In its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrition security for all people at all times’, the Government of Zimbabwe continues to exhibit its commitment towards reducing food and nutrition insecurity, poverty and improving livelihoods amongst the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe through operationalization of Commitment 6 of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP). Under the coordination of the Food and Nutrition Council, the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) undertook the 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment, the 21st since its inception. ZimVAC is a technical advisory committee comprised of representatives from Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. Through its assessments, ZimVAC continues to collect, synthesize and disseminate high quality information on the food and nutrition security situation in a timely manner.

The 2021 RLA was motivated by the need to provide credible and timely data to inform progress of commitments in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS 1) and inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people in both their short and long-term vulnerability context. Furthermore, as the ‘new normal’ under COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, the assessment sought to provide up to date information on how rural food systems and livelihoods have been impacted by the pandemic. The report covers thematic areas which include the following: education, food and income sources, income levels, expenditure patterns, food security, COVID-19, WASH, social protection and gender-based violence, among other issues.

Our sincere appreciation goes to the ZimVAC as well as the food and nutrition security structures at both provincial and district levels for successfully carrying out the survey. These structures continue to exhibit great commitment towards ensuring that every Zimbabwean remains free from hunger and malnutrition. We also extend our appreciation to Government and Development Partners for the financial support and technical leadership which made the assessment a resounding success. The collaboration of the rural communities of Zimbabwe as well as the rural local authorities is sincerely appreciated. The leadership, coordination and management of the whole assessment displayed by the staff at the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) is also greatly appreciated.

We submit this report to you for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasting measures in addressing priority issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity.

George D. Kembo (DR.) FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson 2 Table of Contents Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..……………………………………………….2 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..……………………………………………….…….…4 Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..…………….6 Background and Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………….……………………..……………………7 Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..…………….11 Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..……………….16 Demographic Description of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………….27 Education ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... …………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..……………………..35 Chronic Illness………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..38 Social Protection …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..…43 Agricultural Production ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..………………………….47 Agriculture Value Chain …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………59 Climate Smart Agriculture ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..77 Incomes and Expenditure ……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………..………………..93 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….99 Access to Services and Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....117 ISALS and Loans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..141 Food Consumption Patterns…………………………………………………………………….……………..……..………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………..……….………………………………………..146 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..……………….…..162 Complementary Feeding and Child Health….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..………………..170 Child Nutrition Status………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..177 Gender Based Violence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...179 COVID-19 and Livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………187 Shocks and Stressors……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..………………………..…….………………………………194 Food Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…201 Community Development Challenges and Priorities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………212 Conclusions and Recommendations …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………………....…………217

3 Acknowledgements The technical and financial support received from the following is greatly appreciated: • Rural District Councils (RDCs) • Office of the President and Cabinet • United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) • Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger and • Food and Nutrition Council • United Nations Development Programme- ZRBF Malnutrition (REACH)

• SIRDC • UNFPA-Spotlight Initiative • Bindura University of Science Education

• Ministry of Finance and Economic Development • Catholic Relief Services (CRS) • Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology • Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water • Progress and Rural Resettlement • Hand in Hand • United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) • Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social • Care International Welfare • Sizimele • Tsuro • Ministry of Health and Child Care • MELANA • Welthungerhilfe (WHH) • Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and • Coordinamento Delle Organizzazioni Peril Servizio National Housing Volontario (COSV) • GOAL

• Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small • Local Initiatives and Development Agency (LID) • Plan International and Medium Enterprise Development • Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA) • Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT) • Public Service Commission • Caritas • Mwenezi Development Training Centre • Ministry of Health and Child Care (MDTC) • World Vision • United States Agency for International • Nutrition Action Zimbabwe (NAZ) Development (USAID) • Lutheran Development Services (LDS) • Africa Ahead • Zimbabwe Defence Forces • Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe • Action Aid • Mercy Corps • MAVAMBO • CARITAS Harare 4 Acknowledgement of Support

ZIMBABWE

5 Acronyms

EA Enumeration Area

FNC Food and Nutrition Council

FNSP Food and Nutrition Security Policy

FNSIS Food and Nutrition Security Information System

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

HHS Household Hunger Score

NNS National Nutrition Survey

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee

6 Introduction and Background

7 Introduction

• ZimVAC livelihoods assessments’ results continue to be an important tool for informing and guiding policies and programmes that respond to the prevailing food and nutrition security situation. To date, 21 rural and 8 urban livelihoods updates have been produced.

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

• It has become mandatory for FNC to coordinate annual livelihoods updates with the technical support of ZimVAC.

8 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)

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

ZimVAC supports Government, particularly FNC in:

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

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

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

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

▪ Undertaking food and nutrition assessments, analysis and research;

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

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

• The performance of the agricultural season, with the disruption of food systems and markets, the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the prevailing macro-economic environment has affected the livelihoods of the rural population.

• The impact on the livelihoods, which has ripple effects on household wellbeing outcomes, had not been quantified and ascertained hence the need to carry out a livelihoods assessment. The assessment results will be used to:

• Inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people, given the prevailing situation in the country as well as their long term vulnerability context.

• Inform short, medium and long term interventions that address immediate and long term needs as well as building resilient livelihoods.

• Monitor and report towards commitments within the guiding frameworks of existing national food and nutrition policies and strategies among them the National Development Strategy 1, the Food and Nutrition Security Policy and the Zero Hunger Strategy.

• Monitor interventions to ensure adherence to the principles spelt out in regional and international frameworks which Zimbabwe has committed itself to which include the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the SDGs.

• Guide early warning for early action

10 Purpose

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

11 Objectives The specific objectives of the assessment were:

• To estimate the population that is likely to be food insecure in the 2021/22 consumption year, their geographic distribution and the severity of their food insecurity.

• Assess impact and severity of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods.

• To assess the nutrition status of children of 6 – 59 months.

• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteristics as their demographics, access to basic services (education, health services and water and sanitation facilities), assets, income sources, incomes and expenditure patterns, food consumption patterns and consumption coping strategies.

• To determine the coverage of humanitarian and developmental interventions in the country.

• To identify development priorities for communities.

• To determine the effects of shocks experienced by communities on food and nutrition security.

• To measure household resilience and identify constraints to improving their resilience.

• To identify early recovery needs in order to determine short to long term recovery strategies.

12 Background

• The 2021 RLA was undertaken against a continuously evolving food and nutrition security situation.

• Since its genesis, the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to wreak havoc on both urban and rural populations. The ‘new normal’ under COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. The pandemic has had implications on food security and nutrition as food systems have been affected and threatened people’s access to food via multiple dynamics.

• Food supply chains have been disrupted due to lockdowns triggered by the global health crisis, but also a major global economic slowdown. This has led to lower incomes and higher food prices, making food out of reach for vulnerable households. The strict and widespread control measures are unsustainable in the long term. The impact of the pandemic amidst other shocks will likely cause significant deterioration and erosion of livelihoods, productive assets as well as the food and nutrition security of vulnerable households. The closure of rural food and livestock markets will affect the incomes of rural livelihoods. At the same time, closures of restaurants and hotels will continue to reduce the demand for fresh produce, meat and fish, reducing the incomes of farmers, livestock keepers and suppliers.

• The vulnerable rural households have little to nothing to cushion the effects of the shock (pandemic). As they experience market failures, they have little or no access to formal insurance, and credit and risk management mechanisms. The vulnerable households have challenges in accessing liquidity, worsened by reduced casual labour opportunities and the closure of informal markets where they tend to sell their products. The enforcement of social distancing combined with the covariate nature of the crisis will likely overwhelm and/or reduce the rural households’ access to traditional community networks and institutions of social reciprocity, which have historically provided a safety net in times of crisis.

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

13 Background

• Travel restrictions and border closures are likely to delay the movement of the essential supplies such as fertilizers which are crucial for the preparation for the 2021/2022 cropping season. The disruption of agricultural inputs supplies is likely to affect the progression of the current agricultural season which is very much needed to start the recovery from the back to back droughts that have been experienced in the recent past and affect farmers’ livelihoods. This could have longer-term implications on the food and nutrition security of households.

• Agriculture as one of the key economic sectors fundamental to the projected economic growth aspired for under the Government's Vision 2030 had a good start to the 2020/21 rainfall season. The country experienced Tropical Storm Chalene and Tropical Cyclone Eloise, which increased average cumulative rainfall from October 2020 to end of January 2021. This resulted in improved water availability and access, improved livestock condition, improved pasture quality availability and quality. However, the incessant rains also increased the risk of tick- borne diseases as well as foot rot in livestock.

• The 2020/2021 agriculture season recorded an increase in the area planted to maize and soya beans owing to the overwhelming support by Government and the private sector. However, challenges reported in the sector include crop damage due to Fall armyworm, crop damage due to Tropical Storm Chalene and Tropical Cyclone Eloise (particulalry Chimanimani and Chipinge districts), water logging as well as fertilizer shortages.

• With the majority of the rural population’s livelihoods mostly influenced by agriculture (both crops and livestock), the experienced climate related shocks may negatively affect household food and nutrition security. 14 Background

• Poverty continues to be one of the major underlying causes of vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity as well as precarious livelihoods in Zimbabwe. According to the ZIMSTAT Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2017 Report, 70.5% of the population were poor whilst 29.3% were deemed extremely poor.

• Year on year inflation for April 2021 was at 194.1%.

15 Assessment Methodology

16 Methodology – Assessment Design

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

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

18 19 Methodology – Assessment Process

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

• The primary data collection tools used in the assessment were the android–based structured household questionnaire and the community Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide.

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

• The Ministry of Health and Child Care was the lead ministry in the development of the Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC) guidelines which guided processes from survey planning to data collection.

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

20 Methodology – Assessment Process

• Primary data collection took place from 3 to 20 July, 2021. In recognising the risk of spreading COVID-19 during data collection, innovative approaches were used to collect vital information without causing any harm. The RLA was guided by global and country specific recommendations and all necessary precautions were taken to avoid potential transmission of COVID-19 between enumerators and community members.

• In order to reduce exposure to COVID-19 through person to person physical contact, primary caregivers were capacitated to measure their children using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tapes and assessment of oedema. In the case of anthropometrists recruited from MoHCC, additional appropriate PPE was provided (gloves, disposable plastic aprons) to enable them to measure participants aged 5 to 19 years in twenty selected districts.

• Data analysis and report writing ran from 23 May to 3 June 2021. Various secondary data sources and field observations were used to contextualise the analysis and reporting.

21 Methodology - Sampling and Sample Size

• Household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator to determine the Number of Sampled sample to ensure 95% confidence level of statistical representativeness at district, Districts Households provincial and national level.

• The survey collected data from 1500 randomly selected Enumerated Areas (EAs): Chikomba 249

• A two staged cluster sampling was used and comprised of; Goromonzi 253

• Sampling of 25 clusters per each of the 60 rural districts, denoted as EAs in this Hwedza 250 assessment, from the Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) 2012 master Marondera 251 sampling frame using the PPS methodology Mudzi 251 • The second stage involved the systematic random sampling of 10 households per EA (village). Murehwa 251

• At most, 250 households were interviewed per district, bringing the total sampled Mutoko 249 households to 2255. Seke 250

• 5 FGDs were held per district. UMP 251

Mash East 2255

22 Methodology – Sampled Wards

23 Data Preparation and Analysis

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

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

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

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

24 Technical Scope

The 2021 RLA collected and analysed information on the following thematic areas:

• Education • Linkages amongst the key sectoral and thematic areas • Health • Cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability • WASH

• Nutrition

• Agriculture and other rural livelihoods activities

• Food security

• Resilience

• Social protection

25 Assessment Findings

26 Demographic Description of the Sample

27 Household Characteristics: Household Size

District Average Minimum Maximum Chikomba 3.3 1.0 8.0

Goromonzi 4.1 1.0 10.0

Hwedza 4.0 1.0 13.0

Marondera 4.0 1.0 11.0

Mudzi 4.0 1.0 10.0

Murewa 3.8 1.0 11.0

Mutoko 3.9 1.0 15.0

Seke 3.4 1.0 12.0

Uzumba-Maramba-Pfungwe (UMP) 4.6 1.0 11.0

Mash East 3.9 1.0 15.0

• The average household size was 3.9.

28 Characteristics of Household Head: Sex and Age

Household Head Sex (%) Household Head Average Age District Male Female Average Minimum Chikomba 52.6 47.4 55.2 18.0 Goromonzi 66.0 34.0 48.2 20.0 Hwedza 54.8 45.2 58.9 21.0 Marondera 70.9 29.1 61.9 21.0 Mudzi 60.6 39.4 51.9 18.0 Murewa 63.7 36.3 53.5 19.0 Mutoko 67.5 32.5 56.9 20.0 Seke 66.4 33.6 46.1 18.0 Uzumba-Maramba- 67.3 32.7 51.0 19.0 Pfungwe (UMP) Mash East 63.3 36.7 53.7 18.0

• About 63.3% of households were male headed. • The highest proportion of female headed households was in Chikomba (47.4%). • The average household age was 53.7 which is within the productive age group. 29 Characteristics of Household Head: Education Level Attained

100 90 80 70 60 50 45 46 41 40 41 40 40 35 35 36 37 35 32 34 34 31 28 31 30 26 27 19 21 20 20 17 16 18 18 18 16 20 13 14 15 14 12 10 11 Proportion of Household Heads (%) Heads Household of Proportion 6 8 6 10 4 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East None Primary level ZJC level O' level A' level Above A' Level

• The majority of the household heads had attained at least primary level (89%).

