The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

More documents

Recommendations

Info

year (Diao and Sarpong 2007). Sonneveld (2002) assessed the effects on food security in Ethiopia based on scenarios: Food availability per capita dropped from 1971 kilocalories per day in 2000 to 685 kilocalories per day in 2003 due to water erosion, assuming no additional conservation activities (Scenario 1). To assess the impact of DLDD on migration and the resulting costs, CSFD (2006) proposed a methodology for its valuation. They differentiated between direct costs and indirect costs as a function of the places of origin and arrival and accounted for the costs and benefits (in receiving country) of migration in order to give a complete inventory of the costs and benefits associated with migration. However, they did not calculate the actual costs of land-related migration. Estimation of the Costs of Droughts In this section, we have focused mostly on land degradation. However, an economic valuation of the costs associated with droughts is also necessary. The economic costs of drought and other natural hazards depend on the severity of the hazard, the vulnerability of the people affected by it, and their exposure to it. Economic costs are the result of crop and livestock productivity losses, decreased tourism, and declines in other ecosystem services provided by the environment. Deaths and long-term losses of livelihoods are also included in computing the economic losses from drought. The economic costs of droughts are also determined by the onset, duration, location, and severity of the drought (Below, Grover-Kopec, and Dilley 2007). Drought affects most developing countries dependent on rainfed agriculture that has little resilience (Conway 2008). The relationship between drought and famine, as a key representation of the human impacts and suffering caused by drought, was addressed extensively in the literature of the 1980s and 1990s. 55 It is estimated that in Africa alone, drought and the consequent famine killed 4,453 people and affected about 111 million people in 1993–2003 (Conway 2008), or an average of 11 million affected by drought each year. Yet, as exemplified in von Braun, Teklu, and Webb (1998), drought does not necessarily lead to famine, as countries like Zimbabwe successfully avoided famine during the drought of 1991/92. The relationship between drought and famine, as a particular example of its human impacts, is strongest where people live from a thin resource base, poverty is endemic, and the public institutions have a low capacity to prevent and mitigate the effects of the drought (von Braun, Teklu, and Webb 1998). The notion of drought as a main driver of “vulnerability to hunger” (Downing 1991) is particularly relevant here as an illustration of a long-lasting human impact resulting from the combination of chronic environmental shocks. Climate shocks—and drought, in particular—have direct impacts on agricultural production. Moreover, such shocks also have indirect (secondary and tertiary) effects, which, when transferred through space and time to society as a whole, are difficult to model and track. These shocks include impacts on farm profitability, on regional production costs, on comparative advantages, and on world prices (Downing 1991). Drought episodes can have a significant impact, measured, for example, as a loss in countries’ GDP. A study in Kenya showed that the 1999/2000 drought led to a 1.4 percent decrease in GDP and that inflation rose by 2.2 percentage points, from 7.6 percent in August 1999 to 9.8 percent a year later (Davies 2007). Globally, the average annual economic cost of meteorological disasters—including drought, extreme temperatures, and wildfires—between 2000 and 2008 was $9.39 billion (Figure 3.8). Drought has high costs, even in countries with higher resilience. A study in the United States estimated that the annual cost of drought was about $6–8 billion (Wilhite and Buchanan-Smith 2005). Sectors severely affected by drought were agriculture, recreation and tourism, forests (due to forest fires), energy production, and transportation (Wilhite and Buchanan-Smith 2005). The global study done by Below, Grover-Kopec, and Dilley (2007), which covered a 104year period from 1900 to 2004, showed that a total of 392 drought events occurred, or an average of four droughts each year, with Africa contributing about 36 percent of the total number of drought events globally (Table 3.2). About 12 million died as a result of droughts, or 0.11 million people each year. However, the number of deaths from drought and other natural hazards has been declining due to adaptation. The global total economic loss over the 104-year period was about $79 billion, or $0.76 billion each year. 55 See, for instance, Downing (1991) and von Braun, Teklu, and Webb (1998). 80
Table 3.2—Drought loss, 1900–2004 Region Number of events Average events/year 81 Deaths (million) People affected (million) Economic loss (US$billion) Africa 139 1.3 1.129 243.268 5.271 Americas 90 0.9 0.000 61.003 18.378 Asia/Middle East 113 1.1 9.663 1,541.783 24.027 Europe 33 0.3 1.200 19.866 17.889 Oceania 17 0.2 0.001 8.028 0.013 Total 392 3.8 11.993 1,873.948 78.867 Source: Below, Grover-Kopec, and Dilley 2007. A global study by Vos et al. (2010) estimated that the average annual economic cost of meteorological disasters—including drought, extreme temperatures, and wildfires—between 2000 and 2008 was $9.39 billion (Figure 3.8). This shows the large cost of drought and the need for designing mechanisms to increase the resilience against drought at local and international level. Policies and strategies for addressing drought are discussed in Section 6. Figure 3.8—Average annual economic impact of meteorological disasters, 2000–2008 2009 US$ billion 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Source: Vos et al. 2010. Note: Meteorological disasters include drought, extreme temperatures, and wildfires. Summary 3.5 The literature review shows a range of different methodologies that have been applied in the past to study the costs of land degradation and conservation. Table 3.3 summarizes which kinds of methods can be used to assess different types of costs of DLDD. Although more possibilities for valuing costs of land degradation exist, the ones listed here are the most frequently used and were reviewed before. Table 3.3—Economic valuation techniques for the estimation of various types of costs Cost type or type of economic value Economic valuation technique On-site, direct cost, use value Productivity change approach, replacement cost approach Off-site costs Damage costs, avoidance/mitigation costs, stated preferences techniques, travel cost method Nonuse values, existence value Stated preferences techniques, hedonic pricing, travel cost method Indirect costs Mathematical modeling, econometric approaches Source: Compiled by authors. 3.2 2.4 Asia Europe Americas Oceania Africa 0.4 0.1 .
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 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?