4a india case study

1,306 views
1,214 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,306
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

4a india case study

  1. 1. TARGETING THE CO-EXISTANCE OF ECOLOGICAL AND INCOME POVERTY: A STUDY BASED ON WASTELAND MAPPING IN INDIA Sanjay K Srivastava [email_address]
  2. 2. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN INDIA – A HOPE OR HYPE ??? 1990s 2000 Poor 320 260 % Population 36 19 Poverty in India Millions of poor, malnourished and food insecure population cannot be the foot soldiers fighting the cause of sustainable agriculture (in Million) <ul><li>Strategy: </li></ul><ul><li>Combating poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Empowering people </li></ul><ul><li>Using core competence in science & technology – including space applications </li></ul><ul><li>Setting ecological integrity </li></ul>Who will feed India ? – small and marginal farmers (FAO/RAP- 2001) Poverty- geographical profile 0 20 40 60 South West East North Central 1999-00 1983-84 % of population below poverty line
  3. 3. WASTELAND ATLAS OF INDIA <ul><li>On 1:50,000 scale digital at village/micro-watershed level </li></ul>Total wasteland : 63.8 Mha Cultivable wasteland: 45 Mha Looking Beyond wasteland mapping…..Poverty Trap .. Source: Wasteland Atlas of India NRSA 2000
  4. 4. <ul><li>Marginal Agri. Land </li></ul>POSSIBLE LINKAGES… POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE They are often visible in proximity to each other highlighting the direct link between the two ? Ecological Poverty Income Poverty
  5. 5. POSSIBLE LINKAGES… AREA (sq. km.) Area > 30% = 5,67,525 Area 5 - 30% = 2,29,080 <ul><li>Marginal Agri. Land </li></ul>FOOD INSECURE POPULATION Ecological Poverty Depth of Hunger
  6. 6.   o          Bihar, for example, is characterized by just 6 % wastelands with 57% population below poverty line. o          Jharkhand, with 19% wastelands, has got more than 60% population below poverty line. o          Uttar Pradesh has 9% wastelands with more than 44% population below poverty line. o          Similarly, West Bengal with just over 6 % wastelands has got more than 40 % population below poverty line. Does Ecological and Income Poverty Co-exists? No… 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Waste land % Population below Poverty Line Assam Bihar Maharastra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh R 2 = 0.0167 HP
  7. 7. <ul><li>For example, Assam with more than 25 % wastelands has got more than 45 % population below poverty line. </li></ul><ul><li>Similarly, Rajasthan is characterized by more than 30 % wastelands and 26 % incidence of poverty. </li></ul><ul><li>On the other hand, there are States like Punjab with just 4% wastelands and 11% population below poverty line, followed by Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, Gujarat etc. </li></ul>Does Ecological and Income Poverty Co-exists? Yes… 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Waste land % Population below Poverty Line Assam Bihar Maharastra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh R 2 = 0.0167 HP
  8. 8. Incidence of Poverty Interventions - Program, Technology Natural Resources Institutional/ Social Factor Labour & Capital Flow/Mobility Spatial Integration of Economic activities New Lively hood opportunities ECOLOGICAL AND INCOME POVERTY - DYNAMICS Databases on relationship to examine the direction of policies/interventions? Powerlessness of poor to gain access or use available natural resources Role of economic policies and interventions in altering the relationship Inequitable access land, Information, market and credit
  9. 9. Number of people moved out of poverty as a result of additional Rs.1Million spending by Government 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 R&D Road Irrigation Education Power Rural Dev. Soil & Water Health Persons Source: IFPRI Report, 1999 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 2 4 6 8 R&D Road Irrigation Education Power Rural Dev. Soil & Water Health Increase in productivity Poverty reduction Percent Increase in growth of productivity and reduction in poverty as result of Government expenditure Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty in Rural India
  10. 10. Government Policy and Programme towards Poverty Reduction Targeted Interventions <ul><li>Self Employment Programme </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Synergy and Convergence of (IRDP, TRYSEM, DWCRA and MWS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wage Employment Programme </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jawahar Gram Samiti Yojana (JGSY) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employment Assurance Scheme </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure Development Programme </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Indira Awas Jojana </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pradhan Mantri Gramadaya Yojana </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural Electrification </li></ul></ul><ul><li>National Social Assistance Programme </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Maternity Benefits Scheme </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Old Age Pension Scheme </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annapurna </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Micro finance- NABARD, SHG linkages </li></ul>
  11. 11. Whether the various policies & interventions are well-targeted, and addressing poverty alleviation and natural resources development? Do they allow the economic and spatial integration of poor and marginalized to market forces to happen ? Are they opening up new marginal income earning opportunities in the informal sector of economy ? Did they succeed in reducing their dependence on natural resource base for livelihoods? REACHING OUT DOWN THE LINE???
  12. 12. The spatial dynamics of poverty seem to be influenced by the rural infrastructure, availability of transport links, and the growth of production and consumption linkages. Bihar, West Bengal .. need investments in rural infrastructure towards poverty reduction, while Maharastra, HP..need other priority Economic & Spatial Integration to Market Forces 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Wasteland (%) Rural infrastructure Assam Bihar Maharastra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 Population Below Poverty Line (%) Rural Infrastructure Index (%) R 2 = 0.50 Maharastra HP Bihar W. Bengal
  13. 13. On contrary, Kerala and Bihar, both being also highly food insecure States need to have interventions in other areas for poverty alleviation, as wastelands are quite low in these States, Jharkhand, Assam, Rajasthan .. wasteland to be put to use towards income generation, employment creation.. The interventions in food secured States Punjab, Chattisgarh, Himanchal, Haryana, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka need to be focused on off-farm income generation. Policy Interventions towards Food Security 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % of wasteland Deficit in food production (ratio) Assam Bihar Maharastra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh Jharkhand Kerala
  14. 14. Regression coefficient (R square) between incidence of poverty and wastelands increased from 0.0167 at State levels to as good as around 0.5 for quite a few States at the district level. It may increase further at village level and thus calling for dis-aggregated wasteland mapping to establish closer linkages with incidence of poverty. Disaggregated Poverty Mapping 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 Wasteland % Incidence of Poverty (% poor) Adilabad R 2 = 0.26 East Godavari Chittor
  15. 15. Wasteland mapping could be used to examine the impact of policies and interventions towards poverty reduction, In a typical state, the focus should be on spatial integration of rural poor to the market forces and creation of alternate livelihood systems, Evolving the economic policy instruments which could lead to substantial poverty reduction as well as enrichment of natural resources base. For micro-level interventions, disaggregated poverty mapping depicting the relationship between ecological and income poverty is called for.
  16. 16. He and She are poor; Not because they are borne so; In fact, it is the failure of the institutions, polices and programme that they continue to be poor and marginalized. - A Perception

×