Skip to main content
European Commission logo print header

Land and Ecosystem Degradation and Desertification: Assessing the Fit of Responses

Final Report Summary - LEDDRA (Land and Ecosystem Degradation and Desertification: Assessing the Fit of Responses)

Executive Summary:
Project context and objectives Responses to Land and Ecosystem Degradation and Desertification (LEDD) are defined in LEDDRA as any planned (formal) and/or unplanned (informal) action in LEDD-affected regions, purporting to either directly tackle LEDD or to address other socio-economic problems and individual and collective goals. The success of responses to meet environmental and social goals depends on the degree of their socio-ecological fit; i.e. how they fit and how well adapted they are to the biophysical and societal conditions prevailing in a socio-ecological system, with which they form a response assemblage (RA).

LEDDRA adopts the ecosystem approach, the Complex Adaptive Systems paradigm and Resilience Thinking to holistically study the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD that is the degree to which responses to LEDD preserve the socio-ecological resilience of affected regions. In this sense, Optimal RAs (ORA) comprise mutually supportive, complementary and coordinated responses (from all levels) that, under the prevailing conditions, produce beneficial environmental and socio-economic impacts and secure the uninterrupted provision of ecosystem services.

The principal objectives of LEDDRA were to: (a) develop a holistic conceptual framework; (b) develop the theory of responses to LEDD; (c) develop an integrated methodology to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings; (d) compile, improve and enrich existing and develop new assessment methods and techniques to assess the fit of various types of responses to LEDD; (e) carry out study site applications of responses to LEDD in cropland, grazing land and forest/shrubland at the LEDDRA study sites; (f) analyze the policy context and provide policy recommendations for diverse responses to LEDD at the international, EU, national/regional and study site levels; (g) ensure efficient and effective dissemination, use, exploitation (DUE) of project findings to several user groups at various spatial/organizational levels

Main S&T results/foregrounds The main S&T results/foregrounds of LEDDRA include:
• A holistic conceptual framework for the study of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD
• A comprehensive theory of responses to LEDD, adapted to cropland, grazing land and forests/shrubland settings and to the LEDDRA study sites and related policy recommendations
• An integrated methodology to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD
• Assessment methods /techniques to carry out the implementation of the LEDDRA methodology
• Assessment of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD at the LEDDRA study sites
• Analysis of international, EU and national LEDD-relevant policies, their implementation at the LEDDRA study sites and pertinent policy recommendations
• The LEDDRA Dissemination, Use and Exploitation (DUE) plan and LEDDRiS

Potential Impacts

Scientific impacts: The integrated LEDDRA analytical approach supports the study of the socio-ecological fit of various responses to LEDD, and to environmental change more generally, in complex socio-ecological systems, and brings to the fore important theoretical, methodological and policy issues that need further elaboration.

Welfare impacts: The LEDDRA research findings can positively contribute to the sustainable management of land resources and rational land use planning towards maximizing the provision of ecosystem services, protecting against environmental hazards (drought, flash-flooding) and improving livelihood opportunities especially in LEDD-affected rural areas.

Policy impacts: The LEDDRA research findings support the CST “Science Programme” and the strategic and operational objectives of the 10-year Implementation Strategy of the UNCCD; environmental and soil-related EU policy making (EU Soil Thematic Strategy, EU Soil Directive) and Environmental Policy Integration (EPI); national policy making and planning towards combating LEDD.

Dissemination Websites, brochures, press releases, scientific publications, conference presentations, videos, etc. have been produced. The LEDDRiS website (http://leddris.aegean.gr/) is a web-based information system that presents the research findings concerning LEDD and responses to LEDD in ways accessible to stakeholders with different types and levels of expertise.

Project Context and Objectives:
Land (and ecosystem) degradation and desertification (LEDD) result from the complex interplay of biophysical and societal forces on and across spatial levels. Under adverse biophysical conditions, place- and time-specific combinations of societal forces drive resource-exploiting human activities that degrade land resources. If the drivers are left uncontrolled, land resources deteriorate and desertification processes are set in motion that could even lead to irreversibly desertified states and to significant decline of ecosystem services. Consequently, diverse unwanted socio-economic impacts are produced that hamper the achievement of sustainable development and increase the vulnerability of affected regions.

Responses to LEDD are defined in LEDDRA as any type of action, planned (formal, institutionalized) or unplanned (informal, non-institutionalized), in LEDD-affected regions that purports either to directly tackle a LEDD problem or to address other socio-economic problems as well as individual and collective goals. They can be categorized as: no action (‘business-as-usual’ in the presence of LEDD), positive and negative. Positive responses, aiming at prevention, mitigation, restoration/rehabilitation of or adaptation to LEDD, seek to prevent the deterioration of land resources, enhance the provision of ecosystem services and promote human and environmental welfare in affected regions.

Responses to LEDD differ by spatial level; for example, at the international level, Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) are responses to LEDD, at the national level, spatial and development plans as well as environmental and other strategies and policies are responses to LEDD while, at the local level, the implementation of the above or other (informal) actions eventually comprise the observed responses to LEDD. At a focal level of analysis, responses to LEDD are shaped by the cross-scale effects of responses from higher and lower levels.

Responses to LEDD depend critically on who does what, when, where and why. Rarely does a single response prove effective if it is not socially accepted, supported by a well-functioning economy, framed by an enabling institutional environment, coordinated with and complemented by other types of responses (actions) serving the same or other purposes and properly implemented. LEDDRA suggests that the success of responses in meeting environmental and social goals depends on the degree of their socio-ecological fit; i.e. how they fit and how well adapted they are to the biophysical and societal conditions prevailing in coupled human-environment systems, or, socio-ecological system (SES) as they are called by now.

LEDDRA introduces the term “response assemblage” (RA) to express the dynamic, multi-level two-way relationship between LEDD problems and of responses to these problems with their biophysical, socio-cultural and institutional context. Actual RAs (ARA) comprise the actual combination of response types (from all levels) with the prevailing environmental, socio-economic and institutional conditions in a SES and its broader context. Depending on its features, an RA may contribute to or detract from local, regional and broader environmental and societal welfare.

LEDDRA adopts the ecosystem approach and follows the Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) paradigm and Resilience Thinking to holistically study the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD. In order to promote rational, responsive and effective land management, planning and policy making, the overarching criterion of fit is the contribution of responses to LEDD to the preservation of the socio-ecological resilience of affected regions; i.e. of their capacity to respond to disturbances and reorganize, while undergoing change, so as to preserve their critical functions, structure, identity and feedbacks in ways that do not foreclose future development options. This calls for optimizing response assemblages. Optimal RAs (ORA) comprise mutually supportive, complementary and coordinated response measures (from all levels) that are fit to the environmental, socio-economic and cultural conditions of affected regions; in other words, they produce beneficial environmental and socio-economic impacts and, thus, secure the uninterrupted provision of ecosystem and human system services.

LEDDRA studies responses to LEDD in three land themes, cropland, grazing land and forests/shrubland. The rationale for choosing these ‘land themes’ is as follows:
• Pertinent scientific research and empirical evidence is organized by the major LU/LC types – cropland, grazing land and forests/shrubland – that possess distinct biophysical, socio-economic, cultural and institutional profiles and characteristic modes of production (productive relationships developing around these profiles). Consequently, they experience characteristic LEDD problems and the responses to these LEDD problems form characteristic response assemblages – i.e. combinations of biophysical characteristics, economic activities, socio-cultural features, and types of responses to these problems sensu LEDDRA.
• This LU/LC typology is applicable worldwide while, at the same time, it does not constrain the study of local and regional specificities that may exhibit combinations of these LU types (as, e.g. in Mediterranean ‘mosaic’ settings).
• LU/LC change is a central mechanism through which environmental change (LEDD in this case) occurs and can be manipulated; LU/LC mediates the interplay of societal and environmental change. Characteristic patterns of change from one LU to another LU type develop that are associated with particular LEDD problems and responses to LEDD
• LEDDRA adopts the ecosystem approach that means that the study of LEDD problems considers particular ecosystems, associated with LU/LC types, within which human activities occur, biophysical and human forces interact, impacts are caused (LEDD), responses are produced and the effects of responses are experienced.
The overarching goal of LEDDRA is to advance the integrated study of responses to LEDD and their socio-ecological fit. The principal objectives are:
• To develop a holistic conceptual framework to guide the study of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings
• To develop the theory of responses to LEDD, including the study of knowledge transfer, in general, in each land theme and in selected study sites in European countries, Morocco and China
• To develop an integrated methodology to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings
• To compile, improve and enrich existing and develop new integrated methodologies to assess the socio-ecological fit of various types of responses to LEDD
• To carry out study site applications to assist in the development of theoretical knowledge and methodological tools and to illustrate their use for comprehensively analysing (theory, assessment, policy) various responses to LEDD in cropland, grazing land and forest/shrubland at the LEDDRA study sites (Italy, Greece, Spain, China and Morocco)
• To analyze the policy context and to provide policy recommendations for diverse responses to LEDD at the international, EU, national/regional and study site levels
• To ensure efficient and effective dissemination, use, exploitation (DUE) of project findings to several user groups at various spatial/organizational levels

Project Results:
The main S&T results/foregrounds of LEDDRA are presented below grouped according to the principal objectives of the project.

Development of a holistic conceptual framework to guide the study of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings
The LEDDRA conceptual framework offers a set of basic concepts and a systematic integrative procedure to study the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in cropland, grazing land and forests/shrubland socio-ecological systems (SES) and to guide decision and policy making towards supporting responses that contribute to combating LEDD at various spatial/organizational levels.

In terms of basic concepts, LEDDRA uses a broadened definition of responses to LEDD and introduces the notions of ‘response assemblage’ and ‘socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD’ to comprehensively conceptualize the research subject of responding to LEDD in affected areas.

The LEDDRA conceptual framework is founded on the ecosystem approach, the CAS paradigm and Resilience Thinking. It comprises four main stages (Figure 1). Stage A provides an integrated description and explanation of the current state and of the evolution of the SES (ARA) over time (Figure 2). Stage B concerns the assessment of system-level properties and of socio-ecological and community resilience. Stage C concerns the assessment and explanation of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in a SES while Stage D explores the design of Optimal Response Assemblages (ORAs) and provides guidance in the form of policy and land management recommendations. These stages are summarized below.


Stage A: Theory and Assessment of the SES (ARA) This stage provides a description and an explanation of the evolution and current state of a socio-ecological system (SES) that essentially represents the Actual Response Assemblage (ARA). For every major state of the SES over time, the components of the biophysical and the human system (the natural, economic and social capitals), their relationships, the LEDD problems (biophysical and socio-economic aspects), and the responses to LEDD are described and explained. The emphasis is on the characteristics of those components of the biophysical and human systems (or, of the natural, economic and social capitals) that are important for the maintenance of critical ecosystem and socio-economic SES functions (Figure 2).

