POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT

PREPARED AND PRESENTED

BY OMARI MZIRAI
 MODULE CONTENTS

• Concepts and consequences of poverty.

• Consumerism, poverty and environmental
degradation
• Internal and External causes of poverty.
• Monitoring indicators and measures of poverty.
• Linkages between poverty and environment
• Environmental management and poverty reduction
• Environmental Justice.
 Poverty Monitoring Indicators
• Monitoring systems
• Why poverty analysis is important – study in
Tanzania
• Development of poverty-environment indicator
in Tanzania
• Measure of poverty
 Monitoring system: What
objectives?
• Track progress towards the achievement of specific
objectives/targets
 
• Inform policy making for improved interventions

Improved policy design and

implementation
Greater accountability
Monitoring system: What roles?
Understanding poverty, the
constraints, and the past actions

Setting priorities and objectives

Defining the strategy and selecting

the actions
Monitoring
system
Selecting indicators and targets

Implementing

Monitoring and evaluating

 Monitoring system: What components?
Actors: Data producers, analysts and users (decision makers and stakeholders)

Activities: Collecting and processing information, analysis, and use (feedback and
dissemination)
 
Institutions: Interaction between actors
• Formal rules and arrangements such as the definition, allocation, and
timing/sequencing of responsibilities determined by work programs, national
plans, legislation
• Informal rules and practices
Monitoring system: typical limitations?
• Poorly defined roles and responsibilities
• Responsibilities not clearly/efficiently allocated
• Low enforcement of formal set up and rules
 Lack of coordination: duplication, competition, gaps and
delays in carrying out responsibilities
• Weak reliability and relevance of information (incl.
mismatch info demanded/info provided)
• Difficulty in accessing information (no access but also poor
reporting and dissemination)
 Lack of use of the data by the intended users
 Monitoring system: What do we
know?
Institutional setup is a key element in ensuring
information flow
(production, dissemination, and use)

No blue print on institutional arrangements: very

different systems in different countries
 Mongolia: M&E system of PRS
Parliament Government,
NGOs,
Media,
Cabinet Donors,
Civil Society,
Etc.

MOFE

EGSPRS Policy Committee

Strategic
Macro- Real Governance
management economics Sector Regional Forum

Regional & HD and Social policy

environment National Forum

Poverty Research Group

Data producer-user group
Data collection
and analysis M&E divisions of NGOs, donors, and
NSO line ministries and other data and Inputs/Reporting
local governmentsts analysis producers
Dissemination
 Tanzania: poverty monitoring system
Cabinet Committee of Ministers

Inter-Ministerial Technical Poverty Monitoring Steering Committee

Committee Chaired by PS, VPO Secretariat
VPO
PRS Technical Committee
Chaired by DPS, Ministry of Finance

Routine Data Group Surveys and Census Group Research & Analysis Group Dissemination Group
PMO-RALG NBS PO-PP, REPOA VPO

PMO-RALG Line Ministries Research Fund PPA Working PMO-RALG

Committee Group

Regional Regional
Administrative Administrative
Secretariat Secretariat
 Monitoring system: What do we
1.
know?
Remember overall objective – inform policy making
2. Attention to institutional arrangements
3. Ensure broad participation and build consensus among all actors
(including donors!)
4. Promote country ownership
5. Build on existing systems and structures
6. Build into existing processes (e.g. budget formulation and tracking,
existing oversight system, existing line ministries’ system and
decentralized collection and analysis processes)
7. Keep the system simple, build progressively, with flexibility
8. Define and allocate responsibilities clearly
9. Ensure reliable funding (even if small to start with)
10. Build capacity (not only skills)
 Introduction
Why analysis of poverty status at sub-
national level?

