The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of Tables 2.1—GLASOD (1991) extent of human-induced soil degradation (in million hectares) 13 2.2—Nitrogen application rates in selected eastern and southern African countries 24 2.3—Global land degradation assessment studies 34 2.4—Trends in the spatial extent of drought for various baseline values 37 2.5—Estimated effect of climate change on drought frequency in 2030 38 2.6—Extent and severity of global soil nutrient depletion, 1990–1999 (in million hectares) 40 2.7—Selected variables used to analyze relationships with NDVI 49 2.8—Correlation of NDVI with selected biophysical and socio-economic factors 50 2.9—OLS regression of mean NDVI on selected biophysical and socio-economic variables 53 3.1—Main valuation techniques 71 3.2—Drought loss, 1900–2004 81 3.3—Economic valuation techniques for the estimation of various types of costs 81 4.1—List of actors affecting land use decisions 86 5.1—Type of land degradation and their solutions 92 5.2—Status, trend, and drivers of pastoral livestock population 96 6.1—Land resources and severity of land degradation 101 6.2—Effects of increased salinity on yields and profit for wheat and cotton, Uzbekistan 102 6.3—Soil loss, yields, and profit for land in different slope classes, Uzbekistan 103 6.4—Adoption rates of land management practices in Kenya and Niger 104 6.5—Trend of total factor productivity growth of major crops, India 111 6.6—Economic loss due to overgrazing, Kenya 113 6.7—Value of tropical forest ecosystem goods and services 117 7.1—Partnerships and the role and strengths of partners in conducting global E-DLDD 122 7.2—Essential climate variable monitoring programs of the terrestrial ecosystem services (part of SB1 and SB2) 125 7.3—Example of E-DLDD research partnership team (SB1) 126 A.1—Land degradation assessments on the national level 132 A.2—Land degradation assessment on the local and subnational levels 132 A.3—Review of studies estimating off-site costs of land degradation (in chronological order) 135 A.4—Review of studies estimating the net present value (NPV) of returns to different conservation measures (in chronological order) 139 A.5—Costs of land degradation (mainly soil erosion) 144 iv
List of Figures 1.1—Conceptual framework for assessing the costs of action versus the costs of inaction regarding DLDD (with net present value outcomes) 4 1.2—Costs and benefits—Concepts 5 1.3—Prevention, mitigation, and rehabilitation costs over time 8 1.4—Illustration of the vicious circle connecting poverty, discount rates, and land degradation 9 2.1—GLASOD (1991) global assessment of the status of human-induced soil degradation 14 2.2—Desertification vulnerability 15 2.3—Areas vulnerable to human-induced desertification 16 2.4—Loss of annual NPP, GLADA, 1981–2003 20 2.5—Degraded area as a percentage of total global degraded land area across agroclimatic zones, GLADA, 1981–2003 20 2.6—Areas most affected by land degradation, GLADA, 1981–2003 21 2.7—Annual loss of NPP in eastern and southern Africa, 1981–2003 22 2.8—Yield trend of major cereals in southern Africa, 1981–2009 22 2.9—Yield trend of major cereals in eastern Africa, 1981–2009 23 2.10—Cereal yield trend in Cameroon, 1981–2009 23 2.11—Long-term degradation of green biomass 25 2.12—Areas affected by human-induced land degradation measured by a declining NDVI (Change in NDVI from 1982–2003 with a three-year base- and endline) 26 2.13—The six axes of GLADIS: Four biophysical axes (dark gray) and two socioeconomic axes (light gray) 27 2.14—Ecosystem Service Status Index, GLADIS 28 2.15—Land Degradation Index (LDI), GLADIS 29 2.16—Biophysical Degradation Index (BDI), GLADIS 29 2.17—Land Degradation Impact Index (LDII), GLADIS 30 2.18—Methods for the assessment of land degradation 39 2.19—Trend of per capita arable land across regions 45 2.20—Relationship between change in NDVI and population density 50 2.21—Relationship between GDP and NDVI 51 2.22—Relationship between government effectiveness and NDVI 51 2.23—Relationship between fertilizer application and NDVI 52 2.24—Impact of soil erosion on wheat yield 54 2.25—Impact of soil erosion on maize yield 54 2.26—Impact of soil erosion on millet yield 55 2.27—Annual loss of reservoir storage capacity due to sedimentation 56 3.1—Total wealth and social welfare 60 3.2—Marginal private and social costs of land degradation 63 3.3—Example of a marginal abatement cost curve 65 3.4—Cost of action and cost of delayed action 66 3.5—Total economic value framework 68 3.6—Ecosystem services framework 70 v
Page 1 and 2: IFPRI Discussion Paper 01086 May 20
Page 3: Contents Abstract vii Acknowledgmen
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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?