Drought in AfricaAuthor(s): John ConnellSource: Area, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1973), pp. 270-271Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000777 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 20:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:44:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

270 Ordnance Survey policy

In the light of what you say, however, I think there may be room for further con sultation about the requirements of the scientific community. I would like to adopt your suggestion that the Royal Society should sponsor a meeting with representatives of a wide range of scientific disciplines. The purpose of the meeting, which I would wish the Director General to attend, would be to clarify the changes in policy that have been announced and to consider how to improve the arrangements for ensuring that the Ordnance Survey are aware of the scientific interest in their work. Perhaps the way forward would be for the Royal Society itself to have a committee representative of all the scientific disciplines which use Ordnance Survey products or services or which

might have an interest in work carried out by the Survey. This would ensure that the Ordnance Survey and my Department were aware of the requirements of scientific interests.

While this letter does not provide direct answers to the points made by the Royal Society, it does make very welcome concessions, particularly over the 1:25,000 series and tertiary levelling. The government also intends to publish the results of its inquiries and meanwhile, in response to the last paragraph of the Secretary of State's letter, the Royal Society has convened a conference of a wide range of scientific organizations on 7 December to review scientific needs and to recommend what could usefully be done to ensure that they are fully taken into account in the future.

Drought in Africa The severe hardship of the present drought in Africa, concentrated mainly in the Sahelian zone of West Africa and considered to be the worst in the area since 1913, prompted the Centre of African Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London to organize a two-day symposium in July 1973. The main objectives were to understand the causes, nature and extent of the drought and the attempts to alleviate it, and to produce documentation of the situation and work towards possible recommendations. Consequently some 42 communications were produced, plus six country reports examining the detailed situation in West Africa. They will be incorporated in a final report from the Centre later in the year.

Initial debate started from an introductory statement by Professor H. H. Lamb in which he linked the changing Sahelian climate to the unusual high pressure systems in the Arctic which seem to have displaced all other climatic zones nearer to the equator. He suggested that this was not a short-term cyclical change, but was more likely to be part of a 200-year process. D. Winstanley, who has elsewhere traced the climatic link between the drought in West Africa and that in Western India (Nature, 22 June 1973, 464-5), pointed out that much of the economic and agricultural expan sion in West Africa between 1920 and 1960 coincided with a period when rains extended

much farther to the north than they are likely to do again if the present trend is main tained. Several further speakers stressed the difficulties in predicting future cyclical changes on the bases of inadequate information; many gaps in the records were recent and irretrievable. Other papers, such as that by P. K. Mitchell, concentrated on more specific changes and occurrences and more recent fluctuations. The symposium was left to consider the possibility that meteorologists could not yet predict long-term changes.

Professor R. J. Harrison Church broadened the discussion and urged the intensifica tion of flood retreat (fadama) cultivation. Once again data on water resources were inadequate hence remote sensing techniques were suggested as of value for ground

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:44:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Drought in Africa 271

water estimation whilst the possibility of sub-surface storage and aquifer restorage were thought worthy of consideration. A group of papers considered different aspects of agricultural response to drought in different areas; W. Allan traced the relationships between population density, drought and carrying capacity with special reference to Botswana and Lesotho. This was followed by a debate over the role of cassava as a possible new crop to supplement diets in parts of the Sahel, a debate which continued intermittently almost until the end of the seminar. G. E. Wickens pointed to the conflict between camels and cattle for scarce resources and to the drought as a cause of ecological devastation around working points; he also noted that possible over stocking following the drought would ruin new vegetation. Mrs M. Simpson examined the response of the Kenyan government to the drought of 1960-61 and the subsequent organization of group ranching among the Masai. Other papers from J. Swift and from R. Baker considered different aspects of the response of predominantly animal based economies to drought conditions. Further conflicts between game and cattle ranching and more generally between sedentary and nomadic populations were pointed out.

From its more economic orientation the symposium then changed course to con sider the social context of drought. Traditional attitudes to drought as reflected in local poetry were summarized by H. T. Norris followed by analysis of changing responses as mediated by western technology, population change, aid programmes and national boundaries. The major area of discussion focused on the disruption of traditional land-use systems, the way in which particular technological changes (such as deep wells) assisted this disruption and the extent to which any society could be considered to be in equilibrium with its environment. Debate followed on ways and

means of risk-spreading, re-activating the cassava controversy and emphasizing the positive role of both the goat and the camel in the Sahelian zone.

Following a reference to the Burmese proverb 'people are affected by four natural catastrophes: fire, drought, famine and government', emphasis changed to examine possible national development policies and their relationship both to international aid and the self-determination of local peoples. Professor B. W. Hodder argued that in a broad sense the development of much of the Sahelian zone is fraught with such difficulty that the challenge is beyond both the resources of poor countries and the scale of foreseeable international aid and co-operation. This was more difficult because of problems of the viability of Sahel states, remphasized later by D. Hilling. He therefore advocated that there be a move towards strategic withdrawal from the Sahel zone and that the drought be regarded as an opportunity to encourage a more rational settle

ment pattern. Consequently greater emphasis had to be placed on the integration of the Sahel zone with the more densely populated coastal areas.

After an extremely brief consideration of medical and nutritional problems, the symposium examined the role of aid both as short-term assistance and long-term development. A detailed account of the work of the FAO Office for Sahelian Relief Operation (OSRO) was given by A. Molle, followed by briefer accounts from smaller organizations. This led to latent political differences becoming manifest and some discussion of neo-colonialism, dependence and over-dependence. In its final session the Symposium attempted to draw up policy recommendations yet, after a generally accepted plea for more and better data, discussion became bogged down in debate over the wisdom of making recommendations based on the evidence and experience at the disposal of the Symposium. It was left to W. Allan, through a judicious choice of a

Mongolian parallel, to indicate that we could not yet be sure if the Sahel, or part of the Sahel, was or was not overpopulated. Thus although the Symposium scarcely progressed beyond cliches in its final recommendations, useful debates were begun and groundwork was laid for a further conference on Drought in Asia and Africa to take place in 1974.

John Connell Institute of Development Studies

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:44:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions