Envisioning a National System of Land Restoration (Part 2)

PART 1

By V Santhakumar and Apoorva Bose
With contributions from Muralee Thummarukudy, David Wupper, Agustin Fallas Santana, Nicole Harari, Markus Giger, Ingrid Teich, Shaon Bandopadhyay (Santhakumar and Apoorva take the responsibility for mistakes/inadequacies, if any, in the completed article.)

Land leased out to Private Sector

In many countries, governments allocate land to privately or publicly owned corporations and companies which involved in economic activities. These may include timber extraction, development of plantations, mining of minerals, creation of industrial estates, etc. When publicly owned land is allocated for this purpose, these are either uncultivated lands or those which have different levels of vegetative cover, which may be used or cultivated by communities. A certain level of land degradation is inevitable in such lands as part of their use for economic activities. These activities are useful for enhancing social welfare including the creation of jobs (if the society/state ensure these). This may lead to income growth and human development which may enable land restoration in other areas. Hence, we do not take a view that the use of land for this purpose is inherently against the restoration of land.

However, the use of land in such areas can be carried out in ways to ensure that the land degradation that is associated with the economic activity (carried out by the leasing-in company) is not severe. Theoretically, the land use of such land can be through means which do not increase the depletion of nearby waterbodies or do not add to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can be ensured that only that part of the land which is really needed for economic activity is used, and the remaining is conserved. There are cases like mining where land that is used for this purpose can be restored in the best possible way after the cessation of that economic activity.¹ However, the corporations which get the land from the government may not have the incentives to take these precautionary measures unless these are mandated or regulated by the latter.

Hence, the key issue is the presence of government regulations on the use of these lands, and the effectiveness of the enforcement of these regulations. Even if governments make regulations by following international best practices, these need not be enforced. There are two aspects here: first, there may not be an adequate popular demand for the enforcement of these regulations, and these are connected to underdevelopment, ill-governance, and politics – issues that we take up towards the end of this essay. Secondly, the observance of these regulations cannot depend solely on enforcement by governments. Those who manage the corporations or companies should also feel compelled to adopt these measures voluntarily. Such a voluntary adoption or compliance also may be connected to the level of development – an issue that we discuss towards the end.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) may play a role in this regard by creating higher demand by citizens or pressure on governments to formulate and enforce stringent regulations regarding the use of this type of land. The success of such actions also depends on domestic governance and politics. There can be international pressure also for this purpose. National governments may be motivated to take certain actions in this direction due to financial incentives and/or negative publicity that may be created due to international pressure.

Figure 1. Land leased out to Private Sector

Land owned and controlled by the State

In almost all countries, a significant share of land, including forests, is owned and controlled by governments. The conservation or management of forests is often carried out by government organisations.

Key issues regarding conservation of public land

There can be a stated intention to protect these lands (including forests) in most countries, but the actual protection may be shaped by financial and human resources which are available to governments and the possible challenges. This is linked to the nature of governance in the country. Given that the conservation of these lands is to be carried out usually by public sector organisations, there can be issues of ineffectiveness, inefficiency or corruption, and all these may require vigilance on the part of citizens. Whether citizens are informed and interested to demand a higher level of conservation in a context could be a deciding factor (which is connected to human development – an issue that we take up in the following section). In certain cases, conservation may be achieved at higher economic and social costs. There is an issue of economic efficiency when the potential income from land and forests without compromising conservation goals is not realised. (For example, though nature-based tourism can be promoted without damaging forests, public sector organisations may not have the incentive to maximise incomes from such activities without harming the natural environment²).

There can be distributional issues too. The actual effort towards protection (whether there are laws or not) may be determined by the political economy. If users of forests directly or indirectly have electoral clout, it may discourage democratically elected governments from going ahead with stringent protection. On the other hand, there are cases where the actual users of forests may not be politically powerful, and that may encourage the government to neglect their (genuine) issues. This may be true in other lands also which are owned by the government, like rangelands, which are used by pastoralists and communities. Higher social costs arise when forests are conserved by denying the rights of sections of direct users, especially poor and marginalised ones. For example, there is a perception that the conservation of forests in India is achieved by denying the rights of its tribal people, and legal measures which are made to mitigate this problem are not implemented properly.³ In many contexts, the middle class may take a pro-conservation attitude even if it is not shared by workers and capitalists who gain from natural resource-based industries. The government’s position would be shaped by the relative position of these different classes/groups in the political economy.

Figure 2. Land owned and controlled by the State

A set of meta-factors

The aggregate outcome in terms of land restoration in a context depends on the interplay of the factors mentioned and a set of meta-aspects which may influence all or most of these factors. There can be two kinds of interplay. There may be a possibility of substitution – which means that even if one enabling factor is absent, the presence of others may facilitate restoration. For example, even if no law mandates (or government policy supports) restoration in private lands, economic factors that encourage people to move out of intensive land use may facilitate restoration. There can be issues of complementarity also wherein the presence of one enabling factor may not make much impact because of the absence of a complementary input. The institution of rules which mandate restoration (as in the case of restoration of mining lands in many developing countries) may not be effective if there is not enough investment for the enforcement of these rules, or there is not enough self-compliance on the part of companies.

