Andersson Et Al 2011 The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

EG36CH12-Olsson ARI 19 September 2011 7:53
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further The Political Ecology
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
of Land Degradation
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles Elina Andersson, Sara Brogaard, and Lennart Olsson∗
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011.36:295-319. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Top downloaded articles

• Our comprehensive search
Lund University Center for Sustainability Science, S-22100 Lund, Sweden;

Access provided by 117.1.99.214 on 10/27/23. For personal use only.
email: Elina.Andersson@lucsus.lu.se, Sara.Brogaard@lucsus.lu.se,

Lennart.Olsson@lucsus.lu.se
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:295–319 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on desertification, nutrient depletion, policy, Africa, China
August 1, 2011
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

is online at environ.annualreviews.org
Land degradation, as a threat to smallholders in the tropics, attracts
This article’s doi: less attention than other global challenges. In addition, gaps between
10.1146/annurev-environ-033110-092827
scientific understandings of land degradation and international policy
Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. regimes are problematic. We identify the three most significant de-
All rights reserved
bates including their different policy implications: desertification in the
1543-5938/11/1121-0295$20.00 Sahel, nutrient depletion in Africa, and rural reforms in China. Using a
∗
All authors contributed equally to this review. political ecology frame across disciplines, scales of inquiry, and regional
experiences, we nuance the often polarized scientific debate while seek-
ing to bridge the gap between science and policy. Three main findings
emerge: State-led rural reforms in China represent an important ap-
proach to land degradation; a renewed focus on agriculture and sustain-
ability in development discourses opens new ways for tackling nutrient
depletion with combined sociotechnological reforms; and a policy void
in Africa paves the way for market mechanisms, such as payment for en-
vironmental services, that are insufficiently understood and put fairness
at risk.
295
scientific debates—land degradation and polit-

Contents ical ecology (3, 4). We justify our political ecol-
ogy approach by the urgent need to tie policy
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
better with research and by the fact that stud-
ON POLITICAL ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . 297
ies and remedies of land degradation, in many
THE ELUSIVENESS OF LAND
cases, still neglect the connections between
DEGRADATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
the different biophysical manifestations of land
THREE DECISIVE DEBATES . . . . . . 299
degradation and its driving forces embedded
The Sahel Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
in a larger societal context (see Political Ecol-
Soil-Fertility Decline in Africa . . . . . . 300
ogy and Critical Realism, sidebar below). The
Land Degradation in China . . . . . . . . 303
political-ecology approach emphasizes that
SCIENCE AND POLICY
land degradation results from the interaction
RELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
between the physical environment and society,

Land Degradation, Carbon Cycle,
reflecting social, political, and economic pro-
Climate Change, and Payment
cesses at different temporal and spatial scales.
for Environmental Services . . . . . . 306
By using critical realism as a combined onto-

Land Degradation, Agricultural
logical and epistemological approach and polit-
Modernization, Millennium
ical ecology as a theoretical frame, we analyze
Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
how biophysical manifestations of land degra-
CONCLUDING REMARKS
dation are associated with underlying social, po-
AND RESEARCH
litical, and economic causes, consequences, and
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 309
remedies. In this review, we take an overall view
while also looking specifically into the cases of
China, Sahel, and sub-Saharan Africa.
Land degradation is defined in many
INTRODUCTION different and competing ways. It is not our
Land degradation is a serious problem for intention to review the contested field of
many communities across the world, partic- definitions of land degradation, however.
ularly smallholders in tropical regions, and Instead, we proceed from and draw on the
it has constituted a prominent field on the rather open description in the latest Global
environmental research agenda for quite some Environmental Outlook (2007): “Land degrada-
time. Land degradation has adverse impacts tion is a long-term loss of ecosystem function
on agricultural productivity, food insecurity, and service, caused by disturbances from which
and rural livelihoods, and the connections to the system cannot recover unaided” (5). Re-
other environmental problems are numerous. gardless of any ultimate definition, land degra-
However, the debate on land degradation has dation manifests itself in various and often seri-
been characterized by battles between disci- ous problems such as chemical contamination
plines and perspectives. Compared with other and pollution, including salinity, soil erosion,
challenges such as climate change and loss of nutrient depletion, overgrazing, deforestation
biodiversity, the scientific understanding of in agricultural landscapes, and desertification.
land degradation is highly fragmented and the Taking a critical-realist approach (6, 7), we
Desertification: land
degradation in arid, gaps between science and policy are substantial assume that many of the biophysical aspects
semiarid, and dry (1, 2). In addition, land users’ own understand- mentioned here can be observed and assessed in
subhumid areas ings and evaluation of environmental change objective terms, whereas the underlying causes,
resulting from various and degradation have been largely neglected. consequences, and remedies require a criti-
factors, including
In an effort to review and bring new perspec- cal scrutiny of the social context wherein land
climatic variations and
human activities tives to an extensive scientific discussion, we re- degradation occurs. The social context entails
visit two related but sometimes disconnected several structural and institutional layers that
296 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

we address using a political-ecology lens on land

degradation. POLITICAL ECOLOGY AND
After a brief introduction to political CRITICAL REALISM
ecology, we review the historical battle
over competing concepts and views in the Political ecology, as with many other scientific terms, has several
land-degradation debate. We then identify meanings. According to Timothy Forsyth (7), there are at least
and investigate three particularly important five definitions of political ecology: (a) the interaction of bio-
discussions on land degradation with different physical processes, human needs, and the political-economic con-
policy implications: desertification in the text (4, 202); (b) the environmental activism associated with deep
Sahel, nutrient depletion in Africa, and mainly ecology (203, 204) and its critique of modernity and capitalism
state-driven responses in China. On the basis (203–205); (c) the Marxist debate on unequal power relationships
of this, we illustrate the gap between scientific in a global capitalist political economy as seen in world-systems
understanding and the international policy for theory (206–208); (d ) the more general discussion on politics of
dealing with land degradation. We also identify environmental problems (11, 209, 210); and (e) critical political
how responses have developed outside the ecology, which problematizes the role of science (primarily nat-
land-degradation policy regime through the ural sciences) in environmental issues (7, 211).
ideas of payment for environmental services Critical realism is an ontology, with epistemological impli-
(PES) and agricultural modernization. cations, in which the world is seen as structured, differentiated,
and changing. It is structured in layers, from observable and map-
pable physical features to increasingly abstract layers of structures
ON POLITICAL ECOLOGY and mechanisms (6). Land degradation can be mapped and ob-
Political ecology has evolved and established it- served at a physical level but only explained and understood at
self as a research field since the 1980s. Schol- levels where hidden social, political, and economic structures are
ars in political ecology come from a variety of analyzed.
academic disciplines (see Political Ecology and
Critical Realism, sidebar) (8). Rooted in polit-
ical economy and, to some extent, in critical
theory, the field of political ecology can be de- The specific applications of political ecol-
scribed better as a loosely organized approach ogy are numerous and include a broad focus
with broadly similar perspectives and concerns, on particular environmental problems such as
rather than as a single body of theory. It devel- land degradation, discourse analysis of concepts
oped in reaction to what was perceived as nar- central to human-environmental interactions,
row views on human-environmental relations political-ecological interactions within specific
in cultural ecology and other traditions, partic- geographical regions, as well as the exploration
ularly in terms of their deterministic models of of political-ecological questions in light of so-
environmental change and their lack of atten- cial categories such as class, gender, and ethnic-
tion to power (8, 9). ity (9, 11).
As indicated by the name, political ecology is Political ecology struggles with many inter-
an explicit alternative to traditional “apolitical” nal controversies. Fundamental among these is
ecology (9), in that it aims to understand societal the issue regarding the very relationship be- Payment for
environmental
and ecological processes as being fundamen- tween politics, ecology, and policy. One de-
services (PES): the
tally intertwined. By focusing on how political bate deals with the extent to which political practice of offering
and economic factors at multiple levels shape, ecology is “ecology without politics” (12); an- incentives to farmers
and are shaped by, the environment, political other is concerned with the extent to which it is or landowners in
ecology differs from conventional perspectives “politics without ecology” (13, 14). Also de- exchange for
managing their land to
not only by politicizing environmental issues, bated is whether political ecology has become
provide some sort of
but also by “ecologizing” political processes too academic, thereby running the risk of dis- ecological service
(10, 11). tancing itself from policy (15).
www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 297

THE ELUSIVENESS OF on the other. This strong link between land

LAND DEGRADATION use and land degradation was very influential
in shaping both the public debate and the
GLASOD: global
assessment of soil The intense struggle to define desertification in international-policy responses. More recently,
degradation the late 1970s and early 1980s (16, 17) and the however, a constructive debate on land degra-
attempts to measure and monitor global land dation has emerged, wherein scholars from a
degradation (18, 19) have contributed to the range of disciplines have engaged in exploring
elusiveness of the issue of land degradation. We additional aspects and scales of land degrada-
identify two salient features of the debate. First tion. Scholars taking a political-ecology view
is the perceived exaggeration of land degrada- questioned the validity of land-degradation re-
tion, particularly concerning desertification, as search on both methodological and theoretical
a global problem, which stems from the lack grounds (28). In terms of the very existence of
of scientific rigor in defining and measuring land/soil degradation, this resulted in a near
desertification and land degradation. Second is paradigmatic discussion between environmen-
a strong empirical link between human action tal and agronomic scientists on one side versus
and land degradation. certain social scientists on the other. The scale
The perceived exaggeration of land degra- of analysis played an important role in this
dation led to an unfortunate discussion where debate where environmental scientists were
the severity as well as the existence of land accused of exaggerating the problems of land
degradation were questioned (20, 21). The degradation by extrapolating from a few local
perceived exaggeration was to a large extent examples to whole landscapes (29), whereas
influenced by the publication of the World social scientists were accused of underplaying
Atlases of Desertification in 1992 and 1997 (19, the problem of land degradation (30).
22). Much criticism was directed toward the use Forsyth (7) used the term environmen-
of the GLASOD (Global Assessment of Soil tal orthodoxies to describe a number of
Degradation) database that underpinned the strong discourses in which environmental
atlases as well as many policy reports and state- degradation was closely tied to human ac-
ments on desertification. In a test that covered tions and that featured land degradation.
the African continent, the GLASOD data were One of the most characteristic orthodox-
found to be inconsistent and not reproducible ies was the Himalayan degradation theory,
(23). Attempts to measure and monitor land which sought to explain the rapid defor-
degradation at global and regional scales by estation and soil erosion of the Himalayas
aggregating local studies or expert opinions (31). According to this theory, a series of
were subsequently challenged by the devel- human actions upstream in a river basin were
opments in Earth observation technologies. responsible for causing environmental degrada-
Earth observation allowed spatially explicit and tion downstream (32). Later research, involving
complete coverage of landscapes as well as con- a rich set of scientific methods, painted a much
tinuous temporal studies of landscape dynamics more nuanced picture (33). These research
(24–26). Such studies facilitated a much richer methods, sometimes referred to as hybrid
analysis of both human and natural factors of science (34), harnessed local knowledge to
land degradation (27), but a major gap in our reveal the underlying causes of the patterns and
knowledge on the extent, severity, and trends of processes observed using scientific or so-called
land degradation at the global scale remained. Western research methods (35). The scientific
The debate in the 1970s and early 1980s approach can also be referred to as critical
was dominated by a strong causal link between realism (28). In this richer and more nuanced
agriculture and grazing by domestic animals, picture, local people were not portrayed as
on the one hand, and land degradation in the victims of uncontrolled land degradation but
form of vegetation removal and soil erosion, as knowledgeable agents managing their land

