Transitioning to **Sustainable Life on Land**

Transitioning to Sustainability Series

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tianjin • Tokyo • Cluj

EDITOR Volker Beckmann University of Greifswald Germany

EDITORIAL OFFICE MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated below:

Author 1, and Author 2. 2021. Chapter Title. In Transitioning to *Sustainable Life on Land*. Edited by Volker Beckmann. Transitioning to Sustainability Series 15. Basel: MDPI, Page Range.

© 2021 by the authors. Chapters in this volume are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book taken as a whole is © 2021 MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.

**ISBN 978-3-03897-878-7 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-03897-879-4 (PDF) ISSN: 2624-9324 (Print) ISSN: 2624-9332 (Online) doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-879-4**

### **Contents**


Part 3: Land Property Rights and Governance


### **About the Editor**

Volker Beckmann is a full professor of Economics and Landscape Economics at the University of Greifswald, Germany. He holds a Doctorate in Agricultural Economics from Georg-August University of Göttingen, Germany, and received his Habilitation in Agricultural Economics from Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. His research focuses on the economics and governance of sustainable land use and nature conservation, within and between agriculture, forestry, builtup land, natural areas, as well as wetlands and inland water bodies. He is the leader of many national and international research projects. He has published extensively in leading journals in the field, such as *Land Use Policy, Ecological Economics, Ecology and Society, International Journal of the Commons, Sustainability, and Water*, among others. He serves as an Editorial Board Member of MDPI journals, *Resources* and *Land*, and chairs the Sustainability Commission of the University of Greifswald.

### **Contributors**

#### SUSANNE ABEL

Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, MV, Germany.

#### HOSSEIN AZADI

Dr., Department of Geography, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

#### STEFAN BURKART

Dr., Tropical Forages Program, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.

#### JARMILA CURTISS

Dr., Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Policy, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.

#### DIRIBA DADI DEBELA

Dr., EthiopianInstitute of Architecture, Building Construction & City Development (EiABC), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

#### IZABELA DELABRE

Dr., Sustainability Research Programme Fellow, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

#### STEFAN EWERT

Dr., Interdisciplinary Centre for Baltic Sea Region Research (IFZO), University of Greifswald, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, MV, Germany.

#### ULRICH HAMPICKE Professor Dr., Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultaet, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

#### SEBASTIAN LAKNER Chair of Agricultural Economics, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

#### DIMAS D. LAKSMANA

Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies with a focus on Southeast Asia, University of Passau, Passau, Germany.

#### PHILIPPE LEBAILLY

Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.

#### MICHAL LODIN

Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

#### HOSSEIN MAHMOUDI

Dr., Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

#### SAGHI MOVAHHED MOGHADDAM

Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

#### REGINA NEUDERT

Dr., Faculty of Law and Economics & Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald University, Greifswald, Germany.

#### CALLUM NOLAN

Ph. D. Candidate, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

KONRAD OTT Professor Dr. phil., Philosophy Philosophisches Seminar, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

MARTINA PADMANABHAN Professor, Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies with a focus on Southeast Asia, University of Passau, Passau, Germany.

KARL CHRISTOPH REINMUTH M.A., Philosophy Philosophisches Seminar, Europa-Universität Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany.

#### RONG TAN

Professor, School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

#### CHRISTIAN SCHLEYER

Dr., Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany.

#### JENNY SCHMIDT

Ph. D. Candidate, Department of Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany. CoKnow Consulting, Jesewitz, Germany.

DEREJE TEKLEMARIAM Dr., Department of Development Economics and Management, CFMD, Ethiopian Civil Service University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

#### INSA THEESFELD

Professor Dr., Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Policy, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.

#### NIELS THEVS

Dr., Central Asia Office, World Agroforestry, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

#### CLEMENT A. TISDELL

Professor Emeritus, Economics, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia.

#### JUSTUS WESSELER

Dr., Chair Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy, Section Economics, Social Science Department, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

#### STEFAN ZERBE

Professor, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bolzano, Italy.

#### KAIWEN ZHANG

Ph.D. Candidate, School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

#### RAFAEL ZIEGLER

Professor, Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Director, Institut international des coopératives Dorismène et Alphonse Desjardins

#### DAVID ZILBERMAN

Robinson Chair, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.

#### YVES ZINNGREBE

Dr., Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Department for Conservation Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany.

### **Abstracts**

#### **Biodiversity and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals by Clement A. Tisdell**

This chapter critically assesses each of the targets for biodiversity conservation listed as part of Sustainable Goal 15 (SDG 15) of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The targets include ensuring forest conservation and restoration, combatting desertification and restoring degraded land and soil, conserving mountain ecosystems and reducing the degradation of natural habitats. In addition, they include urgent action to prevent poaching and trafficking in protected flora and fauna, the adoption of measures to adequately address the impact of invasive alien species and the need to take account of biodiversity conservation in local development processes and poverty reduction. It is found that the targets for SDG 15 are not well integrated with those for the other sustainable development goals, are vague and fail to pay attention to economic factors such as opportunity costs as well as economic valuation of biodiversity. India's approach for implementing SDG 15 illustrates the limitations of the UN's specification of SDG 15.

#### **Integrating Environmental Value Systems: A Proposal for Synthesis by Konrad Ott and Karl Christoph Reinmuth**

A philosophical analysis of different typologies of values, which are used for environmental decision making, can contribute to an informed choice of a comprehensive value system. This chapter discusses classificatory maps of values and patterns of reasoning in environmental affairs. The Total Economic Value, the Ecosystem Service approach and value systems being conceived in environmental ethics will be analysed and their strengths and weaknesses will be presented. It is argued that a comprehensive and integrated synthesis of existing approaches is possible, but that even such synthesis will not simplify decision making. Nevertheless, such a synthesis is significant for the implementation of sustainability goals and for science-based policy advice.

#### **Can Justice Respect Needs and Nature? The Idea of a Nature-Respecting Sufficiency by Rafael Ziegler**

In light of current unsustainability trends, achieving major sustainability goals, such as the protection of life on land and below water (SDG 14 and 15), requires transformative change. This paper focuses on transformative change of values and, for this, on the idea of a nature-respecting sufficiency. Sustainability discussions are motivated by two important sufficiency considerations: a focus on basic needs and on reaching and securing a social minimum for all; and a social maximum via a focus on limits to production and consumption. This intuitive appeal derives from the idea of minimum threshold as a central requirement of justice along with the idea of justice demanding respect for environmental limits. This paper proposes a nature-respecting, capabilitarian conception of sufficiency. Its starting point is the dignity of all living beings and their central capabilities. Rather than being indifferent about distribution in the space above a sufficiency threshold, this conception requires resource use above the threshold to be justified. For both the agency and patiency aspects of moral subjects, the positional and quasi-positional nature of central capabilities plays an important role, orienting intrinsic and instrumental reasons towards equal distribution. Implications of nature-respecting sufficiency are discussed in relation to (sustainable) economy and the technological and social innovations highlighted by the 2019 Global Biodiversity Assessment.

#### **Germany's Agriculture and UN's Sustainable Development Goal 15 by Ulrich Hampicke**

For 8000 years, until around 1950, agriculture in Central Europe respected and even enhanced biodiversity, although sometimes at the expense of soil fertility. During the last 50 to 60 years, the trend veered dramatically due to advancements in technology. Studies show that hundreds of common plant species, flourishing in the countryside for millennia, are now reduced to little more than five percent of their former population size. The situation is similar with birds, insects and other animals. Agriculture is directly or indirectly responsible for two thirds of the plants included in "Red Data Books" of endangered species. In addition, harm is done to groundwater due to nitrate leakage in regions with excessive livestock rearing. Even appreciating the contribution of modern agriculture to food security, the overall situation is incompatible with the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 15. Eighteen percent of Germany's agricultural area is devoted to crops used to produce electric power or fuel for motor vehicles, or which are exported in excess of agricultural imports. Energy crops perform poorly in the face of the large area required. Exports neither ensure food security in poor countries nor are necessary for Germany's balance of trade. The nation could do well without both types of products and thereby gain three million hectares available for low-input and species-rich agriculture and livestock rearing. With efficient spatial planning, the costs of such reorientation would amount to less than one per mil of Germany's gross national product and could easily be afforded by reorienting funds already existing but used inefficiently. From an economic point of view, the situation is a clear example of the poor capacity of modern societies to care for public goods.

#### **Ecosystem Restoration and Agriculture — Putting Strong Sustainability into Practice by Stefan Zerbe**

Modern and high-yield oriented agriculture today has to be considered as one of the most important causes of global environmental problems. Besides ecosystem degradation and the loss of ecosystem services, non-sustainable agriculture can also have a significant, negative socio-economic impact. Against this background, new approaches in agriculture have to be developed to meet the need for ecological sustainability taking also social and economic capital into account. Ecosystem restoration could be one option to cope with the worldwide loss of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services. All approaches in agriculture that meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG 15, should be considered as potential solutions to the global environmental crisis. In this chapter, agroforestry systems and social agriculture are discussed as an approach for sustainable land use and ecosystem restoration. Both approaches have a high potential to meet sustainability objectives based on the triple-bottom line paradigm of sustainability. The focus will be put on Central Europe and, in particular, the mountain areas of the European Alps. The restoration of degraded land by agroforestry systems and the various environmental and social activities of ecosocial agriculture can meet several objectives of sustainable land use, particularly the restoration of natural as well as social and economic capital, the promotion of biodiversity and agrobiodiversity, and the development of multifunctional cultural landscapes. Additionally, it can prevent or reverse land abandonment.

#### **Forest Landscape Restoration and Sustainable Biomass Utilization in Central Asia by Niels Thevs**

Forest landscape restoration (FLR) has become an approach that addresses a wide range of landscapes beyond forests as woodlands, and includes restoration approaches like agroforestry. Under the Bonn Challenge, FLR has gained global attention in forest rich as well as forest poor countries, like the countries in Central Asia. Globally, countries have committed themselves to implement FLR on 350 million ha by 2030. FLR, as other restoration efforts, needs to yield income for the people, in particular for rural communities in poor countries. Central Asia is a region that offers abundant places to implement FLR and other restoration and produce biomass in settings that do not displace current land uses as food production. As examples, the following approaches are introduced: agroforestry, land use on saline land, and reed as biomass plant. Among the many possible agroforestry systems, tree wind breaks, in particular from poplars, mulberry, or paulownia, yield timber, but also silk fibers, without competing with other land uses. On saline lands, Kendir and licorice offer opportunities to yield fibers and medicinal raw materials. Reed, finally, yields huge biomass amounts across Central Asia, which is a potential feed stock for paper, paper board, OSB boards, and chemical inputs.

#### **The Transition to Sustainable Life on Wetlands: How the Sustainable Use of Peatlands Appears on the Political Agenda by Stefan Ewert and Susanne Abel**

In intact, living peatlands, peat accumulates due to high water tables. The drainage of peatlands, particularly for agriculture and forestry, leads to peat degradation and CO2 emissions. Even though peatlands cover only three percent of the Earth's land surface, their carbon storage potential makes them crucial ecosystems for the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. In order to use peatlands as a global carbon sink, but also to create other ecosystem services, wet peatlands have to stay wet, and drained peatlands have to be rewetted and could be used wet as well. The sustainable use of peatlands is called paludiculture. We explain how paludiculture, as an alternative approach to the unsustainable use of drained peatlands, came to be on the agenda of global climate protection initiatives and how this concept also found its way on the agenda for European agricultural policy reforms. For this, we use John Kingdon's Multiple Streams Approach and di\_erent theoretical refinements as an analytical frame.

