Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (Zimvac) 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report

VAC

ZIMBABWE Vulnerability Assessment Committee

Zim

Foreword

The Naonal Food and Nutrion Security Informaon System is essenal for understanding the breadth and scope of food and nutrion insecurity thereby assisng in priorising and planning food and nutrion intervenons and broader livelihoods. In its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrion security for all people at all mes’, the Government of Zimbabwe has connued to exhibit its commitment for reducing food and nutrion insecurity, improving livelihoods and reducing poverty amongst the vulnerable populaons in Zimbabwe. In this light ZimVAC, acng as the technical advisory commiee on assessments, undertook the 17 edion of the Rural Livelihoods Assessment in May 2017.

The 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment (RLA) provides updates on pernent rural livelihoods issues such as educaon, food and income sources, income levels, expenditure paerns and food security among other issues. It recognises and draws from other contemporary surveys that deﬁne the socio-economic context of rural livelihoods.

This report provides a summaon of the results of the processes undertaken and focuses on the following themac areas: Household demographics, social protecon, educaon, food consumpon paerns, food sources and nutrion, income and expenditure paerns and levels, agriculture, markets, household food security , health and nutrion, water, sanitaon and hygiene, community livelihood challenges and development priories, resilience, shocks and hazards and gender based violence. The report concludes by giving speciﬁc recommendaons on each of the themac areas outlined in the report. It is our hope that these recommendaons will aide to your development of response strategies.

The acve parcipaon of all food and nutrion structures at Naonal, Provincial, District levels and the community at large is greatly appreciated. The Government of Zimbabwe and Development partners’ ﬁnancial support provided all the impetus the ZimVAC required to meet the cost for this exercise. We also want to thank our staﬀ at the Food and Nutrion Council (FNC) for providing leadership, coordinaon and management to the whole survey.

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 many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrion insecurity.

George D. Kembo FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson Dr. Leonard Madzingaidzo Interim Chief Execuve Oﬃcer - SIRDC 3 Table of Contents

Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..………… 1 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..………………… 3 Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………… 4 Background and Introducon ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………… 5 Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………….. 12 Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………...15 Demographic Descripon of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………...... 20 Social Protecon …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………...... 27 Educaon....……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... …………………………………..…………..……………………..... 33 Access to Extension Services.....……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..……………………...... 38 Eﬀects of the Fall Armyworm...... 47 Crop Producon …..………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………….……….…….……...... …………………………………..…………..…………...... 57 Households Access to Irrigaon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………...... 64 Livestock Producon ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….…………………………………………..…………..……………...... 67 Market Access...... 78 Agricultural Commodity Prices...... 81 Incomes and Expenditure...... 89 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………...... 97 ISALS/ Mukando….…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..…………….....104 Household Consumpon Paerns...... ………………………………………………………..…………..……………...... 108 Resilience ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 121 Household Food Security Status Projecons………..……...... ………………………………………………………………………..……………..…………..……………...... 131 Nutrion...... 149 Feeding Pracces in Children 6-59 months ..……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………... ………..…………..…...... 150 Women Dietary Diversity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 157 Community Health Services……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 160 Water, Sanitaon and Hygiene ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………..…………..………………….... 165 Child Nutrion Status…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 180 Gender Based Violence ………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……..……………... 185 Community Challenges and Development Priories . ………………………………………………………………………..…………………. ………………..... ………..…………..…...... 190 Conclusions and Recommendaons …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..………………….... 195 Annexes …..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………..…………..…………………... 205

4 Acknowledgements

The technical and ﬁnancial support received from the following is greatly appreciated:

• Oﬃce of the President and Cabinet • UN Women • Higher Life Foundaon • Food and Nutrion Council • Food and Agriculture Organizaon (FAO) • Naonal AIDS Council • SIRDC • United Naons Children’s fund (UNICEF) • Mwenezi Development Training Centre • Ministry of Finance • Famine Early Warning System Network • World Vision • SADC RVAC (FEWSNET) • ENSURE • Zimbabwe Naonal Stascs Agency • World Food Programme (WFP) • Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT) (ZIMSTAT) • Rural District Councils • Development Aid from People to People (DAPP) • Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisaon and • Advenst Development and Relief Agency • Cluster Agricultural Development Services Irrigaon Development (ADRA) (CADS) • Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social • Save the Children • United Methodist Commiee on Relief Welfare • Amalima (UMCOR) • Ministry of Health and Child Care • SNV/Environment Africa/CAFOD • Community Technology Development • Ministry of Local Government, Public Works • Hope for Child in Christ (HOCIC) Organizaon (CTDO) and Naonal Housing • Catholic Relief Services (CRS) • Red Cross • Ministry of Rural Development, Promoon and • GOAL • Chrisan Care Preservaon of Naonal Culture and • Hand in Hand • Caritas Heritage • AFRICAID • Plan Internaonal • Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educaon • Tony White • Family Aids Caring Trust (FACT) • United Naons Development Programme • Acon Contre la Faim (ACF) • Acon Aid (UNDP -ZRBF) • Welthungerhilfe • CARE Internaonal • United States Agency for Internaonal • CATCH • Lower Guruve Development Associaon (LGDA) Development (USAID) • DOMCCP • Aquaculture Trust

5 Acronyms

EA Enumeraon Area

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FNC Food and Nutrion Council

FNSP Food and Nutrion Security Policy

GAM Global Acute Malnutrion

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity

HHS Household Hunger Score

MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet

MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity

MMF Minimum Meal Frequency

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrion

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Commiee

Background and Introducon

7 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 in a manner that ensures 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 praccal way forward for fulﬁlling legal and exisng policy commitments in food and nutrion security • Advising Government on strategic direcons in food and nutrion security • Undertaking a “watchdog role” and supporng and facilitang acon to ensure commitments in food and nutrion are kept on track by diﬀerent sectors through a number of core funcons such as:

§ Undertaking food and nutrion assessments, analysis and research, § Promong mul-sectoral and innovave approaches for addressing food and nutrion insecurity, and: § Supporng and building naonal capacity for food and nutrion security including at sub-naonal levels.

Background

• Since 2011, Zimbabwe’s Gross Domesc Product growth rate has been declining from a high of 11.9% to 1.5% in 2015. It was esmated at 0.6% in 2016 but is now projected to rise to 3.7% in 2017 and to taper off slightly to 3.4% in 2018 mainly on the back of improved performance of the agricultural sector (Ministry of Finance, 2017; World Bank, 2017). • Year on year inflaon rate has been in the negave for the whole of 2016 but has accelerated into the posive, from -0.7% in January 2017 to 0.5% in April 2017. The increase in annual headline inflaon was mainly driven by food inflaon (ZIMSTAT, 2017). • Decent and secure employment remain subdued and the economy connues to be gripped in the throes of deep and widespread cash shortages that have mainly arisen from sustained higher imports against lower export earnings. As of May 2017, the country was experiencing a cash shortage of USD347 million, which is an improvement from an average shortage of USD450 million experienced during the greater part of 2016 (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, 2017). • The ZimSTAT 2011/2012 Poverty Income and Consumpon Survey esmated 76% of rural households to be poor and 23% were deemed extremely poor. This situaon is likely to have worsened given the economic performance in the intervening period up to 2016. • The normal to above normal 2016/17 rainfall season, coming aer a devastang El Nino induced drought, coupled with support from both Government and the Private sector through the Special Maize Programme as well as other supporve iniaves such as contract farming had a posive impact on the agriculture sector. • Given the importance of the agricultural sector to rural livelihoods as well as the Zimbabwean economy, this significant improvement in the agricultural sector denotes improvements in rural livelihoods in general. • Most dams in the seven catchment areas were full and spilling over. Average naonal dam levels as at 5 May 2017 were 81.3%, up from 71.5% reported in February (Zimbabwe Naonal Water Authority, 2017).

9 Background - The 2016/17 Rainfall and Agricultural Season Quality Zimbabwe Calculated SOS (used as planng dekad for maize) for Zimbabwe Start of Season Anomaly (compared to 2016/17 season as of dekad 2 of April 2017. average) 2016/17 season as of dekad 2 of April 2017.

• The 2016/17 rainfall season started in November 2016 for most • The rains were generally on me for most parts of the parts of the country. The bulk of the country received eﬀecve country and slightly early in some parts of the country rainfall during the 2nd dekad of November. and it was 10-30 days late in most of the areas where its onset was in December 2016.

10 Background - The 2016/17 Rainfall and Agricultural Season Quality

• Generally, the rainfall distribuons in space and me over the • Given the normal to above normal rains received across the season were good. By the end of the rainfall season in April country as well as the generally good distribuon, the maize 2017, most areas across the country had received normal to crop performance ranged from good to very good for most areas above normal rains. and was average in the southern part of the country. A few isolated areas had mediocre maize crop performance.

11 Background - 2016/17 Rainfall and Agriculture Season Challenges

• Zimbabwe faced crical shortages of ferlizers this season as ferlizer companies experienced liquidity challenges to pay for raw materials. As a result, most communal farmers planted without basal ferlizers.

• The Fall Armyworm wreaked havoc inially in the western parts of the country but spread to all provinces and some peri-urban areas, aacking crops (maize, small grains and others).

• The worm proved more difficult to control compared to the common African Armyworm. Shortage of the right chemicals and poor liquidity among farmers made it difficult to contain the outbreak. However, the pest’s impact on crop yields were minimal. Nonetheless, this pest has potenal to undermine future crop producon and overall naonal food security if effecve control strategies are not put in place urgently.

• In mid-February, the southern parts of the country (mainly Masvingo, southern Midlands and the Matabeleland Provinces) were hit by the eﬀects of the tropical depression Dineo, which precipitated ﬂooding that destroyed crops, livestock, property, infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams etc.), worsening the preceding damage from the persistent rains that had been received across the country (FEWSNET, 2017).

• Due to the extent of the problem, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe Cde. R.G. Mugabe, in accordance with Subsecon (1) of Secon 27 of the Civil Protecon Act of 1989 declared a State of Flood Disaster on 2 March 2017. The declaraon covered severely ﬂood aﬀected areas in communal, reselement lands and urban areas of Zimbabwe.

12 Background - Areas Most Aﬀected by the Eﬀects of the Tropical Depression Dineo

• Areas most aﬀected by ﬂooding and waterlogging include Tsholotsho, Lupane, Nkayi, Binga, Umguza, Hwange urban, Matobo, Umzingwane, Bulilima, Insiza, Beitbridge, Gwanda, Gokwe North, Gokwe South, and Mberengwa, Chivi, Mwenezi, Chiredzi, Masvingo rural, Bikita, Kariba, Zvimba, Hurungwe, Mutare rural, Mutasa, Buhera, Chipinge, Chimanimani, Guruve, Mt. Darwin ,Mutoko and Marondera (rural) District.

• The worst aﬀected district was Tsholotsho where a total of 859 people were le homeless.

VAC

ZIMBABWE Vulnerability Assessment Committee

13 Assessment Purpose

• The overall purpose of the 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment was to provide an annual update on rural livelihoods for the purposes of informing policy formulaon and programming appropriate intervenons.

Speciﬁc Objecves

The 2017 ZimVAC Rural Livelihoods Assessment was conducted with the broad objecve of assessing the prevailing food and nutrion insecurity situaon and impact of the food assistance and input support programmes on rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe. The assessment’s speciﬁc objecves were:

• To esmate the populaon that is likely to be food insecure in the 2017/18 consumpon year, their geographic distribuon, gender distribuon and the severity of their food insecurity;

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

• To describe the socio-economic proﬁles of rural households in terms of such characteriscs as their demographics, access to basic services (educaon, health services and water and sanitaon facilies), income sources, incomes and expenditure paerns, food consumpon paerns, consumpon coping strategies and livelihoods coping strategies;

• To determine the coverage and impact of livelihoods intervenons in rural households;

• To idenfy viable response intervenons to community challenges in rural households;

• To idenfy development priories for rural communies in rural provinces of the country; and

• To measure household resilience and idenfy constraints to improving community resilience and rural livelihoods including opportunies and pathways of addressing them in the face of prevailing and unpredictable shocks and stresses.

15 Technical Scope

The 2017 RLA collected and analysed informaon on the following themac areas:

• Household demographics • Household food security

• Social Protecon • Nutrion

• Educaon • Water, Sanitaon and Hygiene

• Food consumpon paerns • Community livelihood challenges and development priories.

• Income and expenditure paerns and levels • Resilience, Shocks and hazards

• Agriculture • Gender Based Violence

• Markets

16 Assessment Me thodology

17 Methodology and Assessment Process

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

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

• The assessment used a structured household quesonnaire, a community Focus Group Discussion quesonnaire and 2 District key informant quesonnaires as the primary data collecon instruments.

• ZimVAC naonal supervisors and enumerators were recruited from Government, United Naons, Technical partners and Non- Governmental Organisaons. These underwent training in all aspects of the assessment (background, data collecon tools, assessment sampling strategy and assessment supervision).

• The Ministry of Rural Development, Promoon and Preservaon of Naonal Culture and Heritage through the Provincial Administrators’ oﬃces coordinated the recruitment of district level enumerators and mobilisaon of vehicles in each of the 60 rural districts of Zimbabwe.

• District enumeraon teams comprised of oﬃcers from Government and local NGOs. Each district enumeraon team had one Anthropometrist who had the responsibility of measuring children aged 6-59 months. District enumeraon teams were trained by naonal supervisors.

• Primary data collecon took place from the 8 to the 28 of May 2017, followed by data entry and cleaning from the 22ⁿ to the 30 of May 2017.

• Data analysis, report wring and eding ran from the 29 of May 2017 to the 15 of June 2017. Various secondary data sources were used to contextualise the analysis and reporng.

• Data analysis and report wring were done by a team of 30 technical oﬃcers from Government, United Naons and technical partners under the leadership and coordinaon of FNC.

