Exploiting provision of land
economic productivity without
degrading its natural capital
Ephraim Nkonya
IFPRI
April 10, 2013
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
Land management, 1981-2003
23%
Loss of NDVI (land
degradation)
Increase in NDVI
(land improvement)
61%
16%
No significant change
of NDVI
Source: Calculated from Bai et al 2008
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 effectiveness
Cartography: Zhe Guo, using Data from Global Land Cover Facility, Tucker et al (2004), NOAA AVHRR NDVI
data from GIMMS
4
Why?
 Environmental Kuznet curve explains pattern
in high income countries
Why no land degradation
In some poor countries?
What can we learn
From such countries?
Government effectiveness consistently lead
to prevention of land degradation or land
improvement
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)
Co-existence of wildlife and livestock Ngongoro
Pastoral livelihood level of degradation is
lower than crop production
Transhumant livelihood leads to sustainable
rangeland management(Toulmin et al 2009)
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)
Total Economic Value of Pastoral
Household, Turkana of Kenya
1%
5% 5%
Livestock sales
animal products
35%
Tree products
55%
crop prod
other ecosystem
services
Source: Barrow (2006)
Economic returns enhances
sustainable 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
Lessons from SLM in developing
countries
 Deliberate efforts to invest in enhancing
traditional and local institutions which lead to
SLM
 Government effectiveness has to be taken
more seriously in efforts to achieve zero land
degradation
 Economic incentives need to be measured
using TEV to reflect all benefit which affect
land management – e.g. Mabira Uganda
Mabira forest, Uganda: Mismatch of
gov’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
Challenges of the sustainable land management
practices 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
Kihansi HEP, Tanzania: HEP or spray
toads?
 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
Old customs and traditions eroding
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