The Thom Hartmann Radio Program
Live Chat Room -- Topic-by-topic audio archives -- Audio Archives -- Web Pages -- Articles on Democracy
New Since your Last Visit
 
We The People
Activism Alerts
Articles by Thom
Audio Archives
Bibliography
Biography
Book Reviews
Books by Thom
Bumper Music
Candidates
Chat Emoticons
Chat Room - main
Clips
Cracking the Code
Events
Frames
Interviews
Law
Movies
National show
News
Newsletters
NLP classes
Photos
Stack
Tag, you're it!
Thom's .com site
Transcripts
White Rose
More!
  Links
  Mercury Retrograde

Subscribe to
Thom Hartmann's Free Newsletter on Politics & the Environment
(we respect your privacy and do not sell or share our list)
Email 
First 
Name 
My email program supports HTML 
    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    Trees reverse Deserts

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Find
Notify
Tools
  Login/Join 
Posted
For years environmentalist were called "Tree Huggers" Trees are important in soil coversation and reversing desertification. Take this seriously.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 11, 2007
In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert
By LYDIA POLGREEN
GUIDAN BAKOYE, Niger — In this dust-choked region, long seen as an increasingly barren wasteland decaying into desert, millions of trees are flourishing, thanks in part to poor farmers whose simple methods cost little or nothing at all.

Better conservation and improved rainfall have led to at least 7.4 million newly tree-covered acres in Niger, researchers have found, achieved largely without relying on the large-scale planting of trees or other expensive methods often advocated by African politicians and aid groups for halting desertification, the process by which soil loses its fertility.

Recent studies of vegetation patterns, based on detailed satellite images and on-the-ground inventories of trees, have found that Niger, a place of persistent hunger and deprivation, has recently added millions of new trees and is now far greener than it was 30 years ago.

These gains, moreover, have come at a time when the population of Niger has exploded, confounding the conventional wisdom that population growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation, scientists studying Niger say.

The vegetation is densest, researchers have found, in some of the most densely populated regions of the country.

“The general picture of the Sahel is much less bleak than we tend to assume,” said Chris P. Reij, a soil conservationist who has been working in the region for more than 30 years and helped lead a study published last summer on Niger’s vegetation patterns. “Niger was for us an enormous surprise.”

About 20 years ago, farmers like Ibrahim Danjimo realized something terrible was happening to their fields.

“We look around, all the trees were far from the village,” said Mr. Danjimo, a farmer in his 40s who has been working the rocky, sandy soil of this tiny village since he was a child. “Suddenly, the trees were all gone.”

Fierce winds were carrying off the topsoil of their once-productive land. Sand dunes threatened to swallow huts. Wells ran dry. Across the Sahel, a semiarid belt that spans Africa just below the Sahara and is home to some of the poorest people on earth, a cataclysm was unfolding.

Video
More Video »
Severe drought in the 1970s and ’80s, coupled with a population explosion and destructive farming and livestock practices, was denuding vast swaths of land. The desert seemed determined to swallow everything. So Mr. Danjimo and other farmers in Guidan Bakoye took a small but radical step. No longer would they clear the saplings from their fields before planting, as they had for generations. Instead they would protect and nurture them, carefully plowing around them when sowing millet, sorghum, peanuts and beans.

Today, the success in growing new trees suggests that the harm to much of the Sahel may not have been permanent, but a temporary loss of fertility. The evidence, scientists say, demonstrates how relatively small changes in human behavior can transform the regional ecology, restoring its biodiversity and productivity.

In Niger’s case, farmers began protecting trees just as rainfall levels began to rise again after the droughts in the 1970s and ’80s.

Another change was the way trees were regarded by law. From colonial times, all trees in Niger had been regarded as the property of the state, which gave farmers little incentive to protect them. Trees were chopped for firewood or construction without regard to the environmental costs. Government foresters were supposed to make sure the trees were properly managed, but there were not enough of them to police a country nearly twice the size of Texas.

But over time, farmers began to regard the trees in their fields as their property, and in recent years the government has recognized the benefits of that outlook by allowing individuals to own trees. Farmers make money from the trees by selling branches, pods, fruit and bark. Because those sales are more lucrative over time than simply chopping down the tree for firewood, the farmers preserve them.

The greening began in the mid-1980s, Dr. Reij said, “and every time we went back to Niger, the scale increased.”

“The density is so spectacular,” he said.

