Uncovering Chronic, Persistent Vulnerability to Hunger in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley

Home , Mafeteng, Mafeteng District, Quthing District

Report of the DMA-WFP Targeting Exercise

Maseru, Lesotho March 2006

Economic Planning Unit Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Unit Disasters Management Authority United Nations World Food Programme Maseru, Lesotho Maseru, Lesotho

Executive Summary

Chronic vulnerability to hunger and poverty prevail in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas of Lesotho. This document reports on the DMA-WFP led Targeting Exercise that found the livelihoods of a large number of households across the two zones at risk. A significant proportion of vulnerable households were found to be experiencing livelihood failure. Such households lack the capacity to ensure that their food, health and income needs can be met.

Rural communities in 1,520 villages identified more than 39,000 households vulnerable to hunger and poverty, totalling to approximately 195,000 persons. These households were identified using a community level wealth-ranking method. Almost 31,000 of these households were interviewed in order to verify their vulnerability.

The results of the Targeting Exercise show that: ♦ Livelihoods of poor rural-households are compromised and there is evidence of widespread livelihood failure that impacts household income, health and nutritional security. ♦ Livelihood systems appear to have become more structurally vulnerable to shocks as a result of declining agricultural capacity, loss of economic activities, high prevalence of chronic illness, and erratic, irregular and unevenly distributed rainfall affecting agricultural production. ♦ Agricultural production provides a source of livelihood for only a few poor-rural households, either through the provision of food for consumption or through the sale of crops. ♦ A large proportion of poor rural-households do not have access to agricultural assets, including land, and many of those with fields lack the labour or inputs necessary to utilise them. ♦ The majority of poor rural-households in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley do not have secure access to resources and income-generating activities, thus compromising their ability to cope with risks and shocks. ♦ Nearly 60 percent of interviewed poor-rural households were considered to be experiencing severe food-insecurity at the time of the survey. ♦ Most poor rural-households are unable to access adequate food, and their daily diets lack quality and diversity. ♦ Chronic Illness has a significant impact on rural livelihoods, with many households being directly impacted through death, illness or caring for persons infected with HIV/AIDS and their families. The overwhelming majority of poor rural-households with a chronically-ill household member were found to be immediately vulnerable to hunger.

The Targeting Exercise shows that the majority of poor rural-households in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas have difficulty sustaining their livelihood and food security. DMA-WFP recommend that targeted social-protection programmes such as food aid or cash-transfers should be implemented to ensure that groups vulnerable to chronic hunger and poverty in Lesotho are provided with the means to ensure their survival and to enhance their livelihoods.

2 Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgments 4

List of Tables and Maps 5

List of Acronyms / Glossary 7

Section I: Introduction 10

Section II: Methodology 14

Section III: General Findings 19

Section IV: Maseru District Hunger Report 32

Section V: Mafeteng District Hunger Report 38

Section VI: Mohale’s Hoek District Hunger Report 45

Section VII Quthing District Hunger Report 52

Section VIII Qacha’s Nek District Hunger Report 59

List of References 65

Annexes:

Annex 1. Community Dialogue Schedule 67

Annex 2. Vulnerable Household List 68

Annex 3. Public Verification Questionnaire 69

Annex 4. List of Participants 75

Annex 5. District Reports 77

3 Acknowledgements DMA and WFP acknowledge the important role played by community leaders and communities for their invaluable time and positive contributions. The DMA and WFP would like to acknowledge the support of the following bodies, which was integral to the success of the exercise. District Secretaries and Administrations • District of Mafeteng • District of Maseru • District of Mohale’s Hoek • District of Qacha’s Nek • District of Quthing Government Departments and Agencies • Bureau of Statistics • District Administration • Food and Nutrition Coordination Office • Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee • Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security • Ministry of Education • Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation • Ministry of Health and Social Welfare • Rural Water Supply • Public Health Inspectorate Non-Governmental Agencies • Christian Health Association of Lesotho • DORCAS Aid • Lesotho Red Cross • Salvation Army • World Vision World Food Programme • Regional Bureau Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Unit

4 List of Tables and Maps Table 1.1: Participating Districts by Livelihood Zone. Map. 1.1. Constituencies Surveyed in the Targeting Exercise.

Picture 2.1. Community Pitso, Quthing. Picture 2.2. Village Mapping Exercise, Mohale’s Hoek. Picture 2.3. Wealth Ranking, Mafeteng. Table 2.1: Participating Districts by Constituency. Table 2.2. Participation in the Public Verification Exercise.

Figure 3.1. Degree of Vulnerability to Hunger of Interviewed Households, by District. Figure 3.2. Primary Source of Foods Consumed. Figure 3.3. Impact of Chronic Illness on Household Vulnerability to Hunger, by District. Map 3.1. Average Household Vulnerability Score by Constituency. Map 3.2. Proportion of Interviewed Households without Maize Stocks. Map 3.3. Households without an Income Source. Map 3.4. Number of Single-Orphan Hosting Households Vulnerable to Hunger. Map 3.5. Number of Double-Orphan Hosting Households Vulnerable to Hunger. Table 3.1 Number of Villages and Vulnerable Households Identified in the Exercise. Table 3.2. Household Food Consumption by Group. Table 3.3. Number of Meals Eaten Yesterday. Table 3.4. Income Sources. Table 3.5 Agricultural Asset Ownership. Table 3.6. Households with Illness. Table 3.7. Child-Headed Household by District. Table 3.8. Vulnerable Elderly-Headed Households by District. Table 3.9. Presence of Disabled Household Members by District. Table 3.10. Sex of Household Head and Vulnerability Status.

Table 4.1. District Survey Summary. Table 4.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Maseru. Table 4.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Maseru. Table 4.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children. Figure 4.1. Depth of Hunger, Maseru. Figure 4.2. Maize Stock Holding, Maseru.

Table 5.1. District Survey Summary. Table 5.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Mafeteng. Table 5.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Mafeteng. Table 5.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children. Figure 5.1. Depth of Hunger, Mafeteng. Figure 5.2. Maize Stock Holding, Mafeteng.

Table 6.1. District Survey Summary. Table 6.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Mohale’s Hoek. Table 6.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Mohale’s Hoek. Table 6.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children. Figure 6.1. Depth of Hunger, Mohale’s Hoek. Figure 6.2. Maize Stock Holding, Mohale’s Hoek.

Table 7.1. District Survey Summary. Table 7.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Quthing. Table 7.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Quthing. Table 7.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children. Figure 7.1. Depth of Hunger, Quthing. Figure 7.2. Maize Stock Holding, Quthing.

Table 8.1. District Survey Summary. Table 8.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Qacha’s Nek. Table 8.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Qacha’s Nek. Table 8.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children. Figure 8.1. Depth of Hunger, Qacha’s Nek. Figure 8.2. Maize Stock Holding, Qacha’s Nek.

6 List of Acronyms / Glossary

Asset A resource having economic value that an individual or household owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide future benefit.

CFSAM Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission.

Chronic Food Insecurity A situation in which people and households are consistently unable to meet their food consumption needs over time.

Chronic Illness For the purposes of this exercise, any illness that renders an individual unable to engage in productive activities for three months or more. Chronic Illness is believed to be a good proxy indicator for HIV/AIDS.

Community Group A mixed group that includes men, women and young people from all subgroups within the community.

Coping Strategies Activities that people resort to in order to obtain food income and/or services when their normal means of livelihood have been disrupted.

Constituency An electoral area.

Disability A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts normal achievement.

District A division of an area for administrative purposes.

DMA Disaster Management Authority.

Elderly A person over 60 years of age.

Food Access A household’s ability to acquire adequate amounts of food through a combination of their own home production and stocks, purchases, barter, gifts, borrowing or food aid.

Food Insecurity Food insecurity is the absence of food security, see below.

Food Security A situation in which all people at all times have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary requirements and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

High-Burden of Care A household that hosts two or more double orphans. (Note: for the purposes of this survey).

7 Household A social unit composed of individuals, with family or other social relations among themselves, eating from the same pot and sharing a common resource base.

Hunger A condition in which people lack the required nutrients (protein, energy, vitamins and minerals) for fully productive, active and healthy lives. Hunger can be a short-term phenomenon, or a longer-term chronic problem. It can also have a range of severity from mild to clinical. (WFP Nutrition Service).

Livelihood A livelihood comprises of a household’s capabilities, assets and activities required to secure basic needs such as food, shelter, health, education and income.

Livelihood Group A group of households who share the same basic means of livelihood styles.

LVAC Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee.

OVC Orphaned and Vulnerable Children.

Pair-Wise Ranking A participatory rural-appraisal tool that enables the communities to identify and prioritise problems according to the severity of their impact.

Pitso A public gathering, usually convened by the chief.

PLWHA People Living with HIV/AIDS.

Public Verification Exercise An administrative exercise established by the DMA and WFP to assess household-level vulnerability to hunger and poverty.

PVE Score A score derived from the public verification exercise ranging from 1 to 38. The higher the score, the higher the level of household vulnerability to hunger and poverty.

Stakeholder An agency, organization, group or individual that has a direct interest in the exercise or its evaluation.

Targeting The process by which areas and populations are selected for a resource and given it.

Targeting System A series of mechanisms to define target groups, identify members of the groups, and ensure that assistance reaches the intended beneficiaries.

VAM Vulnerability, Analysis and Mapping.

VHL Vulnerable Household List.

Vulnerability The presence of factors that place people at risk of becoming food insecure or malnourished, including those factors that affect their ability to cope. Vulnerability is a result of exposure to risk factors and of underlying socio- economic processes that serve to reduce the capacity of populations to cope with those risks.

WFP World Food Programme.

9 Section I: Introduction

This report documents the findings of the DMA-WFP Targeting Exercise. The aim of this exercise was to identify households within LVAC-identified vulnerable livelihood zones that are food insecure and to identify potential interventions for relief and recovery. The report is divided into eight sections. Section II outlines the methodology of the exercise. Section III details the general findings of the Targeting Exercise across the two livelihood zones. Sections IV to VIII detail the findings of the exercise at district level.

1.1 Background

In April and May 2005, two assessment activities were carried out in Lesotho: the Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment undertaken by the LVAC and the Crop and Food Supply Assessment undertaken by FAO/WFP mission (CFSAM). Both activities indicated that agricultural production had improved for many districts compared to the previous marketing year (2003/04) but that the production of summer crops in (2004/05) marketing year was still 10-15 percent below the long-term average. The assessments showed, however, that the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley livelihood zones had high levels of predicted food deficit for the year 2005 to 2006. Other zones in the country experienced pockets of food insecurity.

The Southern Lowlands are estimated to support 273,000 people. LVAC report that the four main elements in this food economy are food crops, paid employment, livestock and trade. According to LVAC, the poor are highly dependent upon purchases as a source of food and therefore local-wage employment as a source of income. A smaller share of their cash income comes from vegetable sales. The Senqu River Valley dissects large parts of the mountains that occupy the eastern side of Lesotho, supporting an estimated 346,000 people. LVAC report that the four main elements in this food economy are food crops, paid employment, cash crops and livestock. The poor here utilize six sources for their normal food access but are also highly dependent upon purchases.

Utilising the findings of these missions, DMA and WFP designed and proposed to implement a targeting exercise in the two livelihood zones. The specific objectives of the exercise were: ♦ to identify and list households that were food insecure through village mapping; ♦ to verify the vulnerability of poor rural-households to hunger and food insecurity by administering a questionnaire; ♦ to prioritise problems that face communities and to identify potential interventions for relief and recovery. By developing a database of rural households vulnerable to hunger and livelihood insecurity, DMA and WFP seek to contribute to the elimination of hunger and poverty in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas.

10 1.2 Food Security

Food security refers to the state where all people have access to nutritionally adequate food at all times for a healthy and active life (World Food Summit, 1996). Food is obtainable through production or purchase, but often through a combination of both. To be food secure the following conditions must be met: ♦ Food availability: this refers to the amount of food that is physically available in an area through production and markets. Food supplies must be adequate to feed the population; ♦ Food access: households must have the ability to acquire food on a sustainable basis through own stock and production, social and economic means; ♦ Food utilisation: this refers to the way the households utilise the food which they have accessed to improve the nutrition and health of household members. The knowledge and practises used to distribute food play a very crucial role in meeting the food security of individuals that translates into good nutritional status. Complimentary inputs such as clean water and good sanitation are also important. When a household is not able to acquire safe and nutritious food on a regular basis, that household may be said to be food insecure. The Targeting Exercise sought to identify food insecure households and those enduring vulnerability to hunger.

1.3 Targeting Challenges

As part of the evolution of programming from relief to recovery, DMA and WFP face a number of targeting challenges. Through ongoing surveillance in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas, WFP monitors the impact of food assistance. Community Household Surveillance surveys identify the characteristics of those households that may not benefit from the receipt of food aid, and those households that would benefit from food aid. These characteristics were taken into account when designing the targeting exercise to ensure that food aid reaches those food insecure households who can most benefit from assistance.

1.4 Survey Scope

The survey sites were selected by the DMA in cooperation with LVAC, WFP and partners. Sites were selected on the basis of their vulnerability to food insecurity and livelihood failure as determined by the LVAC assessment activities. The exercise surveyed 1,520 villages across the two livelihood zones. The survey took place from August 15th to October 31st, 2005 and was implemented by skilled personnel from the Government of Lesotho, World Food Programme, NGOs and CSOs. All survey enumerators participated in a two-day training exercise on the methodology that was hosted by the Targeting Exercise Technical Working Group.

DMA-WFP employed a hybrid methodology for the targeting exercise consisting of two parts. In part one, communities participated in a community mapping exercise. In part two, vulnerable households participated in a verification exercise.

11 Districts Livelihood Zone Maseru Southern Lowlands Areas Mafeteng Southern Lowlands Areas Mohale's Hoek Southern Lowlands Areas Mohale's Hoek Senqu River Valley Areas Quthing Senqu River Valley Areas Qacha's Nek Senqu River Valley Areas Table 1.1: Participating Districts by Livelihood Zone.

Part 1: In each village surveyed, a group of diverse householders provided information about the livelihoods in their community and undertook a community mapping exercise. Every household was categorised according to four wealth groups: the very poor, poor, moderate and better-off. Using this method, over 39,000 rural households were identified as being vulnerable to hunger and poverty (either poor or very poor), corresponding to more than 195,000 persons.

Map. 1.1. Constituencies Surveyed in the Targeting Exercise.

Part 2: In each village surveyed, very poor and poor households were invited to participate in a Public Verification Exercise. In this exercise, each householder was asked to provide information about their household membership, food consumption, income levels and asset ownership characteristics. By completing a series of questions, each household was given a vulnerability score, ranging from 1 to 38. The higher the

12 score, the more vulnerable a household is to hunger and poverty. Through the administration of this PVE questionnaire, DMA-WFP were able to estimate whether each household was immediately vulnerable to hunger, moderately vulnerable to hunger, or not vulnerable to hunger. The questionnaire also provided DMA-WFP with a significant picture of the characteristics of vulnerable households.

Information from both parts of the survey was entered into two separate databases. The databases were linked with spatial data provided by the Bureau of Statistics, enabling the DMA-WFP to map the results at both district and community level. The detailed methodology is presented in Section II.

13 Section II: Methodology

2.1 Introduction The targeting exercise was carried out within the geographical areas that were classified by LVAC (2005) as food insecure and enduring a significant, predicted food deficit. These areas were characterised by inadequate rainfall, poor soils, declining purchasing power, high food prices, poor rangelands and livestock conditions (LVAC 2005). For a list of constituencies surveyed in the Targeting Exercise, refer to table 2.1.

Districts Constituencies Maseru Rothe, Koro-Koro, Qeme Kolo, Thaba-Pechela, Thaba-Tsoeu, Mafeteng Thabana Morena, Likhoele, Qalabane, Mafeteng Mohale’s Hoek, Taung, Qhalasi, Mohale's Hoek Mekaling, Qaqatu, Ketane Mount Moorosi, Qhoali, Sebapala, Quthing Moyeni, Tele Qacha’s Nek, Lebakeng, Tsoelike, Qacha's Nek Hloahloeng Table 2.1: Participating Districts by Constituency.

