Upali Amarasinghe, Stefanos XenariosRajendran Srinivasulu, Dhrubra Pant,

Madar Samad

Water Poverty Analysis IGB Basin Focal project

BFP: Water-Poverty Analysis Setting the Context

Poverty is a rural phenomena

IGB Riparian countries has:• 1.3 billion people in 2000

– 380 million (29%) are poor

• 942 million (72%) rural population– 340 million (36%) are poor

IGB has: •605 million people

-191 million (32%) are poor

•454 million (75%) rural populatio

-151 million (33%) are poor

Poverty trends India

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Survey period

HC

R (

%)

Pakistan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Survey period

HC

R (

%)

Bangladesh

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Survey period

HC

R(%

)

Rural Urban Total

Nepal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995-1996 2003-2004

Survey period

HC

R (

%)

Rural Total Urban

Poverty trendsSpatial trends

Regional poverty • A major part of the poor lives in the eastern parts

• Evidence of spatial clustering

Poverty trendsSpatial trends

• Rural poor tends to live in clusters

• Water and land factor in livelihood and food security

• IGB is the hot bed of poor in South Asia

Districts

Spatial and temporal trends in the Indian IGB

Water poverty nexus-analytical framework

Land for agriculture

Water for domestic purposes

WPLN

Agriculture for livelihood and

nutritional security

Water for agriculture

WPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNWPLNLand for agriculture

WPLN

Water for agriculture

Land for agriculture

WPLNWater for domestic purposes

Water for agriculture

Land for agriculture

WPLN

Agriculture for livelihood and

nutritional security

Water for domestic purposes

Water for agriculture

Land for agriculture

WPLN

• Water poverty of exists

when:– household is poor or

incidence of poverty is high

– agriculture play a major role in the rural livelihoods

– access to a reliable water supply is a key factor in improving productivity

Poverty trendsContribution of agriculture

y = 3132 x-1.05

R2 = 0.37

y = 4398 x-1.19

R2 = 0.59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 50 100 150 200 250

Agriculture GDP/person (US$ in 2000 prices)

Rur

al H

CR

(%

)

Rural HCR - 1999/00 Rural HCR - 2004/05

ORCH

MP

ORMP

CHUT

BI

BIUP

UP

PUHR

MHMH

UT

TN

TN

GU

KE

HR

HPPU

WB

WB

RJ

JH

JH

GURJ

HP

1% of growth in agriculture GDP reduces poverty

by 1.05%

How to unravel water land poverty nexus?

• Use a Logit Regression model

• LR estimate probability of a person being in poverty

• P is the logistic cumulative probability function

• P/(1-P) is the odds ratio of household being poverty

• Combine household and survey data

)(1

1jiji ZZZXXXe

P

Data

• Household consumption and expenditure survey data – NSSO 55th (1999/00) and 61st (2004/05) rounds – each has 30,000+ households in the IGB

• District level aggregates of census data– Population census, agriculture census, annual

agriculture at a glance publications, IWMI water and climate atlas

– 280 districts in the IGB

Data

• Household level

– Cropped area per person

– Irrigated area- % of cropped

area

– Land tenure and holding size

– Socio-economic• HH SIZE

• Sex, religion, social class,

education, dwelling type,

• Access to electricity

• Type of ration card

• 14 indicators

• District level

– Average grain yields,

– Fruits and vegetable area

– Rainfall

– Gross irrigated area – %GCA

– % Groundwater irri. area

– Irrigated water productivity

– Marginal and small land holdings

– Road density

– Access to electricity

• 13 indicators

Results: Agriculture for rural livelihoods

Results: Agriculture for rural livelihoods

• Agriculture is an important component of the livelihoods

0204060

% of households

Household employemnt

0 10 20 30 40 50

Agriculture labor

Non-ag labor

Self employed in non-ag.

Ag operator

Others

Headcount ratio (%)

2004/05

1999/00

Low poverty in agricultur

e operators

Results: Water for agriculture

Results: Water for agriculture

0204060% of households

Irrigated area-% of total cultivated area

0 10 20 30 40

0

0 - 25

25 - 50

50-75

75-100

100

Headcount ratio (%)

2004/05

1999/00

• Yes. Access to water is important• GW irrigation impacts are higher• Water productivity in irrigation can have significant impacts

Results: Water for agriculture

• Water productivity in irrigation can have significant impacts– Supplemental irrigation– Reducing the gap of irrigation– Deficit irrigation

Relationships of yield and consumptive water use of foodgrains

0.0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

4.8

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

CWU (mm)

Yie

ld (

ton/

ha)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

WP

(kg

/m3

)

Yield Max yield Max WP

Yield

Consumptive water use

Results: Land for agriculture

Results: Land for agriculture

01020304050

% of households

Land holding size

0 10 20 30 40

No land

Marginal

Small

Semi medium

Medium

Large

Headcount ratio (%)

2004/05

1999/00

– Marginal/small lands are significant constraints for reducing poverty– Eastern IGB is besieged with marginal land holdings

Results: Infrastructure & Socio-economic variables

• Other statistically significant explanatory variables– Road density, access to electricity– Household head

• female headed HH (10% of the households) has high odds poverty

– Education of the HH head• 55% has less than primary education

– Number of graduate/postgraduate– Social groups

• ST,SC (26% of the population) has significantly higher odds

– Religions• Muslims (15% of the population) has high odds

– Household size • >=5 has sig. higher odds than <=3

– HH with ration cards• BPL (22% of the population) has higher odds

Conclusions

• Does water poverty exist? – Very much!

• Can agriculture growth have further impact?– Yes. Increase yields!

– Increase rainfed yields, intensify irrigated agriculture.

• Can water related interventions reduce poverty? – Substantially in the eastern IGB!

– Irrigation matters, and reliability of irrigation is even more significant

– Increase irrigated water productivity!

• Can access to electricity reduce poverty?– Yes. Odds of poverty of those who do not have access to electricity is 2

to 1

– Increase access to electricity in the eastern IGB can result in better water use

Conclusions

• Land related interventions help– Large number of marginal and small sizes are the biggest constraint. – Land consolidation, where ever is possible, can contribute to productivity

increase and poverty reduction.

• Roads, electricity, education matters.

• Non-farm employment have a significant impact.

• Backward social classes and women headed households have higher poverty. Need thorough analysis of these groups.

• Impacts of environmental factors needs to be included

Thank you