malnourished and food insecure population cannot be the foot soldiers fighting the • Combating poverty • Empowering people cause of sustainable agriculture • % of population below poverty line Strategy: Using core competence in science & technology – including space applications • Setting ecological integrity .Poverty in India (in Million) SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN INDIA – A HOPE OR HYPE ??? 1990s 320 36 2000 260 19 Poverty.geographical profile Central North East West (FAO/RAP.2001) South 0 20 40 60 1999-00 1983-84 Poor % Population Who will feed India ? – small and marginal farmers Millions of poor.

Source: Wasteland Atlas of India NRSA 2000 .WASTELAND ATLAS OF INDIA • On 1:50.000 scale digital at village/micro-watershed level Total wasteland : 63..Poverty Trap .8 Mha Cultivable wasteland: 45 Mha Looking Beyond wasteland mapping…..

Land They are often visible in proximity to each other highlighting the direct link between the two ? .POSSIBLE LINKAGES… POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE Income Poverty Ecological Poverty  Marginal Agri.

Land AREA (sq.POSSIBLE LINKAGES… FOOD INSECURE POPULATION Ecological Poverty Depth of Hunger  Marginal Agri. km.29.) Area > 30% = 5.67.080 .30% = 2.525 Area 5 .

o Uttar Pradesh has 9% wastelands with more than 44% population below poverty line. R2 = 0. o Jharkhand. o 70 % Population below Poverty Line 60 50 40 30 20 Bihar Assam Maharastr a o Similarly. West Bengal with just over 6 % wastelands has got more than 40 % population below poverty line. for example.0167 Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh HP 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Waste land .Does Ecological and Income Poverty Co-exists? No… Bihar. has got more than 60% population below poverty line. with 19% wastelands. is characterized by just 6 % wastelands with 57% population below poverty line.

Kerala. Rajasthan is characterized by more than 30 % wastelands and 26 % incidence of poverty. there are States like Punjab with just 4% wastelands and 11% population below poverty line. followed by Andhra Pradesh. Haryana. • Similarly. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 Bihar Assam Maharastr a R2 = 0.Does Ecological and Income Poverty Co-exists? Yes… % Population below Poverty Line • For example. Gujarat etc. • On the other hand. Assam with more than 25 % wastelands has got more than 45 % population below poverty line.0167 Rajasthan HP Andhra Pradesh 20 30 40 50 60 % Waste land .

Technology Institutional/ Social Factor Incidence of Poverty Inequitable access land. market and credit Databases on relationship to examine the direction of policies/interventions? . Information.ECOLOGICAL AND INCOME POVERTY DYNAMICS Role of economic policies and interventions in altering the relationship Natural Resources Labour & Capital Flow/Mobility Spatial Integration of Economic activities New Lively hood opportunities Powerlessness of poor to gain access or use available natural resources Interventions Program.

1999 .1Million spending by Government Increase in productivity Poverty reduction 20 0 R&D Road Irrigation EducationPower Rural Dev.4 -0.8 -1. and Poverty in Rural India Percent 8 6 4 2 0 -0.0 R&D Persons 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Number of people moved out of poverty as a result of additional Rs.Government Spending. Growth.6 -0.2 -0.Soil & Water Health Source: IFPRI Report.Soil & Water Health Increase in growth of productivity and reduction in poverty as result of Government expenditure Road IrrigationEducationPower Rural Dev.

NABARD. SHG linkages . DWCRA and MWS) Wage Employment Programme Jawahar Gram Samiti Yojana (JGSY) Employment Assurance Scheme • Infrastructure Development Programme Indira Awas Jojana Pradhan Mantri Gramadaya Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Rural Electrification • National Social Assistance Programme National Maternity Benefits Scheme National Old Age Pension Scheme Annapurna • Micro finance.Government Policy and Programme towards Poverty Reduction • Self Employment Programme  Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana Synergy and Convergence of (IRDP. TRYSEM.

and addressing poverty alleviation and natural resources development? Do they allow the economic and spatial integration of poor and marginalized to market forces to happen ? Are they opening up new marginal income earning opportunities in the informal sector of economy ? Did they succeed in reducing their dependence on natural resource base for livelihoods? .REACHING OUT DOWN THE LINE??? Whether the various policies & interventions are well-targeted.

need investments in rural infrastructure towards poverty reduction.need other priority 50 60 Rural infrastructure 80 60 Rajasthan 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 Wasteland (%) Andhra Pradesh Maharastra . West Bengal . Bengal Bihar 40 Maharastra 0 0 20 HP 40 60 80 120 100 Bihar Assam Population Below Poverty Line (%) The spatial dynamics of poverty seem to be influenced by the rural infrastructure. Bihar.. while Maharastra. HP.Rural Infrastructure Index (%) Economic & Spatial Integration to Market Forces 120 R2 = 0.50 80 W. and the growth of production and consumption linkages. availability of transport links..

Uttaranchal. 5 Jharkhand. as wastelands are quite low in these States. Himanchal. wasteland to be put to use towards income generation. Deficit in food production (ratio) 4 3 2 1 0 0 Bihar Maharastra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh Assam 10 20 30 % of wasteland 40 50 60 . employment creation. Kerala Jharkhand The interventions in food secured States Punjab.. Kerala and Bihar. Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka need to be focused on off-farm income generation. Assam. Haryana. Rajasthan ..Policy Interventions towards Food Security On contrary. Chattisgarh. both being also highly food insecure States need to have interventions in other areas for poverty alleviation.

It may increase further at village level and thus calling for dis-aggregated wasteland mapping to establish closer linkages with incidence of poverty.0167 at State levels to as good as around 0.26 30 40 50 Wasteland % . Incidence of Poverty (% poor) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 Adilabad Chittor East Godavari R2 = 0.Disaggregated Poverty Mapping Regression coefficient (R square) between incidence of poverty and wastelands increased from 0.5 for quite a few States at the district level.

In a typical state. the focus should be on spatial integration of rural poor to the market forces and creation of alternate livelihood systems. For micro-level interventions. disaggregated poverty mapping depicting the relationship between ecological and income poverty is called for. Evolving the economic policy instruments which could lead to substantial poverty reduction as well as enrichment of natural resources base.Wasteland mapping could be used to examine the impact of policies and interventions towards poverty reduction. .

it is the failure of the institutions.He and She are poor.A Perception . . polices and programme that they continue to be poor and marginalized. In fact. Not because they are borne so.