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


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


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


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


Drinking Water Sources, Dry and Wet Season, 2004

8


National

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Wet Season Dry Season

Rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Urban

0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%35%

40%



Unsafe Drinking Water Sources, by Household Consumption Quintiles, 2004


9


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%


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


10


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


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


12


Lack of Basic Sanitation by Household Consumption Quintile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Sanitation by Household Consumption Quintile, 2004


13


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


14

Natural Disasters - Floods

Affected by Flood in 3 or more of past 5 years

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Households Affected by Floods in Three or More Years, 1999 to 2003, by Household Consumption Quintile


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%



16

Poverty & Mine/UXO Contamination

Mine Contamination - National

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%


Mine and/or Cluster Bomb Contamination - National

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


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%


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

Documents

1 PEN Cambodia: Presentation of Findings Sub-Regional Conference Vientiane, Laos 21-22 June 2006