Stage B: Assessment of system-level properties and of socio-ecological resilience Socio-ecological resilience (SER) is conceptualized as a hyper-property of a SES emerging from three system-level properties – Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability (RAT) that, according to the axiomatic thesis of contemporary Resilience thinking, characterize its ability to cope with various types of endogenous or exogenous disturbances and undergo transitions from one state to another; i.e. that determine its dynamics of change. In their turn, R, A and T emerge from lower-level properties (LLPs) that essentially express the relationships among the characteristics of the components of the natural, economic and social capitals of a SES and can be assessed on the basis of these (observable and measurable) characteristics. The assessment sequence is shown schematically in Table 1.

Stage C: Assessment and explanation of the fit of responses to LEDD. The assessment of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD distinguishes two cases. The first concerns the socio-ecological fit of the Actual Response Assemblage and it is identical to the assessment of the socio-ecological resilience (SER) of the SES (ARA) because in LEDDRA, by definition, the criterion of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD is the degree to which responses to LEDD, within a given period, preserve the socio-ecological resilience of a SES. The second concerns the assessment of the socio-ecological fit of particular responses to LEDD (sensu LEDDRA) in the SES (ARA) which is an evaluation, on the basis of specific evaluation-of-fit criteria, of how these responses have shaped the SER of the SES (ARA). Alternative assessments of the fit of responses to LEDD in a SES are possible depending on the criteria used. The integrated explanation of the changes in the socio-ecological fit of responses over time, following the CAS and related paradigms and based on the analysis of the evolution of the SES, provides context-specific explanations of how responses produced changes in the LLPs and the SER of the SES (ARA) and how, in their turn, these changes modified or totally changed the responses over time.

Stage D: Design of Optimal response Assemblages and Guidance for policy and decision makers
Building on the results of Stage C, Optimal Response Assemblages (ORAs) – i.e. desirable response assemblages under alternative future scenarios – are identified by suggesting which SES components and their relationships are (or will be) responsible for any ‘misfit’ observed and, therefore, which characteristics of the SES should be fixed, if possible, to improve the fit of responses to LEDD. Emphasis is placed on improvements of the ARA that are commonly accepted by all stakeholder groups and/or those that satisfy one stakeholder group but at the same time may satisfy other stakeholder groups (win-win or partial win-win solutions). Finally, policy and land management (where relevant) recommendations are formulated to support the materialization of ORAs.

Development of a comprehensive theory of responses to LEDD, including the study of knowledge transfer, in general, adapted to each land theme and to the LEDDRA study sites and associated policy recommendations

The theory of responses to LEDD

Following the LEDDRA conceptual framework, the general theory of responses to LEDD is rooted in the CAS paradigm and explores a suite of hypotheses related to why specific LEDD issues occur in each land theme and in the chosen study sites, and how and why stakeholders at various spatial scales have attempted to address these LEDD issues by means of particular responses to LEDD (the ‘response assemblage’). The theory of responses to LEDD has built on a number of existing approaches including the Drylands Desertification Paradigm), the Panarchy approach and critical debates on socio-ecological resilience that recognise the interplay between biophysical and human dimensions of LEDD problems and of responses to LEDD at multiple spatial scales, and their resulting impacts on human welfare. Thus, the proposed theory of responses to LEDD recognises that the interrelationships in coupled human-environment systems are characterised by non-linear processes which operate across spatial and temporal scales, and highlights the importance of identifying key variables which contribute to the causes of, rather than just focusing on the effects of LEDD issues and of responses to LEDD. The theoretical frameworks at land-theme and study-site levels have guided study site teams to address the broad LEDDRA research objectives.

Critical aspects of the theory of responses to LEDD are the ‘capitals’ of a socio-ecological system that several authors have shown to be key factors for understanding socio-ecological resilience. The main thesis is that strongly developed economic, social and natural capitals are crucial components of socio-ecologically resilient systems. At community and regional levels, LEDD issues and the associated responses can be conceptualised as results of the complex interplay between different processes associated with social, economic and natural capitals. The LEDDRA theory of responses posits that societies in which LEDD response assemblages are fit and effective are likely to exhibit well developed and closely interlinked components of economic, social and natural capital. Conversely, societies that have focused almost entirely on developing components of one or two capitals, at the expense of other capitals, are likely to be more vulnerable to LEDD. Each type of capital is discussed briefly below.

Natural capital includes a suite of components – climate, soil, water, and vegetation – the importance of which in any given context may change over different spatial and temporal scales of observation. In socio-ecological systems, natural capital components sustain, over time, the production of goods and services. The components of natural capital also play a critical role in shaping socio-economic development opportunities and pathways. In particular, they provide the raw materials needed to sustain socio-economic growth and human activities, from life-support systems for human and non-human communities, to the production of goods and services.

Economic capital is the key foundation of financial and economic well-being of a society. The key components of economic capital include: produced capital (the value of the products and services produced in an area); financial capital (the financial resources available that can be used for investments and consumption); landesque capital (investments on the land to improve its productivity); physical capital (buildings, infrastructure, machinery etc.); technology (tools, machines, techniques or methods to improve the performance of a specific function); plant and animal capital (animals and plants used in production).

Social capital is used as an aggregate term in LEDDRA to refer to complex social processes, political arenas, institutions, regulations and cultural factors. It includes the following components: demographic (the structural demographic features of a socio-ecological system), human (the skills and knowledge available in a society), cultural (society’s historical memory and experience, the arts, ideological standpoints of a society, traditions, habits and values), social (connectedness, trust, reciprocity and exchanges) and institutional (governance, organisational ability, institutions, and trust in institutions and processes).

Following the LEDDRA conceptual framework, the theory of responses to LEDD focuses on understanding these different capitals, and how they contribute to a suite of lower- and system-level properties which shape socio-ecological and community resilience (SER and CR respectively) in a socio-ecological system. The assumption underlying this theoretical framework is that SER and CR are likely to be strongest where all relevant capital components are well developed and appropriately linked resulting in systems having desirable lower level properties such as potential for change, diversity, redundancy, modularity, connectedness and openness. These properties in their turn determine the system’s Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. The existence, quality and level of development of capital components and their linkages contribute to the ability of a socio-ecological system to cope with shocks and challenges, such as LEDD problems. The LEDDRA findings have shown that some study sites appeared better able to withstand these shocks and challenges than others. Part of the development of the theory of responses to LEDD has therefore been to hypothesise about why this may be the case.

Land theme and study site-level findings

The assumption underlying the general theory of responses to LEDD is that it can be applied equally to cropland, grazing and forest/shrubland socio-ecological systems. However, the components of the three capitals, their relationships, as well as the emergent lower-and system-level properties differ in each land theme and study site, thereby impacting on SER and CR. This means that in developing optimal response assemblages, specific contextual differences need to be taken into account in identifying the potential for development of components of each capital, and how these may affect the ability of the SES to respond effectively to LEDD issues in the future.

Several key processes and trends were apparent in all of the LEDDRA study sites, across all three land themes (forest, cropland, grazing lands). Based on the theory of responses outlined above, these can be broadly grouped into structural-economic, on the one hand, and social and political factors, on the other, affecting land degradation processes and responses to LEDD. We have argued that these processes and trends can best be understood through the notion of ‘lock-ins’ – pathways that often shoehorn individuals or stakeholder groups into specific ways of thinking and acting, modes of operation and, ultimately, into specific responses to LEDD.
Structural-economic lock-ins include some of the most important processes identified irrespective of the land use system studied. The first and most important of these lock-ins is the problem of outmigration of young people from LEDD-affected communities. The findings show that complex processes are at play but that in all contexts – whether in China, Morocco, Spain, Italy or Greece – rural communities are ‘locked-in’ by being unable to encourage young people (male and female) to stay in their communities, echoing findings from previous EU-funded projects such as MEDACTION or DESERTLINKS. While in China and Morocco the main reasons for outmigration are related to pull factors such as rapid economic growth in urban areas, in Spain, Italy and Greece a combination of push and pull factors are at play, including limited employment opportunities at local level, the need to seek further education, and the perceived ‘backwardness’ of remote rural communities.

This outmigration has several implications for LEDD. First, there is a direct connection to land abandonment which has often led to worsening land degradation problems (e.g. through lack of maintenance of landesque capital). Second, outmigration causes a rupture in the social memory of age-old systems where passing on knowledge and traditions about sustainable land management through generations has been key. Third, the lack of young people changes the composition and structure of key social networks within and between communities, thereby affecting social capital and, concurrently, the ability of communities to effectively respond to LEDD issues.

There are clear policy messages emerging from the problem of outmigration of young people. First, LEDD issues cannot be divorced from social processes occurring at regional and community levels and beyond, and LEDD policies need to target the human systems that support sustainable soil management activities as well as the specific physical issues of loss of productive capacity of soils. Future policies need to provide funds targeted specifically at retaining young people in LEDD-affected communities and regions. This could mean providing more funds for apprenticeships or training that include modern farming techniques as well as specific land management approaches. In addition, these policies should be closely intertwined with broader social policies aimed at enhancing social resilience by providing incentives for strengthening community networks, communication and inter-community cooperation and valuing skill sharing and knowledge transfer.

The second structural-economic lock-in identified relates to the perennial issue of limited access to funding for LEDD-affected regions. This not only relates to opaque subsidy systems for farmers but also to lack of access to community-level funds (e.g. through LEADER projects) that could benefit both communities and regions, and not only those who work the land. The key reasons for limited access to funding in the LEDDRA study sites are that remote rural areas wield little political power and are, on the whole, increasingly losing out to rapidly growing urban areas (true especially in China, but also in Morocco and Spain). In addition, the results have also shown that lack of information about existing financial opportunities is often a key explanation as to why stakeholders are unable to access funds. The implications of limited access to funding are severe. First, limited access to funding exacerbates poverty lock-ins that prevent regions from paying for LEDD alleviation measures. The Alento study site, for example, clearly highlighted how even the most basic LEDD alleviation measures, such as the maintenance or rebuilding of terraces, is often beyond the financial means of stakeholders. Successful terrace management has, therefore, been possible only when external funds have been made available. However, limited access to funding is also closely intertwined with outmigration of young people (see above) as it is the relative poverty of remote LEDD-affected communities that is one of the key reasons why young people are not interested in staying in their communities.

