LIVELIHOODS OF RURAL DISTRICT A Household Economy Assessment in Southern

Prepared for Save the Children (UK) by Floor Grootenhuis – Livelihood and Food Security Consultant November 2003

Lindi Household Economy Assessment Field Team

Team Leaders: Mr. Ivo Manyaku SEMA (Sustainable Environment Management Action), Mr. Geoffrey Mlay MoAFS (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security),

Team Members: Mr. Ali Mohammed Omar MoANREC (Ministry of Agriculture & Natural Resources) Mr. John Makasekele MoAFS Mr. Theophile Malebiche MoH (Ministry of Health) Mr. Justine Mdemu Save the Children (UK) Tanzania Programme Mr. Malony Tong Save the Children (UK) Sudan Programme

Translation: Mr. S. Kengela Lindi

Logistics: Mr. Christopher Sanya Dar es Salam

This piece of work was coordinated by Dr. Solomon Mengiste and Dr. José Lopez. The fieldwork was lead by Floor Grootenhuis, Livelihood and Food Security Consultant. Alexandra France, Livelihood and Food Security Consultant assisted in editing the final report.

2 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Project context ...... 5 1.1.1 Objective of the HEA Assessment ...... 5 1.1.2 Structure of the report ...... 7 1.1.3 Summary of Results ...... 7 1.2 Methodology: The Household Economy Approach ...... 8 1.3 Livelihoods in Lindi Rural District ...... 11 1.3.1 Livelihood zones...... 12 1.3.2 Selection of zones ...... 15 1.3.3 The Reference year ...... 15 1.3.4 Seasonal Calendar ...... 16 2 Coastal Fishing Zone – Zone 1 ...... 18 2.1 Wealth groups in the reference year ...... 18 2.2 Food sources in the reference year ...... 20 2.3 Income in the reference year ...... 21 2.4 Expenditure in the reference year ...... 24 2.5 Vulnerability and coping strategies ...... 25 2.6 Conclusion ...... 26 3 Agricultural Zone – Zone 4 ...... 27 3.1 Wealth groups in the reference year ...... 27 3.2 Food sources in the reference year ...... 29 3.3 Income sources in the reference year ...... 31 3.4 Expenditure in the reference year ...... 33 3.5 Vulnerability and coping strategies ...... 35 3.6 Conclusions ...... 36 4 Comparison of zones ...... 37 4.1 Basic concepts for comparing livelihood zones ...... 37 4.2 Maximum flexibility parameter for Zone 1 ...... 38 4.3 ‘Maximum flexibility’ parameter for Zone 4 ...... 39 4.4 Overall comparison of fishing and agricultural livelihoods ...... 40 5 The Drought Year 2003/2004 ...... 42 5.1 Problem Specification Zone 1 ...... 42 5.2 Problem Specification Zone 4 ...... 46 6 Conclusion...... 50 7 References ...... 52

3 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District List of Figures

I List of Figures

Figure 1 Map - Lindi Rural District's Livelihood Zones ...... 12 Figure 2: Population Distribution of Livelihood Zones ...... 13 Figure 3: Seasonal Calendar for both Agricultural and Fishing Zones ...... 17 Figure 4: Population Distribution Zone 1 ...... 18 Figure 5: Food Sources Zone 1 ...... 20 Figure 6 : Income Sources Zone 1 ...... 22 Figure 7 : Contribution of each Income Source Zone 1 ...... 22 Figure 8 : Proportional contribution of income from crops Zone 1 ...... 23 Figure 9 : Expenditure Pattern Zone 1 ...... 24 Figure 10 : Population Distribution Zone 4 ...... 27 Figure 11 : Food Sources Zone 4 ...... 30 Figure 12 : Income Sources Zone 4 ...... 31 Figure 13 : Proportional contribution of Income Zone 4 ...... 32 Figure 14 : Proportional contribution of crop sale Zone 4 ...... 33 Figure 15 : Expenditure pattern Zone 4 ...... 34 Figure 16 : Maximum Access Zone 1 ...... 38 Figure 17 : Maximum Access Zone 4 ...... 39 Figure 18 : Comparison of Maximum Access both Zones ...... 41 Figure 19 : Change in Food Sources for the drought year 2003 ...... 43 Figure 20 : Change in Income Sources drought year 2003 ...... 44 Figure 21 : Change in Expenditure drought year 2003 ...... 45 Figure 22 : % of normal production zone 4 ...... 47 Figure 23 : Change in food sources drought year 2003 Zone 4 ...... 47 Figure 24 : Change in Income sources drought year 2003 zone 4 ...... 48 Figure 25 : Change in expenditure drought year 2003 zone 4 ...... 49

4 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Project context

The Household Economy Assessment (HEA) in Lindi Rural District is part of the second phase of Save the Children (UK) Tanzania’s study in the area titled Coping with the Cost of Chronic Illness. The overall aim is to provide conclusive information on the situation of health care in the district to support Save the Children (UK)’s work in the area. The specific aim is examine the cost of chronic illness and the implications of the cost of illness for poor households’ ability to pay for health care.

The study has been divided into two phases. The first phase took place in June 2003; a combined quantitative and qualitative health survey which looked specifically at households’ health seeking behaviour, the costs of illness and the implications for the poor. The second phase of the study is aimed to complement this information by conducting an overall livelihoods assessment which included (in a separate document) detailed case study’s describing how households coping with and affected by chronic illness are managing. This was done using Household Economy approach at a smaller scale enabling this information to complement the study done in the previous phase.

The HEA assessment provides a comprehensive understanding of the local economy and the economic interactions between wealth groups. It supplies the background and basic understanding of households’ livelihoods which is necessary in order to understand the opportunities and constraints households in Lindi Rural District face in relation to their basic needs in specific their access to health care. The contextual information could be valuable to government institutions as well as other supporting NGO’s and aid organizations to complement their knowledge of the area’s needs, as well as what kind of information this approach produces. This report forms one of the components of a set of documents generated by Save the Children’s study Coping with Chronic Illness.

1.1.1 Objective of the HEA Assessment The overall aim of the phase 2 study is to understand the ability of households to pay for health care with particular reference to households affected by chronic illnesses residing in Lindi Rural District.

The specific objectives of the study are:

i. To produce Household Economy baselines for two distinct Livelihood Zones.

ii. To perform a comparative analysis of the identified Livelihood Zones using the ‘Maximum Access’ parameter.

iii. To perform a vulnerability analysis including definitions of problems/constraints and strategies used by households in: a) The reference year: March 2002 to February 2003 and, b) The drought year : March 2003 to February 2004.

5 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

The following report is the compilation of 5 weeks of fieldwork in Lindi Rural District with a team of 7 people consisting of 5 HEA practitioners and 2 Lindi Rural district government officers - one from the Ministry of Health and one from the Ministry of Agriculture.

6 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

1.1.2 Structure of the report This report is divided into four main sections:

 Section 1 - Introduction providing the preliminary information about -

i. Context and background of the Project as well as the specific objectives ii. Summary of results iii. Methodological framework iv. The Livelihood Zones identified during the Study

 Section 2 & 3 describe in detail the two selected livelihoods zones: Coastal fishing zone and the agricultural zone. Each section starts with a detailed description of the area including the zone’s general characteristics and a description of the different wealth groups as identified by key informants. A description and comparison of each different wealth group’s access to food, income and expenditure in the reference year follows. Each sub-section ends with a description of the area’s vulnerabilities followed by the coping strategies available to different households to deal with the impact of negative changes.

 Section 4 compares households in both zones through ‘maximum food access’ - a parameter used to compare households’ maximum income flexibility. This section compares the flexibility of households within each zone for different wealth groups and compares households between zones.

 Section 5 looks at the current situation, and how households in each zone have been affected by the current drought and are coping with the successive production loss. This projection has mainly been described for the poor groups. The section ends with the overall conclusions.

1.1.3 Summary of Results In the reference year, households in both the agricultural zone 4 and the Coastal fishing zone 1 are food secure. The main difference between these zones is their geography and related types of income generating activities. The agricultural zone, situated in the central part of the district, is characterized by deep fertile soil and is the district’s dominant farming area. Most households are dependent on crop production as their main source of income. The coastal zone stretches along the coast and allows these households to access the sea. In this area the collection of sea products, fishing and crop production are the most important sources of income.

The ecological nature of each zone predetermines the level of vulnerably to different shocks. The agricultural zone, which houses 65% of Lindi Rural District’s population, is dependent on agriculture and therefore the most vulnerable to any climatic changes like drought, flooding, and any negative changes in the cashew nut price, the main cash crop. In this zone, households have less access to

7 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction disposable income than in the Coastal Zone, which therefore allows them less flexibility to absorb any negative changes in their livelihood.

In the drought year 2003, March 2003 to February 2004, the whole region is affected by drought. In both zones, households lost 50 – 60 % of their harvest. The loss of harvest has forced households to increase their expenditure on food to cover 100% of their annual food needs. In order to cover this increase they adapt their expenditure pattern and resort to the minimum expenditure on household items, clothes, education and health care. Households in both zones expand on the sale of livestock assets. In Zone 4, households are more affected by the drought than in Zone 1. In order to cover their additional loss they expand on their petty trade activities, mainly sale of wild food and brewing of coconut wine. It is interesting that in difficult times despite an overall loss of income, there is a clear increase in the demand for local alcohol.

The HEA assessment reveals that households’ expenditure on health care for all wealth groups is about 1-4% of their total income. Middle and better-off households spend slightly less of their income on health care compared to the poor wealth group. However, in absolute values, the poor spend about 5,500 – 7,000 Tsh (respectively Zone 4 and Zone 1) annually on health care, while the middle wealth group spend three times this amount.

1.2 Methodology: The Household Economy Approach Save the Children (UK) developed the Household Economy Approach in collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)’s Global Information and Early Warning Systems project (GIEWS) over a period of five years from 1992 – 1997. This was in response to the severe famines experienced in the horn of Africa during the 1980s. The work was an attempt to combine nutritional and agricultural information with information on the socio-economic context and the way people survive (e.g. production activities, income-generation, coping strategies). The approach tries to understand and document the complexity of rural livelihood dynamics. ‘We can only understand this if we understand people’s normal economy: how they usually make a living; their savings, reserves and assets; and how household production and labour are exchanged for other goods’1. This approach also answered the need for a method that could indicate the likely effect of crop failure – or other shocks – on future food access, thus enabling NGOs, governments and UN organizations to better understand and assist the development of vulnerable communities. This approach is now being applied in many contexts - not only to understand food security in a particular region but also to compare different regions. The approach also provides a holistic view of intra-community variation in assets, activities and, consequently, food security status. This enables HEA practitioners to predict and model the effect of different types of changes on the overall economy of households and communities.

The Household Economy Approach provides a framework for analysing and quantifying livelihoods. The framework of the approach is based concepts of access or entitlement to resources, and recognises that such entitlement is founded on three basic variables: where you live

1 SC (2000) The Household Economy Approach: 1 8 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

(environment, location), how wealthy you are, and the period studied. It is virtually impossible to generate detailed, meaningful livelihood information about a large, heterogeneous population.

The HEA research disaggregates the larger population into smaller, more homogenous groups, as follows:  Livelihood Zones  Wealth Groups  Time

Livelihood Zones: The assessment area is divided into one or more different geographical areas. In this report these are referred to as “livelihood zones”. A livelihood zone is defined as “an area where most households obtain their food and cash income by roughly the same combination of means”2. In many cases these zones correspond with agro-ecological differences. Another consideration is “risk” (or “hazards”). Each zone is defined by the set of risks to which households in that zone are vulnerable.

Wealth Groups: Defining the different wealth groups is a central aspect in understanding intra- community differences in wealth, inter-dependency, and how the poor manage – or don’t manage – in relation to the ‘better-off’. These groups are defined by community representatives, who describe wealth characteristics according to community values. Wealth determinants refer usually to assets and commonly include land ownership, number and type of livestock owned, and household size and composition. For food security analysis the important issues to consider are: the amount of security offered by asset levels, the relationship between assets and the common risks/hazards in the zone, and the ability of the asset base to allow flexibility in income.

Time: Any data set has to be grounded on a particular time frame. Within the HEA methodology, data is collected in reference to a year in the past that represents a relatively ‘normal’ or typical3 year as defined by the community. The fieldwork generates baseline/reference data by asking how people lived during the reference year. Discussions about the past (usually through a “historical timeline”) provide further information on long-term livelihood dynamics. Discussions about variations within the year are centred on the compilation of a seasonal calendar.

The Household Economy: Data on the household economy investigates assets, economically productive activities and consumption (expenditure). The approach allows one to quantify whether the resources which are owned or produced by the household, or which come into the household, are sufficient to cover the total costs of the household’s spending needs (food and non-food items). To simplify the analysis, data relating to the household economy is disaggregated into sources of food, sources of cash and expenditure patterns. In food security analysis the important factors to consider are the number/diversity of activities, the relative importance of each activity, and the relationship between each activity and ‘risks’ for the zone.

2 SC (2000) The Household Economy Approach: 38 3 Sometimes the baseline/reference year might not be “normal” or “frequently occurring” since the myriad economic, socio-political and natural factors influencing livelihoods at household level might make it difficult - or even meaningless - to define what is “normal”. 9 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

Food Sources: Food consumed within the household comes from a variety of different sources - crop production, livestock products, fishing, purchase, gifts, wild foods, or labour (if paid in food). The benchmark for food security used in HEA is the figure of 2,100 kilocalories4 – the amount of energy required for an average person to survive with an average level of physical activity for one day. This is referred to as “the minimum food needs” and is the basis for determining the calorific needs for the household for a year. This benchmark represents 100% of a person’s food needs and when multiplied by the household size and days per year, converts into 100% of the household’s minimum food requirements. Using this figure, it is possible to work out the relative contribution of each food source to the total amount to determine which source is more important. This contribution is expressed as a percentage of household’s food needs. If all the food sources to which a household has access do not make up the household’s 100% minimum food needs then they are determined to be “food insecure”. Income Sources: These are all the activities undertaken by a household to generate income. These include crop sale, livestock or livestock products sale, sea products sale, paid skilled/unskilled labour, gifts/loans, trade, craft production and natural resource collection/sale. Expenditure: HEA differentiates 3 types of expenditure: the staple food (usually a cereal); non-staple food (usually items that make up the “sauce” accompanying the staple, and other “quality” foods); essential non-food expenditure (including fuel, health, education, inputs etc.) and “other” (“luxury” food and non-food items). The key issue to investigate here is the degree of flexibility the household has – i.e. the difference between income and essential expenditure.

Data collection: HEA uses PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) techniques to gather the necessary information from the area. Information is gathered using semi-structured interviews. Interviews are conducted with community leaders to the socio-economic differences within the community, and with representatives of each wealth group to discuss their household economy. The information is constantly crosschecked with previous interviews and secondary data sources. Ideally triangulation5 takes place during each interview and also when comparing notes from other interviews.

HEA baseline data provides a set of reference data that allows researchers to predict the effect of shocks such as drought, changes in market prices, and/or war on the household’s economy. The effect of other shocks at household level, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, change in government policy or market price fluctuations can be understood using problem scenario analysis.

In summary the two main parts of HEA are a) ‘a quantitative description of the economy of a defined population, including all the main factors determining current household income and potential household income under changed conditions, and how these vary between households’; and b) ‘A system to analyse the relationship between a change/shock – for example climate change

4 As per WHO standard 5 Triangulation means that information is gathered from different sources and methods and compared for accuracy. Anomalies indicate that there might be an error, or that further information is needed. For example, food sources in a normal year should add up to the minimum household food needs in order for the household to survive. 10 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction which results in crop failure or a rise in the price of a cash crop – and the ability of households to maintain their food and non-food consumption’. 6

1.3 Livelihoods in Lindi Rural District The differences in livelihood patterns between zones are based on thorough discussion with district-level officials. These included the District Statistics Officer, the District Livestock Officer, the District and External Crops Officer, The District Agriculture and Livestock Developments Officer (Act. DED), the Natural Resources Officer and the District Medical Officer. This group of District authorities, facilitated by the assessment team, divided Lindi Rural District into four distinct zones based on previously mentioned criteria (refer to methodology section). The boundaries of these zones were further cross-checked in the field at ward level and during village interviews. As can be seen from the following map, livelihood zones do not necessary follow administrative boundaries but are much more dependent on agro-ecological, geographical and economic changes.

6 SC (2000) The Household Economy Approach: 2 11 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

Figure 1 Map - Lindi Rural District's Livelihood Zones

1.3.1 Livelihood zones In general, households in Lindi Rural District are predominantly involved in agriculture. For these farmers, the widespread production cashew nuts and simsim (sesame) are the most important cash crops. The dominant production of cashew nuts makes most of the middle and better-off farmers dependent on the current price and harvest. Only a small proportion of the poor farmers harvest cashew nuts, whether through paid labour or their own trees. According to key informant interviews, cashew nuts became a lucrative crop to harvest since about 1999 and in the reference year, cashew nuts formed the largest contribution of income generated from cash crops. Other cash crops farmed include coconuts, cassava, maize, sorghum, a small amount of groundnuts, and pulses. The quantity and quality of these crops vary throughout the area and are different for each livelihood 12 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction zone. The soil quality varies throughout the district; the central agricultural region has the richest and most productive land, whilst the north western zone has poorer soils and relies more on drought resistant crops like simsim, sorghum and cassava.

Besides agriculture, almost all households are involved in some form of petty trade. Households along the coast with access to the sea have an additional income from fishing and collection of sea products. They are much less affected by changes in crop production than the predominant farming areas.

In Lindi Rural District, the zone dominated by agricultural production, is more densely populated than the other zones, constituting of more than 60% of the population. The other three zones population is similar and range from 5 to 15% of the population, of which the coastal fishing zone is the largest. The graph below gives an overview of the population distribution for each Livelihood Zone throughout the district. These figures are based on the population figures from the last national census 2003 7.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 %of District's total Population 0 Coastal Simsim Agricultural Highland Fishing Zone dominant Area Forrest area

Livelihood Zones

Figure 2: Population Distribution of Livelihood Zones The following table provides summary profiles for each zone, which includes the geographical location and coverage, the population figure and the distinguishing characteristics.

Zone 1 Coastal fishing zone 6 Wards 12 Villages 37,120 people 17 % of Lindi Rural District’s population Characteristics

7 The population for each zone has been calculated according to the population of the villages key informants identified as belonging to each respective zone.

It needs to be noted However that population data was not available at village level, only at ward level, and in some cases the villages within the ward belong to different zones, hence population figures are not completely representative. 13 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

This area stretches along the coastline of the district where the community has good access to the sea. The area is characterized by sandy soil, thorny bushes and thickets makeup the natural vegetation. Households are involved in fishing, collection of sea products and crop sale as their predominant sources of income. They complement this with petty trade. This area is also known for its production of limestone and salt. Main crops and trees grown are cassava, maize, sorghum, pulses, groundnuts, simsim, cashew nuts and coconuts. Unlike the agricultural zone rice is not commonly grown here. This zone has more livestock than in other areas, most households have chicken and shoats, however cows are scarce.

Zone 2 Highland Forest Zone 12 Wards 18 Villages 22,487 people 10 % of Lindi Rural District’s population Characteristics This zone is characterized by highlands with altitudes over 850 mts above sea level. The soil is predominantly sandy loamy covered with miombo woodland with open patches, as well as primary forests and pine plantations. The rainfall in this area is much more intensive compared to other zones. This area is found on the western boarder with neighbouring . Households here are mainly involved in crop sale and timber production. Main crops grown are cassava, maize, legumes, sweet potatoes and citrus trees. More maize is found here than other zones. Simsim and cashew nuts are not grown. Most households have livestock, mainly chicken and shoats

Zone 3 Simsim-dominant Zone 2 Wards 7 Villages 9,838 people 5 % of Lindi Rural District’s population Characteristics This area is located in the North Western tip of the district and characterized by loamy clay soils covered with miombo woodland, thickets and bush land. The area borders a river enabling households to access fresh water fish for consumption and sale. Households generate income from crop sale and petty trade as well as limited timber production. The main crops grown are simsim (grown in much larger areas than in other zones), sorghum, maize, cassava and a few cashew nut trees. Despite the relatively small population the economy of this zone is unique and therefore qualified as a separate area.

