30 percent had access to an improved water source, and 50 percent to an improved sanitation facility (table 2). In terms of progress, between 1998 and 2009, mining communes had significant improvement with regard to services where they started from a lower base. However, in 2009, only the share of the population using an improved water source is far greater in mining areas. This may explain the better children’s health outcomes in the vicinity of mining activity (Polat et al. 2014). Beyond indicators of access, infrastructure outcomes in 2013 are not better in mining areas. For example, while paved road per capita is slightly higher in mining areas, irrigation per capita<sup>6</sup> is lower than in other areas. Mining areas have also fewer nurses and midwives per capita than other type of communes (table 3).

**Table 2 Use of infrastructure services, 1998 and 2009 (% of population)**

|||<br>199|<br>8|||<br>200|<br>9||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Electricity<br>for lighting|Improved<br>water source|Improved<br>cooking fuel|Improved<br>sanitation|Electricity<br>for lighting|Improved<br>water source|Improved<br>cooking fuel|Improved<br>sanitation|
|Mining communes|1.88|30.31|1.73|50.62|12.97|67.16|2.10|89.25|
|Neighbor communes|2.73|17.37|1.81|47.94|11.88|42.87|0.65|84.03|
|1st control within Cercle|7.71|23.45|2.48|48.97|13.31|42.08|0.61|83.20|
|2nd Control within Region|2.62|19.38|2.11|52.35|10.54|29.06|0.47|82.08|

_Source:_ RGPH (General Population and Housing Census) 1998 and 2009.

**Table 3 Infrastructure outcomes by** **<u>group of communes, 2013</u>**

||Paved road<br>per 1,000 inh.|Irrigated area<br>per 1,000 inh.|Local health<br>centers per<br>10,000 inh.|Health<br>doctors per<br>10,000 inh.|Midwives<br>per 5,000<br>inh.|Nurse per<br>5,000 inh.|primari<br>school per<br>1000 inh.|Net primary<br>enrollement<br>(%)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Mining communes|6.80|0.73|0.74|0.52|0.06|0.38|0.88|73.00|
|Neighbor communes|6.56|4.84|1.17|0.41|0.14|0.82|0.90|63.75|
|1st control within Cercle|6.16|5.19|1.03|0.42|0.18|0.58|1.02|61.59|
|2nd Control within Region|10.37|6.21|1.07|0.32|0.12|0.72|0.82|55.87|

_Source:_ ODHD (Sustainable Development Observatory) database 2013.

With regard to poverty,<sup>7</sup> although mining communes had lower levels of poverty than other communes in 1998 and 2009, poverty reduction remains slightly less significant between the two dates. Over 10 years, poverty declined by 17 percentage points in mining communes compared to 19 percentage points in neighboring communes and other communes within the same Cercle (figure 13a). Furthermore, the mining communes of Sikasso region experienced an increase in the monetary poverty rates between 1998 and 2009. Sadiola and Sitakily achieved by far the biggest

> 6 However, this may reflect differences in rainfall or farming intensity.

> 7 We use two poverty maps based on the General Population and Housing Censuses of 1998 and 2009. The poverty map for 1998 was developed by GREAT (Applied and Theoretical Economics Research Group) and combines the 1998 census and the household survey ELIM (Integrated Light Household Survey) of 2006. The poverty map for 2009 is the result of collaboration between the World Bank and INSTAT (National Statistics Institute) and uses data from the 2009 census and the 2010 ELIM. One major methodological difference between the two maps is that the map of 1998 is based on a consumption model that considers urban and rural areas inside each administrative region with a total number of 17 models, whereas the map of 2009 uses only 8 regional models. In addition, the gap in years between the census and the household budget surveys is much smaller for the 2009 map.

12