in a sustainable manner. Scholars applying a policy implications, we highlight important

critical political-ecology perspective also sug- disconnections as well as opportunities to
gested that the Himalayan orthodoxy theory tackle the heterogeneous and context-specific
was a construction based on neo-Malthusian land-degradation phenomenon.
ideas that dominated Western science at
that time (33). Another influential study that
challenged the neo-Malthusian proposition The Sahel Debate
of population density as a main driver of land The scientific debate on land degradation in
degradation was conducted in East Africa and drylands dates back to at least the 1920s (44–
published with the catchy and provoking title 46). These early reports from the British and
“More People, Less Erosion” (36). Studies of French colonies describe how vegetation dis-
deforestation in West Africa also challenged appeared owing to pressures from increasing
the link between population increase and human and animal populations, which was in-
land degradation (37). According to the con- terpreted as an expansion of the Saharan desert.
ventional scientific wisdom, the West African A renewed debate on whether the Sahara was
open-savannah landscape with scattered “forest expanding was triggered in the wake of the se-
islands” was a result of deforestation by local vere drought and famine in the Sahel region
people over long periods, leaving only small during the early 1970s. The recurrent droughts
patches of forest in a generally deforested and famines in the Sahel throughout the 1980s
landscape. Using hybrid science and a critical put land degradation high on the international
realism approach, the forest islands were scientific agenda (47).
reinterpreted as plantations by the local people The early desertification debate in the Sa-
and could be seen as land improvement rather hel was, to a large extent, dominated by soil
than land degradation (38). Many other local scientists and physical geographers with a poor
studies effectively linked observed biophysical understanding of ecological theory. Important
changes in the landscape with a profound shifts took place in the 1980s when the con-
understanding of the social, cultural, political, cept of desertification was questioned, not only
and economic conditions of livelihoods asso- by social scientists, but also by many natural
ciated with these changes, thereby challenging scientists, primarily ecologists. One important
the neo-Malthusian view (2, 39–43). shift in the debate was to question the extent to
which desertification was to be seen as a long-
term secular trend of degradation due to human
THREE DECISIVE DEBATES pressure or if drylands were in constant change
From the huge and diverse debate on land due to external pressures, both natural and hu-
degradation over the past decades, we identify man, followed by adaptive responses by humans
three debates that have been particularly impor- and nature. In these studies, researchers often
tant in shaping (mis)understandings and policy used the landscape, rather than a community, as
responses. First is the desertification debate, their unit of inquiry in trying to understand bet-
which originated in the Sahel, peaked in the ter the interaction between climate, ecosystem
1970s and 1980s, became trend setting beyond dynamics, and social systems (48, 49). These
the desertification debate, and still has bearing studies were highly influenced by nonequilib-
on today’s research. Second is the more recent rium ecological ideas and suggested that cli-
debate on nutrient depletion in Africa that has mate variability played a much stronger role in
not always been framed as land degradation. driving changes in dryland ecosystems than was
Third is the predominantly state-led debate on acknowledged in the dominant desertification
land degradation and rehabilitation in China. discourse. However, the debate on equilibrium
By reviewing and discussing these debates versus nonequilibrium ecology was not new. As
and the links between them, as well as related early as 1930, Elton wrote that “the balance

of nature does not exist and perhaps never ex- over the past two decades. Lately, the scientific
isted” (50, p. 22). Despite this, not until the debate on soil-fertility decline, or nutrient
1970s was “the balance of nature view” more se- depletion as it commonly is termed in policy
AGRA: Alliance for a
Green Revolution in riously contested. The notion of resilience was documents, has become more nuanced as
Africa an important contribution for challenging the various scholars have made important attempts
UNCCD: United equilibrium paradigm (51), but it was not until to challenge dominant discourses. Here, we
Nations Convention the 1980s that Wiens (52) and Westoby et al. identify three main lines of critique: First
to Combat (53) coined the terms nonequilibrium ecology are methodological concerns regarding the
Desertification and event-driven systems, respectively. More assessment of soil-fertility decline. Second are
recently, both equilibrium and nonequilibrium concerns regarding the underlying ideas about
theories have been questioned by range ecol- drivers of degradation. Third are concerns
ogists who are calling for reconciliation of the regarding the prescriptions for how to respond
two paradigms (54). This reconciliation recog- to the problem.

nizes that different processes operate at differ- Basically, soil-fertility decline is a gradual
ent spatial and temporal scales (2, 55). process in which essential soil nutrients are lost
Local and landscape-based studies of through crop harvest, leaching, erosion, and
nonequilibrium systems were complemented other pathways at a faster rate than they are re-
by large-scale studies using a time series of plenished by organic and inorganic inputs. The
Earth observation data to reveal a spatially con- most evident manifestation is declining crop
sistent pattern of expansion and contraction of yields (30). The problem is associated with un-
the entire Sahel region (56). Later studies, har- sustainable intensification of agriculture, driven
nessing longer time series (more than 20 years) by population growth and the introduction of
and showing a remarkably consistent green- continuous cropping combined with inherently
ing of the southern edge of the Sahel, soon poor soils and low inputs of organic and/or
termed the phenomenon as “the greening of the synthetic nutrients (67). Soil-fertility depletion
Sahel” (57, 58). The causes of the greening of has been called “the fundamental biophysical
the Sahel remains an ongoing debate. Climate root cause of declining per capita food produc-
variations clearly play a dominant role (59, 60), tion in Africa” (68, p. 3), a view that is fre-
but other factors, such as land use or demo- quently echoed in scientific reports and policy
graphic changes, may not be ruled out as con- documents.
tributing factors (61–63). The soil-fertility issue has been pushed to
The desertification debate originated in the the top of development agendas at national
Sahel from which it was elevated to a global and regional levels by a combination of sci-
level because it provided the main basis for the entists, donors, and private-sector actors. A
United Nations Convention to Combat De- large number of new projects and programs
sertification (UNCCD) in 1994. The Sahel also aimed at tackling the problem have been
plays a perhaps disproportionately large role in launched. The Abuja Africa Fertilizer Summit
the current policy, which also justifies why we of 2006 laid the groundwork for a number of
emphasize and explore it in this context. new major initiatives after the failure of the
Soil Fertility Initiative for Africa, led by the
World Bank 1998–2001. The Comprehensive
Soil-Fertility Decline in Africa African Agricultural Development Program
Despite being well established as a serious has emerged as one of the leading actors since
problem for many farmers in sub-Saharan the summit. Among the private philanthropy–
Africa, contributing to rural poverty and food supported initiatives, one of the largest is the
insecurity (64–66), soil-fertility decline remains Soil Health Initiative produced by the Alliance
a contested issue that has received much atten- for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),
tion in the debate on land degradation in Africa established in 2006, and funded by the Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation together with the ity, and nonlinear dynamics are central to these
Rockefeller Foundation. Other major projects, critical perspectives. Scholars have also made
including the Millennium Villages Project an effort to place soil-fertility management and
(MVP) and Sasakawa-Global 2000, have also depletion in a broader social, economic, and
contributed to the focus on soil fertility (69). political context to highlight the role of local
In addition, private-sector-led initiatives such knowledge, the complexity of local farming
as the African Green Revolution Forum, which systems, farmers’ adaptability, and the rationale
stems from an international conference hosted of soil investments. In addition, the debate has
by the fertilizer company Yara International, shifted the focus to structural factors and insti-
have promoted the soil-fertility issue (70). tutional dynamics behind resource degradation.
The scientific debate on soil-fertility deple- Various scholars have illustrated that a much
tion and management in Africa has been shaped more complex and diverse picture emerges at
largely by perspectives in agronomy, soil sci- the local scale, because levels of soil investment
ence, and related natural sciences. As a result, a and nutrient depletion are highly variable—
strong focus has been placed on the biophysical both temporally and spatially—across regions,
aspects of the problem—and its technological farming systems, field types, and social cate-
solutions (71). In 1990, Stoorvogel & Smaling gories of farmers (66, 76, 82–85). Many studies
(72) published a highly influential study show how farmers’ incentives and capacities to
commissioned by the Food and Agriculture invest in land are shaped, not only by access to
Organization that indicated highly negative critical resources such as land, labor, and capi-
soil nutrient balances across the continent. tal, but also by institutions and power structures
Since then, similar findings have been widely that determine this access. For instance, con-
documented at various scales across different trol over livelihood resources are largely shaped
parts of Africa (73–75). According to Henao by patriarchal norms, suggesting that men and
& Baanante (73), nearly all African countries women are likely to have different options in
(approximately 90%) have a negative balance terms of land investment and technology use
of essential soil nutrients greater than 30 kg/ha (86, 87). Furthermore, the ability to invest in
yearly. The highlands and subhumid regions of land is also determined by access to output mar-
East Africa and the subhumid savannas of West kets and agricultural prices, which have histor-
Africa have been identified as the most affected ically been low in Africa (30). In addition, the
areas (73). Despite extensive methodological HIV/AIDS pandemic has hit rural areas hard
criticism in terms of inaccurate calculations, and undermined the agricultural production
misinterpretations, and uncritical use due to capacity (88).
extrapolation of data from local cases (76–79), Several critical scholars argue that lo-
similar approaches are still widely used to cal knowledge and investment in land have
indicate the severity of nutrient depletion (80). been systematically neglected, and some have
Since the 1990s, social scientists and others raised questions about the very epistemologi-
have tried to nuance, contextualize, and provide cal grounds of Western soil-science traditions
alternative views to the dominant discourses (37, 66, 79, 89). At the same time, such scholars
as well as reveal the basis of their nonscientific have been accused of downplaying the sever-
interests. Many of these critical scholars are ity of soil degradation by confusing local and
rooted in the broad field of political ecology, short-term variations with longer-term trends
focusing on the social and political dimensions at higher spatial scales (30).
of land management and degradation. Scholars Others have raised concerns about the gen-
have attempted to destabilize those dominant erality of the widespread neo-Malthusian hy-
“crisis narratives” around land degradation that pothesis of a nexus between population growth,
are seen as too generalized and deterministic poverty, and environmental degradation, which
(29, 37, 71, 81). Notions of diversity, complex- is often articulated in the soil-fertility debate.

This nexus idea portrays the linkages between sensitivity and increased acknowledgment of
population growth and natural-resource degra- participatory approaches, local innovation, and
dation as mutually reinforcing, inevitably lead- farmer-to-farmer learning. There are sev-
ing to a downward spiral of low agricultural eral drivers, including the failures of top-
productivity and deepening rural poverty and down, technology-focused, land-management
vulnerability (90). Many studies have empha- programs as well as the general movement to-
sized that the linkages between poverty and en- ward livelihood perspectives, stakeholder par-
vironmental management are both complex and ticipation, and local solutions in development
contextual and that outcomes are influenced by thinking (30, 85, 99, 100). In addition, a change
many factors such as technologies, institutions, on the technical side of research has emerged
and policies (3, 91, 92). Following Boserup (93), over time, focusing not only on nutrient in-
various case studies have demonstrated that un- puts as such, but also on application strategies,
der favorable conditions farmers can adapt to for example, microdosing of inorganic fertilizer
or reverse degradation, even as the pressure on (101), and on improving the efficiency of nutri-
existing resources increases (36, 94, 95). The ent uptake and reducing losses by combining
downward spiral is, therefore, not inevitable; soil-nutrient management with soil and water
population growth can stimulate agricultural conservation (102). More research attention is
innovation and land investment. Yet, this type also being directed toward alternative sources
of response is contextual and depends on a com- of nutrient inputs, such as ecological sanitation
bination of factors, including agro-ecological (103) and recycling of urban wastes for compost
conditions, farmers’ assets, market access, in- (104).
frastructure, nonfarm income possibilities, and In sum, the scientific debate on soil-fertility
broader policy conditions influencing pathways decline and management has become more nu-
of change (3, 66, 91, 96). anced over the years. The limitations of a nar-
The critical attempt to take the African soil- row focus on technical aspects, often resulting
fertility debate in another direction by chal- in solutions that do not respond to the com-
lenging dominant framings of the problem and plex realities of farmers, have been increasingly
technocratic, top-down types of responses has recognized. It is now widely accepted that land
gained ground in the past decade. For instance, management must be seen within the full con-
the long and often much polarized debate be- text of farming, including all its ecological, so-
tween those arguing that only the application of cial, cultural, economic, and political aspects,
large amounts of inorganic fertilizer will solve and that a combination of many solutions is
the problem and those promoting a more or- needed to increase the productivity and sus-
ganic or “low external input” approach (97) has tainability of the sub-Saharan African agricul-
been replaced by wide agreement that an in- ture. However, at best, these insights may be
tegrated approach to soil-fertility management only slowly translating into policy, where the
is most appropriate. This integrated paradigm relatively one-sided focus on technology, par-
not only acknowledges the positive synergies ticularly inorganic fertilizer, remains strong.
between the different inputs from a technical Much of the AGRA’s work is, for example,
point of view, but also recognizes the complex- focused on improving farmers’ access to fer-
ity of social, economic, and political processes tilizers and other inputs by building up rural
influencing soil-fertility management, suggest- markets and involving the private sector (105).
ing that different contexts require different One of the concrete outcomes of the Abuja
approaches (98). Africa Fertilizer Summit, hosted by the African
Over the years, some general changes in Development Bank, was the establishment of
approaches to agricultural-technology devel- the African Fertilizer Financing Mechanism
opment can be noted, including a shift from intended to boost the use of fertilizer (106).
blanket recommendations to context-specific The World Bank shares much of the same

perspective and highlights “market-smart” sub- rural areas and negative impacts on urban cen-
sidies for fertilizers as a potential measure ters and infrastructure creates political incen-
to stimulate farmers’ investments in land and tives to address the process of land degradation.
the development of a private-sector-led input Most studies of land degradation are con-
market (107). ducted in China’s northern and western re-
As discussed by many political-ecology gions, which are dominated by ethnic minori-
scholars, a narrow focus on technical solutions ties and characterized by poor infrastructure,
runs the risk of leading to policy failure (11). high dependence on agriculture, low incomes,
This is not to say that technology has no role and comparatively low literacy (118). Over
to play; no one can doubt the enormously im- time, the damage from dust and drifting sand
portant role inorganic fertilizers have played in has been a main reason for monitoring de-
increasing global food production, although the sertification and rehabilitating the land. Since
environmental costs also have been substantial the 1970s, or earlier, the frequency of sand
(108). One-sided portrayals of modern tech- storms has decreased, indicating some success
nologies as nothing but “techno-fix” solutions in land rehabilitation and land-cover improve-
should, therefore, be avoided as well. However, ment (116, 119). The severity and extent of
to tackle the problem of declining soil fertil- land degradation in China is debated, mainly
ity in sub-Saharan Africa, technology develop- because the results of the various assessments
ment must clearly be linked to broader policy deviate from each other. This deviation may be
development aimed at improving the general due to variations in classification schemes, in
conditions of African agriculture and support- the technology used to measure the biophysical
ing farmers’ capacity and incentives to invest in manifestations of land degradation, in the trans-
sustainable land management. lation of international definitions, or in the un-
derstanding of ecosystem dynamics (109, 120).
Although the declining trend in sand storms
Land Degradation in China is attributed to a complex combination of cli-
Compared with Africa, China has been more matic conditions and land cover (121), it can
successful in fighting land degradation (109, also be interpreted as an indicator of land-cover
110). China has a long history of land degrada- improvements. Several studies using satellite-
tion, and the contemporary debate has a clear derived vegetation indices as a main data source
political dimension (111, 112). Regardless of suggest that the vegetation cover in China’s
the debates regarding both the performance of northern regions is broadly stable or improving
policies against land degradation and the rea- (122–124), even within a historical perspective
sons for active state intervention (113, 114), (125).
state-driven initiatives have been, and still are, The debate on land degradation in China
important (115). Using political ecology as a is also influenced by the Sahel discourse and
framework, we identify three main reasons for reflected in alarmist reports of high rates of
active state intervention against land degrada- soil erosion and the emergence of desert-like
tion in China. landscapes (120, 126, 127). Desertification is
The first reason is illustrated by an assumed often attributed to a combination of natural
link between dust storms and land degrada- and human factors such as a dry and windy
tion. Dust storms are caused by land use and climate, sandy soils vulnerable to erosion, ex-
land-cover change in combination with climate pansion of cultivation, intensive grazing, and
conditions. They are fed by source material of- excessive tree felling (128). Although human
ten originating from the northwestern regions impact is generally seen as the main driver ac-
(116) and pose a serious problem for many celerating land degradation, Wang et al. (129)
urban centers across China, including Beijing argue that climatic factors have been more im-
(117). This link between land degradation in portant for soil erosion in semiarid China over

the past 50 years than was indicated by previous natural-resource management (136) because it
research. involves decentralized voluntary grassroots par-
Several large-scale rehabilitation programs ticipation. However, it has been considered in-
have been initiated as a means to protect pro- complete, and suggestions for improvements
ductive resources and reduce land degradation. include amendments such as increased local-
The Three Norths Forest Shelterbelt Program community participation in design and imple-
is a 7,000-km-long green wall serving as a major mentation, clarification of the environmental
attempt to mobilize both resources and people services targeted, verification of the measures
on a national scale to address desertification in needed to acquire such targets, as well as in-
the period 1978–2050 (130). The key goal is tegration of this program into complementary
to increase the tree cover in arid and semiarid rural policies (115).
regions from 5% to 15%. The success of the The third reason for active state interest
program has varied (110, 130). In regions with in halting land degradation is related to rural
medium to low desertification risk, local gov- poverty alleviation and has resulted in a long
ernments have reported larger areas as having series of agrarian and rural policies (137, 138).
been afforested than were actually confirmed The rural reforms have contributed to a spec-
(130). This triggered an intensive debate that tacular increase in agricultural production at
questioned the sustainability of overambitious the expense of severe environmental stress in-
tree-planting projects in arid and semiarid re- cluding land degradation (139). The political
gions where the survival rates of tree seedlings reforms have also resulted in increased diversifi-
is often as low as 15% or less (131). Planted cation in rural areas (138, 140), a diversification
forests in areas receiving less than 500-mm an- that often competes with agriculture in terms
nual rainfall are often unsustainable because of land use but offers income opportunities out-
water demand exceeds supply, especially as fast- side agriculture. In spite of the many rural re-
growing tree species (e.g., Populus tremula) con- forms, the tension between rural and urban ar-
sume large amounts of soil moisture, which, in eas persists and is increasing (113, 141). Land
the worst case, may lead to new desertification degradation undermines many rural livelihoods
(132, 133). and can therefore be seen as a threat to the po-
The second reason for state intervention litical stability of rural communities, a threat
against land degradation is illustrated by the as- that may act as an incentive to fight land degra-
sumed link between land degradation in crop- dation such as in the later Western Develop-
lands and the flooding of major rivers. The ment Program addressing economic, security,
fact that floods cause massive economic damage and ecological concerns (142).
to the more affluent parts of China has high- The post-Mao pragmatic period that started
lighted the need to address soil erosion in the in 1978 was characterized by decollectivization
upper parts of watersheds (134). The assumed of rural life. The household again became the
link is inspired by the Himalayan degradation basic production unit, and there was a move
theory (33, 112). After the severe floods in toward a market economy. Implementation of
1998, the state initiated a major land-retirement the Household Production Responsibility Sys-
and -reforestation program, the Sloped Land tem included contracting land to each family
Conversion Program, popularly known as the according to household size or labor force in
Grain for Green Program, and thereby mo- return for tax payment and contribution to wel-
bilized the Chinese population against a se- fare funds. In the pastoral regions, two con-
vere disaster by using an approach similar to tracts could be signed by herders, one for the
PES (135). As opposed to previous programs animals and another for an assigned area of
implemented by state-owned forest enterprises grassland. Although the majority of farmers ini-
or local authorities, the Grain for Green Pro- tially supported the reforms, they were against
gram points to a new direction in Chinese the short-term land contracts of 15 years. This

hindered longer-term investments as farmers Chinese, increasing agricultural production,

were given no guarantee that they could re- and reducing poverty by relocating farmers
main on their land long enough to recover their from disaster-prone areas. Recent government
UNCBD: United
investments (143). Rapid agrarian change has projects include the relocation of 2.8 million Nations Convention
also resulted in a series of challenges includ- people to safe areas from regions in the Shaanxi on Biodiversity
ing land fragmentation, increased use of steep province frequently hit by flash floods, land- UNFCC: United
slopes for cropping, changes in cropping pat- slides, and mudslides. The project should be Nations Framework
tern to more intense and soil-taxing practices, completed in the coming decade (154). Convention on
overuse of chemical fertilizers causing eutro- A program called Nurturing the Land by the Climate Change
phication, and increased vulnerability of and Land Itself has been suggested as a more eco-
risk for individual households (144–146). The nomically efficient model for increasing land
extension of the contracts for cultivated land in rehabilitation in pastoral areas. The program
1998 from 15 to 30 years was acknowledged by would, if implemented, use high-tech input in
farmers as an incentive for long-term invest- some areas, while leaving other areas idle to re-
ments in land. cover naturally in a ratio of approximately 1:100
Concerning short-term food security, the (155). Yet, this would also require a resettle-
importance of chemical fertilizers has been em- ment of farmers and herders. For example, in
phasized (147). However, in the post-reform Alaxa Banner in Inner Mongolia, 15,000 house-
period, the continuous intensification of agri- holds would have to move to residential com-
culture, for example, in marginal environments, munities to acquire entrepreneurial support.
has become a severe threat to agro-ecosystem Such enterprises could create agri-industrial
health. Chief among the culprits is insufficient chains involving intensive animal husbandry,
knowledge regarding sustainable use of water dairy production, and interregional trade (156).
and agro-chemicals (148). This would, in turn, facilitate the development
In terms of rangeland degradation, a sys- of infrastructure such as electricity, water sup-
tem of privately owned livestock and grasslands ply, and transport routes.
to be managed in common was implemented
in the mid-1980s through which long-term
land-lease contracts were granted to individ- SCIENCE AND POLICY
ual households for a 50-year period (149). De- RELATIONS
spite the distribution of land and the required Land degradation, climate change, and loss of
fencing of land in the pastoral areas, however, biodiversity are three prominent multilateral
many regions can still be characterized by open environmental policy regimes with a strong
access often leading to grassland destruction. connection to the UN Conference on Envi-
Poor farmers cannot afford to enclose their land ronment and Development meeting in Rio
given the high cost of wire, and so long as for- de Janeiro in 1992. Their respective policy
age is still available, those who can afford it will outcomes are often referred to as the Rio
graze their herds on areas used as public range Conventions: UNCCD, UN Framework Con-
(150, 151). Some rangelands remain commonly vention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and UN
managed despite household contracts because Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD). The
such tenure may be more cost-effective and eco- three conventions share many organizational
logically sustainable in poor regions where re- features, but they differ enormously in one
sources are highly variable and marginal, par- respect: their link between science and policy.
ticularly in terms of water availability and the Of the three global policy areas, desertification
seasonal utilization of grasslands (152, 153). is the oldest. In the 1970s, the international
Population resettlement has been and still community reacted swiftly after the devastating
is a political measure on various grounds, such droughts in the Sahel by initiating a range
as populating marginal regions with more Han of scientific inquiries into the causes and

consequences of land degradation with a focus political level, the African Union, in collabora-
on the drylands across the globe. The United tion with the European Union and promoted
Nations convened a special international by the UNCCD, is funding a very controver-
conference, the UN Conference on Desertifi- sial megaproject, the Green Wall of Africa over
cation, in Nairobi in 1977, during which a large a 10-year period (167). This green wall of trees
number of high-quality scientific documents across the Sahel, from the Atlantic Ocean to the
were prepared and presented (16, 157). Later Red Sea, is inspired by the very successful (at
on, the desertification discourse increasingly least in rhetoric) Great Green Wall of China.
distanced itself from the evolution of the Outside the formal policy of land degrada-
scientific understanding of land degradation, tion, we have identified two important chains
and when the United Nations finally created where science, research, and policy makers have
the UNCCD in 1994, policy was seriously come together to form influential policies. In
disconnected from science (1, 158–162). the first, investigators used research on land
From a scientific point of view, it is easy to degradation and climate change to formulate
see the many connections between land degra- an important synergy through the carbon cy-
dation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. cle. Economics and policy sciences added the
It is also easy to identify synergies between po- concept of PES by which this synergy could
tential policies across these fields (163, 164), but be addressed and put into practice. In the sec-
this approach has proved much more difficult ond, researchers framed nutrient depletion as
in the international policy regimes. Attempts a land-degradation issue and included the con-
to establish closer links between the UNCCD, nection to agricultural policies. The renewed
UNCBD, and UNFCC have been called for interest in agriculture as an economic key sector
many times, and an effort to forge such collab- where poverty alleviation and environmental
oration was tried by forming the special Joint concern could be integrated (107) increasingly
Liaison Group between the three Rio conven- linked land degradation to development and
tions (165). Alas, the coordination at the na- modernization.
tional and subnational levels is much more dif-
ficult to achieve owing to several reasons, such
as competition between ministries and govern- Land Degradation, Carbon Cycle,
ment agencies, lack of coordination between fo- Climate Change, and Payment
cal points at different levels, and lack of skilled for Environmental Services
personnel (166). Linkages are also hampered by A new opportunity to approach land degrada-
the inconsistencies in how the various policies tion appeared in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol
are handled between developing countries and of the UNFCC was negotiated. The protocol
OECD countries. In OECD countries, most of allowed the trading of aboveground carbon
the focal points are in ministries of foreign af- sinks through afforestation and reforestation,
fairs or international cooperation, whereas in with the understanding that soil carbon in
Africa, for example, most focal points are as- agricultural and forest soils would be added
sociated with ministries of agriculture, rural later. A price on carbon in the soil would
development, or environment (166). open up new ways of promoting sustainable
In terms of types of activities implemented land management. This initiated a spur of re-
by the conventions, the UNCCD is charac- search on the links between land management
terized by a lack of consistency between dif- and carbon dynamics (163, 168–170). The
ferent implementation attempts. At one level, simultaneous development of the concept of
the Global Environment Facility (which is the environmental services by ecologists (171, 172)
main funding agency for the Rio Conventions) and the concept of payment for such services
is promoting local initiatives of sustainable land by ecological/environmental economists (173)
management (164). At another, much higher paved the way for formulating innovative

responses to the problem of land degradation. informed by an underlying “Coasian” approach

The anticipated inclusion of agricultural soils assuming that property rights if not optimally
as an eligible carbon sink under the Kyoto allocated will become so through bargaining
Carbon
Protocol did not materialize, but this has been on the market (182). Many smallholders in the sequestration: the
compensated for by developments outside tropics have vague or nonexistent rights to the removal and storage of
the formal rules of the Kyoto Protocol, the land they work, and because they are often carbon from the
so-called voluntary carbon offsets (174). The engaged in subsistence livelihoods, they have a atmosphere in carbon
sinks (e.g., oceans,
World Bank pioneered the links between de- weak bargaining position in the market. Con-
forests, or soils)
velopmental and environmental policies using cerns over property rights, therefore, pose the through physical or
the concept of PES by setting up the Prototype most important stumbling block for harnessing biological processes
Carbon Fund (175), which is now a booming the potentials of PES (111, 112, 183).
market that engages various development
institutions including the World Bank. One of

the main players on this market is the Chicago Land Degradation, Agricultural
Climate Exchange, set up by a number of large Modernization, Millennium
Development Goals
companies in 2003 (176). In this exchange,

soil carbon has become the largest type of The return of agriculture to the global de-
carbon-offset project, comprising approxi- velopment agenda in recent years is another
mately one-third of the total carbon offsets trend with important implications in terms of
during 2003–2009 (177). At the other end, land degradation. The previously widespread
nongovernmental organizations have often gloom and doom depictions of the prospects
been able to reap the benefits of voluntary car- for agricultural development in sub-Saharan
bon offsets (178). China has also embraced the Africa (184) have now been replaced by greater
ideas of PES as a means to promote watershed optimism. This has been followed by substan-
protection, such as downstream-water users tial policy and funding commitments by both
paying upstream farmers for adopting land uses international donors and national governments
that limit soil erosion and carbon sequestration (185). This shift was partially mediated by the
as a cobenefit increasing over time (115). “World Development Report 2008” (107),
However, development has not been which emphasized the role of agricultural-
without critique. From the point of view led growth in the development process and
of indigenous people’s rights, scholars are contributed to a policy discourse centered on
concerned that PES may further increase the production increases through technological
marginalization of indigenous people through improvement and sustainable natural-resource
an overly narrow focus on a few monetarized management. Soil-fertility constraints at-
aspects of the ecosystem (179, 180) and that the tracted particularly strong attention, and land-
dominant mode of quantitative inquiry does not degradation issues became increasingly linked
adequately listen to the locals (142). Scholars in to modernization and development discourses.
political ecology and development studies are The linkage between land degradation and
concerned that the aim of PES is to make “a lo- economics was further facilitated by the con-
cal bill for a global free lunch” (181) and thereby ceptualization of natural capital as a produced,
further reinforce global inequalities. From rather than a primary, input to agricultural
the point of view of earth-system governance, production (186). Such a view essentially
another concern arises regarding a mismatch frames land degradation as a problem that
between mechanisms at the global level and can be overcome by investment. This stance
modes of implementation at the local level is mirrored by the common use of various
(154). From a political-ecology perspective, the economic metaphors, such as nutrient budget
links between PES and power relationships are and soil recapitalization, in the soil-fertility
particularly important. PES, as we know it, is debate. Fairhead & Scoones (79, p. 35) argue

that such an understanding rests on neoliberal a “big push” of investment in a package of inter-
ideas and ignores the social contexts of land ventions in agriculture and other sectors (193),
use by treating “soil fertility simply as if it was a aimed at benefiting approximately half a million
capital reserve that can be drawn down, added people in 80 villages in ten African countries
to, and transferred between accounts.” (185). Although some significant achievements
Changes in the dominant development dis- have been recorded, including an increase of up
course can be traced to the endorsement of to threefold in crop yields thanks to subsidized
the Millennium Declaration by the UN mem- fertilizer and improved seeds (194), critique of
ber states in 2000 (187), which shifted the fo- the MVP is mounting (195). Critical concerns
cus from fostering economic growth per se to include the sustainability of such capital inten-
encouraging “pro-poor growth” and increas- sive, aid-funded initiatives; limitations of up-
ingly incorporating environmental concerns in scaling (196), top-down-driven agendas; lack of
the development process. Particularly for sub- local ownership (197); and the risk of increasing
Saharan Africa, where the majority of poor stratification between poor households as a re-
people depend on agriculture for their liveli- sult of unequal distribution of resources (195).
hood, it was argued that the achievement of The AGRA is one of the largest private-
the Millennium Development Goals largely donor-supported initiatives to promote agricul-
hinges on agricultural-led growth (188). The tural development in sub-Saharan Africa. With
essence of the agricultural-modernization dis- initial investments of 400 million dollars, the
course is that a transition from a subsistence- AGRA aims to increase agricultural production
based agricultural economy to a commercially and food security largely through a technology-
oriented agricultural sector and a diversified and market-driven process. The program has
economic structure is key to poverty allevia- four main components: improved seeds, soil
tion and overall growth (189). A central argu- fertility, market access, and policy environment
ment is that no country has ever successfully (105). Although the creation of the AGRA was
reduced poverty without increasing agricultural welcomed by many, its approach has also been
productivity (190). met by extensive criticism, which relates to
Political support for this new approach is replacement of state-led development and re-
manifested by a number of initiatives, such search by private-sector-led approaches (1), a
as the UN Task Force on Hunger, the es- narrow portrayal of Africa’s agricultural chal-
tablishment of Comprehensive African Agri- lenges as mainly technical (158), insufficient at-
culture Development Program, and the newly tention to other factors hampering rural devel-
launched Global Agriculture and Food Security opment such as land rights, as well as the lack
Program—a multidonor trust fund coordinated of an explicit focus on gender, which runs the
by the World Bank with a budget totalling more risk of limiting the impacts of interventions on
than 900 million dollars to be used to invest in women (88).
infrastructure, improved access to inputs, and Recently, various signs of reorientation
promotion of natural-resource management in within the agricultural-modernization dis-
the world’s poorest countries to boost food course can be noted, which has implications for
production (191). Initiatives supported by pri- approaches to land management and degrada-
vate donors have increasingly come to influence tions. In 2002, the World Bank and the Food
African development. Two such major initia- and Agriculture Organization of the United
tives are the MVP and the AGRA. Nations initiated a project known as Interna-
The MVP was initiated in 2004 to provide tional Assessment of Agricultural Science and
successful evidence on how to achieve rapidly Technology for Development, which brought
the Millennium Development Goals (192). Re- together governments, international organiza-
lying on a private-donor support, the MVP aims tions, and civil society as well as the private
to kick-start the development process through sector. The aim was to evaluate the current

state, relevance, and potential of agricultural farmers including lack of secure long-term
knowledge and science and technology in re- land-use rights, more context-specific ap-
ducing hunger and poverty, improving rural proaches in technology development, upscaling
livelihoods, and facilitating sustainable devel- of existing small-scale system solutions, recog-
opment. In the project’s synthesis report (108), nition of community-based innovation, bet-
the great contribution of agricultural knowl- ter integration of science and local knowledge,
edge and science and technology in increasing as well as an end to subsidies that contribute
agricultural productivity, nutrition, and eco- to unsustainable practices. A recent report in
nomic growth is acknowledged, but it is also rural poverty by the International Fund for
recognized that this development has been ac- Agricultural Development (165) shares many of
companied by major environmental and social the same perspectives.
costs. The conclusion is that new strategies
are required to meet future needs in terms of

poverty reduction and reduced environmental
impacts of agriculture. In the context of natural-
CONCLUDING REMARKS
AND RESEARCH
resource management, the conventional fo-

cus on productivity increase is criticized and
RECOMMENDATIONS
more systems-oriented approaches are called Research on land degradation is often closely
for. Proposed actions and policy measures in- linked to ideas on what can and should be done
clude increased focus on underlying causes in terms of remedies. Using a drivers-pressure-
of natural-resource mismanagement such as state-impacts-responses (DPSIR) scheme, de-
the various risk factors faced by small-scale picted in Figure 1, we illustrate how various
Driving Forces
population pressure, Redistribution, land reform, Responses
unequal access to various types of access to education
assets and markets,
gendered division of labor,
environmental preconditions, ,
bad governance ing s
uild lihood
ct ,
Emergency
ra on
b
es
i ty v e
l p ati
c i
ic
pa fl
relief
Ca tion o
ra rv
tu e
c a
ul ns
i
rsif
ric co
dive
ag ter
Pressure
ed wa
pr oil &
people forced to
overexploit resources, Impacts
S
ov
cannot optimize due

im
to risk aversion and food insecurity,

imperfect markets social vulnerability
State illness, conflicts,
forced migration
land degradation,
nutrient depletion,
soil erosion
Figure 1
Land degradation and potential responses by society expressed in the form of a DPSIR (drivers, pressure, state, impacts, responses)
scheme. Arrow directed toward “State” represents the short-term responses; arrow directed toward “Driving forces” represents changes
to various power structures. The policy debate on land degradation in Africa seems to focus on the responses aimed at “Pressure” and
“State,” i.e., soil conservation and nutrient management (State) corroborated by capacity building, extension services, credit, and
insurance opportunities (Pressure).

scientific perspectives are linked to particular Land degradation cannot be understood in

types of remedies. The DPSIR framework is a isolation of other trends in society and nature.
simple tool for illustrating responses to complex Globalization affects rural livelihoods across
environmental issues, such as land degradation. the world. An important global megatrend
It is particularly useful for identifying the range that is not the result of deliberate policy is
of short- and long-term responses. the rapid diversification of rural livelihoods,
Many of the short-term responses corre- sometimes referred to as depeasantization
spond to activities aimed at correcting the ob- (198). A large volume of remittances from
servable and mappable problems of land degra- urban centers within or outside the country
dation, such as nutrient deficiency and soil plays an increasing role in diversifying rural
erosion. Ideally, such problems could easily livelihoods away from dependence on the land
be remedied by the application of nutrients (199, 200). Remittances are becoming a major
(through synthetic fertilizers or manure) and source of income for many peasant households
soil conservation, but the lack of necessary in- (201). One reason why land-degradation
frastructure and institutions may present bar- policies, such as sustainable land management,
riers. Using a critical-realism ontology and have been difficult to implement could be a
epistemology, we can start exploring the ex- strong underlying trend of depeasantization by
istence of barriers by investigating the under- which people increasingly see opportunities in
lying structural problems causing land degra- livelihoods other than agriculture. In addition,
dation, i.e., pressures. Capacity building in climate change will have profound effects on
the form of agricultural extension and diver- processes of land degradation, both directly
sification of livelihoods may be pertinent re- through changing climates and indirectly
sponses here. Further analysis, using a political- though changing demands for agricultural
ecology approach, can identify the power products. Most scenarios of future agricultural
structures creating and maintaining some of the production project increasing conflicts in
barriers. terms of land use for food and energy. In the
Outside China, we have found very few DPSIR scheme, such megatrends would be
policy responses that address the underlying represented by changing driving forces.
drivers of land degradation, such as redistribu- The slow implementation of effective land-
tion of land and wealth or access to education degradation remedies has prompted many ac-
for people to progress out of a direct depen- tors in the international development commu-
dence on the land. In this respect, China is a very nity to embrace market solutions instead of
important exception because rural reforms, in- struggling with inefficient government agen-
cluding land reforms, are potentially the most cies. Nonetheless, it is a mistake to assume that
important instruments for tackling land degra- markets for environmental services can func-
dation, but these responses in China are not tion without adequate governance structures.
without problems. For example, a recent con- The potential seems to be very promising, but
cern in China is the rapid acidification of agri- there is a risk that without effective government
cultural soils owing to an overuse of synthetic institutions the poorest of the poor will be left
fertilizers (139). out.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Land degradation was one of the first global environmental issues to be highlighted by
the international community. The scientific discussion on land degradation has often
been very polarized between alarmists and optimists as well as between natural and social
scientists.

2. Currently, a constructive dialogue exists between natural and social scientists, resulting
in a much richer understanding of the causes and potential remedies of land degradation.
3. Unfortunately, there is also a wide gap between the scientific understanding of land
degradation and the international policy regime responsible for formulating and imple-
menting remedies. Compared with other international environmental policy regimes,
the land-degradation regime suffers from poor scientific credibility.
4. New initiatives for fighting land degradation are emerging on the basis of the ideas of PES.
Many of the new initiatives are synergies between land degradation and climate change
mitigation through improved land management and carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soils.
5. A renewed focus on agriculture in the development discourse has put land degradation
in the form of nutrient depletion on the international policy agenda, and many new
initiatives are emerging. A majority of the initiatives favor modern technological solutions
over more comprehensive land-management strategies.

6. In China, land degradation is a high priority for government interventions in the form
of a wide range of rural reforms. There are many examples of success, albeit not without
critique from both natural and social scientists.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. The international policy regime on land degradation, primarily the UNCCD, should
recognize the scientific understanding of land degradation and create mechanisms for
a continuous dialogue with the scientific community in a similar way to that of other
global environmental regimes. This is an important topic for research on earth-system
governance.
2. The current enthusiasm for market-based mechanisms in natural resource management
has a large potential for mobilizing new sources of funding for land-degradation remedies.
However, aspects of access and fairness in these market-based mechanisms are still poorly
understood and remain contested. Both problem solving and critical research are needed.
3. New initiatives to deal with land degradation must be profoundly anchored in both the
current scientific understanding and the local context. This calls for hybrid science.
4. Land degradation is an urgent problem for many poor communities across the tropics.
This calls for action-oriented science.
5. Global climate change in combination with global political and economic changes will
have profound implications for future land degradation. New research is needed to in-
tegrate multiple stressors into current theories and methods.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holding that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for the financial support of the research project Land Use Today and Tomor-
row (LUsTT) and the Linnaeus Centre LUCID, both funded by the Swedish Research Council
Formas.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Grainger A. 2009. The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: the
case of desertification. Land Degrad. Dev. 20:410–30
2. Warren A. 2002. Land degradation is contextual. Land Degrad. Dev. 13:449–59
3. Blaikie P, Brookfield H. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. New York: Routledge Kegan & Paul
4. Blakie P. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. London: Longman. 180 pp.
5. UN Environ. Program. 2007. Global Environmental Outlook-4. Nairobi: UNEP
6. Dickens P. 2003. Changing our environment, changing ourselves: critical realism and transdisciplinary
research. Interdisciplinary Sci. Rev. 28:95–105
7. Forsyth T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. New York: Routledge
8. Blaikie P. 2008. Epilogue: Towards a future for political ecology that works. Geoforum 39:765–72
9. Robbins P. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell
10. Hornborg A, McNeill JR, Martinez-Alier J. 2007. Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History
and Global Environmental Change. Lanham, MA: Altamira
11. Bryant R, Bailey S. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. 220 pp.
12. Walker P. 2007. Political ecology: Where is the politics? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31:363–69
13. Walker P. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29:73–82
14. Vayda A, Walters B. 1999. Against political ecology. Hum. Ecol. 27:167–79
15. Walker P. 2006. Political ecology: Where is the policy? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 30:382–95
16. Johnson D. 1977. The human dimensions of desertification. Econ. Geogr. 53:317–21
17. Verstraete M. 1986. Defining desertification: a review. Clim. Change 9:5–18
18. Oldeman L. 1998. Soil Degradation: A Threat to Food Security. Wageningen: Int. Soil Ref. Inform. Cent.
19. UNEP. 1992. World Atlas of Desertification. London: Edward Arnold. 69 pp.
20. Binns T. 1997. Is desertification a myth? In The Human Impact Reader: Readings and Case Studies, ed.
A Goudie, pp. 400–7. Oxford: Blackwell
21. Lomborg B. 2002. The skeptical environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world. Aust. Ecol.
27:238–40
22. Middleton N, Thomas D, UNEP, eds. 1997. World Atlas of Desertification. London: Hodder Arnold. 2nd
ed. 192 pp.
23. Sonneveld B, Dent D. 2009. How good is GLASOD? J. Environ. Manag. 90:274–83
24. Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L, Schaepman ME. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil
Use Manag. 24:223–34
25. Prince SD, Goward SN. 1995. Global net primary production: a remote sensing approach. J. Biogeogr.
22:549–63
26. Seaquist JW, Olsson L, Ardö J. 2003. A remote sensing-based primary production model for grassland
biomes. Ecol. Model. 169:131–55
27. Wessels K, Prince S, Malherbe J, Small J, Frost P, VanZyl D. 2007. Can human-induced land degradation
be distinguished from the effects of rainfall variability? A case study in South Africa. J. Arid Environ.
68:271–97
28. Forsyth T. 2001. Critical realism and political ecology. In After Postmodernism: An Introduction to Critical
Realism, ed. J Lopez, G Potter, pp. 146–54. London: Athlone
29. Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
30. Koning N, Smaling E. 2005. Environmental crisis or “lie of the land”? The debate on soil degradation
in Africa. Land Use Policy 22:3–11

