Africa's 'Green Wall' also makes economic sense

Date:
November 15, 2021
Source:
University of Bonn
Summary:
Fifteen years ago, the African Union decided on an ambitious
program: degraded ecosystems in parts of the Sahel are to be
successively restored in order to secure food for the people living
there and to protect the soil against further degradation. At the
same time, the African Great Green Wall is an important contribution
to combating climate change. A study now shows that it also makes
economic sense - although not everywhere in the Sahel.



FULL STORY ==========================================================================
The Sahel extends south of the Sahara from Senegal in the west to Ethiopia
in the east of Africa. Vast areas of the formerly fertile region are
now virtually uncultivated. Reasons are droughts, poor agricultural
cultivation methods as well as overuse due to the growing demand for
food and firewood.


==========================================================================
The "Great Green Wall" initiative aims to compensate for and reverse
this loss through mass planting of native trees and grasses. 100 million hectares of land are to be restored in this way. So far, however, this ambitious goal is very far from being achieved -- partly because of a
lack of financial resources.

However, this could change in the future: Earlier this year, various
donor countries pledged nearly $15 billion to the project at the One
Planet Summit for Biodiversity. "In order to use these funds efficiently,
we now have to ask ourselves where and for which measures they should
be used most sensibly," emphasizes Dr. Alisher Mirzabaev of the Center
for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn.

Every dollar invested yields a 20-cent of net returns The agricultural economist has led a study that provides an answer. The researchers
divided the Sahel region into 40 million plots of 25 hectares each.

For each of these, they then analyzed which land restoration measures
would be possible and how much they would cost. They compared this
calculation with the economic benefits that could be achieved.

"On the one hand, these include the so-called provisioning services,"
explains Mirzabaev: "These are the things that are produced by the
ecosystems: Food and drinking water, raw materials such as wood
or medicinal plants." There are also other effects, such as a better
climate, less wind erosion or pollinators services, which in turn increase
the farmers' crop yields. They, too, can have a price tag attached to
them today.

The results show that building the "Green Wall" is also economically worthwhile. But how much depends on a number of factors. As a
rule, reforestation would be the most advantageous economically and ecologically. But it takes decades for a few hundred seedlings to grow
into a forest. The investment therefore only bears fruit in the very
long term.

The situation is different when degraded areas are converted into
farmland.

"Ideally, the first harvest is then possible after just one year," says Mirzabaev. Cropland restoration can thus pay for itself comparatively
quickly, with many poor smallholder farmers also preferring quick returns
from their restoration activities. However, the profits that can be
achieved as a result are significantly lower, as are the environmental
effects.

"In our analysis, we work with different scenarios, some of
which are aimed more at short-term benefits, while others are more
long-term," explains the agricultural economist, who is a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Area "Sustainable Futures" at the University of Bonn. The so-called baseline scenario, for example, includes a mixture of
both short-term and long-term returns. In it, every dollar spent yields
an average net return of 20 cents.

Half of the profitable regions are too uncertain for action However,
there are huge regional variations in this. The most positive economic
balance is for parts of Nigeria, Eritrea and Ethiopia. This is where
the investment in the "Green Wall" is most worthwhile. To finance all
the proposed measures in this scenario, a sum of 44 billion U.S. dollars
would be needed.

This would allow 28 million hectares of land to be restored.

However, the analysis also shows that this will probably only work
in theory.

The reason is that, due to violent conflicts, many of the regions
where it would make sense to build the Green Wall are simply too
unsafe for such measures. "If we take out these areas, we are left
with just 14 million hectares," Mirzabaev points out. "This shows
how much such disputes not only cause direct human suffering,
but also prevent positive development of the affected regions." ========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by University_of_Bonn. Note: Content
may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. A. Mirzabaev, M. Sacande, F. Motlagh, A. Shyrokaya,
A. Martucci. Economic
efficiency and targeting of the African Great Green Wall. Nature
Sustainability, 2021; DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00801-8 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211115151018.htm

--- up 4 days, 2 hours, 55 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)