VAC

ZIMBABWE Vulnerability Assessment Committee

Zim Foreword

The Zimba bwe Vulnerabil ity Asse ssmen t Comm iee (ZimVAC), as ha s bec ome the tradi on since 2 002 , conducted the 15th annua l Ru ral Livelihoods Asse ssment (RLA). The asses sment is pa rt of a compr ehensiv e inform aon sy stem that inform s Governme nt and its Dev elopmen t Partne rs on program ming nece ssa ry for saving lives and streng thening rural liv elihoods in Zimba bwe . ZimVAC is the central pillar around which the Food and Nutrion Council (FNC) plans to build its strategy to fulfil the 6th Commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe’s Food and Nutrion

Security Policy (FNSP) and monitor implementaon of the ZimASSET.

The 2016 RLA covers and provides updates on pernent rural household livelihoods issues such as educaon, food and income sources, income levels, expenditure paerns, crop and livestock p roduc on and nutri on. In addi on to p aying parcu lar focu s on, and pung households a t the cen tre of its ana lysis, the RLA al so coll ects and recor ds ru ral communi es’ views on their livelihoods chal lenges as well a s their developme nt nee ds. The RLA recognise s and draws from ot her na onal con temporary survey s that de fine the socio -econom ic context of ru ral livelihoods . Mos t notable amongst these a re the Crop and Livest ock Assessments, the Demographic a nd He alth Sur veys, the Naona l Censu s, the Pov erty Assessmen t Surveys and Naona l Economic Performa nce reviews.

We want to express our profound gratude to all our Development Partners in the country and beyond for their support throughout the survey. Financial support and technical leadership were received from the Government of Zimbabwe, United Naons Agencies, NGOs and Technical Agencies. Without this support, this RLA would not have been successful. We also want to thank the staff at FNC for providing leadership, coordinaon and management to the whole survey. Our sincere appreciaon also goes to the rural communies of Zimbabwe as well as the local le adership for coopera ng with and supporng this surve y.

We submit this report to you all for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasng measures in addressing priority issues keeping man y of our rural househol ds vulner able to food and nutri on insecurit y.

George D. Kembo FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson Dr. Leonard Madzingaidzo Interim Chief Execuve Officer - SIRDC

2 Table of Contents

Foreword ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..…………..…………………………………………………… .1 Acknowledg ements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..………………………… ..…………..………………………………………………… ..…………3 Acronyms …………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..…………………4 Background and Introducon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..…………………………………………… ..…………………… 5 Assessment Pu rpose …………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..……………… 10 Assessment Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..…………………………………………… ..………………… 13

Demographic Descripon of the Sample …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..………………………………………… ..……………………… .18 Social Protecon …………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..…………………………………………… ..…………………..26 Educaon …………………………………………… ………… …………………………………………………………………………… ...... ………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..………………….30 Access to Extension Services …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..………………….33 Crop Producon …..……………………………………………………… ..…………………………………………………… .……….…….……...... ………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..………………..40 Households Access to Irrig aon …………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..…………………………………………… ..………………… 52 Livestock Producon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..……….………………………………………… ..…………..………………………………………… ..…………………… .56

Household Income and Expenditure Paerns ………………………………………………………………………………………… .……………………………………… ..…………..…………………………………………… ..…………………… 67 Livelihoods Based Copin g Strategies ………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..…………..………………………………………… ..…………………… 75 Loans/ Deb ts ….………………………………………… ………………………………………………………… .……………..……..………………………………………………………… ..…………..………………………… ..………………………………… ..83 Market Access ….…………………………………………… ………… ………… ………………………………… .……………..……..……………………………………………………… ..…………..…………………………… ..………………………………… .89 Water, Sanita on and Hygiene ….……………………………………………… …………………………………………………… . …………………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………… ..……..……..103 Household Consu mpon Paerns...... ……………………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………… ..…………………...... 116 Feeding Pracces in Children 6-59 months ..…………………………………………………………………………… ..……………………………………………… ... ………..…………..…...... …………………...... 123

Malnutrion in Children 6-59 months………………………………………………………………………………………… ..………………………………………………………… ..…………..………………………………………… ..………………… 128

Food Security Situaon ..………………………………………… ...... ……………………………………………………………………… ..……………..…………..……………………………………………………… ...... 139 Violence Agains t Women………………………………… …………………………………… ..…………………………………………………………………… ………………………… ..…………..……..……………………………………………………… 159 Community Challeng es and Develo pmen t Priories . ……………………………………………………………………… ..…………………. ………………..... ………..…………..…...... …………...... 164 Hazards and Sh oc ks…………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 167 Conclusion s and Recommendaon s …..………………………………………………………………………………………… ……… ..…………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………………………… .173 Annexes …..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..………………………………………… ..…………..……………………………………………………………… 187

3 Acknowledgements

On behalf of t he Gov ernment of Zim babwe, SIRD C and FNC wish to expr ess thei r since re gra tude and apprecia on to the following ZimVA C member s for their technical, fin ancial, ma terial sup port and con tribuons to the 2016 RLA :

• Food and Agricu lture Org anizaon (FAO) • SNV • Office of the Pr esident and Cabin et • Famine E arly W arning Sy stems Ne twork • AMALIMA • Ministry o f Fin ance (FEWSNET) • Germany Agro Acon • SADC RVAC • United States Agency for Internaonal • HOSS • Zimbabwe Naonal Stascs Agency (ZIMSTAT) Development (US AID) • Community Technology Development Trust • • United Naons Development Programme – Ministry of Agriculture, M echanisaon and Irrig aon Development ZRBF • TSURO Trust

• Organisaon for Rural Associaons for • FACT Mutare • Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Progress (ORAP) • Ministry of Health and Child Care • FACT Rusape

• All Rural District Councils • Higherlife Foundaon • Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and Naonal Housin g • Cluster Agricultural Development Services • Rural Ulies Development Organisaon (RUDO) (CADS) • Ministry Of Women Affairs, Gender and Community • Mwenezi Development Trust Developmen t • OXFAM • World Vision Internaonal • Ministry of Rural Development, Promoon and • GOAL • Save the Children Preservaon of Naonal Culture and Heritage • Sustainable Agriculture Technology • Chrisan Youth Volunteers Associaon Trust (CYVAT) • Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educaon • CARE Internaonal • Wild For Life • United Naons Resident Coordinator’s Office (UNRCO) • Plan Internaonal • Maternal Chil d Inte grated Programme (MCHIP • UN Women • Chrisan Care • Development Aid from People to People (DAPP) • UNFPA • Praccal Acon • Lower Guruve Development Associaon (LGDA) • UNICEF • CARITAS

• Lutheran Development Services (LDS) • World Food Programme (WFP) • Red Cross • Zimbabwe Com munity Developm ent Associa on • Enhancin g N utrion and Stepp ing Up Resilience • Adven st De velopment and Relief Agency

(ENSURE) (ADRA) • Regai Dziveshiri

• Ministry of Transport • Internaonal Rescue Commiee (IRC) • Trocaire Zimbabwe 4 Acronyms

EA Enumer aon Area

CEO Chief Execuve Officer

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FNC Food and Nutrion Council

FNSP Food and nutrion Security Policy

GAM Global Acute Malnutrion

MUAC Mid Upper Arm Cir cumference

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessmen t

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrion

SIRDC Scienfic and Industrial, Research and Development Centre

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Commiee

5

Background and Introducon

6 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Commiee (ZimVAC)

ZimVAC is a consorum of Government, UN agencies, NGOs and other internaonal organisaons established in 2002 , 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 mul -sectoral response to food insecurity and nutrion problems to ensure that every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutrion.

ZimVAC supports Government, parcularly the FNC in:

• Convening and coordinang naonal food and nutrion security issues in Zimbabwe

• Charng a pr accal way forward for fulfilling legal and exisng policy commit ments in food and nutrion security

• Advising Go v ernment o n str ategic direc ons in food and nutrion security

• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and su pporng an d f acilita ng ac on to ens ure commit ments in food and nutrion are kept on track by different sectors through a number of core funcons such as:

§ Undertaking f ood and nutrion assessments, analysis and r esearch,

§ Promong mul -sectoral and innovave approaches for addressing food and nutrion security, and:

§ Supporng and building naonal capacity for food and nutrion security including at sub-naonal levels .

7 Background

• In 2015 , Zimbabwe recorded a GDP growth rate of 1.5%, progressively declining from 10.6% in 2011 (ZimSTAT, 2015 ). Year -on-year

inflaon was -1.64% in April 2016 as the deflaonary environment connued in the economy since 2013 . The economy is currently

facing cash shortages partly resulng from increasing imports against decreasing export earnings .

• The 2011 /2012 Poverty Income and Consumpon Survey esmated 76% of rural households to be poor with 23% deemed extremely

poor.

• Up to the end of February 2016 , normal to below normal rains were received in the country in line with regional and naonal rainfall

forec as ts for 201 5 / 16 owing t o the El Niño . Late start of rains, a prolon ged mid-season d ry spell (Decem ber 2015 to January 2016 )

compounded b y high temper atures mark ed the seas on impacn g on crop a nd livestock producon and other livelihoods . High livestock

poverty deaths of over 25,000 cale w ere recor ded between October 20 15 and Februar y 2016 mainly in the southern parts of the country .

• Following a poor 2014 /15 rainfall and agricultural season that le the country with about 650,000MT of cereal deficit, Zimbabwe managed to fill most of the cereal gap with Government and the private sector imports between April 2015 and March 2016 .

• A significant proporon of households experienced poor access to crop and livestock inputs partly due to liquidity challenges, high prices and unavailability of parcular inputs in some areas .

8 Background - The 2015/16 Rainfall and Agricultural Season Quality • The El Niño induced dr ought aff ected mos t parts of Southern Afric a includi ng Zimbab we. • Most of the southern parts of the country that normally receive poor rainfall, received significantly below normal rainfall

resulng in wide spread crop failure and subdued grazing development.

• Mediocre to average crop performance was expected for some areas in the central and northern parts of the country.

Southern Africa as of 10 April 2016 Zimbabwe as of 10 April 2016

9 Background

• In response to the El Niño induced-drought, ZimVAC undertook a rapid livelihoods assessment in January 2016 focusing on updang the May

2015 results. Rural food insecurity was projected to rise to approximately 30% (2,8 million people) from the 16% (1,5 million people) inially

esmated in May 2015.

• The January 2016 ZimVAC rapid assessment also indicated a worsening nutrion situaon. At 5.7%, the Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) rate of childr en aged 6-59 mon ths was the highes t recorded in 15 years. T he Severe Acut e Malnutrion (SAM) rate for chil dren aged 6 -59 mon ths was 2.1%, slightly abo ve the 2% thresho ld for emer gency response in Zim bab we.

• Against this backgr ound, the Go vernment declar ed the droug ht a State of Disaster and subsequently launched the 2016-2017 Drought Disaster Domesc and Internaonal Appeal for Assistance, totaling USD 1,5 billion. The Government plan is built around the key areas of grain

importaon, emergency irrigaon rehabilitaon, livestock destocking, emergency water supply, school feeding and food security.

• In order to strategically align with Government emergency needs and priories, the UN and its humanitarian partners revised the Humanitarian

Response Plan (HRP) to facilitate scaling up the drought response. The HRP, covers the period April 2016 to March 2017 and its focus is on saving lives and pr ot ecng crical livelihoods of 2.8 million people (30% of the total rural populaon) with a total req uirement of USD 360 million in the sectors of food assist ance and agricultur e, health and nutr ion, social protecon, educaon and water , sanitaon and hy giene .

10 Assessment Purpose

Guided by the ZimASSET, parcula rly clust er number 1 and 2 and bu ressed in the FNSP , the ZimV AC 201 6 RLA aimed to:

• Monitor progress made t owards the a ainment of ZimASS ET se t tar gets for food and nutrion secur ity.

• Update informaon on Zimbab we’s rur al liv elihoods with a parcul ar foc us on rur al house holds’ vulner ability to f ood and nutrion insecurity.

• Idenfy constraints to improving community resilience and rural livelihoods including opportunies and pathways of

addressing them.

11 Specific Objecves

• To esmate the rur al popula on tha t is lik ely to be f ood insecur e in the 2016 / 17 consump on year, their geog raphic distribuon and the severity of their food insecurity;

• To assess the nutrion status of children of 6 – 59 months;

• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteriscs as their demographics, gender,

access to basic services (educaon and water and sanitaon facilies), income sources, incomes and expenditure paerns, food

consumpon paerns and consumpon coping strategies;

• To determine livelihood coping strategies used by rural communies

• To determine the coverage of formal and informal social protecon intervenons;

• To idenfy constraints including shocks and hazards to improving community resilience and rural livelihoods including opportuni es and pathwa y s of addressing them ; and

• To assess the div ersit y of livelihood opons in the 201 6/17 consumpon year.

12 Technical Scope

The 2016 RLA c ollected and analy sed in formaon on the follo wing thema c areas :

• Household demogr aphics

• Access to educ aon and e xtension ser vices

• Food consumpon pa erns, food sour ces and nutri on • Income and expenditure paerns and levels

• Small-holder agriculture (crop and livestock producon and irrigaon)

• Market access

• Household food security

• Community livelihood challenges and development priories.

• Shocks and hazards

• Gender as a cross-cung issue and violence against women

13 Assessment Methodology

14 Methodology and Assessment Process

• The assessment design was informed by the mul-sectoral objecves generated by a mul-stakeholder consultaon process.

• An appropriate survey design and protocol, informed by the survey objecves, was developed.

• The assessment used both a structured household quesonnaire and a community focus group discussion quesonnaire as the two primary data collecon

instruments. District key informant interviews were also conducted. • ZimVAC naonal supervisor s and enumer ators wer e recruit ed from Governm ent, United Naons and Non-Governmental Organisaons and underwent training in all aspects of the asses smen t (background, data c ollecon too ls, asses sment sampling strat egy, asses smen t supervision and field supervision). • The Minis try of Rural De velopm ent, Promoon and Preserva on o f Naonal Culture and Heritage in collabor aon with the Ministry of Local Gov ernm ent, Public Works and Naonal Housing thr ough the Provin cial Administr at ors’ offices coordin ated the recruitm ent of district lev el en umerator s and deploymen t of v ehicles in each o f the 60 rur al districts of Zimbab we. • The composio n of district en umer aon te ams comp rised o f offi cers from G overnment and local NGOs. Each district enumeraon team had at least 2 Anthropometrists that had the responsibility of measuring children aged 6-59 months.

• Primary data collecon took place from the 12th to the 31st of May 2016, followed by data entry and cleaning from the 16th of May to the 1st of June

2016.

• Data analysis and report wring ran from the 2nd to the 13th of June 2016. Various secondary data sources were used to contextualise the analysis and reporng . • Data analy sis and repor t wring was done by a team o f 47 technic al officer s from Governm ent, UN and technic al partner s un der the leadership and coordinaon of FNC.

15 Data Collecon Methods and Sample Size

• The sample size was determined such that key household food insecurity indic ators and Global Acut e Malnutrion (GAM) prev alence were stas cally Province Households Children Community representave at district, with: under 5 FGDs • 95% confidence level; • 10% pr ecision level f or the key household food insecurity indicator; and Manicaland 1675 2150 139 • 3.4% pr ecision level for the GAM rate. Mash onaland Central 1915 2581 148

• Primary data collecon was undertaken in 25 enumeraon areas (EAs) in each Mashonaland district, selected using systemac random sampling applying the proporon to populaon size principle. Eas t 2143 2767 144 Mashonaland • Households w ere systemacall y randomly sampled in one randomly selected West 1762 2165 110 village in each of the sampled EAs. Matabeleland

• The final sample of households was 14,434 and that for children aged 6 to 59 North 1670 2296 140

months was 19,057. Matabeleland • One commu nity key inf ormant Focus Group Discus sion (F GD) was held in each South 1679 2242 128 of the sele cted wards, bringing the total community key informant FDGs to 1,095. Midlands 1908 2575 148

• One district key informant interview on food assistance intervenons was cond uct ed in each of the 60 rural districts . Masving o 1682 2281 138

• In addion to the above, field observaons also yielded valuable informaon that was used in the analysis. Tot al 14434 19057 1095

16 Sampled Wards

17

Data Preparaon and Analysis

• All primary data w as c aptured using CSPr o and consoli dated and con verted int o thr ee SPSS dat asets: • Household sur vey • Child Nutrion • Community k ey in formant in terviews • Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, ENA, Microso Excel and GIS packages

• Analysis of the different themac areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant

internaonal frameworks (where they exist).

18 Demographic Descripon of the Sample

19 Populaon Distribuon by Age and Sex

45 42 38 40 36.3 33.4 35

laon 30 25 19.1 t popu 20 16.8 15 cen er 10 7.8 P 6.6 5 0 0 - 4 yrs 5 -17 yrs 18 - 59 yrs 60 - 97 yrs

Age group

Male Female

• The highest populaon group in the sampled households was in the 18-59 years age group.

• The distribuon paern is similar to that which has been observed in the past 10 years.

20 Sex and Age of Household Head

100

(%) 90 20.5 30.7 23 30.7 29.7 ds 80 37.7 31.8 43.2 42.5 70 60 50 f househol 40 79.5 77 69.3 69.3 70.3 68.2 30 56.8 57.5 62.3

ron o 20

opo 10 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central

Male Female

• Most households (68.2%) were male headed, whilst 31.8% were female headed. • The average household head age was 48.8 years. • Child headed households comprised 2% of the sample and the elderly headed comprised 27 %. • The average household size was 5.5.

21 Marital Status of Household Head

100 1.5 1 1.1 0.8 1.5 4.3 1.4 1.1 1.5 s 11 15 d 90 17 18 19 22 5 21 21 4 6 29 Hea 80 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 7 6 7 70 9 6 12 6 60 9 50

40 80 70 76 70 63 67 68 30 62 52 20 oporon of Household

Pr 10 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widow/widower Never married

• The majority of household heads (68%) were married and living together with their spouse followed by the widows and wido wers (19% ).

22 Household Head Educaon Level by Province

Primary Diploma/Cerficate Diploma/CerficateGraduate/Post Province None level ZJC level O' level A' level aer primary aer secondary -Graduate

% % % % % % % %

Manicaland 15.4 38.8 16.0 27.0 1.0 .6 .8 .4 Mash Central 15.4 40.8 16.2 25.2 . 9 .5 .6 .4 Mash East 16.7 34.4 16.0 30.6 1.2 .2 .7 .1 Mash West 23.7 30.9 16.8 26.2 1.1 .5 .6 .2 Mat North 30.1 50.2 7.2 11.3 .5 .2 .4 .2

Mat South 34.5 39.4 8.2 16.2 .4 .5 .6 .1

Midlands 25.1 32.9 12.3 27.5 .7 .6 .8 .2 Masvingo 12.9 37.7 20.0 26.5 1.6 .6 .5 .2 Naonal 21.5 37.9 14.2 24.2 . 9 .5 .6 .2

• About 21.5% of the household heads had not c ompleted prim ary educ aon. • The assessment revealed that a significant number of the household heads had completed primary level (38%).

23 Vulnerability Aributes

30 t 25 25 22 21.5

with at leas 20

15

member a 10 8 of households 7 6 5.9 6 5.5 age

t 5

cen er

P 0 Chronically ill Physically/Mentally challenged Orphans

2014 2015 2016

• The above results show no significant difference in vulnerability aributes over the past five years.

24 Households with Children Under Foster Care

35 32

e 30 with 27 ar

c 24 25 er 23 22 20 20 ost 20

f 20 16 der

of households 15 en un age t 10 cen childr 5 er P 0

Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

• Naonally, 23% of the households were taking care of children under foster care arrangements with Matabeleland South

having the most households at 32%.

25 Dependency Rao

• 2016 Household dependency rao was calculated as Province Dependency rao follows: Manicaland 1.8

Mashonaland Central 1.6 Number of economically inac ve membe rs/number Mashonaland East 1.7 of economically acve members Mashonaland West 1.5

Matabeleland North 1.9

• The average household dependency rao was 1.8. Matabeleland South 1.9

Midlands 1.9

• The highest dependency rao was recorded in Masvingo 2.0

Masvingo province (2.0) and the lowest in Naonal 1.8

Mashonaland West (1.5).

26 Social Protecon

27 Households which Received Support

80 70 70 67 67 68 70 65 65

58 60 51 50

of household 40 age t 30

cen 20 er P 10 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Ma t North Ma t South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central

• About 65% of the households received some support in form of food, cash, crop inputs, livestock inputs or water, sanitaon and

hygiene (WASH) during 2015/16 consumpon year, a proporon higher than the 49% for the 2014/2015 consumpon year.

• The majority of provinces had over 65% of households receiving support while Manicaland had the least (51%) followed by

Mashonaland East (58%).

28 Sources of Support

Relaves within Relaves within urban Remiances outside Government UN/NGO Churches Province rur al areas areas Zimbabwe

% % % % % % Manicaland 49 18.7 3.1 10.7 13.6 4.6 Mash Central 71.1 14.3 1.3 6.5 5.3 1.5 Mash East 42.6 5.9 2.7 14.8 25.4 7.8 Mash West 67.7 8.5 1.3 6.7 11.6 3.9 Mat North 43.5 24.9 1.1 9.2 12.4 8.3

Mat South 29.4 20.6 2.7 8.8 13 24

Midlands 51.9 14.9 1.7 9.1 15.1 7.1 Masvingo 36 24.7 2 13.9 14.9 8.1 Naonal 48.5 16.4 2 10.1 14.2 8.3

• Support was mostly from Government (48.5%) and from remiances from within and outside Zimbabwe (totalling 32.6%).

• The proporon of households receiving support from Government was highest in Mashonaland Central (71%) followed by Mashonaland West (67.7%) while Matabelelan d South and Masvin go received the least supp ort (29% and 36%) respe cv ely. • UN and NGO supp ort w as mainly receiv ed in the southe rn pro vinces (Matabelelan d North 25 %, Ma tabelelan d South 21 %, Mas vin go 25 % and Manic alan d 19%). • Remiances from within Zimbab we were highest in Mashona land East (40 %) follo wed by Mas vingo (29% ). This paern is similar to that of 2015. • Remi ances from outside Zimb abwe w ere highes t in Mat abeleland South (24%) consistent with 2015 . The least was Mashonalan d Centr al with about 2%

29 Forms of Support

Cash support (%) Food support (%) Crop support (%) Lives tock support (%) WASH sup port (%) Province 2014/2015 2015/2016 2014/2015 2015/2016 2014/2015 2015/2016 2014/2015 2015/2016 2014/2015 2015/2016 Manicaland 25.6 18 31 .9 39 72 .4 21 .9 4.1 1.7 1.8 0.9

Mash Central 11.3 13.4 15.9 43.1 87.6 46.2 3.9 2.8 4.7 2.6

Mash East 37.4 28.3 45 39.3 80.2 36.2 5.8 3.3 3 1.4

Mash West 25.7 13.6 25.7 53.8 80.2 46 6.9 1.9 3.2 3.3 Mat North 32.3 21.8 54 60.3 49.5 12.9 5.3 1.3 2.6 3.5 Mat South 45.5 39 54 53.6 58.2 16 4.7 2.8 4 1.8 Midlands 23.3 27.5 33.9 42.4 72.7 36 6 3.1 8.7 3.1 Masvingo 46 31.3 63.3 54.2 59.9 20.2 11.1 2.7 22. 3 4.6 Naonal 31.4 24.1 40.4 47.8 72 30.1 6.1 2.5 6.4 2.6

• The most common forms of support which househ olds received remains the same as 2014/2015 with food (48%) and crop support ( 30.%) being the domina nt ones. • With the excepon of food support, all other forms of support decreased. This is consistent with the poor agricultural season and the projected increase in food insecu rity. • The hig hest proporons of househ olds receivi ng crop supp ort w as in Mashonalan d Central and Ma shonaland W est (46 %) while the lowest wa s Matabelel and Nor th (13%) and Ma tabeleland South (16%)

• Livestock support was significantly low even in the provinces where livestock is a major source of livelihood and were hard-hit by the drought

30 Educaon

31

School Aendance by Children

90 84.7 80 76

70 60

50

oing children

l g 40

30 24

of schoo

% 20 15.3

10

0 In school Not in school 2015 2016

• School aendance increased in 2016 (85%) compared to 76% in 2015.

32 Reasons for not Aending School

Disability 1

Pregnancy or marriage 2

Not interested in school 3

Distance to school too far 4 easons R Illness 5

Child considered too young 24

Expensive or no money 32

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Propoon of children

• About 32% of the children were not in school due to financial constraints followed by 24% who were considered to be too young. • Disability was amongst the reasons with the lowest frequency.

33 Access to Extension Services

34 Access to Agricultural Training

50 46 46 42 39 39 38 40 35 36 35 35 37 35 34 33 29 29 30 28 30 age

t

cen 20

er P 10

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central 2015 2016

• About 35% of households engaged in crop and livestock producon received agricultural training. This was lower compared to last y ear ( 38% ). • Mashonalan d Centr al, Matabeleland North and Midlands Provinces showed an increase while the other provinces recorded a decline.

• The agricultur al training received came from Government (91%), NGOs (5%), private companies (2%), research organisaons (2%) and lead farmers(1%).

• Households receiv ed an a verage of 3 trainings.

35 Access to Agricultural Training by Sex

100% 90%

lds 80% 42 51 48 51 49 51 51 70% 52 54

60%

50%

n of Househo 40%

30% 58 49 52 49 51 50 49 20% 48 46 oporo

Pr 10% 0% Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Male Female

• Almost equal proporons of male and female headed households received agricultural training in all provinces except for Midlands wher e a higher pr opor on of male heade d househo lds (58 %) receiv ed training c ompared to female headed households (42%).

• Masvingo had a higher proporon of female headed households (54%) that received training compared to male headed

households (42% ).

36 Proporon of Households that Received Extension Visits 100 33 29 27 25 26 25 31 25 28 80

age

t 60

cen 40 75 75 75 er 67 71 73 74 69 73 P 20

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Households that did not have a visit from AEW Households that had a visit from AEW

• During the 2015/16 agricultural season, 28% of the households received agricultural extension visits from extension provider s.

• The number of extension visits per farmer ranged from 2 to 3.

• Extension was pro vided by Go vernmen t (91.7% ), NGOs (3.9% ) , priv a te companies (2.8%) and research organisaons (1.5%).

37 Households that Sought Cropping Advice

100 90 19 26 25 21 24 25 24 25 32 80

70

age 60 t 50 cen er

P 82 40 75 79 77 75 76 75 68 74 30

20 10

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Households that did not seek cropp ing advice Households that cropping advice

• About 25% of the households sought advice out of their own iniave.

• Manicaland had the highest proporon (32%) with Matabeleland South having the lowest (19%).

38 Access to Veterinary Services by Livestock Owners

80 75 73 66 69 68 70 70 63 63 62 60

50 39 40 e 35 40 g 31 32 a 30 t 30 26 25 23

cen 20 er P 10 0 Manic aland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Cen tral

2015 2016

• About 62% of households which owned livestock sought veterinary services from April 2015 to March 2016. This is significantly higher compared to the previous year (32%).

• Matabeleland South pr ovince had the high est proporon of households which sought veterinar y services ( 75%).

39 Households Sasfied by Cropping and Livestock Advice

Crop: About 68% of households that sought cropping advice Livestock: About 88% of livestock owners that sought veterinary reported that their needs were not sa sfactorily me t. services were sasfied by the way their needs were addressed.

100 100 9 12 12 11 12 14 14 14 90 90 20 )

80 80 s(%) d 70 70 ol 63 63 66 69 68 70 68 73 seholds(% 60 75 60

useh 50 50

of Hou

of ho 91 89 40 88 88 86 86 86 88 40 80

ron ron 30 30

opo

opo Pr Pr 20 37 37 20 34 32 32 31 32 27 25 10 10

0 0

Sasfied Not sasfied Sasfied Not sasfied

40 Crop Producon

41 Proporon of Households which Planted Crops

100

90 88 84

80

(%) 70 ds 60

50 43 of househol

40 36

on 34

30 26 28 26

Propor 21 20 20 20 13 12 10 10 9 7 10 6 4 5 6 3 2 2 2 2

0

Maize Groundnuts Cowpeas Sorghum Roundnuts Tubers P. Millet Sugar bea ns Tobacco Coon F. Millet Soyabeans Sunflowers

2013/2014 2015/2016

• Maize (84%) and groundnuts (43%) were the most common crops planted by households. • There was a general increase in the proporon of households that planted all crops as compared to last season with the excepon of maize, tobacco and coon.

42 Proporon of Households which Planted Cereals by Province 100 92 89 87 88 90 84 80 82

%)

( 77 80 75 lds o 70 60 48 50 46 40 32 29 28 30 25 24 23 20 21 16 18 19 oporon of househ 20 13 14 10 10 1210 Pr 9 9 10 4 5 5 2 1 2 0

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masving o Naonal

Maize Sorghum P.Millet F. Millet

• Over 80% of all households, except Matabeleland North and South, planted maize. • Matabeleland North and South had high proporons of households which grew small grains.

43 Proporon of Households Which Planted Legumes

60 55 51 50 50 50 (%) 50 43 43 ds 41 41 40 36 35 34 34 33 34 31 33 33

30 26 26 26 27 26 f househol 23 19 20 18 15 16 ron o

9 10 10 10 opo 10 7 6 Pr 3 4

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

Cowpeas Groundnuts Roundnuts Sugarbeans

• Groundnuts, roundnuts and cowpeas were the most commonly planted legumes across the provinces. • Masvingo (55%), Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East and Midlands had the highest proporon of households growing groundnuts (50%). • Round nuts wer e most com mon in Masvin go (51 %), whilst cowpeas was most com mon in Matabelelan d South (43 %). • Generally, the pr oporon of househ olds growing legumes w ere lo wes t in Matabele land Nor th and South as w ell as Manic aland .

44

Adequacy of Agricultural Labour

70.0% 65% 60% 61% 60% 60.0% 58% 58% 54% 52% 53%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Not Adequ ate

• The majority of households in all provinces did not have adequate agricultural labour with a naonal average of about 58%, a figure

slightly lower than the 59% reported in 2015.

• The situaon was wor se in Manicaland (65 % ) follow ed by Midlands (61%).

• Inadequacy of labour is one of the reasons for limited agricultural producon.

45 Hiring of Agricultural Labour

25.0% 22

20.0% 15 14 14 14 14 14 15.0% 13 13 14 12 12 10 10 11 10 10.0% 9 8

5.0%

0.0% Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Hired Assisted

• Naonally, 13.6% of the households reported to have hired casual labour for agricultural purposes, a figure lower than the 20% reported in 2015.

• Mashonal an d West had the highest proporon of households that reported to have hired labour (22%) with Masvingo (8%) reported to have the least number of households that hired casual labour.

• The decr ease is consi stent with the decline of househo lds who reported having inadequate labour compared to the previous season. • About 12% of househo lds wer e able to access agric ultural labou r from friends and rela ves.

46 Sources of Seeds Used by Households During the 2015/16 Agricultural Season

Purchase Gvt NGOs Carryover Retained Remianc Pvt Other • Seed purchases were the main source of seed Crops % % % % % es Contractor % for maize, soya beans, tobacc o, sugar beans, % s paprika and wheat. % • The important source of seed for coon was Maiz e 43 19 1 7 19 9 0 2 Sorghum 14 3 2 16 40 21 0 4 Government (48%). That surpassed the

Finger Mi llet 12 2 1 15 49 16 0 5 tradional source of seed which used to be Pearl Mille t 9 3 1 12 52 18 0 5 private contractors. Tubers 15 1 0 20 46 15 0 3 • Retained seed was the dominant source for Cowpeas 25 1 2 13 41 16 0 2 sorghum, finger millet, pear l millet, tubers, Groundnuts 21 2 1 15 48 11 0 2 Round Nuts 21 2 0 13 49 13 0 2 cow peas, groundnuts and sunflow er. Sugar Beans 39 2 1 10 38 9 0 1 • Contract ors’ contribuon was notab le in Soya Beans 44 1 2 7 31 12 0 3 tobacco, coon and paprika. Tobacco 64 4 0 1 1 5 24 1 • In the last three seasons, Government maize Coon 14 48 2 4 3 2 26 1 Paprika 58 0 0 8 0 23 11 0 seed s upport has been declining; 45% in

Wheat 50 9 0 0 41 0 0 0 2013/2014 , 30% in 2014/2015 and 19% in

Sunflow er 22 2 1 10 42 22 0 1 2016/2017 . Other 32 3 2 10 28 19 3 3

47 Average Household Cereal Producon by Province

Maize (kg) Small grains (kg) • Naonally, there was a 55%

Province decline in average household 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 cereal prod ucon compared to Manicaland 396.3 292.4 108.6 16.6 24.8 4.9 last season. Mashonaland 468.5 525.8 136.2 13.1 32 .8 7.7 • The a verage household maiz e Central produc on was highes t in Mashonaland East 444.3 367.0 124.1 4.6 15.1 2.9 Mashonaland West at 397.6 kg with the least in Matabeleland

Mashonaland 771.9 462.2 397.6 2.2 5.4 6.2 South at 22.8kg. West • Mashonaland Central had the Matabeleland 370.3 142.8 48.1 93 12 7.1 57.1 highest drop (71%) in av erage North cereal producon followed by Matabeleland 375.1 74.6 22.8 81.5 15 .3 19.1 Mashonaland East and South Manicaland at over 60% with the Midlands 654.0 292.7 132.3 18.6 10.1 11.4 lowest in Mashonaland West Masving o 399.7 136.4 42.3 126.0 14.7 21.9 (10%) Naonal 485.0 293.5 126.5 44.5 29.5 16.4

48 Household Food Crop Stocks

49 Proporon of Households With Stocks (as at 1 April)

R/nuts (shelled) 1.3

G/nuts (shelled) 2.9

R/nuts (unshelled) 3.0

Wheat 3.0 G/nuts (unshelled) 3.9 Millets 4.1 Sugar beans 4.8 Sorghum 7.3 Cowpeas 8.8

Rice 19.6

Maize 75.0

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

Proporon of Households

• Maize grain was the most common cereal in stock (75% ). • Fewer households had stocks of pulses, of these, cowpeas was the most commonly held stock.

50 Average Household Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2016

Province Kilograms

• Average household cereal stocks were about Manicaland 53.2 43kgs. Mashonaland Central 47.3

Mashonaland East 45.4 • Manicaland had the highest average cereal stocks

Mashonaland West 45.2 (53kg) followed by Masvingo (50kg), whilst Matabeleland South had the leas t (30kg). Matabeleland North 38.7

Matabeleland South 30.0 Midlands 39.0 Masvingo 49.5 Naonal 43.2

51 Sources of Stocks as at 1 April 2016 (% of Households)

Maize Sorghum Millets Wheat Rice Cowpeas Sugar Beans • The most important source for food crop

Own 34.3 53.1 70.9 24.2 20.8 83.4 63.7 stocks were own producon and purchases. producon Rice and wheat were mainly from

Domesc 31.4 13.6 9.8 57.5 63.2 6.5 23.1 purchases. purchases

Remiance 1.4 0.6 0.9 5.2 5.5 0.4 2.8 from outside • Contribuon of Government food assistance

for maize stocks was higher compared to Remiance 3.4 3.7 2.8 8.8 6.9 2.1 3.9 from within that of NGO food assistance while the

Gvt food 13.4 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 converse was true for sorghum. assistance NGO food 3.1 13.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 4.2 2.5 assis tance • A signific ant poron of households had

Gis 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.3 stocks of maiz e, sorghum and millet from Labour 10.6 11.8 11.5 2.9 1.7 0.9 1.2 exchange labour exchange. Borrow ed 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3

52 Household Access to Irrigaon

53 Proporon of Wards with Irrigaon Schemes

• About 19% of the rur al w ards had an irri gaon scheme .

• Of these wards, 53% had funconal irri gaon sc hemes, 35 % ha d

parally funconal and 37 % had non funconal irri gaon schemes .

54 Reasons for Non Funconality of Irrigaon Schemes

Finance or lack of inputs 12 non funconal paral funconal 5 6 other 3

social (community disagreements, no interest) 2

8 power cuts 8

4 Bills (water, ZESA, loans) 5

33 water source (siltaon, low rainfall, dam collapse) 34

29 Equipment breakdown (pipes, canals, engines, pumps) 41

7 Sll under construcon 5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Proporon of w ards

• Equipment breakdown and inadequate water connue to be the main causes of non funconality and paral

funconality of irrigaon schemes in the countr y.

55 Irrigaon Plot Holders by Sex

70 63 59 61 %) ( 60 55 55 s 53 52 50 50 52 47 48 48 lder 50 45 45 o h 41 39 40 37 30 20

oporon of plot 10 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Ma t South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Male Female

• Based on the sampled wards, the majority of plot holders w ere mal es e xcept f or M atabeleland North (50%) and South (48%) where there were mor e f emale plot holder s.

56 Livestock Producon

57

Cale Ownership

110 100 7 8 10 12 13 11 12 (%) 90 17 18 13 11 12 80 10 16 18 13 12 10 7 13 14 70 12 11 9 60 9 15 15

50 40 68 71 67 70 64 30 61 58 57 56

20

Prporon of households 10 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

Zero One to Two Three to Five More than Five • About 64% of rural households did not own cale, compared to 60% last year. • Masvingo Province (44%) had the highest proporon of households with cale followed by Midlands (43%) and Matabeleland

South(42%).

• About 14% of households owned at least 5 head of cale and such households were in the Matabeleland provinces.

58 Cale Dra Power Ownership

100 90 19 23 22 25 18 26 with 30 80 4 36 33 5 5 6 lds 3 5

er 70 3 o 60 5 7

pow 50

a 40 78 76 73 72 71 67 69 dr 30 5 9 60 20 le a 10 c 0

oporon of househ Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Pr Central

Zero One Two plus • About 31% of households owned dra cale. 5 % owned 1 dra animal and 26 % owned two or more . • Highest proporon of households with dra cale were in Midlands province (41%), followed by Masvingo (40%).

• The proporon of households using cale for dra power in Matabeleland South was low despite the province

having the highest proporon of households with cale and highest average household cale holdings. This is

probably due to greater dependence on donkeys for dra power in the province.

59 Causes of Cale Herd Increases

100 1 2 1 1 2 7 11 90 12 11 14 23 23 10 2 27 25 12 80 14 10 70 13 20 15 20 60 le increases 16 a 10 50 49 12 40 87 81 74 74 30 56 49 50 20 41 oporon of c 10 27 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Total Central births purchases external assistance other

• The highest contribuon to increase in the herd size was from births, followed by purchases. Causes aributed to other reasons are sign ificant (14% ) and future assessmen ts should expli citly idenf y them. • It is inter esng to note the dominance of ca le purchases as shar e of cale increases in Mashona land Central.

60 Causes of Arion in Cale

100

s

n 14 90 22 19 23 30 28 80 4 35 rio 40 8 5 7 70 30 2 2 3 60 26 le a 6 28 a 39 50 40 25 33 40 25 30 46 53 20 37 42 29 30 34 35 oporon of c 10 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Central Deaths Sales slaughtered stolen/lost

• The largest cause of arion was cale deaths (42%). Sales and the had the same share of cale losses (28%). • Cale deaths accoun ted for the highe st pr oporo ns of ca le losses in Ma tabeleland North (53 %) follow ed by Manic aland (46%) and Masving o (42% ). • The proporon of cale losses due to the was highest in Mashonaland Central (40%) followed by Matabeleland South (35%). • The proporon of herd siz e reduc on resul ng fr om ca le sales was high est in Mash onalan d East (40 %) and Mashon aland West (39%). 61 Causes of Cale Deaths

100 6 6 6 8 5 6 53 7 %) 3 90 6 9 13 13 5 6 3 8 80 70 49 50 60 52 45 63 61 50 77 74 le deaths( 75 a 40 30 20 41

n of c 39 31 37 28 10 25 0 9 11 7

oporo Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Pr Central

Drought Diseases Predators Lack of water Other

• Cale death rate was at 9% for the period April 2015 to March 2016, compared to the previous consumpon year (7%).