#### **Evolution of the Land Consolidation System in China by Kaiwen Zhang and Rong Tan**

Land consolidation is regarded as an effective approach to improving agricultural productivity and promoting rural sustainable development. The modern land consolidation system started in China in 1997 in response to the potential food security crisis. This research traced back the formation and evolution of the land consolidation system in the past 20 years to gain insight into the patterns of institutional change in China. This study distinguished three main stages, each of which has a distinctive driver mechanism: the exploring period (1997 to 2004), the developing period (2005 to 2012), and the comprehensive period (since 2013). Based on policy analysis, this research concluded that the goals of the Chinese land consolidation system changed from land quantity preservation to addressing multiple concerns including food security, sustainable development, rural vitalization, and environment protection. Though these aims have not been perfectly achieved, land consolidation projects have had some positive influence. This study illustrates the mechanisms, performance, and government logic of different land consolidation systems in the Chinese context and provides results useful for other developing countries with similar land issues.

#### **Combating Pasture Degradation in Central Asia and the Caucasus —A Review of Approaches by Regina Neudert**

In Central Asia and the Caucasus region (CAC), pastures are the dominating use of land. There is also a great variation of livestock keeping systems, stationary and mobile livestock keeping as well as horizontal and vertical migration systems. Despite these differences, the region shares a common history of socialist influence. Degradation of pasture resources, measures to combat degradation and appropriate levels of land use are recurring themes in discussions about land use in the CAC region and are relevant for achieving SDG 15.3 globally. Crucial for sustainable rangeland management are governance regimes regulating access and use of pastures. Especially after 1990, alongside diverging economic and political developments, various rangeland governance approaches were implemented in the CAC countries. In this contribution, I review the governance approaches to combat pasture degradation applied in the CAC region and relate them to theoretical paradigms of rangeland governance, namely, private, state, common and open management regimes. The analysis shows that there is evidence for all theoretical paradigms, while their suitability depends on the ecological and social contexts in which they are applied. Thus, there is no "silver bullet" to prevent pasture overuse and degradation. A central concern for sustainable rangeland management is to enable mobility, which seems theoretically compatible with all governance paradigms. In many countries, the development of rangeland governance approaches shows trial and error processes involving paradigm shifts or refinements of existing approaches to improve fit with ecological conditions and local practices of the pastoral population.

#### **Impacts of the Land Tenure System on Sustainable Land Use in Ethiopia**

#### **by Hossein Azadi, Saghi Movahhed Moghaddam, Hossein Mahmoudi, Stefan Burkart, Diriba Dadi Debela, Dereje Teklemariam, Michal Lodin and Philippe Lebailly**

On Earth, land is the most vital resource from which living things derive their essential necessities. There are many methods for managing and maintaining this vital resource in a sustainable manner, but it is more important to first understand the root cause of malfunctioning land management strategies. This chapter aims at understanding the underlying causes of socio-economic and policy-related factors affecting the sustainability of land tenure systems in Ethiopia. It also presents a review of historical and sociopolitical literature to evaluate the challenges with an insecure land tenure system, which lead to land degradation, soil erosion and low incomes. In most developing countries, systematic evaluation mechanisms of land tenure performance are very inadequate. In particular, Ethiopia has no systematic framework for assessing and measuring the state of its land tenure system. In this line, this study applies a systematic review to explore theoretical considerations and overviews on current estimates related to land tenure security in Ethiopia. Through an in-depth literature review and a qualitative analytical approach, the results identified a collection of good practices and indicators that can provide a framework for a systematic evaluation of sustainable land use in Ethiopia. The findings also showed performance gaps in land management, the application of enacted legislation and the allocation of land for agricultural investments. This study provides recommendations to federal and regional institutions with a mandate for land management, land holding and resource rights and land use on how to resolve these bottlenecks.

#### **New Types of Land Ownership to Sustain Life on Land by Insa Theesfeld and Jarmila Curtiss**

The SDG 15, sustainable Life on Land, has a strong relation to farming. In Europe and in Germany we experience a growth in community- and civil societysupported organizations of farmland ownership. Those new types of organizations governing land ownership are to a large part not-for-profit organizations that answer to the ecological values of their supporters. In this contribution we show for Germany that this type of community-supported land ownership appears in numerous and diverse legal forms with a range of 1-68 partner farms each. Each individual legal form of governing such community-supported organization allows for different styles and formal arrangements of land stewardship, with the focus here on combating land degradation and reducing biodiversity loss. They are found in a full geographical spread across Germany although publically beneficial associations prevail in old Federal States for historic reasons. The empirical material is based on a German-wide scoping study conducted in 2020. With a spotlight on two case studies, we will exemplify the new opportunities for supporting the ecological transition of land use by means of community-supported land ownership.

#### **Agricultural Policy for Biodiversity: Facilitators and Barriers for Transformation by Sebastian Lakner, Christian Schleyer, Jenny Schmidt and Yves Zinngrebe**

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has integrated some environmental aspects into its instruments and measures. Since the 1990s, environmental measures have been introduced and iteratively adjusted with a new funding period every four to seven years. This chapter presents four stages of the policy cycle as an analytical framework in order to assess whether CAP decision makers have learned from experience to improve the performance of the CAP in preserving biodiversity. Following these four stages, we, first, present the evolution of the agriculturerelated environmental agenda in the CAP. Second, we give an overview of key CAP instruments as policy output, including Agri-Environmental Programs/Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures, Cross-Compliance, and Greening of Direct Payments. Third, we compile information on the implementation performance of these instruments to assess the social outcome and ecological impact of the CAP. Finally, we evaluate the learning potential of the CAP process and derive underlying causes. We conclude that CAP reforms have repeatedly failed to draw on the accumulated knowledge on agri-environmental instruments and give some recommendations for improved biodiversity conservation.

#### **Strategic Engagement in Institutions of Organic Farming in Indonesia by Dimas D. Laksmana and Martina Padmanabhan**

Indonesia was one of the then authoritarian states that spearheaded and thoroughly institutionalized the green revolution. The emergence of organic farming (OF), proposed as a strategy for environmental conservation in Indonesia, is embedded in this history. This article uses social network analysis (SNA) to investigate institutional aspects of OF in Indonesia, focusing on the dynamic interactions amongst the actors that drive its development. The Net-Map method was applied as a tool to explore the tensions, areas of cooperation, and potential spaces for resolution that are constructed by OF actors, with the active engagement of the actors themselves. Based on two indices of network centrality betweenness centrality and degree of centrality—three distinct groups of actors emerged, characterized by different modes of interaction with government actors. Disengaged actors are not linked to any government actors in sustaining their movement; partially engaged actors strategically adapt to government OF regulations while maintaining their commitment to the foundational principles of the OF movement; fully engaged actors pursue OF wholly within the framework of government regulations. Our analysis suggests different notions of sustainability are enacted by these actors. In addition, the current OF institutions highlight the contradiction between centralized governance structures in the agricultural sector and the government's stance that OF should prioritize the use of local resources and knowledge. However, spaces exist for negotiation between the civil society and government, which could lead to the formulation of more coherent OF policies that can accommodate a diversity of goals, strategies, and views on the sustainability of OF.

#### **Biotechnology, Bioeconomy, and Sustainable Life on Land by Justus Wessler and David Zilberman**

New developments in biotechnology have reduced the use of pesticides and increased yield per hectare for crops including canola, cotton, corn, and soybeans. These developments have often been accompanied by the adoption of reduced or zero-tillage systems and an increase in double-cropping, thereby reducing pressure on land and contributing to the protection of terrestrial ecosystems. They directly contribute to achieve SDG 15, but also to achieving SDG 2. This chapter presents a summary of these developments. It further includes a discussion of promising developments within the bioeconomy and their potential to promote sustainable life on land. These developments include major changes in food production, as well as innovations in the conversion of biological resources into high-value products other than biofuels. The discussion also addresses several potential obstacles, the most important of which consists of government regulations.

#### **Barriers to Zero Tropical Deforestation and 'Opening up' Sustainable and Just Transitions by Izabela Delabre and Callum Nolan**

The UN Sustainable Development Goals include ambitious targets for tackling deforestation and emphasise the roles of diverse actors and partnerships for transformative change. Initiatives for governing tropical forests take multiple forms, including 'zero deforestation' supply chain initiatives, carbon forestry, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), legislative frameworks that intend to cut off markets for illegally harvested timber, and emerging landscape and jurisdictional approaches. Drawing on insights from political ecology and sustainability transitions research, this chapter discusses the barriers to transitioning to 'zero deforestation' through consideration of: (1) the contested framing of the problem of deforestation, (2) how sustainable forest governance is translated and enacted across scales, and (3) who is represented in 'the transition'. This reveals opportunities for sustainable and just transitions for forests. We argue that careful attention must be paid to the influences of power and politics surrounding forest governance and its social and ecological outcomes, and the need to challenge orthodoxies around economic growth that currently underpin policy responses.

### **Transitioning to Sustainable Life on Land—Introduction to SDG 15 and the Volume**

#### **Volker Beckmann**

#### **1. Introduction**

Land constitutes only 29.3% of planet Earth's surface area but harbors 86.1% of the global biomass (Bar-On et al. 2018). Out of the 8.7 million species estimated to exist globally, 75% live in terrestrial ecosystems (Mora et al. 2011). Some scholars even found biodiversity on land was 25 times higher than in the sea (Benton 2001). Although numbers of species and levels of biodiversity are still subject to significant scientific uncertainty, there is no doubt that life on land is essential for life on Earth, global biodiversity, and humans.

Over history, humans have transformed land, other species, and ecosystems to an unprecedented magnitude. During the past 12,000 years, anthropogenic land use increased tremendously on a global scale (Ellis et al. 2020). It is estimated that 75% of the land surface area has been directly affected by human activities (Riggio et al. 2020). Almost all terrestrial areas and part of the sea are claimed today by the 193 United Nation Member States as territory under sovereignty control, leaving Antarctica and the High Sea as the only partly unclaimed areas on Earth. Human life, economic activities, and many critical human institutions, such as states, public administration, property, or residency are related to land. Agricultural land use currently covers up to 50% of the habitable land (34% of the total terrestrial area), followed by forests and shrubs, used to different degrees. However, settlements still cover only 1% of the habitable land (Ritchie and Roser 2019). The Great Acceleration of human land use began in 1750, whereas land use intensity has increased in particular since 1950 (Steffen et al. 2015). Today, the biomass of livestock by far exceeds the biomass of all wild living mammals and birds (Bar-On et al. 2018). In 2020, the total human-made mass for the first time in history has exceeded the biomass of all forms of life (Elhacham et al. 2020). In the Antropocence, humans have become a force of geological significance (Lewis and Maslin 2015).