2.2 Exercise Methods and Tools The exercise employed a combination of qualitative and quantitative selection methods. Community members participated in qualitative methods for defining, identifying and selecting households vulnerable to livelihood and food insecurity. Quantitative methods were used by trained enumerators to further classify households using objective and standardized criteria with a selection procedure that measured each household against a minimum standard set at sub-national level. Individuals who fell below the defined criteria were classified as either immediately or moderately vulnerable to hunger. Households above the defined criteria were deemed food secure. The exercise was conducted at the Food Distribution Point (FDP). The FDP was selected as the primary site of the survey, as normally the FDP is a central location around which a number of villages cluster. In some cases where FDPs did not provide a central location, another central point was selected to host the survey. All villages that fall under each FDP were invited to attend the pitso and the community members from different corners of the villages (to represent the whole village) were encouraged to attend the pitso. The following methods were used: ♦ Pair-Wise Ranking: Pair-wise ranking was used to identify and prioritise the problems within communities. An initial list of threats was provided and the community was requested to modify the list within their own context. Threats and problems were compared against each other to achieve a unique list in order of priority.

Picture 2.1. Community Pitso, Quthing.

♦ Community Mapping: At the FDP, community members were asked to gather separately to draw maps of their own villages and detail household locations. Each household was identified by name. Community members were asked to ensure that each household in the village appeared on the map and that households with chronically ill members, single orphans and double orphans were identified. The village maps provided information on the total number of households in each village, number of households with chronically ill and information on orphaned children. ♦ Wealth Ranking: Following the completion of the community mapping exercise, participants were asked to classify all households into four wealth categories from very poor, poor, moderate to better off. Participants were asked to identify the characteristics of each wealth group to ensure consistency throughout the ranking. Through probing, the position of each household was discussed until the group agreed on the appropriateness of the wealth category.

Picture 2.2. Village Mapping Exercise, Mohale’s Hoek.

Picture 2.3. Wealth Ranking, Mafeteng.

♦ Public Verification Exercise (PVE): Households identified as very poor and poor were called to the pitso ground on day two for further assessment. A household-vulnerability questionnaire was administered to the household head to verify their status. The questionnaire was used to calculate a vulnerability score for the household based on a series of questions about household membership, food consumption, food sources and stocks, income and livelihood strategies and asset ownership. For a detailed analysis of the questionnaire methodology, please see annex 3.

16 Although all poor and very poor households were invited to participate in the PVE, a proportion was unable to attend. Three-quarters of the households were interviewed, see table 2.2 below.

District Participation Rate Maseru 79% Mafeteng 67% Mohale’s Hoek 67% Quthing 82% Qacha’s Nek 76% All Areas 74% Table 2.2. Participation in the Public Verification Exercise.

As a safeguard, basic information for ‘no-show’ households was captured on a Vulnerable Household List which provides information on the household’s membership, vulnerability characteristics, current food-aid status and their community-ranked wealth group. An example of the Vulnerable Household List is provided in Annex 2.

2.3 Structure of the Targeting Exercise A unique structure was formed by the DMA and WFP to undertake the Targeting Exercise. The structure was designed to ensure maximum local-level participation of District Disaster Management Teams. ♦ DMA/WFP Steering Committee – Comprised of key DMA and WFP focal points with a role to assist in the overall management of the targeting exercise. ♦ Technical Working Group (Maseru Based) - Composed of line ministries, Bureau of Statistics, and NGOs. The working group provided technical direction and support to the DMA-WFP for the exercise. ♦ Field Office (Mohale’s Hoek Based) - A field office was established in Mohale’s Hoek to oversee the implementation and operation of the targeting exercise. The Field Office was staffed by two Field Leaders, who were seconded by WFP and DMA who liaised directly with WFP Heads of Sub-Offices and DMA district staff. ♦ Team Leaders (District Based) - District leaders, usually from the DMA and WFP, were responsible to oversee the implementation of the exercise within each district. ♦ Targeting Teams (District Based) - Fifteen teams consisting of staff from DMA, WFP, line ministries and NGOs were established to administer the field level activities of the targeting exercise.

2.4 Training and Implementation Training on the methodology was held on the 11-12th August 2005 in Maseru. The training was led by the Technical Working Group. The exercise started on the 15th August 2005 and ended in the first week of October in Mohale’s Hoek and Quthing, mid-

17 October in Maseru and Qacha’s Nek. Mafeteng was the last to district to be completed by the end of October.

2.5 Method Assumptions and Limitations The following limitations were observed: Attendance: In some areas, attendance was poor, which had an impact on the exercise results. Some of those households identified as poor or very poor did not participate in the public verification exercise. Given the scale and nature of the exercise, the overall participation rate is considered to be good. In cases where householders were unable to attend the PVE session due to social reasons such as illness, enumerators were encouraged to undertake the PVE with a next-of-kin. It proved difficult to ensure the attendance of some particular groups, such as child-headed households. Community Mapping: The community mapping process was used as an entry-point to identify households vulnerable to livelihood instability and hunger. These maps have been summarised for presentation of this exercise. Full profiles are available from LVAC assessment reports. Language of Enumeration: In some areas, especially in Quthing, Xhosa and Phuthi are the vernacular language for many households. Although efforts were made to find enumerators with these language skills, communication was hampered. Livelihood Zone Boundaries: At the time of the survey, the Bureau of Statistics and the Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee were revising the boundaries of the livelihood zones. As a result, some FDPs and villages previously considered to be within the Senqu River Valley and Southern Lowlands livelihood zones were included in the survey. Openness: Although enumerators were trained on the use of effective probing skills, some participants were reluctant to disclose their wealth status. Validity of Information: The Targeting Exercise was undertaken at a point-in-time. The exercise recorded information from communities and households which may change, given the dynamic nature of food insecurity. DMA-WFP will update the database on a continuous basis. Village Boundaries: At some locations, the boundaries between FDPs and villages were unclear. Some villages and households were duplicated on community maps. The existence of ‘sub-villages’ in larger villages also created difficulty in linking field data with electronic spatial data.

18 Section III: General Findings

3.1 Introduction Chronic and persistent vulnerability to hunger and poverty prevail in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas of Lesotho. The livelihoods of poor rural- households are compromised and there is evidence of widespread livelihood failure that impacts household income, health and nutritional security. Livelihood systems appear to have become more structurally vulnerable as a result of declining agricultural capacity, loss of economic activities, high prevalence of chronic illness and erratic weather patterns that affect agricultural production. The majority of households vulnerable to hunger and poverty in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley do not have secure ownership or access to productive assets and income-generating activities. This compromises their ability to cope with potential risks and shocks. Adequate food is becoming less and less accessible to many households, whose daily diets are shown to lack quality and diversity. Agricultural production provides few poor rural-households with a secure livelihood, either through the provision of food for consumption or through the sale of crops for income. A large proportion of poor rural-households do not have access to agricultural assets including land. Many households with fields do not have the assets and inputs necessary to utilise them. Chronic illness has a profound impact on rural livelihoods, with many households being directly affected by death, illness or a high-burden of care. Table 3.1 details the number of households identified to be vulnerable to hunger and poverty across the survey area. Chronic livelihood failure renders it increasingly difficult for poor rural-households to develop and maintain sustainable livelihoods. Targeted social-protection mechanisms, including social safety nets such as food assistance, in areas where markets are weak, or cash-transfers, where markets function, can ensure that chronically poor groups maintain access to food markets and cope with short-term shocks that increase their vulnerability to hunger.

District Number of Villages Surveyed Number of Households Vulnerable to Hunger and Poverty

Maseru 104 4,275

Mafeteng 441 13,266

Mohale’s Hoek 318 6,551

Quthing 435 7,719

Qacha’s Nek 222 7,786

All Areas 1,520 39,597

Table 3.1 Number of Villages and Vulnerable Households Identified in the Exercise.

19 3.2 Depth of Hunger The Targeting Exercise shows that the livelihoods of over 39,000 households across the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley are at risk of poverty and hunger. This figure approximately corresponds to 195,000 persons. Of these households, a high proportion can be considered to be experiencing complete livelihood failure. Such households lack the means to ensure that their food, health and income needs can be met. The survey identified that there is variation in the level of vulnerability to hunger and poverty within each district, as some areas show a higher ratio of vulnerable households to non- vulnerable households. These figures support the findings of the LVAC and CFSAM 2005 assessments, which mapped the status of vulnerable rural households. However, the overall estimates of vulnerable households are lower than those from the CFSAM and LVAC lean-period assessments. The Targeting Exercise was undertaken in the post-harvest period, when householders may have been more confident about their ability to weather shocks to their livelihood. Nearly 60 percent of interviewed householders were considered to experience immediate vulnerability to hunger at the time of the survey. Differences are observable across the survey area. While 59 percent of Qacha’s Nek households were identified as being immediately vulnerable to hunger, nearly 73 percent of interviewed households in Mohale’s Hoek were identified as immediately vulnerable to hunger. Forty percent of all households were considered to show a moderate level of vulnerability to hunger. The level of vulnerability to hunger varies across the survey area, as detailed in figure 3.1.

Vulnerability to Hunger

All Districts

Qacha's Nek

Quthing Immediate Moderate

District Secure Mohale's Hoek

Mafeteng

Maseru

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of Poor Households

Figure 3.1. Degree of Vulnerability to Hunger of Interviewed Households, by District.

20 Map 3.1 shows the average level of vulnerability for interviewed households across the five districts. Households in peripheral constituencies in Quthing, Mohale’s Hoek and Mafeteng have the highest average vulnerability score. Considerable differences have been measured both between and within constituencies and districts. The higher the score, the more vulnerable a household is to hunger. Households that scored 24 and above were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger and poverty according to the threshold established when designing the questionnaire. Households scoring 17 to 24 were considered to be moderately vulnerable to hunger and poverty. While households scoring 16 or less were considered to be secure. Analysis of districts and constituencies will be provided in later sections in the report.

Map 3.1. Average Household Vulnerability Score by Constituency.

3.3 Food Stocks and Sources The majority of poor-rural households do not hold food stocks. Given that the survey took place shortly after the harvest period, DMA-WFP expected to find households with some level of stock ownership. Nearly 80 percent of households had none or less than one month of maize in stock, 16 percent of households had stock to last one to two months. Four percent of households had stock to last between three and six months and only one percent of interviewed households held enough stock to last until the next harvest period. Differences were found among the five districts. In Maseru, 85 percent of households had none or less than one-month of maize in stock. Given these households proximity to

21 the market, it could be assumed that such households may have easier access to basic food stuffs. It should be noted, however, that most of these households do not have a reliable source of livelihood or income. As such, their ability to utilise the market may be limited. Households in peripheral areas, such as Quthing and Qacha’s Nek, were more likely to have maize stocks lasting between one and two months. However it is important to note that over 70 percent of households in these districts have none or less than one month of maize in stock. Map 3.2 details the proportion of households that do not keep stocks of maize.

Map 3.2. Proportion of Interviewed Households Without Maize Stocks.

When examining the source of the food consumed by households, it is clear that the majority of poor households rely on gifts and casual employment as their primary source of food, see figure 3.2. Forty percent of all households rely upon gifts as their primary source, with 46 percent of households in Maseru and Mafeteng, and 50 percent of households in Mohale’s Hoek relying on gifts respectively. Purchases and own production account for 31 percent of food consumed by all households. Food aid accounts for only 13 percent of poor rural-households primary source of food. Food aid plays a more important role in households in Mohale’s Hoek and Mafeteng and is of lower importance for households in Maseru.

22 Primary Source of Food Consumed

All Districts

Qacha's Nek

Quthing Food Aid Gifts Casual Employment Purchase / Own Production Mohale's Hoek No Source

Mafeteng

Maseru

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Households

Figure 3.2. Primary Source of Foods Consumed.

3.4 Dietary Diversity The majority of vulnerable households in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River valley fail to eat an adequately diverse diet. The majority of households eat food items from only one or two food groups, with majority of households depending on starches, mostly maize, and vegetables, mostly cabbage. Table 3.2 shows the complete breakdown of the food groups that were consumed by the households participating in the exercise.

Foods Eaten Yesterday (% of Households) District Vegetable & Fresh & Dried Animal Plant Fats & Starch Tubers Fruit Products Protein Oils

Maseru 96% 87% 0.20% 4% 9% 50%

Mafeteng 98% 76% 0.50% 2% 11% 45%

Mohale’s Hoek 99% 81% 0.10% 2% 10% 54%

Quthing 97% 58% 0.10% 2% 13% 30% Qacha’s Nek 97% 59% 0.10% 2% 12% 25%

Table 3.2. Household Food Consumption by Group1.

1 All responses were based on the 24-hour recall method, in which respondents are asked to detail all of the foods that they ate in the day immediately previous to the exercise.

23 Less than half of all interviewed households accompanied their meals with fats and oils, such as margarine and cooking oil. A smaller proportion of households ate plant proteins such as peas and beans. Only 2 percent of households consumed animal products, such as meat and milk. It is clear that some areas appear to have a greater diversity than others, with households in Quthing and Qacha’s Nek appearing to eat a slightly less diverse diet than households in other districts.

District Four or More Three One to Two None Maseru 2% 18% 79% 1% Mafeteng 1% 16% 82% 1% Mohale's Hoek 2% 13% 83% 2% Quthing 2% 15% 81% 2% Qacha's Nek 2% 21% 75% 2% All Areas 2% 17% 80% 2% Table 3.3. Number of Meals Eaten Yesterday.

Examination of the number of meals that householders ate per day, shows that a large proportion of vulnerable households ate just one to two meals a day. Table 3.3 shows that only 17 percent of households ate three meals on the day preceding the survey. Eighty percent of all households ate one to two meals per day, indicating that many households may not have sufficient access to adequate supplies of food.

3.5 Income and Asset Ownership A large proportion of vulnerable households in the study area are without an adequate means of income. Nearly one-fifth of the vulnerable population are without any source of income. Map 3.3 shows the proportion of households in each constituency without an income source. Constituencies in Mohale’s Hoek, Quthing and Maseru have the highest proportion of households without incomes. Of the remaining four-fifths, the majority have only one source of income. Casual labour is the primary source of income for one-third of these households, with beer brewing and the receipt of a salary or pension also ranking as important. Table 3.4 details the major sources of income.

Sources of Income Maseru Mafeteng Mohale’s Hoek Quthing Qacha’s Nek All Areas Remittances 23% 14% 6% 10% 3% 11% Livestock 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% Small Business 4% 4% 1% 4% 4% 4% Crop Production 2% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3% Salary / Pension 16% 18% 10 % 18% 19% 16% Casual Labour 21% 35% 26% 26% 37% 29% Beer Brewing 8% 16% 20% 20% 25% 18% Table 3.4. Household Income Sources by District.

Map 3.3. Households without an Income Source.

District

Agricultural Asset Ownership Mohale's Qacha's All Areas Maseru Mafeteng Quthing Hoek Nek

Tractor and Implements 3.9 % 1.3 % 1.0 % 0.8 % 1.0 % 1.4 % Draught Animals and Most 1.5 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 % 2.0 % 1.0 % Implements Draught Animals and One Implement 3.7 % 4.1 % 0.7 % 1.2 % 3.5 % 2.7 % One Major Asset 38.8 % 54.1 % 23.7 % 19.7 % 38.6 % 36.7 % No Assets 52.1 % 39.8 % 74.0 % 77.8 % 54.8 % 58.2 % Table 3.5 Household Agricultural-Asset Ownership, by District.

Table 3.5 illustrates the agricultural asset-ownership patterns for vulnerable households in the two livelihood zones. While the majority of households do not have access to neither agricultural assets nor land, there are differences in the level of ownership across the survey area. Constituencies in Qacha’s Nek, Mafeteng and Maseru have the highest levels of ownership, with a higher proportion of households having at least one major asset. Only five percent of the interviewed households have access to draught power and the implements necessary to utilise them.

25 3.6 Particular Vulnerable Groups

3.6.1 Chronic Illness and HIV/AIDS Chronic illnesses are seriously impacting on the livelihoods of rural poor, who are directly affected through the death or illness of household members and the higher burden of care associated with caring for PLWHA and their offspring. The number of households identified as chronically vulnerable by the community appears rather low, perhaps reflecting the level of understanding of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in rural areas. Of those households that the community identified as affected by chronic illness, up to 70 percent are considered to be vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Such figures show that HIV/AIDS is having an impact on rural households’ ability to meet their livelihood needs.

