1. Introduction

The national five-year plan or Programa Quinquenal do Governo 2010–2014 establishes Mozambique’s national governmental priorities. This plan and its accompanying operational plan and monitoring and evaluation framework – the Plan of Action for the Reduction of Poverty, or PARP – in turn guides the contributions of the United Nations (UN), donors and civil society partners in support of those priorities. The UN System in Mozambique will prepare a new Development Assistance Framework for 2012–2015, and individual agencies and partners will develop their own Country Programmes of Cooperation in support of, and aligned with, national priorities and planning processes.

In 2006, the UN System in Mozambique published the Childhood Poverty in Mozambique: A Situation and Trends Analysis (1) that described how poverty affects the lives of children and their ability to realise their rights. The primary focus of this 2010 Study is to assess childhood poverty in Mozambique and to identify barriers to the realisation of child rights. This 2010 update provides a comprehensive description of the situation in which the ten million children of Mozambique live. It also describes the public policy, financing and service delivery environments for children, and will act as a source of quantitative and qualitative data to inform evidence-based policy decisions on national development priorities and associated interventions.

Since the publication of the 2006 Childhood Poverty in Mozambique: A Situation and Trends Analysis, additional data and analyses of the situation of children have become available, primarily through the 2007 Census, (2) the 2008 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), (3) the 2008/09 Household Budget Survey (IOF), (4) the 2008 National Child Mortality Study, (5) the Concluding Observations of the Committee for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (6) and the 2009 joint evaluation of progress towards the goals and targets of the Government of Mozambique’s PARPA II (2006–2009). (7)

Childhood poverty has immediate and long-term effects on children. Chronic undernutrition, for example, which is developed in the period covering pregnancy up to the first two years of life can permanently impact a child’s growth, resulting in stunting and reduced mental development. The impact of inter-generational childhood poverty and its cyclical nature is also evidenced by poverty’s proven role as a barrier to accessing social services. Poor households have more difficulty accessing good-quality health care, are less likely to have their children in school and are less likely to have access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities. Poor children have an elevated risk of growing up to become poor adults and in turn, have poor children.

This chapter analyses childhood poverty, first by examining historical trends in consumption-based poverty and second by analysing deprivations-based poverty. This is followed by a comparison of the two measures and in-depth analysis by deprivation. Finally, a number of conclusions with regard to child poverty are drawn.

ˆ Back to top
 

2. Measuring Poverty

2.1. Consumption-based poverty

Following the signing of the 1992 Peace Agreement, Mozambique made impressive progress in reducing the poverty headcount from 69 per cent in 1996 to 54 per cent in 2002, exceeding the PARPA I target of a poverty headcount of 60 per cent by the year 2005. (8) This trend did not continue between 2002 and 2008. According to the 2008/2009 IOF, 55 per cent of Mozambicans are living below the national poverty line of 18.4 Meticais (around $US 0.50) per day. Consumption and incomes increased and poverty fell for a majority of Mozambicans between 1996 and 2002, followed by stagnation between 2002 and 2008. (9)

Official national poverty estimates for Mozambique measure a household’s ability to satisfy its most basic needs by measuring its consumption. The consumption-based poverty headcount is based on the Household Budget Survey (Inquérito ao Orçamento Familiar, IOF), which is conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and the Ministry of Planning and Development every six years. The third and most recent survey was conducted in 2008/09.

“Consumption” includes both food and non-food items and is adjusted for seasonality of the former, but omits public services and home produced services. A Cost of Basic Needs methodology is then applied. This approach consists of the development of a basket of food items consumed by the poor that is judged sufficient for basic caloric needs (the calorie content of each basket depends upon the demographic composition of the region, but averages approximately 2,150 calories per day). The cost of this basket represents the food poverty line. A non-food poverty line is obtained by examining the share of total expenditure allocated to non-food by households living near the food poverty line. The overall poverty line is then calculated as the sum of the food and non-food poverty lines. It must be stressed that the poverty line represents an extremely basic standard of living.[i]