In fact, human impact has risen to a level that endangers the survival of many species on planet Earth and human welfare itself. It has become increasingly evident that human impacts exceed the planetary boundaries in multiple dimensions, particularly the effects on biodiversity, nutrient cycles, and greenhouse gas emissions (Rockström et al. 2009). Additionally, other indicators, such as Earth Overshoot Day, clearly signal that current use levels are unsustainable (Wackernagel and Pearce 2018). As regards biodiversity, scientists claim that Earth is in the middle of an anthropogenically caused Sixth Great Extinction, with the risk of losing 75% of all species (Ceballos et al. 2020). According to a report by IPBES, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, humanity is at the risk of driving 1 million species to extinction, mainly due to the extension and intensification of agriculture (IPBES 2019).

It must be noted that these developments occurred despite significant conservation efforts, which began in the 18th and 19th century with the first establishment of conservation organizations and the creation of the Yellowstone national park in 1872 (Dyke 2008). The development of protected areas "exploded" since 1980th (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005), and today almost 16% of the terrestrial area is protected to different extents (Protected Planet 2021). However, the effectiveness of protected areas to halt biodiversity loss is questioned (Geldmann et al. 2019). Although there is some indication that biodiversity in protected areas is higher inside than outside (Gray et al. 2016), protected areas are also affected by surrounding human activities (Hallmann et al. 2017), not least by human-induced climate change (Thomas and Gillingham 2015). According to the 20 Aichi targets proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), there is an agreement that worldwide societies must expand protected areas on land and sea (Lewis et al. 2019). However, this will likely not be enough to hold biodiversity decline and sustain life on land (Venter et al. 2018). Conservation must be integrated into all human activities and must be an integral part of the sustainable use of resources.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed in 2015 by the United Nations offer in principle such an integrative perspective and include Life on Land as one among 17 goals. This editorial provides a brief introduction to SDG 15, also relating to other SDGs, and reflects mainly on the contributions to this volume.

#### **2. The Sustainable Development Goals and SDG 15**

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Agenda 2030 are a milestone in a long journey of humankind recognizing its joint responsibility for planet Earth and identifying sustainability as a guiding principle for economic and political development (Shi et al. 2019). The key idea of sustainable development translates into 17 goals, 169 targets, and 231 indicators (United Nations 2015, 2017). Although the goals can be best interpreted as a political compromise which cannot be expected

to be free of contradictions, it is the first time that at a global level development goals were formulated for all nations (Sachs 2012). The SDGs can be divided according to the three pillars of sustainable development into social (SDG 1–5, 7, 11, 16), economic (SDG 8–10, 12, 17), and environmental objectives (SDG 6, 13–15), but more common is the division in the 5P's, people (SDG 1–6), planet (SDG 11–15), prosperity (SDG 7–10), peace (SDG 16), partnership (SDG 17) (Tremblay et al. 2020). Life on Land, SDG 15, is clearly classified as a planet or environmental objective and calls to "protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss" (United Nations 2015) (see Table 1).


**Table 1.** Sustainable Development Goal 15 and its targets and indicators.

**Table 1.** *Cont.*




Source: United Nations (2015, 2017), with refinements United Nations (2021a).

SDG 15 divides into 12 targets and 15 indicators. They concern ecosystem conservation, restoration, and sustainable use in particular of soils, forests, mountains, and genetic resources (SDG 15.1–15.4, 15.6), the protection of biodiversity, natural habitats, and endangered species (SDG 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 15.C), and policy improvements by better integrating biodiversity into planning and enhancing financial resources for conservation and sustainable use (SDG 15.9, 15.A, 15.B). Thus, the targets combine conservation and sustainable use, support the development of clear property rights in natural resources and species and request improved governance and financial resources. It should be noted that the indicators only partly reflect the targets and continue to be disputed and adjusted (Janoušková et al. 2018).

Since the SDGs provide an integrative set of goals, complex interactions among goals and targets in terms of synergies and trade-offs can be expected. Pradhan et al. (2017) identified SDG 15 as one of the SGDs with the highest number of trade-offs and the lowest number of synergies. Fonseca et al. (2020) identified the most pronounced trade-offs between SDG 15 and SDG 2 "Zero hunger—End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture". That is because the expansion and intensification of agricultural land use are considered a prominent cause of biodiversity loss, deforestation and land degradation. The

most considerable synergies occur between SDG 15 and SDG 14 "Life under Water—Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development" (Fonseca et al. 2020). However, the relationships between SDGs and the possibility and constraints to reach them simultaneously within the envisioned timeframe are debatable and require context-specific analysis and actions.

#### **3. The Contributions to This Volume**

This volume is about transitioning to SDG 15 specifically and to sustainable life on land more generally. Transitioning can be understood in different ways. In a narrow sense, transitioning is about reaching the specific targets of SDG 15 by using the particular indicators of SDG 15. This view is mainly the policy, reporting, and monitoring perspective. In a more general sense, transitioning is about broader changes in policy, economies, and societies at different levels towards integrating the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems into the general agenda of sustainable development. The latter is the central perspective of this volume.

The contributions to this volume are structured into four parts. The first section reflects more broadly on goals and trade-offs as well as on values and ethics of conservation and restoration. The second part provides specific cases of ecosystem restoration in cultivated landscapes such as agriculture, forestry, and peatlands. The third part is devoted to studies focusing on land property rights and governance issues and how they relate in different contexts to land degradation and biodiversity loss. The final part addresses political and social challenges connected with the transition to SDG 15. Thus, the structure does not follow the SDG targets but addresses more underlying and cross-cutting issues.

