Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

Land quality indicators: research plan

J. Dumanski a, , C. Pieri b
a

16 Burnbank Street, Ottawa, Canada K2G 0H4

Rural Development Sector, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract
Indicators of land quality (LQIs) are being developed as a means to better coordinate actions on land related issues, such
as land degradation. Economic and social indicators are already in regular use to support decision making at global, national
and sub-national levels and in some cases for air and water quality, but few such indicators are available to assess, monitor
and evaluate changes in the quality of land resources. Land refers not just to soil but to the combined resources of terrain,
water, soil and biotic resources that provide the basis for land use. Land quality refers to the condition of land relative to the
requirements of land use, including agricultural production, forestry, conservation, and environmental management.
The LQI program addresses the dual objectives of environmental monitoring as well as sector performance monitoring
for managed ecosystems (agriculture, forestry, conservation and environmental management). The primary research issue
in the LQI program is the development of indicators that identify and characterize the impact(s) of human interventions on
the landscape for the major agroecological zones of tropical, sub-tropical and temperate environments. Core LQIs identified
for immediate development are: nutrient balance, yield gap, land use intensity and diversity, and land cover; LQIs requiring
longer term research include: soil quality, land degradation, and agro-biodiversity; LQIs being developed by other authoritative
groups include: water quality, forestland quality, rangeland quality, and land contamination/pollution. 2000 Elsevier Science
B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Land quality; Land use; Land management; Land degradation; Monitoring

1. Introduction
The impacts of human interventions on natural systems are increasingly critical issues for the future. Increasing population pressures and increasing demands
for services from a fixed land base are threatening
the quality and the natural regulating functions of the
soil, water and air resources on which sustainability
depends. For the first time in history, we are crossing
the threshold of new lands available for cultivation.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jdumanski@home.com (J. Dumanski).

For the first time, the sustainable management of the

land resource is more important than land supply for
development. However, land degradation and mismanagement are threatening our opportunities and flexibility for increased services from the land, requiring
increased investment in soil conservation and even rehabilitation and reclamation. Estimates are that about
40% of agricultural lands are affected by human induced land degradation (Oldeman et al., 1990). The
land quality indicators (LQIs) program is being developed to expand our knowledge and understanding on
land management and degradation problems in managed ecosystems, and to provide guidance to decision

0167-8809/00/$ see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 8 0 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 8 3 - 3

94

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

makers on these issues. It is important to know if current land management is leading towards or away from
sustainability.
Sustainable land management and the choice of
feasible and cost effective management options is
hampered by the lack of available indicators for monitoring how land is being managed by farmers, the
impacts of policies and programs on land management choices at the farm level, and the impacts of
different management scenarios (cause-effect relationships) on land quality. As illustrated in the World
Bank Action Plan, From Vision to Action in the
Rural Sector (World Bank, 1997a), there is clearly
a major requirement at national and global levels for
increased agricultural production and intensification,
but the challenge is to achieve this while maintaining
and enhancing the quality of the land resource on
which production depends. This implies the need for
standards, such as LQIs, on which to measure and
assess progress towards these goals.
Indicators are common instruments for monitoring
progress towards some larger objectives. For example, economic indicators, such as GDP, distribution of
employment, etc., are used regularly to monitor performance of national and local economies. Similarly,
access to social services, literacy rates, etc., are used
for comparative assessments of social development.
On the environmental side, indicators are available for
monitoring and reporting on air and water quality (for
which the World Bank played major catalytic roles).
However, indicators which can be used to monitor
change in land quality are still not available, and because we cannot monitor land quality, we are not in
a strong position to take appropriate action on land
related issues such as land degradation (A. Young,
personal communication).
Agriculture is traditionally viewed as an environmental problem, but if carefully managed, it can also
be a significant part of the environmental solution.
However, monitoring the impacts of agriculture on the
environment is much more difficult than monitoring
other sectors. Hundreds of millions of private farmers,
large and small and male and female, are stewards
of the globes land resources, and monitoring the
impacts of their land use decisions is a major undertaking. Although, the impacts of any one individual
is minuscule, the collective impacts of the millions of
management decisions can have major regional and

