Community & Household Surveillance CARE ZIMBABWE. Baseline Survey August Report of Findings

Transcription

1 CARE ZIMBABWE Community & Household Surveillance Baseline Survey August 2003 Report of Findings

2 Preface The World Food Programme (WFP) and the Consortium for Southern Africa Food Emergency (C-SAFE) regionally coordinate the community and household surveillance (CHS). C-SAFE members in Zimbabwe include World Vision, CARE and CRS. The baseline round in Zimbabwe was conducted in collaboration with Save the Children (SC) UK and was the first to be done in the region. Subsequent rounds are scheduled to occur quarterly in each of the 6 Southern Africa WFP countries, and the 3 C-SAFE countries. Acknowledgements The CHS is possible because of the generous financial contributions made by Sweden and USAID. The CHS warmly acknowledges this invaluable support and the welcoming response from all households and communities contacted during this survey. The CHS team was greatly assisted by implementing partners namely, Christian Care, Care Zimbabwe, Concern Worldwide, Plan International, ORAP and World Vision International who recruited enumerators at short notice to make the whole data collection process possible. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 2

3 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OF C-SAFE, SAVE THE CHILDREN & WFP INTERVENTION PURPOSE OF CHS METHODOLOGY SAMPLING FRAME AND DESIGN SAMPLE SIZE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS SURVEY FINDINGS HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS FOOD AVAILABILITY & ACCESS Access to food aid Market availability & prices GMB AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERIES CEREALS AND LIVESTOCK MARKET PRICE PERFORMANCE CASUAL LABOUR HARVEST STOCKS HOUSEHOLDS SOURCES OF CEREALS HOUSEHOLDS MAIN SOURCES OF INCOME DIETARY INTAKE DIETARY DIVERSITY ACCESS TO SCHOOL FEEDING AND ADDITIONAL FOOD AID COPING STRATEGIES COPING STRATEGY INDEX DEPLETION OF HUMAN AND PRODUCTIVE ASSETS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ASSET OWNERSHIP SALE OF HOUSEHOLD ASSETS LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP AND SALES LAND OWNERSHIP MIGRATION PATTERNS HIV/AIDS...30 ANNEX I: PROFILE OF FOOD ECONOMY ZONES...31 ANNEX II: SAMPLING METHODOLOGY...32 ANNEX III: CHS SENTINEL SITES...33 ANNEX IV: CHS COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE.35 ANNEX V: CHS HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE.. 37 ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 3

4 Acronyms CC CHS CON CRS C-SAFE CSB CSI FEZ FFW GFD GMB HH HIV/AIDS ORAP PLWHA SC (UK) USD VAM WFP WV ZIMVAC ZW$ Christian Care Community and Household Surveillance Concern Worldwide Catholic Relief Services Consortium for Southern Africa Food Emergency Corn Soya Blend Coping Strategy Index Food Economy Zone Food For Work General Food Distribution Grain Marketing Board Household Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Organization of Rural Association for Progress People living with HIV & AIDS Save the Children United Kingdom United States dollar Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping World Food Programme World Vision Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee Zimbabwe dollar ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 4

5 Glossary Chronically ill Disabled FEZ Household Head of household Orphan Any person who has had persistent and recurring illness during the last three months that has reduced his/her productivity. A person who has a mental and/or physical handicap that prevents him/her from full-productivity. A relatively homogenous geographic area, unique to other zones on the basis of primary subsistence activities, income strategies, cultural practices and hazards, as they affect food security. People living and eating together under the same roof. The primary decision-maker in terms of allocating the natural, human, and financial resources available to the household. A child whose both parents have died. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 5

6 1. Executive Summary The Community and Household Surveillance (CHS) is a regional initiative designed by WFP and C- SAFE (Consortium for Southern Africa Food Emergency) to harmonise a results oriented monitoring system for all emergency operations in the region. In August 2003 the Zimbabwe CHS collected data from 856 households in 36 districts and 29 community focus groups. Save the Children (UK) participated with WFP and C-SAFE in the data collection. This CHS report analyses the outcomes of food aid interventions on households. Approximately 40% of households are classified into one of the four vulnerability categories (female headed, presence of chronically ill or disabled member, hosting orphans). Beneficiary households are more likely to be female-headed or have chronically ill or disabled members than non-beneficiary households, however orphans are hosted by a higher percentage of non-beneficiary households. Beneficiary households have a higher dependency ratio than non-beneficiary households. Food availability is the most critical food issue facing rural households. Communities describe significant shortages or absence of cereals and other staple foods (i.e. beans, groundnuts) available for purchase through traditional sources such as GMB or local shops. Households capacity to produce their own cereal supply was reduced because of drought conditions, lack of seeds, and other inputs. While 40% of non-beneficiaries are relying on their own harvest as the main cereal source, less than 6% have stocks sufficient for more than three months. Within this context, food aid has been the primary source of cereals for the majority of rural households, and has improved the food security of beneficiary households (based on number of meals for both adults and children, and diversity of foods consumed). Both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households cite the parallel market as their secondary source of maize. In response to the lack of food available, most households have reduced expenditures on health care, education, and agricultural inputs, and practiced coping strategies that involve eating less often, and reducing portion sizes. Although the majority of households reported changes in eating and expenditure patterns to cope with the current food crisis, less than 10% of households reported selling assets or livestock, and school enrolment remains at over 80%. The primary sources of income for all households are vegetable sales and petty trade, however beneficiary households are twice as likely to engage in gold panning compared to non-beneficiary households. A greater proportion of non-beneficiary households than beneficiary households saw productive household members leaving. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 6

