cn 8 wed13_leeds_feedback_on_wb5_sessions_fleskens

Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009

Feedback on WB5 DESMICE

DESMICE = Desertification Mitigation Cost Effectiveness Model

Luuk Fleskens Xian 13 October 2010


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.


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


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


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


Applicability limitations are defined for selected SLM

strategiesLandform Soil depthLand use Distance to

streamSlope

Applicable

Not applicable

SPA01 Reducedcontour tillage

SPA04 Boqueraswater harvesting

Aggregateapplicability


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


Case 2: applicability limitations for Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia

TUN09 Jessour TUN10 Gabion checkdam

TUN11 Rangeland resting

TUN14 Recharge well

TUN12 Tabia

TUN13 Cistern


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.


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


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.


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)



[A – B – C + D] = Annual cash flow series for

each technology and grid cell

Productionforegonewithout 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

Productionwith appliedtechnology

Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009

Y INV MAI PRO0 -52 - -1 - -5 02 - -5 03 - -5 04 - - 200

Y INV MAI PRO0 - - -1 - - 202 - - 203 - - 204 - - 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


Spatially-Explicit NetPresent Value (NPV)

Technologyoptions Potential adoption

(based on profit maximisation)

Valuation of cash flows over same time horizon and discount factor


Financial cost-benefit analysis is performed for each technology


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.


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


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


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


Different types of policy scenarios...

cn 8 wed13_leeds_feedback_on_wb5_sessions_fleskens

Education

panel review meeting

rabat meeting

case tun11

rangeland resting

red tun11 rangeland

production costs

wb5 desmice desmice

case level