18 Data Collecon Methods and Sample Size

• The sample was drawn from the ZIMSTAT 2012 Master sample. • The sampling design was mul-pronged and comprised of; Province Households Children under 5 Community • non-probability sampling (purposive sampling) for district level key informant FGDs interviews and community level focus group discussions • probability sampling for household surveys where 1379 447 155 • household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator for sample Manicaland 1579 660 173 size determinaon Mashonaland • results for the key indicators are stascally representave at district, provincial Central 1795 675 159 and naonal level at 95% level of conﬁdence • a two stage cluster sampling was employed with Mashonaland East 1376 470 119 • the ﬁrst stage involved EA selecon using the PPS principle • the second stage involved household selecon using systemac random Mashonaland West sampling 1387 523 134 M atabeleland

• Primary data collecon was undertaken in 25 Enumeraon Areas (EAs) in each district, North selected using systemac random sampling applying the proporon to populaon size 1384 550 123 Matabeleland principle. South • Households were systemacally randomly sampled in one randomly selected village in each 1568 610 158 of the sampled EAs. Midlands 1390 487 149 • The ﬁnal sample of households was 11 858 and that for children aged 6 to 59 months was 4

422 Masvingo • One community key informant Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was held in each of the 11858 4422 1170 selected wards, bringing the total community key informant FDGs to 1 170. Total • Two district level key informant interviews on food assistance and school feeding intervenons were administered in each of the 60 rural districts. • In addion to the above, ﬁeld observaons and systemac secondary data review yielded valuable informaon that was used in the analysis and wring of the assessment report.

19 Sampled Wards

VAC

ZIMBABWE Vulnerability Assessment Committee

20 Data Preparaon and Analysis

• All primary data was captured using CSPro and was consolidated and converted into SPSS datasets for:

• Household analysis

• Child Nutrion

• Community key informant interviews

• District key informant interviews

• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, ENA, Stata, Microso Excel and GIS packages.

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

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

21 Demographic Descripon of the Sample

22 Populaon Distribuon by Age and Sex

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

(%) 60.0

on 50.0

ula 43.4 40.6

op 38.6 40.0 34.9 t P

cen 30.0 er P 20.0 12.4 11.8 8.4 9.9 10.0

0.0 0-4 years 5-17 years 18-59 years 60 years + Male Female

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

• The paern is similar to the one observed last year and in previous surveys.

23 Populaon Distribuon by Age

100.0

90.0

80.0

(%) 70.0

on 60.0 ula

op 50.0 45.6 44.0 of P 42.3 42.0 41.6 40.7 41.5 41.5 37.8 37.6 39.5 38.9 40.0 37.0 35.5 35.5 36.3 36.7 on 34.5

30.0 Propor 20.0 12.5 13.2 12.1 12.6 11.2 11.5 12.1 11.7 12.1 8.9 10.2 10.3 10.7 8.8 9.9 9.2 10.0 7.3 7.4

0.0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 0-4 yrs 5-17 yrs 18-59 yrs 60 yrs +

• Naonally, the 18 – 59 age group had the highest proporon (42.0%) of the sampled households followed by age group 5 - 17 (36.7%).

• Children aged 0-4 years constuted 12.1% while the elderly age group 60 years and above were 9.2%.

24 Sex and Age of Household Head 100 90 24 25 32 35 30 33 36 37 80 43

(%)

ds 70 60 50 of Househol 40 76 75 on 68 65 70 67 30 64 63 57

Propor 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Male Female

• Most households (67%) were headed by males while 33% were female headed.

• Of these household heads, 0.5% represented child headed households while 32% represented the elderly headed households.

• There was a decrease in child headed households from 2% (2016) whereas the elderly headed households increased from 27%.

• The average age of household heads was 50 years.

• The average household size was 5. 25 Marital Status of Household Head

100 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.3 2.5 4.3 1.9 1.5 2.2

90 16.3 17.1 21.2 20.7 21.7 21.3 21.5 26.1 29.1 80 6.1 4.4

5.6 2.9 5.4 3.4 4.9 4.7 5.1 70 3.7 6.4 7.8 6.0 6.8 8.3 Heads (%) 5.7 10.2

d 60 10.0 50 of Househol 40 73.3 72.8 on 64.7 64.0 62.6 66.1 64.3 30 58.4 50.8

Propor 20

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

• A greater proporon of household heads (64.3%) were married and living together with their spouses while (21.5%) were widows and widowers.

26 Vulnerability Aributes

22 (%) 21.5

20 ember m

t a 15

t leas 15 a

ith w ds 10 8

6 5.9 5.5 of Househol

5 4.3

on 2.5

Propor 0 Chronically Ill Physically/Mentally challenged Orphans

2015 2016 2017

• The above results show a declining trend in households’ burden of vulnerability from 2015 to 2017.

27 Dependency Rao

• Household dependency rao was calculated as Province 2016 Dependency Rao 2017 Dependency Rao follows: Manicaland 1.8 1.7

1.6 Number of economically inacve members/ Mashonaland Central 1.6

Mashonaland East 1.7 1.6 number of economically acve members.

Mashonaland West 1.5 1.5 • The average household dependency rao was 1.7.

Matabeleland North 1.9 1.8 • The highest dependency rao was recorded in Matabeleland South 1.9 1.8 Masvingo, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South (1.8). Midlands 1.9 1.7

Masvingo 2.0 1.8 • The lowest dependency rao was recorded in Mashonaland West at 1.5. Naonal 1.8 1.7

28 Social Protecon

Background to 2016/17 Social Assistance and Protecon

Beneﬁciaries of food assistance at a distribuon point. Workers stacking bags of maize grain at a GMB depot.

• The 2015/16 producon year was aﬀected by adverse weather condions (El-Nino) which resulted in the naon declaring a state of emergency as well as launching the Domesc and Internaonal Appeal for food supply assistance in February 2016. • The 2016 Rural Livelihoods Assessment esmated that 4.1 million rural people would be food insecure in the peak hunger period (Jan- March 2017). • Government and partners mobilised resources from both within and outside the country and supported the vulnerable and food insecure populaons. • Over the period October 2015 through to May 2017, Government had distributed more than 550 000 Mt of maize grain to food insecure households (Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare) while UN/NGO partners imported and distributed 39 423.20Mt of maize grain between February 2016 and May 2017 (WFP). 30 Households which Received Support

100

90 80 78 80 75 75 74 70 70 71 (%) 68 68 70 65 67 67 65 ds 60 62 60 58 51

50 of Househol

40 on 30

Propor 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• During the 2016/17 consumpon year, about 71% of rural households received some support in at least one of the following forms; food, cash, crop inputs, livestock inputs as well as Water, Sanitaon and Hygiene. • There has been an increase in the proporon of households that received support during the 2016/17 consumpon year compared to the previous one. • All the rural provinces reported an increase in the proporon of households that received support except for Mashonaland West which had a slight drop from 70% in 2015/16 to 68% in 2016/17.

Sources of Support

Relaves within rural Relaves within urban Remiances outside Province Government % UN/NGO % Churches % areas % areas % Zimbab we %

2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17

Manicaland 49 74.1 18.7 44.3 3.1 3.6 10.7 10 13.6 13.9 4.6 5.8 Mash Central 71.1 90.5 14.3 24 .5 1.3 2.7 6.5 11 5.3 12 1.5 1.8 Mash East 42.6 64.1 5.9 30 .6 2.7 2.8 14.8 16.7 25.4 30.3 7.8 9.2 Mash West 67.7 93.3 8.5 9.6 1.3 2.7 6.7 8.8 11.6 10.7 3.9 1.8 Mat North 43.5 77.9 24.9 32 .2 1.1 2 9.2 5.9 12.4 10.4 8.3 11.2 Mat South 29.4 75.2 20.6 37 .5 2.7 3.4 8.8 10.8 13 16.2 24 31.4 Midlands 51.9 75.0 14.9 36.6 1.7 2.5 9.1 13.7 15.1 18.8 7.1 9.9

Masvingo 36 63.4 24.7 40.3 2 2.5 13.9 9.7 14.9 16.2 8.1 9.1 Naonal 48.5 76.7 16.4 32 2 2.7 10.1 10.9 14.2 16.3 8.3 10.3

• There was a remarkable increase in Government support from 48.5% (2015/16) to 76.7% (2016/17). • Mashonaland West (93.3%) had the highest proporon of households receiving support from Government followed by Mashonaland Central (90.5%). • UN/NGOs support was highest in Manicaland (44.3%) followed by Masvingo (40.3%). • Matabeleland South (31.4%) had the highest percentage of remiances from outside Zimbabwe followed by Matabeleland North (11.2%). • UN/NGO support also doubled from 16.4% (2015/16) to 32% (2016/17).

• Support from churches, from relaves within and outside Zimbabwe increased marginally in 2016/17 from their 2015/16 levels. 32

Forms of Support

100

80 72 (%)

s 70 59 60 48

Household 50

of 40

40 34 on 31 30

30 24 24

Propor 20

10 6 6 3 2 3 2 0 Food Support Cash Support Crop Support Livestock Support WASH support

2015 2016 2017

• Food as a form of support to vulnerable households increased from 40% (2015) to 59% (2017) whereas cash support dropped from 31% (2015) to 24% (2016 and 2017).

• Crop input support has also been ﬂuctuang from a high of 72% in 2015 down to 30% in 2016 then rising to 34% in 2017.

• Livestock inputs and WASH inputs as forms of support have been on a downward trend since 2015.

33 Forms of Support

Food Support % Cash support % Crop Input support % Lives tock support % WASH support % Province 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Manicaland 31.9 39 44.1 25.6 18 17.9 72.4 21.9 28. 3 4.1 1.7 1.4 1.8 0.9 0.7 Mash Central 15.9 43.1 65.8 11.3 13.4 19.3 87.6 46.2 49. 5 3.9 2.8 1.1 4.7 2.6 0.9 Mash East 45 39.3 51.9 37.4 28.3 19.9 80.2 36.2 29.8 5.8 3.3 3.0 3 1.4 2.1

Mash West 25.7 53.8 58.4 25.7 13.6 8.6 80.2 46 37.8 6.9 1.9 1.2 3.2 3.3 1.3

Mat North 54 60.3 69.4 32.3 21.8 23.1 49.5 12.9 29.2 5.3 1.3 2.2 2.6 3.5 2.9

Mat South 54 53.6 66.9 45.5 39 41.5 58.2 16 29.3 4.7 2.8 2.2 4 1.8 5.9

Midlands 33.9 42.4 57.5 23.3 27.5 34.1 72.7 36 40.4 6 3.1 1.6 8.7 3.1 1.8

Masvingo 63.3 54.2 59.4 46 31.3 28.2 59.9 20.2 27.6 11.1 2.7 2.3 22.3 4.6 1.5 Naonal 40.4 47.8 59.0 31.4 24.1 24 .0 72 30 .1 34.2 6.1 2.5 1.9 6.4 2.6 2.1

• The most common form of support received by households was food (59.0%) followed by crop inputs (34.2%).

• Matabeleland North had the highest proporon of households receiving food (69.4%) followed by Matabeleland South (66.9%).

• Livestock support remained very low across all provinces.

• Crop Inputs support was high in Mashonaland Central (49.5%) followed by Midlands (40.4%).

34 Educaon

35 School Aendance by Children

100

) 88.4

(% 90 84.7 n 80 dre

chil 70 e g

a 60 ng oi g

40 school

of 30

ron 20 15.3 11.6 opo 10 Pr 0 In school Not in school 2016 2017

• About 88.4% of the children of school going age were in school during the survey period.

• The proporon of children out of school during the survey period decreased from 15.3% in 2016 to 11.6% in 2017.

36 School Aendance by Sex

100 89.3

90 88 (%)

n 80 ldre

chi 70 e g

a 60 g oin

g 50 l

40 of schoo 30

on 20 12 10.7

Propor 10

0 In school Not in school Male Female

• About 89.3% of female children and 88% of male children were in school at the me of the survey.

37 Reasons for not Aending School

1 Disability 2 2 Pregnancy/marriage 3 3 Not interested in school 5

Arrears/Non-payment of school fees 5 4 Distance to school too far 6 5 Illness 7 Child considered too young 24 23 Expensive or no money 32 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Proporon of school going age children (%)

2016 2017

• Of those children who were not in school during the survey period, 42% were not in school due to ﬁnancial constraints followed by 23% who were considered too young. • The reason that children were being considered too young to go to school and that of schools being too far may be suggesve of limited physical access to school, parcularly those that cater for Early Child Development levels. • About 7% were not in school due to illness. 38 Children Turned Away From School Due to Non - Payment of Fees

100

90 (%) 80 76

en r

ld 70 i

h 70 65 c 64 63 60 61 ge 60 57 g a n i 50 o

g 50 l 40

of schoo 30 n o

r 20 po o

Pr 10

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

• This graph shows the proporon of children of school going age who were turned away from school, at one me or another, during the ﬁrst term of 2017 due to non-payment of school fees.

• Naonally, at least 63% of the children experienced being turned away for non payment of school fees. Generally, the proporon of children who were turned away from school during the ﬁrst term of 2017 was high in all provinces. This is so despite there being in place a policy that discourages this pracce.

39 Access to Agricultural Extension Services

40 Households which Received Agricultural Training

100 90

(%) 80

ds 70 60 50 46 46 42 41

of Househol 39 39 39 38 35 36 35 35 37 35 40 34 34 32 34 33 34 34 29 29 30 31 on 28 28 30 20 Propor 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2015 2016 2017

• The proporon of households receiving agricultural training has remained relavely low for the past 3 years at 38% in 2014/15, 35% in 2015/16 and 34% in 2016/17.

• This calls for the need to capacitate extension service.

41 Access to Agricultural Training by Household Characteriscs

100 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 90 14 11 9 13 9 13 13 17 16 80 (%) 27 ds 70 41 49 60 37 43 44 49 55 49 50 of Househol 40 on 30 59 42 43 Propor 20 41 39 39 29 31 31 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Father Mother Both mother and father Daughter Son Other relave

• Mothers and fathers parcipated more in agricultural training at 44% and 39% respecvely. • With the excepon of Mashonaland West province, households with mothers that parcipated in the trainings were more than those with fathers that did so across all provinces. • Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North had the highest proporon of households with mothers who parcipated in training at 55% and 49% respecvely. • Mashonaland West had the highest proporon of households with fathers who parcipated in the trainings at 59%. 42 Households which Received Extension Visits

100

80 (%)

ds 70

50 of Househol

40 36 on 33 34 30 30 32 31 31 31 29 27 29 28 30 25 26 25 25 25 Propor 20

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

2015/16 2016/17

• The proporon of households that received extension visits marginally increased from 28% to 31% between 2015/16 and 2016/17, but generally remained low across all provinces.

• The proporon of households that received extension visits increased in all provinces except Midlands where it remained unchanged.

