SWAZILAND: Poverty ASSESSMENT by the POOR

38011 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized SWAZILAND: POvERTY ASSESSMENT BY THE POOR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MAIN REPORT ON Public Disclosure Authorized PARTICIPATORY POVERTY ASSESSMENT Public Disclosure Authorized AUGUST, 1997 SWAZILAND: POVERTY ASSESSMENT BY THE POOR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AUGUST, 1997 I CONTENTS Participatory Poverty Assessment 1 Who are the Poor? 2 What are the Causes and Problems of Poverty? 2 How do the Poor Cope? 4 What Makes Women Especially Vulnerable? 6 What Measures are Proposed by the Poor for Poverty Alleviation? 8 I PARTICIPATORY POVERTY ASSESSMENT Under the auspices and overall supervision of Swaziland's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, and with support from the World Bank, a Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) was carried out in mid 1995 by research teams from the University of Swaziland. The purpose of the PPA was to complement the National Household Income and Expenditure Survey carried out by the Central Statistical Office by providing qualitative information, from the perspectives of the poor themselves, concerning: * the nature of poverty, vulnerability and wellbeing; * changes over time which have affected people's wellbeing; * how people cope with poverty and vulnerability; * the constraints and opportunities for improving wellbeing. The assessment is described as "participatory" because it involved direct participation by the poor in analysing their own conditions. In each of 63 selected communities throughout Swaziland, discussions were held in large and small focus groups, followed by conversational interviews with individual households. Instead of using structured questionnaires, researchers used an interview guide to conduct semi-structured, conversational interviews. Research teams were assigned to each of the four agro-ecological regions of Swaziland-- Highveld, Middleveld, Lowveld and Lubombo- and to selected peri-urban sites. The same qualitative methodology was used in each community to gather information on people's perceptions and experience of poverty. Altogether more than 600 households, 100 focus groups and 100 key informants participated in the poverty analysis. In November 1996, the regional reports of each of the research team leaders were presented and debated at a workshop for the National Development Strategy sectoral committees. This was followed in February by a national workshop, held by the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, to disseminate a draft synthesis report on the PPA findings and discuss the policy implications for government agencies, non- governmental organizations and donor agencies. Further follow up is to include integration of the PPA results with those of the Household Survey, and reporting back to the regions and communities. This booklet provides a brief summary of the resulting report Swaziland: Poverty Assessment by the Poor. 1 WHO ARE THE POOR? Focus groups in all regions of the country identified the major distinguishing characteristics of poor households; and they ranked the households within their own community according to wealth. The poor were defined by many of the same characteristics in both rural and urban areas: * those who were unable to meet the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing; * those who could not afford schooling or health care for their children; * people without independent income--widows, deserted wives, the unsupported elderly, the physically or mentally disabled. In addition, in rural areas, low crop yields--because of lack of livestock, productive land, technological assets and inforrnation--were seen as a key indicator of poverty. In urban areas, the poor were characterized as having low-wage and unstable employment, and living in overcrowded and unsanitary housing. In the majority of the sample communities a very substantial share of households were defined by participants as poor or very poor, experiencing food insecurity and hunger. This share varied more between communities within a particular region than it did from region to region. On average, the lowest shares of households defined as either poor or very poor were found in Lubombo (53%) and Highveld (55%), and the highest shares were found in Lowveld (85%) and Middleveld (70%). In all regions, a large middle category of households were seen to be either just managing to get along or were characterized as "struggling" households: those who might easily slip into poverty if their crops failed or they lost their jobs. The rich, or well-off, ranging from 2% to 15% of households, were defined as having one or more household members in steady employment; assets such as cars, tractors, businesses and modem houses; all children attending school; and, in rural areas, owning large herds of cattle. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES AND PROBLEMS OF POVERTY? The need for secure access to water--for drinking and for agriculture--was cited overwhelmingly as the greatest problem in almost all of the rural communities. Although the impact had been most severe in the Lowveld, survey participants in all regions of Swaziland blamed the recent drought as the major factor pushing entire communities over the edge into poverty. Depending on rain-fed agriculture, farmers were always subject to crop failure. 