District Presence of Illness Chronically Illness Maseru 14 % 35 % Mafeteng 15 % 28 % Mohale's Hoek 27 % 34 % Quthing 31 % 25 % Qacha's Nek 26 % 29 % All Areas 23 % 29 % Table 3.6. Households with Illness.

Information from household interviews, detailed in table 3.6, shows that there is a high rate of illness experienced by households. When specifically asked to detail the nature of the illness, roughly one-third of household heads considered the most ill person in their house to be chronically ill.

75% Qacha's Nek 25%

86% Quthing 14%

Immediately Vulnerable

91% Mohale's Hoek 9% Moderately Vulnerable

86% Mafeteng 13%

88% Maseru 12%

Figure 3.3. Impact of Chronic Illness on Household Vulnerability to Hunger, by District.

26 Chronic illness has a severe impact on a household’s vulnerability to hunger. Figure 3.3 clearly shows that of those households with a presence of chronic illness, 85 percent of households are immediately vulnerable to hunger, a further 15 percent show moderate vulnerability to hunger.

3.6.2 Orphaned Children The community-mapping exercise provides information on the number of double and single orphans in the survey areas. Across the surveyed areas a total number of 19,768 households are supporting both single and/or double orphans. Over half of single-orphan hosting households are identified by the community as being vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Almost two-thirds of double-orphan hosting households are identified as vulnerable to hunger and poverty by the community. This suggests that orphan status is a relatively good indicator of household vulnerability status. The PVE exercise examined the impact of orphan status in the survey areas by providing information on those households who are considered to have a higher burden of care than most2. Ten percent of all interviewed households were shown to have a high burden of care, hosting two or more double orphans as indicated in map 3.5. There are differences both between and within districts. Further analysis is provided later in the report.

2 Results from WFP’s bi-annual Community Household Surveillance (CHS) survey assert that those households hosting two or more double orphans have a higher degree of vulnerability than households hosting one or none. Households with a higher burden of care are shown to have a reduced capacity to provide for themselves and are shown to employ severe coping methods in response.

Map 3.4. Number of Single-Orphan Hosting Households Vulnerable to Hunger.

Particular attention must be given to the existence of child-headed households. Child- headed households are considered to be a particularly vulnerable group within Lesotho3. Statistical data on child-headed households is considered to consistently under-report the existence of such households. In WFP’s continuous surveying, child-headed households are uncommon. The targeting exercise was able to identify that only one percent of vulnerable households are headed by children. Analysis of their status shows that these households are severely vulnerable to hunger and livelihood insecurity. Further analysis is provided later in the report. Anecdotal evidence suggests that child-headed households are not identified as child- headed by communities, who traditionally share the burden of care for orphaned children. Such children may fall under the responsibility of an adult within the community.

3 The Rapid Assessment, Analysis and Action Planning for OVC (2004) reports that child headed households are often coerced into hazardous situations in order to provide food for their family and relatives. The RAAAP reported that just two percent of the orphan population of 92,000 reside in child- headed households.

Map 3.5. Number of Double-Orphan Hosting Households Vulnerable to Hunger.

Other evidence suggests that as the pitso is primarily attended by adults, even when children are called, their attendance is normally low as they are unfamiliar with these events. As a result, DMA-WFP believe that their existence and needs may not be fully accounted for. Table 3.7 provides a breakdown of the number of child-headed households identified in each district.

Number of Child- Child-Headed Households District Headed Households as a Percentage of all Identified Vulnerable Households

Maseru 32 1 % Mafeteng 47 0.5 % Mohale’s Hoek 87 1.7 % Quthing 86 1.3 % Qacha’s Nek 51 0.8 % All Areas 303 1 % Table 3.7. Child-Headed Household by District.

29 3.6.3 Elderly The elderly make up a large proportion of the poor rural-households, accounting for 40 percent of those interviewed. Differences in the number of elderly-headed households vulnerable to hunger and poverty are observable across all districts. In Quthing, elderly- headed households represent almost half of the surveyed population. Qacha’s Nek, however, showed the lowest proportion of elderly-headed households vulnerable to hunger and poverty, with just over one-third of interviewed households being headed by persons over 60 years of age. Table 3.8 provides the district level breakdown.

District Elderly-Headed Households % of Total Interviewed Households Maseru 1,313 40 % Mafeteng 3,485 38 % Mohale’s Hoek 1,938 39 % Quthing 3,161 47 % Qacha’s Nek 2,378 36 % All Areas 12,275 40 % Table 3.8. Vulnerable Elderly-Headed Households by District.

3.6.4 Disabled Twelve percent of interviewed households have the presence of a physically disabled person. There are observable differences in the level of disability across the districts. Sixteen percent of households vulnerable to hunger and poverty in Mohale’s Hoek are hosting a physically-disabled person. In Maseru, vulnerable households appear to have the lowest proportion, with just eight percent of households hosting a member with a physical disability. Table 3.9 details the presence of disability by district.

District Presence of Disability % of Total Interviewed Households Maseru 268 8 % Mafeteng 936 10 % Mohale’s Hoek 808 16 % Quthing 873 13 % Qacha’s Nek 833 13 % All Areas 3,718 12 % Table 3.9. Presence of Disabled Household Members by District.

3.6.5 Female-Headed Female-headed households are slightly more vulnerable than male-headed households. Following administration of the PVE questionnaire, a higher proportion of female-headed households were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger than male-headed households. See Table 3.10 for detailed information.

Vulnerability to Hunger and Poverty Sex of HH Head Moderately Immediately Secure Vulnerable to Vulnerable Hunger to Hunger Male 2% 46% 52% Female 1% 44% 55% Table 3.10. Sex of Household Head and Vulnerability Status.

3.7 Conclusion The Targeting Exercise finds evidence of chronic livelihood failure in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley livelihood zones. This failure renders it increasingly difficult for households vulnerable to hunger and poverty to develop and maintain sustainable livelihoods. In particular, the exercise shows that: ♦ A large body of households are at risk of hunger in the Southern Lowlands and Senqu River Valley areas. ♦ The degree of vulnerability to hunger and poverty varies across villages and constituencies, with some areas having a higher concentration of vulnerable households than others. ♦ The majority of poor rural-households did not hold any cereal stocks in the immediate post-harvest period. ♦ The majority of poor rural-households depend on gifts and casual employment as their primary source of food. ♦ Most poor rural-households do not have an adequately diverse diet, relying on basic cereals and some vegetables for food consumption. ♦ The majority of poor rural-households rely on just one source of income, either casual labour, beer brewing or the receipt of a salary or pension. ♦ A large proportion of poor rural-households are without an adequate means of income. ♦ The majority of poor rural-households do not have access to neither agricultural land nor the inputs necessary to engage in productive agriculture. ♦ Chronic Illness greatly affects poor rural-households, with almost one-quarter experiencing illness in some form. ♦ There are a large number of single and double-orphans identified as vulnerable by their communities. Targeted social-protection mechanisms, such as food aid, in areas where markets are weak, or cash-transfers, in areas where markets function, can ensure that households chronically vulnerable to hunger and poverty identified in this survey are provided with the means to ensure their survival and enhance their livelihoods.

31 Section IV: Maseru District Hunger Report

4.1 Introduction

Three constituencies were surveyed in Maseru. Communities identified over 4,000 vulnerable households in the constituencies of Koro-Koro, Qeme and Rothe. This number represents 43 percent of the total number of households surveyed in the three constituencies. Communities in Rothe identified the highest number of households vulnerable to hunger and poverty, with some 52 percent of the households being identified as immediately vulnerable. In Koro-Koro and Qeme, the figures were 41 and 29 percent respectively. Seventy-nine percent of these households participated in the Public Verification Exercise. Table 4.1 details the summary findings.

All Areas Koro-Koro Qeme Rothe Number of Households Surveyed 2,943 2,380 4,561 9,884 Number of Households Identified as Poor/Very Poor 1,197 679 2,349 4,225 Number of Households Interviewed 885 567 1,865 3,317 Participation Rate 74% 84% 79% 79%

Table 4.1. District Survey Summary

4.2 Wealth Ranking

Across the three constituencies, households without land were largely considered to be very poor. Those with land in Qeme do not cultivate due to lack of draught power and agricultural inputs. Child-headed households were highlighted as a very poor category (see table 4.2). In Koro-Koro, the construction of the airport was cited as having affected the livelihoods of poor households. The poor are mostly unemployed, but rely on casual labour and beer brewing. Moderate and better-off households had more sources of income. The moderate engage in income generating activities such as making clay pots and to some extent some earn monthly salaries. Most of the better-off earn monthly salaries. The number of fields and livestock owned by the better-off is higher than that of the moderate.

Vulnerable Households Moderate Better-Off Very Poor Poor

Unemployed. Depend on other Own Fields. Employed. people for Landless. cultivation. Engage in income Own fields. generating activities e.g. Do not have Have access to beer brewing. Own livestock.

enough food land but no inputs. Rothe to eat. Engage in Casual Labour. Have food stocks. Unemployed. Rely on gifts. No livestock. No livestock.

Landless. Unemployed. Engage in income Have formal jobs e.g. generating activity e.g. clay teachers and mine Unemployed. No livestock. pots. workers.

Child-headed Landless. Have food stock. Own Livestock. family.

Do income generating Own Cars or Tractors. Rely on gifts. activities. Koro-Koro Have fields. Earn monthly salaries.

Engage casual labour.

Unemployed. Beer Brewers. Own fields and livestock. Have shops.

Rely on gifts. Depend on Own land Earn a salary e.g. remittance. teachers. Do not have Earn a salary. enough food Elderly-headed. Own more than one field.

to eat Beer brewing. Qeme Some have few Own productive Child-headed livestock but are resources e.g. tractors. family. landless.

Have land but no livestock.

Table 4.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Maseru.

4.3 Threat Analysis

Analysis of key threats affecting the communities’ livelihoods was also carried out. Drought was the greatest concern across the constituencies. Poor availability of farm inputs was also mentioned frequently. Other significant threats include stock theft, lack of potable water and increasing food prices in Rothe, Koro-Koro and Qeme respectively. Communities proposed a range of agricultural and infrastructural improvements as a response to the problems that they raised. Dam construction and water harvesting for domestic use, specifically the construction of water tanks and pipes were proposed in all the constituencies. Village policing was also considered to be an important social infrastructure that could improve livelihoods in Rothe and Qeme constituencies. Subsidies on farm inputs were proposed especially in Koro-Koro constituency. Full details are provided in Table 4.3.

Threats to Livelihoods (Top Three Constituency Proposed Solutions In Order of Importance Ranked) 1. Drought 1. Dam construction 2. Stock theft 2. Construction of water tanks and pipes 3. Poor availability of farm inputs 3. Village policing 4. Subsidies on farm inputs 5. Others: Rothe • Tree planting at Ramatekane • Community groups at Moreneng • Road construction at Liqoabing • Price control mechanism at Linotsing 1. Drought 1. Construction of water tanks and pipes 2. Poor availability of farm inputs 2. Dam construction 3. Lack of potable water 3. Subsidies on farm inputs 4. Others: Koro-Koro • Bridge construction at Ha Tsiu village • Agriculture implements at Mokema • Agriculture expertise at Lesoli 1. Drought 1. Dam construction 2. Increasing food prices 2. Others Qeme 3. Poor availability of farm inputs • Police station at Matukeng • Farm subsidies at Mantsebo

Table 4.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Maseru.

4.4 Depth of Hunger

Over half of the interviewed very poor and poor households were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. Differences were observable between the constituencies, with over 55 percent of households in Koro-Koro falling into the immediately hungry category. A further 42 percent of households were considered to be moderate. Qeme showed a lower proportion of households in the vulnerable group, with almost 49 percent of households falling into the immediately vulnerable category. A similar proportion of households were observed to be moderate. The number of community-identified households considered to be secure was low, with just three percent of households in all three constituencies falling into this group. The mean vulnerability score for all three constituencies fell under the vulnerability threshold of 24 and within the moderately vulnerable category. A total of 1,780 and 1,439 households were identified as immediately and moderately vulnerable respectively. See figure 4.1 for further details.

34 54%

Rothe 42%

49% Immediate Qeme 49% Moderate Secure 2%

55%

Koro-Koro 42%

Figure 4.1. Depth of Hunger, Maseru.

4.5 Food Consumption and Stocks

The majority of interviewed vulnerable households do not hold any significant stocks of cereal or pulses. Looking specifically at maize holding, some 85 percent of households keep less than one month stock of maize, this includes households that do not keep any stocks. In Rothe and Qeme, households appear to keep fewer stocks than households in Koro-Koro, who are more likely to have a bigger supply of maize in stock, see figure 4.2.

Using a one-day recall, households were also asked to provide information on their food consumption patterns. When asked the primary source of food, it is observed that the majority of very poor and poor households rely on external sources. Just over 46 percent of households relied on gifts, and 32 percent relied on production or purchase. DMA- WFP expected that households producing their own food would hold stock in the period immediately after the harvest. Given that the majority of households do not have significant amounts of foodstuffs in stock, it is possible to assume that most households in this category rely on purchasing food.

4.6 Income and Asset Ownership Patterns

The majority of vulnerable households in the three constituencies have only one source of income. Households in Koro-Koro and Qeme appear to have the least number of income sources; 28 percent of households are without an income source, while 71 percent of households have just one source. In Rothe, however, households appear to have more income sources to rely on, with 76 percent of households having one source

35 of income, and three percent of households having two. When examining the major sources of income, the results show that: ♦ Remittances appear to be the most important source, with more than one-fifth of householders relying on this strategy; ♦ Casual labour accounts for almost one fifth of household livelihood strategies. Casual labour is traditionally seen to be a weak livelihood strategy. Given the importance that households in these constituencies attached to problems associated with agriculture and their resolution, it may have been expected that crop production and livestock sales would play a larger role, however only two percent of households cite these areas as a source of income; ♦ The role of salaries and pensions are important also, with some 17 percent of households relying on these sources. Given that 90 percent of these households are elderly-headed it may be possible to assume that the Old Age Pension plays a significant role here; ♦ Beer brewing is also a significant strategy for very poor and poor households.

Rothe

Less than One Month / No Stock One to Two Months Qeme Three to Six Months Until Next Harvest

Koro-Koro

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 4.2. Maize Stock Holding, Maseru.

There is a considerable difference in the level of agricultural asset ownership for vulnerable households in the three constituencies: ♦ Households in Rothe have a higher number of key agricultural assets, either mechanical or animal-draught power, than in the other constituencies; ♦ A significant majority of householders in Koro-Koro do not have any agricultural assets, representing 63 percent of households; ♦ Fifty-one and 47 percent of households in Qeme and Rothe respectively do not have any agricultural assets.

36 4.7 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups

Less than ten percent of the poor and very poor households were identified as having a chronically-ill household member during the community mapping. Of those households who were identified as being affected by chronic illness, over half were considered by the community to fall within either the poor or very poor categories.

A significant number of all households hosted either single or double orphans, with 1,612 households hosting single orphans and 640 households hosting double orphans. Of these, 841 vulnerable households hosted 1,667 single orphans and 358 vulnerable households hosted 645 double orphans. These households have a high average PVE score of 26, which falls firmly in the immediately vulnerable category.

Vulnerability Characteristics Koro-Koro Qeme Rothe All Areas Single Orphan Hosting Households 483 265 864 1,612 Vulnerable Single Orphan Hosting Households 235 87 519 841 Double-Orphan Hosting Households 164 84 392 640 Vulnerable Double Orphan Hosting Households 93 41 224 358 Total Number of Vulnerable Single Orphans 553 246 868 1,667 Total Number of Vulnerable Double Orphans 179 82 384 645

Table 4.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children.

Child-headed households are considered to be a particularly vulnerable group, as defined earlier in the report. The constituency of Qeme appears to have a higher proportion of child headed households than the other constituencies participating in the survey, with two percent of vulnerable households falling into this category.

Elderly-headed households form a significant proportion of the total, representing some 38 percent.