Mahamane Larwanou, a forestry expert at the University of Niamey in Niger’s capital, said the regrowth of trees had transformed rural life in Niger.

“The benefits are so many it is really astonishing,” Dr. Larwanou said. “The farmers can sell the branches for money. They can feed the pods as fodder to their animals. They can sell or eat the leaves. They can sell and eat the fruits. Trees are so valuable to farmers, so they protect them.”

They also have extraordinary ecological benefits. Their roots fix the soil in place, preventing it from being carried off with the fierce Sahelian winds and preserving arable land. The roots also help hold water in the ground, rather than letting it run off across rocky, barren fields into gullies where it floods villages and destroys crops.

One tree in particular, the Faidherbia albida, known locally as the gao tree, is particularly essential. It is a nitrogen-fixing tree, which helps fertilize the soil.

Its leaves fall off during the rainy season, which means it does not compete with crops for water, sun or nutrients during the growing period. The leaves themselves become organic fertilizer when they fall.

“This tree is perfectly adapted for farming in the Sahel,” said Dr. Larwanou. “Yet it had all but disappeared from the region.”

That is because for generations local farmers had simply cleared their fields of all vegetation, including trees, before sowing neat rows of sorghum, millet, peanuts and beans. When a field became less productive, the farmer would move on to another.

Wresting subsistence for 13 million people from Niger’s fragile ecology is something akin to a puzzle. Less than 12 percent of its land can be cultivated, and much of that is densely populated. Yet 90 percent of Niger’s people live off agriculture, cultivating a semiarid strip along the southern edge of the country.

Farmers here practice mostly rain-fed agriculture with few tools and no machinery, making survival precarious even in so-called normal times. But when the rains and harvest fall short, hunger returns with a particular vengeance, as it did in 2005 during the nation’s worst food crisis in a generation.

Making matters worse, Niger’s population has doubled in the last 20 years. Each woman bears about seven children, giving the country one of the highest growth rates in the world.

The regrowth of trees increases the income of rural farmers, cushioning the boom and bust cycle of farming and herding.

Ibrahim Idy, a farmer in Dahirou, a village in the Zinder region, has 20 baobab trees in his fields. Selling the leaves and fruit brings him about $300 a year in additional income. He has used that money to buy a motorized pump to draw water from his well to irrigate his cabbage and lettuce fields. His neighbors, who have fewer baobabs, use their children to draw water and dig and direct the mud channels that send water coursing to the beds. While their children work the fields, Mr. Idy’s children attend school.

In some regions, swaths of land that had fallen out of use are being reclaimed, using labor-intensive but inexpensive techniques.

In the village of Koloma Baba, in the Tahoua region just south of the desert’s edge, a group of widows have reclaimed fields once thought forever barren. The women dig small pits in plots of land as hard as asphalt. They place a shovelful of manure in the pits, then wait for rain. The pits help the water and manure stay in the soil and regenerate its fertility, said Dr. Larwanou. Over time, with careful tending, the land can regain its ability to produce crops. In this manner, more than 600,000 acres of land have been reclaimed, according to researchers.

Still, Koloma Baba also demonstrates the limits of this fragile ecosystem, where disaster is always one missed rainfall away. Most able-bodied young men migrate to Nigeria and beyond in search of work, supporting their families with remittances. The women struggle to eke a modest crop from their fields.

“I produce enough to eat, but nothing more,” said Hadijatou Moussa, a widow in Koloma Baba.

The women have managed to grow trees on their fields as well, but have not seen much profit from them. People come and chop their branches without permission, and a village committee that is supposed to enforce the rights of farmers to their trees does not take action against poachers.

Such problems raise the question of whether the success of some of Niger’s farmers can be replicated on a larger scale, across the Sahel. While Niger’s experience of greening on a vast scale is unique, scientists say, smaller tracts of land have been revived in other countries.

“It really requires the effort of the whole community,” said Dr. Larwanou. “If farmers don’t take action themselves and the community doesn’t support it, farmer-managed regeneration cannot work.”

Moussa Bara, the chief of Dansaga, a village in the Ague region of Niger, where the regeneration has been a huge success, said the village has benefited enormously from the regrowth of trees. He said not a single child died of malnutrition in the hunger crisis that gripped Niger in 2005, largely because of extra income from selling firewood. Still, he said, the village has too many mouths to feed.

“We are many and the land is small,” he explained, bouncing on his lap a little boy named Ibrahim, the youngest of his 17 children by his three wives.

