Advertisement

Are Soils Taken into Consideration by the IPBES Assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration?

Chapter
First Online:
  • 375 Downloads
Part of the International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy book series (IYSLP, volume 2016)

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is expected to publish an assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration in 2018. Human sciences are represented in this pioneer process, including the law. As soil is a fundamental element of land, we found interesting to demonstrate to what extent soils will be taken into account, and what could be the consequences on soil protection. This article then focuses on the needs to fill knowledge gaps on soils and on the initiatives that already exist. The integration of indigenous and local knowledge in the IPBES assessment will also bring new perspectives for the definition of indicators for soils. Eventually, the IPBES assessment could contribute to a better collaboration between institutions and international conventions, such as the Convention and Biodiversity and the Convention to combat desertification.

Keywords

Biodiversity IPBES Land degradation Soil protection Transdisciplinary assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Albert B (1993) L’Or cannibale et la chute du ciel: Une critique chamanique de l’économie politique de la nature (Yanomami, Brésil). L’homme, 349–378Google Scholar
  2. Altieri MA (2009) Agroecology, small farms and food sovereignty. Mon Rev 61(3)Google Scholar
  3. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boer B, Hannam I (2015) Developing a global soil regime. Int J Rural Law Policy Soil Gov, Special edition 1/2015, 1–13Google Scholar
  5. Brooks T, Lamoreux JF, Soberon J (2014) IPBES ≠ IPCC. Trends Ecol Evol 29(10)Google Scholar
  6. Carson R (1962) Silent spring, First Mariner Book editions, p 381Google Scholar
  7. Chan KM, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(6):1462–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaussod R (1996) La qualité biologique des sols, évaluation et implications. Etude et Gestion des Sols 3(4):261–278Google Scholar
  9. Deléage E (2011) Les mouvements agricoles alternatifs. Informations Sociales 2(164):44–50Google Scholar
  10. Diaz S et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dominati E, Mackay A, Green S, Patterson M (2014) A soil-change based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: a case study of pastural agriculture in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 100:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dooley E, Roberts E, Wunder S (2015) Land degradation neutrality under the SDG’s: national and international implementation of the land degradation neutral world target. ELNI Rev 1+2:2–9Google Scholar
  13. Fitter AH (2005) Darkness visible: reflections on underground ecology. J Ecol 93:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimm M, Jones R, Montanarella L (2002) (Revised) Soil Erosion Risk in Europe, European Soil Bureau, Institute for Environment & Sustainability, JRC Ispra, p 44Google Scholar
  15. Harmsworth G (2002) Coordinated monitoring of New Zealand wetlands, Phase 2, Goal 2: Maori environmental performance indicators for wetland condition and trend. A Ministry for the Environment SMF project–5105. Landcare Research Contract Report LC, 102(099), 65Google Scholar
  16. Harmsworth G, Roskruge N (2014) Indigenous Maori values, perspectives, and knowledge of soils in Aotearoa-New Zealand. In: The soil underfoot: infinite possibilities for a finite resource, p 111Google Scholar
  17. IPBES (2015) Background document, IPBES thematic assessment on land degradation and restoration (LDR), p 43Google Scholar
  18. ITPS (2016) Report on the status of the world soil resource, p 650Google Scholar
  19. Jeffery S, Gardi C, et al (eds) (2010) European Atlas of soil biodiversity. European Commission, Bureau des publications de l’Union européenne, Luxembourg, p 136Google Scholar
  20. Keesstra SD et al (2015) FORUM paper: the significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs), journal SOIL-88Google Scholar
  21. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA (2010) The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Likens GE (2014) The ecosystem approach for understanding and resolving environmental problems. In Watson R (ed) Environment and development challenges: the imperative to act. University of Tokyo Press, p 103Google Scholar
  23. Lundquist C et al (2015) Engaging the conservation community in the IPBES process. Conserv Biol 29(6):1493–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montanarella L (2015) Govern our soils. Nature 528:30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mooney HA (2009) The ecosystem-service chain and the biological diversity crisis. Trans Roy Soc B 365:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mu Z, Bu S, Xue B (2014) Environmental legislation in China: achievements, challenges and trends. Sustainability 6(12):8967–8979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabhi P (2006) Conscience et environnement, Gordes, éd. du ReliéGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosset P (2013) Re-thinking agrarian reform, land and territory in La Via Campesina. J Peasant Stud 40(4):721–775. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2013.826654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Safriel U, Adeel Z (CLA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, dryland systems, ch. 22, pp 623–662Google Scholar
  30. Scoones I (2009) The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). J Peasant Stud 36(3):547–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sgorbati G, Dotti N (2015) Perspectives and actions to improve water quality in European Union Member States. ELNI Rev. 1+2:10Google Scholar
  32. Tanaka J (1980) The San, hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari: a study in ecological anthropology. University of Tokyo Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  33. Truilhé-Marengo E (2012) Gouvernance de la biodiversité, droit et expertise scientifique, Research project, CERIC. Aix-Marseille UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.University of JyväskylänJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.University of ToursToursFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options