The Harare
Operation Murambatsvina Survey represents a unique opportunity to gain insights
into the impact of Operation Murambatsvina on communities and households where
the Operation was executed since 18 May 2005. This report attempts to give a factual account of
the impact Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order. This is done through analysis
of the impact at both household level and community level.
A structured
questionnaire was used in the collection of data from 14,137 respondents
distributed in 26 affected high density suburbs. The quantitative household survey was designed to
collect the following types of information from the interviewed households: 1)
household demographics, 2) Livelihood activities affected by the operation, 3)
household impact, 4) current coping mechanisms being employed by the communities
in response to the operation, 5) assistance communities are currently receiving
6) assistance currently being offered and assistance perceived as required by
the communities.
Initially 26 team leaders
for each ward were trained on the administration of the questionnaire and
sampling procedures. Thereafter, a further 9 researchers were trained by the
trained by the team leaders at ward level. Therefore, 260 researchers collected
this information over a two day period. At least 500 homesteads were visited
during the course of the study. This represents a third of households per
ward. Data collected was entered stored
and exported into Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version 13.
Subsequently, analysis was done to generate frequencies, descriptive and derived
variables.
Socio-demographic data of the sampled
wards
Assumptions:
- At least 3 households stay
at one homestead
- Average household size is
5.8
- Assume the remaining 4
high density residential wards are not different from the other samples
wards.
- 97% of households affected
by the operation
Calculation
Process:
- 14,137 households were
survey
- total population surveyed
is 81,995
Based on these figures and
assumptions, the following are projected households that were affected by the
operation;
Adding the remaining 4 wards – 30/26
* 14,137 = 16,311 households in all 30 wards
Total population affected, households
sampled*average household size*average households per
homestead*
16,311*5.8*3 = 283
811
However the sample is only a third of
the population in the wards. Therefore, the total population would be:
283 811*3= 851 434
From the data generated from the survey, 97% (n = 13 712) of homesteads
visited in the 26 wards were affected by the Operation in varying proportions
and different ways. Demographic data for the general population is discussed
below:
· Overall population sampled is 81,995
with an average household size of 5.8
· The majority of respondents and
household heads were male (56% and 61%
respectively)
· The total number of households
affected by the operation (which includes; households that lost accommodation,
had shelter lost, lost livelihoods, children not attending school as a result)
was 97% (13,712) of sampled households.
- The average age of the
head of household is 41 years, with the youngest reported as 12 years old and
the oldest as 89 years old.
- Female household heads are
slightly older than male household heads, 43 and 39 years old, respectively.
- Approximately 12% of
homesteads visited are above 60 years (elderly headed) and only 1% (142) were
headed by minors (commonly referred to as child headed, below 18
years).
- 32% of interviewed households were hosting orphans, whilst a further 13%
were hosting at least a chronically ill individual. A minority of 6% were
hosting at least a mentally/physically challenged person.
- As a measure of vulnerability, the analysis classified all households in
five categories (see table below). Most households interviewed fall in 3
categories (39%), whilst in 1 category: 15%; 2 categories: 31%; 4 categories:
11% and only 4% in the 5 categories.
- Out of the 14,137 sampled homesteads, 22% of them reported that children
were not attending school as a direct result of the
Operation.
Livelihoods
The household
survey inquired on primary sources of income of those affected by the Operation, since secondary information
suggests that the Operation has had an adverse effect on the
livelihoods.
- A majority (73%) of urban dwellers were engaged in informal
trading prior to Operation Murambatvsina/Restore Order
from the sample.
- The primary
sources of livelihood that have were cited to have been disrupted (73%) as a
result of the Operation from the
sample include: tuck shop ownership (9%), flea market (11%), fruit and vegetable
vending (17%), offering accommodation (18%), cross border trader (6%) and petty
trade (5%) such as sale of firewood.
- Unfortunately, the
vulnerable strata mentioned earlier were mainly engaged in the informal sector
as captured below:
|
Proportions
who were engaged informal and formal sectors |
|
Strata |
Informal
sector |
Formal
sector |
|
Female
headed households |
91% |
9% |
|
Child
headed households |
100% |
0% |
|
Households
hosting orphans |
92% |
8% |
|
Households
hosting chronically ill members |
91% |
9% |
|
Households
hosting mentally/physically challenged persons |
91% |
9% |
Impact of the Operation at household
level
The extent to which a households or communities were affected has not
been quantified. Scant, inconsistent and at times conflicting information is
available on this issue. Therefore as one of the key findings of the survey, it
was to explore and detail what it is that households lost during the exercise.
This are discussed below:
Shelter
- A majority (76%) of respondents reported that they had lost shelter. Loss
of shelter was two fold 1) a tenant being evicted as a result of demolitions, 2)
a land lord losing a section of his home as a result of the demolitions.
Source of income
- Overall, 79% of interviewed households reported that they had lost their
sources of income. This figure is similar to the 73% that had lost sources of
income (livelihoods) as a direct result of the Operation. The increase may be
attributable to multiple sources of income that households are engaged in to
ameliorate vulnerability.
- Strikingly this generally affected all households in the same
proportion.
Education for children
The welfare of children especially in terms of their ability to attend
school is a basic fundamental right, was affected by the operation.
