ICARDA annual report 2004

ICARDA Annual Report 2004
60
Project 4.2.
Socioeconomics of Agricultural Production
Systems in Dry Areas
K
nowledge gained through socioeconomic studies can be
applied when researchers work with farmers to develop
improved, more sustainable production systems and
household livelihood strategies. In 2004, ICARDA continued to
assess the impacts of new and traditional institutions on the welfare
of the rural poor. In northwest Syria, researchers evaluated
how a newly-introduced micro-finance scheme affected the
assets, debts, and incomes of 180 poor households. Informal local
institutions involved in cheese-making in dairy sheep systems in
dry marginal areas were also studied in detail using a sustainable
livelihoods approach.
Impacts of village credit
and savings associations
on poverty in Syria
Formal financial institutions often do
not reach the poorest in CWANA,
forcing them to borrow from local
lenders and traders, who charge high
interest rates. The high cost of borrowing
means that the poor cannot
build up assets, which limits their
ability to cope with the risks inherent
in these harsh environments.
Micro-finance institutions can
boost rural development by increasing
the rural poor’s access to capital.
These institutions are a relatively
recent innovation in CWANA, and
their effectiveness within the social
and cultural context of the region
has not been fully studied.
In 2000, the UNDP and the
Syrian Ministry of Agriculture and
Agrarian Reform inititiated the
Rural Community Development
Project (RCDP). The project set up
village credit and saving programs
in northern Syria’s Jabal al Hoss
region – an area of about 157,000
hectares of which 85% of the land is
cultivable. ICARDA examined the
impact of these credit institutions
on household poverty by assessing
three types of household:
1. Households from the first nine
villages where micro-credit
schemes were established,
which had borrowed money in
either 2000 or 2001,
2. Households from the same nine
villages which had not joined
the micro-credit scheme,
3. A control group of households
from seven randomly selected
villages in the project area.
ICARDA researchers surveyed 60
households in each category using
12 indicators to define household
poverty. These indicators reflected
different dimensions of poverty, and
covered human resources, dwellings,
assets, food security, and vulnerability.
Most of the micro-credit scheme
members (61.7%) were categorized
as ‘less poor,’ while 21.7% and 16.7%
belonged to the ‘poor’ and the ‘poorest’
categories, respectively (Fig. 30).
This spread reflects the fact that
micro-finance schemes were only
established in villages with at least
300 inhabitants and a road that was
accessible all year round. The
RDCP’s selection criteria excluded
smaller, less developed villages, and
most of the area’s ‘poor’ and ‘poorest’
households.
However, although a large proportion
of the ‘poorest’ category
was not reached by the RCDP, the
micro-credit scheme members,
including those categorized as ‘less
poor’, are actually some of the
poorest people in Syria.
In 2000, households in villages
with micro-credit schemes had significantly
more assets overall than
households in control villages,
regardless of whether they were
members of a micro-credit scheme.
By 2003, households in creditscheme
villages had increased their
total assets to a greater extent than
the control households, although
this increase was not statistically
significant.
Between 2003 and 2004, the livestock
holdings of credit-scheme
members increased more than
those of non-members from the
same village. By contrast, the livestock
assets of households in the
control group decreased. Microcredit
availability has, therefore,
Fig. 30. Poverty
categories in 2000,
according to type
of household:
credit-scheme
members and
non-members in
villages in which a
micro-credit
scheme had been
set up, and ‘control’
households
(randomly selected
from villages
within the region).