As described by the COP, the ecosystem approach is the primary framework for action under the Convention. The COP, at its 5th Meeting, endorsed the description of the ecosystem approach and operational guidance and recommended the application of the principles and other guidance on the ecosystem approach (Decision V/6).
CBD Decision V/6: The ecosystem approach
The Conference of the Parties
1. Endorses the description of the ecosystem approach and operational guidance contained in sections A and C of the annex to the present decision, recommends the application of the principles contained in section B of the annex, as reflecting the present level of common understanding, and encourages further conceptual elaboration, and practical verification;
2. Calls upon Parties, other Governments, and international organizations to apply, as appropriate, the ecosystem approach, giving consideration to the principles and guidance contained in the annex to the present decision, and to develop practical expressions of the approach for national policies and legislation and for appropriate implementation activities, with adaptation to local, national, and, as appropriate, regional conditions, in particular in the context of activities developed within the thematic areas of the Convention;
3. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant bodies to identify case studies and implement pilot projects, and to organize, as appropriate, regional, national and local workshops, and consultations aiming to enhance awareness, share experiences, including through the clearing-house mechanism, and strengthen regional, national and local capacities on the ecosystem approach;
4. Requests the Executive Secretary to collect, analyse and compare the case studies referred to in paragraph 3 above, and prepare a synthesis of case studies and lessons learned for presentation to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties;
5. Requests the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, at a meeting prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to review the principles and guidelines of the ecosystem approach, to prepare guidelines for its implementation, on the basis of case studies and lessons learned, and to review the incorporation of the ecosystem approach into various programmes of work of the Convention;
6. Recognizes the need for support for capacity building to implement the ecosystem approach, and invites Parties, Governments and relevant organizations to provide technical and financial support for this purpose;
7. Encourages Parties and Governments to promote regional cooperation, for example through the establishment of joint declarations or memoranda of understanding in applying the ecosystem approach across national borders.
A. Description of the ecosystem approach
The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Thus, the application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.
This focus on structure, processes, functions and interactions is consistent with the definition of ecosystem provided in Article 2 of the CBD: “‘Ecosystem’ means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.” This definition does not specify any particular spatial unit or scale, in contrast to the Convention definition of habitat. Thus, the term ecosystem does not necessarily correspond to the terms biome or ecological zone, but can refer to any functioning unit at any scale. Indeed, the scale of analysis and action should be determined by the problem being addressed. It could, for example, be a grain of soil, a pond, a forest, a biome or the entire biosphere.
The ecosystem approach requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning. Ecosystem processes are often non-linear, and the outcome of such processes often shows time lags. The result is discontinuities, leading to surprise and uncertainty. Management must be adaptive in order to be able to respond to such uncertainties and contain elements of ‘learning by doing’ or research feedback. Measures may need to be taken even when some cause-and-effect relationships are not yet fully established scientifically.
The ecosystem approach does not preclude other management and conservation approaches, such as biosphere reserves, protected areas, and single-species conservation programmes, as well as other approaches carried out under existing national policy and legislative frameworks, but could, rather, integrate all these approaches and other methodologies to deal with complex situations. There is no single way to implement the ecosystem approach, as it depends on local, provincial, national, regional or global conditions. Indeed, there are many ways in which ecosystem approaches may be used as the framework for delivering the objectives of the Convention in practice.
B. Principles of the ecosystem approach
The following 12 principles are complementary and interlinked:
Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice.
Rationale: Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural and societal needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible benefits for humans in a fair and equitable way.
Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.
Rationale: Decentralized systems may lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Management should involve all stakeholders and balance local interests with the wider public interest. The closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, and use of local knowledge.
Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.
Rationale: Management interventions in ecosystems often have unknown or unpredictable effects on other ecosystems; therefore, possible impacts need careful consideration and analysis. This may require new arrangements or ways of organization for institutions involved in decision-making to make, if necessary, appropriate compromises.
Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:
a. reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;
b. align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;
c. internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.
