Local Environment Publication

ARTICLE

Socio-Economic Dynamics, LocalDevelopment and Desertification in

Western Lesvos, Greece

THEODOROS IOSIFIDES & THEODOROS POLITIDIS

ABSTRACT The basic aim of this article is to briefly explore the links between socio-economic dynamics and desertification in western Lesvos, Greece. The area ischaracterised by certain socio-economic and development disadvantages, dependenceon few productive sectors (mainly on livestock breeding) and by severe problems ofland degradation and desertification. The linkages between socio-economic profile,characteristics and development trajectory with the state of environment in the areaare identified through a series of in-depth qualitative interviews with local producers(livestock breeders). Research findings reveal the major socio-economic driving forcestowards unsustainable productive practices, which contribute to the persistence of theproblems of land degradation and desertification.

Introduction

This article presents major findings of a qualitative study on the socio-economic and human dimensions of land degradation and desertification inwestern Lesvos, Greece. Western Lesvos combines environmental margina-lity with socio-economic unfavorability, and can be an exemplar case forthe exploration of complex socio-environmental processes. After havingidentified some of the most crucial social dimensions of desertification gene-rally and the specific characteristics of the problem in Greece and Lesvos, wefocus on the most important findings of our study in western Lesvos. Weestablish links between the characteristics of local livestock production,socio-economic and spatial conditions, rural development policies and

Local EnvironmentVol. 10, No. 5, 487–499, October 2005

Correspondence Address: Theodoros Iosifides, Department of Geography, University of theAegean, University Hill, 81100, Mytilini, Lesvos, Greece. Email: [email protected]

1354-9839 Print=1469-6711 Online=05=050487-13 # 2005 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=13549830500203162

unsustainable productive practices with the persistence and reproduction ofthe problems of land degradation and desertification.

Socio-Economic Dimensions of Land Degradation and Desertification

According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD, 1994, Article 1):

‘Desertification’ means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variationsand human activities.

The desertification phenomenon is characterised by a great complexity anda very strong interplay between environmental and human factors, whichgenerate the problem. Perez-Trejo (1994) notes that from the developmentof the definitions of desertification, it is evident that the emphasis is givenon human activities and socio-economic processes as its principal causes,possibly aggravated by natural climatic conditions (Drenge et al., 1991 inPerez-Trejo, 1994; GCAD, 2000).The underlying causes of the phenomenon of desertification are directly

related to human pressure on the environment and natural resources,socio-economic and productive organisation and unsustainable ways ofproducing, using of natural resources and living. Land degradation anddesertification, in a broader sense, are social phenomena mainly becausethe idea and practice of appropriating and using land are socially constructed(Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987).

Desertification in Greece and Lesvos

The major driving forces towards desertification in Mediterranean Europecan be attributed mainly to anthropogenic and socio-economic factors(Archer & Stokes, 2000). It is possible to identify a series of areas that facemore or less serious problems of land degradation and desertificationin Greece. These areas are mainly the eastern Peloponnesus, the continentalGreece, Thessaly, central and southern Macedonia, central and easternCrete and the Aegean islands (including the island of Lesvos) (GNCCD,2000).Within the framework of the Greek National Plan to Combat Desertifica-

tion, a series of socio-economic and institutional measures and actions aredesigned to mitigate the problem (GNCCD, 2000, 2002). Six pilot areashave been selected for the implementation of an integrated policy actionfor combating desertification.1 These areas are the mountainous Thessaly,eastern Crete, Attica, western Lesvos, the islands of eastern Aegean and theplain of Kilkis in eastern Macedonia (GNCCD, 2001).As mentioned earlier, western Lesvos is an exemplar case for the purposes

of our analysis since it combines environmental marginality with socio-economic disadvantages. Regarding the severity of desertification, Lesvos

488 T. Iosifides & T. Politidis

can be divided in three relatively distinct zones. The first zone, on the westernpart of the island, is semi-arid and is characterised by serious land degra-dation and desertification problems. The second zone, the transitional areaof central Lesvos, is at risk of degradation and the third zone, on easternLesvos may be affected by desertification in case of serious climaticchanges or extended land use change2 in the future (Jenkins &Wilson, 2001).

