1 The Environments of the Poor – New Perspectives on Development Programs Presentation at the 13th Poverty and Environment Partnership Meeting 9-11 June.

1

The Environments of the Poor – New Perspectives on Development Programs

Presentation at the 13th Poverty and Environment Partnership Meeting

9-11 June 2008, Manila

For further inquiries: Dr. Armin Bauer, Senior EconomistRegional and Sustainable Development Department, Asian Development Bank: [email protected]

2

The Environments of Poverty – An Overview

1. What is “environmental poverty” ?2. Why geographical approach3. Present estimates on poverty incidences 2005 and 2020

and its location in “environmental “ areas4. Is climate change hijacking the poverty agenda ?5. Operational and strategic consequences for closer

alignment between the environment and poverty reduction, including MDGs (7 and 8–funds)

3

Poverty is Changing in Asia and Pacific

Shift:•From extreme poverty ($1: 20% ->11%) to vulnerability ($2: 57% -> 40%)•extreme poverty remains mainly rural•More urban vulnerable poor•From everywhere to specific geographical areas;•From income and social poverty to environmental and exclusion •climate change and globalization aggravate poverty

million people number percent percent number percent percentpopulation 3,470.0 100% 100% 4,053.3 100% 100%

rural 2,218.7 64% 100% 2,238.9 55% 100%

urban 1,251.3 36% 100% 1,814.4 45% 100%extreme poor ($1) 692.6 100% 20% 428.4 100% 11%

rural 515.0 74% 23% 275.0 64% 12%urban 177.6 26% 14% 153.4 36% 8%

vulnerable poor ($2) 1,987.8 100% 57% 1,632.8 100% 40%rural 1,626.9 82% 73% 1,211.1 74% 54%urban 360.9 18% 29% 421.7 26% 23%

Sources:Population data are from the 2007 World Demographics Data of the UN Population Division. Poverty data are from the ADB statistical database system, the World Bank PovCalNet, Ravallion/Chen 2007, World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Program (PRSP) Reports, the ADB Key Indicators, and ADB calculations.

2005 2020Poverty in Asia and Pacific

4

Poverty and the Environment – From which perspective do we

look?• Nature• People / Poor People• Infrastructure and Institutions

• They affect differently on socio-economic and poverty situation in an area

The environments

of the poor

5

Poverty and the Environment Evolvement of Discussions

Climate Change

Environmental Sustainability

Ada

ptat

ion

Miti

gatio

n

Environmental Poverty

The (Natural) Environment

1960s/70s: growth

1970s: clean up

1990s: Natural resources

2000: Environment AND Poverty: impact on income (biodiversity) and health (water and sanitation)

Paradigm shift: climate change, persisting poverty in geographical location, urbanization, migration and environmental refugees “Environments of Poverty”

6

Poverty and the Environment, Environmental Poverty and the Environments of the Poor –

Forget about Cause and Effect?

wherethe environment

live inspatial areas

the poor (defined as those living with less

than $1/$2 a day)

the dryland poor

the upland poor

the flood-affected wetland poor

different reasons for being poor

the slum poor

other poor

affects

does not affect th

e si

tuat

ion

of th

e po

or

peop

le the coastal poor

7

A Geographical Approach to Poverty Reduction

• Income poverty, social poverty, environmental poverty, the disaster-prone poor

• Pro-poor growth potential area (the non-environmental poor)

• The environments of the rural poor– The dry-land poor– The upland poor– The coastal poor– The flood affected wetland poor

• The environments of the urban poor – The slum poor

Affecting the income of the rural poor

Affecting poor people’s health in urban areas

8

Where do the poor live – now… and in 2020: The Spatial Distribution of Poverty

Spatial Distribution of the Poor and Vulnerable Poor 2005 and 2020 (million people, percent of poor)

52.7%

70.3%

84.8%

61.5%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2005 (

very

poor

= 6

92

millio

n p

eople

= 2

0%

of popula

tion)

2020 (

very

poor

= 4

42

millio

n p

eople

= 1

1%

of popula

tion)

