The challenges of urban poverty and environmental burdens
David Satterthwaite
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Key issues
1. Most work on poverty reduction & environmental management has to be local BUT most decisions on what gets funded by national governments and international donors
2. Huge under-estimation on scale of urban poverty (and of environmental burdens associated with poverty)
3. Architecture of development assistance needs to change to address urban poverty Presentation based on what I have learned from civil
society organizations (IIED-AL, work with federations formed by slum and shack dwellers, ACHR, OPP....)
Also from managing a fund that supports slum/shack dweller federations direct
INTERNATIONAL DONOR AGENCIES
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT (NATIONAL)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (political and administrative
aspects)LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY
ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs and community
organizations)THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES (the urban poor)
• What are relationships between these
• Who controls allocation & use of funds; who gets funds & under what terms; how this + accounting for fund-use influences what is done?
• Lines of accountability to the urban poor
• Importance of FCRI because it is looking at these issues
Key actors in urban poverty reduction
INTERNATIONAL DONOR AGENCIES
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT (NATIONAL)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (political and administrative
aspects)LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY
ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs and community
organizations)THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES (the urban poor)
• US$18,000 to savings group formed by very low-income women in Harare
• $4,000 a year for the TTRC in Orangi, Karachi
• Municipality-driven achievements in Ilo, Manizales....
• External researchers don’t know what they don’t know
Key actors in urban poverty reduction
All poverty reduction is local Involves improvements in people’s lives
Providing/improving schools, health care, water and sanitation, housing, livelihoods, safety nets, “voice”.....
Depends heavily on quality & capacity of local organizations (government and civil society)
National governments & donor agencies only as effective as the local changes they generate and local organizations they support
Almost all environmental improvements linked to development needs local knowledge and action
A large part of development is making local organizations work better for the poor
Local organizations Supportive Unsupportive
Schools (pre-school, primary, secondary)
Health care (all levels)
Providers of water, sanitation
Regulators of people’s access to natural resources and to land for housing in urban areas
Providers of safety nets and credit
Police and legal system
Local government: voting, listening, accountability & transparency….
Contrasts between high-
income and low- and middle-
income nations in all of these
Successful poverty reduction as: Tangible improvements in people’s lives
Increases in what they consume, save and invest Better quality/more secure homes/neighbourhoods ...... Reduced environmental health burdens
Also in better relationships with Infrastructure & service providers (those who run schools,
health centres, water agencies……) Local politicians and civil servants Local law enforcement agencies Landlords and employers NGOs, international agencies………..
Success in urban poverty reduction depends so much on quality of the relationship between the urban poor and the organizations with funding and capacity to address
their (inherently local) needs
A DONOR AGENCY with its policy decisions
Internal structure: - has to spend or lend lots of money with relatively few staff - reliance on other agencies to implement
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT AND ITS PRIORITIES
POLITICAL PROCESSES THAT OVERSEE DONOR AGENCY
Commercial interests
Non-commercial development lobbies
Non-commercial environment lobby
PUBLIC OPINION AND MEDIA
COMMERCIAL/POLITICAL INFLUENCES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (usually weak)
LOCAL CONTRACTORS
THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES; THE POOR
Estimates: different aspects urban poverty
Type of poverty Numbers of urban dwellers affected in Africa, Asia, LA & C
Inadequate income in relation to costs of basic needs
750 million to 1.1 billion
Inadequate provision for water and sanitation
680 million+ for water
800 million+ for sanitation
Under-nourished 150-200 million+
Many African & Asian nations, 25-40% urban kids underweight
Living in poverty 924 million+ in ‘slums’ & squatter settlements
Homeless 100 million?
