Child Poverty in Mozambique. A Situation and Trend ... - Unicef

shown that the arrival of orphans in a household is not usually accompanied by new
resources, resulting in a real increase in poverty for all children in the household.
Box 5.9: The poor helping the destitute by sharing what they cannot afford
In a recent paper, Michael J. Kelly argues that HIV/AIDS is making the poor
poorer. The author identifies four driving forces perpetuating the pandemic:
poverty, gender disparities and power structures, stigma and discrimination and
exploitative global socio-economic structures and practices. As these four driving
forces manifest themselves, HIV and AIDS prosper. As the pandemic flourishes,
the likelihood of worsening poverty, gender relations, discrimination and global
injustice increases and a vicious spiral is established.
Whilst HIV and AIDS by no means affect only poorer people, the poor face greater
susceptibility due to generally poorer health and nutrition, high risk survival
strategies and inability to meet the costs of health services or cope with the loss
of labour or income arising from chronic illness.
Kelly highlights the “myth of coping” in relation to the crisis for orphans and
vulnerable children and argues that “underlying the apparent success of family
coping is the selfless sharing strategy that frequently characterises those living in
poverty - the poor helping the destitute by sharing what they cannot afford. But
this is hardly something that can be held up as a good model of coping”.
Source: HIV and AIDS: a justice perspective, Michael J Kelly, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, 2006
The decline in household income is not generally offset by support from the State
or civil society. An assessment on community coping capacities conducted in 2005
as part of a national situation analysis of orphaned and vulnerable children showed
that only 12 per cent of the households with orphaned and vulnerable children had
received assistance from either the Government or civil society (of which, 6.8 per
cent had received support from the Government, 5.5 per cent from NGOs and 4.4
per cent from CBOs) (SIAPAC/AV 2006). The study also found that only 1 per cent
of all households had a household member with a poverty certificate (the State
mechanism for gaining eligibility to waivers of fees when using health, education or
birth registration services).
The 2003 Vulnerability Analysis showed that maternal orphans fare badly in terms of
access to education, a trend that has been confirmed by the 2004/2005 IFTRAB. In
2003, the DHS found that only 62 per cent of 10-14 year-old maternal orphans were
attending primary school, compared with 76 per cent of paternal orphans and 78 per
cent of non-orphans living with their parents (INE 2005). In 2004/2005, the IFTRAB
showed that 46 per cent of maternal orphans aged 6-12 years were attending primary
school, compared with 71 per cent among non-orphaned children in the same age
range (INE 2006).
In addition, a study conducted in 2005 by the Ministry of Planning and Development
established that within poor households, discrimination exists in the allocation of
resources to children who are not direct biological descendants of the household
head. The study found that children with no direct biological relationship to the
household head were discriminated against in terms of their access to education, in
both rural and urban areas (Nhate 2005: 48). 85
85 In other aspects, such as health, medical consultation and child labour, the study found no evidence of discrimination.
CHILDHOOD POVERTY IN MOZAMBIQUE: A SITUATION AND TRENDS ANALYSIS
207