The Sunday Mail
Tawanda Musarurwa
Starting from scratch.
“I didn’t plan for this. I never dreamt I could be back home under these circumstances. Damn Covid,” says Gilbert Machona* (name changed) shaking his head.
Back in Chiweshe, but this time with a spouse and 3 children, 43-year old Gilbert is making the best of his last pay cheque as a painter in Johannesburg.
His family has taken up a long-abandoned family home where he grew up. It wasn’t by choice. He is one of many returnees this year alone (perhaps with differing circumstances, but still one of many).
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), as of August 5, 2020, a total of 14 044 migrants had returned to Zimbabwe from neighbouring countries, largely due to the impact of the global health pandemic.
Off-the-cuff estimates have placed the number of Zimbabweans living and working in neighbouring South Africa at a couple of millions.
According to the United Nations Population Division, the latest estimate (2017) put South Africa’s total migrant population at just over 4 million, and Zimbabweans specifically at 649 385. It’s still a staggering figure. But what is perhaps even more staggering is that most of those Zimbabweans in the Diaspora have no access to social security – both a human and constitutional right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25 of 1948), the SADC Code on Social Security (Article 12), and the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Chapter 2, Sub-section 30).
Although the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) is Zimbabwe’s statutory body responsible for the administration of social security, there are broader issues in its macro-environment that limit its effectiveness.
“A significant challenge to social security is the issue of migration. Zimbabwe has experienced high levels of migration of the economically active due to the economic challenges the country has faced,” said NSSA chief social security officer Tambudzai Jongwe.
“Not only does migration negatively affect the contribution base but there is no portability of benefits between countries, hence no continuity, leaving migrants exposed.”
Gilbert says for the past 11 years he had been contributing 7,5 percent of his monthly earnings to a voluntary occupational pensions scheme. He doesn’t even know where to start if he goes back. And that’s a big “if”.
Discussion on making social protection portable between countries in the SADC region is sparse (perhaps due to the complexities involved), but in 2017 the Government said it was looking into the matter with regards to a bi-lateral Memorandum of Understanding on labour administration that had been signed with South Africa in April of that year.
Said the-then Public service, labour and social welfare permanent secretary Ngoni Masoka at the time: “We are looking at issues like portability of social security. When our people go to South Africa, they work there contributing to pensions so we would like to make sure that there is portability of their pensions when they come back home.”
But how feasible is the idea?
For a start, social security standards should be the same across countries for any sort of portability to work.
At a theoretic level at least, the Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights in SADC (2003) provides for — among other things — promotion of the establishment and harmonisation of social security standards in the region.
But a simple look at South Africa and Zimbabwe’s linchpin pension systems shows how complicated trying to harmonise them can be.
South Africa’s public pension provides a non-contributory, means-tested old-age pension that is funded by general revenues. But perhaps more importantly, in the context of this discussion, the pension is only payable to the country’s resident citizens.
Zimbabwe’s main pension scheme — NSSA’s Pensions and Other Benefits Scheme (POBS) — is contributory-based, covering the formally employed who constitute about 5, 5 percent of the working populace. So without even factoring in the migration element, the scheme excludes around 94, 5 percent informal sector workers. Second, social protection portability can only be achieved based on bi-lateral or multi-lateral arrangements between countries.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO), in a note on ‘social protection for migrant workers’, highlights some of the pitfalls that can face countries trying to implement portability.
“The main challenges related to concluding bilateral or multilateral social security agreements: In some origin countries, social security schemes might be insufficiently developed, which is a problem for agreements that apply on a reciprocal basis; social security schemes can also differ considerably, for instance, the disparity in the design and level of benefits (such as provident funds/social insurance schemes); administrative capacity can be insufficient; and lack of willingness on the part of some countries to conclude agreements.”
But complexity should never be an excuse for not trying, especially when it comes to an issue as important as a basic human right.
