Assessing the Effectiveness of Emergency Cash Transfers in Enhancing Household Resilience to Climate-Induced Drought: A Case Study of Samfya District in Luapula Province, Zambia

Background: Climate-induced drought has increasingly emerged as one of the most severe threats to rural livelihoods and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among populations dependent on rain-fed agriculture and climate-sensitive livelihoods. In Zambia, the 2023/2024 El Niño-induced drought significantly disrupted livelihoods and food systems across Zambia, prompting the Government of Zambia, in collaboration with cooperating partners, to implement the Emergency Cash Transfer (ECT) programme as a shock-responsive social protection intervention.
Aim: To assess the effectiveness of the 2024 Emergency Cash Transfer programme in strengthening household resilience to climate-induced drought in Samfya District, Luapula Province. Specifically, the study examined household utilisation of ECT funds, assessed the programme’s contribution to food security and productive asset protection, analysed its influence on household coping strategies, and evaluated operational strengths and implementation challenges.
Methods: Guided by Social Protection Theory, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, and Resilience Theory, the study employed a case study research design, informed by the concurrent mixed-method approach. A multi-stage random sampling procedure was used to select 151 beneficiary households while purposive sampling was used to select participants for FGDs and key informant with officials from the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services, payment service providers, traditional leaders and members of Community Welfare Assistance Committees for the qualitative component. Quantitative data were collected through household surveys using interviewer-administered structured questionnaires while the qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews, and Focus Group Discussions. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS through descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analysed thematically.
Findings: The findings revealed that 94.6% of beneficiary households primarily utilised the transfers for food purchases, particularly maize meal and groceries, while 52.3% allocated part of the funds toward school fees, farming inputs, fishing equipment, and debt repayment. The programme contributed positively to household food security, with 65.6% of households attaining minimum dietary diversity during the drought period. However, nutritional vulnerability remained evident due to low consumption of protein-rich foods. Despite programme support, 39.1% of households reported selling productive assets, including land, fishing equipment, and livestock, indicating that the transfer value was insufficient to fully prevent livelihood erosion. The study further established that the programme reduced harmful coping strategies such as meal skipping, excessive borrowing, and school absenteeism. Several participants reported improved household welfare and reduced psychological stress following receipt of transfers. Nevertheless, many households remained vulnerable after programme completion, demonstrating the limitations of short-term emergency assistance in contexts characterised by chronic poverty. Operationally, 83.4% of beneficiaries reported receiving payments without major difficulties, although challenges related to targeting inaccuracies, political interference, delayed payments, and limited accessibility for remote fishing communities were identified.
Conclusion: The study concludes that the Emergency Cash Transfer programme moderately strengthened household resilience by improving food access, stabilising consumption, and reducing negative coping behaviours during the drought. However, the programme’s effectiveness was constrained by inadequate transfer values and implementation weaknesses. The study recommends increasing transfer amounts, introducing vulnerability-based scaling systems, strengthening targeting transparency, improving payment predictability, and integrating emergency transfers with long-term livelihood recovery and social protection programmes

Emergency Cash Transfer, Household Resilience, Drought, Household Food Security, Shock-Responsive Social Protection, Climate Change Adaptation

1. Bastagli, F., Hagen-Zanker, J., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G. and Schmidt, T. (2021). Cash Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? London: Overseas Development Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beazley, R., Solórzano, A. & Barca, V. (2021). Drivers of Timely and Large-Scale Cash Responses to COVID-19. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Béné, C., Frankenberger, T. and Nelson, S. (2021). Design, monitoring and evaluation of resilience interventions. IDS Working Papers, 542(1), pp. 1-45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Best, J. W. and Kahn, J. V. (2003). Research in Education. Boston: Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication data. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, pp. 77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods, 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Davies, M. and McCord, A. (2020). ‘Social protection and resilience’. Global Social Policy, 20(2), pp. 212-222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Davies, M., Roelen, K., Devereux, S. and Ulrichs, M. (2022). ‘Social protection as a response to covariate shocks’. Global Social Policy, 22(3), pp. 458-477. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Devereux, S. and Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004) Transformative social protection. IDS Working Paper. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th edition. London: SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] (2020). Resilience index measurement and analysis framework. Rome: FAO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] (2024). Southern Africa drought response overview 2024. Rome: FAO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Government of the Republic of Zambia (2024). Declaration of national disaster on drought. Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Guest, G., Namey, E. and Mitchell, M. (2020). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Haushofer, J. and Shapiro, J. (2021). ‘The long-term impacts of unconditional cash transfers’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136(4), pp. 1973–2042. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J., Peterman, A., Ahmed, A. and Roy, S. (2021). ‘Social protection and resilience in Ethiopia’. World Development, 140(1), pp. 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hidrobo, M., Peterman, A. and Heise, L. (2023). ‘Cash transfers and wellbeing’. Journal of Development Economics, 162, pp. 1-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2023). Climate Change 2023: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. International Monetary Fund [IMF] (2024). Zambia: Climate Shock Response and Social Protection Support. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kothari, C.R. (2020). Research methodology: Methods and techniques, 4th edition. New Delhi: New Age International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (2024). Emergency Cash Transfer Operational Framework. Lusaka: Government of Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Norton, A., Conway, T. and Foster, M. (2022). Social protection in fragile contexts. London: Overseas Development Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. OCHA (2024). Zambia Drought Situation Report. New York: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Premand, P. and Stoeffler, Q. (2022). ‘Do cash transfers increase resilience to drought? Evidence from the Sahel’. World Bank Economic Review, 36(2), pp. 394-412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Scoones, I. (1998). ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis’. IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Smith, J. A., Flower, P., and Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. USA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Strupat, C., Nshakira-Rukundo, E. and Reichert, K. (2025). ‘Shock-responsive cash transfers and household resilience in Kenya’. Journal of Development Studies, 61(2), pp. 214-233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tanner, T., Bahadur, A. and Moench, M. (2023). ‘Resilience thinking in development practice’. Climate and Development, 15(3), pp. 211-223. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [UNCCD] (2022). Global drought outlook report. Bonn: UNCCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. World Bank (2023). Adaptive social protection and resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. World Bank (2024). Zambia Emergency Drought Response Project Report. Washington DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. World Food Programme [WFP] (2024). Global report on food crises 2024. Rome: World Food Programme. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zambia Statistics Agency (2022) 2022 Census of Population and Housing Analytical Report. Lusaka: Zambia Statistics Agency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee [ZVAC] (2023) Rural livelihoods and vulnerability assessment report. Lusaka: ZVAC [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Ayurveda and Skin Health: A Comprehensive Framework for the Management of Dermatological Disorders
• Gender and Political Exclusion: An Analysis of Women's Marginalization in India's Democracy
• Safety Standards Compliance among Universities Employees in Nairobi County, Kenya During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• Cedi Appreciation Relative to Fuel Prices - A Machine Learning and Ancient Geomantic Approach