Hi Simon
I like very much the idea of understanding the linkages between W and P and the five cases cover the most of options. There are two points I want to put on the table when thinking in using such classification for the identification of interventions. The first deals with the causes of poverty. What is not clear yet, even the classification is the structural causes of poverty behind those scenarios. I think that the relationship of poor people and water status is a non intended consequence of more structural factors, the most rooted in historical reasons for the distribution and access to resources en general, to land in the particular case of agriculture. Poor people have been relegated by society to the corners of productive areas making them prone to lack of water, excess, extreme events, etc, but why they are poor is not precisely due to water in itself. If we want to make interventions or suggest the most appropriate interventions to reduce poverty, they wont be on modifiying water current condition rather the structural issues leading population to poverty.
The second point is when we want to map those five types in the space. All of them happend everywhere, at least in the Andes, in part due to the complex spatial variability. So figuring out where to implement interventoins that modify current conditions is a paramount task. Identification of particular cases have to go further in detail, below the basin and regional level we BFPs are addressing. I know these are arguable arguments but they are in part the trouble every time we think in potential interventions to reduce poverty associated to water.
I am redy to clarifications, discussion.
Jorge Rubiano
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I understand Jorge’s question correctly, it is this: Are the 5 classes of water related poverty useful, given than poverty in the Andes (and other basins) is likely to result from several factors? In other words, is it possible to develop a consistent framework that links water food and livelihoods?
ReplyDeleteThis is a valid point. But I don’t think I intended to suggest that each classification is EXCLUSIVE. It’s possible that in part of the Limpopo, for example, people are affected by 2 or 3 different water-related causes of poverty at the same time. I think Eric’s method of analysis accommodates this.
So what is the value of thinking about a classification of water-related poverty?
1 Need for consistency: We have all read many individual studies that relate water and poverty from local, basin or region-specific observations. These individual studies are difficult to reconcile with one another. Each seems to tell a different story. Yet we need to discern some broad underlying characteristics of water and food systems that lead to loss of livelihood because without these we cannot organize observations.
2 Need for coherence: If case study conclusions are incoherent [that is, with no internal logical connection], it is difficult to argue for coherent action. That is, all actions are seen to be of local significance only. Yet the global evidence suggests otherwise, that water, food and poverty are connected in some ways, complex as these are. Classification is intended to provide coherence.
3 Need for causality. Many have identified causal relationships but these have often turned out to be overly simplistic. For example evidence suggests that absolute water scarcity is not as important as we thought when we started, and that factors that control access and use are far more influential. These factors are often nuanced around livelihood systems so they are uncertain. A reason I like Eric’s scheme. As you recall, we tried a more rigid system of the WPI and found that while it assembled a lot of useful information, it imposed a structure that could be difficult to apply.
Two analogies may help us modify this classification system to something we can write about:
• Crime statistics: Criminologists use crime classifications to measure progress and sort out causality. They know that robbery is different to assault but these may occur together, so are not mutually exclusive. Different crimes have different causes, and it is deemed helpful to separate one from the other.
• Soil classification: Every soil scientist uses classification to help organize observations and sort out causality. Features such as clay content, acidity or nutrient retention are deemed to be important and are explained, to a degree in relation to 5 broad pedogenetic processes, that are rarely observable directly, but are useful to help understand the context. Incidentally, things ran into trouble when mutual exclusivity was attempted (e.g. the USDA system). But the concepts are nevertheless considered useful.
So I’m not sure if this 5 class scheme will survive [for example, like Eric, I’m not sure whether class 5 isn’t simply a sub-class of the others. Like Mark, I think 2 needs care. But I found it useful to organize what I could see about poverty in different basins.
Different questions might be:
a) Does it miss anything important? And
b) Does it seriously confound major causes?
Look forward to your thoughts
S