Water-related poverty in the Nile basin

We gain a better understanding of the linkage between water and poverty through:-

1. Identifying key drivers

― water access conditions in agricultural systems (determinants, physical and economic)

― changing water conditions in agricultural systems (variability in water access, water productivity)

2. Understanding the conceptual framework

—characterizing poverty hotspots using household income and expenditure data. Poverty levels are higher in rural agricultural areas compared to urban areas due to income access. In the Nile basin, with the exception of Egypt, rural poverty accounts for 90 percent of total poverty and close to 80 percent of the poor depend on agriculture and farm labor as their main source of income and livelihood. Related to type 2 through disparities in safe drinking water and sanitation

—characterizing hotspots of the “water poor” meaning people who are deprived due to physical and economic water scarcity. Most of the “water poor” are found in the degraded and deforested areas of rangelands and in mixed rainfed systems that have a poorly developed water access infrastructure. Related to type2 where infrastructure determines allocation to users

—a dynamic livelihood system characterizing hotspots of biophysical and social vulnerability, given that a weak asset capital base indicates a lack of capacity to adapt to water stress as manifested through changing water conditions in agricultural systems. Areas with high vulnerability scores in rangeland and mixed rainfed systems are associated with low crop and livestock water productivity. Related to type, 4 & 5 where loss of livelihood emanates from low adaptive capacity

—a characterization of hotspots of water-related hazards (droughts, floods, diseases), highlighting areas of high exposure in marginal land such as floodplains, where there is a high risk of outbreaks of water-borne human and cattle diseases Related to type 3 due to poor ability to cope with impacts from hazards

The four concepts of water-related poverty and vulnerability

Concept 1, Measures of well-being

Deprivation from consumption estimated from lack of financial ability to meet social needs commonly defined as absolute poverty. There are three approaches for this estimate; poverty line, poverty gap and poverty inequality. Although there are other types of deprivation, we focus on two of these since they are more relevant for our analyses approach with the Nile basin data sets.

Absolute poverty being the income measure which is linked to goods and market forces that determine the allocation of goods and services to meet a minimum level of consumption. This is a good indicator for developed economies and appropriate for the case of Egypt since relationship is direct where financial deprivation leads to poverty.

Physiological poverty refers to the inability of people to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. This form of deprivation is widespread and serves as a better indicator in developing economies as is the case with most countries in the basin. We show examples of cases of northern Uganda where high poverty manifests both low and high physiological deprivation.

Hotspots of poverty in agricultural systems are a rural phenomenon. They occur in both areas of high potential for crop and livestock productivity and in rangeland systems. This is surprising and we are currently testing whether this phenomenon is related to market access. For instance, we compare poverty levels in the Kenya highlands with better market access to those found in the Ethiopian highlands having relatively poorer access to markets. Also we show that high poverty levels in rangelands are generally less variable but in some cases they may be related to environmental insecurity from water and pasture conflicts. In general our case studies suggest that education level as a proxy indicator for poverty significantly contributes to the differences we find in the prevalence of water-related poverty in the Nile basin

Concept 2, Poverty and access to water

In this approach, access is viewed as deprivation from consumption which is a function of both physical and economic factors. Together they constitute the “water poor”. In our work, we emphasize variability arising from water access due to the development of water infrastructure rather than total water availability, therefore excluding rainfall which is only weakly correlated with poverty

―measured as contribution of location of water sources, relative to the spatial demand of people and livestock in agricultural systems. For the Uganda country data set we use spatial variability in the location of water sources to explain differences in the poverty measures at the parish level. A number of water sources associated with high coefficients show unique positive as well as negative attributes in the overall model. This overrides the contribution of human and livestock population factors although we know these are major drivers of water use. (1)We provide more examples from regression analyses of poverty indicators and water access variables in Uganda and their implications for the entire basin

― by evaluating the role of water technologies and water policies in significantly influencing access to water for poor people in rural agricultural systems. There is little or no adoption of technology to adapt to changing water conditions, exposing poor people to water-related stress. (2)We provide examples from “cattle corridor” household survey of water-related poverty in 2 districts, Nakasongola (0⁰ 55N to 1⁰ 40N and longitude 31E 55E and 32 50E) and Kiruhura (00⁰15” to 00⁰ 24” and longitude 031⁰ 34” to 031 ⁰ 4)

Concept 3, Biophysical and social vulnerability

Vulnerability = f (sensitivity, adaptive capacity).

Sensitivity (S) and adaptive capacity (AC) [High S, Low AC = Vulnerable; Low S, High AC = Resilient]

The key point is to combine biophysical and social indicators with understanding of water-related hazards in concept 4. As opposed to poverty which is static, vulnerability is dynamic and is a characteristic of the sensitivity of the human and natural environment. In this starting point approach, poor people are sensitive to water stress since their livelihoods are dependent on rainfed agriculture. Their ability to adapt to changing water demands for agriculture is a function of how well endowed they are from natural, physical and social capital assets.

We determine vulnerability as the ability of people to deploy these assets in order to adapt to water stress while improving water productivity, given changing water quantity and quality conditions. (1) Biophysical vulnerability is assessed through scoring natural asset indicators such as water, land suitability and physical assets such as market access infrastructure. (2) Social vulnerability is assessed through scoring social asset indicators of human conditions such as agricultural labor as well as financial assets for investing in water technologies. A poor asset indicator (or index) score renders one vulnerable to impacts from variable water conditions in the agricultural systems. The linkage to poverty is in a livelihood system that modifies access to food through agricultural water management while accounting for risks associated with declining water resources, loss of pasture and cropland (or crop yields) in degraded areas. Other than rainfall, severe land degradation/deforestation and environmental insecurity are factors that cause variation in the availability agricultural water in the basin.

Concept 4, Poverty and water-related hazards

This concept is viewed as an end point assessment where poor people living on marginal land are exposed to water-related hazards. The most common events occurring in the Nile basin are associated with loss of livestock assets and crop failure from drought and flooding. A second category is in variability related to extreme events in the distribution of rainfall and temperature, for example prolonged intense dry spells and flooding events lead to crop failure and pasture loss in the rangelands as well as in floodplain regions of mixed rainfed systems. Also, extreme rainfall events may cause structural damage to infrastructure, disrupting agricultural production, transport and market functions particularly in mixed rainfed systems. The third category is water-related disease risk due to livestock and human exposure to poor quality agricultural water particularly where open water bodies are located as the main source of Water.

Outcomes of the 4 concepts

From concept 1 on poverty. Dependency on rainfed agriculture is a key driver of the high prevalence of rural poverty in agricultural systems

From concept 2 on water poverty. Poverty is exacerbated by low water access and poorly developed water infrastructure in agricultural systems

From concept 3 on vulnerability: Loss of crop and livestock productivity which occurs as a result of high exposure and low capacity to adapt to water stress under changing conditions of water access.

From concept 4 on water-related hazards: Loss of livelihoods which occurs as a result of high exposure and low ability to cope with impacts from water-related hazards