Strategies to Converge Land Conservation Policy and Actions with Soil Sciences in Southern Mediterranean Countries
BASIM AHMAD DUDEEN
Land Research Center-Jerusalem
lrc@palnet.com , basim@lrcj.org
Introduction:
The world is experiencing a dramatic increase of negative human interference with nature. This is mainly due to the rapid technological developments, which enable to introduce major changes on the natural systems in a short time. Economical growth, policy regulations, trade expansion, population explosion in some places, large scale migration, tourism, urban expansion and land use competition are some of the driving forces, which are changing nature in increasing rates by the over-exploitation of its resources. Vegetation, soil, water and climate are the main components of the environment that are being affected1,2.
Soil degradation is one of the main advesre results of the above mentioned driving forces and pressures. Soil degradation refers to a decline in soil's productivity through deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological soil properties. Common degradation processes and causes are water and wind erosion, compaction, crusting, salinization, alkalization, acidification, leaching, fertility depletion, loss of organic matter, and soil pollution. Soil quality is strongly dependent on the degree of these soil degradation processes, land use and management practices3.
Soil is an essential driver of quality of life, health, food security and it is a pillar for economic development. "Agriculture has for a long time been based on the notion of the soil as an inexhaustible resource for continually increasing production. On the contrary, because of its very slow formation rate (100-400 years/cm of topsoil), soil must be considered as a non-renewable resource and must be preserved. Also, soils are a geogenic and cultural heritage, forming an essential part of the landscape in which we live and containing palaeontological and archaeological treasures of high value for the understanding of the history of earth and mankind"3.
The land field involves much more than soil chemistry, physics, pedology, suitability, etc. It encompasses, in addition to its technical and science aspects, political, social, environmental, economic and institutional dimensions. Political dimension plays an important role in land sector, since the majority of people live in river basin shared by two or more nations. Therefore, much more is needed on the multidisciplinary and integrated nature of land sector and focus should be directed to these dimensions for more effective policy making.
Research is financed and undertaken to contribute to the progress of the human kind. Its efficiency is measured by the degree of its impact and mobilisation of its generated knowledge. It is well known that huge amount of work conducted by researchers does not have its proper and effective way to policymakers. Also, if the research results reach the policymakers, the impeded knowledge in these results is not properly mobilised. It is evident that there are inadequate and inefficient coordination, collaboration and communication between researchers and policy makers as well as with other social solidarities. Therefore, there is a need to expand and deepen active collaborations among researchers, policymakers and practicioners in harnessing science and technology for sustainable development5.
Land conservation policy making in developing countries is still ad hoc and does not fully use research based information. One of the main reasons for this is the weak linkages between researchers, especially the policy research community, and policy makers. The low level of the perception by decision makers and the public about the processes and the impacts of desertification are serious obstacles toward effective land policy making.
Management of natural resources is on the frontline of the struggle for more sustainable and equitable development. All our actions ultimately have consequences on the quality and quantity of natural resources on the planet. Land degradation is one of the first indications of unsustainable social and economic systems. Development of local and regional actions to narrow the gap between research community and other social solidarities, especially the policy makers, is desperately needed and of paramount importance.
The overall objective of this paper is to address broad issues of integrated natural resources management (land and water) in the context of sustainable agricultural production and environmental protection. Strategic options to help advance sustainable development within the integrated approach would occupy the core of this paper. This paper is mainly dependent on the ideas extracted from a critical review done recently by a panel of experts for EU-INCO for the purpose of evaluating water research projects with relevance to Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach done in the period 1994-2006 (FP4-FP6)6.
Land Degradation and Research in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (SEM) Countries at a Glance:
Little reliable data is available on the extent of land degradation in SEM countries. However, anyone who has travelled through the region can observe that land degradation is widespread and serious. The presence of gullies, sand dunes, degraded forests and grazing lands are obvious, although the effects of sheet erosion and declining soil fertility are less noticeable. Though degradation is largely man-made, and hence its pace is governed primarily by the speed at which population pressure mounts, irregular natural events, such as droughts, exacerbate the situation.
Figure 1: Map of SEM Countries Involved in the Report (Source: UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan, 1997).
The devastating consequences of desertification are evidenced by the destruction of ancient civilisations. Six thousand years ago in Mesopotamia (the Middle East), food production and Sumerian culture declined as poor irrigation practices led to huge tracts of land becoming salinised. The political, military and economic decline of Assyria and Babylonia some three thousand years ago coincided with a notable period of warming and drying in the region7.
By the year 2025, an estimated 57 percent of the populations of developing countries are expected to live in urban areas, compared with 34 percent at present. Accelerated demand for agricultural products has exerted ever-increasing pressures on the natural resource base, resulting in excessive deforestation, loss of biological diversity, degradation of soils and various forms of pollution and contamination. Unfortunately, these practices have taken a toll on soil fertility and the integrity of agro-ecosytems. One estimate holds that two-thirds of agricultural land has been degraded in the last 50 years as a result of erosion, salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion and pollution.1,7
Desertification is considered one of the most serious problems facing the Mediterranean region today. Every year, Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco lose around 54237, 18000 and 2200 hectares of land through erosion, respectively8. The economic and human costs of desertification are enormous. Tunisia alone spends US$100 million on efforts to combat desertification9.
In the Mediterranean, a large part of the population lives in arid areas that can become deserts: up to 78% in Morocco and Tunisia9. Other Southern Mediterranean countries have very high rates of desertification and desertification risk; 90% of Libya is desertified, the remaining 10% is in danger of desertification. In the East, according to Akrimi (2000)10 Syria has the lowest rate of desertification, only 9.9% of the land is desertified, although 58.8% is in danger. Table 1* indicates in figures the volume of soil degradation problem in some Mediterranean countries.
* Source: UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan, 1997.
Table 1: Soil erosion and disposal of Phosphorous (P), Nitrogen (N), and Organic Carbon to the Mediterranean Sea coming from farming lands.
In Southern and Eastern countries, there are 16 million hectares of salinised lands. In Egypt alone, where 100% of the farming lands is under threat, there are 7.4 million ha10. Salinisation problems are worsened by the excessive use of fertilizers. The soil degradation is estimated at 1.2% of the Gross Domestic Product in Egypt11.
It should be noted that the overall funding of the land conservation and anti-desertification programmes in SEM is far from encouraging. UNEP has estimated that anti-desertification programmes in developing countries require a minimum of US $ 4.5 billion a year for a period of 20 years to make a significant impact. In 1990, UNEP found that the maximum funds which could be realized each year for such programmes amounted to only US$600 million, far less than required11. Figure 2 displays the lending money of the World Bank for various environmetal related sectors12.
Figure 2: The lending money of the World Bank for various environmetal related sectors
At the end of June 2002, World Bank environmental lending in the Middle East and North Africa Region (excluding GEF) totaled $591 million. The bulk of the lending is in the water resources management and pollution management categories12.
SEM region is disproportionately endowed with natural resources, being the world's richest in oil and gas reserves and one of the poorest in renewable water resources. It continues to rely excessively on natural resources for its sustainable development. SEM countries share the following long-standing environmental issues, which only differ by magnitude and severity between the countries:
· Water scarcity and quality.
· Land and coastal degradation and desertification.
· Urban and industrial pollution.
· Weak institutional and legal framework.
Despite significant and steady improvements over
the past decades, future generations in SEM countries will continue to face
serious environmental challenges, including declining per capita water
resources, pollution-related health problems, and weak environmental
institutions and legal frameworks. The region also is threatened by the loss of
arable land and increased coastal degradation, which are caused principally by
unsustainable agricultural practices and unmanaged competition for land and
water resources. Permanent cropland, currently less than 6 percent of the total
land area, is shrinking due to serious land degradation and recurrent droughts13.
SEM countries suffer from the least water availability per capita compared with any other region in the world. It has less than 1% of the world's freshwater resources and 5% of the world population. Water problems are exacerbated by pollution from human activities that negatively affects water quality and can further lower the available water quantities. These challenges will get worse in the future, as population increases, overexploitation of current water resources and pollution continues, and the corresponding demand for more freshwater continues to be on the rise5.
