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

=== 4.1.6 The human dimension of land degradation and forest degradation ===

<div id="section-4-1-6-the-human-dimension-of-land-degradation-and-forest-degradation-block-1"></div>

Studies of land and forest degradation are often biased towards biophysical aspects, both in terms of its processes, such as erosion or nutrient depletion, and its observed physical manifestations, such as gullying or low primary productivity. Land users’ own perceptions and knowledge about land conditions and degradation have often been neglected or ignored by both policymakers and scientists (Reed et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r95|95]]</sup> ; Forsyth 1996 <sup>[[#fn:r96|96]]</sup> ; Andersson et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r97|97]]</sup> ). A growing body of work is nevertheless beginning to focus on land degradation through the lens of local land users (Kessler and Stroosnijder 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r98|98]]</sup> ; Fairhead and Scoones 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r99|99]]</sup> ; Zimmerer 1993 <sup>[[#fn:r100|100]]</sup> ; Stocking et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r101|101]]</sup> ) and the importance of local and indigenous knowledge within land management is starting to be appreciated (Montanarella et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r102|102]]</sup> ). Climate change impacts directly and indirectly on the social reality, the land users, and the ecosystem, and vice versa. Land degradation can also have an impact on climate change (Section 4.6).

The use and management of land is highly gendered and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future (Kristjanson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r103|103]]</sup> ). Women often have less formal access to land than men and less influence over decisions about land, even if they carry out many of the land management tasks (Jerneck 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r104|104]]</sup> ; Elmhirst 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r105|105]]</sup> ; Toulmin 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r106|106]]</sup> ; Peters 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r107|107]]</sup> ; Agarwal 1997 <sup>[[#fn:r108|108]]</sup> ; Jerneck 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r109|109]]</sup> ). Many oft-cited general statements about women’s subordination in agriculture are difficult to substantiate, yet it is clear that gender inequality persists (Doss et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r110|110]]</sup> ). Even if women’s access to land is changing formally (Kumar and Quisumbing 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r111|111]]</sup> ), the practical outcome is often limited due to several other factors related to both formal and informal institutional arrangements and values (Lavers 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r112|112]]</sup> ; Kristjanson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r113|113]]</sup> ; Djurfeldt et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r114|114]]</sup> ). Women are also affected differently than men when it comes to climate change, having lower adaptive capacities due to factors such as prevailing land tenure frameworks, less access to other capital assets and dominant cultural practices (Vincent et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r115|115]]</sup> ; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r116|116]]</sup> ; Gabrielsson et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r117|117]]</sup> ). This affects the options available to women to respond to both land degradation and climate change. Indeed, access to land and other assets (e.g., education and training) is key in shaping land-use and land management strategies (Liu et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r118|118]]</sup> ; Lambin et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r119|119]]</sup> ). Young people are also often disadvantaged in terms of access to resources and decision-making power, even though they carry out much of the day-to-day work (Wilson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r120|120]]</sup> ; Kosec et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r121|121]]</sup> ; Naamwintome and Bagson 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r122|122]]</sup> ).

Land rights differ between places and are dependent on the political-economic and legal context (Montanarella et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r123|123]]</sup> ). This means that there is no universally applicable best arrangement. Agriculture in highly erosion-prone regions requires site-specific and long-lasting soil and water conservation measures, such as terraces (Section 4.8.1), which may benefit from secure private land rights (Tarfasa et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r124|124]]</sup> ; Soule et al. 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r125|125]]</sup> ). Pastoral modes of production and community-based forest management systems are often dominated by, and benefit from, communal land tenure arrangements, which may conflict with agricultural/forestry modernisation policies implying private property rights (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r126|126]]</sup> ; Benjaminsen and Lund 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r127|127]]</sup> ; Itkonen 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r128|128]]</sup> ; Owour et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r129|129]]</sup> ; Gebara 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r130|130]]</sup> ).

Cultural ecosystem services, defined as the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r131|131]]</sup> ) are closely linked to land and ecosystems, although often under-represented in the literature on ecosystem services (Tengberg et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r132|132]]</sup> ; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r133|133]]</sup> ). Climate change interacting with land conditions can impact on cultural aspects, such as sense of place and sense of belonging (Olsson et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r134|134]]</sup> ).

<span id="land-degradation-in-the-context-of-climate-change"></span>