Desertification: Global agenda, National Plans
and Local Actions
• Desertification debate - definition, social impact and
estimated extent
• UNCCD and National Action Plans - links to Govt Policy
• Local Scale case studies of improved env management
through community empowerment
Desertification: The first big
environmental issue
Desertification : context
“land degradation in dryland areas resulting from various
factors, including climatic variations and human activities”
– UNCCD, 1995
• Degradation is “a reduction of the resource potential by one
or a number of processes operating on the land” (UNEP,
1997)
• i.e. has impact on land’s economic value
“dryland degradation is occurring (&) is a v. serious threat to
to the well being of the billion or so people in drylands”
– Stiles, 1995; p.3
• Controversial issue as “at the interface between science,
politics and decision makers”
– Thomas, 1997; p.583
Environmental issues : Exaggeration of
environmental problems
• ‘Change’ only becomes a ‘problem’ when it impacts on
people (Agnew, 1995)
Changed emphasis of env research:
• No longer simply ‘science for science’s sake’
• More problem-focused, policy-relevant, interdisciplinary
and self-critical
Image of widespread desertification raised it’s profile as first
‘big’ env problem, but did this match the socioenvironmental reality?
– See Discussions in text by Thomas and Middleton (1994)
Desertification: Exploding the Myth Chapter 1 and 4, or article by
Desertification as an institutional myth?
• Ever since global awareness of suffering in Sahelian Africa
increased in the 1970s following drought, blame for poverty
and hunger has been associated with ‘desertification’
• Became an ‘institutional fact’ that served purpose (of UN)
in generating aid flows, without need to question its
applicability or it’s meaning!
– 1977 UNCOD - 3970 million ha
– 1984 GAP - 2001 million ha on soil degradation, 3271 million ha
on veg measures, but published 3475 million ha (soil +
unproductive rangeland)
– 1990 GLASOD - 1036 million ha (Global Assessment of Soil
Degradation)
Scientists as the real myth makers Stiles (1995)
• “Desertification, i.e. dryland degradation, is occurring
(and) is a very serious threat to the well-being of the one
billion or so people living in drylands”
• Weak support for UNCCD partly due to claims of
exaggeration of problems
• Data of ‘low scientific standards’ used to make these strong
statements
• Vegetation has a critical role in livelihoods and changes
should not be discounted
• Need to ‘first listen to the people’
Uneasy interface between science and people
(Thomas, 1997)
• Scientific problems due to – Speed of scientific research and manner in which scientific
knowledge evolves
– Selective use of data due to perceived science and colonisation
links, and need to scare
• “Desertification can not be tackled from political and social
directions alone”
• Environmental sciences’ role is to – Retain clarity of the issue
– Identify env responses to human disturbances
– Monitor extent of problems
Conventional views on aid - ‘top down’
• Global extent of problems such as famine, poverty & land
degradation requires regional or global scale solutions
• Imposed measures aimed at resource conservation the key
to environmental sustainability
Conventional approaches to
Development Intervention
• Standard solutions to standard problems - often focused on
mechanical conservation of soil, reducing overgrazing based
on ecological indicator species presence only
• Often strictly enforced against desires of local people and
undermining traditional practices
• Lack of local involvement meant poorly maintained after
initial expenditure
Recent change of emphasis (UNCED
and UNCCD)
Aid and development initiatives now recognise need for:
• Locally appropriate solutions based on integrated
resource management
• Local community involvement at all stages, esp. project
formulation
• Interdisciplinary research
Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin,
1968)
• Neo-Malthusian view that population problem has no
technical solution
• “Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all”
• Actions of rational man working for greatest individual
good will destroy common property resource base
• “Ruin is the destination towards which all men rush, each
pursuing his own best interest”
Social and Policy Implications of
Hardin’s arguments
Something must be done to restrict resource access. Possibles:
• Deep green views - stop exploitation
• Privatise - personal incentives - Free market the answer!
• State ownership - state quotas, laws etc.
