zimbabwe IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS Issued December 2015

November 2015 Key Drivers level 4 503,000 People at Severe level

1.24M level 3 732,000 37% of the population People at Moderate level Dry Spells Poor Financial Capital People facing moderate Level 2 812,000 High reliance on livelihood There is a high prevalence and severe chronic food People at Mild level strategies that depend on of households that are self- insecurity (IPC CFI level 3+) rainfall (on–farm casual employed in activities that Level 1 1,257,000 labor, crop and livestock generate low-income. This IN NEED OF ACTION People Minimal level sales) combined with high results in high levels of poverty recurrence of dry-spells, and an inability to invest in The results of this IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Analysis will remain valid for the next 3-5 years, in erratic rainfail and drought. improving own livelihoods. absence of unusual shocks.

Overview Chronic Food Insecurity 2015 The analysis focused on three Provinces (Mashonaland East,

Midlands and Matabeleland North) and covered the population ZAMBIA of 24 districts. In total, about 1.24 million people experience Mbire Hurungwe Centenary MountDarwin Rushinga moderate and severe chronic food insecurity (IPC Level 3 and 4 Guruve UzumbaMarambaPfungwe Shamva Mudzi respectively), representing 37% of the total population analyzed. Mazowe Makonde GokweNorth Zvimba

In the analyzed districts, 15% of the households, representing Goromonzi Binga Murehwa Nyanga Sanyati GokweSouth about 503,000 people, are in IPC Level 4. The share of households Seke HwangeUrban Makoni Mhondoro-Ngezi in IPC Level 3 is 22%, representing 732,000 people. Hwedza Mutasa Lupane Nkayi Chikomba MOZAMBIQUE Chirumhanzu The districts with the highest share of population in IPC Level Bubi Tsholotsho Gutu 3 and 4 are in Matebeleland North province. These districts are Umguza Chimanimani Bikita Bulilima Zaka Tsholotsho (55% of households in IPC Level 3 and 4, representing Chivi about 66,000 people), Binga (50% of households in IPC Level Mberengwa Mangwe Matobo

Gwanda 3 and 4, representing about 73,000 people), Nkayi (50% of Mwenezi households in IPC Level 3 and 4, representing about 57,000 people) and Hwange (50% of households in IPC Level 3 and 4, representing about 32,000 people). The four districts have been SOUTH AFRICA Map Source: IPC Technical Working Group and ZIMVAC classified in IPC Level 4. In the other provinces, two districts have been classified in IPC Level 4: Mudzi in Mashonaland East Key for the Map (45% of households in IPC Level 3 and 4, representing about IPC Chronic Food Insecurity 64,000 people) and Zvishavane in (43% of Level Classification households in IPC Level 3 and 4, representing about 33,000 people). The rest of the districts analyzed have been classified 1 - Minimal in IPC Level 3, except Shurugwi which is in IPC Level 2. 2 - Mild 3 - Moderate

4 - Severe

Areas with inadequate evidence

Areas not analysed

Map Symbols

Urban settlement classification

Recurrence of crisis - area classified as crisis or worse during at least three years in previous 10 years. | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 2