• Seke (51%) had the highest proportion of household heads who had attained O’ level education and above. 30 Characteristics of Household Head: Marital Status

100 2 0 1 3 2 1 0 3 8 9 90 20 22 24 27 28 26 80 33 37 22 19 8 3 70 5 7 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 3 12 60 6 8 7 4 4 8 50 12

40 65 67 30 63 61 63 57 55 59 47 49

20 Proportion of Household Heads (%) Heads Household of Proportion 10

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widowed Never married

• About 59% of household heads were married and living together. • Hwedza had the highest proportion of household heads who were widowed, 37%. 31 Household Head Religion

100 90 80 70 60 50 38 40 30 18 20 15

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 10 10 6 7 2 0 1 1 0 Roman Protestant Pentecoastal Apostolic Sect Zion Other Islam Traditional Other religion No religion Catholic Christian

• The greatest proportion of household heads were from the Apostolic Sect (38%). • This was followed by those that had no religion and Pentecostal 18% and 15% respectively. 32 Characteristics of Household Head: Religion

Roman Apostolic Other Other Catholic Protestant Pentecostal Sect Zion Christian Islam Traditional religion No religion (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 9.2 11.6 17.7 37.3 3.6 10.4 0.0 0.4 2.0 7.6 Chikomba 10.3 1.2 16.7 36.1 0.8 7.9 0.4 0.0 2.4 24.2 Goromonzi 22.4 9.6 11.6 36.0 1.2 11.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 6.8 Hwedza 13.9 9.6 21.1 33.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 21.1 Marondera 4.0 1.6 11.2 53.0 1.6 6.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 22.3 Mudzi 10.4 0.8 12.0 40.0 2.8 11.6 0.8 0.0 4.8 16.8 Murewa 12.5 11.7 20.6 29.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 23.8 Mutoko 7.6 6.0 14.9 35.7 3.2 9.2 1.2 6.0 0.4 15.7 Seke 2.8 6.4 8.4 45.0 1.6 7.2 0.0 4.8 0.4 23.5 Uzumba-Maramba- Pfungwe (UMP) 10.4 6.5 14.9 38.4 1.9 7.1 0.4 1.4 1.2 18.0 Mash East

• About 53% of household heads in Mudzi were of the Apostolic Sect. This was higher than the provincial average of 38.4%.

33 Orphaned Children

100 90 80 70 60

households (%) households 50 40 30 22 19 17 17 16 20 13 13 16 15 16

Proportion of of Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Approximately, 16% of the households had orphans in Mashonaland East. • The highest proportion of orphans was in Hwedza (22%).

34 Education

35 School Attendance

100

90 82 82 83 79 80 79 79 80 76 76 73

(%) 70

children children 50 47 42 41 38 40 36 34 32 30 26

Proportion of of Proportion 24 20 9 10

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Currently going to school Ever sent away from school during the first term because of non- payment of fees

• The highest proportion of children who were going to school at the time of the survey was in Marondera, 83%. • Generally, 32% of children were ever sent away during last term because of non payment of fees. 36 Major Reasons for Children Not Being in School

Non- payment Work for Help with Not Distance to Expensive Child of last food or household interested school too or no considered Pregnancy Completed No birth term Illness money work in school far money too young /marriage O/A level certificate Disability school fees (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Chikomba 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 Goromonzi 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 28.6 28.6 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 Hwedza 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.3 20.0 6.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marondera 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 26.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mudzi 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.9 11.1 29.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Murewa 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 46.7 26.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mutoko 10.0 6.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 6.7 20.0 16.7 20.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 Seke 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 8.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 4.2 0.0 UMP 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 4.5 18.2 11.4 11.4 34.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 Mash East 1.6 2.2 1.1 2.7 1.1 18.8 16.1 19.4 21.5 1.1 1.6 1.1

• About 19% of the children were out of school due to pregnancy/marriage with the highest in Chikomba (50%) and Seke (33.3%). • Being expensive or no money (18.8%) was one of the major reasons why children were not in school. 37 Chronic Illnesses

38 Households with Members who had Confirmed Chronic Illness 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 10.2 8.1 8.6 7.7 10 7.1 7.3 6.3 5.4 5 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• At provincial level, 7.7% of the households had members who had confirmed chronic conditions. • Hwedza district (12%) had the highest proportion whilst the least was in UMP (5%) .

39 Households with Members who had Chronic Illnesses (7.7%)

Hyperte Diabetes nsion, Arthritis, Ulcer, HIV , high High chronic Epilepsy, chronic infection Heart blood blood body seizures, Tubercul Liver Kidney stomach AIDS disease sugar Asthma pressure pain fits Stroke Cancer osis diseases diseases pain Other District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Chikomba 27.3 5.1 26.3 6.1 22.2 7.1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 Goromonzi 28.2 4.7 22.4 4.7 29.4 3.2 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 2.4 3.5 Hwedza 17.1 2.4 8.5 3 36 12.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 10.4 Marondera 25.5 1.1 18.1 7.4 28.7 9.6 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 2.1 2.1 Mudzi 74.1 1.1 13.8 10.3 33.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 0 0 0 0 1.1 9.2 Murewa 14.3 2.6 27.3 6.5 31.2 2.6 13 1.3 3.9 0 0 0 2.6 5.2 Mutoko 26.2 3.3 13.1 0 49.2 1.6 3.3 3.3 1.6 1.6 0 0 0 0 Seke 36.9 1.2 16.7 3.6 14.3 1.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.2 0 1.2 4.8 9.5 UMP 25.4 0 0 13.4 31.3 3 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.5 6 Mash East 24.3 2.4 16.7 5.9 30.4 2.3 1.7 1.7 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.8 5.6 • Of the 7.7% households that had members with a chronic conditions, the highest proportions had hypertension (30.4%) and HIV and AIDS infections (24.3%). 40 • Those households with members with diabetes were highest in Murehwa (27.3%) whilst hypertension was highest in Mutoko (49.2%). Chronically Ill Persons Who Missed Medication Missed Medication Reasons 100 Medication too expensive 70.0 90 No required currency to purchase 7.3 80 Other 70 5.5 60 No money to pay for transport 4.5 50 Not interested 2.7 40 Failed to follow the instructions 2.7 27.9 30 Lost the medication 1.8 18.3 15.9 14.8 16.4 14.6 20 10.8 Failure to access the health facility 1.8 6.7 7.5 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 4.6 Lack of transport 1.8 0 Was too busy and forgot 1.8

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

• At provincial level, the proportion of the households with a chronically ill member who missed their medication was 14.6%. The main reasons were medication too expensive (70%).

41 HIV Positive Members who Received Support

100

80 75 76.8 75.3

(%) 70 63.5 63.1 60 55.6 48.8 50 members members 50 47.1 47.247.2 38.9 41.2 40 33.7 31.3 30

Proportion of of Proportion 16.9 20 16.7 14.3 10 5.6 5.4 5.9 5.2 4.2 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.9 1.9 2 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National Food aid Cash transfer for care givers Counselling sessions/ home visits School support Vocational training

• Nationally, of those members that had HIV/AIDS, the majority received support in the form of counselling sessions/home visits (63.1%) whilst for Mashonaland East the proportion was 76.8%. 42 Social Protection

43 Households Which Received any Form of Support Received Support Sources of Support

100 94 92 Government UN/NGO Church Rural Urban Charitable 86 90 83 83 Support Support Support Relatives Relatives Diaspora Groups 78 79 77 80 74 7476 74 District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 71 70 65 Chikomba 62 43 10 20 34 18 43 70 65 62 60 54 Goromonzi 12 4 4 11 10 7 4 50 Households (%) Households Hwedza 81 12 5 26 45 11 4 40 41 40 Marondera 53 5 6 27 20 5 0 30

20 Mudzi 43 42 3 19 15 4 2 Proportion of Proportion 10 Murewa 44 25 5 10 29 11 2 0 Mutoko 57 19 11 14 7 7 40

Seke 22 9 3 10 11 7 3 UMP 57 28 0 8 8 1 2 2020 2021 Mash East 48 21 5 18 20 8 13

• About 70% of the households in Mashonaland East received some form of support. Hwedza (92%) had the highest proportion of households receiving support. 44 • Government remains the main source of social protection (48%). Peak Hunger Period Support

100 90 79 80

70 64 60 51 52 50 44 42 43 44 44 36 40 33 30 27 27 20 19 17 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 13 12 8 10 10 10 4 6 7 5 4 2 4 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East GVT UN/NGO Both Gvt & UN/NGO

• During the peak hunger period (January to March 2021) , the proportion of households receiving assistance from government was highest in Hwedza (79%) whilst both Government and UN/NGO assistance was low in Goromonzi (12% and 4%) respectively.

45 Forms of Support by Source Government UN/NGOs

Livestoc k Other Covid- Livestock Other Weather Covid-19 Livestock support: livestoc Weathe 19 Livestock Crop support: livestock WASH and related Crop support: Teak k WASH r and related support: Food Cash inputs pass-on support inputs climate support Food Cash inputs pass-on grease support inputs climate support Other Teak Other (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) grease(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Chikomba 39.2 3.9 74.5 0 2 0 0 0.7 2 0 Chikomba 93.6 8.3 19.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 Goromonzi 61.3 0 35.5 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 Goromonzi 91.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.3 Hwedza 35.8 4.4 91.7 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 Hwedza 20 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Marondera 10.9 0.7 79.6 0 2.2 0 0 0 8.8 4.4 Marondera 83.3 16.7 8.3 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 8.3 0 Mudzi 66.4 4.5 12.7 0 0.9 1.8 23.6 16.4 16.4 1.8 Mudzi 67.6 7.4 5.6 0 0 0 34.3 9.3 12 1.9 Murewa 45.9 4.5 68.5 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0.9 Murewa 98.4 25.8 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mutoko 69.7 0.7 57.2 0 13.1 0.7 2.1 0 8.3 2.1 Mutoko 67.4 15.2 26.1 2.2 8.7 2.2 26.1 2.2 45.7 0 Seke 58.9 5.4 50 1.8 0 0 0 0 1.8 5.4 Seke 95.5 4.5 31.8 0 0 0 22.7 0 4.5 0 UMP 62.2 0 61.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. UMP 97.4 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 Mash East 47.2 2.8 65.1 0.1 2.5 0.4 2.7 1.7 4.3 1.4 Mash East 85.7 9.7 11.6 0.4 1.1 0.6 11.8 2.3 7.8 1.5

• Most of the support received from government was in the form of crop inputs (65.1%) and food (47.2%) whilst from UN/NGOs it was food assistance (85.7%). • The highest proportion of households that received crop inputs from government were in Hwedza (91.7%) and the lowest was in Mudzi district (12.7% ). • Mudzi (34.3%) and Mutoko (26.1%) had the highest proportion receiving WASH support from UN/NGOs.

46 Maize Stocks

47 Cereal stocks as at 1 April 2021

District Cereal stocks (kgs) • The average household cereal stocks as at 1 April Chikomba 44.6 for the province was 30.7kgs per household. Goromonzi 14.3

Hwedza 45.2 • Marondera had the highest average stocks Marondera 94.4 (94.4kgs) whilst Mudzi had the least (8.8kgs). Mudzi 8.8

Murewa 40.8

Mutoko 29.4

Seke 13.6

UMP 25.7

Mash East 30.7

48 Maize Stocks from Casual Labour and Remittances

Casual labour (kgs) Remittances (Kgs) Chikomba 20.7 0.0 Goromonzi 29.3 0.0 Hwedza 35.3 0.0 Marondera 12.4 4.2 Mudzi 39.7 0.0 Murewa 48.9 1.3 Mutoko 4.3 0.0 Seke 10.0 2.0 UMP 12.6 0.0 Mash East 21.6 0.2

• Mashonaland East had acquired on average 21.6kg of maize grain from casual labour and 0.2kgs from remittances. • Murehwa (48.9kgs) had the highest average maize stocks from casual labour. 49 Households which Planted Crops

100

90 84 80 80

40 37 31 30 30 26 26 26 25

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 19 20 17 10 10 11 10 1 2 0 Maize Groundnuts Cowpeas Sorghum Roundnuts Pearl Millet Tubers Soya beans 2019/20 2020/21

• Maize remains the most commonly grown crop nationally, with more than 80% of the households having grown it. • In comparison to the previous season, the proportion of households that had grown the majority of the crops had increased. 50 Households that Grew Various Crops

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl milllet Tubers Cowpeas Households Roundnuts Sugar beans Soya beans which grew groudnuts Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Maize was most commonly grown crop in the province followed groundnuts, cowpeas and tubers.

51 Cereal Self Sufficiency

Districts

0 – 3 Months

4- 6 Months

7- 9 Months

9 – 12 Months Mudzi

Over 12 months Chikomba Goromonzi, Seke, UMP, Hwedza, Murehwa, Marondera, Mutoko

• In the province, 8 out of 9 districts produced over 12 months supply of cereal. • Thus issues of accessibility need to be addressed so that grain is accessible to wards and districts which are not self sufficient.

52 Maize Grain Prices

• Mudzi and Goromonzi had the highest average maize grain prices at USD7 /20litre bucket and USD6 ,respectively.

53 Maize Meal Prices

• All the districts had average maize meal prices above 5USD except for Marondera (4USD).

54 Improved Livestock Practices

55 Improved Livestock Breeds

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 31 30 27 27 28 28 27 30 24 21 17 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 13 13 11 11 11 10 8 9 9 10 8 8 7 7 5 7 7 8 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National Familiar with Improved livestock breeds Used Improved livestock breeds Training/orientation on Improved livestock breeds

• Only 27% of the households indicated that they were familiar with improved livestock breeds and only 8% had used improved livestock breeds. • About 10% of the households indicated that they had been trained on improved livestock breeds so as to maximize on improving the livestock herd. 56 Livestock Vaccinations

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 40 33 33 35 33 50 29 31 31 40 29 30 21 21 40 33 17 18 20 20 20 20 19 30 16 27 28 29 29 20 30 24 24 20 19 19 Proportion (%) Households of Proportion 10 17 18 18 18 18 19 20 17 20 18 18 13

Proportion Proportion of Households (%) 16 20 14 13 0 20 22 21 10 16 17 17 17 14 12 0

Familiar with Home vaccinations ( farmer administered vaccinations) Familiar with Routine vaccinations by Veterinary Officer or Paravet Home vaccinations ( farmer administered vaccinations) Use Routine vaccinations by Veterinary Officer or Paravet Training/orientation on Home vaccinations ( farmer administered Training/orientation on Routine vaccinations by Veterinary Officer or Paravet vaccinations)

• In Mashonaland East only 24% of the households indicated that they were familiar with routine vaccinations carried out by a veterinary officer and only 14% had used the services of a veterinary officer or paravet for the routine vaccines. • On the other hand, about 33% of the households indicated that they were aware of home vaccines/ vaccines administered by the farmer and only 20% had done these vaccinations. There is need to upscale awareness and trainings on vaccines so as to prevent disease outbreaks. 57 Livestock Deworming and Dipping 100 100 90 90 84 80 79 79 80 72 72 72 70 70 70 65 60 53 51 56 49 46 60 50 46 45 45 49 50 40 50 47 41 40 38 41 31 40 36 30 24 25 33 32 42 19 22 21 21 41 41 18 19 17 30 36 36 20 26 25 25 34 32 32 22 21 Proportion (%) Households of Proportion 19 18 18 20 27 10 15 (%) Household of Proportion 0 10 0

Familiar with Deworming Used Deworming Familiar with Dipping Used Dipping Training/orientation on Deworming Training/orientation on Dipping

• About 70% of the households were familiar with dipping whilst only 46% were familiar with dosing. This includes those who did not own livestock. • Only 36% of the households had dipped their livestock whilst only 22% had dewormed their livestock. Dipping is important in preventing tick borne diseases. 58 Value Chain Practices

59 Market Information Access

100

60 48 50 40 40 36

30 25 19 20 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 15 15 9 10 7 8 7 9 9 8 8 10 4 6 3 5 5 4 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Familiar with Receiving market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements through collection centers, traders, private sector, extension officers Use Receiving market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements through collection centers, traders, private sector, extension officers

Training/orientation on Receiving market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements through collection centers, traders, private sector

• About 15% of the households indicated that they had accessed market information through various channels. Access to market information is important for planning purposes. 60 • Mutoko (40%) had highest proportion of households that used market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements. Use of Improved Granaries and Community Granaries

100.0 100 90.0 90 80.0 80 70.0 70 60.0 60 50.0 50 36 40.0 40 30 29 29 30.0 20 23 21 30 16 20.0 15 12 18 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 11 78 97 14 10.0 5 6 4 4 66 8 3 3 1 34 3 1 2 10 6 6 6 7 7 0 2 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 2 2 0.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

Familiar with Improved granary Familiar with Community Granaries Use Improved granary Use Community Granaries Training/orientation on Improved granary Training/orientation on Community Granaries

• Use of improved granaries was still limited as only 6% of households indicated that they had used them. About 2% also indicated that they had used community granaries. • Limited use of improved granaries can have a negative effect on post harvest management and affect the quality of harvest received this season. 61 Post- Harvest Grain Storage Conditions

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 53 48 50 50 42 3738 38 38 40 40 35 33 3534 35 29 30 28 30 30 2726 25 22 2220 22 (%) Households of Proportion 20 16 20 2019 18 1415 Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 20 16 1514 10 10 6 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Familiar with Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box, metal silo) Familiar with Store in bag with artificial chemicals Use Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box, metal silo) Use Store in bag with artificial chemicals Training/orientation on Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight Training/orientation on Store in bag with artificial chemicals box, metal silo)

• In the province, about 28% of households were storing their grain in bags and using grain protectants, whilst only 2% were

using temperature and air control in grain protection (use of hermetic bags, metal silos, air-tight boxes etc.) 62 Value Addition- Sorting, Grading, Drying & Packaging

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 49 50 45 45 45 47 40 44 44 33 33 31 42 30 29 28 37 30 24 40 34 35 20 23 22 22 21 22 32 32 31 19 17 18 17 18 27 29 29 29 20 19 16 15 14 14 16 16 30 25 26 26

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 21 23 22 22 9 8 19

10 (%) Households of Proportion 20 15 0 10 0

Familiar with Improved quality control technologies (sorting, grading) Familiar with Drying, packaging, storage Use Improved quality control technologies (sorting, grading) Use Drying, packaging, storage Training/orientation on Improved quality control technologies (sorting, grading) Training/orientation on Drying, packaging, storage

• In Mashonaland East, only 23% of households were using quality control technologies (sorting and grading), whilst only 31% were involved in drying and packaging their agricultural produce. • There is need for farmers to practice value addition of products in order to improve on the income received form their produce. 63 Value Addition- Food Processing, Branding & Labeling

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 46 43 50 38 40 36 37 35 40 30 27 24 26 25 30 22 21 20 15 18 15 18 17 15 20 16 14 14 13 12 20 14 11 11

10 Householdsof Proportion 10 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 7 7 6 8 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 0 0

F'amiliar with Food processing (peanut butter, oils, amarula jam, honey)' Familiar with Branding and labeling (e.g., of honey, peanut butter)

Use Food processing (peanut butter, oils, amarula jam, honey) Use Branding and labeling (e.g., of honey, peanut butter)

Training/orientation on Food processing (peanut butter, oils, amarula jam, Training/orientation on Branding and labeling (e.g., of honey, peanut honey) butter)

• About 43% of the households were familiar with food processing, whilst only 14% were familiar with branding and labelling. • However, only 22% had processed their agricultural produce and 5% had branded and labelled their produce.

64 Livestock

65 Households which Owned Cattle

100 21 2 7 9 10 10 2 9 9 6 14 3 90 17 6 9 8 9 80 8 14 16 8 8 5 9 70 14 11 14 15 60 14

Households (%) Households 50

Of Of 92 91 40 77 73 74 71 62 30 59 57

Proportion 51 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke (UMP) Mash East zero one to two three to four five > five

• Majority of the households (71%) did not own any cattle. • Mutoko (17%) and Hwedza (14%) had the highest proportion of households owning more than five cattle. 66 Households which Owned Draught Cattle

100 20 1 3 6 4 4 5 8 5 4 4 7 5 90 13 18 15 20 80 24 27 70 60

Households (%) Households 50 97 94

of of 88 89 40 78 81 76 71 75 30 64

20 Proportion Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke (UMP) Mash East zero one to two three to four five > five

• At provincial level, 81% of the households did not own draught power and the highest proportion was in Goromonzi district (97%).

67 Households which Owned Goats

100 0 0 0 2 2 12 2 31 4 3 10 12 5 5 4 5 13 2 3 90 9 4 8 10 8 7 11 20 3 80 12 11 14 17 16 16 21 70 8 60 28

Households (%) Households 50 88 86 40 77 77 71 66 68 30 64 64

Proportion of of Proportion 20 41 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke (UMP) Mash East zero one to two three to four five > five

• About 71% of the households did not own any goats. • Approximately, 3% of the households owned more than five goats whilst only 14% had one to two.

68 Livestock Offtake Rates Cattle Goat 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60

50 50 Offtake (%) Offtake Offtake (%) Offtake 40 40 34 30 30 26 27 19 21 19 20 20 16 15 11 12 13 8 10 10 5 4 4 10 1 1 1 3 0 0

• Provincial cattle offtake rate was 4% whilst for the goat offtake rate was 19%. • Murewa had the highest offtake rate for both cattle (12%) and goats (34%). 69 Calving Rate

• Calving rate, defined as the proportion of cows/heifers that dropped calves over a defined period of time, is a measure of productivity of the cow herd.

• The national average calving rate was 45%.

• Calving rate was low (below 50%) across most districts in the province ( Mudzi, UMP, Goromonzi, Chikomba , Hwedza , Seke).

• Highest calving rates were reported in Marondera (54%).

70 Theileriosis (January Disease) and Lumpy Skin Disease Outbreaks

• Theileriosis is a tick-borne disease that has caused the most cattle fatalities in the last three years. Case fatality of up to 60% for theileriosis have been reported. • A total of 28 Districts from Mashonaland East, Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central, Manicaland, Midlands and Masvingo were affected. • Outbreaks were highly concentrated in Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East and Manicaland. • Other major tick-borne diseases of concern were babesiosis, heartwater and anaplasmosis. These diseases commonly occurred concurrently in most situations

Source: Department of Veterinary Field Services 71 Cattle Mortality Rate

• Mortality rates of above 30% (highlighted in red) were reported in (Hwedza, Chikomba, Seke, Goromonzi, Murehwa, • Mashonaland East province had the highest mortality rate.

72 Households that Reported Cattle Deaths and Causes of Death Reported Cattle Deaths Causes of Deaths 100 1 42 01 32 100 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 14 11 15 8 10 11 6 7 6 90 22 3 3 90 2 3 19 18 35 6 80 80 7 20 12 5 24 70 18 70 19 1 17 19 60 60 10 29 15 14 (%) Households 50 99 100 98 84 98 87 95 96 50 97 94 19 31 90 40 16 40 76 30 30 57 58 55 20 49 48 20 37 of Proportion 10 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 33 31 9 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0

Other Floods/cyclone Slaughter for own consumption Predators zero one to two three to four five > five Diseases Drought/Lack of water

• About 45% of households reported to have lost one or more animals to death. • Thirty-five percent of households in Chikomba lost more than 5 cattle.

• Diseases (96%) were the main cause of death whilst non were slaughtered for own consumption. 73 Goat Mortality Rate by District

• Seke and Chikomba districts reported goat mortality rates of 27% and 22% respectively, which were …. highest in the province.

74 Goat Prices (USD)

• Goat prices in the province ranged between USD19-USD34. • The highest price was in Goromonzi (USD34) whilst the least was Mudzi (USD19).

75 Cattle Prices (USD)

• In Mashonaland East province, cattle prices were between USD150-USD330 • The cheapest price was in Mudzi (USD180) and the highest price of USD333 was in Marondera.

76 Climate Smart Agriculture

77 Household Knowledge of Pfumvudza

100 94 89 89 89 90 87 80 78 78 80 80 75 76 67 67 68 70 64 58 60 56 56 56 57 57 51 53 49 48 50 45

40 38 33 29

30 24 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Pfumvudza Households which Practised Pfumvudza Households Trained on Pfumvdza

• In the province, 76% of households were familiar with Pfumvudza , 57% had practiced it and 57% had received training. • Chikomba (80%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced Pfumvudza while Goromonzi (24%) had the lowest. 78 Use of Quality Certified Seeds

100 96 92 92 87 90 85 82 80 73 74 69 67 70 64 58 60 57 56 57 49 49 50 48 47 42 42 37 40 35 36 29 30 27 26 22 24

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Certified Seed Households which used Certified Seed Households Trained on Certified Seed

• The use of quality certified seed was at 58% in the province. • Mutoko had the highest usage of certified seed at 92%. 79 Use of Community Seed Banks

100

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 16 14 12 9 10 10 8 8 7 6 8 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Seed Banks Households which used Seed Banks Households Trained on Seed Banks

• All districts had low usage of community seed banks with the provincial average at 3%. 80 Households which Adapted Suitable Improved Varieties 90 80 80 78 70 59 60 56 52 48 50 44 43 44 42 39 37 40 35 34 33 35 30 30 29 27 28 27 30 24 25 18 18

20 15 15 13 15 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Improved Varieties Households which used Improved Varieties Households Trained on Improved Varieties

• In the province, 35% of the households adapted to the use of suitable improved varieties with the highest proportion recorded in Mutoko (78%).

81 Crop Rotation

100

80 77 77 68 70 66 65 65

60 58 51 52 52 50 45 43 41 38 40 36 33 33 32 30 29 29 30 26 24 22

Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 22 19 20 16 17 15 9 10

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Crop Rotation Households which Practised Crop Rotation Households Trained on Crop Rotation

• Crop rotation was practiced by 36% of the households across the province. • Mutoko (65%) had the highest proportion of households practicing crop rotation with the lowest being Seke (9%).

