1 PEN Cambodia: Presentation of Findings Sub-Regional Conference Vientiane, Laos 21-22 June 2006
1
PEN Cambodia: Presentation of Findings
Sub-Regional ConferenceVientiane, Laos21-22 June 2006
2
Structure of Presentation
Natural Resource Dependence Drinking Water Sources (& Boiling) Sanitation Natural Disasters Mine/UXO Contamination Summary and Policy Implications
3
Overview of Key Indicators
Estimated Number of People Affected Poverty & environment indicator: % of non-poor
population % of poor population
Lack of water supply (using open water sources)* 16 22 Using unprotected dug wells* 8 16 Lack of sanitation (no latrine)* 60 80 Households never boil drinking water* 24 48 Mine field and Cluster bomb Contamination (2002)** 19 28 Household use of Solid fuels/ indoor air pollution* 90 99 Flood (>=3 years in last 5 years)* 24 23 Drought (>=3 years in last 5 years)* 12 16 Urban environment*** <20 <10 No All-weather Road* 19 28
* Estimated from CSES 2004. **Estimated from a combination of CSES 2004 and the National Level 1 survey of minefields. *** This is simply the percentage of non-poor and poor living in urban areas, and therefore potentially affected by urban environmental issues such as outdoor air pollution.
4
Poverty & Natural Resource Dependence
Rural
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Collects fuelw ood/forest products Collects NWFPs Catches f ish/seafood
Households Engaged in Natural Resource-Dependent Activities (left); By Household Consumption Quintile in Rural Areas (right), 2004
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
National Rural Urban
Collects fuelwood/forest products Collects NWFPs Catches fish/seafood
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
5
Poverty & Natural Resource Dependence
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Phnom Penh
Plains
Tonle Sap
Coastal
Plateau/Mountain
Rural Poverty Incidence % Communes Reporting NR Decline (3 of 4 responses)
Source:Estimated from CSES 2004 and Seila and Danida 2005.
Percentage of Communes within a Province Reporting Decreases in Natural Resources
Natural Resource Decline and Rural Poverty Incidence by Zone
6
Poverty & Natural Resource Dependence
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Fuel wood/wood products collection and decline in resource
NWFP collection and decline in resource
Fish/seafood catching and decline in resource
Households Engaged in Natural Resource-Dependent Activities in Communes Reporting Resource Decline, By Household Consumption Quintile
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004 and Seila and Danida 2005.
7
Poverty & Drinking Water Sources
National
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Dry season Wet season
Pond, river or stream
Unprotected dug well
Tanker truck, vendor
Rainw ater
Tube/piped w ell/borehole orprotected dug w ell
Piped in dw elling or onpremises
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
Drinking Water Sources, Dry and Wet Season, 2004
8
Poverty & Drinking Water Sources
National
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Wet Season Dry Season
Rural
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Wet Season Dry Season
Urban
0%5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%35%
40%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Wet Season Dry Season
Unsafe Drinking Water Sources, by Household Consumption Quintiles, 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
9
Poverty & Drinking Water Sources
National
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Poor Poor
No, never
Sometimes
Yes , always
Rural
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Poor Poor
No, never
Sometimes
Yes , always
Urban
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Poor Poor
No, never
Sometimes
Yes , always
Boiling by Household Consumption Quintile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Always Sometimes
Boiling/Treating Drinking Water, Non-Poor & Poor, by National (top-left), Household Consumption Quintile (top-right), Rural (bottom-left) and Urban (bottom-right), 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
10
Poverty & Drinking Water Sources
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Piped
water
Tube w
ell/b
ore
hole
Prote
cted w
ell
Rainwat
er
Tanker
truc
k/ve
ndor
Unprote
cted w
ell
Pond,
rive
r, st
ream
Non-Poor Poor
Boiling/Treating Drinking Water by Source, Non-Poor and Poor, 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
11
Poverty & Sanitation
National
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1
None
Open land
Public or shared toilet
Pit latrine or other w/out septictank
Septic tank
Connected to sewerage
Access to Basic Sanitation, 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
12
Poverty & Sanitation
Lack of Basic Sanitation by Household Consumption Quintile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Sanitation by Household Consumption Quintile, 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
13
Poverty & Sanitation
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Urban &Non-Poor
Urban &Poor
Rural & Non-Poor
Rural & Poor
None
Open land
Public or shared toilet
Pit latrine or other w/out septictank
Septic tank
Connected to sewerage
Sanitation, Rural and Urban, Non-Poor and Poor, 2004
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
14
Natural Disasters - Floods
Affected by Flood in 3 or more of past 5 years
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Households Affected by Floods in Three or More Years, 1999 to 2003, by Household Consumption Quintile
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
15
Natural Disasters - DroughtsHouseholds Affected by Droughts in Three or More Years, 1999 to 2003, by Household Consumption Quintile
Affected by Drought in 3 or more of past 5 years
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004.
