Zimvac Rural Livelihoods Assessment Provincial Report

Manicaland Province

ZimVAC Rural Livelihoods Assessment Provincial Report

September 2020 Foreword

The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) under the coordination of the Food and Nutrition Council, successfully undertook the 2020 Rural Livelihoods Assessment (RLA), the 20th since its inception. ZimVAC is a technical advisory committee comprised of representatives from Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. In its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrition security for all people at all times’, the Government of Zimbabwe has continued to exhibit its commitment for reducing food and nutrition insecurity, poverty and improving livelihoods amongst the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe through operationalization of Commitment 6 of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP).

As the country is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, this assessment was undertaken at an opportune time as there was an increasing need to urgently collect up to date food and nutrition security data to effectively support the planning and implementation of actions in a timely and responsive manner. The findings from the RLA will also go a long way in providing local insights into the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food and nutrition security in this country as the spread of the virus continues to evolve differently by continent and by country. In addition, the data will be of great use to Government, development partners, programme planners and communities in the recovery from the pandemic, providing timely information and helping monitor, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 and any similar future pandemics. Thematic areas covered in this report include the following: education, food and income sources, income levels, expenditure patterns and food security, COVID-19 and gender based violence, among other issues.

We want to applaud the ZimVAC as well as the food and nutrition security structures at both provincial and district levels for successfully carrying out the survey during this unprecedented time. In spite of the apparent risks, they exhibited great commitment towards ensuring that every Zimbabwean remains free from hunger and malnutrition. We also extend our appreciation to the Government and Development Partners for the financial support and technical leadership which made the assessment a resounding success. The collaboration of the rural communities as well as the rural local authorities is sincerely appreciated. The leadership, coordination and management of the whole assessment displayed by the staff at the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) is also greatly appreciated.

We submit this report to you for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasting measures in addressing priority issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity. George D. Kembo (DR.) FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson 2 Table of Contents Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..……………………………………………….…..2 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..……………………………………………….…….….…4 Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..…………..…..6 Background and Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………….……………………..………………………7 Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..……………..11 Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..………………..18 Demographic Description of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..………………………28 Education ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... …………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………….…36 Chronic Illness…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40 Social Protection …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..…43 Agricultural Production ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..………………………….49 Incomes and Expenditure ……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………..……………….71 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….78 Access to Services and Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...96 ISALS and Loans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………112 Food Consumption Patterns…………………………………………………………………….……………..……..………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………..……….………………………………………118 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..……………….…135 Complementary Feeding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..……………….137 Child Nutrition Status………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…143 Gender Based Violence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..150 COVID-19 and Livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………………………. ………………………………………………………………………….154 Shocks and Stressors……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..………………………..…..………………………………179 Food Security…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………187 Conclusions and Recommendations …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………………....………193

3 Acknowledgements

The technical and financial support received from the following is very much appreciated:

• Office of the President and Cabinet • Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing • Food and Nutrition Council • Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small and Medium • SIRDC Enterprise Development • Ministry of Finance and Economic Development • Makoni Rural District Councils • Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) • Buhera Rural District Councils • Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural • World Vision Resettlement • Plan International • Ministry Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare • Tsuro Trust • Ministry of Health and Child Care • Sustainable Agricultural Technology (SAT) • Practical Action

4 Acknowledgement of Support

ZIMBABWE

5 Acronyms

EA Enumeration Area

FNC Food and Nutrition Council

FNSP Food and Nutrition Security Policy

FNSIS Food and Nutrition Security Information System

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

HHS Household Hunger Score

MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet

MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity

MMF Minimum Meal Frequency

NNS National Nutrition Survey

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

TSP Transitional Stabilisation Programme

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee

6 Background and Introduction

7 Introduction

• ZimVAC livelihood assessments’ results continue to be an important tool for informing and guiding policies and programmes that respond to the prevailing food and nutrition insecurity situation. To date, 20 rural and 6 urban livelihoods updates have been produced.

• ZimVAC plays a significant role in fulfilling Commitment Six, of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP) (GoZ, 2012), in which the “Government of Zimbabwe is committed to ensuring a national integrated food and nutrition security information system that provides timely and reliable information on the food and nutrition security situation and the effectiveness of programmes and informs decision-making”.

• It has become mandatory for the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) to coordinate annual livelihood updates with the technical support of ZimVAC.

8 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)

ZimVAC is a consortium of Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. It was established in 2002 and is led and regulated by Government. It is chaired by FNC, a department in the Office of the President and Cabinet whose mandate is to promote a multi-sectoral response to food insecurity and nutrition problems in a manner that ensures that every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutrition.

ZimVAC supports Government, particularly FNC in:

• Convening and coordinating national food and nutrition security issues in Zimbabwe

• Charting a practical way forward for fulfilling legal and existing policy commitments in food and nutrition security

• Advising Government on the strategic direction in food and nutrition security

• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and supporting and facilitating action to ensure sector commitments in food and nutrition are kept on track through a number of core functions such as:

▪ Undertaking food and nutrition assessments, analysis and research;

▪ Promoting multi-sectoral and innovative approaches for addressing food and nutrition insecurity, and:

▪ Supporting and building national capacity for food and nutrition security including at sub-national levels. 9 Assessment Rationale

The 2020 RLA was undertaken to guide the following:

• Evidence based planning and programming.

• Early warning for early action.

• Evaluation of the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Monitoring and reporting towards commitments made within the guiding frameworks of existing national food and nutrition policies and strategies (TSP, FNSP, Zero Hunger strategy) and the SDGs.

• Development of the National Development strategy and the Food and Nutrition Security Strategy, for the next five years.

• The rapidly evolving food and nutrition security situation which was feared to be further deteriorating since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis in Zimbabwe in April 2020 called for collection of additional and up to date FNS data.

• The current seasonal analysis could not rely on data collected in February 2020 prior to the COVID-19 crisis.

• The survey was envisioned to support the setting-up of the food and nutrition security near real time monitoring and capacitation of sub- national Food and Nutrition Security Committees.

10 Purpose

The overall purpose of the assessment was to provide an annual update on livelihoods in Zimbabwe’s rural areas, for the purposes of informing policy formulation and programming appropriate interventions.

11 Objectives The specific objectives of the assessment were:

1. To assess impact and severity of both Drought and COVID 19 on rural livelihoods. 2. To estimate the population that is likely to be food insecure in the 2020/21 consumption year, their geographic distribution and the severity of their food insecurity 3. To assess the nutrition status of children of 6 – 59 months. 4. To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteristics as their demographics, access to basic services (education, health services, protection services and water and sanitation facilities), assets, income sources, income and expenditure patterns, food consumption patterns and consumption coping strategies. 5. To determine the coverage (accessibility, availability and quality) of humanitarian and developmental interventions in the country. 6. To determine the effects of shocks experienced by communities on food and nutrition security. 7. To measure resilience at all levels and identify constraints to improving resilience. 8. To identify early recovery needs in order to determine short to long term recovery strategies. 9. To assess the medium and long term (future) sources of vulnerability and risks to food and nutrition security.

12 Background

• The 2020 RLA was undertaken against a continuously evolving food and nutrition security situation. The performance of the agricultural season negated by the consecutive drought, coupled with the COVID -19 pandemic having affected the livelihoods of the rural and urban population. • COVID-19, declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020, has literally turned the world ‘upside down’ since it started in Wuhan, China with global reported cases of more than 21 million and more than 760, 000 deaths (14 August 2020). • The Government of Zimbabwe, responded to the pandemic by gazetting Statutory Instrument 83 of 2020 Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment), Order 2020, on March 27, declaring the COVID-19 crisis a “national disaster” and introducing a nationwide lockdown with the aim of slowing down the spread of COVID-19. • The lockdown indicated that essential industries and services needed to remain open to support the health sector and ensure minimal disruption in critical goods and services. During the lockdown the public was strongly encouraged to stay in their homes and to practice social distancing, among other critical preventative measures outlined. • The COVID-19 Pandemic hit Manicaland Province in May 2020 and this comes a year later after Cyclone Idai hit the province with the most impact being felt in Chimanimani and Chipinge districts. • COVID-19 has come at a time when some communities have not yet recovered from the effects of the devastating Cyclone Idai. • The food insecurity situation in the province is most likely to deteriorate with already 832,147 rural people reported in the 2019/20 season not being able to meet their cereal requirements and the adverse economic effects of COVID 19 on the population’s livelihoods. • Furthermore, we are likely to see an increase in the number of vulnerable people as those who typically are able to cope may find themselves struggling to meet needs given the unprecedented challenging environment.

13 Background

• Impact on Trade

- Immediate impact of COVID-19 being realized through its impact on trade.

- Zimbabwe being hit by a drop in export revenues due to slow-down in demand and weakening of its currency.

- Consequently, the province’s economic activities depend on its trade with neighbouring countries such as Mozambique and these have been hit the hardest.

- The decision for lockdown is needed for reducing infection and “flattening the curve” but has far reaching effects on people and their livelihoods, especially of daily wage earners, small businesses, the informal sector and the large population already at risk because of pre-existing vulnerability conditions.

14 Background

• Impact on Programme and Supply Chain

- Requirements to maintain social/physical distancing and travel restrictions are negatively impacting programme delivery and humanitarian and developmental activities, which threatens food and nutrition security.

- Travel restrictions and border closures are likely to delay the movement of the essential supplies such as seed and fertilizers (for the winter season) which are crucial for the preparation for the 2020/2021 planting season. This could have longer-term implications on the food security of households.

• Programmes will inherently have to depend on reduced information and evidence.

• Response to COVID-19 will likely be at the expense of other programming needs.

15 Background

• COVID-19 Effect on Populations

- There is a high likelihood that urban areas are at the highest risk because of high density settlements as they are also the main entry points for international travel. The population group most affected would include the urban poor and the daily wage employees whose livelihoods are curtailed by the lockdown measures.

- The disruption of supplies of agricultural inputs is likely to affect the preparations for the next agricultural season which is very much needed to start the recovery from the back-to-back droughts that have been experienced so far and affect farmers’ livelihoods.

- Markets play a major role in enhancing food and nutrition security. However, market dynamics, failures and shortcomings often weaken the desired impacts and long term effects. Furthermore, households with livelihood options such as petty trade, vending, casual labour, skilled trade and own businesses were likely to experience the most impact of no trade during the lockdown period.

16 Background • Poverty continues to be one of the major underlying causes of vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity as well as precarious livelihoods in Zimbabwe. According to the ZIMSTAT Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2017 Report, 71% of the population were poor whilst 27.9% were deemed extremely poor in Manicaland.

• Nationally, the projected GDP growth rate for 2019 was -6.5% and 3% for 2020 and year on year inflation for May 2020 was at 785.55%.

• The Total Consumption Poverty Line (TCPL) for April 2020 was ZWL 7,425.81 which is 703.4% higher compared to the same time last year.

• The impact of poor rainfall distribution was compounded by the unaffordability of key agricultural inputs such as seed, fertilisers and herbicides. Consequently, the area planted to major crops in the 2019/20 season was lower in most areas compared to the same time in the previous season.

17 Assessment Methodology

18 Methodology – Assessment Design

• The assessment was a cross-sectional study whose design was guided and informed by the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual framework (Figure 1), which Zimbabwe adopted in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012), and the conceptual framework on food security dimensions propounded by Jones et al. (2013) . • The assessment was also guided and informed by the resilience framework (figure 2) so as to influence the early recovery of households affected by various shocks. • The assessment looked at food availability and access as pillars that have confounding effects on food security as defined in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012). • Accordingly, the assessment measured the amount of energy available to a household from all its potential sources hence the primary sampling unit for the Figure 1: Food and Nutrition Conceptual Framework assessment was the household.

