INDIA IN THE 21 st  CENTURY: LOOKING BEYOND A GROWING ECONOMY Shreekant Gupta Delhi School of Economics University of Delh...
OUTLINE <ul><li>Importance of the natural resource base </li></ul><ul><li>Poverty and the environment: a 2-way street? </l...
Importance of the natural resource base <ul><li>“ Poor countries are for the most part  biomass-based subsistence economie...
Importance of the natural resource base: practice <ul><li>Village Sukhomajri, Panchkula distt., Haryana </li></ul><ul><ul>...
Some specific examples <ul><li>Water </li></ul><ul><li>Energy (fuelwood, dung) </li></ul><ul><li>Fodder for cattle – direc...
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of environmental goods and services in a primitive economy <ul><li>Wild foods (vegetables, animals, fish, insects...
Poverty and the environment: two-way relationship <ul><li>Common wisdom – poverty causes environmental degradation </li></...
At the same time…. <ul><li>… lack of understanding of the effect of natural resource degradation on household incomes… </l...
Public assets vs. private assets <ul><li>Environmental goods and services (common-pool natural resources) in effect serve ...
Conceptualising the poverty- environment linkage <ul><li>Use  of natural resources </li></ul><ul><li>Dependence  on natura...
Quantifying the linkages <ul><li>Jodha (1986), 502 households in 21 Indian villages,  dependence  on common-pool natural r...
Quantifying the linkages (contd.) <ul><li>Cavendish (2000),  197 households in 29 villages in Zimbabwe,  finds much higher...
Quantifying the linkages (contd.) <ul><li>All four studies also examine the relationship between income and the absolute l...
Research objective: Jhabua study <ul><li>Understand how  use   of and  dependence  on natural resources varies with househ...
Other research objectives (work in progress) <ul><li>Estimate marginal contribution of natural resource stocks to househol...
Target audience <ul><li>Policy makers  –  district level  (Collector, Additional Collector, forest officials) </li></ul><u...
 
Jhabua <ul><li>Land distribution – 54% agricultural, 19% forest, 27% wasteland. </li></ul><ul><li>Only 49% of men and 26% ...
Research site
Jhabua
Jhabua
Sampling procedure <ul><li>Two stage  sampling design </li></ul><ul><li>First stage  -- stratified random sample of villag...
Data collection and quality <ul><li>Household-level and village-level data from  60 villages  and  535 households  for Jun...
Data entry and validation <ul><li>Objective—to generate a high quality, </li></ul><ul><li>error free, internally consisten...
Field Research Team
Field Research Team
Field Research Team
Income categories: Jhabua <ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock rearing </li></ul><ul><li>Common pool resource (...
Main CPRs collected: Jhabua <ul><li>wood for fuel </li></ul><ul><li>wood for construction </li></ul><ul><li>fodder </li></...
 
Natural resource dependence, biomass, and total income (whole sample)
Dependence, Biomass & Total Income (Collecting Households)
Relationship between Use, Biomass, and Total Income for Whole Sample
Mainstreaming the environment into poverty alleviation <ul><li>Need to go beyond cliches: Gross Nature Product vs. Gross N...
Conclusions <ul><li>“green” policies that increase biomass availability may benefit the non-poor as well as the poor </li>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

India, beyond the glittering economy: By Shreekanth Gupta

891 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
891
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
44
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Emphasise the ongoing nature of our inquiry into poverty-environment issues. Started in 2001 but continuing to date. Looking at various facets of the poverty-environment relationship: role of natural K in poverty alleviation, gender and environment, poverty-inequality and environment, environment and governance… Mention the research team and the collaborative nature of this ongoing enquiry (Urvashi, Klaas). Acknowledge support of Resources for the Future (RFF), World Bank, Dutch government through PREM project at the Free University, Amsterdam, National Science Foundation, SANDEE (South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics), and Fulbright Fellowship (Gupta’s time at MIT).
  • India, beyond the glittering economy: By Shreekanth Gupta

