This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor does it make any representation
Study on Dryland Poverty in Asia
Gujarat Institute of Development Research, India 1. The Context: Environment-Poverty Interface: The discourse on the interface between environment (natural resources) and poverty has received increasing attention not only in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, but also in the wake of the growing crises like climate change, food insecurity and economic slowdown in Asia and the world over [Shah, 2009; Scott, 2006]. Apparent the contemporary discourse is marked by two important features: First, recognition of the multi-patterned nature of the interface where the poor, especially, in the developing world, are also being seen as victims, rather than merely the cause of degradation [ Dasgupta, and Maler, 2004. Mrakandya, 2001]. The second important feature pertains to the differentiated view on poverty-environment interface, which of late, has laid increasing emphasis on dry land system besides the thrust on forest and upland ecosystems in different parts of the world [ADB, 2008; Shiferaw, 2002]. With nearly 40 per cent of the earth surface under dry land conditions and almost equal proportion of the landmass in Asia, dry land regions pose increasing threats and challenges to the poor Asian population as 40 per cent of the region’s rural population live on dry lands, half of which are likely to live below the level of $2 a day [ADB, 2008; p. 14]. The situation is likely to worsen if the process of desertification and degradation of dry land continues, and possibly accentuates, as revealed by the assessment of the climate change under various scenarios [Stern, 2007]. Development Deficiency: Poised with low and uncertain rainfall, economic diversification, migration, and precautionary coping measures along with institutional mechanisms, constitute core characteristics of life and livelihood of the people, both rich and poor, living in dry land areas the world over. Historically dry land regions, given the low productive potential of the natural resources, have been accorded relatively low priorities in terms of investments in agriculture, infrastructure, and human resources development. The underinvested regions therefore have lagged behind not only in terms of farm production, but also access to basic amenities such as drinking water, health and sanitation, and also education [Mearns and Norton, 2010]. These limitations, to an extent, have been overcome by the risk taking and entrepreneurial abilities on the one hand and, population mobility on the other-together bringing private investments while the public investments continued to bypass the regions. But, the entrepreneurial behavior and the flow of remittances have not worked as the major strategies across different regions and communities in dry lands. Rather these positive forces have worked selectively where a) dry land systems are part of a fairly diverse, as against monolithic, ecological systems within a country; b) where the national policies have proactively protected and development of primary as well as other sectors of the economy; and c) where the primary sector is more or less free from the adverse impacts of aid and trade from the developing economies. 1
Overall the development deficiency in dry land regions highlights the critical importance of public policies and investments for enhancing and fully realizing the potential that these regions and the communities living there hold; the challenges thrown up by climate change scenarios may further emphasize the need for addressing the critical missing link in overcoming the development deficiency in the region [Michael, et.al; 2008]. Dry land Agriculture and Food Crisis: Whereas the initial response to climate change with respect to dry land areas was to focus on combating the process of desertification and degradation of land [UNCCD, 1998], the policy debate, of late, has moved away from mitigation to promotional (adaptation) approaches [Dobie, 2001]. This is not only desirable but also inevitable since dry land system, unlike other systems such as upland, coastal, flood pronewetland, is an important source of food production and economic resilience to millions of people inhabiting these regions [IUCN, 2009; Hassan, et.al; 2005]. Unfortunately the agronomic potential of this region has been grossly overlooked and neglected, particularly in the wake of the green revolution era of the yester years. The growing food crisis, in Asia and the world over, therefore needs to address the untapped potential of the region on an urgent basis. According to Hazzel, (2001), `greater public investment in many low potential areas, including drylands, may now have the potential to generate agricultural growth at the margin comparable to that in many high-potential areas, and have a greater impact on poverty and environmental problems in the areas in which they are targeted. Recent research on India and China confirms this possibility’ [p.2]. Depletion of Ground Water and Chronic Poverty: The poverty discourse, in the recent period, has also highlighted the fact that whereas the highest concentration of poverty [World Bank, 2006], especially chronic poverty, is found in the forest regions, dry land areas are increasingly heading towards a deep spiral of poverty [UNDP, 2006], owing to the rapidly depleting ground water resources combined with increasing degradation of land in these regions. Together the above scenarios of poverty in the midst of food and water crises in dry land regions calls for a more pro-active approach for enhancing the productive capacities essentially, by promoting productive investments in this dynamic region [Dobie,2001; ADB, 2008] The dynamism of a dry land system, as noted earlier, often consists of features like economic diversification, scope for high valued and nutrition agriculture including livestock, labour mobility and above all ability to cope under harsh conditions. What is therefore needed is to build further on the strengths of dryland systems and the people thereof before the climatic and resultant food as well as water crises may push them into a situation from where reverting back may be significantly difficult if not impossible. This is not to say that the challenges posed by the climate change could be met entirely by promoting public investment, though it may lay the foundation for a more diverse and comprehensive adaptation mechanisms for the people in these areas. An important element in this approach however, is to create productive assets such as livestock, biomass, and tools and equipments besides financial assets, that can help the households cope under the increased risks of climatic change. The issue needs further probing under the varying socio-economic climatic scenarios obtaining in drylands across the region [Kelley and Byerlee, 2007].