19 Figure 2: Zimbabwe resilience framework (UNDP Zimbabwe, 2015)

20 Methodology – Assessment Process

• ZimVAC, through multi-stakeholder consultations, developed an appropriate assessment design concept note and data collection tools informed by the assessment objectives.

• The primary data collection tools used in the assessment were the android–based structured household tool and the District key informant tool.

• ZimVAC national supervisors (including Provincial Agritex Extension Officers and Provincial Nutritionists) and enumerators were recruited from Government, United Nations, Technical partners and Non-Governmental Organisations. These underwent training in all aspects of the assessment. In order to minimise risk of spreading COVID-19, training for both supervisors and enumerators was done virtually.

• The Ministry of Health and Child Care was the lead ministry in the development of the Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC) guidelines for the assessment. These were used to train all enumerators and supervisors on how to practice IPC measures during the whole assessment process.

• The Ministry of Local Government, through the Provincial Development Coordinators’ offices coordinated the recruitment of district level enumerators and mobilisation of provincial and district enumeration vehicles. Enumerators for the current assessment were drawn from an already existing database of those who participated in one or two previous ZimVAC 21 assessments. Four enumerators were selected from each district for data collection. Methodology – Assessment Process

• Primary data collection took place from 11 to 25 July, 2020. In recognising the risk of spreading COVID-19 during data collection, innovative approaches were used to collect vital information without causing any harm. The RLA was guided by global and country specific recommendations and all necessary precautions were taken to avoid potential transmission of COVID-19 between enumerators and community members. In order to reduce exposure to COVID-19 through person to person physical contact, primary caregivers were capacitated to measure their children using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tapes and assessment of oedema.

• Data analysis and report writing ran from 27 July to 4th of September 2020. Various secondary data sources and field observations were used to contextualise the analysis and reporting.

22 Methodology - Sampling and Sample Size

• Household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator to determine the sample to ensure 95% confidence level of statistical representativeness at district, provincial and national level. • The survey collected data from 20 randomly selected EAs that were enumerated in Number of Sampled the 2019 RLA. Households • A two staged cluster sampling was used and comprised of; • Sampling of 20 clusters per each of the rural districts, denoted as EAs in this Buhera 209 assessment, from the Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) 2012 master sampling frame using the PPS methodology Chimanimani 201

• The second stage involved the systematic random sampling of 10 households per Chipinge 202 EA (village). Selection of Households for the “Panel” survey: From a selected village, a list of the Makoni 201 households that were interviewed during the 2019 survey was created and 5 households selected using systematic random sampling. Household data interviews Mutare 201 were conducted in the sampled households. Mutasa 200 Selection of Non-Panel Households: From the same randomly selected village a household list of non-panel households from the village head was generated and the Nyanga 201 remaining number of households (5) from the sample was identified using systematic random sampling. Manicaland 1415

• A total of about 200 households were interviewed per district, bringing the total sampled households to 1400. 23 Methodology – Sampled Wards

24 Data Preparation and Analysis

• Primary data was transcribed using CSEntry on android gadgets and using CSPro, it was consolidated and converted into SPSS, STATA and DBF datasets for: • Household structured interviews • District key informant Focus Group Discussion (transcribed in excel)

• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, STATA, ENA, Microsoft Excel and GIS packages.

• Analyses of the different thematic areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant local and international frameworks, where they exist.

• Gender, as a cross cutting issue, was recognised throughout the analysis.

25 Technical Scope

The 2020 RLA collected and analysed information on the following thematic areas:

• Education • Social Protection

• Health • Markets

• WASH • Gender Based Violence

• Nutrition • COVID-19

• Agriculture and other rural livelihoods activities • Linkages amongst the key sectoral and thematic areas • Food Security • Cross-cutting issues such as gender • Shocks and stressors

26 Assessment Findings

27 Demographic Description of the Sample

28 Population Distribution by Age

100

50 44 43 41 41 39 39 38 40 38 38 38 40 40 37 35 36 37

30 Proportion of Population (%) Population of Proportion 20 12 14 13 13 13 12 9 11 11 11 9 10 11 11 10 10 6

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 0-4 years 5-17 years 18-59 years 60+ years

• The majority of the population was in the 18 to 59 years age group (41%) and was highest in Mutasa district (44%). • This was followed by the 5 to 17 years age group at 37% and the 0 to 4 years at 12%. 29 • The elderly age group 60 plus years was at 10% of the population. Characteristics of Household Head: Sex

100 90 80 72.2 74.6 67.0 68.3 70 63.2 65.2 64.9 60.2 60 52.0 50 48.0 39.8 40 36.8 34.8 35.1 33.0 31.7 30 27.8 25.4

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Manicaland 2019 2020 Male Female

• About 65% of the sampled households were male headed. • Across all the districts, there were more male headed than female headed households. • However, there has been an increase in the proportion of female headed households from about 31% in 2019 to about 35% in 2020. 30 Characteristics of Household Head: Marital Status

100 1 0 1 2 1 2 7 4 90 19 23 23 21 25 25 23 80 22 5 2 5 8 5 7 5 6 70 5 8 13 7 9 9 60 7 13 50

40 68 67 62 30 57 58 60 61 52 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widow/widower Never married

• Sixty one percent of household heads were married and living together. • The highest proportion of household heads who were married and living apart were in Chipinge and Nyanga both at 13%. • The proportion of household heads who were widows or widowers was 23%. 31 Characteristics of Household Head: Education Level Attained

100 3 6 3 1 4 3 6 7 90 24 31 32 80 33 35 41 34 70 50 17 60 15 12 18 15 50 7 15 40 33 19 30 49 26 42 37 31 34

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 21 25 10 19 12 12 9 6 9 0 6 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland None Primary level ZJC level O level A level and above

• Thirty five percent of household heads had attained Ordinary level with Chimanimani having the highest proportion at 50%.

• However, 12% also reported to have no education, with Chipinge having the highest proportion at 25%. 32 Characteristics of Household Head: Religion Roman Other Apostolic Pentecostal Protestant Catholic No religion Christian Traditional Other Sect (%) (%) (%) Zion (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Islam (%) religion (%) Buhera 51 7 6 15 7 10 1 0 2 0

Chimanimani 42 17 12 16 2 9 1 3 0 0

Chipinge 33 21 9 17 3 8 0 8 0 1

Makoni 33 15 22 1 18 5 3 0 2 1

Mutare 39 10 17 14 5 7 8 0 0 1

Mutasa 43 16 9 1 11 7 11 0 1 2

Nyanga 32 14 12 4 15 12 5 3 0 0

Manicaland 39 14 12 10 9 8 4 2 1 1

• The highest proportion of household heads were of the Apostolic Sect (39%) with Buhera having the highest proportion at 51%. 33 • This was followed by Pentecostal and Protestant at 14% and 12 % respectively. Religion of Other Household Members

100

50 46

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 16 12 11 10 7 4 3 1 1 0 0 Apostolic Pentecoastal Protestant Zion Roman No religion Other Islam Traditional Other Sect Catholic Christian religion

• About 46% of the household members were of the Apostolic sect. • This was followed by Pentecostal and Protestant at 16% and 12% respectively. • The religion of the other household members is consistent with that of the household head. 34 Household Vulnerability Attributes

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 33 34 35 33 29 31 31 30 26 22 21 23 23 21 22 19 20 17 19 18 20 16 13 15

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12 10 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Chronically ill Physically/Mentally challenged Orphaned Elderly Headed

• Makoni district had the highest proportion of households with a chronically ill member (29%) and orphans (23%). • Buhera district had the highest proportion of households with a physically or mentally challenged member (4%). • Mutasa district and Buhera district had the highest proportion of households which were elderly headed both at (35%). 35 Education

36 School Attendance

100 92 91 89 89 88 90 89 90 86

Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 20 20 9 10 6 5 7 3 3 3 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Children going to school before COVID-19 Children currently receiving schooling

• The proportion of children who were going to school before COVID-19 was 89% with Chimanimani having the highest proportion at 92%. • However, only 7% were receiving some form of schooling whilst at home. Chimanimani had the highest proportion at 20%. 37 Children Turned Away Due to Non-Payment of Fees During the First Term of School 100 90 80 77 70 70 67 68 63 61 61 59 60 57 57 53 51 51 49 50 42 40 33 30

Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2019 2020

• Despite the Government Policy that no child should be turned away for non-payment of school fees, children continue to be turned away. • There has been a slight decrease in the proportion of children turned away from 59% in 2019 to 57 % in 2020 during the first term of school before lockdown. 38 • However, there has been an increase in Makoni district from 51% in 2019 to 70% in 2020. Major Reasons for Children not Being in School

Other 2 Disability 1 Not interested in school 2 Help with household work 2 Completed O/A level 3 Illness 3 Distance to school to far 5 Pregnancy/marriage 5 Expensive or no money 35 Child considered too young 40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Children (%)

• Generally, children were not going to school because of the child being considered too young (40%) and the fees being expensive or the household having no money (35%). • Of major concern was the proportion of children not in school due to pregnancy or marriage (5%).

39 Prevalence of Chronic illness Hypertension HIV/AIDS Diabetes Heart Asthma Arthritis Ulcers Epilepsy Stroke Cancer Tuberculosis Kidney disease (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 33 24 13 9 4 2 2 0 11 2 2 2 Chimanimani 40 36 8 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 Chipinge 35 33 13 0 7 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 Makoni 25 48 12 7 7 1 7 4 3 1 0 0 Mutare 46 26 24 2 4 6 0 4 2 0 0 0 Mutasa 52 30 13 2 3 7 3 0 0 0 2 0 Nyanga 30 33 19 4 4 7 4 7 0 0 0 0 Manicaland 38 34 14 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 • The most prevalent chronic illnesses were hypertension (38%) and HIV/AIDS (34%) and Makoni district had the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS at 48%. • The prevalence of diabetes was 14%. 40 Major Reasons for Chronically ill Member to Miss Dosses

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 33 30 30 24 20 22 22 21 20 13 Proportion of Members (%) Members of Proportion 11 8 9 7 10 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Medication too expensive so cannot afford Lack of transport to go and collect the drugs Do not have the required currency to purchase Failure to access the health facility for more medication No money to pay for transport

• The major reasons for chronically ill members to miss their dosses was medication being too expensive (21%). • Lack of transport to go and collect drugs and not having required currency were also cited by 4% of the households. 41 Proportion of Households with Member Living with HIV/AIDS and Receiving Support 100 100 90 90 80 80 73 70 67 70 60 60 60 60 50 50 51 48 50 50 44 40 40 36 33 34 33 33 33 30 27 30 24 26 30 23 20 20 11

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 6 6 7 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Proportion of people living with HIV/AIDS Food Aid Counselling Sessions School Support

• The highest proportion of people living with HIV/AIDS was in Makoni district (48%) and this was higher than the provincial average of 34%. • Fifty one percent reported that they were receiving counselling sessions, whilst 23% were receiving food aid and only 1% were receiving school support. 42 Social Protection

43 Households which Received Support

100 90 82 82 78 80 78 73 71 68 69 70 65 64 60 60 56 55 53 52 50 44 40 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2019 2020

• The proportion of households which received any form of support has increased from 60% in 2019 to 71% in 2020 and this is consistent across all districts in the province. • The highest proportion of households which received any form of support was in Chimanimani and Makoni at 82% respectively.