even global environmental impacts. For example, lack

of soil cover results in erosion and siltation of reservoirs; loss of soil organic matter through land degradation contributes significantly to CO2 emissions to
the atmosphere; mismanagement of irrigated lands
results in salinization and water logging. Currently,
our procedures for monitoring the extent and impacts of these processes are rudimentary, and greatly
hampered by the lack of appropriate indicators, the
right kinds of data, and cost-effective monitoring
methods.
This paper reports on the background, criteria, and
research plan for a set of indicators for monitoring
land quality. These evolved from a collaborative program being developed and implemented by a coalition
consisting of the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR). The program addresses the dual
objectives of environmental monitoring as well as sector performance monitoring for managed ecosystems
(agriculture and forestry). The objective of the paper
is to provide guidance and to focus the research on
LQIs.
In the context of LQIs, land quality is the condition
of land relative to the requirements of land use, including agricultural production, forestry, conservation, and
environmental management (Pieri et al., 1995). Land
is an area of the earths surface, including all elements
of the physical and biological environment that influence land use. Land refers not only to soil, but also to
landforms, climate, hydrology, vegetation and fauna,
together with land improvements, such as terraces and
drainage works (Sombroek and Sims, 1995).

2. Research requirements for the LQI program

The research requirements for the LQI program
were developed from three regional workshops in
1995 (Cali, Nairobi and Washington, DC) and two
further workshops in 1996 (Rome and Washington,
DC Saginaw, MI). These identified a broad framework of activities, including adoption of the pressurestate-response framework as the means for indicator
development, and the agroecological zones (AEZs) or

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

ecoregions as the basis for geographically stratifying

major land related issues. An AEZ is a spatial (landscape) unit for identification and application of resource management options to address specific issues.
It is derived from geo-referenced biophysical and
socio-economic information, and it is dynamic and
multiscale in that it reflects human interventions in the
landscape. The meetings also began the difficult process of selecting sets of quantifiable and comparable
indicators to be used internationally to evaluate the
impacts of human interventions in important AEZs in
tropical, sub-tropical and temperate zones.
The research plan was developed during a research
planning meeting, 2122 October 1996, Washington,
DC, sponsored by the World Bank. A panel of internationally acclaimed scientists and administrators
established research priorities and a recommended
research plan, defined strategic alliances to be developed with existing programs to achieve the research,
and identified potential sources of funding. This plan
has since been discussed and generally accepted at
various national and international meetings.
A short and longer-term research plan was recommended involving a set of five core LQIs to be initiated in the short term as international reference standards. A second set of three indicators for national
and sub-national (project level) monitoring and evaluation was recommended for development over a longer
time period. A third set of four LQIs was recognized,
but development was recommended by liaison with
authoritative institutions already involved in building
these indicators.
2.1. Selecting the right (Core) LQIs
Interest in environmental monitoring has spawned
a virtual indicator development industry in the recent
past. Very often such indicators have been developed
by a priori identification of candidate indicators by
a panel of experts, followed by assembling and analyzing whatever data are available to support this selection. The success of this approach has been mixed,
since often the final indicator has to be molded to fit
the data available, and to reflect experiences gained
in developing the indicator. Consequently, there is a
strong possibility of bias in development of the indicator(s), and the final product is often somewhat less
than what was intended or desired at the outset.

95

The LQI program takes an alternative approach.

Experience has shown that truly robust indicators are
developed first of all through comprehensive analyses
of the complex systems to be described and monitored.
It is only through such thorough and comprehensive
analyses that sufficient understanding of a system is
developed to ensure indicators that are simple and useful enough to be used at national and international
levels.
The program will have to deal with the important
questions of how to integrate socio-economic (land
management) data with biophysical information in the
definition and development of LQIs, and how to scale
and aggregate indicators from local to regional, national and global scales. Equally important, the indicators will have to be based on data that are either
available or easily assembled, but they will still have
to sufficiently reliable and robust to stand up under
scientific scrutiny.
Land quality should be assessed for specific types
of land use and management and for specific AEZs
conditions in a country. Otherwise, trends and performance cannot be sensibly monitored, interpreted, and
reported. This requires the development and application of spatially located and (normally) geo-referenced
temporal data bases of the variables to be used to develop the LQIs. Such data bases are developed through
spatial integration over time of the socio-economic
and biophysical data for the different AEZs of a country. However, census data and other primary data for
land management, and AEZ boundaries normally do
not coincide, and except for very small countries, most
countries are made of several AEZs. Therefore, procedures of spatial integration are necessary, but these
must follow recognized protocols, such as described
for Hierarchy Theory (Dumanski et al., 1998), and
some criteria of correspondence between the different
data bases must be applied (the 70% spatial coverage
rule is often used, whereby it is assumed that the local socio-economic and biophysical data are directly
related if the spatial coverage of the two sources of
data are 70% or higher).
The steps are first of all to characterize the range of
AEZ resources, identify the important issues (problems) in each AEZ, select LQIs relevant to the issues,
characterize the land management practices used by
farmers in each AEZ, develop the necessary data
bases and GIS coverages, then conduct the research to