37 Section V: Mafeteng District Hunger Report

5.1 Introduction

Seven constituencies were surveyed in Mafeteng. Communities here identified a total of 13,626 households as being either very poor or poor. This number represents almost half of the total number of households captured. There is a considerable degree of divergence within the seven constituencies. Thaba-Pechela, Thabana-Morena and Qalabane appeared to have the highest levels of poverty, with 68 and 62 percent of the households falling into the two lowest wealth rank groups, respectively. Two-thirds of all households identified as very poor or poor in the district participated in the Public Verification Exercise. Thaba-Pechela, Thaba-Tsoeu and Likhoele had the highest level of participation in the exercise, with the lowest participation levels being found in Thabana-Morena and Mafeteng constituencies. Table 5.1 details the summary findings.

Thaba-Pechela Kolo Thaba-Tsoeu Thabana-Morena Likhoele Qalabane Mafeteng All Areas Number of Households 4,001 5,215 3,119 5,173 2,938 4,088 2,416 26,950 Surveyed Number of Households Identified as Very/Poor Poor 2,267 2,306 1,407 3,501 1,144 2,543 458 13,626

Number of Households Interviewed 1,950 1,804 1,188 1,493 863 1,631 209 9,138

Participation Rate 86% 78% 84% 43% 75% 64% 46% 67%

Table 5.1.District Survey Summary.

5.2 Wealth Ranking

Within Mafeteng district, very poor households were considered to be those that do not have fields or livestock and rely on gifts for food and income. Although poor households are unemployed, they have access to land. They generate income through beer brewing and engage in casual labour. Moderate households have fields and few livestock. They are able to plough their fields. Some are employed and earn an income of at least 150 Maloti each month and some receive remittances from their children who are employed. The better-off earn monthly income either through their business interests or formal employment and they have enough food for household members. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the wealth group characteristics identified by householders in the district of Mafeteng.

Vulnerable Households Moderate Better-Off

Very Poor Poor

Unemployed. Unemployed, but own Have few livestock. Have formal employment land. e.g. teachers. No livestock. Own fields. Sometimes do not have Own business, car and No fields. farm inputs. Are able to plough their fields. tractors.

No farm inputs. Engage in casual labour. They are employed, but they earn They work in the mines. small amount of money around Rely on gifts. Engage in beer brewing. M150. Produce enough food.

No income. They receive remittances.

Mafeteng Have casual employment.

Table 5.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Mafeteng.

5.3 Threat Analysis

Drought and erratic rainfall were of most concern to all householders in the seven constituencies. Increasing food prices were a major concern in Likhoele and of secondary importance in Thaba-Tsoeu, Thabana-Morena and Thaba-Pechela. Poor availability of farm inputs was noted as a secondary concern in Thaba-Pechela, Thabana-Morena and Likhoele constituencies. Orphanhood was noted as a secondary concern in Thaba-Pechela constituency. Opening of supermarkets was cited by some constituencies, as an attempt to bring lower food prices. Communities in all the constituencies, with the exception of Likhoele, proposed dam construction as a primary intervention strategy. Communities in Likhoele also cited cooperatives and health education as the most important solutions to combat their health-related hazards. Assistance with supply of potable water, income generating projects, soil conservation, irrigation scheme, farm inputs, and health education were cited as important intervention strategies in Kolo, Qalabane, Thaba-Pechela, Thabana-Morena, Thaba-Tsoeu and Likhoele constituencies respectively. Table 5.3 details these findings.

Threats to Livelihood Constituency Proposed solutions in order of importance (Top Three Ranked) Kolo 1. Erratic rains 1. Dam construction 2. Drought 2. Supply of drinking water 3. Lack of water 3. Food for Work (FFW) development projects 4. Soil conservation 5. Farm inputs Others: • Clinic construction at Malaleng • Promotion of tourism in historic areas at Mphasa • Vegetable gardening at Malaleng. Qalabane 1. Drought 1. Dam construction 2. Lack of water 2. Income generating projects 3. Poor soils 3. Farm inputs 4. FFW projects Others: • Construction of water tanks and pipes • Food price control mechanisms • Road construction • Promotion of communal gardening • Irrigation schemes • Food aid Thaba- 1. Drought 1. Dam construction Pechela 2. High Number of 2. Soil conservation Orphans 3. Improvement of health services 3. Erratic rains 4. Maintenance of health services 5. FFW projects Others: • Reestablishment of cooperative systems • Irrigation Thabana- 1. Drought 1. Dam construction Morena 2. Poor availability of 2. Irrigation scheme farm inputs 3. Tree planting 3. Increasing food prices 4. Provision of extension services 5. Income generation projects Others: • Grants for orphans • Food aid • Training of health programmes • Structure for community conflict management Thaba-Tsoeu 1. Drought 1. Dam construction 2. Increasing food prices 2. Farm inputs 3. Erratic rains 3. Income-generating projects 4. Provision of extension services 5. Health services improvement 6. Police station 7. Bridge and road construction 8. Tree planting Others: • Orphan grants • Cooperatives • Provision of supermarkets • Primary schools Likhoele 1. Drought 1. Cooperatives 2. Increasing food prices 2. Health education 3. Erratic rains 3. Agricultural inputs and fertilizers 4. FFW cash generating projects Others: • Dam construction • Provision of supermarkets • Provision of pipes for irrigation • Orphan grants • Tree planting

Table 5.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Mafeteng.

5.4 Depth of Hunger

More than half of the interviewed households in the district were considered to be immediately vulnerable to food insecurity. A total of 4,653 households were categorised as being immediately vulnerable to food insecurity. There was some divergence in the depth of hunger at the constituency level. Higher levels of hunger were found in Thaba- Pechela, Mafeteng, Thaba-Tsoeu and Thabana-Morena. Lower levels of hunger were observed in Kolo, Likhoele and Qalabane. A further 48 percent of households were determined to be at moderate risk to hunger in the district. Approximately one percent of interviewed households in the district were found to be food secure. The lowest levels of food secure households were found in Thaba-Tsoeu, Qalabane and Mafeteng. A full breakdown is provided in figure 5.1.

53% Mafeteng 47% 0%

49% Qalabane 50% 1%

46% Likhoele 53% 1%

51% Immediate Vulnerability Thabana Morena 48% Moderate Vulnerability 2% Secure

51% Thaba-Tsoeu 48% 1%

49% Kolo 50% 2%

56% Thaba-Pechela 42% 2%

Figure 5.1. Depth of Hunger, Mafeteng.

5.5 Food Consumption and Stocks

The vast majority of interviewed very poor and poor households in Mafeteng are without significant stocks of cereals or pulses. More than 90 percent of households in Thaba- Pechela, Qalabane and Mafeteng possess none or less than one month’s stock of maize. Some 10 percent of households in the district possess one to two months supply. In Kolo, Thaba-Tsoeu and Thabana-Morena a higher proportion of households hold such amount of stock. In these three constituencies over two percent of households have

41 stock to last three to six months. Less than one percent of households have enough stock to last them until the next harvest. A full breakdown is provided in figure 5.2.

Mafeteng

Qalabane

Likhoele

Less than One Month/ No Stock

Thabana Morena One to Two Months Three to Six Months Until Next Harvest

Thaba-Tsoeu

Kolo

Thaba-Pechela

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 5.2. Maize Stock Holding, Mafeteng.

The majority of households in all seven constituencies depend on gifts as their primary source of food. Using a one-day recall, the survey observed that 56 percent of households in Qalabane cited gifts as their primary source of food consumed in the day previous to the exercise. Between 41 and 48 percent of households in the remaining six constituencies relied on gifts. Food production and purchase were the second most important source for almost one-third of interviewed households. There were considerable differences within the district, with a lower proportion of householders in Thaba-Pechela relying on production or purchase than elsewhere. In contrast, 39 percent of households in Mafeteng constituency relied on production or purchase as their primary source of food. Given that the vast majority of poor households in the district do not possess any significant stock of foodstuffs, it may be assumed that food purchase is over greater importance than production. Food assistance was considered to be of greater importance to 15 percent of households across the district. In the constituencies of Thaba-Tsoeu food assistance accounted as a primary source for almost one-quarter of households. Food obtained from casual employment was most evident in Thaba-Pechela and Kolo. One percent of all the households in the district cited that they did not have any regular source of food for consumption.

42 5.6 Income and Asset Ownership Patterns

Two-fifths of all poor and very poor households utilise only one source of income to meet their livelihood needs. In the constituencies of Thaba-Tsoeu, Likhoele and Qalabane, 87, 85 and 82 percent of households respectively have only one means of income source. In Thaba-Pechela, Kolo, Thabana-Morena and Mafeteng a lower proportion of households have one source of income. Over 14 percent of households in the district had no source of income, with 22 percent of households in Thaba-Pechela being without a source of income. A high proportion of vulnerable households in Mafeteng, Kolo and Thabana-Morena were also without a source. In particular: ♦ Casual labour ranks as the most important source of income for community- identified households in Mafeteng. Thirty-five percent of households in the district rely upon casual labour as their primary source of income. Casual labour is of greater importance to households in Thaba-Tsoeu and Qalabane, with over 40 percent of poor and very poor households relying on it. ♦ The receipt of a salary or pension ranks as the second most important source of income for poor and very poor households in Mafeteng. Given that the vast majority of these households are elderly-headed, ranging from 80 percent in Thaba-Pechela to 94 percent in Kolo, it may be considered that the majority of these very poor and poor households rely on the old-age pension. Furthermore, when compared with the income category of the household, it is possible to assume that the old-age pension plays an important role. ♦ Beer brewing and the receipt of remittances are also important strategies in all seven constituencies.

The majority of poor, rural households in Mafeteng have few agricultural assets or access to land. In particular: ♦ With the exception of Thaba-Pechela, over half of all rural households possess one major asset. A higher proportion of households in this constituency, however, do not possess any agricultural assets or access to land. ♦ Six percent of households have access to their own draught power across all seven constituencies. ♦ The majority of poor and very poor households hold few livestock, if at all. Over 90 percent of households in the district have less than two head of cattle and five head of goats or sheep.

5.7 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups

Sixteen percent of interviewed households acknowledged having a sick household member, of which 28 percent stated that this was chronic illness. Seventy-three percent of these households with chronic illness were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger and poverty.

In the district, a large number of very poor, poor, moderate and better-off households hosted orphaned children. A total of 3,548 single orphans were hosted by vulnerable households. A further 1,361 double orphans were hosted by vulnerable households. Ten percent of the interviewed households were considered to have a high burden of care, hosting two or more double-orphaned children. Such households had a higher vulnerability score than other households participating in the survey. The average score

43 for a high-burden of care household in Mafeteng constituency was 25, compared to the average score of 23 for the district. Table 5.4 provides information on single and double orphaned children in the district.

Vulnerability Characteristics Thaba-Pechela Kolo Thaba-Tsoeu Thabana Morena Likhoele Qalabane Mafeteng All Areas Households Hosting Single Orphans 668 732 589 147 307 697 156 3,296 Vulnerable Households Hosting Single Orphans 529 327 248 73 178 396 62 1,813 Households Hosting Double Orphans 303 387 215 52 177 369 68 1,571 Vulnerable Households Hosting Double Orphans 166 324 215 20 122 208 30 1,085 Total Number of Vulnerable Single Orphans 742 501 594 700 260 622 129 3,548 Total Number of Vulnerable Double Orphans 245 231 167 297 145 223 53 1,361

Table 5.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children.

Forty-seven child-headed households were identified by the community during the survey. The proportion of child-headed households identified by the community in Mafeteng is lower than the proportion identified in other districts.

Elderly-headed households accounted for over one-third of the household heads in the survey. A higher proportion of elderly-headed households were identified as poor or very poor in Kolo, Thabana-Morena and Likhoele constituencies.

44 Section VI: Mohale’s Hoek District Hunger Report

6.1 Introduction Six constituencies were surveyed in Mohale’s Hoek4. Communities here identified 6,651 households as very poor or poor. These vulnerable households represented 41 percent of the overall households captured in the survey. The rate varies across the constituencies. Communities in Mohale’s Hoek constituency identified 27 percent of households as being vulnerable. In contrast, in Mekaling constituency, communities identified over half of the households as vulnerable. Participation rates were high in most constituencies, except Mpharane where only one village was located in the survey area; this constituency has been excluded from analysis. A full breakdown is provided in table 6.1.

Taung Qhalasi Mohale's Hoek Mekaling Qaqatu Ketane All Areas Number of Households Surveyed 3,640 3,138 2,009 2,677 3,840 369 16,059 Number of Households Identified as Very Poor or Poor 1,741 1,311 545 1,458 1,309 61 6,651 Number of Households Interviewed 1,463 896 419 1,149 1,039 49 5,022 Show Rate 84% 68% 77% 79% 79% 80% 76%

Table 6.1. District Survey Summary.

6.2 Wealth Ranking Across the surveyed constituencies in Mohale’s Hoek, the very poor do not own assets, have no sources of income and are mostly unemployed. The poor appear to have unreliable sources of income such as casual labour. In Taung constituency, households with disabled members were ranked as very poor, while elderly-headed households were ranked as poor. In the constituency of Mohale’s Hoek, households living with double orphans were ranked as poor. Moderate and better-off households were described as households that have productive assets and are thus able to engage in productive agriculture. They also have more reliable sources of income from employment and the sale of agricultural products. Better-off households have income security and are able to send their children to school, see table 6.2.

4 Cases for Mpharane have been included, although only one village was surveyed.

Vulnerable Households Moderate Better-Off Very Poor Poor

No fields. Casual labourers. Pensioners. Earn monthly salary e.g. No livestock. Live with double Casual labourers. Miners. No means of orphans. Own few livestock. Own livestock. livelihood. No livestock. Own fields. Own fields. Unemployed. Sell agricultural products. Not enough food to Mohale's Hoek eat.

Unemployed. Unemployed but own Have monthly income less Income exceeds M1,000. Not enough food to fields. than M1000. Employed. eat. No livestock. Own fields but no farm Own fields. No livestock. Engage in casual implements. Own livestock.

Qhalasi Rely on gifts. labour. Own few livestock. Have means of livelihood. No remittance. Own fields.

Disabled. Casual labourers. Own few livestock. Employed. No fields. Elderly-headed. Have means of livelihood. Own livestock. No livestock. Own fields but no Middle aged. Own fields and are able to Not enough food. implements. Own fields but do not have produce. Taung seeds and fertilisers.

No fields. Unemployed. Own few livestock. Earn monthly salary. No livestock. No fields. Own fields. Own fields. Unemployed. No livestock. Casual labourers. Own livestock.

Qaqatu Casual labourers. Able to send children to school.

No means of Own fields but no Share- crop with poor Have means of livelihood. implements. households. livelihood/income. Not enough food. Casual labour. Own fields. Able to send children to No livestock. Own few livestock. school.

Mekaling Sell livestock. Own livestock. Have food. Help the poor. Able to plant and plough.

No fields. Owns livestock. Own fields. Own fields. No clothes. No farm implements. Own few livestock. Own livestock. No livestock. Unemployed. Formally employed. Cannot afford clothes for Mpharane family members.

No livestock. Have income from Beer brewing. Small businesses. No fields. unreliable sources. Casual labourers. Farmers. Elderly-headed. Depend on other Have enough food.

Ketane No livestock. people for agricultural activities.

Table 6.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Mohale’s Hoek.

6.3 Threat Analysis Communities presented a number of threats to their well-being. Drought seemed to be of primary concern in all constituencies surveyed. Increasing food prices were also noted

46 as a primary concern in Ketane, Taung, Qhalasi and Qaqatu constituencies. Poor soils are noted as major concern in Qhalasi and Mekaling constituencies. Other significant threats noted include the increasing numbers of orphaned children, high prevalence of TB and chronic illness in Mohale’s Hoek and Ketane constituencies. In response to these threats, the communities proposed a number of different solutions. The majority of the solutions proposed in the constituencies are associated with the construction of important community infrastructures, such as water harvesting and supply, development of irrigation schemes, agricultural extension services and job-creation activities.

