The problem of desertification sits at the interface of environmental and developmental concerns. In this article, we examine the institutional relationship between desertification science and policy through focus on the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and its subsidiary body, the Committee on Science and Technology. We argue that the UNCCD’s limited impact on fighting desertification to date may be partly attributed—among other factors—to an inadequate institutional interface between the political convention process and the scientific community. A huge body of international scientific expertise could help to further operationalize the normative provisions of the convention for on-the-ground implementation; yet the institutional architecture for ideational interplay between the UNCCD and scientific community concerned with desertification restricts the extent to which this potential is harnessed. Decisions adopted at the most recent Conference of the Parties of the UNCCD in 2007 seek to rectify this, and although these mark an important step forward, it remains doubtful whether they are sufficient to curb the root causes of the convention’s underlying problems.
Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics , 6(1), 50-75.
2.
Bauer, S. ( 2007). Desertification. In K. V. Thai, D. Rahm, & J. D. Coggburn (Eds.), Globalization and the environment (pp. 77-94). New York: Taylor & Francis.
3.
Bauer, S. ( 2009). The desertification secretariat: A castle made of sand . In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies (pp. 293-317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bauer, S., Busch, P.-O., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. In F. Biermann , B. Siebenhüner, & A. P. Schreyögg (Eds.), International organizations in global environmental governance (pp. 174-191). London: Routledge.
5.
Beck, U. ( 1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. ( 1997). Uncertainty in the service of science: Between science policy and the politics of power. In G. Fermann (Ed.), International politics of climate change (pp. 110-152). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
7.
Bulkeley, H. ( 2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24, 875-902.
8.
Carvalho, T.M.M., Coelho, C.O.A., Ferreira, J.D., & Charlton, C.A. (2002). Land degradation processes in Portugal: Farmers’ perceptions of the application of European agroforestry programmes. Land Degradation and Development, 13, 177-188.
9.
Clark, W.C., Mitchell, R.B., & Cash, D.W. ( 2006). Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments . In R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, & N. M. Dickson (Eds.), Global environmental assessments: Information and influence (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?London: Zed Books.
11.
Corell, E. ( 1999). The negotiable desert: Expert knowledge in the negotiations of the convention to combat desertification (Vol. 191). Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.
12.
Corell, E. ( 2003). Dryland degradation-Africa’s main environmental challenge: International activities from the 1970s to the 1990s and the future of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. In B. Chaytor & K. R. Gray (Eds.), International environmental law and policy in Africa (pp. 1-29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
13.
Corell, E., & Betsill, M.M. ( 2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 86-107.
14.
Demeritt, D. ( 2006). Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society, 35, 453-479.
15.
Farrell, A. E., & Jäger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: Designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
16.
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. ( 2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 147-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2008). Interplay: Exploring institutional interaction. In O. R. Young , L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 187-223). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Gieryn, T.F. ( 1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, T. Pinch, J. C. Petersen, & G. E. Markle (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
Grainger, A.D. ( 2009). The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: The case of desertification. Land Degradation & Development. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.898.
20.
Grainger, A.D., Stafford Smith, D.M., Glenn, E.P., & Squires, V.R. ( 2000). Desertification and climate change: The case for greater convergence. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5, 361-377.
21.
Gupta, J. ( 2008). Global change: Analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 225-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Haas, P.M. ( 2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569-592.
23.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. ( 2007a, September 17). Summary of the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention to Combat Desertification: 3-14 September 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 1-17.
24.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. ( 2007b, November 27). Summary of the First Extraordinary Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNCCD: 26 November. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 1-2.
25.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2004). States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge .
26.
Jasanoff, S., & Long Martello, M. B. (Eds.). (2004). Earthly politics: Global and local in environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. ( 1998). Science and decisionmaking. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (Vol. I, pp. 1-87). Columbus, OH: Batelle.
28.
Juntti, M., & Wilson, G.A. ( 2005). Conceptualizing desertification in Southern Europe: Stakeholder interpretations and multiple policy agendas. European Environment , 15, 228-249.
29.
Knabe, F. ( 2006). Civil society’s role in negotiating and implementing the UNCCD. In P. M. Johnson, K. Mayrand, & M. Paquin (Eds.), Governing global desertification: Linking environmental degradation, poverty and participation (pp. 89-107). Aldershot, UK : Ashgate.
30.
Le Prestre, P. ( 2002). The operation of the CBD Convention governance system . In P. Le Prestre (Ed.), Governing global biodiversity: The evolution and implementation of the convention on biological diversity (pp. 91-114). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
31.