The indicator measuring the percentage of people living below the poverty line is known as the ‘poverty headcount’. Although the poverty headcount at a national level remained reasonably constant between 2003 and 2008, large disparities, in both poverty levels and variation in levels, were estimated at a provincial level. The largest reduction in poverty rates was found in Cabo Delgado (-26 percentage points) and Inhambane (-23 percentage points). In contrast, Zambezia (+26 percentage points) and Sofala (+22 percentage points) stand out as the two provinces showing the largest increases in poverty incidence since 2002/03. The stagnation in the overall poverty rate since 2002/03 is principally due to substantial increases in measured poverty in Zambezia and Sofala, which offset the large declines in poverty observed in five provinces. Zambezia province was estimated to have the highest poverty headcount in 2008/09: 70.5 per cent. (10)

The headcount does not convey information about levels of well-being among those below the poverty line. In order to measure the depth of poverty, the ‘poverty gap index’ is used. This index is an average percentage distance measure that examines how far the average poor household is from escaping poverty and rising above the poverty line. In order to measure inequality amongst the poor, the ‘squared poverty gap index’ is used. This index averages the square of the poverty gaps, thereby giving weight to gains made by the poorest of the poor. The Third National Poverty Assessment found no change in the poverty-gap or poverty-squared gap measures between 2002/03 and 2008/09, implying that the real income of the poor relative to the poverty line has been relatively constant between 2002 and 2008. (11)

Levels of equality have remained reasonably constant between 2002 and 2008. The Gini coefficient,[ii] a measure of income inequality, as calculated from the IOF surveys, did not significantly change between 1997 and 2008. Inequality is significantly higher in urban compared to rural areas. (12) There is some evidence to suggest that inequality is bigger within provinces and districts rather than between them. One study found that between 83 per cent and 86 per cent of the total inequality in Mozambique occurs within districts rather than between districts. (13)

Poverty reduction in Mozambique between 1996/97 and 2002/03 did not equally benefit all segments of the population. Poverty was reduced much more significantly among male-headed households than female-headed households, which represent about 30 per cent of all households in Mozambique. (14) While poverty was reduced by 26 per cent in male-headed households (it declined from about 70 per cent in 1996/97 to 52 per cent in 2002/03), it only went down by 6 per cent in female-headed households (down from about 67 to 63 per cent between 1996/97 and 2002/03).The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion commonly used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. The Gini coefficient can range from 0 to 1. A low Gini coefficient indicates a more equal distribution, with 0 corresponding to perfect equality, while higher Gini coefficients indicate a more unequal distribution, with 1 corresponding to perfect inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.41 in both 2002, and 2008.[iii]

Households in Mozambique are vulnerable to shocks which can push them below the poverty line. Poverty levels among households have varied significantly over the last decade, especially at the provincial level. This underscores the vulnerability of a large proportion of the population. Mozambican households are extremely vulnerable to shocks such as the loss of an income or crop failure due to droughts or floods. Seasonal fluctuations can temporarily push households above and below the poverty line.

The factors identified by the Ministry of Planning and Development as primarily behind poverty stagnation between 2002 and 2008 include: (15)

• Very slow growth rates in agricultural productivity, especially with respect to food crops, observed since 2002;
• Weather shocks that impacted the harvest of 2008, particularly in the Central provinces;
• Declining terms of trade due to large increases in international food and fuel prices. Fuel prices, in particular, rose substantially over the period 2002/03 to 2008/09.

The consumption measure used in Mozambique is a per capita measure, with no allowance for differences between child and adult in the requirements of calories per day to satisfy minimum needs. At first sight, this implies that the poverty situation for children may be a little better than portrayed, as a working adult requires more calories per day, and hence greater expenditure, than a non-working child. However, since children require a higher intake of micronutrients than adults, maintaining the adult caloric requirement may be a reasonable proxy for formulating a consumption-based child poverty line. (16) Also, the proportion of children who work is high, the 2008 MICS reports that 22 per cent of children aged 5–14 years were engaged in some form of work outside the home (28 or more hours per week). (17)

All measures of poverty have their limitations and the consumption-based approach is no exception. One important limitation is that the consumption measure applies to households and not individuals. It is not possible with IOF data to estimate the consumption of each person within a household. The measure does not, therefore, capture variations in allocation among household members, including differences between adults and children. This could mean that some members of a non-poor household may in fact be consumption-poor, and vice versa. There is evidence in Mozambique that discrimination in terms of resource allocation does occur within households. For example, a 2005 study found that non-biological descendants of the household head are discriminated against in the intra-household allocation of resources in poor households. (18) It is not possible to measure this discrimination through the IOF data. Further, consumption of all public services is excluded. There is no attempt to value consumption of public services such as education, healthcare, and economic infrastructure. (19) Given the significant investment in public services in recent years, the consumption of public goods had a significant impact on the well-being of children in Mozambique.

Children experience poverty, deprivation and rights violations differently from their parents and other adults, in terms of both the type of deprivation experienced and the relative degree of deprivation. Children are proportionally more vulnerable to extreme poverty than adults, and it is therefore vital to determine if the poverty situation described from a predominantly adult perspective is equally applicable to children. (24) This section presents estimates of childhood poverty using the Bristol Indicators for a deprivations-based measure, adapted for Mozambique.

Consumption-based child poverty headcount estimates, based on the 2003 Living Conditions Household Survey (IAF), indicated that the level of poverty among children was significantly higher than among adults. In 2002/2003, 58 per cent of children living in poverty compared to 49 per cent of adults. Consumption-based child poverty did, however, decrease significantly between the 1997 and 2003 surveys. But the gap between children and adults did not close between 1996/97 and 2002/03, with both groups witnessing a decrease of 22 per cent in poverty level. The decrease in child poverty levels was more pronounced in rural areas (24 per cent) than in urban areas (16 per cent).

Box 1.1. Methodology and Sources of Information

Through the eyes of a child

”We never have enough food to eat. We normally have black tea and bread for breakfast. Whether or not we have a second meal depends on the adults in our lives. If our mothers and grandmothers have made money that day or have money left over from their monthly salary, then we eat. If it is towards the end of the month, we have probably run out of money and food, so we go to bed hungry. Often, we haven’t eaten anything for one or sometimes even two days. We often cry, not just because we are hungry, but because we feel all alone when we don’t have food to eat, like no one cares about us. “We remember the days that we have eaten. Often, when we wake up in the middle of the night, we see our mothers worried about what they will feed us the next day. Even though our mothers and grandmothers work every day, they often come home with very little money. It makes us sad to see the difficult life our mothers and grandmothers lead. When we grow up, we will work hard to take care of our mothers and grandmothers.” - Lina, age 14 (Source: Sajan Virgi, Zainul, 2010.)

ˆ Back to top

2.2. Deprivations-based poverty

Mozambique’s first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, PARPA I (2001–2005), defined absolute poverty as “the inability of individuals to ensure for themselves and their dependants a set of basic minimum conditions necessary for their subsistence and well-being in accordance with the norms of society.” (25) Many observers subsequently proposed that this definition of poverty should be supported by more multidimensional measures in order to present a broader, more pluralistic and rights-based analysis. (26) This view was formally adopted by the Government in the country’s second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, PARPA II (2006–2010).

While reporting on the consumption-based measure in its poverty analysis, PARPA II adopted a new definition of poverty: “Impossibility, due to incapacity or through lack of opportunity, for individuals, families and communities to have access to minimum conditions, in accordance with the norms of society.” PARPA II also explicitly recognises that it is important not to be over-reliant on any one poverty measure, stating that,“ For purposes of policy decisions, poverty was initially considered as the lack of income – money or negotiable goods – necessary to satisfy basic needs. Because this monetary definition did not cover all the manifestations of poverty, the definition was broadened over time to cover such aspects as a lack of access to education, health care, water and sanitation, etc.” (27)

UNICEF, along with a growing number of academics and policymakers, has chosen to adopt an increasingly multidimensional view of what it means to be living in poverty. Poverty has traditionally been measured using a narrow focus on household consumption. However, the level of a family’s income does not create a full picture of the health and well-being of a child. A child’s parents may earn a decent wage but live too far from a school for their child to attend class. Education, along with other basic services like health, sanitation and clean water are all necessary investments for a child to grow up to be a productive adult. Focusing on the basic needs and key public services of which a child is deprived allows for a multidimensional understanding of poverty. With the deprivations-based approach, the link between resource allocation, policy choices and the resulting changes in childhood poverty becomes much more explicit.

