Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:47:36.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International activities in assessing and monitoring soil degradation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D.W. Sanders
D.W. Sanders
Affiliation:
Senior Officer (Soil Conservation), Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Get access

Abstract

The problem of land degradation is not new, but never before has it been so widespread or affected the lives of so many people. The need for a global assessment of land degradation was highlighted by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. Since then, several attempts have been made to develop methodologies that will allow for systematic assessment and monitoring of global land degradation. Systematic work started in 1975, when FAO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) collaborated in a study to develop a provisional method for soil degradation. This method was tested, and maps on a scale of 1:5,000,000 were produced for North Africa and the Near East. However, the method proved difficult to apply accurately, so this project was followed by another where the method was revised and refined in an effort to assess and map desertification. Again, problems were encountered because of the complexity of the subject and the lack of usable reliable data. More recently, ISRIC, using a simplified methodology and the assistance of some 250 scientists from around the world, has produced a world map of human induced soil degradation at a scale of approximately 1:10,000,000. Meanwhile, interest has been growing in the problem of nutrient depletion in developing countries and a study has been completed of N, P and K balances in the soils of 38 African countries. Although we still do not have an accurate assessment of global land degradation and no systematic monitoring is yet in place, these innovative studies have provided us with a sound basis for future work and have identified many of the practical problems of measuring land degradation, data collection and analysis that will have to be overcome before more accurate assessment and monitoring can be achieved.

Keywords

sou qualitysoil erosionnutrient depletiondesertification
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Soil Quality , June 1992 , pp. 17 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Department of Primary Industries and Energy. 1989. Primary Resources. Government of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
2.Doolette, J.B., and Magrath, W.B.. 1990. Watershed development in Asia. Technical Paper No. 127. World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
3.Evans, R., Bullock, P., and Davis, B.. 1988. Monitoring soil erosion in England and Wales. In Agriculture_Erosion Assessment and Modelling. Proceedings of a workshop held in Brussels, Belgium, 2–3 December, 1986. Commission of European Communities. 1988.Google Scholar
4.Food and Agriculture Organization. 1979. A provisional methodology for soil degradation assessment. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
5.Food and Agriculture Organization. 1981. Soil and water conservation. COAG/81/8. Presented to the Sixth Session of the Committee of Agriculture. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
6.Food and Agriculture Organization. 1984. A provisional methodology for assessment and mapping of desertification. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
7.ISRIC. 1990. World map of the status of human induced soil degradation_an explanatory note by L.R. Oldeman, R.T.A. Hakkeling, and W.G. Sombroek. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD), October, 1990. International Soil Reference and Information Centre and the United Nations Environmental Programme. Wageningen, The Netherlands, and Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
8.Lowdermilk, W.C. 1953. Conquest of the land through 7,000 years. Agric. Inform. Bull. No. 99. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
9.Napier, T.L. 1986. Socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of soil erosion control practices in the United States. Workshop on Erosion Assessment for EEC: Methods and Models, Brussels, Belgium. 12, 1986.Google Scholar
10.Sanders, D.W. 1987. FAO activities in soil conservation. In Moldenhauer, W.C. and Hudson, N.W. (eds). Conservation Farming on Steep Lands. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp 70–74.Google Scholar
11.Stocking, M. 1986. The cost of soil erosion in Zimbabwe in terms of loss of three major nutrients. Consultants Working Paper No. 3. Soils Resources, Management and Conservation Service, Land and Water Development Division. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
12.Stoorvogel, J.J., and Smaling, E.M.A.. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in subsanaran Africa: 1983–2000. Vol. 1: Main Report. Report 28. The Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
13.Topraksu, . 1981. Erosion map of Turkey, 1:1,000,000. Ministry of Village Affairs and Cooperatives. General Directorate of Topraksu, Turkey.Google Scholar
14.United Nations Environment Programme. 1982. World Soils Policy. Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
15.World Resources Institute. 1986. World Resources 1986: An Assessment of the Resource Base that Supports the Global Economy. Basic Books, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar