Post on 26-May-2022
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment
Masvingo Province Report
ZimVAC is Coordinated By Food And Nutrition Council (FNC)Housed At SIRDC: 1574 Alpes Rd, Hatcliffe, Harare.
Tel: +263 242 862 586/862 025 Website: www.fnc.org.zw Email: info@fnc.org.zwTwitter: @FNCZimbabwe Instagram: fnc_zim Facebook: @FNCZimbabwe
1
ForewordIn its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrition security for all people at all times’, the Government of Zimbabwe continues to exhibit its
commitment towards reducing food and nutrition insecurity, poverty and improving livelihoods amongst the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe through
operationalization of Commitment 6 of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP). Under the coordination of the Food and Nutrition Council, the Zimbabwe
Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) undertook the 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment, the 21st since its inception. ZimVAC is a technical advisory committee
comprised of representatives from Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. Through its assessments, ZimVAC continues to
collect, synthesize and disseminate high quality information on the food and nutrition security situation in a timely manner.
The 2021 RLA was motivated by the need to provide credible and timely data to inform progress of commitments in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS 1) and
inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people in both their short and long-term vulnerability context. Furthermore, as the ‘new normal’ under
COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, the assessment sought to provide up to date information on how rural food systems
and livelihoods have been impacted by the pandemic. The report covers thematic areas which include the following: education, food and income sources, income levels,
expenditure patterns, food security, COVID-19, WASH, social protection and gender-based violence, among other issues.
Our sincere appreciation goes to the ZimVAC as well as the food and nutrition security structures at both provincial and district levels for successfully carrying out the
survey. These structures continue to exhibit great commitment towards ensuring that every Zimbabwean remains free from hunger and malnutrition. We also extend our
appreciation to Government and Development Partners for the financial support and technical leadership which made the assessment a resounding success. The
collaboration of the rural communities of Zimbabwe as well as the rural local authorities is sincerely appreciated. The leadership, coordination and management of the
whole assessment displayed by the staff at the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) is also greatly appreciated.
We submit this report to you for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasting measures in addressing priority
issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity.
George D. Kembo (DR.)
FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson2
Table of Contents
3
Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..……………………………………………….…..…2Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..……………………………………………….…….……....4Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..…………..….....6Background and Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………….……………………..…………………......…7Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..……………......11Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………..16Demographic Description of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..……………………...…27Education …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….................. …………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………….…..34Social Protection …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………….…37Agricultural Production ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..………………………..….43Incomes and Expenditure ……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………..…………….…..84Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….90Access to Services and Infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…....109ISALS and Loans…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…135Food Consumption Patterns…………………………………………………………………….……………..……..………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………..……….………………………………….…….140Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..………….……..…145Child Nutrition Status…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….….155Gender Based Violence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..163COVID-19 and Livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………………………. ………………………………………………………………….……..….172Shocks and Stressors……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..………………………..…..…………………….….…….…183Food Security…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….…189Conclusions and Recommendations …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………………..….....………202
Acknowledgements
• Office of the President and Cabinet
• Food and Nutrition Council
• SIRDC
• Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
• Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Waterand Rural Resettlement
• Ministry of Public Service, Labour and SocialWelfare
• Ministry of Health and Child Care
• Ministry of Local Government, Public Works andNational Housing
• Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Smalland Medium Enterprise Development
• Public Service Commission
• Ministry of Health and Child Care
• United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)
• Zimbabwe Defence Forces
• Mercy Corps
• United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
• United Nations Development Programme- ZRBF
• UNFPA-Spotlight Initiative
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
• Progress
• United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
• Sizimele
• MELANA
• Coordinamento Delle Organizzazioni Peril ServizioVolontario (COSV)
• Local Initiatives and Development Agency (LID)
• Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA)
• Caritas
• World Vision
• Lutheran Development Services (LDS)
• Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe
• MAVAMBO
• Rural District Councils (RDCs)
• Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger andMalnutrition (REACH)
• Bindura University of Science Education
• Marondera University of Agricultural Sciencesand Technology
• Hand in Hand
• Care International
• Tsuro
• Welthungerhilfe (WHH)
• GOAL
• Plan International
• Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT)
• Mwenezi Development Training Centre(MDTC)
• Nutrition Action Zimbabwe (NAZ)
• Africa Ahead
• Action Aid
• CARITAS Harare
The technical and financial support received from the following is greatly appreciated:
4
Acknowledgement of Support
ZIMBABWE
5
Acronyms
EA Enumeration Area
FNC Food and Nutrition Council
FNSP Food and Nutrition Security Policy
FNSIS Food and Nutrition Security Information System
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HHS Household Hunger Score
NNS National Nutrition Survey
RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition
ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee
6
Introduction and Background
7
Introduction • ZimVAC livelihoods assessments’ results continue to be an important tool for informing and guiding policies and programmes that respond
to the prevailing food and nutrition security situation. To date, 21 rural and 8 urban livelihoods updates have been produced.
• ZimVAC plays a significant role in fulfilling Commitment Six, of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP) (GoZ, 2012), in which the
“Government of Zimbabwe is committed to ensuring a national integrated food and nutrition security information system that provides
timely and reliable information on the food and nutrition security situation and the effectiveness of programmes and informs decision-
making”.
• It has become mandatory for FNC to coordinate annual livelihoods updates with the technical support of ZimVAC.
8
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)
ZimVAC is a consortium of Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. It was established
in 2002 and is led and regulated by Government. It is chaired by FNC, a department in the Office of the President and Cabinet
whose mandate is to promote a multi-sectoral response to food insecurity and nutrition problems in a manner that ensures that
every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutrition.
ZimVAC supports Government, particularly FNC in:
• Convening and coordinating national food and nutrition security issues in Zimbabwe
• Charting a practical way forward for fulfilling legal and existing policy commitments in food and nutrition security
• Advising Government on the strategic direction in food and nutrition security
• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and supporting and facilitating action to ensure sector commitments in food and nutrition are
kept on track through a number of core functions such as:
▪ Undertaking food and nutrition assessments, analysis and research;
▪ Promoting multi-sectoral and innovative approaches for addressing food and nutrition insecurity, and:
▪ Supporting and building national capacity for food and nutrition security including at sub-national levels.
9
Assessment Rationale• The performance of the agricultural season, with the disruption of food systems and markets, the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the prevailing
macro-economic environment has affected the livelihoods of the rural population.
• The impact on the livelihoods, which has ripple effects on household wellbeing outcomes, had not been quantified and ascertained hence the
need to carry out a livelihoods assessment.
• The assessment results will be used to:
• Inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people, given the prevailing situation in the country as well as their long
term vulnerability context.
• Inform short, medium and long term interventions that address immediate and long term needs as well as building resilient livelihoods.
• Monitor and report towards commitments within the guiding frameworks of existing national food and nutrition policies and strategies
among them the National Development Strategy 1, the Food and Nutrition Security Policy and the Zero Hunger Strategy.
• Monitor interventions to ensure adherence to the principles spelt out in regional and international frameworks which Zimbabwe has
committed itself to which include the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the SDGs.
• Guide early warning for early action 10
Purpose
The overall purpose of the assessment was to provide an annual update on livelihoods in Zimbabwe’s rural areas, for the purposes of informing
policy formulation and programming appropriate interventions.
11
ObjectivesThe specific objectives of the assessment were:
• To estimate the population that is likely to be food insecure in the 2021/22 consumption year, their geographic distribution and the severityof their food insecurity.
• Assess impact and severity of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods.
• To assess the nutrition status of children of 6 – 59 months.
• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteristics as their demographics, access to basic services(education, health services and water and sanitation facilities), assets, income sources, incomes and expenditure patterns, food consumptionpatterns and consumption coping strategies.
• To determine the coverage of humanitarian and developmental interventions in the country.
• To identify development priorities for communities.
• To determine the effects of shocks experienced by communities on food and nutrition security.
• To measure household resilience and identify constraints to improving their resilience.
• To identify early recovery needs in order to determine short to long term recovery strategies.
12
Background• The 2021 RLA was undertaken against a continuously evolving food and nutrition security situation.
• The Government came up with the National Development Strategy 1:2021-2025 (NDS1) towards the end of 2020. The overarching goal of NDS1 is to ensure high,
accelerated, inclusive and sustainable economic growth as well as socio-economic transformation and development as we move towards an upper middle-income
society by 2030.
• One of the priority areas for the NDS1 is Food and Nutrition Security. NDS1 seeks to improve food self-sufficiency and to retain the regional breadbasket status. The
main objective is to increase food self-sufficiency from the current level of 45% to 100% and reduce food insecurity from the high of 59% recorded in 2019 to less
than 10% by 2025.
• Agriculture as one of the key economic sectors and fundamental to the projected economic growth had a good 2020/21 rainfall season. The season recorded an
increase in the area planted to maize at 1 951 848 Ha of land owing to the overwhelming support by Government and the private sector. The total cereal
production was 3 075 538 MT against a national cereal requirement of 1 797 435 MT for human and livestock 450 000 MT consumption.
• The rains received improved livestock condition, drinking water availability for livestock and pasture quality and availability. However the incessant rains increased
tick borne diseases.
• With the majority of the rural population’s livelihoods mostly influenced by agriculture (both crops and livestock), the experienced climate related shocks have
implications on access to food and the nutrition status of children.
13
• Poverty continues to be one of the major underlying causes of vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity as well as precarious
livelihoods in Zimbabwe. According to the ZIMSTAT Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2017 Report, 70.5% of the
population were poor whilst 29.3% were deemed extremely poor. The official exchange rates have remained stable, while basic food prices
are on an increase. Year on year inflation for April 2021 was at 194.1%.
• The new normal under COVID-19 has implications on food security and nutrition. Globally, food supply chains have been disrupted due to
lockdowns triggered by the global health crisis, but also a major global economic slowdown. This has led to lower incomes and higher food
prices, making food out of reach for vulnerable households.
• The impact of the pandemic, amidst other shocks, has caused significant deterioration and erosion of livelihoods and productive assets,
food security and nutrition of vulnerable households. The closure of rural food and livestock markets affected the incomes of rural
livelihoods.
• The vulnerable rural households have little to nothing to cushion the effects of the shock (pandemic). They experience market failures and
have little or no access to formal insurance and credit and risk management mechanisms. The vulnerable households have challenges in
accessing liquidity, worsened by reduced casual wage labour opportunities and the closure of informal markets, where they tend to sell
production.
Background
14
• The enforcement of social distancing combined with the covariate nature of the crisis will likely overwhelm and/or reduce the rural
households’ access to traditional community networks and institutions of social reciprocity, which have historically provided a safety net in
times of crisis.
