• Save
Valentin YATSUKHNA, Uladzimir SAUCHANKA, Natalia GHARKINA "Evaluation the cost of land degradation at the national level (experience of Belarus)"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Valentin YATSUKHNA, Uladzimir SAUCHANKA, Natalia GHARKINA "Evaluation the cost of land degradation at the national level (experience of Belarus)"

on

  • 400 views

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

Statistics

Views

Total Views
400
Views on SlideShare
392
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 8

http://conftool.grforum.net 5
http://www.conftool.pro 2
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

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

Valentin YATSUKHNA, Uladzimir SAUCHANKA, Natalia GHARKINA "Evaluation the cost of land degradation at the national level (experience of Belarus)" Valentin YATSUKHNA, Uladzimir SAUCHANKA, Natalia GHARKINA "Evaluation the cost of land degradation at the national level (experience of Belarus)" Presentation Transcript

  • UNCCD SECOND SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE «Economic assessment of desertification, sustainable land management and resilience of arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas» 9-12 April 2013, Bonn, GermanyValentin Yatsukhna, Belarusian State UniversityUladzimir Sauchanka, Belarusian Research and Design Institute of Mining and Chemical IndustryNatalia Gharkina, Ministry of National Resources and Environmental Protection EVALUATION THE COST OF LAND DEGRADATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL (EXPERIENCE OF BELARUS) 220030 Minsk, Belarus Nesaleznasty, 4 Belarusian State University Landscape Ecology Lab. E-mail: yatsukhno@bsu.by
  • Belarusagricultural lands 4.1 3.2 2.3forested lands and lands covered with smaller 4.4trees and shrubsbogs 43.9land under waterland under built-up areas 42.1unused lands or lands used for other purposes
  • Strategy for implementation the UNCCD in Belarus CHAPTER 3. Main Goals and Framework of the Strategy • unconditional implementation of the paid land use principle, improve the regulative function of and tax and rent, promote efficient and environmentally sound land use, improve the system of efficient goal-oriented use of payments for land with the aim of protecting and improving the land, develop a system of compensatory payments, etc.
  • The main types of land/soil degradation on the territory of Belarus Water erosion DeflationQuarry (sand pit) Density of the 137Cs contamination of the territories in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
  • Impact of drainage lands of Belarus Overal area of peatlands before drainage – 2 939 000 ha 1 239 000 ha Natural peatlands 1 700 000 ha Drained peatlandsPeatlands drained for agriculture Extracted peatlands
  • Types and benchmarks of the land degradation of Belarus (using under calculation the size of the compensation of the soil damage) Degrees of land degradation Types of the land Benchmarks degradation low middle high very high Decreasing of the soil layer depth 10-25 26-50 51-75 >75Water erosion of soils Decreasing of the groove depth 21-40 41-100 101-200 >200 Decreasing of the soil layer depthWind erosion of soils 10-25 26-50 51-75 >75 Decreasing of the peatsoil layer 10-25 26-50 51-75 >75Mineralization of depthpeatsoil drainaged Speed of mineralization of the 2,0-4,0 4,1-6,0 6,1-8,0 >8,0 peatsoil, cm/yearDestruction of theland/soil under open Share of the land without the <10 11-40 41-70 >70mineral resources fertile soil layerexploitation
  • Taxes for the calculation of the size of the compensation of soil damage by degradation, USD/sq. m Degrees of land degradation Land types low middle high very highArable 0,26 0,38 0,51 0,77 Reclaimed 0,19 0,29 0,38 0,57Meadows Not reclaimed 0,10 0,14 0,19 0,29Peatlands 0,08 0,11 0,15 0,23Communication lands 0,13 019 0,25 0,38Building lands 0,13 0,20 0,26 0,39
  • Cost assessment of soil for calculation of the size of degradation damage (agricultural lands) Soil Thickness of the soil Cost of the fertile soil layer, Soil nomenclaturegroups layer, sm USD/ha 1 Rendzic leptosols (calcaris) 30 51,905 2 Umbric Albeluvisols (clay) 25 31,078 3 Umbric Albeluvisols (loamy) 25 20,379 4 Umbric Albeluvisols (sandy) 20 7,010 5 Umbric Paragleyic Albeluvisols 25 19,279 6 Protogleyic, Umbrisoils 25 26,737 7 Umbric Fluvisoils 25 29,101 8 Ombric Histosoils 30 16,120 9 Ombric Histosoils (draned) 30 25,841 10 Eroded soils 20 7,825
  • Capacity for renaturalization of degraded peatlandsNear 300,000 ha – natural mire with disruption of hydrological regime Drained peatlands emit about 3,751,700 Natural peatlands sink tons CO2 annually about 1,388,600 CO2 tons (exept fires) annually
  • Estimation of the general economic value of lands (on case of study of peatlands of Belarus)The general economic value of peatlands included market cost of those resources which theyhave and also cost of the non-material benefits presented by them and services which society canuse. Such approach is the most perspective, and calculation is conducted on the followingformula : TEV= UV+ NUV,where TEV – quantity of total economic value; UV - the cost, equal to the value: DUV + IUV +OV - use value; DUV - direct use value (size of direct cost of use of resources of nature object);IUV - indirect use value (the indirect cost of the use of assimilation (reducing) functions of thenature object); OV – option value (the cost of the postponed alternative as the possible use ofresources and assimilation functions of nature object in the future); NUV - nоn-use value isdetermined by the total quantity, equal EV + BV (existence value + bequest value). The size of costof non-use of natural object (NUV), as a rule, is defined by cost of existence (EV), i.e. recreationalability of nature object, or the cost of heritage (BV) reflecting first of all social aspects of theimportance of natural object for society as a whole.
  • Estimation of the general economic value of lands (on case of study of peatlands of Belarus)Cost of the indirect use of peatlands, which characterizes obtaining possible income from the CO2sequestration.If to take into consideration that on 1 hectare of the area of peat lands as a result ofphotosynthesis of bog vegetation the mass of the connected carbon, according to expertestimates, annually makes 3.6 tons, the lump of fixed carbon from the area of 312,600 hectareswill make 1,125,360 tons. In the conversion to СO2 the given quantity will be 4,079,430(1,125,360 • 3,625) tons. According to available data the price of 1 t of carbon dioxide in theEuropean market makes 13.2 US $. Therefore, the total cost of annually connected carbon canmake 53,848,000 US $, and taking into account time factor (the norm of discount equal to 10 %)in 33,087,000 US $. The cost of water-regulated and other functions of the peatlands isestimated approximately, proceeding from their total area (312,600 ha) and the price of filteringability of 1 hectare equal to 265 US $.It comprises: on the net income 82,839,000 US $ and to the net discounted income 50,900,000US $. Thus, cost of direct and indirect use of peatlands of Belarus of nature protection will make:on the net income 142,399,000 US $ and to the clean discounted income 87,497,000 US $ per 1year.
  • Policy oriented recommendationsThe cost assessment of lands provides the successful solution ofimportant problems:• an assessment of level and rates of exhaustion or reproduction of soil resources;• the determination of the influence of the processes of land resources use on the pattern of utilization of other nature and anthropogenic resources;• effectively regulation nature-conservation policy for purposes of sustainable development of separate territories and to decrease economic damage from the degradation of lands;• analyze of the motion of the flow of money in the interrelation of land resources and economic development.
  • Thank you for your attention!