Methodological approach for measuring the costs of desertification1

Heitor Matallo2

I. Foreword

The Word “desertification” was mentioned for the first time by the French researcher Louis
Lavauden in 1927 and was made popular by Andre Aubreville in the years 1940s after one
decade of hard experiences related to land degradation in the American Great Plains,
caused mainly by deforestation, intensive over-exploitation of soils and eight years drought
period that affected the region in the years 1929 to 1936.

Seventy-nine years after Aubreville, United Nations has declared 2006 the International
Year of Deserts and Desertification. In 2008 the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification will celebrate its 14th anniversary and the UN Conference on Desertification
held in Nairobi in 1997 in Kenya, celebrates its 31st anniversary. Still in 2008 the
Brundtland Report, the most important report on sustainable development ever made,
completes 21 years of existence.

The figures mentioned have no mathematical harmony or beauty but reflect a set of
initiatives at international level that shows desertification is a problem that has been
affecting drylands for a time long enough to justify that effective measures should already
be taken by countries and international community to tackle the problem. But what we can
see nowadays is a lack of effective and efficient policies and programmes to combat
desertification in the affected countries worldwide.

This is due, in part, by the lack of consensus on the meaning of the concept of
desertification among the politicians, decision-makers, researchers and academics and,
particularly, on the ways to transform the concept in concrete policies and programmes.
The concept of desertification has its referents (in real terms) in the manifold social and
environmental aspects such as water, soils, forests, climate, social and economic structure
and the very complex cultural traditions. By its complexity and trans-disciplinary aspect,
desertification is a concept that goes beyond the scientific and institutional disciplines and
for this reason it is not so easy to understand and manage it.

In general terms, the scientific knowledge is characterized as a disciplinary and sectorial

enterprise. The social and environmental problems are managed also as sectorial demands
against the State. For this reason it is not so easy to “locate” desertification as a problem in
the institutional structure of countries. The UNCCD Focal Points are located generally in
the Environmental divisions but they could be in the agricultural, social or other divisions
as well. Desertification as a concept and as concrete problem requires a distinctive and

1 Text presented in the International Conference: Desertification and the Costs of Inaction, FIDA, Rome, 2006
2 Heitor Matallo works for the UNCCD Secretariat in Bonn, Germany.
trans-disciplinary approach, requires a new paradigm and a new pattern of action and a very
high level of coordination.
This is an important aspect to be considered and maybe could explain in part the unbalance
among the three Rio Conventions (UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD) in terms of
implementation, technical and financial resources allocated and public attention.

Another aspect that should be taken in consideration is referred to the economy of drylands.
Desertification is a phenomenon that affects the arid and semi-arid regions and these dry
ecosystems have a particular dynamics in terms of economic and ecological response vis-à-
vis to the humid areas. In real terms it means that drylands have a slower ecological and
economic response capability when compared to the humid areas due to a limited
availability of water and the occurrence of recurrent droughts. This is a conditioning factor
for economic competitiveness in these areas and a conditional factor for investments when
compared to the humid ecosystems. It means that if one dollar is invested in agriculture in
both areas (dry and humid), the profit obtained from each one is different and probably the
profit obtained from the humid areas is around 30 or 40% higher.

The environmental vulnerabilities in drylands represent an economic risk for the productive
process and at the same time an environmental risk that can affect the costs of production
and the environmental sustainability. The drylands vulnerabilities as drought and water
scarcity3 are economic externalities that cannot be incorporated to the costs of production in
order to maintain the competitiveness of the agricultural products in the markets. This is the
root of the unsustainable environmental and economic processes. The final cost of this
unsustainable cycle is land degradation and desertification.

