PART VI

EXPERIENCES OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

-The Australian experience in combating desertification and its impacts
Presented by : Dr. Geoff Miller, Associate Secretary for Agriculture, Australia

-The Icelandic experience in combating desertification and its impacts
Presented by : Mr. Olafur Arnalds, The Agricultural Research Institute of Iceland

-The Spanish experience in combating desertification and its impacts
Presented by : Dr. José L. Rubio, Director, of Desertification Department, Consejo Superior de Inversitgaciones Cientificas, Spain

-The American experience in combating desertification and its impacts
Presented by : Mr. Paul Blakeburn, Director, Office of Ecology, Health and Conservation, US State Department, USA

THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERINECE IN COMBATING DESERTIFICATION AND ITS IMPACTS

Presented by : Dr. Geoff Miller, Associate Secretary for Agriculture, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Land degradation is not, a process that confines itself to particular races or nations. Whether the problem is in the form of advancing deserts, the denuding of vegetation, the contamination of waterways or the destruction of soils, the harsh reality is that no country is immune form the social dislocation, economic adversity and environmental damage that accompany these phenomena.

Australia has had to focus on these issues in recent decades. I wish to share with you our experiences in attempting to come to grips with the insidious effects of land degradation that will inevitably result if the underlying causes of the problem are not addressed.

Australia is the driest continent on earth. About three-quarters of our landmass is arid or semi-arid. The development of appropriate technologies for addressing degradation, and encouraging their adoption in land management, are critical. The risks of taking wrong directions are high, as we have learned at significant cost.

In this process the partnership between governments and local communities is of central importance - an approach which will be familiar to many of you at this meeting. The ultimate aim is the ecologically sustainable management of Australia's natural resources.

We do not pretend that we have all the answers. That would not only be presumptuous, but also wrong. We have still much to learn about our fragile ecosystems and how best to manage them. Yet, I believe we are making solid progress. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA

Wherever I visit Africa, I never cease to be amazed at the infinite diversity and the enormous contrasts. I am also struck by the similarities between many parts of Africa and Australia.

Both continents have large areas of arid land. Degradation has often been the result of similar experiences. Both continents were colonised by Europeans. Both have therefore experienced farming and grazing systems of essentially European origin. These were established side-by-side with traditional systems or, in many cases, supplanted them.

These systems were based on achieving maximum yield - using more intensive grazing higher yielding crop and pasture varieties and, where cultivation was practised, more rapid rotations and deeper cultivation, than had been used in traditional indigenous systems.

Higher yielding varieties generally require higher levels of moisture and nutrients, and other inputs such as chemicals, which must be bought in. The price of higher yields is higher production costs and often greatly increased vulnerability to drought, pest attack and market price slumps.

I don't wish to criticise the remarkable increases in productivity that technology has provided. But the clear evidence is that long-term survival and prosperity requires much more than simple intensification. Critically important is the adaptation of agricultural practices to the underlying soil, water and vegetation resources. That is, we must have farming practices that provide for the continuing stability and resilience of agricultural ecosystems.

In the Australian rangelands, for example, we are finding consistently that pastoralists who reduce their stocking rates and effectively control overall grazing pressure are more productive and profitable. They are in a better position to withstand droughts.

This is because ground cover is maintained, the native perennial grasses are allowed to set seed and regenerate and a bank of feed is built up. This feed-bank can help carry stock over feed deficit periods. For Australia, such periods, I can assure you, are frequent. Other benefits include improved protection for native plants and animals.

The adaptation of farming techniques to the physical environment is a key element of dealing with land degradation. I want to return to this theme in a moment, particularly the idea of attacking the problem form within the farming community itself. The goal should be to get the community to "own" the degradation problem, rather than the alternative route of building layer upon layer of regulation and bureaucracy. This latter approach so often alienates the very people who must change their behaviour.

Before doing so, however, there is another, more fundamental issue I want to expose. It is the fallacy of believing that there is a single, uni-directional solution to global problems such as desertification, or the associated problems of hunger and malnutrition.

GLOBAL POLICY AND CHALLENGES

It is tempting to think that effective handling of malnutrition might require nothing more than a redistribution of food from food surplus to food deficit countries in response to episodic climatic events. But we know that food aid alone will not solve the world's food and agricultural problems.

And the same is true of research, infrastructure development, extension or marketing systems. Reform of any of these will not by themselves solve the problem. Even sound national economic policies alone, will not resolve our problems. Nor even progress in improving the world agricultural trading system or the world financial order. Similarly, enhanced military security - by itself - will not provide a fix. Let me quote form my own address to the World Food Council.

"The answer of course is that all these things are part - but only part - of the solution. They are all part of the quiet revolution that underlies our thinking about agricultural development. But even all these actions do not present the entire picture. We must also have a change in international human attitudes.

Even today, food and agricultural assistance is delivered by donors. It is received by recipients. Donors and recipients. Donors patronise, and recipients receive patronage. These attitudes permeate the entire system. Foreign experts deliver solutions - sometimes with an arrogance more suited to a bygone colonial era. Poor peasant farmers are expected to gratefully embrace the so-called solutions.

Sometimes they have done just that. They have planted European crop varieties and pasture species that offered higher average yields, but they have greatly increased the vulnerability of the farmers to drought. Those that have survived, have retreated to their traditional subsistence systems.

At a much higher level governments have taken the advice of international financial and development institutions, and deregulated their economies. In doing so, they have increased their prospective long-run growth rates. But they have also increased their vulnerability to shocks in exchange rates, interest rates and other world economic conditions.

Solution that are sound in the conceptual long-run MAY be sound in the practical short-run. This will generally only be the case when there is an appropriate strategy and an institutional framework, to manage risk.

Otherwise, as John Maynard Keynes so poignantly noted half a century ago, "in the long run we will all be dead!".

The important point is that, to be successful, the individual farmer, whether in Kenya, Australia, India, Chile or anywhere else, needs to be supported by sound national economic policies, eduction and training, technology and infrastructure. An institutional framework that facilitates the management of risk is also of prime importance.

A nation's capacity to manage its economy, facilitate rural development and combat desertification, is in turn dependent on the world's financial and trading system. The crushing third world debt burden that stultified development in the 1980's - a burden that is still breaking the back of many of the poorest countries of Africa, and undoubtedly constrains improvements in human wellbeing and environmental management.

A successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of trade negotiations would open the way for increased trade in agricultural products, and improve the economic position of farmers in many countries and their ability to combat rural poverty and desertification. Australia, as convenor of the Cairns Group, together with many other nations, has been pursuing trade reform. A commitment by the rich and powerful nations of the world to reform of international agricultural trade would be one of the clearest demonstrations of commitment giving developing nations the self reliance they need to establish sustainable systems and to determine their own futures.

A campaign to combat desertification needs to be waged on many fronts. We live in an international economy, a global village. Issues that seem remote from resource degradation are in very much involved in perpetuating it.

AUSTRALIA'S EXPERIENCE

I turn now to summarise for you the quiet revolution taking place on Australia's farming lands.

This revolution has gathered momentum over the past decade, but especially since the establishment of the federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy. That decision bought all of Australia's natural resource based industries into one agency. I am proud to have headed that agency for the past five years.

Most of Australia is classified as arid, semi-arid or dry sub-humid -commonly referred to as rangeland. This land is mostly under reserve or used for extensive grazing of sheep or cattle. A small proportion of the semi-arid area is cropped. There are some isolated patches of irrigation. A large proportion of the continent is empty of human habitation. Large and increasing areas of Australia are owned or controlled by Australia's indigenous people. This is used for traditional tribal pursuits, often in combination with grazing.

The rangelands and the farming enterprises they support, have been closely associated with the economic development of modern Australia. The question we have been increasingly asking ourselves in recent years is, what has been the cost of this economic development?

Increasingly we have had to answer that the cost has been substantial when measured in terms of soil and vegetation loss, loss of productive capacity. reduced surface and ground water quality and loss of biodiversity. Recent authoritative estimates suggest that over 40 million hectares or 13 per cent of Australia's rangelands is seriously degraded.

I will concentrate on a few key aspects of the policy responses - the institutional framework and programs - which have been developed to achieve ecologically sustainable development. Of course, the policy-making process is an evolving one - it must respond to changes in our knowledge and understanding of arid land systems, to improved management techniques, to new enterprises, to market or climate induced factors, and to changes in community attitudes to resource use and conservation.

This first imperative is to identify the prime causes of degradation. These lie in a complex of physical, biological, social and economic factors that influence land management decisions. Important factors influencing farmer behaviour are the perceived risks associated with change, the pattern of property rights, the level of awareness of the problem, the benefits of change or the means of achieving change.

The fact that the costs of external or off-site effects of farm decisions have been excluded from the farm manager's decision framework has been an important contributor to degradation.

Interestingly, suspicion of advice from government sources has also been listed as a factor influencing farmer behaviour, particularly in remote areas. Scepticism of government is not, I would venture to say, a characteristic wholly confined to Australia!

Australian farmers are now almost fully exposed to international markets for their products. They need to be able to respond rapidly to change. Thus government policies for agriculture are increasingly aimed at promoting sustainability and facilitating structural adjustment. Improving risk management is often crucial to this process.

Over the past five years we have engineered a pronounced shift away from policies which relied principally on market intervention, towards those which encourage self sufficiency and promote sustainable resources management. The concept of landcare, about which I will speak in a moment, did not come form Canberra - it came from the bush! We merely adopted it - it captured our imagination.

Improved information flows and strengthened incentives to encourage use of sustainable practices are major elements in our policy thrust. This is backed-up by a measure of regulation to ensure that action is taken in critical areas where market based incentives are not well developed, and there are many of these.

Associated research and development is aimed at improving knowledge and understanding of farming systems and developing more sustainable management techniques. The model we have been working towards in Australia is one that combines "carrots and sticks", but with a good dose of inspirational community commitment. It's people who make progress.

Consistent with this view of implementing policies, the cooperative efforts of three levels of government, private landholders and the community are employed. Private landholders increasingly take responsibility for their own management decisions, as individuals or collectively, and governments maintain an institutional framework to support their efforts.

Landcare

In the 1980s, it was realised that reliance on the government, any or all governments, would not result in control of land degradation. At the same time, governments in Australia discovered the potential within communities for taking charge of their own resource management problems. Cooperative, voluntary community action is well established in many countries. But I believe that Australia is unique in how it has gone about fostering what we call the landcare ethic.

The idea of landcare has really caught on in Australia in recent years. There are now some 1400 community based groups, with some 20 to 30 per cent of the farming community involved. These groups have been effective in providing a mechanism for local communities to identify resource management problems, to devise solutions using outside technical assistance and for implementing those solutions.

Not only are problems on private land addressed, but group action is effective in addressing degradation off-site, on common or communal property - for example, reducing silt in streams, protecting native vegetation and managing salinity across a river catchment.

Not all groups seek government assistance. For those that do, the challenge for governments is to draw on and stimulate the synergy of landcare groups, not control them. Taxpayers' funds must be properly accounted for and used as incentives, not to make the landcare groups dependent. Their strength is their own self reliance.

The most recent development in providing a framework of support for the landcare movement is the establishment of the National Landcare Program. This program replaces several former resource management programs with one program, a program in which land, water and nature conservation are addressed as part of integrated whole-systems rather, than as separate problems.

Grants are provided for projects such as community education and awareness, planning, surveying and mapping, group support services and training. Projects are funded where the benefits are shred by the community, where there is significant community support and contribution and where the project is part of a long-term resource management strategy for the catchment or region.

Australia has a well developed research base and network, financed cooperatively by farmers and government. We have developed skills and techniques for the sustainable management of rangeland areas. But all the skills and technical know-how in the world count for little if they are not used. Landcare has enabled us in Australia to meet the twin challenges of agricultural extension: on the one hand, to ensure that information about sustainable practices finds its way to farmers, or is actively sought out by them; on the other, to provide the incentives to ensure that this information is actually used.

Indigenous People

Aboriginal people own or control some 13 per cent of Australia's land areas. Landcare is providing a vehicle for Aboriginal people to address land degradation and resource management on their own land. This is important, because often land granted to, or purchased by, Aboriginal communities has suffered from poor management under European control.

We have not been confronted with a more practical application of the principles of ecologically sustainable development than in developing policies and programs for Aboriginal people. It involves reflecting on how people live, or wish to live, and interact with and affect the total environment.

In the past, the focus was on optimal economic production.

Aboriginal people, like other indigenous people, have a range of goals. Commercial livestock production for maximum profit is only one aim. Others include maintaining ties with the land, supplying food for the community, and pursuit of economic independence through tourism and feral animal harvesting.

Traditional management activities might include looking after waterholes, burning for herbage management purposes, hunting and protection of sacred sites. At the same time, Aboriginal owners have to deal with introduced pests and weeds and pastoralism.

