Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-4 (section)

=== 4.8.7 Barriers to implementation of sustainable land management (SLM) ===

<div id="section-4-8-7-barriers-to-implementation-of-sustainable-land-management-slm-block-1"></div>

There is a growing recognition that addressing barriers and designing solutions to complex environmental problems, such as land degradation, requires awareness of the larger system into which the problems and solutions are embedded (Laniak et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1203|1203]]</sup> ). An ecosystem approach to sustainable land management (SLM) based on an understanding of land degradation processes has been recommended to separate multiple drivers, pressures and impacts (Kassam et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1204|1204]]</sup> ), but large uncertainty in model projections of future climate, and associated ecosystem processes (IPCC 2013a <sup>[[#fn:r1205|1205]]</sup> ) pose additional challenges to the implementation of SLM. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many SLM practices, including technologies and approaches, are available that can increase yields and contribute to closing the yield gap between actual and potential crop or pasture yield, while also enhancing resilience to climate change (Yengoh and Ardö 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1206|1206]]</sup> ; WOCAT n.d.). However, there are often systemic barriers to adoption and scaling up of SLM practices, especially in developing countries.

Uitto (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1207|1207]]</sup> identified areas that the GEF, the financial mechanism of the UNCCD, UNFCCC and other multilateral environmental agreements, can address to solve global environmental problems. These include: removal of barriers related to knowledge and information; strategies for implementation of technologies and approaches; and institutional capacity. Strengthening these areas would drive transformational change, leading to behavioural change and broader adoption of sustainable environmental practices. Detailed analysis of barriers as well as strategies, methods and approaches to scale up SLM have been undertaken for GEF programmes in Africa, China and globally (Tengberg and Valencia 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1208|1208]]</sup> ; Liniger et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1209|1209]]</sup> ; Tengberg et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1210|1210]]</sup> ). A number of interconnected barriers and bottlenecks to the scaling up of SLM have been identified in this context and are related to:

* limited access to knowledge and information, including new SLM technologies and problem-solving capacities
* weak enabling environment, including the policy, institutional and legal framework for SLM, and land tenure and property rights
* inadequate learning and adaptive knowledge management in the project cycle, including monitoring and evaluation of impacts
* limited access to finance for scaling up, including public and private funding, innovative business models for SLM technologies and financial mechanisms and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), insurance and micro-credit schemes(see also Shames et al. 2014).Adoption of innovations and new technologies are increasingly analysed using the transition theory framework (Geels 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1211|1211]]</sup> ), the starting point being the recognition that many global environmental problems cannot be solved by technological change alone, but require more far-reaching change of social-ecological systems. Using transition theory makes it possible to analyse how adoption and implementation follow the four stages of sociotechnical transitions,

from predevelopment of technologies and approaches at the niche level, take-off and acceleration, to regime shift and stabilisation at the landscape level. According to a recent review of sustainability transitions in developing countries (Wieczorek 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1212|1212]]</sup> ), three internal niche processes are important, including the formation of networks that support and nurture innovation, the learning process, and the articulation of expectations to guide the learning process. While technologies are important, institutional and political aspects form the major barriers to transition and upscaling. In developing and transition economies, informal institutions play a pivotal role, and transnational linkages are also important, such as global value chains. In these countries, it is therefore more difficult to establish fully coherent regimes or groups of individuals who share expectations, beliefs or behaviour, as there is a high level of uncertainty about rules and social networks or dominance of informal institutions, which creates barriers to change. This uncertainty is further exacerbated by climate change. Landscape forces comprise a set of slow-changing factors, such as broad cultural and normative values, long-term economic effects such as urbanisation, and shocks such as war and crises that can lead to change.