• Strict group rules within societies
Societal Changes
• Globally, developers hurried to remove land from
commoners
• Commoners encouraged to work as wage labourers or move
to towns as workforce
• Many knock-on problems caused - e.g. unemployment and
destitution in cities, overuse of remaining commons land
• Decreased equity in resource access
Counter views - flaws
Hardin assumed people would be selfish. In reality,
traditional commons are regulated by the people who
live there
“Wherever a society has needed a natural resource rules for its orderly use have been worked out”
– Berkes and Farvar, 1989)
• i.e. scientist failing to account for
social complexity / reality
Counter view - ‘tragedy of enclosure’ Monbiot, 1986
• “As land changes hands so does power”
• Ignores much indigenous knowledge on how to protect the
environment
• “For human beings, as for biosphere the tragedy of the
commons is not their.. existence but the tragedy of their
disappearance”
– Monbiot, 1986; p.7
Custodians of the Commons: African
pastoral systems
• Local knowledge truly aware of limits
• Alienation of local communities caused many problems,
and much mispent aid resources
• “The last 30 years have seen the unremitting failure of
livestock development projects”
– Scoones, 1994; p.3
• Security of communal tenure agreements the best way
forward for sustainable livelihood provision (Lane, 1998)
Case Study - Omaheke District, Eastern Namibia Twyman et al., 2001
• Research Aims • Examine the processes leading to community self-empowerment in
form of community fencing at Okonyoka
• Assess implications of fencing at range of scales and on different
spheres (social, environmental and political)
• Research Methods
• Integrated participatory studies focusing on drought coping strategies,
natural resource changes (spatial and temporal) and social networks
The route to Community Fencing
• External Pressures:
• Govt drought subsidies discourage cattle movements
• Establishment of water committees by Govt (Min of Ag)
• Internal Issues:
• Opening and subsequent settlement of emergency boreholes (Min
of Lands)
• Private fencing by neighbouring village resident
• Resident trained in livestock management - improved local
knowledge base
• Agreed by water committee - funded and built by community enabled by community empowerment encouraged by
Government
Social implications
• Unanimous view of fence as ‘good’ thing despite
financial cost
• Increased sense of community and control over ‘their’
resources
• Key case studies – Younger son and wife - ‘break with father’ and bring cattle to
Okonyoka - community want them to leave
– Eldest son - moved away, but now returned with large no. of
cattle. Dual family rights established
– Female headed households - established subtly next to family
kraal
Environmental implications
• Large area enclosed reducing grazing levels across
many areas
• Mapping shows – Ecological heterogeneity in bush cover
– Return of perennial grass cover to marginal areas improving
rangeland condition for cattle
• Positive environmental effects here at the expense of
neighbouring marginalised groups (ie.  poverty)
Policy implications
• Many other communities discussing community led fencing
• Current gap in policy whereby fencing neither legal or
illegal (leading inadvertently to community empowerment)
now being redressed by Communal land bill
• Ambiguities remain with further provision for subdivision
of communal lands (Lands / Agriculture conflicts)
• As yet, no provision for community land ownership within
policy frameworks
Implications to NGO’s
• Plans to start community land use planning and extend
community natural resource management
• Okonyoka a good case study? But community
empowerment marginalises poorer and more vulnerable
households along the way
• Empowerment process dynamic with notable positive
impacts at local level at expense of marginalised elsewhere
• Growing number of landless and tensions on traditional
drought-coping strategies
Key Associated Reading
For a clearer background to desertification debates you should refer to -
Lane, C.R. (1998) Custodians of the Commons: Pastoral Land Tenure in
East and West Africa. Earthscan. Ch 1.
Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (1996) The Lie of the Land: Challenging
Received Wisdom on the African Environment, James Currey. Ch 1.
Stiles, D. (1995) Social Aspects of Sustainable Dryland Management,
Wiley, Chichester. Chapter 1.
Thomas, D.S.G. and Middleton, N.J. (1994) Desertification: Exploding
the Myth. Wiley, Chichester.Chapters 1 and 4.
Thomas, D.S.G. (1997) Desertification: the uneasy interface between
science, people and environmental issues in Africa. Review of African
Political Economy, 74, 583-589.
Twyman, C., Dougill, A.J., Sporton, D. & Thomas, D.S.G (2001) A
case of community self empowerment, Okonyoka, E.Namibia.
ROAPE - see Nathan Bodington Reading room.