Investment in Land Restoration: New Perspectives with Special Reference to Australia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Context
1.2. Public Investment in Land Restoration
- It is profitable;
- It conforms to a significant extent with their experience and values.
- The delay between the investment and the benefit stream as new techniques such as perennial halophytes become established or soil or landform treatments take effect;
- Many of the benefits such as biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration, etc., are not, or are only partially useful, to the land manager;
- There is often significant technical complexity and/or a need to access new plants for land regeneration, requiring technical assistance and demonstration for success.
1.3. Linking Research to On-Ground Outcomes
- Practical solutions are not easy to find and their impact may not be felt for decades;
- Salinity management should be integrated with other natural resource management strategies;
- In some cases, we will have to live with salinity and must find the institutional and practical means to make that possible.
2. Implementing Natural Resources Management
2.1. Participatory Approaches
2.2. Australian Experience
- The Landcare movement, which by the mid-1990s was estimated to have reached one third of Australian farms through some 6000 local Landcare groups, has been excellent in raising community awareness of the links between production and the supporting environmental services and in communicating many different solutions, such as ‘regenerative agriculture’ to farmers, supporting agencies, schools, etc. However, at the end of the “Decade of Landcare”, it was judged a failure by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in reducing land and water degradation—its stated objectives asquoted in Campbell 2016 [30]. These were assessed to have been largely aspirational and relying on farmers and land managers to fund changes in land practice by themselves, such as ‘regenerative agriculture’ which has succeeded in this way.
- The National Heritage Trust (NHT) was formed in 1997 to address this need for investment to support Landcare, and this morphed into a regional NRM model based on regional or catchment organizations under different names in different states. By 2007 and a decade of activity, some $AU 1 billion had been invested in planning and implementing NRM activities across Australia. Campbell goes on to discuss, from his own experience in establishing Landcare and administering NHT, how an essentially community-based process gradually evolved into a more top-down process under political pressures inherent in changing governments, and state government seeking to “cost shift” by assigning state officials to manage these activities and then selling down their own research farms and regional centers. The resulting competition for staff and resources and support for funding diminished its initial impact in empowering land managers to implement activities they saw as being in their interests, even where subsidized [30]. See also Lockwood et al. who discussed “Multi-level Environmental Governance: lessons from Australian natural resource management” [31].
- This author’s experience with the latter program (2005–2014) showed that significant on-ground impacts are achieved where strong local boards relate well with regional councils, state authorities and innovative commercial service providers to create “nested multi-level systems of community-based governance”, as described by Marshall [32,33], but this was very much personality driven and against the trend towards centralization discussed by Campbell and others. An important feature of the successes was the ability of strong boards to align the community’s strategic plans and timing with the sometimes slightly different strategic objectives and timing of funding bodies—state, private and philanthropic—as part of a “brokerage” function. This tended to, but did not finally, overcome the inherent weakness of the electoral process in being able to follow a transformational process long enough for it to be institutionalized and to facilitate the mobilization of additional resources from different sources.
2.3. International Experience
3. Sources of Finance for On-Ground Outcomes
4. Towards Transformational Change in NRM Funding
4.1. Matching Costs and Benefits Across Scales
- Services of direct marketable or consumption value to the resident land manager, (and recipients) usually only the Provisioning Services of food, or fuel products, but sometimes there are cultural or aesthetic benefits from repairing unsightly land.
- Services which overlap with some Regulating and Supporting Services that, according to FAO, accrue at other scales as Positive Externalities [50]. For example, increasing organic activity through land regeneration improves soils in various ways to the benefit of the farmer, but also sequesters carbon of benefit at the global scale by mitigating climate change. There are many other possible actions such as vegetation changes that provide farm scale benefits by reducing salt impacts on growth but also impact on regional groundwater and biodiversity, both of value off site.
- Services that may have insufficient value to the farmer to motivate action but are of value to urban and externally based funding sources seeking regional, national, or global benefits. Capturing these positive externalities requires appropriate action by farmers, but quoting Lefroy et al. [51], success “will depend on the extent to which we can adapt land use systems to meet the needs at (different) scales without compromising their profitability”. This has been described in Australia as “bridging the urban-rural divide” [52]. These latter two classes of services illustrate the concept of ‘the “flow” of ecosystem services from providers to the recipient(s) across temporal and spatial scales and mapping these as a tool to enable projecting alternative uses for different purposes [11].
4.2. New Developments in PES Markets
4.3. Towards a Brokerage Service for Technology and Finance
4.4. Other Income Earning Opportunities
5. Examples of Institutional Arrangements that Have Addressed Technical and Social Complexity
6. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services and Values in Landscape Planning, Management and Decision Making. In Ecological Complexity 7; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 260–272. [Google Scholar]
- Squires, V. Ecological Restoration: Global Challenges, Social Aspects and environmental Benefits: An Overview, chapter 1. In Ecological Restoration: Global Challenges, Social Aspects and Environmental Benefits; Squires, V.R., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, J.A. Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feng, H.; Squires, V.R.; Wu, J. Linkages between ecosystem services provisioning, urban growth, and the rural-urban interface: A case study from China. Land 2020, 10. in press. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Sustainable Land Management. Available online: http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/sustainable-land-management/slm-practices/en/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- UNCCD. Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality 2017. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/sites/de-fault/files/documents/2019-06/LDN_CF_report_web-english.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2021).
- HLPE. Agroecological and Other Innovation Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems that Enhance Food Security and Nutrition Report 14 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2021).
- Squires, V.R. Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia: Balancing Improved Livelihoods, Biodiversity Conservation and Land Protection; Springer Science & Business: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cork, S.; Eadie, L.; Mele, P.; Price, R.; Yule, D. The Relationship between Land Management Practices and Soil Condition and the Quality of Ecosystem Services Delivered from Agricultural Land in Australia. Kiri-Ganai Research Commissioned Report for the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country Initiative. 2012. Available online: https://kiriganaicom.files.word-press.com/2016/09/soils-final-report-full.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2020).
- Bennett, S.J.; Barrett-Lennard, E.G.; Colmer, T.D. Salinity and Waterlogging as constraints to saltland pasture production: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paggella, T.; Sinclair, F. Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- House of Representative Report. The Nation’s Program to Combat Salinity. Australian House of Representative Standing Committee Report, Chapter 2. 2004. Available online: https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Federated_Search_Re-sults?q=aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee__scin_salinity_report_chapter2.pdf&ps=10&pg=1 (accessed on 9 October 2020).
- Van Buren, M.; Price, R.J. Breaking Ground-Key Findings from 10 Years of Australia’s National Dryland Salinity Program Land & Water Australia; National Dryland Salinity Program: Canberra, Australia, 2004; ISBN 1 920860 20 7. [Google Scholar]
- Salzman, J. The Collision of Aspiration and Reality in Payments for Ecosystem Services, chapter 10. In Transformational Change in Environmental and Natural Resource Management, A Guide to Policy Excellence; Young, M., Esau, C., Eds.; Earthscan from Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- CSIRO and the IBES Global Assessment Report Appended. Available online: https://ecos.csiro.au/why-we-need-biodiversity-for-life-on-our-planet/?utm_source=ECOS-2020-10&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ECOS (accessed on 2 November 2020).
- Small, N.; Munday, M.; Durance, I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, M.; Mearns, R.; Scoones, I. Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resources Management. World Dev. 1999, 27, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chomba, S.; Nathan, I.; Minag, P.; Sinclair, F. Illusions of Empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of Community forestry in Kenya. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rolfe, J.; Whitten, S.; Windle, J. The Australian experience in using tenders for conservation. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, R. Managing Rural Development, Ideas and Experience from East Africa; Scandinavian Institute for African Studies: Uppsala, Sweden, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Korten, D.E. Getting to the 21st Century, Voluntary Action and Thew Global Agenda; Kumarian Press: Sterling, VA, SA, 1990; Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230110609 (accessed on 16 January 2021).
- Scoones, I.; Thompson, J. Beyond Farmer First, Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice; Intermediate Publications: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Von Bertalaffy, L. An outline of General Systems Theory. Br. J. Philos. 1950, 1, 134–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyris, C.; Schon, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective; Addison Wesley Reading: Boston, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Kolb, D. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice Hall: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Arnstein, S. Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Planners 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holling, C. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dollar, D.; Pritchard, L. Assessing Aid What Works What Doesn’t and Why; Oxford University for the World Bank. 1998. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/612481468764422935/pdf/multi-page.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Kanbur, R.; Lustig, N. Why Inequality Is Back on the Agenda; Working Paper 99-14; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1999; Available online: http://publications.dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/1999/Cornell_Dyson_wp9914.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Campbell, A. Two Steps Forward, One step Back. The ongoing failure to capture synergies in natural resource management (Australia). In Transformational Change in Environmental and Natural Resource Management Guidelines for Policy Excellence, Earthscan studies in Natural Resource Management; Young, M., Esau, C., Eds.; Routlege: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lockwood, M.; Davidson, J.; Curtis, A.; Stratford, E.; Griffith, R. Multi-level Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australian natural resource management. Aust. Geogr. 2009, 40, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leake, J. Was Involved in this NRM Process in 2 States of Australia Intermittently over 10 Years, Either as a Consultant Environmental Auditor Reporting to a State Natural Resources Commission, or as a Member of a State Natural Resource Council Responsible for All the State’s NRM Legislation (2005–2014). Available online: https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/john.leake#professional-activities (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Marshall, G. Community-based Regional Delivery of Natural Resource Management: Building Systems-Wide Capacities to Motivate Voluntary Farmer Adoption of Conservation Practices, Publication No 08/175; RIRDC: Canberra, Australia, 2008.
- Sinclair, F.; Coe, R. The Options by Context Approach: A Paradigm Shift in Agronomy Experimental Agriculture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; Volume 55, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wong, S.; Guggenheim, S. Community Driven Development. Myths and Realities; Policy Research Working Paper 8435, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29841 (accessed on 16 January 2021).
- Wunscher, T.; Wunder, S. Conservation tenders in low-income countries: Opportunities and challenges. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherr, S.L.; Shames, S.; Friedman, R. From climate-smart agriculture to climates-smart landscapes. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lutz, E.; Binswanger, H.P.; Hazell, P.; McCalla, A. Agriculture and the Environment. A World Bank Symposium; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; ISBN 0-8213-4249-5. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils; Economic and Sector Work. Report no. 67395-GLB; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Louman, B.; Campos-Arce, J.J.; Mercado, L.; Imbach, P.; Bouroncle, C.; Finegan, B.; Padilla, B. Climate Smart Territories (CST) An integrated approach to food security, ecosystems services, and climate change in rural Areas. In Climate Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice; Minang, P.A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O.E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw, J., Catacutan, D., Eds.; World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP. Catalogue of Funding Sources, Secretariat on Biological Diversity. 2006. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/guidelines/fin-sources.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Berghöfer, A.; Emerton, L.; Moreno Diaz, A.; Rode, J.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; Wittmer, H.; van Zyl, H. Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation—A Review of Experiences in German Development Cooperation; Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Umwelforschung Gmbh-UFZ Permoserstr: Leipzig, Germany, 2017; ISBN 1436-140X. [Google Scholar]
- Young, M.D. Transformational Change: In search of Excellence. In Transformational Change in Environmental and Natural Resource Management: Guidelines for Policy Excellence. Earthscan Studies in Natural Resource Management; Young, M.D., Esau, C., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rockstrom, J.W.; Steffen, K.; Noone, A.; Persson, F.S.; Chapin, E., III; Lambin, T.M.; Lenton, M.; Scheffer, C.; Folke, H.; Schellnhuber, B.; et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulding, K. The Coming Spaceship Earth: Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy; Jarrett, H., Ed.; Resources for the Future; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1966; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lovelock, J.E.; Margulis, L. Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Series Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute. Tellus 1974, 26, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chavalarias, D. From inert matter to the global society, Life as multi-level networks of processes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2020, 375, 20190329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Watson, R.T.; Noble, I.R.; Bolin, B.; Ravindranath, N.H.; Verardo, D.J.; Dokken, D.J. Special report on LULUCF. In Technological and Economic Potential of Options to Enhance Mitigation IPCC; Working Group III: Mitigation Chapter 4; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/land-use-land-use-change-and-forestry/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Leake, J. Land Degradation, Biodiversity and Productivity: Pressing Issues in Management of the World’s Drylands—A Synthesis. Concluding, chapter 17. In Drylands: Biodiversity, Management, and Conservation; Squires, R., Guar, M., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-1-53615-8096-0651. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Ecosystem Services; FAO: Rome, Italy; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ar584e.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2020).