Research Design and Methods

In order to explore the links between socio-economic factors, unsustainableproductive practices and desertification in western Lesvos, we undertook aqualitative study of the area, by conducting in-depth interviews with locallivestock producers. This study was part of a broader research program3

and lasted for about four months, from November 2002 to February 2003.The basic aim of that study was to investigate the socio-environmental pro-cesses in the area, local perceptions and actions related to these processes,and to identify the role that local knowledge plays in socio-environmentaltrajectory and reproduction. After contacts had been made and rapport inthe areas had been established, a series of in-depth qualitative interviewswere conducted in seven different communities of western Lesvos, andmore specifically in Eresos, Vatousa, Skalohori, Revma, Hidira, Antisa andMesotopos (see Figure 1). They lasted from 30 minutes to over three hoursand in total 35 local livestock producers participated in the process. Theselection of participants was based upon their broad knowledge of local

Figure 1. The research setting on the island of Lesvos, Greece

Socio-Economic Dynamics and Desertification 489

development and environmental features and the duration of their involve-ment in the primary sector (over 10 years).Furthermore two interview strategies were adopted. At the beginning, a

series of individual interviews were taken, and at the end, three collectiveinterviews were organised. The combination of these strategies wasadopted in order:

. To capture the individual stances and interpretations along with the inter-action of different participants on the same issue.

. To increase the validity and reliability of the research process. Views, atti-tudes, interpretations and stances from individual interviews were putforward as issues during the collective gatherings and extensive debatesfollowed. This helped verify some of the most important findings of theresearch and establish the most crucial links between social processesand environmental issues in the area viewed through the eyes of localproducers (insiders’ point of view).

The research process ended when we felt that the basic research themeswere satisfactorily addressed and when after some time, repetition ofresponses increased, thus a certain degree of saturation of the process wasreached (Robson, 2002).The basic tool for conducting the study was a thematically structured

interview schedule. The schedule was changed considerably during theresearch process due to interaction with participants and was divided infive major parts. The first part concerned the general characteristics ofprimary production in the area; the second part was about local socio-economic and spatial conditions; the third part was an enquiry about survivaland social reproduction strategies; the fourth part concerned rural develop-ment trajectory and policies; and the last part was about productive practicesand environmental perceptions in relation to land degradation anddesertification.Through qualitative interviews in the area, a set of extended information

and data about views, attitudes and perceptions on local socio-economic,development and environmental processes were collected. All interviewswere recorded, transcribed and took a textual form. Then, a data analysiswas conducted during which the Maxqda software was used (Hay, 2000).

Socio-Economic Processes, Local Development Trajectory andDesertification in Western Lesvos, Greece—Exploring the Links

Characteristics of Local Livestock Production

The dominant economic activity in western Lesvos is livestock (mainly sheepand goat) breeding. Regarding land ownership structure, and notablypastureland ownership, interviewees reported three forms of ownership inthe area: grazing land owned by the local livestock breeders, rented privategrazing land and rented grazing land owned by local municipalities.


In western Lesvos some 50% of grazing land is rented by local producers(NSSG, 2001a).The size of production units (mostly family farms), in terms of animal

number, is relatively small. Interviewees reported a size range from 30 to300 animals per unit. Nevertheless, animal capital in the area grew substan-tially in recent decades. This increase is partly explained by the upward fluc-tuation of prices of final products (mainly milk and cheese), especially duringthe 1970s and partly due to the subsidised livestock breeding productionfrom 1981 onwards. The latter factor is largely responsible for the persistenceof high numbers of animals in the area, as the level of subsidy is directlyconnected with the volume of animal capital5 (Kizos, 2002). Thus, from atotal number of animals (sheep and goats) of about 30,000 in 1971, the live-stock grew to the present figure of about 180,000 (NSSG, 2001a; Kizos,2002), which is about six times the estimated carrying capacity (see note 10).The dominant type of livestock production in the area is that of family type

