193
While specific schemes are not identified, Ngenda (1993) mentions that marital status was used
in some schemes as a criteria for participation. In those cases, married women could not be considered
as individuals to own farms or plots. Single women without children were also not eligible for these
schemes unless they were backed by a male figure or had a position in the ruling political party
structure at the local level. The available data are not gender specific except in two cases shown in
tables 6.9 and 6.10.
Table 6.9: Number of settlers in Rural Reconstruction Centers,
December 1979
|
Province |
Male |
Female |
Total settlers (#) |
|
Central |
395 |
1 |
396 |
|
Copperbelt |
589 |
5 |
594 |
|
Eastern |
303 |
1 |
304 |
|
Luapula |
285 |
1 |
286 |
|
Lusaka |
189 |
- |
189 |
|
Northern |
494 |
1 |
495 |
|
North-Western |
295 |
5 |
300 |
|
Southern |
454 |
6 |
460 |
|
Western |
348 |
4 |
352 |
|
National totals |
3,352 |
24 |
3,376 |
Source: Chambo Kawonga, Technical Paper No. 10, Rural Reconstruction Programme
ILO/JASPA (1981), p. 148.
Table 6.10: Farm owners by sex in various settlement schemes
|
Settlement scheme |
Male |
Female |
Joint |
Total |
|
Chitina |
45 |
4 |
49 | |
|
Big Concession |
68 |
2 |
70 | |
|
Lubombo |
63 |
2 |
65 | |
|
Lukulu North |
74 |
- |
74 | |
|
Lusaka |
101 |
9 |
5 |
115 |
|
Milombwe |
117 |
1 |
- |
118 |
|
Mumba |
53 |
5 |
- |
58 |
|
Mungwi |
144 |
6 |
150 | |
|
Ngwezi |
128 |
2 |
130 | |
|
Totals |
793 |
31 |
5 |
829 |
Source: C.N. Himoonga, M. Munachonga, and A. Chanda, "Women's Access to Agricultural
Land in Zambia" (1988).
More intriguing information
1. TOWARDS THE ZERO ACCIDENT GOAL: ASSISTING THE FIRST OFFICER MONITOR AND CHALLENGE CAPTAIN ERRORS2. The name is absent
3. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
4. Needing to be ‘in the know’: strategies of subordination used by 10-11 year old school boys
5. Menarchial Age of Secondary School Girls in Urban and Rural Areas of Rivers State, Nigeria
6. Empirically Analyzing the Impacts of U.S. Export Credit Programs on U.S. Agricultural Export Competitiveness
7. The name is absent
8. CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON ALTERNATIVE POULTRY
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent