1. Presentation Overview 1. Why Focus on PEN in Lao PDR 2. Methodology 3. Poverty Indicators 4. Environment Indicators 5. Linkages between Poverty and Environment 6. Selection Criteria and Program Structure

2. Why Focus on PEN in Lao PDR   Despite reduced poverty rates, still comparatively high poverty.   Environmental deterioration, particularly in her natural resource base but also in increased pollution.   Embed environmental protection in poverty reduction.   Identify win-win situations between poverty reduction and environmental protection   Lao PDR an IDA country.

3.  A study that identifies cases where poverty reduction and environmental protection are complementary goals (win-win situations) What is the PEN study?

4.  Direction of causality typically difficult to establish -Are poor people the main victims of degradation? Do poor people cause environmental degradation? Do poor people cause environmental degradation?  Importance of many intervening variables (e.g., fuel choice, hygiene practices) Analytical challenge (i)

5.  Empirical Evidence is relatively limited  Environmental problems tend to be related to natural resource base and thus inherently spatially defined Analytical Challenge (ii)

6.  Phase I: Modes of analysis adapted to limited data availability and quality Correlation analysis - Mapping Correlation analysis - Mapping Regressions- Rankings Regressions- Rankings  Phase II: Further national level analysis complements case studies (increasingly demand led) Province, District, Village, household, plot level data collection in sample regions Province, District, Village, household, plot level data collection in sample regions Relatively small samples, not necessary statistically significant at higher levels of aggregation Relatively small samples, not necessary statistically significant at higher levels of aggregation Mix of qualitative and quantitative questions (usually respondent assessment, not measured) Mix of qualitative and quantitative questions (usually respondent assessment, not measured) Methodology

7. Poverty definition  One definition: being poor is not being able to meet your basic consumption needs (food, clothes, housing etc).  This can be measured through determining someone’s income or consumption expenditure  Non-monetary poverty also important  Inequality: relative poverty

8. Oudomxay Huaphanh Phongsaly Examples from Lao PDR: Comparison of the percentage and number of poor Source: G. Datt and L. Wang, 2001. Source: ADB-PPA, 2001.

9. Ranking of selected districts by various stakeholders Parameter ADB PPA 42 GoL 47 % poor 47 # poor 47 Selecte d Non-selected Non- selected Selecte d Non-selectedSelectedNon-selected No. of provinces 1818161816171418 No. of districts 42100469646964696 Poverty (% of population) 52.135.163.431.371.727.148.028.8 Total number of poor (millions) 0.551.410.741.220.941.021.240.71 Forests Deforestation (km 2 ) 1993-97 1151. 4 1450.4921.21680.6 1063. 7 1538.1860.91740.9 Deforestation % of forest cover 1993-97 3.22.52.33.12.92.62.72.8 Water supply & sanitation % HH without access to piped, protected well/ bore hole (“safe water”) 86.783.596.980.391.881.684.084.6 % HH without toilet facilities 70.570.282.566.483.765.377.264.8 Health & education Crude death rate 12.79.914.99.214.19.310.910.4 % population that is educated 47.360.439.862.942.063.056.157.9

10. Overall correlation with the number of poor

11. Ranked number of poor and ranked no access to sanitation Poverty quartiles (% poor) 0 – 25% 25 – 41% 41 – 64% 64 – 96% Countr y % HH without toilet facilities 52.076.376.684.369.7 ρ poor x sanitation = 0.43

12. Methods – Map overlays  Poverty rates increase with elevation, but numbers of poor are highest in low elevation areas

13. Poor Area Vs Poor People Upland  Low poverty density (small absolute number of poor)  High poverty rates  Remaining natural resources (forests, wildlife)  Poor access to services and economic opportunities Lowland  High poverty density (large number of poor)  Low poverty rates  More dynamic economy in cities and highly dynamic rural areas  Comparatively more severe environmental problems due to pollution and overuse of resources such as water

14.  Prioritized sectors in poverty reduction plans  Number of poor affected  Severity of effects (income, health, vulnerability, social/cultural)  Alleviated by national economic growth?  Local capacity (institutional, financial)  Cost effectiveness (including administration cost) Selection Criteria

16. UXO vulnerability, poverty and evnrionment conservation: Kalum. Road Development Poverty and Environment Conservation: Nhout Ou and Kalum Road Development Poverty and Environment Conservation: Nhout Ou and Kalum Linkages between WSS and poverty in urban/peri-urban areas: Sekong and Phongsali. Linkages between WSS and poverty in urban/peri-urban areas: Sekong and Phongsali. NTFP (cultivation methods) and Poverty case studies: Namor and Phouvong NTFP (cultivation methods) and Poverty case studies: Namor and Phouvong PEN Studies Lao PDR Rural Water Supply and Sanittion and poverty in rural areas: Namor, Phouvong, Nhout Ou and Kalum.

17.  Presentation and review of five “individual” PEN case studies (“green” and “brown” PEN agenda).  Presentation and review of the national- level (aggregated) PEN analyses.  Discuss possible incorporation of PEN findings into overall poverty reduction work in Lao PDR. Agenda for the workshop