Background
15
Assessment Methodology
16
Methodology – Assessment Design• The assessment was a cross-sectional study whose
design was guided and informed by the Food and
Nutrition Security Conceptual framework (Figure 1),
which Zimbabwe adopted in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012), and
the conceptual framework on food security dimensions
propounded by Jones et al. (2013).
• The assessment was also guided and informed by the
resilience framework (figure 2) so as to influence the
early recovery of households affected by various
shocks.
• The assessment looked at food availability and access
as pillars that have confounding effects on food
security as defined in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012).
• Accordingly, the assessment measured the amount of
energy available to a household from all its potential
sources hence the primary sampling unit for the
assessment was the household.Figure 1: Food and Nutrition Conceptual Framework
17
Figure 2: Zimbabwe resilience framework (UNDP Zimbabwe, 2015)
18
19
Methodology – Assessment Process• ZimVAC, through multi-stakeholder consultations, developed an appropriate assessment design concept note and data collection tools informed
by the assessment objectives.
• The primary data collection tools used in the assessment were the android–based structured household questionnaire and the community
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide.
• ZimVAC national supervisors (including Provincial Agritex Extension Officers and Provincial Nutritionists) and enumerators were recruited from
Government, United Nations, Technical partners and Non-Governmental Organisations. These underwent training in all aspects of the
assessment. In order to minimise risk of spreading COVID-19, training for both supervisors and enumerators was done virtually.
• The Ministry of Health and Child Care was the lead ministry in the development of the Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC) guidelines which
guided processes from survey planning to data collection.
• The Ministry of Local Government, through the Provincial Development Coordinators’ offices coordinated the recruitment of district level
enumerators and mobilisation of provincial supervision and district enumeration vehicles. Enumerators for the current assessment were drawn
from an already existing database of those who participated in one or two previous ZimVAC assessments. Four enumerators were selected from
each district for data collection. In selected districts, two additional enumerators were recruited as anthropometrists.
20
Methodology – Assessment Process
• Primary data collection took place from 3 to 20 July, 2021. In recognising the risk of spreading COVID-19 during data collection, innovative
approaches were used to collect vital information without causing any harm. The RLA was guided by global and country specific
recommendations and all necessary precautions were taken to avoid potential transmission of COVID-19 between enumerators and community
members.
• In order to reduce exposure to COVID-19 through person to person physical contact, primary caregivers were capacitated to measure their
children using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tapes and assessment of oedema. In the case of anthropometrists recruited from MoHCC,
additional appropriate PPE was provided (gloves, disposable plastic aprons) to enable them to measure participants aged 5 to 19 years in twenty
selected districts.
• Data analysis and report writing ran from 23 May to 3 June 2021. Various secondary data sources and field observations were used to
contextualise the analysis and reporting.
21
Methodology - Sampling and Sample Size • Household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator to determine the sample to
ensure 95% confidence level of statistical representativeness at district, provincial and national
level.
• The survey collected data from 1500 randomly selected Enumerated Areas (EAs):
• A two staged cluster sampling was used and comprised of;
• Sampling of 25 clusters per each of the 60 rural districts, denoted as EAs in this
assessment, from the Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) 2012 master sampling frame
using the PPS methodology
• The second stage involved the systematic random sampling of 10 households per EA
(village).
• At most, 254 households were interviewed per district, bringing the total sampled households to
1746 households at provincial level.
• 5 FGDs were held per district.
Districts Number of Sampled
Households
Bikita 246
Chiredzi 246
Chivi 250
Gutu 250
Mwenezi 254
Masvingo 247
Zaka 253
Masvingo province 1746
22
Methodology – Sampled Wards
23
Data Preparation and Analysis
• Primary data was transcribed using CSEntry on android gadgets and using CSPro. It was consolidated and converted into
SPSS, STATA and DBF datasets for:
• Household structured interviews
• Community Focus Group Discussions
• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, STATA, ENA, Microsoft Excel and GIS packages.
• Analyses of the different thematic areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant local and
international frameworks, where they exist.
• Gender, as a cross cutting issue, was recognised throughout the analysis.
24
Technical Scope
• Education
• Health
• WASH
• Nutrition
• Agriculture and other rural livelihoods activities
• Food security
• Resilience
• Social protection
• Linkages amongst the key sectoral and thematic areas
• Cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability
The 2021 RLA collected and analysed information on the following thematic areas:
25
Assessment Findings
26
Demographic Description of the Sample
27
Household Characteristics: Household Size
• The average household size for Masvingo province was 4.3.
District Average Minimum Maximum
Bikita 3.6 1.0 8.0
Chiredzi 4.5 1.0 14.0
Chivi 4.9 1.0 14.0
Gutu 3.9 1.0 10.0
Masvingo 4.5 1.0 13.0
Mwenezi 3.9 1.0 11.0
Zaka 4.5 1.0 12.0
Masvingo Province 4.3 1.0 14.0
28
Characteristics of Household Head: Sex and Age
• The proportion of male headed households in the province was 61.6%.
• The average age of household head was 52.7 years which is within the economic productive age group.
Household Head Sex (%) Household Head Average Age ( years)
District Male Female Average Minimum
Bikita 52.8 47.2 53.6 15.0
Chiredzi 78.0 22.0 48.4 21.0
Chivi 63.2 36.8 54.1 19.0
Gutu 56.8 43.2 55.3 16.0
Masvingo 63.0 37.0 55.0 16.0
Mwenezi 65.2 34.8 49.1 18.0
Zaka 52.2 47.8 53.3 15.0
Masvingo Province 61.6 38.4 52.7 15.0
29
Characteristics of Household Head: Education Level Attained
• About 51% of the household heads attained above primary level education.
1519
14
36
1922
14
32 33 3439
3740
3035
23
11 12
24
1711
15 16
27 28
37
30
38
2529 31
2 2 2 2 0 2 2 116
1 3 2 3 3 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
None Primary level ZJC level O' level A' level Above A' Level
30
Characteristics of Household Head: Marital Status
• Household heads who were married and living together were about 57%.
• Gutu (30%) had the highest proportion of household heads who were widowed.
54
72
5950
60 5849
57
10
9
10
15
9 16
15
123
4
6
43
3
44
28
1424
30 26 1929
24
5 1 1 2 2 3 2 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
Hea
ds
(%)
Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widowed Never married
31
Characteristics of Household Head: Religion
Roman Catholic (%) Protestant (%) Pentecostal (%)
Apostolic Sect (%) Zion (%)
Other Christian (%) Traditional (%) No Religion (%)
Bikita 14.2 2.8 3.7 33.3 34.6 4.1 0.0 7.3
Chiredzi 3.3 2.0 14.6 30.9 23.6 6.1 1.6 17.9
Chivi 14.0 0.0 4.8 21.6 22.8 22.0 0.4 13.6
Gutu 23.6 8.4 8.8 36.0 10.0 6.8 1.2 3.2
Masvingo 11.0 9.8 15.4 31.5 14.6 6.7 0.0 9.1
Mwenezi 5.7 3.6 13.0 27.1 20.6 7.7 2.8 19.4
Zaka 15.4 7.5 7.1 29.6 22.9 4.7 1.2 11.1
MasvingoProvince 12.5 4.9 9.6 30.0 21.2 8.3 1.0 11.6
• About 30% of the household heads were of the Apostolic Sect.
32
Orphaned Children by District
2016 17 19 19
21 2219
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• At least 19% of the households had orphans.
• The highest proportion was in Zaka (22%).33
Education
34
School Attendance
• The highest proportion of children who were in school at the time of the survey was reported in Bikita (88%).
• Chiredzi (50%) had the highest proportion of children who were ever sent away for non-payment of fees.
88
81
86
80 82
73
82 82
40
5045
48
41 40
4745
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
tio
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
Currently going to school Ever sent away from school during the first term because of non- payment of fees
35
Major Reasons for Children Not Being in School
Illness(%)
Not interested in
school(%)
Expensive or no money
(%)
Child considered too young
(%)
Pregnancy/Marriage
(%)
Failure e.g. of exams
(%)
Completed O/A level
(%)
No birth certificate
(%)
Non-payment of
last term school fees
(%)
Bikita 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3 0.0 44.4 0.0 11.1
Chiredzi 0.0 33.3 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chivi 20.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Gutu 5.6 0.0 38.9 11.1 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.6
Masvingo 0.0 0.0 16.7 8.3 25.0 0.0 16.7 8.3 0.0
Mwenezi 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zaka 0.0 22.2 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0MasvingoProvince 4.3 8.6 30.0 5.7 10.0 1.4 12.9 1.4 2.9
• About 30% of children were out of school because it was expensive or there was no money and 10% due to early marriages or
pregnancies.
• The highest proportion of children who were out of school because they were not interested was in Chiredzi and Mwenezi both at
33.3%.36
Social Protection
37
Households Which Received any Form of Support
• Chivi ( 95%) had the highest proportion of households receiving support from all the sources.38
7983
98
5760
69
94
7777
65
95
64 6367
86
74
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
2020 2021
Peak Hunger Period Support
• During the peak hunger period 49% of households received support from Government, 31% from UN/NGO and 18%
from both Government and UN/NGOs.
• Chivi district (30%) had the highest proportion of households receiving assistance from both government and UN/NGOs. 39
55
45
69
39 41 40
57
49
40
30
49
8
19
3836
31
26
20
30
58
15
2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Gvt UN/NGO Both Govt &UN/NGO
Sources of Any Form of Support
District
Government Support
(%)
UN/NGO Support
(%)Church Support
(%)Rural Relatives
(%)
Urban Relatives
(%) Diaspora (%)
Charitable Groups
(%)
Bikita 55 42 5 7 11 3 0
Chiredzi 44 31 5 7 7 8 3
Chivi 76 50 23 33 24 21 9
Gutu 50 5 4 10 23 4 1
Masvingo 40 24 2 4 13 7 1
Mwenezi 39 38 3 6 3 3 4
Zaka 58 33 9 32 38 19 3MasvingoProvince 52 32 7 14 17 9 3
• Government (52%) remains the main source of support offered to the province.
• Only 3% of the households received support from Charity groups.
40
Forms of Support From Government
Food(%)
Cash(%)
Crop inputs
(%)
Livestock support: pass-on
(%)
Livestock support: Teak
grease(%)
Other livestock support
(%)
WASH inputs
(%)
Weather and climate
(%)
COVID-19 related support
(%) Other
Bikita 59.3 1.5 58.5 0 0 0 15 0.7 0.7 0
Chiredzi 82.3 1.8 25.7 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 1.8
Chivi 72.6 2.7 36.6 1.1 10.2 5.4 1.6 0 0.5 9.7
Gutu 63 0 49.6 0 18.9 0.8 0 0 3.9 0.8
Masvingo 71.8 2.9 39.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mwenezi 81.8 0 20.2 0 0 0 1 1 2 4
Zaka 59.9 12.9 55.1 0 0.7 0 2 0 0 0
Masvingo Province 69.3 3.4 41.9 0.2 4.8 1.2 1.1 0.2 1 2.7
• Of the 52% households which received support, Food and crop inputs were the major forms of support received across the districts in the
province.