7 2. Summary of key findings Household demographics Approximately 4 out of every 10 households surveyed are classified into one of the vulnerability categories (female headed, chronically ill or disabled, hosting orphans). Beneficiary households are more likely to be female headed (32%), have chronically ill (21%) or disabled members (9%) than non-beneficiary households. Beneficiary households have a higher effective dependency ratio (1.94) than non-beneficiary households (1.76). Food availability and access Respondents in 59% of communities indicate that maize is rarely or occasionally available; and 39% report that maize is not available at all. Small grains (sorghum and millet), groundnuts, and beans are rarely or not available in all communities surveyed. Bread, sugar and cooking oil are reported to be readily available by 21, 44 and 59% of communities respectively. 96% of the communities surveyed report no GMB delivery at village level in the last 3 months. 18.5% of non-beneficiaries and 15.4% of beneficiaries have 1 to 3 month harvest stock. 5.8% of non-beneficiaries and 2.0% of beneficiaries have more than 3 months stock. Food aid (GFD) is the primary source of cereals for 73% of C-SAFE/WFP/Save the Children beneficiaries. Food from own production is the primary source of cereals for 40% of non beneficiaries, and food purchased on the parallel market is the primary source for 24% of non-beneficiaries The most common sources of income for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households are vegetable sales and petty trade. Approximately one in four adults (27.4%) and one in seven children (15.6%) ate one meal or less on the day before the survey. Households receiving food aid have a more diversified diet than non-beneficiary households. Fifty four percent of all children who are enrolled in school are receiving food at school. Of those children who receive food, 52.8% are from beneficiary families, and 47.2% are from nonbeneficiary families. Households are responding to the limited food availability by limiting the size of meals (76.6%), reducing the number of meals consumed per day (72.2%) and relying on less expensive or less preferred food (45.8%). 69.4% of households avoid spending on healthcare to buy food. 72.4% of households reduce expenditure on education and 71.5% of households reduce spending on agricultural inputs and livestock in order to buy food. Depletion of human and productive assets 61.9% of beneficiaries and % of non-beneficiaries were not able to cultivate all their land during the last farming season (i.e. November 2002 April 2003). The most common reasons for not cultivating or harvesting all the land were the lack of rainfall (52.5%) followed by lack of seeds and lack of other inputs (19.8% for each reason). ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 7

8 The percentage of children enrolled in school is over 80%, with just over 15% of children who have dropped out. Less than 5% of rural children have never been enrolled in school. The school enrollment status of children does not vary by gender or beneficiary status. The most prevalent reason for school absenteeism amongst both beneficiary and non-beneficiary children is illness, accounting for more than six out of ten absences. The second most cited reason for absenteeism is the cost of schooling, which accounted for 12% of absences. 11.3% of non-beneficiaries and 6.9% of beneficiaries report selling one or more household assets within the three-month period prior to the survey. Goats were the most commonly sold livestock (7.1%) compared to 2.6% and 2.7% for sales of other cattle and draught cattle, respectively. 3.6% of households had at least one member die in the three-month period prior to the survey. 3. Overview 3.1 Overview of C-SAFE, Save the Children & WFP intervention The Consortium for Southern Africa Food Emergency (C-SAFE) and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) have been implementing relief activities in Zimbabwe since January 2003 and February 2002, respectively. C-SAFE is a jointly planned and implemented response by World Vision, CARE and CRS to the current food security problems plaguing the three southern Africa countries of Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, with World Vision serving as the lead agency in Zimbabwe. The program itself is unique, in that it is neither exclusively emergency nor development oriented. Instead, C-SAFE works along the entire relief to development continuum, addressing the immediate food needs of targeted vulnerable groups; as well as building productive assets and working with communities to increase their resilience to future food security shocks. In Zimbabwe, food relief activities by C-SAFE started in January 2003, although the setting up and negotiations with the key stakeholders were initiated in October Nine districts are currently covered by the C-SAFE intervention, with approximately 600,000 beneficiaries. Save the Children began a targeted general ration programme in Binga and Kariba districts under an independent pipeline in October The beneficiary numbers have varied seasonally according to needs, ranging from 21,000 to 130,000 per month. WFP relief activities in Zimbabwe started in February 2002 and aim at fulfilling the following objectives: 1. Prevent severe food shortages at the household level that could lead to deterioration in the nutritional status and starvation, 2. Safeguard the nutritional well being of vulnerable segments of the population such as People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), children, expectant and nursing women, and the elderly, 3. Preserve productive and human assets, 4. Prevent distress migration. Under the General Food Distribution (GFD) implemented by C-SAFE and WFP the food basket provided to vulnerable households consists of maize/maize meal, cooking oil, pulses and CSB (WFP), equivalent to approximately 2,000 Kilocalories per person per day. C-SAFE, Save the Children, and WFP s community-based targeting approach is guided by a set of vulnerability criteria referring to households socio-economic characteristics (i.e. employment, income, land and asset ownership etc.) and demographic patterns (i.e. households with high dependency ratio, ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 8

