IN
TERNATIONAL RE
LIEF AN
D DEVELOPMENT
REDUCTION OF DROUGHT VULNERABILITIES IN SOUTHERN SWAZILAND
2009‐2012
ENDLINE SURVEY REPORT
JUNE 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Demographic characteristics of the household...............................................................................6 Figure 2. Demographic characteristics of the household...............................................................................7 Figure 4. Use of CA principles .......................................................................................................................8 Figure 3. Reasons for using CA principles.....................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Use of CA principles .......................................................................................................................8 Figure 5. Percentage of crop produced .........................................................................................................8 Figure 6. Cereal availability from own harvest from April 2011to April 2012..................................................9 Figure 8. Main sources of income of the household endline compared to baseline.....................................10 Figure 8.Main sources of income of the household during the previous 12 months ....................................10 Figure 9. Sources of water in the dry and rainy season...............................................................................11 Figure 10. Problems Sources of water in the dry and rainy .........................................................................12 Figure 11. Water treatments methods .........................................................................................................13 Figure 12. Water point maintenance fund....................................................................................................13 Figure 13. Functions of a water committee..................................................................................................14 Figure 14. Time and reason of washing hands............................................................................................14 Figure 15. Main reasons for latrine use .......................................................................................................15 Figure 16. Disease caused by water............................................................................................................15 Figure 17. Management of diarrhea.............................................................................................................16
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Total number of HH selected by tinkhundla .....................................................................................4 Table 2. Average estimated 2011/12 yields compared to the 2010/2011 actual yields..................................9
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................. i LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ii ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................v
1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives of the survey....................................................................................................... 2
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 3
2.1 Selection of study area ........................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Study design and methods................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Research instrument............................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Data management and analysis............................................................................................ 5 2.5 Data Limitations .................................................................................................................. 5 2.6 Ethical consideration............................................................................................................ 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Demographic characteristics and Household composition of HH.............................................. 6
3.2 Crop production 2011/2012 agricultural season...................................................................... 7
3.3 Food Access and availability 2010/2011 to 2012/2012 agricultural season................................ 9
3.4 Gardening activities ........................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Livelihood activities............................................................................................................ 10 3.6 Water availability............................................................................................................... 11 3.7 Water collection, storage and use ....................................................................................... 12 3.8 Water quality and treatment................................................................................................ 13 3.9 Water Point Management Committees ................................................................................ 13 3.10 Hygiene and Sanitation...................................................................................................... 14 3.11 HIV/AIDS awareness ......................................................................................................... 16
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 17
2. 3.
4.
iii
ACRONYMS
- CA
- Conservation Agriculture
DHS DHS EOP HH
Demographic Health Survey Demographic Health Survey End of Project (endline survey) Household
- IRD
- International Relief and Development
- Metric Tonne
- MT
OFDA SPSS UN
Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance Statistical Package for Social Scientists United Nations
UNDAF USAID VAC WFP
United Nations Development Assistance Framework US Agency for International Development Vulnerability Assessment Committee World Food Programme
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Kingdom of Swaziland is a lower-middle-income country. Its Gini coefficient of 0.61 is one of the highest in the world, indicating wide disparities in household income. Sixty-three percent of the population subsists on less than US $1.25 per day.1 Swaziland has made some improvements in the past three decades; however, one of its greatest challenges is an HIV prevalence of 26 percent among 15–49 year olds—the highest in the world.
Swaziland has been historically a net importer of food, rarely achieving production of more than 49% of annual consumption. Up until 2000, Swaziland was routinely harvesting 100.000 MT of maize, Swaziland main staple food. Production during the last 5 years dropped to an average of 61.000 MT. Southern Swaziland is confronted with recurrent droughts, high prevalence of HIV and high food prices. The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is forced to reduce the numbers of its beneficiaries under its General Food Distribution activity, while production from subsistence farmers is dropping.
The Reduction of Drought Vulnerabilities in Southern Swaziland was initiated in Swaziland in 2009 with the overall goal of “Reducing vulnerability to drought of households and communities in southern Swaziland”. The objectives of the project were (1) To improve agricultural practices under drought conditions and (2) To improve hygiene practices and expand access to safe water for multiple uses. To realize these objectives IRD helped communities to mitigate drought in two provinces— Shiselweni and Lubombo, through a project funded by USAID/OFDA. The project aimed to enhance food security by building capacity of farmers, through training (Conservation Agriculture (CA) and Livestock development) and minimum input support (drought resistant and soil improving crops).
A Baseline Survey was carried out between September and December 2009 to obtain the benchmark information using a quantitative approach. The overall objective of this study was to collect endline information on impacts, knowledge and practices related to agriculture and food security and water, sanitation and hygiene among the vulnerable communities in 9 tinkhundla, in Shiselweni and Lubombo district so as to compare with selected indicators utilized in the baseline. A systematic random sampling was followed to select the required sample population from the purposefully selected tinkhundla. A total of 430 HH were included in the sample.