Given this backdrop, the paper will focus on the three broad objectives: i. To present a profile of the dryland areas and poverty across countries in Asia and assess the likely impacts of climatic changes on poverty and implications for the poor and women. ii. To discuss the policy responses and coping mechanisms. iii. To map out the major policy responses, and draw recommendations especially, for India. The study will be based on desk review of data and existing literature covering various countries in Asia with a specific focus on the selected countries with large tracts of Arid, Semi-arid, and Sub-humid areas as well as human habitations. 2. Dryland Areas and Poverty in Asia and Pacific: Defining Dryland: Drylands refer to scarcity of water, which constraints their two major interlinked services i.e. primary production and nutrient cycling. Over the long period of time, natural moisture inputs (i.e. precipitation) are counter balanced by moisture losses (evapotranspiration). The water deficit thus affects both natural and managed ecosystems Hassan, et.al, 2005]. Drawing form these two concepts, aridity index is worked out as a ratio of mean precipitation and evapotranspiration, by using the modified Thornwaite formula. Dry lands constitute those areas where the aridity index ranges between 0.05-0.65 [UNCCD]. Of the six 6 categories of aridity defined by the UNEP, drylands account for four categories viz; hyper-arid, arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid [Table 1]. Together these account for 60.9 million sq. kms of land, which is close to 41.3 per cent of the earth’s surface amounting to 147 million sq.kms.. The UNCCD however, excludes hyper arid area from the ambit of the Convention [Hassen et.al; ibid]. About 35 per cent of the world’s population (i.e. over 2 billion people) is located in the drylands and about half of them are poor [Dobie, p. 2001]. Table 1: Drylands by Aridity Index Sub-Types Aridity Current Area Index Size Share of (mill. Global sq.km.) (%) Hyper-arid <0.05 9.8 6.6 [16.1] Arid 0.05-0.20 15.7 10.6 [25.7] Semi-arid 0.20-0.50 22.6 15.2 [37.1] Dry sub-humid 0.50-0.65 12.8 8.7 [21.0] Dominant Broad Biome Desert Desert Grassland Forest Current Population Total Share of (million) Global (%) 101.33 1.7 [4.8] 242.78 4.1 [11.5] 855.33 14.4 [40.5] 909.97 15.3 [43.1]
Of the total dry land about 58 per cent are semi arid and dry sub-humid regions, which together account for nearly 85 per cent of the total population in these two areas. While hyper-arid region is more or less uninhabited, arid regions also has fairly lower population density. Also from the view point of production semi-arid and dry sub-humid regions matter significantly more than the other two categories of drylands. Table 2: Land Uses in Drylands (MA core Data)
Rangelandsa Area Share of ( sq.km) Dryland Subtype (%) Cultivated Area Share of (sq.km.) Dryland Subtype (%) Urban Area Share of (sq.km) Dryland Subtype (%) Othersb Area Share of (sq.km) Dryland Subtype (%)
Dry subhumi d Semiarid Arid Hyperarid Total
4,344,897 12,170,27 4 13,629,62 5 9,497,407 39,642,20 2
34 54 87 97 65
6,096,558 7,992,020 1,059648 55,592 15,203,81 8
47 35 7 0.6 25
457,851 556,515 152,447 74,050 1,240,86 3
4 2 1 1 2
1,971,90 7 1,871,14 6 822,075 149,026 4,814,15 5
16 8 5 2 8
Rangeland figures are based available data on rangelands in drylands of developing countries (Reid et al., 2004; Thornton et al. 2002) and estimates for rangeland areas in the remaining drylands base on the assumption of uniformity in the rangelands share of each dryland subtype.
Whereas only 25 per cent of the drylands is put under cultivation, a significantly large proportion i.e. 65 per cent of the area is rangeland [see Table 2]. The proportion of cultivated land however, is higher in the case of sub-humid (47 %), and semi-arid (35 %) regions. Drylands in Asia: According to the estimates by UNCCD, drylands account for about 64.64 sq.kms out of the total area of 134 million sq. kms the world over. Of this, Asia region accounts for about 35.7 per cent of the land mass, and nearly 33 per cent of the drylands of the world [UNCCD; p.11]. The region has the land area of about 48.2 million sq. kms., and close to 21.11 million sq.kms. (i.e. 43.7 %) under dryland (including the hyper arid area) in the region [See Table 3]. According to a recent study by Asian Development Bank (2008) more than half of the dryland area in Asia and Pacific is desertified [p.12]. Table 3: Category wise Dryland Area and Population across Continents (000 sq.km.) Region Hyper Arid Semi Dry Total Most Cold Total 4 % of
arid Africa America and Caribeans Asia Australia & Oceania Europe World 8099 (58.06 ) 268 (4.39) 2744 (29.50 ) 0 0 11,110 (91.96 ) 5052 (40.50) 1201 (19.08) 6164 (161.55 ) 3488 (0.27) 05 (0.63) 15,910 (222.04 )
Arid 5073 (117.65 ) 7113 (100.75 ) 7649 (625.41 ) 3532 (1.342) 373 (28.71) 23,740 (873.87 )
SubHumid 2808 (109.37 ) 4556 (581.20 ) 4558 (657.90 ) 996 (5.32) 961 (115.21 ) 13,879 (1469.0 )
Dryland 21032 13138
Subhumid 9171 0 (326.12) 16926 11557 (510.82) (10.35) 14997 (1942.2 1) 1019 (20.45) 12082 (29.90) 0 30203 (651.71) 41641 (703.52) 48223 (3446.48 ) 9035 (27.38) 5687 (566.16) 134,789 (5395.26 )
Total Dryla nd 32.53 20.33
21115 8016 1339 64,640
32.67 12.40 2.07 100
4059 289 (417.02) (8.57) 46,512 (3216.6 3) 23,948 (49.83)
Note: a) Figures in parentheses indicate population in million. b) The estimates are based on a Total area of 134 million sq.kms. across the globe; this is different from the estimates presented by the Millenniam Ecosystem Assessment presented in Tables 1 & 2. Source: Adapted from Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in UNCCD
Dryland Geography in Asia (excluding Middle East): Asia (excluding Middle East and Pacific) consists of 30 countries, which together have a population of 3.6 billion, and the total land area of 24.2 million sq.kms. These account for 54.5 and 18.5 percent, respectively, of the world [See Table 4 and Appendix 1]. Table 4: Indicators of Population and Dryland in Sub-Regions in Asia and Pacific Country Total $1.25 (% $ 2.0 (% of Total Total Dry Population Population of Population Land Dry Land Density 2007 Population ) Area in Land in (% of (People (millions) ) million million Total per Km2) sq.kms. sq.kms. Area) (2002) Central 272.1 21.50 48.54 5.58 5.08 92 49.30 and West Asia (11) South 1383.95 42.47 75.55 3.35 1.81 54 412.10 Asia (6) Southeast 568.6 18.80 40.49 4.33 0.09 02 131.02 Asia (9) 5
East Asia (4) Pacific (14) Total Asia Pacific (44) World
36.34 41.34 54.04
10.89 0.49 24.61
1.02 0.004 8.01
09 01 33
Poverty and % of Dry land Area
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 1 00 $ 1 Population .25 $ 2.0 Population
% Dry Land Area
Poverty and Population Density
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 0 0 0 1 00 200 300 400 500 $ 1 Population .25 $ 2.0 Population
Drylands in Asia are concentrated mainly in Central and West Asia; India (in South Asia); and Mongolia (in East Asia). Some of the basic data for 28 countries in Asia have been presented in Appendix 1. Almost half (i.e.14) of the 28 countries covered in the four sub-regions in Asia have more than (and equal to) 33 per cent of the landmass designated as drylands. These include 6 (out of 10) countries in Central and West Asia; one in South Asia; and two in East Asia. The extent of drylands in South East Asia is almost nil except Indonesia and Thailand where drylands account fro about 3 and 7 percent of the total area respectively. Together, the countries with more than 33 per cent of dryland account for 76.2 per cent of the total population in Asia Pacific region. Some of these also represent high-density regions e.g. India, India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Nepal, China and Armenia. Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam besides and Indonesia and Thailand are the other major countries that have population density of more than 100. Contrary to this, population density is found to be the lowest in Mongolia and fairly low (i.e. < 60) in the case of 6 out of 10 countries in Central-West Asia and also in Lao PDR in South East Asia. The evidence in Appendix 1 therefore suggest that whereas almost half of the countries in Asia has more than 33 per cent of are under drylands, eight out the 26 countries have fairly low population densities. There are countries having higher proportion of drylands and also higher population density. These are: Armenia, Azebaijan, Georgia, Pakistan, India, and China. 3. Dryland and Poverty Whereas it is difficult to assess the extent of poverty among dry land regions, the general observation is that large parts of drylands are inhabited by the poor. The observation supported by the fact that about 90 per cent of the drylands are located in developing economies especially in Africa and parts of Asia [Mearns and Norton, 2010]. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, people in dryland regions face far more severe deprivation as compared to the other ecosystems covered under the assessment [Adeel, et.al; 2005]. A comparative scenario of the two most important indicators of human well-being viz; Gross National Products (GNP) and Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) across the 7 ecosystems suggests that the dryland ecosystem has the lowest GNP (except that in island) and the highest IMR [p.7]. Much of this, as noted earlier, is contributed by poverty in Africa and South Asia. In Asia, 15 out of the 23 countries (for which poverty data are available) have more than 20 per cent of population under the poverty line ($1.25 a day). The remaining three countries viz; Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Maldives are also likely to have fairly large proportion of people living in poverty; Maldives could be exception in the case. This may suggest that at least 16 out of the 26 countries in Asia have substantial proportion of poor population. In what follows we list out 8 countries that have higher proportion of dry lands along with higher level of poverty in Asia [see Table 5].
Table 5: Asian Countries with High Incident of Poverty and Drylands Countries > 15 % of > 33% of Poor ($ Drylands 1.25)-(2008) n.a 21.81 21.49 38.81 22.59 41.64 22.38 15.92 94 55 40 99 83 60 65 34 Total Population 2007 (Millions) 32.3 5.4 6.7 27.4 164.6 1135.6 2.7 1331.4 2706.1 Total Dryland Area (000 sq.km.) 612.96 105.49 55.98 410.10 639.83 1783.91 1018.22 3171.32 7797.81
Afghanistan Kyrgyz Republic Tajikistan Uzbekistan Pakistan India Mongolia China Total
The eight countries together account for 2.7 billion people and 7.7 million sq.kms of area, a substantial part of these are likely to suffer environmental constraints, eventually leading to uncertainties and poverty. Table 6: Poverty and Dryland Poverty ($1/day) in Asia and Pacific
West and central Asia 322.7
South East Asia
East Asia Pacific China & Mongolia
Categories 1.Population (in million) 2. Total Poor
No. 3470 692.6 [19.9]* 515.0 232.3
% of Poor 1284.4 386.0 [30.0] 263.0 113.9 546.7 56.2 [10.3] 47.5 20.8 1307.1 196.2 [15.0] 164.4 82.1 9.2 2.4 [26.1] 2.0 0.8 100 51.8 [16.0] 38.2 14.7
3. Rural Poor 74.3** R-poor in 33.5 Areas with Growth Potential R-Poor with 282.8 40.8 23.5 149.1 26.7 Environmental Constraints Dryland Poor 162.5 23.5 15.5 75.7 5.4 4. Urban 177.6 25.6 13.6 123.0 8.7 Poor U-Slum Poor 82.3 11,9 5.0 68.7 3.1 U-Other Poor 95.3 13.7 8.6 54.3 5.6 Vulnerable ($2/day) Total No. 1987.8 170.4 1009.4 258.9 Rural 1626.9 142.9 804.7 220.4 Urban 360.9 27.5 204.6 38.5 Rural-Dryland 820.2 84.1 358.5 20.7 Urban-Slums 223.1 19.6 148.4 51.2 Source: ADB (2008). * Indicate poor as % to total population. ** Indicate % to total poor
82.3 65.9 31.8 5.4 26.4 544.3 452.6 91.7 356.7 3.6
1.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 4.9 6.3 -1.5 0.0 0.3
A detailed exercise carried out by the Asian development Bank (2008) provided estimates of poverty by types of environmental factors causing poverty in different parts of the region. The estimates are worked out mainly by using the proportions of poor and the dryland in different countries within Asia and Pacific. Another important feature of the analysis is that the poverty estimates are based on two sets of areas-one with (pro-poor) growth potential and another, which faces environmental constraints for growth hence, poverty reduction. Table 6 presents a summary of the poverty estimates in the sub-regions within Asia and Pacific. According to the study, the incidence of poverty ($1/day) in Asia and Pacific region is close to 20 per cent. This ranges from 30 per cent in South Asia to about 10 percent in South East Asia. About 74 per cent of all the poor live in rural areas and the rest in urban areas. As large as 41 per
cent of all the poor in the region belong to the category of Rural-environmental poor whereas 23.5 per cent of the total poor in the region are rural dryland poor. There are about 162.5 million people in the region who live under poverty mainly due to environmental constraints posed by the dryland conditions. Of these, 46.6 per cent of the poor are located in Asia and another 40.5 per cent in East Asia (China and Mongolia). Within these two sub-regions India, parts of Nepal, China and Mongolia have larger number of dryland poor as compared to the rest. There are two important features of dryland poverty, notwithstanding the wide diversity across countries that may need special mention at this stage. These are: a) pockets of high concentration; and b) transient nature of dryland poverty in several areass where dryland poverty exist. Together these features may have special implications for designing appropriate growth strategies in general, and agriculture-led growth in particular. This is particularly important because much of the drylands in the two sub-regions in Asia noted above, are inhabited by communities that have historically evolved a diverse livelihood mechanisms-these mechanisms need further strengthening especially under the increasing challenges posed by the climate change scenarios. We will take up this issue at a later stage. Cropland, Irrigation and Food Security: As per the Global Assessment of human Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD), the loss of productivity is the highest in Asia. According this assessment more than 1341 million ha of productive land in the region has been affected due to desertification. Overtime desertification has increased in a number of countries such as India, China, Mongolia, and some of the countries in Central Asia. Also Asia has half of the world’s total irrigated area affected by water logging and soil salinity. Given the homes for the two largest populated countries i.e. India and China, desertification and loss of land productivity would therefore have fairly significant adverse impacts on agriculture and food production in the region [Beijing Report, 1997 in UNCCD p. 15]. Against this backdrop, it is important to note that Asia has the highest dependence on irrigation as the region is marked by the largest proportion of cropland receiving irrigation [See Table 7]. This, of course, is a reflection of two somewhat contradictory scenarios. First, the relatively larger concentration of drylands in the region necessitates dependence of irrigation through external sources as large parts of the crop land remain devoid of the required soil-moisture for most of the time, unlike that in the northern countries [IPCC 2001b]. Second, several of the Asian countries have fairly moderate rate of precipitation, unlike that in a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East, thus making it possible to develop diverse irrigation systems including in the drylands. The projected variability in precipitation thus may have significant impact on crop production in the region. It may be noted that wheat, rice and maize account for 85 per cent of the total cereal production in the world; Asia has a fairly large share in the production of these cereals.