9 such as child-headed households, households headed by women, the elderly or chronically ill and large households with orphans are prioritised). 3.2 Purpose of CHS C-SAFE and WFP s General Food Distribution activities are currently monitored at all stages of the intervention, through the implementation of Output Monitoring, Activity monitoring (i.e. Registration Monitoring and Food Distribution Monitoring), Post-Distribution Monitoring and Outcome Monitoring (i.e. Community & Household Surveillance). Community and Household Surveillance (CHS) is a regional initiative designed by WFP and C-SAFE to harmonise a results oriented monitoring system for all emergency operations in the region. Surveillance implies that trends will be monitored over time. Therefore data collected through the CHS community and household questionnaires will be gathered from the same sites (wards) over time 1. The specific objectives of CHS are: 1. Monitor the outcomes of GFD through the measurement of trends in key variables. 2. Improve understanding of the relationship between food security and other factors (in particular HIV/Aids and demographic factors). 3. Detect early warning signs of a food crisis. CHS measures short and longer-term effects (outcomes) of food aid interventions on households. CHS also looks at the influence of contextual factors like HIV/AIDS on the effectiveness and relevance of C- SAFE and WFP operations. This information provides early warning indicators of an impending food crisis in the country. The scope of this report is to review the data with respect to the first objective. Objective number two will be addressed through an in-depth analysis of the CHS data, beginning with the October round. The monthly community surveillance system addresses objective three and provides input to the VAM early warning and food security system. 1 Community level surveillance is carried out on a monthly basis and at household level on a quarterly basis. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 9

10 4. Methodology 4.1 Sampling frame and design Four basic factors were considered in the sampling frame, namely, 1) Agro-ecological zones, 2) Food economy zones (FEZ), 3) C-SAFE, SC and WFP operational areas and 4) census population figures (2002). All agro-ecological zones are represented in the final sample and a total of 11 FEZ were sampled (See Annex I). Purposive and stratified sampling techniques were used to select 36 districts and 44 sites (wards) where WFP, SCF or C-SAFE implement (or will implement) General Food Distribution (or Food-for-Work), and to divide the population into non-overlapping strata with homogeneous characteristics (FEZ). Within the districts sampled, wards were assigned numbers and randomly selected. Within each ward, one village was randomly sampled to conduct community and household interviews. Within villages, 20 households were selected randomly, using the village register and sampling interval 2. Further details on the sampling frame and design are provided in Annex II. 4.2 Sample size The sample was chosen to provide sites that could be monitored over time to reveal trends in indicators. The sample size was not calculated using an equation that would allow for statements to be made regarding statistical validity. Data was collected from 880 households in 44 sentinel sites representing 36 districts. Save the Children UK (SCUK) collected information from 5 sites in 2 districts. C-SAFE data collection occurred in 10 sites in 8 districts. WFP was responsible for 29 sites in 26 districts. After data entry and cleaning a total of 856 household questionnaires and 29 community questionnaires were available for analysis. Figure 1 shows the sentinel sites selected, the implementing partners and their geographical distribution (see Annex III for a list of sentinel sites (wards) by FEZ and district). 2 The sampling interval was calculated based on the total number of households in the village and number of household interviews to be conducted (i.e. sampling interval = Total No of HH in village/no of HH to be interviewed). ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 10

11 CHSSurveyedSites:BaselineSurveyredeyedFigure 1: Map of the sentinel sites N Hurungwe Guruve Centenary GOAL CC CC Mt. Darwin Rushinga CC NotSKariba Rural UMP Mudzi SC UK Makonde BinduraRural WV WV Mazowe WFP Shamva Mutoko WV Gokwe North Zvimba Binga Harare Rual Murehwa Nyanga Chegutu Rural Goromonzi SC UK C-SAFE CON CON Seke C-SAFE Marondera Rura Gokwe South GOAL Lupane Kadoma Rural Nkayi Makoni Mutasa CON Wedza PLAN WV HAZ Hwange Rural Kwekwe Rural Chikomba Mutare Rural Buhera Tsholotsho Chirumanzu CC PLAN ORAP C-SAFE C-SAFE Bubi Gweru Rural Gutu Umguza Shurugwi Rural Chimanimani Masvingo Rural Bulawayo Zvishavane Bikita Umzingwane CARE Zaka C-SAFE CARE Insiza CARE Bulilimamangwe Chivi CC Matobo Mberengwa Chipinge WV C-SAFE Mwenezi WV Gwanda Rural CARE Beitbridge Chiredzi C-SAFE ueysurvv4.3 Data collection instruments The Community Questionnaire was used to collect information from a focus group in each community. The village heads gathered a group of 8 people (maximum) from the community, half of them being women. The groups included a few village representatives as well as community members without a special or representative role. During the interview, the researchers ensured that everybody participated and that a few people did not dominate the discussions. Group discussions focused on the availability of a variety of foodstuffs from sources other than food aid, prices (including livestock prices), casual labour rates and migration patterns (see Annex IV). The household questionnaire included household demographics, income and production, winter cropping, access to food aid, food stocks, coping strategies, dietary intake and assets. The household questionnaire was the primary tool used to collect information about household food security status (see Annex V). ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 11