Finally, it worth to mention the role of international co-operation in helping countries to

fight desertification and poverty in drylands: Developed countries have been showing a
clear preference for the UNFCCC and CDB conventions in detriment of the UNCCD since
the Rio Summit. This means that the technical and financial co-operation provided by
developed countries in fighting against desertification and poverty in the affected
developing countries have had no enough attention. One of the consequences of the low
profile of the UNCCD in the international arena is reflected in the low level of attention
provided by developing countries to the CCD implementation and negotiation process as
well as the low profile of the National Focal Points. This is a kind of vicious cycle that
should be broken in order to allow affected developing countries to fight effectively against
desertification and poverty.

II. The assessment of economic losses of soil erosion in drylands

In March of 2003 the OECD organized a meeting on “Soil erosion and biodiversity
indicators” in order to develop a work on both policy relevant indicators that could track
the current state and trends in soi1 erosion and soil biodiversity related to agriculture at
global level but particularly in Europe, and the current approaches for modeling the

3 Limitation of water resources is reflected in the quality and size of the commodities. In general, agriculture in

drylands requires irrigation and other investments in order to be competitive vis-à-vis to the commodities
originated from humid areas.
economic valuation of soil erosion. Some papers were presented in this meeting and some
sort of data and methodological discussions came out as the most recent overview on the
economic issue of soil erosion (in general terms and not referred specifically to drylands).

As the main result emerged from the studies prepared for the meeting is that soil erosion
shouldn’t be of much concern in developed countries, particularly in US and Europe.
According to some data presented by Crosson4, the estimated costs of in-farm soil erosion
in US are around USD 100 million annually (USD 0,60 per hectare). The author mentions
other alternatives evaluations, including the one offered by Pimentel5 that have assumed an
economic loss around USD 25 billion due to soil erosion. According to Crosson6, Pimentel
didn’t present any good evidence for its estimations and his figures were rejected. In the
same line, the author mentions some data on China and Indonesia and concluded that for
these countries soil erosion doesn’t represent major concern even some research shows a
decline in top soil depth7 (not referred specific to drylands).

The only available methodology for assessing the costs of land degradation in drylands was
designed by Mr. Harold Dregne during the 1980’s8. The data on the amount of degraded
areas, its intensity and the further estimation of costs obtained through the use of this
methodology was adopted by many institutions and during more than 25 years the same
data (and the methodology itself) has been presented as “official”, including the UNEP
assessment of the costs of land degradation9.

But when we look at the foundations of such methodology and data, it seems that there still
is a lot of work to do. According to Mr. Dregne the data and the estimations he made lies
on a very week source of data and on this issue I quote him:

“The information base upon which the estimates in this report were made is poor.
Anecdotal accounts, research reports, travelers' descriptions, personal opinions,
and local experience provided most of the evidence for the various estimates.
Some data were available for Australia and the United States. Both of these
countries have conducted comprehensive assessments of land degradation on
irrigated, rainfed farming, and range lands. For the country data, it is impossible
to estimate the error in the number s of hectares in each degradation class
because there are no accepted values against which to make comparisons. To our
knowledge, no one except the senior author has ever attempted a global
assessment, and very few have published national assessments”10.

4
Crosson, P. The economics of soil erosion and maintaining soil biodiversity, Conference paper, Rome,
2003.
5
Pimentel, D. et al. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits,
Science, 267, pp. 1117-1123, 24 Feb.
6
Crosson, op. cit.
7
Maybe Crosson had made the same mistake as Pimentel did regarding the lack of evidence!!
8
Dregne, H. E. & N-T. Chou. 1992. Global desertification dimensions and costs. In Degradation and
restoration of arid lands. Lubbock: Texas Tech. University. Crosson recognizes also that it is the only one
referred to desertification.
9
Crosson accepted the Dregne’s methodology, but has made new calculations. Crosson, P. op. cit.
10 Dregne,H.E. & N-T Chou.1992. Op. cit.
Regarding the economic losses, Mr. Dregne considers two components: a) the costs of
losses in rainfed and irrigated agriculture and also rangelands; b) the costs of restoration in
the three mentioned categories. For each category Mr. Dregne attributes (based on the US
and Australian experience) the following figures:

a) Costs of land degradation – economic losses

– Irrigated land – USD 250.00 ha/year
– Rainfed cropland – USD 38.00 ha/year
– Rangeland – USD 7.00 ha/year
b) Costs of rehabilitation
– Irrigated areas – USD 2,000.00/ha
– Rainfed cropland – USD 400.00/ha
– Rangeland – USD 40.00/ha

It seems clear that the figures presented above are linked with the US economy and the
values of losses and restoration should be adapted for developing countries economies. As
pointed out by Dregne,

“At the global scale, it is difficult to select a single figure for the cost of
degraded irrigated land, for example, because the cash equivalent value of the
crop, whether it is wheat or sorghum or corn, varies greatly from country to
country. Subsidies, price controls, and foreign exchange rates, among other
factors influence price. Despite the variations, one figure was used as the
amount of income foregone on irrigated, rainfed, and rangeland when the
degradation was at least moderate in severity. The number used represents,
approximately, a 40 percent loss in productivity. A 40 percent loss means that
the actual yield was 40 percent less than it would have been in the absence of
any degradation. For irrigated land, that represents a $250 (U.S.) per hectare
per year reduction in income, $38 on rainfed cropland and $7 on rangeland.
The numbers represent our estimates, based upon a relatively small amount of
data, most of it from the United States and Australia”.11

It worth to mention that at that time the composition of the three categories of land use
were 88% of rangelands, 9% rainfed crops and 3% irrigated crop production. It means that
for each 100 hectares of agricultural land, it can be assumed that 88 hectares were referred
to rangelands, 9 hectares for rainfed crops and only 3 hectares for irrigated crops. Taking
into account the figures above mentioned, we can conclude the following:

88 ha x 7,00 USD = 616,00 USD

9 ha x 38,00 USD = 342,00 USD
3 ha x 250,00 USD = 750,00 USD
Total (100 has) = 1,708.00 USD
Average loss = 17.08 USD per hectare per year

11 Dregne,H.E. & N-T Chou.1992. Op. cit.

As mentioned by Mr. Dregne these figures are related specially to the US and Australian
economy. Otherwise, Dryland’s economies are not totally integrated to international
markets and the costs of losses and restoration are probably smaller than in developed
countries (maybe 15 to 20%). In this case we should take a “k factor” for adjusting the
figures for drylands in developing countries. If we discount 20% of current prices in the
situation proposed, we can have the following:

88 ha x 5.6,00 USD = 492,00 USD

9 ha x 30.40 USD = 273.60 USD
3 ha x 200,00 USD = 600,00 USD
Total (100 has) = 1,365.00 USD
Average loss = 13.6 USD per hectare per year

However, twenty years after the estimations made by Mr. Dregne countries are in a quite
different situation. According to the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
(ICID) the average of irrigated land vis-à-vis the arable and permanent crop areas for each
continent has been improved and can be seen in the table below. It should be noticed that
the data were taken in general terms and are not referred to drylands.

Continent Total Arable and Irrigated area % of irrigated

Geographical permanent crop Mha area to APC
Area area (APC) Mha
Mha
America 3,795.50 377.77 40,97 10.8
Asia 3,002.25 556.18 188,15 33.73
Europe 2,172.01 292.58 24,20 9.18
Africa 2,199.30 176.96 12,19 6.94
Oceania 801.17 51.97 2,83 4.62
World 11,970.23 1455.57 271,68 18.44
Sources: World Bank Atlas; FAO Yearbook 2001; ICIC 2001

The data shows that the amount of irrigated area in the world is 6 times higher than during
the 1980’s when Mr. Dregne made the estimations. If the trends in the distribution of land
use in the 2000’s are the same as in the 80’s, the economic losses due to irrigation could be
6 times higher.

Continuing with our estimations we can assume that in Latin America the average of
irrigated land has grown from 3 to10 hectares in 25 years (300%) in general terms (for
humid and dry lands). Considering only drylands, we could take a gross growth of 100% in
the irrigated area in developing countries. It means that irrigated area grew from 3 to 6
hectares for each 100 hectares in 25 years.