Table 7: Extent of Irrigation across Continents Continents 1980 1. Africa 6.0 2. Asia 31.3 3. Caribbean 22.0 4. Latin America 10.4 5. north America 9.1 6. Oceania 3.6 7. Europe 11.5 8. World 15.7
1990 6.7 33.8 23.3 12.0 9.3 4.2 14.0 17.6
2002 7.0 37.9 26.5 12.1 10.5 5.6 8.8 19.7
It is important to note that dryland crops, accounting for about 60 per cent of the global farm production, have a fairly significant influence in shaping the food security especially among the food producing poor farmers in different parts of the world [FAO]. Whereas there are no systematic estimates of the contribution of dryland regions in total food production, most of the cereals, except rice, are largely produced under the un-irrigated conditions as shown in Figure 1.
Irrigated area harvested (Million ha) Distribution of Crops under irrigation in the world (Million ha)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
ai ze n at W he ro ps de r ot to ls es ro ea l Fo d le +P u C C er C M R ice ps s C O th er
In absence of the systematic data we have tried to work out proportion of irrigated area among major crops. This is presented in Table 8. These are of course somewhat tentative estimates. Whereas the irrigated area by crops is compiled for 100 countries, cultivated area pertains to the aggregate estimate for the world. The estimates presented in Table 8 however, are meant to providing a broad magnitude of area under dryland crops, especially in a relative sense. The important point that deserves special attention at this stage is that dryland crops, especially low water intensive crops such as oil seeds, coarse cereals, pulses, spices and horticulture and medicinal plants are some of the important crops from the view point of food security in future.
ge ta b
At present these crops are relatively neglected right from the stage of research and development, till pricing and promotion trough public distribution systems in many parts of the region, especially India. Table 8: Extent of Irrigated Area by Crops (in million ha.) Crops Area Area % of Cultivated Under Cutivated Irrigation Area Under Irrigation Oil Crops 253.9 8.7 3.43 Cotton 34.7 10.0 28.81 Veg. & Pulses 124.9 24.5 19.61 Other Cereals 164.9 11.8 7.15 Maize 148.8 27.1 18.21 Wheat 211.8 51.5 24.31 Paddy 155.7 78.5 50.40 According to an estimate the global food production needs to be increased by 40 per cent in 2025 from the level of 2000 [Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000] But this has to be achieved with only 9 per cent increase in irrigation water. The future growth in food production therefore, rests heavily on dryland systems. It is imperative to note that dryland system does not imply `no irrigation’; rather it implies `limited or protective irrigation’to supplement the soil moisture. Under this scenario, emphasis on low water intensive crops such as pulses, oilseeds, coarse cereals, dryland horticulture, medicinal plants, and fodder and fuel crops may assume special importance. The challenge is to improve efficiency of water use in a sustainable manner. Hence what one should look for is limited but not zero-irrigation solutions for sustaining dryland agriculture.
4. Impact of Climate Change on Drylands in Asia and Pacific
According to the fourth assessment of IPCC, the global temperature has increased by 0.74c over the period of 1906-2005. It is further noted that the increase in temperature has increased in the recent years and likely to increase by 2 to 7 times in future. The report states that the annual rainfall has fallen in several of the countries in Asia Pacific; these include North East and north China, coastal and arid plains regions in Pakistan, in parts of north east India, Indonesia, Philippines, and some parts of Japan. At the same time the rainfall has increased in parts of China, the Arabian Peninsula, Bangladeshand along western coasts of Philippines [ESCAP; p. 68]. Table 9 presents main features of the climate change and variability among countries within the region.
Table 9: Features of Climate Change and Variability in Asia and Pacific Annual Winter Summer 1. Temperature Change (C) 2020 1.36 1.62 1.13 (1.06) (1.19) (0.97) 2050 2.69 3.25 2.19 (1.92) (2.08) (1.81) 2080 3.89 4.25 3.20 (2.98) (3.25) (2.67) 2. Change in Diurnal Temperature Range (C) 2020 2050 -0.27 -0.27 -3.06 (-0.22) (0.14) (-4.97) 2080 -0.45 -0.46 -2.89 (-0.31) (-0.31) (-4.95) 3. Preciptation Change (%) 2020 2.90 2.7 2.5 (1.0) (-10.1) (2.8) 2050 6.8 -2.1 6.6 (-2.4) (-14.8) (0.1) 2080 11.0 5.3 7.9 (-0.1) (-11.2) (2.5) Note: Number in parenthesis are changes when direct effects of sulphate aerosols are included (adapted from IPCC, 2001) Source: Sivakumar, et. al (2005) Crops and Yield: As reported in IPCC (1998), stress on water availability in Asia is likely to be exacerbated by climate change Sivakumar, et. al (2005). Several studies aimed at understanding the impact of climate change in Asia (e.g., Luo and Lin, 1999) observed that, in general, areas in mid-and high latitudes will experience increase in crop yield whereas that in lower altitude will decrease. The scheduling of the cropping season as well as the duration of the growing period of the crop would also be affected. It is further noted that agricultural productivity in tropical Asia is sensitive not only to temperature increases, but also to changes in the nature and characteristics of monsoon. Experiments in India reported by Sinha (1994) found that higher temperatures and reduced radiation associated with increases cloudiness caused reduced yields to such an extent that any increase in dry-matter production as a result of CO2 fertilization proved to be no advantage in grain productivity. Similar studies conducted recently in Indonesia and the Philippines confirmed these results. Amien et al. (1996) found that rice yields in east Java could decline by 1% annually as a result of increases in temperature. Since rice is one of the main staple foods, the adverse impacts on crop production would have a significant effect on trade in agricultural commodities, hence on economic growth and stability (Matthews et al., 1995). Tropical Forests: In semi-arid regions of tropical Asia, tropical forests generally are sensitive to changes in temperature and rainfall, as well as changes in their seasonality. Arid and semi-arid lands often carry a sizeable representation of trees and shrubs in the vegetative cover. Deforestation along with the potential impacts of climate change, may have a negative impact on 13
sustainable-nutrition security in south Asia (Sinha and Swaminathan, 1991). Results of research from Thailand suggest that climate change would have a profound effect on the future distribution. Soil Erosion: The effect of climate change on soil erosion and sedimentation in mountain regions of tropical Asia may be indirect but could be significant. An erosion rate in the range of 1-43 tons ha-1 with an average of 18 tons ha-1 was calculated in three small experimental plots in central Nepal. Many desert organisms are near their limits of temperature tolerance. Because of the current marginality of soil-water and nutrient reserves, some ecosystems in semi-arid regions may be among the first to show the effects of climate change. Climate change has the potential to exacerbate the loss of biodiversity in this region. Water and Livestock: Surface water and ground water resources in arid and semi-arid Asian countries play vital roles in forestry, agriculture, fisheries, livestock production and industrial activity. Almost two-thirds of domestic livestock are supported on rangelands, though in some countries a significant share of animal fodder also comes from crop residue [IPCC, 2001].
