The contribution of land and water management approaches to Sustainable Land Management and achieving Land Degradation Neutrality
Authors: Hartmann Lisa , Hansohm Jonas , Vellozo Leticia , Orr Barron J. , Andreeva Olga , Walz Yvonne 
Published: May 2024

Land and water management approaches that address environmental and social challenges, such as land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, health, climate change and the decline in biodiversity, have been gaining importance in recent years. Several of these approaches are well known, while others have been only recently developed. These approaches have different names, specific objectives and principles and may employ different methods and technologies. At their core, however, all have the potential to address land degradation and desertification, to mitigate drought and to deliver many other environmental, economic and/or social co-benefits. The well-known concepts of land degradation neutrality (LDN) and sustainable land management (SLM) offer benchmarks against which land and water management approaches can be assessed. Understanding how well aligned these approaches are with SLM and LDN can help different communities that solve similar problems to work together to remedy global environmental challenges. To explore this opportunity more systematically, the Parties of the UNCCD requested an assessment of approaches that may contribute to the sustainable management of land and water resources and to the achievement of LDN (UNCCD Decision 19/COP.15/23/Add.1). Accordingly, this report assesses the alignment of seven selected land and water management approaches with SLM and LDN: agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, forest landscape restoration, integrated agriculture, regenerative agriculture and rewilding. The alignment assessment is structured along the SLM and LDN pillars of ecosystem health, food security, and human-wellbeing, each comprised by several criteria, as well as selected cross-cutting socioeconomic criteria that span all pillars. The results indicate that each of the approaches contributes to SLM and the achievement of LDN in different ways and to varying degrees, with none of the approaches embracing principles or practices that directly conflict with the criteria of SLM and LDN. A higher degree of alignment was identified for the ecosystem health and food security pillars, while most gaps in alignment concern criteria of the human well-being pillar along with certain cross-cutting criteria. The results of the assessment led to the identification of entry points for addressing gaps in alignment via supplementary activities that directly target the gaps during project planning and implementation, as well as through adhering to principles and established guidelines. Importantly, conclusions about the degree of alignment or about gaps in alignment of an approach with SLM and LDN criteria are conceptually indicative, but may change in actual practice depending on where and how projects are implemented. Notwithstanding, clarifying the approaches’ contribution to SLM and the achievement of LDN can help overcome the lack of formal intergovernmental recognition of the approaches, prevent misinterpretation, and ensure their strategic inclusion in broader efforts to remedy land degradation.