SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCE OF ZAMBIA

University of Zambia economist and member of JCTR Board of Trustees., Professor V. Seshamani,    prepared this report after research in the Northern Province in March 2002 in connection with a DFID sponsored project on “Rural Poverty and Rural Labour Markets.”  It highlights both economic and ethical challenges to development policy

A PARTICULAR CASE

      When you speak about poverty in a country like Zambia, it is very helpful to talk in particulars, to take up specific instances.  A recent visit to one of the poorest provinces in Zambia provides just such an opportunity.  For the vast array of general statistics of Zambian poverty begin taking on some human faces when you look at the specifics revealed in the Northern Province.

      With 20% of Zambia’s land mass, the Northern Province is territorially the biggest of the nine provinces of the country. According to the 2000 Population Census, it also has the third largest population share of 13.7% (lagging behind only the Copperbelt and Lusaka Provinces whose population shares are 16.1% and 13.9% respectively). 

      The incidence of poverty in Zambia based on a money-metric poverty datum line (quantitative measurement simply in money terms, not qualitative measurement in terms of standards of living, etc.) was estimated to be 73% in 1998. However, the incidence of poverty in the Northern Province was much higher -- 81%.  This is the second highest figure, overtaken only by that for Western Province (89%). The high incidence of poverty in Northern Province is in tandem with the unsatisfactory state of social infrastructure and performance on social indicators. 

      The Living Conditions Monitoring Survey of 1998 provides us with information on the state of social infrastructure and performance in the Northern Province as well as in each of its twelve districts. Table 1 shows how the Northern Province fared vis-ŕ-vis the other provinces in the country and Table 2 provides information for the twelve districts of the province.


Table 1: Social infrastructure and performance in Zambia’s provinces, 1998

Indicator %

Northern

Central

Cop’belt

Eastern

Luapula

Lusaka

NWstern

Southern

Western

population with no education

 

30.7

 

22.1

 

20.0

 

41.9

 

28.8

 

21.3

 

35.5

 

26.3

 

33.3

population with no access to safe water

 

74.6

 

39.1

 

22.5

 

55.1

 

77.5

 

6.5

 

63.0

 

34.3

 

63.0

population with no access to sanitation facilities

 

2.3

 

10.7

 

1.3

 

39.0

 

2.7

 

3.1

 

5.1

 

43.8

 

72.0

adult population with HIV

 

13.5

 

 

17.9

 

 

24.9

 

16.5

 

 

16.1

 

 

27.6

 

 

11.6

 

 

15.2

 

 

18.8

 

children who are stunted

 

59.1

 

 

52.4

 

 

49.5

 

 

57.2

 

 

61.6

 

 

47.7

 

 

49.6

 

 

 

47.8

 

 

57.0

 

Average distance to primary school (km)

 

4.8

 

4.9

 

2.9

 

2.3

 

2.3

 

2.0

 

3.3

 

4.2

 

10.1

Average distance to health centre (km)

 

14.3

 

15.6

 

3.5

 

6.8

 

9.7

 

2.8

 

9.2

 

8.2

 

21.4

  Source: Living Conditions in Zambia 1998

      Table 1 brings out a couple of paradoxical situations in respect of Northern Province. The province with a plenitude of perennial rivers has one of the highest percentages of population with no access to safe water. The province that is deemed to have the potential to become the country’s food basket has one of the highest incidences of stunting among children.

Table 2: Social infrastructure and performance in the districts of Northern Province, 1998

Indicator  %

Chilubi

Chin

sali

Isoka

Kaputa

Kasama

Luwingu

Mbala

Mpika

Mporokoso

Mpulu

ngu

Mun

gwi

Nakonde

population with no education

 

46.4

 

21.7

 

33.1

 

30.8

 

26.9

 

31.2

 

39.9

 

25.8

 

27.0

 

25.2

 

32.8

 

38.4

population with no access to safe water

 

 

97

 

 

87

 

 

74

 

 

87

 

 

43

 

 

78

 

 

77

 

 

76

 

 

78

 

 

77

 

 

77

 

 

80

population with no access to sanitation facilities

 

 

5

 

 

0

 

 

4

 

 

6

 

 

3

 

 

0

 

 

1

 

 

0

 

 

1

 

 

2

 

 

8

 

 

2

adult population with HIV

 

12.5

 

12.9