and the mean age of unit leaders is relatively high (almost 82% of localproducers are over 40-years of age while nearly 36% are over 65) (NSSG,2001a). Interviewees reported two main reasons for this age structure charac-teristic. The first reason is linked to the growing rejection of livestock employ-ment by the young, whereas the second is related to prolonged engagementwith primary production due to increased income needs and low pensions.Regarding labour structure, interviewees reported three main labour pools.

The first and basic labour pool is familial, whereas the secondmost importantis that of foreign labour in the area (mainly immigrants from Albania), whichis highly seasonal (from February to July of each year) and precarious. Thethird labour pool is that of waged employment of a more permanent charac-ter. This type of employment is very limited in the area and can be found onlyin the relatively large livestock production units.

Socio-Economic Conditions

Economic and income concerns were some of the major issues emerged fromthe field research. About 30% of local producers earn their income solelyfrom the primary sector while the rest 70% complement their farm-incomefrom other sources. In 2000, the median farm income in western Lesvoswas about 6000 euros,6 while the median non-farm income for the sameyear reached only the level of about 6000 euros,7 due to the limited opportu-nities for income generation at the non-farm sector. It must be noted that, forthe same year, the median income at country level was about 13,000 euros(NSSG, 2001b). Interviewees reported that the main reason leading to lowincome and serious economic problems in the area is the combination ofhigh production cost along with the relatively low prices of livestockproducts. The causes of these trends and their implications for local ruraldevelopment, land management and productive practices are analysed inthe next parts of the paper. Income satisfaction is quite low and there is wide-spread concern and insecurity about future income fluctuations because of


the high dependence of present income level on various national andEuropean Union subsidies.There is a certain degree of underemployment in the area due to the

seasonal character of the main activities and the limited existence of alter-native employment opportunities. It seems that unemployment in the areais relatively low but this feature is related to the history of out-migrationand depopulation which characterises the island. Many of the intervieweesstressed that the reason of the absence or presence of low unemployment inwestern Lesvos is out-migration to the capital of the island (Mitilini), tothe major urban centers of Greece and to other countries.The growing rejection of employment in the primary sector by young

generations combined with out-migration has resulted in a certain inflowof immigrant labour in the area. The vast majority of immigrants areAlbanians, but there are also few Bulgarians and Romanians working inthe primary sector. The basic characteristics of immigrant labour in thesector are seasonality, precariousness and instability. According to interview-ees, the main reasons for the employment of foreign workers in livestockproduction is the unavailability of native workers and the low cost ofimmigrant labour. The emphasis that the interviewees put on the firstreason, shows that competition between natives and immigrants in the areais relatively low. Labour cost is about 10 to 30 euros per day according tothe task and hours of work, almost half of the labour cost of natives.Immigrant labour is evaluated positively by the interviewees and in manycases as essential for the maintenance of the present level of livestockproduction. Given the labour intensity of stock-breeding production in thearea, the employment of cheap foreign workers is absolutely necessary forkeeping intact the already low level of local income. Furthermore, theexistence and availability of foreign workers favors the prevention of landabandonment8 which, under specific conditions, leads to further degradationand desertification and to great difficulties for the application of sustainableland management practices.

Rural Development and Policies

According to interviewees, there are four major factors contributing tothe negative rural development trajectory of the area, namely geographicdistance, input prices, the role of intermediaries and pastureland rents.

Geographic distance from major urban centers of the country increasestransportation costs and contributes to the overall increase of local pro-duction cost. Apart from this more or less evident feature, the intervieweesassigned to the notion of geographic distance a somewhat differentmeaning. They portrayed the area as politically and socio-economically‘abandoned’ and as ‘peripheral’ not only in relation to the major productiveand decision-making centers of the country but in also in relation to thecapital of the island (Mytilini). There is a widespread feeling of local ‘power-lessness’ and ‘lack of participation’, and thus their inability to influence thedevelopment features and trajectory of the area.


Another important factor contributing to the increased production cost isthe level of input prices, mainly those of livestock forage prices. Intervieweesconnected the increased input prices to the previous factor (relatively hightransportation cost due to geographic distance), to the lack of adequatestate financial assistance9 in terms of subsidised livestock forage prices andto the lack of local resources due to limited pastureland availability inrelation to the livestock capital in the area. It is estimated that for sheepbreeding, at country level, forage expenditure reaches almost 41% of totalexpenditure. Generally, forage cost for sheep breeding in Greece, contributesexcessively to the overall production cost (as compared to permanent capitalcost and labour cost, both around 31% of total expenditure) (Papanagiotouet al., 2002). This burden is far more difficult to be undertaken by localproducers in marginal areas such as western Lesvos and that is why thevast majority of producers there, are highly dependent on pasturelands forfeeding their animals, contributing to excessive pressure on the alreadyecologically sensitive soil resources. Thus the spiral of low land productivity,low income, relatively high production costs and overgrazing is reinforced.The role of intermediaries (major buyers of local livestock products such as

milk and meat) is stressed by the interviewees in a highly negative way. Inter-viewees referred mainly to the great difference between producer and marketprice of local livestock products, which is attributed to the domination of themarket by few intermediaries, the lack of competition, the formation of com-mercial monopolies and to the gradual weakening of local cooperatives. Dueto the above reasons, for example, the average wholesale price of sheep meatin western Lesvos for 2002 ranged from 2.50 to 3.20 euros per kilo, while theaverage wholesale price of the same product in other areas of continentalGreece ranged from 4.40 to 4.99 euros per kilo. The average market pricefor the same product was about 7.5 euros per kilo. Thus, there are observabledifferences between the wholesale prices in western Lesvos and continentalGreece and vast differences between producers’ prices in the area andmarket prices.Last but not least, one of the most important factors affecting production

cost and local income is pastureland rents. The extended unavailability ofland property rights among the local livestock producers in relation to theexcessive demand for pastureland has resulted in relatively high land rents.Rents are differentiated according to location, soil quality, access and size,but a mean pastureland is rented for about three euros per 1000 sq. m. peryear.10 Local producers regulate the number of grazing animals accordingto soil quality and fertility. The interviewees stated very intensively theissue of land property rights and they associated this issue not only withincreased production cost but also with weak mobilisation for environmentaland soil conservation investments in the area.11

Within this unfavorable socio-economic milieu, interviewees pay closeattention to the existence and fluctuations of national and EU productionsubsidies over time. They referred extensively to the almost total dependenceof local livestock production and current income level on subsidies, whichcombined with the lack of alternative employment and income sources in


most of western Lesvos, has resulted in the continuity of socio-economicdifficulties and excessive pressure on natural resources.Under the current reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsi-

dies are connected to various agrienvironmental provisions, namely to theGreen Certification and to the Code of Good Agricultural Practices. Due tothe absence of proper implementation mechanisms, especially in marginalareas such as western Lesvos, these provisions are still inapplicable. Forexample the Code of Good Agricultural Practices for insular areas providesthat livestock grazing has to keep pace with the grazing capacity of theland. Given that the grazing capacity for Greek pasturelands is estimatedto be one sheep or goat per hectare, the actual grazing ratio in westernLesvos today is about six animals per hectare (ca. 180,000 animals for30,400 hectare of pasturelands)! (Sioliou-Kaloudopoulou & Ispikoudis,2002). It becomes evident that the full implementation of these agrienviron-mental provisions in western Lesvos, given the current conditions in the area(traditional labour intensive livestock production, lack of adequate non-farmemployment and income generation opportunities), would lead to a consider-able reduction of disposable income for local producers.Although there is a sense of widespread socio-economic and development