These rates are higher than the naonally acceptable mortality rate of 3% for cale.

• Diseases accounted for 61% of the reported cale deaths and about 27% of cale deaths were drought related (poor

grazing and lack of water).

• Manicaland province (51%) had the highest proporon of drought related deaths followed by Masvingo (45%) and

Matabeleland South (38%).

• The Mashonaland provinces (above 74%) had the highest proporon of deaths due to diseases .

62 Goats Ownership

110 100 9 5 7 10 90 10 20 12 13 13 15 10 80 15 32 10 7 16 18 15 70 14 17 13 11 11

lds 60 10 17 14 o 50 7 40 75 74 64 65 30 61 55 62 53 20 43 10 0

oporon of househ Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Pr Central

Zero One to Two Three to Five More than Five

• About 38% of rural households owned goats. Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of households with goats (57%), followed

by Mata belel and North (47 %). • About 13% of households owned more than 5 goats.

• Matabeleland South (57%) followed by Matabeleland North (47%) and Masvingo (45%) had the highest proporon of households owning goats.

• The observed ownership paerns at both naonal and provincial levels were similar to those recorded in the past five years.

63 Causes of Arion in Goa ts

35

e 2 siz 30 d 6 1

25 t her 1 9 1 a

o 20 7 4 14 2 15 8 4 11 9 1 1 10 8 2 3 1 3 1 11 4 5 2 11 9 oporon of the g 7 0 6 1 7 5 Pr 4 2 0

Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Mas vingo Naonal Central

death sold slaughter lost/stolen

• The greatest cause of arion in goats was death (5%) follo wed by sales (4%). • Mashonaland Central and Matabeleland North recorded the highest death rate at 11% . • The province that had the highest proporon of goat sales was Mashonal and Cen tral (14 % ) followed by Mashonaland West (11%).

64 Milk Producon

65 Proporon of Households With Lactang Cows they were Milking 100 89 90 82 with 77 80 74 77 73

lds

s o 70 64 66

60 54 Cow 50

ang 40 30 Lact 20

oporon of househ 10 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

• About 54% of households with cale had lactang cows, of these 73% were milking their cows.

• The highes t pro poron of hous eholds milki ng lactang cow s w as in Midlan ds (89 %) and the lowest were in Mashonaland West (54%).

66 Proporon of Households With Goats they were Milking

25 20 lds o 20 14 15 10 7 7

5 3 oporon of househ 3 3 2 2 Pr

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

• Despite the known high nutrional value of goat milk, only 7% of households with goats were milking their

goats.

• Matabeleland South (20%) and Matabeleland North (14%) had the highest proporon of households

milking their goats followed by those in Midlands province (7%).

67 Incomes and Expenditure

68 Current Most Important Sources of Cash and Food Income

Food assistance 1.1 8.5 Gis 1.52.0 Food Cash Mineral sales 1.3 2.5 1.7 Cash crop producon 2.6 1.5 Skilled trade/arsan 2.7 1.7 Sale of wild products 3.1 2.7 Pey trade 5.1 3.4 Formal salary/wages 6.1 Other 5.8 7.1 Food crop sales 22.0 8.1 Livestock sales 7.0 10.8 Vegetables sales 12.3 11.4 Remiance 10.6 11.8 Casual labour 20.6 26.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Proporon of households(%)

• About 26% of households considered c asual la bour t heir mos t sour ce o f c ash in come. T his w as follo wed by 12 % who considered remiances as one of their mos t i mportant sou rces of c ash inc ome. V egetable and liv estock sales were amongst the most important sources of cash income for about 11% of the rural households.

• Food crop producon was the most important source of food for about 22% of households; labour exchange

for about 21% and vegetable producon for about 12% of households.

• Food assistance was considered amongst the most important sources of food by about 9% of the households.

69 Average Household Income as of April 2016 180 168 160 140 142 143 140 128 116 120 114 109 109 111 104 104 1 00 94 89 95 100 87 85 86 83 81 86 78 73 80 79

USD 80 64 66 62 59 55 60 55 56 55 60 50 40 20 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central 2013 2014 2015 2016

• Naonally, the average household income for the month of A pril was U SD62. A t about 28 % lo wer th an t he same m e las t year , the April 2016 household average income was t he lo west r ecorded in t he pas t five year s. • Matabeleland South (USD81) had the highest average monthly income while Matabeleland Nort h ( USD50) had t he lo west average monthly income. Matabeleland North has c onsistently r egistered t he lo west a verage hou sehold in c omes since 2009 . • Average monthly income declined from 2014 (USD 111 ) and 2015 (US D 86 ); a 23 % decr ease. • Average household incomes in all provinces had a downward tr end since 2 014. The big gest dr op in a verage hou sehold inc ome was observed in Mashonaland West (62%) followed by Mashonaland Cent ral ( 57%) pr ovince. The leas t decr ease in t he pas t three years was observed for households in Ma tabeleland Sou th pr ovince.

70 Cash Income Source as a Proporon of Total Income - April 2016 30 28 25 24

19 20

ome

inc 15 15

otal

10of t e 6 tag 5 5

cen 3

er

P 0 Casual Labour Agricultural Remiances Formal All other sources Crossborder and Government and producon salaries,arsans, pey trading ngo transfers

business, pensions and rent

• Casual labour was the highest contributor to household cash income with an average contribuon of 28% of the total household

monthly income follow ed by income from agric ultur al producon makin g 24% of tot al househo ld monthly income . • Remiances contributed 19% to the average household monthly income whilst formal salaries, arsanship, businesses, pensions

and rent together contributed 15%.

71 Projected Sources of Cash and Food for the Period June - November 2016

Food assistance 1.1 10.2 Own business Gis Pension Mineral sales Skilled trade/arsan Cash crop producon Sale of wild products Other Pey trade Formal salary/wages Food crop sales 7.0 20.8 Livestock sales Remiance Vegetables sales Casual labour 19.3 25.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Proporon of households(%)

Food Cash

• Casual labour (25%) is projected to be the most important source of income for the remainder of the

consumpon year, followed by vegetable sales, remiances and livestock sales.

• Food crop producon (20.8%) is projected to be the most important source of in kind food income followed by

labour exchange, vegetable producon and remiances. About 10% of households expect food assistance to be their main source of food . 72 Expenditure

73 Average Household Expenditure as of April 2016

90 82 80 76 73 69 66 70 64 66 60 59 61 56 60 54 55 55 50 49 49 50 45 47 46 46 45 44 40 43 40 39 39 USD 37 40 36 36 35 34 29 29 30 25

20 10 0

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

2013 2014 2015 2016

• The naonal average household expenditure wasUSD49; a 26 % decreased compa red to same me last year. There appears to be an inverse relaonship between agricultural season performance and average household monthly expenditure. • Mashonaland East (USD60), Matabeleland South (USD59) and Mashonaland West (USD55) had the highest average expenditures while Matabeleland North (USD36) had the lowest averag e expendit ure.

74 Proporon of Food Expenditure

70 65 63 60 60 60 60 60 59 e 58 58 58 58 60 55 57 56 57 56 57 56 56 53 54 53 55 54 itur 52 51 50

xpend 40 al e t

o 30 of t

age t 20

cen er 10 P

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

2014 2015 2016

• Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of food expenditure (65%) followed by Midlands (63%). • These were higher than the naonal average of 59%.

75 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies

76 Introducon

• When households encounter food access challenges the y c ope b y either changing consumpon paerns or employing some s trategies a t their dis posal to incr ease food availability.

• These strategies they employ to increase f ood a vailability outside their usual/normal livelihoods are referred t o in this r eport as liv elihoods based coping str ategies. • The coping strategies have been classified in to thr ee c ategories of str ess, crisis and emergency based on their severity according to the WFP Technical guidance note on

Consolidated Approach to Reporng Indicators of Food Security (CARI) – November 2015.

77 Categorisaon of Livelihoods Coping Strategies

Category Coping str ategy Stress • Selling household assets to buy food; • Spending sav ings on food; • Borrowing money from formal lender to buy food; and/or • Selling more livestock than usual to buy food.

Crisis • Reducing non food expenditure to buy food;

• Selling or disposing of producve assets to buy food; and/or • Withdrawing children from school because of hunger.

Emergency • Selling house or land to buy food;

• Selling last breeding livestock to buy food; and/or

• Begging to get food.

78 Households Adopng at Least One Livelihoods Based Coping Strategy 60%

52 50% 46 44 42 43 41 40% 38 33 3 0% 29

households 20% %

10%

0% Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

• About 41% of households had used at least 1 of the liv elihood based coping strategies 30 days prior to the me of the survey. • Masvingo had the highest proporon (52%) while Matabeleland South had the least proporon of households (29%) adopng livelihoods coping strategies.

79 Proporon of Households Adopng Different Livelihoods Coping Strategies Stress coping 20 18.5 18 16 15 Crisis coping

14 12 10.2 Emergenc y coping 10 8.3 7.6 8 7.3 7 Households 6 4.6 % 4 3.2 2 0.7 0 Spent Reduce non Sold Sold more Begging Withdrew Sold last Sold Borrowed Sold house Savings on food household animals children female producve money to or land food expenditure assets than usual from school breeding assets buy food livestock

• The most common livelihoods coping strategies households were employing fell in the stress and crisis categories. • Spending savings was the most common livelihood strategy adopted by households when they faced food access challenges followed by reducon of non-food expenditure.

80 Three Year Comparison of Proporon of Households Adopng Different Livelihoods Coping Strategies 20 19 19 18 16 15 15 14 11 12 10 10 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 2 1 1 0 Spent Reduce non Sold Sold more Begging Withdrew Sold last Sold Borrowed Sold house Savings on food household animals children female producve money to or land food expenditure assets than usual from school breeding assets buy food livestock 2014 2015 2016

• There was an increase in the proporon of households sell ing household asse ts, reducing non food expenditure, withdrawing children from school, selling more animals and begging to cope with food challenges.

81 Different Categories of Livelihoods Coping Strategies by Province 45 41 40 36 33 35 31 31 31

30 28 27 23 24 25 25 22 21 21 21 2 1 19 18 20 18 13 15 Households 12 13 15 11 10 % 9 7 10

5 0 Manicaland Mash Mash east Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Central

Stress Crisis Emergency

• The type of livelihood coping strategies adopted by many households were mainly in the stress category and this was highest in Masvingo province (41%) followed by Mashonaland East (36%).

• Mashonaland Central (19%) and Matabeleland North (18%) had the highest proporon of households adopng emergency

livelihood coping strategies.

82 Severity of Coping Strategies by Province

25.0 21 19 20.0 18 17 15 15.0 13 13 14 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10

10.0 9 21 16 7 17 14 14 14 13 12 5.0 9

0.0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central

Stress coping Crisis coping Emergencies coping

• Mashonaland Central (19%) and Matabeleland North (18%) had the highes t proporon of households adopng more severe livelihoods coping strategies.

83 Loans/Debts

84 Households with Loans

100 90 79 80.8 80

lds 70

60

50 f househo

t o 40

cen 30 21 19.2 er P 20 10 0 households without loans households with loans

2015 2016

• There is no significant difference in the proporons of households having loans/debts in 2016 (81%) compared to 2015 (79%). • A high er pr oporon of male headed hous eholds ( 21. %) had loans/deb ts while 16.1 % femal e headed househ olds had loans/debts at the me of conducng the survey.

85 Loans /Debts Sources

70 61 60 56

50

40

30 20 12 13 11 14 8 10 7 5 4 3 2 3 2 t of households 0

cen Family and Traders Savings and Contractors Banks Micro Finance Cooperav es / er P friends credit Instuons SACCOs groups/ISALs

2015 2016 • Family and friends remained the most dominant source of loans and debts (61%) for most households in 2015/2016

as was in 2014/2015 (56%).

• There was an increase in the proporon of households accessing loans from savings and credit groups (ISALs) and a

significant drop to 7% in the proporon of households accessing loans from contractors.

86 Proporon of Households that Had Loans by District

• Districts wi th the highes t pr oporon (40 -50%) of househ olds with loans were Hurungw e, Bindur a and Chir edzi.

87 Reasons for Taking Loans/Borrowing by Province

To buy animal feed, To pay To invest To cover To buy To pay fodder, To social To pay To repay in other To buy health agric educaon To buy pay vet buy/rent events/ce funeral other To invest form of Other Province food expenses inputs cost livestock costs house remonies expenses loans in trading business reasons

Manicaland 38.5 11.1 6.9 19.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 3.1 1.1 2.3 1.9 12.2 Mash Central 29.3 9.2 21.8 17.3 0.6 1.7 2.0 1.1 3.6 0.3 2.8 1.1 8.9 Mash East 42.6 12.3 7.4 12.0 0.5 0.8 1.9 1.6 3.8 0.3 2.7 1.4 11.2

Mash West 29.7 6.3 21.9 19.8 0.6 0 0 0.9 1.5 3.3 0 2.1 0.9 12.9

Mat North 52.4 10.2 3.3 14.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.6 2.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 10.6

Mat South 53.7 8.4 1.0 16.7 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0 2.0 2.0 10.3 Midlands 45.6 2.9 11.8 18.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.9 0 2.9 1.5 9.2 Masvingo 50.1 10.4 1.4 19.3 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.9 1.1 1.8 0.9 8.2

• The highest proporon of households across all provinces were borrowing to buy food. Matebeleland South (54%) and Matebeleland North (52%) and

Masvingo (50%) had the highest proporons of households borrowing to purchase food food. • The s econd mos t common reason for borrowing was to pay for ed ucaon costs (Manic ala nd, Matebeleland North, Ma tebelela nd South, Mi dland and Masvingo).

• Most of the loans taken or debts being incurred were for consumpon across all provinces.

88 Average Amounts Borrowed and Proporon with Overdue Loans % of Households • The naonal average loan amount was significantly lower Province Amount USD with overdue loans

in 2016 (USD77) compared to 2015 (USD90).

• The highest average amounts borrowed of over USD150 Mashonaland West 178 47 were accessed in Mashonaland West and Mashonaland Mashonaland Central 152 25 Central.

Manicaland 79 38 • Mashonaland Central though having the largest amounts

Midlands 68 39 borrowed (USD152) had the least proporon of defaulng households . Mashonaland East 65 48 • Poor crop produc on was the most common reason for

Matabeleland South 48 41 failure to pa y deb ts across all province s . Masvingo 44 44 • The poor agricultur al season could potenally result in cyclical indebtedness for some rural households. Matabeleland North 38 47

89 Markets Access To assess the availability and access to agricultural input and produce markets for small-holder farmers in the 2015/16 consumpon year

90 Agricultural Input Market Challenges by Province

100 12 16 90 18 15 18 13 14 21 80 70 35 40 37 60 43 52 45 35 43

50 9 3 ages 3 9 t 2 40 21 3 7 21 4 6 3 7

cen 6 30 er P 20 37 42 34 32 30 34 34 32 10

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Lack of money Commodity Unavailability Market Availability Transport,long distances & bad infrastructure High Prices

• Transport, long distances and bad roads as well as lack of money were the main challenges faced by most communies in trying to access input markets.

91

Maize Grain - Type of Market

100 2 3 4 3 3 12 12 8 6 5 2 6 31 1 90 2 16 11 15 9 18 15 37 80 23 31 25 70 30 60 24 41 50 20

40 78 69 73 30 59 53 59 50 43 20 40

oporon of Households 10 Pr 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo naonal Central Other households in the area Private Traders GMB Aucon Floors Loc al Millers Dist ant Markets Other Specif y

• The majority of households accessed maiz e grain from othe r household s in the area with Mashonaland Cen tral having the highes t proporon (78%). • Priva te traders were the main sour ce of maiz e grai n in Mas vingo provin ce (41%) which is not typic al during the harvest period when the households norm al ly depend on own producon for maize. • GMB was a signific ant sour ce of maiz e grain in Matebelela nd South Province (37%).

92 Maize Grain - Locaon of Main Market

100 1 1 1 5 5 6 3 2 6 10 1 90 8 8 10 12 2 11 16 15 7 80 11 10 13 18 70 13 13 17

60 50 40 82 86 72 67 30 64 65 64 62 oporon of Households Pr 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo

same ward neighbouring ward within District within Province outside Province outside Zimbabwe

• Over 60% of all households in all provinces accessed maize grain within their wards with the highest proporons in Mashonaland West (86%) followed by Mashonaland Central (82%).

93 Agricultural Commodity Prices

94 Cereal Availability by District as at May 2016

Maize Grain Availability Maize Meal Availability

• Maize grain and maize meal were generally available on markets across most districts in the country.

95 District Average Maize Grain Prices (USD/kg) as at May 2016 • The highest maize grain prices were

recorded in Gwanda, Mangwe,

Tsholotsho, Kariba and Mudzi (which

are tradionally cereal deficit districts)

at more than USD0.50/kg. • The lowes t pric es w ere recor ded mainly in the tradionally surplus producing Mashona l and ar eas ranging from USD0.21 to USD0.35/k g. • The average maize gr ain prices for May 2016 were high er than the averages for the same me last year.

96 District Average Maize Meal Price (USD/kg) as at May 2016

• Relavely high prices (USD

0.66/kg - USD 0.80/kg) were

recorded in Matabeleland

North and Matabeleland

South compared to other

provinces in the country. • Kariba recorded the highes t maize meal prices at an average of USD 0.90/kg. Kariba was also one of the districts that r ecorde d highes t average maize gr ain pric es.

97 District Average Cale Prices (USD) as at May 2016

• The highes t cale price ranges were recorded in Gweru, Kwekw e, Bulilima, UMP, Chegutu, Umguza,

Hurungwe, Matobo,

Hwedza, Chirumhanzu (USD

351-USD450)

• The lowest cale price

range was recorded in Mbire, Mud zi and Gokwe North (USD 160 -USD200 ).

98 District Average Goats Prices (USD) as at May 2016 • The highest price ranges for goats were rec orded in Matabeleland South (Umguza,

Matobo, Umzingwane,

Bulilima and Mangwe) and

Gweru district (USD41-USD46).

• The lowest prices were recorded in the northern districts of Mbire, Bing a, Makonde, Gokwe North and

South, Rushinga and Mudzi

(USD 15 – USD 20).

99 Cale: Type Of Market

• Private traders were the main buyers of cale represenng over 40% of markets in all provinces except Masvingo and Ma tabeleland South . • In Masvingo (45 %) and Matabel eland South (41%), the main cale markets were other households in the same area. 100 Cale Market Locaon

• Selling within the same ward was the most common market for cale in all provinces. • Matabeleland North had the h ighes t proporon of communies (27 %) tha t sold in neighbou ring wards and wi thin the provinc e (14 %).

101 Goat: Type of Market

• Selling to other households in the area was the most common market type for goats in all provinces. • Mashona land Cen tral (39%) and Mani caland ( 23% ) had highest pr oporons of priv ate goat tr ader s as a type of market.

102 Goat Market Locaon

• Selling within the same ward was reported as the most common market for goats in all provinces.

103 Water, Sanitaon & Hygiene (WASH)

104 Introducon

105 Categories of Sanitaon

OPEN DEFECATION Defecaon in fields, forests, bushes, bodies of water or other open spaces or disposal of human faeces with solid waste

UNIMPROVED Unimproved sanitaon facilies: Facilies that do not ensure hygienic separaon of human excreta from human contact. Unimproved facilies include pit latrines without a slab or plaorm, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.

IMPROVED Improved sanitaon facilies: Facilies that ensure hygienic separaon of human excreta from human contact. They include flush or pour flush toilet/latrine, Blair venlated improved pit latrine (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine (UBVIP)

106

Households’ Water Sources and Sanitaon Facilies

• Naonally, 71% of households were accessing water from improved sources. • There was a significant increase in access to improved sanitaon from 39% in 2014 to 47 % in 2016.

107 Access to Improved Water

• The naonal average for access to improved water sources increased marginally to 71% from 70% in 2013 and 2014. • There was a general increase in access to improved drinking water in Mashonaland West (70%), Matabeleland North (81%) and

South (72%) and Masvingo (69%).

108

Access To Improved Water Source By District

• Beitbridge, Chima nimani, Um guza, Bubi, San ya, Rushing a and Hw ange had the h ighes t access (85-9 5%) to impr oved water sources which w as abo ve the naonal aver age of 7 1% .

• Mudzi, Gokwe North, K ariba, M akonde and Man gwe Districts had the low est access (35-5 0%) to impr o ved water sources. 109 Reasons for Change in Main Drinking Water Source

• About 12% of households had changed their main source of drinking water in the 3 months preceding the survey. The predominant reason cited for change was drying up (54%). • Mashonaland East and Midlands had the highes t proporon of househo lds affect ed by drying up of drinking water sour ce (67%). • In Matebe leland North, the main reas on for ch ange in main source of drinking water w as the break down or no n-funco nality of w ater points (46%).

110 Distance Travelled to Main Water Source

• According to the Spher e Standar ds, the maximum distance that an y household should tr avel to the near es t saf e water poin t is 500m . • Naonally, 5 4% of households trav elled mor e than 500m to the near es t water sour ce. Of these, 25 % travelle d mor e than 1 km. • Matabeleland North, M atabeleland South and Masving o had the high est proporon of house holds that travell ed mor e than 1 km (36%, 34% and 32% respecvely). These provinces are in the dry Natural Regions IV and V where ground water potenal is low.

111 Proporon Of Households Treang Their Water

• The pracce of w ater tr eatment con nues to be gene rally low acr oss all the rural pro vinces. • Naonally, 15 % of househ olds tha t used w ater from unimpr oved sour ces trea ted their drinki ng water . • Matabeleland North Province ( 18%) had th e highes t pr oporon of households trea ng wat er from unimproved sour ces.

112 Household Sanitaon Facilies

• Naonally the pr oporon of households accessing impr oved sanit aon facili es increased from 39% in 201 4 to 47% in 201 6. • Matabeleland North c onnues to ha ve the low est proporon of households with access to impr oved sanitaon . • Naonally, 3 7% of the households ar e pr acsing open def ecaon, which is consist ent with 2014 rates . • The highest pr oporon of open de fecaon was repor ted in Mat abeleland North at 68 % . 113 Prevalence of Open Defecaon

• Most districts in Matabeleland North recorded the highest prevalence of open defecaon ranging from 56 – 75%. • Districts in Manicaland and Mashonaland Central had low levels of open defecaon ranging from 7-16%.

114 Households with Hand Washing Facility with Water and Soap/Detergent

• Hand w ashing facil ies wer e unav ailable in 65% of the househ ol ds. • Matabeleland North had the highes t proporon (78%) of househ ol ds with no hand washing facil ies. • Manicaland had the highest proporon (14%) of households with handwashing facilies where soap or detergent were

available.

115 Frequency of Hand Washing at Crical Times

1% 0% 0% Never

Aer using toilet 27% Before handling food 44%

Aer handling children's nappies/diapers 4% Before eang 24% Aer assisng the sick

• The most crical me observed for hand washing was aer using the toilet (44%) followed by before eang (27%) and before handling food (24%). • The least observed was aer assisng the sick (0.5%).

116 Household Consumpon Paerns

117 Household Consumpon Coping Strategies

40 35 35 33 33 32 28 29 31 30 28

x 30 27 27 27 27 24 25 25

nde 25 I 22 22 21 19 19 20 18 17 egy 19

at 14 15 12 10 10

5 Coping Str 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central 2014 2015 2016

• Generally, the coping strategy index (CSI) increased from 25 in 2015 to 27 in 2016. • The CSI for 2016 was higher in Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland Eas t, Ma tabeleland North, Midlands and Masvingo compar ed to 2015 . • The 2016 CSI decreased in Manic aland, Mashonaland West and Matabeleland South compared to 2015.

118

Food Consumpon Categories

80

70 68 63

seholds 60 u 54 50 of Ho 40 33 age t 27 29 30 cen

er 20 P 12 6 8 10 0 Poor Borderline Acceptable

2014 2015 2016

• Compared to 2015, there was an increase in the proporon of households that consumed poor and borderline

diets.

119 Food Consumpon Categories By Province

44 54 52 59 58 54 56 56 54

37 households 36 37 34 31 30 33 % 31 32

19 10 11 11 12 13 13 12 9

Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Poor Borderline Acceptable

• Mashonaland East Province had the highest proporon of households (59%) consuming acceptable diets . This is consistent with ZimV AC 2015 results. • Matabeleland North Pr o vince had the least pr oporon of househ olds (44%) consuming acceptable diets . This is lower than the na onal aver age of 54%.

120 Proporon of Households Consuming Iron-rich Foods 5 6 7 8 3 7 6 3 6

37 43 49 42 47 47 49 54 52 households

% 60 51 54 46 45 39 40 47 47

Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Never consumed Consumed somemes Consumed at least daily

• The proporon of households consuming iron rich foods daily was below 10% across all provinces. • Matabeleland North province had the highest proporon of households (60%) that did not consume iron rich foods 7 days prior to the assessment followed by Masvingo (54%) and Matebeleland South (51%). • Iron deficiency anaemia is of public health concern due to its impact on cognive growth and development and pregnancy outcomes.

121 Household Dietary Diversity Score

6.2 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 4.8

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

• Out of a total of 12 food groups, the number of food groups consumed by a household (household dietary diversity score) is used as a proxy for food access. • Mashonaland East Province had the highest number of food groups (6.2) followed by Manicaland at 5.8 consumed over a 24 hour period. • Matebeleland North province had the least score (4.8).

122 Average Number of Days Households Consumed Food from Various Food Groups Per Week

Tubers 0.1 Eggs 0.4 Fruits 0.8

s Meat 1.4

up Milk 1.6 o Pulses 1.6 d Gr Sugar 4.4 oo F Oils 5.3 Vegetables 5.3 Condiments 6.1 Cereals 6.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of days • The majority of households consumed mostly cereals, oils and vegetables. • Protein rich foods such as eggs, meat, milk and pulses were least consumed by households. • This paern is consistent with what has been observed in the past ZimVAC RLAs.

123 Feeding Pracces in Children 6 – 59 Months

124 Feeding Pracces In Children 6-59 Months

• Good f eeding pr acces of chil dren are among the mos t import ant determinants of their healt h, gr owth and developmen t. • Good feeding will prevent malnutrion and early growth retardaon.

• At 6 months of age, children should start to receive nutrionally adequate and safe solid, semi-solid and so foods while breas eeding c on nues for up to tw o year s of ag e or beyond.

• Breased children should receive solids and semi-solids at least 2 mes if 6–8 months old and 3 mes if 9–23 months old.

