Chapter 8 - Effects upon the people
Back to contents - Previous file - Next file
Effects
upon production
Consequences for the people
Land degradation and the poor
In Chapter 6, an attempt was made at a costing of the effects of land degradation considered on a macroeconomic basis, at the national and regional levers. This chapter considers the effects upon the people. These can be called social effects but, since an adequate income is a primary concern of farmers, they are also economic effects, at the microeconomic or farm economics lever.
The effect will be considered at two stages: effects upon production, and consequences for the people.
Land degradation affects crop production, livestock production, and forest production. The consequences differ according to the type and degree of degradation.
Total abandonment of land Where degradation reaches the severe degree, formerly productive land must be abandoned. Examples where this is clearly seen are:
The initial abandonment of land takes place when, although some growth of crops is still possible, yields are so low.
Reduced crop yields Where land has been subject to light or moderate degradation, the same lever of inputs will give longer outputs. These may be reduced crop yields or longer livestock production.
Relatively little precise data is yet available on lowering of production as a result of water and wind erosion. The question is being studied in a FAO research network, although this does not at present include countries of the region (FAO, 1991b). For Andhra Pradesh, India, a study based on artificial removal of topsoil showed clear and strong relations between topsoil depth and crop yields, the slope of the loss curve being greater for high-rainfall than low-rainfall years (Vittal et al., 1990). Data for yield losses consequent upon soil fertility decline have been given in Chapter 3. Reductions in crop yield due to salinity has been well researched, with percentage losses differing as between salt sensitive and tolerant crops (e.g. Ahmad and Kutchler, 1992; Joshi and Jha, 1992).
For rangelands, a reduction in livestock productivity to 10-50 percent of its potential is estimated for desertified rangelands of Pakistan (Asian Development Bank, 1992a). Other countries of the dry zone report similar effects.
Forest productivity is also reduced on degraded land, although this is mitigated by the capacity of some tree species to tolerate poor soils, and the recuperative effects upon soil of appropriate reforestation.
Increased inputs and greater costs The level of poverty of many farmers is such that they cannot accept the consequence of reduced yields. Instead, they must attempt to maintain their food supplies from the degraded land, by means of increased inputs. This is now widely the case where attempts are made to combat soil fertility decline by increased inputs of fertilizers. Another response is to attempt to maintain livestock numbers despite a reduced carrying capacity of pastures, thus leading to a vicious circle of further degradation.
Reduced responses to inputs It is now accepted that fertilizers are best utilized by application of low to moderate amounts, whilst seeking to obtain high responses. Land de gradation , particularly the lowering of soil organic matter , has the opposite effect, that of lowering fertilizer responses.
Reduced productivity on irrigated land A specific case of lower crop yields and reduced responses to inputs occurs on the irrigated lands which are widespread in the region. These irrigation systems have been established at high cost, whether of capital, as in tubewells and the large reservoir and canal schemes, or labour, as in the cases of hand-dug wells and earth dams. Lowered productivity, as a result of soil fertility decline, waterlogging and salinization, reduces the benefits from irrigation, leading to less efficient use of capital and labour inputs.
Loss of flexibility in land management Reduced crop yields can force farmers to grow only basic food crops, particularly cereals (Joshi and Jha, 1992). Again there is a feedback effect, since continuous cereal production causes further decline in soil fertility.
Greater risk Degraded land is less resilient, less able to recover from recurrent disasters, such as drought. One of the major effects of erosion is reduced water-holding capacity of the soil. Increase in risk places constraints on land management, making farmers reluctant to use up scarce capital on fertilizers.
Loss of water for irrigation An off-site effect of deforestation and erosion of watershed areas is destabilization of river flow regimes, causing flooding after rains and reduced flows in subsequent dry periods. Where there are downstream irrigation systems, this reduces water availability at times when it is most needed.
Lowering of the water table increases irrigation costs, and can make groundwater totally unavailable to farmers with small landholding, who cannot afford deep tubewells.
Diversion of resources to reclamation As already noted with respect to fertilizer inputs, pressure of need forces farmers to make great efforts in an attempt to maintain production. Thus they may construct gabions across gullies, or build terraces with fines of stores, requiring large amounts of labour, or construct deeper tubewells. This has been called 'defensive expenditure'. All such inputs, whether of labour or capital, carry an opportunity cost, that of the alternative, productive, uses to which the resources could have been applied.
The effects of land degradation upon production have impacts upon agricultural population, whether engaged in crop production, livestock production, or dependent upon forest products.
Increased landlessness. Landlessness among the rural population is a problem of vast scale in parts of the region (Sinha, 1984). The causes are many, among which abandonment of degraded land is only one. It is probably a minor cause in statistical terms - but does not seem so to the farmers who have lost their land!
Lower and less reliable food supplies Lowering of crop yields means reduced production of food crops; increased risk means lowered food security.
Increased labour requirements Reduced crop yields and increased inputs both have the effect of reducing the farmers' returns from labour. Labour used in reclamation and rehabilitation of land is labour lost from production.
A direct consequence is the effect of deforestation on labour needed to collect fuelwood. In parts of the Himalayan mountain belt, deforestation has forced farmers (often women) to walk great distances to collect fuelwood. The drying up of rivers caused by destabilized flow, and the lowering of groundwater, similarly increase labour needed for water collection.
Lower incomes Out of all the consequences of land degradation, the most serious for the rural population of the region is longer incomes. These result from either or both of the factors noted above: increased inputs or reduced outputs.
In classical economic theory, 'land' was considered as a fixed resource, to which the factors of labour and capital were applied. With land degradation occurring it becomes a declining resource, and as a consequence, labour and capital are less efficiently applied and productivity is lowered.
If most farmers do not know about economic theory, they are very well aware of it in practice! Land degradation means that they must either accept a lowered productivity, of food and other requirements, or else put in greater effort and resources to maintain production.
Whenever adverse changes occur in the less developed world, it is usually the poor who suffer most. This situation arises from the very definition of the poor, those who lack adequate access to the basic necessities of life and the resources needed to obtain them.
This is certainly the case with land degradation. In the past rural population, however low their incomes may seem in modern terms, had access to adequate land to meet their needs. When a disaster, such as flood, drought, attack by pests, or war, destroyed their normal means of livelihood, there were spare land resources to fall back upon. They could take new land into cultivation, kill the few livestock they possessed which fed upon natural pastures, or go into the forest and extract roots or hunt wildlife.
Because of land shortage, accentuated by degradation, these options are no longer available. Farmers with less than one hectare are dependent on that small area for all of their agricultural income. They are surrounded by other farms, such common rangeland or woodland as there may be is degraded and of low productivity, and over large areas there is no forest left at all. The only alternatives open are to work on the land for others, nonagricultural occupations, migration to the cities, or ultimately, dependence on famine relief.
It is in these tightly constrained circumstances that land degradation hurts most. Production begins to fall. Because production is close to the limit for supplying basic needs, a response must be made to secure these needs in the short term. This may be clearance of fragile lands, for the sustainable management of which, poor farmers lack the resources. It may be increased inputs, particularly the attempt to maintain yields by nitrogen fertilizers. The non-sustainable land management leads to further degradation.
Larger farmers are less likely to degrade land. Certainly, cases are known where irresponsible rich farmers exploit the land, but by and large they will conserve their resources. When disasters occur, they can tighten their belts, turn to alternative sources of income, or borrow and repay in better years. These options are not open to the poor.
It is they who, through force of circumstances, play the greatest part in the causal nexus of land, population, poverty, and degradation (Figure 9, p. 57). It is the poor who suffer most from land degradation.