Rapid Needs Assessment 24-25 April 2019 Buzi District, Sofala Province, Mozambique

Home , Buzi District, Chibabava District, Dondo District, Gondola District, Machanga District, Nhamatanda District

GOAL & local partner enumerators from Hilfwerk discussing impact of cyclone Idai with community leaders

(Pic. Gilberto HWI)

Introduction Cyclone Idai made landfall in Mozambique on Thursday 14th March 20191. Strong winds and widespread flooding damaged roads, bridges, houses, schools and health facilities and submerged large areas of agricultural land2. This cyclone was possibly the worst weather-related disaster to ever hit the southern hemisphere3. Widespread damage was reported in Beira City and throughout Sofala province4. The Government of the Republic of Mozambique reported that the official death toll stood at 603 (as of 22 April 2019); 73,000 people found shelter in 65 accommodation centres across Manica, Sofala, Tete, and Zambézia provinces5;1.85 million people were in need of assistance, 239,700 houses damaged or destroyed and 1.77 million acres of crops damaged or destroyed6. Health actors had reported more than 6,600 cholera cases and eight cholera-related deaths, in Mozambique as of April 22, and approximately 14,900 malaria cases in Sofala’s Beira city, and Buzi, Dondo, and Nhamatanda districts as of April 237. The Rapid Needs Assessment was conducted in mainly coastal villages within Buzi District in Sofala Province. The district is located in the southeast of the province, and borders with Nhamatanda District in the north, Dondo District in the northeast, Machanga District in the south, Chibabava District in the southwest, Sussundenga District of Manica Province in the west, and with Gondola District of Manica Province in the northwest. The area of the district is 7,329 square kilometres (2,830 sq mi). It has a population of 159,614 as of 20078. Access is mainly by boat as roads and tracks are often impassable. Objectives of the Needs Assessment The rapid needs assessment was undertaken in order to better understand the needs of remote and hard to access communities impacted by cyclone Idai in South Buzi, Sofala Province. The intention is to utilize the data as a foundation for the planning of interventions in shelter and WASH sectors. The assessment was designed to gather information of how selected households were impacted by the cyclone with a focus on housing level destruction and WASH. Data was also collected on health, livelihoods and levels of assistance received, in recognition that the cyclone had impacted on communities in multiple ways and across a number of levels. Goal will use the assessment as a tool to inform programming options. Data from the assessment will be used in conjunction with information from a range of stakeholders including clusters, partners, community and government authorities. Together this

1https://www.actionaid.org.uk/blog/news/2019/03/27/cyclone-idai-latest-facts-and-information accessed 2 May 2019 2 Ibid 3 Ibid 4 Ibid 5https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/cyclone_idai_fs09_04-25-2019.pdf accessed 2 May 2019 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzi_District accessed 2 May 2019

2 information will be used to determine type, detail and locations of interventions. In addition, the assessment will feed in to a range of ongoing assessments undertaken across a number of sectors by NGOs, aid agencies and government authorities. Assessments have been coordinated through the UN cluster system to ensure coverage and to limit overlap. Methodology The Rapid Needs Assessment questionnaire was built in CommCare (https://www.commcarehq.org/) with questions and introductory statements translated in to the local language (Ndau) to enhance accuracy, understanding and community acceptance, then uploaded into mobile phones and/or tablets for data collection. Using digital data collection ensures a higher quality of data and reduces errors or missing data. The Needs Assessment took place on 24 – 25 April 2019 covering the villages of Barada, Bue, Thungo, Nhanvuo, Nova Sofala Chiconjo and Nova Sofala Danga in Buzi District of Sofala Province. Community selection was purposely made in consultation with local NGO, Hilfwerk Mozambique, which has longstanding and respected links with the selected communities. Communication, introductions, data gathering, and explanations were managed by Hilfwerk. No specific sampling was implemented in the villages; as many households were visited as was possible in the days allocated for data collection. Enumerators chose households to interview at random by interviewing one household, skipping one and interviewing the next household. In addition to the rapid needs assessment, a discussion was conducted with village leaders of four communities who gave an overview of the situation of their villages. Data was then exported from CommCare into excel, cleaned and analysed using excel. Needs Assessment Results Demographics of sample A total of 115 respondents were interviewed, which represented 115 households. Table 1: Demographics of the sampled households (N=115)

Total Average Minimum Maximum Under 2 years 77 0.7 0 3 2 – 17 years 284 2.5 0 14 18 – 60 years 298 2.6 0 9 Over 60 years 42 0.4 0 3 Total in respondents’ households 688 6.0 0 22 People with disability 14 0.1 0 2 Pregnant and lactating women 50 0.4 0 3 People with chronic illness 39 0.3 0 2

