APPENDIX - TABLES

Tables A6.2-5 list potential indicators for use at four scales: global, national and regional, watershed or village, and farm. The indicators are subdivided into biophysical, demographic, institutional and socio-economic groups. The position of each indicator in the DPSIR framework is indicated. These tables may be useful as checklists -not necessarily complete- of indicators useful in mapping and assessment of land degradation at different scales.

Tables A6.6-10 provide annotated, more detailed lists and selected references on socio-economic and institutional indicators, organized by main issue: insecurity, incapability, lack of opportunity or income, disempowerment, and lack of incentive or inadequacy of policies. The scales at which each indicator may be useful are indicated, as well as the position of each indicator in the DPSIR framework. The tables do not yet include indicators with reference to human health in relation to land degradation (e.g., to soil or water pollution). These tables may be useful as checklists of indicators useful in the assessment of the driving forces and pressures causing land degradation, its impacts on people and society, and the possible corrective or preventive responses.

TABLE A6.2
Indicators at global scale

Indicator	DPSIR
Biophysical
Land deformation	S
Shifting sands over fertile soils	S
Area affected by salinization	I
Area affected by waterlogging	I
Climate: high-intensity rains	D
Slaking properties of soil	S
Slope, terrain	S
Land cover	S
Loss of topsoil and subsoil	I
Dunes and hollows	I
Acidification	S
Mass movement of soil	S
Compaction	S
Rocks, stones and hard surface layers	S
Dry wells	I
Change of permanent waters into seasonal	I
Siltation of water ways and reservoirs	I
Livestock density	S

Demographic
Population	S

TABLE A6.3
Indicators at national and regional scale

Indicator	DPSIR
Biophysical
Drought index	S
Land use and farm management	D
Deforestation	D
Slope, terrain properties	D
Livestock concentration	D
Change in diversity of (wild) annual species	I
Change in diversity of perennials	I
Substitution of woody species by thorny bushes	I
Ratio of cattle or camels to small ruminants	I
Sedimentation of dams and rivers	I
Water harvesting structures	R
Afforestation	R
Percentage ground cover	S
Extreme land surface deformation	S
Soil loss or accumulation	S
Coverage of fertile soils by shifting sands	S
Area affected by salinization	S
Area affected by waterlogging	S
Water quality (turbidity, ...)	S
Flooding: severity and occurrence	S
Fuel-efficient technologies	R

Demographic
Population	D
Gender balance urban and rural	D
Migration	R
Land reform and resettlement policies	P

Institutional
Research staff and budget
Research focus on crops rather than on resources
Information systems available
Number and role of NGOs
Legislation on natural resources management
Replacement of local informal arrangements by rigid legal or administrative rules
Protected areas policy and existence
Government subsidies on resource management	D/R

Socio-economic
Land tenure, ownership rights, access to land	D
On-farm and off-farm income	D
Unemployment rate	D
Input-output price relationships
Location and type of input and output suppliers, traders and markets (Rural) infrastructure investment # HIV/AIDS affected people	D
Conflicts and violence	D
Dependence on public relief or emergency aid	I/R

TABLE A6.4
Indicators at watershed or village scale

Indicator	DPSIR
Biophysical
% of irrigated area	D/P
Drying of wells and water sources	I
Change of permanent waters into seasonal	I
Dying trees at river banks	I
High salt content of surface water	I
Adoption of soil conservation technologies	R
Protected areas	R
Number of water harvesting structures	R
Amount of water stored in check dams	R
Reclamation of wastelands	R
Water quality/turbidity/algal blooms	S
Seasonal water fluctuation in rivers	S
Flooding and meandering of rivers and streams	S
Bad smell of water: surface and groundwater	S
Fragile sites (ponds, creeks, wetlands)	S
Area affected by salinization/waterlogging	S
Ground water salinization	S
Water table depth	S
Coverage of fertile soil by shifting sands	S
Occurrence of dust storms	S
Water shortage	S
Main fuel source	P
Production of charcoal	P
Most important construction material	P
Increasing depth of boreholes	R
Fuel-efficient technologies	R

Demographic
Population	D/P
Migration	D/R

Institutional
Replacement of local informal arrangements by rigid legal or administrative procedures
Number and role of NGOs	R
Degree of people's participation	R
Establishment of committees	R
Availability and frequency of extension services	R
Socio-economic

Changes in availability of consumer goods in market
Decline in common property resources
Occurrence of religious/church/age groups	S
Spiritual beliefs and taboos	D
Employment rate	D
Frequency and violence of conflicts	D
School enrolment	D
Dependence on public relief/emergency aid	I
Transport problems due to bad roads	P
Installation of water pipes	R
(Seasonal) migration of men	R
Availability and access to credit	R
Access to markets	S
Existence of manure contracts between farmers and herders	S
Value of (standing or cut) grass	S
Amount of meat available in market
Corrugated iron sheets for roof cover	R
Public telephone/link to Internet
By-laws on land use and protection	R
Agricultural education	R

TABLE A6.5
Indicators at farm scale

Indicator	DPSIR
Biophysical
Burning of crop residues	D
Use of by-products	D
Position on the slope	D
Steepness	D
Attitude towards and use of mineral fertilizers	D/R
Use of manure, compost, litter, ...	D/R
Farming or grazing intensity	D/R
Shift towards monocropping, mainly grains	I
Cattle or camels substituted by small ruminants	I
Shift from 2-oxen to one-ox plough	I
Yield and change in productivity	I
Indicator plants	I
Availability of supplementary wild plant species	I
Replacement of woody species by thorny bushes	I
Protected areas on-farm	R
Indigenous SWC measures	R
Use of mulch	R
Adoption of soil conservation technologies	R
Area under SWC
Water harvesting structures on-farm	R
Cropping pattern, cover crops, crop rotation	S
Animal mortality	S
Rooting depth	S
Crusting and slaking properties	S
Soil compaction	S
Exposure of subsoil	S
Main fuel source	D
Construction material (Thatched houses/wood)	D

Institutional
Membership in committees/associations/groups	R
Participation in Farmer Field days	R

Socio-economic
Off-farm employment	D
Land/labour ratio	P
Land tenure	P
Manure contracts with transhumant herders or other livestock owners	R
Diversity of diet (meat, legumes, eggs, fish, etc.)	R
Concern about livelihood of children	R
Distance to field	S
Home field or outfield	D
Number of months w. people facing hunger	S
Distance to drinking water	S
Distance to markets	S
Price of transport	S
Availability or access to cart	D
Access to credit and cash	S

TABLE A6.6
Socio-economic indicators related to insecurity

Individuals - especially in the poorest segments of society - are driven to degrade land and soils because of their necessity to secure basic needs (e.g., provision of food) for their day-to-day survival. Food insecurity, malnutrition, and water depletion, particularly in the event of external shocks and extreme events (e.g., drought), compels individuals to act within shorter-time horizons, exacerbating land degradation.

Food insecurity

(percentage of) farmers who grow drought resistant crops (N, V, F)^[3] (d/p, r) (*)
(percentage of) farmers without access to cultivable land^[4] (N, V) (d/p, r)
(percentage of) farmers without access to irrigation^[5] (N, V) (d/p)
falling cereal yield trends/decreased yields^[6] (N) (s) (*)
(percentage of) dried wells^[7] (V, F) (s)
food production index (G)^[8] (s)
Value of Production (VoP) per hectare of cropland^[9] (G, N) (s)
changing ratio of staple (subsistence) vs. cash (marketed) crops produced by women and by men (V, F) (i) (*)
change in food consumption (V, F) (i) (*)
change in percentage of household budget spent on food (N, V) (i) (*)
change in quantity of household consumption derived from forest and fisheries products^[10] (V, F) (i) (*)
dependence on public relief and emergency aid (G, N)^[11] ®
abandonment of (farm) land^[12] (V, F) ® (x) (*)

Malnutrition

amount of meat available in market (V, F) (x) (s)
life expectancy years at birth in years (G, N)^[13] (s)
percentage of rural children under five who are underweight (G, N)^[14] (i)
percentage of rural children who are stunted^[15] (G, N) (i)
percentage of children who are "wasted" (weight for height)^[16] (G, N) (i)
per capita calorie, fat and protein intake (G, N)^[17] (i)
change in diversity of diet (meat, legumes, eggs, fish, etc.)/frequency of meat, poultry or fish consumption (V, F) (i)
number of months facing hunger (V, F) (i)
rural infant mortality rate per 1000 live births (G, N)^[18] (i)
concern about livelihood of children^[19] (V, F) ®

