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

1

The Impact of Social Cash Transfers on Informal Safety Nets in Kalomo District, Zambia A Qualitative Study Consultant: Berlin Ms. Katharina Wietler January, 2007 Tel.: 0049-30-39887725 Email: katharina.wietler@ishue.net Translators: Mr. Newton Mbandama Mr. Biggie Siambede

2

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4

1. 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

2. Rural Livelihood Strategies and Informal Safety Nets of Incapacitated

Households in Zambia ........................................................................................... 10

2.1 Livelihood Strategies ............................................................................... 10

2.2 Formal and Modern-Informal Safety Nets .............................................. 11

2.3 Informal Safety Nets................................................................................. 12

3. Impact of the Kalomo Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme ......................... 18

3.1 In Rural Areas ........................................................................................... 18

3.1.1 Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies....................... 18

3.1.2 Impact on Informal Safety Nets........................................................ 19

3.2 In Urban Areas.......................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Impact of Cash Transfers on Livelihood Strategies....................... 23

3.2.2 Impact on Informal Safety Nets........................................................ 24

4. 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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

2 Ibid., p. 14

3 For further information visit the official website of the KSCTS: www.socialcashtransfers-zambia.org

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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): 20

Devereux, Stephen (1999): “Making Less Last Longer”: Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institut of Development Studies, University of Sussex, p.13

13

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)

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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.

18

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

19

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

MCDSS/GTZ (2005): First Monitoring report; Lusaka, p. 7 31

Interview Esther S., Annex IV, p. 45

20

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 non-existence 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

21

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-in-law 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 non-beneficiary 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

Interview Merit T., Annex IV, p. 45 33

Interview Ruth M., Annex IV, p. 46

22

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

23

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”.

24

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

25

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.

26

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

27

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

28

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 Scale-Up. 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

29

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

30

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?

31

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?