‘fatalism’ among local producers, interviewees made specific proposalsaiming at the alteration of local development trajectory. The commoncharacteristic of these proposals is related to the demand for grater state inter-vention and the formulation and implementation of a specific policy frame-work for less favored areas such as western Lesvos, which would take intoaccount local particularities and needs. More specifically, local producerspropose that investments for the improvement of road network in the areashould be taken, incentives for the development of alternative sources ofincome and employment outside of the livestock sector should be offered

Table 1. Basic economic features of livestock farms in western Lesvos and Greece�

Western Lesvos Greece

Average levels for some 20 E (labour cost per day) 26 E (labour cost per day)production costs 3 E per 1000 sq. m. per year

0.20 E per kilo (corn forage) 0.09 E per kilo (corn forage)Average farm income 6.000 E 13.000 E

Average non-farm income 6.000 E

Wholesale prices ofsheep meat

2.5–3.2 E per kilo 4.4–4.9 E per kilo

Subsidies About 13 E per animal About 13 E per animal

Sources: Interview data with local producers in western Lesvos and various sources (Papanagiotou et al.,2002; NSSG, 2001a, b).�Note: Almost all figures and estimations are for 2002. Only labour costs are lower in western Lesvos that

those inGreeceaswhole.Although there areno comparable dataongraze land rents, these aremuch lower in

continental Greece than in western Lesvos (see Note 10). On the contrary the wholesale price for one of the

basic products of western Lesvos (sheep meat) is significantly lower in the island than that in country level.Generally the table indicates some aspects of the unfavorable socio-economic conditions in western Lesvos.


to local producers, the Sigri port should be upgraded and improved andquality certification of local products should be enhanced.12 Interviewees’interpretations of socio-economic and development trajectory of the areaare mainly connected with the limited participation of the local populationto decision-making processes and to the fact that central and even regional/local institutions and agencies neither hear nor take into account the ‘voiceand views of local people’.

Productive Practices, Land Degradation and Desertification

The term ‘desertification’ (erimopiisi in Greek) was almost unknown to theresearch participants, although issues related to the phenomenon haveattracted much publicity at national and local levels in recent years. Intervie-wees were more familiar with the term and meaning of ‘land degradation’and were aware of the gradual loss of land productivity in the area. Neverthe-less, it seems that there is a serious problem with disseminating informationabout environmental problems, natural resource use and productivepractices. Furthermore, there are no permanent structures of informationand training on the environmental dimension of natural resource use in thisecologically sensitive place, which confirms, in much extent, the interviewees’views of ‘abandonment’ of the area by formal policy-makers at central andregional level. Furthermore the term ‘desertification’ was widely interpretedby the research participants as ‘depopulation’, which reflects the relativelylong history of socio-economic deprivation of western Lesvos.Apart from climatic factors, most of the interviewees connected the exces-

sive pressure on land and natural resources with human and productiveactivities. More specifically, they related these pressures to the combinationof animal capital increase due to subsidies, excessive demand for pastureland,lack of alternative employment opportunities in most of the area and urgentsocio-economic needs. As Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki (1985, p. 237) puts it:

The case of Lesvos island is typical of many situations in Greece. A totalof 213,000 sheep and goats graze over the total area, with 67% of thepopulation located on its western part, where the greatest utilisationoccurs. The grazing activities are unconstrained so that, theoretically,an area of 3500 m2 is available to each feeding animal. The degree ofgrazing pressure on the natural ecosystems is very high and graduallycauses deterioration. (Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki, 1985, p. 237)

Although there is a certain feeling that human induced overpressure on analready environmentally sensitive type of land leads, in the long-run, to greatlosses of land fertility and productivity, environmental protection and soilconservation priorities remain low due to serious economic concerns,financial weakness and almost total dependence on the livestock sector.One research participant specified this situation as a ‘trap’ in which socio-economic disadvantage and environmental sensitivity reinforce each otherin a downturn spiral. In our opinion, this term and the image associated


with it, capture the whole web of relationships and interconnectednessbetween the local development trajectory and the overall environmentalperformance and problems in the area.