    1. 1. INDIA IN THE 21 st CENTURY: LOOKING BEYOND A GROWING ECONOMY Shreekant Gupta Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi March 26, 2007 [email_address]
    2. 2. OUTLINE <ul><li>Importance of the natural resource base </li></ul><ul><li>Poverty and the environment: a 2-way street? </li></ul><ul><li>Quantifying the linkages </li></ul><ul><li>Mainstreaming the environment into poverty alleviation </li></ul>
    3. 3. Importance of the natural resource base <ul><li>“ Poor countries are for the most part biomass-based subsistence economies , in that their rural folk eke out a living from products obtained directly from plant and animals&quot; (Dasgupta & M ä ler, Handbook of Development Economics, 1995, p. 2373) </li></ul><ul><li>“… tackling environmental degradation is an integral part of lasting and effective poverty reduction.” (World Bank, DfID, UNDP, EC, 2002) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Importance of the natural resource base: practice <ul><li>Village Sukhomajri, Panchkula distt., Haryana </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sustainable development through Chakriya Vikas Pranali (P.R. Mishra) in the mid-1970s—regeneration & conservation of forests and fodder by and for the community </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other examples of collective action to regenerate natural resources and its benefits--Ralegaon Siddhi (Maharashtra), Seed and Alwar (Rajasthan) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Some specific examples <ul><li>Water </li></ul><ul><li>Energy (fuelwood, dung) </li></ul><ul><li>Fodder for cattle – direct & through grazing </li></ul><ul><li>Timber (agricultural implements, housing) </li></ul><ul><li>Forest products (mahua flowers, tendu leaves, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigate income inequalities, provide nutrition, generate employment </li></ul>
    6. 12. Examples of environmental goods and services in a primitive economy <ul><li>Wild foods (vegetables, animals, fish, insects, mice, birds), wild goods (gum, soap, oils, resins, dyes), wild medicines </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple uses of wood (timber, firewood, agricultural implements, furniture, utensils, musical instruments, hunting implements, rope from bark </li></ul><ul><li>Grass, reeds, rushes, canes and leaves (thatching, mats, baskets, leaf litter—fertilizer) </li></ul><ul><li>Other (pottery clay, termite mounds—fertilizer, fodder, water) </li></ul>
    7. 13. Poverty and the environment: two-way relationship <ul><li>Common wisdom – poverty causes environmental degradation </li></ul><ul><li>Neglected link – environmental degradation causes poverty </li></ul>Poverty Environmental Degradation
    8. 14. At the same time…. <ul><li>… lack of understanding of the effect of natural resource degradation on household incomes… </li></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><li>… a lack of studies that quantify this effect… </li></ul><ul><li>implies </li></ul><ul><li>failure to recognize potential of improved natural resource management as a policy tool to alleviate poverty </li></ul><ul><li>do not know who loses (gains) from natural resource degradation (regeneration) </li></ul>
    9. 15. Public assets vs. private assets <ul><li>Environmental goods and services (common-pool natural resources) in effect serve as a public asset for rural poor… </li></ul><ul><li>substitute for private assets (land, livestock, farm capital, human capital, financial wealth) that the rural poor lack </li></ul><ul><li>If so, can natural resource management form the basis of poverty alleviation policies? </li></ul>
    10. 16. Conceptualising the poverty- environment linkage <ul><li>Use of natural resources </li></ul><ul><li>Dependence on natural resources </li></ul>
    11. 17. Quantifying the linkages <ul><li>Jodha (1986), 502 households in 21 Indian villages, dependence on common-pool natural resources decreases with income: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>poor households 9-26% of income from CPRs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(relatively) rich households 1-4% of income from CPRs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reddy and Chakravarty (1999), 232 households in 12 Himalayan villages, similarly find dependence on resources decreases from 23% for the poor to 4% for the rich </li></ul>
    12. 18. Quantifying the linkages (contd.) <ul><li>Cavendish (2000), 197 households in 29 villages in Zimbabwe, finds much higher rates of dependency with poor households deriving as much as 40% of their incomes from natural resources and the rich deriving about 30%, but use of natural resources increases with income </li></ul><ul><li>On the other hand, Adhikari (2003), 330 households in 8 “forest user groups” in Nepal, finds dependence increases with income, from 14% for the poor to 22% for the rich </li></ul>