Zone 4 Agricultural zone 20 Wards 84 Villages 139,542 people 65 % of Lindi Rural District’s population Characteristics This zone covers most of the central part of the District and is largest in terms of area and population. It is characterised by valleys with seasonal streams, miombo woodland, and patches of forest and grasslands. The deep fertile soil makes it the district’s best and dominant farming area. Most households generate income from crop sale, agricultural labour, petty trade and small businesses. The main crops grown are cassava, maize, sorghum, rice, pulses, legumes, simsim, cashew nuts and coconuts. Most households own livestock mainly chicken and shoats. 14 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

1.3.2 Selection of zones The objective of this HEA was to examine in detail two livelihood zones that coincided with the areas visited during the Phase 1 health survey. At the same time these zones needed to represent a majority of the district as well as illustrate distinct differences in livelihoods. The agricultural zone (Zone 4) was chosen, as it is the district’s largest zone covering more than 60% of the population and corresponds with the villages covered for the health survey. The selection of the second zone was a little tricky, as the remaining 3 zones are relatively small and quite different in terms of geography and livelihood. After lengthy discussion the coastal fishing zone (Zone 1) was selected to enable a comparison between two different livelihoods; one predominantly agricultural and one dependent on fishing.

1.3.3 The Reference year The choice of the reference year in Lindi was based on agricultural seasonal activities rather than the Gregorian calendar i.e. January to December. In Lindi, the agricultural calendar starts in February and ends in March covering one full consumption year starting from green harvest of maize, vegetables, pumpkin and pulses and ending before the following year’s green harvest. The definition of this year provided a logical timeframe to be used during the field interviews and for analysis.

The table below shows the summary of the year ranking exercise conducted with key informants for both zones. This exercise was used in order to document the changes in this area over time.

YEAR Rank Reasoning

Drought – irregular and short duration of rains, very low production Worst year of food and cash crops, perceived problem of pests. 2003/2004 in the last 6 Increase in prices of commodities. years Good price for simsim @ 500-700 Tsh/kg. Good rains, very good harvest for both cash and food crops, however lower price for simsim. 2002/2003 Good Cashew nuts @ 290 Tsh/kg. Households had a surplus production and carry over. Average rains, good harvest for cash and food crops. 2001/2002 Average Low cashew nut price @ 80-180 Tsh/kg. Good rains, average production of food crops, very good production 2000/2001 Good of cashew nuts. Very good price for cashew nuts @ 700-800 Tsh/kg.

Normal rains, good production of food and cash crops. 1999/2000 Good Price of cashew nuts @ 400-500 Tsh/kg. First year cashew nuts started to fetch good prices.

1998/1999 Average/Bad Slight loss of harvest, rains stopped early, drought effect of El Nino

15 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

Table 1: Year Ranking Summary For the Lindi assessment, the most recent year was chosen starting in February 2002 and ending in March 2003 as it was easier for respondents to remember their harvest, income and expenditure for that year. It was chosen as it corresponded with the period of the Phase 1 health survey enabling further analysis of this data.

1.3.4 Seasonal Calendar Knowing the different seasons and related activities in a given zone gives an important background to understanding rural livelihoods and forms a framework that is useful to understand why households perform particular activities at particular times in the year. For example, the peak of petty trade coincides with the periods in the year when most households are generating an income from the sale of their own crops. The seasonal calendar also provides a framework to understand how different shocks will affect households at different periods in the year. Households experience periods of difficulty when crops have been planted are not ready for consumption and they have no access to income to purchase food. In the two zones, this period of hardship is during January and February just before the green harvest. However this is less pertinent for the fishing zone as all households generate an income from fishing throughout the year.

In ‘normal’ years, these areas experience one rainy season that begins around December and ends in April. In February there is a month of very light rain, however this is still considered part of the wet season and does not demarcate two rainy seasons. The dry season begins in June and ends in November.

The following calendar has been combined for both the agricultural and the fishing zones and gives an overview of the seasons and activities throughout the reference year

16 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Introduction

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb SEASONS MASIKA KIANGAZI MASIKA RAINFALL WINDS KUSI matlai kusi KASKASI matlai kaskasi CROPS done by land preparationW+M+C for all major crops for pure stand simsim and cow pea

planting W+M+C for all major crops W+M+C for pure stand

weeding W+M+C for all major crops for all major crops W+M+C cow peas simsim

Harvesting W+M+C green harvest : maize, vegtables, pumpkin, cow peas W+M+C dry harvest: maize, cow peas, pumpkin, g-nuts, simsim W+M+C fresh cassava dry cassava W+M+C cashewnuts

INCOME Agricultural Labour harvesting - major crops harvesting - cashewnuts

weeding landpreparation weeding

Crop sale Petty Trade Wild Food Sea Product Sale

Lean Period

Figure 3: Seasonal Calendar for both Agricultural and Fishing Zones

17 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

2 Coastal Fishing Zone – Zone 1

The coastal fishing zone in Lindi Rural District stretches along the coastline and makes up 17% of the district’s population. The coastal region covers three divisions - Mchinga, Mingoyo and Sudi, six wards and twelve villages with a total population of 37,1208 people. Most households have easy access to the sea with fishing and farming as the predominant sources of income. The proportion of households involved in fishing or farming is directly related to the distance and their access to the sea. Most farmers grow cashew nuts, sesame seeds (simsim), groundnuts and coconut as the main cash crops and sorghum, cassava, and pulses for home consumption.

2.1 Wealth groups in the reference year Key informants defined three main wealth groups determined by the land size cultivated, the ownership of trees and households’ access to fishing equipment. The different groups were named according to the land size cultivated - the poor group is known as group with about 1.5 acres, the middle as the group with about 3 acres and the wealthiest group as the group with about 3.5 acres. The middle group is the largest and makes up almost 50% of the population. The following figure gives an overview of the population distribution for each wealth group.

Zone 1 Population Distribution per Wealth Group

(4-12%)

(8-14%) (20-50%)

1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 3.5 Acre group Marginalized (40-50%)

Figure 4: Population Distribution Zone 1

The last and smallest group pictured in the figure above are the marginalized; otherwise know as dependant and non-active households in the area. This group plays a minor role in the economy of the area and thus has not been discussed separately.

Despite the fact that fishing is a key characteristic of this zone, farming is still an integral part of the coastal livelihoods. All wealth groups farm the same crops and differences are found in the acreage cultivated and number of trees (cashew & coconut) owned. All wealth groups have access to trees, however the number of producing cashew nut trees grows exponentially with wealth. The group with 1.5 acres owns about 7 cashew nut trees and the group with about 3.5 acres own

8 This figure has been derived from Tanzania’s 2002 Population and Housing Census, disaggregated per zone according to the wards covered by the zone.

Unfortunately the population data was not available at village level, which would give a more specific figure as some wards fall into two different zones. 18 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone around 70. For coconut trees the number owned almost doubles per wealth group. All groups own chicken and the middle and the better-off own shoats.

All wealth groups fish throughout the year but catch different quantities depending on the type of equipment they own. The group with about 1.5 acres uses small nets, wooden spears, and hooks and line, giving them access to the sea at low tide as they wade out to place nets. The group with about 3 acres have canoes and bigger nets enabling them to catch more further from shore. The group with about 3.5 acres doesn’t differ much in terms of assets though some have large Dhows.

The table below summarized the differences in wealth characteristics for each wealth group.

Summary of wealth determinants for Coastal fishing zone

Vernacular names Hali ya chini Hali ya kati Matajiri

Group with about 1.5 Group with about 3 Group with about 3.5 acres9 acres acres Land size cultivated 1 – 2 (1.5) 2 – 4 (3) 3 – 4 (3.5)

Productive assets farming equipment farming equipment same as middle small nets bigger nets some own dhows. hooks and line hooks and line blowers/sprayers (for mideke (wooden spears) madema (fish trap) cashew nuts) ngalawa (canoe) milling machine, cars bicycle Note: only owned by a few people per village Ownership of trees Coconut 0 – 5 (1) 0 – 30 (15) 60 – 100 (70) Cashew 0 – 10 (7) 25 – 35 (30) 50 – 100 (70)

Livestock cows Cows are found in this zone but are not common shoats 0 5 – 10 (8) 5-15 (10) chickens 3 – 10 (7) 5 - 20 (13) 15 – 20 (18)

Main crops grown cassava, maize, same as 1.5-acre group same as middle sorghum but with more trees. pumpkin, cow pea, pigeon pea, g-nuts, simsim (all intercropped except g-nuts)

Main income generating little crop sale crop sale crop sale activities collection of sea fishing fishing

9 The wealth groups were named by the field team. This was done according to the wealth determinant which they felt was most important, in this case the area of land cultivated. However, it should be noted that this is not the only determinant of wealth. 19 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

products petty trade petty trade fishing livestock renting of milling- casual and agri-labour. machine’s and cashew sale of chicken nut sprayers. few lime few salt few stone collection

Average HH size 4 – 8 (6) 4 – 8 (6) 4 – 8 (6) Table 2 : Wealth Characteristics Zone 1

2.2 Food sources in the reference year

The main sources of food for this zone come from households’ own production (crops & fish), purchase, and for the poor from agricultural labour. All wealth groups are able to meet 100% of their annual food needs. The variation between the different wealth groups in their access to food is determined by their land size and their fishing equipment.

Figure 5: Food Sources Zone 1

Zone 1 Food Sources 1.5 acre group Zone 1 Food Sources 3 acre group

(1-5) own fish

(1-3) (45-50) (1-5) (35-40) own fish purchase labour purchase

(40-60) own (50-70) production own production

Zone 1 Food Sources 3.5 acre group

(2-6) (30-40) ow n fish purchase

(50-70) ow n 20 production Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

Figure 5 illustrates the ways that different wealth groups access food. All wealth groups consume their own production. The contribution of own production to the households’ annual food needs increases with wealth, ranging from 50 percent for the 1.5 acre group to 60 percent for the 3 acre and the 3.5 acre groups. The main crops grown for food are cassava, maize, sorghum and pulses (pigeon and cow peas). Only the 3 acre and the 3.5 acre groups have coconuts, which give them respectively 2-10% and 6-10% of their annual food needs. The 1.5 acre group compensate this by buying coconuts.

