The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The NGOs and religious organizations also helped significantly in building the capacity of local institutions to manage natural resources. They also helped mobilize communities to plant and protect trees. For example, the farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR)—in which communities protect or plant new trees and harvest fuelwood, fodder, nitrogen fixation from leguminous trees, windbreaks, and other ecosystem benefits—was initiated by a religious organization (Reij, Tappan, and Smale 2008). The authors estimated that villages with FMNR had 10–20 times more trees than they had had before FMNR started. Consistent with Bai et al. (2008a), higher tree density was found in villages with high population density (Reij, Tappan, and Smale 2008). The lessons we can draw from Niger are the institutional vertical (rural code) and horizontal (grassroots NGOs and religious organizations) linkages, which gave local communities the mandates and the capacity to manage natural resources. The rural code provision, which allowed communities to benefit from their tree planting or protection efforts, also created strong incentives to farmers to invest their limited resources. All these complementary conditions fostered the successful tree programs in Niger. Peru Soil nutrient depletion in Peru is moderate, because the use of nitrogen and phosphorus is considerably large and has shown an upward trend (Figure 6.11). 65 Hence we will not evaluate the soil nutrient depletion problem. Figure 6.11—Trend of nitrogen and phosphorus use, Peru Source: FAOSTAT. Soil erosion remains a major problem in Peru’s Andean region, which covers about 30 percent of the country, whereas salinity is a problem in the irrigated crops of the arid and semiarid coastal region, which covers 34 percent of the country. Posthumus and de Graaf (2005) showed that soil erosion reduces maize yield by 2 percent on plots with slope of 1–5 percent. The cost of establishing terraces was estimated to be $364 per hectare, whereas NPV of plots with terraces— computed after netting out the NPV if a plot did not have terraces—was $984 per hectare (Figure 6.12). The cost of action is actually lower if we consider that establishing bench terraces is a longterm investment, which further shows that the cost of action is much lower than the cost of inaction. 65 Except for 2008, when fertilizer prices abruptly increased, leading to a decline in both nitrogen and phosphorus use 108 .
Figure 6.12—Cost of action and inaction (US$/ha) of soil erosion on maize plots in the Andean region, Peru Cost of action Cost of inaction Source: Posthumus and de Graaf (2005). Notes: Cost of action is the establishment cost of terraces, and cost of inaction is the loss of profit (NPV calculated after netting the NPV that the farmer will get if he or she did establish terraces). The cost of salinity in Peru was also evaluated, using rice as a case study. Rice yield in Peru is among the highest in the world. For example, whereas the average paddy rice yield in India was 3.2 tons per hectare for 2005–2009, it was more than twice that (7.15 tons per hectare) in Peru (FAOSTAT 2009). However, salinity has a large impact on rice yield. Crop simulation results showed that salinity reduced rice yield by 22 percent in Peru, which leads to a loss of $402 (Figure 6.13). As discussed earlier, salinity could be controlled by staggered leaching, an action that involves more use of water and labor for leaching. The cost of desalinization in Peru was $69 (Figure 6.13), which is only 17 percent of the cost of not taking action to control salinity. Figure 6.13—Cost of action and inaction to address salinity, India and Peru Cost (US$/ha) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 984 108 364 Cost of action Cost of inaction 176 69 India Peru Source: Authors’ calculations from simulation results. Notes: Cost of action includes water for leaching ($100 per hectare in India and $50 per hectare in Peru) and three-day labor costs for leaching ($6.25 per day in Peru and $2.25 per day in India). Success Stories of Land Management in Peru Until only recently, Peru’s natural resource management had been highly centralized (Anderson and Ostrom 2008), which meant that local communities did not have an opportunity to develop the capacity to locally manage natural resources. For example, the Peruvian government does not give mandates for municipalities to formulate bylaws for natural resource management (NRM), nor does it permit municipalities to raise taxes or transfer funds for NRM (Anderson and Ostrom 2008). The authors concluded that decentralization alone does not guarantee better NRM; rather local institutions 109 . 402 .
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?