5. Impact on Poverty?
Increased temperatures, reduced rainfall and yield, increased frequency of droughts and crop failure, reduced forest cover and diversity, and increased health-burden-all these together make a perfect recipe for loss of employment, income, on the one hand and increased indebtedness and poverty on the other. Besides these, there are non-climatic triggers and stresses that may also accentuate the conditions of poverty. These, inter alia, may include demographic factors, life style related issues, and market forces, international conventions and global trade agreements etc. that may have significant influence on poverty, given the nature of the state. The multiple forces-climatic and non-climatic- make the assessment of poverty a fairly complex phenomenon. The complexity is often reflected in terms of the diverse pattern of linkages that one finds between dryland and poverty within and across countries in the region. Given these limitations, an attempt has been made by ADB (2008) to assess the future trends in poverty, including environmental poverty, in the region. According to the projections for 2020 prepared by ADB (2008), indicate that the absolute number of the poor people will decline so will be their proportions in the total population in the region. The proportion of the poor ($1/day) will decline from 692 to 414 million during 20052010. Those living below $2 a day will decline from 1996 to 1633 million during the same period. The number of dryland poor in the region will decline from 162.5 to 113.8 over the period of 15 years. . The above scenario appears most plausible unless the other interviewing factors, that link the adverse impacts of climate change and poverty, get altered in a significant manner. It is therefore
important to understand the anatomy of poverty in general, and dryland poverty in particular. We have tried to do this by focusing on India as a case study. Anatomy of Poverty: A Case Study of India: Drylands account for 74.5 percent of the geographical area in the country; this consists of aridsemi arid and dry. If one excludes the arid land the proportion of semi-arid plus dry land comes to 60.4 per cent [Shah, 2007]. According to ICRISAT-definition, semi-arid and tropics (SAT) (defined as the length of growing period ranging between 70-140 days and mean monthly temperature > 18c) account for roughly 37 per cent of the area and also population; 446 per cent of the bet cultivated area; 32 per cent of the gross irrigated area; and 37 per cent of the value of production. Importantly, SAT accounts for nearly 60 per cent of the area under coarse cereals, pulses, oilseeds and commercial crops grown in the country. The Arid zone accounts for roughly 10 per cent of the area and 4.3 per cent of the population [Rao, et.al; 2005]. The available estimates by the National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) suggest that by 2005 about 55.3 million hectares in the country were in the category of wasteland. In another survey, NRSA estimated extent of degraded land to the tune of 64 million ha. Dryland Poverty in India: Table 10: Poverty across Agro-Ecological Zones in India Agro-ecological zone Humid Semi-Arid Temperate Semi-Arid Tropic Arid All India Squared Head Poverty Count gap 23.7 4.4 14.6 2.2 24.3 4.4 12.6 2.0 21.3 3.8 Poor on head count basis Number Percentage to (millions) total poor 59.374 40.3 21.387 14.5 60.180 40.8 2.182 1.5 147.478 100.0
Source: ICRISAT Database , 1998 and National Sample Survey 1999-2000 Drylands, as noted earlier, are homes for a large proportion of poor in India. However, incidence of poverty is not significantly higher in drylands (or in SAT-region) as compared to humid region in the country as shown in Table 10. In fact the poverty geography of India coincides significantly with sub-humid/humid/hilly regions in the central and eastern states rather than in the western-southern states where large tracts of dryland are located [Shah, 2009]. By 2004-05 roughly 79 per cent of India’s poor live in seven the seven states, most of them except Maharashtra and Tamilnadu belong to the central-eastern belt which is characterized by moderate to high rainfall and larger proportion of forest areas [Shah, 2010], much of which is also identified as high potential rainfed areas in the country [Fan and Hazzel, 2001]. At a macro level the poverty geography, at least till recently, had depicted a somewhat unusual picture, which has been described as: ‘drier states (in west) harbor lesser poverty proportions 15
than the wetter ones (in the east). In general the states, which were under the Zamindari regime of the yesteryears and have experienced relatively ineffective agrarian and land reforms and thereafter green revolution, have been the losers, while those in the west, have been gainers. Within these contours if the monsoon fails, all suffer and vice versa’ (NIRD 2000). An important issue that deserves special attention at this stage is that relatively lower poverty in several parts of dryland region, among others, is also attained by over exploitation of ground water. Hence, if not reversed, the trend may set-in deep spiral poverty among this sub-set of dryland regions that, so far, have performed well as reflected in terms of relatively lower level of poverty thereof. The above scenarios of spatial pattern of poverty in India thus, highlight a multi-patterned, complex and structurally rooted nature of poverty in India. The threats posed by the climate change therefore, becomes part of this complex scenario when it comes to poverty reduction in the country. The Response to Climate Change: Growth and Investments in Lagging Regions The grim scenarios projected by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has indeed pressed an alarm bell though, the actual impact within the country is subject to variations in the model-specifications. Meanwhile agriculture in India, like elsewhere in the world, has already started facing the consequences of climate variability or increased uncertainties. The initial policy response to climate change in the country however, appears to be somewhat disjointed and devoid of a long term strategy that may promote agricultural and allied sectors in a manner that may strengthen food security and employment generation among a large mass of poor communities in the country. The XI-plan document refers to a long list of commitments in terms of both-adaptation and mitigation under the climate change scenarios. It is however, noteworthy that the central thrust of the policy response especially for adaptation is-speeding the process of (economic) development. Following exerts from the XI Plan document deserves special attention in the context of the growth-poverty discourse. `The most important adaption measure is development itself. A stronger economy is more able to adapt both in terms of cost of adaptation and technological capability. Achieving rapid economic growth as targeted in the Eleventh Plan is therefore a key element in adaptation’. p. 205 A number of policy initiatives and adaptation measures especially for the primary sector noted in the National Plan include: varietal research in agriculture, coping with water scarcity, and institutional mechanisms for disaster management. Besides these there a number of policy initiatives like watershed development, afforestation, development of irrigation as well as other infrastructure, and skill formation already in place. It may however be noted that these adaptation measures are not organically linked to the growth strategy, especially for promoting dryland framing in the country. Rather the thrust is to boost up input intensive, irrigation centric, crops farming especially in the lagging regions where returns to investments are expected to be high. This would still leave out of the focus the critical need for promoting ecologically suitable
dryland farming systems in the area that are designated as `low potential’ regions in the country! Reviving and/or developing such systems require altogether a different policy approach not only for technologies and prices, but also for institutional mechanisms as will be discussed in the subsequent sections. Coping Mechanisms in Dryland Areas India represents a scenario where incidence f poverty is not particularly high in dry land areas; rather the poverty geography in India coincides with high potential rain fed areas in the centraleastern states in the country. As noted earlier, a number of coping mechanisms have been developed over time for the people in dry land areas to adapt and sustain under dry land conditions. While out-migration is a major strategy adopted by a large number of people-poor and not so poor, to check further deterioration in their economic status, there are also other factors that have helped the people in dry land regions to cope with the adverse agro-climatic conditions. These include sectoral diversification of the economy at the state level, which resulted in development of non-farm economy on the one hand and infrastructure on the other. Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra are some of the examples where overall poverty is fairly low as compared to other states in spite of a large proportion of the area is covered under dry lands in these states. The other important coping mechanism relates to commercialization of agriculture with emphasis on high valued crops such as oilseeds, cotton, spices, dryland horticulture, and pulses. Relatively better developed infrastructure and other economic services in the states help supporting commercial agriculture more than that in the case of not so industrialized states in the country. A related feature to this is development of allied activities like livestock and dairying, fishery, and agro-processing. Yet another feature of the traditional coping mechanisms pertains to socio-cultural aspect of the people, who have survived under harsh environmental conditions, over a long period of time. These features are-hard working and enterprising characteristics of the workforce/self employed farmers in these regions. These features are often reflected in terms of their responses to new technologies/opportunities. The massive expansion of small water harvesting structures in Gujarat, rapid adoption of water saving devices for irrigation in Rajasthan and Maharashtra, rapid spread of BT-cotton and also organic farming for exports in some of the dry land areas within the western-southern states are examples of how people have coped with dryland conditions over time and also in the recent past. On the flip side, frequent droughts have also been accompanied by increased under and malnutrition among the people, especially the poor. The recent food inflation has aggravated the situation [Dev, 2010]. It is thus, quite clear that the massive food insecurity/malnourishment is already a grave issue; this is likely to get worsened as the frequency of droughts may increase under the climate change. The traditional coping mechanisms, in absence of systemic response to dry land agriculture therefore, may not be sufficient for even retaining the status quo with respect to poverty and food security in the countries with substantial proportion of people depending on dryland agriculture.