43 Households which Sought Agricultural Advice

Agricultural Advice Cropping Advice

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 32 40 29 30 28 28 28 29 30 28 26 23 24 25 24 24 27 2424 2526 26 25 25 2424 2527 2424 2526 30 21 19 30 21 1919 20 20 10 10 0 0

Livestock advice Cropping advice 2015/16 2016/17

• The proporon of households which sought cropping advice was high in Mashonaland Central and Manicaland.

• The proporon of households which sought livestock advice was high in Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South, Midlands and Masvingo Provinces.

• There was no signiﬁcant increase in the proporon of households that sought cropping advice out of their own iniave from 25% in the 2015/16 season to 26% in the 2016/17 season.

44 Crop Extension Providers

100 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 1 3 6 2 3 2 3 8 8 3 2 5 90 5 8 7 7 7 10 80

(%) 70 ds 60

of Househol 91 91 89 88 88 88 88 40 82 83 on 30 Propor 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Government NGOs Private companies Research organizaon Lead farmer

• Government was reported as the most common provider of crop extension services in all provinces (88%) followed by NGOs (7%).

• The highest proporon of households which received support services from Lead Farmers was reported in Matabeleland South (4%).

45 Livestock Extension Providers

100 0 1 31 20 21 1 3 02 2 3 1 7 1 5 1 4 9 1 5 4 90 6

80 (%)

ds 70

50 95 92 97 96 93 92 of Househol 90 89 87 40 on 30

Propor 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Government NGOs Private companies Research organizaon Lead farmer

• Government was reported as the major provider of livestock extension services in all provinces (92%) followed by NGOs (4%)

• The highest proporon of households which received support services from Lead Farmers was recorded in Matabeleland South (7%)

46 Households with Livestock that were Vaccinated

100 90

(%) 71 67

ds 70 65 62 64 64 60 62 60 57 56 56 57 56 55 51 53 50 48 50 47 42 41 of Househol 38 39 40 37 37 33 35 on 30

Propor 20

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

FMD Anthrax New Castle

• About 62% of rural households with cale reported that their cale were vaccinated against Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and 55 % reported vaccinaon against Anthrax

• About 39% of households with chickens reported their ﬂock was vaccinated against New Castle disease.

• The highest proporon of households with cale that were vaccinated against FMD was in Matabeleland North (71%), Masvingo had the highest vaccinaons against anthrax (64%) and Mashonaland Central had the highest vaccinaons against New Castle disease (50%). 47 Households Trained in Parcipatory Disease Surveillance

100 90 80 (%) 67 ds 70 63 64 58 59 59 60 60 57 50 50 50 44 42 42 41 of Househol 41 37 40 36 33 on 30

Propor 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal No Yes

• About 41% of the households owning cale received training in parcipatory disease surveillance between April 2016 and March 2017.

• Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of households that received training (50%) and Mashonaland Central had the lowest proporon of households (33%).

48 Eﬀects of the Fall Armyworm

Maize Crop Damaged by the Fall Fall Armyworm on Growing Cob Premature Drying on Damaged Cob Armyworm

49 Proporon of Households Aﬀected by the Fall Armyworm 2016/17

100

(%) 70 ds

60 53

Househol 50 45 45

37 38 36 40 on 32

30 23 Propor 20 16

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

• At least 36% of households were aﬀected by the Fall Armyworm in the 2016/17 agricultural season.

• Mashonaland Central had highest proporon of aﬀected households (53%) while Manicaland had the least aﬀected (16%).

50 Crops Aﬀected by the Fall Armyworm 100 96

(%) 70 ds 60

Househol 50 of

ag 40 t

cen 30 er P 20

10 6 2.6 2 1.5 0 Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Cowpeas

• About 96% of the households reported that their maize crop was aﬀected by the Fall armyworm.

• Other crops of major agricultural importance aacked by the pest include sorghum, millets, cowpeas, groundnuts, potatoes, soyabean and coon.

51 Crop Development Stage Aﬀected

100

70 63.8 (%)

ds 60

50 Househol

of 40 37.1

on 30

Propor 20 8.8 10

0 Emergency Vegetave Reproducve

• About 63.8% of the households whose crops were infested by fall armyworm indicated that their crops were mostly ﬁrst aacked when they were in their vegetave stage.

52 Period the Fall Armyworm was First Observed

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0 (%)

ds 60.0

50.0 43.1

37.2 40.0 of Househol

30.0 on 20.0

Propor 7.8 8.9 10.0 .1 .1 1.6 1.2 .0 0.0 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17

• The Fall armyworm was observed for the ﬁrst me in September 2016 in isolated cases and became more prevalent in January and February 2017 when most households observed it across all the provinces.

• Infestaon levels of the pest were highest in February 2017 when about 43.1% of those households that were aﬀected by fall armyworm ﬁrst observed the worm on their crop. As the majority of the crop was planted mid November 2016, in February the crop was at its opmum vegetave stage.

• Infestaon in April (12%) decreased as most crops had reached physiological maturity although the pest feeds on kernels as well.

53 Measures Taken to Control Fall Armyworm

100 90

80 (%)

ds 70 62.5 60 50 of Househol 40

on 30 17.8 20

Propor 13.5 9.1 10 2.3 3.2 1 0 nothing tradional control applied commercial applied commercial applied commercial applied other other methods pescides (more pescides pescides (less than substances than recommended) (recommended) recommended)

• Of the households whose crops were aacked by fall armyworm, about 62.5% of them did not take any measures to control the pest resulng in extensive damage to crops.

• Other households used commercial pescides (including recommended ones) while others applied other substances like sand and ground amaranthus. Other households resorted to handpicking and squashing the worms in an aempt to control them.

54 Success of Control Measures 100

80 )

(% 70 ds

hol 60

50 47.2 42.4

of House 40

ron 30

opo 18.8 Pr 20 10

0 Extremely effecve Somewhat effecve Not effecve

• About 47.2% of the affected households reported that the methods used were not effecve. This includes those who applied pescides at different levels which were less than the recommended dosage, the recommended dosage and more than the recommended dosage.

55 Reasons for not Using Pescides

100

77 80

(%) 70 ds 60

Househol 50

40 on

30 Propor 20 18

10 4 4 4 0 the pest damage was insigniﬁcant pescides were not available at local no money to purchase the pescides did not know which pescides to apply other shops

• About 77% of households that did nothing did so because of lack of money to purchase chemicals, 4% the households could not ﬁnd the pescides and 4% did not know the pescides to apply .

56 Methods Used to Apply Pescide or Substance

100

80 69 (%) 70 ds 60

50 of Househol

40 on 29 30 Propor 20

10 2 0 Pouring/splashing no equipment Knapsack sprayer Other Method Used

• About 69% of the households that sprayed the pest used knapsack sprayers to apply pescides against the recommended method of pouring used by 29% of the households.

• Spot spraying of aﬀected plants directly into the funnel increases chances of contact between pest and inseccide. Drenching funnels also

incr eases chances of drowning and suﬀocang the pest.

57 Provision of Extension Advice to Households Aﬀected by Fall Armyworm

100

80 69 70

(%) 60 ds

40 of Househol

on 30 26

20 Propor 10 2 3 0 Extension Oﬃcer Neighbour or friend Pescide seller or agro dealer Others

• About 36% of the households aﬀected by the fall armyworm received extension advice.

• Of these 69% received it from Government extension oﬃcers and 26% from neighbours or friends.

• Some households also received relevant informaon on the Fall armyworm through the mass media (radios, television, ﬂyers and newspapers). 58 Crop Producon

59 Proporon of Households which Planted Crops

100 88 90 84 80

)

(% 70

olds 60

ouseh 50 47 43 of h 40 40 34 ron 31 28 28 26 27 26

opo 30

Pr 20 20 20 12 12 10 10 10 11 10 4 3 2 2 2 3 0 Maize Groundnuts Cowpeas Sorghum Roundnuts Tubers P. Millets Sugar beans Tobacco Coon F. Millet Soyabeans Sunﬂowers

2015/2016 2016/17

• Maize (88%), groundnuts (47%) and cowpeas (40%) were the most common planted crops by households. The proporon of households growing small grains remains low, despite all the eﬀorts and rhetoric to promote the growing of these crops.

• There was a general increase in the proporon of households that planted all crops. The greatest increase was in the proporon of households that grew tobacco and coon due to support these crops got from the private sector and the Government, respecvely.

60 Proporon of Households which Planted Cereals by Province

100 96 93 88 89 88 90 86 86 84 82 80

) 70 (%

olds 60

ouseh 50 47 of h 41 40 36 ron 35

opo 28 28 30 26 26 Pr 25 23 19 20 13 14 11 11 12 12 11 10 9 10 6 7 4 5 2 2 1 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Maize Sorghum P. Millet F. Millet

• Over 80% of households in all the provinces planted maize.

• As in the previous seasons, Matabeleland South, Matabeleland North and Masvingo had high proporons of households which grew small grains in the 2016/2017 agricultural season.

61 Adequacy of Agricultural Labour

100 96 94 92 92 92 92 91 90 89 90

(%) 70

ds 62

60 57 55 54 53 53 53 48 49 50 of househol

40 on

30 Propor 20

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

• Naonally, 92% of the households pracced agriculture. Of these, 54% of the households reported inadequacy of agricultural labour during the agricultural season.

• The inadequacy of agricultural labour across all provinces calls for increased use of agricultural labour saving technologies.

62 Hiring of Agricultural labour

100 96 94 91 92 92 92 92 90 89 90

) 70 (%

olds 60

ouseh 50 of h

40 ron opo

Pr 30 22 22 22 22 19 19 19 18 17 18 17 18 17 20 15 15 15 15 11 10

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

Pracced Hired Assisted

• About 19% of the households hired casual labour for agricultural purposes.

• Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West had the highest proporon of households that reported to have hired labour (22%) and Masvingo the least (15%).

• About 17% of the households accessed agricultural labour from relaves and friends. 63 Sources of Seeds Used by Households During the 2016/2017 Agricultural Season

Crops Private Labour • Purchases were the Purchase Government NGOs Carryover Retained Remiance Companies exchange Other

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) main source of seed for

Maize 41.8 28.5 2.3 4.2 14.2 6 0.2 1.9 1.0 maize, tobacco, paprika

Sorghum 15.3 5.3 6.7 8.5 42.1 17.2 0.6 2.5 1.9 and sugar beans.

F. Millet 12.8 0.7 1.2 11.6 52.0 16.3 0.3 1.6 3.5 • Retained seed was the

P. Millet 9.2 1.2 2.6 11.5 56.0 16.4 0 1.1 2.0 major source for small

Tubers 16.8 1.1 0.4 15.0 46.0 15.6 0 2.1 3.2 grains, cowpeas, tubers,

Cowpea s 19.9 18 2.5 8.8 47.5 15.7 0.1 1.7 2.1 groundnuts and round Groundnuts nuts. 25.0 1.4 0.8 10.0 47.5 11.6 0.1 2.4 1.1 Roundnuts 24.0 1.3 0.4 10.8 46.5 12.8 0 2.8 1.3 • The main source of Sugar Beans 45.3 3.9 1.2 8.5 31.9 6.7 0.2 1.2 1.2 inputs for coon was

Soyabeans 8.3 0 8.3 8.3 41.7 0 0 0 33.3 Government.

Tobacco 72.0 3.2 0.8 0.5 1.3 2.7 15.1 2.4 1.9

Coon 16.5 46.0 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.6 25 .9 1.3 0.6

Paprika 59.3 7.4 0 0 9.3 1.9 20.4 0 1.9 Sunﬂower 19.9 5.8 1.0 9.3 42.6 14.1 1.4 0.7 5.2

64 Average Household Cereal Producon by Province

Province Maize (kg) Small grains (kg) 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 Manicaland 292.4 108.6 335.1 24.8 4.9 30.9 Mash Central 525.8 136.2 517.5 32.8 7.7 45.9 Mash East 367.0 124.1 378.7 15.1 2.9 23.7 Mash West 462.2 397.6 739.2 5.4 6.2 1.1 Mat North 142.8 48.1 240.5 127.1 57.1 88.1 Mat South 74.6 22.8 174.5 15.3 19.1 68.4

Midlands 292.7 132.3 522.9 10.1 11.4 29.0

Masvingo 136.4 42.3 356.7 14.7 21.9 86.1

Naonal 293.5 126.5 480.9 29.5 16.4 42.2

• Naonally there was a 266% increase in average household cereal producon, 280% increase in average household maize producon and 157% increase in average household small grains producon from last season. • The average household producon was highest in Mashonaland West 739.2kg and the least in Matabeleland South with 174.5kg. • Masvingo had the highest increase from 42.3kg to 356.7kg and Mashonaland West had the least from 397.6kg to 739.2kg. • Considering the high household cereal producon and ﬁndings from previous ZimVAC assessments which indicated that most households use improper facilies to store their grain, there is need to foster good post harvest management to minimize potenally high post harvest losses. 65 Household Access to Irrigaon

66 Proporon of Wards with Irrigaon Schemes

• About 22.1% of the wards had irrigaon schemes

• Of these, 55.4% of the irrigaon schemes were funconal, 22.0% parally funconal and 22.6% were non-funconal.

67 Reasons for Non-Funconality of Irrigaon Schemes

0.6 Not yet commisioned 0.4 Conﬂicts 0.9 0.6 ZINWA bills 0.9 1.2 Unavailability of inputs at the market 0.9 Cannot aﬀord inputs 10 1.3 Dam wall washed away/collapsed 1.8 Dam/Weir not big enough 4.1 3.1 Poor leadership 2.5 3.1 Seasonality of water source 11.2 4.5 No electricity - transformer broken down or other fault 4.9 4.7

Dam/weir silted 4.75.4

Vandalism 2.9 6.3

Fencing broken down 7.2 10.2 Infrastructure or equipment not yet installed or incomplete installaon 4.7 8.1 The of produce 2.9 8.1 Lack of capital 11.8 9 14.1 In-ﬁeld works need rehabilitaon/maintenance 13.5 13.8 Pumping unit broken down 20.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 Proporon of wards (%)

Parally funconal non- funconal

• Equipment breakdown, the need for inﬁeld works habilitaon and seasonality of water sources, lack of capital and failure to aﬀord inputs connue to be the main challenges faced in most irrigaon schemes.