• Chiredzi (82.3%) had the highest proportion of households receiving food assistance with Bikita (59.3%) having the least.
• The proportion of households receiving crop inputs was highest in Bikita (58.5%) and Mwenezi (20.2%) had the least.41
Forms of Support From UN/NGOs
Food(%)
Cash(%)
Crop inputs(%)
Livestock support: pass-on(%)
Livestock support: Teak grease (%)
Other livestock support(%)
WASH Inputs(%)
Weather and climate(%)
COVID-19 related support(%) Other
Bikita 97.1 1.9 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Chiredzi 88.2 2.6 11.8 0 0 0 2.6 0 0 7.9
Chivi 92.9 4 5.6 1.6 0 1.6 2.4 0 1.6 8.7
Gutu 81.3 6.3 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Masvingo 86.9 6.6 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9
Mwenezi 92 2.3 4.6 1.1 2.3 1.1 3.4 0 4.6 2.3
Zaka 94.1 7.1 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 0 0Masvingo Province 92.1 4 5 0.7 0.4 0.5 2.5 0 1.3 4
• Of the 32% of households that received support from UN/NGOs in Masvingo province the highest proportion was in Bikita
(97.1%).
• Gutu (12.5%) had the highest proportion of households which received support in the form of Crop inputs.42
Agricultural Production
43
Cereal Stocks
44
Household Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2021
• The average household cereal stocks as at 1 April for the province was 22.7kgs.
• Chiredzi had the highest average stocks (38.6kgs) whilst Mwenezi had the least (15.3kgs).
District Cereal stocks (kgs)
Bikita 28.7
Chiredzi 38.6
Chivi 28.1
Gutu 21.4
Masvingo 20.7
Mwenezi 15.3
Zaka 17.4
Masvingo Province 22.7
45
Maize Stocks from Casual Labour and Remittances
Casual Labour (Kgs) Remittances (Kgs)
Bikita 38.2 9.9
Chiredzi 6.7 0.0
Chivi 8.0 3.1
Gutu 34.0 0.0
Masvingo 18.9 0.2
Mwenezi 12.0 0.1
Zaka 20.9 2.4
Masvingo Province 18.7 1.4
• On average households received 18.7Kgs from casual labour and 1.4 Kgs were from remittances.
46
Households that Grew Various Crops
• Maize was the most commonly grown crop (86%) in the province followed groundnuts, roundnuts, tubers, cowpeas and sorghum.
• Over 75% of households in Zaka grew tubers.
47
96
29
138
42
36
49 48
2
59
50
48 9
19
34
22
8
95
49
118
59 58
75
68
13
92
21 23
13
41
35
5148
9
97
22
75
30
22
36 37
9
69
49
5
51
21
4650
56
5
94
1720
8
75
47
64
69
10
86
34
1214
4037
51 50
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl milllet Tubers Cowpeas Groundnuts Roundnuts Sugar beans
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Cereal Self Sufficiency
Period Districts
0 – 3 Months -
4- 6 Months Chivi
7- 9 Months -
9 – 12 Months Bikita, Masvingo, Mwenezi, Zaka
Over 12 months Gutu, Chiredzi
• In the province, 2 out of 7 districts produced over 12 months supply of cereal, 4 have 9- 12 Months supply.
• Thus issues of accessibility need to be addressed so that grain is accessible to wards and districts which are not self
sufficient.
Livestock
49
Households which Owned Cattle
• The proportion of households that did not own cattle remained high (57%).
• The highest proportion of households that owned more than five (5) cattle was in Zaka (21%) and the lowest was in Chivi (9%).
5865
55 59 6052 50
57
127
13 6 614
10
10
12 9 18
12 916
13
13
52
5
6 64
5
5
12 169
17 1914
2116
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to Two Three to Four Five > Five
50
Households which Owned Draught Cattle
• The proportion of households that did not own draught cattle in the province was 70%.
• Mwenezi (15%) had the highest proportion of households that owned more than two (2) draught cattle.
• Chiredzi (78%) had the highest proportion of households that did not own draught power.
77 7869 64
7467
5970
188
1920
16
1323
17
4
7 7 14 715 14
10
02 2
2 0 1 2 10 5 3 0 3 4 2 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to Two Three to Four Five > Five
51
Households which Owned Goats
• The proportion of households that did not own goats in the province was 57%.
• Masvingo district (67%) had the highest proportion of households that did not own goats.
• The highest proportion of households that owned more than 5 goats in the province was in Mwenezi (23%) and the lowest was in Bikita (4%).
6457
5358
67
48 5057
14
9 1510
10
914
12
13
914 10
11
14
18 13
4
6
65
2
7
5 5
4
1812 16
10
2313 14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to Two Three to Four Five > Five
52
Households which owned Poultry
• The proportion of households that owned poultry in Masvingo province was 70%.
• Gutu and Zaka having the highest of 80% and Chiredzi having the least (55%).
63
55
66
80
7076
80
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
53
Average Livestock Numbers per Household
• Of those that owned cattle the average cattle herd size was 5, with the average goat flock size at 4.6.
• Chiredzi had the highest average holding of both cattle (6.1) and goats (6.2) per household.
• Chivi and Mwenezi (3.9) had the lowest average number of cattle whilst Bikita (3.3) had the lowest for goats
4.0
6.1
3.9
5.2 4.9
3.9
4.8 4.6
3.3
6.2
4.4
5.45.1
5.9
4.55.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Nu
mb
er o
f liv
esto
ck
Cattle owned Goats owned
54
Livestock Offtake Rates
• Percentage offtake refers to the number of animals sold/slaughtered annually as a fraction of total herd. It is an indicator of the business approach
in livestock production, and its contribution to household livelihoods.
• Offtake rates for cattle were generally low with a provincial average of 6%.
• Chivi had the highest cattle offtake (10%) while Chiredzi and Masvingo had the least cattle offtake (2%).
• The highest goat offtake was in Mwenezi (41%) and lowest in Gutu (13%).
Cattle Goat
1924
2013
18
41
1823
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Off
take
(%
)
3 210
5 27 8 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Off
take
(%
)
55
Theileriosis (January Disease) and Lumpy Skin Disease Outbreaks
• Theileriosis is a tick-borne disease that has caused
most of the cattle fatalities in the last three years.
Case fatality of up to 60% for theileriosis have
been reported.
• Lumpy skin disease was more widespread,
affecting all provinces.
Source: Department of Veterinary Field Services 56
Cattle Mortality Rate by District • Masvingo district was among the 12
districts in the country which
reported mortality rates of over 30%.
57
Cattle Deaths and Causes
• About 53% of households reported to have lost one or more animals to death.
• Of these 71% of the households reported that diseases were the main cause of death and 22% indicated that the cause of death was drought/water
shortages.
• Mwenezi (76%) had highest proportion of Households that reported livestock deaths due to drought/water shortages
Households that Reported Cattle Deaths Causes of Deaths
69
45 5140
25
50 52 47
22
3030
26
33
2028
27
5
1914
1414
1410
13
0 0 1
64
43
3
3 7 415
2413 7 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to Two Three to Four Five > Five
6
47
20
1 2
76
15 22
86
3574
98 93
16
81 71
3 8 6 1 5 7 4 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s
Other Floods/cycloneSlaughter for own consumption PredatorsDiseases Drought/Lack of water
58
Goat Mortality Rate by District • Goat mortality cross all districts in
Masvingo province was above 15%
• Chivi (35%) and Masvingo (29%)
reported highest goat mortality rate
in the province.
59
Calving Rate
• Calving rate, defined as the
proportion of cows/heifers that
dropped calves over a defined period
of time, is a measure of productivity
of the cow herd.
• Calving rate was low (below 50%)
across all districts.
60
Value Chain Practices
61
Market Information Access
• In the province, only 18% of the households indicated that they had accessed market information through various channels and only 10%
managed to use it.
7
29
17
33
1519
8
18
3
15
4
19
11 11
410
2
24
2
24
13 11
3
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Familiar with market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements.
Used market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements.
Trainined on market information on prices, demand or product quality requirements.
62
Use of Improved Granary and Community Granaries
• Use of improved granaries was still limited as only 4% indicated that they had used them. About 1% also indicated that they had used community
granaries.
• The low use of improved granaries has a negative effect on post harvest management.
Knowledge and practices on Improved Granary Knowledge and practices on Community Granaries
2433
1711 13
1911
18
4 6 5 3 5 4 3 44
17
2 4 6 5 2 6
0102030405060708090
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Familiar with Improved granary at household
Used Improved granary at Household
Trainined on Improved Granary at Household
209
3 3 411
27
2 1 0 0 3 2 0 14 81 1 2 4 0 3
0102030405060708090
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Familiar with Community GranariesUsed Community GranariesTrained on Community Granaries
63
Post- Harvest Grain Storage Conditions
• About 39% of households were storing their grain in bags and using grain protectants.
• The proportion of households which were familiar with, used and were trained on the use of temperature and humidity control was
generally low.
70
20
33
90
40
6
5044
61
13
31
85
38
3
37 39
49
1218
55
19
4
3127
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Familiar with Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household
Used Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household
Trained n on Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household
14
3 2
16
5
14
188
1 1
15
4 2 043 3 2
15
5 4 05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Familiar with Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box,metal silo)
Used Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box, metalsilo)
Trained on Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box,metal silo)
64
Climate Smart Agriculture
65
Household Knowledge and Practice of Pfumvudza
74
63
80
90
6974
8076
59
27
61
6862
32
68
54
63
41
61 59 61
40
65
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Pfumvudza Households which Practised Pfumvudza Households Trained on Pfumvdza
• At provincial level, 76% of households were familiar with Pfumvudza, 54% had practiced it and 56% had received training.
• Zaka (68%) and Gutu (68%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced Pfumvudza whilst Chiredzi (27%) had the least.
66
Use of Quality Certified Seed
50
62
27
78
6965 65
59
40 40
29
66 67
38
61
49
3541
15
5055
29
4238
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Certified Seed Households which used Certified Seed Households Trained on Certified Seed
• The use of quality certified seed was 49% in the province.
• Masvingo district had the highest usage of certified seed at 67%.
67
Use of Community Seed Banks
410
2 3
19
61
62 3 2 2
17
2 142
82 1
16
3 05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Seed Banks Households which used Seed Banks Households Trained on Seed Banks
• The proportion of households using community seed banks was relatively low at 4% for the province with Masvingo district having the
highest proportion of 17%.