• If for some reason the child aged 6-23 months old is not breased he/she should receive solids, semi-solid, so foods at least 4 mes per da y and milk at least 2 mes a da y. • Children 24 – 59 mon ths old should receive solids that include nutrious snacks 3-4 mes daily. • The solids, semi -so lid, so f oods should be from at least 4 out of 7 fo od groups (grains, r oots and tuber s, legumes and nuts, dairy products, mea t and fish, eggs, vitami n-A rich fruits and v egetables, other fruits and vege tables). • Foods of animal origins such as mea t, fish and milk are an import ant source of Ir on and Vitamin A. • Vegetab les and fruits such as pumpkin, carr ots, squash, y ello w/orange sweet pot at oes, dark green lea fy vegetables, ripe mangoes, ripe paws paws are vital sources of vitamin A.

• Iron plays an import an t role in the pre venon anaemia while vitamin A prevents nutrional blindness, significantly reduces the severity of illnesses and even death from such common childhood infecons as diarrheal disease and measles.

125 Proporon of Children 6-59 Months of Age Consuming Iron Rich Foods 45.0 40 40.0 36 34 en 35.0 31 31 32 28 30 30.0 23 f childr 25.0 o 20.0

age t 15.0

en

c 10.0

er

P 5.0 0.0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands Naonal Central

• About 32% of children consumed iron rich foods 24 hours prior to the survey. • Mashonaland West had the highes t pr oporon (40 %) of childr en consum ing iron-rich foods while Matabeleland North had the lowest (23%).

126 Proporon of Children 6-59 Months of Age Consuming Vitamin A Rich Foods 100 93 93 94 91 92 91 90 90 87 80 81 79 76 77 80 73

en 72 71 67 70 68 70 64 63 64 64 65 61 60 52 50

40 37

30 oporon of childr Pr 20

10 0 Manic Mash Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands Naonal Central Plant Animal Plant and/ animal

• Naonally, a high proporon of children (90 %) consumed Vitamin A rich foods of either animal and/or plant origin 24 hour s prior the survey. • About 65% consume d Vitamin A rich foods from animal and 73% from plant origins. • Mashonaland Central (67 %) had the low est proporon of chil dren consuming Vitamin A rich foods.

127 Proporon of Children 6 -59 Months of Age Consuming 4 Food Groups 25.0

21 20.0 en

r d

15.0 13

of chil 12 12 12 12

age 10 10

t 9 10.0 8 8 9 9 7 cen 7 7 6 er 5 P 5.0

0.0 Manic Mash C Mash E Mash W Masv. Mat N Mat S Mid. Naonal 6-23 months 24-59 months

• The proporon of children consuming the recommended 4 food groups is very low; 9% for children 6-23 months and 12% for those 24 -59 months old.

128 Malnutrion and Illness In Children 6-59 Months

129 Definion of Terms

• Measurements of w eight, hei ght and ag e o f a child are con verted to nutrional indices to ind icat e the nutrion s tatus of a chil d. • Any of the two measurements are combined to form indices as follows: Weight for height, Weight for age and

Height for age.

• Weight for height as a measure of thinness or fatness is sensive to sudden changes in energy balance.

• The nutrion indices can be classified.

• Weight for height index of between 2 and 3 standard deviaon below the mean is called Moderate Acute Malnutrion (MAM)/ Was ng.

• A child with weight for height of more than 3 standard deviaon below the mean or/and has oedema is classified as Se v ere Acut e Malnourished (SAM) . • MAM or SAM ar e oen due to acute st arvaon and/or severe disease. • For nutrion emer gen cies, childr en less than 5 years ar e me asured since their measurements are more sens ive to fact ors that influence nutrional s tatus such as illness or food short ages.

130 Definion Of Terms

• Global Acute Malnut rion (GAM) is a sum of Moder ate Acute Malnut rion and Sever e Acute Mal nutrion.

• The prevalence of Global Acut e Malnutrion is usually bel ow 5 pe rcent in any dev eloping coun try provided ther e is no food shortage.

• Height for Age is an inde x of gr owth and de velopment. It is an expr ession of long term expo sure to nut r ional inadequacy and indicates chronic malnutrion in children lacking essenal nutrients but also related to poor sanitaon, repeated

infecons, diarrhoea and inadequate care.

• Stunng is defined as Height for age index more than two standard deviaon below the mean of the WHO reference

populaon.

131

Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) by Province 8

6.9 7 6.6 6.7 6

6 5.6 5 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.8 5 4.4 4.4 4.2 4 4.1 3.7 4 of children 3.1 3 2.9 3 2.9 3 e 3 2.6 2.4 tag 2 cen er

P 1

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

Boys Girls All

• The naonal prevalence of GAM was 4.4%, with boys more a ffected than girls.

• The 4 .4% prev alence was lo w er tha n 5.7 % obser ved in Januar y (ZimV AC Rapid Assessmen t 2016). • Mashona land West (6.7 %) had the highes t prev alence of GAM while Mashona land East had the low est (2.6 %). • Across most provinces, boys were more affected by GAM except in Mashonaland West.

132 Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) by District

• Districts wi th GAM pr evalence abo ve 10% wer e Kariba (17.3 %), Gweru (13.1% ) Sham v a (12.3% ) and Bing a (11 %). • The next highes t dis tricts wi th 7.1 -10% GAM pre valence were Gokw e North and Chegu tu (8% each) . 133 Prevalence of Severe Acute Malnutrion (SAM) by Province 4 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2 2.0 2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 1 0.5 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central Boys Girls All

• The na onal pr evalence of SAM was 1.9% , with boys more affected than girls . • This SAM rate was lower than 2.1% observed during the peak of the hunger season and just below the WHO 2% emergency

threshold.

134 Prevalence of Severe Acute Malnutrion (SAM) by District

• 8 districts had a SAM pre valence above 2%. K ariba had the high est (8.3%) follo wed b y Gweru ( 8.1 ), Shamv a (6.3 % ), and Chegutu (6 %). • This indic ates serious lev els of acut e malnutri on.

135 Prevalence of Stunng by Province

37.5 35.5 35.4 33.3 33.4 33.8 33.7 32.9 33.7 33.9 30.9 30.9 31.1 30.1 29.9 29.4 30.1 29.6 28.2

en 27.7 26.6 26.7 26.4 26.4 26.6 25.1

23.4 of childr

on r opo Pr

MANICALAND MASH MASH EAST MASH WEST MAT NORTH MAT SOUTH MIDLANDS MASVINGO NATIONAL CENTRAL BOYS GIRLS ALL

• The naonal prevalence of stunng was 26.6% with boys mor e affect ed than girls across all provinces. • This result is consistent with other naonal studies (ZimVAC, 2016; DHS, 2016; MICS, 2014).

• Stunng remains a nutrion challenge of public health significance in the country.

136 Prevalence of Stunng by District

• Mutare district had the highest stunng rate (49%) followed by Chimanimani (42.2%), and Nkayi (40%). • All districts in Manicaland were above the naonal average of 26.6%.

137 Prevalence of Reported Illness in Children 6-59 Months Two Weeks Prior to Survey

70.0 65.2 62.7 61.8 62.3

60.0 54.9 57.2 57.2 52.1

en 50.0

39.2 40.0

30.0 age of childr t 20.0

erenen

P 10.0

0.0 Manic Mash C Mash E Mash W Masv. Mat N Mat S Mid. Naonal

• Naonally, 57% of children were ill two weeks prior to the survey. • Mashonaland Wes t had the highes t pr oporon of childr en (65 %) who w ere reported to have been ill. • Matabeleland South had the lo west pr evalence (39 %) .

138 Prevalence of Illness in Children 6 -59 Months in the Two Weeks Prior to the Survey

60 53.3 49.5 48.3 49.9 50 45.5 44.3 45.2 en

r 41.2

d 40 35.3 34.4 33.8 32.8 28.6 28.6 30.6 30.0

of chil 30 25.2 25.4 25.0 23.6 age 20.1 18.7 20.0 19.9 t 20 17.4 15.6 cen 10.4 er 10 P

0 Manic Mash C Mash E Mash W Masv. Mat N Mat S Mid. Naonal Diarrhoea Cough Fever

• Naonally, among the children reported to have been ill two weeks prior to the survey the highest proporon had Acute Respiratory Infecon (ARI) (45%) foll ow ed by fever (30%) and diarrhea (20%). This pa ern was similar acr oss all the pro vince s. • Mashonaland Wes t had the highest pr oporon of childr en who were repor ted to have ARI whil e Mat abeleland South had the lowest. • Diarrhea was highest in Mashonaland West (53%) and Masvingo (50%) while Matabeleland South had the least (10%).

139

Food Security Situaon To esmate the rural populaon that is likely to be food insecure in the 2016/17 consumpon year, their geographic distribuon and the severity of their food insecurity

140 Food Security Analycal Framework

• Food security e xists when all people at a ll mes , have physic al, social and economi c access to food which is sa fe and consumed in sufficient quanty and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences and it is

supported by an environment of adequate sanitaon, health services and care allowing for a healthy and acve life

(FNSP, 2012).

• The four dimensions of food security include:

• Availability of food

• Access to food

• The safe and health y ulizaon of food

• The s tability of food avail ability, acces s and ul izaon

• Household food security status was determined by measu ring a househ old’s potenal access to enough food (from

various liveli hood opons a vailable to the household) to g ive each member a minimum of 2100 kilocalories per day in the consumpon period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

141 Food Security Analycal Framework

• Each of the surveyed household’s potenal food access was computed by esmang the household's likely disposable income (both cash and non

cash) in the 2016/17 consumpon year from the following possible income sources;

• cereal stocks from previous season;

• own food crop producon from 2015/16 agricultural season;

• potenal income from own cash crop producon;

• potenal inc ome from livest ock ;

• Potenal inc ome from casual labour and remiances; and

• income from other sour ces such as gis, pension s, gardening and formal and informal employment

• Total energy tha t cou ld be acqu ired b y the househ old from the cheapest a vailab le ener gy sour ce (mai ze was used in this assessment) using its potenal disposable income was then computed and compared to the household’s minimum energy requirements.

• When the potenal 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 potenal energy access is below its minimum energy

requiremen ts.

142 Main Assumpons Used in the Food Security Analycal Framework

• Households’ purchasing power will remain relavely stable from April 2016 through the end of March 2017, i.e. average household

income levels are likely to track households’ cost of living. This assumpon is made on the premise that year-on-year inflaon will remain stable thr oughout the consump on year.

• The naonal average livestock to maize terms of trade will remain relavely stable throughout the 2016/17 consumpon year.

• Staple cereals in the form of maiz e, smal l grains (sor ghum and millets) or mealie meal will be available on the mark et for cereal deficit

households with the m eans to pur cha se to d o so thr oughout the consump on year . This assump on is based on the G ove rnmen t maintaining the liberalised maize trade regime.

• The 2016/17 maize prices will averag e out at around USD 0.40/kg naonally, USD 0.36/kg in the staple cereal surplus districts and USD 0.46 /kg in the cereal deficit districts. This assumpon was informed by price trends observed in various parts of the country during the assessmen t and hist orical trends on price fluctu aons.

• Naonal coon, tobacco and soya bean producer prices will average out at USD 0.35/kg, USD 3.71/kg and USD 0.50/kg respecvely

for the whole 2016/17 markeng season.

143 Food Insecurity Progression By Quarter

50 42 40 35 30 23 20

10 6 oporon of Households

Pr 0 Apr-June Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Quarters of 2016/17 Consumpon Year

• Rural food insecurity for the period April to June 2016 was esmated at 6% and is projected to reach 42% during the peak hunger period (January to March 2017). This is the highest rural food insecurity prevalence esmated since 2009. • As expected, there is a progressive increase in the proporon of food insecure households as the consumpon

year progresses toward the peak hunger period.

144 Trend In Food Security Progression By Quarter

50 42 40 35

30 30 23

oporon 20 Pr 10 10 6 6 5 3 1 2 2 0 Apr - Jun Jul -Sep Oct- Dec Jan-Mar 2014 2015 2016

• The 2016/17 consumpon year food insecurity prevalence is 40% higher than that for the 2015/16 consumpon year during the peak hunger period. • While the greatest increase in food insecurity in the last consumpon year was esmated to occur between the October to December and the January to March quarters (200%) it is projected to occur between the April to June and the July to

September quarters ( 283%) in the current consumpon year.

145 Food Insecure Rural Populaon by Quarter

4500000 4,071,233 4000000 3500000 3,390,224

3000000

on 2500000 2,199,223

ula 2000000

op

P 1500000 986,542 1000000

500000 0 Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

• About 4.1million rural people are esmated to be food insecure during the January – March peak hunger season.

146 Food Insecure Populaon by Quarter

• During the first quarter for the 2016/17 consumpon year, 987,000 people could not meet their annual food requirements which was an increase from last year when 151,000 people were esmated to be food insecure during the same period. • The last quarter of the 2016/17 consumpon year is projected to have a total of 4.1 million without adequate means to meet their annual food requirements compared to about 3 million during the same quarter last year.

147 Food Insecurity Trend (2009-2016)

• The 2015/16 and 2016/17 have been consecuve poorest consumpon years since 2009.

148 Cereal Producon and Food Insecurity Trends

• There is an in verse rela onship betw een levels of cereal cr op producon and food insecurity . • When cr op pr oducon is low , levels of food insecu r ity are high and vice v ersa which demons trates the significant imp act of cereal harvest on the food access in the majority of rural households in the country.

• Cereal producon during the previous El Nino years (2002 and 2008) at around 600,000 MT is comparable to that for 2016.

149 Food Insecurity Progression by Income Source

98 100 87 90 85 82 80 73 70 60 50 42 40 30 20 10 oporon of Households 0 Pr Stocks Plus food crops Plus cash crops Plus cereals Plus livestock Plus all other from casual incomes labour and remiances

• All other potenal sources of cereals ( stocks, food and cash crops, casual labour and remiances and livestock) except incomes rendered approximately 27% of rural households to be food secure. • While the average household income from other income sources such as pey trading, gardening, formal and informal employment is relavely small, its addion on top of the already considered incomes sources renders about 58% of the rural households food secure; bringing the final projecon of food insecurity prevalence to 42% in the 2016/17 consumpon year.

150 Trend in Food Insecurity Progression by Income Source 120 98 100 95 87 85 82 96 73 80 62 8 1 59 78 60 54 71 49 68 42

Households 40

% 20 6 30

0 Stocks Plus Food Crops Plus cash crops Plus casual labour Plus livestock Plus income (all and remiances sour ces)

2014 2015 2016

• Compared t o th e last tw o consump on year s, the curren t consump on year has all pillar s t o the f ood security s cenario contribung less . • Approximately 2 % of h ouseholds had cer eal stock s, as a t 1 April 2016, to last them the en re 2016 /17 consumpon year compared t o about 4 % at the same me last year and same during the 2013 /14 consump on year. • While the average household income from other income sources is relavely small, its addion on top of the already considered incomes sour ces render s about 58% of the ru ral households food secur e in curren t compar ed which is r elav ely lo wer than 70% during the 2014 /15 consump on year and 94 % in the 2013/14 consump on year .

151 Trend in Food Insecurity by Province

• A general incr ease in the pr oporons of f ood insec ure househ olds is projected across all province s when the 2016/ 17 consumpon is compar ed to the pre vious two consump on years.

• Matabeleland Nor th (57 %), Mas vingo (50% ) and Midla nds (48%) provinces are project ed to have the highest proporons of food insecure households at peak hunger period. Mashonaland West province is projected to have the least proporon of food

insecure households at 23%.

152 Food Insecure Populaon by Quarter by Province

761,084 800,000 738,291 700,000 632,909 633,520 626,073

600,000 534,448 497,739 500,000 456,218 on 413,456 381,671 396,859 400,000 367,553 419,033 opula 389,063 289,107 281,818 P 300,000 238,820 341,887 211,890 270,636 200,000 248,994 255,687

100,000 155,795 118,128

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

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

• Manicaland (761,084) and Masvingo (738,291) provinces are projected to have the highest number of people esmated to be food insecure during the peak period.

153 Districts with the Highest Food Insecurity Levels

District Jan - Mar 2016 Jan - Mar 2017 District Jan - Mar 2016 Jan - Mar 2017 Binga 50 79 Chivi 32 57

Mudzi 46 79 Umzingwane 51 54

Umguza 57 75 Tsholotsho 45 54

Buhera 61 70 Mutoko 29 53

Zvishavane 50 68 Mbire 55 53

Mwenezi 50 67 Bubi 24 52

Mberengwa 32 65 Bikita 35 52

Chirumanzu 30 65 Bulilima 30 51

Kariba 44 64 Mt Darwin 23 51

Rushinga 14 57 Zaka 36 50

154 Districts with the Lowest Food Insecurity Levels

District Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2017 District Jan-Mar 2016 Jan-Mar 2017 Chimanimani 20 39 Mhondoro-Ngezi 28 30

Matobo 34 38 Chegutu 22 26

Muzarabani 16 36 Hwedza 15 25

Masvingo 24 35 Goromonzi 18 25

Makoni 23 35 Mazowe 15 20

Shamva 15 34 Sanya 27 20

Guruve 10 31 Seke 10 20

Murehwa 21 30 Makonde 25 19 Kwekwe 24 30 Marondera 16 14 Zvimba 40 30 Hurungwe 24 11

155 Food Insecure Populaon During The Peak Hunger Period

156 District Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period

157 District Food Insecure Populaon During The Peak Hunger Period

158 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period

159 Violence Against Women

160 • In Zimbabwe, viole nce ag ainst women is widely ackno wledged to be of gre at concern, not just from a human righ ts per specv e,

but also fr om an ec onomic and social per specve.

• Violence ag ainst w omen is an y act of gender -based violence that r esult s in phy sic al, sexual o r psychologic al harm or suff ering t o women (UN General Assembly Resoluon 48/104 Declaraon on the Eliminaon of Violence against Women, 1993).

• The Inter Agency Standing Commiee (IASC) 2015 notes that many forms of GBV are significantly heightened during

humanitarian emergencies including natural disasters like drought.

• Food insecurity, in itself, and factors contribung to it can be key drivers of violence against women.

161 Proporon of Physical and Sexual Violence Against Women by Province

8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3

Axis Title 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

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

Physical sexual

• About 6% women experienced physical violence and 2% experienced sexual violence. • The highest proporon of women who experienced physical violence was in Masvingo and Mashonaland East at 7% while the

highest proporon of sexual violence was in Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland East at 3%.

162 Spousal Violence by Province

• Naonally, 7.5% of women experienced one or more types of spousal violence.

• Mashonaland East had the highest proporon of women who experienced some form of violence (10%) and the lowest was Matabeleland North and South at 5%.

163 Perpetrators of Physical and Sexual Violence

Sexual Violence Physical Violence

Perpetrator Proporon Perpetrator Proporon Mother/Step Mother 4.2 Current husband/partner 59.2 Father/step father 3.4 Former husband/partner 9.7 Sister/brother 4.9 Current/former boyfriend 13.3 Daughter/son 2.2 Father/step-father 1.0 Other relave 11.0 Brother/step-brother 2.0 Current boyfriend 7.6 Other relave 3.1 Former boyfriend 6.8 In-law 1.0 Mother-in-law 4.7 Family friend 1.0 Father-in-law 0.7 Employer/someone at work 1.5 Teacher 1.4 Police/soldier .5 Employer/someone at work 0.7 Priest/religious leader .5 Police/soldier 0.3 Stranger 7.1 Husband/Other 50.8

• The most incidences of physical and sexual violence were perpetrated by inmate partners. These included husbands, cur rent/former boyfriends. For physical violence it was reported husbands constuted 51% and for sexual violence, current husbands and partners constuted 59%. This is in line with the ZDHS 2015 study that reported the most common ly reported perp e trator to b e th e curren t husband or part ner (54%), follow ed by the former hu sband or partner (23%). • Sexual violen ce that w as perpetrated by a strang er was 7 %.

164 Community Challenges & Development Priories

165 Community Challenges

Land 1 Draught Power 1 Poor weather condions and climate change 2 Livestock 3 Electricity 3 Community Projects 3

Unemployment 3 Health and Infrastructure 4 Educaon,Capacity building and … 5 Inputs and implements 6 Liquidity 6 Irrigaon 7 Drought 8 Other 8 Water for producon 9

Markets 10 Water for domesc use 10 Poor Road infrastructure 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Proporon of communies

• The most common community challenge is poor roads infrastructure (12 %), followed by wa ter for domesc use( 10%), markets (10% ) and water for producon( 9%) • The proporon of communies that reported drought as a challenge increased from 2% in 2015 to 8%. • Government (65%), partners(17%), community(16%) and well wishers(2%) had made some efforts to address some of these challenges.

166 Development Priories

Industrialisaon 1

Control of wildlife 2

Employment creaon 2

Skills and capacity development 3

Electricity 4 Livestock 4 Educaon and infrastructure 4 Health services and infrastructure 5 Income generang projects 7 Other 8 Markets availability and access 11 Road infrastructure development 11 Portable water 12

Dams/Water reservoirs 13

Irrigaon infrastructure 14

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Proporon of communies

The most common development priority was irrigaon infrastructure (15%) followed by dams/water reservoirs (13 %), portable water (12%), road infrastructure (11%) and markets availability and access (7%).

167 Shocks and Hazards

168 • Hazards are anything that poses a le vel of thr eat to hum an bein gs liv elihoods or means of survival or anything tha t a ffects li fe, health, pr operty or en vironment.

• The shocks and stresses included i n t his s tudy w ere ori ginally deriv ed fr om the Zim babwe Disaster Risk Profile provided by the De partment of Civ il Pr otecon and w ere re fined and contextualized by ZimVAC s takeholders t o adap t to the ZimV AC sur vey me thodology and study needs.

• This ulmately classified the hazards into f our br oad c ategories which ar e clim ac and environmental shocks and s tresses, ec onomic shock s an d str esses, he alth relat ed, na tural and manmade shocks and s tresses. • Three dimensions of these hazards were invesgated that is exposure, impact and ability of

households to recover and cope with the different shock and stresses in different communies.

169 Ranking of Hazards According to their Impact on Rural Livelihoods

Ranking of the invesgated shocks and stresses by communies shows the following order with the first one being perceived to be the most livelihoods impacng hazard:

1. Drought and dry spells 8. HIV and AIDS related, bolt out sickness incidents

2. Livestock diseases and deaths 9. Malaria diseases incidents

3. Crop pests and diseases outbreaks 10. Crop damage by hail storm

4. Sharp drop or increase in cereal prices 11. Floods

5. Sharp drop or increase in livestock prices 12. Veldt fire

6. Environmental degradaon 13. Land mines 7. Diarrheal diseases outbreaks

170 Proporon of Households that Experienced Shocks and Stresses in the 2015/16 Season

21.5

78.5

No Yes

• About 79% of the households experienced some shocks.

171 Exposure to Hazards

Number of hazards experienced in the last 10 years (2006- Mean frequency of reported hazards in the last 10 years 2016) by district (2006-2016) by district

• There was high convergence of different types of hazards in most of the rural districts of Zimbabwe with each district experiencing a least 8 hazards in every three years (3 mes in the last 10 years).

• Generally , th e same areas with t he highest nu mber of haz ards were the same areas with the high est frequency. These are typically bordering districts of the country and areas in the natural farming region IV and V, with some encroachment into the central parts of the country • (typically food surplus districts region I,II and III).

172 Main impacts of Hazards Experienced in the 2015/16 Season • The recently experienced hazards had the 6.9 1 20 greatest impact on food access/consumpon

and producon as reported by 45% of the 27.1 households.

• 27% reported reduced income as the main impact of recen t hazards experienced. 45 • 20% indicated asse ts loss as the mai n impact Assets loss (sale of households assets and loss of livestock,

Reduced Food Access/Reduced producon etc.) Reduced cash inc ome Death of human beings • Only 1% reported loss of a household member

Other as the main impact.

173 Conclusions and Recommendaons

174 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• About 15% of children of school -going a ges w ere not in sc hool in Ma y 21 6 in the rur al areas . The proporon has ranged be tween 14 % and 2 4% during the same me in the pas t four year s. The major reasons reported b y t he households wi th such child ren ha ve not chang ed mu ch in t he pas t four years. They ar e; • Schools being t oo e xpensive and par ents/guardians ha ving no mone y; • Children c onsidered t oo y oung to be in school by par ents/guardians; and • Schools being t oo f ar f or childr en to w alk to . • The first cause for childr en f ailing t o be in school raises ques ons on the impleme ntaon of the Government Policy for univ ersal prim ary e ducaon and its complemen tary policy wh ich sta tes that no child should be denied access to schooling for failure to pay school fees. Sustainable ways

of funding scaling up of the Basic Educaon Assistance Module (BEAM) programme should be consider ed.

• The other two causes speak to the relavely low school density that could be addressed through establishmen t of satellit e sch ools in the short to medium term and cons trucon of more schools in the long term . Cr eave public -priv a te sect or partner ships could go a long way in addr essing this pr oblem .

175

Conclusions and Recommendaons

• The assessment f ound 2 2% of households ha ving or phans and 23 % of households ha ving childr en under foster care arrangements. Such v ulnerable childr en w ere mor e lik ely to be out of sch ool, parcularly when the y w ere i n households wi th a chr onically ill member or a ph ysically/mentally challenged member. • While household savings ar e im portant in smoothin g co nsumpon and those with savi ngs wer e resorng to this as the fir st c oping op on pr eserving their ass ets, sw itching of expendi ture from other non-food expenses lik e health and educ aon is the sec ond mos t comm on adop ted stra tegy to deal with food challenges. Food access chal lenges w ere alr eady impacn g on school aendance as 7.3% had with drawn childr en fr om school at some poin t during the surv ey period because of hunger.

• In response to increased vulnerability in the past two consumpon years, Government and its De velopmen t Partner s expanded their c over age of f ood assi stance bene ficiaries and the flo w of remiances also went up. Overall , the proporon of households tha t received foo d trans fers increased, while that of households that received cash, crop and lives tock input and wate r and sanitaon inputs decreased during the 2015 /16 consump on year compar ed to the pr evious one .

176 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• With even increased vulner ability in the 20 16/17 consum pon year , demand on rela ves to assist their rural folks is expected t o incr ease. Ho wever, the ability of the remi ances to respond is uncertain given the depr essed dome sc ec onomy as w ell as the depr eciaon of the South Afric an Rand against the United States of Americ a Doll ar; the curr ency of choice for the gener al Zimbabwean public . • Given the level of food insecurity alr eady o btaining in the rur al ar eas, the Go vernment and its Development Partners should c onsider c onnuing with food ass istance pr ogrammes with plans to scale up these earlie r i n the c onsumpon y ear than usual . • To help farmers recover from two consecuve seasons of poor producon, the Government should c onsider tying food assistance programmes to preparedness for the next farming season.

• The order of the most important sources of household cash income (starng with the most common) w as casual labo ur, crop pr oducon, r emiances, vege table produ con and liv estock producon for the period 2012 -2015 . This was disrupted in 2016 when remiances wer e the second mos t import ant sour ce of cash follo wed by vegetable sales, livest ock sales and crop producon . T his is expect ed giv en the very poor cr op produco n mos t rural households experienced in the 201 6 harves t. Consequen tly, the demand for remiances to mak e up for the lost crop producon income was high .

177 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• An analysis of a verage house hold inc omes for the mon th of April from 2012 to 2016 sugges ts a very str ong posive r elaonship be tween the rain fall season quality and aver age househ old income . This ob serv aon indicates that s tabilising and gr owing agricult ural income would be ke y t o incr ea sing the res ilience of rural livelihoods. • The current and past Rural Livelihoods Assessment results show that the share of rural households’ expen diture t aken by food is ar ound 60% when the prevale nce of f ood insecurity is less than 10 %. Since, it is common kno wled ge that the share of av erage househ old expend iture taken by food incr eases with incr easing po verty or incr eased vulner ability , there is need for Gov ernment and its Devel opmen t Partners to provide food assis tance before households ar e forced to spend an increased share of their money on food .

• Proporons of households accessing loans remain low and these were predominantly given by family and friends to family members and friends ; they remain larg ely in formal . Financial inclusion in the formal instuons such as Banks, SA CCOs and micr ofinance remai ns larg ely constrained . This may be stemming from the fact that mo st of these household s are borrowing for consump on hence presen ng a credit risk to the formal financial ins tuo ns. • Eff orts should be direct ed at smula ng investments in rural areas and towards supporng ISALs to improve financial inc lusion. Humanit arian pr ogrammes that impr ov e access to food may also assist in redirecng the decision of farmers in borrowing for investment rather than consumpon to improve their

credit rang with formalised financial instuons.

178 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• Investments in climate smart agricultur e should also be put in place as mos t of the farmer s who had overdue loans indic ated tha t the reason for such a st ate a aining wa s tha t the y had obt ained less than expected cr op pr oducon due to poor rain fall seaso ns. • With the excepon of maiz e, t obacco and c oon, the pr oporon of households tha t gre w the major food and cash cr ops i n 2015 incr eased signifi cantly compar ed to those tha t did in 2014 . However, the poorer r ainfall season e xperienced in the 201 5/16 agricultur al season result ed in reduced household cr op har vests in all dis tricts and rur al pr ovinces. • Inadequate household agricultural labour, limited ability to hire and commandeer addional labour from friends, rela ves and neighbo urs coupled with a rather high dependence on r etained and unimpr o ved seed variees for most food crops, ot her than maiz e, connue to c ons train households’ crop pr oducvity .

• The El Nino-induced drought that ravaged Zimbabwe and many other SADC countries highlighted, once mor e, the import ance and ur gency o f efforts to build resilience ag ainst climate v ariability and clima te chang e amongst the rural po pula ons of Zimbab we. These efforts could inclu de stepping up the pr omoon of clim ate -smart agricult ur e, water harvesng and irriga on developmen t, parcularly in the mos t drought-prone areas.

179 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• The consecuve poor rai nfall seasons mar ginally reduce d the proporon of households that o wn c ale and those tha t o wn g oats. The pr oporon of households with cale and goat herd sizes greater than fi ve (5) were a t their lo west in April 2016 compar ed to the same me in the pas t 4 yea rs . • Livestock drought migaon strategies need to be priorized in areas that suffered most from the Eli Nino induced dr ought and where liv estock mak es the mos t significant con tribuo n t o households’ liv elih oods . The mig aon strat egies could include:

• Provision of subsidised livestock feeds and animal drugs; and • Facilitang access to relie f grazing; and

• There is need to capacitate the Department of Livestock and Veterinary Services’ disease surveillance and disease c ontrol . This should incl ude increased mo bility, refresher training of front line staff and provision of relevan t work t ools and equipmen t. • Go vernment remains the domi nant sour ce of agricultural (crop and livestock) extension for most rural communies whose liv elihood s are mainly based on agricultur e. Ther efor e, there is need to str eng then the Governme nt exte nsion system with capacity enhance ment and financ ial resour ces while pro mo ng complementary and viable private sector extension models.

180 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• Rural Communies c onnue to face challen ges in accessing mark ets for agricultur al inputs and outp uts as well as for food. Mos t rur al communies are gener ally far from mark ets and have poor road and communicaon infrastructure connecng them. There is need to strengthen District Development Fund (DDF) with capacity enhancement and financial resources for maintenance of rural feeder roads.

• Markets play an important role in household food security. The driving forces of markets such as supply, demand and mac r oeconomic condions have pla yed a role in the curr ent situaon and the project ed food security situao n for the 2016/ 17 consump on y ear. Monitori n g chan ges in the market shoul d ther efore be one of the key food security monit oring acvies .

• There was a notable decline in the proporon of households consuming acceptable diets and an increase in househo lds having poor food consump on which sho ws deterior aon in household food security in Ma y 2016 compared to same me las t year. Furthermor e, the c onsumpon based coping str ateg ies were highes t in 2016 compar ed to the pas t thr ee yea rs. • Overall, the consumpon frequency of foods rich in haemoglobin iron was the poorest followed by the consumpon of proteins and Vitamin A. Matabeleland North consistently recorded low consumpon of all the nutrient rich foods. Inclusion of milk and other animal source proteins in the diet of households was higher in those Provinces with higher proporons of households who are milking either Goats or cows. Most households were found not to be consuming goat milk despite its nutrive value. Households which recorded low/no consumpon of iron and Vitamin A could be at risk of micronutrient deficiencies. There is need to strengthen the implementaon of nutrion sensive agriculture with emphasis on producon of Vitamin A rich and Iron rich fruits and vegetables.

181 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• The Ministry of Health and Child Care should s trengthen micr o-nutrient supplemen taon programmes targeng childr en under 5 , adolescen ts and w omen of child beari ng age . • Most households w ere f ound not t o be c onsuming g oa t m ilk de spite its nutriv e value . Ther e is need to further interrogate the issue and c ome up wi th e ffecve str ategies to pr omote consumpon of g oat m ilk. • WASH pracces connue t o be of c oncern acr oss all pr ovinces. Ma tabeleland North is the wor se off province for all WASH indicators. In -depth r esearch is requir ed to under stand the causal factors of the relavely high pr evalence of open de fecaon acr oss the coun try, parcularly in Matabeleland North pr ovince. • There is need to intensify key hygiene messages targeng hand-washing with soap at crical

mes. Promoon of demand-led approaches to WASH is needed for effecve uptake of interven ons, with a parcular f ocus on beha viour chang e. Scaling up the repair and rehabilitaon of brok en down water points could reduce the distance travelled by households to access water in man y areas .

182 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• Focus on drilling or c onstrucon of ne w w ater poin ts to im prove acce ss to saf e wa ter in the dry regions should be priori zed. C ommunity B ased Manag ement ar ound repair ed and rehabilit ated boreholes and or ne wly c onstructed w ater poin ts needs to be enc ouraged. • There is need for the W ASH s ector t o pr omote the use of rene wable ener gy for the mo torizaon of high yielding boreholes, as this c an also r educe dis tances tr avelled to access wa ter, hence lightening the bur den on w omen. • The majority of the rural dis tricts e xperienced a numbe r of haz ards once in ev ery thr ee year s. Generally the hazards e xperienced had t he gr eatest impact on househo lds’ food access , asse ts loss and cash incomes for most households. Yet a majority of the rural populaon lacks capacies

to cope and recover from the compounded impact of different types of hazards they experience.

• There is, therefore, an urgent need review and revamp policies and programmes that help communies and households to streng then their capacies to deal with compounded and recurrent effec ts of shocks and s tresses to ensur e sustainable liveli hood s and econ omic growth i n the rural ar eas.

183 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• Violence against women (both ph ysical and se xual) con nues to be a na onal problem . Eff orts to address this must focus o n the f actors tha t ar e lik ely to d rive vio lence includin g foo d insecuri ty and intervenons t o addr ess this as w ell as inc ome vulner abilies. • Future assessments should be im proved t o li nk be er dem ographics (such as marit al sta tus by age, educaon level), inc ome le vels and access to food/ cash assis tance to the actual respond ent with quesons o n g ender bas ed vi olence. Th is wi ll str engthen the analy sis of driv ers of violence in emergency situaons. • The naonal prevalence of Gl obal Acut e M alnutrion w as 4. 4%, with bo ys mor e aff ected than girls. The GAM rate was lower than 5.7% observed in January (ZimVAC 2016). The naonal prevalence of Se vere Acut e Malnutrion (SAM) was 1.9% , wi th boys mor e affect ed than girls . This SAM rate is lo wer than 2.1% observed during the peak of the hung er season and jus t belo w the WHO 2% emer gency threshold .

• Mashonaland West (6.7%) had the highest prevalence of GAM while Mashonaland East had the lowest (2.6%). GAM prevalen ce was above 10 % Kariba (1 7. 3%), G weru (13.1%) Shamv a (12 .3% ) and Bing a (11% ).

184

Conclusions and Recommendaons

• The naonal prevalence of stunng was 26.6% with boys more affected than girls across all provinces. This result is consistent with other naonal studies (ZimVAC, 2016, DHS, 2016, MICS, 2014). Stunng remains a nutrion challenge of public health significance in the country that requires sustained efforts to address it underlying causes.

• An in-depth understanding of the malnutrion situaon exercise is required for Kariba, Gweru, Chegutu and Shamva districts that showed exceponally high rates of malnutrion to ensure mely appropriate response and to prevent further deterioraon of the situaon.

• Blanket supplementary feeding is recommended for districts with GAM above 7% and targeted supplementary feeding for children under five and pregnant and lactang women with moderate acute malnutrion is recommended for all other districts priorised with order of severity.

185 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• There is need for a robust and real me community based surveillance system to constantly monitor the tenuous nutrional situaon especially as the season progresses towards the hunger or lean months of year.

• Livelihood and food security intervenons coupled with nutrion educaon programmes should be implemented alongside emergency response programmes to ensure consumpon of diverse and micronutrient rich foods while simultaneously building community resilience to future shocks that compromise household food and nutrion security.

• Rural food insecurity prevalence in June 2016 was esmated at 6% and is projected to reach 42% during the peak hunger period (January to March 2017). This is the highest rural food insecurity prevalence esmated since 2009. It is 40% higher than that for the 2015/16 year (30%) during the peak hunger period. This food insecurity prevalence translates to about 4.1million rural people compared to 3million people for the previous consumpon year.

• There is an inverse relaonship between levels of cereal crop producon and food insecurity prevalence. When crop producon is low, levels of food insecurity are high and vice versa. This demonstrates the significant impact cereal harvests have on household food access for the majority of rural households in the country.

186 Conclusions and Recommendaons

• Matabeleland North (57%), Masvingo (50%) and Midlands (48%) provinces are projected to have the highest proporons of food insecure households at peak hunger period. Mashonaland West province (23%) is projected to have the least proporon of food insecure households. Twenty districts are projected to have more 50% of their households having inadequate means to meet their food needs without resorng to severe livelihoods and consumpon coping strategies.

• Manicaland (761,084) and Masvingo (738,291) provinces are projected to have the highest number of food insecure people during the peak period.

• Food assistance programmes should be connued to reflect the current food insecurity esmates and they should have built–in strategies to scale-up in tandem with the projected increase in food insecurity prevalence. About 380,000MT of maize or an equivalent assortment of food stuffs that can provide the same amount of energy is needed to close the projected food gap of the food insecure households.

• This projected food security situaon is made assuming that Government and the Private sector will, once more, collaborate to import maize enough to fill the 2016 cereal (maize, sorghum and millets) harvest deficit esmated by the Ministry of Agriculture Mechanisaon and Irrigaon Development at 964, 032MT. • Given that the food insecurity projecons are made on the basis of a number of assumpons, there is need to regularly monitor these and update the food security projecons situaon accordingly throughout the 2016/17 consumpon year. 187 Annexes

188 Manicaland

189 Mashonaland Central

190 Mashonaland East

191 Mashonaland West

192 Masvingo

193 Matabeleland North

194 Matabeleland South

195 Midlands

196 Proporon of Food Insecure Populaon During The Peak Hunger Period

197 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Manicaland Province

198 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Mashonaland Central Province

199 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Mashonaland East Province

200 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Mashonaland West Province

201 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Matabeleland North Province

202 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Matabeleland South Province

203 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Midlands Province

204 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During The Peak Hunger Period Masvingo Province

205 Report Wring Team

Government Partners George D. Kembo Rongai Machinga Angela Kafembe Sekai Mavenga

Blessing Butaumocho Kudzai Muduku Jahana Masango Gi Magaya

Joao Manja Rutendo Nyahoda Patricia Mujaja Brenda Zvinorova Nelson Taruving a Charity Mapira Tinashe Sande Rudo Sagomba Herbert Zvirere Tatenda Mafung a Kwanai Meki Shupikayi Zimuto Krispin Ny adzayo Ruramai Mpande Teddy Sigwadhi Preachered Donga Innocen t Mangwiro Lloyd Chadzingwa Regina Chinyanga Innocent Takaedza Lameck Be tera Siboniso Chig ova Themba Nduna Jusn Mupeyiwa Shamiso Chikobvu Mildred Mapani Princess Gabayi Charity Zvandaziva

Perpetual Nyadenga Alfa Ndlovu Tafara Ndumiyana Lillian Kona

Yvonne Mavhunga Primrose Gava Tamburiro P asipangody a Michael Munapo Miriam Banda Disalice Kunaka Caroline Muk anduri

206 Overall Coordinaon Team

• George D. Kembo

• Ancikaria Chigumira

• Blessing Butaumocho

• Joao Manja

• Yvonne Mavhunga

207 Supported by