2005 (

vuln

era

ble

/

modera

te p

oor

= 1

996

millio

n p

eople

= 5

7%

of popula

tion)

2020

(vuln

era

ble

/modert

ate

poor

= 1632 m

illio

n

people

= 6

2%

of

popula

tion)

very poor ($1) vulnerable / moderate poorm($2)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

environm

enta

l poor/

vuln

era

ble

as %

of to

tal p

oor/

vuln

era

ble

slum poor

flood-affectedw etland poorcoastal poor

upland poor

dryland poor

other poor

environmental poor aspercent of total poor

Environmental poverty as percent of total poverty is increasing from 53% (2005) to 70% (2020) of the extreme poor ($1).

Slum poverty, dryland poverty and coastal poverty show largest increase

Need for location specific strategies beyond national averages

Interactive map

9

Where do the poor live – now… and in 2020: The Spatial Distribution of Poverty

2005 (very poor = 693 million people = 20% of population)

2020 (very poor = 428 million people = 11% of population)

2005 (vulnerable / moderate poor = 1996 million people = 57% of population)

2020 (vulnerable/moderate poor = 1633 million people = 62% of population)

dryland poor 162.5 113.8 820.0 479.8upland poor 45.6 30.4 249.0 126.2coastal poor 36.5 40.1 213.3 151.9flood-affected wetland poor 38.1 8.7 180.1 58.7slum poor 82.3 108.4 223.1 187.5other poor 327.5 127.1 310.5 628.8environmental poor as percent of total poor 52.7% 70.3% 84.8% 61.5%poor as percent of total population 20.0% 10.6%non poor 2,777.4 3,624.9 1,482.2 2,420.5total poor 692.6 428.4 1,996.1 1,632.8

The Spatial Distribution of Poverty 2005 and 2020very poor ($1) vulnerable / moderate poor ($2)

10

Policy Implications (1)Operational Consequences - Rural

• Addressing dryland poverty (24% of $1 poor and 41% of $2 poor in 2005; 27%/29% in 2020) is most important;– alternative income opportunities– New produce and agricultural research– Tourism (coastal poverty)

• Area development requires infrastructure investments• Solutions to environmental poverty are often beyond

environmental investments:– Small rural town development in and migration to PPG areas – Crop and risk insurance– Social protection for those remaining in rural environmental

poverty areas: the elderly, the women, the children• Why infrastructure investment will become even more

important

11

Policy Implications (2)- Operational Consequences - Urban

• With urbanization and continued unbalanced growth slum poverty is increasing

• The incidence of slum poverty will increase from 12% of all very poor ($1) in 2005 to 25% in 2020

• Slum poverty is less related to water and sanitation and more to – Congestion (traffic in slums, urban planning), – Housing / shelter, and – weakening social fabric

12

Aggravators of Environmental Poverty:

Climate Change, Disasters, and Globalization• Asia is the most disaster prone region in the world

(natural, technological, conflict); disasters affect the poor most

• Globalization: food and energy prices affect the poor and create instabilities

• Environmental poverty dimensions of fragile states • Climate change affects poorer countries and poorer

regions more, and poor in the poorer countries most– Global warming increases dryland and coastal poverty, – Melting glaciers deepen flood related ands upland poverty, – Increasing incidences of disasters result in more poverty and

environmental refugees

13

The need to make the climate change debate more poverty sensitive

• Does the climate change debate hijack the poverty agenda? – strategic sector choice, e.g. the predominance of energy vs. water and

soil– Strategic location choice, e.g. the predominance of clean air and urban

traffic, but not for the poor– Strategic financing choice:

environment (infrastructure and growth / regional cooperation) poverty (governance, gender, social development)

• Environment is more than climate change, and climate change is more than energy efficiency

• Do not protect only the earth, also ensure decent human development and inclusive growth – the priority of poverty reduction – Energy of the poor is not electricity but cooking and heating– Transportation of the poor is local not long-distance mass transport– A fresh look on agriculture and natural resources development: the need

to focus more on soil and water

14

Policy Implications - Strategic Alignment

• Funding: The renewed focus on the environment shall not be on the costs of poverty reduction

• Targeting: Moving away from a household/people targeting approach to a geographical approach on poverty can bring the environmental and poverty agenda together

– Prioritize (a) water and soil, and (b) coastal and upland area development, and link with income opportunities for the poor

– Household energy, productive use of energy– Poor people’s transport means and air pollution– Shelter and slum development– Promote social protection for those left behind

• Impact contribution: Geographical targeting and project classification (TI-G)

• Monitoring from the poor’s perspective: poverty impact assessment and environmental effects chains

Climate Change

Environmental Sustainability

Ada

ptat

ion

Miti

gatio

n

Environmental Poverty

The (Natural) Environment

15

Policy Implications (2)Sustainability MDG needs a new spin

• MDG 7 – current targets: water, biodiversity, electricity, slum, planning– Principle of sustainable development in poverty strategies– Reduce biodiversity loss significantly by 2010– Halve by 2015 proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and

basic sanitation– Have achieved a significant improvement by 2020 in the lives of at least 100

million slum dwellers

• The need for better linking poverty and environmental indicators and targets– unlike most of the other MDG targets, MDG 7 goal is neither quantitative nor

time-bound; there is need to develop proper indicators and quantifiable targets for MDG 7

– climate change related environmental poverty issues in MDG 7 shall also be included

– PEP statement on this to be sent to UNDP; – bring the environmental poverty agenda into the mid term MDG meeting (Oct 08

in New York)

16

Policy Implications (3)Suggestions for a new MDG 7

– Revert the increase in rural environmental poverty among the total poor by addressing dryland, upland, coastal, and flood affected wetland poverty

• Provide – by 2020 – sustainable alternative employment and income opportunities for 60% of the poor and vulnerable poor in dryland areas

• Halve the income dependency of the upland poor on forestry and biodiversity by 2020• Ensure that by 2020 the coastal poor households derive at least 50% of their income

from income sources outside of fishery• Ensure better flood protection by increasing investments by 30%

– Revert the trend of increasing slum poverty as percent of total urban poor • Address urban poor’s traffic needs• reduce air pollution in slums • Achieve proper housing and shelter fort at least 60% of the slum poor in 2020• Halve by 2015 proportion of urban and rural people without access to safe drinking

water and basic sanitation

– Climate change • Double by 2020 access of the poor to environmental friendly cooking energy• Ensure that by 2020 at least 20% of the rural poor and vulnerable are covered under

formal social protection schemes including health and environmental risk insurances • Increase by 2020 funding for climate change related programs that directly address

poverty reduction to at least 30% of total environment related budgets

For further discussion

+

17

Policy Implications (4)Environmental Poverty in MDG 8

– Introduce a project classification system than can report on development contribution to the environment, climate change and direct poverty reduction in geographical areas

– Increase funding for direct poverty and environment relevant area programs from to 30% of total development finance

– Ensure that by 2020 all investments at project and program level are backed by ex-ante impact assessments showing the linkages and impact chains between poverty and the environment using a geographical approach on the environments of the poor

– Increase share of direct poverty relevant funding under climate change programs from 20% to 40% by 2015, and ensure that all programs explain the direct impact on poverty direction

For further discussion

+

18

References

• Joint study of the ADB’s Poverty Unit and the Environmental Division: The Environments of Poverty. A Geographical Approach to Poverty Reduction in Asia and the Pacific

• Environment at ADB’s Poverty Website: http://www.adb.org/poverty/environmental-sustainability.asp

• ADB’s Environmental Website: http://www.adb.org/Environment/default.asp

• Tracking MDG 7: A Future within Reach 2008 (ADB-ESCAP-UNDP partnership for the MDGs in Asia and Pacific): http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/MDG-Future-Reach-2008/default.asp

• Millennium Project, Ecosystem Development …

• Poverty mapping, poverty and environmental impact assessment tools