Understanding of the intricate processes of poverty and land degradation is still extremely limited. Definition, in each process, is driven largely by the perceptions of those analyzing the phenomena. Each group brings its own strong perceptions to bear. The lack of clear conceptualization, the observed heterogeneity and the diverse perceptions of those attempting the exercise complicate attempts at measurement. Statistical problems in the available measurements of each phenomenon, arising, among other things, from lack of representativeness, reduce the confidence that can be attached to extrapolations. Evaluating cause and effect with confidence implies, ideally, being able to observe the processes at different points in time for a large number of well-defined and relatively homogeneous situations. Such comparable observations are generally not available. In most cases the lack of adequate data and the complexity of the relationships that need to be modeled seriously limits rigorous empirical verification. Since a fuller understanding of the complex interaction of the two processes naturally leads on from a more comprehensive understanding of the individual processes, it too suffers from all the problems impeding a deeper understanding of each.
The aggregate information available is not very useful for making judgments about poverty and land degradation. Evidence from the few available micro-level studies is mixed and often contradictory. Most of the available technical literature relates to the controversy regarding the reasons for the adoption (or non-adoption) of conservation practices. This literature does not specifically address the behavior of the poor except through the cost implications of different conservation technologies and the incentive structures that influence adoption.
Theoretical considerations are often cited as to why the poor can be expected to behave in ways that are land degrading. However, these considerations can generally apply just as well to the non-poor and can be explained by overall low levels of development. The pressures arising out of the processes of economic development that might induce people to degrade the land have be classified, in the literature, as those related to: increases in population; declines in common property resources; interest rate changes; and technology transfers.
However, the literature also includes considerable theoretical and empirical evidence that indicates that the response to population pressures and market forces, in the long run, is an endogenous process of adaptation towards sustainable behavior.
At the household level much more research, in a variety of settings over a reasonable length of time, is needed for a fuller understanding of decision-making processes, especially in terms of the relationship with land. Such research should ideally be built on detailed household-level longitudinal socioeconomic surveys with specific land use and quality assessment modules. Only then will it be possible to differentiate behavior by poverty status. The CGIAR is well placed to support such research.
The CGIAR can also facilitate much greater interaction between the different "actors" to bring realism where uninformed perceptions prevail, especially in the area of land degradation. Such interactions will lend much greater realism to the understanding of issues that have important implications for the present and future of humankind. These interactions should naturally build on existing understanding, so as not to reinvent the wheel. The broad research agenda on poverty and land degradation can only be well defined after a reasonable period over which such understanding is established.
Such research can only enhance the efforts within the CGIAR System on integrating commodity research with natural-resource management considerations. This emphasis is properly placed and relevant. The CGIAR is a key forum for addressing the global dearth of knowledge about the implications of land degradation. A research agenda is needed that makes good use of the available information in order to better focus on poverty alleviation through the integration of commodity and natural-resource management research. Its relevance must be enhanced through the collection and use of more disaggregated information.