Rationale: The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use. This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favour the conversion of land to less diverse systems.
Often those who benefit from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conservation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to benefit and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.
Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.
Rationale: Ecosystem functioning and resilience depends on a dynamic relationship within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment, as well as the physical and chemical interactions within the environment. The conservation and, where appropriate, restoration of these interactions and processes is of greater significance for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity than simply protection of species.
Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.
Rationale: In considering the likelihood or ease of attaining the management objectives, attention should be given to the environmental conditions that limit natural productivity, ecosystem structure, functioning and diversity. The limits to ecosystem functioning may be affected to different degrees by temporary, unpredictable or artificially maintained conditions and, accordingly, management should be appropriately cautious.
Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
Rationale: The approach should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives. Boundaries for management will be defined operationally by users, managers, scientists and indigenous and local peoples. Connectivity between areas should be promoted where necessary. The ecosystem approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species and ecosystems.
Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.
Rationale: Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag effects. This inherently conflicts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate benefits over future ones.
Principle 9: Management must recognize that change is inevitable.
Rationale: Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential ‘surprises’ in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change.
Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.
Rationale: Biological diversity is critical both for its intrinsic value and because of the key role it plays in providing the ecosystem and other services upon which we all ultimately depend. There has been a tendency in the past to manage components of biological diversity either as protected or non-protected. There is a need for a shift to more flexible situations, where conservation and use are seen in context and the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems.
Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
Rationale: Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strategies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be taken under Article 8(j) of the CBD. Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available knowledge and views of stakeholders.
Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.
Rationale: Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many interactions, side-effects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as appropriate.
C. Operational guidance for application of the ecosystem approach
In applying the 12 principles of the ecosystem approach, the following five points are proposed as operational guidance.
Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems
The many components of biodiversity control the stores and flows of energy, water and nutrients within ecosystems, and provide resistance to major perturbations. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and structure, and the roles of the components of biological diversity in ecosystems, is required, especially to understand: (i) ecosystem resilience and the effects of biodiversity loss (species and genetic levels) and habitat fragmentation; (ii) underlying causes of biodiversity loss; and (iii) determinants of local biological diversity in management decisions. Functional biodiversity in ecosystems provides many goods and services of economic and social importance. While there is a need to accelerate efforts to gain new knowledge about functional biodiversity, ecosystem management has to be carried out even in the absence of such knowledge. The ecosystem approach can facilitate practical management by ecosystem managers (whether local communities or national policy-makers).
Enhance benefit-sharing
Benefits that flow from the array of functions provided by biological diversity at the ecosystem level provide the basis of human environmental security and sustainability. The ecosystem approach seeks that the benefits derived from these functions are maintained or restored. In particular, these functions should benefit the stakeholders responsible for their production and management. This requires, inter alia: capacity building, especially at the level of local communities managing biological diversity in ecosystems; the proper valuation of ecosystem goods and services; the removal of perverse incentives that devalue ecosystem goods and services; and, consistent with the provisions of the CBD, where appropriate, their replacement with local incentives for good management practices.
Use adaptive management practices
Ecosystem processes and functions are complex and variable. Their level of uncertainty is increased by the interaction with social constructs, which need to be better understood. Therefore, ecosystem management must involve a learning process, which helps to adapt methodologies and practices to the ways in which these systems are being managed and monitored. Implementation programmes should be designed to adjust to the unexpected, rather than to act on the basis of a belief in certainties. Ecosystem management needs to recognize the diversity of social and cultural factors affecting natural-resource use. Similarly, there is a need for flexibility in policy-making and implementation. Long-term, inflexible decisions are likely to be inadequate or even destructive. Ecosystem management should be envisaged as a long-term experiment that builds on its results as it progresses. This ‘learning-by-doing’ will also serve as an important source of information to gain knowledge of how best to monitor the results of management and evaluate whether established goals are being attained. In this respect, it would be desirable to establish or strengthen capacities of Parties for monitoring.
Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to lowest level, as appropriate
As noted in Section A above, an ecosystem is a functioning unit that can operate at any scale, depending upon the problem or issue being addressed. This understanding should define the appropriate level for management decisions and actions. Often, this approach will imply decentralization to the level of local communities. Effective decentralization requires proper empowerment, which implies that the stakeholder both has the opportunity to assume responsibility and the capacity to carry out the appropriate action, and needs to be supported by enabling policy and legislative frameworks. Where common property resources are involved, the most appropriate scale for management decisions and actions would necessarily be large enough to encompass the effects of practices by all the relevant stakeholders. Appropriate institutions would be required for such decision-making and, where necessary, for conflict resolution. Some problems and issues may require action at still higher levels, through, for example, transboundary cooperation, or even cooperation at global levels.
Ensure intersectoral cooperation
As the primary framework of action to be taken under the Convention, the ecosystem approach should be fully taken into account in developing and reviewing national biodiversity strategies and action plans. There is also a need to integrate the ecosystem approach into agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other production systems that have an effect on biodiversity. Management of natural resources, according to the ecosystem approach, calls for increased intersectoral communication and cooperation at a range of levels (government ministries, management agencies, etc.). This might be promoted through, for example, the formation of interministerial bodies within the Government or the creation of networks for sharing information and experience.
The adaptive management process and its characteristics
Adaptive management has been defined in various ways by different individuals and organizations since its development in the early 1970s:
“....a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective form - ‘active’ adaptive management - employs management programs that are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the system being managed. (USDA, 1993)
“... ‘learning to manage by managing to learn’...” (USDA, 1993)
“...an innovative technique that uses scientific information to help formulate management strategies in order to ‘learn’ from programs so that subsequent improvements can be made in formulating both successful policy and improved management programs.” (Halbert, 1993)
“...embodies a simple imperative: policies are experiments; learn from them.” (Lee, 1993)
“...is a policy framework that recognizes biological uncertainty, while accepting the congressional mandate to proceed on the basis of the ‘best available scientific knowledge’. An adaptive policy treats the program as a set of experiments designed to test and extend the scientific basis of fish and wildlife management.” (Lee and Lawrence, 1986)
“The rigorous combination of management, research, and monitoring so that credible information is gained and management activities can be modified by experience. Adaptive policy acknowledges institutional barriers to change and designs means to overcome them.”
(Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound, 1995)
The adaptive management process is often presented as a cycle with a number of essential steps: assess problem ® design ® implement ® monitor ® evaluate ® adjust and so forth.
Some of the differentiating characteristics of adaptive management are:
acknowledgement of uncertainty about what policy or practice is ‘best’ for the particular management issue;
thoughtful selection of the policies or practices to be applied (the assessment and design stages of the cycle);
careful implementation of a plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge that is currently lacking;
monitoring of key response indicators;
analysis of the management outcomes in consideration of the original objectives;
incorporation of the results into future decisions.
Linking the ecosystem approach with adaptive management
The need to link the ecosystem approach with adaptive management is most obvious at spatial and temporal scales where biodiversity loss and ecosystem malfunctioning become evident to local stakeholders, i.e. at spatial scales beyond parcels of land or water and beyond temporal scales of years. Irrespective of scale, it is important that people are considered as part of, rather than actors external to, the ecosystem. However, human populations are not straightforward players in the ecosystem. Although it is possible to make useful distinctions between primary producers (food, raw materials), processors, retailers/merchandisers, public servants and consumers in terms of resource use, one person or household will fulfil more than one role and these roles may be associated with a plethora of cultural and social activities with different effects on biodiversity, other natural resources and ecosystem functioning.
As the scale of observation becomes larger than the ‘home range’ of the individual, the possible interference of that person’s activities with those of others will increase, as will the possible impacts on biodiversity and other natural resources. At every level of observation, the stakeholders will be most receptive to changes in resource use that have a negative effect on biodiversity and associated ecosystem functioning if the disadvantages of current resource use are clearly visible and felt (e.g. erosion, fish stock depletion, fuelwood depletion, decreasing soil productivity, declining mineral resources, disappearance of medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products, etc.). Under such circumstances, cooperation among stakeholders in designing and adopting more sustainable ways of natural resource use, in rehabilitating degraded ecosystems, and in providing adequate legal and policy measures is imperative.