Table 1.1: Deprivation in Mozambique, 2008

The analysis presented here uses a deprivations-based measure of childhood absolute poverty. The indicators used to quantify this measure were originally developed by a team at the University of Bristol, and are often referred to as the Bristol Indicators. (28) They are based on the deprivations approach to poverty, drawing upon the definition of absolute poverty agreed at the World Summit for Social Development: “a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs.” (29)

The indicators comprise seven measures of severe deprivation: nutrition, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. The Bristol Indicator approach defines the proportion of children living in absolute poverty as those children facing two or more types of severe deprivation. The indicators constitute both causes and symptoms of poverty. Access to safe water, for example, is a symptom of poverty in that poor households are far less likely to enjoy safe water. It is also a cause of poverty in that individuals that do not have access to safe water are more likely to suffer from water-borne illnesses leading to an inability to engage in activities to provide income for their families.

An inherent strength of the deprivations-based approach is its inclusion of the consumption of key public services. This is particularly evident when contrasting results of deprivations- and consumption-based measures of poverty for rural and urban children. In 2003, 22 per cent of urban children were living in absolute poverty as measured by the deprivations-based approach versus 55 per cent as measured by the consumption-based approach, reflecting the increased access to social services in urban areas. With the deprivations-based approach, the link between resource allocation, policy actions and the resulting changes in childhood poverty is made much more explicit. For example, the increased allocation of funds to expand immunisation programmes would have an immediate and direct impact on child poverty under the deprivations-based measure (by demonstrating an increased number of children who had been immunised), but would show the effect more slowly under the consumption-based measure.

Using the deprivations-based approach, focused on a child’s ability to access essential services, the proportion of children living in absolute poverty in Mozambique fell from 59 per cent in 2003 to 48 per cent in 2008.[vi], (30) The proportion of children in rural areas living in absolute poverty decreased significantly, from 72 per cent to 60 per cent (Figure 1.1). In 2008, 22 per cent of urban children were poor, versus 60 per cent of rural children.

The reduction in children’s absolute poverty levels was driven by significant improvements in the health and education sectors. The proportion of children experiencing severe education deprivation was halved between 2003 and 2008 (24 to 12 per cent). Severe health deprivation was reduced by one-third (18 to 12 per cent). (31)

Figure 1.1: Proportion of children experiencing two or more severe deprivations, 2003 and 2008

The proportion of children experiencing nutrition and sanitation deprivations registered moderate improvement between 2003 and 2008, but the proportion of children experiencing severe water deprivation increased. The most frequently experienced severe deprivations are water, sanitation, and information, which affect 39 per cent, 43 per cent, and 40 per cent of children, respectively. Only five per cent of children experience severe shelter deprivation (Figure 1.2).

At the provincial level, there has been a reduction in child poverty between 2003 and 2008 in Niassa, Cabo Delgado, Zambezia, Sofala and Inhambane provinces and Maputo City. Figure 1.3 shows the proportion of children experiencing two or more severe deprivations by province in 2003 and 2008.

Significant disparities exist in relation to provincial poverty rates. The proportion of children experiencing two or more severe deprivations was highest in Zambezia province in both 2003 and 2008 (80 and 64 per cent respectively). Maputo City has the lowest levels of absolute child poverty, with only 4 per cent of children experiencing two or more severe deprivations, reflecting the relatively high level of access to essential services in the Capital. The second largest reduction in deprivation occurred in Niassa province, where the proportion fell from 58 per cent in 2003 to 35 per cent in 2008. Interestingly, both Maputo City and Niassa also experienced large reductions in the consumption-based poverty measure between 2002/03 and 2008/09. (32)

A multivariate analysis, using as outcome the number of severe deprivations in children 0 to 17 years old, was conducted to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between a deprivations-based measure of poverty, the Bristol Indicators, and other relevant individual and household level variables available in the MICS 2008 dataset.

Asset-based wealth is a crucial explanatory variable in predicating deprivation. The model suggests that asset-based wealth is strongly (and inversely) related to the number of deprivations; as would be expected, children in wealthier households are far less likely to be deprived.

However, the analysis suggests that other factors also play an important role, such as the level of education of the mother or caretaker, the dependency ratio at household level, the area of residence and the survival status of the parents of the child. The area of residence is likely to be a proxy for a number of unmeasured variables that are linked to the disadvantaged status of rural populations.

