Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS)
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
Social Safety Net Project
The Impact of Social Cash Transfers on
Informal Safety Nets in Kalomo District,
Zambia
A Qualitative Study
Katharina Wietler
Berlin, January 2007
The Impact of Social Cash Transfers on Informal
Safety Nets in Kalomo District, Zambia
A Qualitative Study
Consultant:
Ms. Katharina Wietler
Tel.: 0049-30-39887725
Email: [email protected]
Berlin
January, 2007
Translators:
Mr. Newton Mbandama
Mr. Biggie Siambede
1
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4
1.
2.
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
1.2
Objectives of the Study ............................................................................. 6
1.3
Methodology ............................................................................................... 6
1.4
Terminology................................................................................................ 7
1.5
Study Sites.................................................................................................. 8
1.6
The Sample ................................................................................................. 8
Rural Livelihood Strategies and Informal Safety Nets of Incapacitated
Households in Zambia ........................................................................................... 10
3.
2.1
Livelihood Strategies ............................................................................... 10
2.2
Formal and Modern-Informal Safety Nets .............................................. 11
2.3
Informal Safety Nets................................................................................. 12
Impact of the Kalomo Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme ......................... 18
3.1
3.1.1
Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies....................... 18
3.1.2
Impact on Informal Safety Nets........................................................ 19
3.2
4.
In Rural Areas ........................................................................................... 18
In Urban Areas.......................................................................................... 23
3.2.1
Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies....................... 23
3.2.2
Impact on Informal Safety Nets........................................................ 24
Conclusion....................................................................................................... 26
References .............................................................................................................. 28
Annex I
Interview Guidelines............................................................................. 30
Annex II
Household Compositions .................................................................... 32
Annex III Selected Interviews .............................................................................. 37
Annex IV
Selected Case Studies ...................................................................... 40
2
List of Acronyms
ACC
Area Coordination Committee
AIDS
Acquired Immune Deficiency Virus
CSO
Central Statistical Office
CWAC
Community Welfare Assistance Committee
DSWO
District Social Welfare Officer
DWAC
District Welfare Assistance Committee
FGD
Focus Group Discussions
GTZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit,
German Technical Cooperation
HIV
Human Immune Deficiency Virus.
K
Kwacha (Zambian currency)
KPSCTS
Kalomo Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme
MCDSS
Ministry of Community Development and Social Services
M+E
Monitoring and Evaluation
NDP
National Development Plan
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
PSWO
Provincial Social Welfare Officer
PWAS
Public Welfare Assistance Scheme
3
Executive Summary
Beneficiaries of the Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme abandon “erosive” coping
strategies like piecework and begging when receiving monthly cash transfers. At the
same time, they develop and use investment strategies like hiring people to plough
their fields to compensate the lack of productive power. By employing family or
community members, other destitute households also benefit from the cash transfers.
At the same time, less assistance in terms of money transfers and voluntary (unpaid)
assistance by family or community members, e.g. in farming, seems available for
beneficiaries of the scheme. This might be due to the fact that beneficiaries are now
considered able to hire someone to plough their fields. In some cases, a
monetarization of relationships took place, e.g. when members of the same family
were paid for working on a relative’s field. However, as the majority of beneficiaries is
still considered poor by their community, assistance in the form of food transfers is
still available.
The social status of beneficiaries has changed in regard of their possibility to deal
with personal crises and idiosyncratic risks. They are no longer exclusively
dependent on other people to cope with shocks like diseases or the loss of livestock
but can draw back on a reliable monthly income. Moreover, beneficiaries who were
formerly mostly living on begging can now employ community members for work. In
regard of the perception of community members, beneficiaries feel that their social
status has not changed significantly and that they still feel excepted by their
community.
Social cash transfers do not seem to have a considerable impact on migration of
family members and household compositions; those are more dependent on
individual circumstances and personal incidents like the death of a household
member, sickness, divorce or remarriage.
The transfers are considered an important support for the destitute; however, they
are regarded not enough to lift a household from its poor situation. Whereas the
amount of the transfers might not be sufficient to cover all needs of the household, it
is at them same time not changing the socio-economic differences within the
community too drastically. The transfers are supportive but not to an extent that
would cause serious jealousy among the community members and thus represent an
important and complementary source of income for the destitute.
Jealousy was not openly expressed and generally all beneficiaries are considered
eligible by community members. However, the 10% rule of the scheme is perceived
inadequate and as a result, some people feel unfairly excluded. They mostly blame
the CWAC members who are considered responsible for the selection process. In
general, there is lack of information about the (voluntary) work of the CWAC and their
role in the targeting and approval process.
4
1.
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
Zambia today is facing an increase in poverty and social insecurity for many
households. Approximately three quarters of the population are living below the
national poverty line1 with an especially high percentage of extremely poor people in
rural areas. Like in most other African countries, destitute households in Zambia have
always relied on informal safety nets to secure their survival. Formal safety nets
provided by the state or development agencies prove insufficient to cover all the
needy and reciprocal assistance between family members and the community has
always been and still is a major informal survival strategy. In times of HIV/Aids,
though, these informal support mechanisms undergo changes: With an infection rate
of 25% among the 30-40 years olds2, the young and able-bodied generation is mostly
affected. Household compositions are transforming and the number of incapacitated
households that consist of vulnerable members like elderly and orphans with no or
too few viable members is increasing.
Governments and the international community are responding to the growing need of
social security for incapacitated households as part of poverty reduction programmes
and development projects. In August 2003, the Ministry of Community Development
and Social Services (MCDSS) of the Zambian government established the Kalomo
Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme (KPSCTS) in Kalomo district in southern
province. The Public Welfare Assistance Scheme (PWAS) has been commissioned
to administer the Scheme and the GTZ financed Social Safety Net Project provides
technical assistance and the funding required for serving 1,000 households for an
initial period of two years. The main objectives of the scheme are
• to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and starvation in the 10% most destitute
and incapacitated (non-viable) households in the pilot region. The focus lies
mainly - but not exclusively - on households that are headed by the elderly and
are caring for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) because the
breadwinners are chronically sick or have died due to HIV/Aids or due to other
reasons
• to generate information on the feasibility, costs and benefits and all positive
and negative impacts of a Social Cash Transfer Scheme as a component of a
Social Protection Strategy for Zambia.
At present, 1,200 households with a population of 4,800 persons are receiving a
monthly cash transfer of K30.000 – K40.000 (~ 6 US $) and the whole district will be
covered by mid 20073. Whereas the performance of the scheme has been thoroughly
monitored and several documents and reports are available, some aspects of social
cash transfers are still unclear. One is the relationship between formal and informal
safety nets and what impact cash transfers as an institutionalized social security
system have on indigenous informal safety nets.
The aim of this study was to determine current livelihood strategies of incapacitated
households in Zambia with a focus on the nature, extent and effectiveness of informal
safety nets as part of coping strategies of destitute households. Private social
1
UNCT Zambia/MFNP (2003): Zambian Millenium Development Goals Report, Lusaka, p. 3
Ibid., p. 14
3
For further information visit the official website of the KSCTS: www.socialcashtransfers-zambia.org
2
5
insurance systems are not looked at whereas modern-informal safety nets like
support from international aid agencies are partly included. However, the major focus
lay on the correlation and the impact of an institutionalized, western approach to
social security on indigenous forms of social safety nets. This report draws
implications from the finding of a research that was carried out in Zambia from March
to June 2006. As the research was of a qualitative nature, the results do not claim to
be representative.
The first part analyses livelihood strategies of and formal and informal safety nets for
destitute households in a rural area that is not yet covered by the scheme. It relies to
some extent on secondary data as well as related scientific literature and acts as the
comparison group for the data collected from beneficiary households. The second
part focuses on livelihood strategies of and formal and informal safety nets for
beneficiaries in rural and urban areas. By comparing the findings for beneficiaries
and non-beneficiaries and identifying differences and similarities, the impact of social
cash transfers on livelihood strategies and informal safety nets will be determined.
1.2
Objectives of the Study
Detailed objectives of this study were
• to identify informal safety nets mechanisms as part of current livelihood
strategies of incapacitated households in rural Zambia by
a) analysing household compositions, neighbourhood relations and
causes for migration movements and
b) determining nature, extent and effectiveness of assistance,
• to determine the impact of social cash transfers on rural and urban livelihood
strategies of destitute households by
a) comparing livelihood strategies of beneficiaries of the KPSCTS with
those of non-beneficiary destitute households and
b) identifying investment strategies of and possibilities for beneficiaries by
using the cash transfers,
• to define the impact of social cash transfers on informal safety nets of destitute
households in rural and urban areas by
a) comparing assistance structures that are in place for beneficiaries with
those for non-beneficiary destitute households and
b) identifying changes in relationships and social status of beneficiaries of
cash transfers,
• to find out if cash transfers have a complementary, weakening or other impact
on informal safety nets in Zambia.
1.3
Methodology
Data was collected from different sources. In a first step, literature was reviewed and
documents concerning the topic were consulted4. An interview guideline was
4
e.g. Central Statistical Office (2004): Living Conditions and Monitoring Survey 2002/2003, Lusaka
2004
Kakwani, Nanak and Subbarao, Kalanidhi (2005): Aging and Poverty in Africa and the Role of Social
Pensions. Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0521. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Parker B./Mwape F. (2004): Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia: 2004. A qualitative Study,
Lusaka 2004
6
designed and suitable villages and interview partners identified with the help of staff
of the scheme. From March to June 2003, a research was carried out in five
geographical units of Kalomo District in Southern Province. A combination of
qualitative and quantitative research methods was used to generate the information
that is analyzed and reported in this document. Quantitative data were obtained from
records kept by CWAC members in the study sites. Qualitative research methods
included semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, case studies, and
social relations mapping. Qualitative interviews were held with head of destitute
households in an area which is not yet covered by the Scheme and with beneficiaries
of the Kalomo Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme in two rural and two urban areas.
Furthermore, focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with CWAC and
community members.
1.4
Terminology
“Safety net mechanisms include care for sick or dependent relatives and the
provision of material relief, labour, and emotional support to destitute or bereaved
families”.5 The social security portfolio of an individual consists of four forms of
support systems, which should complement one another, provide sufficient protection
against emergencies and are characterised by a different degree of formality. Formal
safety nets are here understood as government social security services like social
insurance, government social assistance, services and payments provided in
connection with specific poverty programs whereas “traditional” informal safety nets
are those that draw support from kinship, neighbours and friends. Between those two
extremes, there exist modern-informal safety nets like private voluntary organisations
(PVO), both indigenous and western, and private sector insurance services. This
study is concentrating on cash transfers as a state-provided formal social security
scheme and their impact on indigenous informal safety nets based on reciprocity and
solidarity. These informal safety nets are understood as a subset of the range of
coping strategies that people adopt in response to episodes of acute food insecurity6.
Coping strategies are temporary responses to declining food entitlements and are
normally reserved for periods in unusual stress, which often result in food insecurity.
Davies (1996) found that due to higher vulnerability and socio-economic changes,
activities which were reserved in the past for periods of food stress are now
transforming into normal strategies for poorer households7. This can also be
concluded for Zambia, where certain strategies that were perceived to be coping
strategies have thus become the livelihood strategies of destitute and incapacitated
households. Both terms will in the following be used synonymously.