Displacement Of the total respondents 99.1% (n=114) reported that their house was damaged by the cyclone. This was corroborated by discussions with the community leaders who said that 100% of the households had suffered some kind of damage from the cyclone winds. Table 2: Level of damage caused by cyclone Idai to respondents’ houses

Level destruction # % Major destruction 7 6.1% Partial destruction 28 24.6% Total destruction 79 69.3% Total 114 100% Sleeping areas damaged 111 97.4% Cooking areas damaged 105 92.1%

Of the total 114 houses that were damaged, the walls were primarily constructed of the following: Table 3: Construction materials used for the walls of respondents’ houses

Wall construction material % # Cement 7.9% 9 Mix of items 10.5% 12 Wood 1.8% 2 Other (not specified) 79.8% 91 Total 100% 114

From the enumerators observations the ‘other’ main construction materials used for walls were stakes and clay.

Of the total 114 houses that were damaged, the roof was primarily constructed of the following: Table 4: Construction materials used for the roofs of respondents’ houses

Roof construction material % # Cement sheet roofing 15.8% 18 Corrugated tin 29.8% 34 Corrugated tin/hay/straw 0.9% 1 Hay/straw 23.7% 27 Other (not specified) 28.9% 33 No damage 0.9% 1 Total 100% 114

From the enumerators observations the ‘other’ main construction materials used for roofs were coconut tree branches.

Of the 114 respondents who stated that their house was damaged 72.8% (n=83) indicated that ‘yes’ they were living in the same home they lived in before the cyclone; 27.2% (n=31) indicated they weren’t.

Of the 31 respondents who were not living in their house due to damage 90.3% (n=28) indicated they are living ‘outside next to damaged house’ and 9.7% (n=3) are living with friends or family.

In the next 3 months those not living in their house indicated: Table 5: Respondents’ plans for the coming three months in relation to rebuilding and availability of building materials

% # Materials to build/repair available locally Build a new house in the previous location 90.4% 28 89.3% (n=25) stated ‘yes’ Continue to live with friends and family 3.2% 1 100% (n=1) stated ‘yes’ Move to a new location 3.2% 1 100% (n=1) stated ‘no’ Repair and move back to house 3.2% 1 100% (n=1) stated ‘yes’ Total 100% 31 -

Economics/Livelihoods Table 6: Coping strategies applied in the last seven days (N=115)

Average Min Max # # % days households households How many days did the household 3.7 0 7 0 13 11.3% members restrict food 1 13 11.3% consumption by adults 2 17 14.8% 3 19 16.5% 4 7 6.1% 5 11 9.6% 6 3 2.6% 7 32 27.8% How many days did the household 3.1 0 7 0 7 6.1% members reduce meals per day 1 35 30.4% 2 38 33.0% 3 1 0.9% 4 - 5 - 6 1 0.9% 7 33 28.7%

Respondents were asked how far away the nearest functioning shop for food was and how long (in minutes) it took to get there on foot: Table 7: Distance and time taken (in minutes) to the nearest functioning shop for food

Distance # % Average Minimum Maximum time in minutes Less than 1km 78 67.8% 27 2 60 1km to less than 2km 17 14.8% 61 20 120 2km to less than 3km 3 2.6% 85 60 120 3km to less than 4km 2 1.7% 72.5 70 75 5km or more 15 13.0% 345 90 510 Total 115 100% - - -

Of the total respondents 99.1% (n=114) reported that their crops/farmland was damaged by the cyclone. 89.5% (n=102) reported that it was completely destroyed, and 10.5% (n=12) reported that 50-100% was destroyed. Table 8: Crops damaged by cyclone Idai as reported by the survey respondents

English Portuguese # % Rice Arroz 109 95.6% Manioc/Cassava Mandioca 34 29.8% Other (not stated) Others 4 3.5% Sorgum Mapira 3 2.7% Sweet potato Batata Doce 17 14.9% Coconut Coqueiro 5 4.4% Maize Milho 4 3.5% Vegetables (garden) Horticulas 8 7.0% Beans/Pulses Feijoes 2 1.8% Pearl millet Maxoeira 2 1.8% Fruit Trees - 3 2.7%

77.4% (n=89) of the total respondents (N=115) indicated that they lost livestock as indicated below: Table 9: Livestock lost during cyclone Idai as reported by the survey respondents

Livestock lost # % Cattle 7 7.7% Goats 19 21.3% Sheep 6 6.7% Poultry 70 78.7% Other 4 4.5%

WASH Table 10: The main sources of drinking water for the respondents’ households before and after cyclone Idai

Source Before cyclone After cyclone # % # % Handpump/borehole - private 24 20.9% 27 23.5% Handpump/borehole - public 63 54.8% 63 54.8% Spring or well - protected 3 2.6% 4 3.5% Spring or well - unprotected 25 21.7% 21 18.2% Total 115 100% 115 100%

Only 52 (45.2%) of the respondents (N=115) indicated that their household’s main drinking water source was damaged by the cyclone. The respondents (N=115) indicated that 18.2% (n=21) do not have sufficient access to water for drinking, whereas 81.7% (n=94) do. 71.3% (n=82) of households pay for or purchase water for drinking.

Discussions with community leaders indicated that open defecation was very high both pre and post cyclone. Leaders stated that open defecation was practiced by more than 90% of the population; largely because of the presence of high ground water tables which limit the depth to which pit latrines can be excavated. However, the results from the needs assessment showed that just under a third of those surveyed indicated they were practicing open defecation following the cyclone. This discrepancy between what the assessment revealed, and community leader statements can possibly be explained by an unwillingness of those surveyed to speak openly about latrine use. It is important to note that observations from the enumerators support what the community leaders were stating. Table 11: Latrine ownership by survey respondents and damage caused by cyclone Idai

Yes No # % # % Latrine ownership before cyclone (N=115) 90 78.3% 25 21.7% Latrine damaged in cyclone (N=90) 83 92.2% 7 7.8%

Table 12: Types of toilet/latrine primarily used by the household after cyclone Idai

Toilet/latrine type # % No facility – open, field, bush 32 27.8% Community latrine 2 1.7% Family pit latrine – with slab/covered 12 10.5% Family pit latrine – without slab/open 42 36.5% Family ventilated improved pit latrine 2 1.7% Family flush/pour toilet to septic tank/pit 1 0.9% Other 24 20.9% Total 115 100%

The respondents (N=115) indicated that 47.0% (n=54) buried their solid waste; 51.3% (n=59) burnt it and 1.7% (n=2) did something else with it (other), which wasn’t specified.

Only 26 respondents (22.6%, N=115) stated that they did not have one piece of soap for handwashing.

Only 11 (9.6%) of all the respondents (N=115) indicated that they did not have two narrow necked water containers of 10-20 litres.

General Assistance

40.9% (n=47) of the respondents stated that their household had received assistance in the last seven days. All (100%, n=47) received food and one indicated that they had received education for children under 18 as well as food (0.9%, n=1).

The most recent assistance for those who received assistance (n=47) was received on 1 April 2019 for 19 households; 2 April for 3 households; 3 April for 1 household; 24 April for 11 households and 25 April for 13 households.

Of all the respondents (N=115), 61 (53.0%) indicated that they had faced difficulties when trying to access assistance. Table 13: The difficulties faced by survey respondents trying to access assistance

# % Household received too little assistance 57 93.4% Household received less assistance than others 2 3.3% Household received no assistance as they don’t have required 2 3.3% documentation Total 61 100%

Table 14: Priority needs stated by the respondents following cyclone Idai

First Second Consolidated priority priority priority # % # % # % Food 82 71.3% 21 18.3% 102 88.7% Shelter 20 17.4% 29 25.2% 49 42.6% Agriculture/livestock support 6 5.2% 29 25.2% 34 29.6% Employment 5 4.4% 4 3.5% 9 7.8% Training 1 0.9% 3 2.6% 3 2.6% Health care 1 0.9% 3 2.6% 4 3.5% Toilet/latrine - 1 0.9% 1 0.9% Winter items for help with cold - 3 2.6% 3 2.6% (blankets, coat, etc) Education - 2 1.7% 2 1.7% Chapas (plates) - 4 3.5% 4 3.5% Construcao – casa (construction - 11 9.6% 11 9.6% – house) Motor de barco de pesca (fishing - 1 0.9% 1 0.9% boat engine) Rede de pesca (fishing net) - 2 1.7% 2 1.7% Terreno (ground) - 1 0.9% 1 0.9% Utencilios domesticos - 1 0.9% 1 0.9% (household utensils)

Discussion

Makeshift shelter using a combination of locally available forest materials and emergency tarpaulins (Pic. Gilberto HWI) Not surprising almost all respondents reported damage to their houses with three quarters indicating major or total destruction and nearly all the sleeping and cooking areas had been damaged. This was corroborated through observation with widespread damage to most buildings including health centres, schools and churches. The level of damage varied from total to minimal destruction.