Conclusions

It was not our intention to present here in detail the available quantitativedata on the problem of land degradation and desertification in westernLesvos, since there are many studies dealing with these dimensions(Cosmas et al., 1996; Yassoglou, 1998; Imeson, 2000; Lopez-Bermudez,2000; Papanastasis, 2000; Stroosnijder, 2000). Our intention was to identify,in a synoptic way, the links between socio-economic and development dis-advantages and desertification problems in western Lesvos, as viewed andarticulated by the experiences of local people. We have identified a seriesof major driving forces towards unsustainable use of land resources,notably the high degree of dependence on the livestock sector and the lackof adequate alternative sources of income, the maintenance of low incomelevel due to high production cost and unsatisfactory final product pricescoupled with the high dependence of local income level on subsidies. Thedependence on subsidies leads to the continuation of the unsustainable useof natural resources in the area. Nevertheless, a possible abolition of subsidis-ing production would lead to rapid deterioration of local economic con-ditions and vast depopulation. Thus, instead of abolition, the subsidisingregime needs substantial restructuring along the lines of disconnecting subsi-dies from livestock volume, linking themwith incentives for production mod-ernisation and placing them within a framework of alternative localdevelopment trajectory characterised by the creation of adequate incomeand employment opportunities outside the livestock sector.Research findings offer a quite different picture of the problems of land

degradation and desertification in western Lesvos, than that of the officialagencies. The crucial difference lies at understanding of desertification notas a ‘technical-technocratic’ problem but a process deeply rooted in societal,production and development organisation and structure (Blaikie &Brookfield, 1987). Furthermore such research endeavors allow ‘localvoices’ and ‘local knowledge’ to emerge and, hopefully, to be taken intoaccount by policymakers.

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous referees of this paper for their constructivecomments. We also owe many thanks to Professor Helen Briassoulis forher overall guidance and help.

Notes

[1] The implementation of the Greek National Action Plan to Combat Desertification has startedin 2000 and so far, there are two evaluation reports of this process (years 2001 and 2002)

(Papadopoulos et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the implementation process so far proved to be relatively


problematic as regards the comprehensive combat of desertification, mainly because of the poordefinition of the areas at risk of degradation and desertification, the generic character of the

National Action Plan and thus the lack of specialised policy frameworks focusing on local specifi-

cities and needs and the absence of separate funds allocated specifically for implementing the

Plan (MEDACTION, 2003; Politidis, 2003).[2] Nowadays the dominant cultivation type in this area is that of olive trees.

[3] The European research program MEDACTION—Policies for Land Use to Combat Desertification

(ENVK2-CT-2000-00085), web site: http://www.icis.unimaas.nl/MEDACTION/.

[4] As ‘local development’ we mean ‘endogenous development’ that is the utilisation, in a sustainablemanner, of local advantages and resources, associated with the promotion of diversification of

local economic base and rural ‘multi-functionality’ (Barquero, 1991; Papadopoulos, 2004).

[5] Subsidies are supplied by the responsible agencies of the state (Department of Agriculture at regionaland local level). The level of subsidy per animal is fixed and counts today at about 13 euros (NSSG,

2001a).

[6] Almost half of this income (about 47.5%) is created by subsidies (Papanagiotou et al., 2002).Subsidies are granted to local livestock producers and not to land owners.

[7] This level concerns the 70% of families which earn non-farm income.

