The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

have a strong influence on NRM (Anderson and Ostrom 2008). Specifically, interaction between municipalities and local institutions is the key to better NRM (Anderson and Ostrom 2008). One of the examples of the self-initiation of communities to manage natural resources is community tourism. A good example is the Posada Amazonas, which is a joint tourism agreement between an independent tour company (Rainforest Expeditions) and an indigenous community (Infierno) resident in the rainforest. The community is responsible for protecting the forests and providing tour guide services. The independent tour company provides marketing and transportation services to the tourists. Since the project started, the income of the participating community has increased by 70 percent (Häusler 2009). What is different for this project is its collaboration with a private tour company instead of external funding from the government or donors (Kiss 2004). Similarly, a new clean development mechanism (CDM) started in Piura in 2009. This CDM plans to use the community-based forest management approach to reforest 8,980 hectares of land in the degraded dry areas of Piura. The project will increase the biodiversity in the arid and semiarid areas of Piura, where overgrazing and deforestation have depleted biodiversity. The reforestation program will still be adapted to silvopasture 66 systems and family orchards in the Piura area and will provide fodder for livestock. In addition, the CDM project is supporting family orchards in order to increase the community’s interest in planting and protecting trees and to strengthen the perception that the forests belong to the communities. AIDER (Asociación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Integral) is also providing support to enhance the capacity of communities to manage natural resources. Discussion with communities during this study showed that even before the CDM project started, communities in northwestern Piura took deliberate actions to promote agroforestry and silvopasture, which was especially important in the dry forests in the Lambayeque region. AIDER and the community developed a silvopasture strategy in which rotational grazing and other pasture management practices were promoted. AIDER also played a key role in raising the communities’ environmental awareness and helped build collective natural resource management. In addition, AIDER promoted the establishment of vaccination and other animal health services. Even though the communities still do not have a mandate to enact bylaws due to the weak decentralization in Peru, the communities’ increased awareness helped them to build a more sustainable silvopasture system, which has led to recovery of the arid and semiarid areas of Piura. AIDER tested the sustainability of their program by leaving the communities to operate without support; many of the villages have continued to operate the silvopasture systems more sustainably than before. With the help of AIDER, the communities were able to plan for the conservation of dry forests, from which they benefited from nontimber forest products (NTFPs), such as fruits from the algarrobo tree. The boiled fruits of the algarrobo are rich in minerals and sugars and are used to make algarrobina, a staple food in Peru’s arid and semiarid areas. The fruits also are ingredients for livestock feed. The AIDER study showed that the value derived from algarrobo NTFP was greater than the value of charcoal made from the same tree. These case studies in Peru further demonstrate the importance of involving communities in managing and benefiting from natural resources. It also shows the role played by NGOs in enhancing the capacity of local communities to manage natural resources. India The nature of land degradation in India is different from what we see in the Sub-Saharan African countries. India is among the countries that benefited from the Green Revolution. Agricultural productivity in India has generally been increasing, due to the increasing use of fertilizer and improved crop varieties. As Table 6.5 shows, the total factor productivity (TFP) of more than 50 percent of the major crops increased from 1970 to 2000, due to the increasing use of fertilizer and other inputs. Nitrogen and phosphorus use has been increasing, respectively, by 4 kilograms per hectare and 2 kilograms per hectare each year from 2002 to 2008 (Figure 6.14). Such high fertilizer use makes soil nutrient depletion a smaller problem. 66 Silvopasture is a production system which combines forage and forest production. 110
Table 6.5—Trend of total factor productivity growth of major crops, India Declining TFP Annual TFP Annual TFP growth 1% Paddy (rice) 1971-86 30.5 25.9 43.6 1987-00 15.0 32.8 52.2 Wheat 1971-86 10.3 17.3 72.4 1987-00 2.8 74.7 22.5 Coarse cereals 1971-86 19.8 9.6 70.5 1987-00 60.2 9.8 30.1 Pulses 1971-86 42.8 36.6 20.5 1987-00 69.2 26.6 4.2 Oilseeds 1971-86 35.6 18.3 46.1 1987-00 28.3 10.6 61.1 Sugarcane 1971-86 20.3 61.0 18.6 1987-00 90.9 5.4 3.7 Fibers 1971-86 53.8 7.2 39.0 1987-00 1971-86 32.5 1.4 66.1 Vegetables 1987-00 27.5 27.5 72.5 Source: Kumar and Mittal 2006. Note: TFP = total factor productivity Figure 6.14—Trend of nitrogen and fertilizer use in India, 2002–2008 Source: Calculated from FAOSTAT data. Overexploitation of groundwater is one of India’s major environmental problems. Irrigation accounts for approximately 63 percent of total cereal production in India, and groundwater accounted for 45 percent of the 567 cubic kilometers of irrigation water used in 2000 (de Fraiture, Giordano, and Liao 2008; Kumar, Singh, and Sharma 2005). Wheat and rice are the major irrigated cereals; other cereal crops are largely rainfed (Kumar, Singh and Sharma 2005). Salinity is also becoming an increasingly big problem for irrigated crops. It is estimated that about 2 percent of cropped area in India has salinity problem (TERRASTAT 2010). Based on crop simulation models used in this study, salinity reduces crop rice yield by about 22 percent. The cost of action includes the additional cost of desalinization, which, as discussed previously, involves staggered leaching of salts. The cost of irrigation water in India varies from $0 to as high as $470 per hectare in Gujarat (Cornish et al. 2004). 111 .
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 120 and 121: The NGOs and religious organization
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?