• Save
Utkur Djanibekov "Risk coping options and carbon value of afforested irrigated marginal croplands in drylands: The case of Uzbekistan"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Utkur Djanibekov "Risk coping options and carbon value of afforested irrigated marginal croplands in drylands: The case of Uzbekistan"

on

  • 400 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
400
Views on SlideShare
368
Embed Views
32

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 32

http://conftool.grforum.net 23
http://www.conftool.pro 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Utkur Djanibekov "Risk coping options and carbon value of afforested irrigated marginal croplands in drylands: The case of Uzbekistan" Utkur Djanibekov "Risk coping options and carbon value of afforested irrigated marginal croplands in drylands: The case of Uzbekistan" Presentation Transcript

  • Carbon value and risk coping options of afforestation on marginal irrigated croplands in Uzbekistan Utkur Djanibekov, Asia Khamzinaemail: utkur@uni-bonn.de UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference Bonn, Germany, April 9-12, 2013
  • Afforestation of marginal croplands • Alternative land use for livelihood • Provides various products • Ecosystem services Example of Uzbekistan March 2004 May 2006 August 2007 Photos: KhamzinaSource: Olschewski and Benitez (2005); Zhang et al. (2006); Marechal and Hecq (2006); Pearson et al. (2007); Khamzina et al. (2008); 2Lamers et al. (2008); Alkemade et al. (2009); Thomas et al. (2010); Dargusch et al. (2010); Djanibekov et al. (2012)
  • Afforestation in irrigated regions of Uzbekistan Study areas • Khorezm and Southern Karakalpakstan • 30% GRP from agriculture • 20-35% croplands are marginal • Croplands are affected by salinity Afforestation of marginal croplands • Provides: fuelwood, fruits, leaves as fodder, carbon payments • Climate change mitigation, land rehabilitation • Requires 1,600 m3 of irrigation in the first 2 years, onwards relies on ground waterSource: El Beltagy (2002); Suzuki (2003); Lerman and Stanchin (2006); Dukhovny and Sorokin (2007); Perelet (2007), Dubovyk et al. 3(2012)
  • Constraints of afforestation • Lack of knowledge in revenues of new land use • Variability in crop and tree products: e.g., CV of tree product prices 0.08-0.13 • State policies: State procurement policy low flexibility in land use 200 200 700 600 Change in irrigation water Change in crop prices, % 150 150Change in crop yields, % 500 supply, % 100 100 400 300 50 50 200 0 0 100 -50 -50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Years Years Cotton Wheat Rice Maize Vegetables Irrigation water Wheat Rice Maize VegetablesSource: Statistical Committee of Khorezm (2010); Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2010) 4
  • Objectives, data and methods Objectives• To estimate returns and carbon price of afforestation of marginal croplands• To identify risk managing options of afforesting marginal croplands Data sources• 160 farm and weekly market surveys, tree growth parameters over 7 years Methods• Models: Stochastic dominance (1 ha level); Expected utility (farm level)• Farm has 100 ha, of which 23 ha are marginal lands• In BAU scenario farm follows state cotton policy; In afforestation scenario cotton policy is relaxed• Monte Carlo simulation for yields, prices and irrigation water availability 5
  • Results: Uncertain profits of land uses • Afforestation is more profitable than major crops • High variability in returns of rice and vegetables Marginal lands Well-productive lands 1 1 Cumulative probability 0.8 0.8Cumulative probability 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 -3 6 15 24 -3 6 15 24 1,000 USD ha -1 1,000 USD ha-1 Cotton Wheat Rice Maize Vegetables E. angustifolia Cotton Wheat Rice P. euphratica U. pumila Maize Vegetables 6
  • Results: Carbon price under field level analysis • Variability in returns of crops and trees may require high carbon prices to initiate afforestation of marginal croplands 600 600 600 E. angustifolia P. euphratica U. pumilaChange in carbon price, Change in carbon price, Change in carbon price, 500 500 500 USD tCO2-1 400 400 400 USD tCO2-1 300 USD tCO 2-1 300 300 200 200 200 100 100 100 0 0 0 -3 6 15 24 -3 6 15 24 -3 6 15 24 Opportunity cost of land, Opportunity cost of land, Opportunity cost of land, 1,000 USD ha-1 1,000 USD ha-1 1,000 USD ha-1 Min Max Min Max Min Max 7
  • Results: Farm land use and income • Due to farming constraints even no carbon revenues would lead to afforestation • Climate change mitigation: about 5,000 tCO2 sequestered in seven years • Farm income would be higher under afforestation scenario than BAU 150 1 125 0.8Land use pattern, ha Cumulative probability 100 0.6 75 0.4 50 25 0.2 0 0 BAU 0 4.76 20 70 120 0 400 800 1,200 USD tCO 2 -1 Farm NPV , 1,000 USD Cotton Wheat Rice Maize Vegetables E. angustifolia P. euphratica U. pumila BAU Afforestation 8
  • Results: Afforestation under irrigation water variability• In water scarce situation tree plantations would be attractive land use• In water abundance situation tree plantations would be less attractive land use 0.7% 4.3% 7.8% Frequency, % 12.5% 33.3% 16.7% 11.1% 7.5% 5.3% 0.9% 0 40 80 120 160 0 11 22 Land use pattern, ha Irrigation water availability, Cotton Wheat Rice Maize 103 m3 ha-1 year-1 Vegetables E. angustifolia P. euphratica U. pumila 9
  • Conclusions• Scale analysis is important: unrealistic carbon price level in 1 ha level, in contrast farm level analysis resulted in feasible carbon price level• Flexibility in cotton policy would lead to afforestation of marginal lands• Tree plantations on marginal lands would increase efficiency of irrigation water use at farm, and consequently enhance rice and vegetables production• Afforestation would diversify land use and reduce repercussions of agricultural revenue risks• Farm income would be higher under afforestaion of marginal lands option than under conventional crop cultivation on such lands 10
  • Thank you for your attention