Desertification: An Environmental Problem Hindered by Logistics & Differing Opinions.

According to World Economic Forum journalist Busani Bafana, “3.6 billion hectares of land on Earth are currently either desert or some kind of dryland”. And to make matters worse, desert borders have continued to expand at a rate of about 12 million hectares a year. (Bafana)   

 

Can environmentalists and ecologists combat the spread of desertification without the cooperation of government and the public?

 

In the University of Galati, Romania, researchers Hahuie, Georgescu, Lefter, Emilian & Adriana Dănilă certainly think so. They’ve proposed that the challenge of expanding deserts can be overcome with the implementation of man-made forests.

 

The group began their study with research into the gradual loss of forest land in Romania. They found that over 5,000,000 hectares of forest were lost in the last 100 years alone. (Hahuie, Georgescu, Lefter, Dănilă, Dănilă, 108) Looking into the impact this had on soil degradation, they also discovered that desertification occurred 100-500 times faster in land free of vegetation. (Hahuie, Georgescu, Lefter, Dănilă, Dănilă, 108,112)

 

Desertification is a transition that ecosystems can make from their natural state into a desert or arid dryland. While it’s not clear what exactly causes it, once desertification begins, its negative impacts and cyclical nature make it difficult to stop. In Romania, loss of forest cover increases solar radiation on topsoil. This reduces the soil’s water retention and increases its vulnerability to wind erosion. In addition, any topsoil picked up wind leaves the ground underneath stripped of nutrients and protection. As a result, biological diversity in both plants and animals decrease and limits a forests ability to sustain itself; thus, repeating the cycle once more.

 

Thankfully, not all is doom and gloom in Romania. The Galati researchers proposal does have some interesting implications.

 

For instance, through the replanting of forests, they believe they can re-stabilize the ecosystem. The reintegration of forests would then supplement the soils recovery and protect the region from future threats of desertification. In addition, afforestation near cities and farms were found to have numerous benefits, such serving as a windbreaker, noise reduction, the removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere, temperature reduction and improved agricultural yields of up to 20% in situations where the forests have matured at least 10 years. (Hahuie, Georgescu, Lefter, Dănilă, Dănilă, 110, 111, 112) These results can be used as incentive for public approval, as improved agricultural yields can profits for farmers and the forests can serve as national parks and nature reserves that improve the physical beauty of the country and provide resources for children of the future.

 

However, the researchers of Galatis’ plan is not without fault.

 

One of the biggest challenges to afforestation is funding. Trees cannot simply be planted. They must be cared for through scheduled watering, nutrient supplementation, and regulation to prevent disease and infestation. Furthermore, they take decades to reach full maturation and the introduction of native plantlife and animals must be made at some point for the forest to become self sustainable. With recurring issues such as political division, mismanagement, economic turmoil and damage from surprise weather, the likelihood of securing stable funding over an extended period of time from different regimes of governmental leadership is very low. Planting forests in severely arid regions or land that has completed desertification can also be immensely challenging or nearly impossible.  

 

In addition, forests impede human development. If a city wants to expand or gather nearby wood for resources, they’d have to go through the government for permission. This means that the government will need to implement protective laws as well as fund an organization to manage these challenges and requests.  And if children or livestock get lost in the forest or injured by wild animals in the environment, potential lawsuits for liability are also a necessary consideration.

 

These issues can be seen currently on a global scale as well.

 

In South America, the Amazon Rainforest has been continually cut down to fuel modern expansion and production. This has led to the extinction of numerous species and a process of soil degradation that’s very similar to what’s seen in Romania. However in South America, long periods of drought followed by sudden, intense flooding is also a challenge and concern for afforestation advocates. Trees need to be hardy enough to survive long periods without water and resist being swept away by flash flooding without the buffer of the rainforest. In addition, local farmers prove to be staunch opponents of afforestation. Burned down forest land is highly fertile, and the soil degrades quickly. The farmers using this land often supplement their diminished returns by continuing to expand into new forested areas. This de-incentivises afforestation efforts as any funds put to replanting forests could potentially be lost to them later. And for the development and expansion of cities and infrastructure, cities in South America cut down forests as well. So governments looking long term into environmental sustainability also need to balance that with societal development.

 

Despite all the public and political issues South America has in confronting its afforestation efforts, it’s still more feasible than afforestation efforts seen today China. China has built a “great green wall” of trees and other plant life to halt the expansion of the Gobi desert into northern chinese mainland. However, the lack of rainfall, the massive expanse of the desert border, the harsh winds and the extent of the soil’s deterioration in the region make a long process like afforestation exceedingly difficult and expensive. It is to be seen whether China will have the longevity and fortitude to see the fruits of their investment.

 

Another approach to combating desertification is through governmental initiative on water & land management in conjunction with international cooperation.

