The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Box 4.3—Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and clean development mechanism as examples of vertical integration to change land management patterns Recent globalization and global change have accentuated the importance of vertical integration (Berkes 2002). Carbon offset and other forms of the payment for ecosystem services (PES) program have created opportunities for building vertical linkages for land management. Horizontal and vertical institutional organization has been identified as one of the major approaches that will allow small land operators to participate in the carbon market and other PES programs (see whole issue of Mountain Forum Bulletin, 2010; Capoor and Ambrosi 2008). One mechanism to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation (a form of land degradation) is the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) scheme, launched by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the COP-13 (Conference of Parties) meeting in Bali. By using market and financial incentives to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from forest degradation, REDD offers an opportunity to utilize funding from developed countries to conserve forests in developing countries. Although its original objective was to reduce greenhouse gases, it can also deliver “cobenefits,” such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Impacts of REDD on the ground still have to be measured, as in most countries (such as Nepal, Nicaragua, and Indonesia), REDD is in a pilot phase. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is another tool for vertical linkages across countries aiming to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and forest degradation. Countries that have to reduce emissions according to the Kyoto Protocol can buy certified emission reductions (CERs) from countries that have access rights for emissions. Through this exchange, emissions are reduced in areas where reduction is cheaper, while local users gain from forest conservation. However, certification for these programs has high entry barriers, leaving out a number of potential users. Summary The purpose of this section was to embed land users’ decision to “degrade” the land or to invest in land conservation into a broader institutional context. Institutions, which are defined as the formal and informal rules governing economic production and exchange (North 1991), play a mediating role and can help explain why the same drivers of degradation can lead to different outcomes (for example, population pressure leading to both degradation and improvement). The concept of levels of institutions indicates at which level different schools of economic thought are focusing in their analysis. This presentation of layers, together with the listing of key groups of actors, set the scene for looking more closely at some key institutional arrangements and policies affecting land use decisions. The most important types of actors involved in land management are direct land users, landowners, governments, custom institutions, industries, beneficiaries of ecosystem services, NGOs, international organizations and development agencies, research institutions, and academia. A global assessment must consider all types of actors and how they interact with each other. Among the strongest incentives for land users are property right structures, which do not necessarily need to be formalized but which should give sufficient long-term perceptions of security and incentives to invest in land productivity. The discussion on links between poverty reduction and land degradation briefly outlined this important link, with causalities running in both directions. There is potential in reducing poverty through conservation methods; however, adaptation does not always seem to work (Nkonya et al. 2009). Market opportunities also factor strongly in explaining why some actors invest in land conservation (for example, off-farm employment with higher wages; Woelcke 2003), as well as explaining what users choose as an optimal rate of degradation. Institutions play a key role in shaping the actions or inaction of land users. However, the effectiveness of local institutions is heavily influenced by national-level policies. Decentralization policies, in particular, have played a pivotal role in mandating local institutions to manage natural resources more effectively. In addition, local institutions require capacity strengthening to make them more effective. Establishing horizontal and vertical linkages should improve institutional learning and sustainability and should be considered when designing institutional reform. As policies try to cope with complex multiequilibrium environmental and social systems, they should aim for flexibility to deal with changing circumstances (for example, climatic variability). The complexity of the institutional setup presented in this section reflects the complexity of land use decisions and their consequences. Understanding the causes of inaction (or of inappropriate actions) is the key to delivering effective land degradation policies. It also has a direct impact on the costs of action against land degradation by ensuring a path of least resistance to adoption of the measures by land users. 90
5. ACTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS This section briefly discusses the different methods used for control of land degradation. It also discusses the effectiveness and profitability of those methods, based on a meta-analysis. Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the most well-known type of degradation due to its visible effects, which have prompted a large number of studies (Nachtergaele et al. 2010). Soil erosion is largely induced by water and wind. Water-Induced Soil Erosion El-Swaify et al. (1982) and Junge et al. (2008) identified three major methods of controlling waterinduced soil erosion on crop fields: • Mechanical methods: These include soil and water conservation (SWC) structures, which prevent water movement, and drainage structures, which control passage of runoff. Planting trees, grass strips, and other vegetation also prevents water movement and could be used to enhance SWC structures. For example, Nkonya et al. (2008b) showed that SWC structures reinforced with leguminous plants have lower maintenance costs and are more profitable than when only SWC structures are used. • Agronomic methods: These include mulching, crop planting pattern (for example, along contour bands), cropping systems (for example, intercropping with crops that have better land cover), planting cover crops, and timing planting to ensure maximum coverage when soils are most vulnerable to water-induced erosion. • Soil management practices: These include zero tillage, minimum tillage, tie tillage, tillage along contour lines, and so on. The appropriateness of each practice is dictated by the nature of the water-induced soil erosion, the biophysical characteristics (for example, topography, rainfall quantity, and pattern), and a score of other socioeconomic characteristics—all of which determine their adoption. A combination of these practices is more effective than a single method. It is important to note that these methods will also address wind-induced soil erosion and other forms of land degradation discussed below. Wind-Induced Soil Erosion Wind erosion is a major problem in dry areas with poor vegetation. There are no reliable data on wind erosion’s impact, due to limited global database (Nachtergaele et al. 2010). Case studies have been done in several countries and regions to assess the impact of wind erosion and the practices to control it. Wind erosion is controlled by establishing windbreaks and by making the soil surface more resistant to wind erosion (Tibke 1988). As with other land management practices (such as integrated soil fertility management, discussed below), wind erosion control is more effective when a combination of control practices is used (Tibke 1988). For control of wind erosion on field crops, Tibke (1988) identified the following five main practices: 1. reducing field width 2. maintaining vegetation residues on the soil surface 3. utilizing stable soil aggregates or clods 4. roughing the land surface 5. leveling the land A study in the Sahelian region of Africa showed that mulching with crop residues was the most common wind erosion control measure (Sterk 2003). Standing crop residues was 5–10 times more effective in controlling wind erosion than flat crop residues (van Donk 2003). However, due to insufficient quantities of crop residues and competition with livestock, regeneration and exploitation of natural, scattered vegetation was deemed the most promising control strategy in the Sahelian region (Sterk 2003). 91
Page 1 and 2:
IFPRI Discussion Paper 01086 May 20
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Abstract vii Acknowledgmen
Page 5 and 6:
List of Figures 1.1—Conceptual fr
Page 7 and 8:
ABSTRACT Attention to land degradat
Page 9 and 10:
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADB Asia
Page 11:
SCAR Soil Conservation in Agricultu
Page 14 and 15:
In the present report, the conceptu
Page 16 and 17:
Framework: Confronting Action versu
Page 18 and 19:
understand these arrangements in or
Page 20 and 21:
Figure 1.3—Prevention, mitigation
Page 22 and 23:
on assessments at the micro level (
Page 24 and 25:
does not clearly distinguish betwee
Page 26 and 27:
Figure 2.1—GLASOD (1991) global a
Page 28 and 29:
International Earth Science Informa
Page 30 and 31:
Box 2.1—Continued Normalized Diff
Page 32 and 33:
Figure 2.4—Loss of annual NPP, GL
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 2.7—Annual loss of NPP in
Page 36 and 37:
Table 2.2—Nitrogen application ra
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 2.12—Areas affected by hum
Page 40 and 41:
output—which is a selection of su
Page 42 and 43:
GLADIS also underlines the linkage
Page 44 and 45:
Box 2.2—Continued A map on global
Page 46 and 47:
Table 2.3—Global land degradation
Page 48 and 49:
Table 2.3—Continued Project and d
Page 50 and 51:
Table 2.4—Continued Location 10 2
Page 52 and 53: Table 2.6—Extent and severity of
Page 54 and 55: National Level Policies As discusse
Page 56 and 57: Such support has also been directed
Page 58 and 59: Migration, either as outmigration o
Page 60 and 61: The preceding discussion shows the
Page 62 and 63: Results Correlation Analysis Consis
Page 64 and 65: Figure 2.23—Relationship between
Page 66 and 67: Effects of Land Degradation On-Site
Page 68 and 69: soils and higher land productivity.