Policy implications related to the issue of limited access to funding are relatively clear. LEDD-affected areas need to be provided with direct funds that supplement community-based LEDD alleviation approaches, or with information on how and where such funds can be accessed. This issue also emphasises that although policies for LEDD alleviation exist that may provide additional funds, it does not necessarily guarantee the successful implementation of these policies. This suggests, therefore, that regional- and local-level authorities in charge of policy implementation need to be made more accountable for their policy actions and, most importantly, for guaranteeing that available funds trickle down to community level (particularly important in corruption-ridden regions affected by LEDD).

The third structural-economic lock-in relates to weak markets for local products. This was particularly prominent in the LEDDRA Moroccan and Italian study sites but also played a key role in China, Greece and Spain. The main reasons relate to the relative remoteness of the study sites with long distances to regional markets; the globalisation of agro-commodity chains that has led to a devaluation of ‘local’ products, often making these products financially uncompetitive (in particular in the Spanish and Italian study sites); the lack of willingness to produce local products; and the lack of incentives (e.g. through policies) to support local produce. While in some areas (e.g. Alento in Italy) a partial revival of local products could be witnessed, on the whole, weak markets for local and regionally-specific products have further exacerbated land abandonment, outmigration and weakening social networks.

Policy recommendations for strengthening local product markets can take several forms. First, they can directly aid marketing through financial incentives or the establishment of farming cooperatives (as has already been partly the case in the Alento or Asteroussia study sites). Second, policies could be put in place to encourage farmers to re-value local products (which are also often better in terms of land degradation alleviation) by funding ‘landcare groups’ (based on the successful Australian Landcare System). Ultimately, such policies need to intertwine closely with other policies not directly related to LEDD, in particular national and international policies aimed at protecting certified local products (such as ‘appellation d’origine controlée’), education campaigns about the health and environmental benefits of consuming local produce, and by subsidising local production that can often not compete with globalised food production networks.

A fourth, particularly important, structural-economic lock-in is poor infrastructure (especially poor road access). This was particularly prevalent in Morocco, some of the Spanish study sites (especially in the Pyrenees), Asteroussia in Greece and Alento in Italy. This ‘lock-in’ intertwines with relative poverty, outmigration of young people and weak access to local product markets. Indeed, many stakeholders argued that poor roads were a key explanation for why they could not profitably sell their produce in nearby towns and cities and was also a key stumbling block preventing tourism development, seen as an increasingly vital source of income away from agricultural income dependency. Policy implications are, therefore, relatively obvious: only by showing the willingness to provide additional funds for road infrastructure (especially yearly maintenance) will regional and national governments enable future economic growth in LEDD-affected areas. Many stakeholders saw this as a better use of government money than paying direct subsidies (see above) to help LEDD alleviation, especially as it allows individuals, communities and regions to be proactive in the management of their affairs by choosing to boost tourism or showing entrepreneurship with regard to better marketing of local products through improved infrastructural networks.

A fifth, and at the outset of the LEDDRA project unanticipated, structural-economic lock in was related to the 2008-2013 global economic recession. LEDDRA study sites were particularly affected due to already poor global interlinkages, an increasing dependency on tourism, and the lack of alternative income streams. Although the financial situation of LEDD-affected areas grew worse during the recession (with the exception of China), the global economic recession had one unanticipated, positive side-effect as it had started to lead to the return of young people to their home villages, due to the lack of jobs in urban areas (particularly prominent in Spain, and also reported in the Italian and Greek study sites). Although the implications of this ‘return-migration’ for LEDD alleviation could not be fully assessed, in the short to medium term it is likely to increase farming succession and, possibly, reduce the problem of land abandonment.

Social and political lock-ins comprise the second large cluster of constraints affecting the ability of LEDD-affected communities to successfully address land degradation. Of particular importance is the relative loss of trust in many LEDDRA study sites, partly due to the disintegration of traditional community structures through the outmigration of young people, and partly due to deeper socio-economic changes linked to globalisation affecting many remote rural locations. Associated with this is the important lock-in of corruption and the problem of often opaque inter- and extra-community power structures. These processes have led to a relative loss of social capital, which has affected the ability of stakeholder groups to successfully address LEDD problems. Many stakeholders, for example, reported that the community worked better together in the past, or that community members trusted each other more than at present – key factors that reduce the ability to tackle complex land degradation issues that often require inputs from a large array of stakeholders working together with a common shared goal.

Policy recommendations addressing the loss of social capital are more difficult to formulate, although increased funding that goes directly to communities may help put structures in place that are better able to tackle corruption and the mismanagement of local power. Overall, many of the policy recommendations suggested above (e.g. better information/communication, improvement of infrastructure, incentives to keep young people in villages) will, indirectly, also help address issues of declining social capital.

A key social lock-in relates to the relative loss of learning and knowledge about land degradation. This is closely associated with processes linked to weakening social capital. In particular, outmigration of young people and the weakening of trust within and between stakeholder groups has often led to a rupture in social memory – i.e. the memory that is part of traditions that help stakeholders pass on knowledge from generation to generation about how to best tackle LEDD issues. This loss of social memory (evident in almost all communities in the LEDDRA study sites, irrespective of country or dominant land use) means that age-old ‘traditional’ ways of sustainably managing soils and key skills are increasingly forgotten, leading to an exacerbation of LEDD issues.

Policy implications related to these issues are linked to providing better incentives for stakeholders to find ways to retain existing knowledge, and to pass this on to the next generation. One of the most successful inter- and intra-community examples relates to a successful olive oil cooperative in San Mauro Cilento (Alento study site, Italy, croplands) where young farmers are mentored in sustainable olive grove management and where knowledge is passed on within and across stakeholder groups. Policies that enable better funding for similar initiatives in other communities would enable much better knowledge retention and implementation of sustainable environmental management practices than is currently the case.

Socio-political lock-ins were also evident at intra-community level in the study sites. In particular, stakeholder interactions across communities and between community and regional levels were often weak, resulting in relatively localised, piecemeal, entrenched and short-term decision-making about LEDD issues affecting entire regions (see also discussion below on knowledge transfer issues). Limited cooperation between communities (often characterised by community rivalry, a particular issue in the Asteroussia grazing land study site) often means that information about LEDD issues and how to tackle them is not widely distributed across the region, and, most crucially, that local expertise about LEDD (which often does exist) is rarely used to the fullest.

Policy implications are evident and relate to a large extent to improving local-regional interactions and governance structures. Currently, intra-community rivalry is often encouraged by opaque regional governance structures, further marred by cronyism and corruption. Policies need to ensure that power structures and hierarchies between the local and regional level are clear to all stakeholders, that they can trust experts, and that evidence of ‘best practice’ is disseminated across the wider LEDD-affected region (as was the case in the Basilicata (forests) study site in Italy).

Closely associated with this is the issue of weak interaction between LEDD-affected communities and policy-makers. This is again often linked to lack of trust between and across different stakeholder levels, corruption at street-level-bureaucrat and higher levels, weak policy implementation and monitoring, as well as a frequent lack of belief by local-level stakeholders that external actors are willing and able to help with local LEDD alleviation. The most obvious repercussion with regard to LEDD issues is that policies are neither implemented successfully at regional nor at local level and there is a clear rupture in policy decision-making pathways between regional and local levels in all LEDDRA study sites.

Finally, a key social lock-in relates to psychological conservatism, cultural resistance and/or inertia within study sites with regard to implementing new pathways of decision-making, innovative ideas and changing long-established practices which have proven detrimental for LEDD alleviation. The findings suggest that many of the study sites lack the willingness or ability to envisage change which ‘locks in’ unsustainable soil management pathways that have gradually eroded natural capital and led to unwillingness to embark on innovative approaches to combating LEDD. Evidence from the study sites show that it is often only sudden ruptures in natural capital (e.g. landslides, sudden drop in soil fertility, disruption to irrigation systems) that lead to a rapid response and a need to change.

Policy responses to these lock-ins are probably the most difficult to formalise, as they would need to address deep-seated psychological and sociological processes, for which often only very limited information is available. The LEDDRA findings clearly show that much more work is needed in understanding the complex relationships between social lock-ins related to psychological conservatism, cultural resistance and/or inertia and how these affect the ability of stakeholders to successfully tackle LEDD issues.

Closely associated to all of the above lock-ins is the important issue of knowledge transfer at different scales, and how it affects responses to LEDD. Evidence from the study sites has highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer in successful land degradation alleviation, and also emphasised that in most study sites, knowledge transfer has been sub-optimal. The issue of knowledge transfer cuts across various spatial levels and temporal scales, including inter- and intra-community, community-region, and between regions and national decision-makers. With regard to inter-community knowledge transfer, the discussion above has already highlighted how the loss of learning and knowledge about land degradation has severely disrupted social memory, which is crucial for successful LEDD alleviation. The LEDDRA findings have also clearly shown that intra-community knowledge transfer has been severely disrupted by socio-cultural and economic changes in all of the study sites. Loss of social capital has been a key driver for this, especially as rural outmigration has led to weakening family ties, and weaker links with neighbouring communities. This has been further exacerbated by globalisation and ‘vertical’ rather than ‘horizontal’ integration within regions, as well as increased competition between communities for scarcer resources (this was the case in the Baixo Guadiana (Spain), Asteroussia (Greece) and Zhang Jiachong (China) study sites). Loss of trust was also closely associated with a reduced perceived need to seek best practice in LEDD alleviation from neighbouring communities. The overall picture that emerges from the study sites, therefore, is one of less need to rely on other communities for help, which means that it is becoming rarer for stakeholders affected by LEDD to see and share locally appropriate ‘best practice’.

These issues also affect community-region knowledge transfer, although the Basilicata (forest) study site provided a counterweight to the general trend. In Basilicate, knowledge transfer in the form of sustainable forestry management has been re-established as a direct response to the loss of locally skilled foresters. Nonetheless, community-region knowledge transfer was not as well developed as it could have been in most study sites, with the flow of information ‘down’ from the region to communities marred by corruption, budgetary constraints, and a frequent lack of interest in the wellbeing of local communities by regional actors (a particular issue in the Alento cropland study site), while the flow of information from the community ‘up’ to the region is often impeded by breaks in social memory at community level, increasing distrust by community stakeholders that autonomous solutions to LEDD can be found at the local level, and by a lack of willingness to engage with ‘politicians’ and ‘decision-makers’ that often seem far removed from local concerns.

Finally, region-nation knowledge transfer on LEDD alleviation possibilities was also found to be problematic. The findings suggest that national governance structures are key, as study sites in relatively powerful regions (e.g. Spain) reported better decision-making structures to alleviate LEDD (in Spain largely because the autonomous regions have substantial autonomy in formulating and implementing both national and EU policies), whilst those in highly centralised countries (e.g. Morocco, China) reported poorer communication between regions and the national level with resulting policy implementation problems at the local level.

The ‘theory of responses’ to LEDD has, thus, highlighted several key issues that impede the successful implementation of responses to LEDD, including socio-economic, cultural and psychological processes, globalisation, the 2008-2013 economic recession; and poor knowledge transfer processes, all of which have negatively affected the fit of responses to LEDD. Most worrying is the general finding that implementation of successful responses to LEDD appears to be worsening rather than improving in the study sites, and that if current trends continue, the affected areas are likely to be worse off with regard to the development of optimal response assemblages than they were in the past. This result signals that urgent policy action is needed at both local and regional levels, and that the current piecemeal approach of policies aimed at addressing specific aspects of LEDD is failing, as stakeholders are no longer able (or willing) to ensure that these policies are successfully implemented on the ground.

Development of an integrated methodology to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings

The LEDDRA methodological framework (LEDDRA methodology for short) has been designed to offer a systematic integrated methodology to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD based on the LEDDRA conceptual framework. The LEDDRA methodology comprises five main steps that correspond to the stages of the conceptual framework (shown in parentheses).
4.1.1. General and in-depth description of the SES (stage A)
4.1.2. Study of the evolution of the SES; description of the ARA by state and transition period (Stage A)
4.1.3. Analysis of each state and transition period of the SES (ARA) (stages B and C)
4.1.4. ORA – optimizing the current ARA (Stage D)
4.1.5. Guidance: policy and land management recommendations based on the analysis (Stage D)

4.1.1. General and in-depth description of the SES (stage A). This description aims to offer a thorough and detailed understanding of the evolution of the biophysical and human components of the SES over a study period, i.e. of the characteristics of the three capitals and their relationships, of the LEDD problems and of the responses to LEDD.
LEDDRA adopted two focal spatial levels: the regional and the community (local). The analysis at both levels took into account the links among the components of the biophysical and the human system at lower (local, household) and higher (regional, national, EU, international) levels. The time frame of reference spanned circa 50-60 years to permit a satisfactory account of the evolution of a SES.

4.1.2. Evolution of the SES (state and transition periods); description of the ARA by period (Stage A). Based on the previous step, state and transition periods of the SES are delineated and their detailed analysis is undertaken. The pivotal notion for the ensuing analysis of the SES (ARA) over the study period and within each state and transition period is the basin or domain of attraction – characterized by a given ’profile’, functions and identity – within which the SES remains over a certain period of time – changing states within it – before it moves (transforms) to another basin of attraction. The description of the ARA in each state and transition period (a) profiles each period of the SES (following Figure 2); (b) identifies the critical environmental and socio-economic functions as well as the important fast and slow variables in the period; (c) analyzes the relationships among selected biophysical and socio-economic characteristics as mediated by human actions; (d) identifies ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ responses to LEDD at the focal and higher levels; (e) identifies the factors that caused changes in particular characteristics of the SES and of responses to LEDD from one period to the other; (f) identifies relevant policies; analyzes their role as drivers of or as responses to LEDD and evaluates policy implementation, impacts, and effectiveness in responding to prevailing LEDD problems.

4.1.3. Analysis of the ARA in each state and transition period of the SES (Stages B and C). The purpose of this stage is to (a) assess the lower-level (LLPs), the system level (RAT) properties and socio-ecological resilience (SER) and community resilience, (b) assess the socio-ecological fit of the ARA and of dominant types of responses to LEDD for each period and (c) explain the transition from one period to the other (changes in LEDD and responses to LEDD) as a function of changes in SER and of the socio-ecological fit of responses employing CAS and resilience thinking notions. Alternative quantitative and qualitative methods and techniques to carry out these assessments have been developed. This analysis pinpoints critical characteristics of and relationships among the components of the natural, economic and social capitals in the SES that account for the degree of socio-ecological fit of the ARA, thus, constituting the basis for the next step.

4.1.4. ORA – optimizing the ARA (stage D). Based on the preceding analysis, those actions that are necessary to improve the socio-ecological fit of the current or proposed responses to LEDD under the present conditions or under future scenarios, i.e. enhance the socio-ecological and community resilience of the SES, are identified. Alternative methodologies to develop Optimal Response Assemblages may be used. One approach draws from the LEDDRA methodology; more specifically, the methodology is followed on the reverse starting from the identification of the LLPs with ‘undesirable’ values and of the associated characteristics of the natural, economic and social capital involved and suggesting how these characteristics can be improved (taking into account their relationships and cross-level interactions).

4.1.5. Guidance – policy and land management recommendations (Stage D) Land management and policy recommendations are offered with the aim of encouraging and supporting the emergence of optimal response assemblages. Policy recommendations concern the local/regional level (improving policy implementation) and move up to the national, EU and international level.
To provide guidance for the implementation of the methodology in real world cases, a Study Site Application Plan (SSAP) has been designed that details selected assessment methods and techniques for the various steps of the methodology.

Assessment methods and techniques to assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in various settings

The variety of quantitative and qualitative assessment methods and techniques which have been proposed to carry out the necessary assessments at each step of the LEDDRA methodology are summarized in Table 2. Selected important methods and techniques (foreground) are indicated in grey highlight in the Table and they are briefly presented below.

NAME OF METHOD: Supervised classification of vegetation cover to assess land cover change
AIM OF THE METHOD: Assess natural capital and resilience of grasslands
METHOD OUTLINE: Supervised classification of Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper (TM) to identify land cover types between two dates. Transition probability matrix based on the two supervised classification maps to quantify extent and direction of vegetation cover change; special attention on grasslands degradation to evaluate their resilience.

NAME OF METHOD: NDVI Detection methods
AIM OF THE METHOD: Assess natural capital and grasslands productivity; assessment of socio-ecological fit of responses
METHOD OUTLINE: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) extracted from Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper imagery taken in two dates to detect changes in greenness and productivity over dense grasslands with special attention on grasslands degradation, anthropogenic and physical factors.

NAME OF METHOD Robustness index
AIM OF THE METHOD The method aims to assess the Robustness of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE The robustness of natural and semi-natural systems can be evaluated with an expert system considering both the Available Water Capacity in soils and the ability of vegetation components (forest types) to resist drought.

NAME OF METHOD Recovery from disturbance assessment
AIM OF THE METHOD The method aims to assess the Rapidity to recover from disturbance of the components of a forest/shrubland SES.
METHOD OUTLINE It uses expert system assessment based on forest types and their capability to recover from disturbance (i.e. forest fires).

NAME OF METHOD: Social network analysis
AIM OF THE METHOD: Assess system-level properties (Resilience, Adaptability, Transformability) of social capital components.
METHOD OUTLINE: Build social networks based on the collaborative interactions between stakeholders and use network indexes to assess social system structure and dynamics.

NAME OF METHOD General Ecological Resilience Index (ERgi)
AIM OF THE METHOD The method aims to assess the general ecological resilience of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE Based on the amounts of available natural capital components of the SES (soil, water, climate and vegetation), a composite index is calculated as their geometric mean or as a qualitative score based on heuristic evaluation.

NAME OF METHOD Specified Ecological Resilience Index (ERsi)
AIM OF THE METHOD The method aims to assess the ecological specified resilience in a SES
METHOD OUTLINE Based on selected Lower Level Properties of a SES (e.g. potential available for change, robustness, diversity, redundancy, connectedness, modularity, rapidity) a composite index is calculated as their geometric mean or as a qualitative score based on heuristic evaluation.

NAME OF METHOD: Network analysis of plant associations
AIM OF THE METHOD: Assess ecological resilience
METHOD OUTLINE: Build plant-plant interaction networks based on the spatial associations between plant species and use network indexes to assess the evolution and persistence of plant communities.

NAME OF METHOD General Economic Resilience Index (EcRgi)
Same approaches as used for the General Ecological Resilience Index (ERgi) can be applied to economic capital components.

NAME OF METHOD Specified Economic Resilience Index (EcRsi)
Same approaches as used for the Specified Ecological Resilience Index Index (ERgi) can be applied by using economic components.

NAME OF METHOD General Social Resilience Index (SRgi)
Same approaches as used for the General Ecological Resilience (ERgi) can be applied by using social components.

NAME OF METHOD Specified Social Resilience Index ((SRsi)
Same approaches as used for the Specified Ecological Resilience Index (ERgi) can be applied by using social components.

NAME OF METHOD Adaptability index (Ai)
AIM OF THE METHOD To assess the Adaptability of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE Based on selected lower level properties of the socio-economic components of a SES (e.g. potential available for change, diversity, redundancy, connectedness, modularity, an Adaptability index (Ai) is calculated as their geometric mean or as a qualitative score based on heuristic evaluation.

NAME OF METHOD Transformability index (Ti)
AIM OF THE METHOD The aim of the proposed method is to assess Adaptability at regional (SES) or local level
METHOD OUTLINE Same procedure as above.

NAME OF METHOD Expert system to assess Resilience, Adaptabiliy and Transformability (RAT)
AIM OF THE METHOD To assess Ecologic, Economic and Social Resilience, Adaptabiliy and Transformability of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE The method utilizes the basin of attraction construct of Resilience Thinking and identifies those combinations of lower level properties that ‘explain’ the historical (observed) or the projected value of (Ecologic, Economic and Social) Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability of a SES. The historical and/or projected values of R, A, T for a given period are assessed based on the features that determine the shape of the basin of attraction and the place of the SES within it (latitude, resistance, precariousness and Panarchy).

NAME OF METHOD Socio-Ecological Resilience index (SERi)
AIM OF THE METHOD To assess the socio-ecological resilience (SER) of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE SER is evaluated using assessments of the three system level properties Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability (RAT). The index is estimated by using the geometric mean of the System Level Properties or through a synthetic, heuristic evaluation.

NAME OF METHOD: Power-law of human population distribution patterns.
AIM OF THE METHOD: To assess the socio-ecological resilience (SER) of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE: Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of human populations is used to assess whether population distribution formed self-similar structures. Changes in the population distribution inform us the probability of population collapses.

NAME OF METHOD Expert system to assess socio-ecological resilience (SER)
AIM OF THE METHOD The method aims to assess the socio-ecological resilience of a SES
METHOD OUTLINE The method utilizes the basin of attraction construct of Resilience Thinking and identifies those combinations of lower and system level properties that ‘explain’ the historical (observed) or the projected value of the socio-ecological resilience (SER) of a SES. The historical and/or projected values of SER for a given period are assessed based on the four features that determine the shape of the basin of attraction and the place of the SES within it mentioned before.

