I. Motivations for the Marginal Lands Study
CGIAR research is driven by the objectives of reducing poverty, enhancing food security, and promoting sustainability in the management of natural resources such as biodiversity, land, and water. The instruments it uses to achieve these goals are the provision and diffusion (particularly through training) of technological and institutional innovations to enhance the productivity and the sustainability of use of land and other natural resources. The technological innovations which the CGIAR generates tend to be specific to particular biophysical contexts: while some innovations are broadly generic, particularly if they pertain to fundamental research, most are applicable to specific contexts defined by a broad set of biological and physical features. For rural poverty reduction, contextual specificity then raises the possibility of targeting the rural poor by focusing research on the geographical areas with biophysical features where the poor are most heavily concentrated. Poverty concentration would mean not that there is a high incidence of poverty among the population in that area (where population may be very scarce), but that there is a high percentage of all rural poor located in the area. If, as conventional wisdom has it, most of the rural poor are located in areas characterized by marginal lands, then focusing CGIAR research on technological innovations for marginal lands would be an effective way of achieving the goal of rural poverty reduction. If, in addition, marginal lands are more susceptible to resource degradation, then the objective of sustainable natural resources management (NRM) would also be well served by focusing research on these areas. Also, if the poor themselves are a source of environmental degradation, and as poverty shortens time horizons and constrains the adoption of instruments that would enhance conservation, then technological innovations for marginal lands can help achieve win-win outcomes, with synergy between the goals of poverty reduction and sustainable NRM. Finally, if we suspect that there has been an initial underinvestment by the CGIAR in research for marginal areas, i.e., over-investment in Green Revolution varieties that favoured the complementary input package found mainly in areas of high quality land, then a high uncaptured potential return to research on marginal lands may exist.
Because this argument apparently offered much promise, TAC took initiatives to address the issue through systematic analysis of existing evidence. Interest in the issue was prompted by recommendations derived from the February 1995 ministerial-level meeting held in Lucerne, and the IFPRI 2020 Vision paper, that the CGIAR should "ensure that its research programmes address the problems of the poor in less-endowed areas, in addition to continuing its work on high potential areas". This international concern for the less-endowed areas was driven by perceptions that the CGIAR's research efforts have done little for the poor in biophysically marginal lands, that most of the poor live in areas which are ecologically fragile, and that they are a cause and consequence of a downward spiral of resource degradation and deepening poverty.
TAC appointed a distinguished panel of experts, chaired by Dr. Mike Nelson, to look into the validity of the presumptions. The Committee also appointed a separate consultant, Dr. Sohail Malik, to review specifically what is known about the relationship between rural poverty and land degradation. These two documents prompted a response by Dr. Ted Henzell who proposed an alternative framework for prioritizing land types for the allocation of CGIAR research funds. These studies, sponsored by TAC, constitute a strategic initiative designed at improving the CGIAR's ability to set priorities and allocate resources to research. Marginal or fragile land was defined as land that is sensitive to degradation as a result of human intervention, and degraded land as land that has lost part of, or its entire, productive capacity as a result of human intervention.
The overall conclusion of this effort is that information is generally lacking to support the presumption that the character of marginal lands could be used to set research priorities that focus clearly on poverty alleviation. This, in itself, is an interesting conclusion since it calls into question conventional wisdom, which if followed, would lead to erroneous decision-making in allocating research resources. The evidence neither confirms nor rejects the conventional wisdom; it is simply inconclusive. This in turn suggests fertile areas for future research which the CGIAR and others concerned with poverty should address.