68 Livestock Producon

Cale Ownership

100 7 13 13 12 90 16 17 18 16 10 25 22 80 13

16 11 16 14 18 16 (%) 18 70 15 11 ds 14 13 10 17 60 13 10 18 11 19 50 of Househol

40 on 72 64 30 58 59 61 53 55 Propor 47 47 46 20

0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Naonal Central 2017 2016 Zero One to two Three to ﬁve More than ﬁve

• About 45% of rural households own cale, a 9% increase from last year with 32% owning more than 2 beasts and 13% owning 1 or 2 beasts. • The highest proporon of households owning cale was in Masvingo (54%) followed by Matabeleland North and Midlands (53%). • The lowest proporon of households with cale was in Manicaland (28%). • Matabeleland North (25%) had the highest proporon of households with more than 5 cale.

70 Cale Dra Power Ownership

100

90 19 21 25 29 29 30 26 80 36 38 5 4 43 (%) 8 5

ds 70 7 4 6 60 5 4 7

Househol 50 of 40 75 77 on 64 67 67 64 69 30 60 58 50 Propor 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Naonal2016 2017 Zero One Two plus

• About 36% of rural households own dra cale, 5 % more than the previous season. 6 % owned 1 dra animal and 30% owned 2 or more.

• The highest proporon of households with dra cale was in Midlands at 50%.

Cale Herd Dynamics

100.0 92.0

80.0

60.0 (%)

ds 40.0

20.0 of Househol 5.4 1.7 0.9 on 0.0 Births Purchases assistance other sold deaths slaughter stolen/lost -5.1 Propor -8.6 -20.0

-29.9 -40.0

-60.0 -56.5 • Increases in the cale herd during the period April 2016 to March 2017 were due to births (92%), purchases (5.4%) and assistance (1.7%). • Losses in cale were due to deaths (56%) and sales (30%). • Stolen or lost cale contributed 5% of the total arion. 72 Livestock Mortality Rate

100

s (%) 60 te a r 50 ty ali 40 Mort 30 25 18 17 19 17 20 16 14 16 14 11 11 11 11 10 8 9 10 10 6

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

• Mortality rates for cale and goats were high (10% for cale and 17% for goats). These were above the naonal threshold levels of 5% for cale and 8% for goats. • High cale mortality rates were reported in Matabeleland South (14%) and high goat mortality rates were reported in Midlands (25%). • Low cale mortality rates were reported in Mashonaland West (6%), whilst low goat mortality rates were reported in Mashonaland Central (11%).

73 Causes of Cale Deaths

100 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 5 1 4 5 3 90 1 3 5 6 1

80 37 (%) 70 41 ds 55 60 62 58 66 76 64 50 76 of Househol

40 on 30 58 51 Propor 20 36 29 33 10 23 25 17 13 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Drought Diseases Predators Lack of water Slaughter for own consumpon Drowning/Floods Other

• About 58% of total cale deaths were due to diseases, followed by 33% due to drought.

• Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West reported high deaths due to diseases (76%).

Reasons for Selling Cale

Business investment 1.2

Funeral related expenses 1.7

social event 2.2

Business of selling livestock 2.7

Pay for transport expenses 3.2

Pay debt 3.2

Other 3.4

Other household costs 10.4

No longer needed 10.5

Pay medical expenses 10.9

Pay educaon expenses 18.7

Purchase food 31.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Proporon of Households (%)

• Most households sold cale to purchase food (31.3%) and pay educaon expenses (18.7%).

• About 10.5% of the households sold cale because they were no-longer needed and had exhausted their usefulness.

75 Goats Ownership

100 8 9 9 12 13 15 13 90 16 25 15 14 16 35 80 13 15 20 23 18 (%) 11 12 70 13 11

ds 11 21 60 15 13 19 19 50 12 of Househol 6 40 on 66 65 30 62 64 62 54

Propor 53 20 42 40 43

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2017 Naonal 2016 Zero One to two Three to ﬁve More than ﬁve

• About 46% of households owned goats, an increase from last year’s 38%. Of these, 34% own 3 or more goats , while 13% own 1 to 2 goats.

• The highest proporon of households which owned livestock was in Matabeleland South (60%) and the lowest proporon was in Manicaland (34%). 76 Goat Dynamics

100.0 91.9

80.0

60.0 (%) ds 40.0

20.0

of Househol 6.5

0.7 0.8

on 0.0 Births Purchases assistance other sold deaths slaughter stolen/lost

Propor -20.0 -4.5

-25.0 -27.1 -40.0 -43.4 -60.0

• The increases in goats during the period April 2016 to March 2017 were due to births (91.9%), purchases (6.5%) and assistance (0.7%).

• About 43.4% of the total arion was due to deaths, 27.1% due to slaughter and 25% due to sales.

• Stolen or lost goats contributed 4.5% of the total arion.

77 Reasons for Selling Goats

Grinding mill costs 0.3 Pay/donate to social event 0.6 Business investment 0.7 Business of selling livestock 0.8 Funeral related expenses 0.8 Other 1.7 Pay debt 3.1 Pay for transport expenses 3.2 Pay medical expenses 5.9 No longer needed 7.1 Other household costs 7.2 Pay educaon expenses 22.1 Purchase food 46.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Proporon of Households (%)

• Most households sold goats to purchase food (46%) and pay educaon expenses (22.1%).

78 Causes of Goats Deaths

100.0 3.7 0.91.8 4.2 0.51.5 2.9 2.9 4.1 3.1 0.9 3.9 2.1 1.6 1.2 2.3 3.8 8.5 6.2 90.0 8.3 6.4 6.3 8.8 7.6 9.1 10.6

19.0 80.0 (%)

ds 70.0

60.0 66.7 50.0 72.7 77.0 70.6 81.1 49.8 67.6 of Househol

73.3 71.1 40.0 on 30.0

Propor 20.0 24.1 10.0 18.7 13.8 14.5 14.6 8.4 6.3 11.0 9.5 0.0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Drought Diseases Predators Lack of water Slaughter for own consumpon Drowning/Floods Other

• About 67.6% of deaths were due to diseases, 14.6% due to drought and 10.6% due to predators.

• Mashonaland West reported the highest deaths due to diseases (81.1%)

• Cases of drowning were recorded in most provinces with high incidences recorded in Midlands (6.2%).

79 Agricultural Produce Market Access

80 Locaon of Main Markets for Crops-Buying

100 30 3 1 41 3 10 3 3 8 3 7 90 10 5 5 9 9 80 13 13 (%)

rds 70 14 wa 60 of

50 on 85 87 40 78 80 72 Propor 30 58 20 10 0 maize grain maize meal Sorghum Pearl millet Sugarbeans Irish potatoes

Same ward Neighboring ward Within District Within Province Outside Province Outside Zimbabwe

• Most households accessed food crops from within their wards.

• About 3% of the wards had households which accessed pearl millet from outside Zimbabwe and 1% which accessed maize meal and sorghum from outside Zimbabwe.

81 Type of Market for Crops-Selling

100 2 2 5 4 9 5 2 1 90 1 11 10 12 14

80 26

(%) 70

rds 60 wa of

on 82 82 40 76 81 66 30 Propor 20 10 0 Maize grain Sorghum grain Pearl Millet Sugarbeans Irish Potatoes

Other households in the area Private Traders GMB Aucon Floors Local Millers Distant Markets Contracng Companies Other

• Most households sold crops to other households in the area and private traders.

• About 5% of wards had households which sold maize to the Grain Markeng Board (GMB) while 2% had sold sorghum to GMB.

82 Agricultural Commodity Prices

83 Cereal Availability by District as at May 2017

Maize Grain Availability Maize Meal Availability

• At the me of the assessment, maize meal was readily available in more districts compared to maize grain.

84 District Average Maize Grain Prices (USD/kg) as at May 2017

• The highest maize grain prices were reported in Mangwe, Tsholotsho and Bulilima at above USD 0.50/kg

• Lowest prices were reported in Gokwe South, Gokwe North, Zvimba, Makonde, Mhondoro and Mwenezi ranging between USD 0.17/kg and USD 0.21/kg

• The Naonal average maize grain price dropped

slightly from USD 0.40 in 2016 to USD 0.38 this year.

85 District Average Maize Meal Prices (USD/kg) as at May 2017

• High maize meal prices ranged between USD 0.52 to USD 0.70/kg

• The Naonal average maize meal price changed, insigniﬁcantly, from USD 0.61 in 2016 to USD 0.60 this year.

86 District Average Cale Prices (USD) as at May 2017

• The highest Cale prices were reported in Hwange, Masvingo, Umzingwane, Umguza and Mberengwa ranging between USD 390 and USD 400.

• Lowest Average price was reported in Mbire (USD 151).

• Naonally, the average cale price increased from USD 306 in 2016 to USD 320 this year.

87 District Average Goats Prices (USD) as at May 2017

• Highest goat prices were reported in Umzingwane, Bubi, Bulilima, Umguza, Insiza and Matobo ranging between USD 41 and USD 48.

• Lowest Average price was reported in Mbire at USD 13.

• The Naonal average goat price increased slightly from USD 29 in 2016 to USD 30 this year.

88 Cale: Type of Market

100 3 6 10 12 15 13 12 11 90 17 1 3 6 3 80 12 24 5 15

70 (%) 25 35 62 43 30 38

ards 60 w 49 of

50 47

on 40 75 30

Propor 57 52 48 45 20 42 35 28 10 23

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

Other households in the area Private Traders Sale pens/Aucons Abaoirs

• About 45% of the wards sold cale to other households in the area whilst 38%, 11% and 6% sold to private traders, abaoirs and aucons respecvely.

• Matabeleland South (24%) had the highest proporon of wards with households which sold cale through aucons.

89 Goats: Type of Market

100 1 1 2 1 1 7 12 3 3 1 9 6 8 6 90 11 15 80 37 (%) 70 ds

50 97 93 97 of Househol 91 91 92 87 40 76 on 30 64

Propor 20

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

Other households in the area Private Traders Sale pens/Aucons Abaoirs

• Goats were mostly sold to other households in the area and private traders.

• Matabeleland South had the largest proporon of households that sold goats through aucons (8%).

90 Incomes and Expenditure

91 Current Most Important Sources of Income

Other 0.9 Gis 1.0 Own business 1.1 Gathering natural products 1.4 Pension 1.6 Skilled trade/arsan 1.9 Mineral sales 2.0 Pey trade 3.2

Cash crop producon 3.5

Remiance from outside 4.7

Formal salary/wages 5.9 Livestock producon/sales 6.5 Food assistance 7.3 Vegetables producon/sales 7.8 Remiance from within 7.8 Food crop producon/sales 20.5 Casual labour 20.9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Proporon of households (%)

• The most important sources of income were casual labour and food crop producon.

• Vegetable producon and sales and remiances were amongst the most important sources of income for about 7.8% of the households.

92 Average Household Income as of April 2017

140 120 120

100 90 81 79 78 80 73 74

64 62 62 USD 59 56 55 56 55 55 58 60 50

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• Naonally, the average household income for the month of April was USD74, about 20% higher than the same me last year, April 2016.

• Mashonaland West (USD 120) had the highest average monthly income while Midlands (USD 55) had the lowest average monthly income.

• The biggest increase in average household income was observed in Mashonaland West (88%) followed by Mashonaland Central (64%).

93 Expenditure

94 Average Household Expenditure for April 2017

70 61 60 60 59 60 60 55 55 52 49 49 49 50 47 46 43 44 43 42 40 36

USD 30

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• The naonal average household expenditure increased from USD 49 to USD 52.

• Mashonaland West (USD 61), Matabeleland South (USD 60) and Mashonaland East (USD 60) had the highest average expenditure while Matabeleland North (USD 42) and Masvingo (USD 43) had the lowest average expenditure.

95 Proporon of Food Expenditure

100

(%)

80 e

tur 70 65 63 60 58 58 57 59 58 59 60 55 56 55 55 54 xpendi 52 53 e 51 49

al 50 ot t 40 of n o 30 or 20 Prop 10

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• Naonally, the proporon of food expenditure decreased from 59% to 54%. This paern was also observed across all provinces.

• Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of food expenditure (59%) followed by Matabeleland North (57%).

• Mashonaland East had the least proporon of food expenditure (49%).

96 Average Household Expenditure For November 2016 to April 2017

60.00 56.73 51.77 50.00

40.00

30.00 27.14 USD

20.00

8.53 10.00 7.67 2.38 2.06 0.00 Agriculture Educaon Other Health Business Remiance Taxes

• Average household expenditure for six months was highest for agriculture (USD 56.73) followed by educaon expenditure (USD51.77). Taxes (USD2.06) had the lowest expenditure.

• Other expenditure included expenditure on clothes, social occasions, funerals and loan repayment.

97 Decision Making on Household Expenditure

100 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 12 2 12 21 1 1 2 90 6

5 24 28 80 35 31 29 27 33 (%) 34 22 ds 70 60 50 46 28 35 43 32 40 49 32 of househol

41 40

on 30 20 39 31 30 30 Propor 28 10 26 21 26 19

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

Father Mother Both father and mother Daughter Son Other relave

• Generally, decision making on household expenditure was mostly done by mothers except in Mashonaland West where fathers (39%) were the main decision makers compared to mothers (28%).

98 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies

99 Introducon

• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges.

• Livelihood coping strategies are employed in order to increase food availability outside of their normal livelihoods.

• The livelihood coping strategies have been classiﬁed into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as according to the WFP Technical Guidance note 2015.

100 Categorisaon of Livelihoods Coping Strategies

Category Coping Str ategy

Stress • Borrowing mone y, spen ding savings, selling assets and mor e livestock than usual .

Crisis • Selling producve assets directly reduces future producvity, including human capital formaon.

• Withdrawing children from school

• Reducing non food expenditure.

Emergency • Selling one's land aﬀects future producvity, but is more diﬃcult to reverse or more dramac in

nature.

• Begging for food. • Selling last br eed ing stock to buy food.

101 Households Engaging at Least one Livelihoods Based Coping Strategy

100 90 80 (%)

ds 70 60 52

50 46 44 42 43 41

of Househol 38 40 33

on 29 30 20 Propor 9 8 10 7 6 5 5 6 6 6

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• The proporon of households that engaged at least one livelihoods based coping strategy in April decreased from 41% in 2016 to 6% in 2017. This indicates an improved food access situaon which led to less coping than last year where households had experienced two consecuve poor food crop producon seasons.

• Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland West had the highest proporon of households which engaged at least one livelihood coping strategy during the month of April 2017.

102 Reasons for not Engaging Livelihoods Coping Strategies in April 2017

100 90

80 (%) 71 ds 70 60 50 of househol 40

on 28 30 20 Propor 10 1 0 it wasn't necessary households had already sold those assets households did not have assets or done this acvity within the last 12 months and could not connue to do it

• The households that did not engage any coping strategy in April 2017 did not do so mainly because it was not necessary (71%) whilst 28% did not have any assets to dispose of and 1% had already disposed of the assets or done the acvity prior to April and could no longer connue to do so.

103 Proporon of Households Engaging at Least One Coping Strategy in Each Category

100 90

80 (%)

ds 70 60 50 of Househol 40

on 30 20 Propor 11 11 10 8 8 9 8 9 10 7 7 6 7 5 7 6 7 5 5 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 4

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midl a nds Masvingo Naonal Stress Crisis Emergency

• The proporon of households which engaged at least one coping strategy in the stress category was 9% with 5% of the households engaging crisis and emergency strategies each.

• Matabeleland North and Mashonaland Central engaged the most stress strategies whilst Mashonaland Central engaged the highest crisis strategies.

• Matabeleland North and Manicaland engaged the most emergency strategies.

104 The Highest Severity of Livelihood Coping Engaged

100 7 6 4 3 13 4 4 5 3 5 9 4 3 2 3 3 5 5 5 6 90 4 6 3 5 5 4

80 (%)

ds 70 60 50

of househol 92 86 89 86 88 88 87 40 84 84

on 30

Propor 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Households not adopng coping strategies Stress coping strategies Crisis coping strategies Emergency coping strategies

• The proporon of households which did not engage any livelihood coping strategies was 87% followed by 5% of the households which engaged only stress strategies

• About 3% engaged a combinaon of strategies but their most severe was crisis and 5% engaged in a combinaon but their most severe being emergency strategies.

105 ISALS/Mukando

106 Proporon of Households with a Member in an ISAL/Mukando Gr oup

100 100 90 86.7 90 79

80 80 (%) (%)

70 70

60 seholds 60 seholds

hou 50

hou 50 of

40 40 on

on 30 30 20 Propor 12 Propor 20 13.3 10 6 2 1 10 1 0 0 Father Mother Both father Daughter Son Other NO YES and mother relave

• About 13.3% of households had a member of their household who was in an ISAL/Mukando group.

• Of the households with members in ISAL groups, the majority of members were reported to be mothers (79%).

107 ISAL/Mukando Groups by Province

100 90

(%) 70 ds 60

Househol 50 of

40 on

30 Propor 18.3 20 15.8 13.7 14.7 11.8 12.1 9.4 10.7 10

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

• Manicaland had the highest proporon of households (18.3%) with a member in any ISAL/Mukando group.

• Mashonaland West had the lowest number (9.4%).

108 Types of Mukando/ISAL

100

70 66 (%) s

p 60 rou 50 of g

on 40

Propor 30

20 11 8 10 7 5 4 0 Groceries Food only Cash only Cash and Food Household utensils Producve Assets

• The largest proporon of ISAL groups reported were cash only groups (66%).

109 Household Consumpon Paerns

110 Average Household Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2017

Province Cereal Stocks 2016 Cereal Stocks 2017 (kgs) (kgs)

Manicaland 53.2 145.7 Mashonaland Central 47.3 91.3 Mashonaland East 45.4 99.4 Mashonaland West 45.2 157.2 Matabeleland North 38.7 122.9 Matabeleland South 30.0 57.7 Midlands 39.0 101.9 Masvingo 49.5 108.0 Naonal 43.2 109.6

• Average household cereal stocks were about 109.6kgs as at 1 April 2017.

• Mashonaland West had the highest average cereal stocks (157.2kgs), Matabeleland South had the least (57.7kgs).

• Generally, this year households had more stocks as compared to the same me the previous year.

111 Household Consumpon Coping Strategies

40 35 35 33 33 30 30 28 29 28 27 27 27 24 25 25 x 25 e 22

Ind 19 19 20 17 18 18 gy 17 16 te 14 15 a 14 15 13 12 Str 10 ng 10

Copi 5

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

2015 2016 2017

• Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is an indicator used to compare the hardship faced by households by measuring the frequency and severity of the behaviours they engage in when faced with food shortages.

• The (CSI) decreased greatly from 27 in 2016 to 15 in 2017. This shows improved food access from 2016 which is partly aributable to the emergency food assistance by Government and its partners as well as the improved main harvest.

• All provinces showed an improvement in the consumpon coping strategies employed from the extreme methods adopted last year to the less severe and less frequent coping habits employed this year.

112 The Food Consumpon Score

• The Household Food Consumpon Score (FCS) is a food consumpon indicator that is used as a proxy for household food security. Food consumpon indicators are designed to reﬂect the quanty and quality of people’s diet.

• The FCS is a measure of dietary diversity, food frequency and the relave nutrional importance of the food consumed. A high food consumpon score increases the possibility that a household achieves nutrient adequacy.

Food Consumpon Score Score Descripon Groups Poor 0-21 An expected consumpon of staple 7 days, vegetables 5-6 days, sugar 3-4 days, oil/fat 1 day a week, while animal proteins are totally absent

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

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

113 Food Consumpon Categories

100

(%) 70

ds 63 60 54 55 50 of househol 40 33 on 29 29 30

Propor 20 16 12 8 10

0 Poor Borderline Acceptable 2015 2016 2017

• There has been a decrease in the proporon of households which are consuming an acceptable diet from 63% in 2015 to 55% in 2017.

• However, the proporon of households consuming a poor diet has increased from 8% in 2015 to 16% in 2017.

114 Food Consumpon Categories by Province

2016 FCS 2017 FCS

100 100

90 90

) 80

) 80 44 49 46 54 52 54 51 54 55 70 59 58 56 56 54 70 59 59 58 60 olds (% olds (% 60 60 ouseh Househ h 50 50 of of

40 40 37 29 ron ron 31 33 30 30 29 29 36 37 34 31 30 33 27 29 opo 32 31 opo 29 27 Pr 20 Pr 20 25 10 19 10 18 18 17 14 14 16 10 11 9 11 12 13 13 12 12 13 0 0

Poor Borderline Acceptable Poor Borderline Acceptable

• The proporon of households with acceptable food consumpon scores improved from 54% in 2016 to 55% in 2017, those with borderline consumpon decreased from 33% to 29% and those with poor consumpon paerns increased from 12% to 16%.

• Matabeleland North (25%) had the highest proporon of households consuming poor diets and had worsened from last year where 19% had poor food consumpon paerns.

115

Proporon of Households Consuming Iron-rich Foods

100 5 6 8 9 12 7 7 7 8 90 80

(%) 70 46 41 44 50 50 48 ds 52 51 60 52

50 40 of Househol

30 on 49 52 49 43 42 44 20 40 40 36

Propor 10

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

Never consumed Consumed somemes Consumed at least daily

• The proporon of households consuming iron rich foods daily remained below 10% across all provinces except in Mashonaland West (12%).

• Matabeleland North had the highest proporon of households that were not consuming iron rich foods 7 days prior to the assessment (52%).

• As Iron deﬁciency connues to be of public health concern, nutrion sensive livelihoods programming is recommended.

116 Proporon of Households Consuming Protein-Rich Foods

100

90 34 80 37 39 41 41 41 45 41 47 (%) 70 ds

50 of Househol 48 40 48 42

on 43 44 46 37 46 43 30

Propor 20

10 18 19 15 13 15 16 13 12 15 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Never consumed Consumed somemes Consumed at least daily

• The proporon of households that consumed protein rich foods at least daily in the 7 days prior to the survey was 41% whilst 44% consumed between 1 to 6 days and 15% had not consumed at all.

• Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of households which consumed protein rich foods at least daily (47%).

117 Proporon of Households Consuming Vitamin A - Rich Foods

100

80 52

(%) 58 70

ds 68 68 67 67 71 74 60 79

50 of Househol 40 on 30 32 30

Propor 20 23 26 25 24 25 22 10 19 16 12 9 8 6 4 6 7 3 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Never consumed Consumed somemes Consumed at least daily

• About 67% of the households consumed Vitamin A rich foods at least daily, 25% consumed somemes and 8% never consumed during the 7 days prior to the survey.

118 Household Dietary Diversity Score

6.5 6.3 6.1 6.2

6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8

5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.5

HDDS

5 4.8

4.5

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

2016 2017

• The Dietary Diversity indicator is the number of different food groups consumed over a given reference period of me. It gives an esmaon of the quality of the diet. The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) shows the number of food groups consumed by households out of a total of 12 food groups and is used as a proxy for food access. Even among households that sasfy calorie requirements, those which consume a non-diversified, unbalanced and unhealthy diet can be classified as food insecure. • Naonally, the HDDS was 5.8, a slight improvement from 2016 (5.6). • All provinces except for Mashonaland Central had improved HDDS from 2016. • On average, households consumed about 6 out of the 12 food groups within the seven day recall period. • Mashonaland East and Manicaland consumed the highest number of food groups (6.3 and 6.1 respecvely) while Matabeleland North had the lowest score (5.4). This trend is similar to that of 2016. 119 Average Number of Days Households Consumed Food from the Various Food Groups per Week

Meat 1

Fruits 1

Pulses 2

Milk 2

oups

Gr Vegetables 3 d

oo F Sugar 5

Oil 6

Condiments 6

Cereals 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of Days

• The majority of households consumed mostly cereals while meat was consumed the least.

• This paern is consistent with what has been observed in previous ZimVAC RLAs.

120 Household Hunger Score

100 6.2 7.9 9 13.1 9.1 9.3 8.8 10 90 16.9 80

(%) 70 s

60 sehold 50 91 93.8 90.9 90.7 91.2 92.1 90

of hou 86.9 40 83.1

on 30

Propor 20

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

Lile to no hunger Moderate to severe hunger

• The Household Hunger Score is a household food deprivaon scale which focuses on the food quanty dimension of food access.

• Most households in the rural communies were experiencing lile to no hunger (90%) whilst 10% experienced moderate to severe hunger.

• Mashonaland West had the highest proporon of households facing moderate to severe hunger (16.9%) whilst Mashonaland East had the lowest proporon (6.2%).

121 Proporon of Households Using Iodized Salt by Province

100 93.2 91.2 90 90.3 90 84.8 81.7 81.3 80 77.9

72.8

(%) 70

60 seholds

hou 50 of

40 on

30 Propor 20

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

• Naonally, 84.8% of households used iodised salt. This is above the 80% threshold for universal salt iodisaon.

• Mashonaland Central (72.8%) and Matabeleland South (77.9%) had the least proporon of households that used iodised salt.

122 Resilience

123 Introducon

Why Resilience in Zimbabwe? • Persistent food insecurity, stunng levels and poverty levels in the country remain topical issues despite huge investments made by Government and its development partners to address them. • This led the Government of Zimbabwe and its development partners to spearhead the development of the Resilience Strategic Framework for Zimbabwe in 2015. • The framework lays down what resilience means for Zimbabwe, provides a conceptual framework and key principles to be used in resilience programming.

Deﬁnion of Terms

Resilience: The ability of at risk individuals, households, communies and systems to ancipate, cushion, adapt, bounce back beer and move on from the eﬀects of shocks and hazards in a manner that protects livelihoods and recovery gains and supports sustainable transformaon’. (Zimbabwe Resilience Strategic Framework 2015).

Hazard: A process, phenomenon or human acvity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disrupon or environmental degradaon (UNISDR, 2007). Hazards may be natural or anthropogenic in origin. Natural hazards are predominantly associated with natural processes and phenomena. Anthropogenic hazards, or human-induced hazards, are induced by human acvies.

124

Resilience Conceptual Framework

Resilience Pathway • Food Security • Adequate Nutrion • Environmental security

Vulnerability pathway • Food Insecurity

• Malnutrion • Environmental

Degradaon

125 Shock s

Tsholotsho Siphepha Flood Disaster Source: DCP

126 Proporons of Households which Reported Diﬀerent Shocks Between April 2016 and March 2017

100

60 46.9 42.7

olds (%) 40 32.3 29.9

20 12.6 12.4 9.6 9.3 8.6 5.2 4.9 4.8 3.6 3.4 3.4 3 2.9 2.4 0.9 0

ron of househ es Propo

eal price chang Cer

• Cash shortages (46.9%), water logging (42.7%), drought (32.3%) and crop pests (29.9%) were reported as shocks which aﬀected households between April 2016 and March 2017.

• Some households experienced localised shocks which included flooding (9.6%), human wildlife conflict (4.8%) and veld fires (0.9%).

127 Severity of Impact of Shocks Experienced Between April 2016 and March 2017

100 90 76 80 69 72 70 70 64 64 62 63 59 57 59 55 60 52 51 50 49 48 48 49 50 41 41 40 43 43 42 36 36 37 40 31 32 32 29 25 28 28 30 22 20 19 20 9 11 12 9 10 9 13 9 11 5 6 6 7 9 8 8 6 8 10 4 0

Minor Moderate Severe

• A proporon of households who experienced shocks reported severe impact of cash shortages (64%), water logging (59%) , impact of the 2015- 2016 El Nino induced drought (69%) and crop pests (50%).

• Less commonly experienced shocks which had severe impact include human wildlife conflict (62%), floods (59%), death of main income earner (76%) veld fires (70%) and loss of employment by breadwinner (72%).

128 Households’ Preparedness Levels for Ancipated Hazards In The Next 12 Months

Unable to cope Able to cope with diﬃcules Able to cope without diﬃcules

• About 40% of the sampled households who indicated that they experienced shocks and hazards in the last 12 months reported that they will be unable to cope with similar shocks and stressors if they recur in the next 12 months,

• At least 45% of the households reported that they will be able to cope but with diﬃcules.

• Only 16% indicated that they will be able to cope without diﬃcules.

129 Households’ Perceived Ability to Cope with Future Hazards

100

)

(% 80

lds 70 eho s

ou 60 h of

50 47 46 42 41 43 oron 38 39 op 40

Pr 31 30 24 23 20 16 11 10

0 Drought Crop pests and disease outbreaks Livestock disease outbreak Floods

Unable to cope Able to cope with diﬃcules Able to cope without diﬃcules

• Without external assistance, the majority of households reported that they will either be unable to cope or may cope with diﬃcules if they are to experience either drought, ﬂoods, livestock diseases, crop pests or crop diseases in the next season.

130 Resilience Measurement

• Customised KPI4 Methodology –Measures the number of people/communies whose resilience has been improved as a result of humanitarian and development support. • The methodology was developed by DfID in one of its projects- Building Resilience and Adaptaon to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) in Ethiopia and Nepal.

