"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.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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
orest
Agriculture
Citrus orchards
Area in 000 Km2
26.31
1.22
0.039
Sediment under
SLM T/ha
1.75
4.58
2.98
Baseline
% Change
Sediment T/ha
3.5
5.93
5.96
50%
23%
50%

4. On-farm & off-farm benefits of
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
Benefit of SFM (million US$) in Bhutan
The large off-benefit suggests
The need for PES to farmers
Practicing SLM
7.8
10.14
On-farm
Off-site

5. 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

6. Sub-Saharan Africa

7. 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

8. 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

10. Cropland change in SSA
% change
Country
Botswana
Guinea
Ethiopia
Senegal
Equatorial Guinea
Baseline, 1973-83
Endline, 1997-2007
Million ha
Countries with declining cropland area
0.40
0.24
3.56
3.12
13.63
12.23
3.21
3.08
0.23
0.22
SSA countries with >70% increase in cropland area
Benin
1.53
Ghana
3.54
Sierra Leone
0,51
Mauritania
0.22
Mali
2.01
SSA
103.97
2.73
6.34
0.98
0.45
5.17
202.36
-41
-12
-10
-4
-3
79
79
93
106
157
23
Botswana’s large investment into R&D partly explains the countries decrease in
Crop land area

11. Why farmers replace forests with cropland?
Forest ecosystem value
Sustainable timber
harvesting
Fuelwood
NTFPs
Genetic info
Recreation
Watershed benefits
Climate benefit
Existence value
Tangible local benefits
Global benefits
US$/ha
1480
40
50
1500
236
47.5
1280
7
1570
2780
Ecosystem value of forest (US$/ha)
Tangible local benefits
Global benefits

12. Tropical forest vs maize production
Benefit (US$/ha)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1570
Maize has greater returns than forest with no timber
 deforestation
 Farmer also need food more than forest products
573
90
Tangible local benefits (no
timber)
maize proudction
Tangible local benefits
(with timber)

13. Cost of land
Degradation in SSA

14. Cost of desertification in North Africa
The Cost of Desertification in North Africa : % of GDP
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
% of GDP
0,4
0,2
0
Algeria
Sarraf, 2004
Tunisia
Morocco
Egypt

15. 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

16. 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