RSA Livelihoods Analysis

Isibalo Symposium on evidence based decision-making

Bloemfontein, 10 – 11 October 2013

Ms Thulile Dlamini

Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) System

• SADC was mandated by heads of state to strengthen vulnerability assessment in all Member States.

• More formal formation followed the food crisis in southern Africa in late 2001/early 2002 and the subsequent crop failures in 2002.

• National VACs (NVACs) were established in six member states—chaired by a government ministry and membership comprising other government ministries/agencies, UN agencies, NGOs, Universities.

• From 2006, more member states began to form their own VACs, notably Namibia, Botswana, Angola, South Africa.

SAVAC Background• DAFF, in collaboration with the SADC RVAA

Programme, is working towards strengthening food insecurity and vulnerability assessment in South Africa.

• South Africa wished to take an active part in the SADC VAC System outlined above.

• The DAFF approached the SADC RVAA Program for technical and financial assistance to set up a functional South African Vulnerability Assessment Committee (SAVAC).

3

Why the SAVAC? Challenges with Existing Arrangements…

• Ineffectiveness of information systems: usefulness in informing decision making.

• Inadequacy of information generated: lower level data is widely lacking, no good grasp of the food security and poverty problem.

• Insufficient integration of information systems: lack of holistic view of vulnerability.

• Insufficient coordination, networking and partnerships: duplication of information, networking and partnerships between stakeholders responsible for generating food security, poverty and vulnerability information is not well defined and developed. Information is not regularly shared among various stakeholders.

• Limited participation of the civil society: inadequately interacting with government departments.

Objectives of SAVACIt is proposed that the SAVAC role be guided bythe following objectives:

• To provide technical advice to all food security stakeholders for informed decision making and programming

• To provide a platform for technical discussions and consensus on relevant indicators

• To synchronising data collection methodologies in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of people’s vulnerability

• To enhance the credibility of information generated on vulnerability and food security with a multi-sectoral approach

• To promote transparency and information sharing among all relevant stakeholders thus reducing duplication of effort and lack of uniformity of approach.

Livelihoods - Based Analysis

BASELINE HAZARD+ COPING OUTCOME+ =

The Framework: Components

In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps

National LivelihoodZones Map

How was the Livelihood Zoning done?Example from Free State Province

• Rural areas– Potential for agricultural activities– Land Tenure– Compare with Land Cover

• Urban Areas– Dwelling types– Income (employment)

Rural Livelihoods

• Grouping of crop and livestock areas into 8 Farming Activity groups.– Relatively Homogenous Farming Units– Additional farming system map layers:

• Livestock Density Layer.

– Livelihood descriptions from the Key Informant – Provincial Counterpart.

Rural Livelhoods

• Next we overlaid Land Tenure– Most rural areas are farms “exclusive

access” areas– “Open access” areas – Communal Farming

areas• Derived from the Census 2011 EA Land

Tenure Layer and DAFF Farms Database.

Farming Potential – Areas suitable for different combinations of crops and livestock

Overlay Actual Cultivated areas – Based on Land Cover Cultivated Farming Classes: Dryland, Irrigated, Sugar

Adjustment of Activities – Identify Areas of Grazing Land (Minimal Cropping), Intense Irrigated Land and Mixed Farming

Rural Livelihood Zoning

Urban Livelihoods

• Based on Income, dwelling types, access to employment, demographic profile

• Used a commercial dataset as the basis:Knowledge Factory’s Cluster Plus KF90

• Biased towards wealthier clusters—our analysis focussed on poorer clusters

Urban

Urban & Rural Livelihoods

BASELINE HAZARD+ COPING OUTCOME+ =

The Framework: Components

In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps

Example of a Baseline from Botswana:Open Access Livestock LZ

Note: the ‘Very Poor’ depend on casual labour and welfare; their livelihoods are not self-sustainable

The Livelihoods Threshold slopes up: this is because more assets = higher maintenance costs AND wealthier Hhs provide labour opportunities to the poorest

Note: the ‘Poor’ have a small investment in livestock; their livelihoods are almost self-sustainable

Total annual income for wealth groups, not quartilesTwo thresholds: Survival and Livelihoods

Example of a Baseline from Botswana:Open Access Livestock LZ

The ‘Better-off’ get a big part of their income from small business: it protects their livelihoods from shocks The ‘Middle’ are

the least resilient to weather-related shocks, especially those affecting their livestock

The ‘Middle’ have a much higher Livelihoods Threshold—this is needed to maintain their investments in livestock assets

Total annual income for wealth groups, not quartilesTwo thresholds: Survival and Livelihoods

BASELINE HAZARD+ COPING OUTCOME+ =

The Framework: Components

In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps

Simple single-Year Hazard Analysis:50% Loss of livestock productivity90% Loss of crops18% Rise in Staple Price

Baselines priorities in South Africa• 93 Rural Livelihood

ZonesOf which,–73 “exclusive access” - farms–16 have open access or small holder tenure

• 15 Urban Livelihood ZonesOf which,–2 middle income, affluent–10 have high unemployment, low income or informal dwellings

Way forward

• Developing a five-year Strategic Plan for the SAVAC.

• Prioritise the zones for further work (baselines)• Request EA / SAL data from Stats SA.• Capacity building for baseline assessments• Conduct baseline assessments.

Thank you!

• Random-sampled individual household q’res

• Purposive-sampled semi-structured interviews

Working at Scale—AggregationWe Offer Two Alternatives:

Other SADC member states prefer the purposive-approach• Reason?

Value for MoneyTime and human resources