The period since the 1977 World Conference on Desertification has shown that very little is known about the processes of desertification and land degradation themselves. Basic research must precede the monitoring that is such a popular cause among the desertification organizations. We cannot know what to monitor if we don't understand the basic processes, and their impact on people's lives. What the stories of failure do suggest is that research has been misdirected in the past. Research now needs to be both more scientific, and more applicable. Moreover, even if it is true that enough is known to begin the rehabilitation of drylands, it is doubtful if there is enough scientific knowledge and technology to sustain the improvement, and then to go on to create prosperous dryland communities14.
In spite of the broad spectrum of research topics covered, there are still topics which receive less attention than others. The following research gaps would be identified:
- Communication and information systems required to bring the message of proper land management to both end users and policy makers.
- Assessment of the socioeconomic benefits and costs of different scenarios or systems of land development.
Despite the tremendous efforts exerted by scientists and engineers for land conservation by inserting several new techniques and innovative measures, there are still indications that the land degradation is increasing and the available land for agriculture is becoming lower each year despite all these measures.
It is difficult to set one single recipe to solve this exacerbating land degradation problem due to the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of land sector. However, there are indications that we are facing evident shortcomings in some strongly relevant domains. Of these important domains is the translation and utilisation of land and soil research results into practical and fruitful outcomes. This is clearly manifested in the policy research area which should help in the formulation of land conservation policies and strategies which is an integral part of each country comprehensive policies and strategies.
General Background of the Land Degradation Trends:
The history of man’s intervention on the land of the Mediterranean suggests that human pressures have followed a non-linear increasing trend since the Neolithic Age with several interruptions. Periods of low human activities allowed the recovery of some natural ecosystems. Human pressures have been enormously intensified during the last 50 years so that it is possible to say: there are no remaining pure natural ecosystems in the Mediterranean today7.
Desertification, of course, did not begin with the recent drought. Archaeological records suggest that SEM’s arid areas have been getting progressively drier over the past 5,000 years. What is new is the coincidence of drought with the increasing pressures put on fragile arid and semi-arid lands by mounting numbers of people and livestock. This is basically what is accelerating land degradation throughout much of Southern Mediterranean7.
There have been social incentives, which encouraged the farmers to move to urban centers, which are more attractive to them. By 1990 between 10 and 20 percent of agricultural land in the Mediterranean countries was abandoned15. Land abandonment has been considered as important cause of desertification, but in reality this is not always true, because in many cases recovery of the natural systems follows it. Whether an abandoned agricultural land will move towards recovery or desertification depends on the state of the land at the time of its abandonment and on what follows afterwards.
The most vulnerable lands to further degradation are those on sloping terrain and shallow soils, which have been stabilized by erosion control terraces. These lands are at metastable equilibrium, which exists only as long as the terraces are attended and damages are repaired. Upon abandonment, terraces brake and accelerated erosion begins to remove the soil from them16.
Climate change has the main physical adverse effects on land degradation. The contemporary climate of the area follows a warming and drying path. Statistics indicate that a general warming trend started around 100 years ago and it has not been reversed. The period of 1931-60 had been one of the warmest during the last 500 years17. There are also long periods of drought. Yearly rainfall is irregularly distributed, particularly in the drier zones. The most recent climatic simulations, with reference to the temporal horizon of 2025-2050, produced Mediterranean scenarios with temperature increases in the winter between 1.5° and 3.5° C, and in the summer from 0.6° to 1° C. There is not yet agreement as to the sign and the extent of the precipitation variations at the Mediterranean basin level because of the intrinsic difficulty in simulating the hydrological cycle on climatic time scales17.
Drought is a normal climatic feature of the Mediterranean countries that also strikes non-arid areas when precipitation is sensibly lower than normally recorded levels. Drought has no predictable patterns of occurrence and has serious ecological, economical and sociological effects. Drought may influence the degree of territorial degradation mainly by causing damage to agricultural and livestock production activities.
Rain’s erosivity is due to the intensity of the precipitation. When short but intense rain falls on soils unprotected by vegetation coverage, the impact of raindrops and the subsequent sheet and rill erosion removes the soil’s surface layer that is rich in organic material. Arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid areas are exposed to the risk of short but intense rains that, instead of mitigating the effects of the scarcity of rainfall, cause erosive phenomena, thus opening the way for desertification.