With the Aboriginal Rural Resources Program in my Department, we are attempting to meet these multiple social, economic and cultural objectives. Critically, the scope and direction of pastoral land use on Aboriginal land must be based on a balance of the community's aspirations. People who help assess the best land use strategies invariably have a commitment to those strategies. Expert advice must be available, but it must be provided to assist communities, not to direct or control them.

Strategic Planning

Planning is a key element in resources management. It is essential in focusing the efforts of the community on shared resource management goals. To be effective people must be involved in the planning process, and plans must be reviewed regularly to keep them responsive to emerging priorities and information. In Australia land resource planning occurs at three levels -national, regional and farm.

At the national level, governments have developed Decade of Landcare Plans to provide an integrated strategic framework leading up to the year 2000. These Plans were developed in consultation with governments, landholder and community groups and other interested parties. They set out agreed goals and priorities for sustainable land management, and establish the roles and responsibilities of governments, individuals and the community in achieving these goals.

At the other end of the scale, increasing attention is being given to farm management planning. This is seen as a crucial requirement for sustainable management. One element of farm planning relates to the physical layout of the farm, and assists in the management of livestock, cropping, soil, water and vegetation management. Other elements are the financial and business aspects and the incorporation of risk - particularly climatic and market risks.

Whole farm planning and management of risk are central to Australia's National Drought Policy. Under the new National Drought Policy, governments are moving away from direct subsidies, to encourage a self-reliant approach. After all, drought is a frequent occurrence in Australia. Strategies to cope with it can be developed. The damage can be reduced, though not eliminated.

At the same time, we are putting a lot of effort into improving climate prediction and longer- term weather forecasting.

If we are to expect land managers to plan effectively for drought, another task of considerable importance for governments is to make sure that they have the requisite information and human skill. Education and extension, and farm planning and risk management is one element. Another is translating information gained from highly sophisticated climate prediction models into a form that can be readily understood and used by farmers and regional extension officers.

The third level of planning the management of resources is at the regional or catchment level. Landcare groups provide a mechanism through which these plans can be developed, with the technical assistance of scientists and extension workers. Farm plans should be consistent with catchment or regional plans.

Property Rights

Degradation is often associated with resources which are common property or for which property rights are not clearly defined. This has been a long-standing issue in Australia's rangelands where, for the most part, land is publicly owned. Most of this land is leased to pastoralists for varying periods for the purpose of grazing stock.

Public ownership of land has not prevented degradation, despite the fact that this has been one of the reasons advanced for maintaining public ownership.

Lease terms and conditions which do not provide pastoralists with certainty about future rights, have resulted in over-exploitation of resources. They have also constrained investment in improvements necessary for sustainable management. Similar effects result from lese periods that are out of line with commercial considerations, such as loan repayment periods set by banks. Government requirements about lease area, transferability or minimum stocking rates have limited the flexibility of farmers to respond to changes in market circumstances.

Governments in Australia are recognising the importance of establishing clear rights to the use of leasehold land. Lease terms and conditions are being brought into line with commercial considerations. At the same time, new leasehold arrangements incorporate a prudent element of regulation. Trends in the condition of the land resource are monitored so that early warning of degradation is given and action taken to forestall it.

Lease renewals are conditional on sustainable management practices being followed. Because of the importance of vegetation cover in preventing soil loss, and in protecting biodiversity, regulations controlling the clearing of trees are also being strengthened.

Resource Pricing

Water is scarce in Australia. Its efficient use is of paramount importance, particularly as demand for water is growing, not only for irrigation, but also for urban, recreational and environmental uses.

Water is the main agricultural resource for which the price is determined by government in Australia. Underpricing of water - the setting of charges at less than the social cost of providing it - and limitations on the transfer of access rights to water, have been major contributors to over use. The result has been pollution, waterlogging and salinity.

Engineering works can be used to solve waterlogging and salinity problems but these often treat symptoms not causes. At least part of the solution lies in the pricing and ownership of the resource. Prices for water that more closely reflect its cost of supply will help reduce wastage and promote better environmental outcomes.

Greater tradeability of entitlements to use water will also encourage efficiency gains, allow water to be used to the greatest benefit of irrigators and other users, while allowing for the retirement of highly saline land or otherwise unsuitable land.

Once again, pricing and allocation are only part of a more comprehensive approach to the issue of water use. Other elements include: institutional reform to ensure that publicly owned water management agencies operate as efficiently as possible; increased industry and community awareness of the problems of excessive water use; measures to protect and enhance water quality; and development and introduction of more efficient on-farm irrigation techniques, such as drip irrigation and microjets.

CONCLUSION

In concluding, I would like to say that I am pleased to have had the opportunity to share with you some of Australia's experiences in dealing with degradation problems. I have attempted to place these experiences within a broader domestic and international context. If development is to be sustainable, it is critical that problems be addressed with an understanding of this broader context.

Within the bounds of our current knowledge and understanding, we do have techniques for addressing the problems of arid and semi-arid land degradation. We continue to work on refining these techniques, and on acquiring a greater understanding of the complex agro-ecological systems with which we are dealing. But, as we know, technical fixes are of little use if we do not address the human factor. This is the greatest challenge for governments.

The bottom line is that there is no single solution to the problem of resource degradation. In Australia we see the use of a mix of policies being the most effective, a mix which addresses the resource base in an integrated way, rather than seeing land, water, vegetation and nature conservation as separate issues requiring separate policy responses.

Packaging policy instruments is a central feature. We treat symptoms - yes - but the prime targets are the social, economic and cultural factors that influence resource use. Local ownership of problems and solutions and local responsibility for implementation are critical.

We must resist the temptation to tell people what to do and let them decide for themselves. The task for governments is to provide the tools - the incentives, the institutional framework, techniques, skills and training -which will allow people to achieve their own goals. And when I say "them", I really should say "us", because we are all involved.

I don't say we in Australia have all the answers, but I believe we are heading in the right direction given our particular circumstances.

We haven't solved our problems. Indeed, it will be well into the next century before we can say that Australians have a truly sustainable system of land management.

What we have done is to set out reasonably on the path to achieving that goal. We have engineered the cultural change, set up the incentives. We have unleashed irreversible forces of human creativity. The goal will be achieved.

THE ICELANDIC EXPERIENCE IN COMBATING DESERTIFICATION AND ITS IMPACTS

Presented by : Mr. Olafur Arnalds, The Agricultural Research Institute of Iceland

INTRODUCTION

Iceland is a 103,000 km2 island in the North-Atlantic Ocean between 63o and 66o latitudes. The island consists mainly of basaltic of Tertiary and Quaternary age. Volcanic eruptions occur periodically and volcanic ash deposits are widespread. Soils that form in volcanic tephra deposits are classified as Andosols. The climate is considered as humid cold temperate to low arctic. Rainfall is highest along the eastern and western shorelines exceeding 1,500 mm/year in some areas but lowest in North-east Iceland, commonly between 300 and 700 mm/year. The island is mountainous, with lowland areas along the coastline and river plains. About 260,000 people inhabit the country. The income per capita is high, owing to rich fishing grounds and a modernized fishing industry.

Icelandic soil resources have experienced severe degradation and desertification during 1,100 years of mans activity in the country. Satellite images show that more than 37,000 km2 are barren deserts with additional 10,000 - 15,000 km2 of disturbed or degraded areas with limited plant production, some of which has been caused by volcanism. At the time of settlement, Icelandic deserts were only 5,000 - 15,000 km2 and the condition of vegetated areas much better than now.

DESERTS AND DESERTIFICATION

Deserts have been defined in numerous ways. They are often thought of as areas where potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. The term "desert" has a latin origin and means solitary or lonely and Webster's dictionary does not limit deserts to arid lands.

The term "desertification" is commonly used to describe degradation processes, however without a generally accepted definition.

It is doubtful that the terms desert and desertification should be restricted to the arid areas of the world. It is natural that arid areas experience periodic draughts just as the colder regions of the world periodically go through cold spells. Degradation and desertification can occur if landuse is not adjusted to these natural fluctuations. The ultimate result is the same: areas devoid of vegetation, which in turn has a drastic effect on the human population occupying these areas. The term, although poorly defined adequately describes the degradation of Icelandic ecosystems and its consequences through the history of Iceland. Desertification can be defined as the overall process which leads to the formation of barren land as the result of stresses caused by man by his use of the land, accelerated by natural factors such as drought or cold.

ICELANDIC DESERTS AND DESERTIFICATION

The barren areas in Iceland have in the past been referred to as deserts. These deserts were formed due to the combination of human and natural stresses exerted on natural resources. After the settlement of the country in 830 AD, rapid population growth lead to intense use of fragile ecosystems. Erosion was accelerated significantly, causing irreversible damage to vegetation and soils. As a result, the population decreased by 50% with social unrest and poverty, which later lead to loss of independence in the 13th century. Poverty remained until this century.

Soil erosion in Iceland is characterized by a total removal of soil resources. Rich soil surfaces are truncated, which leaves behind barren surfaces of various kind, such as basal till and lava surfaces. Processes leading to desertification are not confined to erosion by wind and water, and erosion is mapped using erosion classification based on erosion forms. Severe erosion still occurs in Iceland and it is considered the most serious environmental problem in the country, but soil active soil conservation work is bringing the problem under control.

SOIL CONSERVATION

The Icelandic Soil Conservation Service was established in 1907, which most likely makes it the first soil conservation institution of the world. The Icelandic SCS had successfully stopped severe desertification before 1925. The SCS works closely with the National Agricultural Research Institute and together they cover most aspects of soil conservation, including research and development, reclamation and restoration, and educational matters.

Soil erosion is being mapped in the country, using LANDSAT images and GIS systems as basic tools. Mapping of soil erosion uses a scale of 0-5, with each erosion from having its own definition for the scale.

( click here to view table)

In addition to erosion mapping, there is active research in the field of soil erosion, reclamation, and restoration.

The activities of the SCS include large scale plant seed production for reclamation, monitoring of land use pressures and range condition, fencing off erosion areas, seeding and fertilizing to halt erosion, and restoration of denuded areas (deserts). The SCS negotiates with farmers to adjust grazing pressures and distributes resources to land users to improve land use and to halt erosion. Soil conservation measures are implemented by negotiations, cooperation and education, rather than enforcement.

Iceland has 85 years of experience in the field of battling desertification, including research, reclamation, restoration and land use planning.

THE SPANISH EXPERIENCE IN COMBATING DESERTIFICATION AND ITS IMPACTS

Presented by : Dr. José L. Rubio, Director, of Desertification Department, Consejo Superior de Inversitgaciones Cientificas, Spain

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a brief presentation of problems involving desertification in Spain as well as the main measures which have been undertaken for its control.

Before delving into this topic, mention must be made of the following points which will serve as an aid to understanding the context of the problems involved:

(a) In this paper, desertification is construed exactly as it was defined under the United Nations Environment Programme: The degradation of arid, semiarid and subhumid lands mainly due to inadequate actions taken by Man, although this does not mean that the Spanish official position is to assume this definition must be established by the Convention.

(b) In Spain, the fundamental factor in desertification is soil erosion produced by water, to the point that desertification is practically identified with prolonged, high-grade erosion in arid and semiarid zones.

(c) In Spain desertification control measures have been developed mainly outside of the scope crops production, carrying out the afforestation of formerly viable forest areas that have been highly affected by erosion. The great amount of experience acquired in the afforestation of eroded areas is perhaps the best contribution that Spain has to offer to desertification control techniques.

As a result of the aforementioned points, this paper will mainly deal with problems involved with soil erosion caused by water as a basic factor involved in desertification in Spain and afforestation as the main measure for its control.

THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, MAN'S INFLUENCE AND EROSION PROCESSES

The current evolution of soil erosion processes in Spain is a result of a combination of natural and human factors. Below, a brief summary of these factors and of the processes to which they lead is presented as a necessary starting point for the analysis and evaluation of the measures of control used, as well as for creating new strategies.

The basic concept which makes the situation in Spain understandable is the fact that it is a Mediterranean country. All the countries in this area have one thing in common: delicately-balanced ecosystems which they have been exploited by Man over a long period.

Some natural factors influence rainfall, orographical characteristics of the land and plant cover are particularly poor on the Mediterranean versant of Spain.

The distribution of major groups of land uses according to the data of the Crop and Land Use Map (1988) is summarized in the following Table:

TABLE I

The orographical characteristics of the land are uneven. The main mountain chains on the Atlantic versant run from West to East, while the mountain chains on the Mediterranean versant run parallel to the coastline. This fact is a relevant factor with regard to socioeconomic development and the end results of the erosion process on the Mediterranean versant of Spain.