Furthermore, this study uses terms on destitution and vulnerability from the PWAS
client identification matrix8. Social, economic and other qualifiers determine if a
household is considered incapacitated, meaning that no or not enough viable
household members are available. Poverty among the incapacitated is structural as it
relates to the structure of the households. In statistical terms incapacitated
5
Foster, G. (2000): The capacity of the extended family safety net for orphans in Africa, in:
Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000, p. 59
6
Devereux , Stephen (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, p. 5
7
Davies, Susanna (1996): Adaptable Livelihoods. Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel.
Institute of Development Studies; University of Sussex, p. 34
8
PWAS/PAG (2004): The Incapacitated Poor in Zambia, Lusaka, p. 27f
7
households have a high dependency ratio, i.e. the relation between the number of
dependent household members (not able to perform productive work) and the
number of household members able to perform productive work9. A household is
considered incapacitated by certain social qualifiers which include the age of the
head of household (being elderly), disability, a chronic sickness (mainly HIV/AIDS),
being female or a child. Economically, a household qualifies for the welfare scheme if
it is not getting support from relatives and cannot reasonably be expected to do so; if
the household does not have productive assets that could be used to earn an
income; and if the members of the household cannot work or should not work
(because they are too old, or should be at school)10. A destitute household is defined
as a household living in severe and chronic poverty without any or insufficient
member(s) fit for productive work11.
1.5
Study Sites
All five study sites are situated in Kalomo district, one of the southernmost districts of
southern province. The town Kalomo lies along the great north road about 120
kilometres north of Livingstone and 400 kilometres south of Lusaka. Different
administrative units are used to divide the district; this study refers to the Community
Welfare Assistance Committees (CWACs) as both administrative and geographic
units: they are committees elected by their community and represent the grass root
level structures of the Public Welfare Assistance Scheme (PWAS) and the Kalomo
Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme (KPSCTS)12. As geographical units CWACs are
used to define specific areas with a certain number of villages and beneficiaries.
Data was collected from
a) the rural Chidi CWAC, which is not yet covered by the KPSCTS
b) the rural CWACs Masempela and Kanchele, which are included in the
KPSCTS
c) the semi-urban CWACs Mawaya 2 and Magrimondi, which are covered by the
KPSCTS.
The rural CWACs are all approximately 70 km away from Kalomo Town and
comparably difficult to access with public transport. They have similar geographical
and physical features. The main economic activity in the district is agriculture: About
90-95% of the district inhabitants depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Peasant
and small scale farming are the most common farming systems with maize as the
major crop.
1.6
The Sample
In this study, 32 interviews were held with heads of incapacitated households in three
rural and two urban CWACs. The identification process of eligible interview
households followed recommendations from PWAS and KPSCTS employees and
detailed information from CWAC members on the ground. 16 interviews were held
with household heads in Chidi CWAC; ten were held with beneficiaries of the
KPSCTS in the CWACs Masempela and Kanchele and six with beneficiaries in
Kalomo Township, in Mawaya 2 and Magrimondi CWAC. Furthermore, four
9
MCDSS/GTZ (2006): The Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme – Kalomo District, Zambia. Summary
Report, Lusaka
10
PWAS/PAG (2004): The Incapacitated Poor in Zambia, Lusaka, p. 27f
11
Ibid., p. 28
12
MCDSS/GTZ (2004): Manual of Operations, Lusaka, p. 3
8
interviews were held with better off community members in Chidi and
Masemplea/Kanchele CWAC and focus group discussions with community members
and CWAC members were conducted.
In Chidi CWAC, 12 out of 16 head of households are female with an average age of
67. Whereas three of the four male head of households live together with their wives,
most of the women are widows and only one is living with her husband. In regard of
the relatively high age of the interview partners, it can be guessed that their
widowhood is not related to HIV/AIDS but that their partners died due to age or other
reasons. In the rural CWACs that are included in the KPSCTS, out of ten households,
nine are female headed and eight of these head of households are widows. In the
urban CWACs, four interview partners are female and two male. The high number of
female headed households is in line with the results of the national household
survey, which also found that more female headed households are destitute and
especially vulnerable and exposed to risks13. Additionally, almost all interview
partners are elderly.
13
PWAS (2003): Report on Results of the National Household Survey, Lusaka, p. 23
9
2. Rural Livelihood Strategies and Informal Safety Nets of
Incapacitated Households in Zambia
Most people in the rural areas in Zambia are semi-subsistence farmers with limited
capital who mainly rely on regular crop and livestock production. Households with low
crop productivity are supplementing their insufficient income with piecework, a kind of
wage labour for work on the fields (see below). Better off farmers manage to sell
some of their harvest in nearby towns. Besides maize as the major crop, sunflower,
groundnuts, sorghum, millet, cowpeas, sugar beans, castor beans, cotton and
Virginia tobacco are cultivated14. Major risks are droughts and a number of livestock
diseases; the majority of peasant farmers face low agricultural productivity and food
insecurity towards the end of the dry season when the harvest has been consumed15.
Two outbreaks of the corridor disease in the late nineties and early this century
increased the number of vulnerable households as hundreds of animals were wiped
away within weeks, and people were left without their traditional productive assets.
Although the year 2005/2006 brought a lot of rain and the harvest was reported to be
good, even better off households expected a food shortage by the end of the year.
2.1
Livelihood Strategies
Poor households everywhere survive by pursuing a mix of livelihood strategies and
adaptive behaviours to deal with short term shocks as well as long term social and
economic changes16. In this study, the main sources of livelihood of non viable
households in rural areas were small scale farming, gardening and piecework.
Ten interviewees in Chidi CWAC reported to cultivate a small piece of land, using
their hands and a hoe. Most destitute households do not own cattle and even old
women at an age of ninety years work in the fields. Land that is cultivated with hand
and hoe is in most cases too small to produce a sufficient harvest, and the lack of
fertilizer enforces this problem. The six interview partners who do not cultivate a
piece of land by themselves are either assisted by their sons or rely on other
strategies like begging. As land is a resource that is still relatively available, the major
problem for incapacitated households is the lack of work power.
Gardening is done by ten head of households who plant mainly pumpkins, tomatoes
and cabbage for their own consumption. In one case, an interviewee sells some of
her vegetables in a rural town in September and thus generates an additional
income. The major problem that prevents people from gardening is the lack of seeds
without financial means to buy some, and unfavourable weather conditions.
Throughout Africa, doing piecework is considered one of the major coping strategies
of the vulnerable poor. In Chidi CWAC, six head of households did piecework despite
their high age and poor health condition. Due to social and economic deterioration of
living conditions, piecework as a former coping strategy only for a short period in
times of food stress is transforming into a regular livelihood strategy of chronically
poor households. Piecework includes working on other people’s fields as well as
14
Participatory Assessment Group (2003): District Participatory Assessment. Volume 3: Kalomo
District Report, Lusaka, p. 14
15
Ibid, p. 27
16
Devereux, S. (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, p. 8
10
washing clothes or grading the yard for people in rural centres. A reward is either
given in cash or in kind, depending on the availability of the former and the kind of
work. The wage for piecework in Zambia ranges from K20.000 to K60.000 (~ $4 to
$12 in August 2006), depending on kind and duration of labour. Piecework is
considered an “erosive” strategy, a strategy that depletes a household’s asset base
and therefore undermines its future viability17. Its’ major disadvantage is that it
competes with own-farm production of food and the economic returns are generally
very low. Chronically poor household very often have to choose between piecework
to meet the present food shortage for the sake of the future harvest or to invest into
tomorrows’ harvest and stay hungry.
Other livelihood strategies are the brewing of beer, doing handicraft like knitting
and making traditional mats and selling it within the community. These strategies are
mainly followed by women whereas men seem to prefer carpentry as an income
generating activity. It has to be noted that these livelihood activities are not
exclusively performed by incapacitated households; on the contrary, it can be
assumed that those inventive strategies are mainly followed by households which
have not yet given up hope.
Begging from family or community members is a common survival strategy of
destitute households in rural areas. The majority stated to beg regularly for food,
small items like soap or salt, or money. Main sources for support are close relatives
like children and siblings but also other relatives and unrelated neighbours. In some
cases, the act of begging and receiving something could be understood as a form of
mutual assistance between households of the same poverty line (see part 2.3). This
strategy does not seem to add any value to the dignity of a household or individual
following it18.
Although it was harvest season, all except for three households in Chidi CWAC
received food relief from Care International. The food is shared within the family and
benefits all members, independent from who is the official recipient. Many
households refer to this kind of transfer as their only stable food income and their
main source of ingestion. It is notable that receiving food transfers obviously does not
prevent people from begging whereas beneficiaries of cash transfers abandon this
strategy in most cases (see 3.1.1).
Other coping strategies are the complementation of Nshima, the traditional maize
pulp, with wild vegetables or fish, and the reduction of food intakes. The latter is
especially often the case during rainy season when food becomes rare and people
sometimes have one meal or less per day. Some interviewees reported to rely mainly
on traditional vegetables and wild fruits during that time.
2.2
Formal and Modern-Informal Safety Nets
Like mentioned in the introduction, formal safety nets are here understood as
government social security services, whereas modern-informal safety nets are
identified as those provided mainly by international and national development
agencies.
17
Devereux, Stephen (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, p. 12
18
MCDSS/GTZ (2005): Baseline Survey Report. Lusaka, p. 41
11
Concerning the former, it will only be looked at the public welfare assistance scheme
(PWAS) as the provider of social security whereas other government provisions like
health and education services will be neglected. The Zambian PWAS looks back to a
long history starting in the 1950s as a programme providing support to war veterans.
It gained a national mandate to support needy widows and other deprived people
after independence and is nowadays working through grass-root structures (the
CWACs) on community level to identify their clients by using a PWAS matrix19.
PWAS came to a halt in the early ninety’s as a result of the economic decline of the
country and was only re-established in 2000. Today, PWAS structures exist in all
rural and urban CWACs but have been often dormant after their foundation in
2001/2002 due to lack of funding. Members of the Community Welfare Assistance
Committee in Chidi stated that they never received any support from the District
Social Welfare Office (DSWO) in Kalomo Town, reportedly due to lack of transport
and funds. Furthermore, a situation was found where official PWAS structures, the
Area Coordinating Committees (ACCs) and the CWACs which are both responsible
for the targeting and monitoring of beneficiaries, were not involved into the food
distribution process of the DSWO. Their responsibilities were rather taken over by the
agricultural camp officer who had a mean of transport and was in regular contact with
the office in Kalomo. It was reported that he misused some of the food for his own
business. PWAS institutions seem so far not capable to guarantee a sufficient
support for its clients in the rural areas and lack means but also commitment to
prevent corrupt structures and the misuse of food for the poor.
Concerning modern-informal safety nets provided by development agencies, the
major development organisation in Chidi CWAC is Care International with its
projects Care C-Safe, Relief Food and Food for Work. Target groups are the
chronically sick and their households (C-Safe), subsistence farmers in times of bad
harvest (Relief Food) and chronically poor but viable persons (Food for Work). The
assistance for all projects comes in the form of food like Millie meal and/or sorghum
and beans and seems to cover most needy households in the area. 13 out of 16
interviewees receive food transfers from Care International and the organisation has
a generally good reputation. The only complaint concerned the selection and
exclusion process of beneficiaries which was sensed not transparent and sometimes
incomprehensible. Other non-governmental development agencies in the area were
not mentioned and do not seem to play a major role, if present at all.