Climate change is another looming threat. Kerry H. Cook, a professor of atmospheric science at Cornell University, said that improved rains in the Sahel are most likely a result of natural climate variability from decade to decade, and that while the trend is positive, the rains have not entirely recovered to what they were in the 1950s.

The Sahel, like other parts of Africa, has experienced big swings in rainfall in recent years. Severe droughts in eastern and southern Africa have led to serious hunger crises in the past five years, and a drop in precipitation in Niger in 2005 contributed to the food crisis here that year.

Dr. Cook’s long-term projections, based on a variety of climate models, point to longer and more frequent dry periods in the Sahel, caused by rising temperatures in the Gulf of Guinea.

“This is the place in the world that just stands out for having vulnerability for drought,” she said.

Still, more trees mean that Niger’s people are in a better position to withstand whatever changes the climate might bring. “This is something the farmers control, and something they do for themselves,” said Dr. Larwanou. “It demonstrates that with a little effort and foresight, you can reduce poverty in the Sahel. It is not impossible or hopeless, and does not have to cost a lot of money. It can be done.”


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Picture of Gnarlodious
Posted Hide Post
This has been proven in Israel, one of the few places where desertification has been reversed thanks to widespread tree planting. Of course, tree-hugging liberals still condemn Israel for displacing Arab sheep and goatherders, so that would be yet another example of cognitive dissonance on their part. They should decide already which they want, forests or goats.


-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
 
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Actually Granlodous, many Israelies condemm them as well. Our Rabbi is an Irseeli and she actually invited a Palestian family whose olive orchard was plowed over to make a housing project for settlers, to speak at the syangogue

The point is planting forrests reverses desserts and makes the land fertile. Its low tech and does not require a lot of expensive equipment.


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Picture of Gnarlodious
Posted Hide Post
Thanks for illustrating exactly why liberals can't see the forest through the goats. When it comes to talking about Arabs, they suddenly can't tell the difference between building condominiums and reforestation.


-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
 
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Enough already: First I have Sunrise accusing me of being too much of a Zionist and not being sympathic to the Palestinian cause and now this. Guys get your story straight
I am one or the other. I cannot be both!


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Picture of Gnarlodious
Posted Hide Post
LOL. I got a belly laugh out of that one.
You can always inhabit the ever-present grey area between extremes, there is nothing wrong with that. But I just wanted to point out that reforestation is unrelated to what you injected into the discussion. It is always so much easier to point out the sins of Israel than the virtues. Indeed, one of the major obstacles to reforestation is that someone always claims the land after the trees are planted, because the land is worth more with baby trees for the goats to eat.


-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
 
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
I wish I could express the frustration on this issue. There are those who reiterate that all Jews and Israelies share the same opinons regarding the Middle East and its not true!
I have seen and heard some nasty arguments in synagogues. You can support Isarel and believe in Israel. That doesnt mean you have to agree with every thing the state of Israel does.


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Administrator
Picture of Sue N
Posted Hide Post
quote:
You can support Isarel and believe in Israel. That doesnt mean you have to agree with every thing the state of Israel does.


Try substituting "America" for "Israel", for example. Smiler


Sue N.
 
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
To be honest, I kind of overlooked this thread.
Well I first noticed the article mentioned at: The Common and the link to article is In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert. Passages of note:
quote:
These gains, moreover, have come at a time when the population of Niger has exploded, confounding the conventional wisdom that population growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation, scientists studying Niger say.

The vegetation is densest, researchers have found, in some of the most densely populated regions of the country.

So increased populations does not necessarily degrade the environment.
quote:
In Niger’s case, farmers began protecting trees just as rainfall levels began to rise again after the droughts in the 1970s and ’80s.

Another change was the way trees were regarded by law. From colonial times, all trees in Niger had been regarded as the property of the state, which gave farmers little incentive to protect them. Trees were chopped for firewood or construction without regard to the environmental costs. Government foresters were supposed to make sure the trees were properly managed, but there were not enough of them to police a country nearly twice the size of Texas.

Good timing always helps. But did anyone notice that well defined property rights of individuals created the incentives to protect the environment? This is a common problem of "tragedy of the commons" when it is owned by everyone then no ONE person owns it.
quote:
That is because for generations local farmers had simply cleared their fields of all vegetation, including trees, before sowing neat rows of sorghum, millet, peanuts and beans. When a field became less productive, the farmer would move on to another.