Similar scenario prevails with respect to watershed development progragramme- a flagship initiative in place for enhancing resource regeneration, farm productivity, and livelihood security among dryland areas in the country. The programme, since the mid-nineties, has made major strides in terms of coverage of area and activities. The most important feature of the programme is creation and/or rejuvenation of a large number of small water harvesting structures across the country. These structures, no doubt, have created wonders in terms of shifting cropping pattern in favour of more water intensive and profitable crops, besides increasing yield of the traditional crops. Thus, the initial steps are already taken. What is however, missing is that the harvested water, by far the most scarce resource, is yet to be accessed equitably and utilized in a sustainable manner. Access to drinking and domestic water, development of pastures and livestock, and afforestation are found to be typically missing in a large proportion of these initiatives [Shah, 2010]. These aspects are likely to gain increasing importance under the climate change scenarios where water will become scarcer than now. The adaptation strategy therefore needs to fill up these missing links sooner than later. This of course, cannot be achieved if rainfed/dryland agriculture continues to remain on the margin of the mainstream agriculture polices that was mentioned above. The National Plan for UNCCD talks about several of these aspects as depicted below. National Action Plan under UNCCD-India a) Water is a diacritical element for building people’s confidence and satisfaction level, reclamation of degraded lands for sustainable biomass production ultimately leading to a better quality of life and enabling conditions through empowerment of the local communities. Bottom up approach and project planning, evaluation and monitoring by Panchayat Raj Institutions (Grass root level elected local self Governments in which women have at least 30% representation would be followed. Capacity of the PRls and CBOs constituted by them, like self-help groups and user groups, etc., would be built up on all aspects of land development including rehabilitation of degraded areas, encompassing technical, financial group dynamics, equity, gender, etc. Convergence of resources and services. All resources available under different schemes will be channelled through Panchayats . Thus, a single window service will be available to the communities. Gaps in all the on-going schemes of different departments will be identified and resources will be provided to fill them up for generating good impact at the ground level. The first five-year period will be experimental and include pilot projects and activities. Concurrent and continuous monitoring will be done and ml6-course correction will be effected as the experiences are gained.
d) e) f)
The problem faced by the farmers will be reported to R&D institutions for finding solutions. Thus both lab-to-Iand and land-to-Iab flow of information will be ensured.
India is thus fully prepared to meet the obligation under UNCCD which provides a platform and motive force for the country to move faster for achieving the goal of sustainable development. How far these commitments are taken forward in a holistic and comprehensive manner is yet to be seen. Women at the Centre of Dryland Farming: It may however, be noted that an approach that focuses on drought resistant subsistent crops, diverse farming systems with a special thrust on livestock, inland fishery, agro-horticulture could also provide increasing opportunities for women who traditionally are in the forefront of these activities in India and elsewhere [Shah, 2008].
6. Adaptation and Future Opportunities
Let us begin by stating the obvious. Drylands and droughts have existed for ever; and people, at times, have found out ingenious ways of living under the harsh conditions. But every one in dryland regions is not necessarily poor; the scenarios also vary across time and space. While people have evolved varying coping mechanisms, the state policies and the global economic orders have played significant role in mitigating the adverse impacts and/or promoting innovative options for people primarily dependent on the dryland systems. While we recognize that the climate change brings in its fold a quantum jump, and also a qualitatively different impacts on the resource availability and the impacts on people’s livelihood the solutions, to a large extent, may have to come from optimum utilization of the available natural resources by bringing environmental management, rather than merely production and consumptions at the centre of the strategy. There are a number of evidence that suggest that the dryland systems have a huge untapped potential for resource generation in terms of total biomass rather than specific crops and commodities per se, which historically, have been valued better in the markets that have been created through specific policy choices-nationally and internationally. The emerging perspective on adaptation to climate change is increasingly being informed by the potential that the dryland systems have. Of course, the potential varies significantly across agroecological [Michael, 2008; 2009; Dobie, 2001, Shah, 2009], economic and political scenarios in the country, juxtaposed by the global conventions, policies, and agreements. Notwithstanding the variations, the strategies adopted by a number of countries in Asia broadly include special emphasis on sustainable agriculture, thrust on food grain production and livelihood promotion, exploration of carbon markets, promotion of intra-regional trade and cooperation, and environmental regeneration with special thrust on ground water resources. . Of course, the potential of dryland agriculture, discussed above present the best possible scenario. The actual realization of the potential, cateris paribus, would depend essentially on the actual changes that may take place in the climatic parameters noted earlier. Also it is difficult to make generalization across communities and regions. What is being emphasized here is-the
essentiality of tapping the untapped potential of the dryland systems and the paradigmatic shift necessary for attaining this. The perspectives on dry land systems, as discussed in section 1, have undergone a substantial change from looking at only the primary production from land to payments for the ecosystem services etc. by now, it is being increasingly recognized that the dryland ecosystems have many functions and some alternative economic functions, which in turn, may attract investments in these regions for provisioning of better infrastructure especially in the marginal rangeland areas [Cere, C. et al; undated]. This calls for multiple solutions and combinations thereof. Carbon markets may provide one such solution, but perhaps not the only major solution in a situation where food grain production continues to pose a serious challenge in several Asian economies including India. Table 11 presents a snap shot of the adaptation opportunities identified in the context of Asia and Pacific [ESCP 2535, p.10]. Table 11: Adaptation Strategies and Polices I. Adaptation Options (Short term) Crops Insurance Crops livestock Diversification Calibrating the Timings of Various Fram Operations Adaptive Livestock Management Temporary Migration Food Reserve II. Adaptation Options (Long term) Cropped Linked Livestock Development International Trade Efficient Water Use Forecasting Management Strengthening Livelihood It may be noted that whereas crop insurance and water use efficiency along with increased international trade emerge as important options, those related to livestock-linked agriculture is yet to get onto the centre stage of the strategy even in the medium and long term. Also the adaptation strategies and polices listed above however, do not imply that they have or could necessarily work under the existing realities of developing countries. For instance, crop insurance, a much talked about policy prescription, is not likely to succeed under a situation where poverty is large scale and climatic variability is already very high, and also where institutional set up is fairly weak to cover a large number of small land holders across vast rural landscapes in countries like India. Similarly, studies for Asia have shown that price incentives, experienced during the recent inflationary trends, have not necessarily culminated into a significant supply response. Dependence on trade, per se, may also not work in ensuring increased production and/or supply of food grains under the climate change. Also there is no specific mention of the institutional as 20
