Desertification is a deceivingly simple term. At first glance it seems that everyone understands what desertification is, considering the frequency with which members of political, economic, scientific, and socio-cultural communities are want to throw the term around in their never-ending fiscal marathons. Yet when one sits down and begins to pour over the literature describing desertification one quickly finds that, in fact, we have all been deluding ourselves. Desertification is revealed to be a phenomenally complex process of the highest order. Indeed, the veritable plethora of definitions for desertification are in and of themselves testaments that the apparent academic unanimity of the scholastic community exists only as far as their desire budgetary concessions.

C.T. Agnew is something of a strict constructionist in his application of the term of desertification, defining it as "the expansion of existing deserts."⁽¹⁾ Another definition of the term comes from the United Nations Conference of 1977 which declared desertification to be:

The intensification or extension of desert conditions:
it is a process leading to reduced biological productivity, with
consequent reduction in plant biomass, in the land's carrying
capacity for livestock, in crop yields and human wellbeing.⁽²⁾

Desertification is thus, in one sense, seen as being desert expansion into areas which were formerly desert borderlands or the further decline of carrying capacity in areas already considered to be deserts.

Jean Eugene Gorse and David R. Steeds basically agree with the UN's 1977 definition, yet they also include the decline of semi-arid land (steppe).⁽³⁾ This would infer that the expansion of semi-arid conditions may also be considered desertification (along with the expansion of arid conditions). Gorse and Steeds also state that "Desertification takes two distinct forms: desert spread and induced desertification in more humid areas."⁽⁴⁾

H.E. Drenge seems to accept the basic principles of both the former definitions, yet expands on especially Gorse and Steed's version in his own definition, stating desertification to be:

the impoverishment of arid, semi-arid and subhumid
ecosystems by the combined impact of man's activities and drought.
It is the process of change in these ecosystems that can be
measured by reduced productivity of desirable plants, alteration in
the biomass and the diversity of the micro and macro fauna and flora, accelerated soil deterioration, and increased hazards for human
occupancy. . ."⁽⁵⁾

It is this definition of desertification which I use as my own, coupled with the concept that as these environments deteriorate subhumid ecosystems become semi-arid, semi-arid ecosystems become arid, and arid ecosystems become utterly and perhaps irreversibly desolate.

Having now devised a definition of desertification it is now possible to begin delineating the causes of desertification. One may clump the theorists attempting to explain the origins of desertification into one of three camps: the human provocation camp, the natural causes camp, and the complex cause camp. The human provocation camp would claim desertification to be almost entirely the result of the mismanagement of natural resources by human beings, leading to climatic changes.⁽⁶⁾ The natural causes camp, on the other hand, would lay responsibility on droughts and other such factors which they perceive as being "independent of human influence."⁽⁷⁾ Finally, the complex cause camp believes that the problem of desertification is far more multifarious than the members of the other camps believe, being the result of both natural and human influences which interact in such a manner that the cumulative effects are greater than the sum of those effects created by the independent influences.⁽⁸⁾ Yet these camps provide us only with wire-frame models, basic organizing principles for elements which must themselves be examined before a particular camp may logically be given preference.

Proposed human causes may been seen as ultimately derived from population pressures. The assumption begins that all land has a maximum carrying capacity of any particular type of life form. When that type of life form reaches a population in that particular area at or above the carrying capacity then that type of life form will begin to have negative effects on the environment which will in turn lead to a dramatically higher level of competition for the ever more limited resources. This increased level of competition leads to a degree of environmental instability which in turns leads to a dramatic drop in the population of the instigating type of life form until some form of equilibrium is restored.⁽⁹⁾ Desertification may be one of the negative effects on the environment which leads to this increased competition.

These population pressures and their complement of associated pressures lead to a series of cycles which the human provocation camp would be inclined to infer is the whole cause of desertification. I have taken the liberty of naming these cycles "desertification cycles," while I have named the larger entities of which the cycles are a part "desertification trends," which follow the course of the lowering carrying capacity.

The beginning of both a single cycle and a trend would be the growth of a population in a particular territory.⁽¹⁰⁾ This population growth causes a growth in pressures on the environment of the territory, pressures which simultaneously are reflected on the residents of that territory. This, in part, leads to competition for the limited resources of the territory, which in turn results in dramatically increased urbanization trends (derived originally push factors, but once growth has started then pull factors increase as well). Furthermore, the higher population requires evermore to be garnished from the same territory (particularly agriculturally), increasing pressure on the environment and leading to overgrazing and mismanaged agriculture.⁽¹¹⁾

This urbanization trend further increases the pressures on the environment of the territory through the processes of urban sprawl and industrialization, both of which again lead to an increase in the pressures applied by the residents of the territory to the environment and thus on the residents themselves, leading to a push for even garnishing of the wealth of the environment, creating a small sub-cycle which further reinforces the drive towards overgrazing and mismanaged agriculture.

>Overgrazing and mismanaged agriculture are not without their own additions to the whole body of negative forces. Indeed, by attempting to force more from the environment than it is capable of stably producing these two unintentionally malevolent actions lead to deforestation, the loss of beneficial plants, soil erosion, salinization, and soil degradation. By leading to these conditions, agricultural and pastoral mismanagement result in lower overall output in the territory in which they are practiced, leading to further environmental pressures which perpetuates the cycle in an ever worsening spiral of degeneration of the environment, which, when accompanied by increasing aridity, as is usually the case, is desertification.⁽¹²⁾

Thus we have the basic layout of a single desertification cycle. It is, however, only a single phase of a desertification trend. In such a trend the cycle repeated many times over, increasing in intensity and cumulative effect each time, gaining inertia like a rolling snowball. The continual rise in pressures leads to decreases in biomass and the overall viability of the environment, all of which leads to increased insolation, decreased capability to retain water, and decreased soil quality.⁽¹³⁾ Eventually the cumulative effects of desertification may itself lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of drought and eventually desiccation.⁽¹⁴⁾ The desertification trend continues, cycle after cycle, until either action is taken to halt and/or reverse its damage or until the territory reaches a theoretical level of deterioration which might be called "absolute desertification," at which point the territory is no longer capable of sustaining permanent, autonomous human habitation.

The human provocation camp might also be willing to allow the possibility of other outside, macro-scale human events. These would include both civil and international warfare as well as mistakes in agrarian and pastoral management originating from the national, regional, and/or international levels.⁽¹⁵⁾

The natural causes camp, on the other hand, would whole-heartedly disagree with most of what has just been expostulated. They would claim that the uncontrollable processes of nature are in fact responsible, its broader mechanisms of climatic change and random, major events such as drought, desiccation, plague (disease), swarming, volcanos, and earthquakes.⁽¹⁶⁾ While these most certainly are important contributors to desertification, to blame it entirely on uncontrollable factors is unreasonable. In essence, the natural causes camp attempts to create a barricade of natural disasters on which to blame desertification, freeing humans both from responsibility for the destruction and for the reversal thereof.

Finally, the complex cause camp interbreeds the concepts of both the other camps into a singular stance. The reasoning is simple: humanity is not an independent entity, unique from its environment. Indeed, it is as much a part of its environment as any other life form, interacting in both a "give" and "take" manner. The reason that human activity may be given special attention within that context of environmental pressures is due to the distinctive range of activities that humanity is capable of pursuing, the scale upon which these activities are able to be conducted, and the human capacity to manipulate the environment in order to achieve maximum perceived results from these activities. Humanity is thus simultaneously responsible for and subject to its environment, including desertification. Therefore the micro-human factors, macro-human factors, and natural factors are in fact a singular entity, differentiated only in the human mind in order to allow for its limited faculty to conceive at least generally of the chaotic order of which it is a part.

The primary, tangible effects of desertification are evident to even the casual observer. As the processes of desertification begin to take effect in an area they begin to alter the landscape, leading to lower biomass and less soil viability. Soil erosion is increased and dune stability (in those areas already arid) begins to deteriorate. Water supply and retention begins to drop and insolation begins to rise. Eventually the territory's inability to retain water leads to drought and desiccation. The shifting environmental conditions means that only a few species originally inhabiting the area may continue to do so, leading to a dramatic drop in biodiversity. This much is obvious.

Newton once declared that an object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force, thus formulating the concept of inertia. This rule may be applied to humanity as well. Humanity as a whole and as sub-entities naturally seeks equilibrium between the poles of conservativism and radicalism. This balance is stability itself, that point in which change is occurring but not at such a extreme rate as to throw off the balance. This stability is necessary if a society is to provide the basics of life to its constituent individuals, avoiding warfare, strife, plague, starvation, etc. When a major event intervenes (perhaps precipitated by humanity itself) to disrupt the order of the society then the society become inviable and begins to degenerate. Efforts to rebalance society are as often as not ineffectual and sometimes further damage the integrity and stability of that society. Eventually the society must either restructure itself moderately (through reforms), or radically (civil war or revolution) or risk societal death (anarchy). There is also the possibility of actions being taken by outside entities in order to restructure the society an thus insure or increase their own stability (invasion, international aid, etc.). Desertification is without a doubt one of those forces capable of dramatically disrupting the balance of a society

A further point remains. Those solutions and adaptations to desertification which would be considered moderate (in other words, those which alter the basic tenants of a society minimally, thus insuring maximum likelihood of success) are, for the most part "expensive." They require a high level of economic development, as well as political and social stability and legitimacy. Michael Renner remarks on this phenomena, saying:

It may be the social, economic, and political repercussions
of environmental change -rather than the change itself- that
are the most important determinants of conflict over the
environment. Communities directly and greatly affected by
soil erosion or water scarcity, for example, may see their
agricultural potential diminished, parts of their populations
uprooted, and their traditional ways of life disintegrating.
The effects will be particularly pronounced if the economic
decline, political instability, or ethnic polarization are already
present.

The ability of different societies to cope with the
effects of environmental stress varies considerably. First,
technical "ingenuity" -the capacity to devise scientific and
engineering responses to deal with contamination problems
or to circumvent scarcities- is much more developed in
industrial countries. (of course, this point accepts the
western view of the preeminent role of technology, ignoring
the growing understanding that many environmental
challenges are, in final analysis, not of a technical but a
social nature.)

Second, countries with broadly diversified, vibrant
economies have a greater ability to withstand environmental
stress. Countries highly dependent on agriculture and
primary commodities -principally those in sub-Saharan
Africa, South America, South Asia, and Central America-
face a much greater threat to their stability and integrity
from environmental degradation.

Third, a country will also be better able to face
environmental stress if its social resilience -the strength and
cohesion of the communal fabric- is strong. There are
enormous differences among countries in this regard, but
the fabric of many is now subject to intensive erosive
forces.⁽¹⁷⁾

To summarize, the rich states which have spent so long feeding off the poor states and capitalizing from their instability, are able to easily take measures to avoid paying the consequences of desertification while the poor states cannot, therefore resulting in their much more pronounced levels of desertification (and the consequent social ramifications thereof) than in their richer counterparts. It should also be noted when desertification occurs in rich states it is generally within a territory occupied by a minority with a separate social identity which is subject to the same political and economic pressures as a post-colonial state, examples being the Basque region of Spain and the southwestern United States (Native Americans).⁽¹⁸⁾

We have defined desertification, delineated its causes, and recognized the chaos that is a derivative of its ravages. Observation now logically leads us to action.

Yet action requires a plan, a rational and organized means of reversing trend of desertification.

UNCOD, or the United Nations Conference on Desertification long ago determined that, "Desertification can be halted and ravaged land reclaimed in terms of what is known now. All that remains is the political will and determination to do it."⁽¹⁹⁾ Brian Spooner notes that any plan which means to deal with desertification effectively must take several factors into account: socio-demographic factors, basic human needs and culture, technology available, climate, the condition of natural resources, and national/international economy.⁽²⁰⁾ Desertification cannot be understood or fought if it is approached solely through the scientific/technological standpoint. We must begin to factor the massive ramifications of human activity on desertification processes, recognizing that solutions may not simply require alterations in our environment but in our own behavior as well, a fact that has been overlooked far too often in past attempts to conquer desertification (following the Western techno-heavy philosophy).⁽²¹⁾

Any plan which hopes to combat desertification must begin with concerted political action on the international, national, and local levels. Needless to say, this is doubtless the most difficult aspect of the plan to initiate, a situation derived from the Machiavellian machinations of the various international powers, the continual denial of responsibility for desertification by the major Western powers, the instability and often times corruption at the local and national levels, the conservative nature of cultures and societies and their natural resistance to change, and finally, the inherent tendency for heel-dragging which accompanies any major political-economic venture (cases in point being the UNCOD and the UNEP, or United Nations Environmental Programme). Yet despite the immense roadblocks to a united and efficient desertification policy which intelligently takes local and national culture into consideration, it is absolutely necessary if desertification is to be controlled or even minimized, otherwise the global connotations for every state in existence will be unavoidably Malthusian.⁽²²⁾

The next step to control or reversal of desertification is the reform of agricultural and pastoral activities. Immense amounts of education must be spread through the world in nearly every major culture about how agricultural practices must preserve the environment in order to maintain sustainability and maximum possible yields. Only education can illustrate that fewer animals or staggered growing in the same plot can actually yield more wealth and food.⁽²³⁾ Furthermore, since the trend of commercialization cannot likely be reversed, at least not without major upheaval of the kind predicted by Marx or Malthus, we must begin developing strategies which will be able to maintain high labor emphasis in poor, high density states while encouraging local profit investment with local infrastructural growth. Modern capitalism with its growing trend towards free markets destabilizes the poor states who are experiencing the ravages of desertification the worst, and in order to lower environmentally and socially destabilization must begin to take into account the ills of the real world, noting that the "lifeboat" theory of economic growth (which claims that economic growth equally benefits all in each particular society, raising them like the tide) simply does not work. Agricultural practices must begin to emphasize the local as well as the global, the sustainable as well as the short-term, and the subsistive as well as the capitalist.⁽²⁴⁾

One of the primary reasons for the implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques is soil conservation. If soil conservation practices are not undertaken than it is quite possible that long-term viability of desertified territory could be close to nil.⁽²⁵⁾ Yet bringing an end to overpopulation of grazing animals and mismanagement of agriculture is in itself inadequate for the preservation of soil. Afforestation techniques must be undertaken to create wind-blocks and to create the necessary root undergirding to eliminate runoff.⁽²⁶⁾ Furthermore, in those areas which are dunes, sand fixation techniques must be undertaken in order to allow the growth of biomass which halts desert expansion and may in time reverse it upon the development of biomass, thus being both a soil conservation and addition technique. Also irrigation techniques must be assessed and chosen or refused as dependent upon their long-term effects on the local environment, while salinization must be controlled and where possible, reversed.

Desertification threatens the stability of humanity as a whole, threatening the political, social, and economic institutions and degrading the lives of its victims. Partly the result of forces beyond the control of humanity, it can never be altogether halted or reversed. Partly the result of human activities, mistakes, and irrationality, it can be in part prevented, and the tide turned.