Can anyone think that these practices were sustainable? The US also had the Dust Bowl crisis and learned some valuable lessons.

Another powerful report is GROWING GREEN: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA . I have posted it before but I hope that some will find it interesting.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Picture of Gnarlodious
Posted Hide Post
Well, that is exactly why rangeland will always be less productive than fenced privately-owned land. Because where no person has the authority to limit exploitation soon the land will inevitably be a desert. Or at least as close to a desert as the climate will allow given constant overgrazing.

This problem was first mentioned in Genesis when the tiller of soil killed his brother the herder over grazing rights. The tiller became synonymous with criminal and murderer so you can see that the established authoritarian system at that time gave all grazing rights to animal herders. Farmers were just some disgruntled rebels who had a plan to be more productive by keeping grazing animals out of the garden, which happens to be a female nurturance instinct. So that story is just another relic from a patriarchal herding society.

It's pretty easy to see how the move from nomadic hunter-herding tribes to established agricultural societies was a transition from patriarchy to matriarchy. Despite that fact, do-gooder liberals the world over decry the limiting of animal grazing on desert land because third world goatherders will be displaced. It is yet another example of the cognitive dissonance that liberals suffer from when faced with factual proof.


-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
 
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
It's pretty easy to see how the move from nomadic hunter-herding tribes to established agricultural societies was a transition from patriarchy to matriarchy. Despite that fact, do-gooder liberals the world over decry the limiting of animal grazing on desert land because third world goatherders will be displaced. It is yet another example of the cognitive dissonance that liberals suffer from when faced with factual proof.


I am not aware of any "Liberal Group" that advocates this. I am on the mailing list for the Sierra Club and the Audobond Society and I missed that. I am aware "community rights and repsecting tribal and community rights but there is big fight in the southwest about "grazing fees" they are low. Lower than they should be.
I do know that Bison (American Buffalo) can sustain themselves on praire grass that Cattle cannot and they are immune to antrhax and Hoof and Mouth Disease while American cattle need to be vaccinated. It would make sence that raising buffalo would reqire less energy resources.
than Cattle.
I have been hearing that lately.
Also in controlling coyotes and wolves from attacking sheep, the Basque ranchers from the Pyrenese Mountains had a woderful solution.
The Great Pyrenese.
See that beautiful dog:
Rancers who keep them with their sheep report no kills. Wolves and Coyotes are terrified of these dogs. NO DDT, NO Exermination.
There are low tech solutions


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Picture of eleyballel
Posted Hide Post
Wonderful article James. Thanks for posting it.

quote:
The evidence, scientists say, demonstrates how relatively small changes in human behavior can transform the regional ecology, restoring its biodiversity and productivity.



eley


"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
 
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Yes, James thanks for posting an article that points out the importance of property rights in protecting the environment.

And yes the Great Pyrenese dogs do a good job protecting the ranchers property rights. It probably is assumed that the ranchers have to pay for the dogs, but under an ideal Coase Theorem, outputs may be differently.

And if property rights had been defined more clearly and earlier in the South Los Angeles problems then the outcome could have been better for all concerned.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Yes, James thanks for posting an article that points out the importance of property rights in protecting the environment

With all due respect, that is a gross distortion of the article. The article is about the biological importance of trees and, how they reverse desertification. The root system of trees keeps the integrity of the top soil, some trees have a "nitrogen binding process" where they take nitrogen from the air and bind it to the soil. They also draw water from deep in the ground and bring it upward. The tree does not care if its private or public or tribal land. That is nomenclature for you guys, to figure out the ownership issues.
The same is true for the Great Pyrenees: The dog repels coyotes and wolves eliminating the need for poisons and mass extermination of wolves. We are talking about process, low tech solutions


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
James, again thanks for this discussion.
Let me give you an important economic lesson:
Incentives Matter
quote:
No longer would they clear the saplings from their fields before planting, as they had for generations. Instead they would protect and nurture them, carefully plowing around them when sowing millet, sorghum, peanuts and beans.

It does nobody any good when the tragedy of the commons is destroyed except for those that got the immediate benefit from it. What incentives do you see in the above story? And how did they change over time? What made them change their behavior?

It is not a matter of high-tech or low tech. But I do ask you to read the PDF I linked to.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Picture of eleyballel
Posted Hide Post
Putting your quote in context Ronald:
quote:
About 20 years ago, farmers like Ibrahim Danjimo realized something terrible was happening to their fields.

