1. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Feedback on WB5 DESMICE
DESMICE = Desertification Mitigation
Cost Effectiveness Model
Luuk Fleskens
Xian 13 October 2010

2. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Brief report on Monday’s sessions
 Data requests were first made at the Rabat meeting, then
sent by e-mail late 2009/begin 2010. Little response was
received so a set of two Information Sheets was developed
and sent out to study sites in June 2010 with a reminder in
August.

3. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Brief report on Monday’s sessions
 Data received from Botswana, Crete, Italy and Portugal
 Other sites are working on it and promised to submit soon
 Further gradual refinement needed based on first simulations
Feedback:
 Clarification what can be done with DESMICE
 DESMICE can be applied with other grid-models if you do not
apply PESERA
 Some (all?) study sites will need tailored approach

4. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
SLM strategies can tackle land
degradation
Technologies need to be targeted to the
problem at stake and tested
Scale of application is usually at the
local field level
Experimental research is unfeasible for
regional assessment
DESMICE is intended for
regional assessment of local
SLM solutions

5. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
The PESERA-DESMICE modelling
framework
PESERA : Grid-based regional scale soil
risk assessment model (grid 0.1 – 1 km),
modified to take into account effect of
various SLM strategies and other
degradation types
DESMICE : New model scaling up SLM
feasibility assessments from local to
regional level using spatially-explicit
financial cost-benefit analysis
Combined, these models can assess
effects of policy scenarios on uptake of
SLM and mitigation of land degradation

6. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Applicability limitations are defined for
selected SLM strategies
Landform Soil depthLand use Distance to
stream
Slope
Applicable
Not applicable
SPA01 Reduced
contour tillage
SPA04 Boqueras
water harvesting
Aggregate
applicability

7. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Case 1: applicability limitations for
Torrealvilla catchment, Murcia, Spain
SPA02 Vegetated earthen terracesSPA01 Reduced contour tillage
SPA04 Boqueras water harvesting
SPA03 Organic mulch under almond trees
SPA05 Organic almond/olive production

8. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Case 2: applicability limitations for Oum
Zessar catchment, Tunisia
TUN09 Jessour TUN10 Gabion checkdam
TUN11 Rangeland resting
TUN14 Recharge well
TUN12 Tabia
TUN13 Cistern

9. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Biophysical effects of SLM strategies
are simulated: TUN11
The effect of resting grazing land is
simulated by an increased level of
biomass. Grazing animals remove a
significant part of the vegetation, thereby
exposing soil to degradation risk. In non-
grazed areas vegetation re-establishes
itself reducing in turn the susceptibility of
soil to water
(and wind)
erosion.
TUN11 Rangeland resting
Net effect (in kg m-2) on average vegetation
biomass of resting grazing land (TUN11) vs.
a without case of 30% of biomass being
grazed, Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia

10. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Spatial variability in investment costs
is considered
Variable input quantities (environmental factors)
Variable price of inputs (market/transport factors)
e.g. as a function
of slope
options to take
into account
topography,
transport type,
infrastructure, etc.

11. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Spatial variability in investment costs
is considered: TUN11
The standard cost reported for TUN11 is 50 US$
ha-1 for fencing. An allowance was made for
transport costs of fencing material (up to
US$3.36) and slope (up to US$3.00). The
resulting map of investment costs ranges from
US$ 50.11 (blue) – US$ 54.91 (red)
TUN11 Rangeland resting

12. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
[A – B – C + D] =
Annual cash flow series for
each technology and grid cell
Production
foregone
without case
X Value (€)
X Value (€)
Foregone
costs of:
- Production
Costs of:
- Production
- Maintenance
- Other (e.g.
area loss)
DC
BA
Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Cash flow series are constructed for
each grid-cell
Production
with applied
technology

13. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Y INV MAI PRO
0 -52 - -
1 - -5 0
2 - -5 0
3 - -5 0
4 - - 200
Y INV MAI PRO
0 - - -
1 - - 20
2 - - 20
3 - - 20
4 - - 20
Without case TUN11: Rangeland resting
Rangeland provides fodder,
the equivalent of which
needs to be purchased if
rangeland resting is applied.
We assume here that the
benefits from rangeland
resting can be obtained in the
fourth year after investment,
after which productivity falls
back to without case level.
Cash flow series are constructed for
each grid-cell: TUN11
The economic life
of technologies is
basis for the
comparison

14. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
Spatially-
Explicit Net
Present
Value (NPV)
Technology
options Potential adoption
(based on profit
maximisation)
Valuation of cash flows over same time
horizon and discount factor
Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Financial cost-benefit analysis is
performed for each technology

15. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
NPV of rangeland resting (US$ ha-1)
Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia
Financial cost-benefit analysis is
performed: TUN11
Employing a discount rate of 10%, the
cashflow series for rangeland resting
lead to negative Net Present Value
(NPV) in the whole area where the
technology is applicable, ranging from
-90 US$ ha-1 to -50 US$ ha-1.

16. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Once previous steps have been done
scenario analyses are possible
NPV (US$ ha-1) of rangeland resting
after accounting for subsidies
The Tunisian Government has put
subsidies on the practice of
rangeland resting. A 30 US$ ha-1
contribution towards fencing and a
70 US$ ha-1 maintenance payment
to cover fodder purchases.
According to these preliminary
analyses, the low productivity of
rangeland and height of the
maintenance payment are not in
balance.
NPV of rangeland resting (US$ ha-1)
Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia

17. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Another option is cost-effectiveness
analysis
The figure shows the number of litres
of water saved from running off per
dollar of public money invested in
rangeland resting. Contrary to
financial viability, which is highest in
the Matmata mountain range, cost-
effectiveness is higher in plain areas.
Due to the scarce vegetation cover
in the plains they can benefit much
from increased vegetation cover.
Run-off prevented (litre US$-1 ha-1) by subsidies
provided for rangeland resting

18. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009
But:
perhaps no technology
that delivers the target!
But:
overruling farmers’
profit maximisation
(negative returns?)
or applicability limits
(environmental risk?)
A. Policies affecting farmer’s
valuation of effects
B. Policies enforcing adoption
of technologies
C. Policies
stimulating/
enforcing
environmental
targets
Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009
Different types of policy scenarios...