Kwale County 2019 Short Rains Food and Nutrition Security Assessment Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KWALE COUNTY 2019 SHORT RAINS FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY ASSESSMENT REPORT A Joint Report by the Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG) and Kwale County Steering Group1 February, 2020 1 Evelyn Wangari Ng’ang’a (National Drought Management Authority), Safari Ziro (State Department of Agriculture), Mwanamisi Nkonewa Hamisi (State Department of Livestock), Hassan Nyawa (State Department of Water), Josiah Kilei Mwawana (Ministry of Education), Margaret Kimeu (Ministry of Health) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Food security assessments are conducted bi-annually after the two main rainfall seasons: long rains season (March-April-May) and short rains season (October-November-December). Representatives from the departments of health, water, livestock, education and agriculture under the coordination of the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) conducted the 2019 short rains assessment. The main objective was to conduct an evidence-based, objective and transparent analysis of the food security situation following the short rains season of 2019. The analysis also took into account the cumulative effects of the three previous seasons that aided the formulation of food and non-food interventions for the next six months. The short rains season performance was impressive with well over 90 percent of the county receiving over 200 percent of normal rainfall. The late cessation of the rains, that was experienced till January 2020, significantly favored both crop and livestock production. As a result, maize production was near-normal at 82 percent of 151,260 90-kg bags while cowpea and green gram production was 166 and 177 percent of normal (18,650 and 19,356 90-kg bags). However, there were instances of leaching in Ramisi Ward in Msambweni Sub-county, and Vanga and Kikoneni Wards in Lunga Lunga Sub-county. The county held 8.6 percent higher than normal stocks of maize. Livestock body condition was good for all species in both the mixed farming and livestock farming livelihood zones, forage was available and is likely to last at least four months up to June. Milk production and milk consumption increased compared with a similar time normally. Markets were well provisioned with the county’s staples due to the relatively good harvests and were functioning normally. Maize prices were normal at Kshs 40 compared to the LTA of Kshs 39. Goat prices were 18 percent above-normal at Kshs 3,533 in comparison with LTA of Kshs 2,993. The terms of trade (ToT) was recorded at 88 which was 15 percent higher than the LTA of 77. The above-average ToT implied improved household purchasing power in favour of livestock farmers. The proportion of households with poor, borderline and acceptable food consumption was 11, 33 and 56 percent respectively in February 2020 in comparison with 6, 26 and 68 percent at a similar time last year. The implication was that the proportion of households with poor food consumption had increased while that with acceptable consumption had decreased. The reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) also increased by a 32 percent margin from 10.24 in February 2019 to 13.5 during the assessment. In addition, approximately 26.4 and 33.1 percent had engaged stressed and crisis livelihood coping strategies while the remaining 40.4 percent had not engaged any. The proportion of children at risk of malnutrition averaged two percent against a five-year average of 6.9 percent. The decrease in comparison with normal times implied an improved nutritional status for this age cohort, possibly occasioned by improved food availability at household level. The county is classified in stressed phase (IPC Phase 2). i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 County background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology and approach .......................................................................................... 1 2.0 DRIVERS OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IN THE COUNTY ..................... 1 2.1 Rainfall Performance ................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Shocks and hazards ...................................................................................................... 2 3.0 IMPACTS OF DRIVERS ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY ........................... 2 3.1 Availability .................................................................................................................. 2 3.1.1. Crop production ................................................................................................... 2 3.1.2 Livestock production ............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Access ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Markets ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Terms of trade (TOT) ............................................................................................ 8 3.2.3 Income sources ...................................................................................................... 9 3.2.4 Water access and availability ................................................................................. 9 3.2.5 Food consumption ............................................................................................... 10 3.2.6 Coping strategy ................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Utilization .................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.1 Morbidity trends .................................................................................................. 11 3.3.2 Immunization and Vitamin A supplementation .................................................... 11 3.3.3 Nutritional status and dietary diversity................................................................. 12 3.3.4 Sanitation and hygiene ........................................................................................ 12 3.4 Trends of key food security indicators........................................................................ 13 4.0 CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES.......................................................................................... 14 4.1 Education................................................................................................................... 14 5.0 FOOD SECURITY PROGNOSIS ................................................................................. 15 5.1 Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Food security outcomes for March, April and May 2020 ............................................ 15 5.3 Food security outcomes for June, July and August 2020 ............................................ 16 6.0 CONCLUSION AND INTERVENTIONS .................................................................... 16 6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 16 6.1.1 Phase classification.............................................................................................. 16 6.1.2 Summary of findings ........................................................................................... 16 6.1.3 Sub-county ranking ............................................................................................. 17 6.2 On-going Interventions .............................................................................................. 17 6.2.1 Food interventions ............................................................................................... 17 6.2.2 Non-food interventions ........................................................................................ 17 6.3 Recommended Interventions ...................................................................................... 19 6.3.1 Food interventions ............................................................................................... 19 6.3.2 Non-food interventions ........................................................................................ 19 ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 County background Kwale County is located along the Kenyan coast and comprises five gazetted sub- counties, namely: Samburu, Msambweni, Matuga, Kinango and Lunga Lunga. It spans an area of 8,960 km2 with a population of 866,820 persons (2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census). The county borders Mombasa County to the north-east, the Republic of Tanzania to the south, Kilifi County to the north, the Indian Ocean to the east and Taita Taveta County to the west. It comprises four livelihood Figure 1: Proportion of population by LZs zones (Figure 1). However, the assessment scope was delimited to the two main livelihood zones where the majority of the population resided (Mixed farming and Livestock farming). In addition, due to inadequate staffing the data from Samburu Sub-county was included in the larger Kinango Sub-county from which it was hived. 1.2 Methodology and approach The 2019 SRA assessment was conducted from 10th to 21st February, 2020 in all the 23 Arid