Rethinking Land in the Anthropocene:
from Separation to Integration
Flagship Report
Rethinking Land in the Anthropocene:
from Separation to Integration
The Council Members
Prof Karen Pittel (Chair)
Director of the Ifo Center for Energy, Climate and Exhaustible Resources and Professor of Economics, esp. Energy, Climate and Exhaustible Natural Resources, Faculty of Economics, University of Munich.
Prof Sabine Schlacke (Chair)
Professor of Public Law, Executive Director of the Institute for Environmental Law and Planning Law, University of Münster.
Prof Markus Fischer
Professor of Plant Ecology, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern and Director of the Botanical Garden of the University of Bern. Council Member since April 2020.
Prof Martina Fromhold-Eisebith
Chair of Economic Geography, Department of Geography at RWTH Aachen University.
Prof Ulrike Grote
Director of the Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade at Leibniz University of Hannover and Senior Fellow at Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn.
Prof Ellen Matthies
Professor for Environmental Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg.
Prof Dirk Messner
Director of the United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn and Co-Director of the Center for Advanced Studies on Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen. Council Member until December 2019.
Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Director Emeritus of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
Prof Ina Schieferdecker
Director of Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS) in Berlin, Professor for Quality Engineering of Open Distributed Systems at TU Berlin and Director of the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society. Council Member until September 2019.
Prof Uwe Schneidewind
President and Chief Research Executive of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy and Professor for Sustainable Transition Management at the University of Wuppertal.
Council Member until February 2020.
WBGU is an independent, scientific advisory body to the German Federal Government set up in 1992 in the run-up to the Rio Earth Summit. The Council has nine members, appointed for a term of four years by the federal cabinet. The Council is supported by an interministerial committee of the federal government comprising representatives of all ministries and of the federal chancellery. The Council’s principal task is to provide scientifically-based policy advice on global change issues to the German Federal Government.
The Council
• analyses global environment and development problems and reports on these,
• reviews and evaluates national and international research in the field of global change,
• provides early warning of new issue areas,
• identifies gaps in research and initiates new research,
• monitors and assesses national and international policies for sustainable development,
• elaborates recommendations for action,
• raises public awareness and heightens the media profile of global change issues.
WBGU publishes flagship reports every two years, making its own choice of focal themes. In addition, the German government can commission the Council to prepare special reports and policy papers. For more information please visit www.wbgu.de.
Rethinking Land in the Anthropocene:
from Separation to Integration
IV
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-946830-06-1 WBGU Berlin 2021
The reproduction and distribution of original WBGU text material and charts, including extracts, is permitted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the source is acknowledged. Text material and charts from third-party sources are subject to the copyright conditions of the respective sources.
The R&D project that generated this report was conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety under grant number 01RI0708A4. Responsibility for the content of this publication rests with the author.
Translation: Bob Culverhouse & Margaret Helliwell, Berlin Designed by: WERNERWERKE GbR, Berlin
Cover photo: Robert Clark, New York
Concept and design of the illustrations: Ellery Studio, Berlin and WBGU Produced by: WBGU
Typesetting: WBGU
Printed and bound by Druckhaus Sportflieger, Berlin (WBGU)
Secretariat Luisenstraße 46
D-10117 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 26 39 48 0 Email: wbgu@wbgu.de Web: www.wbgu.de Copy deadline: 18.09.2020
Recommended citation: WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2021): Rethinking Land in the Anthropocene: from Separation to Integration. Berlin: WBGU.
Lead authors: Markus Fischer, Martina Fromhold-Eisebith, Ulrike Grote, Ellen Matthies, Dirk Messner, Karen Pittel, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Ina Schieferdecker, Sabine Schlacke, Uwe Schneidewind Co-authors: Robyn Blake-Rath, Marcel J. Dorsch, Fabian Fahl, Marian Feist, Juliana Gaertner, Jonas Geschke, Maja Göpel, Hans Haake, Ulrike Jürschik, Karen Krause, Carsten Loose, Reinhard Messerschmidt, Susanne Neubert, Johannes Pfeiffer, Benno Pilardeaux, Astrid Schulz, Jan Siegmeier, Nora Wegener
V Scientific Staff at the Secretariat
Prof Dr Maja Göpel (Secretary General) Dr Carsten Loose
(Deputy Secretary-General)
Marcel J. Dorsch, MA Dipl.-Päd. (Univ.) Dr Reinhard Messerschmidt
(until September 2020) Dr Susanne Neubert Dr Benno Pilardeaux
(Head of Media and Public Relations) Dr Astrid Schulz
Dr Jan Siegmeier
Administration, Editorial Work and Secretariat Viola Märtin, Dipl.-Kulturarbeiterin (FH)
(Secretariat, Event Management) Mario Rinn, BSc
(System Administration and Graphics) Martina Schneider-Kremer, MA (Publishing Management)
Internship in the Secretariat
Tom Selje
Paul Strikker (until July 2020)
Scientific Staff to the Council Members Robyn Blake-Rath, MA
(Leibniz University Hannover) Fabian Fahl, MSc
(Geographisches Institut der RWTH Aachen;
since January 2020) Dr Marian Feist
(United Nations University, Bonn; until January 2020)
Juliana Gaertner, MPhil
(Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – PIK)
Jonas Geschke, MSc
(Institute of Plant Sciences, Bern; since May 2020) Hans Haake, Dipl.-Oec.
(Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy; until March 2020)
Ulrike Jürschik, Dipl.-Jur.
(Institute for Environmental Law and Planning Law – IUP, Münster)
Karen Krause, MSc
(Institute of Psychology – IPSY, Magdeburg) Dr Johannes Pfeiffer
(ifo Center for Energy, Climate and Resources, Munich)
Nora Wegener, MA
(Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems FOKUS, Berlin; until September 2019)
Council Staff
VI
Acknowledgments
The WBGU would like to thank Jun.-Prof Dr Cathrin Zengerling, LL.M. (Albert Ludwig University Freiburg) for the following scientific expertise, which is available on the WBGU website: ‘Strengthening climate-change mitigation and development through international trade law’, 2020.
The WBGU received valuable suggestions from hear- ings with the following experts conducted during its special intensive conferences and regular meetings:
> On 19 September 2019, the WBGU had the opportu- nity to exchange views with Dr Alexander Popp (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), who provided information on the main findings of the latest IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, to which he contributed as lead author.
> On 17 October 2019, the WBGU held a hearing with Dr Margret Engelhard (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) to learn about the current state of modern genetic engineering and its regulation.
> On 15 November 2019, Dr Harald Ginzky (Federal Environment Agency) reported on his reflections on land/soil governance in the light of his experience at the UNCCD negotiations.
> On 18 December 2019, Dr Christiane Paulus and Inka Gnittke (BMU) reported on the current status of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
> On 23 January 2020, expert hearings were held with Jun.-Prof Dr Cathrin Zengerling (Albert Ludwig Uni- versity Freiburg) and Prof Dr Joachim von Braun (Center for Development Research – ZEF, University of Bonn and Bioeconomy Council). Dr Zengerling gave an overview of approaches to (and possibilities for) taking aspects of environmental protection and climate-change mitigation into account at the WTO, in investment-protection agreements and in regional free-trade agreements. Prof Dr von Braun presented the work and views of the Bioeconomy Council (Bioökonomierat).
There were lively discussions on the WBGU’s new flag- ship report at joint meetings with the Interministerial Committee for Monitoring the WBGU (IMA) held on 14 November 2019 and 11 May 2020; these were chaired by Dr Karsten Sach (BMU) and Volker Rieke (BMBF).
The WBGU would also like to thank those who have provided valuable services to the WBGU through conversations, comments, contributions, peer reviews, advice and research:
Dr Hannes Böttcher and Judith Reise (Institute of Applied Ecology – Öko-Institut e.V.); Dr Heinrich Bovensmann (University of Bremen, Institute for Envi- ronmental Physics); Christopher Bren d’Amour (Ger- man Society for International Cooperation – GIZ); Prof Dr Sabine Fuss and Sebastian Kraus (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change); Prof Dr Dr Sabine Gabrysch, Prof Dr Hermann Lotze- Campen, Prof Dr Wolfgang Lucht, Aylin Mengi and Merle Quade (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research); Dr Kim Grützmacher (Wildlife Conservation Society); Dr Christoph Häuser (Deputy Director Gen- eral, Museum of Natural History, Berlin); Jannis Hülsen (Berlin University of the Arts); Dr Horst Korn (Interna- tional Academy for Nature Conservation, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation); Prof em Dr Wolfgang Lücke (Hightech Forum); Prof Dr Simeon Max (ETH Zurich); Dr Carsten Nesshöver (Federal Environment Agency); Tony Rinaudo (World Vision); Trevor Sand- with (Director of the Global Protected Areas Pro- gramme, International Union for Conservation of Nature); Dr Axel Paulsch (Institute for Biodiversity – Network); Stig Tanzmann (Brot für die Welt – ‘Bread for the World’, development and relief agency of the Protestant Churches in Germany); Erwin Thoma (Thoma-Holz GmbH).
VII
Contents
Council Staff . . . .V Acknowledgments . . . .VI Contents . . . .VII Boxes . . . .XII Tables . . . .XIV Figures . . . .XV Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . .XVIII
Summary . . . .1
1 Introduction . . . .11
2 Land as the key to sustainability – a systemic view . . . .15
2.1 Land resources under pressure: overexploitation, degradation, competition for use . . . .16
2.1.1 Scale of and trends in the degradation of terrestrial ecosystems . . . 16
2.1.2 Drivers of land degradation and consequences . . . 18
2.1.3 Land Degradation Neutrality as a goal of international sustainability policy . . . 21
2.2 The trilemma of land use . . . .21
2.2.1 The climate crisis . . . 21
2.2.2 The food-system crisis . . . 25
2.2.3 The biodiversity crisis . . . 27
2.3 Future vision for sustainable land stewardship . . . .36
2.3.1 Sustainable land stewardship: systemic, synergistic, solidarity-based . . . 36
2.3.2 Shape the transformation towards sustainable land stewardship . . . 39
3 Multiple-benefit strategies for sustainable land stewardship . . . .45
3.1 Ecosystem restoration: organize land-based CO2 removal in a synergistic way . . . .49
3.1.1 CO2 sinks: the starting position . . . 49
3.1.1.1 CO2 removal from the atmosphere: concept and definition . . . 50
3.1.1.2 Land-based approaches for CO2 removal: technologies, potential, concomitant effects . . . 51
3.1.1.3 The role of CO2-removal methods in climate-change-mitigation scenarios . . . 57
3.1.2 Principles of sustainable CO2 removal: highlight uncertainties, limit risks, stimulate multiple benefits . . . 59
3.1.3 Multi-benefit strategy: restoration of degraded terrestrial ecosystems . . . 63
3.1.3.1 Restoration as a strategy for revitalizing ecosystem functions . . . 65
3.1
.
3.2 Reforestation . . . 663.1.3.3 Restoration of grassland ecosystems . . . 67
3.1.3.4 Restoration of peatlands . . . 69
3.1.3.5 Ecosystem restoration in the focus of international sustainability policy . . . 71
3.1.3.6 Implementation of restoration measures . . . 73
3.1.3.7 Conclusions on restoration . . . 77
VIII
3.1.4 Recommendations for action . . . 77
3.1.4.1 Recommendations for CO2 removal . . . 78
3.1.4.2 Recommendations for the restoration of degraded ecosystems . . . 79
3.1.5 Research recommendations: . . . 81
3.1.5.1 Research recommendations: CO2 removal . . . 81
3.1.5.2 Research recommendations: ecosystem restoration . . . 82
3.2 Expand and upgrade protected-area systems . . . .85
3.2.1 Ecosystem conservation: problems and multiple benefits . . . 85
3.2.2 International goals for ecosystem conservation . . . 86
3.2.3 The expansion and upgrading of protected-area systems as a multiple-benefit strategy . . . 89
3.2.3.1 Protected-area systems as instruments of ecosystem and biodiversity conservation . . . 89
3.2.3.2 Multiple benefits in protected-area systems . . . 92
3.2.3.3 Target achievement and future goals . . . 94
3.2.3.4 Protected-area systems under pressure: drivers, needs for action, barriers and actors . . . 97
3.2.3.5 Focus on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: guardians of the ecosystems . . . 100
3.2.3.6 Focus on landscape: interconnected protected-area systems in an integrated landscape approach . . . 102
3.2.3.7 Focus on financing protected-area systems . . . 103
3.2.4 Conclusions . . . 107
3.2.5 Recommendations for action . . . 108
3.2.6 Research recommendations . . . 112
3.3 Diversify farming systems . . . .115
3.3.1 Current farming systems are approaching their limits . . . 115
3.3.1.1 Industrial agriculture: the example of the EU . . . 115
3.3.1.2 Low-yield subsistence farming and persisting food insecurity: the example of sub-Saharan Africa . . . 120
3.3.1.3 Impact of international agricultural trade on resilience to crises and on sustainable development: the examples of the EU and sub-Saharan Africa . . . 126
3.3.2 Multiple-benefit strategies for the diversification of farming systems . . . 128
3.3.2.1 Overall goals and principles . . . 128
3.3.2.2 Greening of industrial agriculture in the EU . . . 129
3.3.2.3 Sustainably increase agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa, achieve climate adaptation and food security . . . 132
3.3.2.4 Gearing agricultural trade towards resilience and sustainability . . . 137
3.3.2.5 Greening versus intensification and the measurement of greenhouse gases: a classification . . . 139
3.3.2.6 Components of the multiple-benefit strategies . . . 142
3.3.3 Recommendations for action . . . 156
3.3.3.1 Recommendations for action: greening industrial agriculture in the EU and the CAP post-2020 . . . 157
3.3.3.2 Recommendations for action in sub-Saharan Africa and for development cooperation . . . 164
3.3.3.3 Recommendations for action relating to trade . . . 165
3.3.4 Research recommendations . . . 166
3.3.4.1 Research recommendations for the EU . . . 166
3.3.4.2 Research recommendations on land use in sub-Saharan Africa . . . 166
3.3.4.3 Research recommendations on trade . . . 167
IX 3.4 Drive forward the transformation of animal- product-heavy dietary habits in
industrialized countries . . . .171
3.4.1 Statement of the problem: the global food system . . . 171
3.4.1.1 Definition and development of the food system . . . 171
3.4.1.2 Effects of the food system . . . 173
3.4.1.3 Dietary habits . . . 174
3.4.1.4 Drivers of the deficiencies of the food system . . . 177
3.4.2 Transformation of the food system through a transformation of dietary habits . . . 177
3.4.2.1 Potential on the demand side . . . 177
3.4.2.2 Objective: multiple benefits from the transformation of animal-product-heavy dietary habits in industrialized countries . . . 178
3.4.3 A question of awareness? The diverse conditions determining how dietary habits develop and change . . . 179
3.4.3.1 Dietary habits and corporate interests viewed globally . . . 179
3.4.3.2 Influences on the development of dietary habits . . . 180
3.4.3.3 Food intake as a social situation . . . 181
3.4.3.4 Breaks in nutrition biographies, changing values in dietary habits . . . 182
3.4.3.5 Context and resources as possible starting points for changing dietary habits . . . 183
3.4.3.6 Conclusion: normative orientation towards sustainability in community catering as a special trigger for transformation . . . 186
3.4.4 Starting points for encouraging the transformation of dietary habits . . . 187
3.4.4.1 Control coupled with room for manoeuvre so as to respect Eigenart . . . 187
3.4.4.2 Transformation via true prices and sustainable supply . . . 188
3.4.4.3 Multiple nuclei of transformation . . . 188
3.4.4.4 Transformation potential from strengthening knowledge resources (labels and guidelines) . . . 189
3.4.4.5 Transformation approaches in community catering: making the most of multiple transformation potential . . . 190
3.4.5 Recommendations for action . . . 191
3.4.5.1 Consistently make sustainable nutrition the norm with guidelines that are in line with the Planetary Health Diet . . . 192
3.4.5.2 Support the trend towards a low-animal-product diet and gear nutrition biographies towards sustainability . . . 192
3.4.5.3 Encourage consumers to practise sustainable dietary habits . . . 192
3.4.5.4 Promote ‘healthy trade’ nationally and internationally . . . 193
3.4.6 Research recommendations: . . . 194
3.4.6.1 Transformative research aimed at strengthening sustainable dietary habits . . . 194
3.4.6.2 Extend existing research programmes in the field of nutrition to include sustainability aspects . . . 195
3.5 Shape the bioeconomy responsibly and promote timber-based construction . . . .197
3.5.1 Problems and potential of the increased use of biological resources . . . 198
3.5.2 Vision and important fields of action for a sustainable bioeconomy . . . 202
3.5.2.1 Vision of a sustainable bioeconomy . . . 202
3.5.2.2 Important fields of action for a sustainable bioeconomy . . . 205
3.5.3 Timber-based construction as a multi-benefit strategy . . . 207
3.5.3.1 Potential of timber-based construction as a supplement and alternative to conventional construction methods . . . 207
3.5.3.2 Existing instruments for promoting timber-based construction . . . 220
3.5.4 Recommendations for action . . . 221
3.5.4.1 Recommendations for action on timber-based construction . . . 221
3.5.4.2 Recommendations for action on the bioeconomy as a whole . . . 223
X
3.5.5 Research recommendations . . . 224
3.5.5.1 Research recommendations on timber-based construction . . . 224
3.5.5.2 Research recommendations for the bioeconomy as a whole . . . 225
3.6 Interaction and implementation of multiple-benefit strategies . . . .225
3.6.1 Interplay between multiple-benefit strategies: examples . . . 225
3.6.2 Implementation of multi-benefit strategies in the context of the integrated landscape approach . . . 226
4 Transformative governance for solidarity-based land stewardship . . . .229
4.1 Change agents: empower actors to take responsibility . . . .231
4.1.1 Possibilities and limits of sustainable solidarity-based consumption . . . 231
4.1.2 Change agents in powerful roles . . . 234
4.1.3 Recommendations for promoting solidarity-based consumption and niche actors in the land-use transformation . . . 235
4.2 Proactive state: create framework conditions for solidarity-based land stewardship . . .238
4.2.1 Reward sustainable behaviour, put a price on environmental damage: incentive and pricing instruments . . . 239
4.2.2 Demand sustainability: voluntary and statutory standards . . . 243
4.2.3 Develop spatial and landscape planning further in line with the integrated landscape approach . . . 245
4.2.4 Measure progress, identify blockages: improve indicators and monitoring . . . 246
4.2.5 From the individual parts to the system: consequences for a policy mix . . . 247
4.2.5.1 Avoid relocations: coordinate instruments and close gaps . . . 251
4.2.5.2 Embedding sustainable action in global contexts: a question of cooperation and leeway under trade law . . . 252
4.2.5.3 Consider distributional effects: cushion changed producer and food prices, tax land rents . . . 253
4.2.6 Recommendations for action . . . 254
4.2.7 Research recommendations . . . 256
4.3 A transformation of land use as part of the European Green Deal . . . .257
4.3.1 Gear the European Green Deal towards multiple benefits . . . 257
4.3.2 Embed the CAP into a Common Ecosystem Policy in the medium term . . . 259
4.3.3 Recommendations for action . . . 260
4.3.4 Research recommendations . . . 262
4.4 Strengthen existing international cooperation and coordination of land stewardship . .262
4.4.1 Challenge for the Rio Conventions: the cross-cutting topic of land . . . 263
4.4.1.1 Synergies and coordination of the Rio Conventions in relation to the land-use trilemma . . . 264
4.4.1.2 Starting points for better land governance through the Rio Conventions . . 265
4.4.2 Survey of the scientific status quo on integrated land stewardship . . . 272
4.4.3 Strengthening ‘glocal’ cooperation: local and landscape participation in international forums . . . 273
4.4.4 Recommendations for action . . . 275
4.4.5 Research recommendations . . . 276
4.5 Three new multilateral cooperation alliances for promoting a global land-use transformation . . . .277
4.5.1 Regional alliances for the cross-border implementation of integrated landscape approaches . . . 278
4.5.2 Supranational alliances for a global land-use transformation . . . 280
4.5.3 Global conservation alliances for ecologically valuable landscapes . . . 283
4.5.4 Recommendations for action and research . . . 286
XI
5 Key messages for a global land-use transformation . . . .291
Overview of the recommendations . . . .296
Multiple-benefit strategies . . . .296
Ecosystem restoration: make land-based CO2 removal synergistic . . . 296
Expand and upgrade protected-area systems . . . 298
Diversify agricultural systems . . . 299
Move ahead with the transformation of diets heavy in animal products in industrialized countries . . . 302
Shape the bioeconomy responsibly and promote timber-based construction . . . 304
The implementation of the multiple-benefit strategies . . . 305
Transformative governance for solidarity-based land stewardship . . . .306
Change agents: empower actors to take responsibility . . . 306
Proactive state: create framework conditions for solidarity-based land stewardship . . . 307
A transformation of land use as part of the European Green Deal . . . 309
Strengthen existing international cooperation and coordination of land stewardship. . . 310
Three new multilateral cooperation alliances for promoting a global land-use transformation . . . 313
6 References . . . .313
7 Glossary . . . .363
XII
Box 2.1-1 Deforestation: status and trends . . . 20
Box 2.2-1 CO2 and the other greenhouse gases . . . 23
Box 2.2-2 The COVID-19 pandemic – another zoonosis . . . 32
Box 2.3-1 The WBGU’s normative compass . . . 38
Box 2.3-2 Gender equity in the ‘trilemma of land use’ . . . 40
Box 2.3-3 The integrated landscape approach . . . 42
Box 3.1-1 Excursus: extreme scenario . . . 58
Box 3.1-2 Digitally supported and continuously updated monitoring of land stewardship . . . 60
Box 3.1-3 Afforestation . . . 68
Box 3.1-4 Improved forest management . . . 70
Box 3.1-5 From degradation to restoration thanks to change agents . . . 75
Box 3.1-6 Forest conservation and afforestation programme under the Framework Convention on Climate Change: REDD+ . . . 76
Box 3.2-1 Definition and categories of protected areas . . . 88
Box 3.2-2 Digitalization for monitoring ecosystems and biological diversity . . . 90
Box 3.2-3 Protected areas: guardians of viruses . . . 95
Box 3.3-1 The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy . . . 118
Box 3.3-2 COVID-19-related food crisis in sub-Saharan Africa – the double pandemic . . . 122
Box 3.3-3 ‘Greening of the Sahel’ – marginal or significant effect? . . . 124
Box 3.3-4 Land Grabbing . . . 127
Box 3.3-5 Certification schemes and geographical indications (designations of origin) . . . 138
Box 3.3-6 Brief Overview: Components of the multiple-benefit strategies for diversified farming systems . . . 143
Box 3.3-7 Wide diversity of agroforestry variants . . . 146
Box 3.3-8 Origins of aquaponics and possible applications . . . 150
Box 3.3-9 Biochar: production, challenges and costs . . . 151
Box 3.3-10 Biofertilizers and depot fertilizers: potential, effectiveness and barriers . . . 152
Box 3.3-11 Climate-friendly organic farming compared to conventional systems . . . 153
Box 3.3-12 (Herbicide-free) soil-conservation agriculture: advantages and barriers . . . 154
Box 3.3-13 Paludiculture: potential and barriers . . . 156
Box 3.3-14 Permaculture, principles and dissemination . . . 157
Box 3.3-15 Small-scale digitalized agriculture and pixel farming . . . 158
Box 3.3-16 Digitalization of agriculture: who benefits from agricultural data? . . . 162
Box 3.4-1 Indigenous peoples and dietary diversity . . . 174
Box 3.4-2 Factory farming and COVID-19 . . . 176
Box 3.4-3 Food waste in private households as a potential field for transformation? . . . 178
Box 3.4-4 Sugar: Driver of the number-one disease of civilization . . . 181
Box 3.4-5 Integration of new foods: alternative sources of protein . . . 183
Box 3.4-6 Integration of vegetarianism and low-animal-product diets in different cultures . . . 184
Box 3.4-7 Example of Germany: DGE guidelines focus on health, not sustainability . . . 185
Boxes
XIII
Box 3.4-9 Comparing the public outcry over veggie day with study results . . . 187
Box 3.4-10 Examples of socio-technical innovations that increase appreciation of food . . . 189
Box 3.4-11 Food sharing as a prominent example of a societal initiative to avoid food waste . . . 190
Box 3.4-12 Harness digitalization for sustainable nutrition . . . 190
Box 3.4-13 Determining CO2 scores in canteens: an example . . . 191
Box 3.5-1 Innovations in bioeconomy: potential and criticism . . . 200
Box 3.5-2 Circular economy and circular bioeconomy . . . 204
Box 3.5-3 Bioenergy and BECCS . . . 208
Box 3.5-4 Decarbonization of plastics production without massive use of biomass . . . 210
Box 3.5-5 GHG sources and ways to reduce emissions in conventional construction . . . 212
Box 3.5-6 Problems with sand . . . 213
Box 3.5-7 City of Wood in Bad Aibling . . . 215
Box 3.5-8 The EU Timber Regulation as an approach to a sustainable biomass strategy . . . 218
Box 4-1 The land-use transformation as a key building block of the transformation towards sustainability . . . 230
Box 4.1-1 Citizen science: citizens as change agents in science and SDG monitoring . . . 232
Box 4.1-2 Outstanding examples of transformation actors . . . 236
Box 4.2-1 Payments for ecosystem services . . . 240
Box 4.2-2 Sustainability criteria for biomass under the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive . . . 244
Box 4.2-3 Spatial and landscape planning in Germany . . . 246
Box 4.2-4 Appreciation and valuation of ecosystems and services for their conservation . . . 248
Box 4.2-5 Conclusion on digitalization: strengthen orientation towards the common good and use better monitoring to accelerate a global land-use transformation . . . 250
Box 4.3-1 EU-Mercosur agreement . . . 258
Box 4.4-1 Land as a subject of the Rio Conventions . . . 266
Box 4.4-2 The Joint Liaison Group . . . 268
Box 4.4-3 An overall apex target for the CBD? . . . 270
Box 4.5-1 Supranationality as an important driver: the example of the European Coal and Steel Community . . . 282
Box 4.5-2 Yasuní-Ishpingo-Tamboccha-Tiputini initiative . . . 284
Box 4.5-3 Legal design options for a lease initiative . . . 286
Box 4.5-4 Rent and payment structure . . . 287
XIV
Tables
Table 2.2-1 Description of the 18 ecosystem services and nature's contributions to humankind
used in this report. . . . 30
Table 3.1-1 Overview of examples of different land-based CO2-removal methods . . . 52
Table 3.1-2 Actors involved in restoration measures: examples . . . 74
Table 3.3-1 The 16 measures listed as priorities in national adaptation programmes for ten African countries . . . 125
Table 3.3-2 Overview of various components of multiple-benefit strategies . . . 160
Table 3.4-1 Deviation from target values in Germany . . . 173
Table 3.4-2 Design of the Planetary Health Diet (PHD) according to Willet et al. (2019). . . . 180
Table 3.4-3 Study examples from the 2013 Veggie Day debate. . . . 187
Table 3.5-1 The 20 currently developed bio-based materials with the best business prospects over the next 5–10 years . . . 201
Table 3.5-2 Global (primary) plastics production and plastic waste in 2015 by industrial sector . . . . 210
Table 3.5-3 Comparison of CO2 and C data of timber-based construction and conventional construction. . . . 217
Table 4.1-1 Interaction diagram for citizen science and the 2030 Agenda . . . 233
Table 4.4-1 Objectives of the Rio Conventions (verbatim quotes) . . . 267
XV
Figures
Figure 2-1 Transformation of the ice-free land surface by humans in the last 8,000 years. . . 16
Figure 2-2 Effects of human activities on land surfaces . . . 17
Figure 2.1-1 18 ecosystem services which can be divided into three categories: ‘regulating’, ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ . . . 18
Figure 2.1-2 Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems. . . . 19
Figure 2.1-3 Annual rate of deforestation and forest expansion. . . . 20
Figure 2.1-4 Expected hotspots of global deforestation up to 2030. . . . 20
Figure 2.2-1 The ‘trilemma of land use’ . . . 22
Figure 2.2-2 Schematic diagram of the global carbon cycle and its perturbation by human activities, averaged over the period 2009–2018 . . . 24
Figure 2.2-3 Anthropogenic CO2 emissions over time. . . . 25
Figure 2.2-4 Global perspectives on biodiversity. . . . 28
Figure 2.2-5 Biomass distribution of selected groups of species . . . 29
Figure 2.2-6 Relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services. . . 29
Figure 2.2-7 The extinction rate of species has been increasing continuously since the 16th century. . . . 31
Figure 2.2-8 Nature and ecosystems provide humans with numerous benefits, which are summarized in 18 ecosystem services . . . 34
Figure 2.2-9 The drivers of biodiversity loss . . . 35
Figure 2.3-1 Schematic representation of the potential for synergies . . . 37
Figure 3.1-1 Components of the portfolio of the EOMonDis project . . . 60
Figure 3.1-2 Pan-European illustration of tree cover density. . . . 61
Figure 3.1-3 Contributions of forests to development and human well-being . . . 63
Figure 3.1-4 Template for determining the degree of recovery reached by an ecosystem . . . 64
Figure 3.1-5 Template for surveying socio-economic concomitant benefits from restoration measures . . . 65
Figure 3.1-6 Photo: Reforestation of a previously cleared forest area . . . 68
Figure 3.1-7 Photo: Timber plantation in Sengon (Indonesia). . . . 68
Figure 3.1-8 Photo: Mongolian steppe . . . 69
Figure 3.1-9 Photo: Peat bog in the Sudetes (Polish part). . . . 71
Figure 3.1-10 Restoration of forest landscapes in the context of the Bonn Challenge . . . 72
Figure 3.2-1 Schematic diagram showing global development paths of the rate of loss of natural habitats . . . 87
Figure 3.2-2 Overview of digitally enhanced techniques for monitoring ecosystems and biodiversity. . . . 90
Figure 3.2-3 Citizen science for environmental protection and SDGs, and in particular for monitoring biodiversity in local and global contexts . . . 91
Figure 3.2-4 The 150 most important sites for the in situ conservation of wild species related to our crop plants . . . 94
Figure 3.2-5 Development of terrestrial protected areas between 1990 and 2018. . . . 96
Figure 3.2-6 Human pressure in protected areas . . . 98
Figure 3.2-7 Regional variation in the conservation values of indigenous peoples’ and other land. . . 100
Figure 3.2-8 Zoning of protected-area systems and their integration into the surrounding landscape . . . 104
XVI
Figure 3.2-9 Ecosystem conservation and protected-area systems: relations between
conservation on the one hand and land use and multiple benefits in the landscape
on the other . . . 104
Figure 3.3-1 Change in the number of agricultural holdings in Germany from 2010 to 2018 . . . 116
Figure 3.3-2 Current and future architecture of EU agroenvironmental and climate-change policy. . . . 118
Figure 3.3-3 Development of cereal yields by world region . . . 121
Figure 3.3-4 Multiple-benefit strategies for the agricultural sector and principles for defusing the land-use trilemma. . . . 130
Figure 3.3-5 Photos: Regionally adapted, diversified farming systems . . . 131
Figure 3.3-6 Photo: Green River Principle: economical and cost-effective method of subsurface irrigation according to Pellmann, 2017, in Garissa, Kenya . . . 135
Figure 3.3-7 Achievable productivities of ecological intensification by location and path dependencies . . . 142
Figure 3.3-8 Synergies of agroforestry systems . . . 145
Figure 3.3-9 Subcategories of agroforestry systems . . . 146
Figure 3.3-10 Photo: Silvorable agroforestry systems . . . 146
Figure 3.3-11 Photo: Silvopastoral agroforestry systems . . . 147
Figure 3.3-12 Advantages of mixed land use in agrophotovoltaic systems . . . 147
Figure 3.3-13 Photos: Agrophotovoltaic systems . . . 148
Figure 3.3-14 Photos: Aquaponics systems. . . . 148
Figure 3.3-15 Simplified illustration of the functioning and structure of aquaponics systems . . . 149
Figure 3.3-16 Photos: Traditional combination of crops and fish. . . . 150
Figure 3.3-17 Biochar flow chart . . . 151
Figure 3.3-18 Photo: ZaÏ: a traditional method of soil restoration . . . 154
Figure 3.3-19 Photo: Millet in ZaÏ troughs. . . . 154
Figure 3.3-20 Photo: Minimal tillage according to the principle of conservation agriculture . . . 154
Figure 3.3-21 Photo: Rice intensification and rice-fish farming in Indonesia . . . 155
Figure 3.3-22 Photo: Permaculture garden. . . . 157
Figure 3.3-23 Photos: Weeding robot ‘Oz’ and large-scale vegetable weeding robot ‘Dino’ from Naïo Technologies . . . 158
Figure 3.3-24 Photos: Pixel fields . . . 158
Figure 3.3-25 Photos: Pixel farming ‘Robot Zero’ and ‘Robot One’ . . . 159
Figure 3.3-26 Structure of ‘Agri-Gaia’. . . . 163
Figure 3.4-1 Schematic diagram of the food system . . . 172
Figure 3.4-2 Global provision of meat . . . 175
Figure 3.4-3 Potential of different dietary habits for avoiding GHG-emissions . . . 179
Figure 3.4-4 Model showing influences on personal dietary habits . . . 182
Figure 3.5-1 Biomass supply and demand worldwide in 2018 by source and sector . . . 198
Figure 3.5-2 Global sustainable supply of biomass and demand potential for key end uses in 2050 . . . 202
Figure 3.5-3 Biomass available for material uses and for generating energy within the framework of a sustainable, circular bioeconomy . . . 203
Figure 3.5-4 Possible strategies for operationalizing the circular economy . . . 205
Figure 3.5-5 Breakdown of global emissions from the construction industry by sector . . . 212
Figure 3.5-6 Photo: High-rise wooden building in the City of Wood. . . 215
Figure 3.5-7 Potential natural forest cover . . . 216
Figure 4.1-1 Citizen science as an additional data source for SDG monitoring and SDG implementation, and five dimensions of corresponding data . . . 232
Figure 4.1-2 Photo: Tourists getting a close-up view of three giraffes in the Ol Kinyei Conservancy in Kenya’s Maasai Mara. . . 236
Figure 4.1-3 Photo: Construction of a bridge over a Brazilian highway connecting several parts of the protected-area system . . . 236
Figure 4.1-4 Photo: Division of labour in the Hansalim initiative . . . 236
XVII Figure 4.1-5 Photo: Matt Orlando . . . 236
Figure 4.1-6 Photo: Example of a Thoma house in South Tyrol . . . 237 Figure 4.2-1 Classification and relation of various instruments and processes of the proactive state . . . 239 Figure 4.4-1 Sustainable management of terrestrial resources as a central task of the