Water depletion

annual internal renewable water supply per person (m3) (G) (s)^[20]
hours of available rural water supply (V, F) (s)
(percentage of) rural households with potable water (N, V, F) (s)
(percentage of) rural households with adequate water for livestock (N, V, F) (s)
change in water availability per capita (m³) (N) (i)
increasing amount of time spent to obtain water (V, F) (i) (*)^[21]
projected annual renewable water supply per person by river basin (G) (i)^[22]
increased distance walked to by household members to collect water (N, V, F) (i) (*)

External shock/extreme event^[23]

number of people affected by drought or other extreme event (e.g., flooding, conflict) [include specific definition of "extreme event"] (G, N) (d/p, s)^[24]
presence and frequency of conflict and violence over land resources (G, N, V, F) (d/p, r) (x)^[25]
number of deaths due to drought or other extreme event (e.g., flooding, conflict) (G, N) (i)
number of households rendered homeless due to drought or other extreme event (V, F) (i)
migration due to drought or other extreme event (e.g., conflict)/number of environmental refugees (G, N) ® (*)
stunting before and after external shocks/extreme events/natural disasters^[26] (N) (i) (*)

Poverty

percentage of rural population below poverty line^[27] in relation to agro-climatic zone and soil type (N) (d/p, r)
percentage of rural population below poverty line (G)^[28] (d/p, r)
household consumption expenditure rates (N) (d/p, r)
GDP per capita (G)^[29] (d/p, r)
rural poverty headcount index (N) (d/p, r)
female headed households (N, V) (s) (x)^[30]
number of HIV/AIDS affected people (G, N) (s) (x)^[31]

Legend

G: Global; N: National; V: Village; F: Farm
d: driving force; p: pressure; s: state; i: impact; r: response
x: a proxy indicator
*: indicator that links biophysical and socio-economic aspects of land degradation

TABLE A6.7
Socio-economic indicators related to incapability

Poor individuals or families in particular face constraints in land management and soil conservation because they lack access to improved and appropriate technology (e.g., to conserve soil) and information (e.g., on how to manage land and soils)^[32]. In some instances, however, even where access to technology and information may be available, cultural and spiritual practices may restrict their use.

Lack of access to improved and appropriate technology and tools

access to inputs (e.g., tools) in market (V, F) (d/p)
availability of inputs (e.g., tools) in market (V, F) (d/p)
distance to market (input and output suppliers) (N, V, F) (d/p)
availability/access to cart (V, F) (s)
availability of irrigation (V, F) (s)
hectares per tractor (G, N)^[33] (s)
presence of toilet, radio, tv, iron sheets for roof cover, internet access etc. in household (G?, N, V) (s) (x)

Poor provision of information or availability of skilled labour

percent school enrolment rates of girls and boys (G, N, V)^[34] (d/p) (x)
rural male and female literacy rate (G, N)^[35] (d/p)
percentage of national budget to agricultural research/training (N) (d/p, r)
research on resources vs. crops (N) (d/p)
public expenditure on education (% of GNP) (G)^[36] (d/p)
availability of extension services/agricultural education (N, V, F) (s)
frequency of extension services/agricultural education (V, F) (s)
existence of a land information system (provision of regular and up to date information on the state of land and water resources) (N) (s)
women's indigenous knowledge associated with land management (V, F) (s)
men's indigenous knowledge associated with land management (V, F) (s)
indigenous knowledge passed on to younger generations^[37] (V,F) (i)
evidence of inefficient use or overuse of inputs ®

Cultural practices and spiritual beliefs and taboos

cultural practices and spiritual beliefs and taboos that may be inhibiting use of technology and information to conserve land and soils (V, F) (d)^[38]
female and male roles in traditional land management and modern land management (V, F) (d)

Poverty

percentage of rural population below poverty line in relation to agro-climatic zone and soil type (N) (d/p, r)
percentage of rural population below poverty line (G8^[39] (d/p, r)
household consumption expenditure rates (N) (d/p, r)
GDP per capita (G) (d/p, r)^[40]
rural poverty headcount index (N) (d/p, r)
female-headed households (N) (s) (x)^[41]

Legend

G: Global; N: National; V: Village; F: Farm
d: driving force; p: pressure; s: state; i: impact; r: response
x: a proxy indicator
*: indicator that links biophysical and socio-economic aspects of land degradation

TABLE A6.8
Socio-economic indicators related to lack of opportunity or income

A skewed distribution of opportunities, wealth and income has implications for land degradation by breaking down common property management schemes and by compelling poor small-scale farmers to farm on unfertile land (while large-scale land owners buy and use the best agricultural land). Many poor farmers have few opportunities to improve their livelihoods and improve management of natural resource endowments since they often have restricted access and unclear rights to already marginal land and resources (due to population pressure and limited non-agricultural employment) and lack assets (e.g., credit and cash). These conditions have forced especially poor farmers to migrate from unfertile land and inhospitable surroundings to seek survival elsewhere (rural to urban migration).