As we do not have the data regarding rangelands, so we assume that the irrigated area has
grown over the previous rainfed agriculture and that the expansion of rainfed agriculture
(with the same growth rate) was made over rangelands with the same proportion. These
assumptions lead us to the following estimations for each hundred hectares:
82 ha (rangelands) x 5.4 USD = 574.00 USD
12 ha (rainfed agricultura) x 30,40 USD = 456.00 USD
6 ha (irrigated land) x 200,00 USD = 1,200.00 USD
Total (100 has) = 2,230.00 USD
Average loss = 22.30 USD per hectare per year

The new figures express mainly the development of irrigated agriculture in developing
countries. However, it seems that these numbers are extremely high. Crosson12 suggested
that the losses presented by Mr. Dregne should be taken for a long period of time (three
decades) since they are accumulative since Mr. Dregne did not specified the period of time.
Under this assumption the annual loss would be around USD 0.70 annually for thirty years.
This figure (USD 0.70) almost coincides with the assumptions made by Crosson on the US
soil losses around USD 0,60 per hectare per year. But in my opinion this is not correct. The
losses mentioned by Mr. Dregne shall be considered annually (as has been considered by
UNEP and many other institutions) and not for the whole period of time. This reasoning is
an indicator that the previous figures proposed by Mr. Dregne, based on the situation in US
and Australia, should be revised and in special when applied to developing countries.

It is quite clear that the economic losses resulted from land degradation can not be
estimated easily. However, it is absolutely crucial for sustainable development and the fight
against desertification to have at least a general idea on how much money land degradation
represents.

Considering the lack of consensus on the way in figuring out the numbers referred to
economic losses (as assumed by Dregne or Crosson), my proposal is to consider the
economic loss due to soil degradation in drylands as USD 10.00 per hectare per year, which
represents a USD 0.83 per month. This means less than 50% of the average estimation
emerged from Dregne’s methodology and a little bit higher than that proposed by Crosson
in an annual basis. I think that this assumption is reasonable and acceptable for general
estimations, particularly in absence of a more detailed and acceptable methodology.

At this point it is important to mention that Dregne’s methodology as well as Crosson’s

does not consider the indirect costs (off-site) such as water deterioration, timber and
biodiversity losses or drought and climate changes. In my understanding, the estimations
regarding desertification losses should consider other issues such as water deterioration and
biodiversity losses. Again, it is not easy to calculate these things but we are supposed to
make an effort in approximating our comprehension of the global impacts of
desertification.

Continuing with our estimation, we can assume that each 1 ton of eroded soil contribute for
a loss of water resources availability of 10% for each cubic meter of water (in terms of
water retention in soils and dams and rivers). It means 0.1 m3 of water for each ton of soils
eroded. The objective of this assumption is to have some idea on the impacts of land

12 Crosson, P. The economics of soil erosion and maintaining soil biodiversity, Conference paper, Rome,

2003.
degradation. Certainly there are many other impacts off-site that should take in
consideration. .

III. Desertification in Latin America

As mentioned before, the source of data and information on desertification problem in the
world is very limited. Many countries do not have reliable data on the extension of land
degradation or the population affected, and many others do not present official documents
and figures on the extent of desertification. It means that we do not have precise
information that allows us to have a general and coherent view on land degradation in the
world. In this context LAC region is not an exception.