82 Use of Compost/Organic fertilizer

100 90 82 81 80 76 73 70 70 66 67 60 59 58 57 60 54 51 49 49 50 45 44 38 40 35 30 31 30 30 30 26 26 22 22 21 19

Proportion of Households (%) (%) Households of Proportion 20 13 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Compost Households which used Compost Households Trained on Compost

• Only 44% of the households used compost across the province. • The use of compost was highest in Marondera ( 70%) and lowest in Goromonzi (21%).

83 Use of Drip Irrigation

100

40 36 29 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 18 16 14 14 13 14 14 9 10 10 8 6 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Drip Irrigation Households Using Drip Irrigation Households Trained on Drip Irrigation

• The use of drip irrigation was low across all districts (3%).

84 Plant Spacing

100

70 63 60 51 50 45 38 40 29 30 27 21 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 18 20 14 11 12 12 9 10 10 6 8 6 6 4 3 4 4 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with proper spacing Households which practised proper spacing Households Trained on spacing

• Only 12% of households in the province used appropriate plant spacing. 85 Intercropping Practice

100 90 80 78 70 70 64 60 61 60 56 51 50 42 44 43 40 36 36 35 32 34 29 30 22 22 24 24 18 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 13 14 14 10 6 8 6 3 3 4 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Intercropping Households which practised Intercropping Households Trained on Intrecropping

• Intercropping was practiced by 29% of the households at provincial level. • Mutoko (61%) had the highest number of households practicing intercropping while Goromonzi (3%) had the lowest.

86 Cover Cropping

100

50 42 40 33 29 30 28 26 22 20 22

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 17 20 15 16 14 10 8 9 10 10 10 10 7 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Cover Cropping Households which practised Cover Cropping Households Trained on Cover Cropping

• Cover cropping was practiced by only 10% of the households in the province. • Mutoko (26%) had the highest number of households practicing cover-cropping with the least being Seke ( 0%). 87 Mulching 100 94 96 94 94 90 84

80 74 75 75 74 70 66 67 62 61 60 58 50 50 45 46 44 43 41 38 40 32 34 32 28 30 30 26 24 21 21 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with Mulching Households which practised Mulching Households Trained on Mulching

• At least 46% of the households practiced mulching in the province. • Mutoko (75%) had the highest proportion of households using mulch with the lowest being Goromonzi ( 21%). 88 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

100 90

80 74 69 70 67

60 53 48 47 50 43 39 38 40 36 34 31 28 30 26 23 21 23 23 21 18 16 16 18 proportion of households (%) households of proportion 20 14 16 13 11 10 5 5 4 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Households Familiar with IPM Households which practised IPM Households Trained on IPM

• The use of integrated pest management practices was 28% in the province with the highest usage reported in Mutoko ( 69%).

89 Minimum Tillage : Planting Basins

100 94 90 80 69 70 60 60 50 of Households of 43 39 40 36 35 29 30 26 24 26 27 24 20 21 17 17 15 16 17 15 16

Proportion Proportion 20 14 8 8 9 10 7 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Familiar with Minimum tillage (e.g., planting basins, ripper, 2-wheel tractor)' Use Minimum tillage (e.g., planting basins, ripper, 2-wheel tractor) Training/orientation on Minimum tillage (e.g., planting basins, ripper, 2-wheel tractor)

• Mutoko (69%) had highest use of minimum tillage. 90 Management of the Watershed

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 16.5 20 11.6 7.68.0 7.2 8.68.2 8.88.46.8 8.9 10 5.23.22.4 5.23.6 2.1

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 1.01.00.5 0.40.8 0.90.4 0.80.40.4 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP

F'amiliar with Management or protection of the watershed (e.g., vertiva, sisals, star grasses, gulley reclamation, fodder trees)'

Use Management or protection of the watershed (e.g., vertiva, sisals, star grasses, gulley reclamation, fodder trees)

Training/orientation on Management or protection of the watershed (e.g., vertiva, sisals, star grasses, gulley reclamation, fodder trees)

• Marondera (8.6%) had highest proportion of households that practiced management or protection of the watershed. • Management of watershed was still very limited across all districts. There is need to put more effort in protecting the watershed as this has

an implication on loss of soil and siltation of water bodies. 91 Sustainable Harvesting Of Forest Products

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 31 30 27 26 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 10 10 6 5 5 6 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Familiar with Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.) Use Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.) Training/orientation on Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.)

• Mutoko (26%) had a highest use of Sustainable Harvesting of Forest Products .

92 Income and Expenditure

93 Current Most Important Source of Income

Casual labour 20 Remittance within 15 Food crop production/sales 13 Formal salary/wages 13 Vegetables production/sales 10 Small scale mining/mineral sales 6 Remittances outside 4 Cash crop production 4 Pension 3 Petty trade 3 Livestock production/sales 2 Skilled trade/artisan 2 Own business 2 Government social transfers 1 Other 0 Non-state social transfers 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Proportion of households (%)

• Most households continue to rely on Casual labour (20%) as the most important source of income, followed by remittances within country (15%) , food crop production/sales (13%) and formal salary/wages (13%). 94 Average Household Monthly Income (USD) for April 2021 200 180 180 160 140 120 120 113 97 100 USD 79 79 80 71 74

60 46 46 37 40 32 31 34 34 26 24 28 28 26 20 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 2020 2021

• Average monthly income was USD 79 and this was an increase from USD34 in 2020. • Marondera (USD180) had the highest whilst the and lowest was recorded in Mudzi (USD28). 95 Average Household Monthly Expenditure (USD) for April 2021 100 90 81 80 68 70 65 60 60

50 44 USD 41 40 36 28 30 23 24 21 19 19 20 16 17 17 16 18 11 10 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 2020 2021

• Average expenditure for the month of April 2021 was USD44 and this was an increase from 18USD reported in 2020. • Mudzi (USD17) reported the lowest expenditure whilst Murewa (81USD) had the highest expenditure. 96 Food Expenditure Ratio

100 90 80 72 68 70 67 66 62 62 64 59 58 59 60 60 55 55 52 52 54 53 51 49 50 expenditure (%) expenditure 44 40 30

20 Proportion of of Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 2020 2021

• The proportion of food expenditure was 53%, a decrease from 64% reported in 2020. • This implies that households had less to spend on other essential services such as health and education.

97 Average Household 6 Month Expenditure 60 55

50 43 40

30 USD

20 14

10 8 7 4 5 2 0 Education Agriculture Other Construction Business Medical Social Taxes expenses

• The highest expenditure was on agriculture (USD55). 98 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

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

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

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

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

100 Main Drinking Water Services

100 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 6 4 14 12 10 90 15 5 15 16 14 19 17 1 0 1 80 6 3 17 8 8 70

32 60

50 89 84 85 87 40 78 80 77 72 73

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 46 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Basic water services Limited water services Unimproved water services Surface water services

• The proportion of households accessing basic water services in Mashonaland East province was 77%. • Hwedza ( 19%) had the highest proportion of households using unimproved water services. • Mudzi (32%) had the highest proportion with limited water services. 101 Access to Adequate Domestic Water

100 96 96 96 96 95 94 93 94 94 94 93 94 94 94 93 92 93 92 91 93 92 91 89 89 88 88 89 89 89 90 85 86 86 83 82 82 82 80 79 81 80 80

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Drinking Needs Cooking Needs Personal Hygiene Needs Other Domestic Needs

• More than 85 % of the households reported having adequate water for cooking, drinking, personal hygiene and other domestic needs with

Mudzi and Seke having the lowest proportions. 102 Distance travelled to Main Water Source

100 4 2 1 1 3 2 9 7 11 11 90 14 12 16 16 29 24 80 21 32 70 31 60 36 50 84 88 88 86 40 80 73 72 30 59

53 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 35 10

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above

• At provincial level, 72% of the households travelled a distance of less than 500m to get to a water source. • Mudzi ( 29%) had the highest proportion of households travelling a kilometre and more to get to a water source.

103 Fetching Water for Cooking and Drinking

100 93 90 88 86 84 81 81 81 82 80 75 69 70

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 17 20 15 15 13 13 14 11 10 10 6 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Adult woman [15 years and above] Adult man [15 years and above] Female child [under 15 years] Male child [under 15 years]

• The role of fetching water in Mashonaland East province was mainly performed by adult women 15 years and above. • Chikomba (29%) had the highest proportion of households with adult men 15 years and above fetching water for cooking and drinking. 104 Time Spent Queuing and Violence at Water Source Time Spent at Water Source Violence at Water Source 100 91 100 88 85 87 90 79 80 73 73 73 90 70 61 80 60 52 50 70 40 30 23 23 60 30 18 17 18 20 20 12 10 8 10 8 9 8 5 50 10 1 20 0 00 20 30 11 31 1 0 40

Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 30 20.2

20 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 10 3.6 Less than 15minutes (or within premises) 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.8 2.0 0 15- 30 minutes 30 minutes - 1 hour More than 1 hour

• The proportion of households spending less than 15 minutes queuing at a water source or within premises was 73% . • Mudzi had the highest proportion of households queuing for more than an hour (8%) as well as recording the highest proportion of households reporting violence(20.2%) at a water source. 105 State of Major Dams as at 17 May 2021

Dam Name Full Supply Capacity Current Capacity % Full (millions of cubic metres) (millions of cubic metres) Kariba 64800.00 33168.3 51.2 Tugwi- Mukosi 1802.6 1809.1 100.4 Mutirikwi 1378.08 1348.9 97.9 Manyame 480.23 368.01 76.6 Osborne 401.64 260.7 64.9 Mazvikadei 343.815 253.8 73.8 Manyuchi 309.06 275.1 89.0 Manjirenji 274.17 267.7 97.6 Sebakwe 265.733 265.7 100.0 Chivero 247.18 243.4 98.5 Insiza 173.49 138.1 79.6 Zhove 130.46 122.9 94.2 Siya 105.45 105.2 99.8 Inyankuni 74.52 44.5 59.7 Arcadia 55.29 55.6 100.6 Mtshabezi 51.99 37.1 71.4 Upper Ncema 43.17 24.0 55.6 Mzingwane 42.17 13.2 31.3 Mazowe 39.357 14.0 35.6 Bubi Lupane 39.09 35.9 91.8 Silabuhwa 23.22 20.18 86.9 Mwenje 36.11 36.3 100.5 Masembura 25.77 25,7 99.7 Lower Ncema 14.87 11.0 74.0 Harava 9.026 8.8 97.5 Upper Insiza 7.81 6.8 87.1 Seke 3.38 1.8 52.3

• The majority of the dams except for Mazowe (35.6%) and Mzingwane (31.3%) were above fifty percent capacity. 106 Ladder for Sanitation

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

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

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

Open Defecation Disposal of human faeces in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste. Note: Improved sanitation facilities: Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include ﬂush or pour ﬂush toilet/latrine, Blair ventilated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.

107 Access to Improved Sanitation

100

70 65 70 69 78 77 60 83 80 81 83 82 50

40 7

30 2 4 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 2 6 5 7 29 28 7 5 28 10 12 20 15 18 12 10 13 0 5 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Open defecation Unimproved Improved

• In the province, 77% of households had access to improved sanitation facilities whilst 18% practiced open defection • Chikomba district (29%) and Mudzi (28%) had the highest proportion of households practising open defaecation.

108 Ladder for Hygiene

Service level Definition

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

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

No Facility No hand washing facility on premises.

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

109 Access to Hand Washing Facilities

100 03 4 02 03 11 10 0 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 80

50 97 96 98 97 94 89 90 92 92 92 40

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East No service Limited Basic • There were generally no handwashing facilities at most households (94%) across the province. 110 Food Safety

111 Information on Food Safety 100

60 84.2 84.7 89 94.8 93.6 93.6 91.9

50 96 96 95.2 of Households (%) Households of 40

30 Proportion Proportion 20

10 15.8 15.3 11 5.2 6.4 6.4 8.1 0 4 4 4.8 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Yes No

• In the previous twelve months (April 2020 to May 2021), only 8.1% of the households received information on food safety issues.