• The methodology was customised to suit the Zimbabwean context and it taps from the exisng resilience indicators in ZimVAC surveys to form a resilience score based on; 1 Livelihoods and assets based Coping Strategy Index score 2 Food Consumpon Score 3 Average number of income sources per household 4 Average monthly household income per household 5 Perceived ability to cope with shocks and stresses 6 Households Hunger Scale (HHS)

131

Proporons of Households by Vulnerability and Resilient Pathways Categories

100 90 80 70 70 66 62 62 63 (%) 59 60 60 54 olds 50 50 50 45

useh 40 37 37 38 ho 40 35 f 30 o 30 28

oron 20

Prop 10 4 3 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 Manicaland Mashonaland Mashonaland Mashonaland Matabeleland Matabeleland Midlands Masvingo Naonal Central East West North South Vulnerability Wellness Threshold Resilient

• The majority of the households were at the wellness threshold (60%), 38% were in the resilient category while 2% were in the vulnerability trap.

132 Household Food Security Status Projecons

To esmate the rural populaon that is likely to be food insecure in the 2017/18 consumpon year, their geographic distribuon and the severity of their food insecurity

133

Food Security Analycal Framework

• Food security exists when all people at all mes, have physical, social and economic access to food which is safe 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 (Food and Nutrion Security Policy, 2012). • The four dimensions of food security include: • Availability of food • Access to food • The safe and healthy ulizaon of food • The stability of food availability, access and ulizaon • Household food security status was determined by measuring a household’s potenal access to enough food (from various livelihood opons available to the household) to give each member a minimum of 2100 kilocalories per day in the consumpon period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.

134 Food Security Analycal Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ potenal food access was computed by esmang the household's likely disposable income (both cash and non cash) in the 2017/18 consumpon year from the following possible income sources; • cereal stocks from the previous season; • own food crop producon from the 2016/17 agricultural season; • potenal income from own cash crop producon; • potenal income from livestock ; • Potenal income from casual labour and remiances; and • Income from other sources such as gis, pensions, gardening and formal and informal employment. • Total energy that could be acquired by the household from the cheapest available energy source (maize 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 requirements.

135 Main Assumpons Used in the Food Security Analycal Framework

• Households’ purchasing power will remain relavely stable from April 2017 through the end of March 2018, 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 throughout the consumpon year. • The naonal average livestock to maize terms of trade will remain relavely stable throughout the 2017/18 consumpon year. • Staple cereals in the form of maize, small grains (sorghum and millets) or mealie meal will be available on the market for cereal deﬁcit households with the means to purchase to do so throughout the consumpon year. This assumpon is based on the Government maintaining the liberalised maize trade regime. • Naonal coon, tobacco and soya bean producer prices will average out at USD 0.36/kg, USD 2.75/kg and USD 0.50/kg respecvely for the whole 2017/18 markeng season.

136 Food Insecurity Progression by Quarter

12 11

(%)

ds 8 7

6 of househol

on 4 3 Propor 2 1

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

• Rural food insecurity for the period April to June 2017 was esmated at 1% and is projected to reach 11% during the peak hunger period (January to March 2018).

• As expected, there is a progressive increase in the proporon of food insecure households as the consumpon year progresses toward the peak hunger period.

137 Trend In Food Security Progression by Quarter

45 42 40

35 (%) 35 ds 30 30

25 23 of househol

20 on 15

Propor 10 11 10 6 7 5 5 3 2 1 0 Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

2015 2016 2017

• The 2017/18 consumpon year food insecurity prevalence is 11% and is lower than that for the 2016/17 consumpon year during the peak hunger period.

138 Food Insecure Rural Populaon by Quarter

1,200,000 1,052,768 1,000,000

800,000

647,630

on 600,000 ula op P 400,000 304,175

200,000 92,988

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

• About 1.1 million rural people are esmated to be food insecure during the January – March peak hunger season.

139 Food Insecure Populaon by Quarter

4,500,000 4,071,233 4,000,000

3,500,000 3,390,224

3,000,000 2,829,159

2,500,000 2,199,223 on 2,000,000 ula op

P 1,500,000 1,052,768 986,452 924,192 1,000,000 647,630 462,096 304,175 500,000 150,888 92,9 88 0 Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

2015 2016 2017

• At least 1.1 million are projected to be food insecure during the peak hunger period.

140 Food Insecurity Progression by Income Source

100 96

(%) 70 64 ds 62 60 57 51 50 of househol 40 on 30

Propor 20 11

0 Stocks Plus food crops Plus cash crops Plus cereals from casual Plus livestock Plus all other 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 49% of rural households to be food secure.

• Adding all other incomes, the food insecurity prevalence is projected to be 11% in the 2017/18 consumpon year.

141 Trend in Food Insecurity Progression by Income Source

120

98 100 96 96

(%) 87 85 82 ds 81 78 80 73 71 68 64 62 60 57

of househol 51

42 on 40 30 Propor 20 11

0 Stocks Plus food crops Plus cash crops Plus cereals from Plus livestock Plus all other incomes casual labour and remiances

2015 2016 2017

• Approximately 4% of the households had cereal stocks as at 1 April 2017 to last them the enre 2017/18 consumpon year compared to about 2% at the same me in 2016.

142 Food Insecurity by Quarter by Province

20 18 18

16 16 (%)

ds 14 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 of househol 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 on 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 Propor 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

• A general increase in the proporon of food insecure households is projected across all provinces.

• Matabeleland North (18%), Matabeleland South (16%), Masvingo and Midlands (12%) are projected to have the highest proporons of food insecure households at peak hunger period.

• Mashonaland East (7%) and Mashonaland West (8%) are projected to have the least proporons of food insecure households.

143 Food Insecure Populaon by Quarter by Province 200,000 175,285 176,956 180,000 156, 936 160,000 140,000 132,876 121,203

120,000 103,250 on 98,064 101, 641 97,438 102,048 100,000 89,808 ula 85,231 77,753

P 80,000 67,603 62,2 33 60,000 50,425 52,074 50,013 48,1 74 33,540 37,347 35,825 40,000 33,0 02 17,246 13,206 11,434 15,848 13,764 14,113 20,000 5,28 3 8,486 9,455

- Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

• Masvingo (176,956),Manicaland (175,285), and Midlands (156,936) are projected to have the highest number of people esmated to be food insecure during the peak period.

144 Districts with the Highest Food Insecurity Levels

District Jan - Mar 2017 Jan - Mar 2018 District Jan - Mar 2017 Jan - Mar 2018 Buhera 70 27 Goromonzi 25 19 Mangwe 45 27 Umzingwane 54 19 Binga 79 26 Chivi 57 18 Bulilima 52 25 Mutare 48 18

Nkayi 44 25 Bindura 41 17

Mbire 53 23 Insiza 42 15

Tsholotsho 54 21 Kariba 64 15

Gokwe North 49 21 Chirumanzu 65 15 Mwenezi 68 21 Umguza 75 14

Lupane 42 20 Zvishavane 68 14

145 Districts with the Lowest Food Insecurity Levels

District Jan-Mar 2017 Jan-Mar 2018 District Jan-Mar 2017 Jan-Mar 2018 Hurungwe 11 1 Masvingo 35 5

Marondera 14 2 Gwanda 40 5 Murewa 30 2 Hwedza 25 5 Kwekwe 30 3 Mazowe 20 5 Makonde 19 3 Chegutu 27 5 Mutasa 45 3 Gokwe South 41 5

Guruve 31 3 Shamva 34 6

Mutoko 53 4 Chipinge 41 6

Seke 20 4 Chikomba 45 6

Chimanimani 39 4 Gutu 44 7

146 Food Insecure Populaon During the Peak Hunger Period by Province

147 District Food Insecure Proporon During the Peak Hunger Period

148 Food Insecure Populaon by District

149 Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Proporon During the Peak Hunger Period

150 Nutrion

151 Feeding Pracces in Children 6 – 59 Months

152 Feeding Pracces in Children 6-59 Months

• Good feeding pracces of children are among the most important determinants of their health, growth and development. • Good feeding will prevent malnutrion and early growth retardaon.

• At 6 months of age, children should start to receive nutrionally adequate and safe solid, semisolid and so foods while breaseeding connues for up to two years of age or beyond.

• The solids, semi solid, so foods should be from at least 4 out of 7 food groups (grains, roots and tubers, legumes and nuts, dairy products, meat and ﬁsh, eggs, vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables , other fruits and vegetables).

• Foods of animal origins such as meat, ﬁsh and milk are an important source of Iron and Vitamin A. While vegetables and fruits such as pumpkin, carrots, squash, yellow/orange sweet potatoes dark green leafy vegetables; ripe mangoes, ripe paw-paws are vital sources of vitamin A.

• Iron plays an important role in the prevenon of anaemia while vitamin A prevents nutrional blindness, signiﬁcantly reduces the severity of illnesses and even death from such common childhood infecons such as diarrhoea and measles.

153 Deﬁnions of Key Child Feeding Terms

• Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD): A child is considered consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity if the diet is made up from 4 or more of the 7 food groups below: ü grains, roots and tubers ü legumes and nuts ü dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) ü flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats) ü eggs ü vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables ü other fruits and vegetables • Minimum Meal Frequency (MMF) refers to the minimum number of mes solid, semi-solid, or so foods or milk feeds are consumed by children of a specific age group. The minimum recommended number of mes (frequency) depends on whether a child 6-23 months of age is breased or non-breased. The recommended minimum meal frequency for the specific age groups is given below: ü 2 mes for breased infants 6–8 months ü 3 mes for breased children 9–23 months ü 4 mes for non-breased children 6–23 months • Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) measures the quality of diets consumed by children aged 6-23 months by combining both MDD and MMF.

154 Minimum Dietary Diversity Children 6-23 Months

100

ildren (%) 50 of ch

on 30 23 26 21 18 19 18 20 15 15 15 15 Propor 12 12 13 10 10 10 10 8 10

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2015 2017

• The proporon of children that consumed diets that met the minimum dietary diversity remained generally very low across all the provinces of the country.

• Naonally, 13% of children aged 6 to 23 months consumed a minimum dietary diversity. This is lower than 18% reported in 2015.

155 Proporon of Children 6-59 Consuming Iron-rich Foods

39.9 40 36.2 35.5 34.2 34.9 35 31.9 31.0 30.6 29.6 30.8 30.7 30 28.9 29.1 28.0 en (%) 24.9 25 23.2 23.0 23.0

oporon of Childr 15 Pr

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

2016 2017 • Compared to 2016, there has been a general decrease in the proporon of children consuming iron-rich foods across all provinces.

• About 29.1% of children aged 6-59 months consumed iron-rich foods 24 hours prior to the survey.

• Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South (23%) had the lowest proporon of children 6-59 months who consumed iron-rich foods.

156 Proporon of Children 6-59 Consuming Vitamin A Rich Foods

96 100 95 95 94 94 92 93 93 93 93 91 91 90 91 90 90

90 87

70 67 en (%) 60

oporon of Childr 30 Pr

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

2016 2017

• Naonally, 93% of children 6-59 months consumed Vitamin A-rich foods 24-hours prior to the survey and this is higher than what was observed last year (90%).

• The lowest proporon of children 6-59 months who consumed vitamin A rich foods was in Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South (90%).

157 Minimum Acceptable Diet for Children 6-23 Months

100

) 70

en (% 60 ldr i 50 of ch

40 ron 30 opo

Pr 20 12.9 11.3 10.6 10.6 10.0 8.9 8.4 7.5 7.9 9.5 8.3 8.6 10 6.8 6.9 4.8 6 6.3 6

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

2015 2017

• The proporon of children 6-23 months consuming a minimum acceptable diet was very low across all the provinces since 2015

• Naonally, 8.6% received a minimum acceptable diet 24 hours prior to the survey.

• Mashonaland West had the lowest proporon at 4.8%.

158 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women of Child Bearing Age • Women of child bearing age (WCBA) (15-49 years) are oen nutrionally vulnerable because of the physiological demands of pregnancy and lactaon.

• Requirements for most nutrients are higher for pregnant and lactang women than for adult men.

• Outside of pregnancy and lactaon, other than for iron women require a more nutrient-dense diet to meet their increased micronutrient needs.

• Insuﬃcient nutrient intakes before and during pregnancy and lactaon can aﬀect both women and their infants.

• The Minimum Dietary Diversity for WCBA (MDD-W) indicator is a food group diversity indicator that has been shown to reﬂect one key dimension of diet quality, that is micronutrient adequacy.

159 Dietary Diversity for Women 15-49 years

Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) Dietary Diversity

100 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.4 90 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 80 3.8 3.8 50 4.0 58 57 56 70 64 62 60 69 70 3.5 60 (%) 3.0 e 50 ag men 2.5 o 40 Aver 2.0 of w 30 50 1.5 20 42 43 44 40 ron 36 38 31 30 1.0 10 opo

Pr 0.5 0 0.0

Consumed 5 food groups & above Consumed less than 5 food groups Average dietary diversity for women

• Naonally 40% of women of childbearing age achieved a minimum dietary diversity (MDD) and therefore more likely to have adequate micronutrient intakes.

• Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North had the least proporon of women whose diets met MDD.

• The average dietary diversity for women of child bearing age was 4 across all provinces.

160 Average Number of Food Groups Eaten 24hrs Prior to the Survey by WCBA

100

90 31 30 36 38 80 42 40 43 44 50 70

60 22 21

(%)

19 50 21 25 22 men 19

o 23

of w 24 23 23 24

ron 30 22 21 21 21 opo 20

Pr 20 18 24 26 10 20 17 16 14 16 15 8 0 Manicaland MashCentral Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

1-2 Food Groups 3 food groups 4 food groups 5 or more food groups

• Naonally 17% of women consumed foods from 1-2 food groups indicang that they are not likely to receive adequate micronutrients from their diets.

161 Community Health Services

• One strategy for stunng reducon is to scale up high impact intervenons which include community health services

• Provision of individual Community Infant and Young Child Feeding (cIYCF) at community level has been shown to greatly improve caring and feeding pracces.

• Connued support within the ﬁrst 1000 days, a window of opportunity for addressing stunng, at community level has been proven to have posive health outcomes for the mother and child dyad

162 Proporon of Pregnant and Lactang women Visited by a Village Health Worker

100 90

80 70

omen (%) 60

of w 50

40 on 30

Propor 20 11.5 8.9 9 8.4 9.1 8.3 10 5.9 7.5 7.1 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

• Naonally, the proporon of pregnant and lactang women visited by a Village Health Worker was 8.3%.