SITUATION OVERVIEW and KEY DRIVERS

Midlands province is predominantly semi-intensive & semi-extensive farming (Natural Regions III and IV). Livelihoods are mainly based on livestock assisted by the production of fodder crops, food crops (cereals, pulses and vegetables), and cash crops (cotton). The province is endowed with productive land, wildlife and minerals. Mashonaland East province spreads in the intensive, arid semi-extensive and extensive farming region (Natural Regions II, III, IV & V). As a result, it contains some areas that receive good rains and some that are arid. Livelihoods are based on rainfed cultivation of food crops and cash crops complimented by livestock production. Matebeleland North province lies in the arid semi-extensive and extensive farming region (Natural Regions IV & V). Livelihoods are built around rainfed cultivation of sorghum, millet and maize, animal husbandry, fishing and related activities, mining and tourism. The area has predominantly poor & infertile Kalahari Sand soils, abundant wildlife and minerals. Of the 24 districts analyzed, 6 were classified as IPC Level 4 (Severe), 17 as IPC Level 3 (Moderate) and 1 as IPC Level 2 (Mild). The share of population analyzed experiencing IPC Level 4 conditions is 15%, which means about 503,000 people. The proportion of households in IPC Level 3 is 22%, which corresponds to about 732,000 people. The majority of Level 4 districts are found in Matebeleland North province, these are (brackets besides the names contain the percentage of households and total population in IPC Levels 3 and 4): Tsholotsho (55%, 66,000), Binga (50%, 73,000), Nkayi (50%, 57,000) and Hwange (50%, 32,000). The other two provinces have one district each in Level 4, these are: Mudzi (45%, 64,000) in Midlands province and Zvishavane (43%, 33,000) in Mashonaland East. However, in terms of total population in Level 3 and 4, the worst province is Midlands with about 513,000 people in such conditions, representing 39% of provincial population. This province also has the two districts with the highest number of people in Level 3 and 4: Gokwe South (about 146,000 in Level 3 and 4, representing 45% of the district population) and Gokwe North (about 108,000, equivalent to 43%). Households in Levels 3 and 4 experience respectively mild and moderate seasonal deficits in the quantity of food they consume in a common year. The duration of such deficits can be between 2 and 4 months for the households in Level 3 and for more than 4 months for households in Level 4. Households in Level 3 and 4 are respectively likely to have moderate and severely stunted children and constantly consume a diet of inadequate quality. For households in Level 2, the quantity of food consumed is adequate but the quality of the diet is not always adequate. The high reliance on rainfed agricultural activities to earn income combined with the high recurrence of drought, erratic rainfall and dry spells is one of the main key drivers of moderate and severe chronic food insecurity in most of the areas. Another important key driver is the high prevalence of extreme poverty caused by the lack of opportunities and capacity to generate sufficient income to buy food and cover other basic expenses. Other drivers of chronic food insecurity identified during the analysis are: poor road network and road maintenance, limited access to productive assets (e.g. irrigation and credit), limited nutrition awareness and poor feeding practices. Food availability and access have been considered as major limiting factors of food security in all areas classified in Level 4. Food utilization is also a major limiting factor in all Level 4 districts with the exception of Zvishavane and Mudzi where it is considered as a minor limiting factor. Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 3

CHRONIC FOOD INSECURITY NOVEMBER 2015 MAP AND POPULATION TABLE

Key for the Map IPC Chronic Food Insecurity

ZAMBIA Level Classification Mbire

Hurungwe Centenary MountDarwin Rushinga 1 - Minimal Guruve

UzumbaMarambaPfungwe Kariba Shamva Mudzi 2 - Mild Mazowe Bindura Makonde Mutoko GokweNorth Zvimba 3 - Moderate Goromonzi Binga Murehwa Nyanga Sanyati HARARE 4 - Severe Chegutu GokweSouth Seke Marondera HwangeUrban Makoni Mhondoro-Ngezi Areas with inadequate evidence Hwange Hwedza Mutasa Lupane Nkayi Kwekwe Chikomba Areas not analysed MOZAMBIQUE Mutare Chirumhanzu Buhera Bubi Gweru Tsholotsho Gutu Map Symbols Shurugwi Umguza Chimanimani

Zvishavane Bikita Urban settlement classification Bulilima Insiza Masvingo Umzingwane Zaka Chipinge Chivi

Mberengwa Recurrence of crisis - area

Mangwe Matobo classified as crisis or worse

Gwanda during at least three years in Mwenezi previous 10 years. Chiredzi

Beitbridge Evidence level: * Acceptable SOUTH AFRICA Map Source: IPC Technical Working Group and ZIMVAC ** Medium *** High