44 Households which Received Support from Government 100 90 80

70 63 58 60 52 49 47 50 44 40 35 34 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 15 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2019 2020

• The Government continues to be an important source of support for communities. • The proportion of households which received support from Government was 44% with the highest in Nyanga district at 63%. • However, there has been a slight decline in Government support from 47% in 2019 to 44% in 2020. 45 Households which Received Support from Different Sources Government UN/NGO Relatives Relatives Remittances Rural non- Church Non- Mutual support support within urban within rural from outside relatives support relatives groups areas areas within (%) urban areas (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Buhera 49 39 13 12 2 4 1 0 1 Chimanimani 35 64 13 10 7 5 13 3 0 Chipinge 15 36 5 3 9 2 1 1 3 Makoni 58 29 30 19 11 8 4 7 2 Mutare 52 52 12 5 4 3 1 2 0 Mutasa 34 19 14 7 3 2 2 1 11 Nyanga 63 16 17 14 5 1 1 1 0 Manicaland 2019 47 13 9 10 3 0 4 0 0 Manicaland 2020 44 36 15 10 6 4 3 2 2

• There was a decrease in Government support from 47% in 2019 to 44% in 2020 and an increase in UN/NGO support from 13% in 2019 to 36% in 2020. • Communities continue to rely on their relatives within urban areas for support , with an increase from 9% in 2019 to 15% in 2020. 46 • There has also been an increase in remittances from outside Zimbabwe, 3% in 2019 to 6% in 2020. Proportion of Households which Rely on Various Sources of Support in Difficult Times Relatives Churches Relatives Relatives Government UN/NGO Non-relatives Non-relatives outside outside the within within outside the Zimbabwe community communities community community (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 40 33 60 67 34 31 29 0

Chimanimani 85 83 70 56 67 74 89 33

Chipinge 47 0 73 86 77 47 25 100

Makoni 100 100 90 100 74 88 88 75

Mutare 89 100 75 73 84 87 50 29

Mutasa 67 60 70 25 49 19 20 0

Nyanga 100 67 86 50 86 87 0 50

Manicaland 79 79 78 69 68 65 59 56

• As a way of coping in difficult times, communities often rely on various sources of support in order to ensure resilience to food and nutrition insecurity. • The majority of households reported that the rely on relatives outside Zimbabwe and churches as a source of support in difficult times 47 (79%). Agricultural Production

48 Fall Army Worm

49 Proportion of Households Affected by Fall Army Worm 100

90 86

80 78 72 69 69 70 66 60 60 50 50

30 Prortion of Households % Households of Prortion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Fall army worm was more prevalent in Mutasa district with 86% of the households reporting that they were affected.

50 Types of Crops Affected by Fall Army Worm

100 90 80 70 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 20 14 13 9 8 7 8 9 10 4 5 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 0

• Maize was the most affected crop by fall army worm (70%), followed by cotton (14%) and finger millet (13%). 51 Methods of Fall Army Worm Control 100 90 80 70 63 62 58 60

50 43 40

30 23 18 20 21 20 15 14 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 13 9 8 10 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 1 2 1 1 0 Nothing Traditional control Applied Applied Applied Applied other Other methods (physically picking commercial commercial commercial substances specify the pest) pesticides (more pesticides pesticides (less than (recommended than recommended dosage) recommended dosage) dosage) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

• Majority of households reported that they did nothing to control Fall Army Worm and this has been consistent throughout the years.

• However, there was an increase in the proportion of households that applied commercial pesticides, from 13% in 2019 to 21% in 2020. 52 Crop Production

53 Crops Planted by Households

100 90 80 80 70 60 50 40 31 30 26 26

Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 20 17 11 10 10 7 7 6 4 3 1 1 1 0 0

• The majority of households planted maize (80%), followed by groundnuts (31%), cowpeas and sorghum both at 26%.

• About 26% of the households planted sorghum, 10 % planted millet and 7% planted finger millet. 54 Proportion of Households which Planted Different Crops

100 93 89 100 90 83 82 79 90 80 76 77 80 70 59 70 60 59 60 50 49 39 50 40 42 31 30 38 3737 28 27 27 40 35 30 21 29 29 19 18 19 30 26 20 22 22 2423 23 22 9 12 Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 8 16 16 1616 10 6 4 20 1 (%) Households of Proportion 10 6 8 7 6 0 10 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 0

Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Tubers Cowpeas Groundnuts Roundnuts Sugar beans Soya beans

• The highest proportion of households that planted maize was in Makoni district (93%). • Buhera district had the highest proportion of households which planted groundnuts (59%) and roundnuts (49%). 55 Comparison of Crops Grown for the Past Three Seasons

100

90 84 82 80 80 70 60 50 38 40 35 35 31 30 24 26 26 21 21 21 20 1517 17 1311 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 9 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 6 6 10 4 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

• There has been a general decrease in the proportion of households which planted different crops in the past agricultural seasons.

• The proportion of households which planted roundnuts had a significant decline from 35% in 2018 to 17% in 2020. 56 Sources of Maize Inputs

100 90 80 70 60 50 44 40 30 27 20 14

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 7 10 4 2 0 2 0

• The main source of maize input was from Government at 44% and purchases 27%.

57 • At least 14% of households utilized retained seed and 7% carry over as sources of maize seed. Average Household Cereal Production

300.0 266.3 257.7 263.0 250.0 235.9 229.0

200.4 200.0

150.0

107.7 Quantity (KG) Quantity 100.0

49.2 49.3 50.0 33.4 30.6 22.7 17.9 10.6 10.78.4 11.59 8.1 0 5.3 2.1 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 2.81.5 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 3.1 0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Tubers

• The average maize production was 200.4kg and the average production for tubers was 17.9kg. 58 • The highest average maize production was about 266.3kg in Chipinge district. Average Household Cereals in Stock as at 1 April

90 80 80

70 65 60 60 52 50 46 42 40 40 32 34

30 Cereal Stocks (KG) Stocks Cereal 20 10 10 6 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 0

Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Wheat Rice

• The average amount of maize in stock as at 1 April was 52kg. Mutasa district had the highest average at 80kg.

59 Average Household Expected Crop Sales

80.0 72.6 70.0

60.0

50.0 45.8 39.7 40.0

30.0 27.0

Average Quantity (Kg) Quantity Average 20.0 17.1 12 12 11.2 11 10.0 7 6 2.8 0.51 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Province

Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Tubers

• The average quantity of maize that the households were expecting to sell was 27kg.

• The highest quantity of maize expected to be sold was 72.6kgs in Chipinge district. 60 Livestock Production

61 Cattle Ownership

100 88 90 85 80 71 72 71 70 66 60 59 60

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 1414 12 14 1412 11 10 9 10 10 9 8 7 8 7 10 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 4 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Zero One to Two Three to Four Five >Five

• The majority of households (71%) reported that they had no cattle.

• About 7% of households had more than five cattle. 62 Draught Cattle Ownership

100 93 90 89 90 88 82 77 80 74 70 65 60 50 40

30 24

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 14 12 10 7 9 7 10 5 4 5 5 4 6 5 4 3 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Zero One Two >Two

• About 82% of the households did not own any cattle for draught power. • Only 3% owned more than two cattle for draught power. 63 Goat Ownership

100 90 80 70 63 61 63 60 57 57 56 57 50 47 40 30 21 20 20 15 16 17 16 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 14 12 1112 12 11 11 12 13 13 14 8 7 10 8 10 4 6 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 1 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Zero One to Two Three to Four Five >Five

• The highest proportion of households (57%) reported that they did not own goats.

• About 8% of the households had five or more goats. 64 Cattle Mortality

100 0 10 0 03 7 7 3 4 14 8 7 1 90 9 19 4 8 2 9 12 80 21 17 21 70 30 32 60 24 50 90 40 81 80 69 66 30 58 49

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 43 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Zero One to Two Three to four Five >Five

•The majority of households(66%) reported that they had not exoerienced cattle mortality.

•Buhera had the highest proportion of households who had a cattle mortality of five or more (14%). 65 Causes of Cattle Deaths

100 92 89 90 86 87 86 80 80 70 70 64 60 50 40 30 21 20

Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 20 13 10 1010 7 7 7 10 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Province

Drought/Lack of water Diseases Predators Slaughter for own consumption Floods/cyclone Other

• The most common cause for cattle death was diseases (86%) with Makoni having the highest cattle deaths due to disease at 92%.

• Chimanimani had 7% cattle deaths due to floods/cyclone. 66 Agricultural Produce Markets

67 Average Cereal Price (USD)

12 12 11

8 8 7 7

USD 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Maize Grain Maize Meal Sorghum Pearl Millet Finger Millet

• In Buhera finger millet was being sold as high as US$12 and maize at US$6. 68 Average Livestock Price (USD)

400 388

350 339 300 300 295 300 283 248 250 223

200 USD

150

100 49 35 50 23 30 24 30 25 30 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Cattle Goats Chickens

•Chipinge district reported the highest average price of cattle at US$388 while Buhera district had the lowest US$223.

•Chipinge district also reported the highest for price goats at US$49 and Buhera district lowest at US$23.

•Chickens were cheaper in Makoni district at US$4 compared to UD$5 in all the other districts.

69 Incomes and Expenditure

70 Household Most Important Sources of Income

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 28.2 30 20 14.4 12.4 8.4 8.0 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 10 4.5 3.9 3.8 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0

• The most important sources of income were casual labour (28.2%) followed by food crop production/sales (14.4%) and formal salary/wages (12.4%). 71 Household Most Important Sources of Income Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

41.1 25.5 31.0 25.0 28.5 28.8 17.2 28.2 Casual labour Food crop 28.0 14.3 19.5 8.5 8.0 10.1 12.1 14.4 production/ sales Formal 2.9 21.4 10.5 12.0 10.5 13.1 16.7 12.4 salary/wages Vegetables 4.3 4.6 6.5 11.5 16.0 6.1 10.1 8.4 production/ sales Remittance 5.3 1.5 4.5 14.0 5.5 11.6 13.6 8.0 within Cash crop 2.9 6.6 6.0 5.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 production Livestock 2.9 1.5 6.5 2.0 6.0 1.0 7.6 3.9 production/ sales Petty trade 1.0 5.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.8 Remittances 0.5 2.6 4.5 4.5 1.5 3.0 3.5 2.9 outside Pension 0.5 2.6 0.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.1 Small scale 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 5.1 2.1 mining/ mineral sales Skilled 2.4 3.1 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 trade/artisan • Casual labour was the most important source of income in all districts at 28.2%. • Buhera had the highest proportion of households which reported casual Labour as the most important income source 72 (41.1%). Average Household Monthly Income ZWL

3500 3121 3163 3000 2592 2500 2346 2160 2078

2000 1874 ZWL 1500

1000 771

500

0 Buhera Chipinge Nyanga Makoni Chimanimani Mutare Mutasa Manicaland

• The average household income was ZWL 2160. • The highest average income was reported in Mutasa (ZWL 3163) while the lowest was reported in Buhera (ZWL 771).

73 Average Household Monthly Expenditure

2500

2042 2000 1854 1908

1500 1345

1226 1288 ZWL 1000 908 735

500

0 Buhera Chimanimani Nyanga Mutasa Chipinge Makoni Mutare Manicaland

• The average household monthly expenditure for Manicaland was ZWL 1345. • The highest average households monthly expenditure was reported in Mutare district (ZWL 2042) while the lowest was reported in Buhera district (ZWL 735). 74 Food Expenditure Share: 3 Year Comparison

100

80 69 70 65 60 57 52 50

Percentage Share(%) Percentage 30

0 2017 2018 2019 2020

• The food share expenditure was 65% and was 4% less than in 2019 which was 69%. • Though the food share decreased by 4% the trend shows that the food share was increasing from 2017 to 2020.

