The health and productivity of global land resources are declining, while demand for those resources is increasing. The aim of land degradation neutrality (LDN) is to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital and its associated ecosystem services. The Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality has been developed to provide a scientific approach to planning, implementing and monitoring LDN. The Science-Policy Interface of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) led the development of the conceptual framework, drawing in expertise from a diverse range of disciplines. The LDN conceptual framework focuses on the supporting processes required to deliver LDN, including biophysical and socio-economic aspects, and their interactions. Neutrality implies no net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. Planning for neutrality involves projecting the likely cumulative impacts of land use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains. Counterbalancing should occur only within individual land types, distinguished by land potential, to ensure "like for like" exchanges. Actions to achieve LDN include sustainable land management (SLM) practices that avoid or reduce degradation, coupled with efforts to reverse degradation through restoration or rehabilitation of degraded land. The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. The implementation of LDN is managed at the landscape level through integrated land use planning, while achievement is assessed at national level. Monitoring LDN status involves quantifying the balance between the area of gains (significant positive changes in LDN indicators) and area of losses (significant negative changes in LDN indicators), within each land type across the landscape. The LDN indicators (and associated metrics) are land cover (physical land cover class), land productivity (net primary productivity, NPP) and carbon stocks (soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks). The LDN conceptual framework comprises five modules: A: Vision of LDN describes the intended outcome of LDN; B: Frame of Reference clarifies the LDN baseline; C: Mechanism for Neutrality explains the counterbalancing mechanism; D: Achieving Neutrality presents the theory of change (logic model) articulating the impact pathway; and E: Monitoring Neutrality presents the LDN indicators. Principles that govern application of the framework provide flexibility while reducing risk of unintended outcomes.

In this paper we contest the anthropogenic character of small and shallow charcoal-filled pits which occur in large numbers on Mesolithic sites in the coversand area of the northwest European plain. Despite uncertainties about their exact function, they have so far been generally interpreted as hearth-pits. Following this assumption, these features have been systematically used for dating Mesolithic sites and reconstructing Mesolithic settlement systems. However, chronological inconsistencies as well as the absence of in situ burning evidence call into question this anthropogenic interpretation. Based on anthracological, chronological and pedological evidence from two sites in NW Belgium (Verrebroek and Doel), it is argued that most of these features may be of natural origin. In particular there is good resemblance in morphology, distribution and content with remains of abandoned and burnt ant mounds. The paper ends with highlighting the consequences of this new interpretation, while suggesting new lines of investigation for future Mesolithic research.

The World Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), USAID and the International Relief/Development Project (IRDP) concluded in different reports that participatory development programs are invariably more effective at addressing local needs and interventions are more often sustained given the engagement of local actors. The main objective of this paper is to present a detailed appraisal of the implementation process of a well-known participatory approach (the UNDP-designed Area-Based Development - ABD) in the challenging context of a rural, cross-border area (in the Western Balkans). Besides reviewing the theoretical and empirical advantages of participatory and endogenous development, this case study reflects the practical shortcomings related to the selection process of a target area and to obtaining commitment from different agents in a post-conflict zone. This article also highlights that adequate implementation of participatory practices is crucial to obtain accurate quantitative and qualitative data (to guide the development agenda) and secure the involvement of both local and (inter)national actors. The latter is an important factor in fostering long-term engagement to development strategies and the achievement of results that are relevant for the local community and in harmony with national policies and international agreements.

The present report covers an exercise where a defined development approach has been tested in a case study area with rural cross border setting in the Western Balkans. The aim is to draw lessons both for continuing implementation of the ABD in this particular area and more generally initiating it in areas with similar settings. The UNDP Area-Based Development (ABD) approach is targeting specific geographical areas characterised by a particular complex development problem (setting it apart from surrounding areas), through an integrated (multi-sector), inclusive (community versus particular groups or individuals), participatory (bottom-up) and flexible (responsive to changes) approach (Harfst, 2006). There are four main situations where the ABD approach has been employed: post-conflict, poverty, exclusion, and disaster; these categories are in practice closely connected. Such development approach, as well as similar ones, finds theoretical roots within the endogenous development theory where improvements of the socioeconomic situation can best be brought by recognising and valuing the collective resources of the territory.