68
Households which Adapted Suitable Improved Seed
17
52
22
60
50
57
4643
9
36
16
5147
3642
34
6
40
9
45
3630
36
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
Households Familiar with Improved Varieties Households which used Improved Varieties Households Trained on Improved Varieties
• At provincial level, 34% of the households adapted to the use of suitable improved varieties with the highest percentage reported in Gutu
(51%).
69
Households Growing Small Grains
63
72
60
88
51
84
67 69
35
52 50
65
38
67
41
50
19
53
33
46
29
53
37 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
Households Familiar with Small Grains Househlds which Grew Small Grains Households Trained on Small Grains
• About 50% of the households in the province grew small grains.
• Mwenezi (67%) had highest proportion of households growing small grains while Bikita (35%) had the least.
70
Crop rotation
• Crop rotation was practiced by 51% of the households across the province.
• Gutu (69%) had the highest number of households practicing crop rotation with the lowest being Chivi (43%). 71
6163
55
84
48
68
62 63
55
4543
69
4749 47
51
35
46
33
51
29
46 4440
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Crop Rotation Households which Practised Crop Rotation Households that Received Training on Crop Rotation
Use of Compost
• About 52% of the households used compost across the province.
• The use of compost was highest in Bikita (72%) and lowest in Mwenezi (26%).
72
81
57
49
83
52 54
72
64
72
3439
69
50
26
67
52
58
40
31
48
3331
62
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Compost Households which used Compost Households Trained on Compost
Use of Drip Irrigation
9
30
12
22
7
2622
18
2 30 2 3 2 4 21
12
1 3 3 3 4 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Drip Irrigation Households Using Drip Irrigation Households Trained on Drip Irrigation
• The use of drip irrigation was low across all districts (2%).
73
Plant Spacing
7
32
7
67
13
28
38
28
6
17
4
53
1620
33
21
4
22
4
44
15
22
29
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with proper spacing Households which practised proper spacing Households Trained on spacing
• Only 21% of households in the province used aappropriate plant spacing.
74
Intercropping Practice
39
55
38
72
50
60
52 52
2934
23
55
4843
3238
15
38
15
40
26
41
27 29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Intercropping Households which practised Intercropping Households Trained on Intrecropping
• Intercropping was practiced by 38% of the households in the province.
• Gutu (55%) had the highest number of households practicing intercropping while Chivi (23%) had the least.
75
Cover Cropping
30
43
13
20
30
45
2630
23
15
4
14
25
31
19 19
11
25
712
17
31
19 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Cover Cropping Households which practised Cover Cropping Households Trained on Cover Cropping
• Cover cropping was practiced by only 19% of the households in the province.
• Mwenezi (31%) had the highest number of households practicing cover-cropping with the least being Chivi( 4%).
76
Mulching
• At least 48% of the households practiced mulching in the province.
• Bikita (61%) had the highest proportion of households using mulch with the lowest being Mwenezi (31%).
8082 81
77
56
7376 75
61
51 50 52
40
31
48 484946 46
37
3035
4641
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar with Mulching Households which practised Mulching Households Trained on Mulching
77
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
30
42
22
47
26
41
32 34
15
30
9
45
23
3125 26
8
29
7
43
23
33
24 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households Familiar IPM Households which practised IPM Households Trained on IPM
• The use of integrated pest management practices was 26% in the province with the highest practice reported in Gutu (45%).
78
Agricultural Produce Markets
79
District Cattle Prices (USD)
• Cattle prices in Masvingo province ranged
from USD 241 to USD 361.
• The highest average cattle prices for
Masvingo province were reported in
Chiredzi and Chivi (USD 361).
• The lowest prices were reported in Gutu
(USD 241).
80
District Goat Prices (USD)
• In Masvingo province goat
prices ranged from USD 29 to
USD 37.
• The highest goat prices were
recorded in Chivi (USD 37).
• The lowest prices were
recorded in Mwenezi (USD 29).
81
District Average Maize Grain Prices
• Maize grain prices in Masvingo province
ranged from USD 5 to USD 8 per 20l
bucket.
• The lowest maize grain prices for
Masvingo province was reported in
Masvingo district at USD 5.
• The Highest maize grain prices were
recorded in Gutu at USD 8 per 20 litre
Bucket.
82
District Maize Meal Prices (USD)• Maize meal prices in Masvingo
province ranged from USD 5 to USD
8 per 10kg bag.
• The highest price of Maize Meal was
reported in Gutu (USD 8) and the
least in Masvingo district ( USD5).
83
Income and Expenditure
84
Current Most Important Source of Income
• Most households relied on Casual labour (31%) as the most important source of income, followed by remittances within (13%) and formal
salary/wages (11%).85
31
13
11
8
7
7
5
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Casual labour
Remittance within
Formal salary/wages
Remittances outside
Food crop production/sales
Vegetables production/sales
Livestock production/sales
Cash crop production
Pension
Beer brewing
Petty trade
Own business
Small scale mining/mineral sales
Skilled trade/artisan
Gifts
Other
Fishing
Non-state social transfers
Gathering natural products for sale e.g. firewood
Government social transfers
Cross border
Begging
Rentals
Collecting scrap/waste material for re-sale
Currency trade
Proportion of Households (%)
Average Household Monthly Income (USD) for April 2021
• The average monthly income for April in the province was USD 80.
• Chivi (USD 125) had the highest monthly income whilst Gutu (USD 54) had the least.
17
52
15
47
21
31 28 30
60
108
125
54
86
6562
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
USD
2020 2021
86
Average Household Monthly Expenditure (USD) for April 2021
• Average expenditure for the month of April was USD 36.
• Mwenezi (USD 24) reported the lowest expenditure for the same month.
10
26
7
28
12
17
9
16
26
36
54
31
42
24
40
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
USD
2020 2021
87
Food Expenditure
• Proportion of food expenditure was 54%, a decrease from 64% reported in 2020.
• This implies that households had less to spend on other essential services such as health and education.
6360
6870 72
64
51
64
5754 53
51
62
54
46
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f Fo
od
Exp
end
itu
re (
%)
2020 2021
88
Average Household 6 Month Expenditure
• The highest expenditure on educational costs (USD 76) and the least was on social events (USD 1).
89
76
33
15
53
8
1
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Education Agriculture Other Construction Businessexpenses
Medical Social Taxes
USD
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
90
Ladder for Drinking Water ServicesService Level Definition
Safely Managed Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on premises, availablewhen needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination.
Basic Drinking Water Basic drinking water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source,provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.
Limited Drinking Water Services Limited water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, wherecollection time exceeds 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.
Unimproved Water Sources Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.
Surface Water Sources Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation channel.
Note :“Improved” drinking water sources are further defined by the quality of the water they produce, and are protected fromfaecal contamination by the nature of their construction or through an intervention to protect from outside contamination.Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well;protected spring; or rainwater collection. This category now includes packaged and delivered water, considering that bothcan potentially deliver safe water.
91
Access to Improved Water
88
69
5660
80 78 7672
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• At provincial level the proportion of households with access to improved water was 72%.
92
Households using Unimproved Water Sources
12
31
4440
20 22 2428
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• In the province the proportion of households using unimproved water sources was 28%.
• Chivi (44%) had the highest proportion of households using unimproved water sources.93
Main Drinking Water Services
86
57
4453
67
5349
58
2
12
137
12
2528
14
9
16
22
28
17
618
17
3
1521
123
156
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Basic water services Limited water services Unimproved water services Surface water services
• The proportion of households accessing basic water services in Masvingo province was 58%.
• Gutu (28%) had the highest proportion of households using unimproved water sources.
94
Access to Adequate Domestic Water
• At provincial level at least 90% of the households reported having adequate water for cooking, drinking, personal hygiene and other
domestic needs.
95
84
95
84 8790
9690
97
88
97
84
91 9396
9296
81
96
83
91 9193
9095
80
96
83
91 9093
90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Drinking Needs Cooking Needs Personal Hygiene Needs Other Domestic Needs
95
Distance Travelled to Main Water Source
73
55
32
64 68
3831
52
24
20
35
2725
2951
30
3
2533
9 7
33
18 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above
• At provincial level, 52% of the households travelled a distance of less than 500m to get to a water source.
• Chivi and Mwenezi (33%) had the highest proportion of households travelling a kilometre and more to get to a water source.96
Fetching Water for Cooking and Drinking
8487
74
86 88 87
8184
11 8
22
1210 12
1613
3 3 2 1 1 0 2 22 2 1 1 1 1 2 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Adult woman [15 years and above] Adult man [15 years and above] Female child [under 15 years] Male child [under 15 years]
• The role of fetching water in Masvingo province was mainly performed by adult women (15 years and above).
• Chivi (22%) had the highest proportion of households with adult men (15 years and above), preforming the role of fetching water for
cooking and drinking. 97
Time Spent Queuing at Water Source and Violence at Water Source
Time spent at water source Violence at Water Source
• The proportion of households spending less than 15 minutes queuing at a water source or within premises was 71%.
• Chiredzi and Mwenezi (9%) had the highest proportion of households queuing for more than an hour at a water source.
• Chiredzi (10.4%) also recorded the highest proportion of households reporting violence.
2.5
10.4
4.11.2
5.52.5 2.4 4.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pre
vale
nce
of
Vio
len
ce (
%)
86
79
55
78
67
61
70 71
13
6
31
18 19 18 16 17
15
12
4
14 12 9 8
0
9
2 1 1
94 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 15minutes (or within premises) 15- 30 minutes30 minutes - 1 hour More than 1 hour
98
Service level Definition
Safely Managed Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite.
Basic Sanitation Facilities
Use of improved facilities which are not shared with other households.
Limited Sanitation Facilities
Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households.
Unimproved Sanitation Facilities
Facilities that do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact.Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.
Open Defecation Disposal of human faeces in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste.
Note: Improved sanitation facilities: Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include flush or pour flush toilet/latrine, Blair ventilated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.
Ladder for Sanitation
99
Access to Improved Sanitation
• In the province, 64.5% of households had access to improved sanitation facilities.
• Mwenezi (42.5%) followed by Zaka (42.1%) had the highest proportion of households practising open defaecation.
37.4 3727.1 30
36.642.5 42.1
29.5
6.1 6.1
3.6 0
0.4
4 2.4
5.9
56.5 56.9
69.3 7063
53.4 55.564.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Open defecation Unimproved Improved
100
Ladder for Hygiene
Service level Definition
Basic Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water.
Limited Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water.
No Facility No hand washing facility on premises.
Note: handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps,
tippy taps, and jugs or basins designated for hand washing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap,
powdered detergents and soapy water but does not include sand, soil, ash and other handwashing
agents.