Moreover, there is often a lack of sound knowledge of viable alternatives for current use of natural resources. Adaptive management is a strategy that allows stakeholders to operate in the face of uncertainty, learning from the effects of their resource management practices on resource quality and quantity (sustainability), including biodiversity, at certain scales, and its links with ecosystem functioning at the same or larger scales. Only through expanding the knowledge base on the relationships between human activities and natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and through continuous experimentation and adaptation to cope with change, will a more sustainable use of natural resources come within reach. To the extent that successes are achieved under certain circumstances, adaptive management experiences can then be extrapolated to other regions with similar problems, and with a view to avoiding irreversible resource depletion and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
WORLD SOIL RESOURCE REPORT
1. Report of the First Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the Soil Map of the World, Rome, 19-23 June 1961 (E)**
2. Report of the First Meeting on Soil Survey, Correlation and Interpretation for Latin America, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 28-31 May 1962 (E)**
3. Report of the First Soil Correlation Seminar for Europe, Moscow, USSR, 16-28 July 1962 (E)**
4. Report of the First Soil Correlation Seminar for South and Central Asia, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, USSR, 14 September-2 October 1962 (E)**
5. Report of the Fourth Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey (Subcommission on Land and Water Use of the European Commission on Agriculture), Lisbon, Portugal, 6-10 March 1963 (E)**
6. Report of the Second Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the Soil Map of the World, Rome, 9-11 July 1963 (E)**
7. Report of the Second Soil Correlation Seminar for Europe, Bucharest, Romania, 29 July-6 August 1963 (E)**
8. Report of the Third Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the Soil Map of the World, Paris, 3 January 1964 (E)**
9. Adequacy of Soil Studies in Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru, November-December 1963 (E)**
10. Report on the Soils of Bolivia, January 1964 (E)**
11. Report on the Soils of Paraguay, January 1964 (E)**
12. Preliminary Definition, Legend and Correlation Table for the Soil Map of the World, Rome, August 1964 (E)**
13. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the Soil Map of the World, Rome, 16-21 May 1964 (E)**
14. Report of the Meeting on the Classification and Correlation of Soils from Volcanic Ash, Tokyo, Japan, 11-27 June 1964 (E)**
15. Report of the First Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification, Survey and Soil Resources of the European Commission on Agriculture, Florence, Italy, 1-3 October 1964 (E)**
16. Detailed Legend for the Third Draft on the Soil Map of South America, June 1965 (E)**
17. Report of the First Meeting on Soil Correlation for North America, Mexico, 1-8 February 1965 (E)**
18. The Soil Resources of Latin America, October 1965 (E)**
19. Report of the Third Correlation Seminar for Europe: Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Turkey, Yugoslavia, 29 August-22 September 1965 (E)**
20. Report of the Meeting of Rapporteurs, Soil Map of Europe (Scale 1:1 000 000) (Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture), Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, 29 November-3 December 1965 (E)**
21. Report of the Second Meeting on Soil Survey, Correlation and Interpretation for Latin America, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13-16 July 1965 (E)**
22. Report of the Soil Resources Expedition in Western and Central Brazil, 24 June-9 July 1965 (E)**
23. Bibliography on Soils and Related Sciences for Latin America (1st edition), December 1965 (E)**
24. Report on the Soils of Paraguay (2nd edition), August 1964 (E)**
25. Report of the Soil Correlation Study Tour in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina, June-August 1964 (E)**
26. Report of the Meeting on Soil Correlation and Soil Resources Appraisal in India, New Delhi, India, 5-15 April 1965 (E)**
27. Report of the Sixth Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture, Montpellier, France, 7-11 March 1967 (E)**
