Desertification in Syria
Few would deny that Syria is in dire straits. The civil unrest and consequent response by the State have been continuously prominent in the news since the Arab Spring first appeared and the situation there, particularly in the cities, is recognised by observers everywhere as appalling. But while political, civil and social unrest may be the focus for the immediate future, by the end of the decade desertification in Syria could be the cause of a deep humanitarian crisis that may eclipse all other concerns.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) describes Syria as a country with a semi-arid climate and arable land amounting to less than 33% of its territory. Its territory is also covered by forests (3%) and steppes, or Badia, (55%). In terms of climate and desertification the country is divided into five zones, where zone five is the driest and zone one is the wettest. The Badia region is zone five and is already seriously damaged, so much so that the cultivation of land for farming there has been banned since the early 1990s. The margin zone which is sandwiched between the Badia and the main agricultural land is also in a terrible state, and could well become indistinguishable in agricultural terms from zone five in the next few years.
Both the Badia and margin regions have suffered from chronic mismanagement since the 1950s.
According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 80% of Syria is susceptible to desertification, defined as “the sum of the geological, climatic, biological and human factors which lead to the degradation of the physical, chemical and biological potential of lands in arid and semi-arid zones, and endanger biodiversity and the survival of human communities” (see pointer).
That desertification is a problem in Syria has been recognised for many years. In an attempt to address the issue Syria ratified the International Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in 1997, and as part of that accord adopted its own National Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAP) in 2002. The NAP recorded an increase in fallow and non-irrigated lands of 10% over the 10 previous years, a decrease in pasture productivity of 61% between 1981 and 1999, and the destruction of 5000 hectares of forests. But before any response programmes could have a serious effect Syria was struck in 2006 by a three year period of severe drought.
In 2010 there was enough rainfall overall for the FAO to stop describing the situation as a drought, but precipitation was uneven. There was continued, widespread crop failure which led the World Food Programme (WFP) to begin distributing food rations in the form of rice, oil, flour, chickpeas and salt rations to 190,000 people in the eastern provinces of Hasakah, Deir al-Zor and Raqqa. It was estimated at the time that a further 110,000 people also required emergency food aid, but UN agencies were not in a position to help them due to a lack of funds.
Natural causes?
Desertification can occur away from human populations, and not apparently as the result of human activities. Nevertheless, there are few factors within the natural environment which cannot be said to be influenced by humans. Even the effect from changes in the solar cycle, which we obviously cannot influence, can be enhanced or mitigated by our altering of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere.
Of course, environmental change has been creating and moving deserts since long before human beings existed. But in Syria human activity is playing a significant role; the fact that rain has been so scarce has been compounded by poor water-planning and management, wasteful irrigation systems, over-grazing, water-intensive wheat and cotton farming and a rapidly growing population.
Poor planning and management of water is often a key factor in countries suffering from a lack of a useable water supply. For example, as we discussed in our June issue, Pakistan is desperately short of water due, in part, to inefficient irrigation systems which waste up to 40% of the available water. Choice of crops must also be a part of the overall water management strategy. Another lesson from Pakistan is that crops such as cotton use a tremendous amount of water.
Nevertheless, whether farmed crops or otherwise, the presence of plant life is critical to the prevention of desertification. Plants, especially trees, hold the soil together and prevent the wind from eroding the land. Also, as plants die and rot they continue the nitrogen cycle. The clearing of trees for grazing land reduces the degree to which soil is held in place and the amount of nitrogen that is returned to the ground. Syria has an estimated livestock count of 14-16 million. This does not seem too high until the recent drought is considered; before the 2006 drought Syria had approximately 21 million head of grazing livestock. An ongoing problem in Syria has been the steady centralisation of control and decision making with regard to farmland. Centralised authorities have demonstrated a singular lack of understanding of issues such as the need for crop rotation and the capacity of land to support livestock. This is slightly surprising given the number of case studies available throughout recent history, most notably in the early years of the USSR, where centralising decisions such as these led to desperate food shortages.
Just as the amount of available food and water looks set to decline further Syria’s population is increasing. The population statistics for Syria do not seem to suggest a problem at first glance. The annual total population growth for 2011, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, is expected to be 0.913%, compared to the US’s growth rate of 0.963%. However, a major difference is that the US has a net migration rate of 4.18/1000 whereas Syria’s net migration rate is -11.18/1000. While the US has an influx of people looking for a better future there is an exodus from Syria. When migration is taken out of the equation population growth in Syria is a massive 2.013%, compared with the US’s 0.545%. Population increase like this puts a huge strain on already scarce resources, and in part explains why so many people are keen to escape, although currently it is unlikely to be the only motivation for those seeking refuge.
Response
As has already been discussed, Syria has acknowledged the potential harm of continued desertification of its territory in the form of its NAP. There is hope that some of the land that has been lost most recently can be re-claimed, but even the FAO’s best estimates suggest that this could take more than a decade, and that would be if all possible steps, such as introducing improved water-management and land-management strategies through awareness raising and by including local communities in the decision making process, were introduced immediately.
Some practical steps have been introduced, such as experimenting with a drip irrigation project in the central district of Salamieh. This is similar to technology being trialled in the Great Plains region in the US. As of 2010 this project had been used in 52 villages in Salamieh and allows farmers to produce a 60% higher crop yield while using 30% less water.
But time is running out; desertification can be irreversible if not tackled quickly. For example, if an aquifer dries out and the land sinks in on itself it destroys the structure of the ground so it is no longer capable of retaining water.
Observers have been appalled at the death toll in Syria during its recent period of unrest, but if desertification continues the nation could find itself in the grip of famine, from which the death toll would likely be far higher.
Pointer: How to define desertification
The FAO has considered several definitions of desertification to come up with a useable version. Such definitions are essential when performing risk assessments and actions such as diverting particular resources to a region depend on recognising when a country fits a certain clearly defined set of criteria. The FAO considers the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) definition to be overly simplistic as while it mentions both natural and human factors it does not make sufficient reference to the interplay of the two: “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities”. The FAO recognises that desertification processes can operate in the absence of human activities, where such activities are negligible because of low population density, but that there is nearly always some contributory human interaction with the natural environment. The FAO’s position is generally accepted, and its definition is: “The sum of the geological, climatic, biological and human factors which lead to the degradation of the physical, chemical and biological potential of lands in arid and semi-arid zones, and endanger biodiversity and the survival of human communities.”