Pico3.14 alexey sorokin

1. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
1
Overview
Economics of land
degradation in Russia
Case study (Rostov
region: From Orchards
to Cropland)
Conclusion
Contractors:
Funders:
Partners:
http://eld.soil.msu.ru/en

2. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
2
Global changes in croplands in Russia in 2009 relative to 2001.
Source:based on MODIS data.
Global changes in forest cover in Russia in 2009 relative to 2001.
Source:based on MODIS data.
Federal districts Cropland Forest Grassland Shrublands Urban Water Barren
Central 0 4 -3 -1 0 0 0
Southern -2 0 3 -1 0 0 0
Northwestern -1 8 1 -7 -2 0 1
Far Eastern 1 44 -40 -3 -2 0 0
Siberian -1 49 -22 -28 -1 0 3
Ural 3 14 -4 -13 0 0 0
Volga -4 6 0 -2 0 0 0
North Caucasian n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total -4 125 -66 -55 -6 0 4
Land use/cover change in Russia in 2009 relative to 2001, in mln ha.
Source: calculated using MODIS data.
Land use/cover change

3. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
3
Federal district TEV 2001 TEV 2009 GDP in 2009
Value of ecosystems
per capita, in USD
GDP/TEV
Central 129 130 434 3 406 334%
Southern 76 80 75 5 762 94%
Northwestern 441 439 127 31 823 29%
Far Eastern 1300 1290 68 198 229 5%
Siberian 1150 1180 133 60 182 11%
Ural 381 394 165 32 339 42%
Volga 199 208 184 6 804 88%
North Caucasian 30 30 29 3 325 97%
Total 3700 3750 1216 26 088 32%
The Total Economic Value of ecosystem goods and services is estimated to equal about
3700 bln USD in Russia, exceeding the GDP by 3 times. The relative value of ecosystems
per capita depends on the territory, land use/cover characteristics, and population.
The major drivers of degradation include: climatic change, unsustainable agricultural
practices, industrial and mining activities, expansion of crop production to fragile and
marginal areas, inadequate maintenance of irrigation and drainage networks, and
overgrazing.

4. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
4
Costs of action over the 30-year horizon in USD shown per
hectare with land degradation hotspots.
Source: image was prepared by authors using initial data from Nkonya et al. (2014)
and Le et al. (2014).
If we look at the European part of
Russia…
Recent Degradation could have
relatively high costs and low costs
of action against land degradation.
These results could be explained by
different costs of TEV of
ecosystems, different costs of
establishing, maintenance cost of
biome until it reaches maturity, etc.
Costs of action with land
degradation hotspots

5. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
5
Overview
Economics of land
degradation in Russia
Case studies
Conclusion
http://eld.soil.msu.ru/en
Case study (Rostov region)
Case study (Azov district of Rostov
region: From Orchards to Cropland)
Case study (The Farm level,
Azov district of Rostov region)

6. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
6
For more information, please visit our
website:
ELD Laboratory, Faculty of Soil Science, MSU
http://eld.soil.msu.ru/en
or contact personally:
Oleg Makarov, Head of ELD Laboratory
eld@soil.msu.ru
The the results obtained with financial assistance of Russian Scientific
Foundation (RSCF) grant №14-38-00023.

7. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
7
Overview
Economics of land
degradation in Russia
Case study (Rostov
region: From Orchards
to Cropland)
Conclusion
General Information
ELD Laboratory was established on the basis of Faculty of
Soil Science, Lomonosov Moscow State University on
October 1st, 2014 with financial assistance of Russian
Science Foundation.
Topic: Control of Land Degradation in Eurasian Region
: to create a scientific basis to justify the
economic efficiency of sustainable land
management.
: insufficient attention to land degradation
associated with the underestimation of damage
from it, because it does not take into account
indirect economic losses, including those from
unexposed ecosystem services. The task of
scientists is to accurately count the cost of action
and cost of inaction and incentives for land users to
switch to sustainable land management.
: to facilitate the establishment of a
durable scientific basis for the economic
assessment of land degradation from the point of
view of agricultural production, and direct and
indirect ecosystem functions of soils.

