Arena presentation - Institute of Advanced Studies

Expert Workshop on Definition of Best Indicators for
Biodiversity and Soil Quality
for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
12 - 13 June 2006
Towards the identification and
calculation of characterization
factors for land use in western
Argentina
Arena, A.P., Civit, B.
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional – Facultad Regional Mendoza
Laboratorio de Ambiente Humano y Vivienda – INCIHUSA (CONICET)
2006, International Year of Deserts and Desertification,

DESERTIFICATION
“The land degradation in arid, semiarid and sub-humid dry
regions resulting from different factors, such as climatic
variations and human activities (UNCCD, 1995:7)”.
Argentina: : Two thirds of its territory presents desertification
symptoms at different degrees.
Mendoza: The artificial oasis represents 2-4% 2
of the
provincial area, and concentrates 98,5% of the population,
while 98 % of the province are lands without irrigation.
The proximate causes identified are: diminution of water
volume in rivers due to increasing extraction upstream in the
oasis, expansion of agricultural frontier (vineyards), felling
of trees from natural forests (Prosopis(
spp,
early XX
century), cattle raising beyond the load capacity of fields
(overpasturing)) (Abraham 2004).

IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS
However, evidence from empirical case studies shows that
desertification is determined by different combinations of
proximate causes and underlying driving forces which
include coupled socioeconomic and biophysical factors.
Even though there is consensus in the need of account on
indicators and benchmarks, from the methodological point of
view the problem arises since there are different realities to
compare, and no global set of indicators could reveal the
complexity of human environment systems inherent to
dryland change (GEIST et al 2004).
For the case of Mendoza, based on an interdisciplinary
conception, a first method was structured and applied
(Abraham 2004)

Methodology for the definition of Indicators
1) Inventory of factors and desertification processes for environmental unit
(ecosystems). Basic information about the physical (abiotic potential),
biological and socio-economical aspects (anthropic use) is acquired (remote
sensing, information from the field) and mapped, organized in a GIS.
2) This information is translated into indicators for obtaining:
the fragility degree of the ecosystem for desertification (summing up all
the indicators for the physic-biological support, like salinity and alkalinity
of soil, water and wind erosion, soil depth and texture, vegetal cover and
stratification, aridity index, soil freezing).
the degree of anthropogenic pressure which is acting over those
ecosystems (summing up all the indicators which are related with the
resources demand from social groups, like population density, animal load,
use of wood as fuel, poverty index ).
3) The relationship between the fragility and the anthropogenic pressure for
ecosystem gives the Risk of desertification of each ecosystem, which shows
the state and the main indicators leading the process, being natural or
anthropogenic.
Map

Program to Combat Desertification and
Drought Mitigation in South America
Participants: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, , Chile, Ecuador, Perú
Framework: the same suggested by the European Environmental
Agency: Drivers-Pressure
Pressure-State-Impacts-Responses, , also used in
the MEDRAP, DISMED, DESERTLINK, an others programs.
The different desertification set of indicators proposed by each
country are being consolidated. Currently (aggregated list):
•28 State Indicators
•13 Pressure Indicators
•20 Response Indicators
•66 Impact indicators
All of them include abiotic (soil, water, climate), biophysical (flora,
fauna), socio-economical (use of land, population, poverty), and
institutional and organizational aspects (N° of institutions, existence
of laws, programs related with land degradation).

Problems to be solved (some of them…)
Even though there have being progresses in the definition of
indicators for measuring the state and risk of desertification,
there is no currently a consensus on a set of suitable indicators.
The discussion about it is still in progress.
The list of indicators is very extensive and must be revised
according to relevant criteria as SMART (Specific,(
Measurable,
Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (Schomaker(
Schomaker, , 1997)
It assumes a fairly detailed knowledge of local aspects
It requires data on the previous history of land conversion
There is a paucity of knowledge on many of these elements.
The aim of the indicators developed within the UNCCD
framework (e.g. Production of Proposals for regional planning,
establishing zones for possible uses and restrictions) is different
from that of LCA. Their list of indicators must be adapted for
LCA purposes.