The above described physical factors make a large part of the Mediterranean lands vulnerable to desertification. Combating desertification, is just a part of a much broader objective: the sustainable development of countries affected by drought and desertification. Remedial and preventive actions to combat desertification have been undertaken by all SEM countries13. Some of actions had been taken before desertification was recognized as a threat to societies. There were technical and legislative measures that targeted toward the control of soil erosion, salinization, water supply, forest protection and reforestation. At the present, both governmental and non-governmental agencies are involved in the battle against land degradation. Efforts are made both at the national and international levels.
A conjugate situation that helps in understanding the land management paradigms is the comprehension of how water resource management at the global and the local levels changed6. It is vital to be familiar with the trajectories and paradigms of land management as a result of the ideas and new technologies associated with modernity era. An important dimension of such analysis is also helpful in explaining why trajectories of investment and development have diverged between the North and the South at the start of late modernity in the North since the late 1970s6. Water scientists and engineers solve problems and were able to be very competent in early modernity. Stakeholders represented in politicians, engineers, farmers and food consumers were all certain that the progressively larger withdrawals of water were good. This is accompanied by industrial modernity and is called the hydraulic mission.
Figure3: Trajectories of freshwater use in the Northern and the Southern economies over the past two centuries (courtesy ref 6).
Before about 1980 ‘certainty’ prevailed that capturing more water for food and fibre production was sound. The messages raised by the green movement in the west, shifted the emphasis of the water discourse from ‘certainty’ to ‘uncertainty’. This notion of uncertainty about the soundness of the hydraulic mission had gained such significance by the beginning of late modernity. Uncertainty became the dominant mindset underpinning water resource allocation in the North.
In the South, on the other hand, there remains a commitment to taking more water out of the environment. This is adopted in order to further increase the output of food to meet rising food demands, to avoid dependence on imports, and to increase the wealth of the respective economies as a whole. It is worth mentioning that the Southern economies achieved spectacular increases in production, by four and five times in the major grains, between 1961 and the end of century. This increase in the production resulted mainly from the following:
- increased freshwater use ;
- the expansion of the rain-fed area of crop production ;
- increased efficiencies in the use of land and water and
- the effective use of other inputs such as energy and fertilizers.
This general background about the natural resources management paradigms is aiming at providing a perception about the tools with which it may be possible to address the problem of understanding and predicting natural resources management and related policy-making processes. This background would establish theoretical linkages with culture, society and political economy being included as essential elements of a larger analytical framework. Also, this linkage has proved to be an attractive intuitive explanation of how communities would react to resource scarcity5.
Strategies to Converge Soil Science with Local and Regional Actions and Land Conservation Policies:
There are many strategic options that would be implemented or adopted to converge the research dimensions relevant to soil science with local and regional actions and land conservation policies. These strategic options are of multidisciplinary nature and not inclusive to the technical aspects of land conservation. The following are some important strategic options that would narrow the gap between land conservation research outcomes and policymaking process:
Constructive Engagement:
The problems of soil degradation are caused by the competition between the different forms of land use. Therefore, new perceptions and concepts for sustainable land use should be developed, which are in conformity with these constraints.
For those working in the land sector as scientists, practitioners and educators, sustainable integrated land management is perceived to be driven mainly by technical and economic fundamentals, enriched by a measure of increased environmental awareness. The problem with this understanding and with the international Integrated Land Resources Management (ILRM) discourse is that it has ignored the political dimension. In this regard, it was found necessary to comprehensively define some essential concepts like ‘sustainability’, ‘integration’ and ‘management’.
Sustainability, integration and management:
There are a variety of definitions for sustainability. These definitions are dependent on the degree to which the concept is seen as limited to the environment, or a specific domain, or broadened to include the areas of social justice and other human activities. One of the most broadly accepted definitions was developed in 1987, when the World Commission on Environment and Development, agreed on a definition of sustainable development: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The sustainability term is an essential component of any analysis of land policy. However, it can be misleading and have inefficient analysis if it is restricted to the land technical aspects and environment. An operational notion of sustainability is captured in the larger context of the sustainability of society, the economy as well as the environment. The concept of sustainability is very rich indeed if this threefold context is adopted6. Sustainability is a discursive outcome of the contending articulated concerns of society, those involved in the economy and those anxious about the status of the environment; therefore, its definition is a dynamic one. The fundamental collision between proponents of growth-based solutions and no growth or almost-no-growth-based solutions remains at the heart of the sustainability debate. "Sustainable development" is definitely meant as an alternative to growth, not as a semantic replacement.