A study on SLM in the Kenyan highlands using transition theory concluded that barriers to adoption of SLM included high poverty levels, a low-input/low-output farming system with limited potential to generate income, diminishing land sizes, and low involvement of the youth in farming activities. Coupled with a poor coordination of government policies for agriculture and forestry, these barriers created negative feedbacks in the SLM transition process. Other factors to consider include gender issues and lack of secure land tenure. Scaling up of SLM technologies would require collaboration of diverse stakeholders across multiple scales, a more supportive policy environment and substantial resource mobilisation (Mutoko et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1213|1213]]</sup> ). Tengberg and Valencia (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1214|1214]]</sup> analysed the findings from a review of the GEF’s integrated natural resources management portfolio of projects using the transition theory framework (Figure 4.7).

<div id="section-4-8-7-barriers-to-implementation-of-sustainable-land-management-slm-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-4.7"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 4.7'''

<span id="the-transition-from-slm-niche-adoption-to-regime-shift-and-landscape-development.-figure-draws-inspiration-from-geels-2002-adapted-from-tengberg-and-valencia-2018."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002), adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018).'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:08e4e20f15b763ef30482c26a712361f Figure-4.7.jpg]]

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002) <sup>[[#fn:r1653|1653]]</sup> , adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1654|1654]]</sup> .

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-4-8-7-barriers-to-implementation-of-sustainable-land-management-slm-block-3"></div>

They concluded that to remove barriers to SLM, an agricultural innovations systems approach that supports co-production of knowledge with multiple stakeholders, institutional innovations, a focus on value chains and strengthening of social capital to facilitate shared learning and collaboration could accelerate the scaling up of sustainable technologies and practices from the niche to the landscape level. Policy integration and establishment of financial mechanisms and incentives could contribute to overcoming barriers to a regime shift. The new SLM regime could, in turn, be stabilised and sustained at the landscape level by multi-stakeholder knowledge platforms and strategic partnerships. However, transitions to more sustainable regimes and practices are often challenged by lock-in mechanisms in the current system (Lawhon and Murphy 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1215|1215]]</sup> ) such as economies of scale, investments already made in equipment, infrastructure and competencies, lobbying, shared beliefs, and practices, that could hamper wider adoption of SLM.

Adaptive, multi-level and participatory governance of social-ecological systems is considered important for regime shifts and transitions to take place (Wieczorek 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1216|1216]]</sup> ) and essential to secure the capacity of environmental assets to support societal development over longer time periods (Folke et al. 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r1217|1217]]</sup> ). There is also recognition that effective environmental policies and programmes need to be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the biophysical, social, and economic components and processes of a system, their complex interactions, and how they respond to different changes (Kelly (Letcher) et al. 2013). But blueprint policies will not work, due to the wide diversity of rules and informal institutions used across sectors and regions of the world, especially in traditional societies (Ostrom 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1218|1218]]</sup> ).

The most effective way of removing barriers to funding of SLM has been mainstreaming of SLM objectives and priorities into relevant policy and development frameworks, and combining SLM best practices with economic incentives for land users. As the short-term costs for establishing and maintaining SLM measures are generally high and constitute a barrier to adoption, land users may need to be compensated for generation of longer-term public goods, such as ecosystem services. Cost-benefit analyses can be conducted on SLM interventions to facilitate such compensations (Liniger et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1219|1219]]</sup> ; Nkonya et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1220|1220]]</sup> ; Tengberg et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1221|1221]]</sup> ). The landscape approach is a means to reconcile competing demands on the land and remove barriers to implementation of SLM (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1222|1222]]</sup> ; Bürgi et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1223|1223]]</sup> ). It involves an increased focus on participatory governance, development of new SLM business models, and innovative funding schemes, including insurance (Shames et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1224|1224]]</sup> ). The LDN Fund takes a landscape approach and raises private finance for SLM and promotes market-based instruments, such as PES, certification and carbon trading, that can support scaling up of SLM to improve local livelihoods, sequester carbon and enhance the resilience to climate change (Baumber et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r1225|1225]]</sup> ).

<span id="case-studies"></span>