Threats to Livelihood (Top Constituency Proposed Solutions – In Order of Importance Three Ranked) Mohale’s Hoek 1. Drought 1. Construction of water tanks and pipes 2. Increased number of 2. Irrigation schemes orphans. 3. Dam construction 3. Chronic illness 4. Income-generating projects Others: • Clinic constructions • Road constructions • Tree planting • Agriculture extension services Qhalasi 1. Drought 1. Provision of farm inputs and supervision 2. Poor soils 2. Dam construction for irrigation 3. Increasing food prices 3. Construction of water tanks Others: • FFW activities-donga rehabilitation, development projects • Clinic construction • Food aid for orphans and vulnerable groups • Job creation • Road construction Taung 1. Drought 1. Supply of farm inputs 2. Increasing food prices 2. Dam construction for irrigation 3. Poor availability of farm 3. Road construction and maintenance inputs Others • Job creation • Income generation activities • Construction of water tanks • FFW-development projects • Tree planting-soil conservation • Clinic construction Mekaling 1. Drought 1. Food aid for OVCs and groups. 2. Poor soils 2. Dam construction 3. Poor availability of farm 3. FFW development projects inputs 4. Supply of farm inputs Others • Road construction/maintenance • Clinic construction Qaqatu 1. Drought 1. Job creation/income generating projects 2. Increasing numbers of 2. Dam construction/irrigation schemes orphans. 3. Road construction 3. Increasing food prices Others: • Supply of farm inputs • FFW projects • Promotion of share cropping Ketane 1. Drought/increasing food Road construction prices 2. TB 3. Chronic illness

Table 6.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Mohale’s Hoek.

47 Communities proposed that food-for-work and cash generation projects would be appropriate ways to address food security issues. Food assistance is proposed in some constituencies as an appropriate safety net to provide social support to orphaned and vulnerable children and other vulnerable groups. Full details are provided in table 6.3.

6.4 Depth of Hunger The depth of hunger in Mohale’s Hoek is considerably higher than that experienced in the other districts covered by the survey. The average vulnerability score for all constituencies, with the exception of Qaqatu, lies within the immediately vulnerable category. Ketane and Mohale’s Hoek registered an average score of 25 or more. Average scores for Taung, Qhalasi, and Mekaling are comparably high when compared to constituencies in other districts.

78% Ketane 22% 0%

55% Qaqatu 43% 2%

70% Mekaling 29% 1% Immediate Vulnerability Moderate Vulnerability 75% Secure Mohale's Hoek 24% 1%

73% Qhalasi 27% 1%

71% Taung 28% 1%

Figure 6.1. Depth of Hunger, Mohale’s Hoek.

Over 68 percent of households in the district can be considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. This accounts for a total number of 3,433 households. Taung and Mekaling host the highest number of households affected by hunger. A further 27 percent of households in the seven constituencies can be considered to be moderately vulnerable to hunger. This accounts for some 1,546 households. A small proportion of the community-identified households are considered to be food secure.

48 6.5 Food Consumption and Stocks The vast majority of interviewed poor and very poor households do not keep any significant stocks of cereal or pulses. Almost 90 percent of households in Ketane and Mohale’s Hoek keep none or less than one month’s stock of maize. It is apparent, however, that in certain constituencies such as Mekaling and Qaqatu, a higher than normal proportion of households possess one to two month’s worth of stock. Furthermore, in Qaqatu a significant proportion of the interviewed households have maize stock that is expected to last for three to six months. Given that the survey took place immediately after the harvest period, it was expected that a higher proportion of households across all constituencies would have staple foods in stock. This, however, is not the case. A full breakdown of the maize holding statistics is illustrated in figure 6.2.

Ketane

Qaqatu

Mekaling Less than One Month / No Stock One to Two Months Three to Six Months Until Next Harvest Mohale's Hoek

Qhalasi

Taung

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 6.2. Maize Stock Holding, Mohale’s Hoek.

Using a one-day recall method, household heads were asked to provide information on the food consumption patterns of their household. When asked about the primary source of food, it is observed that a significant majority of poor and very poor households rely heavily on gifts. In Qhalasi, Mohale’s Hoek, and Ketane, more than half of all households rely on gifts as a source.

Own production and purchasing rank as the second most important source for all households in the district, accounting for one-quarter of households. In Qaqatu, 37 percent of household selected this category as their primary source of the food consumed. Food assistance accounts as the third most important source, for some 16

49 percent of households in the district. Casual labour accounts for 12 percent of households. One percent of households have no regular source of food.

6.6 Income and Asset Ownership Households in Mohale’s Hoek appear to have a lower number of income sources than poor and very poor households in other districts. Some 32 percent of interviewed households have no source of income. The majority of households in the surveyed area have one income source, and only one percent of households have two income sources. No households have three or more sources of income.

When examining those households that have one or more sources of income, the pattern is similar to that observed in other districts: ♦ Casual labour accounts as the most important source of income. A higher proportion of households in Qhalasi and Taung depend on this source, as compared to the other five constituencies. ♦ Beer brewing ranks as the second most important source of income. ♦ A small proportion of households receive income from either salaries or pensions. ♦ Remittances are a significant source. ♦ Agriculture, either through livestock or crop practices, does not appear to be an important income-earning strategy for poor or very poor households.

There is a broad concurrence in the level of agricultural-asset ownership across the constituencies that were captured in the survey. Almost three-quarters of households across all constituencies do not own any agricultural assets or have access to land. A quarter of all households have one agricultural asset. A very small proportion of poor and very poor households own draught animals or mechanical power.

6.7 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups

Seventy-two percent of interviewed households in the district stated that they had a sick member in their home. Thirty-four percent of these persons were established to either be chronically or regularly ill. Ninety-one percent of these households were immediately vulnerable to hunger.

A large number of all households host single or double-orphaned children. Of these, a significant proportion are considered by the community to be poor or very poor. A total number of 1,047 vulnerable households host single orphaned children, and 611 vulnerable households host double-orphaned children. The survey identified a total number of 1,353 single-orphans and 967 double-orphans in Mohale’s Hoek. A large proportion of households are considered to have a high-burden of care, and host two or more orphaned children. This rate is considerably higher in Mohale’s Hoek than in other districts. The average vulnerability score for these households is 27, which compares unfavourably with the district average. The constituencies of Mohale’s Hoek and Ketane have a higher than average proportion of interviewed child-headed households.

50 Vulnerability Characteristics Taung Qhalasi Mohale's Hoek Mekaling Qaqatu Ketane All Areas Households Hosting Single Orphans 472 482 288 474 554 96 2,366 Vulnerable Households Hosting Single Orphans 284 256 61 268 172 6 1,047 Households Hosting Double Orphans 218 212 91 339 231 25 1,116 Vulnerable Households Hosting Double Orphans 147 134 40 192 95 3 611 Total Number of Vulnerable Single Orphans 292 306 106 257 372 20 1,353 Total Number of Vulnerable Double Orphans 246 186 74 249 204 8 967

Table 6.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children.

Elderly-headed households form a significant proportion of those households participating in the survey.

51 Section VII: Quthing District Hunger Report

7.1 Introduction Five constituencies were surveyed in Quthing. A total of 7,997 households were identified as vulnerable by communities in the survey area. This represented 45 percent of the total number of households that were captured in the survey. In Tele, the poverty rate was significantly higher than the other four constituencies of the district. Sebapala and Mount Moorosi showed above average poverty rates also. Eighty-four percent of all households that were identified by the community as being very poor or poor participated in the Public Verification Exercise. A higher proportion of households participated in Tele and Mount Moorosi, with the lowest level of participation being observed in Moyeni constituency. A full breakdown is provided in table 7.1.

Tele Moyeni Sebapala Mount Moorosi Qhoali All Areas Number of Households Surveyed 2,968 2,098 3,953 4,311 4,299 17,629 Number of Households Very/Poor Poor 1,744 844 1,847 1,924 1,638 7,997 Number of Households Interviewed 1,673 562 1,468 1,855 1,189 6,747 Show Rate 96% 67% 79% 96% 73% 84%

Table 7.1. District Survey Summary.

7.2 Wealth Ranking Very poor households in Quthing district are described as those households without productive assets, in particular fields and livestock. The very poor in Sebapala and Moyeni constituencies were described as elderly-headed without remittances. Child- headed households in Mount Moorosi constituency, and the disabled and sick in Tele constituencies, are considered very poor. The poor have few assets and are unable to utilise their existing assets for productive purposes. For example, in Qhoali, Moyeni and Sebapala constituencies, the poor have land but do not have the draught power necessary to utilise it. The moderate and better-off have more assets and income. Thus, they are able to engage in productive agriculture. Better-off households have regular income from employment, small businesses and remittances. Full details are provided in Table 7.2.

Vulnerable Households Moderate Better Off Very Poor Poor

Elderly with no Have fields, but depend on other people Own fields. Mine workers. remittance. for cultivation. Own fields. Elderly with no one Sebapala to help them. Have livestock.

52 Vulnerable Households Moderate Better Off Very Poor Poor

No fields. Own land but do not have farm inputs. Own livestock. Own livestock.

No livestock. Unemployed. Work for other people. Formal salary.

Unemployed. Host orphans. Earn little income. Gets remittance. Tele

Disabled and the sick.

No assets. Have productive assets but unable to Own land and livestock. utilize them to earn a living. No land. Are able to produce food.

No livestock.

Moyeni Unemployed.

Elderly.

No land and no No land but few livestock. Own land and livestock Employed. livestock. but no farm inputs. Own small No able-bodied businesses e.g. person. shops.

Child-headed

Mount Moorosi households.

Unemployed.

No land. Own land but are not able to produce Own fields and livestock. Employed. due to lack of farm inputs. No livestock. Qhoali Own few livestock.

Table 7.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Quthing.

7.3 Threat Analysis Drought is cited as a major threat in Quthing district. This is followed in importance by increasing food prices in three out of the five constituencies, namely, Moyeni, Tele, and Qhoali constituencies. Poor availability of farm inputs is also of concern in almost all the constituencies except Qhoali. Communities proposed a number of solutions in response to these problems. The majority of the solutions presented by the communities are associated with either the development of physical or administrative infrastructure. Communities in all five constituencies proposed that the construction of clinics, roads, dams, and water and sanitation systems would assist in addressing the problems that hinder their development. Communities believe that agricultural extension services and the provision of readily available inputs would help to improve their self-sufficiency.

Threats to Livelihood (Top Constituency Proposed Solutions - In Order of Importance Three Rankings) Moyeni 1. Drought 1. Construction of clinics 2. Increasing food prices 2. Construction of water tanks and pipes 3. Poor availability of 3. Donation of farm inputs farm inputs Others: • Dam construction • HIV/AIDS advocacy • Orphanage establishment • Secondary schools • Public transport • Price control mechanisms Tele 1. Drought 1. Donation of farm inputs 2. Increasing food prices 2. Job creation/FFW projects 3. Poor availability of 3. Improvement of health services/mobile clinics farm inputs Others: • Water tanks and pipes • Dam construction/irrigation schemes • Food aid, grants for orphans and orphanage • Free education at high school level Sebapala 1. Drought 1. Dam constructions 2. Poor soils & high 2. Irrigation schemes numbers of orphans. 3. Donation of farm inputs 3. Poor availability of 4. Job creation/income generation projects farm inputs Others: • Food aid to vulnerable households • Water tanks and pipes • Agriculture cooperatives and extension • Clinic construction • Village policing Mount Moorosi 1. Drought 1. Donation of farm inputs 2. Poor availability of 2. Irrigation schemes farm inputs 3. Job creation 3. Poor soils Others: • Road construction (maintenance) • Clinic construction • Soil conservation • Agriculture- extension services Qhoali 1. Drought 1. Construction of water tanks and pipes 2. Increasing food prices 2. Donation/subsidy of farm inputs (seeds and fertilizers) 3. High numbers of 3. Irrigation schemes orphans. Others: • Dam construction • Clinic construction • HIV/AIDS advocacy • Job creation • Water supply extension services • Village policing/police station • Post office

Table 7.3. Community Identified Problems and Solutions, Quthing.

7.4 Depth of Hunger Three-quarters of the interviewed households were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. The constituency of Tele showed the highest proportion of households enduring hunger, with almost 67 percent of interviewed households proving immediately vulnerable. Sebapala and Mount Moorosi also showed above average rates of vulnerability to hunger. A total of 4,173 households were identified as vulnerable to hunger during the verification exercise. Thirty-seven percent of interviewed households

54 in the district were considered to be moderately at risk. A total of 2,516 households were identified as moderate in the district. Under one percent of the interviewed households were considered to be food secure. Figure 7.1 outlines the depth of hunger in Quthing.

55% Qhoali 44% 1%

63% Mount Moorosi 37% 1%

62% Immediate Vulnerability Sebapala 37% Moderate Vulnerability 1% Secure

58% Moyeni 41% 1%

67% Tele 32% 1%

Figure 7.1. Depth of Hunger, Quthing.

7.5 Food Consumption and Stocks Poor and very poor households in Quthing appear to have more cereal and pulses in stock than in other districts. The overwhelming majority of households in the district, however, keep little or no stock. Looking specifically at maize holdings, it is observed that more than two-thirds of households have less than one month or no maize in stock. Households in Tele and Mount Moorosi have the least amount of stocks, with an above average number of households falling into this category. Almost a quarter of all households in the district have one to two months of stock, with households in Qhoali, Sebapala and Moyeni falling above the district average for this category. Almost five percent of households in the district keep three to six months of maize in stock. One percent of interviewed households have enough stock to last them until the next harvest, a similar trend across all districts. This overall trend of higher levels of stock keeping may be a result of the highly peripheral location of many of the villages in the districts and the ineffective market, as identified in the problem-identification session. Figure 7.2 details the maize stocks of the households participating in the survey.

When examining the source of food consumed by interviewed households in Quthing, using the one-day recall method, a different trend was observed than those in other

55 districts. A lower proportion of households rely on own production or purchase as the primary source of the food that they consume.

Qhoali

Mount Moorosi

Less than One Month / No Stock One to Two Months Sebapala Three to Six Months Until Next Harvest

Moyeni

Tele

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 7.2. Maize Stock Holding, Quthing.

Twenty-six percent of households rely on own production or purchase category, with the highest levels found in Qhoali at 36 percent and the lowest levels in Tele at 18 percent. For over one-third of the poor and very poor households in Quthing, the receipt of gifts is a primary source. Mount Moorosi, Qhoali and Sebapala fall above the average for this category. Twenty percent of interviewed households in the district rely on casual employment as a source of food, with households in Mount Moorosi being most dependent on this strategy.

The importance of food assistance varies considerably, with over a quarter of all households in Tele stating that assistance was their primary source of food consumed. Sebapala and Moyeni also register an above average number of households that rely on food assistance as a main source. The lowest levels of reliance on food assistance as a primary source of food consumed are found in Mount Moorosi and Qhoali.

56 7.6 Income and Asset Ownership The majority of interviewed households in Quthing have only one source of income. A significant proportion of households state that they do not have any source of income. A very small proportion of households in the district have two sources of income, representing just two percent of the overall population. None of the interviewed poor or very poor households in Quthing have three or more sources of income. The exercise found that: ♦ Casual Labour ranks as the most important income strategy for households in Quthing; 27 percent of households cite casual labour as an income source. There are observable variations between the five constituencies, with households in Mount Moorosi and Tele being most reliant on casual labour as a source of income. ♦ Beer brewing ranks as the second most important strategy for very poor and poor households in Quthing, with 19 percent of the households in the district engaging in this practice as a means to generate income. Qhoali has the highest proportion of beer brewers among its very poor and poor households. ♦ The receipt of a salary of pension ranks as the third most important strategy in the district, with 17 percent of households receiving an income through this means. Over 94 percent of those households receiving a formal salary or pension are elderly-headed. Further, in almost 62 percent of cases, the households fall into the category that earns less than 210 Maloti per month. It may be assumed that the in most cases the households receives the old-age pension. ♦ Agricultural practices provide a relatively small proportion of very poor and poor households with income. Only three percent of households in Quthing receive an income from the sale of crops. Livestock sales are of less significance for households in Quthing, with less than two percent of the very poor and poor households citing this strategy as a source of income. ♦ Remittances play an important role for some ten percent of households in Quthing, with households in Mount Moorosi, Tele and Moyeni more reliant on this strategy as a source of income than households in Sebapala and Qhoali.

Most poor and very poor households in Quthing have little or no access to land or agricultural assets. There is, however, a significant degree of difference within the five constituencies in the district. Although the majority of households in Qhoali do not have access to either land or assets, some 29 percent of households have access to one major agricultural asset. Very few poor or very poor households in Qhoali have access to draught power and the implements necessary to utilise them. Poor and very poor households in Tele are the least likely to own agricultural implements or have access to land, with 87 percent of households falling into this category. A similar pattern is observable in Moyeni.