101
Access to Hand Washing Facilities
• There were generally no handwashing facilities (93%) across the province.
• Gutu (11%) and Chiredzi (11%) had the greatest proportion of households that had basic handwashing facilities.
102
9789
9589 90 93 96 93
0
0
0
0 00
00
311
511 10 7 4 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
No service Limited Basic
Food Safety
103
Considerations when Purchasing Food
• In the province, 68% of households reported considering the expiry date when purchasing food for their families.
• Masvingo (33%), had the greatest proportion of households which considered nutritional content when purchasing food.
35
43 44
70
46
18
31
41
93
40
64
8481
69
45
68
21
7
23
0
33
610
14
0
36 38
5 4
18
46
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Brand/source Expiry /Best before date Nutritional content Other
104
Safe Preparation of Food
• 72% of households reported that washing hands with soap before preparation and serving food was important in safe food preparation.
• Only 2% of households did nothing to ensure food safety during preparation of food.
78
50 51
72 74
87
56
6772
68
90
6268
74 73 72
58 60
36 35
58
69 69
55
0 1 1 0
72 2 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Use of safe water for preparation/ cooking Washing of hands with soap before preparation and serving of food
Washing food utensils thoroughly with safe water and soap Do nothing
105
Household Food Safety During COVID-19 Lockdown Period
• Zaka (87%) had the highest proportion of households which bought perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far during the January to
March 2021 national lockdown.
• At provincial level 48% of the households reported having to eat food under spoilage during the lockdown period.
68
60
83
63
38
64
87
66
3743
63
43
63
54 5248
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Buying perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far Eating food undergoing spoilage
106
Purchase of Expired or Spoiled Food
• Gutu (12.5%) had the greatest proportion of households which purchased expired or food undergoing spoilage due to its reduced price.
5.5 8.7 9.1 12.53.2 3.4 5.8 6.6
94.5 91.3 90.9 87.596.8 96.6 94.2 93.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Yes No
107
Information on Food Safety
• In the previous twelve months preceding the survey only 21.2% of the households received information on food safety issues.
• Gutu (30%), had the greatest proportion of households which received information on food safety issues.
22.413.4
28.7 30 31.1
13.1 9.5
21.2
77.686.6
71.3 70 68.9
86.9 90.5
78.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Yes No
108
Access to Infrastructure and Services
109
Household which Received Agricultural Extension Services
• The proportion of households which were reached with agricultural extension support in the province was 62%.
• Chivi (80%) had the highest proportion of households.
110
69
41
80
58 59 58
6762
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households which Received Agricultural Training from Extension Officers
• Access to agricultural training was generally high throughout the province.
111
94 92 92 9396
9398 94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households which Received Agriculture Extension Visits from Extension Officers
• Access to agricultural extension visits was generally high throughout the province with the exception of Zaka at 66%.
112
9087
76
9287
77
66
82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households which Received Cropping Advice
• Approximately 88% of households in Masvingo Province received cropping advice from extension officers.
113
94
84 84
9390
86 8688
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households which Received Livestock Advice
8175
55
76
61
5458
65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Approximately 65% of households in the province had received livestock advice from extension officers.
114
Households Satisfied with Livestock Advice Received
79
91
67
47
73
89 87
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Of the households that received livestock advice in Masvingo province, 75% were satisfied.
115
Households which Received Extension Support on January Disease
• January disease extension support in Masvingo province was 53%.
116
64
72
38
74
59
27
4753
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households which Received Extension Support on Fall Army Worm
68
76 7579
63
77
88
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Throughout the province, the proportion of households that were reached with extension support towards FAW was 75%.
• Zaka (88%) and Gutu (79%) had the highest proportion of households reached.117
Households which Received Extension Support on Weather and Climate
75
67 68
83
60
73 71 71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Gutu (83%) reported the highest proportion of households which received extension support on weather and climate, whilst Masvingo
Province had the lowest at 60%. 118
Access to Animal Health Centres
35
46
28
4346
39
59
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Only 42% of the households with livestock in Masvingo province had access to animal health centres.
119
Satisfaction with Quality of Service Received from the Animal Health Centre Accessed
37
15
104
13
3
27
67
20
914
24
8794
65
32
75
91
7772
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Not satisfied at all Somewhat satisfied Satisfied
• Generally, 72% of households in Masvingo province that had accessed animal health centres in the province were satisfied by the service.
120
Access to Police Services
121
Police Services Reachable within One Hour
56
47 45
4043
52
46 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Only 47% of the households in Masvingo province reported that they had police services reachable within one hour.
122
Access to Victim Friendly Services
41 41
21
4035
37
52
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Access to a victim friendly unit was reported by 38% of households in the province.
123
Approximate Distance of the Nearest Primary School
59
72
6064
74
55
81
67
40
24
3832
2329
17
29
1 3 2 4 3
16
2 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km
• About 67% households in the province reported to have access to a primary school within a distance of less than 5km.
• Four percent of households reported travelling over 10km to access the nearest primary school.
124
Household Access to Health Related Information
90
83 82
93 9185
96
89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Approximately 89% of households in the province had access to health related information.
125
Access to the Services of a Village Health Worker94 93 92 90 88
9389 91
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• About 94% of households in Bikita reported that they had access to a Village Health Worker.
126
Approximate Distance to the Nearest Health Facility/Clinic
62
41
51
41
5651
64
52
35
22
34
4235
2026
31
3
38
15 17
9
29
1017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km
• About 52% of the households reported to have access to a health facility within a distance of less than 5km.
• Approximately 17% of the households reported travelling over 10km to access a health facility. 127
Access to Grain Storage Facility
38
30
23
54
21
45
62
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Zaka (62%) had the highest proportion of households with access to a grain storage facility.
128
Structures Used to Store Grain
Ordinary room (%)
Traditional granary (%)
Ordinary granary (%)
Improved granary (%) Bin/drum (%) Crib (%) Hermatic bags (%)
Metal silos (%)
Bikita 85 13 1 1 0 0 0 0
Chiredzi 72 24 3 1 0 0 0 0
Chivi 43 25 15 0 2 5 10 0
Gutu 88 9 1 0 0 1 1 0
Masvingo 25 47 4 8 0 17 0 0
Mwenezi 35 52 10 1 0 1 1 0
Zaka 96 3 0 0 1 0 0 0
Masvingo Province 71 21 4 1 0 2 1 0
• In Masvingo province, about 71% of households were storing their grain in ordinary rooms which was above the national average of 63%.
129
Households which Received Early Warning Information
83
4349
75
42
68
5459
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• At provincial level, the proportion of households which received early warning information on weather, climate change and seasonal
performance was 59%.
• Masvingo district (42%) had the least proportion of households which received early warning information. 130
Households which used Early Warning Information
69
7783 85
6671
63
74
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Of those households which received the early warning information in Masvingo province, 74% reported to have used the information for
planning response mechanisms.
131
Households with Members who Received Information on Public Health Diseases
Rabies (%) Anthrax (%) Cholera (%) Typhoid (%) Dysentery (%) Salmonella (%) Listeria (%)
Bikita 36.2 62.2 54.1 41.6 37.8 0.0 0.0
Chiredzi 47.1 30.3 69.3 30.3 14.7 2.5 1.7
Chivi 56.6 58.6 56.6 34.2 26.3 0.7 0.0
Gutu 51.0 63.5 86.5 25.0 13.5 5.2 2.1
Masvingo 40.4 45.0 78.3 49.2 15.8 1.7 0.4
Mwenezi 78.1 70.1 82.1 44.6 36.6 4.0 1.8
Zaka 45.4 67.8 97.3 33.3 6.6 1.6 1.1
Masvingo Province 50.8 55.1 74.7 38.2 22.0 2.1 1.0
• About 97.3% of households in Zaka district reported that they had received information on cholera.
132
Sources of Information on Gender Based Violence
Radio (%)
Other household member
(%)Television(
%)Newspaper
(%)
Social media
(%)
Internet browsing
(%)
Government Extension
Worker (%)
Health workers
(%)
Health promoters
(%)
Friends and
relatives(%)
UN/NGOs (%)
Police(%)
Other (%)
Bikita 76.3 10.1 0.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 39.6 23.7 1.8 10.7 6.5 21.3 5.9
Chiredzi 68.9 10.7 6.8 1.0 3.9 0.0 5.8 21.4 0.0 9.7 4.9 20.4 1.0
Chivi 73.3 7.8 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.9 47.4 44.0 33.6 5.2 2.6 20.7 0.0
Gutu 85.3 10.1 5.4 3.1 3.1 0.0 27.9 17.1 4.7 0.8 0.8 17.1 2.3
Masvingo 67.0 5.5 30.3 19.3 9.2 1.8 42.2 42.2 34.9 22.9 3.7 23.9 10.1
Mwenezi 65.2 2.9 5.8 4.3 7.2 0.0 36.2 15.9 8.7 4.3 17.4 13.0 5.8
Zaka 41.5 3.8 2.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 33.8 10.8 17.7 10.8 16.9 8.5 20.0
MasvingoProvince 68.7 7.6 6.8 3.6 5.3 0.4 33.8 25.0 13.9 9.3 7.0 18.1 6.7
• Radio (68.7%) was the most common source of information on Gender Based Violence, at provincial level the proportion was 69%.
133
Household Ownership of Infrastructure that Enhances Food and Nutrition Security
Irrigation (%)
Farming equipment
(%)Fowl runs
(%)
Solar powered
water source (%)
Borehole(%)
Storage facility (%) Savings (%)
Beehives (%)
Nutrition gardening
(%)Agro-
forestry (%) Other (%)
Bikita 0.5 0.5 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 82.8 0.0 13.5
Chiredzi 11.2 2.9 12.8 1.2 3.3 0.8 14.0 0.4 24.0 0.0 39.3
Chivi 19.1 2.9 9.1 22.0 2.5 5.4 1.7 0.0 65.1 0.0 22.0
Gutu 0.0 7.6 65.2 0.8 0.0 25.6 26.0 1.2 18.0 0.0 2.0
Masvingo 18.2 44.3 43.9 4.7 10.7 21.3 7.5 2.4 27.7 0.0 2.8
Mwenezi 1.8 32.4 41.8 0.0 1.3 4.0 2.2 0.0 36.9 0.4 28.9
Zaka 2.4 49.0 43.7 0.4 2.4 19.2 2.9 0.4 57.6 6.5 21.2
MasvingoProvince 7.8 20.3 34.3 4.2 3.0 11.4 8.0 0.7 43.8 1.0 18.3
• Chivi (19.1%) had the highest proportion of households which reported to have irrigation infrastructure, whilst Zaka had the highest
proportion of households with farming equipment (49%).
