1. Indicator

(a) Name: Land use change.
(b) Brief Definition: Change with time of the distribution of land uses within a country.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Proportion of change of each category of land use to another land use per unit of time.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to highlight changes in the productive or protective uses of the land resource to facilitate sustainable land use planning and policy development.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Information on land use change is critical for integrated and sustainable land use planning. Such information is useful in identifying opportunities to protect land uses or promote future allocation aimed at providing the greatest sustainable benefits for people.

Changes in arable and permanent crop land and wooded areas give important information about a country's endowment in agricultural and forest resources, both from an economic and an environmental perspective. Economically, changes in land use will, for example, result in changes in the volume of produce available and influence employment opportunities. From an environmental point of view, unsustainable land use is an important factor in erosion and desertification, may pose a threat to ecosystems, and lead to natural habitat loss and landscape changes. Changes which lead, for example, to inappropriate farming and grazing practices, or to environmentally insensitive construction or mining activities are significant from a sustainability viewpoint. This indicator acts as a synoptic measure for the myriad of more specific environmental and natural resource changes significant to sustainable development.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator is significantly improved if it is considered with land quality. It is also closely linked to many other social, economic, environmental, and institutional indicators, such as those related to population (for example, population growth rate, rate of growth of urban population, population density, population dynamics in mountain areas), energy and mineral reserves, land affected by desertification, sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas, arable land per capita, wood harvesting intensity, protected areas as a percent of total land area, and sustainable development strategies.

(d) Targets: Generally, international targets for this indicator do not exist. However, certain minimal contiguous limits or proportions of total land area have been established for certain needed or desirable land uses, for example protected areas (see Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area indicator).

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The underlying concepts and definitions for land use classifications are widespread. Work coordinated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is currently underway to harmonize classification systems and databases to improve national and international land use information. This includes the development of definitions and protocols, computerized land use database structure, and broadly accepted structure of land use classifications.

(b) Measurement Methods: Land use change data can be derived from periodic mapping and monitoring, partly on the basis of land cover information; from remote sensing, supported by ground truthing; and the use of land use aspects from agricultural census. It is essential to use a uniform classification of land use and cover. The FAO/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) approach is recommended (see reference in section 7 below). Land use and land cover database software is also available. Use of these tools will lead to the production of uniform results and statistics.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: As land use change can result in changes in land potential, or availability and quality of land resources, it has the character of a Driving Force indicator. However, it can also be regarded as a State indicator in the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator by itself does not identify the causes or pressures leading to the change in land use. At the international level, sufficient harmonization of land use classification has yet to be achieved. Georeferenced land use change data are generally not available.

(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required includes updated statistics and remote sensing coverage, dependable agricultural census data on land uses, and dependable land use maps, all updated at regular intervals.

(b) Data Availability: Broad land use statistics are available for most countries. However, variable definitions, and the lack of consistent land use change data which is spatially referenced are serious impediments to, for example, temporal analysis and international comparisons.

(c) Data Sources: Data are available from national governments and regional and international programmes which focus on land use information.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.

(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme is a partner in the development of this indicator. National experts from governments and institutes, for example the International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences and the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, have also contributed.

7. Further Information

(a) Further Readings:

United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization. Report of the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Land Cover and Land Use Classifications. Geneva November 23-25, 1993. GEMS Report Series No. 25. Nairobi. March 1994.

Other documents are available and under development.

(b) Status of the Methodology:

A methodology has not been agreed to by any intergovernmental fora.

CHANGES IN LAND CONDITIONS
Environmental	Chapter 10	State

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Changes in land conditions.
(b) Brief Definition: Changes, disaggregated by type and geographic location, in the condition, suitability, and nature of the land resource. These may be of very different types including: physical soil condition; diversity or density of vegetation cover; thickness of topsoil; alkaline conditions; terracing; establishment of contour vegetation strips; etc.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The areal extent and magnitude of the selected land condition changes, with improvement and deterioration reported separately.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure changes in the productive capacity, the environmental quality, and the sustainability of the national land resource.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Changes in land quality and suitability to support various land uses has obvious and fundamental impacts on the sustainability of the land resource. Such changes can be linked to anthropogenic or natural causes, and seriously affect human wellbeing. Land degradation can limit the capacity of land and water resources to support agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and human settlements. In severe forms, it can lead to desertification. On the other hand, land conservation measures, such as terracing, can lead to improvements in land quality and productivity. Land condition changes, whether positive or negative, are significant to human activities, for example affecting crop yields; and ecosystem health including habitat quality and availability. This indicator may be particularly relevant to countries if it is related to priority national land quality issues, and used for early warning purposes to promote preventative conservation measures.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator is strengthened if linked to land use change. It is also closely linked to several other social, economic, environmental, and institutional indicators, such as population growth rate, population density, Gross Domestic Product per capita, land affected by desertification, area affected by salinization and waterlogging, area of land contaminated by hazardous waste, and sustainable development strategies.

(d) Targets: No international targets exist or apply. National or sub-national targets for individual types of change, for example the reclamation of salt-affected land or the restoration of land damaged by erosion, may exist in certain countries.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No formal conventions or agreements exist, but three less formal documents support this indicator: i) World Soil Charter, adopted by the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Conference 1981; ii) the International Scheme for the Conservation and Rehabilitation of African Lands (ARC/90/4), adopted by the Africa Regional Conference 1990; iii) The Den Bosch Declaration and Agenda for Action on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO and Government of the Netherlands, 1991.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts and definitions of land and soil degradation are available, for example, in the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study. The current work on the World Catalogue of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) by Berne University/Swiss Development Cooperation, the World Association for Soil and Water Conservation, and FAO will provide concepts and information on the extent of different types of land conservation practices. However, this indicator requires additional conceptual development and cannot be considered satisfactorily operational at this time for most countries.