• Increased awareness among stakeholders on

sub-national differences
• Contribution to better focused more
effective policies and strategies
• Guidance to resource allocation of
resources to local authorities, contributing
to improved planning at that level
 Methodology
• Choice of methodology to assess regional
differences in status of poverty depends on
purpose of the assessment
To raise awareness and
To inform planning,
advocate on the overall
policy or strategy
regional status of
development within a
human development in
sector
a country

Single Indicator Composite Index

Approach Approach
 Methodology
Single Indicator Approach
• Based on PRSP indicators
• Total of 28 indicators from 4 clusters:

• Income poverty
• Human capabilities
• Survival
• Nutrition

• Performance by region and ranking included

 Methodology
Human Development Index (HDI)
• Summary measure of human development
• It measures average (regional) achievements in three
basic dimensions of human development

• A long and healthy life (life

expectancy at birth)
• Knowledge (adult literacy rate, gross
enrolment rate)
• A decent standard of living (GDP per
capita PPP)
 Methodology
Human Development Index (HDI)

Consumption expenditure (CE)per capita used in

stead of GDP per capita .

• Data more reliable and more recent

• CE direct measure of standard of living and
reflects the situation at household level better than
GDP
 Methodology
Human Poverty Index (HPI)
• Summary measure of deprivation in three basic
dimensions of human development
• Lack of a long and healthy life.
Vulnerability to death at early age
(probability of not surviving beyond 40 yrs)
• Lack of knowledge. Exclusion from
learning(adult illiteracy )
• Lack of a decent standard of living
(population not using safe water, percentage
of children <5 who are underweight)
 General Findings
Single Indicator Approach
Analysis

• Interregional disparities
• Performance of a region on a range of indicators
• Identification of trends and patterns
 General Findings
Single Indicator Approach

Kilimanjaro
Dodoma

Kagera

Kigoma
Arusha

Iringa

Mbeya
Mara
Lindi
DSM
TABLE 2: Income poverty
indicators

Basic needs poverty headcount ratio (%)

39 18 34 29 29 38 31 53 46 21 2
8 20 12 17 16 10 13 2 5 19 1
Rural Basic needs poverty headcount ratio (%)
43 n.a. 36 30 19 43 32 57 44 22 3
8 n.a. 12 17 19 7 16 1 5 18 1
Food poverty headcount (%)
25 7 13 10 18 21 11 33 36 8 1
7 20 13 17 10 9 16 2 1 19 1
Rural food poverty headcount (%)
28 n.a. 14 11 5 25 11 36 35 9 1
5 n.a. 13 16 19 7 15 1 2 17 1
 General Findings
Single Indicator Approach
Analysis • Tanzania 57%
• Interregional • Kilimanjaro
disparities 80.5%
• Lindi 43%
Iringa
• Performance of • Among best 5 on 12
a region on a indicators
range of • Among worst 5 on 9
indicators indicators

• Dar es Salaam and Kilimanjaro

• Identification of region consistently among best 5
trends and for PRSP indicators
patterns • Pwani, Lindi, Rukwa
consistently among worst 5 for
PRSP indicators
 General Findings
Single Indicator Approach
Summary of regional performance by single (PRSP) indicators

Frequency ranking among best/worst 5

Region Best Worst Balance
Kilimanjaro 22 2 20
Mara DSM 15 4 11
Kagera
Tabora 14 6 8
Mbeya 10 3 7
Ruvuma 10 5 5
Iringa 12 9 3
Mwanza Arusha 6 4 2
Tanga 7 5 2
Shinyanga Arusha Kilimanjaro Morogoro 6 5 1
Mtwara 4 5 -1
Singida 7 8 -1
Kigoma 5 6 -1
Kigoma Mwanza 6 8 -2
Tanga Mara 7 10 -3
Tabora Dodoma 2 5 -3
Singida Shinyanga 6 9 -3
Dodoma Kagera 5 10 -5
Lindi 5 12 -7
Rukwa 3 10 -7
Pwani 1 9 -8
Rukwa Morogoro Dar Es Salaam Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Pwani