96

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

develop, model, test and refine the LQIs (Pieri et al.,

1995; World Bank, 1997b). This normally will result
in a small, select group of LQIs that relate closely
to the (normally limited) AEZs in a given country.
When the LQIs are developed and interpreted, they
can either be reported by the AEZs, or the results can
be aggregated to sub-national and national levels by
weighting the LQIs according to their contribution
towards some national objectives, such as calculating
national wealth, rural poverty reduction, achieving
food security, etc.
2.2. Objectives for the LQI research program
Major gaps in knowledge on the impacts of human
interventions in the landscape were identified in the
various international workshops leading to development of the LQI research plan. These are:
links between land quality and poverty;
links between land quality and land management,
i.e. management practices currently being used by
farmers;
lack of geo-referenced land management information;
lack of time series data and system resilience information;
rural-urban land management and land use planning
interactions;
impacts of macro-level policies on land decisions
and land quality.
While all the knowledge gaps are important, the first
three are the highest priorities, and these are the basis
for the research program. This results in development
of the following research objective:
Identifying and testing cause-effect relationships
among land quality, land management, and poverty
is the primary research objective for the LQI
program.

3. Details of the proposed research program

A minimal number of recommended Core LQIs
were identified using criteria and guidelines from earlier workshops (Dumanski, 1994; OECD, SCOPE and
other indicator initiatives, and from the regional LQI
workshops held in 1995 and 1996 in Cali, Nairobi,
Rome and Washington). Emphasis was on making

better use of available data and information, and

integrating these with new information management
technologies such as remote sensing, geographic
information systems (GIS), relational data base management systems, the internet, etc.
The Core LQIs may be developed from direct measurement (remote sensing, census, etc), or estimated
using well tested, scientifically sound procedures.
Emphasis should be on analyses to identify driving
force(s) of land use change and the impact(s) of the
change. Interpretation of the LQIs should not be done
in isolation, but within the context of what is happening with land management/land use in the countries
in question. Recommended contextual information to
assist in interpretation of the LQIs include social and
institutional information (tenure, gender, educational
levels, etc), farm household economics , climate, and
land use as available from the census.
Characteristics of Core LQIs are:
measurable in space, i.e. over the landscape and in
all countries;
reflect change over recognizable time periods (510
years);
are a function of independent variables;
are quantifiable and usually dimensionless (ratio estimates).
3.1. Core LQIs recommended for short term
development
This section provides short descriptions and the criteria for each of the core LQIs being recommended.
The major research issues are identified, along with
some information on data sources and procedures for
assessment and interpretation. The first two LQIs are
already developed, and full instructions are available
on: www.ciesin.org
3.1.1. Nutrient balance (and nutrient depletion)
This LQI describes nutrient stocks and flows as related to different land management systems in specific
AEZs and specific countries. It is based on several
years of research and experience in East Africa and
Europe (Smaling et al., 1996).
The major research issue is nutrient cycling:
nutrient mining, nutrient imbalance and decreasing yields caused by removal of harvested products
(grains and residue), erosion and leaching, primar-