The Facilitation Unit of the UNCCD and the Argentinean National Focal Point, in its
capacity of coordinator of the Technical Regional Programme on Benchmarks and
Indicators, have conducted a research among countries in order to get information on the
status of desertification in the region. The main results can be seen in the table below13:

Country Total Area Total Areas in process of Total population in

(Has) population Desertification (Hás) areas in process of
desertification
Argentina 279.181.000 36.223.947 195.426.700 10.867.184,1
Brasil 851.420.490 169.799.170 66.554.300 15.748.769

Colombia 114.174.800 44.000.000 19.351.000 20.900.000

Costa Rica 5.106.000 4.089.609 51.654
(datos 2003)
Ecuador 25.637.000 12.156.608 7.060.437 1.000.000
El Salvador 2.104.079 6.329.091 363.000 650.414
Mexico 195.924.800 104,213,503 58.689.150
Panamá (data 7.551.700 2.839.117 1.876.920 662.236
from 2003)
Paraguay 40.675.200 5.163.198 1.000.000
Dominican
Republic 4,769,300 8,562,541 3,290,817 5,908,153
Venezuela 91.645.500 23.232.553 9.883.100 6.119.112
Total 1.635.811.369 has 419.809.337 363.547.078 has 52.055.868
16.358.113 km2 3.635.470 Km2
As it can be seen, the total degraded area in its different levels in the mentioned countries is
of 3.635.470 Km2, 22% of the total area of the same countries. The affected population in
these countries (exception of Mexico, Costa Rica and Paraguay) is of 52 millions or 12,4%.

Considering the mentioned information we cannot establish in detail the different levels of
degradation or the economic impact of land degradation on countries and their population,
but we consider that an economic evaluation of desertification is crucial for policy
elaboration process on land degradation and poverty reduction. With this idea in mind, and

13
The questionnaire was elaborated and applied in the framework of the TPN.1 Benchmarks and Indicators
and was sent to all LAC countries. We mention only the countries that have answered the questionnaire.
* Estimated population
taking into consideration the “economic exercise” made for the dry regions of Brazil14, it is
possible to develop some hypothesis for obtaining an estimation of the costs of
desertification in the above mentioned countries.

As it is known, soil erosion is a natural phenomenon even in areas with no human activity.
But in the areas under agricultural activities, particularly on the areas under intensive and
inadequate use of soils, the erosion is intensified and leads to changes in landscape with
impacts on other natural resources as water and forests.

The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is a quantitative and empirical model for the
prediction of soil losses during a period of time and under specific circumstances such as
precipitation, soil texture and the land use system. This formula predicts the physical soil
erosion and even it has some limitations, it can be extremely useful for estimating the
economic losses of land degradation in a situation of “lack of research and information”
and to offer decision-makers an approximate dimension of the desertification.

Our hypothesis is based on the fact that erosion is probably the major problem for the
maintenance of sustainability of land use and management and that the erosion rate can be
different for different types of soils or management systems and different cultivation
practices.

The risk of erosion can be expressed qualitatively as “Very High, High, Moderate, Low and
Very Low” or quantitatively as “tons per hectare per year”. The technical literature agrees
on the following general figures for soil losses:

Erosion rate Losses (t/ha/year)

Very High > 20
High 10-20
Moderate 5-10
Low 2-5
Very Low 0-2

The types of soils or productive systems are not considered in these figures and for this
reason they are considered as theoretical values. Generally speaking, the concrete situations
are much more complex than that, but assuming these figures we can estimate the
economical losses from soil erosion and also we can estimate the economic losses from
water degradation, since soil erosion is supposed to impact watersheds and dams through
sedimentation. It means that water reservoirs have been affected in their capacity of storage
water and there are other possible hydrologic cycle disturbances.

In order to estimate the financial cost of land degradation in LAC region, we assume the
hypothesis that the affected areas mentioned by countries in the table above have a
14
Matallo,H.& Vasconcelos,R. Matallo, H. & Vasconcelos, R. Estimativa de Perdas Econômicas provocadas
pelo processo de desertificação na Região do Semi-Arido do NE, in Matallo, H. & Schenkel, C. (1999)
Desertificação, Unesco, Brasília, Brasil.
moderate level of degradation of 7.5 tons/ha/years (that is a very modest estimation). This
means that the soil losses for the entire region is 357.247.078 has x 7,5 ton/ha/year that is
equal 2.726.603.148 tons of soils per year (2.7 billion of tons/year).