• Food and Nutrition Security infrastructure is important in ensuring farming households enhance their ability to produce, store and utilise
food. 134
ISALS and Loans
135
Sources of Loans
55
29
10
4
4
3
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Friend/relative
ISAL/Mukando/Ukuqogelela
Banks
money Lender
Micro finance institution
Local trader/ shopkeeper
Other financial services
Proportion of Households (%)
• Of the 6.1% households that received loans the majority of households reported that they received the loans from relatives or friends
(55%).
136
Type of Loan and Primary Use of the Loan
93
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cash Other
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)Type of Loan
57
1912 11
7 7 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Primary Use of the Loan
• Of those that received loans, the most common type received was cash (93%) which was mostly used for consumption (57%).
• About 19% of the households reported Education or school fees as the primary use of the loans received.137
Households with a Member in an ISAL Group
• About 11% of households in Masvingo province had a member in an Income Savings and Lending (ISAL) group.
• This was an increase from 8% reported last year 2020.
138
14
59 7 8 8 9 8
127
10 913 12 10 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2020 2021
Use of Share –out from the ISAL Group
36
29
1714 13 12
9
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Householdutensils
Food Education Livestock purchase Financing Incomegenerating
projects
Buyingconstruction
materials
Agricultural inputsand equipment
Health costs
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
es (
%)
• In Masvingo Province about 36% of households reported that they used their Share-Out from ISAL group to buy household utensils.
139
Food Consumption Patterns
140
Food Consumption Score
Food Consumption
Score Groups
Score Description
POOR 0-21 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 5-6 days, sugar 3-4
days, oil/fat 1 day a week, while animal proteins are totally absent
BORDERLINE 21.5-35 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 6-7 days, sugar 3-4
days, oil/fat 3 days, meat/fish/egg/pulses 1-2 days a week, while dairy
products are totally absent
ACCEPTABLE >35 As defined for the borderline group with more number of days a week eating
meat, fish, egg, oil, and complemented by other foods such as pulses, fruits,
milk
141
Food Consumption Patterns
• About 44% of households had poor consumption patterns with Bikita (75%) having the highest proportion.
• Zaka (36%) had the highest proportion of households with acceptable diets
142
75
29
4740 36
68
24
44
16
39
29
3129
23
40
30
10
3224
3035
10
3626
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Poor Borderline Acceptable
Average Number of Days Households ConsumedFood from the Various Food
6
5
4
1
1
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cereals
Oils
Vegetables
Legumes
Fruits
Meats
Dairy
Number of Days
• The frequently consumed food types were cereals (6 days), oils (5 days) and vegetables (4 days).
• The least consumed foods were dairy products, meats, fruits and legumes which were consumed only 1 day during the 7 days preceding the
survey. 143
Household Hunger Scale
94 91 92 9587 87 89 91
5 9 8 510 10
11 81 0 0 0 3 3 0 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s
Little to no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger
144
• At least 91% of households in the province reported little to no hunger while 9% were facing moderate to severe hunger.
Household Coping Strategies
145
The Coping Strategies Index (CSI)
• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges. The household consumption strategies are food
consumption behaviours that households adopt when faced with challenges in accessing food.
• The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) considers both the frequency and severity of pre-selected coping strategies that a household
used in the seven days prior to the survey. Reduced coping strategies index can be classified into three categories depending on the
severity as shown below.
Low or no coping (CSI 0-3) High Coping (CSI ≥10)Medium Coping (CSI 4-9)
146
Household Consumption Coping Strategy Index (CSI)
27
13
38
1621
51
26 25
6 7 612
18
31
815
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Ave
rage
CSI
2020 2021
• Household consumption coping strategy score decreased across all districts when compared to 2020.
• Mwenezi (31%) reported the highest CSI in the province, an indication that households from the district were facing challenges in
accessing adequate food. 147
Household Consumption Coping Strategies
30
29
27
21
20
17
12
9
9
3
3
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Reduce number of meals eaten per day
Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods
Limit/reduce portion size at mealtimes
Rely on casual labour for food
Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives
Reduce adult consumption so children can eat
Harvest immature crops
Skip entire days without eating
Purchase/borrow food on credit
Gather/hunt unusual types or amounts of wild food
Send household members to eat elsewhere
Send household members to beg
Proportion of Households (%)
• Reducing the number of meals consumed per day (30%), relying on less expensive foods (29%), and reducing meal portion size (27%) were
the most commonly used strategies among the households which adopted consumption based coping strategies.
• The adoption of these strategies contribute negatively to nutrition outcomes. 148
Household Reduced Consumption Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)
2826
2731
85
45
22
44 44
31
25
46
1923
3128 30
42 44 45
76
32
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingoprovince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
No or low coping (CSI= 0-3) Medium (CSI = 4-9) High coping (CSI ≥10)
• Mwenezi (76%) had the highest proportion of households adopting high consumption based coping.
• Zaka (45%) had the highest proportion of households adopting low or no coping.149
Households Livelihood Coping Strategies• Livelihood Coping Strategies are behaviours employed by households when faced crisis and measures longer-term coping capacity of households.
• The livelihoods Coping strategies have been classified into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as indicated in the table below.
Category Coping Strategy
Stress Borrowing money
Spending savings
Selling more non-productive livestock than usual
Selling household assets
Crisis Selling productive assets
Withdrawing children from school
Reducing non-food expenditure
Emergency Selling land
Begging for food
Selling the last breeding stock to buy food
150
Households Engaging in Livelihood Coping Strategies
4
3
1
0
0
0
4
5
2
1
61
75
65
56
55
68
87
72
75
82
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
34
21
33
42
44
31
9
21
22
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sold household assets (refrigerator, radio, furniture, television, etc.)
Reduced non-food expenses on health (including drugs) and education
Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing machines, wheel…
Spend savings essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, education services, health…
Borrow money from a formal lender/bank
Sold house or land to buy food or access essential needs (e.g. food, shelter,…
Withdrew children from school because of hunger or to help work for food
Sold more animals (non-productive) than usual to buy food or access…
Sold last female breeding stock to buy food or access essential needs
Beg for food or other essential needs (e.g. health services)
Proportion of Households (%)
Yes
No because it was not neccessary
No because they had already engaged in this activity within the last 12 months and could not continue
No,they did not have
151
• The main livelihood coping strategy engaged by households in Masvingo Province is selling more non-productive animals (5%).
Households Engaging in Livelihoods Coping Strategies
3 6 69 7 8 10
74
96 5 6 6 6 6
2 52 2 4 5 4 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Stress Crisis Emergency
• At provincial level, 3% of households resorted to emergency coping mechanisms.
• The proportion of households that resorted to emergency coping mechanisms was high in Chiredzi (5%) and Mwenezi (5%).
152
Households Engaging in Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies
2421
14127
13
7 63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Stress Crisis Emergency
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2019 2020 2021
• There was a general decrease in the proportion of households engaging in livelihood based coping strategies over the last three
years.153
Households’ Maximum Livelihoods Coping Strategies
9081
86 84 83 81 81 84
3
66 9 7 8 10 7
49
6 5 6 6 6 62 5 2 2 4 5 4 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Not coping Stress Crisis Emergency
• At provincial level, 84% of the households did not use any coping strategies to maintain their access to food and other basic goods/services .
• Bikita had the most households that did not engage in any livelihood coping strategies (90%).154
Child Nutrition Status
155
Complementary Feeding Practices Based on Seven Food Groups
23.5
3.7
14.7
5.7 3.26.3
25.0
11.111.8
18.5
11.8
28.622.6 21.9
12.518.8
11.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.1
9.4
2.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
Minimum Meal Frequecncy Minimun Dietary Diversity Minimum Acceptable Diet
• Masvingo had the lowest minimum meal frequency at 3.2%
• A minimum acceptable diet is an indicator that combines information on children who received the minimum dietary diversity and the
minimum meal frequency. It is essential to ensure appropriate growth and development for children aged 6-23 months.
156
Continued Breastfeeding Beyond 1 year
66
76
57
7074
6461 62
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
• In Masvingo province, 62% of the children continued to be breastfed beyond 1 year.
157
Early Initiation of Breastfeeding
• Masvingo province reached the target of 90%.
90
8581 82
88
81
90 9086
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ch
ildre
n (
%)
158
Child Illness
• Chivi district had highest proportion of children who had cough (55%), diarrhea (19%) and fever (36%) in the two weeks preceding the
survey.
159
22
36
55
3431 32 33
36
9 11
1916
12 1217
1415
29
36
20 21 19
3025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Cough Diarrhoea Fever
Recommended Vitamin A Supplementation Schedule for Children 6–59 Months of Age
Target group Infants 6–11 months of age Children 12–59 months of age
Dose 100 000 IU 200 000 IU
Frequency Once a year Twice a year (Every 6 months)
Route of administration Oral
160
86
75
100
8689
75 7885
68
13
68
5762 62
26
51
71
18
71
6164 63
31
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
6-11 months 12-59 months 6-59 months Target
• The proportions of children who received the recommended dose of Vitamin A in the past 12 months were: 85% for 6-11 months; 51% for 12-59
months and 54% for the children 6-59 months.
• Only Chivi District (100%) reached the surpassed target of 90% for children 6-11 months.
• Bikita and Chivi districts (71%) had the highest proportion of children 6-59 months who received recommended Vitamin A doses and Chiredzi (18%)
had the lowest.
Children aged 6-59 Months who Received the Recommended Dose of Vitamin A
161
Acute Malnutrition by District Based on MUAC Measurements
11.16.2
1.9 1.0 0.03.3 3.4
11.15.3
1.9 1.0 0.03.3 3.20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%)
GAM MAM SAM
• Bikita and Chivi both had high GAM rates above the WHO threshold of 5%.
• However, the provincial GAM rate was 3.4 which is below the WHO threshold.
162
Gender Based Violence (GBV)
163
Forms of Gender Based Violence
N
Physical abuse (%) Sexual abuse (%)
No YesRefused to
answer No YesRefused to
answer
Manicaland 1741 94.3 3.7 2.0 97.6 0.6 1.8
Mash Central 1999 96.2 3.5 0.3 99.0 0.7 0.3
Mash East 2257 96.6 2.8 0.5 99.1 0.6 0.3
Mash West 1722 95.9 3.1 1.0 98.3 0.8 0.9
Masvingo 1747 97.2 2.4 0.4 99.0 0.6 0.5
Mat North 1747 97.0 1.9 1.1 98.2 0.7 1.1
Mat South 1736 97.3 1.6 1.1 98.8 0.2 1.0
Midlands 1999 95.7 3.8 0.5 98.5 0.9 0.6
National 14948 96.3 2.9 0.8 98.6 0.6 0.8
• In Masvingo province, 2.4% of the respondents reported having experienced physical abuse while 0.6% reported
to have experienced sexual abuse.164
Victims of GBV who Reported
• Of those who experienced GBV, none of the households in Masvingo province reported the incidents.