Rio Conventions . . . 264 Figure 4.4-2 Target dimensions of the CBD . . . 270 Figure 4.5-1 New cooperation alliances. Regional and supranational alliances, global
conservation alliances . . . 278
XVIII
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AbL Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft Working Group on Rural Agriculture
ABS Access and Benefit Sharing (CBD)
ACCTS Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability BauGB Baugesetzbuch
(German) Building Code
BECCS Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage BMBF Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMEL Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft
German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture
BMU Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety BMZ Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development BNatSchG Bundesnaturschutzgesetz
German Federal Nature Conservation Act BZfE Bundeszentrum für Ernährung
German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
CAP Common Agricultural Policy (EU) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (UN) CBOs Community-Based Organizations CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CCU Carbon Capture and Utilization
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UN)
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COP Conference of the Parties
CRISPR Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
CS Citizen Science
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture (FAO) CWR Crop Wild Relatives
DAC Direct Air Capture
DACCS Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage DC Development Cooperation
DGE Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung German Nutrition Society
ECOSOC Economic and Social Council (UN) EEA European Environment Agency (EU) EID Emerging Infectious Diseases EPAs Economic Partnership Agreements
XIX
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBDG Food Based Dietary Guideline
FDI Foreign Direct Investment FSC Forest Stewardship Council
G7 Group of Seven (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States)
G20 Group of Twenty (19 individual countries plus the European Union) GEF Global Environmental Facility (UN)
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit German Society for International Cooperation
GLII Global Land Indicators Initiative
GLADA Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement (ISRIC) GLASOD Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (FAO)
GLF Global Landscapes Forum GLO Global Land Outlook (UNCCD) GLTN Global Land Tool Network
GPFLR Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration Gt Gigatons
IAMs Integrated Assessment Models
IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
ICCAs Indigenous Peoples’ and Communitiy Conserved Territories and Areas
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WMO, UNEP) IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
ISP Input Subsidy Program
ISRIC International Soil Reference and Information Centre
ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO) ITPS Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JLG Joint Liaison Group (Rio-Conventions)
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Development Bank
LDCs Least Developed Countries
LDN Land Degradation Neutrality (SDGs)
LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (UNFCCC) MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO) NCDs Non Communicable Diseases
NGO Non-governmental Organization NCP Nature’s Contributions to People N4C Natural Pathways to Climate Mitigation
O-5 Outreach States (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PADDD Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement PES Payments for Ecosystem Services
PHD Planetary Health Diet
PIC Convention Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (UN); also “Rotterdam Convention”
POP Convention Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (UN); also “Stockholm Convention”
PV Photovoltaics
XX
Ramsar Convention Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (UNESCO)
R&D Research and Development
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UNFCCC) ROG Raumordnungsgesetz
(German) Spatial Planning Act
SADC Southern African Development Community SDGs Sustainable Development Goals (UN) SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises SRU Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen
German Advisory Council on the Environment SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SUP Strategische Umweltprüfung Strategic Environmental Assessment
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UN United Nations
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNGA General Assembly of the United Nations
UN Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme UVP Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung
Environmental Impact Assessment
WBGU Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen German Advisory Council on Global Change
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP) WDPA World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC) WHC World Heritage Convention (UNESCO)
WHO World Health Organization (UN)
WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies WRI World Resources Institute
WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wide Fund For Nature
TRANSFORMATIVE GOVERNANCE
FOR SOLIDARITY-BASED
LAND STEWARDSHIP
FROM TRILEMMA TO
INTEGRATION
MULTIPLE- BENEFIT STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE
LAND STEWARDSHIP
European Union
International cooperation Proactive
state
Change
agents New cooperation
alliances
Normative compass Diversified
agriculture
Food security
Ecosystem restoration Changing
dietary habits Timber-based
construction Protected-area
systems
1 TRANSFORMATIVE
GOVERNANCE FOR SOLIDARITY-BASED
LAND STEWARDSHIP
FROM TRILEMMA TO
INTEGRATION
MULTIPLE- BENEFIT STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE
LAND STEWARDSHIP
European Union
International cooperation Proactive
state
Change
agents New cooperation
alliances
Normative compass Diversified
agriculture
Food security
Ecosystem restoration Changing
dietary habits Timber-based
construction Protected-area
systems
Only if there is a fundamental change in the way we manage land can we
reach the targets of climate-change mitigation, avert the dramatic loss of bio- diversity and make the global food system sustainable. The WBGU proposes five multiple-benefit strategies illustrating ways of overcoming competition between rival claims to the use of land. These should be promoted by five governance strategies, especially by setting suitable framework conditions, reorienting EU policy and establishing alliances of like-minded states.
Where does international sustainability policy stand at the beginning of the 2020s? The answer is sobering.
This report appraises the situation and reveals an urgent need for action by many government ministries (e.g.