Province District Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 District Level 3 + population level #people % #people % #people % #people % # % Chikomba 128,391 57,776 45 32,098 25 19,259 15 19,259 15 3 38,518 30 Goromonzi 238,758 131,317 55 59,689 25 23,875 10 23,875 10 3 47,750 20 Hwedza 75,312 45,187 60 15,062 20 11,297 15 3,766 5 3 15,063 20 Marondera 124,145 74,487 60 18,622 15 18,622 15 12,414 10 3 31,036 25 Mudzi 141,408 42,422 30 35,352 25 35,352 25 28,282 20 4 63,634 45 Mashonaland East Murehwa 211,825 95,321 45 63,547 30 31,774 15 21,182 10 3 52,956 25 Mutoko 155,071 46,521 30 46,521 30 38,768 25 23,261 15 3 62,029 40 Seke 106,923 42,769 40 32,077 30 21,384 20 10,692 10 3 32,076 30 Uzumba-maramba- 119,504 53,777 45 17,925 15 26,888 23 20,913 18 3 47,801 41 pfungwe Total 1,301,337 589,577 45 320,893 25 227,219 17 163,644 13 390,863 30 Binga 145,876 29,175 20 43,763 30 36,469 25 36,469 25 4 72,938 50 Bubi 64,901 22,715 35 19,470 30 12,980 20 9,735 15 3 22,715 35 Hwange 64,437 22,553 35 9,665 15 16,109 25 16,109 25 4 32,218 50 Matebeleland Lupane 105,046 36,766 35 26,261 25 26,261 25 15,757 15 3 42,018 40 North Nkayi 114,458 34,337 30 22,891 20 28,614 25 28,614 25 4 57,228 50 Tsholotsho 120,734 24,147 20 30,183 25 36,220 30 30,183 25 4 66,403 55 94,061 23,515 25 32,921 35 23,515 25 14,109 15 3 37,624 40 Total 709,513 193,208 27 185,154 26 180,168 25 150,976 21 331,144 46 Chirumhanzu 85,019 38,258 45 25,505 30 17,003 20 4,250 5 3 21,253 25 Gokwe north 254,314 108,083 43 38,147 15 63,578 25 44,505 18 3 108,083 43 Gokwe south 323,756 97,127 30 80,939 25 97,127 30 48,563 15 3 145,690 45 Gweru 97,130 43,709 45 14,570 15 24,283 25 14,570 15 3 38,853 40 Midlands Kwekwe 184,877 64,707 35 46,219 25 46,219 25 27,731 15 3 73,950 40 Mberengwa 196,528 68,785 35 49,132 25 49,132 25 29,479 15 3 78,611 40 Shurugwi 82,076 32,830 40 28,726 35 10,259 13 4,103 5 2 14,362 18 Zvishavane 767,25 21,099 28 23,017 30 17,263 23 15,345 20 4 32,608 43 Total 1,30,0425 474,598 36 306,255 24 324,864 25 188,546 14 513,410 39 Grand Total 3,311,275 1,257,383 38 812,302 25 732,251 22 503,166 15 1,235,417 37 Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 4 recommendations for action

Response Priorities • Households in IPC CFI Level 4 (15% of analysed population representing 503,000) require the implementation of safety net programmes to provide sustained improvement of quantity and quality of food consumed. • Complementary to safety net programmes, IPC CFI Level 4 households also require to be targeted by programmes that address underlying factors to substantially decrease food insecurity and chronic malnutrition. • Safety net programmes may also be considered for IPC CFI Level 3 households as needed. Besides, these households would also require programmes to address underlying factors to increase quantity and quality of food consumption and decrease chronic malnutrition. • For the most chronically food insecure households (IPC CFI Level 3 and 4), responses focusing on disaster risk reduction, protection and strengthening of livelihoods are necessary to decrease chronic vulnerability and increase resilience to recurrent shocks. • IPC CFI Level 2 households require programmes that protect and strengthen their livelihoods and that address underlying factors to increase the quality of food consumption. • Response planning should also consider complementary and mutually reinforcing interventions among households at different levels of food insecurity. • Monitoring and disaster risk reduction activities should be considered across in all areas of analysis and for households across the four IPC CFI levels. • Binga, Zvishavane, Nkayi, Mudzi, Hwange and Tsholotsho districts have been classified in level 4 and should be prioritized in possible food nutrition and security interventions. º The analysis team proposed that the following response options are considered at the response analysis stage: º Increase area under irrigation and stop dependency on rain fed agriculture. º Strengthen value chain linkages for crop and livestock marketing. º Capacitate communities through financial and input support programs for improved livelihood strategies. º Road network rehabilitation and maintenance for accessibility in terms of trade routes.