12 5. Survey Findings 5.1 Household Demographics Households are characterized by gender of household head, age of household head and number of household members, as summarized in the following table. Table 1: Profile of HH by beneficiary status and gender of HH head *Orphans defined as both parents dead. Beneficiary HH Non-beneficiary HH All HH Male Female All Male Female All Male Female All head Head head Head head Head Total Sample (N.) Total sample (%) Age of HH head < 18 years (%) years (%) > 60 years (%) Household size Average HH size Orphans* Ratio orphans / all children A higher percentage of beneficiary (33.9%) versus non-beneficiary households (28.2%) are femaleheaded. Amongst beneficiaries, 63.9% of household heads are married and 23.2% are widowed, compared to non-beneficiaries where 73.8% are married and 19.3% are widowed. Less than one percent of all households are child-headed in this sample, but more than elders head one in four households. There is not much variation between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in terms of the age category of the household head, or the average household size (6.3). Within the age category years, beneficiary households have a moderately higher percentage (24.9%) of female-headed households compared to non-beneficiary households (20.6%). In both beneficiary and non- beneficiary households, female-headed households host orphans in a higher ratio relative to all children in the household. The highest ratio of orphans relative to other children (0.59) is found in female-headed beneficiary households. Dependency ratios measure the number of dependent household members relative to household members that can earn a productive living. In this analysis the Effective Dependency Ratio (de Waal) defines dependents as children (0-17 years) and adults who are chronically ill and or disabled. Non-dependent household members are those who are years and not chronically ill or disabled. The inclusion of chronically ill adults as dependents is an attempt to capture the effect of HIV&AIDS on household dependency. The mean effective dependency ratio for all households is 1.87, implying that for every non-dependent household member there are 1.87 dependent members. Amongst beneficiaries the dependency ratio is ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 12

13 higher (1.94) which means that non-dependent members must support more household members. The mean effective dependency ratio for non-beneficiaries is 1.76 There is no difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with respect to length of time in current village. Over 88% of all respondents have lived in their current village for more than 3 years, and less than 3% of respondents have moved into the village in the past year. Figure 2: Vulnerable households amongst beneficiaries and non beneficiaries % of households Female headed Chronically Ill Disabled Orphans Vulnerability category Beneficiary Non Beneficiary Beneficiary households are more likely to be female-headed, and/or have chronically ill or disabled members. Overall, 31.5% of households are female-headed, 20.3% of households have one or more chronically ill members and 7.8% of households have one or more disabled members. In this CHS sample, 15.7% of households are hosting orphans. A lower percentage of beneficiary households host orphans (14.3% vs 17.6% for nonbeneficiaries), however those that do, have more orphans relative to other children (see Table 1). Approximately 4 out of every 10 households surveyed are classified into one of the vulnerability categories. Twenty percent of households are in two vulnerability categories, and 3.2% of households are characterized as having members in 3 or more vulnerability categories. Beneficiary and non-beneficiary households are similar in terms of the percentages of households falling into one, two or three or more vulnerability categories Food availability & access Access to food aid Table 2: Food aid recipients in survey sample Almost 60% of the households surveyed are accessing food through general food distributions. Less than two percent of households are accessing food through food for work schemes, as these C-SAFE programs were ramping up at the time of the survey. The proportions of food aid sources are consistent with the sampling framework where the proportion of households in WFP areas was 66%, Total Survey 856 HH Received Food Aid 58% (GFD/FFW) GFD versus FFW 98.6% GFD versus 1.4 FFW Main Source of GFD WFP 60%, C-Safe 23%, SCF 15% food Women Recipients-WFP 87% Women Recipients-C- 75% Safe Women Recipients-Save 81% Average No.of monthly rations received in the past 3 months 2.2 (max=4, min = 1) in C-SAFE areas was 23% and in SCF areas was 11%. The majority of food aid recipients in the survey are women, reflecting the WFP/C-SAFE strategy to enhance control over the food aid received and empower women, by encouraging women to collect the household food aid basket. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 13