• This shows that most of the households are more vulnerable since they use more of their income to purchase food. 75 Food Expenditure Share by District

100 90 80 76 70 69 68 70 70 64 63 64 65 60 62 60 60 55 56 50 52 50 40

30 Expenditure Sahre(%) Expenditure 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2019 2020

• The highest food expenditure share was reported in Buhera and Nyanga district (70%) while the lowest was reported in Mutare district (60%). • Comparing 2019 and 2020, food expenditure share for all the districts increased except for Buhera and Mutare. • Although the food expenditure share for Buhera decreased it still had the highest food expenditure share meaning that it was still worse off compared to other districts as households still spend more on food forgoing other essential expenditures . 76 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

77 Ladder for Drinking Water Services

Service Level Definition Safely Managed Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contaminaon. Basic Drinking Water Basic drinking water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collecon me is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.

Limited Drinking Water Services Limited water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, where collecon me exceeds 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing. Unimproved Water Sources Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.

Surface Water Sources Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigaon channel.

Note :

“Improved” drinking water sources are further defined by the quality of the water they produce, and are protected from faecal contamination by the nature of their construction or through an intervention to protect from outside contamination. Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; protected spring; or rainwater collection. This category now includes packaged and delivered water, considering that both can potentially deliver safe water.

78 Access to Improved Water Sources

100

90 84.6 85.6 81.6 78.1 78.5 80 78.0 68.4 69.8 70 60 50 40 31.6 30.2 30 21.9 21.5 22.0 18.4 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 20 15.4 14.4 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Unimproved water source Improved water source

• Proportion of households with access to an improved water source was 78%. • Buhera and Chipinge districts had about 30% of households with access to an unimproved water source. This was higher than the provincial average of about 22%. 79 Main Drinking Water Services

100 90 80 74.5 77.1 76.3 74.5 69.5 70.9 70 66.2 58.7 60 50 40 30 26.9 25.0 18.5 18.4 18.2 20 16.4 17.7

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 14.4 11.5 10.1 8.0 7.5 10 4.3 4.5 4.5 6.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Basic water services Limited water services Unimproved water services Surface water services

• The proportion of households in Manicaland using basic water services was 70.9%. • Buhera and Chipinge districts had the highest proportion of households with access to unimproved water 26.9%, and 25% respectively.

80 Proportion of Households Using Surface Water

• Nyanga district had the highest proportion of households utilising surface water compared to all the other districts in the province.

81 Proportion of Households Treating Water Before Drinking

99.0 95.5 98.0 97.5 100.0 92.8 92.0 93.8 90.0 81.6 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 18.4 20.0 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 8.0 10.0 7.2 4.5 6.2 1.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Treating Not Treating

• The proportion of households treating their drinking water was 6.2% and was highest in Chimanimani at 18.4% • However, Makoni and Mutasa districts had the highest proportion of households not treating their drinking water at 99% and 98% respectively. 82 Methods of Treating Drinking Water

1.0 12.5

37.5

49.0

Boil Add bleach/chlorine [jik or water guard]

Use a water filter (ceramic,sand,composite,etc) Add water treatment tablet

• Of the 6.2% that treated their drinking water, the majority of households reported that they add bleach or chlorine to their water before drinking (49%). • About 12.5% of the households add water treatment tablets and 37.5% boil their water before drinking. • Only 1% reported that they use a water filter. 83 Distance Travelled to Main Water Source 100 90 79.1 80 71.4 72.6 70 61.7 57.7 60 54.1 51.0 46.4 50 42.3 38.3 40 36.4 29.4 25.9 30 24.1 22.9 20 15.3 16.4 16.4

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12.6 8.8 10 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.6 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above

• According to Sphere Standards, the maximum distance that should be travelled to fetch water is 500 metres. • About 8% of households reported that they travel more than one kilometre to fetch water and the highest proportion was in Buhera (15.3%). • The proportion of households travelling less than 500m was about 61.7% with Chimanimani having the highest proportion at 79.1%. 84 Time Spent Queuing for Water 100

90 82.5 80.3 80 72.4 70 66.8 62.7 63.5 60 55.5 52.6 50

40 34.4 32.9 30.9 30 23.6

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 19.6 20 17.9 17.7 10.0 11.3 11.9 10 6.0 7.5 7.95.8 6.7 2.9 5.1 2.9 2.9 1.1 2.0 2.00.0 0.6 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Less than 15minutes (or within premises) 15- 30 minutes 30 minutes to an 1 hour More than 1 hour

• The proportion of households that reported that they queue for more than one hour was about 2.9%. • About 66.8 % reported that they queue for less than fifteen minutes. 85 Household Members who Fetch Water by Sex and Age 100 88.0 90 85.5 86.0 83.1 80.3 81.9 80 75.1 75.3 70 60 50 40 30 20 17.2 17.0 17.2 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 11.9 12.8 9.0 7.5 9.5 10 6 4 3.5 4 4.1 1.9 2 1.0 3.0 2 2.5 1 2 0.5 3 2.4 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Adult woman [15 years and above] Adult man [15 years and above] Female child [under 15 years] Male child [under 15 years]

• Adult women (81.9%) and adult men (12.8%) fetched water more frequently than the male and female children (2.4% and 3% respectively). 86 Proportion of Households which Witnessed Violence at Water Points

97.5 100 94 95 93.8 94 90.9 93.4 93.5 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 9.1 10 6.6 6.5 6 6.2 6 5 2.5 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Witnessed Violence Did not witness violence

• About 6% of the households reported that they witnessed some form of violence at water points in the past three months with Buhera

district having the highest proportion at 9.1%. 87 Sanitation

88 Ladder for Sanitation

Service level Definition Safely Managed Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite. Basic Sanitation Use of improved facilities which are not shared with other households. Facilities

Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households. Limited Sanitation

Facilities Unimproved Facilities that do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging l trines and bucket latrines. Sanitation Facilities

Open Defecation Disposal of human faeces in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste.

Note: Improved sanitation facilities: Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include flush or pour flush toilet/latrine, Blair ventilated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.

89 Access to Sanitation Services

100

70 64 60 59 62 60 55 55 50 47 42 40 38 28 30 24 24 21 22 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 17 19 20 15 16 14 15 14 15 11 9 9 7 7 10 10 5 4 5 3 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Open defecation Unimproved Limited Basic

• About 55% of households had access to basic sanitation services with Chimanimani district having the highest proportion (60.2%). • The prevalence of open defecation was highest in Buhera district 37.8% and this was higher than the provincial average of 15.2%. 90 Prevalence of Open Defecation

• Open defecation was high in Buhera and moderate in Nyanga, Makoni and Chipinge. 91 Ladder for Hygiene

Service level Definition

Basic Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water .

Limited Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water .

No Facility No hand washing facility on premises .

Note: handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps tippy taps, and jugs or basins designated for hand washing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap,powdered detergents and soapy water but does not include sand, soil ash and other handwash agents.

92 Availability of Handwashing Facility

100.0 92.0 89.6 89.1 89.6 90.0 87.1 87.1 82.3 80.0 80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 20.0 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 20.0 17.7 12.9 12.9 10.4 10.9 10.4 10.0 8.0

0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland No service Basic

• The majority of household observations were of no handwashing facility near the toilet (87.1%) with Mutare district having the highest proportion at 92%. 93 Handwashing at Critical Times

Never After using Before After Before and After Regularly Whenever i Other the toilet handling changing after eating assisting the feel like my food childrens sick hands are nappies/dia dirty (%) (%) (%) pers (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 0.5 97.1 84.7 12.9 75.1 3.8 24.4 19.6 0.0

Chimanimani 0.0 91.5 79.1 23.4 68.2 11.9 55.2 54.2 0.0

Chipinge 1.0 67.0 81.0 20.5 40.5 8.0 18.5 2.5 0.0

Makoni 2.0 79.6 84.1 29.4 59.7 8.0 33.3 8.5 0.0

Mutare 1.5 96.0 94.0 22.9 46.3 14.9 9.5 9.5 0.0

Mutasa 4.5 94.4 81.8 12.6 46.5 5.6 21.7 9.1 1.5

Nyanga 0.0 57.5 65.5 8.0 77.5 2.5 14.0 6.0 0.0

Manicaland 1.4 83.3 81.5 18.5 59.1 7.8 25.2 15.6 0.2

• After using the toilet (83.3%), before handling food (81.5%) and before and after eating were the most critical times for handwashing reported by households.

• About 25.2% of the households wash their hands regularly. 94 Access to Services and Infrastructure

95 Households which Received Agricultural Extension Services 100

90 86

70 65 67 61 59 60 57

50 42 40 34

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• About 59% of the households received agricultural extension services. Buhera district had the highest proportion of households which received extension services at 86%. 96 Proportion of Households which Received Cropping Advice 100 98 91 91 87 89 90 82 84 80 70 60 48 50 40 30 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0

• The highest proportion of households which received cropping advice was in Buhera at 98%.

97 Proportion of Households which Received Agricultural Training 100 98 91 91 87 89 90 82 84 80 70 60 48 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Eighty four percent of the households reported that they received agricultural training.

• Chipinge district had the lowest proportion of households which received agricultural training at 48%. 98 Sources of Information on Weather and Climate

Neighbours/ Friends/Oth Government er Print media Internet Extension Radio Households Television (Newspapers Social media browsing Workers UN/NGOs Other (%) (%) (%) ) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 69 32.4 5.5 6.2 15.9 0 67.6 13.8 0

Chimanimani 69.6 48 9.8 2.9 8.8 1 31.4 1 1

Chipinge 71.4 18.4 8.2 4.1 14.3 4.1 34.7 12.2 0

Makoni 57 20.2 2.6 0 4.4 0.9 70.2 0.9 2.6

Mutare 58.2 5.1 0 1 2 0 54.1 2 0

Mutasa 59.3 0 5.6 0 3.7 0 53.7 1.9 0

Nyanga 59.6 11.7 2.1 0 2.1 0 81.9 0 0

Manicaland 63.4 22 4.6 2.3 7.6 0.6 58.8 4.7 0.6 • Radio (63.4%) and government extension workers (58.8%) were the most common sources of information on climate and weather. • Makoni district had the highest proportion of households which reported that government extension workers were their source of information on weather and climate. 99 Households which Received and Used Early Warning Information for Planning Response Mechanisms 100 92.4 90.3 90 87 82.6 81.8 83.6 80 76.6 69.2 70 59.2 60 56.7 50.7 48.8 50 47.5 46.6 40 27.6 30 24.3

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Received early warning information Used early warning information

• About 46.6% of the households received early warning information. • Of the proportion that received early warning information, 83.6% used the information for planning response mechanisms. 100 Access to Veterinary Services

100

80 78 78 72 70 66 64 64 59 59 60

50 41 41 42 42 40 36

30 28

Proportion of Households % Households of Proportion 22 22 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Province

Accessed Did not Access

• About 64% of households reported that they did not access veterinary services when they needed them. 101 Households Satisfied with Veterinary Services Received 100 95 91 90 78 77 79 80 75 74 71 70 60 50 40 29 30 26 21 23 18 20

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 5 5 5 5 1 2 1 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Province

Not satisfied at all Somewhat satisfied Satisfied

• About 79% of households were satisfied with veterinary services received. 102 Household Access to Police Services

100 90

80 74.5 71.2 67.8 70 66.2 64.2 61.4 61.2 60 55.3

50 44.7 38.6 38.8 40 35.8 33.8 32.2 28.8 30 25.5

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Access No Access

• The proportion of households accessing police services within one hour was 44.7%.

• Mutasa had the highest proportion of households with no access to police services within one hour (74.5%). 103 Availability Victim Friendly Unit (VFU) at Police Station 100 89.3 90 85.6 79.1 80 72.6 69.5 70 60.9 60 51.9 52.3 50 48.1 47.7 39.1 40 30.5 30 27.4

20.9 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 20 14.4 10.7 10

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland VFU available VFU not available

• About 69.5% of the households reported that there was no Victim Friendly Unit at their nearest police station. 104 Availability of GBV Services

100

90 88.3 79.7 80 69.2 70.1 69.2 70 62.2 59.6 60 55.8

50 44.2 40.4 40 37.8 30.8 29.9 30.8 30

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 20.3 20 11.7 10

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Available Not available

• Only 69.2%% of the households reported that there were services for physical and sexual violence available to them. • Mutasa district had the highest proportion at about 88.3%. 105 Satisfaction on GBV Services Received 100 94.0 90 78.5 80 75.0 70.7 72.5 70 62.3 63.1 60 50.9 50 39.6 40 35.0 27.9 30 23.2 18.3 19.8 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 16.8 14.5 9.4 7.7 10 4.7 6.7 1.4 3.0 3.0 1.9 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Not satisfied at all Somewhat satisfied Satisfied

• The highest proportion of households were satisfied with services being offered at local facilities (72%). • About 19.8% were somewhat satisfied and 7.7% who were not satisfied at all.

• Highest satisfaction was in Chipinge at 94%, and lowest satisfaction was in Mutare (50.9%). 106 Proportion of Households with Access to Information on Physical and Sexual Violence

100 90 80 74.2 72.4 70 64.0 65.5 61.0 60 56.9 51.5 52.8 48.5 47.2 50 43.1 39.0 40 36.0 34.5 30 25.8 27.6

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland No Access Access

• The highest proportion of households which had access to information on sexual and physical violence was in Chimanimani (52.8%) and the lowest was in Chipinge at 25.8%. 107 Sources of Information on Physical and Sexual Violence 100 90 80 70 58 60 50 40 32 30 21 21 20 16 15 17 9 8 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 5 3 0 2 0

• The majority of households reported that they received information on sexual and physical violence from radio (58%), health workers (32%) and police, friends and relatives both at 21%. 108 Distance Travelled to Nearest Health Facility

100

80 78 72 69 70 66 62 60 56 50 50 46

40 37 36 31 29 30 27 28 27

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 18 18 17 13 9 10 4 6 1 0 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• The majority of households reported that the nearest health facility was less than five kilometres away. 109 Access to Infrastructure for Food and Nutrition Security Solar powered Farming Fowl runs water Borehole Storage Nutrition Agro- Irrigation equipment( source facility Beehives gardening forestry Other (%) %) (%) (%) (%) (%) Savings (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Buhera 0 12 43 1 3 7 0 2 68 0 14

Chimanimani 31 12 32 1 9 15 4 2 40 1 13 Chipinge 14 17 27 1 1 6 6 0 29 0 5 Makoni 4 13 38 0 3 4 3 0 55 2 37 Mutare 2 15 21 0 15 22 1 3 52 1 4 Mutasa 8 28 46 2 7 6 9 2 49 7 14 Nyanga 11 6 30 0 1 17 5 2 45 1 19

Manicaland 10 15 34 1 5 11 4 2 48 2 15

• Nutrition gardens were the most common infrastructure for food and nutrition security reported by households (48%), followed by fowl runs (34%). 110 ISALS and Loans

111 Households with a Member who Received a Loan

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Proroprtion of Households(%) of Proroprtion 6.5 10 4.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Received Loan

• Majority of households did not received loans while only 2.3% of households received loans. • The highest proportion of households who received loans was in Chimanimani (6.5%) while the lowest was in Buhera and Chipinge where no households received any loan. 112 Sources of Loans

Zimbabwe woman microfinance bank 0.0 NGOs 0.0 International development organisation 0.0 Government/Rural credit fund 0.0 Other financial institutions 6.3 Micro finance institution 6.3 Banks 6.3

Money lender 6.3 Sources of Loans of Sources ISAL/SACCO 9.4 Local trader/shopkeeper 12.5 Farmers organisation 18.8 Friend/relative 34.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Households (%)

• Of the 2.3% of households which received loans, the major sources were friends and relatives (34.4%) and farmers organisations (18.8%). • No households reported that they received loans from Zimbabwe Woman Microfinance Bank, NGOs, International Development Organisations, and Government Rural Credit Fund.

113 Types of Loans and Primary Use

Types of Loans Loan primary use

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50.0 50 37.5 50 40 25.0 28.1 40 30 28.1 20 30 21.9 6.3 6.3 18.8 10 0.0 3.1 20 0

10 3.1 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 0.0 0

• About 50% of the households reported that they received cash as a loan while no households reported that they received livestock as a loan. • Most the household used their loans for consumption (37.5%) and education (28.1%). 114 Households with a Member in an ISAL Group

12 11.2 11.4

10 9.0 8.9 8.5 8.0 8 7.2 7.1

4 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Makoni had the highest proportion of households who had a member in an ISAL group (11.4%) while Mutasa had the lowest proportion of households who had a member in an ISAL groups (7.1%) 115 Use of Share-out from ISAL Group

100 90 80 70 60 50.0 50 40

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 30 21.0 20 16.9 10.5 9.7 10 3.2 3.2 1.6 0.8 0 Buying Education Livestock Food Household Agricultural Financing Health costs No share out construction purchase utensils inputs and Income yet received materials equipment generating projects

• Most of the households used their share-out for food (50%) followed by household utensils(21%) and very few households used their share for health costs (0.8%). 116 Food Consumption Patterns

117 Food Consumption Score - Nutrition

• The Food Consumption Score –Nutrition(FCS-N) is a build on the Food Consumption Score (FCS) which informs on nutrient rich groups consumed by the household which are essential for nutritional health and well-being.

• The analysis looked at how often a household ate foods rich in a certain nutrient, in particular, protein, iron and vitamin A. The following foods were used to compute the nutrients;

– Vitamin A rich foods: Dairy, Organ meat, Eggs, Orange veg, Green veg and Orange fruits

– Protein rich foods: Pulses, Dairy, Flesh meat, Organ meat, Fish and Eggs

– Hem iron rich foods: Flesh meat, Organ meat, and Fish

• An insufficient intake of protein (essential for growth) is a risk for wasting and stunting. Deficiencies in micronutrients, such as vitamin A and iron, over a long period of time, lead to chronic undernutrition. Iron deficiency leads to anaemia and Vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness and interferes with the normal functioning of the immune system, growth and development as well as reproduction.

• The notion of FCS-N is that although the nutrient can be obtained from many foods, the number of times a household ate food particularly rich in this nutrient can be used to assess likely adequacy of that nutrient.

118 Food Consumption Patterns

100 15 90 20 16 28 28 80 41 36 39 70 21 23 60 48 30 37 50 36 40 47 51 30 59 61 42

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 37 35 10 25 12 12 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Poor Borderline Acceptable

• The highest proportion of households with acceptable food consumption were in Makoni (41%) and this was higher than the provincial average of 28%. • Mutare district had the highest proportion of households with borderline food consumption at 51%. 119 Households with Poor Food Consumption

• Mutasa and Chimanimani districts had high proportions of households

Mutasa with poor food consumption score 61% and 59% respectively. Chimanimani • Makoni and Mutare districts had the least proportions of households with poor food consumption score , 12%

120 Average Number of Days Households Consumed Food from Various Food Groups

Meat 1

Legumes 1

Fruits 2

Vegetables 5 Food group group Food

Cereals 5

Oils 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of days

• Vegetables, cereals and oils were the food groups consumed for the most number of days by households. • Fruits, meat and legumes were the least consumed food groups.

121 Consumption of Protein-rich Foods

100 4 10 9 11 10 90 15 16 8 80 70 53 63 44 54 52 60 42 45 66 50 40 30

20 37 41 41 39 37 37 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 33 10 24 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Never Consumed Consumed 1 to 6 days Consumed for 7 days

• The proportion of households which never consumed any protein rich foods in the last seven days was 37%. • Chipinge and Makoni districts had the highest proportion of households which never consumed protein rich foods in the last seven days both at 41%. • Makoni had the highest proportion of households which consumed protein-rich food daily (15%) while Chimanimani had the 122 lowest (4%). Proportion of Households Consuming Specific Nutrient-Rich Foods

Iron-rich Foods Vitamin A-rich Foods 100 2 3 1 2 2 100 14 5 4 90 23 90 24 31 28 80 37 32 36 80 70 70 63 62 60 60 75 77 79 77 50 50 96 90 40 86 40 73 76 67 70 30 61 63 60 30 10 20 27 20 14 10 23 28 21 15 10 8

0 0 2 9 9 14 2 1 7

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion

Never Consumed Consumed 1 to 6 days Never Consumed Consumed 1 to 6 days Consumed for 7 days Consumed for 7 days

• The proportion of households which consumed iron rich foods daily was (2%) whilst for vitamin-A rich foods it was 77%. • Buhera had no households which consumed iron rich foods daily (0%) and Makoni had the highest proportion of households which cosnumed iron rich foods daily (5%). 123 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

HDDS Classification

<4 Low

4-5 Medium

>5 Acceptable

124 Household Dietary Diversity 100 12 90 24 31 32 34 31 80 40 46 70 42 60

50 41 49 62 48 40 53 36 51 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 47 20 27 10 20 19 22 13 14 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Low Medium Acceptable

• Mutasa and Nyanga districts reported the highest proportion of households with an acceptable HDDS (46% and 40% respectively). • Buhera and Chipinge districts reported the highest proportion of households with low dietary diversity (47% and 27% respectively).

125 Household Hunger Scale

100 2 1 2 2 0 41 1 1 14 13 13 90 20 19 17 80 33 70 60 50 95 85 87 87 40 78 79 82 30 65

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Severe hunger Moderate hunger Little to no hunger

• Buhera, Chipinge, and Makoni districts reported high proportion of households with moderate hunger, 33 %, 20 % and 19% respectively. • The average proportion of households with severe hunger was 1%. 126 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women

• Women of child bearing age (WOCBA) are often nutritionally vulnerable because of the physiological demands of pregnancy and lactation. Requirements for most nutrients are higher for women of child bearing age than for adult men.

• Improving women’s diets is important for improving women’s health and ability to work and care for their families, at the same time have a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes and the health and nutrition of infants and young children, within the 1 000-day window of opportunity.

• The Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) is defined as the consumption of at least five out of ten food groups over the previous 24 hours.

• Women consuming foods from five or more of the selected ten food groups have a greater likelihood of meeting their micronutrient needs.

127 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women

100 90 79 80 69 70 67 60 60 53 49 49 51 50 46 42 44 43 44 39 40 37 32 31 32 32

30 24 25 26 Proportion of Women (%) Women of Proportion 16 20 14 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2018 2019 2020

• Generally there was a decline in the proportion of women 15 to 49 years consuming at least five food groups. • Chimanimani recorded the highest decrease in the proportion of women 15 to 49 years consuming at least five food groups from 79% in

2018 to 24 % in 2020. 128 Consumption of Protein, Iron and Vitamin A Rich Foods by Women

98 97 100 93 89 90 86 82 79 80 70 66 65 60 55 50 40 41 40 35 37 33 32 30 25 24

Proportion of Women (%) Women of Proportion 18 18 20 16 15 15 11 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Consumed Vit-A rich foods Consumed iron rich foods Consumed protein rich foods

• Consumption of Vitamin A rich foods was high across all districts (86%) whilst consumption of iron rich foods among women 15 to 49 years was very low (18%) across all districts hence women are more likely to suffer from iron deficiency. 129 Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

130 Household Consumption Coping Strategies

• When livelihoods are negatively affected by a shock /crisis, households may adopt various consumption coping (strategies) which are not adopted in a normal day-to-day life, to cope with reduced or declining access to food.

• Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is often used as a proxy indicator of household food insecurity. It is a weighted score that allows one to measure the frequency and severity of coping strategies.

• The higher the CSI the more severe and frequent the coping strategy employed.

131 Coping Strategy Index

90 82 80

70 60 62 60 57

50 CSI 40 38 35 33 32 30 30 28 20 21 22 20 20 16 17 18 14 12 14 14 10 5 7 2 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland 2018 2019 2020

• The consumption coping strategies showed a decrease in frequency and severity from 2018 to 2020 but remained high in Buhera.

