1. Carbon value and risk coping options of afforestation
on marginal irrigated croplands in Uzbekistan
Utkur Djanibekov, Asia Khamzina
email: utkur@uni-bonn.de
UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference
Bonn, Germany, April 9-12, 2013

2. Afforestation of marginal croplands
• Alternative land use for livelihood
• Provides various products
• Ecosystem services
Example of Uzbekistan
March 2004 May 2006 August 2007
Photos: Khamzina
Source: Olschewski and Benitez (2005); Zhang et al. (2006); Marechal and Hecq (2006); Pearson et al. (2007); Khamzina et al. (2008); 2
Lamers et al. (2008); Alkemade et al. (2009); Thomas et al. (2010); Dargusch et al. (2010); Djanibekov et al. (2012)

3. 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 water
Source: El Beltagy (2002); Suzuki (2003); Lerman and Stanchin (2006); Dukhovny and Sorokin (2007); Perelet (2007), Dubovyk et al. 3
(2012)

4. 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, %
150 150
Change 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 Vegetables
Source: Statistical Committee of Khorezm (2010); Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2010)
4

5. 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

6. 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 0.8
Cumulative 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

7. 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. pumila
Change 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

8. 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 0.8
Land 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Thank you for your attention