Lango Web

By Paul Onapa

Dear Readers, there has been an ongoing debate following a New Vision headline that government was to pay all unemployed youths under an automatic cash transfer scheme as a form of extending social protection to the vulnerable groups including the elderly and children.  

While it is unconceivable that government would ever think of paying all the unemployed youth, it is important to appreciate the need for government to extend social protection to the vulnerable and chronically poor. It is therefore in order for government to consider implementing a pilot cash transfer scheme targeting venerable groups and not to all unemployed youth as was carried in the article. Access to social assistance should be based on clear criteria that consider the extent of vulnerability and poverty within selected households.

One important question often asked by some  members of the public is whether  providing cash transfers is a better option to other social protection alternatives such as food aid. My view is that cash transfers tend to be more effective because they broaden choices on how money is spent while continuing to facilitate investment at household level especially in rebuilding and sustaining livelihoods. In the long run, these households increase their ability to participate in the local economy therefore, contributing to broader economic growth.  

It is amazing that there is a lot of speculation going on as to why cash transfer is being introduced now with some linking it building political capital for the forthcoming 2011 elections. First, all Ugandans have a fundamental right to a decent life. This is espoused in our national Constitution and other International Legal Instruments, to which Uganda is a signatory.

Secondly, Government of Uganda's commitment to implementing social transfers for the poor and imbedding them as budgeted plans into the National budget, started way back as 2006 when Uganda and  other African Countries committed under the 2006 Livingstone Call for Action to implement budgeted national social transfer programs to address the growing risk, vulnerability and extreme poverty. Progress on this commitment in Uganda has been slow and only beginning to gain momentum unlike in some African countries which are already implementing cash transfer schemes as part of social protection.

Countries such as Malawi, Zambia, Ethiopia, Lesotho, and Kenya are implementing similar cash transfer schemes, amounting to between 3-6% of their GDP. In these countries, there is evidence to show that cash transfers have contributed to improving school enrollment and attendance, nutrition and increased access to preventive health care.

Should Uganda follow the path of others and its commitments to addressing the growing risk and vulnerability, it will have taken bold strides to reducing poverty among the chronically poor households. The pilot currently being considered by the government indicates that payment of Shillings 18,000 per month to selected households, with a supplementary transfer of 2,000 Shillings to families with children aged between 0-17 years, elderly persons of 60 years and above and persons living with disability would lead to a 15% reduction on the national poverty gap while at household level, reduces poverty gap from 8.7 percent of the poverty line to 7.4% while those receiving supplementary transfers would fall to 6.8% of the poverty line.

According to the Uganda National Household Survey 2005/6, 51% of Uganda?s population is under the age of 15 years and about 80% dwell in rural areas. The report further states that at least 21% of households in Uganda look after an orphan, without public assistance. Coupled with a high population increase of 3.3%, particularly occurring in poor households, government responses have not kept pace with this reality. Further to this, 20% of households, approximately 26% of Uganda's population (more than 7 million Ugandans) are estimated to live in chronic poverty. Majority of people in this situation are the elderly, People Living with Disabilities, Orphans and vulnerable children and those living in chronic poverty.

It is this group that accounts for the over 1.3 million school going children aged between 6-12 years not accessing free universal primary education due to factors including among others the cost of non-tuition fees, hunger and food insecurity at household level and in schools and explain in part the prevalence of Uganda?s high infant and child mortality.

Such worrying statistics call for an urgent intervention to support and prevent these people from falling deeper into chronic poverty, improving consumption, nutrition, schooling and health care.

onapap@yahoo.com

Paul Onapa works for Development Research and Training (DRT), not-for-profit organization that participated in the design of this Pilot Cash Transfer scheme and has been involved in advancing the social protection debate in Uganda.