• In Chimanimani district, coping strategies slightly increased from 2018 to 2019. 132 Household Livelihood Coping Strategies • Households engage various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges.

• Livelihood coping strategies are employed in order to increase food availability outside of their normal livelihoods. There is therefore either an expandability of their normal activities or an engagement of more extreme and negative livelihood coping strategies that go beyond what is typical which in turn flag those areas that are potentially food insecure.

• The livelihood coping strategies have been classiﬁed into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as according to the WFP Technical Guidance note 2015.

Category Coping Strategy Stress • Borrowing money, spending savings, selling assets and selling more livestock than usual.

Crisis • Selling productive assets directly reducing future productivity, including human capital formation. • Withdrawing children from school • Reducing non food expenditure.

Emergency • Selling of one’s land thus affecting future productivity, more difficult to reverse /dramatic in nature. • Begging of food. • Selling the last breeding stock to buy food. 133 Households Livelihood Coping Strategies by Category

90 83 80 76 72 70 70 63 63 60 50 47 40 33 29 30 25 19 19 18 20 16 14 13 13 13 13 12 12

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 9 9 9 10 9 6 7 7 10 4 3 5 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Not copying Stress Crisis Emergency

• Crisis and emergency livelihood coping strategies depict a worsening food security situation which often leads to households depleting assets and or engaging in often irreversible coping.

• Buhera district emerged as having employed these extreme measures in order to try and meet their minimum basic food needs. 134 Complementary Feeding

135 Complementary Feeding • Complementary feeding is the process starting when breastmilk alone is no longer sufficient to meet nutritional needs of infants and young children, requiring other foods and liquids complementing breastmilk. It is a phase between 6 and 24 months (WHO; 2010)

• Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) is a proxy indicator for micronutrient density adequacy of the diet (UNICEF, 2017). Infants and young children who consumed at least four of the seven groups are more likely to have diets that were higher in micronutrient density.

• Minimum Meal Frequency (MMF) is a proxy for a child’s for energy density in the diet of infants and young children. It is the proportion of breastfed and non-breastfed children 6 to 23 months of age who receive solid, semi-solid, or soft-foods or milk feeds the minimum number of times or more.

• Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) is a composite indicator of meal frequency and dietary diversity. It represents minimum standards of IYCF practices.

136 Complementary Feeding Practices

60 56.4

30 22.4 21.8 20 16.1

12.8 Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 10 3.1 0 MMF MDD MAD 2019 2020

• Generally there is a decline in complementary feeding practices in the province from 12.8% in 2019 to 3.1% in 2020.

137 Complementary Feeding Practices by District

100 90 80

70 61.9 60 50 38.7 40 34.3 28.6 30 23.1 20 22.6 22.4 17.4 17.6 16.1

Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20 14.3 8.7 8.3 8.3 7.7 6.5 10 5.7 3.1 0 2.9 0 0 1.9 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland MMF MDD MAD

• Only 3.1% of children received a Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) and 22.4% had Minimum Meal Frequency (MMF) in the province. • Minimum Acceptable Diet was highest in Nyanga 14.3%. • There were no children getting a Minimum Acceptable Diet in Buhera, Chipinge and Makoni. • Nyanga recorded the highest Minimum Meal Frequency of 61.9% and highest Minimum Dietary Diversity of 28.6%. 138 Children Aged 6 -11 Months who Received Age Appropriate Dose of Vitamin A

100 94 90 92 90 90 Target 80 80 75

70 64 60 50 40 38

30 Proportion of children (%) childrenof Proportion 20 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Coverage of Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for children 6 to 11 months was low in Chipinge with 38% of children who received age appropriate dose prior to the survey. • Mutare (94%) and Chimanimani (92%) had the highest coverage of VAS for children 6 to 11 months.

139 Children Aged 12 -59 Months who Received Vitamin A at Least Twice in the Past 12 months 100

90 Target 80 69.8 71.3 70 65.7 67.8 60.5 60 55.2

50 45 41.3 40

30 Proportion of children (%) childrenof Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Coverage of Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for children 12 to 59 months was lowest in Nyanga with 41.3% of children who received at least twice in the past 12 months prior to the survey. • Mutare had the highest coverage of VAS for children 12 to 59 months (71.3%). • Generally the province did not perform well on Vitamin A supplementation as all districts were below the target.

140 Child Nutrition Status

141 Child Nutrition Status

Malnutrition Prevalence thresholds for children under 5 years:

Indicator Definition

Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) MUAC < 125mm and/or Oedema MUAC for age Z score (MUACAZ) <-2 and/or Oedema

Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) MUAC < 115mm and/or Oedema MUAC for age Z score (MUACAZ) <-3 and/or Oedema

142 Acute Malnutrition Based on MUAC for Age Standards

12.0 10.7

10.0

8.0 7.4

6.0 5.7 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.1 3.6 4.0 3.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 Proportion of Children (%) (%) Children of Proportion 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Global Acute Malnutrition Moderate Acute Malnutrition Severe Acute Malnutrition

• Global Acute Malnutrition prevalence for the province based on MUAC for age standards was 5%.

• Buhera (10.7%) and Mutare (5.7%) had high GAM above or equal to the WHO cut-off of 5%. 143 Global Acute Malnutrition Based on MUAC Measurements 5 4.5 4.5

4 3.7 3.5

3 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.2 2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3

Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0 0 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Global Acute Malnutrition Moderate Acute Malnutrition Severe Acute Malnutrition

• Global Acute Malnutrition prevalence for the province based on MUAC was 2.7%.

• Makoni district had the highest GAM of 4.5% followed by Mutasa district at 3.7% and these were higher than the provincial average. 144 Non Timber Forestry Products

145 Availability of Indigenous Vegetables

Mowa Nyevhe Nyenje Mutsine /Bonongwe Nhungunira /Runi /Gusha Munyemba Musemwasemwa Mundawarara /muuwu Chechete Other (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 90.91 36.84 92.82 53.11 86.12 0.00 0.48 61.24 0.96 0.48

Chimanimani 80.30 57.58 42.93 37.37 41.41 8.08 1.01 68.69 0.00 1.52

Chipinge 79.55 42.05 55.11 26.70 60.80 17.61 12.50 41.48 2.27 3.98

Makoni 97.01 89.55 97.01 29.35 83.08 37.31 25.37 75.12 6.97 1.49

Mutare 71.86 90.95 90.45 62.31 50.25 25.63 21.11 53.27 1.51 0.00

Mutasa 72.82 95.38 44.62 29.23 26.67 30.77 2.56 32.31 0.51 2.56

Nyanga 77.39 83.42 65.83 1.51 38.69 5.03 0.50 40.20 0.00 0.50

Manicaland 81.55 71.02 70.37 34.50 55.56 17.65 9.01 53.52 1.74 1.45

• The most common indigenous vegetables were mowa (81.5%), nhungurira (71.02%) and nyevhe (70.37%). • About 97% of the households in Makoni reported that mowa and nyevhe were found in the district. 146 Availability of Edible Insects

Hwiza Harati Harurwa Humbwe /Mhashu Ishwa Madora Magandari Majenya Majuru Makurwe Mandere Nyenze Tsambarafuta Tsumwaruma 0ther (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Buhera 11.1 1.5 1 42.9 41.4 10.6 1.5 8 43.4 63.1 2 23.7 6.5 0.5 0 Chimanimani 1.3 5.9 10.5 48.0 74.3 21.1 0.7 0.7 32.9 5.3 6.6 9.2 13.2 2.6 0.7 Chipinge 0.0 0.8 2.4 39.0 13.8 13.8 0.0 0.0 41.5 22.0 3.3 12.2 5.7 0.0 4.1 Makoni 12.4 3.9 8.4 50.0 74.7 52.2 10.1 8.4 40.4 29.8 23.0 23.6 24.7 15.2 0.6 Mutare 10.3 1.3 6.4 28.2 59.6 34.6 0.6 0.6 37.2 41.7 1.3 16.0 3.2 2.6 0.6 Mutasa 3.6 4.1 22.5 29.6 39.6 33.1 4.1 0.0 14.8 3.0 4.1 8.3 9.5 4.1 0.6 Nyanga 10.4 2.1 0.0 46.9 25.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 11.5 4.2 8.3 25.0 4.2 0.0 1.0 Manicaland 7.3 2.9 7.8 40.5 49.3 25.9 2.8 3.1 32.9 26.8 7.1 16.9 10.2 4.0 0.9

• About 49.3% of the households reported that ishwa were readily found in the area and Makoni had the highest proportion at 74.7%.

147 Gender Based Violence

148 Households which Experienced Gender Based Violence

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 37.4

30 21.7 17.8 19.5 20 15.7 17.0 16.3

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 8.4 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The average proportion of households which experienced any form of Gender Based Violence (GBV) was 19.5%. • The highest proportion of households which experienced GBV was in Nyanga district 37.4%. 149 Households which Experienced Gender Based Violence by Type

100 93.8 88.6 90 86.7 79.3 80.3 80 75.0 71.4 72.5 73.3 70 67.5 66.7 62.5 58.2 60 50 46.7 41.4 42.9 40 30 26.7 21.9 17.5 17.2 18.6 18.0 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 14.3 13.3 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Physical violence Sexual violence Emotional violence

• Emotional violence was the most common type of Gender Based Violence in all districts with Chimanimani having the highest proportion 93.8 %, followed by Nyanga 88.6% and Mutare 86.7%. 150 • Physical violence ranked second with the largest proportion in Makoni (73.3%) and Chipinge (72.5%). Households which Reported Abuse and Sought Medical Attention

Sought medical attention as a Reported incident of physical/sexual violence result of such physical/sexual Relatives violence (%) Police (%) Church(%) /friends(%) NGO(%) No one(%) Other(%) Buhera 7.1 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chimanimani 9.7 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0

Chipinge 10.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Makoni 20.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mutare 13.3 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 Mutasa 7.1 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nyanga 5.7 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Manicaland 9.1 45.5 0.0 40.9 4.5 0.0 9.1

• The highest proportion of households which sought medical attention was 20% in Makoni and the highest proportion which reported it was 75% in Chipinge.

• The most common places of reporting were the police and relatives/friends 45.5% and 40.9% respectively. 151 COVID-19 and Livelihoods

152 Proportion of Households which were Aware of COVID-19 100.0 99.5 99.5 97.5 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.4 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10.0 - Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The majority of the households (98.4%) had heard about the COVID-19 and this was consistent throughout the province.

153 Commonly Known COVID-19 Symptoms Indicated by Households 100 89.1 90 80 69.5 70 60 52.0 50 41.5 38.8 40 29.9 29.8 30 17.6 20

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 10 4.1 0

• The highest proportion of households knew cough (89.1%), fever ( 69.5%) headaches 52% as COVID-19 symptoms. 154 Household Knowledge About how COVID-19 is Transmitted

100 90 80 69.9 70 65.7 62.2 60 49.0 50 40 30 21.1 20

10 3.2 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 Contact with Coughing,sneezing Not covering Not washing Touching Other infected person without covering mouth and nose hands with clean contaminated mouth and nose with mask in water and soap surface and then public touching face

• The highest proportion indicated that being in contact with infected person(s) (69.9%), coughing and sneezing without covering mouth and nose (65.7%) and not covering mouth and nose with a mask in public (62.2%) were the most common ways through which COVID- 19 is transmitted. 155 Household Knowledge About how COVID-19 is Transmitted by District

Coughing, Not covering Touching sneezing without mouth and nose Not washing hands contaminated Contact with covering mouth with mask in with clean water surface and then infected person and nose public and soap touching face Other

Buhera 66.2 78.6 82.6 75.1 18.9 0.5

Chimanimani 67.2 70.8 60.9 52.6 39.6 5.7

Chipinge 74.6 68.4 53.7 45.2 31.6 10.2

Makoni 81.8 70.6 48.7 55.1 20.3 1.1

Mutare 71.0 73.7 59.1 51.1 21.5 2.2

Mutasa 55.5 38.4 73.2 33.5 9.8 3.0

Nyanga 71.7 55.5 56.5 26.7 5.2 0.5

• The highest proportion (82.6%) in Buhera gave the reason that not covering the mouth and nose was the most common way

through which COVID-19 was transmitted. 156 Household Knowledge About Slowing Down the Spread of COVID-19 100 90 80 68.3 70 62.5 60 57.3 50 41.4 39.7 40 28.8 30 20.2 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 2.1 0 Wash hands Cough or Avoid touching Limit social Avoid contact Clean and Always cover Other with clean sneeze in bent eyes,nose and gatherings and with someone disinfect nose and water and elbow mouth time spent in with COVID-19 frequently mouth with soap often crowded symptoms touched mask in public places objects and surfaces

• The highest proportion of households (68.3%) perceived that washing hands with clean water was the most effective way of slowing down the spread of Covid-19 followed by limiting social gatherings (62.5%).

157 Household Knowledge on Actions to Take when Suspecting COVID-19 Infection

100 90 80 69.3 70 60 50 40 32.8 30 20 13.1

Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion 10 2.1 4.8 5.5 0 Go to the clinic right Stay at home and Consult local Call the toll free Home-based Dont know away notify the nearest traditional number remedies health service healer/prophet provider

• The majority of households indicated that they would go to the clinic right away if they suspected that they had COVID-19

(69.3%).

• About 5.5% of the households indicated that they did not know what to do in case of a suspected COVID-19 infection. 158 Effects of Covid-19 on Income Sources 100 90 80 70 60 49.5 47.6 50 40 30 23.4 17.6 20 16.4 8.3 4.5 Proportion of Households (%) (%) Households of Proportion 10 1.9 0.7 0

• The highest proportion (49.5%) had reduced sources of income as the main effect of COVID-19 followed by reduced food sources (47.6%).

159 Effects of COVID-19 on Income Sources by District

Failed to Gender- Restricted Loss of access Failed to Reduced based access to business Loss of health access basic sources of Reduced Reduced violance agricultural income employment facility commoditie income salaries food access (GBV) markets (%) (%) (%) s (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 23.8 13.9 5.9 38.6 58.4 1.5 71.8 - 2.0

Chimanimani 16.6 7.0 1.0 28.1 67.8 9.0 58.3 1.5 32.2

Chipinge 24.9 10.4 1.5 10.9 23.4 4.5 57.2 - 7.0

Makoni 35.0 12.5 2.5 19.5 35.0 5.0 23.5 1.0 37.5

Mutare 22.3 2.0 - 4.1 57.4 4.1 45.2 - 10.2

Mutasa 27.6 3.6 1.6 14.6 40.6 4.7 42.2 1.0 20.8

Nyanga 13.6 8.5 0.5 6.5 63.8 2.5 34.2 1.5 5.5

• The highest proportion of households which indicated reduced food access as the main effect of Covid-19 was in Buhera

(71.8%) followed by reduced income sources 67.8% in Chimanimani. 160 Household Current Sources of Information on COVID-19

100 90 80 63.4 70 58.8 60 50 40 30 22.0 20 4.6 7.6 4.7 10 0 2.3 0.6 0.6

0 Proportion of Households(%) of Proportion

• About 63% of households reported that they heard about COVID-19 on the radio.

• Government extension workers were reported by about 58% of the households as a source of information on COVID-19. 161 Household Current Sources of Information on COVID-19 by District

Neighbours Government /Friends/Other Print media Social Internet Extension Radio Households Television (Newspapers media browsing Workers UN/NGOs Other (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 69.0 32.4 5.5 6.2 15.9 - 67.6 13.8 -

Chimanimani 69.6 48.0 9.8 2.9 8.8 1.0 31.4 1.0 1.0

Chipinge 71.4 18.4 8.2 4.1 14.3 4.1 34.7 12.2 -

Makoni 57.0 20.2 2.6 - 4.4 0.9 70.2 0.9 2.6

Mutare 58.2 5.1 - 1.0 2.0 - 54.1 2.0 -

Mutasa 59.3 - 5.6 - 3.7 - 53.7 1.9 -

Nyanga 59.6 11.7 2.1 - 2.1 - 81.9 - -

• Government extension workers were the main sources of information at 81.9% in Nyanga followed by radio 71.4% in Chipinge.

162 Household Preferred Sources of Information on COVID-19 100 90 80 70 63.4 60 56.6 50 40 35.9 30 20 7.9 9.8 8.6 8.0

10 4.3 2.6 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0

• The highest proportion of households preferred Clinic/Health facilities as future sources of information (63.4%), followed by Community/Village Health Workers (57%).

• Print media was the least preferred (2.6%) most probably because of accessibility, and affordability. 163 Household Sources of Personal Protective Equipment 100

80 73.8 72.5 70.8 72.4 68.4 68.0 70 65.1 60.5 60 51.0 52.4 50 46.7 44.4 38.2 40 30.9 30

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 20 17.0 17.1 12.4 11.4 11.1 10 6.7 4.6 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga

Purchases Homemade Donations

• Makoni had the highest proportion of households which reported that their PPE was homemade (73.8%). 164 • About 68.4% of households in Mutasa had purchases as their source of PPE. Affordability of COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment and Accessories by Households

100 98.8 98 97.5 96.1 95.7 96 94.2 94 93.0

92 91.1

88 87.3

86 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 84

80 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• A greater proportion of the households indicated that they could not afford COVID-19 PPE and other accessories (94.2%).

165 Household Practices to Protect Themselves Against Covid-19 Frequently wash hands Use Use a Cover mouth with soap alcohol face with flexed Avoid under running based Avoid touching mask in elbow when crowded Practice Traditional/r water for 20 hand mouth,eyes and public sneezing and places social Staying at eligious seconds sanitizers nose places coughing distancing home practices (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Buhera 66.8 6.3 38.9 63.5 34.6 71.6 61.5 44.7 -

Chimanimani 61.2 16.9 28.9 56.2 33.3 57.7 74.6 76.6 2.5

Chipinge 66.2 16.4 31.3 44.8 35.8 22.9 39.3 47.8 2.0

Makoni 54.2 8.5 11.9 36.8 6.5 40.8 55.2 75.6 2.5

Mutare 51.2 21.4 25.4 43.3 40.3 59.7 65.7 49.8 3.5

Mutasa 34.7 3.1 9.7 54.6 4.1 37.8 54.6 51.0 0.5

Nyanga 42.7 7.5 13.6 32.2 7.5 37.2 45.2 44.7 2.0

• The highest proportion of households (75.6%) in Makoni district protected themselves from COVID-19 by staying at home 166 followed by avoiding crowded places (71.6%) in Buhera. Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Food Products/Supply

100 92.8 88.5 90

80 72.4 73.2 69.8 70 65.2 61.0 62.7 60

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The highest proportion of households which experienced difficulties in accessing food products/supply due to COVID-19 was in

Mutasa district (92.8%) followed by Buhera (88.5%) and Nyanga (72.4%). 167 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Medical Supplies 100

90 86.0

70 62.6 60 52.5 51.5 53.1 50 46.5 40.7 40 34.7

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The highest proportion of household which experienced difficulties in accessing medical supplies due to COVID-19 was in

Mutasa (86%) followed by Buhera (62.6%) and Nyanga (51.5%). 168 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Hygiene and Sanitary Products 100

90 82.1 80

70 67.5

60 48.7 50 46.0 47.3

40 35.5 33.0 31.3 30

Proportion 0f Households 0f (%) Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• About 48.7% of the households reported that they experienced difficulties in accessing hygiene and sanitary products due to COVID-19.

169 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Health Services/Assistance 70

60 58.0

38.8 40 38.1 32.8 33.5 33.6 30 23.6

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12.6 10

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The highest proportion of households which experienced difficulties in accessing health services/assistance due to COVID-19 was in

Mutasa (58%). 170 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Water Supply 100

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 17.7 11.9 9.5 9.5 9.2 10 7.0 5.1 3.5 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The majority of households did not have difficulties in accessing water supply due to COVID-19 (90.8%).

• The highest proportion of households which had difficulties was in Buhera 17.7%. 171 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Public Transport

100 94.4 90 87.0 83.7 80.3 80 77.1 78.1 70.9 71.1 70

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The largest proportion of households which had difficulties in accessing public transport due to COVID-19 was in Mutasa (94.4%) followed by Nyanga (87%) and Buhera (83.7%). 172 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Social Services 100

70 67.7

50 42.7 38.3 40 36.9 37.3 30.2 31.3 30 28.0

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The largest proportion of households which had difficulties in accessing social services was in Mutasa (67.7%) and this was higher than the provincial average of 38.3%. 173 Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Agriculture Extension Services 70

59.7 60

39.8 40 38.1

31.2 30.0 30 23.5 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12.0 9.1 10

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• Generally all districts had low proportions of households which had difficulties in accessing agriculture extension services except 174 Mutasa. Impact of COVID-19 on Household Access to Security Services

45 42.4 40

35 30.3 30

25 22.1 20 18.4

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 15 11.9 13.0 10 6.2 5.6 5

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• About 18.4% of the households indicated that they had difficulties in accessing security services due to COVID-19.

175 Proportion of Households which were Aware of the COVID-19 Toll Free Numbers

100 90 80 70 60 49.3 50 40 37.3 30.8 27.9 30.6 30 24.5 27.1 18.9

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The majority of the households indicated that they were not aware of the COVID-19 tollfree numbers (69.2%).

176 Shocks and Stressors

177 Definitions

Term Definition

Shock External short-term deviations from long-term trends that have substantial negative effects on people’s current state of well-being, level of assets, livelihoods, or safety, or their ability to withstand future shocks (Zseleczky and Yosef, 2014)

Stressor Long-term trends or pressures that undermine the stability of a system and increase vulnerability within it (Zseleczky and Yosef, 2014).

Shock Exposure Index The degree to which the household feel vulnerable to prevalent shocks in their area. It is calculated by summation of number of shocks a household experienced and household perceived impact to the effects of those shocks

Ability to Cope index This is the degree to which households have been able to recover from the shocks they experienced.

