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

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?