Exploiting provision of landeconomic productivity without degrading its natural capital          Ephraim Nkonya           ...
Land degradation – a global problem About 23% of the global land area  experienced land degradation in 1981-2003 Most ar...
Land management, 1981-2003                    23%                              Loss of NDVI (land                         ...
Most areas with no LD located in high income            countries, & few in low income countries income             Relati...
Why? Environmental Kuznet curve explains pattern  in high income countries
Why no land degradationIn some poor countries?    What can we learn  From such countries?
Government effectiveness consistently leadto prevention of land degradation or landimprovement
Areas with no land degradation in low    income countries Pastoral areas with limited or no crop production. Contributing...
Co-existence of wildlife and livestock -Ngongoro
Pastoral livelihood level of degradation islower than crop productionTranshumant livelihood leads to sustainablerangeland ...
Economic returns of nomadic systems,The case of Turkana (Kenya) pastoral system Like other economies, pastoral households...
Total Economic Value of PastoralHousehold, Turkana of Kenya      1%     5% 5%                              Livestock sales...
Economic returns enhancessustainable land management More people less erosion – Machakos Kenya  (Tiffen et al 1994)   • F...
Lessons from SLM in developingcountries Deliberate efforts to invest in enhancingtraditional and local institutions which...
Mabira forest, Uganda: Mismatch ofgov’t & community ES value                  Mabira forest provides a                   ...
Challenges of the sustainable land managementpractices in developing countries  Sustainable pastoral systems heavily affe...
Kihansi HEP, Tanzania: HEP or spraytoads? IUCN put the Kihansi spray toad in the red list &  sought to prevent constructi...
Old customs and traditions eroding
The way forward Opportunities for addressing land degradation exist:   • Zero Net Land Degradation Vision   • Rio+20   • ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ephraim Maduhu NKONYA " Exploiting provision of land economic productivity without degrading its natural capital"

375 views

Published on

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
375
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ephraim Maduhu NKONYA " Exploiting provision of land economic productivity without degrading its natural capital"

  1. 1. Exploiting provision of landeconomic productivity without degrading its natural capital Ephraim Nkonya IFPRI April 10, 2013
  2. 2. Land degradation – a global problem About 23% of the global land area experienced land degradation in 1981-2003 Most areas degraded in poor countries Few countries with severe poverty also did not have land degradation This presentation discusses: • What contributed to sustainable land management (SLM) – especially in poor countries • Lessons from SLM in poor countries • Way forward
  3. 3. Land management, 1981-2003 23% Loss of NDVI (land degradation) Increase in NDVI (land improvement) No significant change 61% 16% of NDVI Source: Calculated from Bai et al 2008
  4. 4. Most areas with no LD located in high income countries, & few in low income countries income Relationship between poverty and land degradation is context-specific – suggesting other mediating factors play key role – e.g. government effectivenessCartography: Zhe Guo, using Data from Global Land Cover Facility, Tucker et al (2004), NOAA AVHRR NDVI 4data from GIMMS
  5. 5. Why? Environmental Kuznet curve explains pattern in high income countries
  6. 6. Why no land degradationIn some poor countries? What can we learn From such countries?
  7. 7. Government effectiveness consistently leadto prevention of land degradation or landimprovement
  8. 8. Areas with no land degradation in low income countries Pastoral areas with limited or no crop production. Contributing factors are: • Strong customary institutions • Strong ecological knowledge • Economic returns in the subsistence nomadic system Examples Maasai steppe in East Africa Customary institutions & deep ecological knowledge prevent cutting live trees Eating game meats – Maasai only eat livestock meat (Asiema and Situma 1994)  Government of Tanzania allowed the Maasai to live in Game parks Mongolian pastoralists have an extensive knowledge of rangeland management and this knowledge enhances sustainable rangeland management (Fernandeze-Gimenez 2000)
  9. 9. Co-existence of wildlife and livestock -Ngongoro
  10. 10. Pastoral livelihood level of degradation islower than crop productionTranshumant livelihood leads to sustainablerangeland management(Toulmin et al 2009)
  11. 11. Economic returns of nomadic systems,The case of Turkana (Kenya) pastoral system Like other economies, pastoral households make land management decisions based on economic value Attempts have been to analyze the economic returns to nomadic economic systems. Results show the pastoral economies derive value from tangible and intangible value of ecological services of rangelands. • Hence best approach is to use Total Economic Value Approach (TEV)
  12. 12. Total Economic Value of PastoralHousehold, Turkana of Kenya 1% 5% 5% Livestock sales animal products 35% Tree products crop prod 55% other ecosystem services Source: Barrow (2006)
  13. 13. Economic returns enhancessustainable land management More people less erosion – Machakos Kenya (Tiffen et al 1994) • Farmers derived remunerative returns to their investment in prevention of soil erosion (Boyd & Slaymaker 2000) Regreening of the Sahel in Niger • Rural code created environment for tree planting & protection • Returns to tree planting & protection became higher and less risky than crops
  14. 14. Lessons from SLM in developingcountries Deliberate efforts to invest in enhancingtraditional and local institutions which lead toSLM Government effectiveness has to be takenmore seriously in efforts to achieve zero landdegradation Economic incentives need to be measured using TEV to reflect all benefit which affect land management – e.g. Mabira Uganda
  15. 15. Mabira forest, Uganda: Mismatch ofgov’t & community ES value  Mabira forest provides a wide & rich array of ES: regulation, cultural, provision services  Government sells Mabira forest to sugar cane farmer • April 2007. Demonstration leads to death of three people • Demonstrators claimed Mabira forests hosts their spirits, is source of many other use & non-use ES
  16. 16. Challenges of the sustainable land managementpractices in developing countries  Sustainable pastoral systems heavily affected by land grabbing  Increasing land ownership & population density limiting transhumant systems  Grinding poverty of pastoral systems need to be addressed • Increasing demand for livestock products offers potential solution  Climate change adds resource constraint  Non-tangible benefits of some ES or conflicts of value – Kihansi spray toads
  17. 17. Kihansi HEP, Tanzania: HEP or spraytoads? IUCN put the Kihansi spray toad in the red list & sought to prevent construction of Kihansi HEP in Tanzania – a country with serious power problem – majority of people with no power did not understand IUCN campaign 17
  18. 18. Old customs and traditions eroding
  19. 19. The way forward Opportunities for addressing land degradation exist: • Zero Net Land Degradation Vision • Rio+20 • The growing recognition by public and private actors that land is becoming more scarce • Millennium Development Goals • G20 food security committments • Climate change negotiations and GHG policies • Biodiversity convention The political demand for addressing land degradation is increasing – stakeholders should take advantage of this 19

×