Mozambique Livelihood Baseline Profile, Zone 13A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mozambique Livelihood Baseline Profile, Zone 13a Zambézia Coastal Livelihood Zone August 20081 Zone Description The Zambézia Coastal Livelihood Zone (LZ13) covers administrative posts of the coastal districts of Zambézia Province, from Pebane on the border with Nampula Province, to Inhassunge, on the north of the River Zambezi delta. It includes posts in the districts of Pebane Nicoadala, Namacurra, and Maganja da Costa and Inhassunge. The “Livelihood Zones of Mozambique” (MADER/FEWS, 2004i) gives an overall zone that incorporates urban centers, including the city of Quelimane. The urban economy of Quelimane city has little in common with rural and fishing economies of the rest of the coast, so it is not covered by this profile. The 2004 map also uses administrative boundaries to define the zone, and in some areas Zone 13 extends many kilometers Fig.1. Livelihood Zone 13 inland (see Fig.1.). This profile describes the household economy of the population living close to the coast, i.e. the fishing/agricultural economy, although a formal exercise to redefine the boundaries of this zone has not yet been conducted. We provisionally refer to this zone as 13a; the urban economy of Quelimane city could become Livelihood Zone 13b. The inland parts of the original LZ13 would probably be incorporated into the neighboring Livelihood Zone 12 (Central Zambézia Plain).The field research was conducted in the districts of Pebane and Maganja da Costa, but the profile should be relevant for the entire zone, with the qualifications mentioned above. The zone covers the coastal lowlands with a varied terrain that includes fertile agricultural plain, coastal dunes, and mangroves. Rainfall is good (1,000-1,400 mm), falling in a single season from November to March. A number of rivers of local importance for riverbank agriculture flow through the zone (Licungo, Mabala, Muniga, Molocue) They are also exploited for fishing, especially the River Licungo, although the main fishing in the zone is along the coast. Although high-value fish and seafood (prawns, peixe pedra) are available, most fish traded are of small, lower-value, because of marketing problems (see below). Fish catches are reportedly declining, which is attributed to too many people fishing. During high season, there is a seasonal influx of people from outside the area who return after a few months. Another reported reason for the decline in fishing is that fishing continues throughout the year, even in breeding grounds, and using illegal nets. (Officially, there are restrictions on the kind of fishing allowed during the off-season, from November to March 15, although some forms of fishing are permitted. However, these rules are sparsely enforced and not always respected.) Fishing is carried out with a variety of nets, but all can be classed as being in the ‘artisanal sector’. The population density is relatively high for Mozambique and varies widely across the zone. Pebane and Maganja da Costa, the districts on which this profile is based, have 17 to 37 people per km2 and comprise half of the rural population. The districts of Inhassunge, Nicoadala, and Namacurra, the hinterland of Quelimane, are more densely populated (Inhassunge has 163 people per km2), a further indication of the need to re-evaluate the zone boundaries. Population figures can only be estimated, but total about 700,000, of which 400,000 live in the lower-density areas. People make their living from fishing and agriculture. Coconuts are an important cash crop, and the zone contains Africa’s largest coconut plantation (160,000 ha). Several companies (Madal, Boraror Agricola, Cª da Zambézia) own or have concessions on large plantations, which offer some seasonal employment opportunities, but also limit the availability of land for agriculture by the smallholder sector in some areas. In terms of the local economy, income from the plantations is small. Some households send people for about 30 days work, up to twice a year, but this benefits a minority 1Field work was undertaken in July 2008. The information refers to mid-March 2006 to mid-March 2007, a fairly good year for food security by local standards. Provided there are no fundamental and rapid shifts in the economy, this profile should remain valid for about five years (i.e. until 2013). of households. In some administrative posts, land is so scarce that some households have to find land to cultivate outside the post. In the past decade, these plantations have been progressively affected by coconut lethal yellowing-type disease (LYD). The disease continues to spread, and it is estimated that more than 50 percent of palms will be killed by 2015.ii The smallholder sector has been harder-hit than the large plantations. Unless a remedy is implemented on a massive scale in the immediate future, it is likely that coconut production will soon become economically insignificant for many. As yet, no remedies on the scale necessary have been offered to the rural population, either in terms of disease free/resistant planting material or from alternative income sources. There are a number of cashew trees in the zone, but households own only a few — rarely more than 20. Trees are not usually sprayed (because of previous marketing problems, see below Markets). As a result, they do not yield highly, and income is low. The role of livestock in the economy is minimal. Even the better-off rarely own goats. Poultry are kept in small numbers, with no management; one reason is lack of grazing land. Although land in general is not in short supply, and land ownership patterns or tenure systems are not an important determinant of household income, in some areas private companies have long concessions on huge coconut palm plantations, leaving little land free for grazing. This ownership pattern is a legacy of the colonial era. Nonetheless, because livestock are so limited across the zone, this land shortage is probably not the only factor, even in areas where it does exist. Field cultivation is almost entirely by hand-hoe. The main crops are cassava and rice. Rice is grown separately, but other crops are intercropped — a mixture of beans, groundnuts, maize, and sweet potatoes among the cassava. Because of the constant loss of crops to wild animals (monkeys, wild pigs), much cassava production is now of ‘bitter’ varieties, which have to be processed and dried before consumption. Hippos also cause considerable damage in some areas. Control measures for wild animals are largely limited to the occasional killing of an individual animal by the police. Animal traction is not practiced, and few tractors are available for hire. No inputs are used in agriculture. Apart from one scheme that covers 800 ha, there is no irrigation infrastructure in the zone. The only irrigation practiced is hand- watering using water from rivers or streams on a small scale. Despite this, agriculture is reasonably productive, and the zone is marginally a net surplus area for food in a good year — selling rice, coconuts, and groundnuts. There is some purchase into the zone of maize, particularly in years of poor harvests. Financial services are not available; there are no private moneylenders. The only source of credit reported is a state scheme, the Local Initiative Fund, which made available 7 million MT a year to each district in 2006-2007 (now increased to 9 million MT).2 In practice, only the best-off have any hope of accessing these funds, which are given at low interest (5-10 percent). Markets There are important problems with the marketing of all the main income sources in the zone — field crops, coconuts, cashew, and fish. Marketing agricultural produce is a serious problem. Few traders come to the zone to buy; they say it is too far, although the road is accessible, even to lorries at harvest time. Fish traders find the road accessible, so the problem is related to the perceived profitability of trade. The high-value crop — rice — finds a reasonable market locally, because quantities are small (rarely more than 250 kg for a household). The main commodity farmers want to sell is cassava — of low value and produced in surplus in the more accessible areas of Moma in Nampula Province (see profile for LZ7A). Households report that they are limiting their farming because they know there will be no market for surpluses. Groundnuts, also a high-value crop, have a better market, and usually reach Maputo. Limitations in coconut marketing are proving expensive for smallholders. When possible, they sell fresh coconuts to traders from Nampula city. However, these traders appear only sporadically and cannot be relied on. Instead, farmers have to sell copra to the main companies, which have permanent buying points in every localidade. A household in need of immediate money can even go with as little as 1 kg of copra any day. However, this not only means extra time in processing the coconuts to make copra, but also much reduced income. (Fresh coconuts are sold for 0.5-1 MT, but are only worth 0.3-0.4 MT as copra. This can cost the poor around 500 MT a year, or 10-15 percent of their total annual income.) There have been problems related to the commercialization of cashew nuts. There has been an effective monopoly in cashew buying by one company. When it failed to buy, farmers had no outlet for their crop and have been discouraged from investing again in spraying the trees — without which yields are low. Prices are also low — just 5 MT/kg, compared with a peak of 10-11 MT/kg just further north in Moma District (see LZ7a). Fishermen are able to sell their low-value fish without too many difficulties.