REFERENCES
Abraham, E. (2004) Experiencia Argentina vinculada con la obtención n y
evaluación n de indicadores de desertificación.
La utilización n de indicadores socio-econ
económicos en el estudio y la lucha
contra la desertificación: acuerdos, discrepancias y problemas conceptuales
subyacentes. Torres, L., Montaña, a, E., Abraham, E., Torres, E., Pastor, G.
Urbina, S. In press ub Revista Estudios Interdisciplinarios de América
Latina y el Caribe, , Vol. 16, No. 2 (2005) Institute of Latin American
History and Culture, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Mathilde Snel and Alexandra Bot “Some suggested indicators for Land
Degradation Assessment of Drylands”. . LADA project.
GEIST, H., LAMBIN, E. Dynamic Causal Patterns of Desertification.
BioScience • September 2004 / Vol. 54 No. 9
ROIG, F. et al., 1983. Documento de base para la elaboración del Plan
Nacional de Acción de Lucha contra la Desertificación. . Mendoza, 78p

Desertification in South America

Risk of desertification in Mendoza

Methodology…
5) This methodology gives a picture of the situation. In order to be able to
have an evolution of the process, a baseline must be obtained, which is
determined using data from historic reports, archeological reports, and reports
from different disciplines (dendrocronology, historic climatology,
etnobothanics, geomorfology, etnohistory, palinology, etc). By comparison of
historic reports (documental sources, travelers notebooks) with the
environmental ones, it’s possible to assess the changes between the current
situation and the one of our base ecosystem.
The indicators have been developed by working with local stakeholders and
taking into account their different perceptions of desertification, land use type
and decision-making processes.
The methodology is innovative in that it allows both bottom-up and topdown
flows of information. This is fundamental to the success of selecting the most
effective land management practices to mitigate land degradation, and
provides indicators for the identification of desertification risk, as well as for
management methods and techniques.

Indicators
State Indicators (aridity index, standard index of precipitation, surface &
underground water availability, index of hydric poverty, water quality, n° n of
wells per area unit, % of furrows, % of dunes, slope grade, electrical
conductivity degree, alkalinity, sodicity, , organic matter content, flora and
fauna species at extinction risk, degradation state of vegetation, dominant
species, flora and fauna stratification, % of surface under different ownership
forms, producers distribution by amount of area, urban and rural population
density, % of women as family heads, functional analphabetism rate, basic
services presence, health care access, infantile mortality rate, credit access, N° N
of state owned institutions and research centers aimed at dry land recovery,
N° of NGO’s s aimed at dry land recovery)
Pressure Indicators (Rain water impact, wind speed, water supply/demand
ratio, % of bare soil or surface albedo, hydric erosion degree, eolic erosion
degree, % of vegetal cover, fire risk, % of change in vegetal cover, animal
load, % of wood as fuel, % of change in use of land, advance of agricultural
frontier)

Indicators
Response Indicators (N° of water studies institutions, National/local existence of
normative related with water, N° N of soil studies institutions, National/local existence
of normative related with soils, National/local existence of normative related with
flora y fauna, N° N of flora and fauna studies institutions, % of recovered dry land, % of
existent and projected protected areas, existence of National/provincial ovincial laws related
with land degradation, N° N of organizations and programs on dryland issues, N° N of
institutions and projects associated with the funding of the National action plan
(PAN), provincial development plans and programs on desertification, ion, amount of
provincial, national and international funds aimed at financing the PAN projects, N° N
of universities and research institutions working on desertification tion issues, % of
population under desertification projects, N° N of active organizations, types of base
organizations, scholar curricula including environmental issues, % of women leaders.)
Impact indicators (migration net ratio, most frequent illness, analphabetism rate, %
of economically active population, % of population under poverty line, % of
population under indigence line)