Economic Impact of Land Degradation in the Himalayan region & Sub- Saharan Africa & policy implications Dr. Ephraim Nkonya 1 Dr. Melanie Requier Desjardins 2 Dr. Ho Young Kwon 1 Professor Raghavan Srinivasan 3 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
"Partnering for Impact: IFPRI-European Research Collaboration for Improved Food and Nutrition Security" presentation by Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI, on 25 November 2013 in Brussels, Belgium.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
The cost of land degradation• Bhutan spends US$9.6 million to repair
turbines damaged by sediment loading, which is 0.53% of country’s GDP– SLM reduces sediment loading by 50%Table 1: Impact of SLM on sediment loading, SWAT results
On-farm & off-farm benefits of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
10.147.8
Benefit of SFM (million US$) in Bhutan
On-farm Off-site
The large off-benefit suggestsThe need for PES to farmersPracticing SLM
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
Sub-Saharan Africa
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
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
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
Cropland change in SSACountry Baseline, 1973-83 Endline, 1997-2007