Situation monitoring and update Based on the completed IPC chronic food insecurity analysis in 24 , the following are the recommended steps: • The findings need to be widely circulated and communicated to the all stakeholders (Government, donors, NGOs among others) so that the report can be used for resource mobilization and interventions planning. • The next steps should include IPC CFI analysis of the remaining 36 rural districts of Zimbabwe. • Institutions engaged in data collection activities should ensure that in future surveys collection of relevant data at district level, particularly direct evidence, which are required for IPC classification is prioritized to address data gaps. • The capacity of sub-national teams should be periodically strengthened so that they are able to analyze data for their districts/ provinces. • There is need for more reliable direct evidence for the analysis to reflect the correct status in specific districts. Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 5

Results in numbers

ZAMBIA Mbire

1.24 M Hurungwe Centenary MountDarwin Rushinga People Facing Severe Guruve UzumbaMarambaPfungwe and Moderate Chronic Kariba Shamva Mudzi Mazowe Bindura Makonde Mutoko Food Insecurity GokweNorth Zvimba

Goromonzi Binga Murehwa Nyanga Sanyati HARARE Chegutu GokweSouth IPC Chronic 3+ Seke Marondera HwangeUrban Makoni Mhondoro-Ngezi Hwange Hwedza Mutasa Lupane Nkayi Kwekwe Chikomba 3.31 M MOZAMBIQUE Mutare Chirumhanzu Buhera Bubi Gweru Total Population Tsholotsho Gutu MAP KEY Shurugwi Umguza Chimanimani 1 - Minimal Zvishavane Bikita Bulilima Insiza Masvingo 2 - Mild Umzingwane Zaka Chipinge Chivi 15% 3 - Moderate Mberengwa 4 - Severe 38% Mangwe Matobo Areas with inadequate evidence Gwanda 22% 3.31M Areas not analysed Mwenezi Population Chiredzi Map Symbols Beitbridge Urban settlement classification 35% Map Source: IPC Technical Working Group SOUTH AFRICA and ZIMVAC 1 - Minimal 3 - Moderate

2 - Mild 4 - Severe PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED PER REGION (IPC Levels 4 and 3)

Uzumbe – Gokwe Gokwe Tsholotsho Binga Nkayi Hwange Mudzi Zvishavane maramba - Mberengwa South North 37% pfungwe of the total population need 30k 36k 29k 16k 28k 15k 49k 45k 21k 29k action addressing chronic food insecurity 36k 36k 29k 16k 35k 17k 97k 64k 27k 49k

503,000 MAJOR LIMITING FACTORS MAJOR OUTCOMES People at Severe level Food Limited in Areas INADEQUATE FOOD CONSUMPTION 732,000 Availability 9 People at Moderate level Insufficient Food Access Limited in Areas 51% 812,000 8 food quantity People at Mild level people

Food Insufficient 1,257,000 Issues in 7 Areas 72% People at Minimal level Utilization people food quality

key drivers Nutritional status 36% PEOPLE FACING HIGH LEVEL 42% POPULATION WITH LIMITED OF POVERTY SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES 33%

Low income and Limited access to purchasing power social services Children under 5 years of age chronically malnourished