NAME OF METHOD Expert system to assess the socio-ecological ecological fit of responses to LEDD or of a Response Assemblage (SEF)
AIM OF THE METHOD To assess the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD in a SES or of a Response Assemblage
METHOD OUTLINE (a) To assess the socio-ecological fit of a Response Assemblage, the values of SER (see above) are used to determine the value of SEF; (b) to assess the socio-ecological fit of selected responses to LEDD in a SES, the effects (and their relationships) that different responses have on the Lower Level Properties are evaluated using LLP-based or other criteria. A composite index is derived using a parametric or a qualitative approach.

Study Site Applications – ten study sites in Italy, Greece, Spain, China and Morocco plus communities

The LEDDRA methodology has been applied at the 10 LEDDRA study sites for the analysis and assessment of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD over the last 50 to 60 years. The analysis has been based on the assessment of a suite of lower-level properties (potential available for change, robustness, diversity, redundancy, modularity, connectedness, openness rapidity) – closely related to the critical functions of a SES – that shape the values of the three system-level properties – Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability (RAT) – that eventually determine the value of the socio-ecological resilience (SER) and the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD. Selected communities from each of the study sites have been analyzed also to assess their community resilience using qualitative assessment approaches. The study site applications have shed light on the complex spatio-temporal patterns of change of the socio-ecological fit of responses, and of the associated response assemblages, and have shown that the fit of responses is not constant but variable over space and time.

The most important findings/foregrounds from the Study Site Applications undertaken at the 10 LEDDRA study sites, following the LEDDRA methodology, are presented below organized by land theme. The presentation covers the main LEDD issues and responses to LEDD, important properties of the socio-ecological systems under study and their role in shaping the socio-ecological resilience of these systems, the fit of current responses to LEDD, general findings related to achieving Optimal Response Assemblages and the role of policies in this context.

Cropland study sites

Five cropland study sites have been selected. Four of them are located in Mediterranean Europe (Messara Valley - Greece, Alento River basin - Italy, Canyoles River Basin - Spain, Western Andevalo - Spain), and one in China (Zhang Jiachong area). The selected study sites represent a variety of biophysical and socio-economic cropland settings and exhibit various degrees of LEDD as well as particular responses to LEDD.

MAIN LEDD PROBLEMS

The main LEDD problems identified in all cropland study sites are soil erosion and land desertification. Erosion control is one of the main positive responses explicitly addressing soil loss in sloping areas. Over-cultivation, a negative response, caused by repeated tilling of the land to produce crops faster than soil restoration rates has resulted in significant LEDD problems. Land desertification is driven by climatic and economic factors (are cropland expansion, overgrazing, and infrastructure extension), institutions, national policies, population growth, and remote influences.

MAIN RESPONSES TO LEDD

The main responses to LEDD identified in the cropland study sites are: reclamation of salt-affected soils, water conservation/harvesting, modern land terracing, soil sealing, crop intensification, land abandonment, and depopulation of rural areas. Some of these responses have been positive, increasing farm incomes and profitability in the short term; however, many responses have, either directly or indirectly, reduced on-farm diversity and flexibility leading to negative longer-term implications and, subsequently, to socio-economic problems which further exacerbate LEDD.

IMPORTANT PROPERTIES (LOWER AND SYSTEM) AND THEIR ROLE IN SHAPING SER

The analysis of the study sites over time has shown how different combinations of lower and system level properties reflect the capacity of the SES to be resilient, adapt and/or transform. Different degrees of diversity and modularity, for example, mark the difference between past states of each SES and recent ones characterized by the cropping intensification.

SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL FIT OF CURRENT RESPONSES TO LEDD

Past responses to LEDD in all crop study sites were well-fit as long as production was low intensity (i.e. producing for local markets and not for globalised agri-commodity chains), relatively isolated, the pace of technological change was slow, and links with higher levels were weak (weak global embeddedness). Over-cultivation has been adopted in all study sites and has resulted in significant reduction of natural capital (loss in organic matter, water pollution) and economic capital (loss in crop production, collapse of terraces). The findings have shown also that responses that are fit under certain environmental conditions can be rendered unfit under different conditions (e.g. climate change) or over longer time periods (when technological ‘fixes’ no longer work).

GENERAL FINDINGS ON OPTIMAL RESPONSE ASSEMBLAGES

The core elements of general ORA have been highlighted. These are related to improved management of the natural capital coupled with increase of expertise. Availability of economic capital is fundamental in designing optimal response assemblages as well as the ability to act collectively. Advances in land management cannot be implemented at the small scale of farms. Also large scale management plans cannot be effectively implemented without trust among stakeholders and institutions. Building confidence that costs and benefits will be justly shared is a prerequisite for collective action.
As an example, in the Messara Valley, the broad adoption and efficient implementation of the ORA requires consideration of: (1) the Regional Framework for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, (2) the Water Management Plan, (3) public investments through EU co-financed development policies, and (4) actor mobilisation for actions and/or measures forming part of ORA. In the Alento river basin, on the other hand, the achievement of the ORA is tightly linked to the ability of the SES to connect its economic, social and environmental components, become more globally autonomous and locally interdependent.

ROLE OF POLICIES

Policies have played a role both as drivers of and as positive responses to LEDD at the cropland study sites. EU agricultural as well as regional and rural development policies have often stimulated agricultural mechanisation and technological development in cultivation and production methods, as well as in the development of new and improved varieties and inputs. In some cases, as in the Alento study site, policies act as positive responses in combating LEDD (e.g. terraces restoration). In general, the policy effects (positive or negative or neutral) observed at the study sites depend on the ‘policy mix’, while in some cases the absence of or non-implementation of certain policies (e.g. spatial planning policies) is crucial in shaping the policy effects recorded.

STUDY SITE-SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Study site-specific policy recommendations differ between the EU and the China study sites given the different socio-economic, cultural and institutional settings. For the EU study sites, most recommendations focus on vertical and horizontal policy integration. The uptake of rural development measures – agri-environment, training and extension services – is seen particularly crucial for Canyoles (Spain) and Messara (Greece). Agricultural policy provisions at the EU and national level are seen as adequate in principle, but available instruments remain largely non- implemented at the study site level. Even for Alento (Italy), where such measures are implemented, and agro-alimentary product valorisation mechanisms are in place (National Park, supply chains, local markets), it is clear that policy needs to address the issues of the cost of certification/inspection and ultimately the cost of transition to qualitatively different food production systems.
Spatial planning at the local and regional level has emerged as a major policy necessity at all study sites, particularly with regard to the prevention and/or containment of urban and industrial expansion, although it is debatable whether it is sufficient to guarantee improvement in social and economic capital components in itself. The need for coordinated action highlights the problem of new and emerging actors as a prerequisite of implementation of various policy instruments (old and new) to address LEDD.

Grazing land study sites

Three study sites were selected to represent grazing land seetings, located in Central Pyrenees (Spain), Ait Arfa du Guigou, Middle Atlas (Morocco) and Asteroussia Mountains, Crete (Greece).

MAIN LEDD PROBLEMS
Extensive grazing has been the dominant traditional land use in relatively sustainable conditions for several centuries in the three grazing study areas. However, the socio-economic changes of the 20th century brought important transformations that reduced the resilience of rangelands in comparison to the resilience under traditional mobile grazing practices (transhumance). While the European study sites have undergone extensive abandonment of grazing land during the second half of the 20th century, the Moroccan study site has long suffered from anthropogenic pressures that produced high rates of land degradation and desertification. Under the current socio-economic situations, land abandonment and climate warming are exacerbating woody encroachment resulting in loss of grasslands productivity and biodiversity.

MAIN RESPONSES TO LEDD
The breakdown of transhumance in the grazing study sites resulted in the loss of resilience of the grazers-grasslands interactions. To compensate the loss of income obtained from the primary sector, complementary sources of income has developed in the last decades leading to different alternatives that range from increase in agricultural activity in Middle Atlas to tourism in Asteroussia Mountains (Greece) and Central Pyrenees (Spain), which affect the stability of the system. Furthermore, the consolidation of olive orchards in Messara in the same period led to the collapse of transhumance practices and to all-year-round residence of the flocks in Asteroussia mountains. The prevailing responses aggravated soil erosion and land desertification.

IMPORTANT PROPERTIES (LOWER AND SYSTEM) AND THEIR ROLE IN SHAPING SER

The example of the Asteroussia Mountains study site shows how the assessment of LLPs and RAT has been used within LEDDRA to assess SER. In the last period analysed, the ecological resilience of the Asteroussia Mountains was moderate mainly due to low redundancy and low potential for change of the ecosystem. However, compared to previous periods the redundancy of the system was considered to have improved due to the partial introduction of alternative land uses in the area, such as the plantation of olive groves.

SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL FIT OF CURRENT RESPONSES TO LEDD

The prevailing responses in the Moroccan and the Greek study sites aggravated soil erosion and land desertification. In the Spanish study site, multiple factors have caused intense land use changes resulting in changes in demography and socio-economic interactions. The abandonment of grazing practices in the sloping areas and land use intensification in the bottom valley, the abandonment of transhumance and the replacement of sheep by cattle translate in significantly land-cover change, in particular, shrubland and woodland increase to the detriment of grasslands and crops.

GENERAL FINDINGS ON OPTIMAL RESPONSE ASSEMBLAGES

Optimization of the response assemblage in rangelands requires the protection of grazing lands by adjusting the number of grazing animals and the correct combination of different livestock species (sheep, goat, cattle) that traditionally grazed those grasslands rotationally. The multifunctional characteristics of mountain ecosystems need to be exploited to provide alternative economic activities in the area. In order to promote the diversification of economic activity, policies that break the complex structure of interaction networks, traditionally very complex with important mechanisms of positive and negative feedbacks, should be avoided.

ROLE OF POLICIES

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has played a key role in grazing areas. In the Central Pyrenees, it has caused a transition from sheep to cattle with important implications for pasture dynamics. Cattle overgrazing on the "best pastures" and the absence of cattle in other areas can have fatal consequences with the loss of high valuable grasslands. On the other hand, in Asteroussia Mountains, subsidies have favored husbandry activity, increasing overgrazing.
Laws for environmental conservation and protection of natural heritage provide the basic legal framework for the conservation, sustainable use, restoration and enhancement of alpine grasslands. The main concern with their application is the prohibition of traditional management practices, such as fire and clear cutting, to control shrub colonization into the grasslands.
Different situations are observed in Morocco where the laws and rules governing the functioning of resources use are no longer compatible with the current situation given the profound economic, social and demographic changes undergone by rural areas.

