The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.7—Global loss due to siltation of water reservoirs (US$ billion) 79 3.8—Average annual economic impact of meteorological disasters, 2000–2008 81 4.1—The mediating role of institutions 83 4.2—Economics of institutions 4.3—Effect of national-level decentralization policy on enactment of land and water management 85 regulations 88 4.4—Institutional structure with horizontal and vertical linkages 89 5.1—Global loss of mean species abundance, 2000–2050 95 5.2—Drivers of the loss of mean species abundance at the global level, 2000–2050 95 5.3—Forest area as a percentage of total area across regions 96 5.4—Distribution of pastoralists 97 5.5—Per capita water storage in selected countries and regions 98 5.6—Relationship between soil carbon and crop yield and yield variance, Uganda 98 6.1—Trend of per capita income in the case study countries 100 6.2—Status of land degradation in the case study countries 100 6.3—Profit loss caused by increased salinity, Uzbekistan 102 6.4—Total profit loss due to land degradation type, Uzbekistan 103 6.5—Trend of fertilizer use in Kenya and Niger 104 6.6—Loss of profit due to soil nutrient depletion, Niger 105 6.7—Trend of livestock units per pasture area in case study countries 105 6.8—Cost of action and inaction to control salinity in a rice and onion rotation, Niger (US$/ha) 106 6.9—Cost of action and inaction to control overgrazing, Niger (US$/household with 50 TLU) 106 6.10—Loss of profit as a percentage of GDP, Niger 107 6.11—Trend of nitrogen and phosphorus use, Peru 6.12—Cost of action and inaction (US$/ha) of soil erosion on maize plots in the Andean region, 108 Peru 109 6.13—Cost of action and inaction to address salinity, India and Peru 109 6.14—Trend of nitrogen and fertilizer use in India, 2002–2008 111 6.15—Costs of action and inaction to address soil nutrient mining for selected crops, Kenya 114 6.16—Cereal yield trend in Kenya compared to Sub-Saharan Africa’s regional yields 115 6.17—Nitrogen fertilizer application per hectare in Sub-Saharan African countries 115 6.18—Average change in forest area and its value 7.1— Institutional setup for a global assessment of E-DLDD in a cost-of-action-versus-inaction 117 framework 119 B.1—Land use systems of the world 146 B.2—GLADA output 146 B.3—Biophysical Status Index (BSI), GLADIS 147 B.4—Goods and services severely affected, GLADIS 147 vi
ABSTRACT Attention to land degradation and environmental pollution has increased significantly in the past 25 years, largely due to greater levels of international cooperation and recognition that local changes in land resources have global impacts. As the world’s focus on climate change increases, so, too, does the attention being paid to drought and its rise in frequency and severity. Despite this heightened global awareness, action to prevent or mitigate land degradation and drought at national or international levels has been limited, primarily because there are limited assessments regarding the cost of land degradation. Past global assessments have largely focused on the biophysical impacts of land degradation while little has been done to assess its global economic costs or the costs-versusbenefits of preventing or mitigating it. Additionally, past studies have largely focused on loss of onsite productivity and have paid limited attention to the off-site costs of land degradation and off-site benefits of land improvement. As part of the effort to address these and other gaps, this study was undertaken to prepare a framework for global assessment of the economics of desertification, land degradation, and drought (E-DLDD). A review of literature on global evaluations of land degradation shows a significant development in methods and approaches to mitigate it. Earlier evaluations based their assessments on expert opinion and concentrated on only a few types of land degradation—namely soil erosion and deforestation. Recent studies have expanded the types of land degradation assessed to include other major indicators of terrestrial ecosystem services—made possible, in part, by rapid technological development. Specifically, satellite imagery has been used to assess vegetation land cover using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is a measure of plant growth vigor, vegetation cover, and biomass. The time series NDVI data are appealing because they are readily available, however, there has been criticism on use of NDVI as an indicator of land degradation or improvement. To evaluate the costs and benefits of the actions needed to address land degradation, this study proposes the total economic value approach, which takes into account both on-site and off-site direct and indirect costs and benefits of ecosystem services. In order to recommend the appropriate steps to address land degradation, this study also identifies a number of proximate and underlying causes of land degradation, namely institutions and their role in regulating the drivers of land degradation. Therefore, to carry out the E-DLDD study, a partnership and roles for each partner were identified. Given the current global attention on land degradation and the growing interest in investing in land, there is great potential for mobilizing partnerships around a global E-DLDD assessment and, later, for implementing its recommendations. This would require champions of the cause to coordinate and facilitate action in both the policy and scientific spheres. Keywords: desertification, land degradation, economics, drought, cost of inaction, prevention of land degradation vii
Page 1 and 2: IFPRI Discussion Paper 01086 May 20
Page 3 and 4: Contents Abstract vii Acknowledgmen
Page 5: List of Figures 1.1—Conceptual fr
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?