1

Namibia National Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment and Monitoring Report

2010-2011

Office of the Prime Minister

Directorate Disaster Risk Management July 2010

2

Table of Contents Acknowledgements:................................................................................................................................ 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations: ................................................................................................................. 4 1. Highlights of the 2010/2011 Vulnerability Forecast ................................................................... 5

1.1 Summary of Vulnerability Analysis by Livelihood Zones ............................................................... 9 2. Methodology and Analysis Processes ........................................................................................... 10

2.1 The Key Parameters Assessed in May/June 2010 ............................................................... 12 2.3 Levels of Vulnerability by Livelihood Zones ......................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone (NBUCL) ...................................... 13 2.3.2 North Central-Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone (NCU&NFI) ............................ 14 2.3.3 Caprivi Low Land Maize and Cattle Zone (CLMC) ............................................................. 15 2.3.4 Kunene -Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone ......................................................... 17 2.3.5 Erongo-Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone (EKSNR) .............................. 18 2.3.6 Southern Communal Small Stock Zone (SCSS) .............................................................. 19 2.3.7 Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone (SFSS) ................................................................. 20 2.3.8 Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching (OOCR) Zone ......................................... 21

3. Implications of the Analysis and Recommendations: ...................................................................... 23

4.1 Recommendations to address the short-term food security: .................................................... 23 4.3 Recommendations to address the medium-term (recovery and rehabilitation interventions) . 24 4. Recommendations to address the long-term (development oriented interventions): ............... 25 Appendix A: Current Year Issues and Analysis ................................................................................. 26

1.0 Crop Production ................................................................................................................ 26 1.2 Availability of casual labour .............................................................................................. 27 1.3 Casual labour wages.......................................................................................................... 27 1.4 Prices of Staple Foods ....................................................................................................... 27 1.5 Domestic Food Prices ......................................................................................................... 28 1.6 Prices of Livestock and Livestock Products ....................................................................... 28 1.7 Prices of Items in the Minimum Non Staple Basket.......................................................... 29 1.8 Price of Items in the Essential Expenditure Basket ........................................................... 29 1.9 Nutrition ............................................................................................................................ 29

Appendix B: Annual Cereal Balance Sheet ...................................................................................... 30 Appendix C: Sample Assessment Form ............................................................................................ 31

3

Acknowledgements:

The Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee (Nam-VAC) would like to thank the following participants and their organisations, by contributing directly and indirectly to field work, analysis and providing the information in this report. Special thanks also goes to the Directorate Disaster Risk Management and SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (RVAA-Programme) who provided the required funds for the field work.

Amunyela Anastasia Directorate Disaster Risk Management

Timothy Shixungileni Directorate Disaster Risk Management

Iifo Festus Ministry of Regional Local Government, Housing & Rural Development

Nambala Sylivanus National Planning Commission

Kandjimi Olavi Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

Kalimbo Sylivia Oshana Regional Council

Amakali Kristofina Ohangwena Regional Council

Martin Ausiku Omusati Regional Council

James Acidri Nam-VAC Advisor (RHVP)

We would also like to thank all those who participated in the discussions and contributed towards the improvement and completion of the report.

Special thanks to the men and women from all the Villages visited, who took part in the exercise. We hope this report will influence appropriate interventions for the rural communities.

Disclaimer Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Office of the Prime Minister, but entirely those of the Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee.

Iitenge Japhet Chairperson, Nam-VAC Director, Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM) July 2010

4

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

CBO - Central Bureau of Statistics

DEM - Directorate Emergency Management

FAO - Food and Agricultural Organisation

HEA - Household Economy Assessment

LZ - Livelihood Zone

MDGs - Millennium Development Goals

NAD - Namibian Dollars

NamVAC - Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee

NDP 3 - National Development Plan 3

NPC - National Planning Commission

RHVP - Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme

RVAA - Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis

SADC - Southern African Development Community

5

1.0 Highlights of the 2010/2011 Vulnerability Forecast

National Food Balance Sheet: An increase in cereal production in the communal areas and relatively good harvest in the commercial sector, implies the country will have an improvement in annual cereal production compared with 2009/10 agricultural season. Under normal circumstances any national deficit is expected to be covered through commercial imports.

Overall trends show that agricultural productivity, particulary crop harvest in the flood affected areas is lower than, the 2009/10 harvest season. A combination of factors such presence of flood waters within the fertile soils along the Liambezi lake basin and flooding of the Zambezi river in low lying areas of Kabe constituency have resulted into failure of the staple cereal crops during the 2010/11 harvest season. The situation was further excerbated by untimely and below normal rainfall in some of the small grain growing upland areas of Caprivi and Kavango regions.

The presence of the 2008/09 flood waters in the traditional maize growing areas around the Liambezi lake basin compounded by 2010 floods, has resulted in a crop failure in the Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone which lies in the low lying areas of Caprivi and Kavango regions. This has caused survival and livelihood protection deficits amongst an estimated 31 and 39 percent of households within Caprivi and along the Kavango river basin in North Eastern parts of the country.

Other negative impacts of the 2010 flood in Caprivi and Kavango regions include loss of cash income from various livelihood strategies particulary within the informal sector. This has reduced household cash income derived from various livelihood activities such as agricultural labour employment, non-farm and self employment opportunities such as sale of local construction matierals, i.e thatching grass, reeds and poles among others. The 2010 flood also reduced physical access to trade and markets for populations in the low lying areas of Caprivi and Kavango regions.

Generally survival and livelihood protection deficits among the poorest rural households will be caused by specific socio-economic factors such as extreme household poverty, increase in staple food prices, limited access to key regional food markets and in some areas poor state of rural feeder roads.

