Shengjian Wu Matrikelnummer: 3808209 Seminar: GEO 81. Global Environmental Change Docent: Prof. Dr.

Volker Hochschild Status: 24. January 2013

Desertification: An Underestimated Problem?

An evaluation essay on Mrs. Pamela Chaseks article The Convention to Combat Desertification

The main opinions of Mrs. Chasek on the desertification According to Mrs. Chasek, the CCD1 - the first international environmental convention with regard to the socio-economic conditions of developing countries, havent improved the global awareness about the impacts of desertification. While in reality, desertification shall be a joint challenge for the most countries with potential large deterioration for our common natural lifesupport system. Thus, a well-functioned global mechanism for solving the desertification is urgently expected. Mrs. Chasek also noticed that both Agenda 21 and CCD brought climate change and improper human agricultural activities in less-humid areas into the causes of desertification, while the socioeconomic and political factors have been largely overlooked. The latent underlying factors include intensified resource crisis due to population growth, ecologically irrational political decisions, fast-spreading cultivation of cash crops, the developedcountries-biased international capitalism and the expensive technological barriers. The INCD that intended for assignment of international conventions was also criticized for the division of positions. The differentiation of positions was rather constructed on the basis of economic interdependence than ecological interdependence. Thus, the rich and tech-superior OECD group could still steer the negotiation with superior economic influence in spite of the larger amount of votes from the developing countries. But Mrs. Chasek reinsured that the ecological interdependence among the nations was indeed a series of consequences of the biosphere of all humanity. As a deep-going clarification, she continued to point out the main gaps between the different camps during the negotiation of INCD, in which the G-77, OECD countries, China and occasionally the mostly affected Africans have revealed greater differentiation. At each stages of INCD program, these camps argued about the periodic draft, ranging from object of the poverty eradication and sustained economic growth from the South

CCD here refers to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification that was drafted on June 17, 1994 in Paris.

side to a more pertinent convention of combating desertification from the North side. The objective gaps reflected the most urgent interests of each group at present stage. This debate was furthered in the following contents like general obligations and national action programs. Mrs. Chasek indicated that although a package of articles and paragraphs have reached to a extent the international consensus at the end of negotiation; their reluctant acceptance still represented a certain degree of distrust between developed and developing countries. The developing countries expected a more mobilized financial channel and better attend on the regional implementation with concern about socioeconomic issues. However, they wondered whether the North camp would improve the international economic order with all strength. The North-South gaps may be originated from their perspectives and priorities towards environmental problems. The South camp tended to view social and economic development as prior to environmental protection, while the north camp insisted on its unambiguous object of combating desertification. The negotiations of INCD could have been unexpectedly hindered by the Rio Spirit, which advocated common but differentiated responsibilities. Mrs. Chasek concluded that on account of the lessons from INCD, an effective international convention should be fulfilled through the cross-sectoral cooperation with a supranational international regime based on international law enforcement. Evaluation about the efficiency of international convention through cooperation of states Empirical studies of Mrs. Chasek have pointed out the poor results of international negotiation on desertification issue. However, from my point of views, it doesnt mean that a proper international convention cant be reached in form of intergovernmental negotiation. The unexpected performance of existing conventions just reminds us about necessary efforts on building up some indispensible precondition for a well-functioned international mechanism. To clarify the original motivations of affected countries in participating in the international conventions, we can draw support from two typical political approaches of international relations: neorealist and neoliberalist approach. From the neorealist perspective, the state behaviors may be constrained by the anarchical international structure and these states will act according to the logic of self-help2. It explains well why the developing countries seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest of regional development to that of combating the desertification persistently from the North camp. While the neoliberalist approach suggests that
The Self-Help Logic gains recently more popularity in Africa, a non-governmental intuition named Self Help Africa guided people to plant tree seedlings, construct and check dams on their own, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where rapid population growth occurred in last decades. It works directly in prevention of soil degradation and desertification. (www.selfhelpafrica.org)
2