The estimation of costs for different types of agricultural practices as irrigated crops or rain
fed crops and grazing was discussed in the previous section and for our purposes and
considering that we do not know how is the composition of land uses in agriculture in the
affected areas in terms of rain fed or irrigated agriculture or grazing, we assume an average
loss of USD$ 10.00 per ha as mentioned and justified before. Considering this amount, the
losses is of US$ 27.266.030.840 (more than 27 billion dollars).

The total water resources degradation due to soil erosion is around 272,660,308 m3
per year. The estimated cost of each m3 of water lost is around USD$ 0.5 (this is a really
conservative hypothesis) and the total amount represents USD$ 136,330,154.00.

Country Areas Soil losses Cost of soil Water losses Cost f water Total Cost
Affected by Ton/año losses m3 losses
desertification (USD 10.00 USD
(has) /ha/año)

Argentina 195.426.700 1.465.700.250 14.657.002.500 146.570.025 73,285,012.50 14,730,287,512

Brasil 66.554.300 499.157.250 4.991.572.500 49.915.725 24,957,862.50 5,016,530,362
Colombia 19.351.000 145.132.500 1.451.325.000 14.513.250 7,256,625.00 1,458,581,625
Costa Rica 51.654 387.405 3.874.050 38.740,5 19,370.00 3,893,420
Ecuador 7.060.437 52.953.277 529.532.770 5.295.327,7 2,647,663.50 532,180,433
El Salvador 363.000 2.722.500 27.225.000 272.250 136,125.00 27,361,125
México 58.689.150 440.168.625 4.401.686.250 44.016.862,5 22,008,431.00 4,423,694,681
Panamá 1.876.920 14.076.900 140.769.000 1.407.690 703,845.00 141,472,845
Paraguay 1.000.000 7.500.000 75.000.000 750.000 375,000.00 75,375,000
Republica
Dominicana 3,290,817 24.681.127 246.811.270 2.468.112,7 1,234,056.00 248,045,326
Venezuela 9.883.100 74.123.250 741.232.500 7.412.325 3,706,162.00 741,603,116
Total 357.247.078 2.726.603.084 27.266.030.840 272.660.308,4 136,330,154.00 27.525.631.148

The table below shows the total losses and its relationship with the National Growth
Product for the mentioned countries in 2004. The most impressive case is Argentina, where
the losses caused by desertification represent more than 9 % of the GNP.

Country GNP (2004) Costs of soils and Losses/GNP

USD water losses %
(2005) USD

Argentina 153,014.000.000 14,730,287,512 9,6

Brasil 603.973.000.000 5,016,530,362 0,8
Colombia 97.718.000.000 1,458,581,625 1,4
 Costa Rica 18.496.000.000 3,893,420 0,02
Ecuador 30.282.000.000 532,180,433 1,7
El Salvador 15.824.000.000 27,361,125 0,2
México 676.497.000.000 4,423,694,681 0,6
Panamá 13.733.000.000 141,472,845 1,0
Paraguay 7.343.000.000 75,375,000 1,0
Republica
Dominicana 18.673.000.000 248,045,326 1,3
Venezuela 110.104.000.000 741,603,116 0,6
Total 27.525.631.148
Source of GNP: World Bank

At this point we should consider another aspect of land degradation and its economic
impacts. Is that our estimation is annual but desertification is a process in time and for this
reason we must consider the data for a certain period of time. For estimation purposes we
assume the hypothesis that desertification have been harming countries in the last twelve
years (again a very modest assumption), since the approval of the convention in 1994.

During the last twelve years, the average economic growth was around 3% annually and
this is the figure we suppose is the annual increment of the losses due to desertification.
The calculations show that the accumulative economic losses represent more than USD 150
billion dollars for the eleven countries considered. It means that the deficit per capita is
more than USD 3,500.00 and it is higher than the per capita income regional average. This
means a real impoverishment of the population.

IV. How much funds has GEF been invested in LAC region to face desertification?

As we have seen in the previous sections, the accumulative losses for the period 1994 to
2006 are more than 150 billion USD, using a very conservative estimation.