Although in general, several development agencies aim at supporting and securing
the survival of the needy and destitute, most of the programmes seem to concentrate
on the urban areas and do not reach the poor in rural regions, where poverty is
highest.
2.3
Informal Safety Nets
Informal safety nets are here understood as only those coping strategies that involve
the drawing on support from other households20 or individuals. Although during the
last century, the main pillars of informal (“traditional”) safety nets, namely reciprocity
and solidarity, underwent serious transformations and lost part of their significance,
kinship and social ties are nowadays still the main provider of informal support for
needy family members. It is understood that geographic and related closeness of
19
PWAS (2003):
Devereux, Stephen (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institut of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, p.13
20
12
people stay in connection with the availability of help. Thus, relatives living next to
each other are supposedly more likely to help each other than non-related
neighbours or relatives living far away from each other21. A household is generally
considered an individual or a group of people permanently living together on the
same plot and using the same kitchen, respectively sharing food by cooking together.
This is however a theoretical definition which does not always meet the reality on the
ground. People sometimes feel as members of a household even when they are
living and working away for most of a year or children are considered household
members although they only stay with their grandparents for the school holidays. It is
furthermore not applicable for polygamous households where the different wives
cook separately but eat together. Additionally, it often happens that households on
the same plot share a meal or assist each other with food, especially when they are
closely related. Furthermore, household compositions in African societies underlie
permanent changes. Main causes for the founding, transformation or dissolution of a
household are marriage, divorce, death or sickness. For the last decade, HIV/AIDS
has become another major determinant for the structure of households and families.
With the impact of the disease, the range of relatives who can offer care and support
is “narrowing”22 and the elderly become increasingly important for other vulnerable
groups like orphans.
Out of five households that are taking care of orphans in Chidi CWAC, two consist of
elderly staying alone with an orphaned child. In the three other households, the
mothers of the children are still alive and have returned to their mother’s homestead
after the death of their husbands. Even with one parent still living, these households
are characterized by a high vulnerability and extremely endangered by dissolution.
The returning parent might be also infected with HIV and close to serious sickness,
and leave his/her offspring under the protection of an elderly person who is as well
likely to die within the next few years.
In some cases, what is viewed as a situation in which the elderly provide childcare is
actually more like a situation of mutual support with increasingly frail grandparents
becoming the care recipients of their grandchildren23. Such a situation thus does not
represent the eradication but indeed a different form of informal safety net, especially
when a child is intentionally left with the grandparent to assist him or her in daily
work. Sometimes the elderly person is crucially dependent on the help of the
grandchild in daily work like cooking, taking care of animals and washing.
Grandchildren caring for their grandparents are actually an old phenomenon widely
spread in Africa24. The term used is “granny fostering” and describes a common way
of the fosterage of old people by their underage grandchildren. At the same time, the
grandparents offer their grandchildren shelter, food and protection. It can be thus
considered a reciprocal support mechanism and a safety net for both of the
vulnerable individuals, elderly and grandchild. However, with no viable member
available, those chronically poor households have no prospect of personal
development as their productive possibilities do not meet the needs of all household
21
Sahlins, Marshall D.: Zur Soziologie des primitiven Tausches. In: Adloff/Mau (Hrsg.) (2005): Vom
Geben und Nehmen. Zur Soziologie der Reziprozität. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New Yorck
22
Harland, Charlotte (2004): Overview of the Situation Analysis of Orphans & Vulnerable Children
2004, Lusaka, p. 21
23
Foster, G. (2000): The capacity of the extended family safety net for orphans in Africa, in:
Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000, p. 59
24
Alber (2006), Bledsoe und Isingo-Abanihe (1989)
13
members. Furthermore, children who fulfil daily life work for their grandparents have
consequently less time to concentrate on school and many have to skip school
completely. A mutual benefit is thus not always guaranteed. For all the interviewees,
it was considered a normal and natural behaviour to take over the care for a
grandchild, even when the household was already in a very poor situation. It was
never expressed that the children represented a burden and that the interviewees
wanted to give away the responsibility they had for them.
Quite often, the elderly seem to be not only the last resort of care for orphans but
also for children whose parents are still alive. This can be the case after the divorce
and remarriage of one parent when the woman usually returns to the homestead of
her parents and takes her children with her. In the case of a remarriage, the children
are sometimes left with the grandparents because the new husband either does not
accept them or because it is feared that they might be mistreated. With a growing
pressure on the extended family, people are increasingly likely to offer care to
children only when they are directly related to them25. A child that is brought up by a
distant relative is therefore probably worse treated than the direct offspring of that
family, being forced to work hard in the house and “pay off” the support it gets.
It is often found that after a divorce, the fathers do not care for their children at all.
This behaviour can be partly related to individual reasons but also to the matrilineal
decent system of the Tonga, where lineage relations and succession are organised
through the mother. Nowadays, the replacement of the former husband by a male
family member is unusual and the divorced mother returns home to her kin. Her
situation seems to be more that of a widow than that of a divorcee, having little
contact with her former husband and holding the exclusive responsibility for the
children.
Half of the household heads were living with their grown-up children, and three more
shared the same plot with their son respectively adult grandson. Although this
situation seems to contradict the definition of an incapacitated household on the first
sight, it was found that adult children do not automatically represent an informal
safety net for their elderly parents.
The most common reason for adult children to stay with their parents is because they
have not yet started their own household. In two cases in Chidi CWAC, an adult son
was still living with his parent although he was already married and had children. This
is an unusual situation as the children are supposed to leave the homestead when
getting married. The reasons for the two cases was a distant workplace of the
breadwinner, who left his wife with his mother for the time he was away, and the lack
of money to found an own household in the other case. In another family, the 22 year
old daughter never left the homestead of her parents because of her infection with
HIV/AIDS. She is now in the last stage of the disease and cared for by her committed
mother and father. With inadequate medical treatment especially in rural areas, the
family and here mainly the parents are the main source of care for children infected
with HIV. Five children (mainly daughters) returned to their parents’ plot after the
divorce or death of their partner. With their return they add in the best case a viable
member to the household but also a number of dependents.
After the death of their partner, elderly people might either move to the homestead
of one of their children, or a child might move to the parent’s place in order to care
25
Ibid., p. 21
14
for him/her. This situation comes closest to what is understood as a “traditional”
safety net for the elderly, even when the old person and his/her child do not share the
same household. In a matrilineal system, it is the son who is responsible for caring
for his mother because the daughter is expected to join the family of the husband.
This might be the reason why it is mostly the son and not the daughter who either
lives on the same plot with his mother or in the neighbourhood.
Apart from those relations within the same household, all interviewees have close
relatives living in the neighbourhood. They are the major source for assistance and
are most frequently asked for support in times of crisis. The mapping of neighbouring
households shows that the interviewees stay in most cases close to their sons (nine
times), followed by their daughters and other relatives like siblings, cousins or Clan
members. All interviewees could at least mention three neighbours, mainly relatives,
friends, the headman and clan members. In some cases, when an interviewee had
few members of the lineage in the neighbourhood, this was mainly because she was
a woman who had moved to the homestead of her husband, leaving her lineage in
another village. When asked for the number of visits they paid each other, it was
found that most of them were embedded in regular contact with their neighbours and
saw each other once to seven times a week.
Furthermore, most interviewees have relatives living in a distance, e.g. children
married in another village or working in Lusaka or another city. However, the contact
with these children is not very regular and ranges – depending on the distance - from
once or twice a month to once every two years. Major reasons for the irregularity of
contact are the lack of money for transport. A minimum of contact is nevertheless
held, probably also to secure the future opportunity of the city residents to return back
to the village.
For households without productivity means, informal transfers in the form of handouts
are a primary source of income and begging an important strategy to generate it.
Most interviewees stated that they beg or have been begging from family members
and friends for food and salt, oil or sugar and that they receive something in most
cases. Transfers and assistance are mainly given by the son, followed by the
daughter, brother and more distant relatives. Only a few interviewees mentioned that
they get help from unrelated community members, the headman or friends.
The most common informal transfer is food. Nine interviewees mentioned that they
ask for food from children and other relatives living close by, and are given maize,
Millie meal or sorghum. This kind of assistance is generally reciprocal as no direct
exchange of an economic good takes place but social bonds guarantee a reverse
benefit in the future26. It is often quoted: “When my son/daughter/relative has
something, he/she gives me. When I have something, I give him/her, too.” Although
the assistance is mainly obtained by an act commonly described as “begging”, this
expression does not seem appropriate for strong personal relationships like that
between a mother and her child. Assistance in food can be given through eating
together, handing out small items like salt, sugar or grain of maize, or sharing the
harvest or food relief within the household and with other family members. A
distinction between support which is received through begging and reciprocal
assistance which is given voluntarily is difficult and both forms can mostly be treated
26
Sahlins, M. D.: Zur Soziologie des primitiven Tausches. In: Adloff/Mau (Hrsg.) (2005): Vom Geben
und Nehmen. Zur Soziologie der Reziprozität. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New Yorck, p. 84
15
synonymously. Food transfers are mainly an emergency support which helps
individuals and households through periods of food shortage. Destitute households
however are almost constantly facing a productivity deficit and are thus permanently
under the pressure of asking family and community members for food. Begging has
thus like piecework become a regular livelihood strategy. Assistance is given by
family and community members of almost the same poverty level. Due to the mutual
character of this assistance, the food transfers are circulating within the community
and benefiting one day him and the other day someone else; however, no change in
poverty level or graduation of a household will be achieved by that kind of support.
Devereux (1999) found out that reciprocal assistance occurs almost exclusively
between very poor households (horizontal redistribution) whereas vertical transfers
from rich to poor family members are almost non-existent27. Exceptions are made for
family members who migrated to town and succeeded to become relatively wealthy
and in some cases support their kin in rural areas. However, the more common
horizontal redistribution implies that support for destitute households from family
members in rural areas is not only insufficient but also increases the vulnerability of
other poor households who have to share their harvest.
Transfers in the form of money are not very common in rural areas and among
households who do not have a regular income. However, four interviewees
mentioned to get monetary support from sons, daughters or grandsons who in most
cases had a job and thus earned some cash. Sometimes family members also send
money for their children who stay with their grandparents, but again mostly
irregularly. In one case, an interviewee had borrowed an amount of K150.000 from a
neighbour. He does not have the money to pay him back and thinks about working
on the fields of the creditor. In general, this kind of assistance does not seem to hold
a large share of the different forms of support.
Another form of informal safety net is assistance in farming, and thus ploughing,
weeding or harvesting the field. Five interviewees in Chidi CWAC are helped in
farming by their sons or grandsons and in one case by a neighbour. All of the helpers
live in the neighbourhood or share the same plot with the interviewee. In one case,
the elderly has an arrangement with his daughter to help each other mutually with the
field work. Another interviewee is assisted by a Clan member who put up a barn for
her. On the other hand, the necessity to pay community members for being helped in
farming was once mentioned and another interviewee reported to pay people for that
labour. A relation of balanced reciprocity, where labour is paid for, is more common
between unrelated community members whereas assistance without having to pay
for it exists more likely between close family members28. This kind of assistance
seems not as usual as, for example, reciprocal assistance with food. Looking at the
fact that all interviewees have male relatives in the neighbourhood, it would be
interesting to find out what determines the willingness of family members to help their
parent in farming and what causes the refusal. Unfortunately, the data of this survey
does not give information of that kind.
27
Devereux, S. (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, p.13 Devereux, p. 14f
28
Sahlins, M. D.: Zur Soziologie des primitiven Tausches. In: Adloff/Mau (Hrsg.) (2005): Vom Geben
und Nehmen. Zur Soziologie der Reziprozität. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New Yorck, p. 84
16
For the very poor, it is difficult to lend cattle from community members unless they
are related and have a good relationship with the owner of the cattle. Five
interviewees have access to cattle because close family members own some or
because they or their children are taking care of cattle and can use it in return. In the
rural areas, cattle represent wealth and the possibility to cultivate a piece of land
large enough for a sufficient harvest. As a consequence to the decrease in number of
cattle due to the corridor disease, livestock is nowadays very carefully looked after
and not lend out to “strangers”.
In general, it can be said that different support systems of the extended family in rural
areas still exist and that they prevent destitute households so far from dissolution or
death of hunger. However, the high poverty level in rural areas limits adequate
support in cash and kind, and encourages small scale assistance on the lowest level.
This assistance is not sufficient to lift destitute households from their state of absolute
poverty or to cause their graduation and development. Assistance in farming or
building up a barn seems to be more sustainable but demands more time and
commitment and is consequently found less often. Additionally, the lack of cattle and
fertilizer results in most cases in a poor harvest, even when help is available.
17
3.
Impact of the Kalomo Pilot Social Cash Transfer
Scheme
The KPSCTS, in the following the “scheme”, is currently supporting 1,200 households
in 39 CWACs in Kalomo district with a cash transfer of K30.000 – K40.000 per
month.29 This part compares livelihood strategies of and informal safety nets for
beneficiaries of the scheme with the findings of non-beneficiaries presented in part 2.
It thereby wants to determine the impact of social cash transfers on survival
mechanisms and supporting structures in rural and urban areas. As the number of
interviews is relatively small, the results are not representative.
3.1
In Rural Areas
3.1.1 Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies
In the rural CWACs Masempela and Kanchele, ten interviews were held with
beneficiary households of the KPSCTS. Nine head of households were female and
the average age of beneficiaries was 65 years. All interviewees followed livelihood
strategies before and while receiving the transfers.
Six beneficiaries mentioned to do small scale farming and only two referred to
gardening as an income generating activity. This is relatively seen about the same
share like in Chidi CWAC. Cash transfers obviously do not prevent some
beneficiaries from the hard physical labour on the fields.
Piecework as an additional income generating activity was only done by one
beneficiary of the scheme in comparison to six (out of sixteen) non-beneficiaries.
Four beneficiaries reverted to this strategy before but had stopped after they received
the transfers. It can be assumed that the transfers are a substitute for piecework, an
energy consuming survival strategy that is especially hard for the elderly. Looking at
the fact that piecework prevents people from cultivating their own farms, the
abandoning of this practise when receiving cash transfers enables households to
spend their energy on cultivating their own fields. Although farming in general means
hard labour especially for elderly, a different attitude towards small scale farming in
comparison to piecework exists: whereas the latter is seen as labour for someone
else and thus abandoned with the existence of another income, farming is
considered an activity for one’s personal benefit and performed even when receiving
cash transfers.
In comparison to the results in Chidi CWAC, no beneficiary earns an income by doing
handicraft or brewing beer although two have done so before. In both cases,
individual reasons seem responsible for stopping this activity so that an impact of the
transfers is unlikely. One beneficiary earned an income by doing carpentry until he
became sick. This was before he received the transfers and his sickness was
probably one criterion to include him in the scheme.
The major difference between livelihood strategies is found concerning the number of
people who are begging. Whereas eleven people in Chidi CWAC reportedly beg
29
Schubert, Bernd (2005): Scaling Up – Extending social cash transfers beyond the pilot area.
Lusaka, p. 2
18
regularly, only one beneficiary of the scheme does so. Three other beneficiaries said
that they had begged before the transfers started but had stopped after receiving the
cash. This confirms the results of other studies30, that begging of beneficiaries has
considerably reduced and relieved community members from giving away
considerable parts of their food.
It is remarkable though, that in an area where most destitute households are covered
with a food relief programme (from Care International) like in Chidi CWAC, begging is
still a major livelihood strategy. This is despite the fact that the monetary value of
both transfers is almost equivalent, respectively the food relief with the devaluation of
the Kwacha even worth more. Nevertheless, beneficiaries receiving cash seem to be
less in need to refer to begging and more likely to abandon this activity.
Like in Chidi CWAC, some beneficiaries have been living only on wild fruits, wild
vegetables and handouts from family members and were “in a very critical situation”
before the transfers started. One beneficiary stated that she would be dead by now if
it was not for the transfers31.
Whereas the transfers are in most cases spend on food like Millie meal, maize or
vegetables, half of the beneficiaries are able to invest parts of their money in hiring
friends or relatives to plough their fields or build up a barn. This is a very interesting
development regarding the fact that beneficiaries themselves had relied on doing
piecework for other community members before they received the transfers. Their
position has thus changed from a dependant on other people’s need of work power
to one of an employer. Furthermore, half of the beneficiaries spend money on school
requirements like books or pens for their dependants and five household heads
bought small livestock like goats and chicken. Buying livestock is considered a way of
saving as well as multiplying the value of the transfers as the animals might
reproduce. Some beneficiaries use the transfers to pay for the transport to the
hospital and thus mitigating the risk of chronic sickness or death and the dissolution
of the household. In general, most of the money is spent within the community or in
nearby shops in the rural centres and does not only benefit the primary beneficiaries
but also their relatives, neighbours and community members.
In conclusion, the kind of livelihood strategies of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
are alike, except for certain investment strategies that beneficiaries develop when
receiving the cash. The strategies beneficiaries abstain from are erosive in nature,
like performing piecework, skipping meals or referring to wild fruits and vegetables as
the only food intake. Therefore, cash transfers seem to enable beneficiaries to
withdraw from survival strategies that undermine the future viability of the household.
However, some interviewees stated that they exclusively relied on the transfers with
no other source of income. This trend has to be observed thoroughly as it suggests a
growing dependency.
3.1.2 Impact on Informal Safety Nets
Out of the ten interviewed beneficiary households in Masempela and Kanchele
CWAC, four consist of an elderly alone caring for underage children. In five cases,
the elderly is living together with an adult family member above the age of 18 plus
30
31
MCDSS/GTZ (2005): First Monitoring report; Lusaka, p. 7
Interview Esther S., Annex IV, p. 45
19
grandchildren and in one case the beneficiary lives alone with his elderly wife. The
share of elderly looking alone after little children and the share of orphans is higher
than in Chidi CWAC which is due to the specific targeting criteria of the scheme with
an emphasis on HIV/Aids affected households. The household composition found at
the time of the research was according to the interviewees in most cases the same
before the scheme was introduced. The transfers thus do not seem to have a
considerable impact on migration of family members nor on household compositions
in general. It was moreover found that the reasons for certain household
compositions are generally equivalent to those in the comparison group. The main
causes are again death of the partner of the elderly or the adult child, divorce,
remarriage and sickness of an adult child as well as the motive to care for a
dependent. Similarities also exist concerning the availability of family members in the
neighbourhood; two beneficiaries share the same plot with a close relative and all
interviewees have relatives close by.
Whereas household compositions and neighbourhood relations appear similar in the
comparison groups, differences are found in assistance patterns and support
mechanisms for beneficiaries.
In general, eight beneficiaries reported to be assisted by family or community
members whereas two negated any support. The accuracy of these two answers is
however questionable as both interviewees have family in the neighbourhood. One of
them reported that her social status has negatively changed after the death of her
husband and after it became obvious that she was HIV positive. She mentioned that
relatives took away her property after her husband died (“property grabbing”) and that
community members avoid her since she became sick.
The most common form of informal transfers is again food. Most of the beneficiaries
reported to get food from children, grandchildren or siblings. As only one beneficiary
is still begging, the majority of beneficiaries seems to be supported with food
transfers without having to beg for it. Like mentioned before, it is difficult to
distinguish between voluntary food transfers and those obtained by begging. In any
case, food is given irregularly and on a random basis, and does not cover basic
needs. Four beneficiaries also helped other community members with food and one
is reportedly more often asked for food from community members since she gets the
transfers.
None of the beneficiaries mentioned to receive monetary assistance from family
members. This might be one of the bigger differences to Chidi CWAC, where informal
monetary transfers were also not very common but at least existed. Their nonexistence in Masempela and Kanchele CWAC could be an impact of the cash
transfers. As money is scarce in rural areas and the beneficiaries are paid in cash,
the termination of monetary transfers seems comprehensible. This situation is found
despite the fact that some beneficiaries have family members with the means to
support them financially.
Another difference could be observed in terms of assistance in farming: Only one
beneficiary was supported in farming by a relative in difference to five interviewees in
Chidi CWAC. At the same time, half of the beneficiaries hire people to work in their
fields and pay for that labour. Hence, a correlation seems to exist between social
cash transfers, the ability to hire people for farming and the voluntary assistance of
family members to do the same work unpaid. A possible hypothesis could be that
20
cash transfers enable household heads to act independently from the help of family
members and to hire community members for ploughing their field. At the same time,
relatives seem to abstain from assisting their incapacitated family member in farming
(unpaid) when a regular cash income exists. However, due to lack of data it could not
satisfactory found out if the deficit of help in farming is an impact of the transfers or if
a proportionally high number of people refused to help their relatives in farming even
before the scheme was introduced. One beneficiary reportedly pays his daughter-inlaw who lives close by with his son. Although it is speculative to assume that she
would help him farming free of charge if the transfers were not in place, a
monetarization of a close family relationship obviously took place. At the same time,
by paying his relative, the beneficiary secures that the money stays within his family
which is his major source of assistance. The transfers are in this case circulating
between the same group of people and benefiting them one after the other.
A similar situation to Chidi CWAC is found concerning the ability of beneficiaries to
lend cattle: Three of the interviewees have a connection to someone who owns or
cares for cattle, and are thus able to lend it. Without such a relationship, it seems to
be possible to pay community members but the transfers are reportedly not enough
to do so32. In difference to assistance in farming, beneficiaries seem not obliged to
pay their relatives for lending their cattle.
Different feelings are expressed concerning the social status of beneficiaries within
the community. The majority of beneficiaries stated that their social position has not
changed since they get the transfers and that they are still accepted by their
community like before. Most interviewees feel they are a full member of their
community and the fact that beneficiaries are now trustworthy enough to borrow
money from community members suggests a revaluation of their social position.
However, three beneficiaries in the rural areas experienced a negative response from
the people around them. People “talked around” and “did not feel happy about her
(the beneficiary) getting transfers33”. These complaints are not openly expressed but
beneficiaries have the vague feeling that members of the community begrudge them
of the fact that they receive the transfers. One beneficiary added that the number of
eligible households is far higher than the 10% that are allowed to be included in the
scheme and that thus the exclusion of eligible households creates jealousy or at least
incomprehension. This feeling is only partly shared by CWAC members and nonbeneficiary community members. In general, it is agreed on the fact that the number
of eligible and needy households is higher but no direct feelings of jealousy are
expressed from their side. At the same time, it is clear that some CWAC members as
well as community members feel eligible for the scheme and do not fully comprehend
their exclusion.
The most critical impact of the cash transfers has to do with the perception and status
of the CWAC members. If incomprehension or annoyance exists over the exclusion
from the scheme, it is mainly aimed at CWAC members and the selection process
and not at beneficiaries who are all perceived eligible. Their role and the fact that the
CWAC members are working on a voluntary basis is not well known in the
communities. This results sometimes in bad feelings towards them from excluded
community members. It is often quoted that the CWAC members are selective and
the main decision makers in the approval process. Furthermore, most beneficiaries
32
33
Interview Merit T., Annex IV, p. 45
Interview Ruth M., Annex IV, p. 46
21
think that the CWAC members are paid for the job they do. This shows that little
information about the scheme and its’ procedures is known which at the end falls
back to the voluntary workers who have to face this negative community perception
every day. Additionally, it becomes obvious that the CWAC members expect some
kind of appreciation for the work they do, especially because they are often also very
poor. For them it is difficult to see neighbours and community members receiving a
monthly support while they secure the smooth process of it without any reward.
However, this is a problem that is currently dealt with by the stakeholders of the
scheme and one that will be hopefully solved in the future. On the other side, not all
effects of the scheme concerning the work of the CWACs sounded pessimistic:
according to members of Kanchele CWAC, the relationships between them and
beneficiaries have been strengthened due to their work and because they see each
other more often now.
Most non-beneficiaries agree on the fact that the transfers are not enough to solve
the problems the households are facing. According to them, they thus still assist but
in a reduced form. The impression was given that the people who get these handouts
are better selected now, according to friendship and closeness of the relationship
between donor and recipient. One non-beneficiary stated that she still feels pity for
some of the beneficiaries but not for everyone34. She takes advantage of the choice
she has now whom to help and can always excuse herself in reference to the
monthly transfers. On the part of the beneficiaries, only one reported that she does
not get help anymore since she receives the transfers. Even this assessment has to
be taken with care because she was at the same time assisted by her children and
gave a slightly confused impression. Furthermore, some relationships which were
built on dependency structures had changed due to the transfers: non-beneficiaries
see some people less frequently now because some were only visiting when they
needed something. Concerning the use of the transfers and the possible impact for
the receiving households, the general impression was that it is up to the beneficiaries
to make something out of the money they receive.
On community level, an impact of cash transfers for the 10% of the poorest
households can not be ignored. Beneficiaries, CWAC and community members
stated that begging and stealing maize has considerably reduced and that
beneficiaries now borrow money rather than beg for it. The food, salt or other items
that better off community members gave away before the scheme was introduced
can now be kept for their own consumption which implies a wider benefit for the
community. Some non-beneficiaries even stated that they now go and ask for help
from beneficiaries when they need something. Furthermore, just the fact that more
money is available in rural areas has an impact on the community: As beneficiaries
become clients in rural shops and employers for community members who plough
their fields, the money is circulating and more households benefit. These positive
results shall on the other hand not belie the feeling that most of the beneficiaries can
not live on the transfers only and that their living situation is still very poor.
34
FDG Masempela CWAC, Annex III, p. 41f
22
3.2
In Urban Areas
3.2.1 Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies
The two visited urban CWACs are situated close to the centre of Kalomo Town and
thus near to the market, transport opportunities and other infrastructure. Despite the
small number of interviews, it became obvious that different livelihood strategies and
income generating opportunities exist for beneficiaries in urban areas. Six interviews
were held with four female and two male beneficiaries with an average age of 65.
Small scale farming is done by four beneficiaries despite living in an urban
surrounding. They reportedly have fields close to Kalomo town or “in a distance”,
close to family members in the rural areas. One beneficiary is even planting maize on
her plot. The problems of urban agriculture are the same like in rural areas: lack of
cattle and fertilizer, and in most cases insufficient capacity for farming with hand and
hoe. All beneficiaries have their own fields but it seems also possible to rent a field
and pay the owner in maize.
An urban income generating activity that is not found in rural areas is to rent out
houses, which is done by two beneficiaries. In one case, the houses were before
inhabited by family members who had left the homestead or had died. In the other
case, the beneficiary had used the money from her former job in another city to hire
people to build the houses when she came to Kalomo in 2001. Both house owners
get a monthly income of K50.000 to K60.000 for their business. In one case, the
interviewee earned this amount already before the targeting process, which leads to
the question why she got included in the scheme.
The collection and selling of firewood or charcoal is another common strategy in
urban areas. It seems to require a good physical condition and can thus only be
performed by people who are not sick or disabled. By selling firewood, it is possible
to earn approximately K40.000 per month.
Two beneficiaries are involved in small scale business, mainly the buying and
reselling of vegetables and small items. It is common to travel to the village and buy
groundnuts and sweet potatoes which are later sold in the community. The access to
market and transport has an important influence on the opportunity to start a
business activity and on the development of different livelihood strategies. By buying
food, soap and sometimes tomatoes and selling it in Kalomo town, it is possible to
generate an income of K40.000 to K120.000 per month. So far, the transfers did not
directly activate people to start a business but enabled already performing small
scale traders to extend their business. The transfers thus do not lead to the
abduction of a commercial activity but to its intensification. One beneficiary used one
month’s transfers to buy seeds and the next to buy fertilizer and thereby managed to
harvest 2 x 50kgs of maize. This investment strategy is also suitable for rural areas
and should be included into the advice of CWAC members.
Two beneficiaries, both women, brew beer and sold it within the community before
the transfers started. One had to stop this activity due to pressure from the Catholic
Church and is now, perhaps as an alternate offer, supported by church members with
food. The other, who is interestingly a member of the same Church, stopped to brew
beer after receiving the transfers but said that it was because of “high level of
poverty”.
23
Begging as a livelihood strategy was mentioned by all except for one beneficiary.
Four have reportedly reduced and one has stopped begging altogether since
receiving the transfers.
Furthermore, two beneficiaries are supported by the Catholic Church with food
transfers. Additionally, a family member of one of the beneficiaries is supported by
World Vision, also with food.
Like in the rural areas, the transfers are in the first place spent on food like Millie
meal and vegetables, which is mainly purchased from markets within the close
neighbourhood or from the central market in Kalomo. No interviewee in the urban
CWACs reported to spend transfers on transport. Due to a far better infrastructure in
an urban area, transport and transport costs are not perceived as crucial and difficult
to obtain as it is the case in rural areas.
In conclusion, destitute households in urban areas seem to have more diverse
possibilities for income generating activities than in rural regions. Despite the small
number of interviews, it was found that several different livelihood strategies are
followed and that urban beneficiaries diversify their income activities. However, the
access to market, transport and other infrastructure seems to be of more importance
for the availability of different livelihood strategies than cash transfers. Some
beneficiaries used the transfers to intensify their business, but the majority had a
source of income before the scheme started and does not seem to be primarily
depending on the cash. At the same time, begging is still a common strategy, which
almost all interviewees have formerly practised but reduced or abandoned after
receiving the transfers. This somewhat contradicting situation might be due to higher
costs of living in urban compared to rural areas and thus the need of more cash. The
main difference between urban and rural recipients lies in the investment strategies
both groups (can) follow. Whereas in rural CWACs beneficiaries mainly invest in
livestock and hire people to plough their fields, the tendency in urban CWACs is to
invest in small scale business by using the money to buy vegetables or other items
and resell them.
3.2.2 Impact on Informal Safety Nets
Household compositions of beneficiaries in urban CWACs are similar to those in
rural CWACs: Five out of six households consist of three generations with a high
number of dependants and the average age of beneficiaries is 65 years. The four
female head of households are all widows and two of them are caring for orphans.
The only interviewee in this study who lives alone was found in Mawaya CWAC. He
however shares a plot with his brother and sister-in law and shares food and
transfers with them.
The major difference to rural areas could be the fact that only half of the interviewees
have family members living in the neighbourhood. This is possibly because most of
them do not originate in Kalomo Town but have migrated to their current residence.
Another difference is that the majority of beneficiaries or their partners once had a
formal employment in Kalomo or in their towns of origin. One beneficiary first lived
with her family in Monze where she used to be a housewife and her husband a clinic
officer. He died in 1998 due to Tuberculosis and she came to Kalomo in 2000 after
24
the death of her father who had built a house in Mawaya. Now she cares for her sick
mother and brother as well as for six underage children and dependants.
The problem of unmarried women with little children seems more present in the
urban CWACs than in rural areas. In the case of four children, the fathers refuse
responsibility for their offspring and only one agreed to pay the traditional “damage
fee”. The damage fee is seen as a compensation for the part the father played in the
procreation of a child and is paid to the family of the mother in the case that the
parents do not marry. An explanation for this seemingly more frequent paternal
refusal of responsibilities could be the lack of mutual dependency between families in
urban areas; social relations and reciprocal support might be not as important as in
rural areas and social pressure from both families on the father not as effective.
Members of Mawaya CWAC reported an increase in the size of households due to
the transfers. This phenomenon was referred to the return of street children to their
grandparents after they started receiving the transfers. It could not be verified in this
study but should be considered during the retargeting process.
When looking at informal assistance structures for urban beneficiaries, it seems that
reciprocal assistance is almost exclusively given by members of the same household
or the same plot. Food is shared among household members and people cooking
together. Although five interviewees reportedly begged, it did not become clear from
which sources. None mentioned neighbours as supporters and only two interviewees
had considerable family relations in the surrounding area. Even more than in rural
areas, assistance seems to occur mainly between people who are living close to
each other. One beneficiary who has children in Mawaya, in Lusaka and in the
village, reported that the children who live with her share food and income with her,
whereas the ones that stay nearby still visit and help out if they can but her children
in Lusaka only come twice a year and do not support her at all.
Conclusive, except for food transfers and cooking and eating together, no other form
of assistance was mentioned. This could be due to less family relations and
community life in urban areas but also due to less necessity for reciprocal behaviour.
Obviously more income generating activities exist in an urban surrounding and even
destitute households are possibly less dependent on social bonds and mutual
support than in rural areas. Due to a lack of a comparison group for urban areas, the
impact of social cash transfers could not be sufficiently analysed. However, it can be
assumed that the influence on assistance patterns is negligible, mainly because
fewer forms of mutual assistance seem to exist in any case.
25
4.
Conclusion
In general, it can be said that incapacitated households in Zambia follow several
livelihood strategies which secure their survival but do not hold a perspective of
graduation and development. They are rather former coping strategies that were in
the past reserved for periods of food stress and are now incorporated into normal
strategies of livelihoods35. This implies that the households are in a constant
condition of food insecurity and stress and extremely threatened by dissolution.
Furthermore, destitute households in rural areas rely to a considerable extent on the
help of family and friends. Assistance is gained by begging but also by voluntary help
of family members. The main kind of assistance is reciprocal food transfers that
follow the rule that the one who gives today is the one who receives tomorrow. They
prevent households and vulnerable groups from death of hunger but do not change
the destitute situation, mainly because redistribution occurs primarily among
households of the same poverty level. More sustainable forms of assistance like help
in farming or gardening exist in some cases but are not as common. The lack of
adequate assistance (which presupposes the lack of viable household or family
members in the neighbourhood) is notably a result of HIV/Aids but not exclusively;
the fact that all interviewees had close relatives in their neighbourhood but not all
received assistance supposes other reasons which are likely depending on more
individual circumstances. Destitute households manage to some extent to cope with
their situation which is partly reflected in the transformation of traditional roles. Elderly
are more and more becoming the caregivers for other vulnerable groups, and
underage children are caring for their grandparents when they are becoming too old.