II. Results from the Marginal Lands Studies
The Nelson Panel concluded that there is "an abysmal lack of data" to validate the two presumptions that motivated the study, i.e., (1) that marginal lands support a high proportion of the rural poor, particularly the poorest of the poor, and (2) that the poor are the prime cause of - resource degradation in marginal agricultural lands. In addition, it does not appear correct to say that the CGIAR underinvested research funds for these lands, even though there is no impact analysis showing whether these investments were effective for the goal of rural poverty reduction. We note too that there is still some confusion in characterizing poverty in marginal lands between incidence of poverty (it does not appear to be higher in these lands relative to favourably endowed lands) and number of poor (it appears to be higher in more favoured lands simply because population densities are so much higher than in marginal lands). Clearly, as far as the CGIAR is concerned, the second type of measure is the relevant one. Data, however, remain inconclusive on both measures of poverty and the Panel concluded that further research using available evidence could not disentangle these issues. It concluded that the focus on marginal lands may not be appropriate in guiding the CGIAR's strategy toward poverty alleviation.
In seeking an alternative concept to help target CGIAR research using a geographical criterion, the Panel proposed the idea of "marginal area". Such area is defined as a geographical unit characterized by a high incidence of "marginal people" and relatively homogeneous determinants of poverty. As TAC understands it, "marginal people" refers to marginalized people, with poverty as the dominant common consequence of marginalisation. Starting hence from marginality, the question is whether one can identify relatively homogeneous regions in terms of causation of poverty, whether the region is characterized by marginal lands or not.
It would seem correct to start the analysis from poverty, identifying the many determinants of poverty, and potentially singling out the quality of the biophysical environment as one of these determinants. If the biophysical determination of poverty turned out to be sufficiently strong, then a research effort to generate technological innovations for these areas would be justified. On the other hand, among the other determinants of poverty, there may be indicators that could prove to be more powerful than land type in setting research priorities to reduce rural poverty. Since data are generally not available, the validity of the Panel's proposed alternative criterion remains to be tested.
Lack of data may seem surprising since the World Bank has run extensive Living Standard Measurement Surveys with the objective of tracking poverty. These data, however, were not collected in association with relevant biophysical characteristics. Hence, statistical representation is not achieved over geographical units that can be characterized as marginal lands, and geographical representation is over regions that are in general too broad and heterogeneous to usefully fit a biophysical characterisation.
Based on these findings, the Nelson Panel made four recommendations. The first recommendation is that "the CGIAR needs to sharpen its strategic focus on poverty alleviation, particularly in setting priorities for research related to marginal rural areas. A prerequisite is development of a geo-referenced database linking land conditions with poverty and the processes that produce it (i.e., the dynamics of poverty)". TAC endorses this recommendation. The CGIAR should in particular use the expertise in the now operational Consortium on Spatial Information (CSI) which TAC was instrumental in helping organise. This consortium has as one of its major objectives the improved mapping of the locus and level of poverty. TAC consequently intends to be a conscientious observer and potentially an active participant in the work of CSI and to play a role in using results from this work to guide the CGIAR toward better spatially targeted resource allocations.
Recommendation 2 is that "Centres should establish new forms of partnership in order to effectively address their role in a broader poverty alleviation strategy related to those who live in marginal areas". TAC concurs with the Panel that the determinants of poverty are multiple, that poverty reduction consequently requires focusing on an array of sources of income that go beyond agriculture, and that this should be achieved via partnerships with organizations engaged in combating poverty with other instruments. The CGIAR is partially addressing this recommendation through its ecoregional approach to research and also through the Systemwide Programme on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation, but greater efforts clearly need to be made toward implementing this recommendation, e.g. with those studying income from off-farm employment.
Recommendation 3 is that the CGIAR System should "develop improved mechanisms by which Centres can be involved with other partners in generating and interpreting improved scientific evidence on (1) the extent and magnitude of the impacts of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries on the degradation or enhancement of natural resources and the consequences for production, and food security; and (2) the linkage between poverty and observed resource degradation". TAC is indeed concerned that insufficient resources are devoted to problems of soil and water degradation apart from the corresponding Systemwide undertaking. This recommendation deserves further consideration by TAC. Meanwhile, IAEG is undertaking a special study to identify the determinants of these gaps and opportunities for intervention.
Finally, recommendation 4 is that "expanded collaborative mechanisms and activities should be developed among Centres and between Centres and their non-CGIAR partners, to help focus research and institution strengthening on issues related to adoption, adaptation, and utilization of research results that so far have remained unused". Existence of a continued backlog of un- or under-used research results has indeed been a long-standing concern, and most particularly in the field of NRM. This issue is addressed in the Review of Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach (SDR/TAC:IAR/99/8).
Because the Nelson Panel was unable to fully address the question of links between rural poverty and land degradation, TAC asked Dr. Sohail Malik to review available literature on the subject. His report concluded with a note of caution about our ability to verify this relationship. He wrote that "understanding of the intricate process of poverty and land degradation is extremely limited. Definition, in each process, is driven largely by the perceptions of those analysing the phenomena. The lack of clear conceptualization, the observed heterogeneity, and the diverse perceptions of those attempting the exercise complicate attempts at measurement. The aggregate information available is not very useful for making judgements about poverty and land degradation. Evidence from the few available micro-level studies is mixed and contradictory. Much more research in a variety of settings over a reasonable length of time is needed for deeper understanding of household (and community) decision-making processes, especially in terms of the relationship with land. The CGIAR is well placed to support such research". TAC agrees with this observation and recommendation. There is clearly no simplistic characterization of the link between poverty and natural resource degradation. What is needed is a set of conditional statements on this link that establish when the relation may hold or not and why. This defines an important research area which the CGIAR is well placed to address.
III. Toward a Framework for Prioritizing Land Types in Agricultural Research
Developing methodologies for the allocation of resources to research is a fundamental responsibility of TAC. In its own approach to resource allocation, TAC uses a formula that considers the poverty weighted value of commodities and sectors, subjectively weighted by the probability of success in research, themselves based on an assessment of changes in science. The Nelson Panel addressed the issue of how to take into account the category of land (particularly marginal versus favoured agricultural lands) in allocating resources. It proposed a two-way classification of lands, with the present value of land use on one axis and the potential for expansion of production through research on the other. Marginal agricultural lands with high potential to expand production based on research would thus deserve attention. This framework was generalized by Dr. Ted Henzell using as classification dimensions the value of present use of a land type and the potential benefits from investment in agricultural research. Benefits from and value of use can thus go beyond production to include, for example, total factor productivity, poverty reduction, and indicators of natural resource management.
These frameworks present ways to consider the problem. Their implementation is still far beyond what can be done at the moment, for the very same reasons that prevented the Nelson Panel and the Malik study from reaching conclusions about the meaning of marginal lands for targeting CGIAR research in fulfilment of its objectives. Data on the mapping between land types and poverty are largely missing, and studies of the potential impact of research on each land type are incomplete. Hence, developing and implementing a framework for prioritizing land types in agricultural research will have to wait for the required information to become available. To a large extent, the type of information that becomes available will determine the framework that can be used.
IV. Conclusions and Future Research
The TAC study on marginal lands has shown that more research, sometimes specific to a target area, is needed before those marginal areas can be targeted to achieve CGIAR objectives and before research resource allocation schemes are developed that take land types into account. The Committee consequently recommends that such decisions be deferred until further information becomes available. At the same time, Centres and others should be encouraged to engage in research that accelerates generation of this information since it remains a fundamental issue for the CGIAR. TAC itself has a direct interest in accessing this information in order to improve its instruments for resource allocation in the CGIAR. It will consequently be looking for opportunities to expedite the generation of this information within the limits of its role and resources. Meanwhile, TAC underlines the need for broadly based agricultural growth as a prerequisite for poverty reduction.
The study on Marginal Lands has several immediate implications for Centre and System research planning.
· At the global level, the lack of correlation between land resource endowments and poverty, based on available data, has led TAC, with Member approval, to propose a logframe classification that does not separate outputs by land type at the System level. However, Centres are encouraged to consider specific targeting at the ecoregional level where evidence supports the belief that the correlation between the ecoregion and poverty may hold.· Given the lack of proof of causal effects between poverty and land degradation, it is logical to proceed on the assumption that threatening land use practices and technologies cause resource degradation irrespective of who employs them. The targeting of degraded land does not selectively target poverty in most instances.
· The analysis indicates that there are areas of marginal land that may, in fact, have a significant potential for research-driven productivity increases, and that the returns on investment in these areas may equal or surpass short-term potential on more favoured areas. Targeting of resources on these lands should consequently help the allocation of resources in terms of productivity gains.
· To optimize the allocation of research funds between marginal and favoured agricultural lands for the purpose of poverty reduction, the key criterion is the marginal effect of research expenditures on poverty in each type of land. To date, there is little evidence of the measurement of these marginal effects and this issue deserves urgent attention.
· Lessons should be drawn from CGIAR success stories in marginal areas, specifically, in identifying those factors (e.g., technical assistance, access to credit) which complement centre research to enable poor farmers to adopt technological innovations in marginal areas.
· Investment in GIS applications would have significant payoff in assisting the targeting of marginal resource ecoregions with potential for productivity increase, and in identifying areas of poverty and marginal lands.
TAC closes its report by raising four key issues which will guide future research and resource allocation decisions for reducing poverty directly and indirectly:
1. Potential of biotechnology and agroforestry for the marginal lands
One of the defining features of the Green Revolution was that the new seeds fared better with complementary input packages including water, fertilizers, and chemicals for crop protection. Hence, there was complementarity between the new technologies and quality of the resource endowment. For this reason, Green Revolution innovations were better suited for favoured agricultural lands, and research for marginal lands appeared to offer a lower rate of return. Subsequent innovations, with a perspective on the poor and marginal lands, sought to help substitute for resources rather than pursuing complementarities. These innovations can, for example, complement pesticide use (genetic resistance), fertilizers (nitrogen fixation), tillage practices, and water (drought resistance). Biotechnology, e.g., genetic maps and markers, possibly GMOs, now offers the promise of making it faster and less costly to achieve these goals. Following this logic, technological innovations derived via biotechnology and applied to particular contexts through GIS mapping may promise higher rates of return for marginal areas than earlier technology did. How this potential will materialize thus deserves significant attention.
In deciding on research investments for marginal lands, the comparative advantage of these regions needs to be carefully established. Some evidence from Asia points at the potential of agroforestry and of the production of cash crops as activities that have such a comparative advantage. In its efforts to reduce rural poverty, the CGIAR could consider extending its current portfolio to include activities with high potential for poverty reduction in marginal lands.
2. Determinants of poverty
Poverty in marginal lands is a complex phenomenon, where access to productive assets, public goods investments, institutional arrangements, and cultural and social factors are all important determinants. Hence, a cautious analysis of the determinants of rural poverty in marginal areas needs to be made, with a full accounting of the role of different factors including the biophysical context and the technological practices used. Caution, however, must be exercised as a technological solution may not be the cost effective answer. It is quite possible that other constraints are more limiting on welfare than productivity in resource use as determined by technology. Hence, a comprehensive effort needs to be made to identify the specific determinants of poverty in marginal lands as well as the return from investing in agricultural research compared to other types of interventions such as infrastructure, improved control over assets (human capital in particular), and designing the institutional framework. Understanding the potential of agricultural technology for the marginal areas consequently deserves a broad interdisciplinary effort before resources are committed to research on technological innovations specialized to these areas. Given the large degree of heterogeneity of situations, this research needs to be done at the local and regional level, followed by comparative analysis to seek broader generalizations.
3. Locus and mapping of the poor
Having access to reliable and well-documented data on the number and location of the poor is essential in identifying viable strategies to alleviate poverty. Several institutions are already engaged in activities to identify specific areas of poverty concentration and to map their agroecological characteristics. CGIAR Members should actively support their efforts and ensure that a coordinated and comprehensive plan is followed.
4. Marginal Lands and Water
Inadequate attention has been given to research issues related to marginal lands potential, defined in relation to water, cost of trade supporting infrastructure, and distance to markets. The CGIAR is well positioned to address water/land/poverty linkages beyond irrigation. Water insecurity appears to be a main poverty feature in marginal lands of arid areas and hillsides. Improvement efforts for marginal lands should continue to recognize explicitly the scope for supply and demand of water, the management of its use, and access to water especially by the poor.