165
3 5
29 31
0
15
2516
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands National
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f R
esp
on
den
ts (
%)
Sources of GBV Services
43
32
16
5
2
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Victim friendly unit
Other
Health facility
UN/NGO
Relatives/Friends
Church
One stop Centre
Proportion of respondents (%)
• Of the 3% that experienced GBV in Masvingo province, the highest proportion of respondents (43%) got a service from the Victim Friendly Unit.166
Spousal Violence
167
Incidence of Spousal Violence
• There was high incidence of emotional abuse among spouses, 3.34% for males and 2.64% for females in Masvingo province.
• Generally, emotional abuse was high for both males and females while sexual abuse had the lowest reported incidents.
Province
Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse
(%) (%) (%) (%)
N Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Manicaland 1389 2.16 3.34 4.82 5.18 8.76 9.35 5.58 5.68
Mash Central 1766 1.25 1.91 2.74 4.39 8.44 6.64 4.9 4.28
Mash East 2042 1.16 1.01 3.27 2.47 6.75 6.5 5.27 3.3
Mash West 1322 1.09 2.07 2.48 2.51 6.37 9.32 3.42 5.47
Masvingo 1562 0.63 1.16 1.46 2.15 3.34 2.64 1.78 2.31
Mat North 1464 0.9 0.38 1.8 0.63 3.29 2.76 2.54 2.76
Mat South 1627 2.02 1.36 3.92 2.86 6.83 4.64 4.7 4.37
Midlands 1597 0.23 1.49 2.09 1.49 4.3 4.34 2.67 2.17
National 12769 1.18 1.52 2.82 2.68 6.01 5.76 3.86 3.74
168
Forms of Spousal Violence
10%
21%
41%
28%
Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse
• Emotional abuse (41%) was the most prevalent form of abuse among spouses.
• Sexual abuse was the least reported (10%).169
Reported Incidence of Spousal Violence
719 16
34
12 10 113
2913
30
32
36 44
27 37
0 13
11
18
78
22
64 44
43
13
3632
4444
013
0 07 4
8 3
0 0 3 3 19 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Sexual Physical Emotional Economical
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f vi
ctim
s (%
)
Police Relatives Health facility No one Church Other
• Most victims of sexual abuse did not report to anyone, males 64% and females 44%.
• Physical violence was mostly reported to the police by females (34%) and males either did not report (43%) or reported to relatives (30%).
• Emotional and economical violence were either reported to no one or to relatives by both males and females.
170
Victims who Sought Medical Attention as a Result of Spousal Violence
Sexual Physical Emotional
Suffered abuse (%)
Sought medical attention (%)
Suffered abuse (%)
Sought medical attention (%)
Suffered abuse (%)
Sought medical attention (%)
Manicaland 2.67 17.9 4.97 18.6 9.01 17.8
Mash Central 1.59 10.3 3.57 32.8 7.54 17.8
Mash East 1.08 11.5 2.84 17.2 6.62 16.1
Mash West 1.59 8.7 2.5 17.1 7.88 25.5
Masvingo 0.83 0 1.73 15.2 3.07 15.3
Mat North 0.61 0 1.16 16.2 3.01 13.5
Mat South 1.72 22.2 3.44 21.1 5.84 13.3
Midlands 0.81 15.6 1.82 17.2 4.32 21.8
National 1.34 11.8 2.76 20.1 5.9 18.3
• Medical attention was sought by 0% of those who suffered sexual violence, 15.2% for physical and 15.3% for emotional violence in
Masvingo province meaning most cases go unreported amongst spouses. 171
COVID-19 and Livelihoods
172
Households that Ever Heard about COVID-19
99 100 100 10098 98 99 9999 99
90
70
96 9499
92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2020 2021
• In Masvingo province 92% of households heard about COVID-19.
• Gutu (70%) had the lowest proportion of households who were aware of COVID-19.
173
Sources of COVID-19 InformationCurrent Sources
• The main sources of COVID-19 information in the province were reported to be radio (76%), Community Health Workers/ Health Volunteers (48%) and
friends and relatives (41%).
• The main preferred future sources of information on COVID-19 in the province were reported to be: clinic/health facility (66%), community/village health
workers (66%) and radio (36%).
Preferred Future Sources
66
66
36
10
10
9
7
4
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Clinic/ Health facility
Community/Village health…
Radio
Workshop
Opinion leaders
Posters
Print media
Television
Social media
Proportion of households (%)
76
48
41
31
17
12
8
7
5
4
4
2
1
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Radio
Community Health Workers/Health…
Friends and relatives
Health worker
Social media
Social gathering
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
Television
Churches
Newspapers
Traditional leaders
Posters
Vehicles moving with hailers
Road shows
Others
Proportion of households (%)
174
COVID-19 Tollfree NumbersAwareness of the Availability of Tollfree
Numbers
• The proportion of households which were aware of the existence of the COVID-19 toll free lines in the province was 26%, with Bikita (43%) having
the highest proportion. About 74% of the households in the province were not aware the existence of the tollfree numbers and are of concern.
• Of those who were aware of the availability of toll free number, the most common toll free number was 2019 (97%) hence the need to raise the
existence of the other lines.
Awareness of Tollfree Numbers
43
17
29
1625 24 27 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
99 100 99 100 100
83
96 97
1 0 1 0 0
17
4 3
0102030405060708090
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2019 2023 393 None of the above
175
Effects of COVID-19 on Livelihoods
811
20
41
27
913
1914
5
29
19
27
2014
3843
60
30
66
81
53 53
45
54
43
35
53
30
47 44
16
9 9
4
32
2
33
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Loss of bussiness income Loss of employment Failed to access health facility
Failed to access basic commodities Reduced sources of income Reduced salaries
Reduced food sources Gender-based violance (GBV) Restricted access to agricultural markets
• At provincial level, the main effects of COVID-19 on livelihoods were reduction in food sources (35%) and sources of income (591%) leading to
increased vulnerabilities.
• Mwenezi (81%) had the highest proportion of households that reported reduction in income sources, while Chiredzi (54%) reported reduction
in sources of food. Most of the impacts could be attributed to the restrictive measures.176
Access to Hand Sanitizers, Masks and Soap
20
35
1612
33
17
24 22
84
7881 81 82
89
98
85
7278
84
7874
67
97
79
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
Hand Sanitizers Masks Soap
• Access to masks (85%) and handwashing soap (79%) was high. However, access to sanitisers was very low (22%).
• The trend was similar in all districts, that is, masks and soap were accessible whereas hand sanitizers were not easily accessible.
177
Affordability of PPE
8
26
10 12
32
22
44
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
• About 22% of households in Masvingo province could afford COVID-19 personal protective equipment.
• The lowest proportion was in Bikita at 8%.
178
How Household Members were Protecting Themselves from COVID-19
Frequently wash hands with soap
under running
water (%)
Use alcohol based hand
sanitizers (%)
Avoid touching
mouth, eyes and nose (%)
Use a face mask in
public places (%)
Cover mouth with flexed
elbow when sneezing and coughing (%)
Avoid crowded
places (%)
Practice social
distancing (%)
Use of herbals (%)
Traditional/religious
practices (%)
Getting vaccinated
(%) Others (%)
Bikita 71.5 15.9 37.8 50.4 23.6 55.7 58.1 5.7 5.3 0.8 0.4
Chiredzi 64.6 36.6 12.6 69.9 6.5 50.8 35.0 6.5 0.4 0.0 1.2
Chivi 71.6 10.3 20.2 61.7 12.3 25.1 42.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.2
Gutu 88.4 33.6 21.6 44.8 4.8 37.2 42.0 3.6 0.4 0.8 0.8
Masvingo 80.6 14.6 47.0 71.5 36.8 56.9 53.4 25.3 2.0 10.7 0.8
Mwenezi 74.2 13.7 14.6 88.4 18.0 30.9 50.2 1.7 0.4 0.4 1.7
Zaka 77.3 15.9 32.7 84.9 27.5 49.8 76.5 5.2 5.6 4.8 1.6
MasvingoProvince 75.6 20.2 26.8 67.2 18.6 44.0 51.2 7.1 2.0 2.7 1.1
• The most common methods used by households to protect themselves from COVID-19 included frequent washing of
hands (75.6%), use of face masks in public places (67.2%) and practicing of social distance (51.2%). 179
Trust in the Covid-19 Vaccine
• In Masvingo province about 73% of households reported that they trusted the COVID-19 vaccine.
• Gutu (69%) and Bikita (54%) had the highest proportion of households which did not trust the vaccine.
15
31
20 23 25 29 25 24
30
22 42
8
33
42
29 29
5447
38
69
42
30
46 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Not at all Moderately Very much
180
Vaccine Concerns
• The majority of the households in Masvingo province indicated no concern about the COVID-19 vaccine (74%).
• Having serious reactions (15%) was the most stated concern.
181
66
56
87
75
91
7769
74
24
20
6
13
7
14
1915
5
23
6
6
2
56
8
4 1 16
04 7 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
None Having serious reactions Illness Other
Shocks and Hazards
182
Proportion of Households Experiencing Shocks
• Cash shortages (69.9%), water logging (72.6%) and crop pests (41.4%) were the most prevalent shocks experienced by households.
69.9 72.6
41.437.0 35.4
28.4 25.5 25.220.1
11.6 10.0 6.7 6.0 4.2 3.8 3.3 3.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100P
rop
ort
ion
of
Ho
use
ho
lds
(%)
183
Number of Shocks/Stressors Experienced by Households
• Masvingo (5.5), Mwenezi (4.6) and Chivi (4.3) had the highest average number of shocks experienced by households.
3.6
3.9
4.3
3.4
5.5
4.6
3.5
4.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Ind
ex
184
Severity of Shocks
• Death of main income earner(82%), floods (79%) and loss of key employment (78%) were reported to have had the most severe impact on
households.
82 79 78 72 71 69 69 67 66 62 62 59 58 58 48 47 45 39 28 28 25 25
18 17 1926 24 27 28 33 32
31 32 31 33 34
43 38 2838
49 52 45 75
4 3 2 6 4 3 2 7 610 8 8 9
15
2823 22 21
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100P
rop
ort
ion
of
ho
use
ho
lds
(%)
Severe Moderate Minor/Mild
185
Average Shock Exposure Index
• Shock exposure index was calculated by multiplying number of shocks experienced with impact severity of the shock to the household.
• Masvingo district (15.5), Mwenezi (12.5)and Chiredzi (10.8) had the highest shock exposure index.
10.110.8
10.2
8.7
15.5
12.5
8.5
10.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Ind
ex
186
Households’ Perception of their Ability to Cope with Shocks
• Most households perceived inability to cope with economic, livelihoods and weather-related shocks.
71 65 6052 51 49 48 47 47 46 45 44 42 41 39 37
25 25 22 22 20 18 13 13
20 31 4045 45 44 49 49 51 45 48 50 56
4935
54
40
75
5665
43 56
8466
9 4 3 4 7 3 4 26 7 6 2
1026
9
3522
13
3727
321
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
Unable to cope Able to cope with difficulty Able to cope without difficulty
187
Comparison Between Shock Exposure and Ability to Cope
• Shock exposure was higher than the ability to cope across all districts meaning households were not able to cope with most shocks experienced.
• Households continue to be vulnerable to shocks and stressors and are not able to cope on their own.
10.110.8
10.2
8.7
15.5
12.5
8.5
10.9
4.95.9
7.2
5.6
7.1
9.1
7.66.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka MasvingoProvince
Ind
ex
Shock exposure index Ability to cope index
188
Food Security
189
Food Security Dimensions
Figure 3: Dimensions of Food Security (Jones et al., 2013)
190
Food Security Analytical Framework
191
• Food security exists when all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to food which is safe and consumed in sufficient
quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences and it is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services
and care allowing for a healthy and active life (Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012).
• The four dimensions of food security as give in Figure 3 are:
• Availability of food
• Access to food
• The safe and healthy utilization of food
• The stability of food availability, access and utilization
Food Security Analytical Framework
• Each of the surveyed households’ minimum expenditure or the emergency nutrition sensitive food basket
was computed from the following annual food basket requirement for an individual:
192
Food Items Individual Annual Requirement
Maize Grain (Kgs) 148
Rice (Kgs) 15
Ration meat (Kgs) 14.6
Milk (Litres) 36.5
Cooking Oil (Litres) 13.5
Peanuts (Kgs) 0.73
Cabbage (Heads) 15
Beans (Kgs) 7.3
Sugar (Kgs) 12.1
Food Security Analytical Framework
• Each of the surveyed households’ potential to acquire minimum expenditure food basket (Figure 3) was computed by estimating the
household's likely disposable income (both cash and non cash) in the 2021/22 consumption year from the following possible income
sources;
• Cereal stocks from the previous season;
• Own food crop production from the 2020/21 agricultural season;
• Potential income from own cash crop production;
• Potential income from livestock ;
• Potential income from casual labour and remittances; and
• Income from other sources such as gifts, pensions, gardening, formal and informal employment.
193
Food Security Analytical Framework• Household Food Security Status
• The total minimum expenditure food basket that could be acquired by the household from the cheapest available sources using its potential
disposable income was then computed and compared to the household’s minimum expenditure food basket.
• When the total minimum expenditure food basket that a household could acquire was greater than its minimum expenditure food basket
requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When the converse was true, the household was defined as food insecure.
• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy access was below its total minimum
expenditure food basket requirements.
194
Food Security Analytical Framework• Household Cereal Security Status
• From the total minimum expenditure food basket, the total energy that could be acquired by the household from the cheapest available sources
using its potential disposable income was also extracted and compared to the household’s minimum energy requirements.
• When the potential energy a household could acquire was greater than its minimum energy requirements, the household was deemed to be food
secure. When the converse was true, the household was defined as food insecure.
• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy access was below its minimum energy
requirements.
195
Cereal Insecurity Progression by Income Source100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10095 93 91
87 86
9591 91
9590 91
87 85
9490 90
9390 91
8783
9389 89
8682
86
7773
86
7781
35
43
34
2427
51
36 36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks plus food crops
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks plus food crops plus cash crops
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks plus food crops plus cash crops plus remittances
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks plus food crops plus cash crops plus livestocks plus casual labour and remittances
Cereal insecurity from cereals stocks plus food crops plus cash crops plus livestocks plus casual labour and remittances plus income
• After factoring in all the possible sources of household income into the food security model, 36% of households will be cereal insecure during
peak hunger period.196
Cereal Insecurity Progression by Quarter
13 14 12
6
14
21
14 13
23
28
18
1317
32
20 22
30
36
29
18
23
40
28 29
35
43
34
2427
51
36 3635
43
34
2427
51
36 36
65
57
66
7673
49
64 64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bikita Chiredzi Chivi Gutu Masvingo Mwenezi Zaka Masvingo Province
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s(%
)
Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Cereal Insecure Below FPL
• About 36% of the households in Masvingo province will be cereal insecure during the peak of hunger period.
• Mwenezi (51%) and Chiredzi (43%) will have the highest proportion of cereal insure households during the peak hunger period.
• About 64% of households in Masvingo province will be below the food poverty line during the peak hunger period meaning they cannot meet the
food requirements using income from all sources .
197
Cereal Insecure Population and Cereal Requirements by Quarter
District
Food Insecure Population Cereal Requirements (MT)
Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar
Bikita 42266 55097 64909 1564 2039 2402
Chiredzi 110661 139117 167573 4094 5147 6200
Chivi 35143 57010 67163 1300 2109 2485
Gutu 29375 40390 54160 1087 1494 2004
Masvingo 42969 57958 68951 1590 2144 2551
Mwenezi 75231 93324 119036 2784 3453 4404
Zaka 39299 54711 69352 1454 2024 2566
Masvingo Province 362455 486808 598629 13411 18012 22149
• During the peak hunger period , around 598 629 people will be food insecure and approximately 22 149 MT of cereal will be required for
the province.
198
Community Development Challenges and Priorities
199
Development Challenges
7.9
7.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.1
5.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Lack of income generating projects
Drought
Prohibitive By-laws
Corruption
Poor road infrastructure
Draught Power shortage
Livestock diseases
High cost of Inputs and implements
Lack of Irrigation infrastructure
Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall patterns
Lack of /intermittent Electricity supply
High food prices
Lack of/ limited Water for domestic use
Shortage of cash
High Livestock mortalities
Unemployment
Poor Water and sanitation facilities
Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production
Other
No primary/secondary school in the ward
Gender Based Violence
Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure
Poor Information Communication Infrastructure
Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market
Drug Abuse
Livestock theft
Poor access to livestock/produce markets
Proportion of Communities (%)
• The commonly reported development challenges were lack of income generating projects and drought both at 7.9%, prohibitive bylaws,
corruption and poor road infrastructure all at 7%.
• Livestock diseases and lack of draught power were also listed amongst the major developmental challenges pointing to the need to pay
attention to initiatives that increase cattle herd and also mechanization of farmers.200
Development Challenge Bikita (%) Chiredzi (%) Chivi (%) Gutu (%) Masvingo (%) Mwenezi (%) Zaka (%)MasvingoProvince (%)
Prohibitive By-laws 26.7 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 7.0Lack of income generating projects 13.3 33.3 11.1 7.7 4.5 0.0 4.3 7.9Corruption 13.3 0.0 11.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 13.0 7.0Draught Power shortage 13.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 9.1 0.0 4.3 6.1Drought 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.8 9.1 0.0 21.7 7.9Drug Abuse 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9No primary/secondary school in the ward 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.8Lack of /intermittent Electricity supply 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 14.3 0.0 3.5Gender Based Violence 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.8Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.3 1.8High food prices 0.0 0.0 5.6 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5Poor Information Communication Infrastructure
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.3 1.8High cost of Inputs and implements 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 4.4Lack of Irrigation infrastructure 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 4.5 28.6 4.3 4.4Shortage of cash 6.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6High Livestock mortalities 6.7 0.0 5.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.6Livestock diseases 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.5 4.5 0.0 4.3 5.3Livestock theft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.9Poor access to livestock/produce markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.9Poor road infrastructure 0.0 0.0 11.1 7.7 4.5 28.6 4.3 7.0Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall patterns
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 13.6 0.0 4.3 4.4Poverty 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9Unemployment 6.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 14.3 0.0 1.8Poor Water and sanitation facilities 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.3 2.6Lack of/ limited Water for domestic use 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.3 3.5Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.6Other 0.0 33.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 2.6
201
Conclusions and Recommendations• The proportion of households which will be cereal insecure during peak of hunger period was estimated to be 36% hence there is need to institute
measures that cushion the most vulnerable through targeted food assistance by the responsible ministry. The targeted food assistance should be
coupled with initiatives that strengthen household resilience.
• There was a fair adoption rate of Pfumvudza with 52% of households practicing it whilst 56% were trained. This is applaudable, however, the
proportion of households practicing drip/micro irrigation was low at 4%. This predisposes households to the effects of long dry spells and drought.
Government needs to roll-out a pro-small scale producer irrigation programs in order to reduce crop failure.
• Given that the average household cereal production was 239.0kgs (205.1kgs for maize and 33.9kgs for traditional grains) , 6 out of 7 of the districts
produced cereals sufficient for at least 9 months and the use of improved granaries (4%) and other grain protection methods is limited. It is
recommended that Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement scale up post harvest management trainings and
technology transfer to farmers so as to salvage the harvest.
• Only 2.9% of children 6-59 months in Masvingo province were receiving the Minimum Acceptable Diet which is worrisomely low hence there is need
to strengthen the production and consumption of diversified crops though various initiatives that include, production and consumption of legumes,
small livestock production and nutrition education and counselling among caregivers.
202
Conclusion and Recommendations• Access to improved water for the province was 72%, Chivi district (44%) and Gutu (40%) had the highest proportion of households using water
from unimproved sources .Government and its partners to prioritize districts with significant proportion of households using unimproved water
sources since this poses a huge heath risk.
• Only 3% of the respondents reported to have experienced gender based violence either sexual or physical. Emotional violence (41%) was the
most prevalent form of violence among spouses. Victims of Gender Based Violence and Spousal Violence either reported to relatives or did not
report at all. The Government and its partners should strengthen mechanisms and community structures for effective awareness and referral
systems on GBV.
• The major cited developmental challenges were lack of income generating projects and prohibitive bylaws therefore there is need to further
establish more details with the local authorities about the appropriate income generating projects that can be implemented within their areas
and prohibitive bylaws that can be revised to ensure easy of doing business by locals.
• Lack of draught power coupled with livestock diseases and deaths were also cited as developmental challenges by communities hence there is
need to ensure the prevention and treatment of all forms of livestock diseases coupled with appropriate mechanization of farmers to address
the draught power challenge.
• About 74% of households in Masvingo province have no concern with the COVID-19 vaccine hence the Ministry of Health and child care should
utilize this opportunity to continue with the vaccination programme so as to reach herd immunity in the population.
203