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

ily in developing countries with low rates of fertilizer use;

nutrient loading and environmental degradation
(phosphorus, nitrates, etc) caused by excess fertilizer and manure application in developed countries,
but increasingly also in developing countries with
high fertilizer subsidies such as China.
The research process is similar to environmental accounting. It involves establishment of nutrient balance
sheets with losses and additions as estimated from
nutrient removal through crop harvesting, erosion,
etc., compared to nutrient additions due to fertilizers,
organic inputs, recharging of the nutrient supply due
to legume rotations, deep rooting systems, natural
recharging due to atmospheric fixation, etc. Smaling
et al. (1996) have demonstrated how this LQI can be
developed for several hierarchical scales, including
the farm level, region (AEZ) level, and national level.
Actual measurements of nutrient cycling are rarely
available, but Smaling et al. (1996) have demonstrated
that reliable estimates of nutrient balance can be developed using crop yield statistics from national census,
nutrient additions from fertilizer trade statistics, and
various biophysical models for denitrification, leaching, erosion, etc;
3.1.2. Yield gap
Three closely related statistics are proposed for this
issue:
yield trends (direction, rate of change) for the major
food crops in specific AEZs;
production risk (change in the expected annual variability in yield) for the major food crops in specific
AEZs;
yield gap (current yields compared to potential farm
level, economically feasible yields) for the major
food crops in specific AEZs.
These are useful indicators because they are so
easily understood, easily converted into economic
terms, and they are useful for monitoring both project
and program performance. However, they have value
as LQIs only if changes in yield are clearly related
to land management in specific AEZs and for specific management systems. There are many possible
cause-effect relationships with yield, e.g. marketing,
climate change, subsidies, land management, etc.,
and the indicator can be misleading without comprehensive analyses of the driving forces causing yield

97

change. Knowledge of farming systems, marketing,

the policy environment and other contextual information, as well as cause-effect relationships of current
land management on yield trends and variability are
necessary.
The key research issues are:
to what extent are changes in land quality resulting
in corresponding changes in crop yield and production risk;
how can reliable estimates of yield gaps be developed for developing countries, and what are the
management options to improve the yield gap;
are there practical biological and economic thresholds (yield and variability) to ensure sustainable
production systems.
Yield gap analyses relates to residual yield opportunities that could be realized with improved cultivars,
fertilization, and land management. Alternatively, it
reflects the extent to which the biological production
systems are currently being pushed, realizing that if
pushed beyond a biological threshold, the systems will
likely fail. Knowledge of this threshold is strategically
important for policy, program and management planning in high production environments, since the margin for error decreases as the biological production
threshold is approached. Concurrently, the impact of
error at these production levels is likely to be significant.
Yield data are available from the FAOSTAT data
base, as well as other sources, such as special surveys,
safety net and farm subsidy programs, international
marketing programs, etc. Alternately, crop growth
models can be used to simulate long-term average
yields and annual yield variability (to a lesser extent),
providing that the models have been thoroughly tested
and found to be reliable. Also, remote sensing data
can be used to estimate level and variability of crop
yields, or to provide agro-meteorological inputs for
crop growth models.
A major concern is that, national yield statistics are
normally a ratio of national production divided by area
harvested. Such estimates can be highly biased, since
experience has shown that expansion of cultivation
on marginal lands, for example, can depress national
average yields at the same time that yields in more
favorable areas are increasing due to increased fertilizer use, improved soil conservation, adoption of improved cultivars, etc. Ideally, yield data for the major

98

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

food crops should be geographically referenced (disaggregated) on an AEZ basis, and then analyzed in relation to the agricultural production systems and land
management practices being used by farmers.
3.1.3. Agricultural land use intensity and land use
diversity
These two LQIs are intended to assess the general
impacts of current land management at the farm level.
Assessing land use intensity and land use diversity
provides information on trends towards or away from
sustainable land management.
Land use intensity is intended to estimate the impacts of agricultural intensification (and increased
frequency of cultivation) on land quality. Normally,
intensification involves increased cropping, shift towards more value-added production, and increased
amounts and frequency of inputs. Such changes,
without concurrent adjustments in land management
practices, often result in nutrient mining, soil erosion and other forms of land degradation. However,
agricultural intensification, if properly implemented,
can also result in improved land quality, as shown
in Kenya, Brazil, and other areas (El-Swaify, 1999).
The difference is the specific management practices
adopted by farmers during the transition towards
intensification (often based on expected increased
profits from the more intensive production systems).
Land use diversity (agro-diversity) is the degree of
diversification of production systems over the landscape, including livestock and agro-forestry systems;
it is the antithesis of mono-cropping. Agro-diversity
is often practiced by farmers as part of their risk management strategy, i.e. to guard against crop failure
and financial collapse, but it is also a useful indicator
of flexibility and resilience in regional farming systems, and their capacity to absorb shocks or respond
to opportunities, e.g. Kenya (English et al., 1994).
Agro-diversity is assessed on the number, kind and
complexity of components in the farming systems, but
it can also be approximated from national statistics by
the number and kinds of crops per growing season,
the extent and frequency of rotations, presence or
absence of livestock in the production systems, etc.
The key research issues are:
is current land management contributing to increased land degradation or improving land quality;
are current agricultural management practices