(b) Measurement Methods: It is suggested that the indicator be measured by the extent of land improved or deteriorated, specified by type of change. The measurement should be conducted with a monitoring interval of 5-10 years.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This represents a State indicator within the DSR Framework which monitors improvement or degradation of land quality due to land management or natural causes.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Land quality can be represented in many ways and it is difficult and expensive to collect sufficient quality data for meaningful analysis. Comparison between countries is not possible due to the variety of land quality variables, diverse classification systems, and the paucity of available data especially for large areas.

(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be based on the selection of a core set of land quality parameters based on availability of data. Such parameters could include: vegetation cover; land at risk from soil erosion; soil organic matter levels; and salinization. Such an approach may emerge in the future with additional national and international experience. However, at this time, a greater degree of flexibility in selecting parameters may be more appropriate.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data for this indicator can be derived from a variety of sources, including soil surveys, land cover surveys, soil degradation assessments, and estimates of the extent of different land improvements since previous census.

(b) Data Availability: Data are generally not available in a systematic form, except in a very few countries. Some data are available at a global scale (1:5 million and 1:10 million), or at the national level.

(c) Data Sources: Data may be available from national soil survey institutes, agricultural censuses, or remote-sensing data collections.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.

7. Further Information

Guidelines for Agro-ecological Zone Studies (in preparation).

Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study.

Soils Bulletin 67.

World Soil Resources Report 71 and 71/1-9.

World Soil Resources Report 74. Global and National Soils and Terrain Digital Databases (manual).

DECENTRALIZED LOCAL-LEVEL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Environmental	Chapter 10	Response

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Decentralized local-level natural resource management.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is a measure of the extent to which higher level governments have devolved management of natural resources to local communities; and of changes in the allocation of powers of resource management.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Numbers of local governments and local communities to which resource management has been devolved or with which resource management is shared as percentages of total numbers of local governments and local communities.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the extent to which resource management is in the hands of landholders or other de facto local resource controllers; and partially represents whether local resource controllers and others with direct impact on resources have incentives to conserve them.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Devolution, or at least sharing, of rights, responsibilities and rewards is increasingly recognized as essential for sound resource management. Community empowerment is one of the more important institutional issues, a key to changing to or reinforcing sustainable behaviour. Community management of resources signifies community empowerment, with direct consequences for sustainable development.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other indicators which have implications for resource use from an institutional perspective. These would include: access to information, contribution of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and sustainable development strategies.

(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Desertification Convention discusses empowerment of local resource users.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are well developed, but seldom applied. They are documented in a variety of publications on community development and community resource management. From an operational viewpoint, this indicator still requires development.

The local level with administrative authority recognized by higher level governments, and the lowest level of social organization above the family regardless of recognition by governments. The two are not necessarily the same. Devolution of management needs to be at both levels. It involves transfer or sharing of responsibility for the resources and of the income from their use. It may also involve transfer or sharing of skills and information to ensure management is effective.

It is useful to distinguish resource users (such as hunters, loggers, and tourists), de facto resource controllers (private landowners, local government, the state), and resource managers. The key is for local resource controllers to share management with the state and to have a strong incentive to conserve the resource.

(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement is complicated by the facts that more than one local level may be involved, and that devolution of management includes several aspects, including responsibilities, rights to rewards, skills, and information. Consequently, the indicator may entail several measurements. In Zimbabwe, for example two measures have been used together: percent of rural districts granted authority over wildlife management; and districts that have devolved at least 50% of gross wildlife revenues to communities as a percent of districts granted authority over wildlife management (see Prescott-Allen, 1995 in section 7a below). The first of these is a measure of central government devolution to local government. The second is a measure of local government devolution to communities. The two measures are regarded as equally important, and are therefore added together and averaged to provide a single indicator.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents an institutional Response to resources management.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator requires development and testing. Devolution says nothing about the capacity of the various partners to work together according to a decentralized model. The measurement unit ignores the important qualitative assessment of how well resource management is shared among resource users, local communities, and higher levels of government. The indicator does not show whether the local communities and governments actually conserve the resources.

(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative method of expressing the indicator would be with a yes/no designation. This would not be a meaningful measure, because of the several levels and components of local management that are involved.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Rights and responsibilities devolved. Total number of local governments/communities. Number of local governments/communities to which rights or responsibilities have been devolved. Capacities of all concerned to work to a decentralized model. Actors involved in sharing resource management, and manner and extent of that sharing.

(b) Data Availability: The data are available for some countries only. Most data can be gathered only at the local level, preferably with full community participation in the assessment.

(c) Data Sources: National sources are communities, resource users, resource management departments, and NGOs cooperating with community management programs. There is no international source of data.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The contact point is the IUCN International Assessment Team; fax no. (1 604) 474 6976.

(b) Other Organizations: The Office to Combat Desertification and Drought, United Nations Development Programme has contributed to the development of this indicator.

7. Further Information

(a) Further Readings:

Dudley, Eric. The Critical Villager: Beyond Community Participation. Routledge, London and New York. 1993.

International Institute for environment and Development (IIED). Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London. 1994.

Murphree, M. Communities as Resource Management Institutions. Gatekeeper Series, 36, IIED, London. 1993.

Prescott-Allen, Robert. Barometer of Sustainability: a Method of Assessing Progress towards Sustainable Societies. PADATA, Victoria, Canada. 1995.

Prescott-Allen, Robert and Christine (eds.). Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species: Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedure. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 1996.

(b) Other Contacts:

United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization; fax no. (39 6) 522 3369.

International institute for Environment and Development; fax no. (44 71) 388 2826.

Office to Combat Desertification and Drought, United Nations Development Programme; fax no. (1 212) 906 6345/6916.