Harry Ridgewell: So do you think that the Atlas is being a bit misleading when it says 75% of the world's land is degraded?

Transcription

1 So I was just wondering what you make of the World Atlas report, considering that it found over 75% of the Earth's land area is already degraded, which is considerably higher than previous reports. Yes. So, how will I say it? In the Atlas, let's say, we look at the land degradation phenomenon, and we really look at the complexity of it, and that's what we try to stress it. And basically it provides an information framework to pursue solutions, let's say, for that problem on local situations? Now having this complexity, it's very difficult to, how would I say? To put also basically a global number on such estimates, although the number is there. There are numbers in this press release which are coming from other GSC studies and books, let's say. And there are nuances, let's say, the 75% was an estimate which is based on land transformations, which means from pristine to the current land situation. And then of course as you can imagine, overall as equal land populations are all over the globe, more or less maybe 25% is untouched, so the rest is kind of changed. But that doesn't mean that it's all degraded; maybe it's degraded compared to its pristine status but that's what we have. That's what we have to deal with, so what we have to see and what we have to decide now is basically where pressures are continuously ongoing, and where we would lose eventually more healthy land. And basically this is what the Atlas was doing, without putting a precise number on the degradation aspect of these transformations. So do you think that the Atlas is being a bit misleading when it says 75% of the world's land is degraded? Yeah. You have to excuse me, but I have to be diplomatic here, but basically that statement you will not find in the Atlas itself. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's a statement which comes basically, and I can tell you, it comes from the IPBES, Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which made a report and that's what I'm saying, they and GSC was involved. And the communication people took that up. But the Atlas adds a nuance to that, and that nuance comes out in the Atlas and maybe not so much in the communication. Okay. So we look at where land transformations are caused by global change issues caused by human activity, such as, okay, of course there is population growth itself but then other aspects as well such as deforestation, agricultural expansion, use of water, and so on. And then we look at where these processes are ongoing at the moment, and these we can map because we have quite so many databases, and we can map these patterns where these pressures are occurring.

2 And then, excuse me. And then that's at global scale, but to explain, really, what the impact of such pressures is, and they are multiple, and they interact differently in different places, you need local information to interpret on what land degradation eventually means at the local scale. And so it's difficult to know comprehensively, systematically at global scale. So we say, "Okay, we look at where problems are because that guides you to solutions." And with local information, and there are a number of case studies done in the Atlas which are documenting that you can interpret and of course extrapolate a little bit a regional scale what these dynamics are, basically, and what the impact is of it, and then decide on solutions. And in that sense, okay, I could say for instance, if you look at these maps that for instance, more than 50% of the global surface land resource is subject to considerable pressure of many of these coinciding, human induced land transformation processes. And even 23% you could say is under serious pressure, and there, that can have lead or can still lead to land degradation. But there are many different issues, because this multiple coinciding processes doesn't per se mean that there is a degradation problem. There might have been transformations but it might not have been a problem. So... Sorry. That's okay. But I'm, interview right now. Sorry, I lost a bit the thread. Yeah, there are these many, many different aspects, so you might say okay, we have only two issues, such as deforestation, followed by low input agriculture. That's two issues basically, and that's very bad, while if you look at agriculture in Europe or the US they probably have a lot of issues, but we relatively, not everywhere of course, but we can deal with them. We can put fertilizer and the economic means to put fertilizers and so on. So you have to really look at local or regional at the limit situations. Not really. We looked at global... Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. It's a global atlas, that's why... We have a few examples of local situations but not systematically, because then you have to do it for all countries and everywhere, and that was not, it's too much, that wasn't in the scope of the Atlas as such, really. So that's why, as I said in the beginning, it's more an informative, educative document, if you want, to really tell people to look differently at the problem of land degradation a little bit. What are the current effects of Earth's land degradation on people, and what are the projected effects going to be on people? And I'm guessing that if, because I think your research has mostly been on Europe, so if you want to focus that on Europe, then- So-