Rainfall is scarce in general and irregularly distributed throughout the country. Thirty-two percent of the territory gets 300 mm to 500 mm of rain yearly, which is enough rain for there to be a good number of erosion-causing storms but not enough for a fast recovery of vegetation once it has been lost.

In a country dating so far back into the past, man's influence on the environment has left deep traces. Only from this historical point of view can the current situation of the landscape and the process to which it is subjected be understood. It is estimated that 5% of the land area of Spain has a potential vegetation other than trees. The rest would then be predominantly covered naturally by forests, eight percent by conifers, 4% by riverbank forest cover and 83% by forests comprised of trees of the cupuliferous family: evergreen oak forests, cork-tree plantations, beech forests, oak forests and muricated oak plantations. A brief comparison of these figures with the current vegetation data summarized in Table I provides an idea of the profound changes which have taken place throughout Spain`s long history.

Naturally, the use of lands as croplands for agricultural purposes, inherent to the growth of civilization, is included among these changes. Nevertheless, the difficult socioeconomic conditions of the past, in conjunction with how delicately balanced the primeval ecosystems were, has meant an excessive transformation and degradation of the environment as it was in its origins. This transformation process can be summarized in the diagram provided in Fig. I.

Throughout history and particularly during the periods of difficult socioeconomic conditions, the uses given to the land have shifted upward. That is to say, farming operations have invaded pasture lands, and stockbreading operations have, in turn, moved up into the forest lands, creating some ecological imbalances, the major result of which are erosion processes, the result of socioeconomic imbalances. Recurring hard times have led to intermittent upward inversions and to the inappropriate use of the land, so that, even when some ecosystems are in a more or less stable balance, others are undergoing ecological stress.

In the areas where the original ecosystems were most delicately balanced and were put under the greatest pressure by Man, the most significant overall damage has been caused. This situation is true of a good part of the Mediterranean versant in Spain and is also true of other geographic areas of the country.

The processes or means by which this process has taken place throughout time are the typical ones: the felling of trees, ploughing, fires, over-grazing, marginal crops. These actions are often considered to be causes, however, they are nothing more than means of human response to certain socioeconomic conditions.

Another typically Mediterranean erosion factor is that of ligneous crops (olive groves, vineyards and almond groves) which have covered and still cover large areas and comprise important focal points of erosion due to their low density, yearly ploughing and cultivation and their frequently being located on slopes.

Over a recent period (on the order of the last 20 years), a progressive halt and reversal of the overall process described has been observed, depending on the geographic location. This is the result of the greatly improved current socioeconomic situation.

Nevertheless, the process is still continuing in some areas, and some of the factors which have given rise thereto, such as forest fires, have increased considerably.

The current situation with regard to erosion processes has been studied in detail by means of different mapping assessments experimental basins and field measurements.

A 1:200,000 scale map of the erosion situation of 95% of the territory now exists with studies of the remaining areas currently nearing completion.

As a summary of evolution of the erosion phenomenon, the following figures taken from the National Forestry-Water Resource Recovery and Erosion Control Plan are provided.

Forty-three percent of the land area is affected by this phenomenon. In addition, erosion is shown to be high-density in 18.1% of the country. The implementation of control measures with regard to the latter of these two situations is a priority environmental goal.

The Regions most greatly affected by high-rate processes are: Valencia (43.6% of its territory), Andalusia (39.7%) and Murcia (35.4%), which are precisely the most arid regions in Spain.

Now that this phenomenon has been presented from an overall historic point of view and quantified in scope and in its actual distribution, we shall now focus on the current causes of erosion- causing agents.

Forest fires are currently one of the most important agents degrading the environment and giving rise to erosion, particularly when they repeatedly affect the same area, as is frequently the case in Spain, particularly in Galicia and on the east coast. In addition, from the point of view of the recent past (over the last 30 years), there has been a clear upward trend, with an average of 225,000 hectares (0.45% of the entire land mass of the country) having been affected yearly over the past 15 years.

Nevertheless, generally speaking, the immediate effects on the soil have not been great. They can even improve it and enhance the taking root of new forest cover. However, repeated fires have serious consequences, hindering regeneration and giving rise to erosion.

The other agents traditionally giving rise to erosion: the felling of trees, over-grazing and ploughing, are not as important from an overall point of view as forest fires. The uncontrolled felling of trees has been quite rare for many years now, due to adequate laws and an efficient control of the territory on the part of the Forest Administration. Likewise, the ploughing of uncultivated lands for their use as croplands is controlled by regulations and comes under the control of the Forest Administration. Nevertheless, due to the advanced farming technology currently available to farmers, the pressures exerted by ploughing is great in some areas. (for example: plains holm oak forests in central Spain or slope brushlands on the east coast, where orange groves are planted).This pressure, in conjunction with how difficult it is to control a vast territory and to detect slow, gradual processes, gives rise, in fact, to some ploughing escaping the Administration`s control.

Over-gazing has dropped considerably over these past few years, however, some cases still occur in rough areas where goat herds are allowed to over-graze.

A review of the most important erosion sites can sum up the current situation in qualitative terms.

One of the first sectors to be mentioned is that of the degraded brushlands and wastelands, which are the result of the historic process previously explained. These sectors contain highly degraded vegetation which is insufficient to protect the soil and which have also gone into a regression which is frequently worsened by the fact of how easily they catch fire, which means they periodically burn. These sectors are located along the mid and high-lying stretches of river basins having average or steep slopes, which is why the influence of the erosion that takes place there is highly important due to its influence on the downriver areas of the basins. They are located throughout the entire country, but they are found mostly in the mountain ranges near the Mediterranean coast.

Among these groups of vegetation, those most seriously affected by erosion cover over 2 million hectares. The marginal croplands which have been abandoned are another important focal point of erosion. They are also the result of the historic process and are concentrated along the Mediterranean. They are mostly located on mid to high-altitude slopes along the mid-lying stretches of basins, which is why their influence on the lower-lying areas is often great. A good part of these croplands were put in on terraces, which gradually fall into ruin once abandoned. Soil retention in these structures must be an important goal, and afforestation has been carried out on a certain area of abandoned terraces, thus achieving their stabilization.

Among the lands currently cultivated, it is the ligneous crops (Olives, Fruit Trees and Vineyards) which best withstand erosion, given the special characteristics of how they are cultivated (low density, soil constantly fallow) and their frequently being located on slopes. As a whole, they have an extremely high average erosion rate (81T/hectare/year). Doing away with the marginal ones and the implementation of soil conservation practices on those withstanding the most erosion and which, due to their location, are situated overlooking urban areas or infrastructures, is a priority.