Technological innovation and application has also done much to make agriculture more sustainable. New technologies have enabled a doubling of food production in the world in just 25 years, with more than 90 per cent of this growth deriving from yield increases and less than 10 per cent from area expansion. More recently, the dissemination of Integrated Pest Management approaches has enabled pesticide application to be cut dramatically with no less of productivity. Despite such remarkable progress, it may be a mistake to place too much optimism in technological change13.
Sustainability indicators can be of many kinds: physio-biotic or socio-economic. Depending on the type of land use or non-use, and analogous to the listing of land qualities, physio-biotic indicators can be mainly land cover related (constancy of the natural vegetation structure or of its biodiversity), land surface related (absence of wind or water erosion, constancy of runoff), soil quality related (absence of human-induced salinization, acidification, compaction or loss of soil biologic activity) and substratum related (absence of human-induced water logging or pollution, constancy of depth and quality of groundwater) 18.
Among the socio-economic sustainability indicators one can use the absence of rural migrations to urban centers, the stability or increase in rural labor opportunities for all of working age, the constancy or increase in primary school attendance, the maintenance of food sufficiency and well-balanced diets, stable herd structures in grazing areas, the absence or decrease of unhealthy conditions within rural population groups, harmonious relations between different land users over use issues.18
Figure 4:Tthree dimensions of land sustainability – social, economic and environmental.
In this context, sustainable land use and protection of soil can be defined as the spatial (local or regional) and temporal harmonization of all main uses of soil and land, minimizing irreversible effects. This is a political rather than a scientific issue4.
ILRM is composed of another two dimensions: integration and management. Integration implies getting all stakeholders to work together; integrating the competing interests of different stakeholders is very political indeed. Management is also political in the sense that within the rational implementation of a reform agenda in the land sector, there will be a need to have clear and efficient land use planning.
The principle of integration aims primarily at integrating the immediate, medium- and long-term needs of the population. The immediate needs are food, health, education and financial income while the medium- and long-term needs are generally less identifiable and more vaguely expressed, and include rehabilitation and management of available natural resources.
In the past, natural resources and their use tended to be dealt with in a mono-disciplinary and single resource manner, both conceptually and during design and execution of field programmes. The need for a holistic and integrated approach is now fully felt and understood. If the term "land" is used in a more narrow sense, it would comprise only soil and topography or landform. In that case, vegetation or land use, plant nutrient sources and water-related attributes would be identified as separate features, but all these elements should still be considered in relation to each other and evaluated in a landscape-ecological framework. To avoid undesirable effects from human activities involving land-water linkages, an integrated approach has to be taken to land and water and their uses. The integrity of the water cycle makes the watershed the desirable spatial unit for conceptual integration.19
Land management would be strongly related to the framework of ‘four ways of life’ identified by Douglas20. It is possible to adopt Thompson framework to be particularly relevant to the land sector21. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that there are three social solidarities that shape the politics of land use and management:
- the institutions in the public sector -hierarchism- which are the dominant providers of land use plans and regulatory regimes ;
- the private sector firms and local entrepreneurs that provide some services and a high proportion of construction capacity ;
- The civil movement bodies that advocate land related environmental and human rights ethics and play a social audit role.
The purpose of identifying these social solidarities is to establish their relevance to a sound and possibly an operational ILRM approach.
Figure 5: Social Solidarities.
To be operational and effective ILRM has to be constructively engaged. That is, ILRM practice must involve inputs from all social solidarities and must also be ethic and gender sensitive. This analogy leads to coining the term Constructively Engaged Integrated Land Resources Management – CE-ILRM.
The adoption of CE-ILRM approach represents the extra mile that needs to be travelled to ensure that ILRM is operationalised, enables communication and achieves impact within shortened time frames. Such constructive engagement offers the greatest chance of bridging the gap between the fundamentals of society and nature investigated by science and the perceptions of in society, which are politically constructed and driven by culture, societal context and history6.