8. 8
Short description of the studying areas (Soil [WRB,
2014] | Agricultural specialization | Degradation
processes):
1. Dagestan region:
Leptosols | pastures | erosion, overgrazing
2. Belgorod region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, barley, sunflower, corn)
and livestock | erosion, waterlogging, soil compaction
3. Voronezh region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, barley, corn) and livestock
| erosion, waterlogging, soil compaction
4. Krasnodar region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, barley, soya, sunflower) |
erosion, soil compaction
5. Kursk region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, barley, rape) | erosion, soil
compaction
6. Vladimir region:
Phaeozems | crops (potatoes, barley, oats) | OC loss,
waterlogging
7-8. Kabardino-Balkaria region:
Kastanozems | crops (wheat, corn, rape, soya) |
erosion, OC loss
9. Krasnodar region:
Chernozems | fruits | secondary salinization, waterlogging
10. Stavropol region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, barley, sunflower, rape) | erosion,
solonetzing (sodium salinization), soil compaction
11. Astrakhan region:
Kastanozems | irrigating crops (vegitables, melons) and livestock |
secondary salinization, erosion
Economics of land
degradation in Russia

9. 9
Short description of the studying areas (Soil [WRB,
2014] | Agricultural specialization | Degradation
processes):
12. Tula region:
Mollic Phaeozems | crops (wheat, barley, potatoes) and
livestock | erosion, radioactive contamination
13. Moscow region:
Phaeozems | grasslands | erosion, soil pollution
14. Karelia region:
Histosols | grasslands | waterlogging, OC loss, peat
extraction
15. Uzbekistan:
Saline soils of any RGs | irrigating crops (cotton, wheat,
melon) | salinization, desertification
16. Bryansk region:
Phaeozems | exclusion zone or lumbering | radioactive
contamination
17. Narayan Mar:
Cryosols | pastures | petroleum and industrial
contamination
18. Saratov region:
Mollic Kastanozems | irrigating crops (wheat, corn) and livestock |
erosion, soil compaction, solonetzing (sodium salinization)
19. Tula region:
Mollic Phaeozems | crops (wheat, barley, potatoes) and livestock |
erosion, soil polution
20. Moscow region:
Phaeozems | crops and livestock | erosion
21. Rostov region:
Chernozems | crops (wheat, sunflower) | erosion, salinization
Economics of land
degradation in Russia

10. 10
A key feature!
Value of ecosystem services
is included into the
estimation of the full costs
of land degradation. Why?
Many of the services
provided by ecosystems are
not traded in markets,
which leads to an
undervaluation of land and
its provision of ecosystem
services.
The conceptual framework
Economics of land
degradation in Russia

11. 11
National methods:
- Determine the value of damage | injery for soils and lands (Method...,1994;
Method…,2010 - in Russian)
- Determining the degree of degradation by 5-point scale (Method…,1994;
Method…,1996), using established scales and tables
- Calculating of soil-ecological index (Karmanov, 2002)
- Calculating of soil ecological quality loss index (Makarov, 2002)
- Adjustment of the cadastral value of the land (Makarov)
- Assessment of soil cost based on its ecological functions (Ananjeva and
Gavrilenko, 2013)
International methods:
- Benefits of taking actions vs inaction against land degradation (von Braun et
al, 2013)
- TEV of ecosystem services (ELD-initiative approach)
Economics of land
degradation in Russia

12. 12
Economics of land
degradation in Russia
This is one of the key barriers for
actions against land degradation, as
the costs are tangible and may need to
be borne by landusers, as well as
regional and federal budgets, however,
the benefits of action are not fully
internalized by landusers and often
not even locally, as they represent
global benefits from additional
ecosystem services enjoyed by the
whole world. At the same time, it is
also true that these restored
ecosystem services and goods would
benefit first and foremost the people
living in these degraded areas and
Russian society as whole.
The costs of action were found to equal about 702 bln
USD over the 30-year horizon (Figure 18.9), whereas if
nothing is done, the resulting losses may equal almost
3663 bln USD during the same period. Almost 92% of
the costs of action are made up of the opportunity
costs of action.

13. 13
Case study (Rostov region)
Top left
Map of the subjects of Russian Federation.
Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARostov_in_Russia.svg
Note:red color – Rostov region, light-greencolor markedwith arrowhead –
Azov district
Right side
Map of land use of the Azov district of the Rostov region.
Source:the authors.

14. 14
Interrelation of soil and economic indicators in Rostov region
Title: 1995 and 2006 correlation (R) matrix table, based on data of 43 districts of Rostov region
Variable
The
share of
degraded
land in
agro-
land, %
Total
amount
of
degraded
agro-
land, ha
Total
crop
growing
costs
per ha
Total
crop
output,
rub/ha
Mineral
fertilizers
costs per
ha
Share
of
fallow
land in
arable
land, %
Total
crop
area,
ha
Grain
yields,
kg per
ha
Grain
costs
per
ha
Sunflower
yields, kg
per ha
Sunflower
costs, rub
per ha
OC
content
1995 -0,52 -0,54 0,33 0,43 0,53 -0,50 -0,15 0,56 0,43 0,77 0,59
2006 0,65 0,57 0,66 -0,56 0,06 0,56 0,64 0,85 0,78
P
content
1995 -0,22 -0,50 0,57 0,54 0,36 -0,32 -0,28 0,27 0,48 0,20 0,27
2006 0,50 0,39 0,42 -0,25 -0,10 0,32 0,38 0,20 0,22
K
content
1995 -0,55 -0,13 0,44 0,51 0,18 -0,32 0,07 0,57 0,48 0,12 0,05
2006 0,46 0,39 0,39 -0,28 0,17 0,39 0,40 0,16 0,15
Outcomes:
-when market reforms occurred in Russia in the mid 1990's it was better to start growing crops on most fertile lands
-farmers started increasing their inputs to make efficiency grow
-farmers used more fallow land mostly on less fertile soils and planted more crops in districts with more fertile soils
-in a 11-year period the production switched much more on more fertile soils and became more intensive
-in a 11-year period farmers continued to exploit more fertile soils by increasing fertilizer inputs
Case study (Rostov region)