Lack of access to Vulnerability to shocks productive assets Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 6

PROFILE OF THE MOST AFFECTED AREAS

Binga, Nkayi, Huwange and Tsholotsho districts of Matebeleland Nord Province Key for the Map IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Level Classification ZAMBIA Mbire 1 - Minimal Hurungwe Centenary MountDarwin Rushinga Guruve 2 - Mild

UzumbaMarambaPfungwe Kariba Shamva Mudzi 3 - Moderate Mazowe Bindura Makonde Mutoko GokweNorth Zvimba 4 - Severe

Binga GoromonziMurehwa Nyanga Areas with inadequate evidence Sanyati HARARE Chegutu GokweSouth Seke Marondera HwangeUrban Makoni Areas not analysed Mhondoro-Ngezi Hwange Hwedza Mutasa Lupane Nkayi Kwekwe Chikomba Map Symbols MOZAMBIQUE Mutare Chirumhanzu Buhera Urban settlement classification Bubi Gweru Tsholotsho Gutu Shurugwi Umguza Chimanimani Recurrence of crisis - area Zvishavane Bikita classified as crisis or worse Bulilima Insiza Masvingo Umzingwane Zaka during at least three years in Chipinge Chivi previous 10 years. Mberengwa Mangwe Matobo Evidence level: Gwanda Mwenezi Acceptable Chiredzi * Medium Beitbridge ** *** High

SOUTH AFRICA Map Source: IPC Technical Working Group and ZIMVAC

One quarter of the households in these districts have been classified in IPC Level 4, as a result, the four districts have been classified in that Level of chronic food insecurity. These are the districts that have the highest proportion of households facing moderate and severe chronic food insecurity (IPC Level 3 and 4), with at least half of the households in each district in that condition.

In these districts, food availability, access and utilization are major limiting factors.

Chronic food insecurity is mainly driven by a high prevalence of extreme poverty and the high recurrence of rainfall related hazards (poor precipitation, dry spells) combined with the high proportion of households that depend on rainfed agriculture.

IPC CFI LEVEL % (‘000s) MAJOR LIMITING FACTORS KEY DRIVERS

Level 1 25 110,000 Food availability Low income and purchasing power

Level 2 24 107,000 Food access Vulnerability to shocks

Poor coverage and maintenance Level 3 26 117,000 Food utilization of road network

Level 4 25 111,000 Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 7 process and Methodology

Process and Methodology

The analysis was led by a core team from the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) chaired by the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC), a department in the Office of the President and Cabinet. Members of the ZimVAC are drawn from government ministries, departments, UN Agencies and NGOs.

Before the analysis, a team of three members working together with a consultant, worked on acquiring new data sets from the latest surveys to complement the existing data.

The workshop was undertaken from the 30th of November to the 5th of December and was attended by members from the National ZimVAC committee and key representatives from Provincial Food and Nutrition Security Committees of the 3 provinces being analysed. Taking consideration of the fact that a number of protocols within the IPC have changed since the last analysis, the first day was set aside for a refresher training. This was done to ensure that all members (new and existing) are up-to date with the changes. The remainder of the days were then dedicated to completing the analysis of the 24 districts from 3 provinces which was started in 2014. The analysis was supported by 2 technical officers from the IPC Global Support Unit.

Following the completion of the analysis, a small core team comprising of the consultant, data analysts, editors, and one member from each of the provinces was tasked with the finalization of the IPC report with support from officers from the GSU.