Proportion of urban populations below the poverty line:
More than half in Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Chad, Colombia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Sierra Leone and Zambia
40-50 percent in Burundi, El Salvador, the Gambia, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Peru and Zimbabwe
Urban infant mortality rates80-101 per 1000 live births
Average for sub-Saharan Africa. Mozambique (1997), Chad (1997), Mali (1996), Ethiopia (2000), Zambia (1996), Rwanda (1992), Haiti (2000), Benin (1996), Malawi (2000), Tanzania (1996), Central African Rep. (1994/95), Eritrea (1995), Niger (1998)
60-79 per 1000 live births
Guinea (1999), Madagascar (1997), Côte d’Ivoire (1994), Yemen (1997), Pakistan (1990/91), Sudan (1990), Uganda (1995), Bangladesh (2000), Cambodia (2000), Burkina Faso (1998/99), Togo (1998), Comoros (1996), Namibia (1992), Cameroon (1998), Gabon (2000), Nepal (1996)
Among much of the urban poor, IMRs likely to be twice the urban average ie often 160-200 per 1000 live births
Other evidence of urban deprivation Environmental health burdens
Very high prevalence rates for diarrhoeal diseases, intestinal worm infections, ARIs, TB, …… often malaria or dengue
Under-nutrition 1/3rd or more urban children stunted in many nations Most Sub-Saharan African nations, 40+% urban population
with energy deficiencies (above 60% in some) HIV/AIDs prevalence
generally higher in urban areas than rural areas Disasters
Very large increase in deaths and serious injuries from disasters in urban areas 1970-2007
heavily concentrated among poor Climate change
high concentration of risk among urban poor Worst housing, least protective infrastructure, often most
dangerous sites...... Least engaged in disaster preparedness
Urbanization & health: Female Life Expectancy at Birth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Tokyo
Singa
pore
Concep
cion
Mon
tevi
deo
Rosario
Tunis
Cebu
Amm
an
Chennai
(Mad
ras)
Karac
hi
Addis
Ababa
Dhaka
Brazz
avill
e
Bujum
bura
Kinsh
asa
Lilong
we
Banju
l
Under five mortality rates
0
50
100
150
200
250
Lilong
we
Addis
Ababa
Nouakc
hott
Kinsh
asa
Brazz
avill
e
Porto-N
ovoAcc
ra
Dhaka
Abidja
n
Cotonou
Algier
s
Cebu
Quito
Bangk
ok
San S
alva
dor
Tunis
Mon
tevi
deo
Concep
cion
Why urban poverty is greatly under-estimated in many nations
Governments set poverty lines Usually based on World Bank methodologies Poverty line often based only on the cost of food
But key characteristic of urban; many non-food needs have to be paid for & are often expensive housing (often rented), water, sanitation, health care,
keeping children at school, transport ... If poverty-lines reflect real income needed to avoid
deprivation, most nations would have 40-60% of urban population below poverty-line
High levels of poverty even in prosperous, successful cities (Mumbai, Bangalore, Dhaka, many Chinese cities......) but hidden by inappropriate/incorrect poverty lines
Different poverty lines produce different conclusions
Percent of a city's population in poverty
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1990 1995 2000 2005
% o
f c
ity
po
pu
lati
on
in p
ov
ert
y
$1 a day
Food consumption
Income for food, healthcare, education
Proper city-specificpoverty line
Relative poverty
INADEQUATE INCOME
Illegal housing built or rented (often peripheral and dangerous location)
Overcrowding inadequate
basic services
High transport costs & threat
of eviction
Large disease
and injury burden
Fall outside political system
Voicelessness
No protection from the law
Work in informal economy -
harassment
Higher costs for housing, services and health care, income lost to
illness so poverty exacerbated/
income reduced
Pro-poor urban development including municipal-community organization
partnerships in upgrading and new land and house developments
Less overcrowding + much improved basic
services
Lower transport costs; evictions stopped, legal
houses affordable
Much reduced disease and
injury burden; IMR down
Poor and their settlements included in governance
Protection from the law
Support for informal
enterprises
Poverty much
reduced; incomes
increased
Reviewing work of local civil society organizations
All with well-established work programmes involving low-income groups in setting priorities/undertaking initiatives
All seek high levels of accountability/transparency to “the poor”
All seek to work with governments All dealing with difficulties faced by poor groups in getting
land or tenure of land already occupied All facing strong opposition from powerful vested
interests Most with problematic relationships with international
funders. All seeking to draw on local resources (including self-
help, local savings) In part because it reduces dependence on external funding
Key roles of local NGOs
Precedent setting (shows what is possible) Community toilets, new building materials, smaller lot sizes
Creating spaces for dialogue between diverse groups Especially between grassroots organizations
Working with local governments Essential for large-scale impacts But “they see us as contractors” Different concepts of participation and accountability
Working with organizations of the urban poor Not necessarily representative Challenges and difficulties
How much do funders support this? Very small proportion of donor funding to local initiatives Difficult to reconcile locally-driven “what needs to done” and
available external funding Pro-poor local processes complex, changing, often slow, need
long time-frames but donor funding tied to short expenditure time-frames and outcomes specified in advance “We do not fund staff costs” “we will not fund capital costs” “we can fund you for only 2 years (show us your exit-
strategy)” “we cannot fund travel costs” “we can no longer fund you because the country in which
you operate is no longer a priority for our agency” “we have changed our priorities; your work no longer fits
within these” We only fund rights-based approaches now “your application cannot be considered until the next
committee meeting in six months time”…..
