Economic analysis of soil conservation: Case studies from the highlands of Amhara Region, Ethiopia

Soil degradation is widespread in the Ethiopian Highlands. Its negative impacts on soil productivity contribute to the extreme poverty of the rural population. Soil conservation is propagated as a means of reducing soil erosion, however, it is a costly investment for small-scale farming households. The present study is an attempt to show whether or not selected mechanical Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) technologies are profitable from a farmer’s point of view. A financial Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is carried out to assess whether or not the considered SWC technologies are profitable from a farmer’s point of view. The CBA is supplemented by an evaluation of aspects from the economic and institutional environment. Whether or not soil conservation is profitable from a farmer’s point of view depends on a broad range of factors from the ecological, economic, political, institutional and socio-cultural sphere and also depends on the technology and the prevailing farming system. Because these factors are closely interlinked, it is often not sufficient to change or influence one to make SWC profitable. Several recommendations are formulated with regard to improving the profitability of SWC investments from a farmer’s point of view. Because the reasons for unsustainable resource use are manifold and highly interlinked, only a multi-stakeholder, multi-level and multi-objective approach is likely to offer solutions that address the underlying problems adequately.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

The Potential of Tariff Policy for Climate Change Mitigation: Legal and Economic Analysis

This paper addresses a potential role that tariffs and tariff policy can play in encouraging countries to take part in a multilateral effort to mitigate climate change. It begins by assessing whether increasing tariffs on products from energy intensive or polluting industries amounts to a violation of WTO rules and whether protectionism in this case can be differentiated from genuine environmental concerns. It then argues that while lowering tariffs for environmental goods can serve as a carrot to promote dissemination of cleaner technologies, tariff deconsolidation is a legitimate stick to encourage polluting countries to move towards an international climate agreement. The paper further explores this view by undertaking a partialequilibrium simulation analysis to examine the impact of a unilateral unit increase in tariffs on the imports of the most carbon-intensive products from countries not committed to climate polices. Our results suggest that the committed importing countries would have to raise their tariffs only slightly to effect a significant decline in the imports of these products from the non-committed countries. For instance, a unit increase in the simple average applied tariffs on the imports of these carbon-intensive products in 2005 from our sample of non-committed exporting countries would reduce the imports of these products by an average 32.6% in Australia, 178% in Canada, 195% in the EU, 271% in Japan and 62% in the US, therebysuggesting the effectiveness of such a measure in pushing countries towards a global climate policy.

Economic efficiency analysis of different strategies to control post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome and porcine circovirus type 2 subclinical infection in 3-weekly batch system farms.

The study assessed the economic efficiency of different strategies for the control of post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) and porcine circovirus type 2 subclinical infection (PCV2SI), which have a major economic impact on the pig farming industry worldwide. The control strategies investigated consisted on the combination of up to 5 different control measures. The control measures considered were: (1) PCV2 vaccination of piglets (vac); (2) ensuring age adjusted diet for growers (diets); (3) reduction of stocking density (stock); (4) improvement of biosecurity measures (bios); and (5) total depopulation and repopulation of the farm for the elimination of other major pathogens (DPRP). A model was developed to simulate 5 years production of a pig farm with a 3-weekly batch system and with 100 sows. A PMWS/PCV2SI disease and economic model, based on PMWS severity scores, was linked to the production model in order to assess disease losses. This PMWS severity scores depends on the combination post-weaning mortality, PMWS morbidity in younger pigs and proportion of PCV2 infected pigs observed on farms. The economic analysis investigated eleven different farm scenarios, depending on the number of risk factors present before the intervention. For each strategy, an investment appraisal assessed the extra costs and benefits of reducing a given PMWS severity score to the average score of a slightly affected farm. The net present value obtained for each strategy was then multiplied by the corresponding probability of success to obtain an expected value. A stochastic simulation was performed to account for uncertainty and variability. For moderately affected farms PCV2 vaccination alone was the most cost-efficient strategy, but for highly affected farms it was either PCV2 vaccination alone or in combination with biosecurity measures, with the marginal profitability between 'vac' and 'vac+bios' being small. Other strategies such as 'diets', 'vac+diets' and 'bios+diets' were frequently identified as the second or third best strategy. The mean expected values of the best strategy for a moderately and a highly affected farm were £14,739 and £57,648 after 5 years, respectively. This is the first study to compare economic efficiency of control strategies for PMWS and PCV2SI. The results demonstrate the economic value of PCV2 vaccination, and highlight that on highly affected farms biosecurity measures are required to achieve optimal profitability. The model developed has potential as a farm-level decision support tool for the control of this economically important syndrome.

Economic benefits and costs of technologies for sustainable land management (SLM): a preliminary analysis of global WOCAT data

The WOCAT network has collected, documented, and assessed more than 350 case studies on promising and good practices of SLM. Information on on- and off-site benefits of different SLM types, as well as on investment and maintenance costs is available, sometimes in quantitative and often in qualitative form. The objective of the present paper is to analyse what kind of economic benefits accrue to local stakeholders, and to better understand how these benefits compare to investment and maintenance costs. The large majority of the technologies contained in the database are perceived by land users as having positive benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. About three quarters of them also have positive or at least neutral benefits in the short term. The analysis shows that many SLM measures exist which can generate important benefits to land users, but also to other stakeholders. However, methodological issues need to be tackled and further quantitative and qualitative data are needed to better understand and support the adoption of SLM measures. Keywords: Sustainable Land Management, Costs, Benefits, Technologies