[8] Because of the specific socio-economic conditions in western Lesvos, land abandonment would lead

to out-migration from the area and thus to depopulation. It is generally recognised that the preven-

tion of depopulation is crucial for the future implementation of an alternative local developmentframework characterised by sustainable use and conservation of natural resources and multiple

sources of employment and income (GNCCD, 2001).

[9] This financial assistance would compensate the higher cost of forage (mainly transportation cost)due to the remoteness and peripherality of the island.

[10] The median rent price of three euros per 1000 sq. m. per year seems to be quite low but in reality the

total price which local producers pay for rents yearly is a relatively high proportion of their overall

production cost. This is because local producers are obliged to rent large grazing areas due to theirlow productivity in grass. The total grazing land area in western Lesvos is about 30,400 hectare

(NSSG, 2001a). Our field research in western Lesvos, showed that a rented grazing part of land

of around 60–80 ha is very common. Currently there are no official data on graze land rents in

Greece because the vast majority of leasing agreements are informal and verbal. Thus a systematiccomparison between the Lesvos case with other parts of Greece or other areas of Southern Europe is

not possible. Nevertheless studies on rural development in Greece indicate that the level of graze

land rents in the continental parts of the country is much lower than that of the Lesvos (and gener-

ally of LFA’s) cases (Safiliou & Papadopoulos, 2004).[11] For example investments for ameliorating the soil of grazing land and investments for medium and

long term set-aside programs.

[12] These measures would lead to the development of the non-farm sector and thus to the reduction ofexcessive pressure to natural resources. Furthermore they would lead to the relative modernisation

of the farm sector resulting in the decrease of dependence on grazing land.

References

Archer, S. & Stokes, C. (2000) Stress, disturbance and change in rangeland ecosystems, in: O. Arnalds &

S. Archer (Eds) Rangeland Desertification (London, Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki, M. (1985) Desertification by overgrazing in Greece: the case of Lesvos island,

Journal of Arid Environment, 9, pp. 237–242.

Barbier, E. B. (1998) The Economics of Land Degradation and Rural Poverty Linkages in Africa

(University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana, United Nations University).

Barbier, E. B. & Thomson, J. R. (1998) The value of water: floodplain versus large-scale irrigation benefits

in Northern Nigeria, Ambio, 27(6), pp. 430–440.

Barquero, V. A. (1991) Local Development: a strategy for employment creation (Athens, Papazisis)

(in Greek).

Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society (London, Routledge).


Cosmas, C., Yassoglou, N. J., Danalatos, N. G., Karavitis, C., Gerontidis, S. & Mizara, A. (1996)

MEDALUS III First Annual Report (Berkshire, MEDALUS Office).

Greek Committee Against Desertification (GCAD) (2000) Greek Action Pre-plan Against Desertification

(Athens, Ministry of Agriculture) (in Greek).

Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (GNCCD) (2000) First National Report on the

Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Athens, Ministry of

Agriculture).

Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (GNCCD) (2001) Greek National Plan for

Combating Desertification (Extended Summary) (Athens, Ministry of Agriculture).

Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (GNCCD) (2002) Second National Report on

the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Athens, Ministry

of Agriculture).

Hay, R., Steele, P. & Noman, O. (1994) Poverty Alleviation and Land Degradation in the Drylands

(Oxford, UNSO).

Hay, I. (2000) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (SouthMelbourne, Oxford University

Press).

Imeson, A. (2000) Indicators of land degradation in the Mediterranean basin, in: G. Enne, C. Zanolla &

D. Peter (Eds) Desertification in Europe: mitigation strategies, land-use planning (Alghero, European

Commission).

Kizos, T. (2002) The dynamics of rural landscape: evaluation of spatial impact of CAP in the countryside

of Aegean Islands. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Mytilini, Department of Environmental Studies,

University of the Aegean, Greece.

Jenkins, J. & Wilson, G. (2001) National Team Reports on Policy Work Already Conducted in Research

Areas Under Previous Projects, <http://www.icis.unimaas.nl/MEDACTION> (Accessed 13 October

2004).