The increase in staple food prices will mainly affect the poorest rural households in Southern and Eastern parts of the country, where the staple cereal prices have increased by 110 to 160 percent respectively compared with the Nam-VAC livelihood baseline prices. Despite the existing Government policy on zero rating of basic food commodities, the poorest households are still unable to derive the full benefits of subsidisation of basic commodities due to their inability to access key regional markets.

6

Extreme levels of poverty among poorest households subsisting at a low level of disposable income, particularly in Southern Namibia, parts of Kavango,Otjozondjupa and Omaheke regions (the Sani community) compounded by low wage rates and livestock prices implies that, the trickle down impact of existing pro-poor poverty reduction strategies may require review for purposes of effective implementation and reduction of rural household poverty.

A combination of existing policy practices may also excerbate the household vulnerability in the 2010/11 marketing year. The following are some of the specific policy practices identified in the course of the baseline and current year analysis assessment a) Policy practices aimed at environmental protection b) Non compliance to the existing policy on access to basic education in some parts of

the country. c) Relatively high cost of user fee for basic utilities such as water and electricity d) Non competitive pricing system for livestock, i.e pre-set prices by auctioneers and

middle men. e) Inadequate mechanisms for human wild life conflict prevention and compensation

packages f) Lack of effective subsidised agricultural input support systems for subsistence

farmers The above policy practices are some of the major impediments limiting the poorest households potential in addressing their vulnerability to both climatic harzards and economic shocks as well as extreme poverty. The various factors outlined above will result into varying levels of survival and livelihood protection deficits among rural households in Namibia during the 2010/11 marketing year. Map 1 below shows scenario 1 which indicates the level of survival deficits for 2010/11 marketing by livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of survival deficit are Caprivi, parts of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

7

Map 1 below shows scenario 1, which indicates the level of survival deficits for 2010/11 marketing year by livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of survival deficit are Caprivi, parts of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

8

Map 2 below shows scenario 1, which indicates the level of livelihood protection deficits for 2010/11 marketing year by livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of livelihood protection deficit are also Caprivi, parts of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

9

1.1 Summary of 2010/11 Marketing Year Vulnerability Analysis by Livelihood Zones and Administrative Regions

Administrative Regions & Livelihood Zones

Caprivi Lowland Maize & Cattle Zone

Southern Communal Small Stock Zone

Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone

Omaheke & Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching Zone

Caprivi 21,451 0 0 0

Kavango 53,924 0 0 0

Omaheke 0 0 0 9,587

Otjozondjupa 0 0 0 8,695

Hardap 0 4,033 5,509 0

Karas 0 0 3,098 0

Totals 75,375 4,033 8,607 18,282

Grand Total 106,297

1.2 Implications of 2010/11 Vulnerability Analysis for Programming and Response

Items Survival Deficit Livelihood Protection Deficit

Total

No of Beneficiaries 42,100 106,297 106,297

Food required to fill deficit (MT) 2,440 7,877 MT 10,317

OR cash required to fill deficit (NAD) 14,092,855 45,005,737 NAD 59,098,592

Conclusion: The livelihood based analysis shows that common risk and vulnerability factors have become the main impediments for rural household food and livelihood security. It is important for this to become a main focus of national and regional policy attention. Poorest households try to manage uncertainty using a variety of ex-ante, ex-post risk management strategies and through community support systems. But these are both fragile and economically damaging for sustainable livelihood security.

10

Government led interventions working through food, labour or credit markets, although expensive, could be carefully designed and linked to promote both production and consumption within social protection and livelihood security interventions among the poorest people in rural parts of the country.

2. Methodology and Analysis Processes In October and November 2008, the Nam-VAC started a livelihood based vulnerability assessment and analysis by initially conducting a national livelihoods zoning exercise. This process was followed by livelihood baseline assessments and analysis in 8 rural livelihood zones covered using the Livelihood Based Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (LBVAA) methodology in the country. Nam-VAC then moved to the use of advanced modelling methods in order to present its results in both survival and livelihood protection deficits. In addition, the analysis enables Nam-VAC to express its results in both survival deficit expressing hunger and cash terms expressing poverty for purposes of making appropriate decisions on various interventions. The recommendations bear in mind the cost implications and compatibility with long term development strategies as outlined in the National Development Plan (NDP) 3, Millennium Development Goals and National Vision 2030.

Livelihood protection deficit: According to the Nam-VAC analysis, livelihood protection deficit occurs when households can afford to purchase the balance of food required to make up 100% of their energy requirements, but cannot afford to purchase all items in the livelihood protection basket. The essential livelihood basket is comprised of items such as payment for education, health care, agricultural inputs such as quality seeds, fertiliser, ploughing services and livestock drugs among others.

A survival deficit occurs when households cannot afford to purchase the balance of food required to make up 100% of their energy requirements. This is in addition to not being able to afford anything in the essential livelihood protection basket. In each livelihood zone, the Nam-VAC has calculated survival deficits expressed as a percentage of the minimum per capita energy requirement based on the requirement of 2,100 Kcal per person per day. This information is converted into staple cereal equivalent or cash for ease of interpretation. The Nam-VAC calculates the livelihood protection deficit by multiplying the deficit per household with the total number of affected households. The total livelihood protection deficit is also converted into staple cereal equivalent to show the extent of resources required for a particular intervention or policy option. The key rationale underlying this modelling is that, there is a sequence in household response to effects of a particular shock such as crop failure due to floods or increase in food prices, which has resulted in missing of its minimum food requirements.

