institutions or combinations of them cause changes in natural
resource use.
4.1 SPATAIL INTEGRATION OF RURAL POOR TO
MARKET AND CREATION OF ALTERNATE
LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS
Natural Resources data on soils, topography, vegetation, water
etc, have been often utilized to assess the economic potentials
of land areas. It is however equally important to understand
how macro-economic variables could determine the dynamics
of poverty and natural resources degradation relationship. In
this context, it is important to examine the role of certain
factors especially the education and rural infrastructure index
(Appendix I), which enable the poor to integrate them with
market and other off farm opportunities. Infra-structural
investments, notably road construction, have played major roles
in changing natural resource use. Roads have increased areas
under commercial agriculture, enabled entrepreneurs to invest
in natural resources development, and generally increased the
mobility of capital and labor.
In states like Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa,
while rural infrastructure has been very poor (Table 1), the
level of education (except for West Bengal) has also been
equally poor. Lack of these factors constrains the spatial
integration of poor to the market and other opportunities.
The states like Himanchal Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamilnadu and
Maharastra, by virtue of having higher rural infrastructure
though the level of education is still not high, have succeeded
integrating the poor to the market and exposed them to non-
farm opportunities. The rural hinterland in these states appears
to have achieved spatial integration, creating large markets for
commodities and labor.
The integration of poor to market and non-farm opportunities in
Kerala is driven more by literacy followed by rural
infrastructure and deficit in food production
The spatial dynamics of poverty seem to be influenced by the
rural infrastructure, availability of transport links, and the
growth of production and consumption linkages (Figure 5 and
6). The economic stimuli however have also been influenced by
several other factors: the structure of product and factory
markets, policies that encouraged private investments in natural
resources development, and the size and direction of public
investments.
Figure 5.0 Rural infrastructure index and wasteand
& 4207
x Bihar
3 R2 = 0.50 ’ .
e 80- W. Bengal ¢ e
5 « oF
3 + 0°
% .40. e? e
= e **e © Maharastra
S * HP
& 0 ï 1 T me
0 20 40 60 80
Population Below Poverty Line (96)
Figure 6.0 Rural infrastructure index vs. incidence of poverty
IAPRS & SIS, Vol.34, Part 7, “Resource and Environmental Monitoring”, Hyderabad, India, 2002
120 .
100 . einer
2 +
3
o 80 J + Assam
3 +
Le
pr +
9 60.
s? e e
- Rajasthan
= 40 | ®Andhra Pradesh
s * + +
3
Maharastra
x 20 J
0 Li T v 7 v
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wasteland (%)
4.2 FOOD INSECURITY, WASTELANDS AND SCOPE
FOR INTERVENTIONS
Poverty alleviation and food security are truly inseparable.
Food security, providing the economic access to the basic
nutritional food, is a means of poverty alleviation. In case of the
total dependence of the rural population on natural resources
for food and livelihood, wastelands have direct relevance to
food security. The figure 7 does not substantiate that the deficit
in food production (Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India, WFP
& MSSRF, 2001) is directly connected to wastelands (Table 1).
Jharkhand, Assam and Rajasthan with very high degree of food
insecurity as well as large incidence of wasteland, provide
unique case for institutional interventions wherein agricultural
expansion/intensification could form the basis of poverty
alleviation,
On contrary, Kerala and Bihar, both being also highly food
insecure States need to have interventions in other areas for
poverty alleviation, as wastelands are quite low in these States,
The interventions in food secured States Punjab, Chattisgarh,
Himanchal, Haryana, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka
need to be focused on off-farm income generation.
It is therefore important to highlight that the economic policies
and institutional interventions need to focus on spatial
integration of rural poor to the market forces and creation of
alternate livelihood systems. The strategy however could be
highly disaggregated depending on various in situ conditions
including the relationship between poverty and natural
resources degradation.
5,
Kerala
© 4 + +
S e
= Jharkhand
du
9
©
=
©
2024 nie
= Bihar Maharastra * Assam
o 1 + + + so : us
2 + + Andhra Pradesh .
5 *
= o}++— 7 ; : D ù
D
0 10 20 3 30 > 2
% of wasteland
Figure 7.0 Deficit in food production represented by the ratio of
consumption to production of cereals (1993 —94) vs. wastelands
For
endc
weal
incre
their
reso
leve!
exan
beca
Whe
prac
conj
mort
use-
insti
In c
as il
stoc]
poss
pove
poli
aggr
Pun
the :
subs
reso
Rur:
Rur:
facil
avai
Roa
Perc
Perc
Perc
Roa
Elec
proc
whk
Bett
hou:
Proc
redu
fuel
bear
acce
The
aver
calc
“Ro:
whe
