BOX 10
India: Common Lands and Food Security Jagdeesh Rao Puppala and Rahul Chaturvedi, Foundation for Ecological Security
I
n a landmark judgment issued in January 2011, India’s Supreme Court ruled that
arrangements for effective self-governance of community property at the local level be made and that those encroaching on “com- mons” be evicted. “Commons” refers not only to common pool resources like forests, pastures, riverbeds, bodies of water, and farmland owned jointly by the community and enjoyed by all but also to genetic mate- rial such as seeds and livestock breeds adapted by local communities. These shared resource systems and village govern- ments are crucial to sustaining the farming systems—and, thereby, the livelihoods and food security—of the more than 300 million people living and working in rural communities in India, where common lands are estimated to constitute roughly 15 to 25 percent of the geographical area. In response to the Supreme Court judg- ment, some state governments have already
taken measures to improve tenure security, strengthen institutional arrangements for local governance, and restore common lands. At the national level, preliminary policy planning also calls for a commons policy and increased public investments to help build common property regimes.1 In addition to contributing to food
and nutritional security, commons help maintain critical ecological functions for the sustenance of farming systems. Forest commons play a crucial role in maintaining stream flows, groundwater recharge, and nutrient transfers. They serve as habitats for pollinators and pest predators, thereby building the resilience of agro-ecosystems, and provide an institutional setting that energizes collective action while minimiz- ing undesirable individual action that can lead to the exploitation of resources. A 2010 study in rainfed areas of India underscores the continuing dependence
of rural households on commons: across the 3,000 households surveyed, 53 per- cent accessed commons for agricultural inputs, 69 percent for livestock graz- ing, 62 percent for domestic and live- stock water requirements, 74 percent for fuelwood collection, and 37 percent for food items for household consump- tion.2 Roughly 45 percent of the total fodder requirement is met by common resources, and commons are estimated to contribute 20 to 40 percent to household annual incomes. Despite all of this, com- mons have long been neglected in policies and programs that aim to restore natural resources. However, recent developments, including the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, indicate that this is beginning to change, and the role of local communities in effectively governing natural resources is receiving recognition and leading to more decentralized governance.
while Brazil’s agricultural area has remained rela- tively unchanged, at 68.5 million hectares, since 2005, food production in Brazil appears to have increased by 11–17 percentage points between 2007 and 2009.8 Tis is a good example of how government policies and strategies can help agri- culture-based economies achieve sustainable land management in collaboration with the interna- tional community.
SUSTAINABLY INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
Besides halting land degradation, it is crucial to produce more food on current farmland. Research- ers have shown that land productivity will have to meet more than three-quarters of the growth
in global food demand between now and 2050.9 Meeting the increase in food demand will mean raising crop productivity in regions where there is a wide gap between actual yields and potential yields. In the developed regions and East Asia, growth in crop yields is slowing as the gap between potential and actual yields narrows. For the three major cereals—rice, wheat, and maize—the larg- est yield gaps occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and South Asia.10 In Sub-Saharan Africa, which has the widest
gaps between actual and potential yields, these gaps can be closed by investing in, for example, agricultural research, improvements in market con- ditions, and beter rural services, which will pro- vide technical support and incentives for increasing productivity. But among the most important steps
LAND DEGRADATION 65
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126