In its project activities, IFAD generally targets poor people inhabiting areas with limited agricultural productivity – limited because of low agricultural potential or because of limited access to markets or both. Estimates put approximately 40% of the global rural population in such areas. Of course rural poverty exists in areas of higher agricultural potential, especially in some regions of Africa. But in order to achieve maximum impact, several of the IFAD regional strategies summarized above give preference to the less productive or marginal areas.>

Why Invest in Areas with Low Agro-Ecological Potential?⁴

To date, most of the public investment in rural infrastructure, agricultural services and human health and education essential to improving the livelihoods of the rural population have been biased towards areas with high agricultural potential. Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that productivity returns to investment are likely to be highest in these areas. It is also assumed that the benefits of economic growth in these areas will ‘trickle down’ to the poor, even those residing in areas of lower agricultural potential. It is argued that although investing in marginal areas might have a greater direct impact on the poor inhabitants of those areas, investments in less marginal areas, with higher potential for intensive farming, give higher social returns for the nation as a whole.>

The common perception behind this position is as follows. Investment in highly productive areas generates more agricultural output and higher economic growth at lower cost than in areas of lower potential. As economic growth leads to more employment and higher national wages, and greater agricultural output leads to lower food prices, the poor would benefit in both respects: the poor living in marginal areas would benefit from cheaper food and new employment opportunities, most of which would be in higher-potential areas. This would attract people away from the marginal areas, thereby helping to reduce environmental degradation. Remittances from migrants would further increase incomes in poor and marginal areas, especially for the poor.

Empirical research has confirmed many of the expected benefits arising from rapid agricultural growth in potentially highly productive areas. However, the rationale for neglecting investment in areas of lower agricultural potential is being increasingly challenged, because in many potentially highly productive areas:>

• there is increasing evidence of stagnation in growth and worsening environmental problems; and>

• growth in many highly productive areas has failed to resolve growing poverty, food insecurity and environmental problems outside these areas.>

Indeed there is emerging evidence that the right kinds of investment in marginal areas can increase agricultural productivity to much higher levels than previously thought. It now seems plausible that increased investment in such areas may have the potential to generate competitive if not even greater agricultural growth on the margin than comparable investments in highly productive areas. And these investments could have a greater impact on poverty and environmental problems in these areas. Moreover, investments in marginal areas may result in higher aggregate social returns to a nation than further investments in higher potential areas. Recent studies in China and India support these arguments, and furthermore demonstrate a greater impact on poverty. Thus targeted investments in roads, agricultural services (especially research) and education offer good prospects for increasing productivity and reducing poverty in marginal areas.

But one reason for these favourable results is that China and India have already invested heavily in their irrigated and highly productive rainfed areas, and productivity growth has slowed in many of these regions. With diminishing returns in favoured areas and relatively little public investment in many low-potential areas, it is not too surprising that the latter should now give higher returns to some investments on the margin. But care must be taken in extrapolating these results to countries that have invested much less in their more favoured areas, e.g. much of sub-Saharan Africa.

Causal Links between Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Fragile Environments>

There is clear evidence that poverty is an important factor driving environmental degradation in marginal areas (although poverty is not the only cause), and that poor people tend to suffer more as a consequence than other social groups. Linkages between poverty and degradation arise because poor people are more likely to trade off future production against today’s subsistence. Worsening environmental degradation contributes to lower incomes and deepening poverty, and over time, poor people can become trapped in a downward spiral, with ever-worsening poverty and resource degradation. Population growth can further aggravate the situation, as even more people become dependent on the deteriorating resource base. Poor people are more likely to have large families, lack investment capital, face insecure property rights, have limited access to suitable technologies, and be less informed about the consequences of their actions. Among the poor, women and woman-headed households suffer most from increasing workloads and discrimination in land and labour markets.

Poor people often define poverty in terms of insecurity, rather than low income, and generally have limited means of protecting their incomes against unexpected fluctuations in agricultural production or prices. They are also the most vulnerable – usually the worst affected by natural disasters and frequently victims of insurrection and warfare. Unclear or overlapping ownership and user-rights to land, forest and water resources are frequently a source of conflict, especially in situations of increasing population pressure and where indigenous people face competition from new settlers.>

