Table 5: Some Social Consequences of Land Degradation in Sub-Saharan AfricaConsequenceIncreased PovertyReduced FoodSecurityHunger andMalnutritionIncreased HealthProblemsForced MigrationIncreased LandResource ConflictsSocial ConsequencesNature and Severity In 2001, 45 percent of Africa‘s population lived below the poverty line of lessthan $1 per day. If nothing changes, absolute numbers of poor will continue to increase, so by2015 close to half the world‘s poor will live in Africa. In the decade of 1990-2000, cereal availability per capita in Africa decreasedfrom 136 to 118 kg per year. In 1997-99, some 194 million people (up from 167.7 in 1990-92) or 34percent of the African population had insufficient food to lead healthy andproductive lives. At the end of the 1990's, more than 20 percent of the population in 30 Africancountries were undernourished. In 18 countries more than 35 percent werechronically hungry. In 2001, 28 million people in Africa faced food emergencies due to droughts,floods and strife, with 25 million needing emergency food and agriculturalassistance. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 15 percent of the population or 183 million people willstill be undernourished by 2030 – by far the highest total for any region, andonly 11 million less than in 1997-99 (<strong>CAADP</strong> 2002). Malnutrition is expected to increase by an average of 32 percent (UNDP2006). Hunger and malnutrition in Africa have increased susceptibility to malaria,HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis (<strong>CAADP</strong> 2002, Sanchez 2002). Degradation of water resources has increased the risk of water bornediseases. Land degradation has led to forced migration of individuals, rural householdsand communities, when declining productivity meant their land resourcescould no longer provide for their needs, or when their personal security wasthreatened (e.g. by encroaching sand dunes, floods or land-slides). Conflicts (between settled farmers, herders and forest dwellers) over accessto land resources have increased as households and communities affectedby land degradation have encroached on the traditional lands of others in thesearch for new land for their crops and/or livestock.Through its impact on crop yields, livestock productivity, availability of forest products and indirectlyon fisheries, land degradation reduces the ability of individual rural households to be food secure.Malnutrition due to poverty and declining food production and quality, combined with increased waterborne diseases due to declining water quality, will result in increased health problems with theirassociated costs at both the individual household and wider society levels.Given the extreme reliance of rural livelihoods on agriculture, forestry and livestock, it is reasonableto conclude that persistent and deepening poverty in Africa is in part an outcome of stagnation in theproductivity of land and labour, itself a consequence of land degradation and unsustainableagricultural practices.60
Annex 2: Agricultural Water Projects and Poverty ReductionDirect and indirect impacts on income poverty reductionInvestment in agricultural water management can reduce income poverty directly and indirectly. <strong>The</strong>first direct effect is on farm incomes. Agricultural water management can increase yields, allow for anincrease in the intensity of cropping and a change to higher value crops, and thus increase farmoutputs and incomes. Farm outputs and incomes can also be increased because irrigation itselfjustifies the use of complementary yield enhancing inputs. For example, the component study onagricultural water development for poverty reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa (IFAD, 2007)reviewed five irrigation development programmes in Madagascar, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Averageincreases in per capita farm incomes on rice projects in Madagascar and Tanzania were found to bein the range of 86 to 220 percent, while incomes on non-rice projects in Zimbabwe increasedbetween 14 to 600 percent. <strong>The</strong> average increase in per capita farm incomes across the sets of casestudy projects was 226 percent. Investment in irrigation, in these cases, more-than tripled averageper capita incomes. Moreover, none of the projects studied were achieving anywhere near optimumyields and outputs. For example, the weighted average paddy yields at one project studied (UpperMandrare Basin Project, Madagascar) were well below potential at 1.9 tonnes per hectare and 1.3tonnes per hectare respectively for the main and off-season crop. Similarly, average irrigated grainmaize yields at three non-rice projects in Zimbabwe were only 2.5 to 3.4 tonnes per hectare. <strong>The</strong>lesson is clear: even moderately performing investment in irrigation can have significant impacts onfarm incomes and hence on poverty reduction. <strong>The</strong> corollary is that such projects could have a fargreater impact on poverty reduction if they performed better.<strong>The</strong> second direct effect of agricultural water management on income poverty is via ruralemployment. Additional demand for labour is created first for construction and on-going maintenanceof canals, wells, pumps and the like (or land preparation in the case of investments in in-fieldrainwater management) as well as for crop production and farm-to-market activities. Thus,agricultural water development increases both the numbers of workers required and (because ofmultiple cropping) their period of employment (Lipton et al., 2003). In the projects analysed by thestudy, investment in irrigation was found to have resulted in an incremental 45 days/ha of wagelabour on average, over and above farm family labour, valued at approximately $1/labour-day (IFAD,2007).<strong>The</strong> third direct effect is via food prices. Increased food outputs can reduce local food prices and thusimprove real net incomes among food purchasers. At the same time, positive effects on real netincomes will still be experienced by food producers and wage labourers provided the effect ofreduced prices is offset by increased output and employment. On the other hand, negative effectsmay be experienced by surplus producers in remote dry-land cropping areas when agricultural waterdevelopment is introduced. However, because the majority of the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa are netfood purchasers, the overall effect of reduced food prices on income poverty reduction and hungercan be expected to be positive (Lipton et al., 2003).<strong>The</strong> indirect impacts of agricultural water development on income poverty can include those obtainedvia rural and urban employment as a result of growth in the rural and urban non-farm economy.Agricultural growth can influence non-farm activity in at least three ways: through production,consumption and labour demand links (Rosegrant et al., 2005). Income and employment multiplierswithin the surrounding non-farm economy can be particularly large: between 1.5 and 2.0 in Asia(Haggblade et al., 1989 and Hazell et al., 1991; both cited in Rosegrant et al., 2005), although theyare only about one-half as large in Africa (Dorosh et al., 2000 and Haggblade et al., 1989; both citedin Rosegrant et al., 2005). Lower multipliers in Africa were attributed (Dorosh et al.) to low per capitaincomes, poor infrastructure and farming technologies that required few purchased inputs — in otherwords, to a less developed agriculture sector. Water-managed agriculture intrinsically involves higherlevels of inputs — including labour — and results in greater employment, outputs and incomes thandry-land agriculture. Thus, the multipliers from successful agricultural water investment are likely tobe higher than those for investment in dry-land agriculture in general. Although no information wasavailable on the non-farm employment impacts of agricultural water development in Sub-SaharanAfrica, non-farm employment in India has been found to be higher in irrigated villages than in nonirrigatedvillages (Dasgupta et al., 1997; Jayaraj, 1992; Saleth, 1996, all cited in Rosegrant et al.,61
- Page 3 and 4:
Lead TeamBWALYA Martin, NEPAD Secre
- Page 5 and 6:
3.2.4 Water and irrigation manageme
- Page 8 and 9:
Executive SummaryThe Framework for
- Page 10 and 11:
Focus on implementationThe heart of
- Page 12 and 13:
performance of the agricultural sec
- Page 14 and 15:
financial resources; and (v) provid
- Page 16 and 17:
and regional development. By contra
- Page 18 and 19:
Box 2: Summary of Land Degradation
- Page 20 and 21: Source: Douglas, 1994Apart from ine
- Page 22 and 23: Map 4: Extent of irrigation develop
- Page 24 and 25: Surface water is overwhelmingly the
- Page 26 and 27: 2.4 Crop production, livestock, fis
- Page 28 and 29: Policy, institutional and governanc
- Page 30 and 31: private sector and civil society ag
- Page 32 and 33: substantially. Overall, on a region
- Page 34 and 35: disciplinary experts required to so
- Page 36 and 37: 3.1.4 Landscape and ecosystem manag
- Page 38 and 39: quality that can enhance drought to
- Page 40 and 41: Box 5: Successful public large-scal
- Page 42 and 43: With considerable experience to dra
- Page 44 and 45: productivity has proved comparable
- Page 46 and 47: Issues related to the formulation a
- Page 48 and 49: Promotion market oriented AWM on a
- Page 50 and 51: TANZANIA: In Tanzania, water harves
- Page 52 and 53: improvement (e.g. planting, natural
- Page 54 and 55: ased GHG emission reductions in dev
- Page 56 and 57: of tourism closer to home, the Keny
- Page 58 and 59: commercial bank in London (Reuters,
- Page 60 and 61: Building African-owned coalitions a
- Page 62 and 63: provide the incentive for those uti
- Page 64 and 65: High level indicators of performanc
- Page 66 and 67: productivity and the capacity to pr
- Page 68 and 69: Soil Nutrient LossLoss of High Valu
- Page 72 and 73: 2005). Likewise, at the large-scale
- Page 74 and 75: Annex 3: Investment Performance and
- Page 76 and 77: Weaknesses in institutional capacit
- Page 78 and 79: Ecosystem assessment - so as to ide
- Page 80 and 81: Table 5: Mainstreaming and Up-Scali
- Page 82: identifying key gaps and improving
- Page 85 and 86: FAO. 2003b. Bruinsma, J. (ed.). 200