contributing to improved global environmental

management.
A major concern with these LQIs is that data on
current land management practices are generally not
available (except from special surveys), and various
surrogates will have to be developed. Some of these
are already available in the literature, such as land use
intensity based on crops per growing season, extent
and frequency of rotations; cultivation intensity, etc.;
ratio of cultivated land to cultivable land; area and frequency of soil enhancing to soil depleting crops; ratio of mono-cropping to mixed cropping, etc. These
are based on data available from the census and from
agricultural and household surveys. Time series information on crop rotations, etc. can be generated from
remote sensing (Huffman et al., 2000).
3.1.4. Land cover
This LQI is intended to estimate the extent, duration, and time of vegetative cover on the land surface
during major periods of erosive events. It is also intended to measure land cover change over time, and
the correlation with land use pressures.
This LQI will be a surrogate for estimating major land processes such as erosion, desertification,
deforestation, etc. In combination with land use intensity and agro-diversity, it contributes to increased
understanding on the issue of agriculture and environmental sustainability. The land cover LQI (extent,
duration, time series, including critical erosive periods) will require application of remote sensing data,
supplemented by ground truthing.
The key research issues are:
is current ground cover adequate to protect against
land degradation during critical erosion periods;
how is the kind, extent and duration of land cover
changing over time;
what pressures are causing change in land cover.
Archived remote sensing coverages are already
available in many cases to initiate testing and development. Also, some of the required indices, such as the
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and
revised NDVI, are already available (Ashbindu Singh,
UNEP, personal communication). Indices for specific
areas will have to be mapped, and then compared
(overlain) with mapped estimates of erosion risk, as
obtained from biophysical models such as EPIC and
others. Such analyses, calculated over to time with

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

historic data or simulated using best estimates of land

use and weather data, will provide information on the
degree and probability of erosion risk.
Land cover (kind, extent, and duration) can be interpreted as a surrogate for land degradation. Such
indicators are important for planning and evaluating
national and regional programs in soil conservation
and agricultural production, but increasingly they are
required for estimating the potential impacts of improved land management on issues of global significance, such as carbon sequestration, desertification,
and biodiversity. Increasing the biomass and extent of
land cover often increases soil organic matter and soil
water storage, and this enhances yield potential and
decreases production risk. At the same time, however,
this process sequesters increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon in the soil, thereby providing global
environmental benefits by mitigating climate change,
controlling desertification, and often increasing the
quality of wildlife habitat.
3.2. Core LQIs recommended for longer term
development (sub-national (AEZ) program)
These are LQIs, where the theoretical basis for development is still being developed, e.g. soil quality, or
where reliable data to report on the LQI are generally
not available, e.g. land degradation. These LQIs are
designated for the second phase of the LQI research
plan, they require a longer term commitment, and they
will be more expensive to develop. The recommended
LQIs are:
3.2.1. Soil quality
The scientific basis for this LQI is that soil quality
reflects and is measured by the conditions which make
the soil a living body. There are currently several national and international working groups trying to develop a relevant and effective indicator of soil quality,
but successes are mixed. The evidence indicates that
traditional soil chemical, physical and taxonomic data
by themselves are not useful to describe soil quality, but a more definitive indicator may be developed
from integrating these data with soil biology and by
monitoring the soil food chain. Soil life functions also
require favorable chemical and physical conditions,
but the latter are not suitable indicators on their own.
In the meantime, a useful surrogate may be developed