15. 15
We use several methods for estimating TEV of orchards and cropland:
1) the cost of production per hectare (includes only provisional services);
2) cadastral land values of Azov district, and three coefficient groups based on
basic transfer approach, which include some of provisional, regulating and
supporting services:
3) Costanza et al, 1997 world coef.;
4) Xie et al, 2003 China coef.;
5) our coef. estimates based on Bobylev et al 2014 Russian expert values.
Case study (Azov district of Rostov
region: From Orchards to Cropland)

16. 16
We estimate the economic effect of land degradation (following Nkonya et al., 2014):
costs of land degradation due to land-use and land-
cover change (LUCC), if p1>p2
cost of taking action against land degradation due to
LUCC
cost of inaction will be the sum of annual losses due to
land degradation
Case study (Azov district of Rostov
region: From Orchards to Cropland)

17. 17
Variables
Product
market
price
Cadastral
Costanza
coef.
Xie coef.
Russia
coef.
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc4 Sc5
TEV for orchards, USD per ha 880 3646 3626 8000 1953
Orchards establish price, USD per ha 983 983 983 983 983
Orchards maintenance price, USD per ha 871 871 871 871 871
CA in 6 years, USD 16 145 409 34 192 158 16 145 409 54 592 317 19 563 175
CA in 30 years, USD 22 572 294 49 591 793 22 572 294 80 134 804 27 689 355
Inaction in 6 years, USD 8 231 250 17 299 981 35 150 668 42 741 209 15 332 252
inaction in 30 years, USD 12 323 785 25 901 442 52 627 397 63 991 914 22 955 368
ratio inaction/CA 30 years $0,55 $0,52 $2,33 $0,80 $0,83
ratio CA/inaction in percentage 30 years 183% 191% 43% 125% 121%
TEV for cropland, USD per ha 550 2076 550 3801 839
TEV ratio (orchards / cropland) 1,6 1,8 6,6 2,1 2,3
Case study (Azov district of Rostov
region: From Orchards to Cropland)

18. 18
Agricultural lands:
210.4 thousands ha
Agricultural specialization:
grains and sunflower
Gross grain yield, 2010:
353.3 thousand tons
Sunflower yield, 2010:
47.3 thousand tons
The yields in the agricultural organizations of
Azov district (1000 kg per ha)
Source: Rosstat
District level: 3000 ha of
fruit gardens transformed
into cropland
Farm level: 3 ha of pasture
transformed into cropland
Case study (The Farm level,
Azov district of Rostov region)

19. 19
Case study (The Farm level,
Azov district of Rostov region)
The closer to 100% TAP/TEV is,
the closer the studied objects to the
"ideal" specialization, which means
that most effectively uses the
potential of land resources and
ecosystem services. In particular,
for the Farm the ratio equal to
80.6%, higher than the average in
the District.
Every invested dollar against land
degradation in the District will
give back 1.07 dollars.
And in if the Farm will turn it
specialization from crops to
grassland and start sheep or cow
breeding it may bring 2.2 dollars
for every dollar invested.

20. 20
We recommend raising awareness on the ELD for improving the effectiveness
of agricultural production, however we have to mention that the average TEV
used in the calculations should be corrected with reference to local surveys and
data
LUCC approach does not reflect weakly expressed soil and land degradation.
The results we obtained in Rostov region clearly show that crop production is
the most economically efficient agricultural specialization both for Azov district
and for the Farm. But, even a high level of economic specialization may be
accompanied by a rational use of land resources, taking into account ecosystem
services.
Conclusion

21. Cost, drivers and action against land degradation through
land use and cover change in Russia
Alexey Sorokin*, Anton Strokov, Alisher Mirzabaev and Timothy Johnson
*Lomonosov Moscow State University
21
For more information, please visit our site:
ELD Laboratory, Faculty of Soil Science, MSU
http://eld.soil.msu.ru/en
or contact:
Oleg Makarov, Head of ELD Laboratory
eld@soil.msu.ru
The the results obtained with financial assistance of Russian Scientific
Foundation (RSCF) grant №14-38-00023.