well as pricing support that had gone behind the success of the Green Revolution; such supports are equally, if not, more crucial for revival and strengthening of the dryland farming and livelihood systems in the region. Of course, what we have presented in Table 10 is only a broad outline of the adaptive strategies identified in the region. In reality each of the member country has also evolved a fairly detailed strategy under the UNCCD. We have not reproduced all the details in the paper for the sake of brevity. However, a careful scanning of these reports suggest that the strategy papers have more or less all the aspects that one may think of in terms of their link to the climate change in poverty in these regions. What is perhaps missing is a shift in the central thrust for development in these regions along with the requisite financial commitments thereof. A somewhat similar response is also observed in the case of India as shown earlier. While these are good ideas and policy commitments (as reflected in the country specific strategies under the UNCCD), what is still missing is a paradigm shift from what till now appears to be merely an improvement in the existing perspectives on farm production and poor’s livelihood in dryland regions. Essentially the paradigm shift would involve shift from crops and irrigation centric production to biomass based approach. The Million Dollar question that arises is-what prevents such a shift to sustainable farming systems despite loud and repeated commitments in the policies to adapt to the climate change? Prima facie, there are ten major constraints as well as risks in making a paradigm shift. 1) the shift involves working on a systems rather than crop/input specific interventions; 2) it involves an area based approach; 3) there is a trade-off between growth in agriculture per se, and employment generation/livelihood support; 4) it takes longer time to realize the full potential; 5) focuses more on local economies as compared to global trade; 6) warrants basic change in the property rights regime especially for ground water; 7) requires favourable pricing and other support; 8) necessitates context specific R & D and also extension as against the top down and more generic technological prescriptions; 9) decentralized food grain stocking and distribution along with regulating food inflation; and lastly 10) requires institutional support, besides markets, to carry out the changes over a longer period of time. Together these may imply changing the gear of agricultural growth through careful hand holding, and that someone, other than the dryland poor, must bear the cost of this transition. Going Beyond Non-Farm Strategies: Besides moving, though gradually, towards dryland farming systems the other routes of adaptations also need to be addressed appropriately. These often include sectoral diversification towards industry and services in the regional economy; out migration facilitated through adequate support for those who succeed in migration; employment through infrastructure development; creation of saving and credit instruments that can help as insurance; selective commercialization of crops; and above all activated markets for inputs including land for agriculture.
One of the important requirements for developing the non-farm mechanisms for adaptation isconducive policy framework that promotes exports in manufacturing and services sector rather than mainly in agriculture as the latter involves faster depletion of water resources than other two sectors. The next round of agenda therefore, is move from policy commitments to actual actions. There are constraints and risks involved in doing this. But, the risks involved in allowing the already depleted natural resources viz; soil, water and forests to deplete further, is likely to be very high across communities and over time.
7. Conducing Remarks
The foregoing analyses of climate change and poverty in Asia and Pacific brought home some important Observations as summarized below: 1. South Asia and Pacific has about 40 per cent of the area under dryland (including arid regions). The region also accounts for nearly one third of the total dryland are in the world. 2. More than 2.1 billion people live in dryland areas; a majority of these are located in in Asia and Pacific, suffering from the development deficit in what is historically called `low potential regions’. 3. According to the ADB-estimates there are 515 million rural poor ($1 a Day) in the region; of this 162.5 million are identified as dryland poor. By 2010 the number of poor in dry land region is likely to be still as high as 113.8 million. 4. Besides central and North West Asia (i.e. China and Mongolia), South Asia is the major hotspot of dryland poverty in the region. These mainly include India, Srilanka and Nepla. 5. Climate change is likely to have significant negative impacts on agricultural potential and yield especially of the major cereals like rice, wheat and maize. 6. Given the low rainfall and high temperatures, the region has relatively higher proportion of cropped land receiving irrigation. Much of this is likely to be trough groundwater resources that are already depleted significantly in most parts of the region. 7. A number of strategies and supporting polices have been identified for adapting to the climate change. These include shift to sustainable agriculture, soil-water conservation and watershed management, livestock development, diversion to biomass, promotion of GMtechnology; asset creation, migration, improved weather monitoring etc. 8. Most of these commitments still continue to operate in isolation and at the margin of the existing farming system since faster economic growth is seen as a major remedy for averting the risks of climate change. The growth per se may be necessary but not sufficient condition for dealing with the future risks of climate change and poverty in region. The growth has to be necessarily linked with environmental conservation and employment generation among the poor for who climatic uncertainty is a part of their routine life rather than an exceptional situation to deal with. 9. There is an increasing recognition of the importance of investing in marginal areas in the region; the approach continues to remain focused on financial returns. 10. Shifting to a new paradigm would require a complete change in the mind-set that governs the resource allocation both, natural and financial.
11. There are risks involved in shifting to a sustainable dryland system; and also in depending on the non-farm strategies for poverty reduction in these regions. 12. At the same time there are large opportunities and also high costs; the global communities have to share the burden of the adaptation process in the region that is already burdened with large proportion of the world’s poor and the dryland poor.