• Goromonzi district (15.8%), had the greatest proportion of households who received information on food safety issues. 112 Considerations when Purchasing Food

100

90 78 80 74 6868 70 65.7 66.1 63.3 60.6 57.7 58.6 59.9 60 53.9 54.9 51.2 50 45.8 41.2 41.1 37.8 40 34.6 36.2 34.7 29.4 30 26.4 23.6 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 23.2 23 21.4 23.4 18 17.9 20 15.3 9.8 9.7 10.5 10 5.2 6 4.8 2.8 1.60 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Brand/source Expiry /Best before date Nutritional content Other

• In the province, 63.3% of households reported considering the expiry date when purchasing food for their families. • Goromonzi (26.4%), had the greatest proportion of households which considered nutritional content when purchasing food. 113 Ways to Keep Food Safe

100 94.4 89.2 90 84.1 78.5 78.4 80 69.6 70.3 70 66.4 65.7 67.4 61 58.2 60 56 52.8 52.1 53.2 50 46.7 46.4 45.6 43.6 44.2 40 29.2 26.8 28 27.2 Proportion of Householdsof Proportion 30 23.4 24 19.5 20 16.8 13.8 8.2 10 6 4.6 5.6 2.5 4.3 0 1.2 0.4 0 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Proper storage of food at correct temperatures Avoid contamination of cooked food by keeping it closed Keeping cooked food separate from raw food Other • Keeping food closed to avoid contamination (67.4%) was the frequently mentioned method of keeping food safe. 114 Safe Preparation of Food 100 94 90 83 79 80 80 80 76 76 76 71 72 73 72 73 69 68 70 66 66 64 63 62 60 62 60 60 49 47 50 44 45 40

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 11 10 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Use of safe water for preparation/ cooking Washing of hands with soap before preparation and serving of food Washing food utensils thoroughly with safe water and soap Do nothing

• In the province, 73% of households reported that use of safe water for food preparation and cooking was important in safe food preparation. • About 2% of households did nothing to ensure food safety during preparation of food. 115 Purchase of Expired or Spoiled Food

100

60 86.5 83 90.5 88.3 94.7 94.5 92.6 50 97.2 99.1 98

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion

10 13.5 17 9.5 11.7 5.3 5.5 7.4 0 2.8 0.9 2 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Yes No

• Seke (17%) had the greatest proportion of households which purchased expired or food undergoing spoilage due to its reduced price. 116 Access to Services and Infrastructure

117 Households that Received Any Agricultural Extension Services in the Past Year

100 90 80 77 71 70 59 60 58 53 53 51 53 50 40 29 30 25

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• In Mashonaland East province, 53% of households reported to have received some form of agricultural extension services support in the past year. • Seke (29%) and Goromonzi (25%) had the lowest proportion of households that received agricultural extension services support in the past year. 118 Households that Received Agriculture Advice from Extension Officers Cropping Advice Livestock Advice 100 100 93 93 90 91 90 92 90 85 87 90 80 78 80 78 72 73 72 69 70 70 58 60 60 58 52

50 (%) Households 50 45 44 40 40 29

30 30 Proportion of Proportion Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 20

10 10

0 0

• The proportion of households that received cropping advice form extension officers was high across all districts. • In Mashonaland East , 58% of the households reported to have received livestock advice , with Goromonzi (45%), Murewa (44%) and 119 UMP(29%) having the least proportion of households having received livestock advice. Households that Received Extension Support on January Disease 100 90 80 70 60 60 54 53 51 48 49

Households (%) Households 50 45 43 38 40 30 20 Proportion of of Proportion 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• In Mashonaland East (51%) of households received extension support on January Disease. 120 Households that Received Extension Support on Fall Army Worm

100 89 89 90 85 82 80 77 77 75 70 60 57 56 50 46 40 30

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 20 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Seventy five percent of households received extension support on Fall Army Worm.

121 Households that Received Extension Support on Weather and Climate

100

90 79 80 78 73 70 70 67 61 60 57 52

Households (%) Households 50 42 40

30 28

Proportion of of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• The proportion of households that received extension support on weather and climate was 61%

122 Access to Animal Health Centres

100

60 55 51 50 40 40 37 36 32 34 30 26

Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 23 22 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Access to Animal Health Centres was generally low across all districts, with only 36 % of households reporting to have access at provincial level.

123 Access to Police Services

124 Police Services Reachable within One Hour

100

80 77

70 62 62 60 55 49 50 50 44 40 38 38 30 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Police services were reachable within one hour to 50% of households in Mashonaland East.

125 Access to Victim Friendly Services

100

80 76

70 63 60 58

Households (%) Households 50 42 42 37 40 34 35 30

24 Proportion of of Proportion 20 9 10

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Access to victim friendly services was generally low across all districts except in Goromonzi (76%) and Seke (63%).

126 Approximate Distance of the Nearest Primary School

100 92 90 79 80 73 71 73 72 71 70 64 62 60 53 50 42 40 33 31 30 25 27 25 21 23 17 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 7 7 10 6 4 4 5 4 1 2 2 4 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• Seventy one percent of households reported to have their nearest school within a distance of the less than 5km . 127 Household Access to Health-Related Information

100 90 91 92 90 86 86 82 81 83 80

70 67 67

Households (%) Households 50

30 Proportion of of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Eight three percent of households had access to health related information.

128 Households that Received Nutrition Education in the Past 12 Months

100 90 80 70 60 56 56

Households (%) Households 50 47 42 41 39 40 38 31 30 26

Proportion of of Proportion 20 10 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Only 39% of households reported to have received nutrition education in the past 12 months. • Murewa (10%) had the least proportion of households reporting to have received nutrition education. 129 Sources of Nutrition Education

IYCF support Village Health UN/NGOs Care group group Workers/Volunteers Other Government (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) District (%) Chikomba 44 0 1 1 42 12 Goromonzi 29 0 0 2 37 32 Hwedza 45 0 0 0 16 40 Marondera 23 0 2 1 27 47 Mudzi 27 14 0 0 37 22 Murewa 29 4 1 1 6 59 Mutoko 80 4 0 0 7 9 Seke 38 6 5 1 24 26 UMP 26 8 1 0 30 35 Mash East 38 4 1 1 26 31

• The main source of Nutrition Education was other Government workers (38%), other sources (31%) and village health worker (26%).

130 Access to the Services of a Village Health Worker

100 93 92 90 87 86 83 84 82 81 80 77 75

30 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• The majority of households in Mashonaland East (84%) had access to the services of a village health worker. 131 Approximate Distance of the Nearest Health Facility/Clinic

100 90 80 80 68 70 66 59 59 60 56 51 53 50 47 Households (%) Households 50 41 40 40 38 37 37 31 33 30 26 27 18 19 20 17 Proportion of of Proportion 10 7 7 8 10 6 6 4 1 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• In Mashonaland East, 59% of households were within less than 5km radius to the nearest health facility, whilst 8% were more than 10km from their closest clinic. 132 Access to Grain Facility

100

90 79 80 75 75 70

60 55 53

50 46 Households (%) Households 40

30 26 23 18 Proportion of of Proportion 20

10 7

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Only 46% of households reported to have access to a grain facility. • Chikomba (23%), Mudzi (18%) and Goromonzi (7%) had the lowest proportion of households that had access to grain facilities. 133 Structures Used to Store Grain

Traditional Ordinary Improved Ordinary room granary granary granary Bin/drum Crib Hermatic bags Metal silos (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Chikomba 60 36 2 0 0 0 2 0 Goromonzi 90 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 Hwedza 86 11 1 2 0 0 0 0 Marondera 83 8 2 0 0 0 7 0 Mudzi 70 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 Murewa 85 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 Mutoko 86 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 Seke 79 16 4 1 0 0 0 0 UMP 94 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mash East 84 11 3 1 0 0 1 0

• The most common structures used to store grain at household level was the ordinary room (84%) followed by traditional granary (11%). • Of concern was the low use of improved granary(1%), hermatic bags (1%) which are reliable methods that reduce post harvest losses.

134 Households that Received and Used Early Warning Information

Received Early Warning Information Used Early Warning Information to Plan Response Mechanisms 100 100 94 95 89 88 89 90 90 85 85 79 78 75 80 72 80 70 65 67 70 60 55 56 60

54 51 54 Households (%) Households Households (%) Households 50 50 39 40 40 30 26 30

20 20

Proportion of Proportion of Proportion 10 10 0 0

• In Mashonaland East , 54% of households received early warning information on weather, climate change, seasonal performance.

• Of those who received early warning information , 85% used it to plan for response mechanisms. 135 Members who Received Information on Public Health Diseases

Rabies Anthrax Cholera Typhoid Dysentery Salmonella Listeria (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Chikomba 34 29 82 34 16 4 4 Goromonzi 39 28 95 32 18 2 1 Hwedza 74 43 88 50 16 1 1 Marondera 80 68 62 24 31 2 1 Mudzi 88 41 36 19 8 4 1 Murewa 61 53 69 19 15 3 0 Mutoko 58 39 49 26 42 1 0 Seke 32 16 53 32 14 0 0 UMP 64 69 81 61 40 13 13 Mash East 40 29 75 35 21 2 1

• The majority of households (75% ) received public health information on cholera, rabies (40%) and typhoid (35%).

136 Sources of Information on Gender Based Violence Services

Other Government household Internet Extension Health Health Radio member Television Newspaper Social media browsing Worker workers promoters Friends and UN/NGOs Police (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) relatives (%) (%) (%) Other (%)

Chikomba 84 1 1 7 10 0 16 6 9 14 6 40 0 Goromonzi 66 13 3 0 4 0 25 29 17 11 21 40 1 Hwedza 50 39 10 9 19 3 38 36 25 27 23 45 0 Marondera 69 11 7 1 4 0 6 21 0 10 5 20 1 Mudzi 54 5 4 0 1 0 17 22 5 7 7 30 11 Murewa 73 8 1 1 2 1 47 44 34 5 3 21 0 Mutoko 55 4 0 1 6 0 38 39 29 12 7 1 9 Seke 80 7 0 0 3 0 8 13 7 10 12 27 7 UMP 91 3 16 1 8 1 2 14 3 1 2 2 0 Mash East 87 14 8 2 10 0 15 15 5 12 3 23 3

• The main sources of information on Gender Based Violence Services were Radio (87%),Police (23%) and Health Workers (15%) and Government extension workers (15%). 137 Household Ownership of Infrastructure that Enhances Food And Nutrition Security

Solar powered Farming water Storage Nutrition Agro- Irrigation equipment Fowl runs source Borehole facility Savings Beehives gardening forestry Other (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Chikomba 2 26 50 0 1 2 7 0 27 6 4 Goromonzi 0 15 33 0 2 16 2 1 20 0 30 Hwedza 0 8 37 1 2 3 14 1 17 1 18 Marondera 8 3 13 1 3 1 14 0 24 0 39 Mudzi 2 41 4 0 0 2 0 3 45 0 37 Murewa 2 3 9 22 2 5 2 0 65 0 22 Mutoko 11 5 31 0 1 26 4 1 18 0 36 Seke 19 35 8 0 1 23 0 0 43 3 17 UMP 2 9 35 1 3 19 2 0 33 0 29 Mash East 5 17 43 0 3 11 7 1 37 1 16

• The most common infrastructure that enhances food and nutrition security owned by households were fowl runs (43%) , nutrition gardens (37%) and farming equipment (17%).

138 Proportion of Communities with Irrigation Schemes

100

50 40 40 40 33 30 27 20 20 18 Proportion of Communities (%) Communities of Proportion 20 14 10 0 0 0 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East National

• Generally there were few communities with irrigation schemes (27%) across the country.

• However, Hwedza (40%) and Mutoko (40%) had relatively higher proportions of sampled communities with irrigation schemes.

139 Reasons for Partially or Non Functioning Irrigation Schemes Reasons for Partially Functioning Reasons for Non-functioning

No electricity ,transformer broken 33.3 Infrastructure or equipment not yet down or other fault 50 installed

Vandalism 33.3

Seasonality of water source 50 In-field works need 33.3 rehabilitation/maintenance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 proportion of communities (%) Proportion of communities (%)

• The major reason why irrigation schemes in Mashonaland East were partially functioning were seasonality of water sources (50%) and that the infrastructure or equipment has not yet been installed (50%). • Reasons for Non functional irrigation schemes in Mashonaland East were because of in-field works requiring rehabilitation/maintenance (33%), vandalism (33%) 140 and unavailability of electricity or broken down transformers or other electrical faults (33%). ISALS and Loans

141 Sources of Loans

Zimbabwe woman microfinance bank 2

Local trader/ shopkeeper 2

Banks 3

Farmers organization 5

Friend/relative 29

ISAL/Mukando/Ukuqogelela 44

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

• Of the 2.9% households that received loans in Mashonaland East , the majority of households reported that they received the loans from and ISAL/Mukando/Ukuqogelela (44%).

142 Type of Loan and Primary Use of the Loan (2.9%) Type of Loan Primary Use of the Loan 100 100 90 90 79 80 80 70 70 60 49 60 50 50 40 30 24 40 19 20 30 6 6

10 2 2 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 15 15 0 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 6 6 10 2 0

• In Mashonaland East about 79% of Households received loans in the form of cash and 49% used the loans for consumption.

143 Households with a Member in an ISAL Group

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 16 16 16 12 10 11 10 10 7 8 7 8 10 10 4 5 6 5 6 6 5 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 2020 2021

• About 10% of households in Mashonaland East reported to be a member of Income Savings and Lending (ISAL) group an increase from 8% reported in 2020. • There was a general increase in the number of households with a member in an ISAL group. 144 Use of Share –out from the ISAL group

100 90

50 44 40 32 30

Proportion of Households 9%) Households of Proportion 20 15 15 11 10 4 3 0 Food Household Agricultural inputs Financing Income Education Buying Livestock utensils and equipment generating construction purchase projects materials

• About 44% of households in ISAL Groups used their share out to buy food and 32% to buy household utensils.