11

The first response is to adapt normal coping mechanisms such as sell of livestock. In-case this does not cover the missing food requirement; the household will draw from discretionary expenditure such as clothes and transport expenses. However if this does not cover the missing food requirement, then the household will switch to income meant for accessing essential livelihood protection basket comprised of education and agricultural inputs among others. This will result to a livelihood protection deficit and if the missing food entitlement is likely not to be covered, even after all essential expenditure has been used to buy food, then the household experiences both livelihood protection and survival deficits. Geography and wealth are key determinants of livelihood patterns and it is for this reason that Nam-VAC focuses on analysis by Livelihood Zone to be able to pick up the specific conditions that affect households in each of the zones. This would not be possible, if one used only the administrative units of analysis. The wealth status of the household determines the options available for the access to food and income. This is the other reason Nam-VAC goes through the process of defining wealth groups in each Livelihood Zone as part of the household economy baseline development. Having grouped households according to where they live and their wealth, the step is to generate baseline profiles for typical households in each group for a defined baseline or reference year. Food access is determined by investigating the sum of ways households obtain food, i.e. how much food they get from own crop, livestock, gifts and purchases. Information is also collected on how much cash income is earned in a year and what essential needs are met with the earned income. Once the baseline is established, analysis can be made of the likely impact of a shock or hazard in a bad year. This involves assessing how food access will be affected by the shock, what other food sources can be added or expanded to make up for the initial shortfall and what final deficits emerge after exhausting all coping strategies. The Nam-VAC selected 2006/07; 2007/08; 2008/09 and 2009/10 as the baseline/reference years for the eight rural livelihood zones and therefore its current analysis reflects the impacts of the current problems on the baseline/reference situation in the above years. The Nam-VAC assessment team spent two weeks in June assessing the baseline/reference situation for all the eight rural livelihood zones in the country understanding the current year situation in a total of 62 villages. In each village interviews were conducted with key informants (village leaders and representatives of each of the four wealth groups, i.e. the very poor, and poor, middle and better-off. A total of 120 wealth group interviews were conducted with each interview having 5-6 participants from different households. In addition other key informant interviews were conducted with traders and local business men to understand changes in market prices. Informal interviews were also conducted with relevant regional officials and other key informants such as livestock traders. The assessment team spent six days analyzing the field data.

12

2.1 The Key Parameters Assessed in May/June 2010

After the process of establishing the livelihood baseline profiles in 2008, 2009 and 2010, key parameters for monitoring were identified in each zone. Regarding food sources, a source that contributes at least 2% of total annual household minimum food energy required is considered a key parameter for monitoring. All income sources are key parameters as well as prices of food, labour, livestock and the prices of items in the Minimum Non Staple and Essential Expenditure baskets.

The key parameters assessed included;

Household access to food from own crop production and how this compares to access in the baseline years

Household access to food from agricultural labour exchange and how this compares to access in the baseline year

Access to food from livestock and livestock products and how this compares to access in the baseline year

Access to income in the current year from crop sales, livetsock sales, agricultural labour and other casual labour, brewing, sale of livestock products such as milk, petty trade and natural resource exploitation, i.e self employment

The current prices of maize, livestock (cattle, goats and poultry) in the current years and compared to 2007 and the baseline year prices

The price of items in the minimum non staple basket ( soap, paraffin/candles, matches, vaseline, beans, cooking oil and salt) and the essential expenditure basket (education, health care and agricultural inputs)

The findings from the key parameter analysis formed the current year problem specification for the scenario modelling with the baseline data. In some cases it was difficult to estimate changes in prices of some items in the livelihood protection basket, due to lack of consistent data.

13

2.3 Levels of Vulnerability by Livelihood Zones

2.3.1 Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone (NBUCL) The Upland Cereal and Livestock zone lies in most of the drier parts of Caprivi, upland areas of Kavango and much of Ohangwena, Omusati and Oshikoto with a small portion of Oshana region. The soils are mainly a mixture of sandy loam and windblown sandy soils drained by parallel ridges of dunes running east to west as well as seasonal rivers such as the Omatako, making it suitable for the cropping of small grain cereals such as millet (mahangu) and sorghum. Other crops produced in the area include beans, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, pumpkins and melons.

The 2010 agricultural season had relatively normal rainfall without any major floods affecting crop and livestock conditions. Unlike 2009, the season has not also experienced any major livestock disease out breaks.

Implication of the analysis (Income Graph)

Overall there are no household wealth groups having survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year. This implies that, there is no need for any vulnerability related food or cash assistance in the livelihood zone during the 2010/11 marketing year, unless there is a major shock that will change the current food security and livelihood vulnerability analysis. Conclusion: The Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone has no survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

14

2.3.2 North Central-Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone (NCU&NFI) This zone lies in the north central part of Namibia, bordering Angola; it mainly covers north eastern Omusati, Northern Oshana, North West Oshikoto and Western Ohangwena regions. It covers the most densely populated part of Namibia. Main crops grown in the area include millet (mahangu) and sorghum; however overall food production is insufficient to cover peoples annual food needs. Many households in the area own cattle that are kept outside the zone, supplemented with small stock such as goats. Due to the high population density, livelihoods have been diversified particularly into non-farm income sources, such as trading, self employment activities (crafts and sell of labour)

The 2010 rainfall did not have any negative impact on the population in this zone compared with 2009/10 agricultural season. Overall crop and livestock conditions were not affected compared with the 2006/07 baseline year.

