The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who
have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
One-quarter of the people in developing countries -1.3 billion in all- survive
on fragile lands, areas that present significant constraints for intensive
agriculture and where the people's links to the land are critical for the
sustainability of communities, pastures, forests, and other natural resources.1
They account for many of the people in extreme poverty, living on less than $1
a day. The size of this population is a signal that our assumptions about the
extent and speed of outmigration have been flawed. The least productive areas
should have been abandoned first, as people migrate out to better
opportunities. While some people have left, many remain behind and others are
migrating in (the estimated population on fragile lands has doubled since 1950). Improving their livelihoods is essential for
meeting many of the
Millennium Development Goals for the coming decades.
People living on fragile lands are vulnerable but have a modest portfolio of
assets that can help bring them out of poverty: the land (albeit with
constraints), traditional social capital, human capital, and
indigenous knowledge and know-how. However, the potential productivity
of even these assets has not been fully developed by either local or national
institutions. Living in dispersed settlements and working in the informal or
subsistence economy, people on the rural periphery are largely invisible to
decisionmakers. Because it was assumed that they would move out of these areas,
few governments took the initiative to gather information about their
activities. As a result, institutions have not been picking up social and
environmental distress signals from the periphery-nor have these institutions
been able to balance interests (particularly dispersed interests) in setting
their development agendas. For the past 50 years the government and private
sector have focused the bulk of their attention and agricultural spending on
the development of lands with commercial potential-even though much of the
rural population remains on marginal land.
This focus is beginning to shift. Returns on more productive land are
diminishing.2
And boosting yields in fragile areas is becoming more pressing-and feasible.
But to address the needs of people on marginal land requires more research on
appropriate technologies and services and more information on their conditions.
Many of the households are headed by women, constrained by poor education
opportunities, little access to information, and no legal land tenure.
Population pressure, lack of knowledge, and simple fear of change lead to
destructive patterns of asset management. Understanding the problems and
finding ways to help these people out of vicious circles of degrading existing
assets, damaging livelihoods, and blocking paths out of poverty are major
challenges.
People are more likely to break out of vicious circles when change is
introduced gradually but steadily over long periods. And change is more likely
when the risk factors are addressed openly, in ways that make the costs less
burdensome to those who have most to lose. Long-term advice and grant money to
experiment with innovative institutional solutions should be part of the
package-to mitigate risks. Introducing high-tech mining operations in remote
areas disrupts communities and can harm the environment. Setting up
community-based schools is a major shift from the centralized system and often
perceived as a threat by ministry officials. But countries can benefit from
long-term partnering with experienced institutions to help them think through
the process. Successful strategies combine outmigration of a few family
members, organization of community associations, and national programs that
upgrade the community's modest portfolio of assets.
This chapter looks at what governments, communities, and the private sector can
do to promote growth and improvement in the well-being of people inhabiting
fragile lands. The emphasis here is on arid areas (because of the many people
living there) and on mountain slopes (because of the links with water, forests,
and mineral resources). How can public and private (national and local)
institutions promote in situ upgrading and/or outmigration? Some of the options
explored in this chapter include:
Allowing voice and the inclusion of these groups in the decisionmaking process.
Only in this way can institutions pick up the signals of what is happening at
the periphery so they can design appropriate solutions.
Nurturing all the assets available to poor communities-sharing of know-how,
upgrading the status of women, applying research on special crops, and sharing
revenues from mineral and other assets that have national benefits.
Creating environments that motivate entrepreneurial people to come forward with
ideas that address grass-roots realities.
Establishing long-term public-private-NGO partnerships that promote
transparency, accountability, the transfer of knowledge, and solutions that
balance everyone's interests.