Outside of improving material wealth, the model suggests that the most important, and possibly the most straightforward, way to reduce child poverty might be to improve the education of future mothers.

Figure 1.2: Proportion of children experiencing deprivations, 2003 and 2008

Figure 1.3: Percentage of children experiencing two or more severe deprivations by province, 2003 and 2008

ˆ Back to top

2.3. Comparison of consumption– and deprivations-based poverty

In 2008, poverty levels were significantly lower as measured by the deprivations-based approach, as compared to the consumption-based measure. This is explained by the fact that there were significant improvements in non-monetary poverty measures of poverty between 2002 and 2008 but not accompanying improvements in terms of increased consumption. Poverty rates were relatively similar (by both measures) in the centre and the north of the country but diverge sharply in the south. In the case of Maputo City, this is explained by the fact that the consumption-based approach does not directly take into account access to social services such as health, education, water and sanitation, which are likely to be concentrated in urban areas. By both measures, Zambezia is estimated to have the highest proportion of people living in absolute poverty. As discussed in chapter 6, Zambezia is allocated considerably less funds per capita than average and has is amongst the worst performing province in terms of human development indicators. The re-dress of this inequitable allocation of resources should be prioritised by the Government and its development partners.

Figure1.4: Deprivations-based poverty compared to consumption-based poverty for children, 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

3. Analysis by deprivation

The following section presents an analysis of each of the seven Bristol Indicators.

3.1. Severe education deprivation

Between 2003 and 2008, severe education deprivation has halved (24 versus 12 per cent). The education deprivation indicator is the proportion of children between 7 and 18 years old who have never been to school and are not currently attending school. The levels of severe education deprivation are three times higher for rural children (15 per cent) than urban children (5 per cent), although both groups experienced large improvements. Severe education deprivation is highly correlated with the wealth of the household. Children in the poorest households, based on a wealth index, are almost ten times more likely to experience severe education deprivation than children in the best-off households.

Severe education deprivation has been reduced in all provinces, as shown in Figure 1.5 below. Niassa, Zambezia, Inhambane and Gaza provinces experienced large reductions. All four provinces saw a relative decline of over 60 per cent in the proportion of children experiencing severe education deprivation. Only three per cent of children in Gaza are experiencing severe educational deprivation. Despite these improvements, education deprivation still remains high in Niassa and Zambezia (15 and 12 per cent, respectively). It is highest in Tete (22 per cent), where children have the lowest primary school completion rate (5 per cent) and among the lowest levels of family support for children’s education[vii] and the lowest access to pedagogical materials in the home. (33) This suggests that the poor educational outcomes in Tete are more complex than simply a lack of educational opportunities. The problem may also be related to the value parents there put on children’s learning.

Girls are more likely to experience severe education deprivation than boys (13 and 10 per cent respectively). (34) Sofala province has the largest gender disparity in primary education attendance rates, with 87 per cent of boys and 77 per cent of girls attending primary school. Tete has the largest gender disparity in secondary level education: 12 per cent of boys are attending secondary school compared to 6.5 per cent of girls. Nationally, the education gender gap has been closing, as have disparities between provinces. (35)

Figure 1.5: Severe education deprivation among children by province, 2003 and 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

3.2. Severe nutrition deprivation

Undernutrition has wide ranging impacts on the lives of mothers and children in Mozambique. The most drastic of these impacts is child mortality. Undernutrition is the main underlying cause contributing to the high level of child mortality in Mozambique. Proper nutrition is also important in its own right, since undernutrition (in particular chronic undernutrition or stunting) affects a child’s physical and mental development and is closely linked to the ability to succeed in school and become a productive adult. The nutritional deprivation indicator is the proportion of children under five whose nutritional index (based on an equally weighted weight-for-height, weight-for-age, height-for-age composite) is equal to or below minus 3 standard deviations from the median of the WHO standard population, i.e., severe anthropometric failure.

There has been a reduction in the percentage of children in Mozambique experiencing severe nutritional deprivation,[viii] from 27 per cent of children in 2003 to 20 per cent in 2008. (36) Severe nutrition deprivation is higher for rural children (22 per cent) than for urban children (15 per cent). The higher rate for rural children is largely explained by differences in food availability, a lack of variation in diet and lower access to health services, (37) safe drinking water and sanitation facilities. Rural children may also be more likely to experience a reasonably prolonged food deficit at some point in time.

