Adapting to climate change through sustainable land management: experiences of a pilot project in Tajikistan

Tajikistan is particularly exposed to the risks of climate change. Its widely degraded landscapes are badly prepared to cope with changes in precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, droughts, and the spread of pests and disease. Sustainable land management (SLM) provides a “basket of opportunities” to address these challenges, particularly for increasing land productivity, improving livelihoods, and protecting ecosystems. Within the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) in Tajikistan 70 SLM technologies and approaches on how to implement SLM were documented with the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT ) tools in 2011. For this purpose a climate change adaptation module was developed and tested in order to enhance the understanding about climate change resilience of SLM practices and community workshops conducted to on adaptation mechanisms by rural communities in Tajikistan. The analysis came up with four guiding principles for applying SLM for adapting to climate change: 1. Diversification of land use technologies and farm incomes; 2. Intensification of use of natural resources; 3. Expansion of highly productive land use technologies; 4. Protection of land and livelihoods from extreme weather events. Furthermore, SLM must be up-scaled from isolated plots to entire zones or landscapes and the project developed the concept of three concentric villages zones, the in-, near- and off-village zones. Land users, advisors, and decision- and policy makers face the task of finding management practices that best suit site-specific conditions. This task is most efficiently addressed in collaborative effort, and building up and managing a respective knowledge platform.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Integration through Land Improvment – Internal Colonization in Switzerland During the First Part of the 20th Century

Internal colonization in Switzerland is often seen in connection with the battle for cultivation in the Second World War, but the history of internal colonization in Switzerland is more complex. The food crisis in the First World War formed the horizon of experience for various actors from industry, consumer protection, the urban population and agriculture to start considering practical strategies for managing agricultural production. In this way, traditional spaces, such as rural and urban areas and economic roles, such as food producer, consumer and trader, overlapped and were newly conceived to some extent: people started thinking about utopias and how a modern society could be designed to be harmonious and resistant to crisis. The aim of this article is to trace some of the key points in this process for the interwar years in neutral Switzerland. In the process, the focus must be on the context of people’s mentalities in the past, although the relationships between the actors of internal colonization and the state also need to be considered. Internal colonization in Switzerland in the twentieth century can be understood as an open process. In principle, the project was driven by private actors, but in times of crisis, the project was claimed by the state as a possible tool for social and economic intervention. In addition, as a result of the planned dissolution of urban and rural spaces, it will be shown that modern societies in the interwar period were on an existential search to overcome the problems of the modern age. Internal colonization can therefore be seen as an attempt to find a third way between a world characterized by an agrarian society and a modern industrial nation.

Effects of elevation and land use on the biomass of trees, shrubs and herbs at Mount Kilimanjaro

The protection and sustainable management of forest carbon stocks, particularly in the tropics, is a key factor in the mitigation of global change effects. However, our knowledge of how land use and elevation affect carbon stocks in tropical ecosystems is very limited. We compared aboveground biomass of trees, shrubs and herbs for eleven natural and human-influenced habitat types occurring over a wide elevation gradient (866–4550 m) at the world's highest solitary mountain, Mount Kilimanjaro. Thanks to the enormous elevation gradient, we covered important natural habitat types, e.g., savanna woodlands, montane rainforest and afro-alpine vegetation, as well as important land-use types such as maize fields, grasslands, traditional home gardens, coffee plantations and selectively logged forest. To assess tree and shrub biomass with pantropical allometric equations, we measured tree height, diameter at breast height and wood density and to assess herbaceous biomass, we sampled destructively. Among natural habitats, tree biomass was highest at intermediate elevation in the montane zone (340 Mg ha−1), shrub biomass declined linearly from 7 Mg ha−1 at 900 m to zero above 4000 m, and, inverse to tree biomass, herbaceous biomass was lower at mid-elevations (1 Mg ha−1) than in savannas (900 m, 3 Mg ha−1) or alpine vegetation (above 4000 m, 6 Mg ha−1). While the various land-use types dramatically decreased woody biomass at all elevations, though to various degrees, herbaceous biomass was typically increased. Our study highlights tropical montane forest biomass as important aboveground carbon stock and quantifies the extent of the strong aboveground biomass reductions by the major land-use types, common to East Africa. Further, it shows that elevation and land use differently affect different vegetation strata, and thus the matrix for other organisms.

Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains

This Strategy and Action Plan was written within the framework of the project on Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains (PALM). PALM is an integrated transboundary initiative of the governments of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Tajikistan. It aims to address the interlinked problems of land degradation and poverty within a region that is one of Central Asia’s crucial sources of freshwater and a location of biodiversity hotspots. The project is executed by the Committee on Environment Protection in Tajikistan and the National Center for Mountain Regions Development in Kyrgyzstan, with fi nancial support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other donors. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the GEF Implementing Agency for the project, and the United Nations University (UNU) is the International Executing Agency. This Strategy and Action Plan integrates the work of three main teams of experts, namely the Pamir-Alai Transboundary Strategy and Action Plan (PATSAP) team, the Legal Task Forces, and a team of Natural Disaster Risk specialists. The PATSAP team was coordinated by the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Switzerland. The Legal Task Force was led by the Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law of the University of New England (UNE), and responsibility for the Natural Disaster Risk assessment was with the Central- Asian Institute of Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The development of the strategy took place from June 2009 to October 2010. The activities included fi eld study tours for updating the information base with fi rst-hand information from the local level, coordination meetings with actors from the region, and two multi-level stakeholder forums conducted in Khorog and Osh to identify priorities and to collect ideas for concrete action plans. The baseline information collected for the Strategy and Action Plan has been compiled by the experts and made available as reports1. A joint multi-level stakeholder forum was conducted in Jirgitol, Tajikistan, for in-depth discussion of the transboundary aspects. In August 2010, the draft Strategy and Action Plan was distributed among local, national, and international actors for consultation, and their comments were discussed at feedback forums in Khorog and Bishkek. This Strategy and Action Plan is intended as a recommendation. Nevertheless, it proposes concrete mechanisms for implementing the proposed sustainable land management (SLM) activities: The Regional Natural Resources Governance Framework provides the legal and policy concepts, principles, and regulatory requirements needed to create an enabling environment for SLM in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai region at the transboundary, national, and local levels. The priority directions outlined provide a framework for the elaboration of rayon-level strategies and for strategies on specifi c topics (forestry, livestock, etc.), as well as for further development of government programmes and international projects. The action plans may serve as a pool of concrete ideas, which can be taken up by diff erent institutions and in smaller or larger projects. Finally, this document provides a basis for the elaboration and signing of targeted cooperation agreements on land use and management between the leaders of Osh oblast (Kyrgyz Republic), Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast, and Jirgitol rayon (Republic of Tajikistan).

Large-scale land acquisitions in Peru: Land (re)-concentration, agrarian change and reactions from rural communities

More than 40 years after the agrarian reform, Peru is experiencing a renewed process of concentration of land ownership in the hands of large-scale investors, favoring the development of a sugar cane production cluster along the northern coast. The expansion of the agricultural frontier by means of large irrigation projects – originally developed to benefit medium- and small-scale farmers – is carried out today in order to be sold to large-scale investors for the production of export crops. In the region of Piura the increasing presence of large-scale biofuel investors puts substantial pressure on land and water resources, not only changing the use of and access to land for local communities, but also generating water shortages vis-à-vis the multiple water demands of local food producers. The changes in land relations and the agro-ecosystem, the altering food production regime as well as the increasing proletarization of smallholders, is driving many locals – even those which (initially) welcomed the investment – into resistance activities against the increasing control of land, water and other natural resources in the hands of agribusinesses. The aim of this presentation is to discuss the contemporary political, social and cultural dynamics of agrarian change along the northern Peruvian coast as well as the «reactions from below» emanating from campesino communities, landless laborers, brick producers, pastoralists as well as other marginalized groups. The different strategies, forms and practices of resistance with the goal of the «protection of the territory» shall be explored as well as the reasons for their rather scattered occurrence and the lack of alliances on the land issue. This input shall make a contribution to the on-going debate on individual and communal property rights and the question of what is best in terms of collective defense against land grabbing.

Soil and land information: How to support decision-making?

Soils are fundamental to ensuring water, energy and food security. Within the context of sus- tainable food production, it is important to share knowledge on existing and emerging tech- nologies that support land and soil monitoring. Technologies, such as remote sensing, mobile soil testing, and digital soil mapping, have the potential to identify degraded and non- /little-responsive soils, and may also provide a basis for programmes targeting the protection and rehabilitation of soils. In the absence of such information, crop production assessments are often not based on the spatio-temporal variability in soil characteristics. In addition, uncertain- ties in soil information systems are notable and build up when predictions are used for monitor- ing soil properties or biophysical modelling. Consequently, interpretations of model-based results have to be done cautiously. As such they provide a scientific, but not always manage- able, basis for farmers and/or policymakers. In general, the key incentives for stakeholders to aim for sustainable management of soils and more resilient food systems are complex at farm as well as higher levels. The same is true of drivers of soil degradation. The decision- making process aimed at sustainable soil management, be that at farm or higher level, also in- volves other goals and objectives valued by stakeholders, e.g. land governance, improved envi- ronmental quality, climate change adaptation and mitigation etc. In this dialogue session we will share ideas on recent developments in the discourse on soils, their functions and the role of soil and land information in enhancing food system resilience.