99

from data on soil organic matter, particularly, the

so-called dynamic or microbial carbon pool (bacterial
and fungal carbon). Recent research indicates that soil
quality and soil agro-diversity are closely linked and
could be evaluated by characterizing the resilience
of the main functional groups in the soil, namely
macrofauna (earthworms, termites), nematodes, microsymbionts (mychorrhiza, N-fixers), and microbial
biomass (fungi, protists, bacteria) (Swift, 1997).
The key research issues are:
do current land management practices maintain, enhance or reduce the capacity of soil organic matter
to perform the above functions;
do current land management practices maintain the
biological life and biodiversity of the soil, and thus
enhance the environmental resilience of the soil for
maintenance of global life support functions.
Soil organic matter (SOM) is the best surrogate for
soil health, since SOM reflects the residue of plant
and soil organisms that have lived and died in the
soil. The basic functions of SOM are development
and maintenance of soil structure, nutrient and organic carbon storage, and maintenance of biological
activity. Thus, SOM is the primary source for and a
temporary sink for plant nutrients and soil organic
carbon in agroecosystems, maintains soil tilth, aids
in the infiltration of air and water, promotes water
storage, reduces erosion, and controls the efficacy
and fate of applied pesticides. Specific indicators will
have to be developed to characterize the sensitivity of
organic matter for these functions.
This LQI would need to be linked closely with land
use intensity, agro-diversity, and land cover because
of the implications and possible impacts for improved
land management.
3.2.2. Land degradation
Land degradation (erosion, salinization, compaction, organic matter loss, etc) has been studied
for many years, and there is a strong theoretical base
for several State LQIs to describe the processes. The
major deficiency, however, is the serious lack of systematic and reliable data for reporting on the extent
and impacts of these indicators, although there are
innumerable small research studies in many parts
of the world all of which provide some information
on the current status of land degradation for small
areas. This information is being assembled through

100

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

programs such as WOCAT and ISRIC, but progress

is slow.
The key issues are:
do current land management practices contribute to
loss of agricultural production potential;
do current land management practices contribute to
off-site environmental damage and reduced environmental resilience, as land becomes degraded or
is allowed to erode due to mismanagement.
Systematic monitoring and application of these
indicators has not been instituted in any country except for the USA. Because land degradation is site
specific, monitoring systems have to be highly comprehensive and cover all land areas, and these rapidly
become exceedingly expensive. Alternate means of
assessing land degradation are necessary. A considerably less expensive approach is approximated in
Canada by building on the agricultural census with a
few strategic questions on current land management
practices (Dumanski et al., 1994). Improved information on land management at the farm level thus
become available with each normal census reporting
period.
In addition, some promising new technologies for
estimating the extent, duration and impacts of land
degradation, involving the use of biophysical models
such as EPIC, some remote sensing procedures, or a
combination of these with ground surveys, are becoming available (Ingram and Gregory, 1996). Research is
needed, however, to develop cost effective procedures
for application at local (project) and national scales,
and aggregation of results for policy and program
application.
3.2.3. Agro-biodiversity
Agro-biodiversity is a new concept, and much work
is still required to develop this to the point where
practical indicators could be developed for monitoring and evaluation. By far the majority of the earths
land surface has already been modified by human
interventions, so an understanding of land use systems, the dynamics of land use change, the driving
forces behind land use change, and the resiliency of
land use systems are fundamental to better managing
biodiversity issues in agriculture.
The primary research issues are:
how to better integrate biodiversity in the process
of intensifying agriculture (Srivastava et al., 1996),