    13. 19. Quantifying the linkages (contd.) <ul><li>All four studies also examine the relationship between income and the absolute level of resource use, but find no consistent trend: Jodha finds that use, along with dependence, decreases with income, Reddy and Chakravarty find an initial slight increase followed by a decrease, and Cavendish and Adhikari find an increase throughout </li></ul>
    14. 20. Research objective: Jhabua study <ul><li>Understand how use of and dependence on natural resources varies with household income </li></ul><ul><li>None of the previous studies looks at who wins from regeneration or loses from degradation. We focus on this as well </li></ul>
    15. 21. Other research objectives (work in progress) <ul><li>Estimate marginal contribution of natural resource stocks to household incomes, or their shadow values – measures impact of policy initiatives to increase these stocks </li></ul><ul><li>Effects of natural resource availability on household division of labor (esp. women’s time allocation decisions) </li></ul>
    16. 22. Target audience <ul><li>Policy makers – district level (Collector, Additional Collector, forest officials) </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers – state-level (rural development department, forest department, Chief Minister’s secretariat) </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers – federal level (Planning Commission, Ministry of Rural Dev., Ministry of Environment and Forests) </li></ul><ul><li>NGOs – district, state, national (CSE) </li></ul>
    17. 24. Jhabua <ul><li>Land distribution – 54% agricultural, 19% forest, 27% wasteland. </li></ul><ul><li>Only 49% of men and 26% of women literate. </li></ul><ul><li>Life expectancy 51 years. </li></ul><ul><li>HDI 0.356 – lowest of 48 districts in M.P. </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture – main occupation (employs >90% of work force) – primarily rain-fed. </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural income supplemented with income from livestock rearing and forest products (fuelwood, tendu leaves, mahua flowers/seeds). </li></ul>
    18. 25. Research site
    19. 26. Jhabua
    20. 27. Jhabua
    21. 28. Sampling procedure <ul><li>Two stage sampling design </li></ul><ul><li>First stage -- stratified random sample of villages (ensure cross-section variablility in natural resource stocks) </li></ul><ul><li>Second stage -- stratified random sample of households (landless, small and other) </li></ul>
    22. 29. Data collection and quality <ul><li>Household-level and village-level data from 60 villages and 535 households for June 2000-May 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Tests for quality and consistency at various levels (visual check by Field Supervisor, internal consistency check during data entry) </li></ul><ul><li>Double entry of all household and village data </li></ul>
    23. 30. Data entry and validation <ul><li>Objective—to generate a high quality, </li></ul><ul><li>error free, internally consistent dataset </li></ul><ul><li>Step 1 – visual check by field supervisor </li></ul><ul><li>(skip codes, incomplete/missed entries) </li></ul><ul><li>Step 2 – data entry in field (Excel spreadsheets) </li></ul><ul><li>Step 3 – survey check program </li></ul><ul><li>Step 4 – check by PIs </li></ul><ul><li>Step 5 – field researchers resolve queries </li></ul><ul><li>Step 6 – double data entry </li></ul>
    24. 31. Field Research Team
    25. 32. Field Research Team
    26. 33. Field Research Team
    27. 34. Income categories: Jhabua <ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock rearing </li></ul><ul><li>Common pool resource (CPR) collection </li></ul><ul><li>Household enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>Wage employment </li></ul><ul><li>Financial transactions (borrowing, lending) </li></ul><ul><li>Transfers (state, NGOs, relatives, friends) </li></ul>
    28. 35. Main CPRs collected: Jhabua <ul><li>wood for fuel </li></ul><ul><li>wood for construction </li></ul><ul><li>fodder </li></ul><ul><li>mahua flowers </li></ul><ul><li>mahua seeds </li></ul><ul><li>tendu leaves </li></ul><ul><li>dung </li></ul>
    29. 37. Natural resource dependence, biomass, and total income (whole sample)
    30. 38. Dependence, Biomass & Total Income (Collecting Households)
    31. 39. Relationship between Use, Biomass, and Total Income for Whole Sample
    32. 40. Mainstreaming the environment into poverty alleviation <ul><li>Need to go beyond cliches: Gross Nature Product vs. Gross National Product (Approach Paper 10 th Five Year Plan, 2001) </li></ul><ul><li>Move outside conceptualising and implementing poverty alleviation and natural resource management in separate boxes </li></ul>
    33. 41. Conclusions <ul><li>“green” policies that increase biomass availability may benefit the non-poor as well as the poor </li></ul><ul><li>Thus, design issues and implementation are important to ensure equitable distribution of benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Need to mainstream natural resource management into poverty alleviation and take a holistic approach (education, employment generation, environmental regeneration) </li></ul>

    ×