1.1. The Change in Focus Between Phase I and Phase II
1.2. Presentation of the Analysis
This study of research priorities for marginal lands comes as a sequel to the TAC study "Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of Natural Resource Management in the CGIAR". That report highlighted the importance of "strengthening natural resource management (NRM) [with] explicit linking to... the CGIAR contribution to poverty alleviation." In its review of the TAC report at the Mid-Term Meeting (May 1996), members of the CGIAR concluded that there should be a much greater sense of urgency given to soil and water research due to the centrality of the environmental issue.
The focus on poverty alleviation in marginal rural areas does not imply that the System is uninterested in the poor who live on the prime lands or in urban areas. It merely reflects a conviction that the CGIAR has an opportunity not readily available to other suppliers of research, and an obligation to address a rural poverty group which has been left behind
In moving ahead to articulate a strategy for achieving the overarching goal of sustainable poverty alleviation and associated food security, the next step specifically with respect to rural poverty is identification of where these people live and their present numbers. From this information base, one may move to characterize the current status of the lands from which they derive part or all of their livelihoods. From the optic of technology to increase productivity of resources used in agriculture, this status may be initially expressed in terms of biophysical potential, i.e. biophysically favoured versus marginal lands. However, the determinants of poverty (marginal people) lie mainly with the socio-economic and institutional aspects (markets, policies, physical infrastructure, human capital) which govern the choice sets of the population in using natural resources to which they have access and in obtaining off-farm income.
With specification of the biophysical, institutional, policy and socio- economic characteristics which explain why the various target groups are poor, one is in a position to explore research options whose output and outcomes may be expected to have an impact on sustainable poverty alleviation. From that point one can go on to examine what the CGIAR might do, i.e. the entry points where there is expectation of significant impact from research through output of international public goods.
The decision to start the process of assessing possible avenues for change in direction with an examination of research options for marginal lands derive from a perception that marginal populations - the rural poor - are likely to be concentrated in these areas, and further, that the incidence of extreme poverty will be higher than on favoured lands. These areas are seen to be fragile and occupying the major part of lands already settled or in process of expansion (clearing of tropical forest). Accordingly there is a concern with the prospect of large-scale resource degradation and attendant externalities. In addition, there is a presumption that CGIAR research has had little impact on the poor in these areas except by indirection, i.e. by providing employment on favoured lands which have benefited from research, or by lower food prices to those who purchase part of their needs.
All land types - marginal or favoured - need research related to environmental protection and sustainable productivity which can to a greater or lesser extent help in the quest for poverty alleviation and expanded food security for the poor. On the favoured lands, expanded production can result in lower prices for urban consumers, as well as to increased jobs and food for the rural poor in both areas. To the extent that the poor live on the marginal lands, research that leads to productivity increases on those lands also can help to alleviate poverty and increase food security. Thus, in and of themselves, the twin objectives of poverty alleviation and environmental protection do not provide useful guidance in terms of allocation of research resource between marginal and favoured lands.
Thus, while "marginal lands" still provide a reference point, the Panel concluded that the study should focus on research issues and strategies related to marginalized people -those whose poverty and food insecurity may be caused by not only their association with biophysically low productivity or impoverished (marginal) lands, but also with, for example, lack of access to inputs, or lack of access to markets (effective demand for their production), off-farm means for earning income and related institutional constraints.
In its terms of reference (Annex I) TAC made it clear that the System should not be investing in research on marginal lands just because they are currently considered low potential areas for agriculture, and it "favours allocating resources such that the balance between high and low potential environments emerges from the concern with poverty alleviation and resource conservation, rather than being introduced a priori."
Phase I of this Study started from the premise that poverty alleviation is the primary goal of the CGIAR and that the means by which the System would have an impact is through sustainable productivity enhancement embodied within natural resource management. In order to address the issues of research priorities, it was assumed:
marginal lands are a definable research target (areas, population, beneficiaries, and externalities);research requirements are qualitatively different from favoured lands;
strategic or tactical questions will be conditioned by trade-offs among poverty alleviation, food production and environmental protection.
As a result of exchange of views with TAC, the centres and further discussion within the Panel, the following modifications have been introduced.
The concept of multiple objectives and the inherent trade-offs associated with poverty alleviation, food production and natural resource management is modified. Poverty alleviation is accepted as the single strategic objective. Environmental protection may also be an objective, but not for the CGIAR in situations where there may be trade-offs with poverty alleviation. Rather, productivity enhancement within the context of natural resource management (NRM) or environmental management is seen as the means to poverty alleviation. Further, food security is seen as a question of income. Thus, in the case of rural poverty alleviation on marginal lands, productivity applies to food and non-food activities derived from the renewable resources to which the poor have access, and off-farm income opportunities.It is recognized more explicitly that marginal lands constitute a moving target. There are drawbacks to defining them in terms of biophysical and economic yields since both their physical and economic yields can be altered by on-site investments and exogenous institutional factors affecting markets, prices, resource entitlements, etc. Further, due to spatial variability, farmers may have access to both marginal and favoured lands which could clearly modify their management systems. Thus, soil and climatic domains, although relevant, in most cases are likely to be outweighed by qualifying variables in determining the research approach.
The point of departure is marginal poor not marginal lands. The implication is a more explicit focus on the human capital, physical capital and institutional constraints faced by these people, as well as the biophysical constraints of their natural capital. All constraints are considered candidates for research, including integrated approaches to target the rural poor in definable geographic areas. In mapping marginal rural populations for the purpose of defining research options and decision on priorities, criteria for establishing the boundaries will be weighted to the non-biophysical rather than the biophysical determinants of poverty.
The terms of reference for the study carry a strong inference that marginal lands (ML) are biophysically defined. The corollary is that with a scientifically solid definition one can map these areas together with existing and forecasted numbers of rural poor in each. From there, the primary point of entry for the CGIAR would be research to overcome the biophysical constraints, in association with socio-economic, policy and institutional research which would facilitate the diffusion and application of technology in on-farm and off-farm activities affecting the welfare of the poor. Given this framework, Chapter 2 deals first with the statistical implications of the biophysical definition of ML; second, with the derivation of marginal agricultural lands (MALs) as a more operational concept enabling plausible estimates of rural poor located on these lands and the resources allocated by the CGIAR to such areas; and third, with the move away from biophysical criteria (as the prime criterion for determining marginality) to a more comprehensive definition of "marginal areas" (MA), based on concentration of marginal rural people and why they are marginal, as the operationally relevant concept for decisions by the CGIAR. Chapter 3 examines the options open to the CGIAR in addressing poverty in MAs. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 assess research requirements bearing on removal of constraints on knowledge, resources and incentives to poverty alleviation in the areas of:
change in institutions and policy
generation and diffusion of improved technologies
diversification of land use and income sources.