STUDY SITE-SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy recommendations to support ORAs differ by study site. As an example, for the Moroccan study site, the legislation must be thoroughly reviewed and revised taking in account that the exploitation of the collective land is "embryonic" for various reasons, including: difficulty in sharing due to the increased number of beneficiaries; lacking recognition of women’s right to use; maintenance of the status quo on the disputed land and cramped plots. In addition, policy development in favor of collectivism and involvement of the beneficiaries in the decision-making processes concerning their lands are absent.

Forests/shrubland study sites

Two study sites were selected representing typical forest/shrubland Mediterranean settings with severe climatic, environmental and socioeconomic conditions: Baixo-Guadiana (Southern Spain) and the Mediterranean coastal and upland study site in Matera prefecture (Southern Italy).

MAIN LEDD PROBLEMS

The LEDD problems and responses to LEDD of the two forest/shrubland study sites have many similarities with some site-specific differentiations. Both areas present the characteristic forest conditions and LEDD problems: forest productivity decline, loss of biodiversity, forest fragmentation, water stress, and phytosanitary deterioration of forest cover, with a special mention for the phytosanitary threat, La Seca in the Baixo Guadiana study site. These problems are both related to environmental factors (such as the increase of drought episodes) and to management factors (such as the lack of forest management plans, and/or ploughing beneath oaks, etc.).

MAIN RESPONSES TO LEDD

The main responses to LEDD were: forest and environmental policies and administrative rules for sustainable management of forest resources, improvement of education levels and institution of a forest course at the University of Basilicata, environmental restoration and ecological rehabilitation, afforestation, development and tourism policies, land use plans and irrigation plan.

IMPORTANT PROPERTIES (LOWER AND SYSTEM) AND THEIR ROLE IN SHAPING SER

The changes in the natural, social and economic capital, assessed for the two study sites, draw attention to their role in shaping System and Lower Level Properties and thus the overall resilience of these systems. For example, in the Matera study site, the natural capital components are characterized by increasing levels of robustness and diversity, mainly due to the introduction of forest and environmental policies implemented as a response to LEDD issues, including the adoption of sustainable forest management practices and nature protection policies. These responses to LEDD contributed to an increased diversity in the system, not only in terms of natural capital components but also in terms of social and economic capital components. These responses play a key role in the improvement of socio-ecological resilience by enhancing the system's potential for change and redundancy, and allowing the system to cope with external disturbances. In the Baixo-Guadiana study site some afforestation measures produced counterproductive impacts on diversity, connectedness and redundancy of the environmental components, due to the implementation of measures without the direct contribution of local stakeholders in policy drafting.

SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL FIT OF CURRENT RESPONSES TO LEDD

In the two forest/shrubland study sites, the assessment of the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD showed that some forest SES can be generally resilient and to some extent adaptable, but are unlikely to be highly transformable. In the Matera study site, for example, there is little evidence that the system has undergone transformation from one basin of attraction to another despite the many changes that have occurred. However, adaptations linked to the potential available for change could, under slightly different contextual circumstances, have led the system to cross a number of thresholds and move into a new state. Many rural enterprises and farms in the SES were able to adapt their core activities to some extent through the introduction of more profitable forest management for timber production and the development of some rural tourism alongside traditional agricultural activities. If the necessary configurations of social and economic capital components (and thereby lower level properties such as potential available for change) had not provided the SES with this level of adaptability, it would have been more likely to have reached a tipping point and shifted towards a new basin of attraction.

GENERAL FINDINGS ON OPTIMAL RESPONSE ASSEMBLAGES

The main findings related to the Optimal Response Assemblage of the two forests/shrubland Study sites, are summarised as follows:
• Governance processes and non-government institutions play a crucial role in supporting ORAs with regard to political/administrative leadership needed for sustainable local development.
• Stimulating sustainable development will provide further support for the improvement of environmental capitals and, in turn, of social and economic capitals themselves.
• The ORA should be supported through increasing new financial resources from within the system itself, by productive economic capital supported by the ‘unproductive’ natural capital (in terms of direct economic incomes) and by indirectly productive social capital, favouring a dynamic economic structure and maintenance of an entrepreneurship level.
• Social distrust related to lack of opportunities for younger generations with high levels of education increases the difficulties of knowledge transfer between local administrations and academia, with the loss of researchers and instructors.

ROLE OF POLICIES

The findings show that in many cases, the policies analysed which have been implemented contributed to the improvement of most of the lower and system level properties and thus of the socio-ecological resilience of the SES. In addition, the implemented policies have also positively impacted the system's critical functions such as forest productivity, biodiversity support and conservation and regulation of hydrological processes. The effectiveness of policies directly depends on the interrelations between natural, social and economic capital components, which can be measured through the analysis of changes in the LLPs. Along with the positive impacts on LEDD issues provided by policy implementation, the analysis has highlighted that some negative impacts were present particularly due to lack of implementation by local administrations, or lack of instruments suitable for the targeted LEDD issue and the socio-economic context of the area.

STUDY SITE-SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis of each study site suggested specific recommendations. For example, referring to forest policy for the Matera study site, the successful implementation of policy instruments and measures, including financial instruments supporting the implementation of the Forest Management Plans, human resources involved in drafting and implementation of the Regional Plans for Forest sector, Fire and Hydrogeological risk prevention, or knowledge transfer on good practices between different scales and different stakeholders (universities and regional/local administrations). Another example is soil policy that should be revised in both study sites to include policy review on a regular basis to assess the effectiveness of policy measures and instrument, to promote increasing awareness of LEDD problems or sharing best practices between local/regional administrations and local stakeholders, including academic institutions and NGOs.

COMMUNITIES ANALYSIS

In all study sites, several communities have been selected to deepen the analysis of responses to LEDD. The analysis of resilience at the selected communities has revealed generally similar issues to those experienced by the study sites as a whole, although there were subtle differences in levels of resilience between the communities driven mainly by differences in social capital components.

Analysis of the policy context

The analysis of the policy context in LEDDRA followed the LEDDRA conceptual framework and uncovered the reasons why policies, as formal courses of action to address societal issues, act either as positive responses to or drivers of land and ecosystem degradation and desertification (LEDD). The analysis of the policy context used the findings of the LEDDRA theory of responses and of the study site applications in order to evaluate the role of policies with regard to LEDD, to assess their effectiveness at the LEDDRA study sites and to identify how they could support optimal response assemblages (ORAs). Based on these findings, policy analysis identified main principles that policies must consider to improve responses to LEDD in the sense of contributing to the maintenance of the socio-ecological resilience of the systems under study. These overarching and interlinked principles were defined for all three land themes, cropland, grazing land, and forest/shrublands, and they may be useful in formulating general policy recommendations for the socio-ecological systems under study as well as to be scaled-up to higher levels.

The main aim of policy analysis at the study sites was to evaluate the effectiveness of selected policies (that had been implemented) in addressing prevailing LEDD problems. The selected policies were grouped into (a) horizontal, (b) development, and (c) environmental. Policy effectiveness has been evaluated with respect to the stated goals and/or objectives of these policies and the LEDD problems identified. Five types of ‘effectiveness’ were evaluated: institutional, target group, impact, societal, and side effectiveness. The assessment of policy effectiveness was based on the assessment of policy implementation and policy impacts. The assessment of policy implementation looked at the selection and uptake of policy measures and instruments, the stakeholders involved, and the communication between them. It sought to determine whether the implementation procedures were appropriate and sufficient to fulfil the policy requirements. The assessment of policy impacts involved determining and understanding the actual and potential impacts resulting from policies in relation to the stated goals and/or objectives as well as the LEDD problems identified, as well as other unanticipated impacts, whether environmental or socio-economic. Barriers and facilitating factors were identified also.

The main findings from the analysis of the policy context and effectiveness regarding LEDD and responses to LEDD are presented below by spatial/organizational level examined in LEDDRA.

The main principles which should be considered when designing or reviewing policies in order to support effective responses to alleviate LEDD and enhance the socio-ecological resilience of regions as well as assist them to better adapt to changing conditions are the following:
1. For all three land themes, it is crucially important in the policy responses provide for a balance of the natural, social and economic capitals of a SES. Integration of environmental safeguards into non-environmental policies, same as strengthening the integration of socio-economic considerations into environmental policies, would need to consider this principle.
2. With regard to the natural capital, the speed of change and recovery from disturbance of the natural capital components is important to consider in policy design. This principle is of particular importance for forest/shrubland systems that are characterised by very slow bio-physical processes and slow speed of recovery from system disturbances. The expected positive effects (whether environmental, economic or social) of more sustainable and efficient management options are also difficult to highlight in the short term. This aspect should be considered in preparing programmes of measures and in the policy effectiveness review process.
3. It is of crucial importance to consider that economic components are among the most important but also controversial factors in shaping effective responses to LEDD in all land themes. The link between the natural and economic capital components is particularly important in the context of land degradation processes. The balance between the natural and economic capital has to be considered by looking for new ways to strengthen consideration of environmental aspects in financial instruments or economic incentives linked to agricultural production and land use in general. It is important to encourage self-sufficiency of the socio-ecological systems by gradually shifting from reliance on external funding to internal funding options.
4. It is important to increase system diversity, particularly in grazing and forest/shrubland systems that have relatively low potential to diversify economic activities. This could improve the overall effectiveness of responses to LEDD, in terms of enhanced socio-ecological resilience. Improved diversity strengthens the ability to cope with change and adapt with effective solutions. Supporting the multi-functionality of the regions through policies, e.g. agri-tourism measures, could contribute to increasing internal funding options providing for the necessary environmental safeguards.
5. The role of social capital is crucial in all three land themes. Social capital (e.g. knowledge and perceptions of LEDD problems, trust and communication between policy actors and stakeholders) plays a decisive role in regulating the inter-linkages between the natural and economic capitals, but it is also affected by this relationship. Weak social capital might mean that land degradation is not seen as an issue that affects all members of society, leading to a lack of will to act and hampering collaborative efforts to tackle land degradation problems. It is important to ensure multi-perspective deliberations, as this is of particular importance in policy design, by building recognition of common values, emerging issues, and shared commitments. This could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and acceptance of LEDD issues that exist in the region, including how they are related to historical and current environmental mismanagement at multiple spatial scales.

Local/regional level – state of and recommendations to improve policy implementation, impacts and effectiveness to combat LEDD

The role of policies to address LEDD issues at the local study site level is context-specific, depending on prevailing socio-economic and environmental conditions and how these affect the ability of stakeholders to successfully tackle LEDD issues. LEDD-related policy design and research should consider the interplay between environmental protection and social and economic aspects.
The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Structural funds, tourism and nature protection policies were the dominant policies implemented at the EU study sites. Mandatory policy measures were better implemented than voluntary ones at the local level. The lack of support for participatory approaches by the higher level policies was evident.
Development policies were better implemented than environmental policies. However, due to the absence of environmental safeguards or lack of enforcement, development policies quite often contributed to LEDD problems, which had ripple effects on local economic and social conditions.
In general, the policies and instruments in place are largely sufficient to stop or reverse key LEDD problems; however, due to ineffective implementation, the intended impacts were not reached. Financial shortages related to environmental policies, lack of controls, perceptions of LEDD problems, as well as ineffective or non-existent cooperation and collaboration between local stakeholders and policy makers were the key barriers to effectively implement policies at the local level.
The possible solutions to improve policy effectiveness addressing LEDD problems and supporting positive responses would strive to achieve the right balance between the natural, social and economic capital in a region. These include: financial incentives to support sustainable and more locally adapted traditional management practices, financial incentives to support multi-functionality of rural areas and on-farm diversification, and instruments that facilitate access to land, particularly for young people. This could complement simplified access to credit necessary to co-finance LEDD- alleviating measures, awareness-raising and training courses, and maintenance of traditional knowledge. New forms of governance and adaptive co-management approaches that combine dynamic learning and sharing of responsibilities would be an additional option.

National level – state and recommendations to improve national policies to combat LEDD

A general finding is that national level policies do not provide instruments that would be flexible enough to consider different local/regional environmental and socio-economic contexts. Decision making, particularly in croplands and grazing lands, is mainly carried out at the higher level and a ‘top-down’ approach is dominant. Local actors often do not have access, or rights, to intervene in these macro-level decision-making, though they are often the most affected. This one-way relationship to decision making is disconnected from local needs and has high potential to encourage resource-depleting behaviour.
The project findings show that the best solutions identified within different regions followed a bottom-up approach, including creating opportunities to bring people together around the table in order to talk, understand other perspectives, and find suitable local solutions. However, many national policies lack policy instruments or options to initiate a dialogue between policy makers and local stakeholders. Therefore, it is particularly important to strengthen the bottom-up perspective in the dialogue between national policy makers and local stakeholders, in order to simplify and tailor the application of the national policies to local contexts and needs.
Bringing together policy makers, local stakeholders, and researchers has emerged as one of the best solutions. The development of local/regional action plans and programmes needs to be done in close cooperation with local stakeholders in order to match the perceptions of the people on the ground with the way that politicians formulate LEDD alleviating policies. In addition, policy solutions need to take into account all spatial scales and integrate/acknowledge historical considerations that can best be provided by the local stakeholders. Furthermore, researchers need to be integrated in this process in order to assure application of the best solutions. The formulation of scientific research questions and goals needs to be done in close cooperation with stakeholders as practitioners, who contribute their knowledge and experiences to the research as well as increase the applicability and validity of the outputs. The language used by scientists needs to be ‘translated’ into locally understood languages and vice versa, which would facilitate better feedback and interaction regarding research findings and local knowledge. Policy making needs to enable local adaptations, and policy learning should be a multi-directional process (not simply linear top-down) across all spatial levels.
In general, there is lack of environmental policy integration, stemming from reasons such as ineffective implementation of spatial planning policies, insufficient financing, overriding economic interests, weak environmental authorities, as well as lack of understanding and awareness of environmental issues and the need to address LEDD. Policy implementation at the local level was found to be appropriate for addressing context-specific LEDD issues. In order to do this, the national level should recognize the importance of LEDD issues and support the participatory approach at the local level.

EU level – state and recommendations to improve EU policies to combat LEDD

Numerous EU policies are directly or indirectly relevant in addressing LEDD issues in cropland, grazing lands, and forests and shrublands. However, overall implementation of EU policies has not been effective. Using the main policy principles presented above, recommendations to improve alleviation and prevention of LEDD issues have been formulated.
Many, though not all, LEDD issues identified at the study sites are associated with natural capital, but they also alter the social and economic capitals. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the critical natural capital components – soil and water resources. Most of the EU policies with mandatory measures often had better implementation than those which simply contained voluntary measures. Therefore, a comprehensive piece of legislation providing a legal framework for integrated soil and land management is needed at the EU level. In this way, it would assign the necessary importance to the role of soil and land as essential natural resources. However, both integration through voluntary measures and a specific binding measure targeting a depleted resource are necessary. An approach that would ensure more effective implementation of soil protection targets and thereby benefit natural capital is important. In addition, integration of land and soil protection issues into other policies is also needed. Alternatively or complementarily, legally binding requirements or mandatory measures could be aimed at achieving quantitative objectives, such as critical thresholds of natural capital. The project findings showed that implementation of more sustainable and extensive land management practices in all three land themes through the CAP-related agri-environmental measures has helped to maintain the quality of the local natural capital, and it has led to an increase in the economic and social capitals.
With regard to economic capital, the application of financing instruments has to be reconsidered. The findings suggest that various components of the economic capital are among the most important factors influencing land degradation processes and shaping effective responses to LEDD. In particular, the EU subsidy regime and global markets appeared to influence linkages between local economic activities and local resources use and quality. If no attention is paid to the balance between the natural and economic capital, the danger of ‘financial lock-ins’ increases that can lead to over-exploitation of increasingly vulnerable soils and possibly exceed the natural capital thresholds.
Sufficient financing is a problems identified at all spatial levels, however, and this is applies to both the administration and the local actors implementing the policies. The strong opinion supported by the expert interviews is that it is not necessary to create an additional fund to specifically address LEDD problems, but rather existing (international, EU and national funds should be distributed and utilised in more effective ways. As a starting point, it is necessary to assess the environmental, economic and social benefits of sustainable land management, as well as the costs of inaction. This would provide a solid basis for political arguments to support sustainable land management, not only through direct land and soil protection policies but also through other policies contributing to sustainable land management. Moreover, awareness of land issues is important and should be enhanced within funding instruments. Considering the link between the natural and the economic capital components, and since economic interests often undermine environmental or sustainable land use interests, environmental safeguards to avoid intensive development processes that also may lead to LEDD problems should be foreseen or strengthened. Additionally, policies should emphasise synergies between increasing economic opportunities while also benefiting the social and natural capitals, e.g. agri-tourism initiatives which promote linked tourism, nature conservation and agricultural activities.
For all land themes, the LEDDRA findings emphasise the crucial importance of optimising responses through a gradual shift from reliance on external funding to internal funding options. As a basis, the economic efficiency and economic return of sustainable land management practices should be assessed in order to reveal self-financing possibilities. The benefits of action should be considered against the costs of inaction. Furthermore, there is a need to highlight and communicate the multiple benefits of sustainable land management practices, for example, alleviating land degradation and at the same time reducing climate change impacts.
It is particularly important to strengthen the bottom-up perspective in the dialogue between EU policy makers and local stakeholders (incl. in particular small-farmer organisations, landowners, and NGOs), which is often very weak in all three land themes. That would in turn contribute to the simplification and tailoring of the EU and national policies to the local context and needs. Decentralised decision-making power and funding would contribute to this principle as well, and this might potentially increase the uptake of local initiatives. The initiatives would be better suited to the actual problems encountered by the local population. In order to up-scale the understanding of LEDD issues and possible solutions, it is necessary to recognise which problems and success factors are “transferable” and which are context-specific.
In order to ensure the socio-ecological fit of responses to LEDD, it is necessary to undertake regular policy reviews. This would help ensure the continued effectiveness and suitability of policies within the regional and local context. The aim should be to identify socio-ecological systems locked into unfit and vulnerable states. . Such regular policy assessments could help deal with new “emerging” (i.e. unanticipated) issues and triggers associated with policy adjustments in order to fine-tune them to the regional and local environmental and socio-economic context and strengthen their adaptive characteristics.
Strengthening social capital would also strengthen natural capital. A broader recognition of soil and land issues is needed so that “everybody is moving in the same direction” in terms of qualitative rather than quantitative targets. Furthermore, dialogues with all stakeholders in order to exchange knowledge and experiences and increase awareness on problems and solutions are important.
An adaptive co-management approach should be facilitated, taking into account the results of dynamic learning and sharing of responsibilities. Adaptive governance conveys the multi-objective reality when handling conflicts among a diverse set of stakeholders, and at the same time adapts social problems to dynamic ecosystems. Policy support should be foreseen in the development of networks and partnerships in order to raise awareness through learning and knowledge transfer at multiple spatial scales and between different actors (e.g. via the Rural Development Programmes).

International level – state of and recommendations to improve international policies to combat LEDD