and manage the gene pools used in crop and animal

production;
how to manage and protect the diversity and healthy
living conditions for soil (micro)organisms, realising their roles in biologic nitrogen fixation, etc., but
also as sources for antibiotics, etc.;
how to manage the coexistence of natural species,
particularly wildlife and water fowl, in agricultural
areas.
It is often argued that intensive agriculture is the
principle cause of habitat destruction and biodiversity
loss, but the alternative, agricultural extensification,
exacerbates habitat decline and species loss (Smith,
1996). This is because extensification normally entails expansion of cultivated areas on marginal lands,
which usually are the prime areas of natural habitat. At
the same time, agricultural systems, particularly those
based on traditional agriculture or systems in transition
that retain some traditional plant varieties and cultivation practices, are an important conservatory of genetic
materials important to agriculture. Agricultural systems, such as mixed systems with integrated crop and
livestock production and those involving agro-forestry,
utilize and manage a wide genetic pool for production.
However, the adoption of high-input, modern farming, with reliance on monoculture, mechanization, and
pesticides and other agri-chemicals, normally diminishes biodiversity and destroys many beneficial insects
and soil microorganisms.
Agricultural intensification, however, should not be
considered simply as the adoption of modern farming
systems. Some new technologies such as integrated
pest management, conservation tillage, and agroforestry actually expand the genetic resources used in
agriculture.
The proper role of agro-biodiversity is to achieve
the balance required to ensure the health and sustainability of agroecosystems, and protect the flexibility
and resilience of farming systems againt outside
stresses and periodic shocks (such as pests, diseases
and droughts) (Smith, 1996). Maintaining a wide
genetic base in agriculture is essential to ensure the
resilience of farming systems, because this provides
greater options for alternative production systems,
and it is the basis for improved risk management and
rapid response management. Ensuring the resiliency
of these systems is an important condition to sustainability.

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

101

Table 1
Proposed indicators for agro-biodiversity
Indicators

Surrogates

Natural habitat loss

Habitat fragmentation
Species loss even when natural habitat is intact
Decline of biodiversity of crop species on farms
Decline of biodiversity within species

Encroachment by agricultural production systems

Encroachment of agriculture in an uncoordinated manner
Pollution; sedimentation; excessive harvesting, etc
Adoption of monocropping; reduction of mixed cropping
Adoption of modern varieties; expansion of intellectual property rights

Although, data with which to assess agro-biodiversity

are universally scarce, various surrogates for this can
be developed using information on land use dynamics.
Smith (1996) proposes some preliminary indicators
and surrogates (Table 1).
Some indicators are specific to managing natural
habitats, while others will be similar to those identified
under land use intensity, land use diversity, and land
cover (see previous section).
3.3. Core LQIs recommended for development by
liaison with other authoritative groups
This activity is mostly a matter of liaison with
international and national agencies already working
on indicators, and selecting those indicators which
best meet the requirements of the LQI program. An
associated major activity will be to identify reliable
sources of data, and making these available through
the internet.
The LQIs included in this category are:
3.3.1. Water quality
Primary interest is on water supply and quality
related to land use change, e.g. estuarine, in-land
waters, irrigation water quality, etc.; link with water
quality indicators already being developed under the
OECD indicators program, and others.
3.3.2. Forest land quality
Primary interest is on land quality related to environmental management and forest production,
specifically land quality changes related in forest
management; link with the international forestry indicators process.
3.3.3. Rangeland quality
Primary interest is on rangeland quality related to
change in land use intensity and diversity, and the role

of livestock in mixed production systems; link with

range monitoring programs being developed under the
convention to combat desertification, and various remote sensing programs.
3.3.4. Land contamination/pollution
Primary interest is on type, extent and impacts of
land contamination by human interventions; interested in heavy metals, organic contaminants, radioactive contamination, etc.; link with agencies collating
available information.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

Global populations are increasing rapidly, along
with the tendency to concentrate in certain agroenvironments. For the first time in history, populations
pressures are impacting global life support systems,
but it is not the size of populations but the management systems practiced that impacts on land quality.
If traditional ways are continued, land degradation
will intensify with the concomitant collapse of certain
land use systems.
However, human activities can also be agents for
positive change. New, improved land management
technologies for crop and animal production are
necessary, particularly focusing on the health of the
environment, but applied within the context of innovative and sympathetic social and economic policies.
Indicators of land quality are needed to raise awareness of agricultural and environmental issues, and as
instruments for monitoring progress towards or away
from sustainable land management.
The LQI program has been successful in identifying important research objectives and the research
issues to be addressed. It has also been successful in
identifying core LQIs, and recommending those to
be researched in the short term and those requiring

102

J. Dumanski, C. Pieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 (2000) 93102

longer term research. These are important advances

in providing direction and focus to the research effort. For example, within a short time scientifically
sound guidelines for several of the core indicators
have been developed, and more will be designed in
the near future. This experience clearly indicates that
much knowledge and experience already exists on
procedures for assessing land quality, and there is a
good interest in the scientific community to contribute
to the initiative. However, these experiences also indicate that the lack of suitable national and global
data bases is emerging as the most severe restriction
to future development and application of land quality
indicators. This will require monitoring procedures
for collecting the required data, but monitoring needs
to be cost-effective. Various procedures can be used,
including agricultural census, remote sensing, special surveys, and combinations thereof. Indicators are
valuable instruments for improved decision making,
but to be truly useful, they must be implemented
within operational programs that provide direct guidance for policies of major importance.
The LQI program of the World Bank and its
partners is increasing being accepted for its strategic
importance within the global scientific community.
Some excellent research activities are being initiated
in many countries, but these often address fringe
issues of local interest. Core funding to drive an
organized global program has been difficult, and
consequently, the big picture still remains untreated.
An associated major concern is the lack of reliable,
long-term data on which to monitor the impacts of
land use change. These are serious obstructions to our
capacity to muster effective remedial policies, programs, and activities, and it is recommended that the
global scientific community mobilize its collective
efforts to resolve this problem.

References
Dumanski, J., 1994. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Sustainable Land Management for the 21st Century. Workshop
Summary: Vol. 1. The Organizing Committee, Agricultural
Institute of Canada, Ottawa.

Dumanski, J., Gregorich, L.J., Kirkwood, V., Cann, M.A., Culley,

J.L.B., Coote, D.R., 1994. The status of land management
practices on agricultural land in Canada. Tech. Bull. 1994-E,
Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture
and Agri-food Canada, Ottawa.
Dumanski, J., Pettapiece, W.W., McGregor, R.J., 1998. Relevance
of scale dependent approaches for integrating biophysical and
socio-economic information and development of agroecological
indicators. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 50, 1322.
El-Swaify, S.A., et al., 1999. Sustaining the global farm
strategic issues, principles, and approaches. International
Soil Conservation Organization (ISCO), and Department of
Agronomy and Soil Science, University of Hawaii, Honolulu,
HI, USA.
English, J., Tiffen, M., Mortimer, M., 1994. Land resource
management in Machakos District, Kenya, 19301990. World
Bank Environment, Paper no. 5, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Huffman, E., Eilers, R.G., Padbury, G., Wall, G., MacDonald, B.,
2000. Canadian agri-environmental indicators related to land
quality: soil cover, soil erosion, soil salinity, and risk of water
contamination. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 81, 113123.
Ingram, J., Gregory, P., 1996. Effects of global change on soils.
GCTE Activity 3.3, Implementation Plan, GCTE Focus 3 Office,
Wallingford, UK.
Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A., Sombroek, W.G., 1990. World
map of human-induced soil degradation. ISRIC, Wageningen,
The Netherlands, UNEP, Nairobi.
Pieri, C., Dumanski, J., Hamblin, A., Young, A., 1995. Land quality
indicators. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 315, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Smaling, E.M.A., Fresco, L.O., de Jager, A., 1996. Classifying,
monitoring and improving soil nutrient stocks and flows in
African agriculture. Ambio 8, 492496.
Smith, N.J.H., 1996. Effects of land-use systems on the use
and conservation of biodiversity. In: Srivastava, J.P., Smith,
N.J.H., Forno, D.A. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Agricultural
Intensification: Partners for Development and Conservation.
Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and
Monographs, Series no. 11, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Srivastava, J.P., Smith, N.J.H., Forno, D.A., 1996. Biodiversity
and Agricultural Intensification: Partners for Development
and Conservation. Environmentally Sustainable Development
Studies and Monographs, Series no. 11, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Swift, M., 1997. Below-ground biodiversity. In: Report of the 6th
Annual Review Meeting on Alternatives to Slash and Burn.
Bogor, Indonesia, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
World Bank, 1997a. Rural Development: From Vision to Action.
ESSD Studies and Monographs, Series no. 12, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank, 1997b. Expanding the measure of wealth. Indicators
of Environmentally Sustainable Development, ESSD Studies
and Monographs, Series no. 17, World Bank, Washington, DC.