3 Yes, the effect people is, how will I say? It's related to food production of course, because when we say land degradation that means that we want to use that land, and the prime use of the land is food production, wood, and consumption wood production, if you want. But I think food is the more prime issue here, so food production is definitely an issue. But even there, it doesn't have to be negative at the moment. We can still change things. There are many areas which are under the optimum agricultural production. There is, for instance, in the Atlas a map on yield gaps. So it says where agriculture yields in similar conditions reach their maximum, and I think I should look in the Atlas because I don't know all the numbers by heart of course. There is quite a big percentage of land that didn't attain the optimum yield yet. Water availability et cetera, and that's definitely another issue which will have an effect people. Agriculture more and more, because irrigation increases and water is consumed for agriculture, so that's an issue in many areas, like in China, for instance but also in western US, and southern Europe, and certain areas in Africa. And also related to urbanization: Urbanization in itself, infrastructure areas increase, mostly at the cost of the most productive soils, basically, because that's where original settlements were. So these settlements and urbanization increases, and of course the consumption of goods increases, so the surrounding, not area, and then I come back on that, will have an impact on, will have a pressure, let's say, the land is subject to pressure of increased food production, animal production, to serve these urban areas, but also water consumption increases. And we have seen that with projections of aridity up to the future. A number of big cities are already in water stressed areas and that will still increase. Okay, to come back a second on the surrounding areas and the food production, and I said before that maybe Europe we can deal with things and we can preserve, mend or even reforest et cetera, but we shouldn't forget the globalization in this aspect as well. Globalization, telecoupling, and consumption is more and more decoupled from the place where it's produced. So we can import products which cause here impact on the land in other places than where we consume. So we might be happy in Europe, but basically we export part of the problem, and by doing that also the public loses, how would I say, contact with this aspect and doesn't see any more the impact. So you might get the wrong impression, maybe, that our food production here is all good and well, but it's maybe not so because we import goods from Africa, South America. Meat, for instance, which has an impact, even barbecue charcoal from Paraguay, which has an important impact on the ecosystems over there. How feasible do you think it is to move to looking after land sustainably, and feeding the world's population? Yeah, that's a difficult question, basically, but I think... I'm personally an optimistic person, so I think it's still feasible, at least within the coming, foreseeable future because we can still change diets. As I said, we still have yield gaps. There are

4 technological advancements, which maybe we don't even know of, but if I said before, water, desalinization I think is an important aspect, and I think the facility of doing that will increase. So there are a number of aspects there which will change completely the equilibration again and the equations on how we produce our foods. So yeah, and then population itself. It's not that, maybe, I'm just saying maybe, population will keep on growing. There might be a saturation at certain times, so how would I say? Yeah, I think it's feasible, but of course we have to be very aware of what we are doing, and we have to try to preserve, basically, what we have still in land resource and preserve it in a good shape. And there, there are a number of solutions, of course. Sustainable agriculture, other ways of providing infrastructure, and things like that. Do you think that Earth will reach land degradation neutrality by 2030? Okay, that's again another difficult one. This I don't know. How will I say? Land degradation neutrality, of course, you have to be very precise, and according to what the UNCCD then wants to deal with it, because it says that it's a state or the amount and the quality of the land that is necessary to produce our food remains stable or increases means we shouldn't lose any land anymore. And I think that we can for sure do. Increasing, restoring degraded land, I have my doubts, if you want, on that. But I think with a bit of effort and political will, I think we can basically keep productive land as we have it, but we have to act. If I think I'm Belgian, if I think of Belgium, for instance, of, or Europe in general, we have to really start regulating expansion of infrastructure and urbanization areas, because that goes at the cost of the prime productive land. If Earth was going to do something about land degradation now, how much would it cost relative to if we were trying to fix it in several decades' time? Yeah. I don't know. There is an activity, there is a program on the cost of land degradation, it's ELD, the Economics of Land Degradation, E-L-D. But also they, people don't know. We know what the impact, a rough estimate at global scale on the economical aspects. We can lose, let's say, ten to 17% of global GDP by land degradation. Now what it exactly then costs to prevent that, I don't know, myself. What the economists always say is, and everybody, basically it's common sense, that prevention costs much less than restoring afterwards. So let's say if we lose ten to 17%, I think it's a fraction of that, so now it's to actually do something good and try to save something. Should we all shift to plant based diets? Would that help with land degradation? Yeah. If we do, it would help, of course, but I don't think it's necessary that we just go for that drastic measure neither. It's all part of an equilibrium, I think, and I think many people are conscious about that. If we reduce a bit our animal protein intake and we go to more vegetables, that's fine. And I think if everybody does that, we come to a certain equilibrium that everybody can still eat a good steak and still don't contribute too much to the problem, you know?

