RSA Livelihoods Analysis

1. RSA Livelihoods Analysis Isibalo Symposium on evidence based decision-making Bloemfontein, 10 – 11 October 2013 Ms Thulile Dlamini

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. Objectives of SAVAC It is proposed that the SAVAC role be guided by the 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.

6. Livelihoods - Based Analysis

7. The Framework: Components In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps + + = HAZARD OUTCOME COPING BASELINE

8. National Livelihood Zones Map

9. 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)

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

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

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

15. Rural Livelihood Zoning

16. 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

17. Urban

18. Urban & Rural Livelihoods

19. The Framework: Components In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps + + = HAZARD OUTCOME COPING BASELINE

20. Example of a Baseline from Botswana:Open Access Livestock LZ Total annual income for wealth groups, not quartiles Two thresholds: Survival and Livelihoods 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

21. Example of a Baseline from Botswana:Open Access Livestock LZ Total annual income for wealth groups, not quartiles Two thresholds: Survival and Livelihoods The ‘Better-off’ get a big part of their income from small business: it protects their livelihoods from shocks The ‘Middle’ have a much higher Livelihoods Threshold—this is needed to maintain their investments in livestock assets The ‘Middle’ are the least resilient to weather-related shocks, especially those affecting their livestock

22. The Framework: Components In practice livelihoods analysis is broken into six steps + + = HAZARD OUTCOME COPING BASELINE

23. Simple single-Year Hazard Analysis: 50% Loss of livestock productivity 90% Loss of crops 18% Rise in Staple Price

24. Baselines priorities in South Africa • 93 Rural Livelihood Zones Of which, • 73 “exclusive access” - farms • 16 have open access or small holder tenure • 15 Urban Livelihood Zones Of which, • 2 middle income, affluent • 10 have high unemployment, low income or informal dwellings

25. 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.

26. Thank you!

27. Working at Scale—AggregationWe Offer Two Alternatives: • Random-sampled individual household q’res • Purposive-sampled semi-structured interviews • Other SADC member states prefer the purposive-approach • Reason? • Value for Money • Time and human resources