The poverty debate in Kerala: Why eradication is never the end of the story – The News Minute

Report on Kerala’s Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP) and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the State of Kerala’s Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP), which culminated in a declaration on November 1, 2023, that the state is free from extreme poverty. The analysis evaluates the project’s methodology, its claims, and its broader implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty).

1.0 Project Overview and Contribution to SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The EPEP represents a significant, targeted intervention aimed at achieving Target 1.2 of the SDGs, which seeks to reduce at least by half the proportion of people living in poverty in all its dimensions. The project’s framework and execution demonstrate a multi-stakeholder approach consistent with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Identification Process: A coordinated exercise involving multiple government agencies identified 64,006 households (103,099 individuals) deemed unable to escape poverty without direct state intervention.
• Targeted Interventions: Local self-governments developed customized micro-plans for each household, addressing specific vulnerabilities. This localized strategy is crucial for building resilient communities as envisioned in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Addressing Foundational Gaps: A key finding was that many targeted households lacked basic government documents, such as ration or Aadhaar cards. By rectifying this, the project directly supports SDG 16.9 (provide legal identity for all), a critical enabler for accessing social protection systems under SDG 1.3.

2.0 Critical Analysis of Poverty Measurement and its Dynamic Nature

While the EPEP is a commendable effort, the declaration of complete eradication of extreme poverty warrants a critical examination. The definition of poverty is not static and its measurement directly impacts the assessment of progress towards SDG 1.

2.1 Definitional Challenges

The definition of “extremely poor” used by the Kerala government is specific to the project’s scope. Critics suggest the initiative is more accurately described as a “targeted poverty upliftment programme.” This highlights a global challenge in standardizing metrics for SDG 1, as poverty is a relative and context-specific condition.

2.2 The Cyclical Nature of Poverty

Poverty is not a permanent state but a dynamic and recurrent condition, influenced by various shocks. This reality poses a challenge to the sustainability of achievements under SDG 1.

1. Economic and Environmental Shocks: Events such as floods, pandemics (COVID-19), or major policy changes can rapidly push households back into poverty.
2. Evolving Necessities: The definition of basic needs changes over time. A mobile phone and internet access, once luxuries, are now essential for participating in education (SDG 4) and the economy, demonstrating the time-relative nature of deprivation.

3.0 Drivers of Poverty: Structural and Individual Factors

An effective strategy for eradicating poverty requires understanding its root causes, which are both structural and individual. This aligns with the ambition of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) to leave no one behind.

3.1 Structural Inequalities

Certain communities in Kerala remain disproportionately vulnerable to economic shocks due to historically constructed exclusion from resources and opportunities. This systemic issue is a primary barrier to achieving SDG 10.

• Dalits
• Adivasis
• Fisherfolk

3.2 Individual Pathways to Destitution

Case studies reveal that poverty can also result from sudden downward mobility due to personal circumstances, underscoring the need for robust social safety nets that support SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Health Crises: Research confirms that illness and high healthcare costs are a primary cause of households falling into poverty. Many remain “one illness away” from destitution, highlighting the critical link between SDG 1 and SDG 3.
• Loss of Livelihood: Personal accidents or legal disputes can drain savings and destroy economic security, as seen in cases where individuals lost their employment and assets, becoming dependent on state support.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The Kerala government’s EPEP is a laudable, participatory, and locally-driven initiative that offers a valuable model for state-led action on poverty. It demonstrates a strong commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

However, for sustainable and long-term success in achieving SDG 1, the following points should be considered:

• Adopt a Dynamic Framework: Poverty analysis must move beyond static measurement to address the cyclical processes that create and recreate poverty.
• Integrate Preventive and Supportive Policies: Social policy must not only support those currently in poverty but also include preventive measures, such as universal healthcare (SDG 3) and social insurance, to protect vulnerable households from shocks.
• Address Structural Inequalities: Efforts must focus on the underlying political and economic structures that perpetuate inequality, in line with the core principles of SDG 10.

While the claim of complete eradication may be overstated, the EPEP has successfully built state capacity from the ground up and moved the discourse on poverty into the public domain, which is a crucial step toward creating inclusive and equitable societies.