Sources • Agriculture and Livestock Suby ZIMSTAT (2009 – 2011). • Baseline study of Title II Development Assistance Programmes in Zimbabwe by USAID (2015). • FNC National Nutrition Survey (2010). • CHIRPS dataset on monthly rainfall (2014). • Crop and Livestock Assessment Reports from MoAMID (2009 – 2014). • Demographic Health Survey by ZIMSTAT (2011). • District Poverty Profiles by ZIMSTAT (2014). • Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey by ZIMSTAT (2011 -2012). • Provincial Reports from Census by ZIMSTAT (2012). • Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2014). • Rural Baseline Livelihoods Profiles by ZIMVAC (2011). • Rural Livelihoods Assessments by ZIMVAC (2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014). • Situation Report by UNICEF (2013). • Zimbabwe National Micronutrient Survey (2012). • ZIMVAC reports (2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014). Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 8

Limitations of the analysis What is the IPC and IPC Acute Food Insecurity? During the analysis the following limitations were identified: The IPC is a set of tools and procedures • Lack of adequate data for the desired level of analysis (district level). This reduced to classify the severity and characteristics the level of confidence as well as the reliability of the data. of acute food and nutrition crises as well as chronic food insecurity based on • The Provincial picture masks the variability within the province, and the international standards. The IPC consists prevalence is also affected by the areas sampled. of four mutually reinforcing functions, • The technical team could not access some of the primary data required for re- each with a set of specific protocols (tools analysis for the IPC. and procedures). The core IPC parameters include consensus building, convergence • The 20% rule used in the IPC and the limited evidence affected the classification of evidence, accountability, transparency as most districts (Level 3) such as Seke and Goromonzi. The Analysis Team and comparability. The IPC analysis aims at considered that there is a need to look into the 20% rule in IPC chronic analysis informing emergency response as well as with a view of putting a modifying protocol that adjusts the classification to suit medium and long-term food security policy specific country contexts. and programming.

• Technical experts were of different opinions regarding some districts especially For the IPC, Chronic Food Insecurity is defined as a manifestation of inadequate in Mashonaland East; they felt they should be in Level 2 because they are usually food and nutrient consumption over longer surplus districts. periods of time, mainly due to structural • Limited data (direct evidence) on water and sanitation could have impacted the causes. This persistence is determined classification. based on an analysis of conditions under non-exceptional circumstances. It changes • Different from those required for the IPC. slowly, happens gradually and does not usually pose an immediate threat to life, but may have severe consequences in terms of increased vulnerability and long-term negative impacts on health, physical, mental and cognitive capacities.

Contact for further Information Yvonne Mavhunga Food and Nutrition Council Focal Point [email protected] IPC Global Support Unit www.ipcinfo.org This analysis has been conducted under the patronage of the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC). It has benefited from the technical and financial support of the UK government. Classification of food insecurity and malnutrition was conducted using the IPC protocols, which are developed and implemented worldwide by the IPC Global Partnership - Action Against Hunger, CARE, CILSS, EC-JRC , FAO, FEWSNET, Global Food Security Cluster, Global Nutrition Cluster, IGAD, Oxfam, PROGRESAN-SICA, SADC, Save the Children, UNICEF and WFP.

IPC Analysis Partners: Zimbabwe | IPC Chronic FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS 9

ANNEX 1: MAJOR LIMITING FACTORS AND KEY DRIVERS MATRIX

OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR LIMITING FACTORS AND KEY DRIVERS BY ANALYSIS UNIT

LIMITING FACTORS KEY DRIVERS OF FOOD INSECURITY OF FOOD INSECURITY

ANALYSIS UNIT !

Policy/ Food Food Food Livelihood Human Physical Financial Natural Social Recurrent Unusual Institutional Availability Access Utilization Strategies Capitals Capitals Capitals Capitals Capitals Risks Crises Processes

Beitbridge

Binga

Bubi

Bulilimangwe

Chikomba

Chipinge

Chirumhanzu

Gokwe North

Gokwe South

Goromonzi

Gweru

Hwange

Hwedza

Kwekwe

Lupane

Marondera

Masvingo

Mberengwa

Mudzi

Murehwa

Mutoko

Nkayi

Seke

Shurugwi

Tsholotsho

Umguza District

Uzumba-maramba- pfungwe

Zvimba

Zvishavane

Legend Major Factor Minor Factor Not a Factor No Data