Mbeya
Iringa

Lindi

Best performing regions

Moderately performing regions Mtwara
Poor performing regions
Ruvuma

Missing Data

Note : The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Note: This map is generated with the Tanzania Socio-economic Database (TSED), National Bureau of Statistics, 2002
 General Findings
Marked gap
Human Combined
Development primary, between
Adult secondary
Index literacy and Mean monthly 1-2, 2-rest
Life rate tertiary consumption
expectancy (% age15 gross expenditure Human
at birth and enrolment per capita Life development
(years) above) ratio (%) (000 Tsh) expectancy Education Expenditure index (HDI)
HDI rank 1988 2000 2000 2000 index index index value
1 Dar-es-Salaam 50 91 98.7 21.9 0.417 0.935 0.849 0.734
2 Kilimanjaro 59 85 104.4 11.2 0.567 0.914 0.327 0.603
3 Mbeya 47 79 99.7 12.6 0.367 0.858 0.395 0.540
4 Arusha 57 78 84.1 10.3 0.533 0.800 0.283 0.539
5 Iringa 45 81 102.5 11.2 0.333 0.881 0.327 0.514
6 Ruvuma 49 84 89.4 9.6 0.400 0.857 0.249 0.502
7 Mtwara 46 68 83.3 12.4 0.350 0.730 0.385 0.488
8 Tabora 53 65 81.3 10.4 0.467 0.704 0.288 0.486
9 Singida 55 71 94.5 6.9 0.500 0.788 0.117 0.468
10 Morogoro 46 72 87.2 10.0 0.350 0.770 0.268 0.463
11 Pwani 48 61 79.7 10.5 0.383 0.672 0.293 0.449
12 Tanga 49 67 78.4 9.3 0.400 0.707 0.234 0.447
13 Mara 47 76 88.7 8.0 0.367 0.802 0.171 0.447
14 Dodoma 46 66 86.9 8.5 0.350 0.729 0.195 0.425
15 Kigoma 48 71 80.1 7.3 0.383 0.740 0.137 0.420
16 Kagera 45 64 80.5 9.0 0.333 0.694 0.220 0.416
17 Mwanza 48 65 75.1 8.1 0.383 0.683 0.176 0.414
18 Lindi 47 58 67.6 9.5 0.367 0.611 0.244 0.407
19 Shinyanga 50 55 68.0 8.0 0.417 0.593 0.171 0.394
20 Rukwa 45 68 83.2 6.7 0.333 0.730 0.107 0.390
TANZANIA 50 71 84.9 10.1 0.417 0.756 0.273 0.482
 General Findings
Human Development Index
Human Development Index by Region

HDI Rank Region HDI value

1 Dar-es- 0.734
Mara Mainland HDI 0.482 2 Kilimanjaro 0.603
Kagera
3 Mbeya 0.540
4 Arusha 0.539
5 Iringa 0.514
6 Ruvuma 0.502
Mwanza 7 Mtwara 0.488
8 Tabora 0.486
Shinyanga Arusha Kilimanjaro 9 Singida 0.468
10 Morogoro 0.463
11 Pwani 0.449
12 Tanga 0.447
Kigoma 13 Mara 0.447
Tanga 14 Dodoma 0.425
Tabora 15 Kigoma 0.420
Singida 16 Kagera 0.416
Dodoma 17 Mwanza 0.414
18 Lindi 0.407
19 Shinyanga 0.394
20 Rukwa 0.390
Rukwa Morogoro Dar Es Salaam Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Pwani