7.7 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups Twenty-six percent of households interviewed stated that they had a chronically ill household member. Eighty-six percent of these households were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. Chronic illness would appear to be a very strong targeting criteria.

57 Some 2,697 of all households were identified by the community as hosting single orphans, of which 1,568 households were vulnerable. A further 1,208 of all households were identified by the community as hosting double-orphans, of which 739 households were vulnerable. A total of 3,224 vulnerable single orphans and 1,340 vulnerable double orphans were identified by the community.

A small proportion of households were considered to be child-headed, representing 1.2 percent of interviewed households. Over nine percent of interviewed households were considered to have a high burden-of-care, hosting two or more double orphaned children. On average, these households scored 26 in the vulnerability test, which is considerably higher that the average for vulnerable households for the district. Further details are provided in table 7.4.

Vulnerability Characteristics Tele Moyeni Sebapala Mount Moorosi Qhoali All Areas Households Hosting Single Orphans 508 362 642 605 580 2,697 Vulnerable Households Hosting Single Orphans 297 249 353 359 310 1,568 Households Hosting Double Orphans 183 118 364 270 273 1,208 Vulnerable Households Hosting Double Orphans 130 91 204 154 160 739 Total Number of Vulnerable Single Orphans 793 329 685 849 568 3,224 Total Number of Vulnerable Double Orphans 295 137 324 363 221 1,340

Table 7.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children.

Elderly-headed households account for a significant proportion of interviewed households, representing 48 percent of interviewed poor and very poor households in Quthing. A higher proportion of elderly-headed households were found in Moyeni, compared to a lower proportion in Tele.

58 Section VIII: Qacha’s Nek District Hunger Report

8.1 Introduction Four constituencies were surveyed in Qacha’s Nek. A total of 6,380 households were identified by the community as being poor or very poor during the community mapping exercise. Seventy percent of all households captured in the survey were considered by their communities to fall into these categories. A significant proportion of these households participated in the public verification exercise. Table 8.1 details the survey findings in Qacha’s Nek.

Qacha's Nek Lebakeng Tsoelike Hloahloeng All Areas Number of Households Surveyed 1,937 2,712 1,632 2,860 9,141 Number of Households Identified as Very Poor or Poor 1,326 2,337 1,148 1,569 6,380 Number of Households Interviewed 1,114 2,795 1,634 952 6,495 Show Rate 84 % 120 % 142 % 61 % 77 % Table 8.1. District Survey Summary.

8.2 Wealth Ranking The very poor are described as having no access to productive assets especially fields and livestock. They engage in severe coping strategies such as depending on others for help. The poor are seen to engage in some form of income generating activities although these are weak, such as brewing. Moderate and better-off groups were described as having more assets, sustainable access to food and sources of regular income. The better-off were also described as having ability to assist others and meet their basic needs. Full details are provided in table 8.2.

Vulnerable Households Moderate Better-off Very Poor Poor

They depend on Brew beer. Access food daily. Have means and are others for help. able to take care of Can work but have no means. Earn formal salary. the poor. Landless.

Qacha’s Nek Have fields and do not have Have animals and fields. Able to acquire No animals. farm inputs. necessary basic needs.

Table 8.2. Community Description of Wealth Groups, Qacha’s Nek.

59 8.3 Threat Analysis Communities in Qacha’s Nek prioritised problems associated with agriculture as their primary concern. Environmental issues ranked second in importance for some constituencies and socio-economic problems were cited as second in importance for other districts. In Tsoelike, erratic rainfall and poor roads were considered to be the most serious. Full details are provided in table 8.3.

Threats to Livelihood (Top Proposed solutions Constituency Three Ranked) In Order of Importance

Hloahloeng 1. Stock theft 1. FFW- Dam constructions, furrows, water tanks. 2. Drought 2. Sharecropping initiatives 3. Hunger 3. Income-generating activities Others: • Community gardens for consumption and sale • Subsidized fertilizers Qacha’s Nek 1. Poor production 1. FFW- Dam constructions, furrows, water tanks. 2. Poor roads 2. Sharecropping 3. Stock theft 3. Subsidized farming inputs Others: • FFT – farming methods • Soil conservation Lebakeng 1. Poor production 1. Dam constructions 2. Drought 2. Irrigation schemes 3. Poor soils 3. Subsidised farm inputs Others: • Income-generating activities • Community gardening • Improvement of health services Tsoelike 1. Erratic rains 1. Dam and tanks construction through FFW 2. Poor roads 2. Subsidised farm inputs 3. Poor production 3. Village policing 4. Stock theft Others: • Pasture management • Community gardening • Use of decomposed manure. Qhoali 1. Drought 1. Construction of water tanks and pipes 2. Increasing food 2. Donation/subsidy of farm inputs (seeds and fertilizers) prices 3. Irrigation schemes 3. High numbers of Others: orphaned children. • Dam construction • Clinic construction • HIV/AIDS advocacy • Job creation • Water supply extension services • Village policing/police station • Post office

Table 8.3. Problems and Solutions Presented by Communities, Qacha’s Nek.

8.4 Depth of Hunger Of those households that participated in the verification exercise, some 38 percent were considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. The proportion of households scoring vulnerable in Qacha’s Nek constituency is higher than the proportion in the other constituencies in the district. A total of 2,480 households were verified as being immediately vulnerable to hunger. Almost 60 percent of households in the district were

60 considered to be moderate, with a smaller proportion of households testing moderate in the constituency of Qacha’s Nek. A total of 3,870 households scored moderately vulnerable to hunger from the verification questionnaire. A further two percent of households were considered to be food secure. All constituencies PVE scores averaged below the vulnerable threshold of 24. A full breakdown is provided in figure 8.1.

37%

Hloahloeng 61%

38%

Tsoelike 60%

2% Immediately Vulnerable Moderately Vulnerable Secure 36%

Labakeng 62%

46%

Qacha's Nek 52%

Figure 8.1. Depth of Hunger. Qacha’s Nek.

8.5 Food Consumption and Stocks Households in Qacha’s Nek district appeared to keep larger amounts of cereal and pulses in stock, when compared to other districts. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of households had little or no stock. Examining the level of maize stock keeping, 73 percent of households had none or less than a one month supply of maize in their home. Householders in Qacha’s Nek constituency held less stocks than in the other constituencies. Some 22 percent of households in the district keep between one to two months of maize in stock, with the highest proportion being noted in Lebakeng. A further five percent of households keep three to six months of maize in stock, with a higher proportion of households in Lebakeng keeping such amounts. Less than one percent of households have enough maize in stock until the harvest period. A full breakdown is provided in figure 8.2.

When asked to provide information on their food consumption patterns, using a one-day recall method, it is apparent that the majority of households in the district cite own production and purchase as their primary source of food consumed. Over 50 percent of

61 interviewed poor and very poor households in Lebakeng and Hloahloeng state that this is their primary source of food.

Hloahloeng

Tsoelike

Less than One Month / No Stock One to Two Months Three to Six Months Until Next Harvest

Lebakeng

Qacha's Nek

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 8.2. Maize Stock Holding, Qacha’s Nek.

The receipt of food gifts is the second most important source of food stuffs, with 26 percent of households in the district relying on this strategy. The proportion of households depending on gifts is highest in Qacha’s Nek and Tsoelike constituencies. Hloahloeng has the lowest proportion of households dependent on gifts. Casual employment ranks as the third most important source of foodstuffs for households in the district, however, in the Hloahloeng constituency it is the second most important source. Nine percent of households rely on food assistance as their primary source of food consumed, with the proportion being higher in Qacha’s Nek and Tsoelike constituencies, and lowest in Hloahloeng.

8.6 Income and Asset Ownership Over ten percent of interviewed poor and very poor households are without any source of income. The highest proportion of such households are found in Qacha’s Nek constituency and the lowest proportion are found in Hloahloeng constituency. The majority of households have just one source of income, with 82 percent of the total number of interviewed households falling into this category. Some seven percent of

62 households have two income sources. Less than one percent of households have three major sources.

The exercise results show that: ♦ Casual labour is the largest income source for interviewed households in the district with some 37 percent of all households engaging in casual labour. Slightly higher levels are observed in Tsoelike and Hloahloeng constituencies. ♦ Beer brewing ranks as the second most important strategy for poor and very poor households, with 26 percent of all households in the district engaging in this activity. Households in Qacha’s Nek are the least likely to engage in beer brewing. ♦ The receipt of a salary or pension is also important, with 19 percent of households receiving income this way. It should be noted, however, that 84 percent of these households are elderly-headed, which may imply that the majority of these householders are pension-receivers and not salary-earners. ♦ Agricultural-based income sources, through livestock or crop sales, appear to be more significant for poor and very poor households in Qacha’s Nek than in the other districts covered by the survey. Some six percent of households receive income through crop sales and a further two percent through livestock sales. ♦ Remittances are of lower importance to poor and very poor households in Qacha’s Nek, as only three percent of households are receiving cash remittances.

Vulnerable households in Qacha’s Nek have a higher level of agricultural asset ownership than those households captured in the other districts. Ownership levels appear to be lowest within Qacha’s Nek constituency, with 65 percent of households not owning agricultural assets or land. Some 26 percent have access to land and one major asset. In Lebakeng, Tsoelike and Hloahloeng over 40 percent of households have access to agricultural assets, although most have only one major asset.

8.7 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups Twenty-six percent of households hosted a chronically ill member. Of these households 75 percent can be considered to be immediately vulnerable to hunger. Chronic illness appears to be a strong indicator of vulnerability to hunger and poverty.

A total of 3,175 poor single orphans and 1,013 poor double orphans were identified by the community. A full breakdown is provided in table 8.4. Over nine percent of interviewed households are considered to have a high burden-of-care, hosting two or more double orphaned children. On average, these households scored 26 in the vulnerability test, which is considerably higher than the average score for throughout the district.

Vulnerability Characteristics Qacha's Nek Lebakeng Tsoelike Hloahloeng All Areas Households Hosting Single Orphans* Not Available Vulnerable Households Hosting Single Orphans 214 231 151 108 704 Households Hosting Double Orphans 173 102 94 63 432 Vulnerable Households Hosting Double Orphans 135 68 68 51 322 Total Number of Vulnerable Single Orphans 595 1,486 682 412 3,175 Total Number of Vulnerable Double Orphans 264 382 254 113 1,013

Table 8.4. Numbers of Orphan-Hosting Households and Vulnerable Orphaned Children.

The proportion of child-headed households was higher in Qacha’s Nek constituency than in the other districts. Hloahloeng registered the lowest number of chid-headed households. Elderly-headed households accounted for almost 50 percent of all interviewed households, with the constituencies of Qacha’s Nek and Tsoelike registering the highest proportion of households.

64 List of References

Barrett, 2002. Food Aid Effectiveness: “It’s the targeting Stupid!” Ithaca, Cornell.

DMA, 2003. Food/Non-Food Aid Targeting Handbook. Maseru, DMA.

DMA/WFP, 2004. Food Aid Targeting Guidelines. Maseru, DMA/WFP.

FAO/WFP, 2005. Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission. Rome, FAO/WFP.

Food Security Policy Team, 2004. Food and Nutrition Insecurity in Lesotho: Problems, Trends & Responses. DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

Harvey and Lind, 2005. Dependency and Relief – A Critical Analysis. London, Humanitarian Practitioners Group.

LVAC, 2004. Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee Annual Report, 2004. Maseru, LVAC.

LVAC, 2005. Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee Annual Report, 2005. Maseru, LVAC.

ODI, 2003. Regional Issues for Food Security in Southern Africa. Forum for Food Security in Southern Africa, Outline Theme Paper.

ODI, 2004. Maize, Mines or Manufacturing? Options for Reducing Hunger in Lesotho. Country Food Security Options, Paper Number 1.

UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger, 2005. Halving Hunger, It Can Be Done. New York, UNDP.

UNDP, 2005. Human Development Report 2005. New York, UNDP.

UNHCR/WFP, 2004. Joint Assessment Guidelines. Geneva/Rome, UNCHR/WFP.

WFP, 2003. Food Aid and Livelihoods in Emergencies – Strategies for WFP. Executive Board Document.

WFP, 2003. WFP Food Aid Targeting and Distribution Guidelines. Harare, WFP/ECHO.

WFP, 2005. Community Household Surveillance, Round IV Report. Maseru, WFP.

65 WFP, 2005. Community Household Surveillance, Round V Report. Maseru, VAM.

WFP, 2005. Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook. Rome, WFP.

World Bank Group, 2005. Problem Ranking. Washington, World Bank.

World Bank, 2004. Social Analysis. Washington, World Bank.

World Bank, 2006. Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development. A Strategy for Large Scale Action. Washington, World Bank.

World Food Summit, 1996.

66 Annex 1. Community Dialogue Schedule

Steps

1. Introduce the team and the purpose of the visit. 2. Create a conducive environment to break the ice, before the start of the exercise. 3. Ask the participants to draw a map of the village on the ground that shows the major infrastructures such as schools and clinics. This is to enable them to locate individual households. Where are the major infrastructures located in the village (use big stones to locate them)? 4. Provide the participants with small cards to write the names of all households in the area and place them on the map in appropriate locations. 5. After placing the names in appropriate locations, number all the cards. 6. Ask a few people to copy the map to a flip chart and write the numbers of each card to replace the names. 7. Ask people to mark in red for example or using symbols (using makers) the households with chronically ill. 8. Ask them to mark in blue the households with single and double orphans. 9. Ask them to mark in green the households that benefited from food aid last month. 10. Ask the participants to provide characteristics of the wealth groups that exist in their villages. 11. On a flip chart or ground, draw a table that shows wealth groups and ask the participants to categorize the names of the households into appropriate wealth groups. 12. Take record of the total number of households in the village and of households by categories. 13. Produce the lists of the asset poor, households with chronically ill, orphans and those already benefiting from external support (only among the poor/very poor).

67 Annex 2. Vulnerable Household List

68 Annex 3. Public Verification Exercise Questionnaire

Background

A household vulnerability questionnaire was developed with the intention of identifying those households immediately vulnerable and moderately vulnerable to hunger, and hence poverty. The questionnaire was based on a vulnerability questionnaire that was in place since the beginning of PRRO in 2005. The questionnaire was reviewed by the Technical Working Group for the purposes of the Targeting Exercise. A new questionnaire was established and tested with populations in peri-urban Maseru and rural Mafeteng. The focus groups discussions enabled DMA-WFP to establish the vulnerability to hunger thresholds. The questionnaire is provided at the end of this annex.

Two separate focus group discussions were conducted in Qoaling, peri-urban of Maseru and Sebelekoane, rural area of Mafeteng. The objective of the focus group discussion was to discuss the questions with community members and ensure that the tool reflected the reality of poverty and hunger. The first group was composed of 11 people from the following categories: support groups, the sick, elderly, double orphans, single orphans and vulnerable households. The second group was also comprised of these categories, although the number of participants was 40. Community health workers also participated in the exercise. The outcome of the discussions are presented below.

The questionnaire has 15 questions. From question three onwards, each question is given a score, unless stated. The questions are asked in a multiple-choice format. Each option under each question is numbered with a score, indicating the level of vulnerability to food insecurity and hunger. The higher the score, the more probable the household is exposed to food insecurity. Following completion of the questionnaire, all the scores are summed. The total score is compared against the cut-off points to determine the group that the household falls under. The cut-off points to designate ‘vulnerable’, ‘moderate’ and the ‘not vulnerable’ categories (secure) are indicated at the end of the questionnaire. Households scoring 24 to 38 are considered immediately vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Households scoring 17 to 23 are considered moderately vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Households scoring 1 to 16 are considered secure.

SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Questions 1 and 2: These questions ask basic geographical information such as the name of the district, constituency, DP, village, chief, name of target person, sex and age. These questions are not given scores.

Question 3: Who is the household head?

The community indicated that child-headed households are the most vulnerable because they cannot provide adequate care to family members and often have no sources of income. Elderly-headed households were ranked second because old people do not have opportunities for employment and are normally too old to produce food in the fields. The community stated that male-headed households are more vulnerable than female- headed households because the majority of men abandon their families. Children mentioned that their fathers are normally not in a position to provide them with adequate

69 care. When mothers are not around, sometimes fathers instruct older children to leave school and search for paying jobs. Men also indicated that sometimes when women are away, they scoop out maize meal or other food commodities (including food aid) to give their concubines, thus leaving family members with little or no food to eat. Both communities provided the same responses for this question. However, it was agreed that male and female headed households should be ranked the same since in many male-headed households, women (who are capable of providing enough care) are also present.