“We look around, all the trees were far from the village,” said Mr. Danjimo, a farmer in his 40s who has been working the rocky, sandy soil of this tiny village since he was a child. “Suddenly, the trees were all gone.”

Fierce winds were carrying off the topsoil of their once-productive land. Sand dunes threatened to swallow huts. Wells ran dry. Across the Sahel, a semiarid belt that spans Africa just below the Sahara and is home to some of the poorest people on earth, a cataclysm was unfolding.

Severe drought in the 1970s and ’80s, coupled with a population explosion and destructive farming and livestock practices, was denuding vast swaths of land. The desert seemed determined to swallow everything. So Mr. Danjimo and other farmers in Guidan Bakoye took a small but radical step. No longer would they clear the saplings from their fields before planting, as they had for generations. Instead they would protect and nurture them, carefully plowing around them when sowing millet, sorghum, peanuts and beans.


The article has as a primary theme that the solutions came from the people who were being drastically effected by the problem, instead of from an outside source that would come in to solve their problem for them. And as a result the solutions worked.

It indicates that solutions need to be very customized to the situation and not to some formula that is suppose to fit all.

In this case individual ownership helped the problem. In other cases communal ownership might, or even coop ownership, etc.

It's not about what answer is right overall, it's about what is needed by the people in the situation; what works there.

eley


"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
 
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Ronald, my public health experience has shown me that whenever you involve folks in the solution abd you have some"by-in" by the subjects, you will haver chance of compliance. I beleive the principle appllies here. Also, as the viligers (lack of a better term) begin to see the positive results they will be even more resolve in their actions. The point is "it works" And I beleive in the "commons" and "the common good". Why would I be on the Thom Hartmann site if I diden't


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
James, I don't want to be the grammar Nazi, but can you do a little better job in editing?

Firefox has a nice feature that shows spelling mistakes on the posting screen. You should try it.

"The Commons" and "The Common Good" is two different concepts. Then why am I here???
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Sorry about that. I need a new pair of reading glasses. I usually use spell check but it is a less than perfect program.


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
eley, you presented some important points and so let me address them...
quote:
The article has as a primary theme that the solutions came from the people who were being drastically effected by the problem, instead of from an outside source that would come in to solve their problem for them. And as a result the solutions worked.

Well that is an interpretation of the document. To me the primary theme is different. And we have a classic case of the map is not the territory.

Actually I think the solution came from outside the group. There was a marked change in the attitude of the central government concerning property rights. I am sure the farmers have realized all along that the land was being harvested in an unsustainable manner. Just look at the paragraph about having to move once the land became infertile. The incentives was not there to solve the problems.
quote:
It indicates that solutions need to be very customized to the situation and not to some formula that is suppose to fit all.

Yes, I can agree with that solutions need to be customized to the situation but from past experiences we should have a good idea what does not work. And having a central government dictate the actions of individuals or small groups is not usually a good plan.
quote:
In this case individual ownership helped the problem. In other cases communal ownership might, or even coop ownership, etc.

Yes, on both cases. The Nature Conservancy is a good example of group ownership through the collectivism of corporations. But it truly does not say that communal property rights did not play a role also in solving the problems.
quote:
It's not about what answer is right overall, it's about what is needed by the people in the situation; what works there.

So does this mean that you can see how well defined property rights can help achieve benefits for both the individual (whether a person or group of people) and the common good?

I want to give a brief summation of what I think happened...
First there was an attitudinal change in the government concerning property rights of the owners of trees. I am reading an interesting report on the rise of GDP and growth in India, and they seem to see attitudinal changes in government was more than likely the catalyst.
Second farmers stayed longer on their fields since the trees provided a sustenance during lean times.
Thirdly information filtered through maybe their own experiences or from outside groups showing the benefits of trees, which are numerous. Have you ever looked at GreenSpirit (a founder of GreenPeace)?
Fourthly now the market can value the trees correctly as a contributing asset to the individual or small group and thusly to the common good.

If you are interested in this discussion more then what do you think of this article:
Togo: Almost Club Med
And some of my thought: Freedom and Environmental Protection
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Picture of eleyballel
Posted Hide Post
Ronald
quote:
Actually I think the solution came from outside the group. There was a marked change in the attitude of the central government concerning property rights.


The article suggests otherwise:

quote:
But over time, farmers began to regard the trees in their fields as their property, and in recent years the government has recognized the benefits of that outlook by allowing individuals to own trees.


Ronald
quote:
So does this mean that you can see how well defined property rights can help achieve benefits for both the individual (whether a person or group of people) and the common good?


Again, I think that this article is pointing out that these solutions worked because the people had space and ability to address them in a way that worked for them.

eley


"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
 
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Not sure what your points are this time eley. But that "but" was followed by...
quote:
Another change was the way trees were regarded by law. From colonial times, all trees in Niger had been regarded as the property of the state, which gave farmers little incentive to protect them. Trees were chopped for firewood or construction without regard to the environmental costs. Government foresters were supposed to make sure the trees were properly managed, but there were not enough of them to police a country nearly twice the size of Texas.

And if the government had reversed or enforced their punitive punishments on the farmers for messing with "their" trees, then it is unlikely that the solution would have presented itself. I hope you were able to see the similar pattern happen in Togo to an opposite outcome.

And yes the way it worked out for them is through well defined property rights and hopefully a fuller understanding of how the ecosystem worked. Maybe providing more freedoms to citizens can improve the environment.

I was just looking at the Environmental Performance Index rankings for 2006 and Nigeria is ranked 123 out of 133 countries ranked and a score of 44.5 and the highest score is 88. And we all know that Nigeria is not a free democratic country.

So does this mean that you can see how well defined property rights can help achieve benefits for both the individual (whether a person or group of people) and the common good?
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
Ronald, I am following your suggestion and using Firefox. The other issue with trees is they absorb CO2. Hopefully as forests are replanted (hope) they will begin to absorb excess C02 from the atmosphere, and lessen global warming.


"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006Report This Post
Picture of eleyballel
Posted Hide Post
RR--you're too funny. Just don't read--that works! LOL

Again, Again--the solution here was brought about by the farmers themselves. That's why it worked--not because there were well defined property rights. As a matter of fact, the property rights were not well defined. The farmers simply acted as if the trees were theirs. The govt saw that it worked and acquiesced. The solution was situated to the local problem, because people involved in the issue looked for the solution and found it. Good for them.

The South Central Farmers, on the other hand were excluded from the solution, and back deal doors were done instead. As a result, what was a thriving succesful indegenouse garden that gave safe places to be and healthy living nutritious food to a neighborhood that otherwise would not have it was destroyed. But the people themselves, nor their mission have not been.

As far as Togo goes, it looked like to me that dictatorships have done much damage there.

eley


"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
 
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
eley, you know I am. Big Grin
I am sure we are not as far apart as you try to make it to be. But yet no one pointed out that I was such an idiot...
Niger has a Environmental Performance Index of 25.7 the lowest number in all 133 countries surveyed.
And was based on: Health Biodiv. Energy Water Air Nat. Res.

As far as freedoms for the people from Freedom House, since 1999 they have become Partially Free from Not Free status. And the trend is going in a positive direction with 2005 being rated as 3 and 3 on a 1-7 point scale (lower number better) for "PR" stands for "Political Rights," "CL" stands for "Civil Liberties," and "Status" is the Freedom Status.

So I can only hope that this trend continues. And if the farmers lived under a dictator (police state) like Togo (China) then how effective do you think their demands in Niger would have been?

See it really does not matter in my scheme whether the ideas came from above or below, as long as negative rights were given to the people. I tend to be agnostic with regard to where best ideas/practices can come from.
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
Picture of eleyballel
Posted Hide Post
Ronald,

quote:
I am sure we are not as far apart as you try to make it to be. But yet no one pointed out that I was such an idiot...
sigh My bad.

I do believe that police/dictatorships are not good for making it possible for eviromental, personal or communal rights to flourish. Of course, Niger's move towards more freedoms is a positive in my mind.

eley


"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
 
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004Report This Post
Posted Hide Post
eley, you don't have to say you are sorry or that you were bad. I of course interpreted it through my own rose coloured glasses. BUT, this got me busy reading into this quit extensively. Fascinating subject.

But for now I just wanted to post a couple of blog posts that give some interesting opinions on the article.

The first article is a pretty detailed breakdown of the article from an economist point of view. Although I have always hesitations about collectives, I think his fear is unfounded. Property Rights In Action

The second article should also be an interesting read...
Small Changes Can Make a Difference

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ronald Rutherford,
 
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    Trees reverse Deserts

Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.