The main harvest period for food crops is from April to July, before this households will start eating some green maize and pulses from February to April, March being the peak of green consumption. Green crop consumption is mainly relied on by the group with 1.5 acres, where green maize constitutes 2-5 % of their annual food needs, decreasing to 1-3 % for the better-off wealth groups.

Besides from their own crops, households throughout the zone rely on fish from their own catch as an additional source of food. The contribution of own fish increases with wealth. The middle and better-off wealth groups subsidise their own catch with additional purchased fish, while the poor just consume fish from their own catch. The better-off own fish consumption contributes about double the amount than the other wealth groups.

Purchase is the second most important source of food for all households. In contrast to own production, the reliance on food purchase for household’s annual food needs reduces with wealth. The 1.5 acre group rely from 45 - 50 % on purchase, while the 3 acre and the 3.5 acre group rely on 30-40% on food purchase. The type of food purchased varies per wealth group. The better-off and middle wealth groups buy more expensive foods such as maize flour, rice, beans, sugar and fresh fish.

The group with 1.5 acres additionally relies on food received from agricultural labour. This is payment received in the form of harvest for labour during the harvesting period. The payment of harvest is commonly done in the form of cassava and maize and gives the poor households 1 to 5 % of their annual food needs.

2.3 Income in the reference year Income sources for different social economic groups in the fishing zone do not vary greatly with wealth. The main sources of income common to all groups are the sale of own crops, sale of livestock and fishing. The main variation found is that the 3 acre and 3.5 acre groups have an additional income from petty trade. With an increase in wealth, the level of income doubles with the 3 acre group earning twice as much as the 1.5 acre group and the 3.5 acre group earning twice as much as the 3 acre group.

21 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

Zone 1 Income Sources

1,400,000 1,000,000-1,243,300 1,200,000

1,000,000

Petty Trade 800,000 Livestock 400,790-535,300 Sea products 600,000 own crops 274,000-335,405

400,000 Tanzanian Shillings Tanzanian

200,000

- 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 3.5 Acre group

Figure 6 : Income Sources Zone 1

Fishing contributes a much bigger portion of the 1.5 acre group’s income than for the group with 3.5 acres. The contribution of own crop sale is only about 20% for the 1.5 acre group, while for the richer groups its almost 40% of their annual income during the reference year. Petty trade activities include small-scale tea houses, sale of nazi, sale of local coconut wine and a variety of other processed foods.

Proportional contribution of income sources for each wealth group in Zone 1

100% 90%

80% 70%

60% Petty Trade Livestock 50% Sea products 40%

% of income % own crops 30% 20%

10% 0% 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 3.5 Acre group

Figure 7 : Contribution of each Income Source Zone 1

Petty trade constitutes about 15% of the 3 acre group’s annual income and less than 10% for the 3.5 acre. The contribution of livestock for the richer groups is about 5% of their annual income, while it contributes about 2.5% for the 1.5 acre group.

22 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

Fishing in this zone is commonly done throughout the year. The peak catch is during bamvua, which is 14-16 days a month. This bamvua is the period after half moon when the moon is waning and before half moon when the moon waxing. These are the times when there is little light and fish are easier to catch. During the Kusi winds (see seasonal calendar) which coincides partly with the rainy season, catches decreased and some fishermen will go out for daga (fishing camps) to secure their catches. Unlike an agricultural zone that is mainly dependent on income during the harvest peak, all wealth groups have some income from fish throughout the year. The poor group collect about 550 shells a year that are sold at 75 Tsh each.

The income from crop sale for all groups is mainly earned through the sale of cashew nuts. The peak period for cashew nut harvest is from September to December. The actual income differs per wealth group depending on the number of trees owned and the level of inputs invested. The group with 1.5 acres earns about 26,000 Tsh; the 3 acre group about 113,000 Tsh and the 3.5 acre group about 260,000 Tsh. The average harvest per tree differs per wealth group due to the amount of sulphur applied – the 1.5 acre group does not invest in sulphur application. For the 1.5 acre group, groundnut and simsim sale are the second most important crops, followed by dry cassava and pulses. For the 3 acre and 3.5 acre groups the actual income from cashew nuts exceeds income from other crops.

Income from livestock comes commonly from chicken and goats. Only the 3 acre and the 3.5 acre groups have goats to sell. The 1.5 acre group only sell 3-7 chicken a year which gives them around 5,700 Tsh. The 3 acre and the 3.5 acre groups sell around 5-30 chickens a year amounting to 15,000 Tsh. The middle sell about 2 goats annually which amounts to about 20,000 Tsh and the better-off sell about 4 goats.

Zone 1 Proportional contribution of each crop as % of Income from crop sale

12,190 18,000 100% 73,800

90% 17,940 80% 39,790 Coconuts 70% Simsim % 60% 26,100 Cashew nuts o 113,100 f 50% Ground nuts in 263,900 Sorghum c 40% o Pulses 30% 11,250 m Cassava dry 27,000 e 20% - 4,500 Cassava fresh 18,000 45,000 10% 9,000 - 12,000 - 24,750 0% - 12,000 5,000 5,000 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 3.5 Acre group

Figure 8 : Proportional contribution of income from crops Zone 1

23 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

2.4 Expenditure in the reference year

All households spend money on food, household items, education, health, clothes and productive assets. The proportion of their income is spent differently between wealth groups. The main difference is in the money spent on food. For the 1.5 acre group more than 70% (about 200,000 Tsh) of their income is spent on food, while the 3.5 acre group spend about 20% (about 250,000 Tsh) of their income on food. The better-off wealth groups spend more money on preferred and more expensive foods like rice, sugar and fish. The poor spend most of their food budget on maize flour, while for the richer groups they spend most on rice.

Expenditure Zone 1

100% 26,125 90% 129,425 385,807 80% 70% flexibility 60% productive assets 50% other 40% HH items Food 30% 20% 10% 0% 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 3.5 Acre group

Figure 9 : Expenditure Pattern Zone 1

Expenditure on productive assets such as maintenance and replacement of fishing equipment, agricultural labour and agricultural inputs increases with wealth. The proportion of money spent by different wealth groups on other non-food items such clothes, education, and health is similar although their actual expenditure differs significantly. The 1.5 acre group treat on average 2 cases of illness in the reference year; the 3 acre group treats about 3 cases and the 3.5 acre group treats about 4 cases per year. The average cost per cases is 3,500 Tsh.

The pattern of expenditure for education is similar where better-off households can afford to send one of their children to secondary school, while the other groups can only send their children to primary school. The 3 acre group spends about 4,500 Tsh more on education than the 1.5 acre group and in most cases this additional money will be spent on an extra uniform for each child and more pens and books.

The proportion of income spent on household items does not vary greatly per wealth group however the amount of money increases from around 15,000 Tsh for the 1.5 acre group, to about 24 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

50,000 Tsh for the 3 acre group and up to 70,000 Tsh for the 3.5 acre group. These differences are mainly attributed to an increase in purchase of salt and paraffin.

All wealth groups have a level of income flexibility that increases with wealth - the poor with 10%, the middle with 20% and the better-off with 30%. The differences in flexibility are directly related to their income that is linked to the land cultivated, trees owned and access to fishing equipment.

2.5 Vulnerability and coping strategies

Throughout the field interviews questions were asked about what different wealth groups felt were the most feared changes or shocks and how they would react given a particular shock or change. These are key issues in understanding how different wealth groups will be affected by different changes, and how they will respond to these changes. This was particularly relevant as at the time of the fieldwork as all households were dealing with the current drought and loss of harvest.

This section covers the shocks that households are vulnerable to and how they cope with the changes. This area has had few shocks outlined in the HEA done in Lindi and Regions (SC:1997). The following section will mainly focus on the vulnerabilities for the 1.5 acre group as they have the least flexibility to absorb any negative change and most vulnerable.

The poor wealth group have a very low income flexibility of less than 10% of their annual income and any negative changes in their access to income or any increases in their normal expenditure patterns will force them to adapt, which in many cases will have a negative impact on the quality of their life.

Shocks Coping Strategies  Decrease in access to fishing due  Poor households change their food and non-food to heavy rains expenditure patterns in order to cover their loss in  Fluctuation in market for fish income  Maximize on consumption of own catch rather than sell  Expand on sale of own food and cash crops  Drought – loss 1/3rd of harvest  Adapting their expenditure patterns on food and  Floods non-food items  Pest damage  Expand on other income generating activities  Fluctuation in market prices  Adapting their expenditure patterns on food and non-food items by buying cheaper food and only meeting minimum basic food & non-food needs  Reduce variety in the diet by buying cheaper foods with more calories e.g. cassava and maize

Middle and better-off households are vulnerable to the same changes in crop production but more vulnerable to changes in the price of cashew nuts and simsim .

25 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Coastal Fishing Zone

If households have to cope with a combination of shocks or a compounding of shocks over a longer period of time, they will struggle to make ends meet. In some many cases, they may be forced to implement extreme coping strategies e.g. children may be taken out of school or the household may become dependent on other family members for their needs, moving them to a ‘marginalized’ group.

2.6 Conclusion In a normal year, households in this zone are predominantly dependent on fishing and crop sale as sources of income, supplemented by petty trade. Most households satisfy their annual food needs through their own crop production, their own fish catch and purchase. For the poor group a small amount of their food needs also comes from agricultural labour. Poorer households spend more money on food while wealthier households decrease their expenditure on food and increase their investment in agricultural inputs, agricultural labour and fishing equipment.

The fact that households are involved in farming and fishing as sources of income makes them less vulnerable as they have more options to resort to in difficult times. They are less dependent on seasonal income and variations in crop production, which occur much more frequently than any changes in access to the sea and access to fish. However the low-income flexibility of the poor still makes them vulnerable to a combination of shocks or negative changes and may push them to extreme coping strategies.

26 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

3 Agricultural Zone – Zone 4

The agricultural zone is the largest livelihood zone in Lindi Rural District. Geographically it covers about 60-70% of the district and makes up about 65% of the district’s population covering 20 wards and 84 villages with 73,41510 people. Most households are involved in farming supplemented by limited livestock husbandry and petty trade. The area is typified by valleys and seasonal streams covered by miombo woodland alternated with patches of forest and grasslands. The main food crops grown in this area are rice, cassava, maize, sorghum, and pulses (pigeon peas & cow peas). The common cash crops are simsim, cashew nuts and coconuts. Rice, pulses, cassava, and maize are also important sources of income. The main difference with the coastal zone is the productivity of the land and the size of land holdings - this area has a higher productivity per acre and households generally farm more land. Households depend mainly on agriculture making them more vulnerable to negative changes in crop production in comparison to the coastal fishing zone.

3.1 Wealth groups in the reference year Similar to the coastal zone, key informants identified three main socio-economic groups distinguished by their land size cultivated as well as the ownership of trees. The poor group (the 1.5 acre group) makes up about 35% of the population followed by the 3 acre group, the largest socio-economic group, constituting of about 40% of the population, and lastly the better-off or 4.5 acre group which makes up about 15% of the area’s population. Figure 10 gives an overview of the different wealth groups, including the proportion of the population that was identified as marginalized. Due to their minimal contribution in the economy this group will not be discussed.

Zone 4 Population Distribution per Wealth Group

(5-11%)

(14-16%) (20-50%)

1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 4.5 Acre group Marginalized (32-42%)

Figure 10 : Population Distribution Zone 4

10 Derived from Tanzania population and housing census 2002 27 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Unlike the coastal zone, the ownership of productive assets doesn’t play such an important role as a wealth determinant. The wealthiest group with 4.5 acres has much better access to milling machines and cashew nut sprayers, however there are only a few households in each village that actually own either of these assets. The ability to invest in the inputs required makes a big difference in the average harvest per cashew nut tree. The land size owned and number of producing coconut and cashew nut trees clearly distinguish the different wealth groups. Mango and orange trees are found in this zone but are not common throughout the region. All wealth groups owned livestock. The poor group do not own shoats, but chickens are an important supplement to their income. The wealthier groups own shoats. It is not common to find any cattle in this area. The main income generating activity that distinguishes the 1.5 acre group is their reliance on agricultural labour, while the 3 and the 4.5 acre groups can afford to hire the 1.5 acre group to cultivate their land.

The following table gives a summary of the wealth characteristics as defined by the key informants.

Summary of wealth determinants for the Agricultural zone

Vernacular names Hali duni Hali Wastani Hali Nzuri

Group with about 1.5 Group with about 3 Group with about 4.5 acres acres acres

Land size cultivated 1 – 2 (1.5) 2 – 4 (3) 4 – 5 (4.5)

Ownership of trees Coconut 0 – 5 (1) 10 – 60 (50) 60 – 100 (75) Cashew 1 – 10 10 – 70 (40) 60 – 100 (75) not cared for but does produce a little Oranges 0 – 3 (0) 0 – 3 (0) 0 – 5 (0) Mango 0 – 1 (0) 0 – 1 (0) 0 – 1 (0)

Livestock shoats 0 0 – 5 (2) 5 - 10 chickens 0 – 10 (5) 5 - 10 10 – 20 (15)

Other productive assets hand hoe bicycle bicycles blowers/sprayers (for cashew nuts) milling machine Note: only owned by a few people per village

Main crops grown cassava cassava cassava maize maize maize sorghum sorghum sorghum rice rice rice 28 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

cow pea cow pea cow pea pigeon pea pigeon pea pigeon pea pumpkin pumpkin pumpkin simsim simsim

Main income generating crop sale crop sale crop sale activities agri labour petty trade petty trade petty trade (small scale) mat & makuti making renting of machine mat & makuti making mgahawa (small tea milling wild food sale. rooms) and mamalishe mgahawa sale of chicken (sale of cooked food) livestock sale Average HH size 4 – 8 (6) 4 – 8 (6) 4 – 8 (6) Table 3 : Wealth Characteristics Zone 4

3.2 Food sources in the reference year

Food sources for all wealth groups in the reference year are similar to the sources of food in Zone 1, although the percentage of food from own production is more and there is no contribution from own fish. In the reference year all households were able to satisfy 100% of their annual food needs, the 3 acre and the 4.5 acre groups consume more than their annual needs ranging from about 107 to 110% respectively.

29 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

The following pie charts give an overview of the food sources for each wealth group, all the figures in the flowing charts have been scaled down to 100%.

Zone 4 Food Sources 1.5 acre group Zone 4 Food Sources 3 acre group

(2-4)% (1-3)% ow n production purchase ow n production labour (30-40)% purchase (25-35)% w ildfood

(60-70) % (50-60) %

Zone 4 Food Sources 4.5 acre group

(12-15)%

ow n production purchase

(50-100) %

Figure 11 : Food Sources Zone 4

With wealth, the contribution of own production increases, while the contribution of purchase decreases. The 1.5 acre group have to supplement their own production with purchased food. They also consume wild foods, mainly ming’oko (a wild tuber similar to cassava but smaller) and received food in return for labour.

The common crops grown for own consumption are cassava, maize, sorghum, rice, pulses, pumpkin and coconut. Consumption of cassava decreases with wealth and the consumption of rice increases. Coconuts play an integral part in cooking and are used as oil and flavouring. The wealthier households have more coconut trees. The 1.5 acre group consume about 1% of their annual needs from coconut and the 3.5 and 4 acre groups respectively get 2-6 and 4-12% from their own coconut harvest.

30 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Food purchase is the second most important source. This contribution decreases with wealth and the type of food purchased varies. The poor group spend more on staple food while the better-off groups spend more on food for ‘sauce’ and sugar. The 4.5 acre group purchase additional non- staple food like sugar, beans and fish which adds up to 12-15% of their annual food needs. While conversely the 1.5 acre group purchase up to 25-35% of their annual food needs, the main contribution is from maize flour, about 20% of their annual food needs. This group can only afford to buy sugar, rice and beans in small quantities. The 3 acre group purchase about the same amount as the 1.5 acre group, however they purchase much less cassava and more rice, and buy sugar, beans and fish.

3.3 Income sources in the reference year

Sources of income for all wealth groups are agriculturally related. For the middle and the better-off groups, income was mainly earned from their own farms, while for the poor this was supplemented by income from agricultural labour. The actual income seems to double with wealth, where the 3 acre group earn about twice as much as the 1.5 acre group and the 4.5 acre group earn more than twice as much as the 3 acre group.

Zone 4 Income Sources

1,200,000

1,145,500 -822,800

1,000,000

800,000 Petty Trade 298,900-801,600 Livestock 600,000 Agri-labour own crops

400,000 Tanzanian Shillings

85,850-215,000 200,000

- 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 4.5 Acre group

Figure 12 : Income Sources Zone 4

All households have additional income from livestock and petty trade. Figure 13 gives an overview of the contribution of different sources of income for each wealth group. It illustrates how own crop production was least important for the 1.5 acre group, and most important for the 4.5 acre group. The 1.5 acre group acquire almost 60% of their income from agricultural labour, about 5% from livestock and 7% from petty trade. The combined contribution of agricultural labour and own crop production adds up to approximately 90% of their income and therefore they are highly dependent on agricultural related income and vulnerable to any negative changes in accessing this income.

31 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Proportional contribution of income sources for each wealth group in Zone 4

100% 90% 80% 70% Petty Trade 60% Livestock 50% Agri-labour

40% own crops % of income % 30% 20% 10% 0% 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 4.5 Acre group

Figure 13 : Proportional contribution of Income Zone 4

Similar to the coastal fishing zone, the proportion of income from cash crops increases with wealth and has a larger contribution to the total income than food crops. For example, more than 60% of the income from own crops for the 3 and the 4.5 acre groups comes from cashew nuts, while for the 1.5 acre group, who don’t harvest cashew nuts, 50% of their income from own crops comes from sale of paddy, followed by pulses and maize. Due the difference in number of trees and the level of agricultural investment in cashew nuts, the better-off earn twice as much from their cashew nuts even though they have less trees. In this area the average harvest per cashew nut tree is directly related to the level of inputs invested. The 1.5 acre group cannot afford to invest in their few cashew trees and can only harvest about 2-3 kilo’s per tree. The middle group invest in inputs and can harvest an average of about 10-20 kg per tree and the better-off harvests about 20-25 kg per tree.

32 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Zone 4 Proportional contribution of each crop as % of Income from crop sale Cashew nuts 100% - Sorghum 9,120 Maize 80% Paddy

203,000 500,250 Pulses 60% Cassava dry 34,000 Cassava fresh

40% % of income % 19,000 20,000 29,830 20,000 20% 13,200 30,000 20,250 17,875 63,250 3,600 26,000 52,000 2,500 0% 1 - - 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 4.5 Acre

Figure 14 : Proportional contribution of crop sale Zone 4 Income from petty trade and livestock is proportionally smaller than that from own crop production. The 1.5 acre group sell 4-7 chickens in the reference year amounting to 9,000 Tsh, while the 3 acre group sell less chickens but add 1-2 goats making a total of about 36,000 Tsh. The 4.5 acre group sell about 10 chickens and 2 goats slightly, exceeding the middle group’s income with 45,000 Tsh. The 1.5 acre group sell livestock as it enables them to cover unforeseen costs during difficult times.

The 1.5 acre group combine different petty trade activities to supplement their income. The most common activity is the sale of wild food ming’oko. The peak period of wild food sale starts in July and ends in November. Some poor households also make makuti (coconuts leaves used for roofing) and mats. Other income generating activities include the sale of fresh water fish and the production and sale of Nazi, the local coconut wine. The amount earned from petty trade for the poor ranges from 7,500 to 15,000 Tsh. Households in the 3 acre group earn from 15,400 to 97,000 Tsh from mamalishe, sale of cooked foods such as mandazi’s and chapatti’s, and the sale of drinks like tea and local juice. The 4.5 acre group earn about 50,000 to 100,000 Tsh annually from petty trade activities similar to the middle including small shops.

3.4 Expenditure in the reference year

The expenditure patterns of households in the agricultural zone clearly vary with wealth. All groups spend their income on food, household items, healthcare, education and clothes. The latter are represented in the bar chart below as ‘other’. The only difference in expenditure in the agricultural zone is that the poor households did not spend money on productive assets, while the middle and the better-off invest in agricultural labour and inputs. 33 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Expenditure Zone 4

1,598 100% 441,779 90% 107,969

80%

70% flexibility 60% productive assets 50% other HH items 40% Food 30%

20%

10%

0% 1.5 acre group 3 Acre group 4.5 Acre group

Figure 15 : Expenditure pattern Zone 4

The 1.5 acre group spend about 70% of their income on food, while the 3 acre group and the 4.5 acre group spend 45% and 15% respectively on food. The proportion of income spent on household items also decreases with wealth, from about 12% for the poor to about 5% for the better-off.

The 1.5 acre group spend about 85,000 - 160,000 Tsh on food which gives them about 30% of their annual food needs. The majority of this money is spent on staples like maize flour, rice, beans and dried fish. The 3 acre group spend almost twice that amount for about 35% of their annual food needs, which cost them from 120,000 - 330,000 Tsh. This is spent on rice, followed by sugar and maize flour. The 3.5 acre group spend about 140,000 Tsh per annum on beans, fish and sugar. No additional staples are purchased as they are consumed from own production.

The actual expenditure on household items increases with wealth due to an increase in expenditure on paraffin and soap. The ‘other’ expenditure consisting of healthcare, education and clothes increases with wealth. There is a significant difference in expenditure on education between the 3 acre and the 4.5 acre group, spending respectively 11,000 to 97,000 Tsh. This is because the latter group can afford to choose to send one child to secondary school.

In terms of health care, the 3 and the 4.5 acre group spend about 18,000 Tsh while the 1.5 acre group spend only 5,600 Tsh. During the fieldwork, it was calculated that most households treat 4- 6 cases a year. If the cases are treated locally it would cost them about 825 Tsh per case, while if they are transferred or referred to the nearest health centre/hospital or dispensary, the cost would be almost 5,000 Tsh per case. This difference is ascribed to the transport and accommodation costs and includes the consultancy fees and the cost of medication. This indicates that during the reference year, poor households could either afford to transfer 1 case or to treat about 6 locally. The 34 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone better-off were able to transfer about 4 cases during the year, or choose to transfer 2 and treat about 10 cases locally. This shows how little choice the poor groups have in terms of possible health care and treatment.

The middle and better-off households both spend about 15 - 18% of their income on agricultural inputs and labour. The middle group commonly hire labour for 1 acre of their land and cultivate the rest themselves. The better-off hire labour for land preparation as well as weeding. The payments in the reference year per plot varied slightly - land preparation costs 500 Tsh per plot and weeding costs about 375 Tsh per plot. Thus weeding and preparing one acre of land costs 50 x 375 (18,750) plus 50 x 500 (25,000) amounts to 43,750 Tsh. Households invest in weeding and spraying of their cashew nut trees - costing 300 Tsh for weeding, 300 Tsh for sulphur applications 3 times a year and an additional labour and petrol cost for the sprayer at 249 Tsh per tree. The total cost per tree adds up to about 849 Tsh. If you own about 40 trees this will cost you about 34,000 Tsh per year. The variation between the middle and better-off expenditure on inputs is the number of times a tree is sprayed. Middle households spray an average of twice annually, while the better-off will spray the recommended four times per year.

Harvesting, even rice harvest, is normally paid for with food, either cassava roots or maize cobs. The better-off households also pay for harvest of their coconut trees by village specialists with nuts. The going rate is three nuts per tree harvested and one tree normally gives four harvests per year. For example, the middle group owns about 50 trees, for each harvest they will pay 3 x 50 nuts, which is done four times a year. Therefore the total number of nuts they paid during the reference year was about 450 with each nut worth about 40 Tsh, a cost equivalent of about 18,000 Tsh.

3.5 Vulnerability and coping strategies This section focuses on the changes the 1.5 acre group are vulnerable to and how they expect to cope. This area has not experienced long term hardships and generally households are able to cope. During the fieldwork, most households were suffering from the impact of the current drought and explained how this was affecting them and what they were doing to manage. This will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

The poor group in the agricultural area has insignificant income flexibility of about 1% and indicates that in terms of income their coping options are very limited. They are vulnerable to any changes in their access to income from their farm as well as from agricultural labour, either during drought or floods. In times of hardship, this group adapt their food and non-food expenditure. The degree of changes will depend on the level of income loss. In cases of extreme loss, households will resort to purchasing cheaper foods that have more calories, for example dry cassava. They will minimize their non-food expenditure by decreasing the purchase of kerosene, soap, clothes and so on. Besides changing their expenditure patterns, households explained that they would expand on the sale and consumption of wild food and if possible expand on other petty trade activities. In some areas it was reported that households would sell firewood and charcoal, however this is not common throughout the zone. Due to the high dependency on agriculture, this zone is more vulnerable than the coastal fishing zone, which has more income source options from the sea.

35 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Agricultural Zone

Besides climatic changes affecting agricultural production and agricultural labour, households are also vulnerable to changes in market prices. The 1.5 acre group depend on purchase for 25-35% of their annual food needs which costs them 70% of their income. Any changes will force them to change their food and non-food expenditure patterns, which would leave them with little income for basic social services such as health and education.

Middle and better-off households are more vulnerable to changes in the price of cashew nuts and simsim, as unlike the poor, the majority of their income comes from sale of these cash crops.

Due to the limited flexibility and high dependency on agricultural production this zone is more vulnerable to climatic changes. The poor have very little margin to cope and struggle more than similar households in the fishing zone. Given several negative changes over a longer period of time, these households will probably fall into destitution, as coping strategies are limited. Their flexibility and the options open to them for income expansion will enable them to adapt for about a year but if the shock continues, for example two droughts in a row, it is not clear how this poor group will adapt. It is likely they will resort to extreme coping strategies such as taking children out of school to work.

3.6 Conclusions In a normal year, households in this zone are mainly dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, supplemented by income from livestock sale and petty trade. Households meet their food needs mainly from own crop production and purchase. The poor group have access to additional food from agricultural labour and the collection of wild food. Similar to the coastal fishing zone, poor households spend more of their income on food, while the better-off households decrease their food expenditure and increase their expenditure on agricultural labour and inputs.

In comparison to Zone 1, households have less coping options and their dependency on agriculture makes this zone overall more vulnerable to negative changes. In this area almost 50% of the population falls into the 1.5 acre group, this means that 50% of the population of the largest zone in Lindi Rural District have a limited flexibility of 1%.

36 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Comparison of Zones

4 Comparison of zones

4.1 Basic concepts for comparing livelihood zones There are many ways to compare zones. One can look at the differences in wealth and wealth characteristics, in land use and agricultural production or the differences and similarities in expenditure on food and non–food items or in income sources. In summary, these differences relate to livelihood patterns and dynamics.

However, it is difficult to compare two items that are completely different. Comparison between different economies is possible only if the key aspects we want to compare are captured and converted into a ‘standard’ unit. The concepts below (‘maximum food access’ and ‘maximum Maximum Food Access flexibility’) are expressed as a percentage of minimum annual food needs to create a standard/common unit that takes into All income sources consideration contextual differences such as price (expressed in terms of the food it can buy) Level at which of basic food commodities and the type of crops minimum food produced. By doing this, it is possible to obtain a and non-food needs are met real comparison of livelihoods across or within 100% Level at which minimum food What is the Maximum Flexibility about? needs are met

Maximum Flexibilty - zone 3 - 2001/2002 needs food household Annual All food sources except purchase minimum food + non- (e.g. crops, fish) 250 food requirements

200 What is left above the zones. The key issue is that higher income % of dotted line is the does not necessarily indicate a better-off Annual 150 "Maximum Flexibility” Food household if the cost of living is greater – Needs hence these terms incorporate the cost of 100 living and absolute income in the equation. 50 Minimum food requirements ‘Maximum food access’ is an estimate of the 0 maximum amount of food a household could Group without Clove Trees consume in the baseline year if they used all available cash (except cash required for Own Production Own crop Own livestock Agri. Labour Fishing purchasing their minimum non-food needs) for purchasing food. In this way the theoretical projection of households’ ‘maximum food access’ provides a good understanding of the value of what a given household can generate during the baseline year (expressed as a percentage of annual food needs)11.

11 This is done by calculating the total cost of the household’s annual food needs and dividing the total income by this cost. Hence this concept includes the cost of living (since the denominator is the price of staple food). 37 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Comparison of Zones

If this concept is taken a step forward, we can further compare livelihoods using the concept of ‘maximum flexibility’ which is the cash remaining over and above the household’s minimum food and non-food expenditure. ‘Maximum flexibility’ is the difference between the level at which all basic household needs are met, and their theoretical maximum income, expressed as a percentage of household food needs. ‘Maximum flexibility’ reflects their ability to maintain a stable livelihood12.

4.2 Maximum flexibility parameter for Zone 1 The following graph shows the differences in ‘maximum food access’ between the different wealth groups in the coastal fishing zone. The dotted line indicates the cost of annual food needs that has been converted into a percentage and is the same for all wealth groups. The solid line indicates the total cost, in percentage, of each wealth group’s food and the non-food needs. Everything above the solid line is the maximum flexibility and gives an indication of the household’s ability to cope during difficult times.

Maximum Access to Food Zone 1 - 2002/2003

500 Minimum Food and 450 Non-Food Requirements 400 Minimum Food 350 Requirements

300

250

200

150 % % of Annual Food Needs 100

50

0 1.5 acre group 3 acre group 3.5 acre group

own production crop sale livestock petty trade sea products

Figure 16 : Maximum Access Zone 1

12A household with 65% “maximum flexibility” could convert this cash, left over after covering their basic needs, into enough food to last them an additional 8 months. “Maximum flexibility” is a concept used to see how strong the household might be in coping with the effects of outside risks or hazards. 38 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Comparison of Zones

All households in Zone 1 have additional flexibility enabling them to absorb changes in their livelihood (see Section 5). However, between the different groups, there are pronounced differences. The 3 acre group (100% flexibility) have 5 times more flexibility than the 1.5 acre group (25% flexibility). The 3.5 acre group (200% flexibility) are 2 times more flexible than the 3 acre group. For the better-off groups, this flexibility is derived from the combination of income generated from crop sale and fishing. The poor group relies on two main sources of income, while the better-off groups rely of four sources of income and are less vulnerable to hazards and shocks. A household’s additional flexibility gives an indication of their ability to cope during difficult times and therefore clearly indicates that the 1.5 acre group will struggle much more to make ends meet than the 3.5 acre group.

4.3 ‘Maximum flexibility’ parameter for Zone 4 The following graph shows the ‘maximum food access’ for the agricultural zone. Similar to Zone 1, the maximum access increases with wealth. The 3 acre group have 150% additional flexibility and the 1.5 acre group have about 25%. The difference demonstrates a greater income gap between the poor and the middle than in Zone 1. The 4.5 acre group, despite the much higher cost of their non- food needs, still have an additional flexibility of about 300%. The difference in flexibility between these groups is about the same in both zones.

Maximum Access to Food Zone 4 - 2002/2003

500 Minimum Food and 450 Non-Food Requirements 400 Minimum Food 350 Requirements

300

250

200

150 % % of Annual Food Needs 100

50

0 1.5 acre group 3 acre group 4.5 acre group

livestock own production petty trade crop sale agricultural labour

Figure 17 : Maximum Access Zone 4

39 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Comparison of Zones

Compared to Zone 1, the 1.5 acre group have more sources of income than the better-off groups, which gives them more options in hard times. However, they rely mainly on agriculture through the sale of own crops or agricultural labour, and are therefore, despite their variety of income sources, still more vulnerable than the poor in the coastal fishing zone. The better-off households’ main source of income is the sale of crops generated predominantly from cashew nuts.

4.4 Overall comparison of fishing and agricultural livelihoods Figure 18 gives a summary of the maximum access to food for all wealth groups in both the coastal fishing and the agricultural zone. The chart shows that the additional flexibility for most households in the agricultural zone is more than for those in the coastal fishing zone.

The poor in both zones have a similar cost of non-food items and both have an additional flexibility of about 50%. The difference of the poor wealth groups in the zones is clearly outlined in their most important income sources. The chart highlights the importance of the food and cash income from agriculture to the poor in Zone 4 compared to the importance of cash and food income from fishing in Zone 1.

The middle groups show a variation in the agricultural zone as they have about 130% additional flexibility compared to 100% in the coastal fishing zone. This flexibility comes primarily from the cash and food income from crops in the middle in the agricultural zone. This trend continues with the better-off groups, where the better-off in the agricultural zone have about 300% additional access compared to 200% in the coastal fishing zone.

Interestingly, the cost of non-food requirements is about the same for the poor and the middle groups but differs for the better-off wealth group. The non-food requirements in the coastal fishing zone cost about 150%, while in the agricultural zone they cost less than 100%. This is attributed to the fact that the fishermen have to spend money on agricultural labour, agricultural inputs as well as on the maintenance of their boats and fishing equipment.

40 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Comparison of Zones

Comparison of Maximum Access for Zone 1 and Zone 4

500 Solid line: Indicates 450 minimum food and non food requirements. 400

350

sea products 300 petty trade livestock 250 agricultural labour

200 crop sale ow n production

150 % of Annual Food Needs

100

50 Minimum Food Requirements 0 Z1 poorest Z4 poorest Z1 middle Z4 middle Z1 better off Z4 better off

Figure 18 : Comparison of Maximum Access both Zones

In figure 18, all wealth groups’ flexibility is more in the agricultural zone, which does not reflect this zone’s vulnerability. They do have more food and cash income but are more susceptible to any changes in agricultural production due to climatic changes. The coastal fishing zone relies on both agriculture and fishing and is more adaptable to any changes and therefore less vulnerable.

41 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

5 The Drought Year 2003/2004

Discussions have focused on how households are living in Lindi Rural District in the reference year starting in March 2002 and ending in February 2003. This year was considered good; rains were normal; the harvest adequate and the prices of cash crops such as simsim and cashew nuts were good. Households were meeting more than 100% of their annual food needs and had some degree of income flexibility. The two zones show clear differences in livelihood, where households in the coastal fishing zone have more cash income and more income flexibility than households in the agricultural zone. However, the maximum access to food for the fishing area is slightly less due to the higher costs of their food and non-food basket. This is attributed to the fact that the area has lower agricultural production levels and households in general purchase more food than in the agricultural zone.

At the time of study, Tanzania was suffering from a severe drought, where many households in the affected regions harvested less than 30% of normal (FewsNet; 2003). The drought was caused by the shorter than normal period of rainfall and has affected each zone slightly differently. During the fieldwork, it was apparent that most households were struggling and complaining that the last harvest did not yield enough food for home consumption or as a source of income. Furthermore prices of food commodities like maize, rice and beans had increased, in some cases by almost 20%.

The following section examines how the poor households in each zone are coping in the drought year. The information represented below has been compiled from extensive field research conducted in September 2003 and gives a good picture of how households were coping up to that month. Calculations as to whether the households will continue to manage up until the harvest in February 2004 have been based on informed assumptions generated from field data. It should be noted that the validity of the data is dependent on these theoretical assumptions. Depending on the drought situation, households may have changed their strategies. In order to validate the following scenario one would need to monitor the changes in the price and labour market regularly. The following projection of the current situation is based on the calendar year starting in March 2003 up to February 2004. The projections for both areas are based on changes in crop production as reported from the field.

The main strategy used in both zones by all wealth groups are adjusting food and non-food expenditure in order to compensate an income loss and to enable households to purchase enough additional food to satisfy 100% of their annual needs. In general, all households in both zones are able to cope with the current drought, however this has resulted in loss of income flexibility for the poor groups and they will struggle greatly to cope with any additional shock on top of drought. If this happens it is likely that poor households will engage in extreme coping strategies that are not necessarily sustainable.

5.1 Problem Specification Zone 1 In the coastal fishing zone, all areas are suffering from a severe drought. The rains started as normal in November 2002 but stopped early in mid January 2003. Farms received only 1.5 months of rain 42 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation instead of 4 months. Reductions in harvest of most crops ranged from 10-50% of normal (table 5). The problem of pests (wild pigs, monkeys and rats) was also seen to be more serious than normal, probably as their impact was much more significant due to the low harvest. The production loss has caused prices of food commodities to increase by 10 to 20%.

Commodity Ref year price Drought year price % of change Maize 250 per kg 300 per kg 20 Rice 450 per kg 500 per kg 11 Beans 550 per kg 600 per kg 10

Table 4 : Changes in prices of food commodities

The percentage production loss for all wealth groups was about 77% and this had a direct effect on food from own production and income from crop sale for all groups.

% of normal for Crop Harvest 2003/2004 Maize 10 % Sorghum 13 % Cassava 38 % Pulses 38 % Simsim 17 % Groundnuts 50 % Cashew nuts 50 % Coconuts 100 % Average production 40 % Table 5 : % of normal production Zone 1 Due to the production loss, households in the 1.5 acre group experienced a decrease in own food production by about 60%. They also lost their food income from agricultural labour and have had to adapt to the increase in the price of maize, beans and rice. The compounded loss has forced them to increase their food purchase and force them to adapt their expenditure pattern. The loss in kilocalories is compensated by the purchase of dry cassava; which is cheaper and gives more calories per kilo. Their income is not sufficient to maintain the same food purchase as in the reference year and they will have to save money in order to afford enough food to satisfy their annual needs.

Figure 19 gives an overview of their food sources during the reference year in comparison to the initial loss/initial deficit due to the drought and lastly illustrates how households are able to cover this loss in the drought year.

Figure 19: Change in Food Sources for the drought year 2003

43 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

Food Sources 1.5 acre group 120

100

80 w ild food ow n fish 60 labour purchase

40 ow n crops % of annual food needs 20

0 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial 2003/2004 after deficit coping

Besides an increase in food purchase, this group started consuming about 1% of wild food. The consumption of their own fish catch still remains the same at about 2% of their annual food needs. This contribution is minimal compared to their overall needs. Therefore in order to purchase more food, households will try to generate more income and adapt expenditure patterns.

The following graph illustrated the income sources in the reference year and looks at the initial loss/deficit and changes made to cope during the drought year.

Income Sources 1.5 acre group 300,000

250,000

200,000

livestock 150,000 sea products own crops

100,000 Tanzanian Shillings

50,000

- 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial 2003/2004 after deficit coping

Figure 20: Change in Income Sources drought year 2003

44 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

The current drought has caused income loss of about 13%, corresponding to about 39,000 Tsh. This is an equivalent to their normal annual expenditure on clothes, education, health care and productive assets. The harvest loss has forced them to consume all the food from their own crops, where normally they would sell some cassava and pulses. In order to cover this loss, households have expanded on livestock sale (chickens) by 40%, which gives them an additional 3,000 Tsh. Despite the bad harvest, the price for simsim has increased by 117% from 230 Tsh a kilo to 500 Tsh a kilo, although production loss of simsim was still considerable. In this analysis the cashew nut price has been assumed to be the same as in the reference year. To fully understand the changes in income, the price of cashew nuts should be monitored and adapted in the analysis.

Households in this area also complained of an unexplained decrease in availability of seashells that has resulted in an increase in demand and price. The 1.5 acre group explained that normally seashell collection would be a source of income they would expand on, nonetheless due to the decease in availability they are only just able to sustain their normal income level. Households could not define options available to expand on for sources of income and therefore mainly resort to changes in their expenditure.

The main changes and coping strategies used by the 1.5 acre group are found in the food and non- food expenditure pattern. Figure 21 summarizes these changes and compares the reference year with the initial loss and how households cope in the drought year. Most evident is the change in food purchased, which households facilitate by slight adjustments in expenditure on household items, clothes, healthcare, and education. The increase in food prices has also forced this group to make additional adjustments.

Expenditure for 1.5 acre group 300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000 flexibilty other

100,000 hh items

food Tanzanian Shillings

50,000

- 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial 2003/2004 after deficit coping (50,000)

Figure 21 : Change in Expenditure drought year 2003 45 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

Households are unable to maintain their reference year expenditure patterns and will have to cover an income deficit of about 40,000 Tsh. In order to be able to purchase their food needs as well as meet their basic non-food needs, the poor households will spend the minimum amount on non- food items by reducing expenditure on kerosene, matchboxes, clothes, healthcare and education. They change their food expenditure and buy cheaper food with more calories. Furthermore they compensate for an increase in the price of maize flour, rice and beans. For example instead of buying 364 kilo’s of maize flour at 250 Tsh a kilo, they will now purchase 200 kilo’s at 300 Tsh. This saves them almost 30,000 Tsh per annum. Their main strategy to meet their food needs is to purchase dry cassava. In order to vary their diet and add some sauce for taste they will buy additional fish that are cheaper than beans. The changes in their expenditure pattern as well as the use of their flexibility from the previous year ensure that this group will meet their basic food and non-food needs in the drought year.