16
Poverty & Mine/UXO Contamination
Mine Contamination - National
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Mine and/or Cluster Bomb Contamination - National
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Households Affected by Mines & Mines/Cluster Bombs, by Household Consumption Quintile
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004 and National Level 1 Survey 2002.
17
Poverty & Mine/UXO Contamination
Mine Contamination Severe ly Affecting Acces s to Agricultural Land
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Households Affected by Mine Contaminaiton that Severely Affects Access to Agricultural Land, by Household Consumption Quintile
Source: Estimated from CSES 2004 and National Level 1 Survey 2002.
18
Summary & Implications: Natural Resource Dependence1. Poor are disproportionately dependent on natural resources
– And this holds true in areas reporting declines in the resource base – Poverty & resource decline most pronounced in plateau/mountain region.
Policy implication: Target support of local resource management, land use planning, and agricultural and off-farm assistance in poor communes reporting resource declines
2. Natural resources provide an important safety net for the poor, but not often a pathway out of poverty
Policy implication: Focus management regimes on maintaining resources and providing access for poor/vulnerable, not on industrial-level extraction
– Consider targeting interventions where rapid resource extraction is either beginning, and/or the resource base is not yet highly degraded
– Encourage both sustainable management and investment of extraction earnings in agricultural and off-farm opportunities (rather than even more extraction)
19
Summary & Implications: Natural Resource Dependence
3. Neither restrictive nor open access management appears to be pro-poor– Restricting access to natural resources (via concessions) takes away productive
resources that the poor disproportionately depend on
– “Open access” tends to benefit non-poor more than poor• Poor lack the capital means (equipment, transportation) to take advantage of open
access exploitation as profitably as non-poor
• Open access (management vacuum) is often not fully open, but rather involves paying informal fees for access—a disproportionate burden for the poor
• Where open access results in resource decline, poor experience greater impacts as they are more dependent on resources and have fewer livelihood alternatives
Policy implication: Reform concessions to allow appropriate access for local communities. Address current management vacuum with greater support for conducting natural resource assessments, setting management priorities, and developing locally appropriate and enforceable management regimes.
20
Summary & Implications: Drinking Water Sources
4. Poor are disproportionately dependent on unsafe water sources Policy implication: In targeting drinking water provision, consider
factors associated with use of unsafe sources, including poverty, no schooling, coastal and plateau/mountain regions, rural areas far from district/provincial capitals, and lack of all-weather roads.
5. Households accessing unsafe water sources are the least likely to be boiling their water
Policy implication: Promote education and awareness programs to encourage boiling drinking water, targeted to households using unsafe sources.
21
Summary & Implications: Sanitation, Natural Disasters, Mine/UXO Contamination
6. Access to basic sanitation is lacking across all rural areas Policy implication: Make provision of basic sanitation in rural areas a
higher national policy priority
7. Both droughts and floods show a statistically significant relationship to poverty. But whereas droughts are associated with poverty, floods are associated with not being poor.
Policy implication: Make development of appropriate disaster responses to drought problems a higher national priority
8. Mine and clusterbomb contamination show a strong relationship with poverty
Policy implication: Consider village poverty rates as an additional element of targeting criteria for demining
22
Thank You