Figure 1.6: Severe nutritional deprivation among children by province, 2003 and 2008

The reduction in the proportion of children experiencing severe nutritional deprivation was driven by improvements for rural children. Thirty-one per cent of rural children were experiencing severe nutritional deprivation in 2003 compared to 22 per cent in 2008. The reduction in the level of nutritional deprivation for urban children was not statistically significant. The gap between the rural and urban areas has thus narrowed from 2003 to 2008, although a disparity persists.

There is considerable inequity in terms of severe nutritional deprivation. Children in the in the poorest households (25 per cent) are significantly more likely to experience severe nutritional deprivation than children in the best-off households (9 per cent). However, poorer households have experienced more significant improvement in the proportion of children experiencing severe nutritional deprivation. (38)

ˆ Back to top
 

3.3. Severe water deprivation

Access to clean, safe water is vital for the survival and healthy development of children, reducing sickness and death due to diarrhoeal diseases and other major causes of child mortality. Use of safe water lowers the risk of water-borne diseases among children weakened by malnutrition and reduces the risk of opportunistic infections among children living with HIV or AIDS. In Mozambique, a lack of access to safe water is directly responsible for regular outbreaks of cholera. The water deprivation indicator is the proportion of children under 18 years of age who only have access to surface water (e.g. rivers) for drinking or who live in household where the nearest sources of water is 30 minutes away or more.

Severe water deprivation among children has increased in Mozambique between 2003 and 2008 (31 versus 39 per cent).[ix] There is a large disparity between urban and rural children; rural children are more than two and a half times more likely to experience severe water deprivation than urban children (14 and 40 per cent respectively). Rural children experienced an increase in severe water deprivation between 2003 and 2008, while for urban children the level of deprivation remained reasonably constant. (39)

In Gaza province, more than half of children are experiencing severe water deprivation (58 per cent). Gaza registered an increase in children’s severe water deprivation between 2003 and 2008 (39 versus 58 per cent). The mean time to walk to a water source in Gaza province in over one and half hours. (40) There is no evidence of any province achieving a statistically significant reduction in severe water deprivation among children.
There is considerable inequity in access to safe water. Children from poor households are at a far greater risk of experiencing severe water deprivation. Severe water deprivation is nearly five times higher for children who live in the poorest households than for those who live in the best-off households (54 versus 11 per cent) (see Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.7: Severe water deprivation among children by wealth quintile, 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

3.4. Severe sanitation deprivation

Poor sanitation and inadequate hygiene contribute to child mortality and morbidity. Water, sanitation and hygiene are also closely linked to childhood malnutrition. (41) The sanitation deprivation indicator is the proportion of children under 18 years of age who have no access to a toilet of any kind in the vicinity of their dwelling, including communal toilets or latrines.

The proportion of severely deprived children in terms of sanitation remained reasonably constant between 2003 and 2008. In 2008, 43 per cent of children were experiencing severe sanitation deprivation. The urban/rural disparity is large. Fifty-six per cent of rural children are experiencing severe sanitation deprivation, compared to 15 per cent of urban children. (42)

Besides urban/rural disparities, there are also large disparities between provinces. In Zambezia, 73 per cent of children are experiencing severe sanitation deprivation compared to less than one per cent in Maputo City. A higher proportion of children in the central and northern provinces experience severe sanitation deprivation than in the southern provinces (see Figure 1.8).

There is also a large disparity depending on the wealth of the family. Data show that 92 per cent of children in the poorest households experience severe sanitation deprivation, compared to 3 per cent in the best-off households.

Figure 1.8: Severe sanitation deprivation among children by province, 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

3.5. Severe health deprivation

Severe health deprivation among children fell significantly between 2003 and 2008, from 18 per cent[*] to 12 per cent. The severe health deprivation indicator is the proportion of children under five who have never been immunised or who have suffered from a severe episode of acute respiratory infection that was not treated. As can be seen from Figure 1.9 below, there is a disparity between rural and urban children, with rural children twice as likely to experience severe health deprivation (14 per cent versus 7 per cent). Deprivation levels did however decrease significantly for rural children while remaining fairly constant for urban children. There are also disparities between provinces, ranging from five per cent in Maputo City to 19 per cent in Zambezia and Nampula.