31. Thompson M, Warburton M. 1985. Uncertainty on a Himalayan scale. Mt. Res. Dev. 5:115–35
32. Eckholm E. 1976. Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and Food Problems. New York: W.W. Norton
33. Forsyth T. 1996. Science, myth and knowldege: testing Himalayan environmental degradation in
Thailand. Geoforum 27:375–92
34. Murdoch J, Clark J. 1994. Sustainable knowledge. Geoforum 25:115–32
35. Agrawal A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowldege. Dev. Change
26:413–39
36. Tiffen M, Mortimore M, Gichuki F. 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya.
Chichester: Wiley. 328 pp.
37. Leach M, Mearns R, eds. 1996. The Lie of the Land—Challenging the Received Wisdom on the African
Environment, Vol. 2. London: Int. Afr. Inst. 240 pp.
38. Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996. Rethinking the Forest-Savanna Mosaic. See Fairhead & Leach 1996, pp. 105–
21
39. Mortimore MJ, Adams WM. 2001. Farmer adaptation, change and “crisis” in the Sahel. Glob. Environ.
Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 11:49–57

40. Mortimore M, Turner B. 2005. Does the Sahelian smallholder’s management of woodland, farm trees,
rangeland support the hypothesis of human-induced desertification? J. Arid Environ. 63:567–95
41. Osbahr H, Allan C. 2003. Indigenous knowledge of soil fertility management in southwest Niger.
Geoderma 111:457–79
42. Warren A, Osbahr H, Batterbury S, Chappell A. 2003. Indigenous views of soil erosion at Fandou Beri,
southwestern Niger. Geoderma 111:439–56
43. Reij C, Thiombiano T. 2003. Developpement Rural et Environment au Burkina Faso: La Rehabilitation de la
Capacite Productive des Terroirs sur la Partie Nord du Plateau Central Entre 1980 et 2001. Amsterdam: Free
Univ. Amst.
44. Bovill E. 1921. The encroachment of the Sahara on the Sudan. Afr. Aff. 20:174–85, 259–69
45. Stebbing EP. 1935. The encroaching Sahara: the threat to the West African colonies. Geogr. J. 85:506–24
46. Stebbing EP. 1938. The man-made desert in Africa: erosion and drought. J. R. Afr. Soc. 37:3–40
47. Glantz MH. 1987. Drought and Hunger in Africa—Denying Famine a Future. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
48. Olsson L. 1993. Desertification in Africa—critique and an alternative approach. GeoJournal 31:23–32
49. Reenberg A. 2001. Agricultural land use pattern dynamics in the Sudan-Sahel—towards an event-driven
framework. Land Use Policy 18:309–19
50. Elton C. 1930. Animal Ecology and Evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
51. Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4:1–24
52. Wiens J. 1984. On understanding a non-equilibrium world: myth and reality in community patterns
and processes. In Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence, ed. DR Strong, D Simberloff,
LG Abele, AB Thistle, pp. 439–58. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
53. Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium.
J. Range Manag. 42:266–74
54. Briske D, Fuhlendorf S, Smeins F. 2003. Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current
paradigms. J. Appl. Ecol. 40:601–14
55. Sullivan S, Rohde R. 2002. On non-equilibrium in arid and semi-arid grazing systems. J. Biogeogr.
29:1595–618
56. Tucker CJ, Dregne HE, Newcomb WW. 1991. Expansion and contraction of the Sahara Desert from
1980 to 1990. Science 253:299–301
57. Anyambaa A, Tucker CJ. 2005. Analysis of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAA-AVHRR NDVI
data from 1981–2003. J. Arid Environ. 63:596–614
58. Eklundh L, Olsson L. 2003. Vegetation index trends for the African Sahel 1982–1999. Geophys. Res. Lett.
30:1430; doi: 10.029/2002GL016772
59. Seaquist J, Hickler T, Eklundh L, Ardö J, Heumann B. 2009. Disentangling the effects of climate and
people on Sahel vegetation dynamics. Biogeosciences 6:469–77
60. Hickler T, Eklundh L, Seaquist J, Smith B, Ardö J, et al. 2005. Precipitation controls Sahel greening
trend. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32:L21415

61. Olsson L, Eklundh L, Ardö J. 2005. A recent greening of the Sahel—trends, patterns and potential
causes. J. Arid Environ. 63:556–66
62. Reij C, Tappan G, Belemvire A. 2005. Changing land management practices and vegetation on the
Central Plateau of Burkina Faso (1968–2002). J. Arid Environ. 63:642–59
63. Reij C, Tappan G, Smale M. 2009. Agroenvironmental Transformation in the Sahel: Another Kind of “Green
Revolution.” Washington, DC: Int. Food Policy Res. Inst.
64. Vitousek P, Naylor R, Crews T, David M, Drinkwater L, et al. 2009. Nutrient imbalances in agricultural
development. Science 324:1519
65. Sanchez P. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295:2019–20
66. Scoones I, ed. 2001. Dynamics and diversity: soil fertility and farming livelihoods in Africa: case studies
from Ethiopia, Mali, and Zimbabwe. Oxford: Earthscan
67. Nandwa S, Bekunda M. 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances in East and Southern Africa:
state-of-the-art. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71:5–18
68. Sanchez P, Shepherd K, Soule M, Mokwunye A, Kwesiga F, et al. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in
Africa: an investment in natural resource capital. In Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, pp. 1–46. Madison,
WI: Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
69. Bationo A. 2009. Soil fertility—paradigm shift through collective action. CTA, Wageningen, Neth. http://
knowledge.cta.int/en/Dossiers/Demanding-Innovation/Soil-health/Articles/Soil-Fertility-
Paradigm-shift-through-collective-action
70. Afr. Green Revolut. Forum. 2010. About: African Green Revolution Forum Conference Statement. Nairobi,
Kenya. http://agrforum.com/about
71. Scoones I. 2001. Dynamics and Diversity: Soil Fertility and Farming Livelihoods in Africa: Case Studies from
Ethiopia, Mali, and Zimbabwe. London: Earthscan. 244 pp.
72. Stoorvogel J, Smaling E. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in sub-Saharan Africa: 1983–2000.
Wageningen: Winand Staring Cent.
73. Henao J, Baanante C. 2006. Agricultural production and soil nutrient mining in Africa: Implications for
resource conservation and policy development. Int. Soc. Agric. Meterol. http://www.agrometeorology.org/
topics/new-information-for-agrometeorologists
74. Bationo A, Lompo F, Koala S. 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances in west Africa: state-of-
the-art. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71:19–35
75. Wortmann C, Kaizzi C. 1998. Nutrient balances and expected effects of alternative practices in farming
systems of Uganda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71:115–29
76. Muchena F, Onduru D, Gachini G, De Jager A. 2005. Turning the tides of soil degradation in Africa:
capturing the reality and exploring opportunities. Land Use Policy 22:23–31
77. Scoones I, Toulmin C. 1998. Soil nutrient balances: what use for policy? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71:255–67
78. Faerge J, Magid J. 2004. Evaluating NUTMON nutrient balancing in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 69:101–10
79. Fairhead J, Scoones I. 2005. Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: critical per-
spectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22:33–41
80. Cobo J, Dercon G, Cadisch G. 2010. Nutrient balances in African land use systems across different
spatial scales: a review of approaches, challenges and progress. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 136:1–15
81. Keeley J, Scoones I. 2000. Global science, global policy: local to global policy processes for soils management in
Africa. Work. Pap., Inst. Dev. Stud., Univ. Sussex
82. Smaling E, Dixon J. 2006. Adding a soil fertility dimension to the global farming systems approach, with
cases from Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116:15–26
83. Tschakert P, Tappan G. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration: considerations from a multi-
scale environmental history of the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. J. Arid Environ. 59:535–64
84. Berkhout ED, Schipper RA, Van Keulen H, Coulibaly O. 2011. Heterogeneity in farmers’ production
decisions and its impact on soil nutrient use: results and implications from northern Nigeria. Agric. Syst.
104:63–74
85. De Jager A. 2005. Participatory technology, policy and institutional development to address soil fertility
degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22:57–66