Such a development is certainly undesirable but represents at the same time the
often stressed “adaptability of livelihoods”. The question of when adaptability reaches
its limit and how its failure can be detected by western perceptions is not objective of
and cannot be answered in this report. However, what can be concluded is that
despite adapting to destitute conditions, both livelihood strategies and support
mechanisms are not sufficient to secure anything more than the mere survival of
incapacitated households in Zambia. This also implies that the situation of
incapacitated households is likely to worsen significantly up to the dissolution or the
death of a household when a shock like a severe drought hits the country.
The major objective of this report was to determine the impact of social cash
transfers on livelihood strategies and informal safety nets of incapacitated
households in Zambia. It was found that beneficiaries in rural areas actually adapt
their livelihood strategies when they are receiving cash transfers. The major shift
observed was away from strategies that are erosive in nature and involve physically
exhausting work like farming and piecework towards investment strategies like hiring
people and buying livestock. Furthermore, beneficiaries seem to diversify their
strategies less than non-beneficiaries with the result that they rely to a considerable
part on the transfers. This has to be thoroughly observed to prevent the development
of dependency. The finding that many rural beneficiaries invest in hiring people for
piecework allows two interpretations: On the one hand, it benefits other destitute
households as the money is circulating within the community and revaluates the
social status of beneficiaries. On the other hand, it implies a lack of assistance in
farming by family members. Unfortunately, the available data does not give
information why beneficiaries are not supported and if this lack of assistance existed
35
Davies, S. (1996): Adaptable Livelihoods. Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel, Institute
for Development Studies, University of Sussex, p. 34
26
prior or if it occurred as a result of the transfers. More research, both of qualitative
and quantitative nature, is needed on this topic. In any case, the introduction of cash
transfers seems to have an impact on family and community structures in terms of
formalizing, respectively monetarizing relationships. This is primarily reflected in
beneficiaries becoming the employers of community or family members.
Concerning migration patterns and household compositions, cash transfers do not
seem to be the major determinants. These are rather individual reasons like the
marriage, divorce and remarriage of parents, refusal of responsibilities for a child, the
wish to care for a dependant and the impact of HIV/AIDS. Although an increase in
the size of households since receiving transfers was mentioned by urban CWAC
members, this finding could not be verified here.
In regard to sufficiency, it was found that cash transfers relieve beneficiaries to some
extent but do not change their poor conditions significantly. Beneficiaries are still in a
problematic situation and in most cases (mostly towards the end of the month, when
the transfers are used up) still depend on handouts from family and community
members. At the same time, they are still perceived destitute by their community
members and are thus still assisted with food. Thereby, the scheme does not seem
to intervene considerably in community structures and hierarchies while at the same
time offers destitute households a reliable monthly income. In a rural setting, being
poor does not mean being excluded from social relations or not being part of the
community36. Conversely, becoming too rich overnight very probably causes jealousy
and bad feelings and can even be related to the use of witchcraft. The “insufficiency”
of the amount of cash is likely its advantage as it does not change the status of
beneficiaries to such an extent that serious enviousness develops. Moreover,
dependency structures are opened up and beneficiaries are now capable of
contributing to the well-being of the community (e.g. by reducing to beg). So far, it
can be concluded that cash transfers strengthen the position of destitute households
and their dependents. At the same time, they do not transform social relations to
such an extent that serious jealousy emerges. Regarding the insufficiency of informal
transfers and assistance and the supportive impact of the cash transfers, it seems
that the latter are an effective mean to reduce extreme poverty without transforming
still existing informal safety nets significantly. They thus represent a complementary
and subsidiary social safety net for incapacitated households in Zambia. However,
their long-term impact on family and community structures can not be determined by
now and the performance of the scheme should be continuously monitored.
36
MCDSS/GTZ (2005): Baseline Survey Report, Lusaka p. 44
27
References
Central Statistical Office (2004): Living Conditions and Monitoring Survey 2002/2003,
Lusaka 2004
Davies, Susanna (1996): Adaptable Livelihoods. Coping with Food Insecurity in the
Malian Sahel. Institute of Development Studies; University of Sussex
Devereux, Stephen (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in
Malawi. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
„Elmer“ Social Science Dictionary (viewed on 08.08.2006): Access via:
http://www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm
Foster, G. (2000): The capacity of the extended family safety net for orphans in
Africa, in: Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000, p 55 - 62
Harland, Charlotte (2004): Overview of the Situation Analysis of Orphans &
Vulnerable Children 2004, Lusaka
Kakwani, Nanak/Subbarao, Kalanidhi (2005): Aging and Poverty in Africa and the
Role of Social Pensions. Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0521. The World
Bank. Washington, D.C.
Online Newshour (2002): 'Orphaned by AIDS', May 9
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/aids_zambia_5-9.html
Online Newshour (2002) 'Orphaned by AIDS', May 9
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/aids_zambia_5-9.html
Parker B./Mwape F. (2004): Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia: 2004. A
qualitative Study, Lusaka 2004
Sahlins, Marshall D.: Zur Soziologie des primitiven Tausches. In: Adloff/Mau (Hrsg.)
(2005): Vom Geben und Nehmen. Zur Soziologie der Reziprozität. Campus Verlag,
Frankfurt/New Yorck
UNAIDS (2006): 2006 Report on the Global Aids Epidemic, p. 487
United Nations Country Team Zambia/Ministry of Finance and National Planning
(2003): Zambian Millennium Development Goals Report, Lusaka
WHO (June 2005): Zambia. Summary Country Profile for HIV/Aids Treatment ScaleUp. Access: http://www.who.int/3by5/support/june2005_zmb.pdf
Scheme documents:
Schubert, Bernd (2004): Scaling Up – Extending Social Cash Transfers beyond the
Pilot Area. 6th Report, Lusaka 2004
28
MCDSS/GTZ (2005): Baseline Survey Report. Kalomo Social Cash Transfer
Scheme. Lusaka, 2005
MCDSS/Social Safety Net (2006): The Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme 3rd
Edition. Summary Report, Lusaka 2006)
MCDSS/GTZ (2004): Manual of Operations, Lusaka
MCDSS/GTZ (2004): Social Protection Interventions in Kalomo District, Zambia,
Lusaka
PWAS/Participatory Assessment Group (2004): The Incapacitated Poor in Zambia,
Lusaka
Participatory Assessment Group (2003): District Participatory Assessment. Volume 3:
Kalomo District Report, Lusaka, p. 14
KPSCTS (2004): Inventory of Social Protection Interventions in Kalomo District,
Zambia. Lusaka, 2004
Webpage: www.socialcashtransfers-zambia.org
29
Annex I Interview Guidelines
Non-beneficiaries and Beneficiaries
Household (HH) Composition and family story
• Name, age and number of household members
• Relationship between household members
• Characteristics of the HH: sickness, handicap, orphans?
• Where does the beneficiary originate from?
• How does he/she come to this place?
• What caused the specific composition of the household?
• What were the reasons for moving?
• Where are the parents of underage children (if present)?
• Any change in household composition since receiving the transfers?
Social mapping
• Who lives in your neighbourhood?
• Whom did you visit/who visited you how often during the last week?
• Family in a distance? How often do you see them?
Livelihood strategies
• Which livelihood strategies exist?
• How did beneficiary households survive before the transfers?
• Which strategies were abandoned when receiving transfers?
• What is the impact of the scheme on your livelihood strategies?
Use of transfers
• What do you spend the transfers on?
• Which investment strategies exist?
• Who benefits most?
• Are the transfers sufficient?
Assistance
• What kind of assistance exists? Who are the sources for this assistance?
• What has changed since receiving the transfers?
Self-esteem/social position of beneficiary HHs
• What is your social status in the community? Do you feel accepted?
• Does your HH participate in community activities?
• Do you have plans for the future? If yes, which?
• Has your status and social position changed since receiving the transfers?
How?
• What is the perception of the community concerning your beneficiary status?
Is there jealousy? Do people feel excluded/disadvantaged?
30
Guidelines for Focus Group Discussions
Impact of cash transfers on the community
• What do you know about the Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme?
• Do you know any beneficiaries? Why are they included in the scheme?
• What do you know about the work of the CWAC?
• Do you know any community members who feel jealous about the beneficiary
HHs?
• Do you feel excluded?
• Do you understand the criteria of the scheme?
• Do you think that ineligible households are included in the scheme?
• How did the beneficiary HHs survive before the transfers? Do you still assist
them?
• Who in the community is mainly approached by poor HHs?
• What is their status in the community?
• Did their status/social position change with the start of the transfers? If so, in
what way?
• What observations did you make as the impact of the cash transfers on
beneficiary HHs? Positive or negative?
• Did any of you sell any labour to beneficiary HHs? Cash or in kind?
• Do you think the transfers are sufficient?
• Do beneficiaries still beg?
• Who benefits most from the transfers?
Guideline for Interviews with CWAC members
• When /how was this CWAC founded? Did you receive anything before the
introduction of the scheme?
• What is the impact of the Scheme on household and community level?
• How did beneficiary households survive before the scheme?
• Are the transfers sufficient?
• Is there jealousy within the community? Do people feel excluded?
• Are beneficiaries still assisted by community members?
• What is your position in the community?
• Do you feel excepted by the community for the work you do?
• What is the perception towards you?
• What do the beneficiaries use their transfers for?
• Are there cases of misuse?
• Who benefits most within the household/within the community?
31
Annex II Household Compositions
Chidi CWAC
No
Household members
Age
Orphan
1
Belita S.
70
2
Grandson
Mwami M.
20
?
Son
Son
Sara C.
Grandson
Grandson
Maria S.
~40
~40
72
15
18
86
Grandson
Granddaughter
Saka S.
Daughter
Son
Daughter in law
20
13
70
31
32
21
single
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
15
8
single
single
Granddaughter
Saliya S.
Granddaughter
Margaret S.
Daughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
4
71
12
~ 90
50
17
12
Grandgranddaughter
Grandgranddaughter
Pindalo C.
Daughter
Son
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
Maria C.
Daugther
Granddaughter
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Robson C.
1. Wife
2. Wife
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Lena S.
Husband
5
1
63
29
33
10
8
2
60
32
18
11
1,1
1,1
59
47
50
12
6
66
59
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
School
attendance
Living on
the same
plot
Living nearby
son, grandson, 2 brothers,
clan
Grade 7
son +
family
son, Clan
grandson, in-law, Clan
double
Grade 7
Grade 9
son +
family
son, daughter,
stepgrandson, stepson,
Clan
Grade 9
Grade 5
nephew, Clan members
Last grade: 7
Grade 2
son
daughter, Clan
grandson
son, grandsons
Grade 4
Single
Grade 7
Grade 4
Grade 1
sons, in-laws, Clan
Single
Single
Single
Grade 2
Grade 1
stepsons, in-laws, Clan
Last grade: 7
Grade 8
Not regularly
sons, daughter, Clan
Grade 4
cousins
32
12
Mother
Malita S.
88
55
13
Son
Daughter in law
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Son
Granddaughter
Grandson
Rickie M.
32
26
6
6
27
6
9
43
14
1. Wife
2. Wife
Daughter
Son
Daughter
Samuel S.
39
37
22
18
3,4
70
19
14
36
Last grade: 2
Grade 3
15
Grandson
Granddaughter
Masta S.
Daughter
Son
Son
Dickson S.
1. Wife
2. Wife
Son (1. wife)
Son
Son
Son
Son
Daughter
Son
Son
Son
Daughter
Granddaughter
Son (2. wife)
Daughter
Son
Daughter
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Wife to Orbeti
Stepson to Orbeti
11
6
2
63
60
47
27
22
20
18
16
14
12
11
7
2
11
19
13
11
7
7
1,8
20
4,8
Grade 1
Grade1
16
brother, halfbrother, inlaw, Clan
Grade 1
Grade 1
Grade 1
Grade 3
cousin, friends, in-laws,
Clan
Last grade: 7
Grade 8
sons, daughter, in-laws,
Clan
father, daughter, brothers,
half-brothers
brother, sons,
Last grade: 7
Last grade: 2
Last grade: 3
Last grade: 2
Grade 8
Grade 3
Grade 1
Grade 1
Grade: 3
Last grade: 2
Grade 4
Grade 2
Not yet
Grade 1
33
Masempela/Kanchele CWAC
No
Household members
1
Merit T.
Grandson
Grandson
Granddaughter
2
Ruth M.
Granddaughter
Grandson
Grandson
Grandson
Granddaughter
3
4
5
Maggie K.
Mother
Son
Daughter
Son
Son
Son
Niece
Nephew
Niece
Niece
Grandniece
Grandson
granddaughter
Salome M.
Husband
Grandson
Daughter in law
Great grandson
Grandson
7
Orphan
76
16
14
12
72
14
12
5
6
7
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
40
86
22
18
16
14
7
20 Single
18 Single
11 Single
23
1
School
Living on the
Living
attendance
same plot
nearby
son + family
stepson, son
grade 6
grade 4
grade 1
sister +
son, Clan,
granddaughter relative
grade 6
grade 2
not yet
not yet
brother,
grandson
last: 4
last: 6
grade 6
grade 4
grade 1
last: 6
grade 4
grade 3
1,3
67
70
months
7
sons, brother
grade 4
son, halfbrother, halfsister, cousin
Seja S.
Wife
6
Age
64
60
daughters,
uncle,
nephew
Violet S.
Daughter
Daughter
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
Granddaughter
Grandson
Granddaughter
Nellia K.
Daughter
Son
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
66
29
39
10
5
1,6
14
10
6
4
57
18
15
9 Double
4 Double
grade 3
preschool
grade 5
grade 4
grade 2
preschool
daughter
grade 9
grade 8
grade 2
34
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
8
4 Double
4 Single
Agnes N.
60
22
15
12 Single
8 Single
5 Single
1,6
Daughter
Son
Grandson
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
9
10
Esther S.
Granddaughter
Son
Greatgrandson
Martha S.
Granddaughter
mother,
brothers
last: 9
grade 5
grade 5
grade 2
daughter,
son, cousins
76
?
?
grade 2
10
70
8
son, stepson
grade 3
Mawaya 2/Magrimondi CWAC
No
1
Household members
2
Alice P.
Daughter
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Kondensani Z.
3
Morin C.
4
5
Mother
Brother
Son
Daughter
Son
Son
Nephew
Nephew
Niece
Rosemarie C.
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
Alex S.
Wife
Daughter
Daughter
Son
Son
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Age
Orphan
74
32
8
14
63
Living on
the same
plot
daughter
Living
nearby
children
last: 9
grade 1
grade 7
brother
brothers,
sisters
46
65
33
22
16
18
13
10
8
13
68
?
?
?
?
School
attendance
last: 9
grade 10
grade 10
lame
grade 1
grade 1
last: 6
Double
Double
Double
Double
62
53
34
19
15
13
12 single
4
1,5
grade 4
grade 4
not yet
not yet
in-law
last: 7
last: 8
grade 8
grade 3
grade 2
35
6
Jesinala T.
Daughter
Grandson
Grandson
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
Grandson
Grandson
Grandson
Granddaughter
Grandson
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Granddaughter
Grandson
77
61
22
19
13
15
13
16
9
9
5
17
12
11
10
6
5
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
grade 11,
irregularly
grade 9
grade 5
grade 5
grade 5
grade 7
not yet
not yet
grade 7
grade 6
grade 4
grade 4
grade 1
not yet
36
Annex III Selected Interviews
Masempela CWAC, 01.05.06
Formation of the CWAC in 2000; Scheme started In 2004, first payments in October
2004; before the Scheme: did not receive anything from PWAS but met 1x per month
to discuss
Scheme: Advise for usage of transfers: advise to invest in goats because they were
told that the project ends after two years
No complications, money has always been in time
Impact: has reduced hunger, starvation and poverty; some beneficiaries bought
seeds, chicken, goats
social position of beneficiaries: no change, people still help them, the money is too
little
beneficiaries can buy one bucket of maize = K28.000 which is not enough for the
month, so people still assist
before they survived through begging; now they do not beg regularly anymore,
community members feel relieved
beneficiaries can go to shops now and buy on credit
most of their money goes to the shops, shop owners benefit
CWAC: want an allowance, some kind of appreciation; difference between CWAC
members and beneficiaries: CWAC members are still able to work, to do something
bad feelings towards CWAC members because of their way to choose; people who
are left out take it personal
Kanchele CWAC, 18.04.06
CWAC was formed in 2002, before the Scheme was introduced; received first
payment in Oct. 2004
Criteria to become a CWAC member
- someone who is trusted (who can handle cash)
Other projects/development agencies in Kanchele
CARE food relief, DAPP hope station
Churches: SDA, Zion, Church of Christ, Faith Apostle, New Apostle; some of them
assist but not regularly
Impact of the Scheme: Change is there, now people can buy things
before, people survived through begging
relationships between CWAC members and beneficiaries have been strengthened
because they see each other more often now (because CWAC members visit them
regularly)
begging has been reduced ; they now borrow money rather than beg
still: people can not live only on this transfers, needed e.g. fertilizer to be able to farm
no negative side-effects on social security systems because the money is not
enough: people who beg are still giving help
Perception by the community
37
some community members think that the CWAC members get paid do not think
too good of them
Focus Group Discussion Masempela CWAC
Livelihood:
small scale farmers: maize, groundnuts; sell some and buy things for school going children
except for Salome who cannot farm because she has swollen legs
Family background
they all stay with children, grandchildren and orphans, are leading the family, are the Head of
household
¾ of them stay with grown-up people but school going: they do not have the capital to stay on their
own
these grown ups help the women in the house but not like the young ones: especially young men can
do what they want to do: old women can not tell them what to do or send them to do something
power tensions mainly between the women and the young men
mostly the women plough the fields and let the young men release the maize: the women ask the men
when they need something; the young men are in possession of the maize
Polygamy: 3 of them were living in polygamy; they still stay with the other women, even after the death
of the husband; 2 of them stay with 2 other women, 1 stays with one other woman
count up to 15-20 people (children, grandchildren, orphans)
can not go back to their relatives and dissolve the household:
children own land from their father; when they go back to their families, they lose the land and have
nothing
farming; cultivate land together, keep crops in 1 maize bin, share the food
is dependent on how the women go along together: maybe they share the fields but not the food
Scheme
Information about the focus group discussion:
some were informed by CWAC members, some by school children
expected us to help them, maybe register them in the Scheme (reason why mostly widows came)
have heard about the scheme but do not know a lot about it
most of them did not attend the community meeting and did not have information about it
were not visited by CWAC members, just know that they visited households
do not know the role of CWAC members or their functions
get most of their information from beneficiaries when they meet them in market places, when buying
school items, etc.
know most of the beneficiaries
criteria for being eligible for the scheme (from someone whose mother is a beneficiary): old people
who are not able to live on their own, sick, caring for orphans
10% limit permits more people to enter the Scheme (got information when CWAC members were still
visiting households)
perception of beneficiaries: some of the beneficiaries can work but care for orphans and this might be
the reason why they are in the scheme: general agreement on the fact that they are in the scheme,
maybe they have other problems
CWAC
CWAC members know already whom they want to have in the Scheme: selectiveness
they do not feel excluded; it was their chance to be in the Scheme, their own time will come
main difference between them and the beneficiaries: some beneficiaries are lazy, not creative; lazy
people look vulnerable, it is okay to support them
them: they are able to do some piecework, they can do something on their own
beneficiary families
38
some do not have relatives, single-headed households, handicapped
Impact on beneficiaries
people have reduced begging; bought goats, invested in animals; invest in fertilizer
are okay at least now
have reduced begging; some have planted some seeds; some continue to beg because husband
drinks and finishes up the money
¾ of beneficiaries can not help other community members because they are still in a critical situation
before: used to steal from other people’s fields
begged from neighbours/community members
Impact on non-beneficiaries: not a big impact but they can get some help now from the beneficiaries
beneficiaries stopped/reduced begging so now they can keep the food/salt/other items they gave them
before
for
themselves
still help people they are feeling pity for but not everyone
have reduced assistance they give to the beneficiaries
still treat beneficiaries as people with problems; they do not show them the cold shoulder because
they are still not fine yet; they still visit each other but some only visit friends to get something – it
depends on the people
no negative attitude towards the Scheme
it is up to the beneficiaries to invest because the Scheme is not going to be there forever:
if someone does not make something out of the Scheme, it is the beneficiary’s fault and not the fault of
the Scheme
they do not feel jealousy but want the Scheme to continue so that they might be included, too
39
Annex IV Selected Case Studies
In Chidi CWAC
I. Maria S.
The 86 years old Maria S. lives with her twenty years old grandson and a thirteen
years old granddaughter. The mother of her grandson got married in Mulamfu village
and the father died. The granddaughter she stays with is the daughter of Maria’s son
who got divorced from his wife. The father stays nearby but is chronically sick and
can not care for his child and the mother is married somewhere else ad does not
care. One daughter of Maria lives in a village close by, another daughter stays
nearby and visits her sometimes. She is under the food for work programme from
Care International and her sons plough a small portion of their fields for her. During
rainy season she also does piece work in other people’s fields and plants some
pumpkins. They had many animals which all died due to corridor disease and left her
with one cattle plus tow cattle which are owned by her sons. Her son and his family
stays on the same plot from the time the father died in order to support her. He does
some gardening and sells the vegetables. He also assists her by ploughing her field
and giving her seeds for maize and by giving her food. Maria’s wishes are to have
cattle, goats and assets for her house, for example a mosquito net.
II. Maria C.
Maria C. is sixty years old and stays with her adult daughter and four underage
grandchildren. Her daughter is on one eye blind and her legs paralysed, she can not
walk or stand correctly. The husband to Maria C. died in 1992; she actually originates
in a village close by and moved here when she married. Her daughter has three
children, one with her former husband and twins with a man from the village. The
father of her son got divorced from her when she became sick and when she came to
stay with her mother. He still lives in Lusaka and never cared or visited his child. The
father of the twins also refuses responsibility. He lives close by and says that he can
not have children with a lame woman. One son of Maria is teaching in Sikweya
School and one of her daughters’ works in Kala ranch. The mother of the fourth
grandchild she cares for is her daughter who lives in Masempela. She got inherited
after the death of her husband and they feared that the child would be mistreated
when it stayed with the mother. Maria and her household are struggling to survive,
sometimes people come and plough their field, and sometimes they need to pay
them. Her daughter does knitting and sells it to mothers in the village and they sell
one of their seven chickens when they are in problems. Maria is also covered by
CARE C-Safe and gets a bucket and 50kgs of maize every month. The household
owns a Maize mill which belonged to the grandmother of Maria’s daughter. When she
passed away, her brother got it. After the death of the brother, Maria got it. She is
assisted by a neighbour who comes and helps ploughing the field. No assistance is
given by the headman because he is “just as poor as I am”. One daughter who is
married in the same village sometimes assists and gives maze when they do not
have food. The daughter working in Kala ranch visits once a year and then brings
money.