Breaking down the indicator into its components (acute respiratory infection and immunisation) reveals some of the causes behind the severe health deprivation in Zambezia, Nampula and Tete. In all three provinces, mothers/guardians are less likely to recognise the symptoms of pneumonia than the national average, suggesting that severe health deprivation may be linked to the level of knowledge guardians have about diseases. Notably, only three per cent of children in Zambezia suspected of having pneumonia received antibiotics.(43)

Figure 1.9: Severe health deprivation among children by province, 2003 and 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

3.6. Severe shelter deprivation

Five per cent of children are experiencing severe shelter deprivation in Mozambique. This level has remained fairly constant between 2003 and 2008. The shelter indicator is the proportion of children under 18 living in dwellings with more than five people per room (severe overcrowding). Cabo Delgado has experienced a large fall in severe shelter deprivation among children. Almost no children (0.2 per cent) in the province are now experiencing severe shelter deprivation, compared to 3 per cent in 2003. Severe shelter deprivation has increased in Gaza and Inhambane. No other provinces show evidence of a statistically significant change in the proportion of children experiencing severe shelter deprivation.

Severe shelter deprivation is strongly correlated with wealth. Thirteen per cent of children in the poorest quintile are experiencing severe shelter deprivation compared to only one per cent of children in the best-off households.

ˆ Back to top
 

3.7. Severe information deprivation

There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of children experiencing severe information deprivation between 2003 and 2008. Forty per cent of children were experiencing severe information deprivation in 2008. The information deprivation indicator is the proportion of children between 5 and 18 with no possession of or access to a radio, television or newspaper at home.

The information deprivation indicator does not take into account mobile phone ownership. It is likely that if access to mobile phones were included in the calculation of information deprivation, it would have caused a reduction in the proportion of children experiencing severe information deprivation, given the large increase in mobile phone ownership in Mozambique over the last decade (see Chapter 6, Cross-cutting issues). It is also possible that the rapid expansion of mobile phone ownership is actually reducing the demand for radios and televisions among the poorest households as they prioritise mobile phones over other communication assets.

Figure 1.10: Severe shelter deprivation among children by wealth quintile, 2008

ˆ Back to top
 

4. Conclusions

There have been significant improvements in levels of absolute poverty among children as measured by the deprivations-based approach. Advances observed in deprivation-based poverty are associated in part with the large efforts made by the Government in the provision of social services. The Government has invested strongly in education and health, and this has resulted in significant improvements in the proportion of children experiencing severe education and health deprivations. Although the proportion of children experiencing severe deprivation has decreased in recent years, almost half of Mozambican children remain severely deprived. Children are most often deprived of access to safe water, sanitation and information. Continued investment in essential services means a continued investment in the future of Mozambique’s children.

The urban/rural divide is particularly evident through deprivations-based analysis. It is also clear from the results that levels of deprivations are significantly higher in the central and northern provinces than in the southern provinces. However, if we exclude Maputo City, the northern provinces experienced the largest reduction in levels of deprivation among children. Similarly, consumption-poverty estimates indicate a positive trend in northern Mozambique.
Poverty rates have stagnated as measured by the consumption-based approach with nearly 12 million Mozambicans living on 18.4 Meticais (around $US 0.50) per day. This is principally due to the poor performance of the agricultural sector, on which the majority of Mozambicans rely for their livelihoods. There is an unambiguous relationship between the wealth and the well-being of children. While continued investments in the social sectors are necessary to reduce deprivation levels, it is vital that the Government and its partners re-examine their approach to stimulating the agricultural sector.

Both the consumption- and deprivation-based measures underline the high levels of vulnerability of the Mozambican population, as evidenced by the fluctuating provincial poverty rates. These disparities are linked to inequitable allocation of Government resources. Provinces with the lowest human development indicators tend to receive a lower allocation of resources. The ability of households to withstand internal or external shocks is extremely limited. The most common shocks experienced are the death of a family member or weather related shocks such as drought or flood. (44) These shocks can push children and their families into severe deprivation and absolute poverty and have life-long impacts on the well-being of children.

ˆ Back to top