28. Report of the Second Meeting on Soil Correlation for North America, Winnipeg-Vancouver, Canada, 25 July-5 August 1966 (E)**
29. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the Soil Map of the World, Moscow, USSR, 20-28 August 1966 (E)**
30. Report of the Meeting of the Soil Correlation Committee for South America, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 12-19 December 1966 (E)**
31. Trace Element Problems in Relation to Soil Units in Europe (Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture), Rome, 1967 (E)**
32. Approaches to Soil Classification, 1968 (E)**
33. Definitions of Soil Units for the Soil Map of the World, April 1968 (E)**
34. Soil Map of South America 1:5 000 000, Draft Explanatory Text, November 1968 (E)**
35. Report of a Soil Correlation Study Tour in Sweden and Poland, 27 September-14 October 1968 (E)**
36. Meeting of Rapporteurs, Soil Map of Europe (Scale 1:1 000 000) (Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture), Poitiers, France 21-23 June 1967 (E)**
37. Supplement to Definition of Soil Units for the Soil Map of the World, July 1969 (E)**
38. Seventh Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture, Varna, Bulgaria, 11-13 September 1969 (E)**
39. A Correlation Study of Red and Yellow Soils in Areas with a Mediterranean Climate (E)**
40. Report of the Regional Seminar of the Evaluation of Soil Resources in West Africa, Kumasi, Ghana, 14-19 December 1970 (E)**
41. Soil Survey and Soil Fertility Research in Asia and the Far East, New Delhi, 15-20 February 1971 (E)**
42. Report of the Eighth Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture, Helsinki, Finland, 5-7 July 1971 (E)**
43. Report of the Ninth Session of the Working Party on Soil Classification and Survey of the European Commission on Agriculture, Ghent, Belgium 28-31 August 1973 (E)**
44. First Meeting of the West African Sub-Committee on Soil Correlation for Soil Evaluation and Management, Accra, Ghana, 12-19 June 1972 (E)**
45. Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Consultation on Land Evaluation, Rome, Italy, 6-8 January 1975 (E)**
46. First Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Nairobi, Kenya, 11-16 March 1974 (E)**
47. Second Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-30 October 1976 (E)
48. Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project, Vol. 1 - Methodology and Results for Africa, 1978. Vol. 2 - Results for Southwest Asia, 1978 (E)
49. Report of an Expert Consultation on Land Evaluation Standards for Rainfed Agriculture, Rome, Italy, 25-28 October 1977 (E)
50. Report of an Expert Consultation on Land Evaluation Criteria for Irrigation, Rome, Italy, 27 February- 2 March 1979 (E)
51. Third Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Lusaka, Zambia, 18-30 April 1978 (E)
52. Land Evaluation Guidelines for Rainfed Agriculture, Report of an Expert Consultation, 12-14 December 1979 (E)
53. Fourth Meeting of the West African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Banjul, The Gambia, 20-27 October 1979 (E)
54. Fourth Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Arusha, Tanzania, 27 October-4 November 1980 (E)
55. Cinquième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Lomé, Togo, 7-12 décembre 1981 (F)
56. Fifth Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Wad Medani, Sudan, 5-10 December 1983 (E)
57. Sixième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre Africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Niamey, Niger, 6-12 février 1984 (F)
58. Sixth Meeting of the Eastern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Maseru, Lesotho, 9-18 October 1985 (E)
59. Septième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 10-17 novembre 1985 (F)
60. Revised Legend, Soil Map of the World, FAO-Unesco-ISRIC, 1988. Reprinted 1990 (E)
61. Huitième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Yaoundé, Cameroun, 19-28 janvier 1987 (F)
62. Seventh Meeting of the East and Southern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Evaluation, Gaborone, Botswana, 30 March-8 April 1987 (E)
63. Neuvième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Cotonou, Bénin, 14-23 novembre 1988 (F)
64. FAO-ISRIC Soil Database (SDB), 1989 (E)
65. Eighth Meeting of the East and Southern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Harare, Zimbabwe, 9-13 October 1989 (E)
