Status of Rangeland Monitoring: Review of Monitoring Frameworks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rangelands cover more than half the planet’s land surface and sustain the livelihoods, either directly or indirectly, of billions of people. Yet, an estimated 40–50% of these systems show signs of degradation, manifesting as soil erosion, woody encroachment, and declining forage productivity, placing global food security, climate goals, and local livelihoods at risk. While several monitoring frameworks and tools to measure rangeland condition exist, most remain fragmented, narrow in scope, and difficult to compare across projects, sectors, or regions. A credible, global monitoring framework is needed to guide investment, anchor emerging livestock value-chain standards, and track progress toward international restoration targets.

This review synthesizes rangeland monitoring insights from four key source domains: (i) twelve widely used field-based frameworks, (ii) fourteen sustainability standards with mandated landscape monitoring components, (iii) five Earthobservation (EO) platforms that report on rangeland indicators; and (iv) two citizen science mobile applications. We integrate these findings with a review of 62 peer-reviewed studies, along with the insights and recommendations from a multi-stakeholder consultation workshop convened in Nairobi in October 2024.

Findings include:

• No single framework covers the full suite of ecosystem functions.
  Hydrologic process, biodiversity, and key soil indicators are especially underrepresented.

• Socioeconomic metrics are inconsistently defined and weakly linked with biophysical data.
  Methodological divergence undermines comparability. Plot layouts and sizes, sampling designs, methods, indicators, revisit intervals, laboratory protocols, and Earth Observation processing chains differ widely, undermining comparability, even when similar indicators are being tracked due to inconsistent methodologies.

• Standards add market relevance but not necessarily methodological rigour.
  Certification schemes can incentivize rangeland monitoring but typically use a reduced, simplified indicator set. Statistically rigorous and robust sampling designs are not always employed.

• Remote sensing continues to evolve rapidly but remains under-integrated.
  Remote sensing-based platforms and data streams can deliver annual or sub-annual insights on key indicators. However, many of these data streams are not effectively integrated into monitoring frameworks, contextualized to local conditions, or appropriately capture the intended ecological processes. Most remote sensing products do not incorporate field-based data for calibration or validation.

We propose a modular “core-plus” framework architecture anchored in 14 priority indicators (eight biophysical, six socioeconomic), captured through stratified field sampling, participatory mobile apps, and open-access Earth Observation data. This core set of S.M.A.R.T. indicators is to be measured consistently across rangelands, with additional context-specific modules added as needed. When implemented effectively, the framework can deliver credible evidence for producers, investors, the private sector, standard setters, and regulators while being scalable and cost-effective.