Problems with international funders
International agency staff do not know what they do not know
Monitoring & evaluation frameworks often inappropriate. How does an external evaluator:
Judge or measure changes in relationships? Measure what has been achieved against what could
have been achieved Go beyond assessing everything using logframe that
local NGO was forced to produce, regardless of whether it was appropriate
Evaluate complex local processes in a few days often without speaking local languages?
‘Good practice’ in evaluations (i.e. supporting self-reflections of local organizations, not being seen as ‘external police’) rarely followed
A DONOR AGENCY with its policy decisions
Internal structure: - has to spend or lend lots of money with relatively few staff - reliance on other agencies to implement
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT AND ITS PRIORITIES
POLITICAL PROCESSES THAT OVERSEE DONOR AGENCY
Commercial interests
Non-commercial development lobbies
Non-commercial environment lobby
PUBLIC OPINION AND MEDIA
COMMERCIAL/POLITICAL INFLUENCES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (usually weak)
LOCAL CONTRACTORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS
LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS THE INTENDED
BENEFICIARIES; THE POOR
Some new rules Do not demand set proportion of matching funds BUT
local organization sees what local resources could be mobilised
Do not demand a proportion of funding provided as loans BUT funder can work with local organizations to identify what
might generate partial or full cost recovery Do not demand that local organizations work in partnership
with local government BUT support them to see if such partnerships are possible
Appreciate the importance of local organizations’ long-term engagement for success
Do not press local organizations to spend Require careful accounting and detailed narrative instead
of complex pre-conditions
A DONOR AGENCY with its policy decisions
Internal structure: - has to spend or lend lots of money with relatively few staff - reliance on other agencies to implement
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT AND ITS PRIORITIES
POLITICAL PROCESSES THAT OVERSEE DONOR AGENCY
Commercial interests
Non-commercial development lobbies
Non-commercial environment lobby
PUBLIC OPINION AND MEDIA
COMMERCIAL/POLITICAL INFLUENCES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (usually weak)
LOCAL CONTRACTORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES; THE POOR
NEW ROLE FOR AID AGENCIES Support local innovation in pro-poor basic
services as catalysts for new approaches And new relationships between urban poor, local
governments, local NGOs Long term support for urban poor groups to
demonstrate real solutions to their governments and become organized to negotiate and work more
effectively with government key roles for local NGOs
New funding architecture needed Including funds located within countries Far more attention to supporting pro-poor local
processes Funds to which local civil society organizations can apply
direct within ‘recipient’ nations eg Urban Poor Funds
Different degrees of poverty in urban areas
Degrees of poverty Each with different implications for
• Inadequacy of income• Quality of housing (and range of options to choose from)• Access to services• Asset base• Vulnerability to economic shocks• Risk level from disasters and everyday hazards
Destitution
Extreme poverty
Poverty
At risk
Top Related