Mbeya
Iringa

Lindi

High HDI
Medium HDI
Low HDI Ruvuma Mtwara

Missing Data
 General Findings
Human Poverty Index
Human Adult
Probability illiteracy
Poverty at birth of rate (% Population
Index not age 15 without Underweight
surviving to and access to children
age 40 above) safe water under age 5
HPI rank Region 1988 2000 2000 (%) 1996 HPI value
1 Dar-es-Salaam 0.41 9.0 6.4 22.2 21.4 Marked gap between
2 Kilimanjaro 0.31 15.0 22.7 21.0 22.6
3 Mbeya 0.42 21.0 25.1 20.8 28.7
Kilimanjaro and
4 Arusha 0.29 22.0 41.0 35.1 29.7 Mbeya
5 Singida 0.27 30.0 39.1 28.4 30.3
6 Ruvuma 0.37 16.0 46.9 29.4 30.4
7 Morogoro 0.46 29.0 29.6 25.5 34.2
8 Kigoma 0.47 29.0 24.2 43.1 36.6 Regardless of Methodology
9 Mtwara 0.36 33.0 47.0 35.6 36.8
10 Iringa 0.46 19.0 46.2 48.2 37.4
Dar es Salaam, Kilimanjaro,
11 Tabora 0.33 35.0 75.4 14.2 37.6 Mbeya and Ruvuma
12 Dodoma 0.46 34.0 34.5 34.2 38.1
13 Rukwa 0.48 32.0 45.5 30.5 39.3 consistently at top end of
14 Mwanza 0.46 35.0 46.9 27.0 39.3
15 Mara 0.58 24.0 59.4 18.9 40.4 the ranking
16 Tanga 0.44 33.0 54.0 36.2 40.7
17 Shinyanga 0.38 45.0 60.1 27.8 42.3
18 Pwani 0.46 39.0 65.2 34.3 44.9 Lindi and Shinyanga
19 Lindi 0.39 42.0 80.0 41.4 47.2
20 Kagera 0.65 36.0 67.2 36.0 50.9 consistently at bottom end
Tanzania Mainland 0.43 29.0 44.3 29.4 36.3
of ranking
 General Findings
Human Poverty Index
Human Poverty Index by Region

HPI Rank Region HPI value

1 DSM 21.4
Mara Mainland HPI 36.3 2 Kilimanjaro 22.6
Kagera
3 Mbeya 28.7
4 Arusha 29.7
5 Singida 30.3
6 Ruvuma 30.4
Mwanza 7 Morogoro 34.2
8 Kigoma 36.6
Shinyanga Arusha Kilimanjaro 9 Mtwara 36.8
10 Iringa 37.4
11 Tabora 37.6
12 Dodoma 38.1
Kigoma 13 Rukwa 39.3
Tanga 14 Mwanza 39.3
Tabora 15 Mara 40.4
Singida 16 Tanga 40.7
Dodoma 17 Shinyanga 42.3
18 Pwani 44.9
19 Lindi 47.2
20 Kagera 50.9
Rukwa Morogoro Dar Es Salaam Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Pwani

Mbeya
Iringa

Lindi

High HPI
Medium HPI
Low HPI Ruvuma Mtwara

Missing Data
 General Findings
Inconsistencies when comparing HDI and
HPI
HDI rank HPI rank
1
Caused by different indicators
used in HDI and HPI

• Absence of expenditure
Pwani (11) component in HPI improves
10 Rukwa’s ranking, but has a
negative effect on Pwani’s
13 Ranking
• Introducing access to safe
water in the equasion for HPI
has a negative effect on the
ranking of Pwani.
18
20 Rukwa (20)
 WHAT CA BE Concluding
remarks
• This analysis provides further evidence on diversity of
poverty in Tanzania
• A national perspective alone obscures details important for
informed decision making on poverty reduction
• The methodologies used reveal both similarities in
regional performance as well as differences
• No single methodology will provide all answers
• More in depth analysis required focusing on WHY some
regions perform better than others
• Future work may also include sub-regional analysis, using
census data and poverty mapping
DEVELOPMENT OF POVERTY –
ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR

TANZANIAN EXPERIENCE
VPO
 Proposed core set of p-e indicators
1. Proportion of EIAs / SEAs which NEMC judges to have successfully resulted
in avoided or mitigated negative impacts (Cluster I / Goal 2)
2. The percentage of household income in rural areas derived from the
sustainable processing and marketing of natural resource products
(Cluster I / Goal 4)
3. The percentage of households able to fetch clean and safe water in under
30 minutes (go, collect, return) from a protected source (Cluster II / Goal
3A)
4. Percentage of households with access to basic sanitation facilities (Cluster
II / Goal 3B)
5. Percentage of clean water bodies – based on the Tanzania temporary
water standards of 1974 (Cluster II / Goal 3C)
6. Percentage of population living in areas of high risk of environmental
disaster (flood, landslides, droughts, food shortages) (Cluster II / Goal 3E
 Proposed core set (cont..)
7. Percentage of households in rural and urban areas using
alternative sources of energy to woodfuel, for cooking
(Cluster II / Goal 4D)
8. Land area used for NR management that is subject to
tenure security (Cluster III / Goal 1)
9. Number of Ministries and Districts establishing effective
environmental units (Cluster III / Goal 2)
10. Mechanisms for participatory decision-making
established and functioning at all levels (Cluster III /
Goal 3) 
11. Proportion of poor and vulnerable households with
legally-enshrined land titles (Cluster III / Goal 4)
 Sectoral indicators
  For all MKUKUTA targets, there is huge potential for indicators.
    These would be included in PMS but they are useful for
monitoring of sector strategies and how these contribute to sector
outcomes included in MKUKUTA.
• Core P-E Indicators
     Selection of a core set of indicators. The intention is to have
one indicator for each MKUKUTA goal relevant to P-E linkages.
     The remaining indicators plus the sectoral indicators are
available for monitoring the Medium Term Expenditure
Framework or other sectoral monitoring and evaluation according
to guidelines set out in the PMS.
 P_E indicators accepted in the MMS
• CLUSTER 1: GROWTH AND REDUCTION OF POVERTY
• Goal 2: Promoting sustainable and broad-based growth
• Proportion of enterprises undertaking Environmental Impact Assessments
complying to Environmental regulations.
• Goal 4&5: Reducing income poverty of both men and women in rural and
urban areas
• % of households whose main income is derived from the harvesting,
processing and marketing of natural resources products.
• Goal 6: Provision of reliable and affordable energy to consumers
• % of house holds in rural and urban areas using alternative sources of
energy to wood fuel (including charcoal) as their main source of energy
for cooking
 CLUSTER 2: IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIAL
WELLBEING

Goal 3: Increased access to clean, affordable and safe

water, sanitation, decent shelter and a safe and
sustainable environment
– Population with access to piped or protected water as
their main drinking water source (30 minutes go, collect,
return to be taken into consideration)
– % of Households with basic sanitation facilities
– % of schools having adequate sanitation facilities (as per
policy)
– Number of reported cholera cases
– Total area managed by mandated local institutions for the
purpose of community based natural resources
management
 CLUSTER 3: GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Goal 1: Structure and systems of governance as

well as the rule of law are democratic,
participatory, representative, accountable and
inclusive
– % of female from small holder households with
land ownership or customary land rights
– Total value of revenue received from concessions
and licenses for Natural Resources (forestry,
fishing, wildlife, mining)
 Current Status
• 10 indicators monitored through MMS
• P-E indicators gaps still prevail
• PEI second phase to work closely with NBS
through existing survey to capture P-E
indicators (HBS, Agriculture)
• To build capacity of sectors and NBS to collect,
analyse and report on P-E data
 Challenges
• How do we build capacity for data collection
and analysis at Sector and LGAs M&E systems
• How do we establish baseline data where it is
missing
• How do we coordinate data collection for
compound indicators
• How do we strengthen the link btwn MMS
and sectors reporting system
 Challenges cont…
• Weak data collection systems.
• Need for indicators to be used in district
planning.
• Limited involvement with key stakeholders
e.g. LGA
• How to ensure sustainable practices prevail
 Poverty measurements
• There are many different definitions and concepts
of well-being. Measuring poverty:
– Defining welfare measures
– Choosing and estimating poverty lines
– Choosing and estimating poverty indicators
• Measuring inequality
• Measuring vulnerability
• Issues
• Data for measurement