Three legally binding international multilateral agreements – UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC – as well as numerous Voluntary Guidelines were selected for analysis. The international agreements address LEDD issues within the three land themes through various measures. However, these international agreements have generally not achieved their direct objectives, and have been relatively ineffective at addressing LEDD issues worldwide. Overall failure to implement specific measures to protect soil has contributed to the continued worsening of LEDD issues. Implementation and effectiveness of the international agreements should be improved, but also synergies between the international agreements should be maximised. Though new developments to address this gap have been initiated internationally in the form of strategies, collaborations, and research, strengthening the agreements to include legally binding measures which can hold Parties accountable would be preferable and more effective.
In contrast to cropland and grazing systems, there is no overarching international agreement directly targeting forest/shrubland, so their inclusion under the various thematic conferences (i.e. climate change, biodiversity, desertification) is important. The most targeted policy framework addressing forests within the international agreements is REDD+ under the UNFCCC. By aiming to prevent deforestation and forest degradation, REDD+ has a direct effect on ecosystem degradation and indirectly protects forested land and soil from degradation as well. However, adoption of a legally binding international instrument to protect soil and land would enhance the attention and consideration of these aspects and potentially increase their integration into other thematic agreements.
Although the UNCCD is the most important international instrument to address LEDD problems, its structure does not address the far-reaching desertification problems. In order to protect the critical natural capital components, legally-binding targets or mandatory measures need to be adopted. Although EU policies provide successful examples of mandatory measures, at the international level mandatory measures are unlikely to gain consensus. Therefore, different mechanisms for implementation should be envisaged at the international level, such as a compliance mechanism or integration into other policies. Integration/mainstreaming of specific protection measures for soil to avoid land degradation and a legally binding protocol would strengthen the role of this natural resource on the international level. Taking into consideration different political arguments, one of the most realistic possibilities is the adoption of a horizontal thematic Annex on soil to the UNCCD. This would permit willing parties to agree on measures beyond the current limitations in the scope of the Convention. In addition, developing an instrument of international law for sustainable use of soils would contribute to the “land degradation neutral world” (LDNW) goal agreed at the Rio+20 summit. The legal basis of such an Annex, however, would still need to be established.
Research should continue at the international level regarding the most effective forms of responses to LEDD as well as on-going LEDD processes. However, many experts emphasise that the need to act is imperative and lack of data should not be an excuse or prevent action to address LEDD issues. More participatory forms of both policy engagement and monitoring/data collection should be considered. The performance of policies addressing LEDD problems should be evaluated regularly, considering socio-economic factors which contribute to LEDD issues in addition to environmental factors. Integration of a wider range of spatial, socio-economic and sectoral indicators, as well as an analysis of these indicators over time, would allow for better analysis of and remedial action against the underlying (regional) processes. Only such integrated studies can help to understand the fundamental processes driving LEDD issues and help to identify measures to stop or reverse these processes. A holistic approach, such as that developed and followed in LEDDRA, that takes into account the fact that land degradation is a dynamic process is needed.
In the process of negotiating future solutions, the economic benefits and costs of land degradation must be shown. If stakeholders do not see the costs associated with land degradation, then there is less political willingness to accept an international instrument to combat it. This could also help governments exploit and increase the synergies between different fields of policy action. Having multiple policy options would allow for more flexibility and adjustment to unanticipated conditions, thereby facilitating a broad scope of targets to be reached.
New forms of international governance need to be considered, such as multi-level governance integrating the various thematic targets of the current regimes. Multiple stakeholders need to be involved in the process of enhancing policy design and response to LEDD. In particular, it is important to strengthen the bottom-up perspective in the dialogue between different levels.
The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure is an additional policy instrument which can contribute to building more effective social capital in all three land themes and potentially increase natural capital due to secure tenure over and enhanced incentives to sustainably use local resources. Along the same lines, multi-perspective deliberations would include multiple stakeholders’ perspectives in the design of policies to address various elements, such as land, soil, biodiversity, LEDD issues, and so on, to achieve an integrated, holistic policy approach.
Raising awareness and creating political pressure, e.g. through civil society organisations, is an important point within the international policy context. While this recommendation is not novel, the research findings at the LEDDRA study sites show that awareness on soil and land degradation issues may vary based on the context or it is lacking.

Dissemination, use, exploitation (DUE) of project findings

A Dissemination, Use and Exploitation (DUE) plan was set up and implemented to systematically undertake and keep track of DUE activities during the life of the project. This DUE plan will be used for the same purpose after the end of the project.
The DUE plan identified types of (a) user/stakeholder groups, (b) dissemination media and (c) dissemination modes (courses of action) that are involved in DUE activities and specifies the process through which the project findings are ‘translated’ into various types of dissemination media to reach various types of users/stakeholders by means of a variety of dissemination modes (courses of action).
The LEDDRiS website (Land and Ecosystem Degradation and Desertification Response Information System http://leddris.aegean.gr/) is a major component of LEDDRA’s plan to disseminate, use and exploit the knowledge generated in the project. LEDDRiS aims to present the issues surrounding LEDD and responses to LEDD in such a way as to make them accessible to a range of stakeholders with different types and levels of expertise.

Potential Impact:
A. Potential impact of LEDDRA

LEDDRA is based on the understanding that the success of responses to LEDD depends on how well the fine balance between land and ecosystem health (preservation of ecosystem services), on the one hand, and socio-economic welfare, on the other, is managed under the biophysical, socio-economic, political and cultural conditions prevailing in a region. The thrust of the research effort in LEDDRA has been on developing conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches and tools that can be used to (a) identify, understand, explain and assess the socio-ecological fit of existing or proposed responses to LEDD in an affected area and (b) offer management and policy guidance and advice from the local to the international level in order to enable the adoption and implementation of those responses that preserve and strengthen the socio-ecological resilience of affected areas; i.e. that achieve multiple environmental and welfare benefits, in short, sustainable development. Consequently, LEDDRA is expected to produce a number of beneficial impacts that are outlined below grouped into (a) scientific impacts, (b) welfare impacts and (c) policy impacts.

A1. Scientific Impacts

The scientific merit of the LEDDRA analytical approach lies in that it can be used to (a) study the socio-ecological fit of a variety of responses to LEDD, to environmental change, more generally, and their implications with regard to the socio-ecological resilience of the systems within which they occur; (b) further elaborate on theoretical, methodological and policy analysis issues that LEDDRA research brought to the fore; (c) stimulate the development of analogous approaches to the integrated study of complex socio-environmental issues.

A2. Welfare Impacts

In addition to the policy impacts, the knowledge and practical experience produced in LEDDRA is expected to have diverse welfare impacts that include:
• Sustainable management of land resources for maximizing the provision of ecosystem services
• Biodiversity conservation, as linked to sustainable land use
• Addressing global food issues (food production and security of provision)
• Addressing questions on tradeoffs such as , e.g. promoting biofuel production vs. supporting food production
• Combating poverty as there is a two-way relationship between poverty and desertification
• Diversification and improvement of livelihood opportunities, especially to avoid land abandonment in rural areas
• Protection and planning against environmental hazards such as drought and flash-flooding

A3. Policy Impacts

The impetus for proposing LEDDRA has come, among other, from the demand expressed in international, EU and national decision and policy making fora for greater understanding of the forces that generate LEDD, of the responses that contribute towards mitigating and combating LEDD (best practices) and of the opportunities and barriers to implementing best practices. The integrated analysis of responses to LEDD undertaken in LEDDRA, drawing on the ecosystem approach, the complex adaptive systems (CAS) paradigm and Resilience Thinking, can provide valuable support to decision and policy making at the international, EU and national levels. More specifically,
(a) at the international level,
the LEDDRA research findings provide useful knowledge to support the “Science Programme” of the CST and to address the concerns the implementation-related of the UNCCD as expressed in the 10-year Strategy (COP8 2007). More specifically, it will support the achievement of:
• Strategic objective 3 (to generate global benefits through effective implementation of the UNCCD) and the expected impact 3.1. (sustainable land management and combating desertification/land degradation contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change) and
• Strategic objective 4: To mobilize resources to support implementation of the Convention through building effective partnerships between national and international actors and more specifically the expected impact 4.2. (enabling policy environments are improved for UNCCD implementation at all levels)
In addition, the LEDDRA research findings of will contribute towards the following operational objectives of the UNCCD 10-year Strategy:
? Operational objective 1: Advocacy, awareness raising and education (To actively influence relevant international, national and local processes and actors in adequately addressing desertification/land degradation and drought-related issues)
? Operational objective 2: Policy framework (To support the creation of enabling environments for promoting solutions to combat desertification/land degradation and mitigate the effects of drought)
? Operational objective 3: Science, technology and knowledge (To become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge pertaining to desertification/land degradation and mitigation of the effects of drought.

(b) at the EU level,
the LEDDRA analytical approach and findings offer essential knowledge and support for formulating strategies and plans and take action to address the eight main threats to soil listed in the EU Soil Thematic Strategy (erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides and flooding) and to support efforts to promote the adoption of the European Soil Legislation.
A more general and important expected policy impact will be the support the LEDDRA analytical approach offers for the implementation of the EPI (Environmental Policy Integration) principle of the EU Treaty. The analysis of policy implementation at the LEDDRA study sites, and of the relationships among various sectoral and environmental policies on and across various levels in particular, has identified issues that policy making at the EU and the national level should address for better coordinating policies to promote this important European environmental policy principle. The European findings can be considered as a guide to promote EPI in other countries as well.

(c) at the national level,
LEDDRA offers an integrated analytical procedure to assist the updating and improvement of existing or the formulation of new NAPs and a suite of relevant policies in affected countries in EU and other countries towards more coherent and integrated strategic frameworks to achieve the environmental and socio-economic goals of combating LEDD.

B. Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results

B1. Main dissemination activities
The dissemination activities carried out during the project duration were based on the Dissemination, Use and Exploitation (DUE) Plan that consisted of three basic steps a) identification of stakeholder groups, b) identification of dissemination media and c) identification of courses of action (dissemination modes). Besides the standard dissemination modes, LEDDRA:
(a) Developed a special website – LEDDRiS (http://leddris.aegean.gr/) – a web-based information system to make available the project findings to stakeholders with differing background and experience.
(b) Organized a policy conference (Berlin May 17-18, 2014) to disseminate policy-relevant findings to policy makers form the international to the local level. A video has been prepared covering the conference activities. joy
(c) Organized two special events – China (2011), Morocco (2012) – to disseminate the LEDDRA concept and ideas at the two ICPC countries.
(d) Developed a great number of short videos from the study sites that detail particular aspects of responses to LEDD based on the study site experience, which are of broader interest.
A summary of the main dissemination media produced follows:
• 10 articles published in refereed journals, five submitted and seven+ under preparation
• 46 presentations in scientific conferences published in conference proceedings
• Two Special Events organised in China (April-May 2011) and Morocco (May 2012)
• LEDDRA Policy Conference – Berlin, March 17-18, 2014
• Seven stakeholder workshops organised at the study sites: a) Pyrenees (October 2010), b) Morocco (May 2012), c) Italy (July 2012) and d) Greece (June 2013)
• Two websites: a) LEDDRA (http://leddra.aegean.gr/) b) LEDDRiS (http://leddris.aegean.gr/)
• Four brochures, five press releases, five project presentations
• Audiovisual material from the study sites and the stakeholder workshops.

B2. Exploitation of results

The exploitation of project findings and dissemination activities is in early stages. They include:
• Establishment of contacts with local and higher level stakeholders/end users – in the public and the private sector – interested in making use of the scientific and policy-relevant findings of the project with the purpose of improving land and socio-economic conditions and development opportunities in LEDD-affected areas (Italy, Greece, Spain, China, Morocco).
• Establishment of contacts and networking with other researchers for future cooperation on scientific research and implementation studies
• Planned activities – publications, conference attendance, electronic dissemination (LEDDRiS) – will increase the exploitation of project findings for research and practical applications.

List of Websites:
LEDDRA (http://leddra.aegean.gr/) b) LEDDRiS (http://leddris.aegean.gr/)

Project coordinator
Prof. Helen Briassoulis
Department of Geography
University of the Aegean
Mytilene, Lesvos 81100 Greece
e.briassouli@aegean.gr
+30 22510-36411

Project manager
Panagiotis Stratakis
Department of Geography
University of the Aegean
Mytilene, Lesvos 81100 Greece
stratakis@geo.aegean.gr

Project dissemination
Vassilis Koutsoukos
Department of Geography
University of the Aegean
Mytilene, Lesvos 81100 Greece
v.koutsoukos@geo.aegean.gr