Analysis of SDGs in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The entire article is centered on the theme of poverty, specifically Kerala’s Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP). It discusses the definition, measurement, and dynamic nature of poverty, directly aligning with the core objective of SDG 1.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article explicitly links poverty to health issues. It states, “illness and healthcare costs are a major cause of people slipping into poverty,” and provides the example of Saji, who lost his savings and home due to costly medical treatment after an accident. This highlights the connection between health crises and economic vulnerability.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article points out that poverty disproportionately affects certain groups. It mentions that “Dalits, Adivasis, and fisherfolk remain most vulnerable to economic shocks” and that their poverty is linked to “historically constructed exclusion from opportunities and resources,” which is a central concern of SDG 10.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses the institutional framework of the EPEP. It highlights that many targeted individuals lacked basic government documents like Aadhaar or ration cards, which are forms of legal identity crucial for accessing services. The program’s effort to identify these individuals and the “participatory and locally driven approach” involving “local self-governments” speak to the goal of building effective and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere. The article directly addresses this target by discussing the Kerala government’s declaration of being “free from extreme poverty” and analyzing the effectiveness and definition used in its Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP).
   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article’s discussion on how poverty is defined and measured, and the identification of 64,006 “extremely poor” households based on a specific set of criteria, relates to addressing poverty according to a national/regional definition.
   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable. The EPEP is described as a “targeted poverty upliftment programme” and an “important social safety net” for the identified households, which is a direct implementation of a social protection system.
   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services. The article notes that many targeted households “did not possess basic government documents such as ration or Aadhaar card, and as a result, they had not been benefiting from government schemes,” directly highlighting the link between lack of documentation and access to basic services.
2. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services… The article underscores the importance of this target by showing its absence. It cites research that “illness and healthcare costs are a major cause of people slipping into poverty” and gives the example of Saji, whose family was pushed into poverty by “years of costly treatment,” demonstrating a lack of financial risk protection against health shocks.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… ethnicity… or other status. The article identifies specific vulnerable groups, stating, “In Kerala, Dalits, Adivasis, and fisherfolk remain most vulnerable to economic shocks. Their poverty is not only about income but also about historically constructed exclusion from opportunities and resources.” This directly points to the need for social and economic inclusion for these communities.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.9: By 2030, provide legal identity for all. The article implies this target is crucial by stating that a significant problem for the extremely poor was that “many of the targeted households did not possess basic government documents such as ration or Aadhaar card.” The EPEP’s work to identify and support these individuals is a step towards ensuring legal identity for all.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 1 Targets:
   • Indicator 1.2.1 (Proportion of population living below the national poverty line): The article provides a specific number: “64,006 households involving 1,03,099 individuals” were identified as “extremely poor” based on the Kerala government’s definition. This figure serves as a baseline measurement for the program.
   • Indicator 1.3.1 (Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems): The 64,006 households targeted by the EPEP represent the population covered by this specific social safety net, which can be used as an indicator of the program’s reach among the most vulnerable.
2. For SDG 3 Targets:
   • Indicator 3.8.2 (Proportion of population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income): This indicator is strongly implied through the narrative examples. The article mentions that “illness and healthcare costs are a major cause of people slipping into poverty” and describes how Saji’s “years of costly treatment drained his savings, forcing him to sell his home and property.” This points to catastrophic health expenditure as a key driver of poverty.
3. For SDG 10 Targets:
   • Implied Indicator (Poverty rates disaggregated by social group): The article does not provide specific numbers but implies the need for such an indicator by stating that “Dalits, Adivasis, and fisherfolk remain most vulnerable.” Measuring the poverty rates within these specific communities would be a direct way to track progress on reducing inequalities.
4. For SDG 16 Targets:
   • Implied Indicator (Proportion of the population lacking legal identity documents): The article implies this indicator by noting that “many of the targeted households did not possess basic government documents such as ration or Aadhaar card.” The number or proportion of people identified by the EPEP who lack these documents could serve as a measure of the gap in legal identity among the poorest populations.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thenewsminute.com