Altogether, the papers provide an overview of some of the transitions in policy, economies, and societies needed to achieve SDG 15 and the trade-offs and synergies within and with other SDGs from different social science disciplines, including economics, philosophy, political science, administration science, sociology, anthropology, and landscape ecology. The geographical focus is mainly on Europe, Central Asia, East and South East Asia, with some studies addressing Africa and America. Moreover, this volume mainly focuses on the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of cultural ecosystems, not on the conservation of "wilderness". The usual tool to protect life on land, establishing protected areas, will not be investigated explicitly. This perspective is elaborated extensively elsewhere (Dudley et al. 2017; Ansari et al. 2021). Thus, this volume is less about the separation of use and conservation but its integration.

#### *3.1. Goals, Trade-O*ff*s, Values, and Ethics*

SDGs govern by goals. This is considered as a major institutional innovation in international sustainability governance, from rules based to goal based (Kanie et al. 2019). However, as already mentioned, multiple goals are usually interconnected, sometimes with synergies but more often with trade-offs. Tisdell (2021), in this volume, provides an excellent introduction to the specific targets of SDG 15 concerning biodiversity and its possible contradictions both within SDG 15 and with other SDGs. He argues that the targets are pretty vague and that trade-offs are not specified. Moreover, Tisdell criticizes that the main drivers of biodiversity loss are not addressed, and biodiversity loss in cultural landscapes is not sufficiently recognized. He observes that economic principles and valuation methods did not play a significant role in formulating the SDGs and requests a better integration of targets and a recognition of opportunity costs. Tisdell sees that there is a continuous need to "evaluate biodiversity in its contributions to anthropocentric economic goals and to allow for the felt obligation to conserve the web of life even when there is little or no apparent material economic value to humankind" (p. 39).

In a world of limited resources, pursuing multiple goals require decisions to be made. Goals need to be prioritized, trade-offs to be evaluated. In this volume, Ott and Reinmuth (2021) discuss the importance of environmental valuation in decision-making. In reflecting on economic approaches to valuation, such as the Ecosystem Service (ESS) perspective and the Total Economic Value (TEV) concept, and combining them with ideas from environmental ethics, they argue for an integrative approach that appreciate the heterogeneity of values. They request economists to think about the scarcity of nature in close connection to environmental ethics, distributional justice, and sustainability sciences. Many decisions require ethical disputes over property rights, which economists often try to avoid. Ott and Reinmuth state that, in particular, existence and option values open the doors for reflections about environmental ethics.

Environmental ethics is a mainly normative discipline (Palmer et al. 2014) and discusses the way people should behave and the values people should hold. Ziegler (2021), in this volume, offers such a normative discussion. He raises questions about the transformative change of fundamental values to achieve the SDGs in general and SDG 14 and 15 in particular. He reflects on values of what he calls "nature-respecting sufficiency". Sufficiency, as Ziegler shows, can be viewed as a standard, requirement, or limit defining a morally legitimate space of actions and outcomes. In further distinguishing weak, strong, and transformative sufficiency, the concept of nature-respecting sufficiency is developed as the latter. It calls for a focus

on "both agents and patients, and the thresholds and principles required for leading a life in dignity" (ibid., p. 96). Most fundamentally, however, nature-respecting sufficiency requires "to recognize us as one species among others" (ibid., p. 97).

#### *3.2. Ecosystem Restoration in Cultural Landscapes*

Cultivated or cultural landscapes dominated by agriculture and managed forests cover a significant part of the terrestrial area. Sometimes the cultivated landscapes have existed for centuries, or millennials and have profoundly shaped the past and current biodiversity (Jouffroy-Bapicot et al. 2021). Hampicke (2021), in this volume, reviews the history of German agriculture and shows how biodiversity in Central Europe was largely related to cultural landscapes that developed over centuries. The intensification of agriculture in Germany since 1950, like in other countries worldwide, increased yields impressively but, among others, caused a decline of biodiversity. Most of the biotope types related to the Red List of extinct and endangered species in Germany are agricultural biotopes, such as dry grassland. Hampicke discusses alternatives to the current system, e.g., organic farming and the reduction in agricultural output and exports, and suggests a conservation program covering 13 % of the agricultural land in Germany at an annual cost of EUR 2 billion. This program would promote semi-cultured landscapes, set aside for the least productive croplands, and add structural elements in highly productive agricultural regions. For the case of Germany, he argues that it should be easily possible to finance the necessary restoration, given the wealth of the country and the possibilities to reallocate funds of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

For the mountainous regions of the alps, also Zerbe (2021), in this volume, argues that the current agricultural system is unsustainable and a primary cause of biodiversity loss. He further reasons for the need to diversify agriculture by supporting different farming systems, particularly agroforestry and social farming approaches. Both systems offer advantages in terms of the ecosystem services they provide. They reduce the intensity level and increase the contribution to social and ecological objectives. Zerbe, like Hampicke, suggests restoring nature in a cultural landscape mainly by lowering the land-use intensity and increasing the structural diversity of cultivars and landscape elements.

Thevs (2021), in this volume, adds to this discussion by moving to forest landscape restoration and sustainable biomass utilization in Central Asia. Central Asia is relatively poor in forests, but according to Thevs, it offers multiple opportunities for forest restoration in the mountains and the lowlands, steppes, drylands, and wetlands. He argues that forest restoration should also provide income opportunities

for local people. Forest restoration efforts can contribute to the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. Thevs suggests, among others, the protection and restoration of Tugai forests along the river systems and wetlands. He develops opportunities for agroforestry systems, mainly the plantation of wind-breaks or the plantation of salt-tolerant trees. As alternative biomass resources, Thevs also mentions the vast amount of reeds that grow in Central Asia's wetlands, which could develop into a valuable source of the bioeconomy.