14 The average number of rations received in the past three months is less than three, reflecting the geographical scaling-up strategy. A number of districts in WFP operational areas were excluded from food aid during the post-harvest period and only started receiving food aid again in August Market availability & prices The 29 community surveys indicate: Basic food commodities, including maize, are difficult to access almost everywhere. Staple food items are rarely or not available at all from GMB depots, local shops and markets. Respondents in 59% of communities indicate that maize is rarely or occasionally available while 39% of communities report that it is not available at all In most cases, small grains (sorghum and millet), groundnuts, and beans are also rarely or not available. According to 82% of the communities the scarce commodities are sourced from district markets and from private traders at very high prices. This is a diversion from the historic role of the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) as a sole buyer and seller of maize and staple grains. 82% of communities indicate that vegetables (cabbages, tomatoes, onions, pumpkins) are readily available from local markets and household production. Vegetables from household production are reported to have increased. Bread, sugar and cooking oil are reported as readily available by 21, 44 and 59% of communities respectively. Most respondents indicate that prices are still high; there is however an improvement in availability of these commodities compared to the last ZIMVAC report (April 2003). Table 3: Availability of basic food commodities (excluding food aid) (source: community interviews) Commodity Readily Available Occasionally /rarely Available Not Available Total Most Common Sources Maize (Meal or 2% 59% 39% 100% District Market, Private Trader grain) Sorghum 0% 18% 82% 100% Own Production Millet 0% 21% 79% 100% Own Production Bread/Wheat 21% 38% 41% 100% Local Shops, District Market Sweet Potato 6% 27% 67% 100% Private trader Groundnuts 0% 32% 68% 100% Own Production Beans 18% 32% 50% 100% Local Shops, District Market, own production Vegetables 82% 15% 3% 100% Own Production, Private Trader Cooking Oil 59% 35% 6% 100% Local Shops, District Market, Private Trader Sugar 44% 47% 9% 100% Local Shops, District Market ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 14

15 5.2.3 GMB Availability and deliveries In 2002 the GMB instituted a delivery system for maize to communities; however transport constraints have lead to the phasing out of village-level deliveries in many areas. In August, 4% of the communities interviewed reported that GMB had delivered maize (i.e. at village level) during the three-month period preceding the survey. When GMB did deliver maize to the communities (i.e. in 4% of the cases), on average, only 28 % of the households were able to purchase GMB maize at each delivery. Table 4: Number of GMB deliveries to communities in the past 3 months Number of GMB deliveries Communities Receiving Deliveries (%) Cereals and livestock market price performance The price of cereals (maize, sorghum and bread/wheat) is a particularly crucial factor for a household s ability to access food. The dependency on purchases has been accompanied by the divergence between the controlled price of grain - sold by or through the GMB - and the prices on the open market. Table 6 shows the average price of maize at both controlled and uncontrolled prices, reported by the communities surveyed. If maize grain at the controlled price was available it would sell at ZW$5,918 per 50 Kg. However, most of the grain available was accessed through the open market at ZW$14, 958 per 50 Kg. The price per kg is $ZW300. The ZimVAC report concluded that maize prices beyond ZW$165, would trigger conditions for increased vulnerability to food insecurity. The market price of goat and cattle in the communities surveyed averages ZW$ 22,000 and ZW$174,000 respectively (Table 5). The sale of one goat would enable the purchase of 50kg maize using the open market prices. Table 5: Average prices for selected food commodities Minimum Price ZW$ Maximum Price ZW$ Average Price ZW$ Price of maize (controlled price) per480 18,000 5,918 50kg Price of maize (uncontrolled price) per4,500 20,000 14, kg Price of sorghum 1,400 8,000 5,150 Price of bread (loaf) 800 1,600 1,113 Price of cattle (average size) 45, , ,939 Price of goat (average size) 1, ,000 22,264 ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 15

16 5.2.5 Casual labour According to ZimVAC report (April 2003), casual labour is the most important source of income for rural households. Information analysed by FEZ confirms that the there are substantial differences in the daily wage earned across geographical areas. Table 6 shows the variation of the daily wage rate by FEZ. With the lowest reported wage rate of 50$ day, it would take 20 working days for one to buy a loaf of bread. On the other hand, with the maximum wage rate of 1500$ one working day would buy a loaf of bread. Table 6: Daily wages Minimum ZW$ Maximum ZW$ FEZ Name Siabuwa-low cotton communal Beitbridge Lowveld 1,000 2,000 Western Kalahari 50 1,500 Cattle Game ranching 500 1,000 Poor Resource Kariba 50 1,000 Northern Zambezi Valley Eastern Kalahari Desert 160 2,000 Masvingo-Mutare Middleveld Greater Mudzi Mashonaland Commercial Eastern Highlands Commercial To buy a 50 kg bag of maize through the open market when the common casual wage rate is less than $1000, it would be necessary to employ two persons per family for more than two weeks Harvest stocks Figure 3: Harvest stocks in the household Of the 856 households sampled, the proportion of households with no harvest stock 3 is greater among beneficiaries (82.6%) than among non-beneficiaries (75.8%). 18.5% of non-beneficiaries and 15.4% of beneficiaries have 1 to 3 month harvest stock. 5.8% of non-beneficiaries and 2.0% of beneficiaries have over 3 month stock). % of Harvest stocks in the Household Stock 1-3 month stock >3 month stock Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries 3 The analysis defined as no harvest stock any stock of less than 1 month. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 16