During the period from 1994 to 2003 the UNCCD did not count with an effective financial
mechanism for land degradation. The only existent “mechanism” at that time was the
Global Mechanism, that is a facilitation instrument for mobilizing funds and not a financial
instrument. The GEF was accepted as a financial mechanism for the UNCCD in the year
2003 after a COP decision on this matter.

If we look at the GEF portfolio for land degradation in the GEF-3 we can notice that only
72 million USD was made available for 2003 and 2004. From this amount USD 20,5
millions (28%) were allocated for Africa, USD 13.3 millions (18,4%) for projects in Brazil
and the remaining USD 38.5 millions were allocated for global initiatives. It worth to
mention that from this USD 38.5 millions, the amount of USD 29 millions (75,3%) was
assigned for the LDC-SIDS projects.

If we take in consideration the entire 5.23 billion dollars allocation of the GEF for all the
Operational Programmes Areas since 1991, we can see the following distribution:

África 23 % 1.2 millions

Asia 25 % 1.3 millions
América Latina y Caribe 20 % 1.05 millions
Europa Central 18 % 0.945 millions
Others (global and regional) 14 % 0.735 millions
Total 100% 5.23 millions

As it can be seen, LAC region received 1.05 billion dollars (20%) of the GEF allocation for
all programme areas. Considering that the OP-15 – Land Degradation was created only in
2003 and received USD 72 million for the years 2003-2004, it is clear that the majority of
money allocated for LAC region has benefited land degradation only in a very week sense.
However, even if the total amount allocated for LAC region is considered as a direct benefit
for land degradation control, the deficit vis-à-vis the losses presented before would reach
the amazing amount of USD 148 billion.

V. Conclusion

An overview on the desertification process in the mentioned eleven Latin American

countries, based on the existing information and the economic assumptions we have made,
allow us to recognize the catastrophic dimensions of the problem in the region.

Even considering that the existing methodology for economic assessment shall be improved
and consolidated in order to offer a better and trustful data, the estimations losses in soils
and water resources (that I consider as very modest) represent a huge economic loss that
affects millions of people and contributes to poverty and social vulnerability. At the same
time the problem has received no “proportional” attention from the authorities and from the
international community. It means that there is an unbalance in terms of attention and
financial resources received from the international community, particularly if compared
with the other Rio Conventions.

In general terms, this is due to a lack of information on desertification processes and its
economic impacts, as well as on the Convention itself and its potential contribution for
solving the problem. It can be said that affected countries do not know well the problem
and therefore are not well skilled to prepare projects for the international cooperation
programmes.

The approach offered here for assessing economic impacts of land degradation is a
reasonable alternative that certainly could be improved if some additional data were
available. In the other hand, National Focal Points have the responsibility in providing
credible (reliable) information on land degradation at national and local level. This is
crucial for the future of sustainable land management and to overcome the economic and
environmental limits land users have been facing in drylands.

Bibliography

Crosson, P. The economics of soil erosion and maintaining soil biodiversity, Conference
paper, Rome, 2003.
Dregne, H. E. & N-T. Chou. 1992. Global desertification dimensions and costs. In
Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Lubbock: Texas Tech. University

Matallo,H.& Vasconcelos,R. Matallo, H. & Vasconcelos, R. Estimativa de Perdas

Econômicas provocadas pelo processo de desertificação na Região do Semi-Arido do NE,
in Matallo, H. & Schenkel, C. (1999) Desertificação, Unesco, Brasília, Brasil.

Oldeman, R. 1994. “The Global Extent of Soil Degradation” in D. Greenland and (?) Szabolics
(eds.) Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use, CAB International, U.K.

Pimentel, D. et al. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and
conservation benefits, Science, 267, pp. 1117-1123, 24 Feb.

Prosser, I. P. et alli. Assessing soil erosion and its off-site effects at regional to continental scales,
Conference paper, Rome, 2003.