For centuries, wetlands and peatlands in Europe have been drained to expand agricultural land (Swindles et al. 2019). Today, the restoration of peatlands is considered a necessity mainly because drained peatlands are a large emitter of GHG emissions, and wet peatlands can serve as an effective sink for carbon (Schwieger et al. 2021). Ewert and Abel (2021), in this volume, show how in this context, the concept of paludiculture was developed and arrived overtime on the political agenda of the European policy. Paludiculture is the idea that wet peatlands, while reducing emissions of GHG and restoring nature, can also be used in a sustainable way to produce diverse biomass, e.g., reed, cattail, for the bioeconomy. Ewert and Abel apply the Multiple Stream Approach of policy science and argue that a combination of restoration and innovative use turned paludiculture into an attractive concept for political entrepreneurs. The restoration of peatland contributes not only to SDG 15, but as well to SDG 6 (clean water), SDG 13 (climate action), and SGD 9 (innovation).

#### *3.3. Land Property Rights and Governance*

Over history, different property rights systems and governance structures related to land and terrestrial ecosystems emerged (Kavanagh et al. 2021; Ellickson 1993). Open access regimes, which often lead to resource overuse and degradation, were increasingly replaced by state, communal and private property regimes (Lerch 1998). In particular, the private property of land, animals, and plants governed by markets has resulted in investments and innovation fueling economic growth. At the same time, conservation used to be connected with state ownership and public governance. However, increasingly it is recognized that conservation must be better integrated into the diversity of land tenure systems (Robinson et al. 2018; Kamal et al. 2015).

For more than 40 years, China's land property rights system attracted a lot of attention since it combines state and collective ownership of land with individual and tradable use rights. Zhang and Tan (2021), in this volume, review the evolution of the land consolidation system in China. Land consolidation, that is, the reallocation and readjustment of land parcels in rural and urban areas, has for a long time been an instrument to improve farming and settlement efficiency, but often at the expense of the environment. Zhang and Tan show that land consolidation in China developed from a policy focusing purely on increasing farmland area and reclaiming undeveloped land into an approach that aims to maintain and improve farmland, rearrange construction land, and improve ecological protection and restoration. However, according to the authors, there are still contradictions and leakages in the system, and better integration of ecosystem and biodiversity conservation in the Chinese land consolidation system is warranted.

Neudert (2021), in this volume, exemplifies the diversity of property rights and governance structures for pastures in Central Asia and the Caucasus. With about 30% of the terrestrial area classified as grasslands, grassland ecosystems have a significant share in the terrestrial land area. Central Asia and the Caucasus share a common history of being part of the Soviet Union and the socialist heritage. All these countries have vast grasslands degraded to a different extent. Neudert argues that different paradigms of rangeland governance exist: (a) the classical economic theory recommending privatization, (b) the legacy of the Soviet Union perspective arguing for strong state control, (c) the common property scholars arguing for common management, and the (d) new rangeland science in favor of open property regimes. The empirical analysis of ten countries shows that all four paradigms are present and offer advantages and disadvantages. Thus, no blueprint approach is appropriate for achieving sustainable land governance and use. Instead, governments should adjust a general approach to the specific socio-ecological conditions within the respective country.

Turning the attention to the case of Ethiopia, the second most populous country in Africa., Azadi et al. (2021), in this volume, focus on tenure security and its relationship with land degradation and unsustainable land use. The authors introduce the history of land tenure in Ethiopia, which turned from diverse and complex ownership, including concepts of private land property, into a mainly state-owned land tenure system. According to the constitution, ownership of land and all-natural resources is with the state and the people of Ethiopia, while private ownership of land is prohibited. However, peasants, pastoralists, and semi-pastoralists are granted free access and use rights (Agegnehu 2020). Azadi et al. argue that this system has created tenure insecurity and, connected with population growth, caused land degradation, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable use. The conversion of forest land, protected areas, and wetlands for agricultural investments are considered as the main problem. Therefore, they argue for more effective land administration, including the official demarcation, mapping and registration of public lands, and better implementation of the existing laws.

Theesfeld and Curtiss (2021), in this volume, refer to a completely different setting, the land tenure and ownership structure in Germany. Private property is dominating, and tenure security is often not regarded as an issue there. Still, access to agricultural land, biodiversity loss, and land degradation due to highly intensive agriculture on private land are of concern. Moreover, also land grabbing for for-profit occurs. Theesfeld and Curtiss report the results of an investigation into new types of community-supported ownership, thus cases where owners provide financial capital to support ecological outcomes and not primarily financial returns. All over Germany, such new cooperative initiatives emerged. In detail, two initiatives are analyzed. They show that the organizations "adopt the right of defining land use conditions in exchange for long-term tenure and below-market price rental conditions for farmers" (ibid., p. 329). Thus, these are compelling cases of private initiatives for supporting SDG 15 when public policy is considered to fail.

#### *3.4. Political and Societal Challenges*

Transition to the SDGs and to SDG 15 specifically create many political and societal challenges. Dealing with diverse, complex and conflicting structures of land ownership is one of them. Others are related to the policy process or the acceptance of different technology. Policy has multiple and often conflicting objectives, it is affected by powerful actors and ideologies. Policy might be difficult to change quickly and path dependencies might be prominent. Moreover, there might be tensions between political, economic, technological, and societal processes.

Lakner et al. (2021), in this volume, reflect on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) and its link to biodiversity. Although the CAP responded to the increasing negative impact of intensive agriculture on the environment, particularly by introducing Agri-environmental Programs (AEP) since 1992, Cross-Compliance since 2005, and Greening since 2013, the biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes could not be halted or reversed. Lakner et al. offer a very detailed analysis of the policy cycle and its implementation and show that CAP is difficult to reform. It transforms only slowly, and they conclude that "without including other political and other stakeholders in negotiations on budget allocations and policy design, agricultural interest groups will continue to preserve current trajectories and undermine any initiative for sustainable transformation" (ibid., p. 369). In this regard, Ewert and Abel (2021), in this volume, present a successful case of transformation. They show that paludiculture, which emerged as a concept entirely outside the agricultural cycles, managed to become recognized at the EU agricultural policy level. A policy might also change slowly until a certain momentum is reached, as the example of supporting organic farming in the EU may exemplify. Although the EU has supported organic agriculture since 1992, it is only since 2020 that the EU Commission declared in its Farm-to-Fork Strategy that the EU-wide organic farming target is 25% of the total agricultural area in 2030 (European Commission 2020).

