDP (2006) Making Progress on Environmental Sustainability. Lessons and recommendations from a review of over 150 MDG country experiences. URL: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-energy/www-ee-library/mainstreaming/making-progress-on-environmental-sustainability/mdg7english.pdf

UNDP (2014). MDG Regional and Country progress reports. URL: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/mdg-reports/

UNECA (2013) Assessing Progress in Africa toward the Millennium Development Goals . MDG Report 2013. Food security in Africa: Issues, challenges and lessons. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. URL: http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/publications/mdgreport2013_eng.pdf

UNECE (2012) The UNECE report on Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Europe and Central Asia. URL: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/Europe%20and%20CIS/UNECE_MDG_Report_2012.pdf

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf

http://asia-pacific.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publications/mdg/RBAP-RMDG-Report-2012-2013.pdf



http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/publications/mdgreport2013_eng.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/Europe%20and%20CIS/UNECE_MDG_Report_2012.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Regional%20Reports/Europe%20and%20CIS/UNECE_MDG_Report_2012.pdf


UNEP (2012). Global Environment Outlook 5: Environment for the future we want. UNEP, Nairobi. DEW/1417/NA.

UNEP-WCMC (2010). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and its Indicators of Effectiveness. International Expert Workshop on the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators and Post-2010 Indicator Development. A workshop convened by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC), in cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 6–8 July 2009. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge

Veron, S. R., Paruelo, J. M., & Oesterheld, M. (2006). Assessing desertification. Journal of Arid Environments, 66(4), 751-763.

Wetlands International Africa Office (2007) Strengthening policies for wise use and management of wetlands in four ecoregions (West and Central Africa): Contribution by Wetlands International – BBI Project.


7. Appendix 1. Country groups

Least Developed Countries - LDCs (2014) Afghanistan Angola Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Kiribati Lao PDR Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Niger Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Somalia South Sudan Sudan (former) Timor-Leste Togo Tuvalu Uganda


United Republic of Tanzania Vanuatu Yemen Zambia

LLDCS Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bhutan Bolivia Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Central African Republic Chad Ethiopia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Lao PDR Lesotho The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Malawi Mali Republic of Moldova Mongolia Nepal Niger Paraguay Rwanda Swaziland Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uganda Uzbekistan Zambia Zimbabwe

SIDSs Cape Verde Comoros Guinea-Bissau Maldives Mauritius Sao Tome and Principe Seychelles


Singapore The Caribbean Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Aruba Bahamas Barbados Belize British Virgin Islands Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Guyana Haiti Jamaica Montserrat Puerto Rico Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Trinidad and Tobago United States Virgin Islands American Samoa Northern Mariana Islands Cook Islands Fiji French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of Nauru New Caledonia Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Timor-Leste Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

BRICS Brazil


Russian Federation India China South Africa

Large and environmentally important developing countries (such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Democratic Republic of Congo), c Brazil China India Russian Federation Mexico Indonesia Congo

Emerging economies (IMF classification 2012) Argentina Brazil Bulgaria Chile China Colombia Estonia Hungary India Indonesia Latvia Lithuania Malaysia Mexico Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Romania Russian Federation South Africa Thailand Turkey Ukraine Venezuela

Advanced economies (IMF 2014 categorisation) Austria Australia Belgium Canada


Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic of Latvia Luxembourg Malta Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal San Marino Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan

United Kingdom United States


8. Appendix 2.

Country groups LDCs LLDCs SIDS BRICs LEIDCs No. of sites prior 2000 37 30 10 68 19 Area (in ha) prior 2000 83.3 124.0 6.9 155.7 56.9 No. of sites between 2000 - 2004

39 37 16 34 33

Area (in ha) between 2000 - 2004

134.3 111.0 13.0 49.6 49.6

No. of sites between 2005 - 2009

45 33 7 14 18

Area (in ha) between 2005 - 2009

238.4 173.8 0.2 3.7 83.2

No. of sites after 2009 45 56 33 14 18 Area (in ha) after 2009 116.0 146.8 12.5 16.3 56.5 Source: based on data from the convention website;9 authors’ calculations


MDG EXPERIENCE REGARDING LAND RELATED …...Asia (excluding China and India), while forest cover...

Documents

Transcript of MDG EXPERIENCE REGARDING LAND RELATED …...Asia (excluding China and India), while forest cover...