The cost of mitigation strategies for agricultural adaptation to global change

  • Carla Ximena SalinasEmail author
  • Jon Mendieta
Original Article


Land recovery and the improvement of lands affected by desertification for agricultural use, is achieved when a sustained recovery of agricultural productivity over time is obtained. In the areas affected by desertification and drought, it is common that the ecosystems do not have enough funding for water management and irrigation. This situation leads to an inadequate assessment of the environmental goods and services in arid zones. As a result we have a misuse of these dry lands. Many countries are implementing policies and making investments and efforts to mitigate arid land degradation and desertification through the National Action Programs (NAP). However, for the long term planning of mitigation and adaptation strategies, it is necessary to know the cost of recovery and land improvement in certain areas in order to forecast the budgets. This is the main objective of this paper in order to combat desertification and drought in central northern Chile. We have calculated a recovery cost per hectare by region and for each of the agriculture, livestock and forestry (ALF) promotion agencies. The results indicate that the cost of land reclamation in the northern regions is much higher than in the southern regions of this studied area. The cost is especially high for Region II, where investment per hectare is almost to 3000 US$ per hectare. At the other extreme is the Region VII, in the south of the studied area where the investment required per hectare barely reaches 500 US$. The contribution of the promotion agencies to the total cost also varied among regions and agencies. We discuss the results within a context of recovery cost per hectare depending on the different environmental characteristics and agricultural development of each of the studied regions.


Drought Desertification Adaptation investments Atacama Desert Climate change Land reclamation Mitigation Sustainable development Land degradation 



The authors would like to thank to CONAF, to CNR and to SAG for their inestimable collaboration. Thank also go to Ximena Santo for her valuable help in reviewing the language of the manuscript.


  1. Barr R, Frankhauser S, Hamilton K (2010) Adaptation investments: a resource allocation framework. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 15:843–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs R, Bohensky E, Desanker EV et al (2004) Nature supporting people: the Southern Africa Millennium Assessment. CSIR, PraetoriaGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(1):29Google Scholar
  4. CONAF (1999) Mapa preliminar de la desertificación en Chile. Ministerio de Agricultura, Santiago, Chile. Programa FAO, PNUMA Desertificación. ChileGoogle Scholar
  5. Daily GC (1995) Restoring value to the world’s degraded lands. Science 269(5222):350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon JA, James DE, Sherman PB (eds) (1990) Dryland Management: Economic Case Studies. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Feehan J, Harley M, Van Minnen J (2009) Climate change in Europe. 1. Impacto n terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29(3):409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gitay H, Brown SD, Easterling W et al (2001) Ecosystems and their goods and services. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–315Google Scholar
  9. INE (2009) Environment: annual report 2007. National Institute of Statistics. Ministry of Economy, ChileGoogle Scholar
  10. Lal R (2009) Soils and food sufficiency. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29(1):113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lal P, Alavalapati JRR, Mercer E (2011) Socio-economic impacts of climate change on rural United States. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16(7):819–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Le Houerou HN (1996) Climate change, drought and desertification. J Arid Environ 34:133–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. PAN (2000) Plan de Acción Nacional. Informe nacional para la implementación de la convención de las naciones unidas para el combate de la desertificación en Chile. Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  14. Quezada C, Sandoval M, Zagal E (2008) Manejo de suelos en zonas áridas. Ministerio de Agricultura de ChileGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynolds JF, Maestre FT, Stafford Smith DM et al (2007) Natural and human dimensions of land degradation: causes and consequences. In: Canadell J, Pataki DE, Pitelka L (eds) Terrestrial ecosystems, in a changing world. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salinas CX (2011) Evaluación de la normativa de fomento silvoagropecuario para la lucha contra la desertificación y la sequía en Chile. PhD Dissertation. University of Basque Country, Leioa, SpainGoogle Scholar
  17. Salinas CX, Mendieta J (2012a) Numerical model to assess the impact of the strategies to mitigate desertification. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi: 10.1007/s11027-012-9375-5
  18. Salinas CX, Mendieta J (2012b) Mitigation and adaptation investments for desertification and climate change: an assessment of the socioeconomic return. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi: 10.1007/s11027-012-9380-8
  19. UNCCD (1994) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee For a Convention to Combat Desertification, Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. U.N. Doc. A/AC.241/27, 33 I.L.M. 1328. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Zilberman D, Liu X, Roland-Holst D et al (2004) The economics of climate change in agriculture. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 9(2):365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARNATUR, Association for Water and Natural ResourcesSopelanaSpain

Personalised recommendations