32

Annex II Household Compositions Chidi CWAC

No Household members Age Orphan School

attendance

Living on the same

plot Living nearby

1 Belita S. 70 son, grandson, 2 brothers, clan

Grandson 20 Grade 7

2 Mwami M. ? son + family

son, Clan

Son ~40

Son ~40

3 Sara C. 72 grandson, in-law, Clan

Grandson 15 double Grade 7

Grandson 18 Grade 9

4 Maria S. 86 son + family

son, daughter, stepgrandson, stepson, Clan

Grandson 20 single Grade 9

Granddaughter 13 Grade 5

5 Saka S. 70 nephew, Clan members

Daughter 31 Son 32 Daughter in law 21

Granddaughter 15 single Last grade: 7 Granddaughter 8 single Grade 2

Granddaughter 4 6 Saliya S. 71 son daughter, Clan

Granddaughter 12 Grade 4 7 Margaret S. ~ 90 grandson son, grandsons

Daughter 50

Granddaughter 17 Grade 7

Grandson 12 Single Grade 4

Grandgranddaughter 5 Grade 1

Grandgranddaughter 1

8 Pindalo C. 63 sons, in-laws, Clan

Daughter 29 Son 33

Granddaughter 10 Single Grade 2

Granddaughter 8 Single Grade 1

Grandson 2 Single 9 Maria C. 60 stepsons, in-laws, Clan

Daugther 32 Last grade: 7

Granddaughter 18 Grade 8

Grandson 11 Not regularly

Granddaughter 1,1

Granddaughter 1,1 10 Robson C. 59 sons, daughter, Clan

1. Wife 47 2. Wife 50

Granddaughter 12 Grade 4 Granddaughter 6

11 Lena S. 66 cousins

Husband 59

33

Mother 88 12 Malita S. 55 brother, halfbrother, in-

law, Clan Son 32

Daughter in law 26

Granddaughter 6 Grade 1

Granddaughter 6 Grade 1

Son 27 Granddaughter 6 Grade 1

Grandson 9 Grade 3 13 Rickie M. 43 cousin, friends, in-laws,

Clan 1. Wife 39

2. Wife 37

Daughter 22 Last grade: 7

Son 18 Grade 8

Daughter 3,4

14 Samuel S. 70 sons, daughter, in-laws, Clan

Grandson 19 Last grade: 2

Granddaughter 14 Grade 3

15 Masta S. 36 father, daughter, brothers, half-brothers

Daughter 11 Grade 1

Son 6 Grade1

Son 2

16 Dickson S. 63 brother, sons,

1. Wife 60

2. Wife 47

Son (1. wife) 27 Last grade: 7

Son 22 Last grade: 2

Son 20 Last grade: 3

Son 18 Last grade: 2

Son 16 Grade 8

Daughter 14

Son 12 Grade 3

Son 11 Grade 1

Son 7 Grade 1

Daughter 2

Granddaughter 11 Grade: 3

Son (2. wife) 19 Last grade: 2

Daughter 13 Grade 4

Son 11 Grade 2

Daughter 7 Not yet

Granddaughter 7 Grade 1

Granddaughter 1,8

Wife to Orbeti 20

Stepson to Orbeti 4,8

34

Masempela/Kanchele CWAC

No Household members Age Orphan School

attendance Living on the

same plot Living nearby

1 Merit T. 76 son + family stepson, son Grandson 16 grade 6 Grandson 14 grade 4 Granddaughter 12 grade 1

2 Ruth M. 72

sister + granddaughter

son, Clan, relative

Granddaughter 14 Single grade 6 Grandson 12 Single grade 2 Grandson 5 Single Grandson 6 Single not yet Granddaughter 7 Single not yet

3 Maggie K. 40

brother, grandson

Mother 86 Son 22 last: 4 Daughter 18 last: 6 Son 16 grade 6 Son 14 grade 4 Son 7 grade 1 Niece 20 Single last: 6 Nephew 18 Single grade 4 Niece 11 Single grade 3 Niece 23 Grandniece 1 Grandson granddaughter 1,3 4 Salome M. 67 sons, brother Husband 70 Grandson months Daughter in law Great grandson Grandson 7 grade 4

5 Seja S. 64

son, half-brother, half-sister, cousin

Wife 60

6 Violet S. 66

daughters, uncle, nephew

Daughter 29 Daughter 39 Grandson 10 grade 3 Granddaughter 5 preschool Granddaughter 1,6 Grandson 14 grade 5 Granddaughter 10 grade 4 Grandson 6 grade 2 Granddaughter 4 preschool 7 Nellia K. 57 daughter Daughter 18 grade 9 Son 15 grade 8 Granddaughter 9 Double grade 2 Granddaughter 4 Double

35

Granddaughter 4 Double Granddaughter 4 Single

8 Agnes N. 60

mother, brothers

Daughter 22 Son 15 last: 9 Grandson 12 Single grade 5 Grandson 8 Single grade 5 Granddaughter 5 Single grade 2 Granddaughter 1,6

9 Esther S. 76

daughter, son, cousins

Granddaughter ? Son ? grade 2 Greatgrandson 10

10 Martha S. 70 son, stepson Granddaughter 8 grade 3

Mawaya 2/Magrimondi CWAC

No Household members Age Orphan School

attendance

Living on the same

plot

Living nearby

1 Alice P. 74 daughter children Daughter 32 last: 9 Granddaughter 8 grade 1 Granddaughter 14 grade 7 2 Kondensani Z. 63 brother

3 Morin C. 46

brothers, sisters

Mother 65 Brother 33 Son 22 last: 9 Daughter 16 grade 10 Son 18 grade 10 Son 13 lame Nephew 10 grade 1 Nephew 8 grade 1 Niece 13 last: 6 4 Rosemarie C. 68 Granddaughter ? Double grade 4 Granddaughter ? Double grade 4 Granddaughter ? Double not yet Grandson ? Double not yet 5 Alex S. 62 in-law Wife 53 Daughter 34 last: 7 Daughter 19 last: 8 Son 15 grade 8 Son 13 grade 3 Grandson 12 single grade 2 Granddaughter 4 Granddaughter 1,5

36

6 Jesinala T. 77 Daughter 61

Grandson 22

grade 11, irregularly

Grandson 19 grade 9 Grandson 13 grade 5 Granddaughter 15 Single grade 5 Granddaughter 13 Single grade 5 Grandson 16 Single grade 7 Grandson 9 Single not yet Grandson 9 Single not yet Grandson 5 grade 7 Granddaughter 17 grade 6 Grandson 12 grade 4 Granddaughter 11 grade 4 Granddaughter 10 grade 1 Granddaughter 6 not yet Grandson 5

37

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

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.

42

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

43

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.

44

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

45

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.