The main argument from this study is that current studies on livelihoods and HIV and AIDS, which have focussed on stable rural agricultural based livelihood systems, have given an incomplete picture on livelihoods and HIV and AIDS. Marginalised communities typical of Chivanhu present a unique picture on how households with HIV and AIDS cope with the epidemic.
A key argument of this study is that households affected by HIV and AIDS cope (though not necessarily sustainably), and that social networks potentially provide an important safety net for households affected by crises such as droughts and HIV and AIDS. Some of the coping strategies adopted by household members are suboptimal and create a vicious cycle for further
186 susceptibility and vulnerability. This study sought to find out how HIV and AIDS households survive and cope in a marginalised settlement in Zimbabwe. In this regard, the study found that HIV and AIDS affected household members in a marginalised context have unique challenges that are not found elsewhere in rural communities which are more stable and that this compromises sustainability. For a household to be sustainable, according to Chambers and Conway (1992), it has to have assets and capabilities that it can draw upon for it to achieve a sustainable livelihood. A sustainable livelihood can recover from shocks and without undermining the asset base for future generations. Where the original livelihood asset portfolio is scarce or minimal as in the context of Chivanhu, the question arises whether it is appropriate to talk about sustainable livelihoods.
The study found out that the original asset base and social capital are critical for coping among the HIV and AIDS-affected. Households with strong social capital and a firm asset base cope better with the impacts of HIV and AIDS than those households which do not have these advantages. Households with insecure tenure of land due to various factors within the settlement suffer more fully from the negative impacts of HIV and AIDS. The issue of tenure security is critical in these settlements in order to reduce the negative impacts of HIV and AIDS among the infected. In marginalised settlements like Chivanhu that are characterised by high levels of livelihood insecurity and where land sizes are small to begin with, sustainable livelihoods for the HIV and AIDS-affected become a misnomer.
Achieving livelihood security of basic needs and rights becomes an unattainable challenge for most of the HIV and AIDS-affected households. In this respect, cases of orphans and widows being dispossessed of land are very common and this has a direct impact on household and individual coping. Crucially important in this respect is treatment and adherence. While many HIV infected people are accessing ART, the problems posed by HIV and AIDS are far from over. Accessing ART without access to adequate food supplies and sustainable livelihoods presents challenges for people living with HIV. Although ART has improved livelihood strategies for the HIV infected in Chivanhu, this has occurred in a context where the livelihood asset base is narrow. In this respect, migration remains a key livelihood strategy for many of the HIV infected. Outmigration for those who are on ART presents challenges in terms of adherence to the treatment regime resulting in higher HIV and AIDS mortality rates for the infected on ART. The findings though prove that ART improves wellbeing.
187 Social capital, at least in the form of kinship relations in Chivanhu, is of some importance particularly in the downstream phase. But, in the face of high levels of livelihood insecurity, it seems clear that (generally speaking) social capital is scare – as witnessed in the cluster’s attempts to absorb the pressures posed by a high orphan burden. In a context where the next of kin are distant and the household has not resided in the area long enough to establish kinship networks, survival of the deceased’s household is a daunting challenge. What has been documented by Samuels and Drinkwater (2011) in Zambia and Mazzeo (2011) in Zimbabwe (that the impacts of HIV are absorbed across several households with critical resources flows) is not experienced by most households residing in the Chivanhu settlement though it does exist.
I was able to conclude this through adopting a household clustered analysis and longitudinal approach to data collection, which enabled the study to obtain a closer and nuanced perspective on what happens at intra-household level and within households. What I did find was that there are movements of orphans between households and there are various decision making processes during the movement of orphans across households. In this regard, the plight of orphans changes over time. Whilst a patrilineal cultural system poses a challenge in terms of power imbalances across gender in the case of Machekeche case study, the matrilineal systems ensure the survival of orphaned children and the preservation of household assets. But, at times, orphans are simply abandoned.
The issues of power and structural inequalities also came up in this study’s findings. The issue of power as a livelihood capital critical for understanding the HIV and AIDS-affected comes out clearly in the context of marginalised communities like Chivanhu Settlement. In the context of this study, power and inequality have a detrimental effect on how a household copes or becomes vulnerable to the impacts of HIV and AIDS. Findings show that coping with HIV and AIDS in marginalised communities is not devoid of local politics, and also national party politics. The current HIV and AIDS institutional arrangements are aligned around traditional and formal governance structures. The HIV and AIDS-affected face a double tragedy and their future generations face an even more challenging future.
One example is the Zunde Ramambo initiative. For a person to benefit, the household head has to be formally recognised by the chief and the Rural District Council. For the majority of settlers in Chivanhu, the majority of the household heads are not registered in the village
188 register; they are only known by the respective village head that facilitated their settlement.
They do not have any rights because technically and administratively they are not recognised by the chief and the Rural District Council. Hence they cannot organise themselves or demand access to basic services. They cannot benefit from programmes because they are not formally recognised. It becomes a challenge for them to access any form of support through social networks. The success of institutional interventions depends on functional grassroots organisation and (in the Chivanhu context) they are ineffective in addressing the needs and challenges of the HIV and AIDS-affected. Orphans and vulnerable children are not accessing school fees support and they are not registered for programmes. Support groups are not functional. The WAAC and the VAAC structures are ineffective due to power struggles between traditional authorities, ZANU PF and MDC - T.
The thesis also focused specifically on the question of gender and inequality. In this regard, it sought to find out motivations for sexual behaviour and the challenges of bearing the burden of HIV and AIDS. Findings reveal that women are bearing the greatest burden. They provide care and also bear the greatest burden of rearing children, with minimum resources, in an environment where there are few social support networks and limited livelihood opportunities. Their children face abuse and exploitation if they migrate to search for livelihood opportunities; they end up in a catch twenty two scenario. Sexual networks are posing a new threat and HIV is no longer about promiscuity but is embedded in sexual networks; and current prevention initiatives are failing to respond to this new challenge.