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and non-participants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES evaluation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Agri-environment Footprint Index (AFI) was developed as a generic methodology to assess farm-scale changes in the environmental impacts of agriculture and to assist the assessment of European agri-environment schemes. Using the AFI method, context-specific indicators were developed for relatively extensive dry-stock, and relatively intensive dairy farming in the northwest and south of Ireland, respectively. Both these farming contexts are subject to the same multi-objective Irish Rural Environment Protection Scheme. The rationale and detailed structure of four indicators are presented: these relate to: organic nutrient application, organic nutrient storage, the biodiversity value of intensive grass husbandry, and the aesthetic landscape value of grass husbandry practice. Sixteen other indicators are detailed in Supplementary material. The majority of the indicators developed involved risk assessment of farm management practices, as a proxy (surrogate) means to assess environmental state. In this sense, they provide an indirect measure or estimate of likely environmental quality, or relative environmental risk. In many cases, the complexities of environmental concerns required the development of integrative multi-metric indicators with corresponding transformation functions. Wherever possible, these functions were based on known (evidence-based) regional or national impact models. Such models (including quantification of relevant environmental quality levels) were frequently unavailable, in which case a participatory process of stakeholder and expert engagement was essential to fill knowledge gaps. Links between the developed indicators and the European Commission's Common Evaluation and Monitoring Framework (CMEF) that was developed around the same time, are presented. In this sense, the context-specific and policy-relevant indicators (and the method to generate them) provide a useful addition to the CMEF common indicators, especially to reflect the specific objectives of national/regional agri-environmental policies. Despite their customisation to the farming contexts studied, the basic structure and underlying logic of many of the developed indicators may be of much wider use in similar livestock-based agro-ecosystems. A common, geo-referenced spatial framework built on contextual indicators that takes into account climate and farming type, would represent a significant advance in the harmonised development of indicators relevant to analysis of agri-environmental policy. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

An aggregated farm-level index, the Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), based on multiple criteria methods and representing a harmonised approach to evaluation of EU agri-environmental schemes is described. The Index uses a common framework for the design and evaluation of policy that can be customised to locally relevant agri-environmental issues and circumstances. Evaluation can be strictly policy-focused, or broader and more holistic in that context-relevant assessment criteria that are not necessarily considered in the evaluated policy can nevertheless be incorporated. The Index structure is flexible, and can respond to diverse local needs. The process of Index construction is interactive, engaging farmers and other relevant stakeholders in a transparent decision-making process that can ensure acceptance of the outcome, help to forge an improved understanding of local agri-environmental priorities and potentially increase awareness of the critical role of farmers in environmental management. The structure of the AFI facilitates post-evaluation analysis of relative performance in different dimensions of the agri-environment, permitting identification of current strengths and weaknesses, and enabling future improvement in policy design. Quantification of the environmental impact of agriculture beyond the stated aims of policy using an ‘unweighted’ form of the AFI has potential as the basis of an ongoing system of environmental audit within a specified agricultural context.

. To study the change in soil organic carbon (SOC) since it was recorded during the Belgian National Soil Survey some 40 years ago, we recently revisited 939 locations still under use as arable land. The study area comprised almost the entire province of West Flanders (about 3000 km2) characterized by profound changes in its arable land management. Taking the increased ploughing depth (by 9.8 cm on average) into account, a significant (P= 0.001) increase of the SOC content by 0.2% on average was found. Expressed as an amount, the SOC in the topsoil rose by 9.3 t/ha on average, representing an increase of 25%. This is comparable with the conversion of arable land into grassland for 2 to 3 decades. Geostatistical tools were used to map the SOC at the two times of observation. These showed that most of the spatial variation occurred within about 4 km. Since the community level is the smallest spatial resolution on which agricultural statistics are gathered officially, a detailed modelling of the change in SOC was impossible. However, by selecting communities with extreme changes in SOC, we found indications that the major source of increase in SOC was due to the large increase in pig breeding.