145 Food Consumption Patterns

146 Food Consumption Score

Food Consumption Score Description Score Groups

POOR 0-21 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 5-6 days, sugar 3-4 days, oil/fat 1 day a week, while animal proteins are totally absent

BORDERLINE 21.5-35 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 6-7 days, sugar 3-4 days, oil/fat 3 days, meat/fish/egg/pulses 1-2 days a week, while dairy products are totally absent

ACCEPTABLE >35 As defined for the borderline group with more number of days a week eating meat, fish, egg, oil, and complemented by other foods such as pulses, fruits, milk

147 Food Consumption Patterns 2020 2021 100 100 8 90 19 21 90 17 17 28 27 27 31 37 33 34 33 80 37 80 42 38 44 41 44 31 70 21 55 18 70 18 28 60 60 30 27 30 50 43 47 38 50 31 31 40 32 39 40 44 45 37 30 62 48 61 65 30 63 51 40 42 20 20 40 34 37 30 32 32 26 26 (%) households of Proportion 23 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 10 16 18 10 20 9 0 5 0

Poor Borderline Acceptable poor borderline acceptable

• About 37% of households had poor consumption patterns and this was an increase from 32% in 2020. • Mudzi (63%) had the highest proportion of households consuming poor diets. • Marondera(44%) had the highest proportion of households with acceptable diets. 148 Poor Food Consumption Patterns by District

• Mudzi had the highest proportion of households consuming poor diets.

149 Average Number of Days Households Consumed Food from the Various Food Groups

Oils 6

Cereals 6

Vegetables 5

Dairy 1

Meats 1

Fruits 1

Legumes 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of days

• Oils, cereals and vegetables were the most consumed food groups. 150 Household Consumption of Protein, Iron and Vitamin A Rich Foods

100.0 98.4 99.2 96.8 98.0 97.2 98.0 94.6 91.6 92.8 86.6 87.6 90.0 83.3 84.4 78.8 79.7 76.3 80.0 73.7 74.2 70.1 68.4 70.0 67.2 64.9 64.8 61.8 59.4 59.2 60.0 47.0 48.0 48.2 households (%) households 50.0

40.0 30.3 30.0

Proportion of Proportion 20.0

10.0

0.0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Iron-rich Food Protein-rich Foods Vitamin A-rich Foods

• About 59.2% households consumed iron-rich foods seven days prior to the survey. • Vitamin A rich foods were the most consumed across all the districts. • Mudzi had the lowest proportion of households consuming all three nutrient-rich foods. 151 Households Consuming Iron-Rich Foods

2020 2021

100 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 100 5 6 9 6 9 12 7 11 8 8 90 90 20 25 28 34 31 29 29 80 32 33 80 36 42 70 70 49 47 47 50 51 49 50 60 60

households (%) households 50 50 40 77 40 70 67 68 73 68 30 65 62 63 30 60 51

20 20 41 45 41 40 39 45 45 Proportion of Proportion 10 (%) householdsof Proportion 10 0 0

Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times

• Iron is an essential mineral which is required by the body during the formation of blood cells. Iron deficiency can cause fatigue and reduced ability by the body to fight infections. • About 41% of the households never consumed iron-rich foods seven days prior to the survey and this was an improvement from 67% reported in 2020. 152 Households Consuming Protein-Rich Foods 2020 2021

100 100 10 9 13 10 10 10 11 90 15 14 90 19 20 20 24 27 29 30 29 25 80 80 70 70 42 47 45 52 53 51 47 45 48 36 60 60 47 48 52 45 households (%) households 50 50 47 44 38 43 40 40 30 30 48 43 45 20 43 20 37 38 36 38 41 40 34

28 29 26 27 32 27 31 proportion of households (%) householdsof proportion Proportion of Proportion 10 10 0 0

Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times

• Inadequate protein intake compromises the body’s ability to build, repair worn-out tissues and fight against infections. • About 26% of the households never consumed protein-rich foods seven days prior to the survey and this was an improvement from the 36% in 2020. 153 Households Consuming Vitamin A-rich Foods

2020 2021 100 100.0 90 90.0 80 80.0 40 44 49 50 52 53 70 70.0 60 58 72 77 75 71 71 73 69

60 77 85 80 60.0 households (%) households 50 (%) households 50.0 40 37 40.0 37 30 37 40 30.0 35 34 28 29 12 20 14 19 20.0 19 23

15 16 22 Proportion of Proportion 10 16 of Proportion 23 16 11 14 10.0 19 7 10 8 11 9 9 13 13 8 12 13 0 4 4 0.0 5

Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times Never consumed Consumed 1 to 6 times Consumed more than 6 times

• The daily consumption of Vitamin A-rich foods was 73% which was a deterioration from 85% reported in 2020. • Vitamin A is important for normal vision, the immune system functions, and reproduction. • Vitamin A deficiency causes night blindness, harms the immune system and may contribute to maternal mortality.

154 Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women of Child Bearing Age

155 Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women of Child Bearing Age 100 90 80 70

60 women (%) women 50 46 46 46 46 48 43 43 37 37 39 38 38 40 33 32 31 30 30 26 26 24 27 21 23 proportion of of proportion 18 19 20 15 13 9 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National 2019 2020 2021

• Nationally, one in three women consumed a Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) 24-hours prior to the survey. • In the province, the Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women of Child Bearing Age (WCBA) was 43% against 26% recorded in 2020. 156 Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women of Child Bearing Age (WCBA)

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 54 55 46 50.0 45 44 44 43 39 40.0 36 34 34 30 32 30.0 23 26 26 26 20 18 Proportion of women (%) women of Proportion 20.0 12 10.0 0.0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murehwa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 2020 2021

• About 43% of women consumed a Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) 24-hours prior to the survey and this was an improvement from 26% in 2020. • Marondera (55%) had highest WCBA consuming a minimum dietary diversity.

157 Consumption of Protein, Iron and Vitamin-A Rich Foods by WCBA 2020 2021 100 89 92 100 86 85 86 88 90 81 83 90 83 82 81 76 76 76 77 78 80 77 79 80 80 73 74 73 68 71 70 71 70 70 64 65 66 65 60 60 60 55 56 57 56

women (%) women 50 60 50 42 41 41 37 40 40 50 40 34 33 26 40 30 22 18 20 19 17 19 30 20 15 14 20

10 (%) women of Proportion Proportion of of Proportion 0 10 0

Iron-rich foods Vitamin A-rich Foods Protein-rich Foods Iron-rich foods Vitamin A-rich Foods Protein-rich Foods

• There was a general increase in the proportion of women consuming iron-rich (86%) from plant and animal source foods 24 hours prior to the survey. • However there was a general decrease in the proportion of women consuming vitamin A rich foods (78%) from plant and animal source foods 24 hours prior to the survey. • Consumption of protein rich foods improved from 50% in 2020 to 65% in 2021. 158 WCBA Consumption of Iron Rich Foods by District 2020 2021

• There has been a general decrease in the proportions of households consuming iron-rich foods over the past two years.

159 Household Hunger Scale 2020 2021

100 1 2 0 0 10 4 6 8 8 8 9 100 1 90 16 11 6 9 2 5 5 8 3 4 11 9 90 12 80 80 23 70 70 60 60 50 97 50 (%) Households 94 91 96 91 96 90 90 95 95 94 92 92 92 91 40 83 89 40 84 88 73 30 30 20 20 10 10

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 0 Proportion of of Proportion 0

None or light hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger Little to no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger

• The majority of the households (90%) reported having experienced little to no hunger the last 30 days prior the assessment. • Seke (27%) and Mudzi (17%) had the highest proportion of households that experienced moderate to severe hunger. • Mudzi shows a worsening situation on the proportion of households experiencing severe hunger.

160 Household Experiencing Moderate to Severe Hunger

100 90 80 70 60

households (%) households 50 40 30 18 19 18 18 19 18 19 19 17 20 13 9 10 12 10 10 10 9 11 10 Proportion of of Proportion 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National 2020 2021

• Households that reported experiencing some form of hunger had decreased during the current assessment compared to 2020. • All provinces except for Mashonaland East reported receding hunger experience compared to the previous assessment of 2020.

161 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies

162 The Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges. The household consumption strategies are food

consumption behaviours that households adopt when faced with challenges in accessing food.

• The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) considers both the frequency and severity of pre-selected coping strategies that a household used in the seven days prior to the survey. Reduced coping strategies index can be classified into three categories depending on the severity as shown below.

Low or no coping (CSI 0-3) Medium Coping (CSI 4-9) High Coping (CSI ≥10)

163 Household Consumption Coping Strategy Index (CSI) 100 90 80 70 60 50 35 38 Average CSI Average 40 27 30 23 22 22 20 18 21 20 15 15 15 13 12 13 8 9 8 10 4 3 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

2020 2021

• Household consumption coping strategy score decreased across most districts when compared to 2020.

• Mudzi (38) and Seke (20) reported the highest CSI scores in the province above the provincial average of 13 and national average of 15.

• Adoption of high coping by households is an indication that households could have been facing challenges in accessing food.

164 Household Consumption Coping Strategies

Send household members to beg 7 Send household members to eat elsewhere 8 Skip entire days without eating 13 Gather/hunt unusual types or amounts of wild food 16 Reduce adult consumption so children can eat 21 Harvest immature crops 21 Purchase/borrow food on credit 22 Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives 28 Rely on casual labour for food 33 Limit/reduce portion size at mealtimes 35 Reduce number of meals eaten per day 38 Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Proportion of households (%)

• Of those households that engaged in consumption based coping strategies when faced with challenges to access food , the most adopted strategies included; relying on less expensive foods (48%), reducing the number of meals consumed per day (38%) and reducing meal portion size (35%).

• The adoption of these strategies contribute negatively to nutrition outcomes. 165 Households Livelihood Coping Strategies

• Livelihood Coping Strategies are behaviours employed by households when faced crisis and measures longer-term coping capacity of households. • The livelihoods Coping strategies have been classified into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as indicated in the table below.

Category Coping Strategy

Stress Borrowing money

Spending savings

Selling more non-productive livestock than usual

Selling household assets

Crisis Selling productive assets

Withdrawing children from school

Reducing non-food expenditure

Emergency Selling land

Begging for food

Selling the last breeding stock to buy food 166 Households Engaging in Livelihood Based Coping Strategies 25

20 20

15 13 11 11 11 10 10 8 6 6

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 5

0 Stress Crisis Emergency 2019 2020 2021

• There was a general decrease in the proportion of households engaging in livelihood based coping strategies over the last three years.

167 Households Maximum Livelihoods Coping Strategies

100 0 1 2 2 3 3 5 3 6 3 2 7 10 4 3 14 90 15 24 7 10 10 6 6 14 6 80 11 7 70 10 22 60 50 6 92 94 92 40 80 78 78 73 75 66 30 49

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East not coping stress crisis emergency

• At provincial level, 78% of the surveyed households did not use any coping strategies to maintain their access to food and other basic goods and services whilst 6% of the households resorted to emergency coping mechanisms.

• Hwedza had the highest proportion of households that were not engaging in any livelihood coping strategies (94%). 168 Households Engaging in Livelihood Coping Strategies

Beg for food or other essential needs (e.g. health services) 0 79 0 21 Sold last female breeding stock to buy food or access essential needs 3 67 0 28 Sold more animals (non-productive) than usual to buy food or access essential… 5 67 0 28 Withdrew children from school because of hunger or to help work for food 3 83 1 13 Sold house or land to buy food or access essential needs 0 62 1 37 Borrow money from a formal lender/bank 2 54 0 44 Spend savings essential needs 9 52 0 39 Sold productive assets or means of transport 1 60 3 36 Reduced non-food expenses on health and education 10 67 0 23 Sold household assets 6 61 0 33 0 20 40 60 80 100 Proportion of Households (%) Yes No because it was not neccessary No , because had already engaged in this activity within the last 12 months and could not continue No, one does not have

• The three main livelihoods coping strategies engaged by households included: reduced non food expenses on health (10%), spent savings on essential needs (9%) and sold household assets (6%). 169 Child Complementary Feeding and Health

170 Complementary Feeding Practices Based on Seven Food Groups

100 90 80 70 60 50 38.1 40 32.4 35.1 28.9 28.9 30 27.5 23.8 21.1 21.1 17.120.0 Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 20 14.3 13.8 10.0 10.5 8.1 7.5 6.4 5.95.9 8.1 7.9 10 5.7 4.3 2.9 4.3 0 0 0 2.6 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Provincial Minimum Meal Frequency Minimum Dietary Diversity Minimum Acceptable Diet

• A minimum acceptable diet is an indicator that combines information on children who received the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency. It is essential to ensure appropriate growth and development for children aged 6-23 months. • Although there were children meeting minimum meal frequency and minimum dietary diversity in Chikomba, Mudzi and Seke , there were no

children meeting the minimum acceptable diet. 171 Continued Breastfeeding beyond 1 year 100

80 76 74 70 70 66 64 67 61 62 60 57

30 Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Nationally, 67% of the children continued to be breastfed beyond 1 year. • Mashonaland East (57%) had the lowest proportion of children who were breastfed beyond 1 year. 172 Early Initiation of Breastfeeding 100 90 90 90 90 85 88 86 81 82 81 80

30 Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Nationally, the proportion of children who were initiated breastfeeding within an hour, as per recommended practice was 86% • Mashonaland East (81%) was below the target of 90%.

