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 socio environmental reality?

– See Discussions in text by Thomas and Middleton (1994)

Desertification: Exploding the Myth

Chapter 1 and 4

,

or article by Thomas (1998) @ http://www.shef.ac.uk/panrusa/

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 – Identify appropriate scales of remedial action

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 -

• Research Aims -

Twyman

et al

., 2001

• 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.