Question 4: How many people live in this household, including yourself (please provide the names and their age groups?

The number of household members is used to measure the dependency ratio of the household. Both groups stated that households with less than five people are regarded as small families, five people in a household is a moderate number, while more than five is a big number, making it difficult for some households to access adequate food for every member.

The names of household members are required to minimise the number of households providing false household sizes with the intention of receiving more food aid.

Question 5: How many double orphans or adopted children are there in this household?

Both communities stated that double orphans fall under the most vulnerable group, as they often do not have proper care. It was recommended that the question should specify “double orphans”. This is because it becomes clear to the interviewer that there have been additional people to the household members. This may force the household to adjust its livelihood sources in order to feed the extra mouths. If the household is already poor, taking double orphans increases the burden to that family especially if there are two or more double orphans. This is confirmed by WFP’s CHS.

On the other hand, there are children, normally neglected, who are adopted especially by the elderly and are most in need. These children should also be considered since normally they live with vulnerable households and increase the burden.

A household with single orphans is not necessarily at risk of food insecurity. If at least one parent is alive, the livelihoods sources do not normally change dramatically unless the other parent was a sole breadwinner.

Question 6: Do you have a sick person/people in your household?

Both communities stated that the chronically ill are the most vulnerable. This is because chronically illness compels households to spend money, previously spent on food and basic needs, on health expenditures. Households lose the time that was supposed to be spent on family labour or productive activities to care for the sick. The regularly ill are moderately affected while those who have been sick for less than three months are not considered vulnerable.

70 Question 7: Does the household have physically disabled person?

Living with the physically disabled also put the household at risk. However, since the level of disability differs, it is important to investigate whether the disabled are able or not able to work.

SECTION B: FOOD CONSUMPTION

Question 8: How many meals did people in your family take yesterday?

Both communities stated that for household members to eat properly, they have to eat three meals a day. However, they stated that in some instances some households (especially in rural areas) eat two meals a day because they eat heavy meals in the morning (e.g. papa, moroho and fermented porridge). Although some households eat two meals a day because they do not have enough food, eating two meals a day may not be a good indicator of shortage of food in the household as it is a tradition for some people. Households that eat one to two times a day show some level of vulnerability to food insecurity. There are households that do not eat anything for the whole day due to a lack of food. The communities indicated that the type of food eaten is a good indicator of food available in the household.

Question 9: What food did you eat yesterday?

Both communities reported that “papa” and vegetables make up a meal for most households. Households that consume beans and vegetables such as carrots, beetroot are considered to be better-off. Any protein foods such as meat, eggs, fish and milk are also better off. Poor households mainly eat papa and vegetables. In Qoaling, it was also mentioned that there are some households that spent days consuming green vegetables from their gardens with water alone because they did not have maize meal. Both groups felt that it is important for the food monitors to probe on the type of food the household eat because this is a good indicator of food available in the household.

Question 10: What is the primary source of food your family ate yesterday?

Both communities stated that households who obtain food either through own production or purchases or through a combination of both are not vulnerable. Households who obtain food through transfers indicate that they are food insecure. If households source food from gifts from relatives/neighbours and/or through food aid, they are food insecure and should be given the same score. This is because relatives and neighbours cannot afford to provide for these households on a long-time basis. Likewise, food aid from the government/NGOs is also not considered to be sustainable.

Question 11: How much cereal and pulses does the household have in stock? (No. and weight of bags).

Both communities stated that households with stock that will last until the next harvest are not vulnerable. Those that have food stock that will last them for six months are also considered not vulnerable at the time of the interview even though what is in stock will not last them throughout the year. Those with food stock that will last them for less than

71 three months are vulnerable as they already indicate that they are food insecure and might start applying negative coping strategies.

SECTION C: INCOME AND ASSET INFORMATION

Question 12A: Indicate all your sources of income.

Both communities indicated that employment opportunities have declined. In Qoaling, the community stated that non-agricultural casual labour is the common source of income for poor households. Because this is a peri-urban area, some people are employed in the garment factories while some have formal employment in the government and the private sector. However, there are households that are very poor and have no source of income at all. The elderly who earn pensions mentioned that this income is low because the standard of living is high in peri-urban areas. However, in Sebelekoane, the elderly stated that this pension contributed positively to their lives. However, the community of Sebelekoane reported that there are no piece jobs as many households in the area can not afford to provide casual labour. It is also important to assess the income level of households.

Question 12B: How much income does the household get from the above sources?

Question 12C: How often do you get income?

Both communities reported that it is important to know the type of income sources so that the number of times the household get income is well analysed. Sometimes households regularly get some little money through the sale of firewood and other means, which do not meet household food needs. There is a need to probe for information on the income level of each household and the frequency of the income received. However, if the household receives income regularly, depending on the type of income source, it may also be vulnerable. A household that does not have income is considered to be more vulnerable than other households.

Question 13: Which of the following assets do you have?

Both communities stated that households that have land and draught animals, draught animals and ox drawn planter or ox-drawn cultivator or ox-cart are not vulnerable. Those with ox cart alone, draught animals alone, planter/cultivator alone may be in a position to rent them out and therefore are moderate. A household with a sickle and/or hand hoe is asset poor.

Question 14: Do you own any of these assets?

Households that own such items as a working television, vehicle, gas/electric cooker, cell phone and a working landline telephone are not considered vulnerable. The two groups indicated that even if the television is played with a car battery, there is no poor household that can prioritise to charge this battery if food is not available. Poor people do not even have friends who call them on the cell phones. Charging the phone and maintaining it shows that the household is not vulnerable.

72 Question 15: How much livestock do you currently have (cattle, sheep and goats)?

Both groups stated that households with more than four head of cattle and those with more than ten head of sheep and goats are livestock rich, while households with two to four head of cattle and those with five to ten head of sheep and goats are livestock poor. Households that have less than two cattle or less than five sheep and goats are considered to be livestock poor.

Summary

The level of participation of both groups in the review of the questionnaire was good. The discussion was long but they were willing to provide information. They also indicated that the discussion was of great importance to them since it has improved their understanding of vulnerable households. A recommendation was made to hold pitsos to sensitise all communities about the importance of targeting the right beneficiaries of food aid.

74 Annex 4. List of Participants

Technical Working Group (10 Members): Bureau of Statistics DMA LVAC Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security – Health Ministry of Health and Social Welfare – Nutrition WFP World Vision

Field Leaders (2 Members): WFP DMA

Maseru Team (7 Members)

Team Leader (1): DDMT

Team Members (6): WFP DMA Dorcas Aid

Mafeteng Team (18 Members)

Team Leaders (2) Bureau of Statistics WFP

Team Members (16): DDMT DMA FNCO Social Welfare Tourism WFP World Vision

Mohale’s Hoek Team (16 Members)

Team Leaders (2): WFP DMA

75 Team Members (14): DDMT DMA Forestry Rural Water Supply WFP WFP World Vision

Quthing Team (18 Members)

Team Leaders (2): DMA WFP

Team Members (16): Agriculture DMA DMA/Health FNCO LRCS Red Cross WFP

Qacha’s Nek Team (11 Members)

Team Leaders (2): DMA WFP

Team Members (9): Agriculture ECCD Forestry and Land Reclamation Public Health Red Cross Social Welfare WFP

Annex 5. District Reports

Households with Households Hosting Households Hosting Interviewed HHs Chronic Illness Single Orphans Double Orphans

CONSTITUENCY FDP Identified HHs Hunger as Poor Hosting Identified to Hunger Population Population (Poor or Very Poor) Households Households Immediately Number of CI Number of HHs % of Total Poor % of Total Poor Total Number of Total Number of Villages Total HH Identified as Poor Number of Hosting % of HHs Identified as Poor Vulnerable to Hunger Number of Poor HHs Poor HHs of Number % of Poor Population Households Identified % of Total Population % of Total Population % of Total Population Total Number of Poor Households Enduring Moderately Vulnerable Total HHs Identified in the FDP

Maseru

HLALELE 4 418 217 52 203 115 88 53 13 29 13 47 11 19 9 38 9 12 6

LINOTSING 6 610 340 56 214 125 89 55 9 34 10 189 31 129 38 78 13 48 14

LIQOABING 14 790 443 56 362 217 145 53 7 37 8 169 21 115 26 59 7 35 8

MASITE 5 384 196 51 122 54 68 18 5 10 5 29 8 10 5 20 5 8 4 ROTHE MORENENG 6 517 238 46 153 88 65 23 4 12 5 80 15 54 23 25 5 14 6

RAMATEKANE 5 415 263 63 212 125 87 41 10 24 9 91 22 48 18 42 10 29 11

RANKHELEPE 11 722 399 55 266 112 154 37 5 25 6 123 17 73 18 46 6 36 9

TSOENENG 6 842 403 48 271 175 96 82 10 42 10 136 16 71 18 84 10 42 10 TOTAL 57 4,698 2,499 53 1,803 1,011 792 362 8 213 9 864 18 519 21 392 8 224 9

LESOLI 5 281 118 42 107 81 26 35 12 34 29 52 19 22 19 13 5 9 8

MOFOKA 6 614 266 43 192 103 89 34 6 24 9 91 15 56 21 24 4 19 7

MOKEMA 7 579 230 40 182 107 75 11 2 9 4 80 14 41 18 20 3 12 5

3 231 81 35 75 58 17 38 16 2 2 102 44 44 54 56 24 22 27 MOKUNUTLUNG KORO-KORO

TLEBERE 9 811 255 31 147 66 81 45 6 25 10 108 13 46 18 35 4 22 9

TSIU 3 339 157 46 156 77 79 16 5 12 8 50 15 26 17 16 5 9 6

TOTAL 33 2,855 1,107 39 859 492 367 179 6 106 10 483 17 235 21 164 6 93 8

MANTSEBO 8 1,262 349 28 302 144 158 39 3 20 6 177 14 46 13 42 3 24 7 QEME

MATUKENG 6 1,118 320 29 254 132 122 29 3 15 5 88 8 41 13 42 4 17 5

TOTAL 14 2,380 669 28 556 276 280 68 3 35 5 265 11 87 13 84 4 41 6

2 Households with Households Hosting Households Hosting Interviewed HHs Chronic Illness Single Orphans Double Orphans

Mafeteng

BAGOMI 8 555 376 68 199 130 69 14 3 9 2 18 3 10 3 15 3 11 3

BOLIKELA 12 475 333 70 254 136 118 32 7 32 10 53 11 53 16 35 7 35 11

BONGALLA* 1 675 472 70 368 214 154 6 1 6 1 94 14 94 20 20 3 21 4

MAINE 11 517 287 56 174 91 83 24 5 4 1 114 22 90 31 59 11 40 14 ECHELA P

MAPOTU 16 384 258 67 157 75 82 5 1 5 2 42 11 40 16 28 7 28 11 HABA T

THABANA MOHLOMI 6 554 392 71 220 143 77 38 7 13 3 107 19 58 15 50 9 22 6

THOAHLANE 8 396 161 41 145 82 63 13 3 13 8 72 18 46 29 38 10 9 6

TSAKHOLO 15 585 469 80 396 228 168 113 19 42 9 168 29 138 29 58 10 -

TOTAL 77 4,141 2,748 66 1,913 1,099 814 245 6 124 5 668 16 529 19 303 7 166 6

3 BOFIHLA 11 1,201 430 36 314 136 178 19 2 9 2 137 11 57 13 71 6 35 8

KHOBOTLE 8 433 219 51 149 78 71 25 6 13 6 64 15 31 14 27 6 13 6

LEBOTO 15 672 335 50 175 94 81 20 3 16 5 115 17 66 20 46 7 25 7 ORENA M MAKOABATING 13 790 559 71 252 145 107 97 12 88 16 169 21 140 25 61 8 56 10 HABANA T

MALUMENG 21 1,027 603 59 237 128 109 58 6 10 2 147 14 73 12 52 5 20 3

SEBAKI 14 561 374 67 326 164 162 27 5 12 3 92 16 62 17 47 8 30 8

THAKANYANE 6 296 165 56 23 17 6 35 12 2 1 47 16 - - 30 10 16 10

TOTAL 88 4,980 2,685 54 1,476 762 714 281 6 150 6 771 15 429 16 334 7 195 7

LEKEBA 6 200 200 100 123 57 66 24 12 11 6 30 15 30 15 11 6 26 13

MAKINTANE 9 523 358 68 284 142 142 40 8 - - 68 13 - - 33 6 - -

MALALENG 5 417 263 63 260 110 150 13 3 9 3 25 6 25 10 31 7 14 5 OLO K

MOHLALEFI 4 387 171 44 27 11 16 20 5 9 5 40 10 26 15 47 12 30 18

MOTSEKUOA 7 472 239 51 228 125 103 86 18 - - 163 35 - - 58 12 - -

MPHASA 10 614 350 57 93 51 42 12 2 12 3 120 20 120 34 61 10 61 17

4 NTSIE 7 477 236 49 119 65 54 22 5 - - 88 18 - - 42 9 - -

TANKA 7 253 160 63 153 78 75 21 8 16 10 44 17 34 21 32 13 27 17

TEBANG 15 811 454 56 402 203 199 27 3 14 3 154 19 89 20 72 9 59 13

TOTAL 70 4,154 2,431 59 1,689 842 847 265 6 71 3 732 18 324 13 387 9 217 9

LEMPETJE 6 318 182 57 154 82 72 22 7 9 5 71 22 41 23 21 7 15 8

MAKENENG 7 605 290 48 218 124 94 17 3 10 3 76 13 35 12 61 10 49 17

MATSABA 5 334 113 34 77 45 32 28 8 20 18 79 24 36 32 25 7 11 10 IKHOELE L

QOBETE 6 705 486 69 236 102 134 33 5 32 7 62 9 49 10 41 6 28 6

TSAEENG 14 355 199 56 107 43 64 14 4 11 6 19 5 17 9 29 8 19 10

TOTAL 38 2,317 1,270 55 792 396 396 114 5 82 6 307 13 178 14 177 8 122 10

BOLUMATAU 5 372 168 45 116 75 41 7 2 6 4 57 15 44 26 18 5 9 5

HERMONE 9 516 168 33 123 63 60 50 10 7 4 130 25 36 21 23 4 6 4 ALABANE

Q KHOJANE 9 542 299 55 160 81 79 23 4 18 6 76 14 46 15 38 7 23 8

LEPOLESA 12 384 187 49 130 64 66 22 6 16 9 63 16 41 22 36 9 20 11

5 LITS'OENENG 11 441 287 65 225 113 112 34 8 29 10 62 14 56 20 30 7 26 9

MAKAUNG* 11 425 205 48 205 103 102 5 1 5 2 52 12 29 14 37 9 20 10

MOHLEHLI 4 371 214 58 81 41 40 17 5 - - 51 14 - - 25 7 - -

PATSA 2 214 138 64 80 44 36 6 3 5 4 50 23 40 29 26 12 16 12

RALINTSI 5 463 239 52 178 75 103 36 8 27 11 47 10 32 13 38 8 24 10

THABANA TSO'ANA 8 333 192 58 115 55 60 10 3 4 2 78 23 53 28 25 8 16 8

TS'UPANE 13 401 282 70 207 88 119 28 7 20 7 31 8 19 7 63 16 48 17

TOTAL 89 4,462 2,379 53 1,620 802 818 238 5 137 6 697 16 396 17 359 8 208 9

MAFA 13 545 399 73 252 144 108 21 4 7 2 87 16 37 9 29 5 14 4

MAKOKOTOANENG 2 267 97 36 73 33 40 5 2 - - 55 21 27 28 14 5 9 9

OEU MATHEBE 6 436 138 32 64 45 19 15 3 7 5 91 21 34 25 34 8 15 11 ' S T

AKI HABA P 6 348 173 50 134 50 84 21 6 18 10 77 22 33 19 17 5 7 4 T

RAMATSELISO 13 600 300 50 262 134 128 25 4 92 31 64 11 27 9 34 6 27 9

RAMOKHELE 8 541 215 40 186 97 89 31 6 25 12 39 7 27 13 37 7 30 14

6 RANNAKOE 4 189 97 51 58 31 27 5 3 5 5 55 29 23 24 12 6 5 5

SEKHAUPANE 6 358 176 49 117 60 57 8 2 4 2 95 27 30 17 28 8 16 9

SHALE 5 123 51 41 33 17 16 3 2 - - 26 21 10 20 10 8 2 4

TOTAL 63 3,407 1,646 48 1,179 611 568 134 4 158 10 589 17 248 15 215 6 125 8

MAFETENG RANTEME 17 888 506 57 208 110 98 58 7 - - 156 18 - - 68 8 - -

Total 17 888 506 57 208 110 98 58 7 - - 156 18 - - 68 8 - -

Households with Households Hosting Households Hosting Interviewed HHs Chronic Illness Single Orphans Double Orphans