The only changes in 2010/11 marketing year were the reduction of cash incomes among poorest households due to the following:

Increase in staple food prices compared with the 2006/07 baseline prices

The cumulative impact of the 2008 and 2009 floods, which have slowed household recovery in 2010/11 marketing year

Loss and damages of capital and productive assets respectively within the informal and private sector

Some reduction in agricultural labour (weeding and harvesting) income among the very poor and some poor households.

Lack of increase in wage labour rates compared with the baseline prices

Implication of the analysis (Income Graph)

Overall there are no household wealth groups having survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

15

This implies that, there is no need for any vulnerability related food or cash assistance in the livelihood zone during the 2010/11 marketing year, unless there is a major shock that will change the current food security and livelihood vulnerability analysis. Conclusion: The North Central Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone has no survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

2.3.3 Caprivi Low Land Maize and Cattle Zone (CLMC) The Lowland Maize and Livestock is a spatially distributed zone, which mainly covers the low altitude areas of Caprivi region in areas such as riverine woodlands and the eastern flood plains, parts of Katima Mulilo, Impalila Island and the Kavango river basin.

The zone is drained by the Zambezi, the Kwando/Linyanti/Chobe and the Okavango rivers, which receive most of their water from direct rainfall (550-650mm per annum) and ground flowing water in Angola and Zambia.

The area is characterized by flat plains with gentle slopes towards the south and fertile clay-loam rich soils known as Sitapa upon which much of the large scale maize in the area is grown. There are frequent floods and it is also suitable for recession cropping, particularly of maize after floods.

Comparatively the 2010 flood has more negative impact on the local population compared with 2009 flood.

Specific factors such as the excess flood water emanating from the 2009 floods along the Liambezi lake basin limited farmers access to the traditional fertile maize growing areas in Katima rural and Lanyanti constituencies. The situation was exacerbated by the 2010 flood water from Zambezi River that mainly destroyed the maize crop in Kabe constituency.

Other factors which affected crop production in the higher areas of the livelihood zone include untimely rainfall and human wild life conflict, particularly elephants that destroyed crops in villages neighbouring the conservancy in Linyanti constituency.

The impact of the floods is not only limited to crops, but other sources of livelihood. Among these include self employment opportunities such as sale of thatching grass, reeds and poles. The lack of access to these natural resources has directly affected households, which depend on this source of income. This implies there will be reduced purchasing power among the local population.

16

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor and poor households in this zone with an estimated population of 33 percent will face a survival deficit of 32 percent and livelihood protection deficit of 2,859 NAD compared with poor households estimated to be about 41 percent (41,009) people who are likely to face a livelihood protection deficit of 4,209 NAD per household as a result of switching expenditure from discretionary and essential livelihood protection basket to purchase of staple foods in the 2010/11 marketing season. However all cash income switched for purchase of food to meet the survival deficit will not be adequate to cover the 100 percent minimum annual food requirement per person particularly among the very poor households.

This implies that, the very poor households will require 2,256MT of maize to fill the survival deficit or a cash equivalent of 12,634,219 NAD. The total livelihood protection deficit for the very poor in this zone is 13,637,067NAD or maize equivalent of 2,435 MT.

Meanwhile the poor households will require 4,510 MT of maize or 25,257,401 NAD to fill the livelihood protection deficit.

Conclusion: The Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone has survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year. Expressed in cash terms the combined survival and livelihood protection deficit for the very poor and poor households can be covered by 51,528,687 NAD. Expressed in maize equivalent, the combined survival and livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 9,201 MT.

17

2.3.4 Kunene -Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone

This zone is located in the North West of the country, specifically in North-West Kunene.

This communal cattle and small stock zone lies in the former Kaokoveld mainly inhabited mostly by Himba-speaking people. It is characterized by gravel plains and lies within an altitude of 900-1200m and has a low average annual rainfall of between 100-300mm.

Not affected by any climatic hazards such as flood and drought tin 2010, the zone experienced relatively good rainfall in the 2009/10 agricultural season resulting into good pasture conditions and adequate surface water for livestock. Overall this has contributed to good livestock conditions and average production of animal products such as milk and meat among others.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The poor households in this zone with a population of 19,212 people are part of the population on watch due to the possibility of risk to survival deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.

It is important to monitor key risk and vulnerability indicators such as price of maize meal and barter trade particularly the terms of trade for exchange of livestock with maize meal as the year draws closer to the lean/hunger period (September-December) of the 2010/11 marketing year in this zone. Conclusion: The Kunene Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone has no survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

18

2.3.5 Erongo-Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone (EKSNR) This zone lies in Erongo and parts of Kunene region. It is characterized by gravel plains with an altitude of 900-1200m and low rainfall between 100-300mm per annum from the west rising towards the east, the area is more suitable for seasonal grazing. Its extension inland rises to Escapement Mountains, sometimes cut and broken down by river valleys and deep gorges and chasms. The main vegetation is Mopane and mixed woodland which slopes down towards the Etosha pan in the east. It is also a semi arid area.

People derive their main livelihoods from extensive rearing of small stock such as goats and sheep with high reliance on non-farm income obtained from natural resources (precious stones and local crafts) tourism, hospitality services and trophy hunting activities. Employment opportunities are limited, but remittances are received from family members in the marble mining areas and coastal beach services including the fishing industry in Walvis Bay.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The entire population in this zone is not at risk in the 2010/11 marketing year. It is however important to monitor key risk and vulnerability indicators such as price of maize meal and barter trade particularly the terms of trade for exchange of livestock with maize meal as the year draws closer to the lean/hunger period (September-December) of the 2010/11 marketing year in this zone.