The meta-features that impact most, if not all, enabling factors are human development, governance, and political economy. The way political economy impacts the restoration of public lands is discussed in the previous section. Political economy can impact governance and state policies which impact human development (say, through investments in education, supply of basic food to people at affordable prices, etc.).⁴ Such a human development may reduce the dependence on land as the main source of subsistence, especially for smallholders. When these people move out to industrial/service sector jobs in urban areas, the disincentives for restoration in private lands may decline in many contexts (especially if there are only limited alternative uses of land in rural areas).⁵ This depends on how restoration is viewed. The abandonment of agricultural land can work as passive restoration, improving, for example, water regulation, soil recovery, nutrient cycling and increased biodiversity. Human development may have a positive impact on the popular demand for a better-quality natural environment (which has features of a public good), and that may also enable land restoration.

Political economy has an impact on the conditions with which public land is allocated to corporations for productive activities. In different countries, including the USA or Brazil, the mainstream political parties differ in terms of their approaches towards the privatisation of public lands for economic activities and the restrictions to be imposed on these private entities.

Figure 3. Impact of Political Economy

National System in different countries – Preliminary observations and need for detailed case studies

While using the approach proposed in this essay to understand land restoration in different countries, it is clear that there may be a different combination of enabling or disabling factors in each country or region. We make a few preliminary and summary observations from different countries in the following paragraphs. (However, detailed, review or case-based studies are necessary to validate these observations, and these may be attempted at a later stage).

Brazil
The average land-holding size is relatively higher in Brazil than that in India or China.⁶ This may facilitate the institution/enforcement of the law which mandates restoration (or the upkeep of forests) in certain parts of private lands. Though there is poverty, a major share of poor people lives in urban areas.⁷ There are landless and/or smallholders in rural areas but their share among the population or the proportion of the land held by them is small. Hence, the impact of poverty and underdevelopment on land degradation may not be that high though there are areas where poverty is leading to the disappearance of forests.⁸ Though the human development indicators of Brazil are not that high, these are better than those of India and sub-Saharan Africa.

The efforts to conserve land in Brazil may be affected by the political economy which may lead to an increase in the allocation of forested land to corporations for economic activities without adequate enforcement of environmental regulations.

India
In India, smallholders and a substantial section of poorer people live in rural areas. They depend on land even for their food consumption and hence, cannot move towards agro-forestry or less intensive agriculture. The human development indicators of most Indian states are low. The development of its manufacturing sector is slow (though there has been higher economic growth during the last 3-4 decades) and this has slowed the transition of a land-dependent population towards industries and urban areas. All these work against the efforts towards the restoration of land in rural areas. Unlike Brazil, India does not have a rule that mandates the conservation of private lands. However, the country has a scheme by which it spends a substantial amount of money to ensure a minimum of 100 days of work for unskilled workers⁹ who are seasonally unemployed. There is a recent decision to use a part of these worker days for restoration activities in different categories of land (including private land). This can be taken as an incentive for restoration on private lands.

Though India has made laws and rules which are similar to international practices, the enforcement is weak. This may be affecting the restoration of land held by private companies including those used for mining and related purposes.¹⁰

Historical policies which led to the taking over of the forest land by the government, the persistence of the same ownership structure, and the global concern about the environment, seemed to have encouraged the government of India to enforce stricter control over the use of publicly owned forest land. The fact that tribal people who were using these lands were not politically powerful in major parts of the country, enabled the government to impose stricter restrictions against their use of forests. Though this may have reduced the degradation of forests, it may have increased the social costs of protecting forests.

 China
The situation in China in the past may have been similar to that of India (higher population size in rural areas, small per-capita landholding, higher levels of poverty, etc. which would encourage people to use land intensively). Probably the forest was not under the control of governments as in the case of India, and this might have caused a rapid deterioration of forests. Hence, forest cover which was only 15 percent of the land area of the country in 1940s declined to 12 percent in 1981.¹¹

However, the situation may have changed due to certain enabling conditions: a substantial reduction in poverty; achievement of higher human development indicators; the spread of school education to all boys and girls; movement to cities to take up jobs which became available due to the rapid growth of manufacturing, etc. The broad-based economic development might have enabled the governments to pursue policies which aim at restoration. Schemes, such as Grain-for-Green may have contributed to this improvement, though there are issues with respect to the quality of reforestation.¹² This may currently (2021) be reflecting in the increase in the areas under forest cover in China, which is 24 percent of the land area.

The specific nature of the Chinese government may have both pros and cons. It may be enabling the pursuit of certain policies without being concerned about democratic and political-economy pressures.  However, people’s ability to demand specific actions on the part of the government may be limited or working only through indirect means.

North America
The restoration of land in North America is relatively easier due to several factors: smaller population size relative to the area of land; industrial development that reduced the dependence on land for most of the population; higher levels of education for the population; relatively better functioning of institutions, including the enforcement of laws; higher level of public resources which enable the bearing of enforcement costs, etc.

These enabling factors may ensure a higher level of restoration in private and public lands (or even those owned by communities).¹³ When there is such an enabling environment, the impact of ownership on restoration incentives may come down.

There was a higher level of depletion of virgin (old-growth) forests in the developed world (including parts of North America). The higher levels of capital that industrialists could mobilise in the early stage of development of these countries enhanced their ability to use resources, including land and timber, even from not-so-accessible areas. (If old-growth forests exist in developing or poorer countries currently, this may be due to the limited abilities in extracting these resources). However, the spread of education and change, like employment for a substantial section of the population from the one that depends on natural resources including land, might have enabled North America (and the developed world, in general) to protect remaining forests and restore the vegetative cover in the previously used lands. However, the direct cost of restoration may be significantly higher in the developed world due to the higher cost of labour, and the kind of land-use changes that have happened in these contexts in the past.¹⁴

Sub-Saharan Africa
It is obvious that the countries in sub-Saharan Africa encounter several challenges in this regard. These include higher dependence on less productive agriculture for most of the population, even though the continent has a higher share of the uncultivated land of the world;¹⁵ limited capacity (and willingness) on the part of governments to ensure basic consumption, including food for the population; limited industrial development and the limited shifting of the population towards non-land-based occupations; inadequate spread of education to the population; lower human development indicators, etc. The governance and functioning of institutions also face challenges in enforcing rules and regulations. In such conditions, poorer people may not be able to follow restoration-aimed agricultural practices in their private or even community lands.

Though a greater amount of international aid for restoration may flow into these countries, the effectiveness of these outcomes may be impacted by the above-mentioned conditions. There is an involvement of non-governmental and altruistic organisations to see that restoration can benefit local people (say, through activities like wildlife tourism). The presence of a large share of uncultivated land (and the nature of plant and animal composition and mobility) may be enabling certain activities, like wildlife tourism. Though there are successful cases of this kind, these may not be adequate to ensure restoration in many parts of the region.

Is the focus on the national system adequate? The case of Indonesia

The assumption so far in the paper is that it is beneficial for a country to restore its land, but the domestic factors and their interconnections may not enable restoration adequately. However, there may be cases where the net benefits of restoration of particular land may not be positive for the country but may be so for the world as a whole. This seems the case with peatlands in Indonesia. (This argument is detailed in a report prepared by us.¹⁶)

In such a context, a net transfer from the international community to the country may be needed to encourage the national system to carry out the restoration. However, even with such a transfer, the nature of the national system may have an impact on the effectiveness of restoration.

Benefits of a national systems approach towards land restoration

The benefits of such a systems approach towards land restoration may include the following:

1. Though studies which look at the possible impact of any one factor (like land ownership) by controlling others are useful, these are not adequate to explain the aggregate outcome in terms of restoration. This may necessitate a systems approach.
2. The same factor may work differently in different countries due to the presence or absence of complementary or supplementary factors. This can be understood only by looking at the national system as a whole.
3. The same kind of projects or policies may lead to different outcomes in different countries. Hence, there is a need to design and predict the impact of policies by taking the national system into account.
4. The efforts towards land restoration in isolation may not be adequate to achieve outcomes. These must be seen in connection with the overall efforts towards broad-based development, improvement in governance and functioning of institutions. A systems approach would make this connection transparent.
5. This framework may help identify the weaker links or nodes in the national land restoration system and argue for taking policy steps to strengthen them.
6. It may help to address the ineffectiveness of specific policy interventions by actions on its complementary inputs; or of the absence or weakness of a specific enabler by strengthening substitutable inputs.

Policy Implications

1. Advocacy for policy action on any one factor may not be that useful.
2. There is a need to see land restoration along with other Sustainable Development Goals. Though specific actions for restoration are needed, efforts towards broad-based human development are important to energise and sustain restoration.
3. Information on the benefits of restoration may not be enough to encourage different stakeholders to take steps in that direction. There may be real constraints which may discourage stakeholders from moving ahead with restoration even if they are informed of its benefits.
4. International efforts to support restoration may not be very effective when domestic factors are not enabling. There is a need for strategisation on the part of international actors to see that their actions strengthen domestic enablers.
5. This essay informs that the institutional environment may be enabling for restoration in certain contexts and not so enabling in others due to the aggregate impact of different factors. One implication is that private financial investments in restoration may move towards contexts where internal incentives and institutions are enabling. Hence, expecting private investments as an effective global solution may not be as

Limitations of this approach

1. A country may be too big, and the impact of different factors could be different in different regions or ecosystems. There may be a need for comparing how different national systems affect a specific type of ecosystem (say, a grassland).¹⁷ A national system enabling tree growth may not effectively preserve lands (say, grasslands).
2. This approach does not have explicit means to understand the determinants of the quality of restoration. The ecological details of the restoration (including on-site and off-site impacts) are missing from this approach.

AUTHORS

V Santhakumar is Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Apoorva Bose is an International Human Rights lawyer who works as the India Programme Coordinator, Global Initiative G20 at UNCCD. Her areas of expertise range from environmental and humanitarian law to development communications and programme coordination.

Featured Photo by Bill Eccles on Unsplash.