2 In some rural communities, households were also suffering from lack of access to adequate agricultural land. Young men were the most likely to lack access to productive land. This problem was blamed sometimes on the inappropriate land allocation policies of traditional authorities and in other cases on the poor quality of Swazi Nation Land while the best agricultural land was allocated for Title Deed ownership. In several cases (e.g., Etinseni in the Lowveld, and Malandelahle in the Highveld), resettlement policies had displaced families to make way for commercial agriculture, forestry or mining operations, leaving them with insufficient arable land for even subsistence farming, and often with no viable alternative sources of livelihood. In addition to access to water and land, other factors identified as contributing to poverty in rural communities were: poor transport and communications; lack of access to markets; lack of access to social services, health care, relevant education and training, credit and development infornation; * cattle theft and other crime. Summary of Problem Ranking (% of community focus groups citing as major problem) Problem area Highveld Mid'veld Lowveld Lubombo Total Water 87 94 92 95 92 Health care 60 87 68 71 71 Roads/transport 53 75 56 57 60 Schooling 47 50 56 43 51 Crime 40 13 36 57 38 Unemployment 67 6 52 19 36 Food/hunger 7 19 56 5 25 Access to markets 27 19 12 38 23 Extens. & devt. services 0 31 20 14 17 Agric. equipment/inputs 33 13 8 19 17 Access to land 20 0 24 14 16 Lack of electricity 13 19 4 14 12 Care of the destitute 0 13 16 10 10 Lack of shop 13 25 0 10 10 Lack of telephone 13 13 4 0 Lack of mortuary 0 6 0 10 4 3 In the ranking of problems at the community level, two notable differences emerged between regions: * the problems of hunger and food insecurity were of much greater concern to communities in the Lowveld than in other regions; * communities in Lubombo gave particularly high priority to the problems of crime and cattle rustling. The factors identified as contributing to poverty of the individual household in peri-urban communities were: lack of education and stable employment, because of the high dependence on cash income for food and housing; * high crime rates and the influx of immigrants who took jobs that would otherwise go to Swazis; * ill health due to poor sanitation, shoddy housing, long lines at communal water taps or high water rates for indoor plumbing; * alcoholism and even temporary illness that would incapacitate the major wage earner. Factors that would push Swazi households into poverty in both rural and urban areas were cited as: * the death, disability, or desertion of the husband; * the failure of children to support elderly parents; * teenage pregnancy, large families, and polygamy. HOW DO THE POOR COPE? Household coping strategies Participants in all sample communities reported that their sources of livelihood had deteriorated over the past few years, because of the drought since 1991, which affected water supplies and crop production, combined with the increased competition among young men for limited wage earning jobs, and the reduced level of income sent back to rural areas. In response to these pressures, men and women had altered their consumption patterns, found new ways to generate earnings, and changed their working patterns and workloads. Most of the coping strategies that were described were based on the household rather than the community. To reduce expenses, households in both rural and urban conmmunities employed many of the same strategies: food rationing, substitution of cheaper foods, 4 sending one or more children to live with better-off relatives, taking children out of school, foregoing medical care. In addition, some respondents in urban households coped by walking to work (sometimes hours) to save on bus fares. To augment household income, households reported selling livestock and other assets, borrowing cash from friends, neighbors, or informal money lenders, taking seasonal jobs and piece work, engaging in hawking and vending, making and selling handicrafts, and begging. However, as more and more people were having to resort to these strategies, competition was increasing and the strategies were becoming less viable. Some of the poorer residents in the peri-urban communities were coping by renting out rooms in their own substandard housing; they were concerned that this small but crucial source of income was threatened by insecurity of tenure and proposed up-grading programs. Safety nets and local institutions Focus groups in rural areas reported that the extended family remained the most important safety net for people in need. However, there was a widespread perception that the system was weakening, and references were made often to "irresponsible sons" who were not supporting their elderly parents, to men who had deserted their wives and children, and to widows and the elderly who had no familial support.

Load more