Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya
-
Upload
international-food-policy-research-institute-ifpri -
Category
Education
-
view
353 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya
![Page 1: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Economic Impact of Land Degradation in the Himalayan region & Sub-Saharan Africa & policy
implications
Dr. Ephraim Nkonya1
Dr. Melanie Requier Desjardins2 Dr. Ho Young Kwon1
Professor Raghavan Srinivasan3 1 International Food Policy Research Institute
2 Researcher, Centre of Economics and Ethics for Environment and Development & member of the French Scientific Committee on Desertification (CSFD)
3 Texas A&M University
![Page 2: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Bhutan, in Pursuit of Happiness
• Bhutan measures its economic development in terms of Gross Domestic Happiness (GPH)– Enhancing traditional values, improving people’s standard of
living and environmental sustainability• 72% of land area covered with forest
– Deforestation rate in 1990-2010 only 0.03% - mainly conversion to built land
• 51% of land area protected• Ag land area only 1.8%, but employs 67% of population• Hydroelectric power (HEP) accounts for 22% of GDP –
largest sector
![Page 3: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The cost of land degradation• Bhutan spends US$9.6 million to repair
turbines damaged by sediment loading, which is 0.53% of country’s GDP– SLM reduces sediment loading by 50%Table 1: Impact of SLM on sediment loading, SWAT results
Area in 000 Km2 Sediment under SLM T/ha
Baseline Sediment T/ha
% Change
Forest 26.31 1.75 3.5 50%Agriculture 1.22 4.58 5.93 23%Citrus orchards 0.039 2.98 5.96 50%
![Page 4: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
On-farm & off-farm benefits of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
10.147.8
Benefit of SFM (million US$) in Bhutan
On-farm Off-site
The large off-benefit suggestsThe need for PES to farmersPracticing SLM
![Page 5: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What can be done to achieve SFM?
• Payment for ecosystem services (PES) with direct tangible benefits to land users– Currently DGPC pays the government 1% of its
revenue for encouraging SFM but land users hardly link the PES to SFM
• Turn publicly managed forests to community forests – this can increase forest density by 25% (Agarwal 2009
• Secure land tenure, access to roads & extension services enhance SLM
![Page 6: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sub-Saharan Africa
![Page 7: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Economics of land degradation
• We evaluate losses due to land degrading land management practices on crops. Empirical models used to determine impact of land management on maize yield
• We use past studies and secondary to determine land degradation due to deforestation
![Page 8: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Crop loss due to land degrading practices
• Annual yield loss:– Empirical model 2% for two thirds of farmers using
low management practices– Long-term experiment, Kenya 4.6%
• Such loss is enormous and has negative implications on achieving food security and poverty reduction
![Page 9: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cropland area expansion has predominantly replaced intact forest
East Africa Central Africa West Africa0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Sources of cropland area expansion in SSA, 1980-2000
intact forest Disturbed forest
Sour
ce o
f agr
icul
tura
l lan
d ex
-pa
nsio
n, %
Source: Gibbs et al 2010
![Page 10: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Cropland change in SSACountry Baseline, 1973-83 Endline, 1997-2007
% change
Million ha Countries with declining cropland area
Botswana 0.40 0.24 -41Guinea 3.56 3.12 -12Ethiopia 13.63 12.23 -10Senegal 3.21 3.08 -4Equatorial Guinea 0.23 0.22 -3
SSA countries with >70% increase in cropland areaBenin 1.53 2.73 79Ghana 3.54 6.34 79Sierra Leone 0,51 0.98 93Mauritania 0.22 0.45 106Mali 2.01 5.17 157SSA 103.97 202.36 23
Botswana’s large investment into R&D partly explains the countries decrease in Crop land area
![Page 11: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Why farmers replace forests with cropland?
Forest ecosystem value US$/haSustainable timber harvesting 1480Fuelwood 40NTFPs 50Genetic info 1500Recreation 236Watershed benefits 47.5Climate benefit 1280Existence value 7Tangible local benefits 1570Global benefits 2780
Ecosystem value of forest (US$/ha)
Tangible local benefitsGlobal benefits
![Page 12: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Tropical forest vs maize production
Tangible local benefits (no timber)
maize proudction Tangible local benefits (with timber)
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
90
573
1570
Benefit (US$/ha)
Maize has greater returns than forest with no timber deforestation Farmer also need food more than forest products
![Page 13: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Cost of land Degradation in SSA
![Page 14: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The Cost of Desertification in North Africa : % of GDP
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
Algeria Tunisia Morocco Egypt
% of GDP
Cost of desertification in North Africa
Sarraf, 2004
![Page 15: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Cost of land degradation in SSA
Country, year
Type of loss
Cost AGDP
Main Elements of Methodology
Rwanda, 2003
Agriculture 3,5% Agr P ; loss of human productivity
Ethiopia 2003
Agr, Livstk, For
4% Depth of soil and loss in productivity
Ethiopia, 1986
Agriculture <1% Modelling of crop WRS
Zimbabwe, 1994
Agriculture <1% Modelling of plants growth, erosion mapping
Zimbabwe, 1992
Agriculture, Livestock
8% Cost of replacement, main soils and farms types
Malawi, 1992 Agriculture 3% Modelling of soil losses and drop in productivity
Berry et al. 2003, Bojo, 1996
![Page 16: Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels-Nkonya](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052522/554960c1b4c905fc4e8b5c85/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Implications
• Direct and tangible local benefits should form basis of decision making
• Incentives Build SLM on solid ground – effective governance
• PES programs can enhance SLM – especially if they are grounded on local buyers and sellers of ecosystem services
• R&D will help increase intensification – lead to saving the forests