Conclusion: The Erongo Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone has no survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

19

2.3.6 Southern Communal Small Stock Zone (SCSS)

This zone is located in the southern part of Namibia. This area has low rainfall, between 75-220mm per annum, and sparse vegetation consisting of scrubs grass and isolated trees. Dry spells are a norm rather than an exception making it suitable for intensive small stock farming and not for crop production. The main livestock kept in the zone include goats and some sheep. There is little crop farming in this area, except for some seasonal vegetables produced to supplement local diet.

The population copes with the low productivity of the land and extreme levels of poverty through migratory labour (mainly to urban areas), which has undermined household labour.

The main source of food is local market purchases using state pensions, sale of livestock, wage/self employment and remittances from migrant workers in urban areas and neighbouring commercial farming and mining areas.

The main food markets are the local shops located in main trading routes and centres.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The entire population in this zone has no survival deficit, but the very poor households face some livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.

Conclusion: The Southern Communal Small Stock Zone has no survival deficit, but there is livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year. Expressed in cash terms the livelihood protection deficit for the very poor and poor households can be covered by 181,822 NAD and 22,473 NAD respectively. Expressed in staple cereal equivalent, the livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 182MT and 22MT among the very poor and poor respectively. Combined livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 204,295NAD or equivalent of main

20

2.3.7 Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone (SFSS)

This zone is located in the southern part of Namibia. The area has low rainfall, between 75-220mm per annum, and sparse vegetation consisting of scrubs grass and isolated trees. Dry spells are a norm rather than an exception making it suitable for intensive small stock farming and not for crop production. The main livestock kept in the zone include goats and some sheep. There is little crop farming in this area, except for some seasonal vegetables produced to supplement local diet.

The population copes with the low productivity of the land and extreme levels of poverty through migratory labour (mainly to urban areas), which has undermined household labour.

The main source of food is local market purchases using state pensions, sale of livestock, wage/self employment and cash remittances from migrant workers in urban areas and neighbouring commercial farming and mining areas.

The main food markets are the local shops located in main trading routes and centres.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor households in this zone with a population of 8,711 people are part of the population at risk, due to a survival deficit of 10 percent and livelihood protection deficit of 907 NAD in the 2010/11 marketing year. The main factors for their vulnerability include increase in staple food prices compounded by the low levels of household cash income. The high level of dependency on the market for food and high levels of extreme poverty among some of the households in the zone implies they are vulnerable to any economic shocks such as increase in food prices and market failure. Conclusion: The Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone has both survival and livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year. Expressed in cash terms the survival deficit for the very poor can be covered by 1,458,636 NAD or 184 MT of staple cereal.

21

The livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 1,316,814 NAD or 166MT of staple cereal. Combined survival and livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 2,775,450 NAD or 350MT of staple cereal.

2.3.8 Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching (OOCR) Zone

This zone lies on the western edge of the vast Kalahari basin of deposits. The area is endowed with two fossil rivers and part of the central plateau, which extends from Khomas region to Omaheke and Otjozondjupa. Annual rainfall in this area is 350-450mm per annum. The vegetation is mainly savannah wood and grassland and is well suited for cattle.

The main sources of food include local market purchases in shops within towns and villages, livestock products such as meat and milk, food assistance; with some own crops particularly small scale vegetable production, fishing, hunting and gathering veldt foods and products.

Main household sources of income include sale of livestock in neighbouring urban areas and to some extent for export, self employment, petty trade, formal employment and social pensions.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor households in this zone with a population of 18,133 people are part of the population at risk, due to livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.

The main reason being increase in staple food prices and low levels of income and wage labour rates paid particularly to the very poor households comprised of people without any productive assets, gainful employment opportunities and pursuing unsustainable livelihood strategies such as hunting and gathering.

Conclusion: The Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching Zone has livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year. Expressed in cash terms the livelihood protection deficit for the very poor can be covered by 2,217,369 NAD or 271 MT of staple cereal.

22

2.3.9 Critical Assumption under pinning the 2010/11 marketing year analysis

1. No further changes in current year staple and non staple food prices

2. Availability of basic food and non food commodities in the market

3. Accessibility of livestock and staple food and non food markets

4. Relatively stable macro economic conditions such as inflation

5. Stability of the different sources of household cash income such as social pension and

wage labour among others.

6. No major livestock disease outbreaks and other common shocks such as stock theft and

poisonous plants among others in the differenet livelihood zones.

7. No major outbreak of human diseases in the rural areas covered in the assessment

23

3. Implications of the Analysis and Recommendations:

The livelihood based analysis shows that common risk and vulnerability factors have become the main impediments for rural household food and livelihood security. It is important for this to become a main focus of policy attention. Poorest households try to manage uncertainty using a variety of ex-ante, ex-post risk management strategies and through community support systems, but these are both fragile and economically damaging for sustainable livelihood security.

Government led interventions working through food, labour or credit markets, although expensive, could be carefully designed to cover both production and consumption within social protection and livelihood security interventions, through the following recommendations:

4.1 Recommendations to address the short-term food security:

Market accessibility: In the short term, the survival and livelihood protection deficits among the very poor households in the Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle; Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone, Southern Communal Small Stock and Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching Zone can be addressed through food or cash for work schemes to enable populations at risk of survival and livelihood protection deficits access the minimum food and essential livelihood items.