The problems described above are often compounded by lack of access to resources and appropriate technologies to improve productivity. Lack of access roads reduces options for diversifying farming activities or developing non-farm activities and the availability of material inputs and services. Scarcity of social services (schools, clinics, potable water) affects health and constrains labour productivity. Low agricultural output prices and market distortions undervalue scarce resources and reduce farmer profits, rendering farmers unable to invest in fertilizer and soil-conservation works. Insecure property rights, particularly in combination with migration, further inhibit long-term investments in resource-conservation measures. Although there are examples in which "induced innovation" by communities (e.g. installing terraces and irrigation works to intensify agriculture) has reversed this trend (e.g. the Kenyan Machakos), the negative linkages between poverty and environmental degradation seem likely to worsen in the future. Furthermore, predicted changes to global and regional climates are likely to affect rainfall patterns and increase the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and storms.>

In summary, there are important social and environmental reasons why the international development community should give much higher priority to helping poor people, and especially those in areas with low agricultural potential. But another reason for investing more in such areas is that many investments can actually yield favourable economic returns (as discussed above). The next section considers the special problems confronted in marginal areas.>

Environmental Constraints on Farming in Marginal Areas

The areas of limited agricultural potential are faced with a wide range of environmental issues, many of which have arisen as a result of the poverty of the people who farm them. The major constraints are summarized below.

Soil-Fertility Depletion

Large tracts of marginal land have shallow and infertile soils. Traditional systems based on bush-fallow (shifting cultivation that allowed the natural restoration of soil fertility) once enabled fields to recover their fertility after a year or two of cropping. But now, in many areas, the former 20-30 year fallow periods are reduced to 2-3 year breaks because of population pressure on available land, leading to declining soil fertility.

In many marginal areas there is serious depletion of soil fertility as a result of the loss of organic matter and plant nutrients since lands were cleared for farming. Until a decade or so ago, governments were usually responsible for the supply and distribution of chemical fertilizer and often subsidized its cost to farmers. But in many countries this is no longer possible. Farmers find it difficult to afford the cost of unsubsidized fertilizer, even if available, and the private sector has not filled the role of government as anticipated. The result is too little fertilizer, not too much (as is often the case for intensive agriculture). Pollution of groundwater is not the issue here. The issue is declining soil fertility, with soils unable to support reliable and sustainable yields of food crops. Modest applications of fertilizer would avoid the nutrient ‘mining’ that is going on today in many parts of Africa, in which an average of 8 kg of inorganic fertilizer are applied per hectare each year. In contrast, the soils of many areas are losing nutrients each year equivalent to 40-60 kg per hectare of inorganic fertilizer.

Hillsides and Erosion

Many areas of limited agricultural potential occur in hilly and mountainous areas, and in order to farm these, forests have been cleared. Indeed, many farmers who once cultivated the rich lowlands, were forced onto the slopes by political, social and economic forces beyond their control. Clearing forests in order to cultivate the land exposes soils to the combined effects of rainfall and gravity, and in the case of sloping hillsides, soil erosion is the inevitable result. Every year another 14-15 million hectares of forest are lost or degraded in developing countries, and more than 60% of the deforestation is the consequence of subsistence farming on hillsides.

Thin, often stony, hillside soils wash away easily when left unprotected. The construction of terraces can arrest soil erosion, but terracing hillsides is labour intensive and expensive. The results of soil erosion from hillsides impact on everyone within the watershed. The farmer loses both fertility (leached out of the soil) and topsoil (washed down the slope each time heavy rains fall). The silt that results from this process can be a mixed blessing for those further down the slope – a deposited layer of fertile soil for some, but mud, clogging up irrigation and drainage systems, for others. Large and deadly landslides are far too common, burying villages and carrying away rural roads and bridges. Thus in areas of limited agricultural potential, farming activities indeed impact negatively on the environment.

Forests and Biodiversity

Clearing the vegetation from hillsides, usually forest of one kind or another, has serious consequences not only for farmers and the rural population, but for biodiversity as well. Whole ecosystems are destroyed by hillside farmers in their efforts to clear fields for cultivation. Rural dwellers in the vicinity of forests frequently exploit forest potential by extracting wood (for construction and burning) and collecting fruit, honey, herbs (also for medicines) and other forest products, often in sustainable ways – aware of the long-term value of the resources. Similarly, people protect plant and animal biodiversity, while at the same time growing crops and grazing livestock in forest clearings. Deforestation as a result of the need for more farm land and unsustainable exploitation is changing this balanced use of forests.>

