Greening of the Sahel

[marchesarosa]

24 Jan 2010



I heard on radio4 this afternoon that the greening of the Sahel, the area south of the Sahara Desert in Mali and Chad was not a boon but a source of conflict.

Uh?

It seems the desert nomads don't like the resulting pressure from agriculturalists on the previous dominance of their desert lifestyle.

I would have thought the greening of the Sahel represented an improvement of the regional climate. But no. It is just another example of the unmitigated evil of global warming causing inter-tribal conflict.

I say, LIVE WITH IT! Times change. Be flexible! For decades the boot was on the other foot as the Sahara encroached on fields. Now the Sahel is greening again. Some people can only ever see the glass half empty!

[marchesarosa]

For years, many scientists have been making dire predictions of widespread irreversible ‘desertification’ in the African Sahel. But recent findings have proven them wrong.

Satellite images consistently show an increase in ‘greenness’ since the 1980s over large areas, confirming evidence on the ground indicating that the Sahel has recovered from the great droughts of the 1980s, and that human factors have played a large role in reclaiming the desert [1].

The African Sahel is a semi-arid grass and shrubland region situated between the Sahara desert in the north and the humid tropical savannas in the south, with a steep north-south gradient in mean annual rainfall. Rainfall is markedly seasonal and variable. A long dry season alternates with a short humid season during the northern hemisphere summer. The scarcity of rainfall and its variable, unpredictable pattern accentuating from south to north, are the most important factors that shape the Sahel ecosystem. The vegetation cycle closely corresponds to the seasonality in rainfall, with virtually all the plant growth in the humid summer months. Overlying the sharp seasonal contrasts in rainfall are considerable fluctuations from year to year, and from one decade to another.

More here
www.i-sis.org.uk/greeningTheDesert.php

[marchesarosa]

Then there are the human, as opposed to the climatic variables.

"An even more significant contribution to desertification is the increase in population of this sensitive area. Modern technologies allow for the construction of deeper and more efficient wells. This encourages the stock farmers to maintain more and more livestock. This stock then needs more and more pasture and, consequently, the water table decreases. Shrubs and trees die off and the ground desiccates. The wind then blows away the agriculturally important soil components, leaving the ground sandy and rocky.

The plants grow very slowly on the sandy ground, and the inhabitants needs more and more firewood and forage for their animals. That is why even the last sparse natural cover disappears. Without a natural plant barrier, the desert sand moves forward without meeting any resistance. Huge amounts of sand blow into the steppes and prevent the plants from growing, even when it rains. Then people move into the southern steppes to find usable vegetation. The population increases enormously, with a consequent need for wood, fields and animal fodder. The desertification continues to spread. The Sahel has lost a belt around 100 km wide to the Sahara since the 1970s. "

More here about the Sahel

www.esa.int/esaMI/Eduspace_Earth_EN/SEMWCK05VQF_0.html


It's "ANTHROPOGENIC", for sure! But not as we know it, Jim


Down to population pressure again. Isn't it always in the developing world! These starving ladies in Niger and Mali are still popping out a baby a year no matter that they cannot feed them because of crop failure etc. Is there no concept of cutting your coat to suit your cloth? Or are we supposed to have a different set of standards for non-western societies?

Ah, the wonders of multi-culturalism!

[havelock]

I agree that one of the pressures on the earth's resources is the increasing population but to suggest that "These starving ladies in Niger and Mali are still popping out a baby a year no matter that they cannot feed them because of crop failure etc. Is there no concept of cutting your coat to suit your cloth? " seems excessively harsh.

Do you actually believe they like giving birth to babies that will die within their first year? Do you think they have a choice in the matter?

I believe that there are very many societies in the developing world where the women do not have access to contraception or abortion and also do not have the right to refuse their husband sex. They risk death if they try and they will ultimately fail.

It has been shown in numerous studies that the most effective way of reducing the birthrate is to educate women. Not about birth control, etc but education that enables them to be independant of mind and body.

it can even be seen in western societies - the more highly educated women tend to have fewer children.

I would commend anyone thinking of contributing to charities that help people in famine or war ridden countries to seek out a charity that has education programmes as, ultimately, this is the only way to effectively reduce birth rate without resorting to eugenics, etc.

www.globalgiving.co.uk/education-lp/?rf=ggadgguk_goog_them_education_1a&gclid=CKashdLA66MCFan-2AodpHRM1g