The conditional nature of this transfer should be emphasized through provision of food for permanent resettlement of flood affected people; increased agricultural production in the next season; rehabilitation of community assets such as feeder roads, water points, temporary learning centers and public toilets among others. However it is more appropriate to implement a food other than cash for work scheme in remote areas due to lack of functional food markets and difficulties faced with cash for work programmes.

Subsidisation of basic food commodities: The current zero rating policy for basic food commodities has not yileded the expected benefits for the poorest households in rural areas. Additional policy initiatives aimed at lowering food prices through Government led subsidies aimed at reducing cost of transportation of food by private traders in remote rural areas should be considered.

Strategic food reserves: The construction of local grain stores in the communal cereal producing zones was a positive step towards the stabilization of local food security situation in areas such as Kavango and Caprivi regions. The fast tracking of this programme by addressing existing structural defects and purchasing of excess cereal production in bumper years should be implemented. This will lead to staple cereal availability in bad/crisis years such as the 2010/11 marketing year.

24

4.3 Recommendations to address the medium-term (recovery and rehabilitation interventions)

Poverty reduction through small capital grants: Based on livelihood proetction deficits among very poor and some poor households in various zones, scaleup of Savings and Credit Co-operatives (SACCOs) initiatives should be implemented to enable the affected households acquire some financial capital in the meduim term. This can be achieved through training of local community saving groups and providing an initial revolving fund to enable them participate in the economic growth and development process of the country.

Poverty reduction through productive asset creation: Although asset creation among very poor and some poor households is ideal, key impediments such as predators, wild life destruction of livestock and adequate food for consumption should be addressed prior to supporting these households with assets such as small stock, oxen and ox ploughs. The provision of productive assets (small stock) through restocking programmes as a start up capital for asset poor households within the very poor and some poor households may help them graduate from the current levels of extreme poverty.

Poverty reduction through settlement of land less people: The high levels of extreme poverty in some parts of southern and central Namibia is mainly caused by lack of ownership of land among the population in these areas. The high levels of extreme poverty among landless people in Hardap, Karas and parts of Khomas regions, could be addressed through settlement by the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement.

Permanent resettlement: Fast tracking the implementaion of permanent settlement for

flood and human wild life conflict affected households in various regions such as Kavango and Caprivi should also be considered. This can only be achieved through allocation of resettlement land and provision of basic social services such as water and sanitation facilities, schools and health centers in the designated relocation areas.

Development planning: There is need for more active involvement and participation of communties in development planning processes. Some of the current developemnt priorities such as rural electrification and water and sanitation projects are not fully utilised by the rural population, due to high utility costs. It is therefore important to ensure employment creation through more active participation and involvement of local people in the identification of development projects aimed at addressing the high unemployment within the country.

Livestock marketing policies: The existing livestock marketing policies do not necessarily favour subsistence livestock farmers. A review of the existing livestock pricing policy through auctioning would ensure more competitive pricing and protection of subsistence farmers, while ensuring value for their livestock. One possible option is to support subsistence livestock farmers to form livestock marketing co-operatives. This will enable them to mitigate soem of the existing exploitative practices within the marketing system. Other initiatives could include provision of improved processing and marketing facilities for livestock products such as milk.

25

Provision of social services: A review of policies on the provision of basic services such as health centers, schools and other social facilities should also be considered to ensure improved physical access of social services.

Access to basic education: Some of the existing policy practices on access to basic social services have some limitations. An example is the policy statement on non explusion of learners, due to failure of school fees payment. Practically this policy statement is not working in some rural parts of the country. There is a need for the review and enforcement of this policy statement inorder to ensure achievement of the National Development Plans (NDP) and the Millenuim Development Goal (MDG) on free universal primary education.

Co-ordination among Government line ministries: General observations show limited co-ordination among Government line ministries in the delivery of social services in rural areas. Improvement in the co-ordination of common sectors and social services is required, in order to address the extreme levels of poverty among some communities in rural areas.

4. Recommendations to address the long-term (development oriented interventions):

Improvement of rural feeder roads, trade and markets: Overall Namibia has very good feeder roads. The over reliance on centralized regional markets such as Katima, Opuwo and Oshakati central markets are a key constraint for effective participation of local people in economic activities. More investment in rural feeder roads and markets particularly in highly populated areas through food or cash work activities would facilitate local trade among the population in the zone. Other options for relocation of highly disadvantaged people should also be explored.

Preservation of community forests-The continued cutting of trees for construction of temporary structures by internally displaced people due to floods has become another major environmental risk. There is need to promote planting of trees in the higher ground areas, which normally host the internally displaced people within the zone.

26

Appendix A: Current Year Issues and Analysis

1.0 Crop Production An increase in cereal production in the communal areas compared with 2009/10 agricultural season and relatively good harvest in the commercial sector has enabled the country to produce about 49 percent of its annual cereal requirement. Under normal circumstances the deficit is expected to be covered through commercial imports.

The Nam-VAC quantified production estimates from the community interviews in respect to 2010/11 harvest. Overall trends showed a reduction in production in most of the flood affected areas. The Nam-VAC assessment compared the 2010/11 production figures with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) National Early Warning Unit (NEWU) and the results were similar.

The main reasons for low crop production in two of the crop producing livelihood zones were the following:

Late planting of crops

Flood waters which resulted into soil leaching and stunting of crops

Flood waters which occupied the traditional maize growing areas particulary along the Lake Liambezi Basin.

Untimely and irregular rainfall in some araes.

Lack of hard work towards streanous work among some households. As a result much of crops in the low lying flood plains were affected by floods between February and April 2010. As a result much of crops in the low lying flood plains were affected by floods between February and April 2010.

