The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7. PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT The review of past studies of desertification, land degradation, and drought (DLDD) clearly shows that there has been a weak link in studies from biophysical scientists and socioeconomists. A need to strengthen this link has increasingly gained attention due to the little attention given to land degradation by policymakers and other decisionmakers. The review also shows that collaboration among biophysical scientists and socioeconomists has been increasing due to the increasing need to determine the causes and economic impacts of DLDD and the economic benefits of the prevention or reversal of DLDD (Croitoru and Sarraf 2010; Buenemann et al. 2011). Based on reviews of the causes and impacts of DLDD, implementation of programs to address DLDD also requires a strong collaboration across various actors discussed earlier. As has been seen, causes of DLDD and its impacts span from the farm level to the global level. In addition, satellite imagery data—which can be collected at a global level at an affordable cost and in a short time—do not capture some important biophysical and socioeconomic data. Thus, there is a need to conduct site-specific measurements using case studies that are selected to represent all major ecosystems and human characteristics. Results of such local studies could then be extrapolated to comparable areas using geographic information system (GIS) and other spatial techniques. In this section, we propose a partnership that could be used to design a research and communication strategy, implementation of research recommendations, and a monitoring and evaluation strategy. An Institutional Setup for the Global Assessment of E-DLDD As part of a concept for the policy process of setting up a global economics of DLDD (E-DLDD) initiative, it is important to note the lessons learned from existing global assessments. We suggest as the starting point to refer to the processes and structures behind The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) studies and the operation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main issue raised in both cases, in terms of translating the scientific work into policy actions, is linked to the credibility of the scientific output. The issue of scientific credibility is linked to • the separation between the scientific body and the political body, and • the quality and diversity (in terms of fields of competence) of the science community involved. In addressing the former, there must be clear guidelines from the beginning of the scientific work that establish the complete independence of the science body from the policy body in terms of how results are achieved and what these results are. The political body’s droit de regard (right to monitor) of the work on the scientific body must be limited to guidance on translation of the evidencebased science into policy-relevant results. The scientific quality of the work produced is best assessed through a peer review process. For the trust of the political body, the peer review committee must be selected with the political body’s approval and must also be formally appointed by it. This would further ensure that the scientific work, once reviewed, will be fully endorsed by the policy body. Finally, a global assessment of E-DLDD can only be credible if it is truly global in its coverage. Thus, the scientific and policy partners must represent as wide a selection of regions and countries as is possible and manageable. In particular, the scientific work must be undertaken jointly by scientists and research organizations in the developed and developing regions of the world. We present the conceptual framework of the partnership in Figure 7.1. 118
Figure 7.1—Institutional setup for a global assessment of E-DLDD in a cost-of-action-versusinaction framework Source: Author’s compilation. Notes: UNCCD = United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; NGO = nongovernmental organization; E-DLDD = economics of desertification, land degradation, and drought The Political Partnership The political partnership is further divided into two groups: the political partnership at the global level (PB1) and the political partnership at the country level (PB2). PB1, which will guide the research process and mobilize resources for conducting E-DLDD, will comprise UN organizations and will be led by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The first step of PB1 is to coordinate partners and to define both the problem and the need for taking action to address the problem (this coordination and definition of the problem has already started through the inception of this study). This step is followed by mobilization of the resources needed to conduct the global E- DLDD study, which has already been initiated by the UNCCD. The UNCCD has prepared an awareness creation and fund-raising brochure that summarizes the discussion of the December 2010 partner workshop in Bonn. The PB1 and PB2 will also be responsible for implementing the recommendations made by the E-DLDD study. Implementation of E-DLDD recommendations will be done from the global level to the community and individual land user level. To help properly plan this implementation, the E- DLDD study must provide empirical information showing the extent, severity, and impact of land degradation; who is affected by it; and what is required to prevent reverse land degradation. The Science Partnership The science partnership is also at two levels. The first level (SB1) is the core science partnership, which will guide and coordinate the E-DLDD study at global level. This team will come from institutions that have done significant research on the global assessment of DLDD. The second level (SB2) comprises the communities of scientists from specialized land degradation assessment institutions, as well as scientists working at the regional or country level. The E-DLDD study should show the causes of land degradation and the costs and benefits of preventing or mitigating land 119
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 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 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?