The main material used in walls and roofing was indicated as ‘other’ but this was not specified by the survey data, however observations by the survey team noted that the other materials used for walls was stakes and clay and for roofing was coconut tree branches as well as corrugated tin and hay/straw. The majority of respondents plan to build a new house in the same location in the next three months.

Three quarters of respondents are still living in the same home as before the cyclone and those that weren’t, are generally living outside next to their damaged house. Only three respondents indicated they were living with family/friends. It was observed that respondents were rebuilding houses at the same location of the destroyed house or nearby in some cases. New local materials were used or in combination with salvaged materials. There is some contradiction in the results seen because of those stating that their house was totally destroyed have also stated that they are still living in it (n=52); perhaps a new house had been constructed considering the observations previously stated.

Most households are implementing some degree of coping strategy in relation to meals be it restricting size of meals or skipping meals. Most of the respondents indicated that they live within 2km of the nearest functioning shop selling food, which is a reasonable distance when travelling by foot providing the terrain is not too difficult.

The majority of the respondents indicated that their crops had been completely destroyed with rice, cassava and sweet potatoes being the main crops lost/damaged. Three quarters of households lost livestock, mainly poultry (~75%) and goats (~20%). It was evident during transect walks through villages that replanting of crops had started a month after the cyclone. Crops such as rice and manioc could be seen growing in some gardens. In addition, new fields had been prepared ready for planting. Community leaders indicated that one of the major income earners in the area, coconut trees, were significantly damaged and, in many cases, completely uprooted by the cyclone. One community leader in Danga estimated that up to three quarters of the coconut trees had been destroyed.

The main water sources for drinking water before and after the cyclone remained the same. Only four households changed their drinking water source following the cyclone from a previous unprotected source to a protected source. Less than half of the respondents stated that their water source had been damaged and a fifth do not have sufficient access to drinking water following the cyclone. Three quarters of households pay for their drinking water. What was not established was whether drinking water was paid for before the cyclone, therefore it is important to establish retrospectively what households did in relationship to access to and payment for drinking water to be aware of the full context. Discussions with community leaders indicated that in a number of locations water sources were largely un-affected by the cyclone due to the absence of flooding. They indicated that the wells were saline not as a result of floods but through normal sea-water intrusion in to the ground water tables.

Three quarters of respondents stated that they owned a latrine before the cyclone and all indicated that the latrines were damaged by the cyclone. Half of households were using pit latrines (with or without a slab/cover) after the cyclone and a quarter were practicing open defecation. One fifth stated they were using an ‘other’ means of toilet but this was not specified. Discussions with community leaders indicated that open defecation was very high contradicting the rapid needs assessment results; even the community leaders stated that they too did not have latrines. The leaders proposed that both before and after the cyclone open defecation was practiced by more than 90% of the population. Observations from the enumerators support what the community leaders are stating for post cyclone. It may be that respondents had latrines but, as community leaders stated, were largely practicing open defecation because of the presence of high ground water tables, which limit the depth to which pit latrines can be excavated and are potentially unpleasant to use when faecal matter drops directly in to the ground water. Dug open wells near some households had water from as shallow as one metre below ground level. The community leaders explained that the sanitation situation was no different after the cyclone than before. A quarter of households do not have soap but the majority have two narrow necked water containers. The situation before the cyclone for access to soap was not explored in the rapid needs assessment but from the discussion with community leaders it

10 appears that the cyclone did not affect household practices much and that the situation may have been the same before the cyclone.

Food was the main assistance received in the last seven days before the assessment by all respondent households. Most felt they had received too little assistance and only a very few households did not receive assistance due to lack of documentation.

The priority need by far is for food, followed by shelter/construction and agricultural/livestock support.

Key areas that jump out from the needs assessment are:

• Requirement for food assistance; • Requirement for shelter and support for rebuilding their homes (although observations indicated that many were already building new homes); • Agricultural support for lost crops as most of the staple foods have been destroyed (observations indicated that many households had planted winter crops which differ from those grown in the main planting season); • Restocking of lost livestock to those who have lost livestock; • Support to repair/construct new latrines; • Provision of soap.

Finally a note of thanks to Translators without Borders who generously provided time and resources to translating both the questionnaire and some of the findings from English to the local language of Ndai and from Ndai back in to English. This service undoubtedly enhanced both the accuracy and acceptance of the assessment.