178 Most Common Shocks and Stressors Experienced by Households 100.0 90.0 78.7 80.0 70.0 58.8 60.0 56.4 55.1 50.0 42.0 40.0 29.1 30.0 18.7 18.0 20.0 15.3 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 8.5 10.0 7.8 6.1 5.9 0.0

• Cash shortages (78.7%) were the most common shock in the province followed by drought (58.8%). 179 Most Common Shocks and Stressors Experienced by Households by District Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga

Cash shortages 86.1 95.0 68.3 77.6 73.1 56.0 94.0 Prolonged mid-season dry spell 82.3 34.8 58.9 60.7 58.7 33.0 56.2

Drought 97.1 34.8 56.9 60.2 79.1 17.0 64.7 Sharp Cereal price changes 68.4 65.7 45.0 54.7 65.7 43.0 51.7 Crop pests 42.6 52.7 37.6 34.8 30.3 48.0 48.3 COVID-19 Pandemic 19.1 34.3 25.2 1.5 25.9 0.0 0.5 Sharp Livestock price changes 41.1 39.3 17.8 35.3 20.9 14.5 34.3 Livestock diseases 43.1 13.4 8.4 26.4 22.4 5.0 6.5 Livestock deaths 45.5 15.9 7.4 26.9 20.4 7.0 6.5 Loss of employment by key household 10.5 6.5 6.4 13.9 2.5 3.0 11.9 member Human wildlife conflict 12.0 9.0 5.4 18.4 6.5 1.0 7.0 Malaria diseases incidents 1.0 10.0 4.5 2.5 7.0 3.0 13.4 Other health related (eg TB, BP) 8.6 10.9 0.0 3.5 10.4 5.5 4.0

• The district picture generally follows the provincial picture except for Buhera and Mutare where drought was the most prevalent shock experienced by households. 180 Average Number of Shocks Experienced by Households 7.0

6.0 5.8

5.0 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.0 3.8

3.0

2.5 Number of Shocks of Number 2.0

1.0

0.0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland National

• Households in Buhera experienced the highest number of shocks (5.8) followed by Chimanimani (4.6) while households in Mutasa

experienced least number of shocks (2.5). 181 Impact of Most Common Shocks and Household Ability to Cope Impact of Shocks Household ability to cope

100.0 100.0 1.7 1.5 2.2 4.7 4.5 5.0 1.4 90.0 90.0 23.7 80.0 80.0 39.2 36.1 34.0 70.0 41.5 40.5 70.0 50.7 72.0 71.5 66.3 60.0 60.0 88.9 88.4 89.0 89.8 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 74.1 30.0 30.0 62.3 64.5 59.0 53.9 54.9 20.0 28.8 44.3

Proportion of households(%)of Proportion 22.6 23.6 20.0 Proportion of Households(%)of Proportion 10.0 9.9 11.3 10.0 8.9 10.0 5.4 4.9 4.8 0.0 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 0.0 Cash Sharp Sharp Livestock Livestock Crop Drought Cash Sharp Sharp Livestock Livestock Crop pests Drought shortages cereal Livestock diseases deaths pests shortages cereal Livestock diseases deaths price price price price changes changes changes changes

Minor/Mild Moderate Severe Unable to cope Able to cope with difficulty Able to cope without difficulty • Most households reported that the shocks they experienced had a severe impact on the households and they were not able to cope with the

shocks while those who managed to cope with the shocks reported that they had difficulties in coping with the shocks. 182 Shock Exposure and Ability to Cope Index

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 15.1 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 11.7 11.3 11.4 10.9 11.0 12.0 9.1 7.8 10.4 10 5.1 6.9 6.5 6.2 4.8 5.6 6.6 6.9 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland National Shock Exposure Index Ability to Cope

• In all the districts the shock exposure index was higher than the households’ perceived ability to cope with those shocks. • Buhera district had the highest shock exposure index (15.1) and Mutasa had the least shock exposure index (6.2).

183 Household’s Perception on their Ability to Cope with Common Shocks in the Future

100.0 1.2 1.0 1.5 3.1 1.9 3.4 0.4 90.0 13.9 29.2 29.1 27.0 80.0 34.2 34.6 36.2 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 84.6 69.6 69.9 72.7 30.0 62.6 63.5 60.4

Proportion of Households of Proportion 20.0 10.0 0.0 Cash shortages Sharp cereal price Sharp Livestock Livestock diseases Livestock deaths Crop pests Drought changes price changes Unable to cope Able to cope with difficulty Able to cope without difficulty

• Most households reported that if they had to encounter most of the common shocks they experienced in 2019/2020 in the future they were not capable of withstanding their impacts. 184 Food Security

185 Cereal Insecurity Progression by Income Source

100 100 93 91 90 90 87 80 70 60 55 50 40 30 20

10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 Food insecurity fromFood insecurity fromFood insecurity fromFood insecurity fromFood insecurity fromFood insecurity from cereals stocks cereals stocks plus cereals stocks plus cereals stocks plus cereals stocks plus cereals stocks plus food crops food crops plus cash food crops plus cash food crops plus cash food crops plus cash crops crops plus crops plus livestocks crops plus livestocks remittances plus casual labour plus casual labour and remittances and remittances plus income

• Considering all incomes, the food insecurity prevalence (cereal) is projected to be 55% during the peak hunger in the 2020/21 consumption year. • The food insecurity prevalence (cereal) remained almost the same, above 80%, when income sources such as stocks, cash crops and remittances were considered. 186 Food Insecurity by District

100

80 75 70 68

60 55 55 48 49 50 47 46

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

• The highest prevalence of food insecurity was in Mutare district (75%) and the lowest was in Mutasa district (46%). • Buhera at 68% and Mutare at 75% prevalence of food insecurity were above the provincial average of 55%.

187 Food Insecurity Progression by Quarter

100 90

80 75 68 70 65 57 60 55 55 55 52 53 53 51 48 49 50 48 45 47 46 45 43 42 45 39 40 37 36 32 34 35 33 34 30 25 27 25 23 23 22 18 19 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 8 10 0 Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Below FPL

• The prevalence of food insecurity (cereal) shows a gradual increase with time. • The proportion of the population below the Food Poverty Line (FPL) was 45%, with Mutasa district having the highest proportion at 55%. 188 Food Insecure Population 1,000,000 914,695 900,000

800,000 749,023 700,000

600,000 564,684

500,000

Population 400,000 334,844 300,000

200,000

100,000

Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar

• The food insecure population is 334 844 and is expected to increase over time. • At the peak hunger period January to March 2021, it is projected that 914 695 people will not be able to meet their food needs. 189 Food Insecure Population and Cereal Requirements

Food Insecure Population Cereal Requirements (MT) Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar

Buhera 63,047 114,513 154,400 182,707 9,331 16,948 22,851 27,041

Chimanimani 12,482 33,775 49,928 71,221 1,847 4,999 7,389 10,541

Chipinge 82,519 126,205 155,329 179,599 12,213 18,678 22,989 26,581

Makoni 53,347 81,502 109,658 140,777 7,895 12,062 16,229 20,835

Mutare 102,692 151,185 185,416 213,941 15,198 22,375 27,442 31,663

Mutasa 21,224 40,602 63,672 83,973 3,141 6,009 9,423 12,428

Nyanga 26,865 45,464 58,553 67,508 3,976 6,729 8,666 9,991

Manicaland 334,844 564,684 749,023 914,695 49,557 83,573 110,855 135,375 190 Conclusions and Recommendations

• 135,375 rural people will not be able to meet their cereal requirements at peak hunger period (January to March 2021). The Government & its partners need to Improve irrigation schemes as a way of more sustainable and long term strategy to improve food insecurity. There is also a need for food aid to affected households in order for them to meet their food needs.

• Forty-one percent of the population in the province was in the age group 18-49 years which is the economically productive age group.

• The majority of households were male headed, 61%. However, there is a significant proportion of households that are female headed about 35% and this calls for the Government and its partners to enhance the drive for women empowerment in order to cushion these households against vulnerability. There is also need for programmes that cushion elderly headed households which were at 10% of the sampled households.

• Household heads had at least attained an Ordinary level certificate (35%) and were married and living together (61%) and the majority, 39% were of the Apostolic Sect.

• Before the onset of the COVID pandemic, 89% of children of school going age were in school. However, since the closing of schools due to COVID-19, only 7% were receiving some type of schooling whilst at home. This shows a significant gap in terms of the welfare of learners. There is need for the Ministry responsible for Education and its partners to strategize on the best way forward to ensure that learning continues in the short term whilst long term solutions are being sought.

191 • There has been a slight decrease in the proportion of children that were turned away due to non-payment of school fees from 59% in 2019 to 57% in 2020. This shows a positive trajectory in the implementation of the Government policy. However, there is need for more to be done so that no child is turned away.

• The proportion of households receiving any form of support has increased from 60% in 2019 to 71% in 2020 and this is consistent across all districts in the province and there is evidence of complementary efforts from both Government and the UN/NGOs. There is need to upscale the support to cushion vulnerable households. There is also need for scaling up community based multisectoral approaches to food and nutrition security in the long term.

• HIV/AIDS continues to be the most prevalent chronic illness (34%) as well as hypertension (38%). There is need for the Ministry responsible for Health and its partners to develop measures to ensure that chronically ill patients do not miss their dosses.

• There was a decrease in the proportion of households that planted all crops compared to the 2018/19 season and about 70% of households in Manicaland did not own cattle and 57% did not own goats. The Ministry responsible for Agriculture & its partners needs to encourage communities to take up the rearing of other small livestock such as rabbits and chickens which will also potentially contribute to their income and dietary diversity.

• The most common cause of death for livestock was disease (86%) and a significant proportion of farmers (36%) had access to veterinary services. The Ministry responsible for Agriculture should scale up measures to ensure that farmers do not lose their livestock. There is also need to increase the number of animal health centers in all districts. 192 • About 69% of the households that planted crops were affected by Fall Army Worm (FAW) and the most affected crop was maize 70%. The majority of households reported that they did nothing to control FAW (43%) . There is need for the Ministry responsible for Agriculture to develop researches on local cost effective controls for FAW.

• There was a significant proportion of households which had access to unimproved water (18.2%). Local authorities and District Development Fund should invest more in drilling, repair and rehabilitation of water points as well as advocacy for households to treat their drinking water.

• Only 55% of the households had access to basic sanitation services. The Ministry responsible for Health should increase efforts to address low sanitation coverage especially in Buhera where open defecation has been high in the past years. These should be done through promotion of health and hygiene programmes and construction of sanitation facilities.

• Majority of the households reported casual labour as their most important source of income (28%) and this shows that most households are vulnerable and do not have reliable sources of income. There is need for the Ministry responsible for Women Affairs to scale up income generating projects in the province.

• Only 2.3% of the households received a loan and 8.9% had at least one member in an ISAL. For those households which received loans there were no households which received a loan from the Zimbabwe Woman Microfinance Bank and Government. There is need for Government initiated programmes such as the Women’s Microfinance Bank to reach women in rural areas.

193 • Food expenditure share is increasing (60% in 2019 and 65% in 2020) meaning that most households are using most their income to buy food forgoing other essential expenditures and this shows the level of vulnerability of the household. It is recommended that some essential services could be provided for free in rural areas to cushion these households.

• Generally there was a decline in complementary feeding practices in the province Minimum Acceptable Diet for children was 3.1% a decrease from 12.1% in 2019%. . This could be a result of the recurrent drought situation thereby affecting availability of food. There is need to educate the community on the use of locally available foods to prepare nutritious diets for their children.

• There is need to create demand for Vitamin A supplements and have strategies to reach every child in the province eligible for Vitamin A supplementation. There is also need for coordinated messaging across all sectors on Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) and the involvement of males in education campaigns. • A significant proportion of households reported that non timber forestry products such as mowa (81.5%) and ishwa (49.3%) were available in their areas and these could potentially contribute to household dietary diversity which was low at 22%. These could also potentially contribute to child complementary feeding practices.

194 • Cash shortages remain the most important shock experienced by households (78.7%) followed by drought (58.8%).It is recommended that long term developmental assistance be implemented in order to build resilience of households to be able to cope with future shocks and hazards.

• The majority of households had heard about COVID-19 (98.2%) and knew at least one method of transmission and how COVID-19 can be prevented and indicated Community Health Workers as their preferred source of information.

• The largest proportion (49.5) had reduced income sources as the main effect of COVID-19 followed by reduced food sources (47.6%). There is need for the Government to put in place measures to cushion households against the effects of COVID-19.

• The majority of the households reported that their sources of PPE were homemade and they could not afford to buy them (94.2%). The Ministry responsible for Health needs to continue putting in place measures to ensure that people are protected from COVID-19 and that PPE is also available in rural areas.

• Decentralisation of Police stations or Police Posts and Victim Friendly Unit in hard to reach areas and improvement of quality services in handling of GBV cases is key for case management. Continuous trainings are recommended for officers in various Government Departments responsible for handling sexual and physical violence as these were the most common forms of abuse.

195