Skewed distribution of wealth and poverty

poverty gap index or income Gini coefficient (G, N)^[42] (d/p)
household consumption expenditure rates (N) (d/p)
GDP per capita (G) (d/p)

Restricted land and resources or pressure on land

ratio of actual cultivated land per capita and potential cultivable land per capita (G, N)^[43] (d/p) (*)
ratio of cultivated land and fallow land^[44] (V) (d/p) (*)
ratio of monoculture without fallowing to land in crop rotation (V) (d/p, r) (*)
length of fallow periods^[45] (V, F) (d/p)
security of land tenure^[46] (N, V, F) (d/p) (*)
government resettlement programs or privatisation schemes (N, V) (d/p)
number of hectares of agricultural land per capita (G, N)^[47] (d/p)
percentage of farmers cultivating on steep slopes or river deltas (N, V, F) (s, r) (*)
changes in input/output prices (N, V, F) (d/p)
land use changes (in hectares) (G, N)^[48] (s)
number of livestock per hectare on grazing areas (G, N)^[49] (s, i)
area covered by pasture/grazing animals (V, F) (s, i)
number of agricultural workers per hectare (G)^[50] (s)
decline in common property resources^[51]:
decline in percentage of annual household income derived from non-marketed ("wild") goods collected at local commons (V, F) (i)
change in quantity of annual household consumption that is derived from the commons (V, F) (i)
amount of time spent by household member to collect fuelwood and water (N, V, F) (i)^[52]
distance walked by household member to collect fuelwood and water (N, V, F) (i)^[53]
change in length of fallow periods (V, F) ®
extent of cultivation on open-access areas^[54] (V, F) ® (*)
extent of cultivation on marginal land (N?, V) ® (*)
number of environmental refugees (G?, N) ® (*)
presence and frequency of conflict and violence over land and use of natural resources (V, F) (d/p, r)
repeated bush fires (V, F) ®^[55]
existence of manure contracts between farmers and herders (V) ® (*)
manure contracts with transhumant herders or cattle owners (F) ® (*)

Demographic pressure

rural population growth rate (G, N)^[56] (d/p)
gender balance between urban and rural (N) (d/p)
rural population density (persons per hectare) in relation to agro-climatic zones and soil type (rural population/land ratio) (N) (s)^[57]
rural population density by arable land (G) (s)^[58]
net migration rate (rural to urban - excludes traditional migratory patterns by nomadic groups) (G?, N) ®
population projections (G, N) ®
(HIV/AIDS affected people (G, N) (s) (x)^[59])

Limited employment in non-agricultural sectors

rural land/labour ratio (N) (d/p)
unemployment rate (G, N)(d/p, s)
percentage of agricultural labour force (N) (s)
percentage of non-agricultural labour force (N) (s)
school enrolment of boys and girls (G, N, V) (p, s) (x)
quantity of annual income derived from farm (cultivation, livestock) and non-farm activities (N) (s)
net migration rate (rural to urban - excludes traditional migratory balance between urban and rural) (G?, N) ®
(seasonal) migration of men (excludes traditional migratory patterns by nomadic groups) (V) ®
changing roles of women and men (V, F) ®

Lack of assets^[60]

availability of credit schemes (N, V) (d/p)
male and female access to credit schemes (V, F) (d/p)
land ownership^[61] (N, V, F) (d/p) (x)
access to cash and credit (F) (d/p)
types and availability of savings (e.g., cash, livestock) (N, V, F) (s)
presence of banking institutions (V, F) (s)
distance to banking centre (F) (s)
number of cattle^[62] (N, V, F) (s)
amount of grain stocks^[63] (V, F) (s)
percentage of rural households with adequate water for livestock (V, F)^[64] (s)
number of rural minors in labour force (N) (s) (x)
mean per capita expenditure of rural population (G, N) (s)

Legend

G: Global; N: National; V: Village; F: Farm
d: driving force; p: pressure; s: state; i: impact; r: response
x: a proxy indicator
*: indicator that links biophysical and socio-economic aspects of land degradation

TABLE A6.9
Socio-economic indicators related to disempowerment

Individuals who are not given a chance to participate in decisions that affect their lives are not given a means to provide critical input on where environmental degradation is occurring and how land may be better managed and soils regenerated. Lack of institutional support and political marginalization also decreases incentive and ability for collective action to manage natural resources and chance for environmental protection (e.g., through the provision of safe drinking water and waste collection).