Page 70 and 71: Acknowledging the work of GLADIS, a
Page 72 and 73: health, education, security, enviro
Page 74 and 75: Box 3.1—Recent major economic ass
Page 76 and 77: An appropriate economic tool for a
Page 78 and 79: Figure 3.4—Cost of action and cos
Page 80 and 81: enefit—for example, income. This
Page 82 and 83: Figure 3.6—Ecosystem services fra
Page 84 and 85: Replacement Cost Approaches The rep
Page 86 and 87: Box 3.2—Measuring land degradatio
Page 88 and 89: land degradation and conservation m
Page 90 and 91: Flooding and Aquifer Recharge Richa
Page 92 and 93: year (Diao and Sarpong 2007). Sonne
Page 94 and 95: Bringing together the different cos
Page 96 and 97: This section discusses the most imp
Page 98 and 99: governing land use patterns (Leeman
Page 100 and 101: promotion of community forest manag
Page 104 and 105: Soil Nutrient Depletion Soil nutrie
Page 106 and 107: that the yields of salt-tolerant wh
Page 108 and 109: Figure 5.3—Forest area as a perce
Page 110 and 111: Figure 5.5—Per capita water stora
Page 112 and 113: Introduction 6. CASE STUDIES Five c
Page 114 and 115: Salinity The effects of salinity on
Page 116 and 117: Third, to correctly decide which ac
Page 118 and 119: Costs of Action and Inaction We eva
Page 120 and 121: The NGOs and religious organization
Page 122 and 123: have a strong influence on NRM (And
Page 124 and 125: We estimated the cost of action (de
Page 126 and 127: Figure 6.15—Costs of action and i
Page 128 and 129: Of interest to us is the strategy t
Page 130 and 131: 7. PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT The review o
Page 132 and 133: degradation. All this should be don
Page 134 and 135: Finally, the global assessment of D
Page 136 and 137: the experience of and lessons learn
Page 138 and 139: Table 7.3—Example of E-DLDD resea
Page 140 and 141: 8. CONCLUSIONS Since the publicatio
Page 142 and 143: lowest in the region. From a socioe
Page 144 and 145: Table A.1—Land degradation assess
Page 146 and 147: Table A.2—Continued Author Region
Page 148 and 149: Table A.3—Continued Author Countr
Page 150 and 151: Table A.3—Continued Author Countr
Page 152 and 153:
Table A.4—Continued Author Countr
Page 154 and 155:
Table A.4—Continued Author Countr
Page 156 and 157:
Table A.5—Costs of land degradati
Page 158 and 159:
Figure B.1—Land use systems of th
Page 160 and 161:
REFERENCES Abelson, P. 1979. Cost B
Page 162 and 163:
Benin S., E. Nkonya, G. Okecho, J.
Page 164 and 165:
Clark, E. H. 1985. The Off-Site Cos
Page 166 and 167:
De Jager a., D. Onduru and C. Walag
Page 168 and 169:
Foster, V., and C. Briceño-Garmend
Page 170 and 171:
Holden, S. and H. Lofgren. 2005. As
Page 172 and 173:
Lapar, M. L., and S. Pandey. 1999.
Page 174 and 175:
Nachtergaele, F., M. Petri, R. Bian
Page 176 and 177:
Pender, J. L. 2009. “Food Crisis
Page 178 and 179:
Sauer, J., and H. Tchale. 2006. Alt
Page 180 and 181:
Tan, Z. X., R. Lal, and K. D. Wiebe
Page 182 and 183:
———. 2010. “Assessment of L
Page 187 and 188:
RECENT IFPRI DISCUSSION PAPERS For
show all

The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?