The lack of CE-ILRM often leads to the following results6:
· fragmented institutional structures
· a sector-by-sector management approach and overlapping ;
· conflicting decision-making structures,
· diversion of public resources for private gain,
· Unpredictability in the application of laws, regulations and licensing practices, which impede markets.
It is clear that integrated approaches to natural resources management are needed which take into consideration the land and water linkages in a spatial context. However, there is a lack of understanding of the linkages between the hydrological, geomorphological, and pedological processes and the plant nutrition dynamics at landscape level, as well as the implications of soil and water resources conservation and development in whole river-basin environments.
Constructive engagement would be achieved by establishing an efficient and creative communication among social solidarities. Researchers are distributed among the three effective social solidarities of land management. Research is not a final goal in itself but is implemented to contribute to the prosperity of human being. The issue of communicating water research results is very critical in policy adoption and knowledge mobilisation « state-of-the-art research needs state-of-the-art communication and knowledge mobilisation strategies to achieve impact »12. Research results should be widely and effectively communicated to policy-makers, to the technical community, to local water users and managers, to the education sector and to the private sector. The research should have impacts on capacity building, on the advancement of land management via innovative knowledge generation and its use to support solving problems.
Policymakers always want the right information, in the right form, at the right time. The right form depends on the policymakers’ background and perspective. The right time, depends on the stage of the policy making process which can be divided into the following stages22:
· policy agenda development;
· specific objectives and policy options identification ;
· options evaluation ;
· recommendation advancement ;
· consensus building ;
· legislation set up ;
· policy implementation ;
· policy evaluation and impact assessment.
The following are extremely important aspects that should be taken into consideration to have the best chance for research outputs to find their way into the policy formulation process:
- Research results always written in a language very well appealing to other researchers but indigestible to policymakers. Most policymakers do not read lengthy research reports especially when written in a language with different groups in mind. The translation process for research result has to attract the attention of policy makers in addition to the simplification of displaying these results.
- The value of researches is implied in being inserted into the political process at the right time. To have the best chance for research outputs to find their way into the policy formulation process is to be inserted while this process is between stages one to four. Once research results lead to policy action, then researches have achieved their goals.
- « The ‘container theory’ of communication usually assumes ideal conditions: a sender packs the information he or she wants to convey into a container and passes it to a receiver who unpacks it and immediately understands the full content »12. Research results and the fundamental concepts behind them must be explained clearly and reinforced on a face to face basis with ample room for discussion.
- The other essential important approach to conveying research results to policy makers is via media. There is a natural interest of people and policy makers in particular, with issues raised by the media. The media makes different issues attaining high public profile which is of paramount importance to policymakers and parties. At the same time, the presentation of water issues in the media should be able to attract attention. This is another issue related to the professionalism of the mass media and the vision of technicians to make it booming.
Developing an effective means of communication entails the precise definition of the target audience and characteristics therein, as well as the change one is hoping to bring about through communication. What is the communication objective? Is it to bring about a change in knowledge, attitude or practice? Effective communication depends not only on what you are communicating, but also an understanding of with whom you are communicating and for what purpose.
Most scientific and academic research centers are concerned with the number of publications in refereed journals without paying much attention of the impact of their researches even in one single report or study. If scientists have new knowledge, that could enhance the environmental services of water and its economically efficient use, they have to acquire new skills of communication.
Networking
Networking could be an effective approach to effective constructive engagement. It can develop an information system on water related matters that can be shared nationally and regionally. The main goals of networking are to achieve cooperation, coordination and collaboration through developing institutional framework to address the water relevant issues.
Networking is an important old tool for improving the flow of ideas and knowledge among researchers and policy makers utilising the development of electronic networking recently. There are many famous existing networks dedicated primarily to natural resources and environmental researches in SEM countries like:
The Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program (METAP), which assists in project preparation and capacity building in selected regional environmental management activities, is an instrument for implementing environment strategy. METAP serves 15 Mediterranean countries and is sponsored by the World Bank, the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, UNDP, the Swiss Development Cooperation, and The Government of Finland. METAP beneficiaries in the region are Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and West Bank and Gaza.