• Manicaland (11.5%) had the highest proporon of pregnant and lactang women visited by a Village Health Worker whilst Mashonaland East had the lowest (5.9%).

163 Community Health Services Received by Pregnant and Lactang Women

100

omen (%) 50 42 41 41 of w 40 37 38 35 37 36 32 32 on 28 27 30 25 26 26 24 22 23 19 20 20 2119 18 18 17 1917 Propor 20 16 15 13 14 12 12 10 8 10 10 4 5 3 5 4 3 3 5 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal

Ante Natal Care Maternal Nutrion Post Natal Care Family Planning General Care

• Out of the 8.3% of women that received community health services from a Village Health Worker, 36% received general care services and 24% received antenatal care.

164 Proporon of Households with Children Under 2 Years Visited by Village Health Worker

100

70 (%)

seholds 50 hou

of 40

on 30 21 20 14 16 14 Propor 13 13 11 13 10 8

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

• Naonally, only 13% of households with children under 2 years of age were visited by a Village Health Worker. • Mashonaland East (8%) had the least proporon.

165 Community Health Services Received by Children Under 2 years

100 90 80 70 60 54

49 48 50 (%) 50 43 42 45 39 39 40 36 34 30 32 30 28 28 28 27 27 30 22 23 18 20 18 20 16 13 12 14 of households 10 7 4 5 2 3 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 1 1

ron 0

opo Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Pr cIYCF counselling Growth Monitorng Other Vitamin A Supplementaon Health Counselling

• Of the 13% of households with children under 2 years of age visited by Village Health Workers, 45% received growth monitoring services.

166 Water, Sanitaon and Hygiene (WASH)

167 168 Categories of Sanitaon

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

Unimproved Sanitaon Facilies 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 Sanitaon Facilies 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 (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.

Improved water sources Improved” drinking water sources are further deﬁned by the quality of the water they produce, and are protected from fecal contaminaon by the nature of their construcon or through an intervenon to

protect from outside contaminaon. Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; protected spring; or rainwater collecon

Unimproved water sources Unprotected dug well, unprotected spring, cart with small tank/drum, tanker truck, surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigaon channel), and boled water are not considered improved sources.

169 Households’ Water Sources and Sanitaon Facilies

100 90 80

(%) 73

ds 70 61 60 50 47 of Househol 40 37

on 30 30

Propor 20 10 0 Improved Water Source Improved Sanitaon Open Defaecaon

2016 2017

• Naonally there was an improvement in access to safe drinking water and sanitaon.

• Open defecaon decreased from 37% to 30%.

170 Access to Improved Water

100

90 81 79 78

77 80 74 76 72 72 72 71 71 73 (%) 70 69 69 70 ds 65 65 65 60

50 of Househol

40 on 30

Propor 20

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• The naonal average for access to improved water sources increased marginally from 71% to 73% in 2016.

• There was a general increase in all provinces, with the excepon of Mashonaland West, Matabeleland North and Masvingo.

171 Access to Improved Water Sources by District

VAC • Districts such as Gokwe North, Hurungwe,

ZIMBABWE Binga and Chiredzi had the lowest Vulnerability Assessment Committee proporon of households with access to improved water sources ranging from 36.4- 50%

172 Households which Changed Main Water Source

100 91 91 90 88 90 90 89 90 90 88

80 ) (% 70 ds

hol 60

50 of House 40 ron 30 opo

Pr 20 12 12 10 9 9 10 10 11 10 10

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal No Yes

• Naonally 10% of the households changed their main source of water during the 3 months preceding the survey.

173 Reasons for Change in Main Drinking Water Source

100% 3 5 7 4 6 6 10 8 9 4 7 6 3 4 90% 4 3 2 4 2 6 7 10 10 7 5 12 5 80% 19 17

) 18 70% 21 26 16 37 30

olds (% 60% 43 18 13

19 17 50% 17 15

of Househ 10 16 40%

ron 8 opo 30% Pr 51 53 45 20% 44 42 40 42 35 31

10%

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

Availability of alternave water sources close by Main water source has dried up Main water source has broken down /not funconal Main water source silted/polluted Main water source ﬂooded Other

• Of the households that changed their main drinking water source, 42 % of them did so as a result of the availability of alternave water sources being closer by due to the good rains.

• Masvingo and Matabeleland South had the highest proporon of households accessing water from a nearer source at 53% and 51% respecvely.

174 Distance Travelled to Main Water Source

100% 8 11 14 90% 18 20 15 15 20 17 22 23 24 23 25 36 32 30 80% 18 34 (%) 22 20 22 ds 70% 28 26 33 20 30 30 60% 31 29 32 38 34 28 35 50% 33

of Househol 40% 73 on 67 65 30% 65 55 53 52 55 49 50 47 46 20% 52 42 Propor 39 40 32 35 10% 0% 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above

• According to Sphere Standards, the maximum distance that any household should travel to the nearest safe water point is 500m.

• The proporon of households travelling more than 1km to fetch water decreased from 25% in 2016 to 17% in 2017.

• Naonally, 55% of households travelled less than 500m to the nearest water source, whilst 17% travelled more than 1km.

• Matabeleland South, Matabeleland North and Masvingo had the highest proporon of households that travelled more than 1 km at 24% and 23% respecvely . 175 Household Member Fetching Water

100

90 82 78 79 80 74

(%) 70 ds 60

50 of Househol

40 on 30 Propor 20 15 9 11 10 10 5 6 5 5 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0

Adult woman [18 years Adult man [18 years and Female child (under 18 Male child (under 18 Both Male and Female Other and above] above] years) years) Child (under 18 years) Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above Naonal

• Adult women were the predominant household members reported to be fetching water. This scenario remained constant regardless of the distance travelled to the water source.

176 Proporon of Households Treang their Water

100

(%) 70

olds 60

50 of Househ 40 on 30 Propor 20 14 14 12 12 11 12 11 12 10 10 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 5

0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Improved Water Source Unimproved Water Source

• The pracce of water treatment remains generally low across all rural provinces.

• Naonally, 12% of households that used water from unimproved sources did not treat their drinking water. This is of concern as it exposes households to waterborne diseases, a situaon which is exacerbated when there is excess rainfall and ﬂooding.

177 Household Sanitaon Facilies

100% 13 90% 18 18 32 30 36 38 37 80% 17 8

(%) 18 55 70% ds 3 9 60% 8 9 6 50% of Househol 3 40%

on 74 70 66 30% 64 61 54 55 57 Propor 20% 42

10%

0% Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal Improved Sanitaon Unimproved Sanitaon Open defecaon

• The proporon of households which accessed improved sanitaon facilies was 61%.

• Matabeleland North Province had the lowest proporon of households with access to improved sanitaon (42%).

• Open defecaon was pracced by 30% of households naonally, while Matabeleland North had the highest (55%.

178 Prevalence of Open Defecaon

• Most districts in Matabeleland North province VAC recorded the highest prevalence of open ZIMBABWE Vulnerability Assessment Committee defecaon ranging from 56.1-75%.

• Most districts in Manicaland recorded the lowest prevalence of open defecaon ranging between 0.5-16%.

179 Households with Handwashing Facilities

100

(%) 70 ds 60

50 of Househol

on 33 28 30

Propor 21 20 16 16 13 14 9 10 7

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

• At least 16% of the households with sanitaon facilies had handwashing facilies . Of these, 40% had water available at the handwashing facility, 25% had soap whilst 3% had both water and soap available at the handwashing facility.

• Mashonaland Central had the highest proporon of households without handwashing facilies (93%) whilst Matabeleland North and South had the highest proporon of households with handwashing facilies where both water and soap or detergents were available.

180 Frequency of Handwashing at Crical Times

90 84 84 80

70 63 60

(%) 50 on 40

Propor 30

20 10 10 3 1 0 Aer using Before handling Aer changing Before/aer eang Aer assisng the Other the toilet food children's sick nappies/diapers

• The crical mes most observed by households for handwashing were aer using the toilet and before or eang (84%) and before handling food (63%).

• The least observed crical me was aer assisng the sick (3%).

181 Child Nutrion Status

182 Definion of Terms • Measurements of weight, height and age of a child are converted to nutrional indices to indicate the nutrion status of a child. • Any of the two measurements are combined to form indices as follows: Weight for height, Weight for age, Height for age • Weight for height is a measure of thinness or fatness which is sensive to sudden change in energy balance. • Weight for height index of between 2 and 3 standard deviaon below the mean is called Moderate Acute Malnutrion (MAM) /Wasng. • A child with weight for height of more than 3 standard deviaon below the mean and or has oedema is classified as Severe Acute Malnourished (SAM). • MAM or SAM are oen due to acute starvaon and or severe disease. • For nutrion emergencies, children less than 5 years are measured since their measurements are more sensive to factors that influence nutrional status such as illness or food shortages. • Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) is a sum of Moderate Acute Malnutrion and Severe Acute Malnutrion. • The prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrion is usually below 5% in any developing country, provided there is no food shortage. • Height for Age is an index of growth and development. It is an expression of long term exposure to nutrional 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.

183 Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) by Province

(%) 7 6.4 6

ldren 6 5.2

chi 4.9 5 of 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8

on 4 3.3 3 3.1 3.2 3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 Propor 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 2 1.3 1

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

Boys Girls All

• Naonally, the prevalence of GAM was 3.2%. • The prevalence is lower than the 4.4% observed in the 2016 May ZimVAC RLA. • Matabeleland North had the highest prevalence of GAM (5.2%) with girls (6.4%) more aﬀected than boys (3.9%). • Generally across most provinces, girls were most aﬀected than boys except in Manicaland, Mashonaland East, Midlands and Masvingo.

184 Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrion (GAM) by Year and Province

10 9

8 (%) 7 6.7

ldren 6 5.2

chi 4.9 5 4.9 4.9 5 4.4 of 4 4.1 4 on 3 3 3 3.2 3 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.8

Propor 2 1 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Naonal 2016 2017

• In comparison with ﬁndings from the 2016 ZimVAC RLA, there has been a general decrease in GAM across most provinces except in Manicaland and Matabeleland North.

• There was a signiﬁcant decrease in Mashonaland West from 6.7% in 2016 to 2.1% in 2017.

185

Prevalence of Severe Acute Malnutrion (SAM) by Province

3 2.8

2.5 2.5 2.2

2.1

(%) 2 1.9 1.7 1.7 ldren 1.6 chi 1.5 of

1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 on 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.7 Propor 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3

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

Boys Girls All

• The prevalence of severe acute malnutrion was 1.2%. This was lower than that of the 2016 ZimVAC RLA (1.9%).

• Manic aland (2.2%) and Midlands (2.1%) had prevalence above the World Health Organisaon (WHO) emergency threshold of 2%.

186 Gender Based Violence

187 188 Physical and Sexual Violence by Province

10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0

8.0 8.0 7.7 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.4 emales (%) 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.2 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.0 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4

oporon of Males (%) 2.0 1.9 oporon of F 1.6 1.7 Pr 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 Pr 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Male Physical Male Sexual Female Physical Female Sexual

• More males and females reported having experienced physical violence than sexual violence. • Physical violence was experienced by about 3.3% of the men and 4.2% of the women. • The highest proporon of men that experienced physical violence was in Mashonaland Central (4.7%) and that of women was in Manicaland (7.7%). • The highest proporon of men that experienced sexual violence was in Mashonaland Central (1.0%) and that of women was in Manicaland (1.6%). 189 Perpetrators of Physical and Sexual Violence

Physical Violence Sexual Violence

Perpetrator Males (%) Females (%) Perpetrator Males (%) Females (%)

Mother/Step Mothe r 4.4 6.6 Current husband/ Partner 2.2 6.3 Father/ Step Father 2.9 3.5

Sister/ Brother 2.9 6.0 Former husband/ partn er 2.2 1.6 Other Relave 18.2 13.3 Current/ former boyfriend 2.2 Spouse 19.0 35.8

Former Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1.5 4.1 Other relave 19.6 24.4

Employer 6.6 1.3 In law 4.3 2.4 Other 19.0 11.4

• Spouses were reported as the perpetrators by 35.8% of the females and 19% of the males who had experienced physical violence.

• Of concern were incidences of sexual violence in both males and females that were mostly perpetrated by other relaves (19.6% and 24.4% respecvely).

190 Prevalence of Spousal Violence by Sex and Province

7.0

(%) 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.3 ales 5.0 em f 4.1 4.2 nd

a 4.0 3.3 les 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6

of ma 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 on 1.6

1.0 Propor

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

• Naonally, about 4.2% of women reported having experienced spousal violence.

• Manicaland had the highest reports of spousal violence among both women and men (5.7% and 3.0% respecvely).

191 Community Development Challenges and Development Priories

192 Community Challenges

Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market 2 Poor access to livestock/produce markets 2 Lack of /intermient Electricity supply 2 Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall paerns 2 Poverty 2 Draught Power shortage 3 No primary/secondary school in the ward 3

lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock producon 4

Lack of/ limited Water for domesc use 4

High cost of Inputs and implements 4 Poor Water and sanitaon facilies 5 Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 5 Inadequate markets 5 Unemployment 5 Lack of income generang projects 6 Lack of Irrigaon infrastructure 7 Poor road infrastructure 9 Shortage of cash 9 Drought 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Proporon of communies (%)

• The greatest proporon of communies indicated drought, shortage of cash, poor road infrastructure (9%) and lack of irrigaon infrastructure (7%) as their major development challenges.

193 Community Challenges by Province

Manicaland Mash Cen tral Mash E ast Mash W est Mat North Mat South Midlands Masving o Lack of income generang projects 19 31 32 24 20 12 18 19 Draught Power short age 5 10 10 12 10 8 16 10 Drough t 25 37 35 14 24 46 51 59 No primary/secondary school in the 10 20 16 8 16 24 13 3 w ard Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructur e 20 20 23 19 17 18 15 15 Inadequate mark ets 34 20 25 6 8 11 18 23 High cost of Inputs and implemen ts 18 30 20 21 4 2 23 17 lack of Irrigaon infrastruct ure 32 29 28 23 27 24 30 34 Shortage of c ash 39 26 45 39 35 43 38 30 Poor road infrastructure 42 29 34 46 38 37 32 32

Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall 4 9 11 3 13 4 11 9

paerns

Poverty 16 5 11 5 5 13 4 11

Unemployment 18 16 15 25 19 22 22 28

Poor Water and sanitaon facilies 24 22 14 18 14 18 19 14

Lack of/ limited Water for domesc use 16 20 8 24 29 18 14 10

lack of /limited Water for crop and 10 12 8 5 33 36 11 5 livestock producon

• Matabeleland South and Midlands reported drought as their major development challenge (59% and 51%) respecvely.

