Closing the driver–response loop for halting and reversing wetland degradation and loss from agriculture

Context The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has considered agriculture–wetland interactions, but without linking policy responses to agricultural drivers of change. Aims Assess the disconnect between the rhetoric of analysing and reporting on the role of agriculture in wetland loss and degradation (the ‘drivers’) with actions on the ground (the ‘responses’). Methods An analysis of almost 400 Convention documents was undertaken to understand how the Convention has addressed agriculture and what responses were identified. The documents were filtered through a word search for their relevance to the direct and indirect drivers of degradation in wetlands. Key results Although there was a focus on issues and problem framing and generic responses, they were insufficient to address the range of drivers underpinning agriculture–wetland interactions. They also present a generic and partial view of agriculture and broader food systems. Conclusions We make the following four recommendations for addressing the driver–response gap: deepening our understanding of the drivers in agriculture that affect wetlands; exploring and exploiting windows of opportunities within agriculture that are aligned with wetland use; enhancing our ability to work with indirect drivers; and ensuring that resolutions agreed through the Convention are more specific on key drivers of adverse change in wetlands. Implications The current impetus for ‘agriculture transformation’ creates an opportunity for the Convention to broaden its engagement in wetland–agriculture interactions and close the driver–response loop.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Marine and Freshwater Research
Published
2024-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1071/mf24050
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Environmental Conservation and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.55
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Closing the driver–response loop for halting and reversing wetland degradation and loss from agriculture

Anne A. van Dam, M. Siobhan Fennessy, Ritesh Kumar, C. Max Finlayson et al.
5 citations
Marine and Freshwater Research
Environmental Conservation and Management
3.55
article

Closing the driver–response loop for halting and reversing wetland degradation and loss from agriculture

Anne A. van Dam, M. Siobhan Fennessy, Ritesh Kumar, C. Max Finlayson, Matthew McCartney, Royal C. Gardner
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Context The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has considered agriculture–wetland interactions, but without linking policy responses to agricultural drivers of change. Aims Assess the disconnect between the rhetoric of analysing and reporting on the role of agriculture in wetland loss and degradation (the ‘drivers’) with actions on the ground (the ‘responses’). Methods An analysis of almost 400 Convention documents was undertaken to understand how the Convention has addressed agriculture and what responses were identified. The documents were filtered through a word search for their relevance to the direct and indirect drivers of degradation in wetlands. Key results Although there was a focus on issues and problem framing and generic responses, they were insufficient to address the range of drivers underpinning agriculture–wetland interactions. They also present a generic and partial view of agriculture and broader food systems. Conclusions We make the following four recommendations for addressing the driver–response gap: deepening our understanding of the drivers in agriculture that affect wetlands; exploring and exploiting windows of opportunities within agriculture that are aligned with wetland use; enhancing our ability to work with indirect drivers; and ensuring that resolutions agreed through the Convention are more specific on key drivers of adverse change in wetlands. Implications The current impetus for ‘agriculture transformation’ creates an opportunity for the Convention to broaden its engagement in wetland–agriculture interactions and close the driver–response loop.

Marine and Freshwater ResearchVol. 75(15)
International Life Sciences Institute India (IN), Charles Sturt University (AU), Kenyon College (US), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education (NL), UNSW Sydney (AU), Institute for Biodiversity (DE), Environmental Earth Sciences (AU), International Water Management Institute (IWMI) (LK)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Environmental Conservation and Management
3.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.