- School drop out was reported to be 22%. However, 45% of households
interviewed reported that they were at a precarious position in funding and
accessing schools for their children, currently and in future. This may be a
clear indication on the future prospects of school enrolment for children in the
near future.
Property
- Forty five percent (45%) of homesteads visited reported that they had
incurred losses of property. Unfortunately, the survey was not able to quantify
in Zimbabwean dollar value what it was exactly the affected communities had lost
and also the nature of the property.
Deterioration in health
- It is sad to note that slightly over 20% of people interviewed,
attributed the deterioration of health of their loved ones as a direct result of
the operation.
Food
security
- Approximately, 60% of households sampled claimed that they had become
food insecure as a consequence of the Operation. Being urban areas, most of the
food supply to the family is sourced from the market. Little or no food finds
its way from the rural areas if a family has rural linkages exists.
Household safety and security
Household safety and security was defined as the family ability to
protect and safe guard its assets (physical) and from exploitation.
- Almost half (49%) of the homesteads reported that this indicator had been
compromised as a result of the operation.
Disruption of family unit
Housing waiting list runs into hundreds of thousands in Harare and all
other urban areas in Zimbabwe. Sharing of homesteads and extension of houses was
a way in which Harareans sought to mitigate the accommodation problem.
- More than 75% of the respondents reported losing shelter.
- It worrying to note that over 40% of homesteads visited reported that
family units had been disrupted as a result of the operation. Mostly children
and spouses had been relocated back to the rural homesteads if this was
plausible.
Women status and dignity
Humiliation and loss of dignity as a direct result of the operation was
also reported. Prior to the demolition exercise, it is reported and accounted by
respondents that the authorities would move around marking what they deemed as
illegal structures using paint. The marked buildings were to be destroyed. Such
actions resemble a war situation. This is witnessed by 39% of the interviewed
homesteads claiming that they had lost their dignity as a result of the
Operation.
Increased vulnerability for women and children
- It is saddening to note that 37% of the interviewed homesteads
acknowledged that women and children had become more vulnerable to abuse as a
consequence of the Operation. Furthermore, a high proportion of these were from
female-headed households.
Psychologically affected (traumatised)
- Almost 40% of respondents interviewed claimed that they had been
traumatized by the graphic, detailed and heavy handedness of the implementers of
the Operations. From the analysis done, this was generally the same across
board. Despite the low proportion of child headed households, this seemed to be
reported in 82% of child headed households.
Coping mechanisms adopted by households
- Currently, only 37% households reported that they were using their own
resources to sustain the family.
- A further 22% claimed to be getting assistance from relatives, whilst
government, community based organizations and non-governmental organizations
accounted for a mere 6%.
- More importantly
is the realization that 35% of households were not managing at all. In this
bracket, the majority were child- and women headed households accounting for 76%
of the responses.
Assistance currently being received
- Of those that reported receiving assistance from the various sources, the
following categories are the nature of assistance being received; food (17%),
shelter (15%), monetary (8%), education for children (7%), relocation (5%),
psycho-social support (5%) and legal help (4%). This clearly suggests that there
are major gaps in the support that is being offered to the communities.
|
Proportion
of assistance required |
|
Area
of need |
Proportion
(%) |
|
Shelter
|
73% |
|
Food
|
83% |
|
Compensation
|
4% |
|
Relocation
|
45% |
|
Education
|
56% |
|
Legal
help |
4% |
|
Monetary
(financial help) |
74% |
|
Psycho-social
support |
42% |
Perceived assistance
required
Table clearly demonstrates
the areas that when cited by respondents. From the
preceding paragraphs, it has been documented that major support gaps are in
existence in the 26 wards.
The range of
recommendations presented in the report is mentioned in summary form below. These are aimed at those involved and
responding to the crisis. Policy analysis is urgent and will be subsequent to
this report.
General Recommendations:-
- There is urgent need to
resolve the accommodation/ shelter question for all affected
families.
- Urgent restoration of
livelihoods for affected families should be prioritised to ensure recovery and
long term sustainability of income for affected communities.
- There is urgent need to
grant and guarantee access to appropriate treatment and quality care for people
living with HIV/AIDS.
- There is urgent need to
conduct an in-depth national survey to better inform responses and to develop a
commonly agreed national data set of the current situation.
- There is urgent need to
scale up the national response and meet the needs of the affected families.
- There is need to
consolidate the different coordination processes and ensure the meaningful
sharing of information and activities by all stakeholders
involved.
- Need for urgent donor
commitment for additional support to affected communities.
- Urgent need to create
awareness on the impact, extent and effects of the operation on affected
communities.
Executive
Summary....................................................................................................
i
Recommendations......................................................................................................
v
Table of
Contents.....................................................................................................
vi
List of
Tables.............................................................................................................
vii
List of
Graphs............................................................................................................
vii
Acronyms and
abbreviations.................................................................................
vii
Glossary of
Terms....................................................................................................
viii
1.
Introduction......................................................................................................
1
1.1
Background to
“Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order”......................... 1
2.
Methodology.....................................................................................................
2
2.1
Sampling.........................................................................................................
2
2.2
Sample
size.....................................................................................................
3
2.3
Limitations of
the survey................................................................................
3
2.4
Data capture and
analysis...............................................................................
4
3.
Survey
Results....................................................................................................
4
3.1
Socio-demographic
data of the sampled affected wards in Harare................. 4
3.1.1