 

For example, in Central Asia, the countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all face the threat of worsening desertification in their relatively arid environment. Their mismanagement of water drained their underground reservoirs and led to the rapid desertification of their environment as well as the drying of the Aral Sea. (Cardesa, 204)

 

In response to this ecological crisis, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) gathered multiple investors, donors and international organizations to promote cooperation among these developing countries. In his review of the impact politics have on the environment of Central Asia, Dr. Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann of the University of Strathclyde, found that under the guidence of the UNCCD,  Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan managed to form a collective initiative with their donors called The Central Asian Countries Initiative on Land Management (CACILM). This coalition of countries included several big donors such as the United States, China and Russia. The coalition’s goals were to reduce their use of water and work together in cooperation to efficiently manage their use of other resources. Their belief was that through these efforts, they could reverse the process of desertification and stabilize the region. In return, the five main coalition countries in central asia would receive a combined total of about $1.4 billion dollars from 2006-2016 as incentive and aid to complete assigned coalition objectives. (Cardesa, 217)

 

While the coalition originally showed a lot of progress in the collection of regional data,  numerous issues along the way slowed the actual implementation of CACILM initiatives.

 

One of the issues the coalition had in achieving environmental sustainability was the lack of coordination between neighboring countries. Information regarding regional environmental statistics and individual resource requirements were collected but not shared between coalition members. (Cardesa, 227) This ultimately resulted in political conflicts over water use and differing responses and solutions to problems that required the combined efforts of all coalition members. The five countries failed to cooperate despite their multiple treaties and alliances due to the ethnic tensions and the sense of competition they had with one another. This was apparent from the fact that four of the five coalition members obtained 20-34% of their GDP from agriculture. (Cardesa, 211) The crops each nation grew were in direct competition with one another because their similar environment and history shaped what could possibly be grown. This also led to the continued misuse of water for land irrigation, which was a major issue that was not addressed. Furthermore, their differing concerns about radical islamism to national security and political rivalries for regional leadership also contributed to the coalitions lack of coordination. (Cardesa, 217)

 

It’s important to note that foreign desire to influence and control the region also hampered their efforts of cooperation. (Cardesa, 207) As a region that was once controlled by the USSR for their food production and oil, central asia’s ties to Russia are generally stronger than their ties with other sponsors and donors. This increased competing efforts to garner favor with these countries, resulting unorganized efforts, mixed guidance, and a lack of accountability to punish underwhelming performance. Overall, it’s apparent that government cooperation is vital to any efforts in fighting desertification. However, the logistical challenges of international collaboration has proven to be a thoroughly difficult and complex issue.

 

Of all popular takes on solutions to desertification, the take made by Zimbabwean ecologist Allan Savory is by far the most controversial. To his many followers, he’s a pioneer who paved the way for regenerative agriculture through the use of Holistic Management. Savory believes that the demonization of grazing animals and livestock as a significant contributor to desertification is a fundamental flaw taught in modern ecology. He states that through the continuous controlled grazing patterns of livestock herds, farmers can fertilize soil, impede solar radiation, and break down dead grassland cover to heal threatened environments while sustainably providing meat for the human population.

 

However, to critics of Mr. Savory, Allan is a quack who promotes unproven ecological methods and challenges commonplace ecological practices to make up for his infamous crime of guiding and assisting in the slaughter of 40,000 african elephants in a prior attempt to improve Zimbabwe’s deteriorating grasslands.

In 2013, Mr. Savory presented a Ted Talk that claimed that desert algae crusts were a cancer to threatened grasslands and that Holistic Planned Grazing was the solution to the world’s  problems regarding desertification. His claims resulted in a massive outcry of protest from the ecological world. Websites like slate.com claimed that Allans perception of algae crusts was misguided, as algae crusts serve as the foundation and beginning of arid sand and rock’s millenia long transformation into regular soil.

 

This rebuttal is brutally and vehemently refuted by biologist and follower of Allan’s theory Holistic Management Sheldon Frith.

 

In 2015, Firth gave a steaming review and rebuttal to slate.com and other websites that challenged the validity of Savory’s theories. Firth stated that no matter the situation, desert algae is a pest to grasslands ecosystems because it blocks rainwater from entering and absorbing into the ground, prevents seeds from other species of plants from germinating and limits the biodiversity and usable resources in arid grasslands. (Frith) Frith also made multiple references to other studies to explain how Holistic Planned Grazing was a successful technique that has been used in over 40 million acres worldwide and in some cases, showed an 87% increase in harvestable cows, an 85% increase in local biodiversity and a 68% decrease in soil erosion. (Frith)

 

While Frith thoroughly refutes and discredits the slate author with an onslaught of case studies, articles, statistics and photographic comparisons, it’s important to note that over half of Friths references are linked to projects written by other holistic managers Frith has worked with or to articles written by Frith himself. (Frith) This presents a conflict of interest that challenges Friths credibility despite Friths presentation of overwhelming evidence. In addition, there’s a clear personal vendetta presented by Frith towards the other authors due to the opposing authors challenging the principles and way of life that Frith has learned from Savory and currently utilizes in his career. This can be seen by Frith’s mean-spirited rebuttal that utilizes multiple cases of sarcasm and name calling to discredit his opponent. (Frith) Overall, the heated debate between Frith and the opponents of Allan Savory’s theory of Holistic Management is not an isolated situation. The implications of providing discredited data, unproven or handpicked statistics lacking context, or debasing and belittling ideological opponents is a problem seen not only in the controversial debate between classical and Holistic practicing ecologists but also in every level of any scientific, political, or public forum related to the dilemma of desertification. (Bettini, Andersson, 172) It is evident that there is simply no consensus on what is the correction solution to desertification, much less a correct approach.

So why does desertification matter? If desertification is a natural process, then wouldn’t nature naturally correct itself over time? These are common questions that many people in less arid environments often make.

It is through these notions that Dr. Giovanni Bettini and Dr. Elina Andersson began to challenge the practicality, feasibility and rationality of the desertification crisis. To them, the main issue with trying to solve desertification is that scientists and politicians alike often oversimplify the causes and propose a one size fits all universal solution.

 

For example, they claim that improper land management as a cause of desertification is an oversimplification of societal influences on desertification. (Bettini, Andersson, 166) This is a fact of the matter. A less talked about fact is that humans can impact the rate of desertification indirectly from their production of greenhouse gasses, which increase the average global temperature and exacerbate drought in desert areas. In addition, our inability to distinguish the long term issue of desertification from the short term problem of drought has led to improper use of short term solutions in long term situations such as green walls in China. (Bettini, Andersson, 171) From inferences like these, the scientific community and the governments they serve should understand that desertification is likely caused by a multitude of reasons. The simplification of the problem and the solution is simply a waste of time and resources.

 

However, this does not mean that we should ignore looming threat of desertification. Desertification is a global issue that affects not only arid climates like the African Sahara, but also humid climates such as Italy and South America. Even in fields not financially influenced by climate change, there are professionals such as geographer Luca Salvati that say that increasingly common soil degradation processes such as erosion, the retreat of plant-life, improper disposal of waste products, a decline in biodiversity, salinization of soil, floods, and landslides all contribute towards desertification in the world. (Salvati, 648) Desertification has a direct affect on our ability to survive and grow as a species. It destabilizes governments, increases poverty rates and reduces our ability to grow food. These impacts will inevitably displace people from their native homelands and exacerbate our current refugee situation, which the UNCCD states increased from 222 million in 2010 to 244 million in 2015 and continues to rise to this day. (Bafana) Desertification if not an unbeatable task. Even on a local level, people can help by making compost to strengthen local topsoil or make “salt traps, which prevent salts from reaching the surface of the soil and also help to inhibit water loss”. (Britannica)

 

In the end, neither the exact cause of desertification nor a definitive solution to it has been agreed upon. However, it is clear that desertification is a threat to human interests and is a problem that cannot be solved without the combined efforts of government, scientists and the public at large.

 

Bibliography

 

Hahuie, Valentin, Emilian & Adriana Dănilă, Georgescu, Lucian, Lefter, Dănuţ.

“Desertification – Causes, Solutions to Reduce the Phenomenon and the Benefits of Afforestation.” Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati: Fascicle II, Mathematics, Physics, Theoretical Mechanics, vol. 37, 2014 Special Issue 2014, pp. 106–120. EBSCOhost, ccny-prox]1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=110689265&site=ehost-live.

 

Cardesa-Salzmann, Antonio. “Combating Desertification in Central Asia: Finding New

Ways to Regional Stability through Environmental Sustainability?” Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 13, no. 1, Mar. 2014, pp. 203–231. EBSCOhost, ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=95756285&site=ehost-live.

Frith, Sheldon. “Why the Slate Article About Allan Savory is Dead Wrong.”

regenerateland.com, 14, December 2015. Web. 8th October 2018. http://www.regenerateland.com/why-the-slate-article-about-allan-savory-is-dead-wrong/

Bettini, Giovanni, and Elina Andersson. “Sand Waves and Human Tides: Exploring

Environmental Myths on Desertification and Climate-Induced Migration.” Journal of Environment & Development, vol. 23, no. 1, Mar. 2014, pp. 160–185. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1070496513519896.

 

Salvati, Luca, et al. “Amplifying (or Reversing) the Territorial Disparities in Land

Vulnerability to Soil Degradation: The Case of Italy.” Professional Geographer, vol. 65, no. 4, Nov. 2013, pp. 647–663. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00330124.2012.724351.

Rafferty, John, and Pimm, Stuart. “Desertification.” Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. 29, Jan.

2018. Web. 23 Oct. 2018. https://www.britannica.com/science/desertification

Bafana, Busani. “The High Price of Desertification: 23 Hectares of Land a Minute.” Inter

Press Service. 15 Jun. 2017. Web. 30 Oct. 2018. http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/06/the-high-price-of-desertification-23-hectares-of-land-a-minute/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-high-price-of-desertification-23-hectares-of-land-a-minute