Leach, M., & Mearns, R. ( 1996). The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment. Oxford and Portsmouth, UK: James Currey/Heinemann.
32.
Litfin, K.T. ( 2000). Environment, wealth and authority: Global climate change and emerging modes of legitimation. International Studies Review, 2(2), 119-148.
33.
Loewen, H. ( 2006). Towards a dynamic model of the interplay between scientific institutions (GIGA Working Paper No. 17). Hamburg, Germany: GIGA.
34.
Long Martello, M. ( 2004). Expert advice and desertification policy: Past experience and current challenges. Global Environmental Politics, 4(3), 85-106.
35.
McCormick, J. ( 1989). The global environmental movement: Reclaiming paradise . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
36.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
37.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Desertification synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
38.
Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., & Cash, D.W. ( 2006). Information and influence. In R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, & N. M. Dickson (Eds.), Global environmental assessments: Information and influence (pp. 307-338). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Najam, A. ( 2004). Dynamics of the Southern Collective: Developing countries in desertification negotiations. Global Environmental Politics , 4, 128-154.
40.
Ndiang’ui, N., & de Vanssay, A. (2006, May 5-6). The importance of national and regional scientific structures to support the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Paper presented at the International Conference Soil and Desertification: Integrated Research for the Sustainable Management of Soils in Drylands, Hamburg, Germany.
41.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. ( 2004). Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75-90.
42.
Oreskes, N. ( 2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.
43.
Ortiz, E.F., & Tang, G. ( 2005). Review of the management, administration and activities of the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Joint Inspection Unit.
44.
Pearce, R. ( 2006). Decentralisation and sustainable resources management in West Africa: A line of action for revising national action programmes. In P. M. Johnson, K. Mayrand, & M. Paquin (Eds.), Governing global desertification: Linking environmental degradation, poverty, and participation (pp. 147-162). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
45.
Pettenger, M. E. (Ed.). (2007). The social construction of climate change: Politics, power, norm, discourses . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
46.
Rhodes, S.L. ( 1991). Rethinking desertification: What do we know and what have we learned. World Development, 19, 1137-1143.
47.
Schram Stokke, O. ( 2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
48.
Schroeder, H., King, L.A., & Tay, S. ( 2008). Contributing to the science-policy interface: Policy relevance of findings on the institutional dimensions of global environmental change. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 261-275). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Stringer, L.C. ( 2008). Reviewing the International Year of Deserts and Desertification 2006: What contributions towards combating global desertification and implementing the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification? Journal of Arid Environments, 72, 2065-2074.
50.
Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Pressl, C., & Reed, M.S. ( 2006). Unpacking "participation" in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: A critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 39.
51.
Stringer, L.C., Thomas, D.S.G., & Twyman, C. ( 2007). From global politics to local land users: Applying the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Swaziland. Geographical Journal, 173(2), 129-142.
52.
Tal, A., & Cohen, J.A. ( 2007). Bringing "top-down" to "bottom-up": A new role for environmental legislation in combating desertification. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 31, 163-217.
53.
Thomas, D.S.G. ( 1997). Science and the desertification debate. Journal of Arid Environments, 37, 599-608.
Toulmin, C. ( 2006). If you want to get a job done, you need the right tools: Next steps for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
56.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Desertification Secretariat. (2002). United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa: Text with annexes, and a preface by the UNCCD Secretariat. Bonn, Germany: Author.
57.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. ( 1992). Agenda 21: Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Annex II, 12 August (Doc. UNA/CONF.151/26, Vols. I-III). New York: United Nations .
58.
van Asselt, H., Gupta, J., & Biermann, F. ( 2005). Advancing the climate agenda: Exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 14, 255-265.
59.
Wagner, L. ( 2006, September 7). A way to success: Where has the UNCCD to go?Paper presented at the "Desertification Control and Governance" Conference, GTZ House, Berlin, Germany.
60.
Way, S.-A. ( 2006). Examining the linkages between poverty and land degradation: From blaming the poor towards recognising the rights of the poor in marginal dryland areas. In P. M. Johnson, K. Mayrand, & M. Paquin (Eds.), Governing global desertification: Linking environmental degradation, poverty and participation (pp. 29-42). Aldershot, UK : Ashgate.
61.
Wbgu. (2005). Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen [German advisory council on global change]. Fighting poverty through environmental policy, world in transition series. London: Earthscan.
62.
Young, O.R. ( 2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
Young, O.R. ( 2003). Environmental governance: The role of institutions in causing and confronting environmental problems. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 377-393.
64.
Young, O.R. ( 2008). Institutions and environmental change: The scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 3-45). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H. (Eds.). (2008). Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