Trends in Cereal Production (2004-2010) Agricultural year Estimated production (MT)

2004-2005 154.4

2005-2006 179.0

2006-2007 116.4

2007-2008 108.1

2008-2009 111.7

2009-2010 155.1

2010 compared with Baseline Year Averages 139 percent

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry-National Early Warning Unit (NEWU)

The Nam-VAC used community level information combined with estimates for 2010 and the baseline year production (2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10) to calculate percentage changes in production that constitutes the current year cereal production in the three main cereal producing livelihood zones in the country. The details of changes in cereal and other crop production problem specifications are provided in the specific sections of livelihood zone analysis.

27

1.2 Availability of casual labour

Normally the very poor and poor households access a significant portion of their minimum annual food intake and cash income from casual labour employment opportunities such as agricultural and nonfarm activities. This year such activities have been affected by the floods and irregular rainfall patterns particularly in the Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone.

As a result the current year problem expressed as a percentage over the baseline years in the crop producing livelihood zones is: Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock 93 percent; North Central Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income 93 percent; Lowland Maize and Cattle 31 percent and Kunene Cattle and Small Stock Zone remained at 100 percent.

1.3 Casual labour wages

Casual labour is an important source of cash income for the very poor and poor households contributing up to 26% of total annual household income. The overall daily wage for casual labour did not have any significant change from the baseline prices. As such it remained at 100 percent compared with baseline prices.

1.4 Prices of Staple Foods

Over the last three years global food prices have soared posing a threat to global food and nutrition security. A number of casual factors for the dramatic food price increases have been identified and include, low global food stocks currently at the lowest in 20 years and yet demand is ever on the increase for both human and animal feed. Experts claim that, the low stock levels and high demand is responsible for the food price increase growth.

Conversion of maize into bio-fuel production has also been identified as a major causal factor in the global food price crisis, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the price increase.

High fuel prices over the past years were also responsible for the high food prices, pushing the cost of ploughing services/cultivation, fertilizer and transport.

Extreme weather conditions associated with climate change, causing floods and drought conditions among others are also contributing to the low crop production in the sub Saharan and southern Africa sub region.

Overall the current year situation has been worsened by the cumulative impact of global financial crisis, highlighting income inadequacies due to reduced cash remittances and economic growth in some developing countries.

28

1.5 Domestic Food Prices

General trends show increase in staple food prices. The same trend was observed with national and sub national food prices in the country. Overall the upward changes in food prices were relatively lower than during the 2009/10 marketing year. Overall trends of sub national food prices indicate that, the Government led price subsidisation policy of zero rating basic food commodities is making some positive contribution in centralised regional markets, but not in the remote, rural parts of the country.

Whereas centralised regional markets show evidence of subsidisation, due to the zero rating policy, there are upward changes of staple food prices in the remote and rural markets (shops) in at least 12 of the 13 regions covered under the vulnerability assessment and analysis programme.

The poorest people in rural areas do not have access to the subsidised markets; as such they mainly purchase food at higher prices due to the following:

Limited access to subsidised regional markets

Poor feeder roads in some areas such as Kunene region

Irregular and high cost of transport

Irregular access to cash income limiting household ability to access subsidised markets Overall prices of staple cereals ( maize meal and millet) changed by 110 to 160% compared with the 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2010/11 Nam-VAC baseline prices in the eight rural livelihood zones covered during the assessment.

1.6 Prices of Livestock and Livestock Products

The assessment looked at the prices of livestock and livestock products and compared them with the baseline prices. Price data for cattle, goats and chicken were also collected.

In general, the prices of cattle and goats increased by 105 to 180% respectively compared with the baseline price. However there are no major changes in livestock prices in some of the livelihood zones whose baseline years were among the most recent years. An example is the Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching zone, whose baseline year was 2009/10.

Other factors likely to affect livestock prices include livestock diseases such as foot and mouth; rift valley fever in the north east and southern parts of the country. Specific price increases by livelihood zone are presented in sections on the analysis by livelihood zone.

29

1.7 Prices of Items in the Minimum Non Staple Basket

The minimum non staple basket is constructed in the baseline to ensure that some minimum expenditure is maintained by households in the various wealth groups even in the most difficult situations. This basket contains items such as salt, cooking oil, candle, matches, domestic water, soap, beans, vegetables and Vaseline.

The amount of cash income allocated to buy this basket is reserved or locked up during modelling and can therefore be converted to purchase food even in the worst case scenarios.

The price of each commodity in the basket was collected and compared to the baseline price and the overall percentage increase was about 20 percent.

This in effect means more cash is withdrawn and allocated for the basket and therefore less is available for food purchase this year. This partly explains the survival and livelihood protection deficits faced by some households in four of the eight rural livelihood zones.

1.8 Price of Items in the Essential Expenditure Basket The essential livelihoods expenditure basket contains average household expenditure such as education, health care, clothing, agricultural inputs (quality seeds and ploughing services) water for animals and in some cases cost of grinding grain.

The expenditure can be switched to buy food in bad and crisis years. However this decision has major negative consequences such as children not attending school or failure to purchase vital agricultural inputs resulting into further reduction in crop production. It is therefore important to preserve this essential household livelihood basket expenditure. During this assessment, it was not possible to collect prices for all items within the essential livelihood basket. However for those items whose prices were established the change was about 12 percent over the 2006/06; 2007/08; 2008/09 and 2009/10 Nam-VAC baseline prices in the various livelihood zones respectively.

Unlike in the case with minimum non staple basket, the increase in the cost of the minimum essential expenditure basket means less cash is allocated to this basket thus increasing the livelihood protection deficit.