Mohale's Hoek

HOLY CROSS 21 937 492 53 369 270 99 68 7 57 12 117 12 98 20 165 18 99 20

MANE 14 481 239 50 142 119 23 34 7 26 11 94 20 66 28 47 10 39 16

MPHARANE 9 380 220 58 198 113 85 3 1 1 0 93 24 36 16 32 8 17 8 MEKALING

MOTSE MOCHA 28 960 609 63 360 230 130 14 1 6 1 170 18 68 11 95 10 37 6

THABA PUTSOA 7 289 85 29 74 54 20 ------

TOTAL 79 3,047 1,645 54 1,143 786 357 119 4 90 5 474 16 268 16 339 11 192 12

LIPHIRING 5 290 177 61 117 92 25 27 9 18 10 77 27 50 28 28 10 19 11 QHALASI

RAMOITOI 4 137 86 63 42 40 2 11 8 3 3 24 18 11 13 9 7 6 7

8 MAKHATE 4 284 155 55 147 121 26 14 5 10 6 34 12 17 11 22 8 17 11

KHITSANE 2 197 73 37 50 35 15 2 1 2 3 23 12 13 18 7 4 6 8

QHALASI 4 190 104 55 104 92 12 19 10 7 7 30 16 17 16 27 14 18 17

MOPOOANE 5 206 72 35 71 42 29 5 2 4 6 46 22 19 26 8 4 3 4

MOKHELE* 2 72 23 32 - - - 1 1 - - 24 33 10 43 5 7 2 9

OLD HOEK 5 504 68 13 57 52 5 13 3 5 7 92 18 18 26 32 6 10 15

MAPHOHLOANE 4 608 232 38 164 105 59 9 1 7 3 132 22 101 44 74 12 53 23

MOHALINYANE 9 656 295 45 179 115 64 ------

TOTAL 44 3,144 1,285 41 931 694 237 101 3 56 4 482 15 256 20 212 7 134 10

KAMELE 6 213 153 72 142 110 32 4 2 5 3 30 14 22 14 7 3 6 4

MOLETSANE 3 215 134 62 129 99 30 3 1 2 1 34 16 18 13 13 6 10 7

SEPHAPHO 6 306 215 70 211 174 37 24 8 21 10 37 12 20 9 17 6 13 6 TAUNG

TSOLOANE 3 230 122 53 101 74 27 8 3 1 1 37 16 15 12 10 4 4 3

MONYAKE 3 435 170 39 140 126 14 10 2 6 4 65 15 35 21 25 6 20 12

9 SILOE 7 489 200 41 144 56 88 53 11 47 24 102 21 91 46 79 16 64 32

LEFIKENG 4 359 127 35 118 109 9 22 6 7 6 71 20 13 10 16 4 5 4

MOKOTANE 9 359 235 65 151 94 57 10 3 5 2 61 17 45 19 17 5 16 7

TLOKOTSING 7 260 150 58 127 82 45 41 16 24 16 10 4 9 6 13 5 6 4

QHOQHOANE 9 473 188 40 136 75 61 9 2 4 2 25 5 16 9 21 4 3 2

MAJAPERENG 2 156 46 29 46 37 9 6 4 1 2 37 24 6 13 17 11 4 9

TOTAL 59 3,495 1,740 50 1,445 1,036 409 184 5 122 7 472 14 284 16 218 6 147 8

LETLAPENG 9 287 100 35 69 38 31 12 4 6 6 38 13 10 10 15 5 4 4

LITHIPENG 9 320 119 37 103 60 43 5 2 3 3 35 11 15 13 26 8 20 17

TLOKOENG 14 442 233 53 159 89 70 3 1 - - 38 9 8 3 20 5 5 2

KHOAI 2 219 59 27 51 44 7 5 2 2 3 44 20 15 25 19 9 6 10 QAQATU

LENGAU 18 350 141 40 101 35 66 17 5 2 1 80 23 32 23 27 8 13 9

LESIBO 7 281 65 23 58 41 17 5 2 - - 38 14 15 23 24 9 6 9

MALEPHANE 9 863 91 11 80 73 7 33 4 3 3 156 18 20 22 46 5 9 10

10 PHIRING 20 555 340 61 275 140 135 10 2 7 2 50 9 30 9 20 4 15 4

PHAMONG 14 530 159 30 121 52 69 6 1 2 1 75 14 27 17 34 6 17 11

TOTAL 102 3,847 1,307 34 1,017 572 445 96 2 25 2 554 14 172 13 231 6 95 7

KETANE TLHABELI 6 369 61 17 49 38 11 4 1 - - 96 26 6 10 25 7 3 5

TOTAL 6 369 61 17 49 38 11 4 1 - - 96 26 6 10 25 7 3 5

BRAAKFONTEIN 3 142 60 42 59 52 7 10 7 5 8 19 13 13 22 8 6 6 10

SANKATANA 3 193 36 19 24 10 14 2 1 2 6 63 33 8 22 3 2 1 3

HOEK SEKOATI 3 407 68 17 67 52 15 13 3 2 3 51 13 7 10 16 4 3 4

THABA BOSIU 4 241 88 37 60 51 9 14 6 10 11 33 14 12 14 17 7 7 8 MOHALE'S

MAPOTSANE 12 520 127 24 81 56 25 40 8 17 13 73 14 16 13 27 5 15 12

MALEBANYE 3 492 134 27 117 86 31 6 1 3 2 49 10 5 4 20 4 8 6

TOTAL 28 1,995 513 26 408 307 101 85 4 39 8 288 14 61 12 91 5 40 8

Households with Households Hosting Households Hosting Interviewed HHs Chronic Illness Single Orphans Double Orphans

Quthing

MPHOJOA 8 175 118 67 114 82 32 34 19 25 21 38 22 29 25 6 3 4 3

SIXONDO 13 509 205 40 202 113 89 12 2 12 6 92 18 48 23 25 5 31 15

DILLI DILLI 10 399 256 64 201 125 76 56 14 32 13 50 13 18 7 33 8 12 5

MATHOLE* 7 143 100 70 104 56 48 3 2 1 1 39 27 27 27 5 3 5 5 ELE T

MTJANYANE* 9 217 108 50 105 64 41 25 12 19 18 77 35 55 51 30 14 25 23

NDOZIMNANDI 9 150 124 83 97 74 23 - - - - 5 3 5 4 3 2 3 2

TELE 6 429 330 77 328 240 88 41 10 19 6 36 8 20 6 16 4 12 4

ALWAYNSKOP 14 439 226 51 208 110 98 16 4 11 5 93 21 53 23 37 8 13 6

12 PABALLONG* 9 345 130 38 128 103 25 7 2 7 5 70 20 34 26 16 5 13 10

HA MAKOLOANE 5 159 110 69 92 75 17 7 4 7 6 8 5 8 7 12 8 12 11

TOTAL 90 2,965 1,707 58 1,579 1,042 537 201 7 133 8 508 17 297 17 183 6 130 8

HA MOSHATI 3 485 130 27 112 52 60 31 6 16 12 42 9 30 23 15 3 7 5

PHAHAMENG 15 569 164 29 153 114 39 6 1 28 17 75 13 29 18 27 5 20 12

MOHAPI 10 308 122 40 111 67 44 8 3 7 6 32 10 18 15 19 6 13 11 MOYENI HA SETOKO 7 376 193 51 140 80 60 8 2 8 4 109 29 109 56 27 7 27 14

MOKHAMELELI 8 339 219 65 133 90 43 18 5 14 6 96 28 58 26 27 8 24 11

LITAU 2 38 18 47 17 3 14 - - - - 8 21 5 28 3 8 - -

TOTAL 45 2,115 846 40 666 406 260 71 3 73 9 362 17 249 29 118 6 91 11

SEJAKHOSI 9 139 74 53 60 33 27 12 9 7 9 50 36 30 41 15 11 11 15

HA RAKHOMO 2 218 110 50 95 67 28 15 7 12 11 39 18 30 27 19 9 12 11

POKANE 5 262 108 41 100 74 26 38 15 38 35 25 10 14 13 26 10 21 19 SEBAPALA

POTOMANE 3 161 93 58 91 46 45 7 4 7 8 29 18 22 24 21 13 9 10

13 SEBAPALA 10 457 201 44 149 109 40 23 5 15 7 53 12 26 13 33 7 17 8

MOSENEKE 4 460 228 50 170 103 67 46 10 25 11 69 15 58 25 26 6 22 10

MOTSAPI 6 183 94 51 67 41 26 15 8 10 11 21 11 11 12 20 11 13 14

TSATSANE 7 594 169 28 145 56 89 30 5 14 8 77 13 16 9 31 5 14 8

MAFURA 9 521 249 48 172 112 60 22 4 13 5 65 12 23 9 29 6 15 6

DALEWE 10 535 186 35 145 111 34 32 6 16 9 128 24 70 38 84 16 41 22

TOSING 11 295 123 42 98 66 32 60 20 29 24 86 29 53 43 60 20 29 24

DECEDE* 1 9 9 100 9 8 1 ------

LEBANGOANG* 1 10 10 100 10 8 2 ------

TOTAL 78 3,844 1,654 43 1,311 834 477 300 8 186 11 642 17 353 21 364 9 204 12

KHATOANE 6 189 80 42 70 33 37 21 11 11 14 53 28 26 33 22 12 12 15

MT MOOROSI 7 400 147 37 81 55 26 22 6 17 12 77 19 40 27 32 8 13 9 OOROSI M

T MANTSOEPA 4 220 100 45 87 55 32 19 9 12 12 43 20 34 34 16 7 11 11 M

MOHLAKOANA 11 417 129 31 127 96 31 13 3 10 8 57 14 31 24 39 9 23 18

14 JOBO 4 257 104 40 101 53 48 26 10 18 17 52 20 33 32 15 6 9 9

MOHALE 7 267 144 54 102 59 43 ------

MAQOKHO 10 353 145 41 123 83 40 12 3 6 4 49 14 31 21 33 9 18 12

KUBUNG 1 8 303 156 51 126 93 33 32 11 21 13 61 20 32 21 24 8 18 12

MAKOAE 31 757 362 48 289 192 97 53 7 25 7 112 15 73 20 45 6 21 6

KUBUNG 2 9 339 190 56 156 89 67 ------

KOALI 10 719 288 40 174 115 59 40 6 33 11 101 14 59 20 44 6 29 10

TOTAL 107 4,221 1,845 44 1,436 923 513 238 6 153 8 605 14 359 19 270 6 154 8

MOPELI 6 286 92 32 92 65 27 33 12 20 22 31 11 15 16 24 8 18 20

TSITSONG 12 474 183 39 105 48 57 14 3 6 3 65 14 32 17 26 5 20 11

LETSIELO 8 375 137 37 94 70 24 10 3 6 4 47 13 23 17 26 7 21 15 HOALI Q QHOALI 16 402 159 40 135 92 43 74 18 53 33 103 26 53 33 70 17 26 16

TROUBLE CASE 9 409 138 34 97 54 43 28 7 24 17 72 18 35 25 19 5 13 9

PABALLONG 12 472 202 43 131 44 87 38 8 24 12 113 24 59 29 31 7 20 10

15 POTSO 11 432 174 40 131 78 53 ------

HA LEIHLOANA 3 109 50 46 31 21 10 12 11 11 22 29 27 19 38 15 14 8 16

SEFORONG 16 363 133 37 114 67 47 21 6 18 14 34 9 31 23 15 4 11 8

MOSI 3 189 96 51 69 25 44 2 1 2 2 32 17 17 18 21 11 13 14

HA PEETE 12 339 174 51 141 59 82 ------

HA NTSIE 6 231 85 37 58 29 29 28 12 28 33 54 23 26 31 26 11 10 12

MAKHETHENG 105 44 42 39 21 18 ------

TOTAL 114 4,186 1,667 40 1,237 673 564 260 6 192 12 580 14 310 19 273 7 160 10

Households with Households Hosting Households Hosting Interviewed HHs Chronic Illness Single Orphans Double Orphans

Qacha's Nek District

KHAMA-KHAMANE 4 116 111 96 77 32 45 6 5 1 1 35 30 26 23 32 28 26 23

LEHONYELING 15 434 328 76 248 84 164 ------

NKAU 5 223 183 82 137 64 73 25 11 4 2 2 1 2 1 - - - - LOAHLOENG H

PHAFOLI 7 384 384 100 157 55 102 ------

SETOFOLO 11 201 145 72 142 58 84 80 40 64 44 86 43 80 55 31 15 25 17

TOTAL 42 1,358 1,151 85 761 293 468 111 8 69 6 123 9 108 9 63 5 51 4

EK EK AUPLAAS 2 214 116 54 107 56 51 16 7 9 8 29 14 24 21 18 8 14 12 N S '

ACHA MPITI 8 402 287 71 236 137 99 34 8 19 7 55 14 35 12 41 10 35 12 Q

17 NOOSI 3 193 133 69 120 65 55 18 9 14 11 36 19 24 18 27 14 18 14

SEKAKE 23 827 600 73 393 164 229 42 5 32 5 56 7 85 14 66 8 53 9

WHITE-HILL 23 580 357 62 200 99 101 22 4 9 3 52 9 46 13 21 4 15 4

TOTAL 59 2,216 1,493 67 1,056 521 535 132 6 83 6 228 10 214 14 173 8 135 9

MATLALI 7 586 445 76 408 185 223 9 2 14 3 26 4 34 8 21 4 13 3

MOSUOE 7 270 176 65 176 91 85 27 10 21 12 48 18 39 22 29 11 24 14

RANKAKALA 8 699 573 82 388 174 214 ------SOELIKE T

THABA-CHITJA 8 352 247 70 166 81 85 7 2 12 5 37 11 35 14 38 11 26 11

THUUBE 14 283 223 79 210 96 114 65 23 60 27 45 16 43 19 6 2 5 2

TOTAL 44 2,190 1,664 76 1,348 627 721 108 5 107 6 156 7 151 9 94 4 68 4

LEBAKENG 11 997 694 70 384 150 234 65 7 48 7 118 12 109 16 62 6 41 6

MATEBENG 9 566 386 68 241 71 170 37 7 23 6 86 15 72 19 25 4 19 5 EBAKENG

L ELIKANE M 6 220 181 82 130 50 80 17 8 65 36 42 19 12 7 7 3 8 4

MOHLAPISO 8 588 423 72 329 158 171 19 3 10 2 37 6 30 7 19 3 14 3

18 MOSENEKENG 10 604 471 78 328 119 209 62 10 48 10 53 9 44 9 15 2 14 3

NKOFO 6 266 229 86 201 76 125 ------

RAPASE 9 510 340 67 318 140 178 55 11 34 10 68 13 50 15 21 4 12 4

TEBELLONG 7 640 461 72 422 182 240 51 8 38 8 99 15 107 23 51 8 29 6

THABO-KOTO 11 412 293 71 217 46 171 27 7 17 6 50 12 30 10 15 4 13 4

TOTAL 77 4,803 3,478 72 2,570 992 1,578 195 4 137 4 270 6 231 7 102 2 68 2

This report has been edited by Simon Clements and prepared by Motselisi Mojaki, Simon Clements, Esther Wahito Kabaire and Likeleli Makhotla under the responsibility of DMA and WFP with information from the field survey, official and other sources. For further information, please contact the undersigned:

Mr. Mahosi, Mr. Mads Lofvall Chief Executive Deputy Country Director Disasters Management Authority World Food Programme Maseru Maseru Lesotho. Lesotho Tel: +266-22312183 Tel: +266-22323989