In contrast, in Indonesia the share of organic agriculture, according to the available statistics, is still meager, with 0.4% (Willer and Lernoud 2019). In this context, Laksmana and Padmanabhan (2021), in this volume, examine the sustainability of organic farming institutions. The authors show that organic agriculture started in Indonesia, as in many other counties, as a grassroots civil society project in 1983. In 2002, the government started supporting the expansion of organic farming with the "Go Organic" program. The government developed ambitious objectives of developing organic agriculture in Indonesia as an export industry and established a respective certification and monitoring system. This created tension between the organic farming movement and the government. By performing an actor-network analysis, Laksama and Padmanabhan disentangle the influence of different actors on organic farming regulation in Indonesia. The analysis exemplifies the conflict between central and decentral knowledge, and between governments and civil society. They argue that progress towards SDG depends on the pressure of social movements on governments.

Organic farming seems to be one way to reduce the tension between SDG 15 and SDG 2 by integrating biodiversity conservation within farming systems; however, another is modern biotechnology. In their contribution to this volume, Wesseler and Zilberman (2021), outline the potential of biotechnology for achieving the SDGs. Biotechnology crops require fewer inputs, secure high yields, and reduce land-use pressure by opening up opportunities to set aside land for biodiversity conservation. Moreover, biotechnology also offers new opportunities, like cultured meat, which might reduce livestock numbers and improve animal welfare. Thus, they consider biotechnology is essential for any transformation towards a bioeconomy. The authors also discuss the political economy of plant biotechnology in the EU, where a strict regulatory environment emerged. They show the struggle between proponents of organic farming and proponents of biotechnology and the role of the precautionary principle in EU policy. Additionally, others argue that conservationists overemphasize the risks of new technologies at the expense of missed opportunities (Brister et al. 2021). It is claimed that also organic farming should make use of modern biotechnology (Purnhagen et al. 2021).

The final paper in this volume by Delabre and Nolan (2021) focuses on key issues of deforestation in tropical forests. It takes off from the observation that the SDG target

of zero-deforestation (SDG 15.2) was not met in 2020. They argue that "attention must be paid to the influences of power and politics in forest governance . . . " (ibid., p. 438). Forest landscape changes do not just happen but are shaped by a complex network of human actors. The authors discuss contested definitions of forests and deforestation and the meaning of "zero" in deforestation, the problem of translating sustainable forest governance into practice, including the measuring, reporting, and verification systems finally, asking the question about who is represented in decision making. According to them, priority is given to agricultural development and the economic growth paradigm, which is in conflict with the zero-deforestation objective. They recommend, among others, that "local actors should be placed at centre stage in decision making, early on in processes related to land use change" (ibid., p. 447).

#### **4. Conclusions**

Transitioning to Sustainable Life on Land requires humanity to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. In total, 193 Nation States have committed themselves to moving towards SDG 15 while paying attention to all other 16 SDGs. Trade-offs are unavoidable, and choices need to be made. As Tisdell (2021), in this volume, has put it: opportunity costs are inevitable. It is therefore not surprising that different countries set different priorities in achieving various goals or targets in different time frames (Forestier and Kim 2020).

The contributions to this volume shed light on the transitioning of different societies towards SDG 15, with a focus on four cross-cutting issues: (1) goals, trade-offs, values, and ethics; (2) ecosystem restoration in cultural landscapes; (3) land property rights and governance structures; and (4) political and societal challenges. The contributions offer diverse perspectives and sometimes also conflicting recommendations. Many contributions reflected on one of the most challenging trade-offs between SDG 15 and SDG 2, biodiversity and agriculture. The search for a model of sustainable agriculture is critical. The recommendations range from reducing farming intensity, increasing structural diversity, supporting organic farming to developing high-yield–low-input farming systems and cultured meat based on modern biotechnology. This provides much food for thought.

Given the urgent need to prevent the expected upcoming biodiversity crises, the overall transition towards SDG 15 must be considered to be very slow. Almost none of the SDG 15 targets for 2020 have been reached at the global level (United Nations 2020). Some contributions in this volume show how long it takes to change policies even if the financial resources are available and that severe tensions can occur between policy, business, and society, preventing innovative solutions. Otto et al. (2020) argue for the case of climate policy that social tipping point interventions are needed to reach momentum for change. Some hints for social tipping elements can be found in this volume, although a systematic analysis of the literature remains to be done. It is now well known that the SDG are pursuing the 5 P's, people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership. The latest progress report of the United Nations (2021b) suggested a small change that might make a big difference: "It is time to put the health of the planet at the centre of all our plans and policies" (p. 56).

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** I am very grateful to the Assistant Editor, Oliva Andereggen, for her incredible support. Many thanks go to the Series Editor, Max Bergmann, and MDPI for making this project possible. Finally, I would like to thank Regina Neudert for her valuable comments on an earlier version of this Editorial.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Ziegler, Rafael. 2021. Can Justice Respect Needs and Nature? The Idea of a Nature-Respecting Sufficiency. In *Transitioning to Sustainable Life on Land*. Edited by Volker Beckmann. Transitioning to Sustainability Series 15; Basel: MDPI, pp. 75–98.

© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