Environment, Education and Research, Agriculture, Development Cooperation) to develop a new approach to land stewardship:
> It looks like the climate-protection goals of the Paris Agreement can only be reached if, in addition to the decarbonization of the global economy, more areas of land are used to extract carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. However, this not only offers opportunities, it also involves considerable risks.
> The global food system is in crisis. The food security of a quarter of humanity is under threat, and another quarter suffers from unhealthy overconsumption. At the same time, the environmental damage and other external effects caused by industrial agriculture threaten our natural life-support systems, despite all past efforts – from the ‘Green Revolution’ of the 1960s and 70s to the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy.
> Biodiversity is experiencing a dramatic, human-in- duced mass extinction worldwide, the scale of which has been compared with the great geological extinc- tion events of the past. This also greatly reduces the capacity of ecosystems to contribute to climate regu- lation and food security.
All this is happening in a situation where multilateral-
ism is in deep crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic is making things even more difficult. The President of the European Commission, Dr Ursula von der Leyen, put it in a nutshell in her State of the Union Address to the European Parliament on 16 September 2020: “There is no more urgent need for acceleration than when it comes to the future of our fragile planet.”
The diverse demands made on land for the purposes of climate-change mitigation, food security and the conservation of biological diversity are already in com- petition with each other, and land degradation will have a negative impact on all three aspects in the short or long term. The WBGU calls this the ‘trilemma of land use’ because, at first glance, it appears that any one of these challenges can only be met at the expense of the other two. This report uses examples to show how com- binations of conservation and different uses in the landscape can generate multiple benefits so that com- petition can be overcome. In this respect, the Confer- ences of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) planned for 2021, as well as the forthcoming UN Decade on Ecosys- tem Restoration, are key forums for making decisive international progress towards sustainable land stew- ardship. The necessary land-use transformation will, however, not succeed just by changing existing interna- tional legal instruments and forums. The initiative of private actors, companies and societal groups, as well as
Summary
2
measures at the state and supranational level, are also needed. Furthermore, coalitions of like-minded coun- tries should join together in cooperation alliances to promote the global land-use transformation.
A global land-use transformation towards sustainability is urgently needed
Land is the “the terrestrial bio-productive system that comprises soil, vegetation, other biota, and the ecolog- ical and hydrological processes that operate within the system” (definition from the Convention to Combat Desertification, UNCCD, Art. 1e). In the present report, the WBGU presents political design options for sustain- able land stewardship. It develops examples of multi- ple-benefit strategies for the protection and restoration of ecosystems, for agriculture, dietary habits and the bioeconomy; strategies that are transformative because they are scalable and suitable as ‘game changers’. In addition, the report proposes effective instruments for governance incorporating both change agents and the proactive state, the EU, international institutions (including the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD) and new, international cooperation alliances.
Land is a global commons: humankind must accept and assume its responsibility for land in order to miti- gate climate change, conserve biodiversity and safe- guard food security; it must discharge this responsibil- ity nationally and enforce it internationally. The focus should be on halting the destruction of terrestrial eco- systems and on investing massively in their conserva- tion and restoration. Globally sustainable land steward- ship is a prerequisite for compliance with planetary guard rails and for meeting the UN Sustainable Devel- opment Goals (SDGs). The key strategies and gover- nance requirements set out by the WBGU in this report can be characterized by the terms systemic, synergistic and solidarity-based.
Systemic interrelations as a key to global sustainability
A wide variety of interactions characterize the inter- play between, on the one hand, land use and land deg- radation and, on the other, climate change, green- house-gas emissions and sinks, the loss and degrada- tion of ecosystems and biodiversity, the exploitation of biogenic resources, and the increasingly critical state of the food systems. Fragmented and unsustainable land management leads to multiple conflicts concerning its protection and use, and to competition for land. The WBGU therefore urges a systemically substantiated, sustainable approach to land stewardship, which is an important key to the Great Transformation towards
Sustainability. Ecosystems and their diverse services are essential bases for human life and economic activity and deserve to be at the centre of attention, whereby remote effects (telecouplings) – e.g. of material cycles or the world trade in agricultural goods – on land-use changes and land degradation must also be taken into account.
Synergistic interaction: from separation to integration
In selected thematic areas (ecosystem restoration, eco- system conservation, agriculture, dietary habits, bio- economy), the WBGU has developed five examples of multiple-benefit strategies for protecting and using areas of land, which contribute to a wide range of synergies and, overall, to sustainable land stewardship. In many cases, focusing on monofunctional land uses leads to competition between protection and different uses. A sustainable land stewardship that simultaneously ena- bles climate-change mitigation, biodiversity conserva- tion and food security, requires multifunctionality and synergies on areas of land and in the landscape. This is the only way to achieve multiple benefits overall and to overcome the trilemma of climate-change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and food security. The WBGU therefore recommends multiple-benefit strategies for sustainable land stewardship that combine several objec- tives and their implementation in one and the same landscape. For example, consideration should be given simultaneously to expanding and upgrading systems of protected areas (to cover 30% of the Earth’s surface), accelerating land restoration, diversifying agriculture in various parts of the world, and changing people’s dietary habits. Using timber in construction can combine climate protection, sustainable biomass production and a respon- sibly limited use of biogenic resources.
Solidarity-based assumption of responsibility
Multilateral policy approaches are indispensable for implementing overarching strategies for a transforma- tion of land use at all levels of governance – from local, national and European to international. Land as a global commons requires actors at all levels to assume respon- sibility. International institutions, for example the three Rio Conventions UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD, whose activities relating to land are currently not sufficiently coordinated, need more solidarity-based cooperation, scientific support across topics, and better stakeholder involvement. Furthermore, new multilateral alliances should be forged in order to promote the Great Trans- formation towards Sustainability before it is too late.
They should above all bring together countries that are responsible for a particularly large proportion of global resource consumption.
3 Concept of the integrated landscape approach
The strategic approaches for sustainable land steward- ship – as summarized by the ‘triad’ systemic, syner- gistic, solidarity-based – must be implemented in prac- tice on the land. The concept of the integrated land- scape approach can provide some orientation here. The landscape provides a suitable frame of reference for governance: it is small enough to keep decision-making processes manageable, but large enough to accommo- date the different interests of civil society, private and public stakeholders. In this context, a landscape is defined as an area characterized by specific geographi- cal, natural, ecological and historical similarities and interacting structures which distinguish it from other areas. The integrated landscape approach underlying this report has the following characteristics:
> Multifunctionality and multiple benefits: The WBGU’s normative compass and the identification of land- use synergies that can overcome the trilemma offer a basis for identifying a target system that can be shared by the different actors, as well as for strength- ening multifunctionality in the landscape and devel- oping solutions that are viable in the long term. The aim is to generate multiple benefits by the multi- functional use of suitable land and the combination of different pieces of land (e.g. agricultural fields that are also home to a wide range of agrobiodiver- sity, or pastures that are also a carbon sink).
> Participation and reciprocity of stakeholders: The pri- vate, public and civil-society stakeholders repre- senting different interests should not only be identi- fied and consulted; above all they should be encour- aged to participate in the decision-making processes on how land should be managed. A suitable form of institutionalization would be the establishment of long-term multi-stakeholder forums that meet regu- larly and are also oriented towards the SDGs and other internationally agreed goals.
> Shared framework for monitoring and evaluation:
This is an essential prerequisite for putting the nego- tiation processes on a common evidence base. In the sense of transdisciplinary approaches, local stake- holders should be encouraged and trained to each contribute their respective knowledge to facilitate joint learning.
> Adaptive management: Processes that take place in – or impact on – landscapes are dynamic and frequently non-linear. Adaptive management has proved its worth in coping with these potentially unpredictable and disruptive dynamics (e.g.
economic or climate crises).
Five multiple-benefit strategies for sustainable land stewardship
In order to show how the trilemma of land use can be overcome, the WBGU presents five examples of multiple-benefit strategies. These relate to the thematic fields of ecosystem restoration, ecosystem conserva- tion, agriculture, dietary habits and the bioeconomy.
1. Ecosystem restoration: make land-based CO2 removal synergistic
Measures for removing CO2 from the atmosphere are no substitute for a massive reduc- tion of CO2 emissions with the aim of cutting emissions to zero. However, in order to reach the climate-protection goals of the Paris Agreement, additional measures to remove
CO2 from the atmosphere can hardly be avoided, although they involve considerable uncertainties and risks depending on the method, scope and effective- ness of implementation and can potentially increase the pressure on the land. When setting targets for climate policy and designing timetables and accounting structures, a clear distinction should therefore be made between reductions in CO2 emissions and CO2 removal from the atmosphere. Net emission targets or climate-neutrality targets should, if at all, only be for- mulated if the assumed contributions of CO2 emissions reductions and CO2 removal respectively are explicitly stated; otherwise, the chances of achieving the climate protection goals might be jeopardized. The sustainably achievable potential of the individual approaches to removing CO2 from the atmosphere should be explored locally, nationally and internationally and firmly inte- grated accordingly into climate-policy strategies as well as accounting and incentive structures.
If an ambitious reduction of global CO2 emissions is achieved at an early stage, this will make it possible to avoid risky, large-scale methods of CO2 removal and to focus on approaches which, while offering only limited potential for CO2 removal, promise significant addi- tional benefits for biodiversity and food security. One especially promising approach to CO2 removal from the atmosphere is the restoration of degraded land ecosys- tems, a multiple-benefit strategy which has particularly high political appeal in view of the forthcoming UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Rewetting and restoring peatlands has great potential for conserving very specialized ecosystems and for storing CO2 sustainably. The site-specific reforestation of defor- ested areas offers sustainable potential for CO2 removal
4
and, moreover, opens up the possibility of contributing to sustainable livelihood systems or directly to human food supplies by establishing or creating agroforestry systems. Projects for afforesting hitherto unforested areas should be critically and individually appraised.
The WBGU recommends that the target set by the Bonn Challenge of restoring 350 million hectares of terrestrial ecosystems worldwide by 2030 (which is equivalent to about 2% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface) should be not only achieved, but significantly expanded; the focus should be on restoring biodiverse forests that are adapted to local conditions. In addition, not only refor- estation but also the restoration of wetlands ( rewetting) and grasslands (reducing grazing pressure) should be addressed.
The WBGU recommends that the multiple potential benefits of restoring degraded land should be exploited at an early stage over large areas. In addition, national and international research should be intensified on the costs, feasibility and permanence of ecosystem resto- ration and on how much land area is potentially avail- able worldwide for this purpose. Furthermore, in order to finance restoration measures, payment systems for the creation and conservation of ecosystem services should be developed; these should be implemented much more consistently and systematically than hith- erto, not only with regard to possible CO2 removal, but also in general with regard to ecosystem services that can be characterized as commons.
2. Expand and upgrade protected-area systems Effective and well connected
systems of protected areas form the backbone of ecosys- tem conservation and are a decisive prerequisite for defus- ing the global biodiversity cri- sis and maintaining basic eco- system services. Preventing the further degradation and
destruction of ecosystems also benefits climate-change mitigation by avoiding CO2 emissions and preserving natural carbon reservoirs. The value and conservation of the land inhabited by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) is of key importance here since most of its ecosystems are as yet untouched by inten- sive forms of cultivation.
Protected-area systems are characterized by the fact that their priority goal is the effective conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity. Protected areas that use zoning – i.e. division into areas with different combina- tions of conservation and sustainable use – allow the coexistence of valuable nature with human activities that are compatible with biodiversity conservation.
Multiple benefits for food security can be realized in these protected areas, e.g. by allowing sustainable forms of use in certain zones which can even be a prerequisite for biodiversity conservation.
The WBGU recommends expanding terrestrial sys- tems of protected areas to cover 30% of the Earth’s land area while consistently applying internationally agreed quality criteria, and proposes this goal for the CBD’s post-2020 framework. However, international negotia- tions must not be reduced to area targets; rather, exist- ing Aichi quality criteria for protected areas should be maintained and compliance regulations tightened. As part of an integrated landscape approach, there should be improved networking, both between the protected areas and with restored areas and the surrounding land.
In addition to the top-priority conservation goals, the other dimensions of the trilemma should also be borne in mind, checked for possible synergies and, in the land- scape context, integrated more closely into the manage- ment plans of protected areas. Industrialized countries should make greater use of their financial capacity, where possible in combination with private financing, to expand and upgrade protected-area systems both at home and in developing countries. In order to secure the valuable conservation effect of regions inhabited by IPLCs, their traditional rights and traditional knowledge should be formally recognized not only at the UN level but also in national contexts.
3. Diversify farming systems Agriculture shapes the land- scape and land management in many parts of the world. It is the foundation of food security.
However, both industrial agri- culture and subsistence farm- ing jeopardize climate-change mitigation and biodiversity and degrade the soils. The WBGU
therefore recommends transforming the hitherto largely monofunctional, production-oriented agricultural sys- tems towards ecologically intensive, multifunctional systems, e.g. agro-forestry, focusing on people, agro-ecological practices and the provision of ecosys- tem services. One of the German Federal Government’s priorities should be the necessary transformation of the EU’s agricultural policies.
The WBGU recommends that EU agricultural policy should move away from industrial farming methods through a comprehensive ecological transformation.
Agricultural subsidies should always be linked to envi- ronmental improvements, relying wherever possible on multifunctional production systems. Area-based direct payments should be transformed into payments for