173 Recommended Vitamin A Supplementation Schedule for Children 6–59 months of Age

Target group Infants 6–11 months of age Children 12–59 months of age

Dose 100 000 IU 200 000 IU

Frequency Once a year Twice a year (Every 6 months)

Route of administration Oral

174 Children aged 6-59 months who Received the Recommended Dose of Vitamin A 100 100 100 92 89 89 90 82 83 78 79 80 78 80 71 74 70 61 60 58 53 51 52 53 49 48 50 50 45 45 43 40 41 40 33 36 28 30

Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 20 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East 6-11 months 12-59 months 6-59 months target

• The proportions of children who received the recommended dose of Vitamin A in the past 12 months were: 83% for 6-11 months; 50% for 12-59 months and 53% for the children 6-59 months.

• Chikomba (100%), Goromonzi (92%) and Marondera (100%) Districts reached the recommended target of 90% for children 6-11 months.

• Mutoko (80%) had the highest proportion of children 6-59 months who received recommended Vitamin A doses and Marondera (33%) had the175lowest. Child Illness

100 90 80 70 60 50 38 40 35 34 32 30 28 30 28 30 25 28 25 25 23 21 23 18 18 Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20 14 16 16 17 13 11 14 12 11 10 7 8 5 5 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Cough Diarrhoea Fever

• Mudzi (35%) and UMP ( 38%) had highest proportion of children who had cough two-weeks prior to the survey.

176 Child Nutrition Status

177 Acute Malnutrition by district based on MUAC Measurements

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 10 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.0 5 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

GAM MAM SAM

• Seke had the highest GAM rate of 5.1 %, above the WHO threshold of 5%. • However, the provincial GAM rate was 1.81 which was below the WHO threshold. • There was no GAM in the sampled households in Chikomba and Hwedza. 178 Gender Based Violence (GBV)

179 Forms of Gender Based Violence

Physical abuse (%) Sexual abuse(%) Refused to Refused to N No Yes answer No Yes answer

Manicaland 1741 94.3 3.7 2.0 97.6 0.6 1.8

Mash Central 1999 96.2 3.5 0.3 99.0 0.7 0.3

Mash East 2257 96.6 2.8 0.5 99.1 0.6 0.3

Mash West 1722 95.9 3.1 1.0 98.3 0.8 0.9

Masvingo 1747 97.2 2.4 0.4 99.0 0.6 0.5

Mat North 1747 97.0 1.9 1.1 98.2 0.7 1.1

Mat South 1736 97.3 1.6 1.1 98.8 0.2 1.0

Midlands 1999 95.7 3.8 0.5 98.5 0.9 0.6

National 14948 96.3 2.9 0.8 98.6 0.6 0.8

• Nationally, 2.9% of the respondents reported having experienced physical abuse while 0.6% reported to have experienced sexual abuse. • In Mashonaland East 2.8% and 0.6% of the respondents reported having experienced physical and sexual abuse , respectively. 180 Victims of GBV who Reported

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 29 31 25 30 22 20 15 16

Proportion of respondents (%) respondents of Proportion 10 5 3 0 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands National

• Of those who experienced GBV in the province , 29% reported the incidents.

181 Sources of GBV Services

One stop Centre 1

Church 2

Relatives/Friends 2

UN/NGO 5

Health facility 16

Other 32

Victim friendly unit 43

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

• The highest proportion of respondents (43%) got a service from the Victim Friendly Unit.

182 Spousal Violence

183 Incidence of Spousal Violence

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse Province (%) (%) (%) (%) N Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1389 2.2 3.3 4.8 5.2 8.8 9.4 5.6 5.7 Manicaland Mash 1766 1.3 1.9 2.7 4.4 8.4 6.6 4.9 4.3 Central 2042 1.2 1.0 3.3 2.5 6.8 6.5 5.3 3.3 Mash East 1322 1.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 6.4 9.3 3.4 5.5 Mash West 1562 0.6 1.2 1.5 2.2 3.3 2.6 1.8 2.3 Masvingo 1464 0.9 0.4 1.8 0.6 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.8 Mat North 1627 2.0 1.4 3.9 2.9 6.8 4.6 4.7 4.4 Mat South 1597 0.2 1.5 2.1 1.5 4.3 4.3 2.7 2.2 Midlands 12769 1.2 1.5 2.8 2.7 6.0 5.8 3.9 3.7 National • There was high incidence of emotional abuse among spouses, 6.0% for males and 5.8% for females nationally. • Generally, emotional abuse was high for both males and females while sexual abuse had the lowest reported incidents.

184 Reported Incidence of Spousal Violence

100 0 0 03 3 1 13 7 4 9 10 90 13 8 3 80 43 32 18 36 70 64 44 44 44 60 8 50 11 32 7 40 2 0 13 2 30 30 36 44 Proportion of victims (%) victims of Proportion 13 27 20 29 37 34 10 19 16 7 12 10 11 0 3 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Sexual Physical Emotional Economical Police Relatives Health facility No one Church Other

• Most victims of sexual abuse did not report to anyone, males 64% and females 44%. • Physical violence was mostly reported to the police by females (34%) whereas males did not report(43%).

• The majority of emotional and economical violence was either reported to no one or to relatives by both males and females. 185 Victims who Sought Medical Attention as a Result of Spousal Violence

Sexual Physical Emotional Sought medical Sought medical Sought medical Suffered abuse (%) attention (%) Suffered abuse (%) attention (%) Suffered abuse (%) attention (%)

Manicaland 2.7 17.9 5.0 18.6 9.0 17.8

Mash Central 1.6 10.3 3.6 32.8 7.5 17.8

Mash East 1.1 11.5 2.8 17.2 6.6 16.1

Mash West 1.6 8.7 2.5 17.1 7.9 25.5

Masvingo 0.8 0.0 1.7 15.2 3.1 15.3

Mat North 0.6 0.0 1.2 16.2 3.0 13.5

Mat South 1.7 22.2 3.4 21.1 5.8 13.3

Midlands 0.8 15.6 1.8 17.2 4.3 21.8

National 1.3 11.8 2.8 20.1 5.9 18.3

• Medical attention was sought by 11.8% of those who suffered sexual violence, 20.1% for physical and 18.3% for emotional violence. 186 COVID-19 and Livelihoods

187 Proportion of households that ever heard about COVID-19

99 98 99 100 98 99 99 98 98 99 100 97 100 99 99 100 95 94 96 95 90 84 80 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 20 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

2020 2021

• Seke (84%) had the lowest proportion of households that had heard about COVID-19. • Marondera (99%) had the highest proportion of households who had heard about COVID-19.

188 Sources of COVID-19 Information Current Sources Preferred Future Sources

Others 0 Social media 2 Vehicles moving with hailers 1 Road shows 1 Posters 4 Non-Governmental Organisations… 2 Print media 6 Posters 2 Newspapers 3 Television 6 Television 7 Opinion leaders 6 Traditional leaders 7 Churches 8 Workshop 14 Social gathering 14 Social media 17 Community/Village health… 43 Community Health Workers/Health… 24 Radio 62 Health worker 27 Friends and relatives 51 Clinic/ Health facility 72 Radio 88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of households (%) Proportion of households (%)

• The main sources of COVID-19 information in the province were reported to be the radio (88%), friends and relatives (51%) and health workers (27%).

• The main preferred future sources of information on COVID-19 in the province were reported to be: clinic/health facility (72%), radio (62%) and community/village health workers (43%). 189 COVID-19 Tollfree Numbers Awareness of the Availability of Tollfree Awareness of Tollfree Numbers Numbers 100 100 100 98 99 97 98 97 100 96 96 90 86 80 90 80 70 70 60 50 60 50 42 50 37 37 38 40 40 33 28 30 30 26 20 12 19 20 20 10 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 0

10 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 0 (%) households of Proportion

2019 2023 393 None of the above

• The proportion of households that were aware of the existence of the COVID-19 toll free lines, was low in the province at an average of 33%, with Hwedza (50%) having the highest proportion.

• Of those who were aware of the availability of toll free numbers , the most common toll free number was 2019 (97%) hence need for more awareness of the existence of the other lines. 190 Effects of COVID-19 on Livelihoods 100 90 80 70 66 64 62 62 60 57 51 49 48 53 50 47 47 50 44 43 46 44 40 40 34 31 30 25 20 22 21 24 24 18 20 15 17 19 15 12 12 14 12 11 12 12 13 10 5 9 7 6 9 10 9 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 5 3 4 4 3 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

Loss of bussiness income Loss of employment Failed to access health facility Failed to access basic commodities Reduced sources of income Reduced salaries Reduced food sources Gender-based violence (GBV) Restricted access to agricultural markets

• At provincial level, the main effects of COVID-19 on livelihoods were reduction in food sources (47%) and sources of income (40%).

• Mudzi (66%) and UMP (62%) had the highest proportion of households that reported reduction in food sources as the main effect of COVID-19 on livelihoods,

• Seke (64%), Hwedza (62%) and Marondera (57%) reported reduction in income sources as the main effect of COVID-19 on livelihoods.

• Most of the impacts could be attributed to the restrictive measures. 191 Household Food Safety During COVID-19 Lockdown Period 100 88 90 84 79 80 74 70 67 67 70 64 60 60 52 53 51 47 50 43 40 41 40 30 26 30 23 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 10 0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Buying perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far Eating food undergoing spoilage

• Mudzi (88%) had the highest proportion of households which reported having to eat subjected to spoilage during the January to March 2021 national lockdown. • At provincial level 51% of the households bought perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far during the lockdown period. 192 Vaccine Concerns

100 2 3 2 3 3 1 4 6 5 1 3 6 3 12 7 6 8 90 14 11 10 13 3 5 9 20 80 21 31 70 21 15 17 60

households (%) households 50 88 86 88 40 82 84

62 64 64

30 59 57 Proportion of Proportion 20

0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East None Having serious reactions Illness Other specify

• The majority of the households indicated no concern about the COVID-19 vaccine (57%). • Illness (20%) was the most stated concern. 193 Shocks and Stressors

194 Proportion of Households Experiencing Shocks

100 90 80 67.4 70 60

50 Households (%) Households 40 30.0 27.2 30 26.4 21.0 20.1 17.9 17.9 20 16.6 14.0 5.6 5.3 4.8 4.7 10 4.2 3.0 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4

0 Proportion of of Proportion

• Cash shortages (67.4%), cereal price changes (30%) and water logging (26.4%) were the most prevalent shocks experienced by households.

195 Number of Shocks/Stressors Experienced by Households

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Number of shocks of Number 30.0 20.0 10.0 3.5 1.4 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.3 1.9 2.1 3.0 0.0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Hwedza (3.9), Marondera (3.7) and Mudzi (3.6) had the highest average number of shocks

196 Severity of Shocks

100 0 0 7 4 5 6 3 4 7 3 5 4 7 10 90 11 14 15 14 13 14 14 17 18 15 24 21 23 24 23 22 80 23 26 31 28 34 70 33 34 40 60 27 26 31 32 52 29 50 93 40 83 82 80 80 78 78 76 76 72 70 30 61 59 53 51 50 50 49 46 45 20 40 33 10

0 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion

Severe Moderate Minor/Mild

• Death of main income earner (93%), livestock deaths (83%), and veld fires (82%) were reported to have had the most severe impact on households. 197 Average Shock Exposure Index

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 50.0

40.0

Average Shock Exposure Index Exposure Shock Average 30.0

20.0 9.1 11.0 10.3 11.1 9.8 8.6 8.8 10.0 4.9 6.8 6.1 0.0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East

• Shock exposure index was calculated by multiplying number of shocks experienced with impact severity of the shock to the household. • Mudzi (11.1) , Hwedza (11.0) and Marondera (10.3) had the highest shock exposure index. 198 Households Perception of their Ability to Cope with Shocks

100 1 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 8 4 6 5 6 8 5 8 90 16 21 19 14 23 28 28 80 25 29 26 36 33 34 35 40 40 41 47 46 47 70 46 45 52 50 60 52 48 Households (%) Households 54 50 69 51 40 63 73 71 69 68 64 30 63 62 60 58 56 51 49 49 48 20 48 47 43 43 32 31 Proportion of Proportion 28 10 21 17 8 0

Unable to cope Able to cope with difficulty Able to cope without difficulty

• The majority of households perceived inability to cope with economic , livelihoods and weather-related shocks. 199 Comparison Between Shock Exposure and Ability to Cope

12.0 11.0 11.1 10.3 9.8 10.0 9.1 8.6 8.8 8.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.4 4.9 5.1 Index 4.6 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7

2.0

0.0 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Shock exposure index Ability to cope index

• Shock to exposure index was higher than the ability to cope meaning households are less able to cope on their own. 200 Food Security

201 Food Security Dimensions

Figure 3: Dimensions of Food Security (Jones et al., 2013)

202 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Food security exists when all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to food which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences and it is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care allowing for a healthy and active life (Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012).