- Lefroy, E.C.; Flugge, F.; Avery, A.; Hume, I. Potential of Current perennial plant-based farming systems to deliver salinity management outcomes and improve prospects for native biodiversity: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2005, 45, 1357–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bond, A.J.; Saison, C.L.A.; Lawley, V.R.; O’Connor, P.J. Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide between Ecosystem Service Suppliers and Beneficiaries: Using a Distributed Community Nursery to Support Rural Revegetation. Environ. Manag. 2019, 64, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dale, A.; Vella, K.; Ryan, S.; Broderick, K.; Hill, R.; Potts, R.; Brewer, T. Governing Community-based Natural Resources Management in Australia: International Implications. Land 2020, 9, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannell, D.J.; Ridley, A.; Regan, P.; Gale, G. CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity. Available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/33385017/focus-on-salt-crc-leme (accessed on 31 October 2020).
- Catchment Management-Setting the Scene. An Overview of Catchment Management Models in Australia. Went Worth Group of Concerned Scientists, Canberra. Available online: https://wentworthgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Williams-Catchment-Management.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020).
- Leake, J.E.; Morison, J. Land Repair Fund: A model for exploiting the nexus between land repair, improved production, and profit. Aust. Agribus. Rev. 2008, 16, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Lal, R. Carbon sequestration into saline soils. J. Soil Salin. Water Qual. 2009, 1, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, W. Debunking: 8 Myths about Carbon Offsetting. In Ecosystem Market Place; 2020; Available online: https://www.ecosystem-marketplace.com/articles/debunked-eight-myths-carbon-offsetting/ (accessed on 10 November 2020).
- Petrokofsky, G.; Kanamaru, H.; Achard, F.; Goetz, S.; Joosten, H.; Holmgren, P.; Lehtonen, A.; Menton, M.C.S.; Pullin, A.S.; Wattenbach, M. Comparison of methods for measuring and assessing carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools; do the accuracy and precision of current methods compare? A systematic protocol. J. Environ. Evid. 2012, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Issa, S.; Dahy, B.; Ksiksi, T.; Saleous, N. A review of Terrestrial Carbon Assessment Methods using Geo-Spatial Technologies with Emphasis on Arid lands. Remote. Sens. 2020, 12, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, H.; Su, L.; Feng, X.; Tang, J. Role of Monitoring in environmental regulation: An empirical analysis of grazing restrictions in China. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 114, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventura, Y.; Eshal, A.; Pasternak, D.; Sagi, M. The Development of Halophyte-Based Agriculture: Past and Present. Annu. Bot. 2015, 115, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Buhmann, A.K.; Waller, U.; Wecker, B.; Papenbrock, J. Optimisation of culturing conditions and selection of species for the use of halophytes as bio filters for nutrient-rich saline water. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 149, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, S.M.; Lyra, D.A.; Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Ismail, S.; Akhtar, M.J.U. Financial Analysis of Halophyte Cultivation in a desert Environment using Different Saline Water Resources for Irrigation. In Ecophysiology, Abiotic Distress Responses and Utilisation of Halophytes; Hasanuzzaman, M., Nahar, K., Öztürk, M., Eds.; Springer Nature Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcum, K.B.; Yensen, N.P.; Leake, J.E. Genotypic variation in salinity tolerance of Distichlis spicata turf ecotypes. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 1506–1511. [Google Scholar]
- Toze, S. Reuse of effluent water–benefits and risks. New Directions for a diverse planet. In Proceedings of the 4th Inter-national Crop Science Congress Sept CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September–1 October 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Barrow, C.J. Biochar: Potential for countering land degeneration and for improving agriculture. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panta, S.; Flowers, T.; Lane, P.; Doyle, R.; Haros, G.; Shabala, S. Halophyte Agriculture: Success Stories. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 107, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tedesco, M.; Scalici, C.; Vaccari, D.; Cipollina, A.; Tamburini, A.; Micale, G. Performance of the first Reverse Electrodialysis pilot plant for power production from saline waters and concentrated brines. J. Membr. Sci. 2016, 500, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akinshina, N.; Azizov, A.; Karasyova, T.; Klose, E. On the issue of Halophytes as energy plants in saline environments. Biomass Energy 2016, 91, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunning, D.; Maguire, J.; Burnell, G. The development of sustainable Saltwater-based Food Production Systems: A review of Established and Novel Concepts. Water 2016, 8, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bresdin, C.; Glenn, E.P. Distichlis palmeri: Perennial Grain Yields under Saline Paddy-style Cultivation of Grains on Seawater. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2016, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haros, G.; Leake, J.E. Are the Outcomes that are Vital for the Survival of Mankind Achievable in an Era of GlobalWarming. In A Better World; Tudor Rose for the High-Level Political Forum; UNCCD: Bonn, Germany, 2018; Volume 4, ISBN 978-0-9956487-5-3710. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Community Driven Development. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/communitydrivendevelopment (accessed on 25 January 2019).
- Leake, J. The Mixed Results of Development Aid. Chapter 2.2 in Aspects of Participatory Planning with Opium Growers in Vietnam. Master’s Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, December 2000. [Google Scholar]
- UNCCD. $14 b Commitment to The Great Green Wall Project Announced 13 January 2021. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/good-news-africas-great-green-wall (accessed on 17 January 2021).
- Global Environment Facility. Available online: https://www.thegef.org/our-work (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Forest People’s Organization. Available online: http://www.forestpeoples.org/en/about (accessed on 25 January 2019).
- Greenhouse Gas Market Quarterly Report; IETA Insights no 4, Nov. 2018. Available online: https://www.ieta.org/resources/Resources/GHG_Report/2018/IETA%20Insights%20Q4_2018.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2020).
- Glenn, E.; Squires, V.; Brown, J. Saline soils in drylands: Extent of the problem and prospects for utilization. In World Atlas of Desertification; Middleton, N., Arnold, T.E., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992; pp. 144–148. [Google Scholar]
- White, H.; Menon, R.; Waddington, H. Community-Driven Development: Does It Build Social Cohesion or Infrastructure? A Mixed-Method Evidence Synthesis; Working Paper no 30; International Initiative for Impact Evaluation: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bawden, R. Ecosystems Services: A Commentary. Land 2021, 10. in press. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Leake, J.E. Investment in Land Restoration: New Perspectives with Special Reference to Australia. Land 2021, 10, 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020156
Leake JE. Investment in Land Restoration: New Perspectives with Special Reference to Australia. Land. 2021; 10(2):156. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020156
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeake, John E. 2021. "Investment in Land Restoration: New Perspectives with Special Reference to Australia" Land 10, no. 2: 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020156
APA StyleLeake, J. E. (2021). Investment in Land Restoration: New Perspectives with Special Reference to Australia. Land, 10(2), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020156