• Mashonaland West and Manicaland highlighted poor road infrastructure as their major challenge (46% and 42%) respecvely.

194 Community Development Priories

Revival and development of Industries 1 Skills and capacity Development 1 Control of wildlife 1 Livestock disease surveillance and control 2 Vocaonal Training Centres 2

Other specify 3

Livestock restocking 3 Electricity infrastructure development 4 Employment creaon 5 Educaon and related infrastructure improvement 7 Agricultural markets availability and access development 8 Health services and related infrastructure improvement 8 Dams/Water reservoirs construcon 10 Water Supply- boreholes, piped water scheme 11 Road infrastructure development 11 Income Generaon Projects promoon 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Proporon of communies (%)

• At least 12% of the communies reported income generaon projects as their major development priority.

• Revival and development of industries, skills and capacity development and control of wildlife were considered less important on the priority list.

195 Development Priories by Province

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Ma svingo Dams/Water reservoirs c onstrucon 22 28 39 28 57 58 55 39

Educaon and re lated infras tructure 19 37 31 24 31 35 24 11 improvement Electricity infrastructure de velopment 19 18 19 25 4 5 10 14

Employment creaon 21 17 16 17 19 24 19 26 Health services and related infrastructure 28 32 41 25 33 30 28 28

improvement

Income Generaon Projects promoon 44 42 46 58 42 46 44 59

Irrigaon infrastructure development 64 34 48 35 45 45 41 68

Agricultural markets availabilityand access 41 27 34 32 25 20 31 30

development

Road infrastructure development 44 40 45 57 45 34 47 38

Water Supply- boreholes, piped water 40 64 39 42 34 42 42 32

scheme

• Mashonaland Central cited water supply as their major development priority (64%).

• Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South indicated water reservoir construcon as their major priority (57% and 58%) respecvely.

196 Conclusions and Recommendaons

197 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • Joint efforts by both Government and partners in food distribuon through various intervenons ensured that most vulnerable and food insecure rural households had access to food. Government and UN/NGO support to vulnerable households increased remarkably during the 2016/17 consumpon period (71.6%) compared to the 2015/16 consumpon period (65%). • In 2016/2017, the bulk of resources from both Government and partners went towards emergency and immediate food requirements for households. However, it is recommended that during the 2017/18 consumpon year, more resources be channelled towards Government input support, household economy strengthening and building producve community assets. Intervenons that strengthen households’ economy and resilience are thus recommended to ensure households remain food and nutrion secure. • The proporon of children not aending school due to illness is a cause of concern. We recommend the priorisaon of resource allocaon towards the strengthening of the School Feeding and School Health Programmes. • The proporon of children of school going age who were not in school due to financial constraints remains significant. There is need for the Government to increase Basic Educaon Assistance Module (BEAM) funds so that vulnerable children can be supported. • The high proporon of children who were turned away from school due to non-payment of school fees is worrisome. This calls for stricter monitoring of the implementaon of the Government Policy for universal primary educaon and its complementary policy which states that no child should be denied access to schooling for failure to pay school fees.

198 Conclusions and Recommendaons • The proporon of households that grew the major food and cash crops increased as compared to last season. The good rainfall season coupled with the different input programmes that were put in place resulted in increased household producon. However some areas were affected by water logging and some farmers failed to get enough ferliser. This calls for efforts to urgently ensure that inputs are readily available on the market. • Inadequate labour, coupled with use of unimproved seed variees connue to constrain agriculture producon and producvity among small-holder farmers and hence the need for extension to capacitate farmers on the need for good agricultural pracces • There is need to promote labour saving technologies given the fact that many households had inadequate agricultural labour. • The level of average household producon this season was significantly high. This calls for good post-harvest handling techniques at household level so as to reduce post-harvest losses. • The increase in cereal producon is likely to increase supply of grain on the market which in turn offers the country the opportunity to replenish its Strategic Grain Reserves. Therefore the Grain Markeng Board should be capacitated to be able to collect, meously pay farmers and properly store the grain in the Strategic Grain Reserve. • Equipment breakdown and seasonality of water have been cited as reasons for paral and non funconality of irrigaon schemes. Given that climate change is real and that the country has been experiencing droughts there is need for Government and partners to facilitate rehabilitaon of parally funconal and non-funconal irrigaon schemes. This also calls for promoon of water harvesng technologies so as reduce the effects of climate change and variability.

199 Conclusions and Recommendaons • There is need for capacity building for Government extension service providers to increase coverage of extension services for small-holder farmers. • The proporon of Households selling livestock as a business is very low, raising issues on the quality of meat produced. There is need for Government to come up with strategies and packages that support farming as a business. • There is need for Government to increase sale pens and aucons across all provinces to reduce inclusion of middlemen. • The household consumpon indicators show an improved food access situaon for the majority of households compared to last year. • The coping strategies, Household Hunger Scores, Household Dietary Diversity as well as consumpon of protein, iron and vitamin A rich foods improved from last year mainly due to the presence of the diverse ﬁeld crops and food assistance. • The livelihood coping strategies engaged by households have decreased this year which shows that there is an improved food access situaon. The livelihood coping strategies however remain a cause of concern as depleon of assets directly reduces future producvity and aﬀects households’ ability to cope with future shocks and may lead to future food consumpon gaps. Resilient livelihood acvies are therefore recommended for all rural households.

200 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons

• Water, Sanitaon and Hygiene (WASH) educaon programmes need to be integrated to achieve improved public health by scaling up sanitaon-focused parcipatory hygiene and health educaon, schools health clubs, sanitaon acon groups and community health clubs. • Specific material resources are needed to support naonal behaviour change programmes and to re-equip and enhance the impetus of the Environmental Health Praconers who are the primary extension officers for household sanitaon, water supplies, hygiene promoon and health educaon. • A paradigm shi from primarily relying on unimproved drinking water sources to improved communal water points and improved piped water into households using renewable energy sources (solar) is recommended. • Eliminaon of open defecaon through availing of resources (both so and hardware) for the construcon of latrines using locally available resources is recommended. Customised service standards should reconcile with technology choice and service levels with the economic capacity of user groups. • Women were idenfied as the primary household member fetching water for household consumpon. Parcipants within the WASH sector should consider support and promoon of me and labour saving technologies such as ‘roller drums’ that reduce the burden on women and therefore increase their me to engage in economically producve acvies.

201 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • Generally incomes for rural households are following a downwards trend since 2014. We therefore recommend some income generang projects for rural households to be iniated. • Casual labour and food crop producon were been reported as the most important sources of income for the majority of rural households. We therefore recommend that markets for crops should be made available. • ISALs have proven successful as an approach that protects household assets, smooth cashﬂow, improves number of meals consumed, and increases household incomes and expenditure. As such, ISAL groups should be scaled up in poor rural communies in all provinces to improve food security and livelihoods. • Communies connue to face challenges of drought, cash shortages and poor road infrastructure among other challenges. Eﬀorts to address rural community development challenges should focus on construcon and rehabilitaon of water bodies as well as promoon of climate smart technologies.

202 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • The naonal prevalence of GAM was 3.2% and this is below the 5% emergency threshold. Matabeleland North had the highest prevalence of GAM (5.2%) with girls being more affected at 6.4%. Generally across most provinces girls were most affected than boys except in Manicaland, Midlands and Masvingo. • The minimum dietary diversity for children 6-23months remains below the cut-off to contribute to meaningful reducon to stunng. More mulsectoral efforts are recommended to improve on the quality of children’s diets. • The minimum dietary diversity for women aged 15-49yeras was 40% and this reflects that most women are not consuming a quality diet that is adequate to meet their micronutrient requirements. A mulsectoral approach to address and strengthen intervenons to enhance the nutrional content of family diets is required. Strategies to employ include producon of diverse plant and animal food sources, promoon of consumpon of diverse diets and value addion of locally available foods. • The food consumpon score reflects that there has been an increase in the proporon of rural households consuming poor diets. Mulsectoral efforts to improve consumpon paerns are recommended to impact greatly on nutrion outcomes. Emphasis should be put on broadening naonal agricultural programmes through diversificaon of both crop and livestock producon.

203 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • The proporon of children under 2 and pregnant and lactang women who were reached by community health services is below the 80% naonal target. CIYCF and similar community based intervenons should be strengthened to scale-up coverage of stunng prevenon acvies within their local context. • More than 80% of rural households consumed iodised salt. Efforts to increase coverage is recommended for provinces with low coverage and regular monitoring for those at the recommended coverage of 80%. • Fall armyworm affected all the provinces with 36% of the households managing to idenfy it as a new pest. Maize is the crop most infested and against the background that 88% of the households grew maize in 2016/17 season it is unlikely that farmers will want to abandon maize. There is a likelihood of the new pest to affect wheat during the winter season. • About 62.5% of the households affected by the new pest did not take any measures to control it. Households which took iniaves to control it used a variety of methods which included biological control, applicaon of commercial pescides, tradional control and other methods. However, these measures were generally not successful. It is therefore recommended to build capacity of; • Extension agencies in providing the relevant and high quality informaon to farmers on Fall armyworm • Research instuons to determine sustainable ways of managing the pest including efficacy of pescides and indigenous control measures, most effecve, lowest-risk, economical, accessible and easily used by smallholders (without sophiscated machinery).

204 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • The adult female moth of the Fall armyworm is a strong flyer and will connue to spread across the country. Populaons of the pest may connue to build as they find more host plants to mulply on and in the absence of natural biological enemies (general predators like ants and earwigs,) specialized parasitoids and a host of insect pathogens (virus, bacteria and fungi). It is therefore important to increase awareness raising on the new pest among different stakeholders, strengthen monitoring mechanisms/capacies (idenficaon, informaon relaying systems) and response systems from naonal to sub-naonal levels. • About 36.5% of households used various measures to control Fall armyworm both convenonal and tradional. It is important to learn from the experiences of farmers and researchers locally and internaonally. The best recommended pracces will be tried and adapted in the field through Farmers’ Field Schools. It is therefore recommended that support for designing and tesng of a sustainable pest management programme for smallholders should be provided. The best recommendaons will then be communicated and shared with farmers, farmers’ organizaons and Government. • The true extent of Gender Based Violence is difficult to measure as it is oen under-reported in most cases. It is perceived that reported cases in this report represent only a small fracon of the overall total that could be present. Gender Based Violence campaigns need to be scaled-up to empower women and men and encourage them to report and seek help. • Further research is required to understand the underpinning causes of physical violence which was reported more than sexual violence.

205 Conclusions and Rec ommendaons • Communies are faced with a host of shocks and hazards both natural and anthropogenic impacng negavely on their ability to access their food and non-food requirements. The situaon is being compounded by the recurrent under-performing macro-economic situaon with cash shortages being one of the immediate areas requiring the aenon of Government and stakeholders. • There is need for proacve mul-stake holder resilience building intervenons to ensure that vulnerable communies meet their daily food and non-food requirements before they venture into negave coping strategies that may lead to loss of their producve assets. • Considering that communies have limited capacies to recover from disasters, Government and development partners should consider improving and broadening community social protecon and resilience building programmes to enhance early recovery from emergencies and disasters. This may include scaling up of programmes such as Harmonised Social Cash transfers and Producve Community Works. • Government with support from partners should consider scaling up structural and non-structural measures to deal with ﬂooding and human wildlife conﬂict taking advantage of the on-going land re-distribuon programme to relocate communies at risk • Rural food insecurity prevalence in June 2017 was esmated at 1% and is projected to reach 11% during the peak hunger period (January to March 2017). This is lower compared to last year. This food insecurity prevalence translates to 1,052,768 rural people compared to 4.1 million in the previous consumpon year. • Food assistance programmes should be targeted to those households that have been found to be food insecure

206 Annexes

207 Manicaland

208 Mashonaland Central

209 Mashonaland East

210 Mashonaland West

211 Masvingo

212 Matabeleland North

213 Matabeleland South

214 Midlands

215 Report Wring Team

Name Organisaon Email George D. Kembo Food and Nutrion Council [email protected] Blessing Butaumocho Food and Nutrion Council [email protected] Herbert Zvirere Food and Nutrion Council hzvirer [email protected] Margaret Tawodzera Min istry of Health and Child Care margar et.tawodzeragmail.com Lameck Betera Ministry of Local Government [email protected]

Banda Mirriam Food and Nutrion Council [email protected]

Nester Gumbo Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisaon and Irrigaon gumbo nester @gmail.com Development Manyika Ngoni Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare [email protected] Rongai Maching a Minis try of Agriculture, Mechanisaon and Irrigaon rmaching [email protected] Developm ent Perpetual Nyadenga Food and Nutrion Council [email protected]

Carol Mukanduri Food and Nutrion Council [email protected] Lloyd Chadzingwa Food and Nutrion Council lchadzin [email protected] Arnold Damba ZIMSTAT dambaan [email protected] Mildred Mapani Minis try of Pub lic Service, Labour and Social Welfare milshan [email protected]

Ruramai Mpande Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educaon [email protected] Siboniso Chig ova Food and Nutrion Council chigova.sibo@ gmail.com

216 Report Wring Team

Name Organisaon Email Shamiso Chikobvu Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisaon and Irrigaon chikob [email protected] Development Alfa Ndlovu Food and Nutrion Council ndlovualf [email protected] Yvonne Mavhunga Food and Nutrion Council yvonnem [email protected] Rutendo Nyahoda Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisaon and Irrigaon [email protected]

Development

Disalice Kunaka Ministry of Rural Development, Promoon and [email protected]

Preservaon of Naonal Culture and Heritage

Innocent Mangwiro Food and Nutrion Council [email protected]

Kudzi Mukudoka UNICEF [email protected]

Tinashe Sande UNWOMEN [email protected]

Themba Nduna USAID [email protected]

Shupikai Zimuto UNDP [email protected]

Tendai Mugara FAO [email protected] Angela Kafembe FEWSNET akafem [email protected]

217 Overall Coordinaon Team

• George D. Kembo

• Blessing Butaumocho

• Yvonne Mavhunga

218

Supported by