Presence of institutional support

percentage of national budget to local-level/people-centred land management and soil conservation initiatives (N) (d/p, r)
government expenditures in agricultural research and development^[65] (G?, N) (d/p, r)
government subsidies on NRM (N) (d/p)
occurrence of armed conflict by country and year^[66] (G) (d/p)
easy access to land titles (N, V, F) (d/p)
presence and number of farmer groups and related committees and associations (V) (s)
female and male membership (as a percentage of village female and male population) in village committees/associations/groups (F) (s)
number and role of NGOs (N) (s)
ratification of international environmental policies (G) (s)

Presence of infrastructural support, access by rural population to services

government spending in rural infrastructure (N) (d/p)
price of transport (F) (d/p, s)
participation in farmer field days (F) (s)
transport problems due to bad roads (V, F) (s)
distance of village from nearest road (N) (s)
density of road network (km road per ha of agricultural land) (G, N)^[67] (s)
presence of church (V, F) (s) (x)
(percentage) rural population access to safe water (G, N, V, F)^[68] (s) (x)
availability of piped water (N, V) (s) (x)
access to electricity (N, V) (s) (x)
city nights lights (G) (s)
presence of toilet, tv, radio, iron sheets for roof cover, link to internet etc. (G?, N, V, F) (s) (x)
HIV/AIDS affected people (G, N) (s) (x)^[69]
existence of an early warning system (e.g., food early warning system) (N) ®

Good governance: transparency and participation

presence of decentralization policy (N) (d/p, r)
replacement of rigid legal measures with local informal arrangements (N, V) (d/p, r)^[70]
presence of village-level dispute resolution mechanisms/institutions/groups^[71] (V, F) (d/p, r)
presence of regular democratic elections for national and local government (G, N) (s)
number of women in parliament (G, N) (s)
percentage of press owned by the state^[72] (N) (s)
evidence of merit-based recruitment in government^[73] (N) (s)
existence of legal aid for poor people (N, V) (s)
perceived extent of corruption (N, V, F) (s)

Legend

G: Global; N: National; V: Village; F: Farm
d: driving force; p: pressure; s: state; i: impact; r: response
x: a proxy indicator
*: indicator that links biophysical and socio-economic aspects of land degradation

TABLE A6.10
Institutional indicators related to lack of incentive or inadequacy of policies

Policy failures have reinforced land degradation. For example, an individual's incentive to manage land in a sustainable way is reduced by insecure land tenure; inadequate development of natural resource management policies; and incomplete markets for environmental goods and services (where commodity prices do not internalise the cost of environmental degradation). The poorest segments of society usually have the least secure land tenure and property rights and are often compelled to exploit land (e.g., in open-access areas) to meet their livelihood needs. Conversely, secure land ownership provides individuals incentive and lays the foundation for longer-term natural resource utilization.

Land policy and tenure

security of land tenure and access to land and resources among women and men (V, F) (d/p)^[74]
clarity of land ownership/property rights among women and men (N, V, F) (d/p)^[75]
easy access to land registries and titling services (N, V, F) (d/p)
existence of land/property ownership mapping/cadastres (N) (d/p)
land reform and resettlement policies (N) (d/p, r)
government land privatisation schemes (N) (d/p)
evidence of inequality in the distribution of property rights^[76] (G?, N) (d/p, s, i)
type of land tenure (V, F) (s)
existence of sustainable Common Pool Resource (CPR) management institutions (V)^[77] (s)
interaction with neighbours regarding shared use of common land and resources (F)^[78] (s)
changes in land tenure or property rights among women and men (N, V, F) (i)
percentage of cultivation on open access land, common property and private property) (N, V) (i)