Lopez-Bermudez, F. (2000) How to measure desertification and degradation processes, in: G. Enne,

C. Zanolla & D. Peter (Eds) Desertification in Europe: mitigation strategies, land-use planning

(Alghero, European Commission).

MEDACTION (2003) Development of a Desertification Policy Support Framework, <http://www.icis.

unimaas.nl/MEDACTION> (Accessed 13 October 2004).

NSSG (National Statistical Service of Greece) (2001a) Census of Agriculture and Stock-Breeding Sector

1999–2000 (Athens, NSSG).

NSSG (National Statistical Service of Greece) (2001b) General Census, Greece, 2001 (Athens, NSSG).

Oodit, D. & Somonis, U. E. (1992) Poverty and sustainable development, in: F. Ditetz, U. E. Somonis &

J. van der Straaten (Eds) Sustainability and Environmental Policy (Berlin, Sigma).

Papadopoulos, A. G., Kyriazi-Alison, E. & Liarikos, K. (2002) Sustainable rural development and

desertification: towards a new management policy of rural space, in: ETAGRO (Eds) Proceedings

of the Seventh Pan-Hellenic Conference of Rural Economy (Athens, Agricultural University of

Athens) (in Greek).

Papadopoulos, A. G. (2004) The Development in a Multifunctional Rural Space (Athens, Gutenberg)

(in Greek).

Papanagiotou, E., Kitsopanidis, G. & Zioganas, C. (2002) Comparative analysis of sheep and goat breed-

ing at country level, in: ETAGRO (Eds) Proceedings of the Seventh Pan-Hellenic Conference of Rural

Economy (Athens, Agricultural University of Athens) (in Greek).

Papanastasis, V. (2000) Land degradation caused by overgrazing and wildfires and management strategies

to prevent and mitigate their effects, in: G. Enne, C. Zanolla & D. Peter (Eds) Desertification in

Europe: mitigation strategies, land-use planning (Alghero, European Commission).

Perez-Trejo, F. (1994) Desertification and Land Degradation in the European Mediterranean

(Luxembourg, European Commission).

Politidis, T. (2004) Socio-economic dimensions of desertification: the case of Lesvos, Greece. MA thesis,

Mytilini, University of the Aegean, Greece (in Greek).


Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research (Oxford, Blackwell).

Safiliou, K. & Papadopoulos, A. G. (2004) Small Farmers in Greece (Athens, Gutenberg).

Sioliou-Kaloudopoulou, M. & Ispikoudis, I. (2002) Livestock husbandry in mountainous areas: from

European directives to local realities, in: HPRS (Eds) Proceedings of the Third Pan-Hellenic Range-

land Congress (Karpenisi, Ministry of Rural Development and Food and Hellenic Pasture and

Range Society) (in Greek).

Stroosnijder, L. (2000) Land use planning for mitigating desertification in Europe, in: G. Enne, C. Zanolla

& D. Peter (Eds) Desertification in Europe: mitigation strategies, land-use planning (Alghero,

European Commission).

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1994) <http://www.unccd.int/convention/text/

convention.php#begin>.

United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC) (1995) Poverty Eradication and Sustainable

Development (Geneva, Commission on Sustainable Development).

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) World Atlas of Desertification (London, Arnold).

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) (1994) Environmental Degradation

and Social Integration (Geneva, UNRISD).

United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office (UNSO) (1994) Poverty Alleviation and Land Degradation in the

Drylands: issues and action areas for the international convention on desertification (Oxford, UNSO).

Yassoglou, N. J. (1998) Semi-natural environments and processes. Soil: Mediterranean soil types in a

desertification context, in: P. Mairota, J. B. Thornes & N. Geeson (Eds) Atlas of Mediterranean

Environments in Europe: the desertification context (Chichester, John Wiley & Sons).


Documents

Local Environment Publication