66. World soil resources. An explanatory note on the FAO World Soil Resources Map at 1:25 000 000 scale, 1991. Rev. 1, 1993 (E)
67. Digitized Soil Map of the World, Volume 1: Africa. Volume 2: North and Central America. Volume 3: Central and South America. Volume 4: Europe and West of the Urals. Volume 5: North East Asia. Volume 6: Near East and Far East. Volume 7: South East Asia and Oceania. Release 1.0, November 1991 (E)
68. Land Use Planning Applications. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation 1990, Rome, 10-14 December 1990 (E)
69. Dixième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Bouaké, Odienné, Côte d’Ivoire, 5-12 novembre 1990 (F)
70. Ninth Meeting of the East and Southern African Sub-Committee for Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation, Lilongwe, Malawi, 25 November - 2 December 1991 (E)
71. Agro-ecological land resources assessment for agricultural development planning. A case study of Kenya. Resources data base and land productivity. Main Report. Technical Annex 1: Land resources. Technical Annex 2: Soil erosion and productivity. Technical Annex 3: Agro-climatic and agro-edaphic suitabilities for barley, oat, cowpea, green gram and pigeonpea. Technical Annex 4: Crop productivity. Technical Annex 5: Livestock productivity. Technical Annex 6: Fuelwood productivity. Technical Annex 7: Systems documentation guide to computer programs for land productivity assessments. Technical Annex 8: Crop productivity assessment: results at district level. 1991. Main Report 71/9: Making land use choices for district planning, 1994 (E)
72. Computerized systems of land resources appraisal for agricultural development, 1993 (E)
73. FESLM: an international framework for evaluating sustainable land management, 1993 (E)
74. Global and national soils and terrain digital databases (SOTER), 1993. Rev. 1, 1995 (E)
75. AEZ in Asia. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Agro-ecological Zones Methodology and Applications, Bangkok, Thailand, 17-23 November 1991 (E)
76. Green manuring for soil productivity improvement, 1994 (E)
77. Onzième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Ségou, Mali, 18-26 janvier 1993 (F)
78. Land degradation in South Asia: its severity, causes and effects upon the people, 1994 (E)
79. Status of sulphur in soils and plants of thirty countries, 1995 (E)
80. Soil survey: perspectives and strategies for the 21st century, 1995 (E)
81. Multilingual soil database, 1995 (Multil)
82. Potential for forage legumes of land in West Africa, 1995 (E)
83. Douzième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Bangui, République Centrafricain, 5-10 décembre 1994 (F)
84. World reference base for soil resources, 1998 (E)
85. Soil Fertility Initiative for sub-Saharan Africa, 1999 (E)
86. Prevention of land degradation, enhancement of carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity through land use change and sustainable land management with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, 1999 (E)
87. AEZWIN: An interactive multiple-criteria analysis tool for land resources appraisal, 1999 (E)
88. Sistemas de uso de la tierra en los trópicos húmedios y la emisión y secuestro de CO2, 2000 (S)
89. Land resources information systems for food security in SADC countries, 2000 (E)
90. Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels, 2000 (E)
91. The European soil information system, 2000 (E)
92. Carbon sequestration projects under the clean development mechanism to address land degradation, 2000 (E)
93. Land resources information systems in Asia, 2000 (E)
94. Lecture notes on the major soils of the world, 2001 (E)
95. Land resources information systems in the Caribbean, 2001 (E)
96. Soil carbon sequestration for improved land management, 2001 (E F S)
97. Land degradation assessment in drylands - LADA project, 2002 (E)
98. Quatorzième réunion du Sous-Comité Ouest et Centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres, Abomey, Bénin, 9-13 octobre 2000, 2002 (F)
99. Land resources information systems in the Near East, 2002 (E)
100. Data sets, indicators and methods to assess land degradation in drylands, 2003 (E)
101. Biological management of soil ecosystems for sustainable agriculture, 2003 (E)
Availability: September 2003
E - English
F - French
S - Spanish
Multil - Multilingual
** Out of print