Finally, some of the sectors of the landscape that show the greatest amount of erosion are the herbaceous dry-farming crops located on moderate to steep slopes and on which conservation practices are not observed. These sectors are the main source of sediments that filter into drainage systems and reservoirs.

EROSION AND DESERTIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES: THE AFFORESTATION OF ARID AND SEMIARID ZONES

Among erosion and desertification control measures, afforestation is the one that has traditionally been employed to the greatest extent.

In spite of the great afforestation efforts made (over 2.5 million hectares since 1990), it is estimated that there are still over 10 million hectares (20% of the land area of Spain) of area which are designated forest land but have not as yet been reforested. The National Water-Forestry Resource and Erosion Control Plan (ICONA, Nature and Conservation Institute, 1991) estimates that 9 million hectares (18% of the land area of the country) are affected by severe erosion and proposes urgent afforestation, as protective ground cover, of 2 million hectares over the next 20 years.

The typical characteristics of the areas where afforestation as protective ground cover is to be carried out are: uneven lands, semiarid climate conditions with 2 to 4 months of summer drought, irregular rainfall distribution, and highly degraded, poor soils, with a great deal of rock and vegetation, characterized by brushwood that provides very little protection of the soil against erosion and which do not ensure the recovery of good soil conditions.

In keeping with these characteristics, protective afforestation is carried out using species that require sun during their first years of growth and which do not require very good soil conditions.

Due to poor climate and soil conditions, afforestation as protective ground cover is not profitable for private property owners and, nevertheless, provides indirect benefits (soil protection and water control) of great importance. These benefits, clearly identified back in the 1800s by the government, are the fundamental reason for state

intervention in afforestation efforts.

From 1940 to 1986, over 2.5 million hectares of new forests have been created. This activity provides a valuable experience for evaluating methods, the species used and the environmental impact caused by the different types of afforestation. As a result of this experience, a number of important techniques and systems have been developed for the appropriate afforestation of areas having degraded soils, uneven lands and dry and partially-dry climates.

This afforestation effort was carried out following the technical criteria set forth in the Plan for the Afforestation of Spain of 1939. The extent to which this Plan was fulfilled surpassed even what was set forth therein, which shows the importance of the central government support for afforestation efforts to be successful.

Having being a good technical plan and the political will to carry it out are not the only factors which led to the success of this plan, other important factors being the Spanish National Forest Administration Act of 1941 and the creation of the Spanish National Forest Administration as a highly effective afforestation agency (to which abundant financial,

materials, autonomy and incentives were apportioned). The main lack that arose in carrying out the afforestation effort was the limited degree of cooperation achieved on the part of private property owners, due to the limited extent to which the resources provided for the afforestation of private lands gave appropriate incentives.

A second period of afforestation activities can be marked as running from 1986 to the present day and is characterized by political and administrative decentralization with power, transferred to the forestry administrations of the 17 regional governments. Nevertheless, river basins that run through more than one region and the need to protect state infrastructures (reservoirs, canals, highways, railways, etc.) justify the intervention of the State in erosion control efforts, which are currently carried out through Cooperation Agreements for the Recovery of River Basins signed between the State (ICONA, Nature Conservation Institute) and the forestry administration of each one of the regional governments. These agreements have turned out to be an effective means or achieving upward and downward integration among the administrations in charge of erosion and desertification control.

Over the past few years (as of 1986), a significant reduction in afforestation efforts can be noted if it is compared with the rate of the proceeding period, which was over 100,000 hectares yearly over several years. This reduction is due to several reasons, the prime one being the criticisms put forth by the environmentalist movement with regard to using different species of the Pinus genus for afforestation (which is technically and even ecologically necessary in light of the degradation and harsh climate of the areas to be afforested) and the lack of updated legal instruments constituting a true incentive for the afforestation of privately-owned degraded areas.

Recently, two factors contributing to overcoming these two stumbling blocks have come forth.

The first one is the new National Water and Forestry Resource and Erosion Control Plan (ICONA Nature and Conservation Institute) which sets forth new criteria for the planning and execution of afforestation efforts which are more sensible from the point of view of environmental values.

One of the criterion is that of organizing afforestation efforts aimed at reconstructing the vegetation originally growing in the area and the use of several species over different time periods, also leaving spots of the original vegetation, even though degraded, to prevent vast forests of one sole species, which is not a good idea for the stability of the forest cover, nor for the preservation of biodiversity.

The second new factor is that of a Decree recently issued (in March 1993) to promote forestry investments privately-owned lands, which sets forth important incentives for replacing surplus produce crops with forest cover.

The Combatting Desertification in the Mediterranean Project: An R& D Initiative within the Scope of Erosion and Desertification Control

Having come into being in 1981, as part of the ICONA Nature Conservation Institute`s activities, the Combatting Desertification in the Mediterranean Project has as its main goals analysis of the resources and factors involved in erosion and desertification processes, as well as determination of applicable systems and techniques to be used for erosion and desertification control.

This is an important R& D effort within the scope of environmental affairs, having promoted and financed studies with different universities and research centers, some of which are as follows:

i. 1/50,000 scale Soil Map of southeast Spain (75 pages of maps);

ii. map of the slopes and cliffs of the Mediterranean river basins in Spain (scale 1/50,000);

iii. soil use capability maps of the region of Murcia;

iv. comprehensive study of the Llobregat River Basin;

v. selection and implementation of different basins and tracts land on the Mediterranean versant to type the characteristics of the water cycle, erosion processes and erosion control measures;

vi. study and perfection of a set of methods for using root-fungus symbiosis techniques in degraded soil afforestation efforts.

THE AMERICAN EXPERINECE IN COMBATING DESERTIFICATION AND ITS IMPACTS

Presented by : Mr. Paul Blakeburn, Director, Office of Ecology, Health and Conservation, US State Department, USA

THE ARID AND SEMI-ARID REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

There are extensive arid, semi-arid and sub-humid drylands in the western part of the North American continent. On the north/south axis they extend from central Canada to southern Mexico - a distance of approximately 3,400 kilometers. On the east/west axis they extend from more or less the center of the continent to the Central Valley of California - a distance of approximately 2,300 kilometers. In the United States, arid ecosystems comprise nearly 40 percent of the land area.

This is an area with extensive mountain ranges and broad valleys. At the lower elevations, the vegetation is made up of grasslands and shrublands. Annual precipitation is generally low - ranging from less than 5 centimeters per year in southern California to 60 centimeters per year in eastern Montana. And there are frequent and at times prolonged droughts. For example, there were periods of drought over much of this area in the 1870's and 90's and in the 1930's, 50's and 80's.

We frequently describe this area in terms of distinct regions and subregions. For example, we often use the term "Great Basin" to refer to an area that includes most of the states of Nevada and Utah, southeastern Oregon, southern Idaho, northern Arizona, and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The arid region stretching from west Texas to southern California includes the Chihuahuan, Sonoran, and Mojave deserts. These regions and subregions vary by soil and vegetation types and by precipitation and evapotranspiration rates.

From an administrative point of view, this dryland area crosses two international borders and covers all or part of 17 states within the United States. The government of the United States is the single largest landowner. In the 17 western states, the federal government owns 1,426 million square kilometers or 30.5 percent of the land area.

THE EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT OF THE AREA

In prehistoric times most of this area was very sparsely populated. With the exception of certain areas of the southwest and along the watercourses in the eastern high plains where there was agriculture, the Native American population was made up of small bands of hunters and gatherers.

European population began to move into the southern part of this drylands area in the 17th century. They moved north from what is now Mexico and introduced domesticated livestock and grain crops into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. A second wave of Europeans began to move into this area from the eastern part of the United States in the early part of the 19th century - first in search of fur bearing animals, then in search of gold, silver and other precious minerals, and finally in search of land for livestock grazing and raising crops.

The United States Government adopted a number of policies to encourage the settlement of this vast area. During the latter half of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, the government:

i. Forced the Native American populations to give up many of their traditional resource use rights and move to reservations.

ii. Granted extensive tracts of land to private companies to encourage them to build railroads across the area.

iii. Allowed the unrestricted exploitation of the region's mineral and timber resources.

iv. Allowed anyone who owned cows, horses and sheep to use the rangelands.

v. Granted land to farmers to encourage them to build homesteads and plant crops.

vi. Built dams and diverted water for irrigation projects and communal consumption.

In many respects these policies were successful. In about forty years, the United States went from a country with a vast expanse of "unsettled" land to one on which there was virtually no frontier left outside of Alaska. What had been remote areas were brought into "productive" use; small Spanish settlements like San Francisco and Los Angeles grew into large cities and new cities like Denver and Salt Lake City were born.

From today's perspective, many of these policies encouraged people to use natural resources in a manner that is not sustainable.

i. Unregulated mining and logging practices led to a significant amount of soil erosion and water pollution.

ii. Many rangelands were overgrazed and lost much of their former productivity.

iii. A number of the irrigation projects led to soil waterlogging, salinization, roundwater depletion and leaching of toxic elements.

iv. The combination of these activities led to the loss of many native plant and animal communities.

THE DUST BOWL

Probably the most dramatic example of this resource degradation was the so-called dust bowl of the 1930's.

The great plains of the United States were settled during the last two decades of the 19th century and first decade of the 20th century. Most of the farmers who moved into the area were immigrants from northern and eastern Europe, including a large number of ethnic Germans from the steppes of southern Russia - an area that is similar to the great plains in many respects.

As the world price of wheat began to increase during the First World War, farmers began to plow up land they had not considered planting before and hundreds of thousands of acres of marginal land were brought into production. By 1920, there were twice as many plowed acres on the southern plains as there had been in 1910.

Rainfall was irregular during the 1920's. In 1929, a drought started in the East and gradually spread westward. By 1934, the drought was widespread, covering an area from the Ohio River to the Great Basin. Then the wind began to blow and huge dust storms moved east across the United States.

In some areas, the drought continued until 1941. Long before that time, however, many harvests were lost, enormous quantities of soil eroded with the wind, and there was a mass exodus of destitute farmers.

The dust storms of the early 1930's were terrible. A few were so large and far reaching that soil eroded from Kansas was deposited as far east as Washington, D.C. Many Americans recognized that erosion was a serious threat to the nation's capacity to provide food to future generations. In response to this concern, the government expanded or initiated a number of interrelated programs:

The government began to help local farmers, ranchers and other land users identify and finance farming and livestock grazing practices specifically designed for dryland areas. Shelter belts, for example, were constructed to help break the wind and contour plowing and strip following were introduced on a wide scale to further reduce soil erosion. These technical and financial assistance programs were coordinated through units of local government called "conservation districts". Local farmers controlled these districts, which were set up by state level government in response to federal legislation. Participation by farmers in these various federal programs was strictly voluntary and service was provided on a "first-come, first-serve" basis.

The government began to more systematically compile scientific information, especially in the areas of soil and range surveys and hydrometereological prediction. Techniques in weather prediction were much advanced with the advent of commercial aviation and radar technology. These innovations allowed for sampling and monitoring of the upper atmosphere and an understanding of atmospheric/terrestrial interactions on weather patterns.

The government began to limit the type and amount of livestock grazing on publicly owned pasture lands in the West.

The government encouraged farmers and ranchers to develop new water sources. With the invention of the deep-well turbine pump after the Second World War, sprinkler irrigation systems were introduced into many of the areas that had been hardest hit by the drought.

In many respects these programs have been successful. There was a drought in the 1950's and again in the 1980's. Neither of these droughts had the same devastating social and economic impacts as the drought of the 1930's. There is, however, need for caution.

In farming areas on the great plains we are currently witnessing at least four disturbing phenomena:

i. As farming equipment has gotten larger, many farmers have stopped using soil conservation measures introduced after the dust bowl. Shelter belts are being cut down and strip farming is becoming less common.

ii. In some areas, following methods have been so successful at conserving water we are now experiencing a phenomenon we call "saline seep" salt laden groundwater is flowing into areas where the water table surfaces and destroying the ability of these areas to grow crops.

iii. In some areas of the great plains where sprinkler irrigation systems were introduced after the Second World War, the farmers are in effect mining the groundwater - the consumption rate exceeds the recharge rate.

iv. In some areas, farmers are plowing land that probably shouldn't be plowed in order to be eligible for certain government programs.

If you visit our arid and semi-arid grasslands you will notice that:

i. In some areas, capital intensive projects were constructed that have not been maintained or, in the alternative, have only been maintained with constant infusion of funds from the government.

ii. In some areas, the composition of the vegetation is significantly changing.

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF DRYLAND ECOSYSTEMS

Those of us who are interested in promoting the sustainable development of dryland ecosystems are faced with the task of developing collaborative policies and programs in three interrelated areas. (See the Appendix to this paper for further information on each of these areas).