• The four dimensions of food security as give in Figure 3 are: • Availability of food • Access to food • The safe and healthy utilization of food • The stability of food availability, access and utilization

203 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ minimum expenditure or the emergency nutrition sensitive food basket

was computed from the following annual food basket requirement for an individual:

Food Items Individual Annual Requirement Maize Grain (Kgs) 148 Rice (Kgs) 15 Ration meat (Kgs) 14.6 Milk (Litres) 36.5 Cooking Oil (Litres) 13.5 Peanuts (Kgs) 0.73 Cabbage (Heads) 15 Beans (Kgs) 7.3 Sugar (Kgs) 12.1

204 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ potential to acquire minimum expenditure food basket (Figure 3) was computed

by estimating the household's likely disposable income (both cash and non cash) in the 2021/22 consumption year

from the following possible income sources;

• Cereal stocks from the previous season;

• Own food crop production from the 2020/21 agricultural season;

• Potential income from own cash crop production;

• Potential income from livestock ;

• Potential income from casual labour and remittances; and

• Income from other sources such as gifts, pensions, gardening, formal and informal employment.

205 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Food Security Status

• The total minimum expenditure food basket that could be acquired by the household from the

cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was then computed and compared to

the household’s minimum expenditure food basket.

• When the total minimum expenditure food basket that a household could acquire was greater than its

minimum expenditure food basket requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When

the converse was true, the household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its total minimum expenditure food basket requirements.

206 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Cereal Security Status

• From the total minimum expenditure food basket, the total energy that could be acquired by the

household from the cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was also

extracted and compared to the household’s minimum energy requirements.

• When the potential energy a household could acquire was greater than its minimum energy

requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When the converse was true, the

household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its minimum energy requirements.

207 Cereal Insecurity Progression by Income Source

100 100 90 86 82 81 80 77 70 60 50 40 30 20 20 Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 10 0 Cereal insecurity from Cereal insecurity from Cereal insecurity from Cereal insecurity from Cereal insecurity from Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks cereals stocks plus food cereals stocks plus food cereals stocks plus food cereals stocks plus food cereals stocks plus food crops crops plus cash crops crops plus cash crops crops plus cash crops crops plus cash crops plus remittances plus livestocks plus plus livestocks plus casual labour and casual labour and remittances remittances plus income

• Considering all incomes, the food insecurity prevalence in the province is projected to be 20% during the peak hunger in the 2021/22 consumption year. 208 Cereal Insecure Proportion by District Trends by Quarter 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 49 49 50 50 40 34 38 33 40 33 34 27 30 25 28 29 26.7 20 30 25 23 23 20 21.5 20 18 20 12 (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 15 15 16.3

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 8 9 13 10 5 5 12 1012 11 10.8 8 78 8 69 7 10 5 6 445 4 45 5 0 2 3 1 13 0

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

• About 20% of the households in the province will be cereal insecure during the peak hunger period. • Mudzi (49%) had the highest number of households that will be cereal insecure, whilst Murehwa (5%) and Seke (5%) had the least during 209 the peak hunger period. Cereal Insecure Populations and Cereal Requirements

Proportion of Households (%) Food Insecure Population Cereal Requirements (MT)

District Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Chikomba 12 18 25 17036 24986 35208 630 924 1303 Goromonzi 5 7 8 15861 20741 25621 587 767 948 Hwedza 23 28 33 18960 23617 27942 702 874 1034 Marondera 8 10 12 11590 15067 17385 429 557 643 Mudzi 29 38 49 46303 60258 78018 1713 2230 2887 Murewa 4 4 5 9136 10151 13196 338 376 488 Mutoko 4 6 9 7961 11580 15922 295 428 589 Seke 3 4 5 4237 5296 6356 157 196 235 UMP 13 23 34 17996 31628 46352 666 1170 1715 Mashonaland East 11 15 20 173656 237239 309026 6425 8778 11434

• The cereal insecure population translates to 309,026 people with a cereal requirement of about 11,434MT between January 2021 to March 2022.

• The highest cereal requirement will be in Mudzi (49%) with 78 018 people requiring 2,887MT during the peak hunger period. 210 Cereal lnsecurity and Poverty Lines

100

80 51 70 67 66 73 60 75 80 92 88 91 50 95 95

30 49 Proportion of Hoseholds (%) Hoseholds of Proportion 20 33 34 27 10 25 20 8 12 9 0 5 5 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East National Cereal Insecure Below FPL

• Even though 80% of the households are projected to meet their cereal requirements, they are below the food poverty line. • This is indicating that almost all rural households will not be able to meet all their food needs to support a healthy life thus assistance should not target the cereal insecure households only. 211 Community Development Challenges and Priorities

212 Development Challenges Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market 0.6 0.6 Poor Information Communication Infrastructure 0.6 0.6 Fewer or no vocational training centres 0.6 1.3 Poor access to livestock/produce markets 1.3 1.3 High food prices 1.3 1.3 Unemployment 1.9 1.9 High Livestock mortalities 1.9 2.5 Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production 3.1 3.1 Shortage of cash 3.1 3.1 High cost of Inputs and implements 3.1 3.8 Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 3.8 3.8 Poor road infrastructure 5.0 6.3 Corruption 8.2 12.6 Prohibitive By-laws 23.3 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Proportion of Communities (%)

• Prohibitive by-laws (23.3%) , corruption (12.6%) and infrastructure-related issues were the most highlighted development challenges reported by communities in the province. 213 Chikomba Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Development Challenge Prohibitive By-laws 46.7 57.1 5.9 8.3 14.3 60.0 5.3 5.3 17.6 23.3 Lack of income generating projects 26.7 7.1 5.9 8.3 14.3 10.0 21.1 10.5 11.8 12.6 Corruption 13.3 14.3 0.0 12.5 7.1 15.0 5.3 0.0 5.9 8.2 Draught Power shortage 13.3 14.3 11.8 8.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Drought 0.0 7.1 11.8 0.0 7.1 5.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 3.8 No primary/secondary school in the ward 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 1.3 Fewer or no vocational training centres 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Gender Based Violence 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 3.8 High food prices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Poor Information Communication Infrastructure 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Inadequate markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 10.5 5.3 0.0 2.5 High cost of Inputs and implements 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 10.5 0.0 11.8 3.1 Lack of Irrigation infrastructure 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 10.5 0.0 3.1 Shortage of cash 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5 0.0 3.1 High Livestock mortalities 0.0 0.0 5.9 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.9 Livestock diseases 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.9 1.9 Livestock theft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.3 Poor access to livestock/produce markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 1.3 Poor road infrastructure 0.0 0.0 5.9 12.5 7.1 0.0 10.5 0.0 5.9 5.0 Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall patterns 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Unemployment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 11.8 1.9 Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.6 Poor Water and sanitation facilities 0.0 0.0 5.9 8.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 3.1 Lack of/ limited Water for domestic use 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production 0.0 0.0 5.9 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 3.1 214 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 3.8 Development Priorities

Skills and capacity Development 0.5 Revival and development of Industries 0.5 Vocational Training Centres 1.5 Employment creation 2.0 Other 2.5 Livestock disease surveillance and control 3.0 Agricultural markets availability and access development 4.5 Income Generation Projects promotion 5.5 Electricity infrastructure development 6.5 Livestock restocking 9.0 Health services and related infrastructure improvement 9.0 Irrigation infrastructure development 10.0 Education and related infrastructure improvement 10.0 Road infrastructure development 11.0 Water Supply- boreholes, piped water schemes 11.5 Dams/Water reservoirs construction 13.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Proportion of Communities (%)

• The communities indicated dams/ water reservoirs construction (13%) , water and infrastructure-related development and livestock restocking (9%) as their highest development priorities. 215 Goromonzi Hwedza Marondera Mudzi Murewa Mutoko Seke UMP Mash East Chikomba (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Development Priority (%) Dams/Water reservoirs construction 10.0 8.8 18.5 0.0 19.2 15.0 23.5 7.1 16.7 13.0 Education and related infrastructure improvement 0.0 14.7 0.0 12.5 19.2 0.0 0.0 28.6 16.7 10.0 Electricity infrastructure development 10.0 5.9 0.0 4.2 11.5 10.0 0.0 7.1 11.1 6.5 Employment creation 0.0 0.0 7.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 2.0 Health services and related infrastructure improvement 0.0 14.7 7.4 12.5 7.7 20.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 9.0 Income Generation Projects promotion 10.0 8.8 0.0 4.2 3.8 0.0 11.8 7.1 5.6 5.5 Revival and development of Industries 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Irrigation infrastructure development 20.0 11.8 11.1 12.5 3.8 5.0 5.9 7.1 11.1 10.0 Livestock restocking 20.0 5.9 14.8 16.7 3.8 10.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 9.0 Agricultural markets availability and access development 0.0 8.8 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 23.5 7.1 0.0 4.5 Livestock disease surveillance and control 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.8 5.0 0.0 7.1 5.6 3.0 Road infrastructure development 25.0 11.8 11.1 16.7 3.8 10.0 11.8 0.0 5.6 11.0 Skills and capacity Development 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Vocational Training Centres 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Water Supply- boreholes, piped water schemes 5.0 2.9 14.8 8.3 11.5 15.0 23.5 14.3 16.7 11.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 7.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 216 Conclusions and Recommendations

217 Conclusions and Recommendations

• The proportion of children who were out of school was 21%. There is need to enforce implementation and enhance monitoring of existing policies within the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education which promote universal access to education. Given that approximately, 16% of the households had orphans, Social Protection interventions ought to target such households and strong follow-up on BEAM beneficiary selections at schools.

• Maize remains the most grown crop across the districts, however households using improved granaries are low (6%). Limited use of improved granaries can have a negative effect on post harvest management and affect the quality of harvest received this season. Of concern was the 88% in Mudzi that consumed spoiled food and this exposes the households long-term ill health effects due to aflatoxins and other food contaminants. Given that 85% of the districts produced cereals sufficient for more than 12months and that use of improved granaries (6%) and other grain protection methods is limited, it is recommended that Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement scale up post harvest management trainings and technology transfer to farmers so as to salvage the harvest.

• Mashonaland East had the highest livestock mortality rate with Hwedza, Chikomba, Seke, Goromonzi, Murehwa reported above 30%. However, only 24% of the households indicated that they were familiar with routine vaccinations carried out by a veterinary officer and only 14% had used the services of a veterinary officer or paravet for the routine vaccines. On the other hand, about 33% of the households indicated that they were aware of home vaccines/ vaccines administered by the farmer and only 20% had done these vaccinations. There is need to upscale awareness and trainings on vaccines so as to prevent disease outbreaks. Tick control interventions should be intensified collectively at community level if January disease is to be curbed in the province. These include the resuscitating non-functional dip tank and massive campaign on farmers dipping their cattle as well as protecting the 218 unaffected herd by isolating affected livestock. Conclusions and Recommendations

• In the province (77%) of the households had access to improved sanitation facilities. However, Chikomba (29%) and Mudzi (28%) had the highest proportion of households practising open defaecation. In order to achieve set national and global targets, WASH education programmes need to be integrated by scaling up sanitation focus participatory hygiene and health education, sanitation action groups and community or school health clubs.

• The current results show that the share of rural households’ expenditure taken by food is around 53% when the prevalence of food insecurity is less than 10%. Since, it is common knowledge that the share of average household expenditure taken by food increases within creasing poverty or increased vulnerability, there is need for Government and its Development Partners to provide food assistance before households are forced to spend an increased share of their money on food.

• Proportions of households accessing loans(2.9%) remain low and these were predominantly given by ISAL/Mukando (44%) and friend/relative (29%) ;they remain largely informal. Financial inclusion in the formal institutions such as Banks , SACCOs and microfinance remains largely constrained. This maybe stemming from the fact that most of these households are borrowing for consumption hence presenting a credit risk to the formal financial institutions.

• Efforts should be directed at stimulating investments in rural areas and towards supporting ISALs to improve financial inclusion. Humanitarian Programmes that improve access to food may also assist in redirecting the decision in borrowing for investment rather than consumption to improve their credit rating with formalised financial institutions. 219 Conclusions and Recommendations

• Generally there were few communities with irrigation schemes (27%) across the country of which Mashonaland East had 18%. However, 5% of the irrigation schemes were non- functional. The major reasons why irrigation schemes in Mashonaland East were partially functioning were seasonality of water sources and that the infrastructure or equipment not yet been fully installed.

• There has been an increase in the proportion of households consuming poor diets from 32% to 37% with Mudzi, UMP (42%), Mutoko (51%) and Murehwa (40%) having the highest proportion. There is need to strengthen interventions that promote consumption of nutrients-rich foods if quality diets are to be attained by households and WCBA like bio-fortified maize, sweet-potatoes, fruits and small livestock production. This should be coupled with robust nutrition knowledge and information dissemination through ward level nutrition cadres.

• Rural food insecurity in the province was estimated to be 20% of the households which translates to a population of 309,026 with a cereal requirement of about 11,434MT between January 2021 to March 2022.There is need for urgent food distribution or cash based transfers (to promote the local economy where feasible) to food insecure districts like Mudzi (49%) or wards in order to avoid a worsening situation.

• About 70% of the households received any form of support of which government remains the source of support(48%).Given the high coping strategies employed by districts like Mudzi targeted approach needs to be implemented in such localised areas.

• The province is prone to weather and climate related shocks and hazards impacting most on livelihoods and food security. There is need to scale up multi-sectorial interventions in the context of sustainable resilience building programs.

220 221