Cere, C., et.al; Livestock Production and Poverty Alleviation-Challenges and Opportunities in Arid and Semi-arid Tropical Rangeland based Systems, ILRI, Nairobi. Dasgupta, P. and Maler, K.G. (2004). Environment and Resource Economics: Some Recent Developments. Working Paper 7. Kathmandu: SANDEE. Dev, M. Rising Food Prices and Financial Crisis in India: Impact on Women and Children and Ways of Tackling the Problem, IHD-UNICEF Working Paper Series, No. 3, New Delhi.
Hassan, R., Scholes, R., and Ash, N. (2005), Ecosystem and Human Well Being, Current State and Trends, Vol. 1, Chapter 22, Island Press, Washington DC.
Markandya, A. (2001). ‘Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development: Implications for the Management of Natural Capital’. University of Bath, UK. Scott, L. (2006). Chronic Poverty and the Environment: A Vulnerability Perspective. Working Paper 62. Manchester: CPRC/University of Manchester.
Shah, A. (2009) Natural Resources and Chronic Poverty in India: A Review of Evidence and Issues, CPRC-IIPA Working Paper No. 47, Indian Institute of public Administration, New Delhi.
Shiferaw, B. (2002). Poverty and Natural Resource Management in the Semi-arid Tropics: Revisiting Challenges and Conceptual Issues. Working Paper 14. Patancheru: ICRISAT. Stern, N. (2007), Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, Executive Summary, HM Treasury, London, UK.
UNCCD (1998), The Social and Economic Impact Of Desertification in Several Asian Countries, CCD Interim Secretariat, Geneva. UNDP (2006), Human Development Report, 2006- Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and Global Water Crisis, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
World Bank (2006). Inclusive Growth and Service Delivery: Building on India’s Success. Development Policy Review. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank, (2006), Unlocking the Opportunities for Forest-Dependent People, Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Oxford University Press. Rao, et. al; (2005), Overcoming Poverty in Rural India: Focus on Rainfed Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT, India. FAO, (2008), Climate Change, water and Food Security: Technical Background Document from the Expert Consultation Held on 26-28 February, 2008; Rome. IIED (2008), Climate Change and Drylands, www.ccdcommission.org. IPCC, (2001), Climate Change, 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in MacCarthy et.al. (eds.) Cambridge University Press, UK and USA. Mearns, R. and Norton, A. (2010), Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World, New Frontiers of Social Policy, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Mortimore, M. et. al; (2008), Dryland-An Economic assets for Rural Livelihood and Economic Growth, IIED, UNDP, IUCN. Suzuki, k. (2003), Sustainable and Environmentally Sound Land Use in Rural Areas with Special Attention to Land Degradation: An Issue Paper, Asia Pacific Forum for Environment and Development, Expert Meeting Held on January 23, 2003; China. ESCAP, (2009), Sustainable Agriculture and Food security in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Mortimore, M. (2009), Dryland Opportunities: A New Paradigm for People, Ecosystems, and Development, IUCN. Adeel, Z. et.al (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis, A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World resource Institute, Washington, DC. Hassan, R. et.al (2005), Dryland Systems, Chapter 22, in U. Safriel, and Z. Adeel , Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current Status and Trends, Vol. 1, Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Cereal Production in Drylands, Chaper 2, in Water and Cereals in Drylands. Sivakumar, et.al (20050, Impacts of Present and Future Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Forestry in Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics, Climate Change, 70: pp. 31-72.
Appendix 1: Population, Poverty, and Dryland in Asia and Pacific Region
Country Total Population 2007 (millions) * Poverty Indication (%) ** Yea r ** $ 1.25(% of population) ** $ 2.0(% of population) ** Total Land Area (1000 ha) (2002) ** 551889 65209 2820 8260 6949 269970 19180 77088 13996 46993 41424 335789 13017 4700 297319 n.a. 14300 6453 433954 17652 181157 23080 32855 65755 29817 51089 32549 1089392 156650 932742 65 34 02 133 57 36 57 27e 94 98 84 34 99 55 83 40 100 99 00 00 60 n.a. 09 24 00 03 00 00 00 00 07 00 00 33 104 94 76 06 25 179 43 10 56 958 44 309 n.a. 160 283 73 111 22 70 70 252 119 236 22 65 51 53 56 34 33 26 45 37 23 08 28 n.a. 14 21 17 42 19 62 28 59 31 24 18 67 54 55 57 38 31 32 45 40 20 06 26 n.a. 09 21 13 31 15 50 25 49 29 20 Dry Land (% of Total area) ** Population Density(People per Km2 ) ** Urban population as a percent of Total ** 2000 1990
Central and West Asia Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Pakistan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan South Asia Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Sri Lanka Southeast Asia Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippians Thailand Viet nam Singapore East Asia Mongolia People’s republican of China Democratic People’s
272.1 32.3 3.0 8.5 4.4 14.8 5.4 164.6 6.7 5.0 27.4 1383.95 147.1 2.3 1135.6 0.346 28.2 21.1 568.6 14.6 228.1 6.2 26.2 51.5 85.9 65.3 86.4 4.4 1364 2.7 1331.4 22.7
32.4 45.0 26.5 49.0 52.7 16.1 43.0 32.1 44.0 29.9 27.5 25.3 49.8 36.3 22.0 16.0 30.9 25.9 19.5 34.7 16.7 32.9 5.1 26.6 27.6 14.4 19.5 2005 2006 2001 2004 2004 2005 2001 2003 1998 2007 2000 2000 2004 2005 2004 1996 2004 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2002 2004
21.50 n.a. 4.74 0.03 13.44 1.15 21.81 22.59 21.49 11.72 38.81 42.47 50.47 26.79 41.64 n.a. 54.70 10.33 18.80 40.19 21.44 35.68 0.54 n.a. 22.62 0.40 22.81 15.93
48.54 n.a. 29.18 0.27 30.42 10.39 51.93 60.31 50.88 31.49 69.73 75.55 80.32 50.14 75.62 n.a. 77.29 34.40 40.49 68.20 53.80 70.37 7.81 n.a. 45.04 11.52 50.48 36.34 49.05 36.31
republic of Korea Hong Kong SAR,China (8) Pacific Cook Islands Fiji Kiribati Marshall Island Federal states of Micronesia Nauru Palau Papua New guinea Samoa Solomon Island Timor leste Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Total Asia Pacific World
24.34 0.861 54.5 2005 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 0.187 0.502 1.1 2003 38.0 1998 29.70 n.a. n.a. 43.56 n.a. n.a. n.a. 27.09
41.34 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 51.04 n.a. n.a. 70.33 n.a. n.a. n.a. 54.04
49912 n.a. 1827 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 45286 n.a. 2799 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2460936 n.a. 00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 01 n.a. 00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12 n.a. 15 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 49 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 13 n.a. 16 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 42 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 13 n.a. 14 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
0.219 3598.19 6615.9
e-Data for 1990 & 2000 Do not include hong kong or macau. * stat of world population 2007 ** http://earthtrends.wri.org
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.