Key findings
Characteristics of the HH Seventy three percent of the HH were females reflecting the general country demographic profile and IRD beneficiary profile, where there are more females than males. The majorities (49%) of the HH interviewed in the End-line survey were mature beneficiaries; above 55 years of age and 23% were between 46-55 years of age. The reason attributed to having more mature respondents is that, the majority of the young adults are working in the sugar estates, some have left to work in the mines and there is also a lot of deaths affecting the age group. Sixty three percent were married and 32 % were widowed. The level of education of the HH was low indicating high illiteracy, with 36 % having never attended any formal education and 34 % with some primary (Grade 1-6) education. The average household size was 9 with 51 % of the HH with
v
6-10 HH members and 26% with less than 5 HH members. Eighty two percent of the HH were beneficiaries of conservation agriculture, where as 58 % benefitted from water, sanitation and hygiene activities. Only 1% benefitted from livestock development activities reflecting IRD targeting criteria.
Increase in number of months of food self-sufficiency due to distributed agricultural inputs to beneficiaries The mean arable land available for the HH was 2.43 ha with 1.56 ha being put under cultivation in the 2011/2012 season. The majority of the HH (71%) used both CA and conventional planting methods in their field, whereas 21% used the conventional methods. Fifty seven percent of the HH consumed cereals from their 2010/11 season harvest as part of their daily meals between April and December 2011 with 60 % consuming from their harvests in between April and May 2012. Compared to the baseline 8.1 % had cereals (staple) available for 1 month and 11.1 % for 2 months. The average number of months of food self-sufficiency due to distributed agricultural inputs was 5.9, an increase of 3.4 months from the baseline which averaged 2.6 months.
Percentage of target population with access to safe water The baseline survey indicated that 62 % and 83.4 % of the HH had access to safe and improved water source between the dry and rainy season respectively. There significant improvements to access of water in the dry season with 65% accessing water from improved water source as compared to 81% in the rainy season. This indicated a 3% increase in the dry season compared to a 2.6% decrease in the wet season. The major sources of water in the rainy were boreholes, 30% (13% accessing Blue pump and 17 %Afridev) and 41% surface rain water harvesting. In the dry season borehole water usage was 51% (24% accessing Blue pump and 27% Afridev) whereas 26 % used water from streams and springs.
Average water usage of target population in liters per person The average water usage based on the sphere standards was less with 6.3 liters being used per person compared to 15 Liters standard. Compared to the baseline, where 42.6 % analyzed at a HH size of 6, had access to 15 liters a day, the endline survey indicated that 76% had access to less than 15liters of water per person per day for the average HH of 8.3. This indicated a 31 % increase based on year 1 baseline results.
Percent population demonstrating good hand washing practices The present End-line survey results show that awareness about good hand washing among the HH was high with 88% washing hands before eating, 67% after latrine use and 44% when hands are visibly dirty. While 82% had soap in the house, 59% washed hands with soap. .
Percent of target population demonstrating correct water usage and storage There were no marked differences in behavioral characteristics of the households between the baseline and endline survey with regard to correct water collection, usage and storage. The majority of the HH
vi
collected (74.4%) and stored (73%) their water in jerry cans with lids or tops whereas 53 % and 50 % collected and stored their water in closed plastic buckets respectively. The endline survey results indicated that less that 1% of the HH collected and stored their water in open containers. Considering that the majority of the HH used borehole water only 15% treated water before use with the majority using it as is. The increase in borehole water usage has led to the decrease in water treatment (chlorination) from 29 % baseline to 11% in the endline. The majority (96%) of the HH washed their containers before use, with 60 % washing their containers daily when they go to collect water. Water only was the main medium for cleaning the container with 82 %using it in isolation, 57% using water and soap, and 43 % using water, mud and sand.
Percent of community members tested for HIV/AIDS There are a lot of HIV/AIDS awareness activities occurring in the target area with 89 % of the HH having being exposed to the messages. The Government of Swaziland through the Ministry of Health was the major provider of HIV/AIDS awareness messaging. The endline survey results showed that 79 % of the HH went for testing at least once a year.
Changes brought about by the program The types of changes brought about by the program were encouraging. A 31 % increase in water usage in liters. This also led to reduction in water treatment because households were mostly accessing water from boreholes than other water sources. With the adoption of conservation agriculture, there were significant improvements in cereal yields which relatively increased the number of months households consumed cereals from their own harvest.
vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The underlying challenges facing the Kingdom of Swaziland are a weak economy, widespread poverty, and high prevalence of HIV and AIDS. With a population of 1,370,424 (July 2011 est.), Swaziland is besieged with the highest HIV and AIDS prevalence in the world at 26% of the adult population being infected. Currently the incidence rate is estimated at 2.8% per year (DHS 2006-2007). Life expectancy is the second lowest in the world at 40.9 years. The epidemic has been fuelled by poverty, unemployment, high population, conservative religious and traditional beliefs that advocate against condom use and promote polygamy, and multiple concurrent sexual partners.
The combined effects of persistent drought and the impact of HIV and AIDS, reduced industrial and agricultural production capacity, following the high input prices, as well as the impact on economic
1
meltdown (reduced SACU receipts coupled with lower internal revenues, high levels of corruption, low GDP, high labor turnover), has resulted in a significant decline in the economy and agriculture sector and led to a critical food security situation over the past years. Swaziland continues to import food despite the government’s efforts to promote diversification and commercialization of the agriculture sector.
International Relief and Development (IRD) implemented a three year program to reduce vulnerability to drought of households and communities in twelve tinkhundla2 in two regions— Shiselweni and Lubombo, through a program funded by USAID/OFDA. This project helped to improve food security by building capacity of farmers, through training (Conservation Agriculture (CA) and Livestock development) and minimum input support (drought resistant and soil improving crops). A total of 4845 farmers were trained, 2,337 farmers from a target of 2,050 adopted conservation agriculture techniques where they are producing Maize, Sorghum and Cowpeas. Farmers have established keyhole (backyard) gardens and community gardens where they produced vegetables, such as spinach, tomatoes, beets, onions, lettuce, cabbages, and carrots, for sale and for home consumption. Farmers have been trained on keeping livestock numbers manageable to prevent overgrazing and reduce livestock deaths during drought years. Through this they have established protected grazing fields and are practicing rotational grazing.
Provision of water supply, promotion of sanitation and hygiene in primary schools, and improving on community based management of services was a big component of the program. IRD replaced broken down Afridev pumps with deep well hand pumps for depths up to 100m. The pump installation/ repair was done in concurrent with construction of cattle troughs within the vicinity of the water point, to feed on the waste water from the borehole, and to keep the animals from contaminating the water source. Seventy two broken Afridev pumps were replaced by Blue pumps. Well heads and cattle troughs were constructed for each replacement sites. Forty two boreholes were drilled for community gardens where 15 electric pumps were installed for the commercialized gardens and 27 blue pumps for the individual gardens. IRD improved
1 The Southern African Customs Union (SACU) under the Agreement of 2002 by the Governments of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland, as an international legal entity to promote common policies that support industrial development, trade facilitation and deeper regional economic integration. 2 administrative subdivision smaller than district
1
water supply, sanitation and hygiene in schools through installation of 28 rooftop water harvesting (RWH) systems and construction of latrines benefitting 12,633 students and teachers. Training was also provided on sanitation, hygiene and management of services for the beneficiaries.
1.2 Objectives of the survey
In order to ensure that the outcome of this project is verifiable with high accountability and accuracy, and that recommendations are detailed and useful, two evaluative events were conducted during the life of project, Baseline Assessment and, Midterm Review. A final internal end of project survey (endline survey) was conducted in May 2012 with the objective of:
Measuring change and the impacts on Food Security and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, of IRD interventions in the 12 tinkhundla (constituencies) from the Baseline survey, Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices surveys and other IRD baseline data. The endline survey will.
2
2. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Selection of study area
The End of project survey was conducted in two regions of Shiselweni and Lubombo covering 9 (Sigwe, Somtongo, Lubuli, Mpolonjeni, Matsanjeni, Nkilongo, Sithobela, Hosea and Ngudzeni) of 12 tinkhundla where IRD operated between 2009 and 2012. Three tinkhundla, Hlane, Dvokodvweni and Shiselweni 1 were omitted because IRD has only implemented programs in them for one year, 2012, as such the treatments were different from the other tinkhundla.
2.2 Study design and methods
Quantitative study
The quantitative component of the study was a survey of IRD project beneficiaries. The survey was conducted through face-to-face personal interviews using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire solicited information pertaining food security and WASH indicators. The structured interviews were directed towards the beneficiary and non-beneficiaries of IRD interventions. The questionnaires will be administered by IRD extension officers who were trained on survey data collection techniques
Sampling Frame and Size
The survey instrument was designed by IRD staff with experience in experimental design and analysis. Consideration was made with regard to the baseline survey, impact indicators on the project design, and OFDA indicators. The HH in the survey were composed of beneficiaries of IRD activities in the target area. The survey utilized purposive and random sampling in selecting the HH. From IRD agriculture database, a 17% sample was selected (430 interviews to combined agriculture and WASH beneficiaries, and WASH beneficiaries who were not part of agriculture interventions (Illustration1).) proportionally based on the number of beneficiaries by Inkhundla (Table 1) and by chiefdom. Sampling of WASH beneficiaries who were not part of any agricultural interventions was done to done to ensure representation of all components of the program in the sample.
