The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

7. PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT
The review of past studies of desertification, land degradation, and drought (DLDD) clearly shows
that there has been a weak link in studies from biophysical scientists and socioeconomists. A need to
strengthen this link has increasingly gained attention due to the little attention given to land
degradation by policymakers and other decisionmakers. The review also shows that collaboration
among biophysical scientists and socioeconomists has been increasing due to the increasing need to
determine the causes and economic impacts of DLDD and the economic benefits of the prevention or
reversal of DLDD (Croitoru and Sarraf 2010; Buenemann et al. 2011).
Based on reviews of the causes and impacts of DLDD, implementation of programs to
address DLDD also requires a strong collaboration across various actors discussed earlier. As has
been seen, causes of DLDD and its impacts span from the farm level to the global level. In addition,
satellite imagery data—which can be collected at a global level at an affordable cost and in a short
time—do not capture some important biophysical and socioeconomic data. Thus, there is a need to
conduct site-specific measurements using case studies that are selected to represent all major
ecosystems and human characteristics. Results of such local studies could then be extrapolated to
comparable areas using geographic information system (GIS) and other spatial techniques.
In this section, we propose a partnership that could be used to design a research and
communication strategy, implementation of research recommendations, and a monitoring and
evaluation strategy.
An Institutional Setup for the Global Assessment of E-DLDD
As part of a concept for the policy process of setting up a global economics of DLDD (E-DLDD)
initiative, it is important to note the lessons learned from existing global assessments. We suggest as
the starting point to refer to the processes and structures behind The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB) studies and the operation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
The main issue raised in both cases, in terms of translating the scientific work into policy
actions, is linked to the credibility of the scientific output. The issue of scientific credibility is
linked to
• the separation between the scientific body and the political body, and
• the quality and diversity (in terms of fields of competence) of the science community
involved.
In addressing the former, there must be clear guidelines from the beginning of the scientific
work that establish the complete independence of the science body from the policy body in terms of
how results are achieved and what these results are. The political body’s droit de regard (right to
monitor) of the work on the scientific body must be limited to guidance on translation of the evidencebased
science into policy-relevant results.
The scientific quality of the work produced is best assessed through a peer review process.
For the trust of the political body, the peer review committee must be selected with the political
body’s approval and must also be formally appointed by it. This would further ensure that the
scientific work, once reviewed, will be fully endorsed by the policy body.
Finally, a global assessment of E-DLDD can only be credible if it is truly global in its
coverage. Thus, the scientific and policy partners must represent as wide a selection of regions and
countries as is possible and manageable. In particular, the scientific work must be undertaken jointly
by scientists and research organizations in the developed and developing regions of the world.
We present the conceptual framework of the partnership in Figure 7.1.
118