1. Michael Epprecht Centre for Development and Environment CDE University of Bern, Switzerland Targeting poverty in the Lao PDR: how well do current approaches reach the poor? September 1 – 4, 2013 Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

2. OUTLINE ► Background of the SAE in the Lao PDR ► Results of the Lao poverty mapping analysis ► Implications for targeting

3. BACKGROUND Mapping Poverty in the Lao PDR Small-area estimation analysis using  Lao Expenditure and Consumption Survey 2003 (LECS III)  8092 households (20% urban) in 540 villages (5%)  Population and Housing Census 2005 Systematic sample of 75% of households:  712,900 households  4,123,988 individuals

4. BACKGROUND Rural Urban X X. X X X. X X. X. X X. X X X X Household size Household size squared Age composition of household Female-headed household. Education of head Education of spouse Occupation of head Ethnicity. Type of floor Type of wall Type of roof Area of house. Type of water source Type of toilet Type of cooking energy Village cooking energy. Village floor type Village ethnicity Agro-ecological region SAE poverty mapping model applied in Lao PDR

5. RESULTS ► Lao poverty mapping analysis  Reliability of results  Where are the poor?  Who are the poor?

6. ► Poverty estimates and confidence intervals RESULTS - RELIABILITY

7. ► Size of Lao villages (75% sample) RESULTS - RELIABILITY

8. RESULTSWHERE ARE THE POOR? Poverty rates are highest in the South East along the mountainous border with Vietnam Rural poverty is low in Xayaburi Province: high value agric. for export Mekong corridor: irrigated rice and trade with Thailand Boloven plateau: fertile basaltic soils - coffee, tea, & cardamom ► Spatial patterns of poverty in the Lao PDR

9. ► Spatial patterns of poverty in the Lao PDR Poverty incidence and poverty density

10. RESULTSWHO ARE THE POOR? ► Lao poverty mapping analysis  Where are the poor?  Who are the poor?

11. Poverty rates among male- and female-headed households:

12. RESULTSWHO ARE THE POOR? ► Poverty among ethnic groups

13. RESULTSWHO ARE THE POOR? ► Poverty among ethnic groups

14. ► Poverty among male and female-headed households

15. With the poor a bit of everywhere: IMPLICATIONS FORTARGETING

16. With the poor a bit of everywhere: ? ► What are the implications… …for targeting of poverty alleviation efforts?

17. IMPLICATIONS FOR TARGETING ► Where to reach the poor?

18. IMPLICATIONS FORTARGETING ► MDG 1: Reducing the number of poor people by 50 % in 2015  50% of the poor live in districts classified as not poor  1/3 of the poor live in poor priority districts

19. Highest poverty density Poorest areas ► MDG 1: Reducing Laos’ number of poor by 50% IMPLICATIONS FORTARGETING

20. ► Most people are poor in remote, and sparsely populated areas  high ‘access’ costs per person  costly service provision  little potential ‘leakage’ to non-poor IMPLICATIONS FORTARGETING ► Most poor people live in comparatively densely populated areas  low ‘physical access’ costs per person, but potentially higher targeting costs  cheaper service provision  high ‘leakage’ to non-poor

21. ► Balancing targeting (and implementation) costs vs. ‘leakage’ ► Considerations on type of assistance in targeting (household vs. community/ geographic) ► Data needs, and updatability of key data ►  Regional development approach in sparsely populated poor remote areas ►  Household or population segment targeting in densely populated areas IMPLICATIONS FORTARGETING