nation-states should be concerned first and foremost with absolute collective benefits rather than relative gains to other nation-states. This theory may be applied by the developed countries to convince the most affected developing countries to rethink about the collective gains from combating desertification in a long run. With the help of these two approaches to explain the state-behaviors, we can easily detect that there are two twisted questions that stay unsettled in the desertification issue. The first question is how can the negotiators turn the anarchical international order into a more equal and justified mechanism with autonomy? Especially in the international trade and commerce, since the global production networks (GPNs) are the dominant contributor to shape and maintain the regional agriculture structure with comparative advantages. Two direct physical causes of desertification, deforestation and irrational land-use for massive cash crop production, are actually resulted from the GPNs distribution of value chains in global scope. The second question is how can the negotiators make the collective gains in combating desertification more practical and visible for the affected countries? As we may know, the distrust from the South camp side is rooted deeply in the latent conflicts between regional economic growth and persistent fights against desertification. These two approaches confirm the omission of socioeconomic factors in desertification issue and the mainstream convention with precautions on physical causes shall make a U-turn. No progress can be made, unless the convention will start to conquer the two twisted puzzles above. The desertification processed as a chain action at international level: the unequal global economic development led to an uneven distributed globalized division of labor, the resulting formation of market hegemony 3 would strengthen the dominant position of developed countries, while of course the market hegemony could have easier access to more advanced technology and higher productivity that prevent the efforts of subordinated countries climbing up the hierarchical ladder. The global climate change is just an outer catalyzer or a projector lamp that express the sharpness of desertification. Thus we can make a clear-cut that the negotiating power of states acts like the bargaining power of markets. The failed cooperation of states just expresses the failed coping with rational market logic through neoliberal political approach. But the answers are about to be found out, if we explore an alternative more

The discourse of Market hegemony criticized the economic relationship between South and North that existed in the 20th century under the dollar dominance. Rather than purchasing power extracted and transferred between countries merely through pricing mechanism, the North camp may also apply other intervention strategies like unfair treaties and technics monopoly to maintain the comparative disadvantages in international market. (How Desertification Works, by Dave Roos, August, 2009)

environment-friendly market rationality mechanism with the neoliberal approach. So that the end state of desertification of this chain action can be ceased. Suggestion on market rationality mechanism We strongly suggest a transit from economic blindness to ecologic awareness for the local market of drylands. As for a small number of nomadic groups who live relatively selfsufficiently, the know-hows and law enforcement on environmental protections are needed. Above all, environmental legitimacy in developing countries faces weak implementation at local level, mainly because of its lack in available stimulus. This legitimate framework is characterized rather as negative stimulus (punishing) than as positive stimulus (rewarding), in this sense, environmental subsidy is necessary for local states to reward the effective implementation of local actors. But the conceptual subsidy shall not be narrowly defined as financial resources, other positive stimuli like preferential duty, privileged Land Development Right, free administrative accreditation can also encourage the local actor, especially the medium-sized and small enterprises who are traditionally less motivated to apply high-cost environmental protection. Under this circumstance, the North camp is obligatory to support the South camp to unbind the outer barriers. The transnational companies shall also be covered in the convention for their general omission of low-value production chains in affected areas. This internal relationship can be proved in case of Gipsons wood suppliers in eastern Africa. Secondly, we can place our hope on the development of environmental economics. Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. In the desertification issue, we can testimony how the technology threshold and know-how barrier has contributed to the poor use of local agricultural resources, while the international institutions struggled for a technology transfer as prevention strategy at the meantime. The impacts of a desertification-related choice of local actors on the local ecosystem are not accounted for in the market price, but environmental economics tries to produce sufficient incentives to create a potential market, in which the Common property - land, air, hydrology, vegetation is capable of capturing the social benefits of its provision. Prevention is a lot more cost-effective than rehabilitation, and the environmental economics should be taken into account in policy decisions. The pragmatic price system of environmental economics can be set up through more investment in assessment of desertification risks, modification of legal framework to highlight the losses of desertification and convention involving more Green accounting institutions. 4

Reference:
Dave Roos (August.2009), How Desertification Works, Digital Journal of MarketSkeptics Thomson, James T. (1977), Ecological Deterioration: Local-Level Rule-Making and Enforcement Problems in Niger, in Glantz, Michael H. (ed.), Desertification: Environmental Degradation in and around Arid Lands, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 57-79. Pamela S. Chasek.( June 1997), The Convention to Combat Desertification: Lessons Learned for Sustainable Development, The Journal of Environment & Development