Cyclone Case Study Odisha 1999 Super Cyclone in India.
Krasilnikov global soil security
1. Economics of land degradation
contribution to soil security in
Eurasia
Pavel Krasilnikov, Oleg Makarov, Alexey Sorokin,
Alisher Mirzabaev, Anton Strokov, Sergey Kiselev
Moscow State University
2. Global food security is jeopardized by the increasing
land degradation, which is especially dangerous in the
poorest countries of the world
Evident hotspots are recognized in Africa, South-Eastern
Asia and Central America
3. Northern Eurasia has been considered as a relatively
stable territory with minor impact of land degradation
However, soil degradation is active in Russia, as it is driven
by a complex of natural and socio-economic factors
4. Processes of degradation Area, million ha
Water erosion and deflation ~ 70
Various degrees of salinity > 40
Excessive stoniness 12
Desertification > 1
Low organic carbon content 56
Gullies 1.7
Wind-blown sands 6.3
Processes of soil degradation in Russia
5. USSR
• Economical situation: low
productivity , residual
principle of finding
• Social situation:
discrimination of rustic
population, poor rural
infrastructure
• Technological situation:
weakness of technology, low
priority of agrotechnology
for the state
• Economical situation: economic
freedom, weakness of
producers, “wild market”
• Social situation: social freedom,
weak social protection, “social
desertification”
• Technological situation:
dependence on imported
technologies, the loss of
scientific background; some
promising “growth points”
Land use in the USSR and nowadays Russia
Russian Federation
6. Economics of Land
Degradation initiative
21 of September 2011 the European
Commission, the German government and the
UNCCD Secretary launched the initiative on
the Economics of land Degradation (ELD)
7. Conceptual scheme for the assessment of
costs/benefits under action vs. inaction scenarios
9. Methodology: cost of land degradation
• Following Nkonya et al. (2014), we calculated the
costs of land degradation due to land-use and land-
cover change (LUCC) through:
(1)
• where CLUCC = cost of land degradation due to LUCC;
a1= land area of biome 1 being replaced by biome 2;
P1 and P2 are the total economic value (TEV) of
biomes 1 and 2, respectively.
10. Methodology: the cost of action
• The cost of taking action against land degradation due to LUCC is
given by:
(2)
• where CTAi = cost of restoring high value biome i; ρt = discount
factor of land user; Ai = area of high value biome i that was replaced
by low value biome j; zi = cost of establishing high value biome I; xi =
maintenance cost of high value biome i until it reaches maturity; xj
= productivity of low value biome j per hectare; pj = price of low
value biome j per unit (e.g. ton); t = time in years and T = planning
horizon of taking action against land degradation. The term pjxj
represents the opportunity cost of foregoing production of the low
value biome j being replaced.
11. Methodology: the cost of inaction
• The cost of inaction will be the sum of annual
losses due to land degradation
(3)
• where CIi = cost of not taking action against
degradation of biome i.
12. Methodology: cost of action without land use
change
• The social cost and benefit of action against land degradation and
inaction is given by the net present value (NPV) for taking action
against land degradation in year t for the land users planning
horizon T:
(4)
• Where πc
t = NPV; Yc
t = production of direct use provisioning services
when using SLM practices; P= unit price of Yc
t; IVt = indirect use
value; NUt = on-site non-use value; bc
t = off-site positive benefit of
SLM practices ρt = 1+r, r = land user’s discount rate; lmc
t = cost of
SLM practices; cc
t = direct costs of production other than land
management; τc
t = off-site costs of SLM – including use and non-
use costs.
13. Methodology: cost of inaction without land use
change
• If land user does not take action against land
degradation, the corresponding NPV is given by
(5)
• Where πd
t = NPV when land user uses land degrading
practices. All other variables are as defined in above
but with superscript d indicating land degrading
practices.
• The benefit of taking action against land degradation
is given by
14. Federal districts of Russian Federation
Far East
Siberian
Ural
North-west
Central
Volga
Southern
North
Caucasus
15. Federal
districts of
Russia and
European
countries
Rural
population
density,
person/km2
Area of arable
lands, mln ha
Share of
arable lands in
the territory,
%
Availability of
arable lands,
ha/person
Share of
employment
in agriculture
of rural
population, %
Northern FD 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.2 18.9
Finland 5.8 2.3 6.7 1.1 6.0
Central FD 11.0 20.1 32.0 2.9 18.7
Poland 45.6 12.5 38.6 0.8 15.8
Southern FD 16.7 20.4 35.0 2.1 16.7
France 26.0 18.5 33.6 1.3 5.4
Some characteristics of rural lands and agriculture of Federal
districts of Russia and European countries with respectively
similar bioclimatic conditions
Based on Nefedova (2013)
16. Indicators 1991-1995 2003-2007
Application of organic
fertilizers, mln t (t/ha)
150.1 (1.7) 51.8 (0.9)
Supply of mineral fertilizers,
mln t
4.5 1.5
Application of mineral
fertilizers, kg/ha
35 28
Melioration of acidic soils,
thousand ha
2733 314
Application of phosphorous
fertilizers, thousand ha
1021 39.1
Melioration of Solonetz,
thousand ha
66.2 3.2
Processing of Solonetz,
thousand ha
84 10.1
Agro-chemicals application in Russia
Gordeeva and Romanenko (2008)
17. Areas of long-term (1982-2006) NDVI decline (with correction of
RF and AF effects and masking saturated NDVI zones) versus
main land cover/use types of the Russian Federation
18. Federal District
Annual cost of
Land Degradation
in 2002-2010, in
bln USD
Annual cost of
land degradation
per capita
including the
value of the loss
of ecosystem
services, in USD
GDP in 2010,
current bln USD
Land degradation
as a share of GDP
(%), annually
Central 6 157 434 1
Southern 2 144 75 3
Northwestern 17 1232 127 13
Far Eastern 76 11679 68 112
Siberian 61 3111 133 46
Ural 18 1477 165 11
Volga 5 164 184 3
North Caucasian 3 332 29 10
Total 189 1315 1216 16
The costs of land degradation in Federal Districts of Russia
through land-use change, including TEV values
19. Costs of action vs inaction in Federal Districts of Russia, in bln USD
Federal
District
GDP
in
2010
Annual
TEV of
LD in
2010 vs.
2002, bln
USD
Annual
cost of
LD in
2010 vs
2002, in
USD
Cost of
Action (6
years)
Cost of
Action
(30
years)
The
oppor-
tunity
cost of
action
Cost of
Inaction
(6 years)
Cost of
Inaction
(30
years)
Ratio of
cost of
action /
inaction
Central 434 6 2 14 14 13 43 93 14%
Southern 75 2 0 5 5 5 15 32 16%
North-
Western
127
17 16 81 82 75 161 348 22%
Far
Eastern
68
76 60 279 283 263 720 1 558 17%
Siberian 133 61 44 217 220 201 530 1 147 18%
Ural 165 18 12 77 77 71 164 355 20%
Volga 184 5 2 14 14 12 39 85 15%
North
Caucasian
29
3 1 7 7 6 21 46 14%
Total 1216 189 136 694 702 647 1 693 3 663 18%
20. Roadmap for the future
• Management:
– Searching for adequate
SLM practices (validation
of WOCAT database)
– from Agriculture to
iGriculture (precision
agriculture, landscape-
adaptive techniques etc.)
Plant et al. (2000)
21. Roadmap for the future
• Awareness, education,
investment:
– Inform the decision-makers
and general public on the
economic value of soil
degradation
– Include the basics of
economics of land
degradation in university
and extension programs
– Attract investment in SLM
using economic arguments
22. Roadmap for the future
• Research:
– Downscaling the results of
the research: higher
responsibility for
prediction on a farm-scale
– Quantifying soil
degradation in an
economically sound way
– Establishing monetary
value for most ecosystem
services
23. Roadmap for the future
• Information:
– Demand for information
on soil dynamics (actual
and retrospective
monitoring)
– Demand for economic
information (not readily
available)
– Demand for mapping of
ecosystem services
related to soils
24. Conclusions
• All the soil services should
be assessed and expressed
in monetary equivalent
• Initiatives should feed each
other rather than compete
• The approaches developed
in the frames of Global Soil
Security, Economics of
Land Degradation, Global
Soil Partnership and many
others compliment each
other
25. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 14-38-00023