Natural resource management policies

legislation on Natural Resource Management (NRM) (N) (d/p)
government expenditure on NRM (N) (d/p)
government policies that encourage land degradation (e.g., agricultural tax exemption for large-scale farmers, land taxes which provide incentive for land clearing) (N, V) (d/p) (*)
by-laws on land use and protection (V) (d/p, r)
presence of NRM institutions (G, N) (d/p, s, r)
ratification of global environmental legislation (G) (d/p, r)
SOER reporting requirement (G, N) (s) (x)
Environmental Impact Statement requirement (G, N) (s)
(structural adjustments influences on land/soil management) (N) (i)

Poor internalisation of land degradation costs in commodity prices or consumer patterns

presence of consumer subsidies that stimulate land degradation (N)^[79] (d/p)
existence of tradable permits policy (N) (s, r)
annual gasoline, meat and paper consumption (G)^[80] (s)
use of "green" consumer prices (e.g., "green" and "fair trade" products) (G, N) ®
use of green accounting/internalising environmental benefits (goods and services) in national statistics (N) ® (x)
use of tradable environmental permits^[81] (G?, N) ®

^[3] Drought related indicator (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 14)
^[4] (Bojö et al., Environment chapter in PRSP sourcebook, 2001, p. 26)
^[5] (Bojö et al., Environment chapter in PRSP sourcebook, 2001, p. 26)
^[6] Yield trends used in Henninger and Hammond, 2002 rice, wheat, maize and sorghum (p. 17).
^[7] (Bojö et al., Environment chapter in PRSP sourcebook, 2001, p. 26)
^[8] Good indicator since this reflects changes in land and signals food insecurity (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 20). World Development Report (2001, p. 288) includes data on the food production index for 1996-1999 by country.
^[9] Data available in FAO’s national tabular data for 1965 - 97 (World Resources Institute, PAGE Agroecosystems, 2000, p. 4).
^[10] This indicator emphasizes how poor people rely on natural resources during lean times. Natural resources are often used as a form of insurance to help poor people cope with food insecurity (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 14 and 16)
^[11] Data on Official Development Assistance (ODA) by percentage of GNP or per capita available in the World Resources Report, 2000 - 2001, table El.2. Data on food aid as a percent of total imports available in World Resources Report 2000-2001, table AF.3.
^[12] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[13] Used as a measure to assess labor quality (Word Bank, 1999 in Wiebe et al., 2000, p. 7). Global data on life expectancy at birth available by country (for women and men in 1995-00 and 1975-80) in WRI, World Resources Report, table HD.2.
^[14] Global data available by country in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table 8.1 (although missing values for several countries!).
^[15] Global data available by country in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table 8.1 (although missing values for several countries!). See definitions of wasting and stunting in Henninger and Hammond, 2002, p. 7.
^[16] Global data available by country in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table 8.1 (although missing values for several countries!). See definitions of wasting and stunting in Henninger and Hammond, 2002, p. 7.
^[17] Data available in FAO’s Food Balance Sheets (FAOSTAT 1999) and FAO’s World Food Survey (1996) (WRI, PAGE Agroecosystems, 2000, p. 4). Global data on calorie supply (kilocalories) by country available in the WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table AF.3..
^[18] Available at a national-level in the Demographic and Health Surveys by the World Bank and Macro International for some countries (see www.worldbank.org/poverty/health/data/index.htm.). Description of infant mortality in Section 2.7 of World Development Indicators, 2001, p. 69. Global-level infant mortality data available by country (World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, p. 286).
^[19] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[20] Global data available by country in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table FW.1. Global data also available by major watershed in table FW.3 (also see Revenga, 2000, p. 4).
^[21] This indicator is important for understanding the impact of land degradation on women and children. National data may be available in the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS) (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 15).
^[22] (See Revenga, 2000, p. 4)
^[23] Broad indicators of vulnerability to drought.
^[24] (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999, p. 23)
^[25] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[26] See definitions of wasting and stunting in Henninger and Hammond, 2002, p. 7.
^[27] Widely published indicator of income poverty (World Bank, World Development Indicator, 2001).
^[28] Data available for some countries in World Bank, World Development Report 200/2001, p. 280 or WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table El.3 (several countries missing data).
^[29] See data in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table El.1. (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999)
^[30] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[31] The HIV/AIDS pandemic has contributed to increasing the number of female and children headed households, characteristic of some of the poorest segments of society (Torkelsson, 2002, p. 6). Global data available by country in World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.2.
^[32] See Murgai et al.,?, p. 7)
^[33] Available in FAO’s national tabular data for 1965 - 97 (WRI, PAGE Agroecosystems, 2000, p. 4)
^[34] Global data available by country (for 1996) in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.3 (values missing for some countries).
