Poverty and Natural Resource Management

Poverty and NRM

Nancy JohnsonyCIAT/CPWF

BFP Poverty Mapping Workshop, Chiang MaiChiang Mai

Oct 31-Nov 2, 2007

Q1 Whose uses the results?1. CPWF for design, targeting and

measuring impactmeasuring impact2. Other donors or NGOs for similar reasons3. 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 yrelevant to other sectors.

=> Water poor ≤ Poor=> Water poor ≤ Poor

Q2 What are the measurable links between water and livelihoods?between water and livelihoods?

OR

Q2 What are the measurable links

OR

Q2 What are the measurable links between water and poverty?

Poor Non Poor

Evolution of Poverty Measures

1st GenerationStatic Income/Expenditure Poverty

Poor Non Poor

2nd Generation Dynamic Income/

Chronic Transitory Never poor

Expenditure (panels)

3 d G i S l S h i3rd GenerationStatic Asset Poverty

Structural Stochastic Structural Stochastic

4th GenerationDynamic Asset Poverty

Persistently poor Dynamically mobile (long term)y

Source: Carter and Barrett, 2006

Implications for NRMImplications for NRM

• Many frameworks for linking NRM and• Many frameworks for linking NRM and livelihoods are 3rd generation approaches (SLF IAD)(SLF, IAD)

• But water could be in either (productive t d ti d)asset and consumption good)

Actors, action resources, collective action and outcomes in a

Action ArenaContext Land use and water resource investments

watershed unit

Collective action

Individual i

Patterns of interactionsRules

Actors

Water resourcesFinancial resources Risk

Local and customary institutions

action

Outcomes and effects on lf & t t iti

Action resources

st tut o s

Secondary and tertiary nodes

welfare & water transition

Source Swallow et al 2006, adapted from Ostrom

Stages of Progress M th d l f U d t di P t D iMethodology for Understanding Poverty Dynamics

1. Select communities (25-60 households) ( )and obtain census of all families

2. Assemble representative groupp g p

N Etapa1 Mejoramiento de la alimentaciónRasgata Baja, Fuquene

Portrerillo, Coello

N Etapa1 Vestido2 Arreglos casa

2 Se compran animales pequeños 3 Mejora vestido4 Mejora vivienda (techo)5 Se realiza instalación del agua6 Invierte en educación (escuela)7 E í lé t i

g j , q

3 Primaria4 Agua5 Animales / Huerta6 Arriendo lote7 Vaca

7 Energía eléctrica8 Instalación del servicio de sanitario9 Mejora vivienda (piso)

10 Electrodomésticos básicos11 Ampliar vivienda ( 1 habitación)12 Pequeño negocio agrícola

8 Bachillerato12 Pequeño negocio agrícola13 Vestido y educación (BACHILLERATO)14 Compra de animal grande15 Ampliar el negocio16 Comprar medio de transporte (moto)

3. Define poverty, and stages of progressp y, g p g4. Define period of study (25 years), and

define each household’s status thendefine each household s status then and now

5. Groups households into categories:– A – Poor then poor nowA Poor then, poor now– B – Poor then, not poor now– C – Not poor then, poor nowC Not poor then, poor now– D – Not poor then, Not poor now– E – Didn’t live in community 25 years agoy y g

6. For a sample of households, ask for reasons behind the change

Comportamiento de la Pobreza

1.0 Rasgata Baja

0.7

0.8

0.9

s

g j

Ladera Grande

Chapala

Chipaquin

Penas de Cajon

Palacios

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

% d

e Po

bres Palacios

Apartadero

La Isla

La Puntica

Gacha

0.0

0.1

0.2Chinzaque

Guata

Nemogá

Pescadores

Inicial Actual

Results of Stages of Progress:Results of Stages of Progress:Frequency of elements appearing below poverty lineFrequency of elements appearing below poverty line

Description Order Frequency

Food 1 23Food 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

Water was mentioned by 23 of 25, but was only below the poverty line in 9

Recreation 14 2

Change in Probability of Being Poor in 2005 if C i E l d d ( 359)if Cause is Excluded (n=359)

30%

10%

t-30%

-10%

Stable jo

b

Agric.

Diversi

ficati

onGov

't help

Pensio

nEdu

catio

nFam

ily he

lp

estoc

k dive

rsific

ation

Savings

/Inve

stmen

tInh

eritan

ceFúq

uene

New Fam

ilies

Health

/Accide

ntFam

ily pro

blems

-50%

Ag

Lives S

Diversification of rural livelihoods Doesn’t mean that poor

-70%

Cause

Diversification of rural livelihoods. Doesn t mean that poor aren’t interested in NRM since many jobs are resource-based but the links are indirect.

Q3 What are the modifiable factors that couldQ3 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 th CPWF t ll d b t it?– What can the CPWF actually do about it?• Indirect via agriculture and NRM

– CPWF will work on agriculture and catchment gmanagement, but will this alleviate poverty?

• Indirect via labor, service and product market linkageslinkages – Critical to keep in mind to avoid doing harm

A proposal: L k t P t I t b T iLook at Poverty Impacts by Topic

• Global and national policiesGlobal and national policies• Benefit sharing

R i f d i lt d t h t• Rain-fed agriculture and catchment management

• MUS (including irrigation)

Topics x Type of impact x Basin

• Equity – distribution of benefits alsoEquity distribution of benefits also matters

BFP poverty presentationBFP poverty presentation• Level of impact – just affect poor people or get them out of poverty? Poverty

t th d h it i d Th th h i t it ttrap theory and why it is good. There are those who are against it as 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?

• For example, how can we upgrade existing irrigation systems and services to support non-irrigation livelihoods (e.g. livestock, home gardens, and water dependent small scale enterprises) g ( g , g , 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).

M R i k t i thi ffi i / d ti it t i t?• Mary Renwick quote – is this efficiency/productivity or poverty impact?