First, we must develop collaborative policies and programs to improve our understanding of the natural systems that are at work in these ecosystems. This entails, among other things, developing integrated biotic and abiotic monitoring systems to determine ecosystem status and trend.

Second, we must develop collaborative policies and programs to help design appropriate management practices for these ecosystems. This involves, among other things, identifying the kinds and intensities of uses that are appropriate during periods of periodic drought.

Third, we must develop collaborative policies and programs to encourage people to implement appropriate management practices. This entails developing educational programs, designing effective regulatory measures, and creating appropriate economic incentives and disincentives.

Judging from our experience in the United States, such policies and programs will be effective only if they:

i. Are organized on a regional basis defined by similarities in ecosystem response to stress.

ii. Approach planning as a vehicle for developing a consensus among all affected interests about how to manage finite resources.

iii. Encourage and enable the local population's participation in program design and implementation.

iv. Promote the open and timely exchange of information on resource conditions and use at local, national, regional and global levels.

v. Assume that management plans and practices need to evolve as resource conditions change or in response to new information about ecosystem functions.

vi. Encourage the development of program and projects that are economically self- sustaining and that do not require the regular infusion of outside funds unless such funding is guaranteed.

vii. Recognize that most resource management problems are not amenable to quick fixes.

viii. Rely on model areas and pilot projects to demonstrate sustainable development of drylands in different ecological, social, economic and political situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of these management principles are similar to those expressed in Agenda 21. We trust that they will be reflected in the Convention.

In anticipation of potential questions you may have, I would like to close with some factual information.

The United States has developed an extensive weather and climate monitoring program and is willing to share its monitoring data and experience in using ground stations and orbiting satellites to predict seasonal to interannual climate variability.

Governmental agencies in the United States periodically assess the status and trend of selected natural resources. Every ten years, for example, the United States Forest Service coordinates an assessment of forest and range conditions and the Soil Conservation Service coordinates an appraisal of soil conditions. A number of governmental agencies are collectively developing an integrated, landscape-based monitoring and assessment program - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). One component of this program is focusing on arid and semi-arid landscapes.

There are many federal, state, and local land use plans prepared in the United States. These plans generally fall into three broad categories: functional or sector-specific plans, such as highway construction plans; resource specific plans, such as plans to manage a fishery resource or plans to reduce soil erosion; and local comprehensive land use plans. We have only begun to undertake planning on an ecosystem basis. At the moment, we do not have a national or regional plan or strategy to combat desertification.

Appendix

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

To Enhance Our Understanding of Natural and Social Systems:

Identify ecosystem components most vulnerable to stress and most likely to be impacted by human activity.

Identify social, economic and political institutions that enhance the local population's ability to adjust to changing conditions.

Develop integrated biotic and abiotic monitoring systems to determine ecosystem status and trends recognizing the importance of spatial and temporal scale.

Establish long-term baseline monitoring programs using protected areas minimally influenced by human activities; such areas must contain appropriate indicators of resource change.

Promote an understanding of how local actions influence precipitation and temperature fluctuations.

Make the identification of ecosystem thresholds a research and monitoring priority.

Use predictive models to assess the potential effects of various seasonal climate variations and land use scenarios.

Translate and disseminate monitoring and research results to resource users in a timely manner.

To Help Develop Best Management Practices:

Identify the kinds and intensities of uses that are ecologically sustainable during periods of drought.

Introduce practices that use inputs as efficiently as possible, limit offsite impacts, and encourage recycling of any by-products that are generated.

Recognize that different management practices may be required to prevent degradation, mitigate the impacts of degradation, or adapt to degradation; focus initially on preventing degradation rather than on restoring degraded areas.

To Encourage People to Use Best Management Practices:

Establish educational programs to inform the local population, government officials, and representatives of lending institutions about ecosystem limits and the social and economic consequences of ecosystem degradation.

Clarify use rights, establish eligibility requirements for assistance programs, revise tax policies and adopt other measures to provide economic incentives to users who maintain or improve resources and disincentives to those who degrade resources.

Establish mechanisms to enforce corrective actions when ecosystem degradation thresholds are approached.

To Promote Collaborative Programs and Policies:

Organize programs on a regional basis defined by similarities in ecosystem response to stress.

Approach planning as a vehicle for developing a consensus among all affected interests about how to manage finite resources.

Assume that management plans and practices need to evolve as resource conditions change or in response to new information about ecosystem functions.

Encourage and enable the local population's participation in program design and implementation.

Promote the open and timely exchange of information on resource conditions and use at local, national, regional, and global levels.

Encourage the development of program and projects that are economically self-sustaining and that do not require the regular infusion of outside funds unless such funding is guaranteed.

Recognize that most resource management problems are not amenable to quick fixes.

Rely on model areas and pilot projects to demonstrate sustainable development of drylands in different ecological, social, economic, and political situations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahre, Conrad J. 1991. "A Legacy of Change", Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona Press.

Frederick, K.D. and R.A. Sedjo (ed.) 1991. "America's Renewable Resources: Historical Trends and Current Challenges", Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.

Hess, Karl Jr. 1992. "Visions Upon the Land: Man and Nature on the Western Range", Washington, D.C., Island Press.

Johnson, Jack D. 1977. "Desertification in the United States", Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona Office of Arid Land Studies.

Klemme, Marvin. 1984. "Home Rule on the Range", New York, N.Y., Vantage Press.

Office for Interdisciplinary Earth Studies. 1991. "Arid Ecosystems Interactions: Recommendations for Drylands Research in the Global Change Research Program", Report OIES-6, Boulder, Colorado.

Schuyler, Michael W. 1989. "The Dread of Plenty: Agricultural Relief Activities of the Federal Government in the Middle West, 1933-1939", Manhattan, Kansas, Sunflower University Press.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. "Arid Ecosystems Strategic Monitoring Plan", EPA 600/4-91/018.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. "EMAP-ARID Colorado Plateau Pilot Study - 1992: Implementation Plan", EPA 620/R-93/001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. "Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland Situation in the United States", USDA, Forest Resource Reports No 26.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1990. "The Second Resources Conservation Act Appraisal: Soil, Water, and Related

Resources on Nonfederal Land in the United States - Analysis of Conditions and Trends", USDA Miscellaneous Publication No 1482.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. "Desertification in the United States: Status and Issues", USDI Working Review Draft.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. "Centennial Mini- Histories of the Forest Service", Forest Service, FS-518.

Wilkinson, Charles F. 1992. "Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the West", Washington, D.C., Island Press.