^[35] Global data available on % females and males literate in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.3. (missing values for some countries).
^[36] Data available in the World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 284.
^[37] Shifting agricultural practices from traditional to modern techniques is furthermore making less relevant indigenous knowledge (on traditional agricultural practices) and its transfer to younger generations.
^[38] Difficult to access - specific indicators will need to be developed depending on local conditions.
^[39] Data available for some countries in World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 280.
^[40] See data in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table El.1. (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999).
^[41] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[42] Data available by country in the World Resources Report 2000/2001, table El.3 (data missing for several countries).
^[43] (See Koohafkan, 2000, p. 70 - 71 and Shyamsundar, 2002) Data on percentage permanent cropland and percentage arable land by country available in World Development Indicators, p. 126.
^[44] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[45] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[46] (Shyamsundar, 2002)
^[47] Global data available for cropland (in hectares per 1000 people) for 1987 and 1997 in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table AF.2.
^[48] Global data by country available on land use change between 1992-94 and 1982-84 for cropland, pasture, and forest and woodland in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table 11.4 (p. 298). For global land use data could use NOAA’s AVHRR (see White et al., 2000, p. 3).
^[49] Global data available on number of cattle, sheep and goats, equines, and buffaloes and camels in the WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table FG.4.
^[50] Data available in FAO’s national tabular data for 1965 - 97 (WRI, PAGE Agroecosystems, p. 4).
^[51] Access to Common Property Resources (CPR) have been documented to provide users incentive and capacity to manage natural resources through collective action (see Lipper, 2001, p. 31).
^[52] This indicator is important for understanding land degradation’s impact on women and children. National data may be available in the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS) (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 15).
^[53] This indicator is important for understanding land degradation’s impact on women and children. National data may be available in the World Bank’s LSMS (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 15).
^[54] Open access areas are highly vulnerable to experiencing rapid resource depletion. These areas are often lands owned by the state that has little capacity to monitor and enforce property rights. Poor squatter settlements on open access areas have difficulty and little incentive to organize collective action to manage natural resources in these areas (Lipper, 2002, p. 31).
^[55] Indicators of infertile land.
^[56] For global data, see World Development Indicators, p. 126.
^[57] (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999)
^[58] (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999)
^[59] Global data available by country in World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.2.
^[60] See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001 p. 77 (Chapter 5).
^[61] Since land ownership is often required for access to credit, this indicator may be used as a proxy for access to credit.
^[62] Used as primary source of wealth and savings among most nomadic and pastoral communities (Henninger and Hammond, 2002, p. 20).
^[63] Often an important source of savings/insurance in rural households.
^[64] Good indicator of the ability of the poor to maintain non-land income generating assets (Shyamsundar, 2002, p. 16).
^[65] See Wiebe et al., 2000, p. 8.
^[66] Used as a proxy for the quality of the institutional environment (Wiebe et al., 2000, p. 7).
^[67] See Wiebe et al., 2000, p. 8.
^[68] Global data available by country in WRI, World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.3.
^[69] In countries such as Malawi, HIV/AIDS prevalence has had serious consequences on government infrastructure. The deaths of a higher proportion of urban, middle-class individuals (many of which are work in the government) is placing significant strain on government agencies to perform their tasks and mandates. Global data available by country in World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table HD.2.
^[70] See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 102 and 104.
^[71] See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 102 and 104.
^[72] Proxy to indicate freedom of press: higher levels of state ownership are associated with less freedom of the press (World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 101).
^[73] Merit-based recruitment in government is negatively correlated with corruption (see figure in World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 101).
^[74] See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 37.
^[75] See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, 2001, p. 37.
^[76] (Bojö et al., Environment chapter in PRSP sourcebook, 2001, p. 12)
^[77] Specific CPR indicators include: consensus-like and collective arrangement to use the CPR, sanctions for violators that use the CPR, existence of conflict-resolution mechanisms, and recognition by the government for community stakeholders to manage the CPR (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999, p. 11).
^[78] CPR management among long-time neighbors is driven by e.g., a desire to maintain their reputation as reliable members of the community (Ekbom and Bojö, 1999, p. 8).
^[79] (Koohafkan, 2000, p. 76)
^[80] Global data by country available in World Resources Report 2000 - 2001, table ERC.5.
^[81] Will need to be more specific.