17 The 75.8% of non-beneficiaries without harvest stock is very high; however part of this group has income to purchase food. Post-distribution monitoring, through assessment of targeting efficiency, indicates that households with sufficient income are filtered out in 95 % of the cases 4. However, the 2% of beneficiaries with > 3 month stock and the 15.4 % with 1-3 months stock likely indicates an inclusion error Household sources of cereals Figure 4: Primary source of cereals for households Food Aid (other) 0,6 1 Gifts 3,4 10,7 Borrow ed 4,4 1,6 Casual labour for food 3,7 11 Parallel Market 4,5 24,2 GMB 1,4 8,3 Food Aid (GFD) 0,6 73 Ow n production 11,4 40, Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries Food aid (GFD) is the primary source of cereals for 73% of C- SAFE/WFP/Save the Children beneficiaries. Food from own production is the primary source of cereals for 40% of nonbeneficiaries, and food purchased on the parallel market is the primary source for 24% of non-beneficiaries Similar percentages of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries cite casual labour and food gifts as the primary source of cereal (11, and 3-4% respectively) 11.4% of food aid beneficiaries cite own production as their primary cereal source, suggesting an inclusion error. The GMB contributes to the primary source of food aid for only 4.3 % of the survey group (1.4% for beneficiaries and 8.3% for non-beneficiaries); whereas the parallel market is the primary cereal source for 12.9% of the sample. The secondary source of cereals most frequently cited by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is purchase from parallel market (22.5% for beneficiaries vs. 23.6% for non-beneficiaries). 4 WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (January March 2003); WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (April - June 2003); WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (July September 2003) ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 17

18 5.2.8 Households main sources of income Table 7: Households primary sources of income by beneficiary status Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries Total Source of Income N % N % N % Remittances % % % Crop sales % % % Casual agricultural labour % % % Casual non agricultural labour % % % Livestock sales % % % Skilled trade/artisan % % % Medium/large scale business 2.4% 1.3% 3.4% Petty trade % % % Beer brewing % 6 1.7% % Formal salary or pension % % % Fishing 3.6% 2.6% 5.6% Gold panning % % % Vegetable sales % % % Other 6 1.3% % % Total % % % The most common sources of income for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households are vegetable sales and petty trade. The most common secondary sources of income are reported in the same order of importance as primary sources, i.e. vegetable sales 24.9%, petty trade 19.8% and casual labour 13.6%. Only 16.8% of the households surveyed report a third source of income. Among that group, casual nonagricultural labour, vegetable sales and petty trade are the most commonly cited income sources. The relationship between income sources and food aid shows differences between households receiving food aid and households that do not for the following income sources: formal employment, and gold panning. A larger number of non-beneficiary households cite formal employment as their primary source of income; this is according to the C-SAFE-WFP targeting policy. Households with formal employment or pension usually do not qualify for food aid, unless their monthly salary is deemed insignificant. Gold panning, as a primary source of income, is mentioned by a higher percentage of beneficiary households (10.8%) than non-beneficiaries (5.1%). Where gold panning is available as an option, households tend to utilize this activity when under stress. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 18

19 5.2.9 Dietary intake Meal frequency Using a 24-hour recall method, WFP and C-SAFE assessed the number of meals consumed and dietary diversity. Figure 5: Number of meals consumed on the day before the survey (adults vs. children) Adults/Children ,3 57,7 25,4 14,4 22,3 12,2 2 1,2 0,1 4, Number of meals Adults Children Approximately one in four adults (27.4%) and one in seven children (15.6%) 5 ate one meal or less on the day before the survey. Among those who had two meals, the percentage of children and adults is similar (57.7 vs 60.3% respectively). The percentage of adults having three or more meals is half (12.3%) that of children (26.8%): this pattern was also observed during the C-SAFE baseline conducted in April This pattern of meal frequency is consistent with the ZIMVAC findings from the August 2002 Assessment 7 ; and also confirmed by the CHS findings on coping strategies. When asked how often adults restrict food consumption so that children can eat more, 13.4% of households report using this strategy everyday, 16.2% pretty often and 14.5% once in a while. 5 2% among adults had o meals yesterday as opposed to 1.2% children; and 25.4% adults had 1 meal vs. 14.4%. 6 C-SAFE Zimbabwe Baseline Survey; Report of Finding, September ZimVAC Report ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 19

20 Table 8: Number of meals consumed on the day before the survey by beneficiary status (adults vs. children) Adults Children Number of Beneficiaries Nonbeneficiariebeneficiaries Total Beneficiaries Non- Meals Total N % N % N % N % N % N % 0 meal 7 1.4% % 17 2% 6 1.2% 4 1.1% % 1 meal % % % % % % 2 meals % % % % % % 3 meals % % % % % % 4+ meals 1 0.2% 0 0% 1.1% % % % Total % % % % % % When looking at the relationship between meal frequency and beneficiary status, the following patterns are observed: The percentage of adults having 0 to 1 meal per day is greater among non-beneficiaries (30.9%) than beneficiaries (24.9%). The fact that a quarter of food aid beneficiaries spend entire days without eating or have only 1 meal may imply that the food aid basket is insufficient 8. Proportions of adults having 2 meals per day are similar among those who receive food aid and those who do not (i.e. about 60% in both cases). A difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is observed among adults who have 3 or more meals: the proportion of beneficiaries eating three or more meals is nearly twice as much as the proportion of non-beneficiaries (i.e. 15% vs. 8.6%). Among children, a notable difference between food aid beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries can be noted among those having 1 meal per day. Non-beneficiaries are 1.5 times more likely to have 1 meal than beneficiaries. The fact that beneficiaries are more likely to have more meals is also reflected in the proportion of children eating 3 meals per day; whereby 26% of beneficiaries have 3 meals vs. 17.2% of non-beneficiaries. This pattern indicates that food aid enabled food insecure households to access food in the same proportions as food secure households. The frequency of meal consumption is consistent with PDM observations that 99% of the food aid received is consumed as opposed to sold/bartered/shared etc. 9 8 C-SAFE, SC, WFP ration size distributed in August was 10kgs cereal, 1kg CSB, 0.6kgs cooking oil and 1kg pulses per each household member. 9 WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (January March 2003); WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (April - June 2003); WFP Quarterly Monitoring Report (July September 2003) ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 20