86. Nelson V, Stathers T. 2009. Resilience, power, culture, and climate: a case study from semi-arid Tanzania,
and new research directions. Gender Dev. 17:81–94
87. Quisumbing A, Meinzen-Dick R. 2001. Empowering women to achieve food security. In 2020 Vision
Focus. Washington, DC: Int. Food Policy Res. Inst.
88. Negin J, Remans R, Karuti S, Fanzo J. 2009. Integrating a broader notion of food security and gender
empowerment into the African Green Revolution. Food Secur. 1:351–60
89. Reij C, Scoones I, Toulmin C, eds. 1996. Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in
Africa. Oxford: EarthScan. 224 pp.
90. Cleaver K, Schreiber G. 1994. Reversing the Spiral: The Population, Agriculture, and Environment Nexus in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank
91. Scherr S. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural
resource degradation. Food Policy 25:479–98
92. Forsyth T, Leach M, Scoones T. 1998. Poverty and environment: priorities for research and study—an
overview study, prepared for the United Nations Development Programme and European Commission. Work.
Pap., Lond. Sch. Econ. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/4772
93. Boserup E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population
Pressure. London: Allen & Unwin
94. Mortimore M. 2005. Dryland development: success stories from West Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy
Sustainable Dev. 47:8–21
95. Mortimore M, Harris F. 2005. Do small farmers’ achievements contradict the nutrient depletion sce-
narios for Africa? Land Use Policy 22:43–56
96. Pender J, Ehui S. 2006. Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands.
Washington, DC: Int. Food Policy Res. Inst.
97. Pender J, Mertz O. 2006. Soil fertility depletion in sub-Saharan Africa: What is the role of organic agri-
culture? In Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, ed. N Halberg. Oxfordshire,
UK: CABI
98. Vanlauwe B. 2004. Integrated soil fertility management research at TSBF: the framework, the principles,
and their application. In Managing Nutrient Cycles Sustain Soil Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa, ed. A Bationo,
pp. 25–42. Nairobi: Acad. Sci. Publ.
99. Mazzucato V, Niemeijer D. 2000. The cultural economy of soil and water conservation: market principles
and social networks in eastern Burkina Faso. Dev. Change 31:831–55
100. Sanginga P, Waters-Bayer A, Kaaria S. 2009. Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods. Oxford:
EarthScan/James & James
101. Twomlow S, Rohrbach D, Dimes J, Rusike J, Mupangwa W, et al. 2010. Micro-dosing as a pathway to
Africa’s Green Revolution: evidence from broad-scale on-farm trials. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 88:3–15
102. Zougmoré R, Mando A, Stroosnijder L. 2010. Benefits of integrated soil fertility and water management
in semi-arid West Africa: an example study in Burkina Faso. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 88:17–27
103. Rosemarin A, Ekane N, Caldwell I. 2008. Pathways for Sustainable Sanitation: Achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. London: Int. Water Assoc.
104. Cofie OO, Drechsel P, Agbottah S, Veenhuizen Rv. 2009. Resource recovery from urban waste: options
and challenges for community-based composting in sub-Saharan Africa. Desalination 248:256–61
105. AGRA. 2011. Home. What is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa? http://www.agra-alliance.org/
106. African Union. 2006. Abuja declaration on fertilizer for an African Green Revolution. Work. Pap., NEPAD
Plan. Coordinating Agency, Agric. Food Security
107. World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World
Bank
108. McIntyre B, Herren J. 2008. Agriculture at a Crossroads: The IAASTD Global Report. Washington, DC:
Island
109. Yang X, Zhang K, Jia B, Ci L. 2005. Desertification assessment in China: an overview. J. Arid Environ.
63:517–31
110. Runnström M. 2000. Is Northern China winning the battle against desertification? Satellite remote
sensing as a tool to study biomass trends on the Ordos Plateau in semiarid China. AMBIO 29:468–76

111. Smil V. 1987. Land degradation in China: an ancient problem getting worse. In Land Degradation and
Society, ed. P Blaikie, H Brookfield, pp. 214–22. London: Routledge
112. Blaikie P, Muldavin J. 2004. Upstream, downstream, China, India: the politics of environment in the
Himalayan region. Annu. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94:520–48
113. Prosterman R, Zhu K, Ye J, Riedinger J, Li P, Yadav V. 2009. Secure Land Rights as a Foundation for
Broad-Based Rural Development in China. Seattle, WA: Natl. Bur. Asian Res.
114. Yeh E. 2009. Greening western China: a critical view. Geoforum 40:884–94
115. Bennett M. 2008. China’s sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?
Ecol. Econ. 65:699–711
116. Wang X, Dong Z, Zhang J, Liu L. 2004. Modern dust storms in China: an overview. J. Arid Environ.
58:559–74
117. Batjargal Z, Dulam J, Chung Y. 2006. Dust storms are an indication of an unhealthy environment in
East Asia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 114:447–60
118. Long H, Liu Y, Li X, Chen Y. 2010. Building new countryside in China: a geographical perspective.
Land Use Policy 27:457–70
119. Lichao L, Jixia Z. 2010. Dust storms characteristics in southeast of the Tengger Desert, North China.
2010 Second IITA Int. Conf. Geosci. Remote Sensing 2:205–8
120. Zha Y, Gao J. 1997. Characteristics of desertification and its rehabilitation in China. J. Arid Environ.
37:419–32
121. Xu J. 2006. Sand-dust storms in and around the Ordos Plateau of China as influenced by land use change
and desertification. CATENA 65:279–84
122. Bai Z, Dent D, Schaepman M. 2005. Quantitative global assessment of land degradation and improve-
ment: pilot study in North China. ISRIC Rep. 6, World Soil Inf., Wageningen, Neth.
123. Brogaard S, Runnström M, Seaquist J. 2005. Primary production of Inner Mongolia, China, between
1982 and 1999 estimated by a satellite data-driven light use efficiency model. Glob. Planet. Change 45:313–
32
124. Fang J, Piao S, Field C, Pan Y, Guo Q, et al. 2003. Increasing net primary production in China from
1982 to 1999. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1:293–97
125. Wang X, Chen F, Zhang J, Yang Y, Li J, et al. 2010. Climate, desertification, and the rise and collapse
of China’s historical dynasties. Hum. Ecol. 38:157–72
126. Zheng D. 1994. Desertification and its management in China. Chin. J. Arid Land Res. 7:81–95
127. Nianfeng L, Jie T, Dianfa Z. 1999. The problem of the Quaternary, geological environment and deser-
tification. Environ. Geol. 38:7–12
128. Zhu Z, Di X, Chen G, Zhou B, Wang K, Zhang J. 1988. Desertification and Rehabilitation - Case Study of
Horqin Sandy Land. Gansu, China: Inst. Desert Res. Acad. Sinica Desert Herb.
129. Wang X, Chen F, Dong Z. 2006. The relative role of climatic and human factors in desertification in
semiarid China. Glob. Environ. Change 16:48–57
130. Wang X, Zhang C, Hasi E, Dong Z. 2010. Has the Three Norths Forest Shelterbelt Program solved
the desertification and dust storm problems in arid and semiarid China? J. Arid Environ. 74:13–22
131. Tong C, Wu J, Yong S, Yang J, Yong W. 2004. A landscape-scale assessment of steppe degradation in
the Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid Environ. 59:133–49
132. Cao S. 2008. Why large-scale afforestation efforts in China have failed to solve the desertification prob-
lem. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:1826–31
133. Cao S. 2008. Impact of spatial and temporal scales on afforestation effects: response to comment on
“Why large-scale afforestation efforts in China have failed to solve the desertification problem.” Environ.
Sci. Technol. 42:8166
134. MacBean A. 2007. China’s environment: problems and policies. World Econ. 30:292–307
135. Xu Z, Xu J, Deng X, Huang J, Uchida E, Rozelle S. 2006. Grain for green versus grain: conflict between
food security and conservation set-aside in China. World Dev. 34:130–48
136. Xu Z, Bennett M, Tao R, Xu J. 2004. China’s sloping land conversion program four years on: current
situation and pending issues. Int. For. Rev. 6:317–26
137. Oi JC. 1999. Two decades of rural reform in China: an overview and assessment. China Q. 159:616–28

138. Yep R, Fong C. 2009. Land conflicts, rural finance and capacity of the Chinese state. Public Admin. Dev.
29:69–78
139. Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, et al. 2010. Significant acidification in major Chinese
croplands. Science 327:1008–10
140. Yang W. 2007. Institutional reforms, agricultural risks and agro-industrial diversification in rural China.
J. Asia Pac. Econ. 12:386–402
141. Breslin S. 2007. The political economy of development in China: political agendas and economic realities.
Development 50:3–10
142. Lai HH. 2002. China’s western development program: its rationale, implementation, and prospects.
Mod. China 28:432–66
143. Hill R. 1994. Upland development policy in the People’s Republic of China. Land Use Policy 11:8–16
144. Hinton W. 1992. Privatiseringen av Kina: Den Stora Kursomläggningen 1978–1991. Stockholm: Trana.
238 pp.
145. Hu W. 1997. Household land tenure reform in China: its impact on farming land use and agro-
environment. Land Use Policy 14:175–86
146. Muldavin J. 1996. The political ecology of agrarian reform in China. In Liberation Ecologies: Environment,
Development, and Social Movements, ed. R Peet, M Watts, pp. 227–69. London: Routledge
147. Brogaard S, Xueyong Z. 2002. Rural reforms and changes in land management and attitudes: a case study
from Inner Mongolia, China. AMBIO 31:219–25
148. Ju X, Xing G, Chen X, Zhang S, Zhang L, et al. 2009. Reducing environmental risk by improving N
management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:3041–46
149. Richard C, Zhaoli Y, Guozhen D. 2004. The paradox of the individual household responsibility system in the
grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau, China. Presented at Rangelands Cent. Asia, Proc. Conf. Transform. Iss.
Future Chall., Salt Lake City, Utah
150. Ho P. 1998. Ownership and control in Chinese rangeland management since Mao. In Cooperative and
Collective in China’s Rural Development: Between State and Private Interests, ed. EB Vermeer, FN Pieke,
WL Chong, pp. 197–235. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe
151. Williams D. 1997. The desert discourse of modern China. Mod. China 23:328–55
152. Banks T. 2001. Property rights and the environment in pastoral China: evidence from the field. Dev.
Change 32:717–40
153. Banks T. 2003. Property rights reform in rangeland China: dilemmas on the road to the household
ranch. World Dev. 31:2129–42
154. Ma L. 2010. 2.79 m(illion) Shaanxi residents to be relocated from mountains. China Daily Newsp.
Dec. 8. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-12/08/content_11667792.htm
155. Jiang G, Li G, Peng Y, Liu M, Li Y, Wang B. 2006. A new and sustainable approach to policies for restoring
grasslands in China based on scientific findings. Presented at Desertification Int. Policy Imperative, Alger
156. Jiang G, Han X, Wu J. 2006. Restoration and management of the Inner Mongolia grassland require a
sustainable strategy. AMBIO 35:269–70
157. UN Conf. Desertif. 1977. Desertification—Its Causes and Consequences. Oxford: Pergamon. 448 pp.
158. Grainger A, Stafford Smith M, Squires VR, Glenn EP. 2000. Desertification, and climate change: the
case for greater convergence. Mitig. Adaptation Strategy Glob. Change 5:361–77
159. Young O. 2001. Inferences and indices: evaluating the effectiveness of international environmental
regimes. Glob. Environ. Polit. 1:99–121
160. Bauer S, Stringer L. 2009. The role of science in the global governance of desertification. J. Environ.
Dev. 18:248
161. Norse D, Tschirley J. 2000. Links between science and policy making. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82:15–26
162. Thomas D. 1997. Science and the desertification debate. J. Arid Environ. 37:599–608
163. Lal R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science
304:1623–27
164. Gisladottir G, Stocking M. 2005. Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits. Land
Degrad. Dev. 16:99–112
165. IFAD, 2011. Rural Poverty Report 2011. Int. Fund Agric. Dev., Rome

