Pressure groups

On one dimension of land degradation the papers in this volume are in agreement: the issues raised are exceedingly complex. This reflects infinite local variation in the character of land degradation, which often requires multi-disciplinary analysis and the costs of which are difficult to assess and assign. This fact alone ensures that a wide range of public and private agencies and interests are involved, making the aggregation of interests and the derivation of consensus on the nature of problems and solutions exceptionally difficult to achieve.

Much of the discussion of policy on land degradation concerns the relative virtue or necessity, or both, of relying either on regulation or on voluntary cooperation, with the latter either encouraged or not encouraged by incentives. Very few commentators raise the possibility of delineating the issues on which one approach or the other might be most appropriate, yet it is clear that actual practice is a complex amalgam of both approaches. It is also clear that, barring crisis, policy change will continue to be incremental and that neither regulation nor voluntary action will be adopted as a global prescription.

The problem considered here is that of analysing the role of nongovernment organisations, specifically pressure groups, and their scope for influence, given the disaggregated structure of policy making. I argue the need for considering greater integration of policy making, first to identify more clearly the wider costs of land degradation, second to maximise areas of agreement on appropriate action on specific problems, and third to assist implementation of policy, whether through regulation, economic incentives, or education.