The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table A.4—Continued Author Country Area Conservation measure Nelson et al. 1998 Gebremedhin, Swinton, and Tilahun 1999 Philippines Hedgerow intercropping Ethiopia Tigray Stone terraces Wheat– wheat–fava beans Shively 1999 Philippines Barangay Bansalam in Davao del Sur Province Shiferaw and Holden 2001 Crop Discount rate 140 Time horizon (years) Maize 0.25 10 Distribution of NPV over time rotation 0.2 20 Distribution of NPV over time 0.15 30 277 US$ per acre Hedgerows Corn 0.10 10 34 US$ per hectare Corn 0.05 10 92 US$ per hectare 0.50 30 1 US$ per hectare Ethiopia Andit Tid Level bund Barley 0 62,743 Birr per hectare (Birr/ha) NPV Unit Note Soil erosion with conservation NPV for open field, fallow, and hedgerows NPV for open field, fallow, and hedgerows Net gain; considers yield differences Net gain Net gain Net gain Also available for Anjeni area and other crops (wheat, fava beans); net gains, 16% area loss due to conservation 1 ton per hectare per year (ton/ha/yr) Soil erosion without conservation 190 ton/ha/yr 1 ton/ha/yr 190 ton/ha/yr 10 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.05 –2,409 Birr/ha 10 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.10 –2,306 Birr/ha 10 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.20 –1,561 Birr/ha 10 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr
Table A.4—Continued Author Country Area Conservation measure Crop Discount rate 141 Time horizon (years) NPV Unit Note Soil erosion with conservation Soil erosion without conservation Graded bund Barley 0 –398 Birr/ha 25 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr Level Fanya juu Graded fanya juu 0.05 –3,888 Birr/ha 25 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.10 –2,695 Birr/ha 25 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.20 –1,668 Birr/ha 25 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr Barley 0 –44,531 Birr/ha 12 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.05 –3,248 Birr/ha 12 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.1 –2,969 Birr/ha 12 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.20 –2,136 Birr/ha 12 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr Barley 0 9,453 Birr/ha 20 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.05 –4,039 Birr/ha 20 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.10 –3,176 Birr/ha 20 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.20 –2,192 Birr/ha 20 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr Grass tripes Barley 0 41,027 Birr/ha 15 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.05 –1,259 Birr/ha 15 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.10 –1,432 Birr/ha 15 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr 0.20 –937 Birr/ha 15 ton/ha/yr 42 ton/ha/yr
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 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?