On the other hand, they have no more income flexibility or coping possibilities to cover any additional negative changes or shocks. If one of the family members falls sick they will not be able to cover this cost and will have to rely on other relatives or self-treatment. They may have to also employ negative copign strategies such as taking children out of school and sending them to work and/or migrating to nearby areas in search of income and food.

The effect of the drought on the middle and better-off households is different. Due to their higher income flexibility, they are in a much better position to absorb the shock. It is assumed that they are likely to resort to minimum non-food expenditure, but will maintain their level of agricultural investment. Households were still paying for land preparation and weeding as well as maintaining their level of inputs in their cashew nut plantations. Households have not started to explore additional possibilities of income expansion and diversification.

5.2 Problem Specification Zone 4

Like the coastal fishing zone, households in the agricultural zone are suffering from the drought, which has caused a significant loss in production. Households complained about the increase of pests. The harvest in this zone was slightly higher than in Zone 1. For example, farmers harvested 10% of normal maize production in Zone 1, while in Zone 4 they were able to harvest 20% of normal. For cassava, Zone 1 harvested 38% of normal, while Zone 4 harvested 75% of normal. The harvest for simsim, cashew nuts and coconuts did not differ from one zone to the other. The average production of normal in Zone 1 is about 40% while in Zone 4 it is about 47%.

% of normal for Crop Harvest 2003/2004 Maize 20 % Sorghum 25 % Cassava 75 % Paddy 25 % Pulses 75 % Pumpkin 0 % 46 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

Simsim 50 % Cashew nuts 50 % Coconuts 100 % Average production 47 % Figure 22 : % of normal production zone 4

This difference in production between both zones is attributed to the fact that the agricultural zone is more fertile and in a ‘normal’ situation has higher yields per acre than the coastal fishing zone.

The change in prices of food commodities due to the drought is the same for both zones, where the food shortage has caused market prices of maize, rice and beans to increase.

The production loss in for the 1.5 acre group has forced them to purchase additional food to meet 100% of their annual food needs. However, due to their extremely low-income flexibility, households have had to drastically adapt their food and non-food expenditure.

Figure 23 compares the situation in the reference year compared to their initial deficit, the initial loss due to the change in production, and how they have chosen to cover the loss in food in the drought year.

Zone 4 Food Sources 1.5 acre group 120

100

80

wild food 60 purchase own crops

40 % of annual food needs food annual of % 20

0 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial deficit 2003/2004 after coping

Figure 23: Change in food sources drought year Zone 4 The initial food deficit due to loss of production for the 1.5 acre was 24%. The drought caused a reduction of food from own production and food available in return for agricultural. To compensate for both losses, the 1.5 acre group increased their purchase and expanded minimally on the consumption of wild food by 1%. In order to cover this loss, households will adapt their expenditure levels and try to increase their income where possible.

47 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

The following graph illustrates the changes in income due to drought and where households were able to expand.

Zone 4 Income 1.5 acre group 200,000

180,000 petty trade livestock 160,000 agricultural labour 140,000 ow n crops

120,000

100,000

80,000

Tanzanian Shillings 60,000

40,000

20,000

- 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial deficit 2003/2004 after coping

Figure 24 : Change in Income sources drought year 2003 zone 4

Similar to the poor in Zone 1, poor households could see little opportunity for expansion or diversification in income. The poor group in this zone has lost relatively more income (about 88%) from own crops than the poor in Zone 1. This group do not produce simsim or cashew nuts, which provide Zone 1 with an additional income source. Normally the 1.5 acre group sell cassava, rice, pulses, and maize. In the drought year they were only able to sell a few kilos of pulses. They expanded their income from livestock by selling one more chicken than normal which increases their income by about 1,500 Tsh. Households explained that they are able to expand on petty trade by 20%, increasing their income by 2,250 Tsh. The actual income loss after expansion is about 31%. In order to meet 100% of their food needs households are forced to change their expenditure patterns.

Figure 25 summarises the changes in expenditure for the drought year compared to the reference year. The most obvious change is their increase in purchase and their decrease in expenditure on non-food items and social services.

48 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Current Situation

Zone 4 Expenditure 1.5 acre group

200,000

150,000

deficit 100,000 other

hh items

50,000 food Tanzanian Shillings Tanzanian

0 2002/2003 2003/2004 initial 2003/2004 after deficit coping

-50,000

Figure 25 : Change in expenditure drought year 2003 zone 4

The graph shows how in the reference year, poor households spent about 175,000 Tsh on food, household items and social services. They had 1% flexibility, which is so small that it doesn’t appear on the first bar. The second bar shows their initial expenditure based on the necessary change in food purchase but no change to expenditure on household items or social services. The bar indicates their expenditure deficit and represents the amount of money this group is forced to spend to meet all food and non-food needs. Due to the lack of income these households struggle to adapt to any changes in expenditure.

In order to cover the loss of income, households resort to the minimum expenditure for non-food needs, including reductions in expenditure on household items (primarily fuel and soap), clothes, healthcare and education. These changes are not enough to make ends meet and they additionally have to reduced their expenditure on food. They stop purchase of maize flour and convert most of this money to purchase dry cassava. They reduce their expenditure on dry fish and slightly increased that of beans in order to have a bit of variation and ‘sauce’ with their meals.

The above analysis illustrates that poor households in the agricultural zone struggle to make ends meet more than the poor households in the coastal fishing zone. The fishermen have more income options and more income flexibility, while the agricultural households have less opportunity for expansion and change.

49 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Refernecs

6 Conclusion

This HEA baseline assessment is part of four studies conducted in Lindi Rural District. These pieces of work combined together to provide a thorough understanding of the costs of chronic illness at household level. The HEA provides the context and illustrates the realities of normal life in the district for all socio-economic groups. The HEA baseline also enabled a comparison between the case studies of households affected by chronic illness and typical households, as the same methodology was used. The final objective of the project is to use this information to inform and advise policy decision-makers on how to effectively address the area’s health care needs with particular reference to households affected by chronic illness.

This report covers two of the four livelihood zones identified in the district. These are the agricultural zone (4) and the coastal fishing zone (1), which combine to cover more than 80% of Lindi Rural District’s population. The main difference between the two zones is their geographical location that determines how people in each area live. In the agricultural zone, as the name suggests, households are predominantly dependent on agricultural production and related activities as their main source(s) of income. In the coastal zone in addition to farming households also collect sea products and fish. This makes the coastal area much less vulnerable to any climatic changes affecting agricultural production.

In both zones the main sources of food come from their own farms supplemented by purchase. In terms of expenditure the general pattern is that the poor households spend the majority of their income, about 70%, on food while the better-off households spend 15 - 45% on food. The better-off households also invest in productive assets that cost them 15 - 30% of their income per year. The poor have very limited disposable income, 2 - 5% while the better-off households have 20-40% flexible income. This shows the large disparity in income between the wealth groups.

In the drought year-2004, all areas were affected by drought and have lost 40-60% of their harvest. However all households are still food secure. The effect on Zone 4 is more serious than on Zone 1. Zone 1 is not solely dependent on agriculture and households still have income from fishing. In order to cope households in both zones adapt their expenditure patterns in order to purchase the food they would otherwise have consumed from their own farms. All households decrease their expenditure on basic non-food needs. They additionally expand on sale of livestock assets. In order to cope with the loss of food and cash income, they expand on the consumption of wild food and increase income from petty trade activities.

In terms of health care, the assessment reveals that all wealth groups spend about 1-4% of their income on health care. Middle and better-off households spend slightly less compared to the poor groups. However, in absolute values the poor spend about 5,500 – 7,000 Tsh (respectively Zone 4 and Zone 1) annually on health care while the middle spend three times this amount.

It is clear that in cash terms the amount of money that the poor in both zones spend on health care in the reference year (a normal year) will not be sufficient to cover any serious illnesses, accident(s) or hospital admission(s). All wealth groups in both areas cope with a shock, in this case drought, 50 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Refernecs by economizing their expenditure on health care. In contradiction, health care would be a basic need that becomes even more urgent during shocks. The question is how can the current government health policy address the community’s needs and incorporate a policy that also addresses health care subsidy in times of shocks. Perhaps more importantly how can the current policy be implemented effectively such that the poor are able to access the services they need to live a healthy life, in normal years?

In practise the use of the HEA baseline information along side the information gathered from case study interviews proved to be a challenge. The main recommendations for next study of this type would be to spend more time on desegregating groups/types of households within the poor wealth group. More attention needs to be given to the differences within this group, especially on issues like availability of household labour assets, female headed households, a households’ demographic stage (starting couple, couple with young children etc.) and a baseline of the marginalized/destitute group. It would be useful to have a better understanding of how all of the above-mentioned criteria relate to wealth status.

This baseline report, with the full database, is useful not only for Save the Children (UK) in but for any other UN, NGO, aid organization or government institution working in the area. In any intervention, project or policy formulation it is essential to have a good understanding of how people live and what changes they are vulnerable to within the area. A better understanding of livelihoods will enable organization/governments to give effective support and embark on useful/needed interventions. Not only does the data give an understanding of households’ expenditure on health care but issues like access and utilisation of education and children’s welfare. In turn this information gives a picture of the reality at the grass root level and forms a comprehensive tool to inform and advise policy decision makers in all sectors.

51 Livelihoods of Lindi Rural District Refernecs

7 References

SC (SAVE THE CHILDREN) UK (2000) The Household Economy Approach: a resource manual for practitioners. Save the Children, London.

SC (SAVE THE CHILDREN) UK (1997) Household Food Economy Analysis of Mtwara and Lindi Regions, Southern Coastal Tanzania. FEAT, .

Famine Early Warning Systems Network; Update on Tanzania http://www.fews.net/current/updates/ visited 11/2003

Tanzania population census http://www.tanzania.go.tz/census/districts/lindirural visited 10/2003

52