ACSAD is also an important institutional networking driving force among Arab Countries.
Creation of the Enabling Environment and Institutional Building:
Too many projects work independently often without letting other projects, or even the Government services, know what they are doing. Workplans and reports are not circulated, and there is no attempt to meet to coordinate activities. The result is that there is often an overlap - projects effectively doing the same work in the same area. At the worst, there may be competition between projects. The local people become confused, and inevitably it is they who suffer.
An important initiative is needed which is the establishment of centers of excellence in SEM countries devoted to interdisciplinary natural resources sciences and policy. Creating the institutional capability of handling the knowledge transfer and flow of data is of paramount importance. MEDCOASLAND project is an important and respected step contributing remarkably in this direction and has to be evolved institutionally by proposing the establishment of a regional body (ROSOM ) dealing with land conservation issues.
Linking Knowledge with Action:
The science-practice interface is an area that needs to be investigated deeply for the purpose of assuring the best investment of knowledge. In the sustainable development, a lot of questions may be raised to fruitfully identifying the weakness in this domain. Some of these questions would be shaped as follows23:
1. How is that knowledge distributed among actors?
2. How may the science–practice interface best be structured and characterized? Who are the principal actors? What are their roles and interests?
3. To what extent do the actors make use of the knowledge available to them? How relevant and pertinent is the knowledge to the needs of decisionmakers and other actors?
4. What barriers and failures limit the transfer of knowledge and feedbacks in the science– practice interface? How important are the intermediaries between science and practice and who are they?
5. How does the nature of institutions shape the science–practice interface? To what extent is institutional fragmentation a problem?
6. What major conflicts exist among actors and institutions in the interactions between science and practice? To what extent are the conflicts primarily about values or facts? Does social justice enter into the decision-making process?
7. What factors contribute most to adaptive capacity? How large is the gap between the capacity to adapt and the adaptation that actually occurs? What causes this gap and how can it be reduced? What new elements of enlarged capacity would contribute most to greater resilience in the face of environmental change over the short run, the longer term?
8. To what extent has social learning evolved among the principal actors?
9. Where is the science–practice interface vulnerable to failure? Where is the science practice interface most vulnerable to failure to future risks?
10. How can the science–practice interface be best improved?
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Agricultural and environmental trends in SEM countries point toward a need for new thinking in order to meet the needs of an expanding population. The following conclusion and recommendations would be drawn out of the above discussion and analysis:
1. Land degradation in SEM countries is recognised as a complex problem with Mediterranean specific characteristics. It includes the interaction of biological, ecological, and socioeconomic dimensions and it is of an international concern owing to its widespread incidence and to the interconnection of economies. Due to the insufficient understanding of this phenomenon, land degradation should be treated not just as an environmental problem but an issue with cultural, political, social, and economic aspects.
2. Constructive Engagement approach within an integrated land resources management (CE-ILRM) which requires multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral linkages is strongly recommended. This approach would not only ensure national ownership of both the problems and solutions to development process and to facilitate the ownership of the assistance by beneficiaries, but would also enhance the sustainability of interventions.
3. Conducting research programmes which will provide practical solutions to soil degradation problems and give due consideration to prevailing socio-economic conditions is desperately needed. Social and economic researches into how communities decline, survive or adapt should be conducted in the context of natural resources conservation. Knowledge of this kind is essential if there is to be any external influence on the future of the drylands. Research should connect local knowledge, gender-aware socioeconomic development, culture and policy institutions and implementing bodies. Research should also focus on the systems beyond the watershed and the conventional concerns of natural resources scientists and managers.
4. To increase our knowledge base and promote mutual understanding and friendly relations across the Mediterranean Region, it is needed to provide an “enabling environment” to facilitate joint work programmes and bridge the Southern and Northern Mediterranean gap in knowledge and action. Interdisciplinary research in a constructively engaged mode should pay specific attention to strengthening human capital and implementation capacities and improve the enabling environment within SEM Countries.
5. All land use planning should result in local land uses that are sustainable. The systematic assessment of sustainability of current or planned land uses is in its infancy. Many groups of researchers are trying to define sustainability indicators and to devise methods to monitor them in field conditions. These indicators should be developed with the aim of advancing the perception of this concept.
6. Communication and impact are very challenging and sensitive issues in the land management for sustainable development purposes. Effective communication of research must be a prime goal and essential component in the research log frame matrix. Indicators of successful communication and impact need to be identified with special emphasis on links to major societal constituencies, education, training and innovation. Natural resources scientists and engineers must recognise that their task should include learning how to communicate their science in order for their methods reveal to other stakeholders in society. Simultaneously, governments, private sector and civil society movements should seek to incorporate scientific results more systematically in their deliberation and decision making process to reach more robust solutions.
7. The interface between research, knowledge and practice is an area that should be deeply investigated since it constitutes the bridge toward fruitfully translating the research knowledge outcomes.
References :
1. Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the earth: civilization and the life of the soil. University of California Press.
2. World Resources Institute (with International Food Policy Research Institute). World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems - the Fraying Web of Life. UNDP/UNEP/World Bank/WRI, 2000.
3. Oztas, T.1997. Toprak Degradasyonu. Ekoloji Çevre Dergisi. 22:31-33.
4. Soil at the interface between Agriculture and Environment, Luca MONTANARELLA (CCR-Ispra), JRC, EC, 2006.
5. I. NOFAL, A. RABI & B. DUDEEN, Strategies to Converge Local Water Managing Practices and Water Policy with Water Science and Engineering in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries, WASAMED Project, Malta Workshop, 3-7/5, 2006.
6. Gyawali, D., J.A. Allan et al, Directing the flow – A new approach to integrated water resources management. EU-INCO water research from FP4 to FP6 (1994-2006) – A critical review, 2006.
7. Understanding the natural and anthropogenic causes of degradation and desertification in the Mediterranean Basin. European Communities, EUR 18181 EN, Luxembourg, 1998.
8. Dregne, H. (1991). A new assessment of the Wold status of desertification. UNEP, Desertification Control Buletin, 6-18.
9. Ministry of the Environment and Territory Management of Tunisia, 1998 (1998). L´Etat de I´Environnement 1998, Rapport National.
10. Akrimi, N. (2000). Etat actuel de la désertification dans la région méditerranéenne. Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes, Montpellier. Institut des Regions Arides Medenine, Tunisie.
11. Cost Assessment of Environmental Degradation, Arab Republic of Egypt, Sector Note June 29, 2002, Rural Development, Water and Environment Department, Middle East and North Africa Region, The World Bank, Report No. 25175 –EGT.
12. John Bryant Collier and Sherif Arif of the Middle East and North Africa Region’s World Development, Water and Environment Department, (202) 473-8551.
13. UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme (1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999). A Blue Plan for the Mediterranean people.
14. World Bank Atlas (2001).
15. Warren, A., and C. Agnew. 1988. An assessment of desertification and land degradation in arid and semi-arid areas. International Institute for Environment and Development paper no. 2. London: Ecology and Conservation Unit, University College.
16. Grove, A.T., and Rackham, O. (1996). Physical, biological and human aspects of environmental change. MEDALUS II. Final report. Medalus Office, Berkshire, UK, 39-64.
17. Berger, A. (1986). Desertification in a changing climate, with a particular attention to the Mediterranean countries. In R. Fantechi and N.S. Margaris [Eds] Desertification in Europe, Com. Eur. Comm. D. Reidel Pub. Comp., Dordrecht, 15-34.
18. http://www.iisd.org/publications/.
19. FAO/GCP/EGY/018/USA "Monitoring, Forecasting and Simulation of the River Nile in Egypt".
20. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical environment dangers, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982.
21. Thompson M., Socially viable ideas of nature: a cultural hypothesis. In Baark, E. and U. Svedin (eds). Man, nature and technology: essays on the role of ideological perceptions. London, Macmillan press, 1988.
22. Dixit A., P. Adhikari and S. Bisangkhe, Constructive dialogue on dams and development in Nepal, Katmandu, Nepal Water Conservation Foundation, 2004.
23. W. Clarck and Nancy Dickson, Sustainability Science and Technology: Linking Knowledge with Action, 2005.