The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

on assessments at the micro level (that is, where DLDD is actually observed) as well as at the aggregate level (that is, global models and scenarios). Section 4 highlights the key role of incentive structures and allows us to look in a disaggregated way at DLDD actors and their behavior within this realm of incentives. Section 5 reviews specific actions for improving degraded lands. Section 6 attempts to provide an assessment of DLDD based on case studies in the manner that we have proposed in the previous sections. It serves as illustration of our concept, no matter how preliminary or incomplete it might be compared to the global assessment that needs to be carried out. Section 7 proposes how to scale up to the global assessment, using the proposed methodology, in terms of the stakeholders who are to be included in the making of such a global assessment. Section 8 concludes. 10
2. ASSESSMENT OF DESERTIFICATION, LAND DEGRADATION, AND DROUGHT Land Degradation and Desertification Land degradation is an extensive phenomenon influenced by natural and socioeconomic factors. As the problem is complex, the existing definitions of land degradation, the methods for its assessment, and the related actions are varied and sometimes conflicting. Although soil represents one of the key ingredients of land, there is a clear distinction between land and soil degradation; this distinction should be considered by researchers, land managers, and stakeholders. Recognizing that the term land refers to more than just soil, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification defines land as “the terrestrial bio-productive system that comprises soil, vegetation, other biota, and the ecological and hydrological processes that operate within the system.”(UNCCD, 1996, Part1, Article 1e) According to Vlek, Le, and Tamene (2008), the interaction of the land with its users is mainly what leads to any kind of land degradation, resulting in serious social problems, due to the change of the ensemble of the soil constituents, of the biotic components in and on it, and of its landscapes and climatic attributes. Because land use results in relevant services, such as food production and, more generally, support of livelihoods, land degradation directly affects social human benefits. Thus, interactions of natural processes, human activities, and social systems play a considerable role in land degradation (Safriel 2007). Early definitions of land degradation refer to a decline in “the current and/or potential capability of soils to produce (quantitatively and/or qualitatively) goods and services” (FAO 1979). More recent definitions extend land degradation to spatial and time dimensions, as is reflected in the definition of the UNCCD, which defines land degradation in the context of its focus on drylands: the “reduction or loss in arid, semiarid, and dry subhumid areas, of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns, such as 1. soil erosion caused by wind and water; 2. deterioration of the physical, chemical, and biological or economic properties of soil; and 3. long-term loss of natural vegetation.” (UNCCD, 1996, Part1, Article 1f) Per definition, land degradation can be caused by both human activities and natural events (Mainguet and da Silva 1998). With the impact of global climate change becoming ever-more evident, it is important to separate human-induced land degradation from that caused by climate change, over which land users have little or no control (Vlek, Le, and Tamene 2010). As a primarily humaninduced environmental phenomenon (Johnson and Lewis 2007; Katyal and Vlek 2000) land degradation is therefore a social problem involving people at all stages not only as causative factors but also as victims (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Spooner 1987). Although, according to the UNCCD, land degradation is attributed to dryland ecosystems only, it is generally accepted that land degradation takes place in temperate climates as well (Akhtar-Schuster, Bigas, and Thomas 2010). One of the main components of land degradation is desertification, which has been defined in many different ways by multiple disciplines. A first official definition was agreed upon in 1977 at the United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) in Nairobi (UNEP 1977): “Desertification is the diminution or destruction of the biological potential of land, and can lead ultimately to desert-like conditions. It is an aspect of the widespread deterioration of ecosystems and has diminished or destroyed the biological potential—that is, plant and animal production—for multiple-use purposes at a time when increased productivity is needed to support growing populations in quest of development”(Cited in Glantz and Orlovsky, 1983). According to Glantz and Orlovsky (1983), by the early 1980s, around 100 definitions of desertification were developed out of this initial definition, varying in the area of coverage, the causative factors, the anticipated impacts, and its reversibility (Glantz and Orlovsky 1983; Geist 2005). Katyal and Vlek (2000) provided a synthesis of definitions until 1994. Among these definitions, the official UNCCD definition describes desertification as “land degradation in arid, semiarid, and dry subhumid areas, resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities” (UNCCD, 1996, Part1, Article 1a). Although this definition 11
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 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 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
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?