5 So I think there are solutions which... Solutions don't have to be drastic, but as I said in the beginning, land degradation is a very complex issue, so there are very many different issues. So there are many, also, different issues which need to be tackled to solve it, and diet is one of them, but not the only one. So if we do something good there, of course it helps, but I think, okay, we have to, how will I say? We shouldn't go to the extreme neither, because that's anyhow impossible. So how should we solve land degradation? How should we solve it? Yeah. Yeah, that's a good question. Basically I think awareness raising, much more incentives, if you want. I don't mean monetary incentives, I mean incentives to actually implement sustainable land management techniques on agriculture systems and so on. And adequate use of fertilizers. You need fertilizer because we take out on the soil, much more than what the soil can produce anyhow, and that will stay like that. So we need fertilizer, but we don't need too much. Like in China, we use too much. In Africa at the moment, it's probably, in certain cases, not everywhere of course, neither in China, it's too little. But if you have the right amounts, again, you're okay with that. Water management is of course also an issue, making sure that there is no water depletion, that you store water in appropriate ways without losing also too much land. Consumption of water, and our own consumption, as I said before, okay without being dramatically drastic, but probably we have to change something. Do you think that genetically modified crops or another Green Revolution could be part of the answer? Let's say, let's keep it with probably it could be, but I have no data, or background, or authority to really answer on that. Fair enough. What effect is land degradation having on animal and plant biodiversity? Yeah, quite substantial, I would say. But also there, all these things are quite recently ongoing. And I'm going quickly because to the, how would I say? It's still probably very difficult to have the complete overview, let's say, on the animal and plant species distribution, and composition, and so on, at global scale. So it's very difficult also to say, okay, what the actual effect is, but I guess what things are sure is that okay, the soil has a lot of biodiversity in the soils. When we lose soil, we lose soil biodiversity. If we lose complex ecosystems, complex ecosystems normally have more biodiversity than simple ecosystems, so that's an aspect, of course. Yeah. The loss of biodiversity in itself is also an aspect of land degradation. So you know what I mean. If you lose in a certain area because of also infrastructure and I don't know what, a certain number of species that can cause a feedback loop and create also land degradation, but also of

6 course land degradation itself by agriculture and so on also results in biodiversity loss. But again, to put numbers on that is, it's very difficult. So how much of Earth's land is degraded? Okay, that's the question I didn't want to answer. Oh. If you look at the Atlas, that's something which we try not to say. As I said in the beginning, it's very complex. You have a number of issues which play a role, they interact differently, they impact differently by different biophysical systems, by different socioeconomical situations. Furthermore, land degradation is very perceptive. If I say, "Okay, this piece of land is degraded," maybe somebody else says it's from me, "It's not, because I can do some completely different with it, so it's fine." So it's very difficult to say that. And that's something, and yeah that's what we said, we wouldn't really want to say that. And that's why we look at these pressures, try to map these, then you can have some percentages on that. But still, then you have to look through different glasses, different stakeholder glasses that such people who are interested in agriculture and rangeland forest. And there your appreciation of what degradation is is different. And I come back to the 75% with which you started, basically. Again, for a biodiversity person, maybe the perception is whatever is changed from pristine situation is degradation. You know? So yeah, there are a number of findings back in the Atlas which relate specifically to rangeland, to agricultural systems and so on. For instance, we can say that 14% of intense cropland loses land productivity due to different global change processes. But there are many other things to say as well about other areas, and it's all in... You only have to see it in a relative view again. If you look only at biomass decline, for instance, okay, we can say 12% of the global land surface has declining land productivity, which most probably might be related to problems of land degradation, but not all of it. While you might have increase in land productivity such as in northwestern, northeastern China, but that's at the cost, presently at least, of water resources and of land and soil resources. Do you think that land degradation will cause mass migration or conflict in the future? I cannot look into the future, but the point is yes, that of course, and I think that's on the front page of the Atlas, or in the inside page, let's say, that if our resources are degraded, and when the resources are degraded we start competing for them, you know? And yes, that can of course then create problems also for migration. Okay. So, yeah.

7 Sorry, go on. No, that's fine. I was going to say thank you. That's all of my questions. Is there anything else that you want to add? Not really. I think you were quite extensive, exhaustive. Okay, and so I take it you're happy for me to quote you on all of that? Yes. Yes, if you don't change too much and make it too solid statements of forecasts that... Yeah. And the other thing is we generally upload transcripts of our interviews so that the audience can read them. They read the whole conversation, if they're interested. And it also means that the audience can hold me to account and check that I don't quote you out of context. Would you be happy for us to upload the transcript of this? Yeah, I don't think, no, I don't have any problem. Yeah. Okay, thank you.