<p>In this paper discourse analysis on the Ethiopian National Action Program (NAP) to combat desertification is made. The aim is to describe how the overall image/picture of desertification, its causes, and effects and of possible solutions are presented in the NAP. </p><p>The result of this analysis shows that the main cause of desertification is human activities mainly due to the poorly developed socio-economic situation in the dryland areas. It is indicated that an excessive dependency of the rural population on the natural resources, particularly land, is the major cause of land degradation and this deterioration of land is said to have been caused by the rapid population growth, overgrazing, forest clearing as well as past government and institutional failures. In addition it is indicated that the effect of desertification usually involves ecological changes that sap land of its ability to sustain agriculture and human habitation, therefore the most serious threat to human welfare. Desertification diminishes the ability of affected countries to produce food and consequently entail the reduction of regional and global food- producing potential with impacts on world food reserves and food trade. The solution given to mitigate desertification in Ethiopia is that the present strategies are intended to combat desertification, through different action programmes such as improving knowledge on drought and desertification, basic infrastructure, institutional organisations and capacity, awareness and participation as well as empowerment of women. </p><p>The analysis also shows that priority was given to socio-economical aspect of the country not directly to combat desertification. It is suggested that in order to mitigate the land degradation, promotion of alternative livelihood is necessarily and this is reported to be achieved through industrialisation, rural credit programmes, intensification and diversification of agriculture, building awareness and access to information, enhancement of institutional organisations, participatory natural resource management, encouraging the private sector in involvement in forest development etc. Finally the analysis identifies different discourses, such as the survivalism, anthropocentrism, ecological modernisation, administrative- rationalism, economic rationalism and democratic pragmatism. Likewise the conflict that prevails between the discourses is discussed.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:liu-2607 |
| Date | January 2004 |
| Creators | Asgedom Reda, Aster |
| Publisher | Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Institutionen för tematisk utbildning och forskning |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds