• Like
Poverty and Natural Resource Management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Poverty and Natural Resource Management

  • 397 views
Published

Presented at the Basin Focal Project Poverty Mapping Workshop, November 2007, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Presented at the Basin Focal Project Poverty Mapping Workshop, November 2007, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Published in Education , Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
397
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Poverty and NRM Nancy Johnson y CIAT/CPWF BFP Poverty Mapping Workshop, Chiang Mai Oct 31-Nov 2, 2007
  • 2. Q1 Whose uses the results? 1. CPWF for design, targeting and measuring impact 2. Other donors or NGOs for similar reasons 3. Governments – but they also care very much y y about growth. Since CPWF is a cross-sectoral program, we need to define poverty in a way that is also p y y relevant to other sectors. => Water poor ≤ Poor
  • 3. Q2 What are the measurable links between water and livelihoods? OR Q2 What are the measurable links between water and poverty?
  • 4. Evolution of Poverty Measures Poor Non Poor 1st Generation Static Income/ Expenditure Poverty 2nd Generation Transitory Chronic Never poor Dynamic Income/ Expenditure (panels) 3rd G d Generation i Structural Stochastic Structural S l Stochastic S h i Static Asset Poverty 4th Generation Dynamic Asset Persistently poor Dynamically mobile (long term) y Poverty Source: Carter and Barrett, 2006
  • 5. Implications for NRM • Many frameworks for linking NRM and livelihoods are 3rd generation approaches (SLF, (SLF IAD) • But water could be in either (productive asset and consumption good) t d ti d)
  • 6. Actors, action resources, collective action and outcomes in a watershed unit Land use and water Context Action Arena resource investments Water resources Financial resources Risk Actors Collective action Local and customary Patterns of Rules Individual interactions institutions st tut o s action i Secondary and tertiary nodes Action resources Outcomes and effects on welfare & water transition lf t t iti Source Swallow et al 2006, adapted from Ostrom
  • 7. Stages of Progress Methodology f U d t di P M th d l for Understanding Poverty D t Dynamics i 1. Select communities (25-60 households) ( ) and obtain census of all families 2. Assemble representative g p p group
  • 8. Portrerillo, Coello N Etapa Rasgata Baja, Fuquene g j , q 1 Mejoramiento de la alimentación 2 Se compran animales pequeños 3 Mejora vestido N Etapa 4 Mejora vivienda (techo) 1 Vestido 5 Se realiza instalación del agua 2 Arreglos casa 6 Invierte en educación (escuela) 3 Primaria 7 Energía eléctrica E í lé t i 4 Agua 8 Instalación del servicio de sanitario 5 Animales / Huerta 9 Mejora vivienda (piso) 10 Electrodomésticos básicos 6 Arriendo lote 11 Ampliar vivienda ( 1 habitación) 7 Vaca 12 Pequeño negocio agrícola 8 Bachillerato 13 Vestido y educación (BACHILLERATO) 14 Compra de animal grande 15 Ampliar el negocio 16 Comprar medio de transporte (moto) 3. Define poverty, and stages of p g p y, g progress 4. Define period of study (25 years), and define each household’s status then household s and now
  • 9. 5. Groups households into categories: – A – Poor then, poor now then – B – Poor then, not poor now – C – Not poor then, poor now – D – Not poor then, Not poor now – E – Didn’t live in community 25 y y years ago g 6. For a sample of households, ask for reasons behind the change
  • 10. Comportamiento de la Pobreza 1.0 Rasgata Baja g j 0.9 Ladera Grande Chapala 0.8 Chipaquin 0.7 Penas de Cajon % de Pobres s 0.6 Palacios Apartadero 0.5 La Isla 0.4 La Puntica Gacha 0.3 Chinzaque 0.2 Guata 0.1 Nemogá Pescadores 0.0 Inicial Actual
  • 11. Results of Stages of Progress: Frequency of elements appearing below poverty line Description Order Frequency Food 1 23 Education 2 20 Clothing 3 15 Housing 4 18 Small Animals 5 18 Land 6 8 Services (water and electricity) 7 9 Appliances 8 10 Health 9 6 Crops 10 4 Other 11 2 Transportation 12 2 Savings/investment 13 2 Recreation 14 2 Water was mentioned by 23 of 25, but was only below the poverty line in 9
  • 12. Change in Probability of Being Poor in 2005 if Cause is Excluded (n=359) C i E l d d ( 359) 30% 10% s lp n s t b n -10% t e ce n lp n en en m io i lie jo io en he io tio he an le ns m at id at le qu m ca ob i ly uc st ri t cc 't fic ab Pe Fa ov Fú i fi m ve pr he /A Ed si St rs Fa G ew In er l th In i ly ve s/ iv m ea N di ng .D -30% Fa H k vi ri c oc Sa Ag st ve Li -50% -70% Cause Diversification of rural livelihoods Doesn’t mean that poor livelihoods. Doesn t aren’t interested in NRM since many jobs are resource-based but the links are indirect.
  • 13. Q3 What are the modifiable factors that could (influence the ability of water to) alleviate poverty? • Direct – water for domestic consumption – Where is this really an element of poverty? – Wh t can th CPWF actually d about it? What the t ll do b t • Indirect via agriculture and NRM – CPWF will work on agriculture and catchment g management, but will this alleviate poverty? • Indirect via labor, service and product market linkages – Critical to keep in mind to avoid doing harm
  • 14. A proposal: Look t P L k at Poverty Impacts by Topic t I t b T i • Global and national policies • Benefit sharing • R i f d agriculture and catchment Rain-fed i lt d t h t management • MUS (including irrigation) Topics x Type of impact x Basin
  • 15. • Equity – distribution of benefits also matters
  • 16. BFP poverty presentation • Level of impact – just affect poor people or get them out of poverty? Poverty trap theory and why it i good. Th t th d h is d There are ththose who are against it as t h i t too idealistic and unrealistic, but if we only want to have a marginal impact on the poor, then they probably won’t be very interested either and they will need to co-invest • Causality issue. You can find relationships that say the poor have less access to resources, poor have more insecure tenure, but are these causes or consequences? • Alleviating poverty versus preventing the non-poor from slipping backwards? – Implications look at indirect impacts especially via labor, service and product markets. – Look at opportunities for new investments in water rather than re-allocation of existing, at least at community scale?
  • 17. • For example, how can we upgrade existing irrigation systems and services to support non- irrigation livelihoods ( g livestock, home g g (e.g. , gardens, and water dependent small scale enterprises) , p p ) and domestic uses? Upgrades could include a range of physical infrastructure add-ons (at system and household levels) and changes in management (such as releases of water for domestic uses rather than for irrigation scheduling, reservoir storage regulation for fisheries, water access rights for non-irrigation users). • Mary Renwick quote – i thi efficiency/productivity or poverty impact? M R i k t is this ffi i / d ti it t i t?