21 Dietary diversity CHS also assessed dietary diversity; i.e. the number of different types of food items consumed by household members in the 24 hours preceding the survey. Households that consume a greater variety of food types are more food secure than households with less food types. Figure 6: Number of different food items consumed by household members in the last 24 hours, by beneficiary status % of Household item 1-2 items 3-4 items 5 or more items Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries consume less (different) food items than beneficiaries. 43.5% of nonbeneficiaries and 26.5% of beneficiaries consumed two or less different types of foods in the 24 hours preceding the survey. Fewer non-beneficiaries (11%) consumed 5 or more food items than beneficiaries (27%). Most respondents (approximately 45%) consumed 3 to 4 food items. Households receiving food aid have a more diversified diet than non-beneficiary households. The food basket for general food distribution contains 3 or 4 food items (maize, beans, oil, corn Soya blend) and makes a significant contribution to dietary diversity amongst beneficiaries. Table 9: Types of food items consumed in the 24 hours preceding the survey Type of food item N % Maize % Other cereals (including CSB) % Cassava/potatoes/other tubers % Sugar/sugar products % Legumes % Vegetables % Bread % Fruits (including wild fruits) % Meat % Eggs % Fish 8 0.9% Cooking oil/fats % Milk % ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 21

22 Maize is consumed by 94% of households. This compares well with the C-SAFE baseline survey findings of 92%. 10 The second most common food item consumed is vegetables (82.6%). This survey was conducted during the vegetable growing season (May-September). The percentage of households consuming meat is significantly lower (2.8%) than that observed during the C-SAFE baseline survey (14.7%); this may be explained by the fact that many of C- Safe s operational areas are livestock producing areas. Bread consumption is reported in less than 2% of households, reflecting both availability and affordability Access to school feeding and additional food aid Over 40% of households report children who receive school feeding. In those households receiving school feeding (n=356), the number of children per household accessing the food is summarized in the following table. Comparing the data by beneficiary status reveals that beneficiary (71.6%) and nonbeneficiary households (69.5%) are most likely to have one or two children receiving feeding. Table 10: Households accessing school feeding Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries Total Number of children N % N % N % % % % % % % 3 or more % 54 33% % Total % % % Fifty four percent of all children who are enrolled in school (n=1763) are receiving food at school. Of those children who receive food, 52.8% (503) are from beneficiary families, and 47.2% (449) are from non-beneficiary families. More than 50% of female headed households, households with chronically ill, and households hosting orphans receive food assistance from at least one source other than general food aid. In all vulnerability categories, school-feeding programs comprise the largest percentage of additional food, and supplementary wet feeding for children under 5 is the second largest component of additional food. The contributions of home-based care, clinic based supplementary feeding, therapeutic feeding and pregnant and lactating supplementary rations are minimal (<7% of HH) amongst all groups. Figure 7: Main sources of additional food assistance for beneficiary and non- beneficiary households % of households Any additional food Supplementary feeding School feeding Type of food assistance Beneficary Non Beneficiary 10 C-SAFE Zimbabwe Baseline Survey; Report of Findings, September ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 22

23 Table 11: Minor sources of additional food assistance. Other food aid Beneficiary HH (n=496)non Beneficiary HH (n=362) N. % N. % Home based care Clinic based supplementary feeding Therapeutic feeding Pregnant and lactating Coping strategies Respondents were asked how often they had used the specific coping strategies listed below over the past month. Options for frequency were; (i) never, (ii) seldom, (iii) once in a while, (iv) pretty often and (v) almost everyday. % of Households Figure 8: Percentage of households using various coping strategies almost every day or pretty often (by beneficiary status) 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries List of coping strategies A: Limit portion (meal) size B: Reduce number of meals consumed per day C: Skip meals for the entire day D: Borrow food or rely on help from relatives or friends E: Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods 12 F: Purchase food on credit or take a loan to purchase food G: Gather unusual types/amounts of wild food or hunt H: Harvest immature crops 12 I: Send household members to eat elsewhere J: Send household members to beg K: Restrict consumption by adults so that children can eat more L: Rely on casual labour for food In order to assess linkages between food aid and the use of coping strategies answers are disaggregated by beneficiary status. Figure 8 above provides information on the proportion of households that use a certain response strategies on a regular basis, i.e. almost everyday or pretty often. The most common coping strategies which households used frequently include: Limiting size of meals (76.6%), (ii) reducing the number of meals consumed per day (72.2%) and (iii) relying on less expensive or less preferred food (45.8% of the households surveyed) 13. These findings are consistent with ZimVAC and C-SAFE baseline findings. 11 It is important to note that, when asked about that particular strategy, the vast majority of households reported that all types of food were expensive; therefore the first component of the question, i.e. less expensive food was irrelevant. The answers should therefore be taken as frequency on the use of less preferred food only. 12 Given the seasonality of this coping strategy (the period preceding the harvest); this particular strategy was irrelevant for a majority of respondents; hence the very small proportion of households reporting to harvest immature crops. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 23