Rangelands>

Pesticide Use

Pest⁵ problems are common to both high- and limited-potential areas, but they most seriously impact on the poor people that farm the latter areas. Whereas intensive agriculture is generally able to resolve pest problems by planting resistant crop varieties, applying a panoply of agro-chemicals and using drugs and vaccines for livestock, the generally small returns obtained by farmers in marginal areas are often insufficient for them to afford such expensive inputs. There is thus little pesticide pollution in these areas. In fact, many farmers in marginal areas are claiming to be ‘organic’ as a result of not using pesticides and fertilizers. They are often not organic by choice, but by default, and the worry is that many could become ‘organic by neglect’ and adopt practices that are unsustainable in the medium-to-long term.>

Water – Quality and Quantity

As noted earlier, water quality through salinization and/or pollution by agro-chemicals is a major environmental issue for intensively farmed areas, especially irrigated ones. However, water quantity is an issue increasingly affecting both intensively farmed areas and marginal areas of limited agricultural potential. Where irrigation water is extracted from wells in quantities faster than the natural recharge, groundwater reserves are threatened, and in coastal areas, saline intrusions can affect water quality, crop performance and farmers’ livelihoods. As a result of receding water tables, important wetland ecologies for plant and animal biodiversity are affected.

For rural people in hilly areas, even though rainfall may be abundant, water supply can be a serious issue. Thin soils are unable to store much moisture after rainfall, and roots are unable to penetrate to underground reserves as they can on the valley floor. In spite of high annual rainfall, crops and livestock are frequently affected by drought, often short-term. But if the drought comes at a critical time in the crop cycle (e.g. tasselling in maize), it can spell disaster and little or no harvest. Water scarcity is becoming an issue for both intensively farmed and marginal areas of limited agricultural potential, but poor farmers of the latter areas are least able to respond to the issue. And in addition to agriculture, domestic water supplies are affected.>

Back to Top>

VI. IFAD Priorities for Effective Poverty/Environment Interventions in Marginal and Low-Potential Agro-Ecological Zones >> The following section interprets IFAD’s three strategic objectives (section III) in the specific context of low-potential areas.> Strengthening the Capacity of the Rural Poor and their Organizations> These low-potential areas are very diverse in their agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions. Thus rural development strategies need to be tailored to the specific options and constraints facing local communities. IFAD’s interventions support local communities in playing a key role in optimizing the use of natural resources. Community-based organizations facilitate access to credit, inputs and markets, and play an especially important role in local input delivery networks in isolated areas. NGOs are often important in introducing new technologies, credit and information to communities. The public sector provides public infrastructure, sometimes research and extension, and key agricultural services, and manages state-owned resources such as forests and rangelands. Participatory approaches that confirm the rights of local people to manage resources are essential. This requires political will and different incentive structures and skills within public institutions, with greater emphasis on strengthening the abilities of local people. The public sector’s role in building and maintaining roads and communications systems is important, since these areas are often poorly placed to compete in liberalized markets because of their restricted access and high transport and marketing costs.> Improving Equitable Access to Productive Natural Resources and Technology>

A principal aim of IFAD interventions is to increase access to assets for the rural poor, particularly land, and hence improve their prospects for better health and education. IFAD supports a wide range of interventions to improve assets, both directly through its projects and through its support of the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty.>

Because of heightened risks in these fragile environments, the need for assured long-term access to land and water to pursue sustainable farming practices and to make long-term investments in improving and conserving resources is further emphasized. Conserving natural resources often requires collective action by users, even when the resources are not commonly owned. IFAD’s experience has demonstrated that the most successful institutional basis for managing common properties is likely to be local organizations run by the resource users themselves. This underlines IFAD’s basic approach of local solutions to wider environmental problems.>

Regarding access to technologies, some types of crop genetic research are vital (for example, yield response to scarce plant nutrients, pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance, etc.), but this is more applicable to the longer term. In the shorter term, major productivity improvements in many low-potential zones will depend on improved natural-resource management practices. The high climatic risks, uncertain markets and poor infrastructure that characterize many of these low-potential and isolated zones also bring into question the economic wisdom of high levels of external inputs. This puts a premium on relatively low-external-input technologies. But the challenge is to develop such technologies – ones that boost both labour and land productivity. Some of these have been mentioned in section IV on the regional strategies (vegetative barriers, conservation tillage, agroforestry, etc.).>

While improved technologies for food crops are often of high priority, increases in incomes depend critically on diversification into higher-value agricultural products and into non-farm activities. For example, unlike many food crops, livestock, agroforestry and some horticulture can often be profitable in areas with poor soils and climate. Similarly, some less favoured and harsh environments can be appropriate for ecotourism development.>

Many of these sustainable agricultural practices are under development in IFAD loan and grant projects. They also benefit from knowledge-sharing with other resource organizations and partners. Many are highly location-specific and depend on the availability of labour, rainfall and market orientation. Examples include integrated nutrient management (e.g. conservation tillage, crop mulching, use of rock phosphate, intercropping, etc.), water management (watershed development, smaller-scale farmer-controlled irrigation systems), livestock and pasture management and integrated crop and livestock activities to diversify income, create assets, manage soil fertility and reduce feed costs. Different approaches to agroforestry are commonly applied to generate income from foods, fuel wood and fodder, building materials and non-timber forest products, and to improve soil fertility, increase soil water-storage capacity and reduce erosion.>

Increasing Access to Financial Services and Markets>

The weakness of rural markets is partly a problem of poor infrastructure and communications systems, but problems with quality standards, timing of harvests, market information and reliable supply also penalize local products in both national, regional and international markets. Many countries are implementing market reforms intended in part to improve the overall performance of their agricultural sectors. But these reforms have had a mixed impact on less favoured and more isolated areas because of their weaker infrastructure and high transport costs. For example, market reforms have reduced the availability of inorganic fertilizers and increased their costs in many poorer regions of Africa. In the NENA region, farmers have had to adjust livestock feeding systems to become less reliant on inputs that were previously subsidized. Consequently, the IFAD focus on increasing access to markets and market linkages is crucial for these more isolated, risky environments. Similarly, the need for effective post-harvest handling and support for the development of new market products is an even higher priority. Innovative information technologies (e.g. rural radio linked to modern information and communications systems) are also essential future needs. The requirement for effective rural finance systems was described earlier, but the difficulty of achieving institutional sustainability and outreach to the poor is further magnified. The risks raise the priority of credit and insurance arrangements that provide money in times of need.>

Many of the project activities described above have improved natural resource management in sustainable ways by also improving income opportunities for rural poor people. Annex II gives some illustrative case studies of IFAD projects; more are available from IFAD publications.>

Nevertheless, in some harsh, fragile environments these will be inadequate to prevent environmental deterioration. The historical solution to this problem was for governments to regulate certain resource management practices (e.g. banning of tree-cutting in hillside areas). The difficulty with this approach based on state authority and coercion is that it works against the interests of local people, frequently worsening the situation of the poor, creating incentives for illegal activities and increasing the costs of regulation. An alternative solution is explored below.> The potential market for environmental services >

There are significant positive externalities arising from sustainable natural-resource management practices and environmentally friendly activities in which a considerable number of resource-poor farmers are engaged, particularly in uplands and hillsides. These activities include maintaining forest resources. This contributes to carbon sequestration, soil conservation resulting in lower run-off and less siltation in dams, and the sustainable utilization of a diversity of flora and fauna – sometimes termed underutilized or neglected species. These are considerable contributions to society that are not adequately recognized, not least because they are difficult to quantify.>

Another approach to reducing unsustainable practices could be based on the potential market for such environmental services. This market could benefit the poor; part of the challenge would be integrating such incentives into existing livelihood systems. The frequently cited example is carbon sequestration, for which a pilot programme has been launched in Costa Rica. But high transaction costs and the difficulty of monitoring contracts are likely to limit the benefits to poor people in isolated areas unless they can be effectively organized for this purpose. These types of innovation are also constrained by the uncertain market demand for environmental services. IFAD is conducting action research on this issue with the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). A related novel approach is the use of green labelling and fair-trade arrangements to capture higher prices to pay poor producers, in part, for the environmental benefits they generate. IFAD has already initiated interventions involving non-timber tree products and beverage crops.>

Advocacy and Political Commitment> To achieve this sustainable development in developing countries requires coordination of the efforts and combined resources of a range of diverse development partners. IFAD can contribute to this goal through its engagement in strategic partnerships and coalitions with governments, development agencies, the private sector and civil society. For this reason, IFAD projects are intended to link with and influence national and international policy by using the knowledge they have generated as a catalyst. Some related areas of common action are IFAD’s collaboration in global initiatives such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), IFAD’s housing of the Global Mechanism, its role as an executive agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and as a co-sponsor – with the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) – of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). African governments, for their part, have identified agriculture as one of the priority sectors in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). IFAD continues to engage in a range of regional dialogues to advance the cause of the rural poor. New initiatives can also enhance coordination on sustainable research and development in highland areas, taking advantage of the experiences of CGIAR (e.g. East African Highlands Programme, Central American Hillsides Programme, the Alternatives for Slash and Burn Initiative, etc.).> Conclusion>

The IFAD mission outlined above indicates a way to enable the rural poor to overcome their poverty in an environmentally vulnerable world. Success depends on local solutions to the challenges of poverty and the environment – by making the livelihood and income strategies of the poor the basis for sustainable resource management. In this way, rural men, women and children can chart an environmentally and socially sustainable path out of poverty towards a better life.>

Back to Top>

 

Annex I - >IFAD’s Regional Priorities by Development Theme – Categorized According to IFAD’s Strategic Objectives>

>>>	Capacity of the Rural Poor and their Organizations>	Equitable Access to Natural Resources and Technology>	Access to Financial Services and Markets >
Western and central Africa>	Decentralization, participation, rural service delivery, accountability, capacity-building, farmers’ groups, reduced vulnerability (post-crisis; HIV/AIDS prevention, coping)>	Community-based natural resource management (NRM), water use, pro-poor technologies, access to land and water>	Rural finance, infrastructure, markets for food and inputs>
Eastern and southern Africa>	Empowerment, gender, accountability, post-crisis, HIV/AIDS prevention>	Access to and management of land and water, knowledge empowerment, improved technology and information systems>	Rural finance, markets, market linkages>
Asia and the Pacific>	Decentralization and participation, empowerment, gender, indigenous peoples, social justice>	Marginal uplands, water management, forests, biodiversity, incentives for environmental services>	Rural finance, microenterprises, non-farm economy, rural infrastructure>
Latin America and the Caribbean>	Empowerment, gender, ethnic communities, social capital, labour markets, decentralization>	Sustainable NRM technology/services for farmers, access to land/property rights>	Rural finance, microenterprises, competitiveness and markets, regional/global markets>
Near East, North Africa, and CE/NIS subregions>	Community development, water users’ associations, rangelands, gender>	NRM and fragile environments, droughts, poor soils, rangelands, highlands, fisheries>	Rural finance, microenterprises, infrastructure, market links, diversification, non-farm economy>

Back to Top>

Annex II - >Case Studies of IFAD Projects>

	Box 1: Returns to Investment in Dryland Areas in South Asia>
	Empirical studies have estimated the impact of different types of investments on agricultural growth and poverty reduction in predominantly irrigated or rainfed agriculture in southern Asia. The highest marginal returns to investment in technology and infrastructure, on agricultural production and poverty alleviation, were found to occur in the rainfed drylands (in 13 agro-ecological zones), while irrigated areas often ranked quite low. In fact, several types of investments also gave favourable returns in the poorer rainfed lands and have had some of the most favourable impacts on poverty. Rural roads and education scored particularly well on both growth and poverty outcomes, as did irrigation in areas where untapped ground-water and other water resources were available and accessible.> Peter Hazell et al (2000). Food Policy 25: 411-428.>

 

	Box 2: Challenges for Soil and Water Conservation in Fragile Areas –Technological Success and Lessons from Lesotho>
	IFAD helped design and financed the Soil and Water Conservation and Agroforestry Programme (SWaCAP) (1988-1995) in Lesotho as part of its broader initiative, the Special Programme for Sub-Saharan African Countries Affected by Drought and Desertification. The cornerstone of this project was natural resource management, combined with appropriate agricultural technologies that would allow environmentally sustainable livelihood improvement for the poor residing on degrading hillsides. The greatest success of SWaCAP was the reintroduction of an indigenous farming technique known as the Machobane Farming System (MFS), a low-external-input farming system that relies on relay and intercropping a series of cash and subsistence crops on plots of land generally not larger than one hectare. The project also promoted soil ripping to break up subsurface compaction and Bana grass to reduce sheet erosion between bunds and provide fodder. MFS was begun in the 1991-1992 cropping season, with 22 participating farmers producing potato, maize, sorghum, wheat, bean, pumpkin and watermelon seed, with a small amount of fertilizer. The number of new farmers continued to increase rapidly, reaching about 1600 farmers by mid-1996. Significantly, high adoption rates were linked to farmer-driven extension initiatives, and a high proportion of women farmers adopted MFS.> Its appeal is related to the incentives for pursuit of conservation-based agriculture through a combination of cash cropping and traditional ecologically sustainable practices. Many of the households that adopted MFS had not regularly participated in the cash economy prior to adopting this system. Conservation benefits included significant year-round plant cover and fine root growth to stabilize soil and slow sheet erosion from wind and water. Inter-bund stabilization of sheet erosion may be more economically significant than gully erosion to smallholder farmers in Lesotho. The SWaCAP project had an overall economic rate of return of 15%, with an estimated 46% of farmers in the target area benefiting from the project, of whom 23% had adopted the Machobane system. The project highlights the value of indigenous technologies, grass-roots dissemination of information, high cash-crop potential and clear environmental benefits.>

	Box 3: Living Fences for Cutting Costs and Raising Farmer’s Incomes in the Sahel>
	The use of fences in African farming systems is essential to: minimize productivity losses due to livestock grazing in cropping fields and vegetable gardens; delineate plot boundaries; and corral livestock. Conventional fencing is a labour-intensive activity, undertaken with high labour opportunity costs, and requiring purchase, transportation, annual repairs and regular replacement of fencing materials with significant costs in both inputs and labour.> IFAD-financed research through ICRAF and partners has led to the development and diffusion of live fences, which, in addition to fulfilling the same function as dead or synthetic fences, also promote positive tree-crop interactions that can enhance whole-farm productivity. Farmer-participatory research has identified the most appropriate species for smallholders in a variety of agro-ecological zones in the Sahel. Live fences have provided opportunities to reduce the costs of fencing while simultaneously producing timber and non-timber forest products that can be used for household consumption or sold in local markets. Protection of market gardens with living fences of appropriate species allowed farmers to earn up to USD 245 more over a six-year period compared to dead fences. In addition, live fences allowed households to benefit from by-products such as firewood, fodder and fruits. On-farm trials, and use of innovative mechanisms such as village workshops with farmers and development partners in the Sahel, have led to over 2 200 farmer-adopters in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal.> ICRAF: 2000>

 

	Box 4: Tribal Communities Drive Research and Development for their Collective Benefit>
	Some of the most disadvantaged ethnic groups in southern India have overcome agricultural technology constraints in marginal lands to successfully meet their basic food requirements and reduce nutritional deficiencies. Over a seven-year period, the IFAD-financed Andhra Pradesh Tribal Development Project assisted 30 756 tribal households, with less than one hectare per average household, in addressing problems of considerable land pressure and declining soil fertility. Faced with legislation prohibiting use of reserve forest areas, tribal people participated in validating and diffusing soil-conservation technologies (building on indigenous knowledge and practices) and engaging in remunerative development activities without undermining their values, priorities and culture. Horticulture and perennial tree crops were adopted to replace unsustainable shifting-cultivation practices on sloping hillsides, reversing gradual erosion and depletion of soils. Community-based mechanisms ensured sustainable adoption of technologies and associated development of village tree nurseries and farmer-operated seed-production units. Participatory training and extension methods helped target technological packages to appropriate households based on socio-economic status, risk-aversion strategies and typology of landholdings. A high degree of participation by households with contiguous plots helped achieve an ecologically positive alteration of the landscape through tree cover, while permitting higher crop yields through a variety of agroforestry technologies. The success of the project is attributed to: emphasis on beneficiary participation and empowerment, in part stimulated by a history of collective political advocacy of the tribal people in the region, with women playing a major part; incorporation of their indigenous knowledge and incentive structure; and innovative research and extension approaches. IFAD played a major role, beyond loan financing, by engaging with progressive local authorities and leadership and by consistent encouragement of a critical attitudinal shift achieved over time. This enabled project implementing institutions to gradually become more responsive to local values and aspirations. The project overcame a number of institutional constraints in adopting a holistic approach and in recognizing the importance of the coping strategies of tribal communities in the improvement of their livelihoods.>

 

1/ Agenda 21 was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.>

2/ Marginal areas: marginal lands and marginalized people. The term 'marginal areas' denotes areas frequently exposed to one or more types of environmental stress. Examples are areas of generally low agricultural potential exposed to extreme temperatures that do not sustain crop growth; endure low and/or unreliable rainfall; have poor, shallow and/or infertile soils; and are steeply sloping and thus prone to erosion, with poor moisture retention.
Areas are 'marginalized' because of inadequate infrastructure and weak enabling policies and institutions. Infrastructural constraints include poor road links to markets and lack of irrigation. Remoteness, low population density (and thus lack of labour), inadequate social and other services (education, public health, finance, market information, knowledge of new technologies, etc.) also marginalize areas. Indigenous people and other excluded groups inhabit many marginalized areas.>

3/ Of the former Soviet Union.>

4/ This section is based on an International Food Policy Research Institute study commissioned by IFAD.>

5/ The term 'pest' includes insects, nematodes, weeds, diseases, etc.>