166. Chasek P. 2006. Synergies at the international level: the challenges of bridging the environment-
development divide in the UNCCD. In Desertification and the International Policy Imperative, ed. C King,
H Bigas, Z Adeel, pp. 270–83. Alger, Algeria: UN Univ.
167. African Union Commission. 2006. The Green Wall for Sahara Initiative, a Concept Note. Addis Ababa: Afr.
Union Comm.
168. Food & Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2004. Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. Rep. 102. Rome: FAO
169. Lal R. 2001. Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect.
Clim. Change 51:35–72
170. Olsson L, Ardö J. 2002. Soil carbon sequestration in degraded semiarid agro-ecosystems—perils and
potentials. AMBIO 31:471–77
171. Daily GC, ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island.
375 pp.
172. Daily GC. 1995. Restoring value to the world’s degraded lands. Science 269:350–54
173. Wunder S. 2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence.
Environ. Dev. Econ. 13:279–97
174. Bumpus A, Liverman D. 2008. Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets.
Econ. Geogr. 84:127–55
175. McDowell N. 2002. Developing countries to gain from carbon-trading fund. Nature 420:4
176. Dunn S. 2002. Down to business on climate change. Greener Manag. Int. 39:27–41
177. Bryan E, Akpalu W, Yesuf M, Ringler C. 2010. Global carbon markets: opportunities for sub-Saharan
Africa in the agriculture and forestry. Clim. Dev. 2:309–31
178. Afribiz. 2010. Kenyan farmers will generate revenue from carbon credits. Mak. Bus. Happen Afr. Newsl.,
Jan. 2
179. Fogel C. 2004. The local, the global and the Kyoto Protocol. In Earthly politics: Local and Global in
Environmental Governance, ed. S Jasanoff, LM Martello, pp. 103–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
180. Kosoy N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69:1228–
36
181. Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view.
Environ. Sci. Policy 13:785–92
182. Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z, Tam C, Chen X. 2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies
for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:9477–82
183. Wunder S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv.
Biol. 21:48–58
184. Djurfeldt G, Holmén H, Jirstroml M. 2005. The African Food Crisis: Lessons from the Asian Green Revolution.
Oxfordshire, UK: CABI
185. Sanchez P, Denning G, Nziguheba G. 2009. The African green revolution moves forward. Food Secur.
1:37–44
186. De Janvry A, Sadoulet E, Murgai R. 2002. Rural development and rural policy. Handb. Agric. Econ.
2:1593–658
187. United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. http://www.un.org/millennium/
declaration/ares552e.htm
188. Christiaensen L, Demery L, Kuhl J. 2010. The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction. Work.
Pap., World Inst. Dev. Econ. Res., UN Univ.
189. Byerlee D, Diao X, Jackson C. 2005. Agriculture, rural development, and pro-poor growth country
experiences in the post-reform era. World Bank Discuss. Pap. 21, Agric. Rural Dev., Washington, DC
190. Lipton M. 2005. The family farm in a globalizing world: the role of crop science in alleviating poverty.
Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. Rep. 0896296547, Consult. Grp. Int. Agric. Res., Washington, D.C.
191. GAFSP. 2011. Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. Washington, DC: World Bank
192. Sanchez P, Palm C, Sachs J, Denning G, Flor R, et al. 2007. The African millennium villages. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 104:16775–80
193. Cabral L, Farrington J, Ludi E. 2006. The Millennium Villages Project—a new approach to ending rural
poverty in Africa? Nat. Resour. Perspect. 101:1–4

194. Sánchez P. 2010. Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nat. Geosci. 3:299–300
195. Olsson L, Jerneck A. 2010. Farmers fighting climate change—from victims to agents in subsistence
livelihods. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1:363–73
196. Buse K, Ludi E, Vigneri M. 2008. Can project-funded investments in rural development be scaled up?
Lessons from the Millennium Vilages Project. Nat. Resour. Perspect. 118, Overseas Dev. Inst., London,
UK
197. Carr ER. 2008. The millennium village project and African development: problems and potentials. Prog.
Dev. Stud. 8:333–44
198. Bryceson D. 2009. Sub-Saharan Africa’s vanishing peasantries and the specter of a global food crisis.
Mon. Rev. 61:48–62
199. Adejobi A, Okoruwa V, Olayemi J, Alimi T, Kormawa P. 2008. Rural poverty and farming households’
livelihood strategies in the drier Savanna Zone of Nigeria. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 5:99–110
200. Magdoff F, Tokar B. 2009. Agriculture and food in crisis. Mon. Rev. 61:1–16
201. Giuliano P, Ruiz-Arranz M. 2009. Remittances, financial development, and growth. J. Dev. Econ. 90:144–
52
202. Blakie P. 1981. Class, land use and soil erosion. Dev. Policy Rev. 2:57–77
203. Naess A. 1995. Self-realization: an ecological approach to being in the world. In The Deep Ecology Move-
ment: An Introductory Anthology, ed. A Drengson, Y Inoue, pp. 13–30. Berkeley, CA: N. Atl. Books
204. Naess A, Rothenberg D. 1990. Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press. 220 pp.
205. Dickens P. 1992. Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
200 pp.
206. Martinez-Alier J. 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
207. Hornborg A, Crumley CL. 2006. The World System and the Earth System: Global Socioenvironmental Change
and Sustainability Since the Neolithic. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
208. Wallerstein I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European
World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic
209. Peet D, Robbins P, Watts M. 2010. Global Political Ecology. Oxford: Routledge. 432 pp.
210. Goldblatt D. 1996. Social Theory and the Environment. Cambridge, UK: Polity
211. Darier E, ed. 1999. Discourses of the Environment. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 270 pp.

EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Annual Review of
Environment
and Resources
Volume 36, 2011

Contents
Preface p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pv
Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii
I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Improving Societal Outcomes of Extreme Weather in a Changing

Climate: An Integrated Perspective
Rebecca E. Morss, Olga V. Wilhelmi, Gerald A. Meehl, and Lisa Dilling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Ocean Circulations, Heat Budgets, and Future Commitment
to Climate Change
David W. Pierce, Tim P. Barnett, and Peter J. Gleckler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p27
Aerosol Impacts on Climate and Biogeochemistry
Natalie Mahowald, Daniel S. Ward, Silvia Kloster, Mark G. Flanner,
Colette L. Heald, Nicholas G. Heavens, Peter G. Hess, Jean-Francois Lamarque,
and Patrick Y. Chuang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
State of the World’s Freshwater Ecosystems: Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Changes
Stephen R. Carpenter, Emily H. Stanley, and M. Jake Vander Zanden p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p75
II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy: Connecting the Dots
Ananth P. Chikkatur, Ankur Chaudhary, and Ambuj D. Sagar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Energy Poverty
Lakshman Guruswamy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Water and Energy Interactions
James E. McMahon and Sarah K. Price p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 163
Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change Perspective
Thomas P. Tomich, Sonja Brodt, Howard Ferris, Ryan Galt, William R. Horwath,
Ermias Kebreab, Johan H.J. Leveau, Daniel Liptzin, Mark Lubell, Pierre Merel,
Richard Michelmore, Todd Rosenstock, Kate Scow, Johan Six, Neal Williams,
and Louie Yang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 193
viii
EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems

Nathan Pelletier, Eric Audsley, Sonja Brodt, Tara Garnett, Patrik Henriksson,
Alissa Kendall, Klaas Jan Kramer, David Murphy, Thomas Nemecek,
and Max Troell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 223
Transportation and the Environment
David Banister, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni,
and Tim Schwanen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247
Green Chemistry and Green Engineering: A Framework for
Sustainable Technology Development
Martin J. Mulvihill, Evan S. Beach, Julie B. Zimmerman, and Paul T. Anastas p p p p p 271
The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

Elina Andersson, Sara Brogaard, and Lennart Olsson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 295
III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change:
Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters
Katrina Brown and Elizabeth Westaway p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation
Patrick Meyfroidt and Eric F. Lambin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Arun Agrawal, Daniel Nepstad, and Ashwini Chhatre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 373
Tourism and Environment
Ralf Buckley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Literature and Environment
Lawrence Buell, Ursula K. Heise, and Karen Thornber p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Religion and Environment
Willis Jenkins and Christopher Key Chapple p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may
be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org
Contents ix

Andersson Et Al 2011 The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andersson Et Al 2011 The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EG36CH12-Olsson ARI 19 September 2011 7:53

• Top downloaded articles

Lund University Center for Sustainability Science, S-22100 Lund, Sweden;

email: Elina.Andersson@lucsus.lu.se, Sara.Brogaard@lucsus.lu.se,

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:295–319 Keywords

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

scientiﬁc debates—land degradation and polit-

between the physical environment and society,

By using critical realism as a combined onto-

296 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

we address using a political-ecology lens on land

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 297

THE ELUSIVENESS OF on the other. This strong link between land

298 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

in a sustainable manner. Scholars applying a policy implications, we highlight important

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 299

two paradigms (54). This reconciliation recog- to the problem.

300 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 301

302 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 303

304 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

hindered longer-term investments as farmers Chinese, increasing agricultural production,

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 305

306 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

responses to the problem of land degradation. informed by an underlying “Coasian” approach

institutions including the World Bank. One of

companies in 2003 (176). In this exchange,

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 307

308 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

are required to meet future needs in terms of

resource management, the conventional fo-

cannot optimize due

to risk aversion and food insecurity,

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 309

scientiﬁc perspectives are linked to particular Land degradation cannot be understood in

310 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

over more comprehensive land-management strategies.

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 311

312 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 11:49–57

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 313

314 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 315

316 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 317

318 Andersson · Brogaard · Olsson

www.annualreviews.org • The Political Ecology of Land Degradation 319

Volume 36, 2011

Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Improving Societal Outcomes of Extreme Weather in a Changing

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems

The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465

You might also like