III. Margaret S.
Margaret S. is approximately ninety years old and lives with a fifty years old daughter
and four underage children. The father of one of those children lives in Kanchele and
never visits the child, the father of another died. Margaret S.’s daughter is their
40
mother. The mother of another child left it to be staying with the grandmother. She
visits irregularly and last time in 2005 because she got newly married and the new
husband does not want the child. The original father is in Kanchele and does not
visit. On the same plot, the 23 years old grandson is living with his fifteen years old
wife and a niece. He has always been living on this plot and got married in 2006. His
wife had stopped going to school because she had no money but she says that no
one forced her and that she wanted to get married. Now she wants to get a child.
They said that they “just survive”, they practise a bit of farming by hand ploughing
and gardening, tomatoes, vegetables, rape. Margaret owns a bit of money by doing
piecework. She goes to Kabanga and washes clothes grades the yard, etc. Her
grandson does little farming and they all beg from neighbours. From one neighbour,
they sometimes get salt, okra, Millie meal from neighbours when he has. Another
neighbour just asks them to take care for his cattle. Her plans are to improve
gardening but a problem is that they do not have money for pest killers.
41
Beneficiaries
I. Esther S.
Esther S. is approximately 76 years old and lives together with her granddaughter,
son and great grandson on a poor homestead with a grass thatched house. Another
son stays close by and her HIV-positive daughter Agnes lives on a homestead not far
from hers. During the holidays, another grandson stays with her; he is the son of one
of Esther’s sons who stays in Kalomo Town and runs a bakery. He seldom visits his
mother or sends money although his business is doing fine. Sometimes he sends
people to bring food, which is approximately ~1x per 2 months. The parents of all the
grandchildren Esther is looking after wanted them to stay with her to help her fetch
water and in daily work. Since 1 ½ years, Esther is receiving social cash transfers.
She spends most of them on food but also hired people from the community to build
up a bun for her and manage to buy some chicken. Unfortunately they died. Before
the transfers, she relied mainly on doing piecework and is very proud that she never
begged for her livelihood. This was during a time when she was still agile and before
she started to have eye problems which prevented her at the end to work. Esther is
sure that she would be dead by now if it was not for the transfers; her children have
to care for themselves and she can not do piecework anymore because of her eye
problems. According to her, she is the one who benefits mostly from the transfers.
Her social position has not considerably changed and people treat her the same way
they did before. She is assist by her children, especially by her son who is living close
by. However, it is her who cares and feeds the grandchildren that stay with her on her
plot.
II. Agnes N.
Agnes N. is in her mid-fifty’s and stays with her adult daughter, one underage son
and four underage grandchildren. Her husband died in 2002, likely due to HIV/AIDS
and she is also infected and was very sick at the time of the interview. The father of
three of the grandchildren was her son who died in 2003. She reported that their
household had enough for cultivation and people even came to ask from them before
the husband died. After his death, people stayed away from her and his relatives
came and got everything they had. She gets transfers since 2004 and spends them
mostly on transport costs to go to the hospital and get her antiretroviral medicine.
She also paid people to plough her field for K60.000 and bought goats. From the
remaining money she buys food though it is not enough. Before the transfers, she
relied mostly on wild fruits; she used to collect and pound them and then made
porridge out of it. Her two goats serve as an emergency asset: when she has no
money and needs something urgently, she can sell them. Agnes says that she feels
excluded but mainly because people did not include her into other programmes, e.g.
CARE C-Safe. Furthermore she feels that people show her the cold shoulder but this
is not due to the transfers. Even before she felt not accepted.
III. Merit T.
The 76 years old Merit T. lives with three underage grandchildren. Whereas the
homestead looks relatively wealthy and some assets can be observed, the children
look dirty and malnutritioned. Merit shares the same plot with her 36 years old son
and his family who has two wives and nine children altogether. She used to stay
somewhere else until her husband died in 1993. This is when she moved to the
current place and her son joined her the same year. The mother of the grandchildren
she is looking after works in the farms. According to Merit, she brings the children
42
immediately after they are a bit grown up; the mother says that she can not take care
because she is working. She visits frequently, one week per month. Merit says that
she does nothing for living and relies on the transfers. Last year she could not do any
gardening because there was no rain but maybe she will do it this year. Before the
transfers, she survived mainly by begging from neighbours. Her daughter in Mulwazi
village helped her and as well her daughter in Kanchele. Furthermore, the mother of
the grandchildren she is caring for sometimes brings food and sends school
requirements. Her son also assisted her and gave her food. With the transfers she
buys food and school requirements; she can not invest the transfers but spends most
of it on food. 1 to 2 gallons (each to K6500) she spends on Millie meal and the rest
on salt and pens. Her son has small fields and assists and gives her food.
Sometimes she also gives him food. They do not cook together but eat together.
Otherwise she gets assistance from close relatives. It is possible to lend cattle but
one has to pay for it and the transfers are too little for that. She sees no change in
attitude towards her and says that people treat her now as they have treated her
before. She still begs when the Millie meal finishes in the middle of the month. So far,
she has not noticed any impact on community level. She has plans but does not
know where to start from. She tries to invest in a goat or a chicken.
IV. Seja S.
Seja S. is 64 years old and lives with his 60 years old wife. He originates in another
village but came to Kanchele village with parents and then moved from a nearby
place to the current one. He got divorced from his first wife with whom he had 6
children. Two of them are with their mother in Sipatunyana village, one son lives in
Kanchele village and three children died. His son came to Kanchele in 2005 to help
and support his father. Seja used to make small stools and doors and sell them in the
community. He had to stop when he became sick in 2003. He reports that he was
bewitched and his legs started paining as if he was paralysed. Currently he still feels
the pain on the waist and can only walk a distance of 5 kilometres. One per month he
receives relief food from CARE which is óne bag of sorghum and five kg of beans. He
tried to practice gardening and farming but is sick and can not plough on his own. His
wife has her own fields. His son assists him with food but sometimes also comes and
asks for food. They are almost the same poverty level. A neighbour used to give him
animals to plough his field without charging him. Only this year they did not give him
their animals because they were busy with their own fields. Since 2004 he gets
transfers and hired people to plough his fields. He paid ~ K20.000 per field for
planting by using the hands and another K10.000 for weeding two fields. He paid
people in the village, for example the wife to his son. Apart from that he bought two
chickens and one goat for K30.000 and food. His wife exchanged sweet potatoes for
a chicken and now owns three chickens. He shares the transfers with his wife and
reports that they take the decision together. Last month, he bought her a Chitenge.
Although he can not save any money, at least when they are stuck they use the
transfers to solve the problem. Before, they depended mostly on the stools and
chairs they made. Transfers in kind or cash are almost the same for him, only when
he is sick he can use the money for transport. So, generally he would chose the
transfers and not the food relief. Other community members do not feels good about
him getting transfers and say that beneficiaries are pompers because they get
money. Some eligible people are not included and the number of beneficiaries is too
small. His social position has improved and he is better off now than before,
especially when he compares himself with others.
43
IV. Ruth M.
Roth M. is 72 years old and lives with five underage grandchildren on a poor
household. She originates in another village but came here for marriage. Her
husband died in 1997 and left her with five children. One son lives in a village close
by, the other children shifted in search of fertile land and stay far in other Chiefdoms.
They do not visit her and she is no longer able to see them because of transport
costs. She has forgotten when the last time she saw them was. Her son, the father of
two grandchildren she cares for, died in 1994. Ruth took them after the mother also
died in 2001, probably due to HIV/AIDS. The mother the three other grandchildren
died also in 1992 when she gave birth. First the children stayed with their father until
he remarried. When the second wife also died they came to the grandmother in 2004.
The father still lives in Siachitema but does not care. She does a bit of farming by
hand ploughing. The transfers are too small to hire someone who could plough her
field, she says. She gets them since October 2005 and spends them mainly on food,
books for children and soap or salt. She had also invested in chicken which had
multiplied up to ~ 15 chickens. Unfortunately they died in the December period.
Before the transfers she did piecework in neighbouring villages and begged. She
went begging almost every day. No one helped her ploughing her field; her son was
busy ploughing his own field. He lives on the same plot but eats from a different pot.
Beefore the transfers, she got help from a neighbour, now she assists some people
who assist her, e.g. with Millie meal. Since she gets the transfers, she is asked
frequently now for help. On her side, begging has been minimized; she can buy
things on her own and can borrow money and pay it back. She is able to survive on
this money. People from the community are not happy seeing her getting the money.
They complain but not openly. Her social position has slightly improved but generally
people do not treat her different her now. She prefers to receive money rather than
food mainly because she can buy school requirements for the children. Some
beneficiaries are not eligible and should not be included. She said that she can not
disclose them, but maybe the CWAC members wanted them to be in the scheme.
V. Maggie K.
Maggie K. is forty years old and lives with her mother and twelve dependants. Her
husband Maggie died in 1999 due to headache and they moved to this place in 2004,
following the brother. She takes care of the children of her elder sister since she died
in 1995. The father passed away in 2002 but the children stay with Maggie since their
mother died. Two grown up nieces also stay with her who divorced from their
husbands. Although they are still alive they do not care for their children. The 86
years old mother of Maggie first stayed with the elder sister until she died. Then she
came to stay with Maggie, which was even before the death of the husband. The son
to Maria used to stay in Maamba. He came here after a marriage in 2005 because he
was mistreated by relatives with whom he was staying there. Except for the brother
who stays close by they do not have other family members in the neighbourhood. For
living, Maggie does some piecework in Kanchele. Her son also looks after animals
and they get animals for ploughing their field in appreciation. They also garden some
rape, cabbage and onions. Before getting the transfers she survived on doing
piecework and harvesting or finishing up other people’s fields. She worked in big
maize fields of black farmers in Kanchele and earned during rainy season for
cultivating and weeding approximately K4000 for 1 day work.
She gets transfers since October 2005 and spends them mainly on food and school
requirements. She also takes her mother to Zimba hospital for treatment of the bad
44
eye of the mother and last month bought a blanket for the mother. Furthermore she
bought a chicken from the transfers. According to her, doing piecework has reduced
and the household improved. The old woman and orphans are mostly benefiting from
the transfers and so far, she could not observe a negative impact on her social
acceptance. She feels accepted by the community and attends community meetings.
The son of Maria plus his wife and the young sister of the wife are also benefiting
from the transfers as they share food after cooking. She is assisted by her Clan
brother who gives some food when he has and generally prefers cash transfers to
food relief because she can use the transfers in a different way, e.g. for paying for
transport, for books etc.. Her plans are to buy more chicken and goats so that they
can multiply.
45