24 The proportion of households frequently resorting to some of these strategies, i.e. reduction of number of meals per day and relying on less preferred foods, is marginally higher among beneficiaries than nonbeneficiaries. 14. In addition to the food consumption coping strategies the CHS survey inquired about three types of expenditure strategies used to buy food, (avoiding spending on healthcare, reducing expenditure on education and cutting down expenditure on agricultural and livestock inputs). CHS findings reveal that 69.4% 15 of the households avoid spending on healthcare to buy food 16. A greater proportion of beneficiary households (75.3%) than non-beneficiary households (68.5%) reduce their expenditure on education in order to buy food. 17 Similarly, more beneficiary households (79.2%) than non-beneficiary households (60.9%) cut down spending on agricultural inputs and livestock in order to buy food Coping strategy index The Coping Strategies Index (CSI) is an indicator of household food security that corresponds well with other more complex measures of food insecurity. Figure 9: Coping strategy index Within Africa, the CSI has been a robust indicator of household food security, and can be used to track both household food security in emergencies and the impact of food aid interventions , , ,5 The CSI measures the frequency and severity of a 72 Beneficiary HH Non Beneficiary HH All households household s coping strategies for dealing with food shortages. Information on the frequency and severity of coping strategies is combined into a single CSI score. In this CHS survey, the coping strategy index is only slightly higher among beneficiary households than non-beneficiary households. This indicates that beneficiary households are reporting a marginally higher level of food insecurity. The little difference between the two groups may indicate that the food aid program has helped to maintain the level of food security in beneficiary households by increasing food availability at the household level. 14 It is important to note that further analysis on linkages between household sizes and coping strategies did not identify any positive relationship between household size and frequent use of more severe strategies. 15 This figure purposely excludes non-applicable cases (i.e. households that did not have anybody sick in the last 3 months). 16 Please note that no significant difference was observed between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. 17 This figure purposely excludes non-applicable cases (i.e. households that did not have children of school-going age). ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 24

25 5.4 Depletion of human and productive assets School Enrollment Figure 10: School enrolment by beneficiary status % of children Enrolled Dropped out Never Enrolled Enrollment status Beneficiary Non Beneficiary Comparisons between beneficiary and nonbeneficiary households in terms of school enrollment indicate very little variation between the two groups. Beneficiary households have a slightly lower percentage of children currently enrolled. Overall, the percentage of children enrolled in school is over 80%, with just over 15% of children who have dropped out. Less than 5% of rural children have never been enrolled in school. The school enrollment status of children does not vary by gender. Table 12: Reasons for absence from school In beneficiary households 471 children and in non-beneficiary households 268 children report absenteeism from school for more than one week in the past month The most prevalent reason for school absenteeism amongst both beneficiary and non-beneficiary children is illness, accounting for more than six out of ten absences. The second most cited reason for absenteeism is the cost of schooling, which accounts for 12% of absences. Hunger as a reason for absence is cited in a higher percentage of beneficiary households, whereas both paid and unpaid work is more frequently cited in nonbeneficiary households. Reason for absenteeis m Absentee children in beneficiary HH Absentee Total children in Nonbeneficiary HH absentee children N. % N. % N. % Sickness Work for money/ food 6.5 Unpaid work for HH 3.1 Care for ill person 3.4 Hunger Could not afford costs ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 25

26 5.4.2 Asset ownership The CHS household interviews inquired about the types of assets owned by households. For analysis, households were grouped into categories related to the number of different types of household assets owned, i.e. households owning 0 asset, 1-2 asset(s), 3-4 assets, 5-6 assets and 7 assets or more. Figure 11: Number of different types of assets owned by households 35 % of Households asset 1-2 assets 3-4 assets 5-6 assets 7 or more assets 1.6 % of households do not own any assets, 10.9% own 1 or 2 assets, 30.5 % have 3-4 assets and 57% own 5 or more assets. No significant variation in asset ownership is found between beneficiary and nonbeneficiary households Sale of household assets 11.3% of non-beneficiaries and 6.9% of beneficiaries report selling one or more household assets within the three-month period prior to the survey. Table 13: Types of assets sold by households by beneficiary status Non- Beneficiaries Types of Assets Sold Beneficiaries Total N % N % N % Hand tools % 4 9.8% % Transport assets % 1 2.4% 5 6.9% Non-productive assets % % % In order to preserve their productive capacity, households under stress usually tend to sell non-productive assets first and productive assets last. As shown in the table above, the majority of assets sold in the past three months, (86.1%) were non-productive assets. Asset sales patterns by beneficiary status indicate that a higher proportion of beneficiaries, sold productive assets (i.e. hand tools and transport assets). 18 Hoe, sickle, axe. 19 scotch-cart, bicycle, canoe. 20 bed, table, chair, TV, radio and other furniture. ZIMBABWE CHS BASELINE SURVEY 26