The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction 6. CASE STUDIES Five countries were selected to provide an in-depth analysis of the costs of action and inaction. These five countries represent the five major regions in developing countries. The case studies are used to demonstrate the methods discussed in the previous sections. We also discuss some successful case studies in the selected areas that demonstrate the impacts that actions against deforestation, land degradation, and drought (DLDD) have had on livelihoods and ecosystem services. We draw lessons from the success stories to illustrate the effectiveness of some of policies and strategies discussed in this study. With per capita income ranging from more than $5,000 in Peru to as low as $400 in Niger (Figure 6.1), the five countries represent a range of economic development. Economic growth in the five countries also varies. Per capita income in all five countries has been increasing, with Peru showing the most robust growth and Niger the least (Figure 6.1). Figure 6.1—Trend of per capita income in the case study countries Source: Author’s creation. Land degradation in the five countries is also different. Figure 6.2 shows that Niger has the lowest level of land and biophysical degradation, whereas Uzbekistan has the highest level of both. With the exception of Peru, the case study countries have more than 50 percent of their land area in the arid, semiarid, or hyperarid zone, with per capita arable land area less than 1 hectare (Table 6.1). This means that the selected countries are largely in the marginal areas. Figure 6.2—Status of land degradation in the case study countries Hectare 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Niger Kenya Peru India Uzbekistan Source: Computed from Natchergaele et al. 2010. Land degradation index Biophysical degradation index Land degradationimpact index 100 . .
Table 6.1—Land resources and severity of land degradation Country Arable land area per capita (ha) Land area under ASAL (% of total land area) 101 Soil erosion hazard (% of area) India 0.18 72 29 1 Kenya 0.32 80 22 5 Niger 0.44 94 7 1 Peru < 0.005 34 30 0 Uzbekistan 0.21 91 3 13 Source: TERRASTAT 2010. Note: ASAL =Arid and semi-arid lands. Uzbekistan Economic Effects of Land Degradation in Uzbekistan % of sodicity Land degradation is severe in Central Asia, reducing the productivity and threatening the livelihoods of millions of farmers and pastoralists. Major problems include salinity and soil erosion, which affect more than half of the irrigated cropland in some of Central Asian countries. In part due to land degradation, as well as other factors, average yields have declined in many areas by 20–30 percent, contributing to worsening rural poverty and vulnerability. Negative environmental impacts include the drying of the Aral Sea, water and air pollution caused by salinization and erosion, loss of biodiversity, and reduced provision of ecosystem services. The Republic of Uzbekistan suffers from an environmental degradation crisis that makes sustainable development very challenging. The prevailing arid climate requires that cultivated crops be intensively irrigated. Population growth and the ensuing development of new cropland have caused an increase in water withdrawals, which, in turn, caused a potentially damaging water–salt imbalance (Stulina et al. 2005). Between 40 and 60 percent of irrigated croplands in Central Asia are salt affected or waterlogged (Qadir et al. 2008). The groundwater table is less than 2 meters deep in about one-third of the irrigated lands of Uzbekistan, and in some regions, the share of waterlogged lands is as high as 92 percent (CACILM 2006). Between 1990 and 2001, the area of saline lands in Uzbekistan increased by 33 percent, while the area of highly saline lands more than doubled (Khusamov et al 2009). Other land degradation problems in irrigated areas include soil erosion, soil compaction, and soil fertility depletion. Especially in sloping and poorly leveled areas, irrigation can be a significant source of water-induced soil erosion. Common cropping practices used in Central Asia, which usually leave exposed soil between rows of cotton or wheat and which involve intensive tillage, expose the soil to significant erosion. Poorly constructed and maintained irrigation and drainage systems, as well as excessive use of irrigation at high rates of flow, also cause significant erosion problems. In Uzbekistan, approximately 800,000 hectares of irrigated cropland are estimated to be subject to serious soil erosion due to poor agricultural practices (poor land leveling, poor irrigation practices, and so on), with annual soil losses of up to 80 tons per hectare of fertile topsoil (CACILM 2006). More than 50 percent of farmland in Uzbekistan is estimated to suffer from serious wind erosion; according to CACILM (2006), soil organic matter has declined by 30–40 percent. In 2008, IFPRI conducted a study on sustainable land management in Central Asia. In this study, Pender, Mirzabaev and Kato (2009) used a crop modeling software, called the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (Jones et al. 2003), to predict wheat and cotton yield responses to alternative levels of nitrogen fertilizer use and, for one of these sites, to reduced tillage practices. Data on fertilization rates, irrigation, agronomic practices, prices, and production costs were used to estimate costs and returns of alternative fertilizer and tillage options. We used the same data set but a different crop modeling tool (CropSyst; Stockle, Donatelli, and Nelson 2003) to assess the economic impact of soil salinity and soil erosion on wheat and cotton 62 production. For both cases, we simulated yields for a 10-year period and used the average for the period to compute the impact on profit. 62 We looked at the effects of salinity, ceteris paribus. We assumed that farmers continued using the same mix of inputs
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 102 and 103: Box 4.3—Reducing emissions from d
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 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 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?