1.9 Nutrition

There are published nutritional surveys 2010, however the general field observations by the team is that, there are cases of malnutrition, particularly stunting among some children in the rural areas. This is also closely linked to limited physical access to health centres and extreme levels of poverty in some livelihood zones. It is recommended that, the Ministry of Health and Social Services conducts more nutrition surveys to have a better understanding of the general rates of malnutrition in the rural parts of the country.

30

Appendix B: Annual Cereal Balance Sheet for the 2009/10 Marketing Year Explanation of the Balance Sheet as of 1st May, 2010

Namibia: Cereal Supply/Demand Forecast 1 May 2010 - 30 April 2011 ('000 tonnes)

Wheat Maize Millet/Sorghum Total

Domestic Availability 17.7 66.6 96.2 180.5

Opening stocks (as at 1st May 2010) 1.4 9.0 15.0 25.4

Forecasted Production 16.3 57.6 81.2 155.1

Total Utilization 75.4 163.7 79.4 318.5

Food use 64.6 147.9 52.2 264.7

Losses and other uses 0.8 5.8 12.2 18.8

Closing stocks 10.0 10.0 15.0 35.0

Domestic Shortfall -57.7 -97.1 16.8 -138.0

Commercial imports received 16.0 2.7 0.1 18.8

Commercial Imports expected 68.1 83.8 2.2 154.1

Export already shipped 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

After trade Deficit/Surplus 26.4 -10.6 14.6 30.4

The food balance sheet is a tool which is used to estimate national cereal availability against the requirement. It is calculated every marketing year (1st May to 31st April) and updated monthly using the imports received.

1. Opening Stocks: This is stock held by the major millers at the end of May 2010. This stock becomes the opening stock for the beginning of the following marketing year (1st May 2011)

2. Forecasted Production: This was estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Early Warning Unit during the crop assessment forecast conducted in May/June 2010.

3. Domestic Availability: is made up of the opening stock plus forecasted crop production. 4. Gross Domestic Requirement: This has been calculated using kilocalories required by

each person for the period of one year. This year it has been decided to use this methodology, so as to avoid inconsistency with other stakeholders. The minimum kilograms estimated by Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) indicate the need for 127kg of maize or millet, 42 kg of wheat and some 12 kg of other cereals such as sorghum. The total projected population of 2,144,291 people by Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)-National Planning Commission (NPC) has been used in calculating the domestic requirement. The Kilo-calorie method gives a more realistic picture, given that it is based on food energy requirements of 2,100 Kilocalories per person per day calculated for a whole year.

5. Domestic Shortfall: This is the difference between domestic availability and the requirement.

6. Expected Commercial Imports: This is the expected imports to bridge the domestic shortfall.

7. After Trade Deficit/Surplus: Any deficit or surplus as after expected commercial importation.

31

Appendix C: Sample Assessment Form

Key Parameters and Problem Specification Sheet- 2010/11 Marketing Year

1. Village/Constituency Name:

2. Region:

3. Livelihood Zone: Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone

4. Wealth Group:

5. Date:

6. Inteviewers:

7. Baseline Year: 2006/2007

KEY PARAMETERS

VERY POOR POOR MIDDLE BETTER-OFF

FOOD

Food crops (millet-mahangu, sorghum) Market purchases

Food crops (millet-mahangu, sorghum) Market purchases

Food crops (millet-mahangu, sorghum) Market purchases

Food crops ( millet-mahangu, sorghum) Market purchases

INCOME

Non farm income (domestic work, cattle herding, basket marketing & brewing) Social Grants Petty trade Cuca shops

Non farm income (domestic work, cattle herding, basket marketing & brewing) Social Grants Petty trade- Cuca shops

Agriculture (Crops & Cattle) Entrepreneurial /trade Natural resource exploitation

Agriculture (Crops & Cattle) Entrepreneurial /trade Natural resource exploitation

EXPENDITURE

Education Water

Education Water

Education Water

Education Water

PROBLEM SPECIFICATION

Livestock Quantity Baseline quantity-2006/07 Current/projected quantity

Periods (months)

Cattle (herd size)

Goats (herd size)

Sheep (herd size)

Harvest Baseline quantity Current/projected quantity

Current/projected as % of baseline quantity

Millet (mahangu)

Sorghum

Maize

Beans

32

Groundnuts

Notes:

Food Source-Quantity

Baseline quantity Current/projected quantity

Current/projected as % of baseline quantity

Labour exchange

Wild foods ( fruits/fish ect)

Livestock products (milk, meat etc)

Notes:

Income Source-Quantity

Baseline quantity Current/projected quantity

Current/projected as % of baseline quantity

Sale of cattle

Sale of goats Brewing Construction labour Self employment Trade

Income Source-market price

Baseline price Last years price Nearest primary market

Nearest secondary market

Nearest central market

Cattle

Construction income price

Self employment prices

Price data- May/June 2010

Expenditure Items-Price

Baseline price Current/projected price

Nearest primary market

Nearest secondary market

Nearest central market

Salt Soap

Candles/Kerosene Vaseline Matches

33

Cereal flour prices: Measure (Kg)

Millet (Mahangu)

% Change Maize % Change Sorghum % Change

May 2007

May 2010

May 2007

May 2010

May 2007

May 2010

1 Kg 12.5 kg 25 kg 50kg

Notes:

Livestock Cattle May 2007 May 2010 % Change in Price

Goats

Sheep

Poultry (Indigenous)

Pigs

Piglets

CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS

Component of Problem specification

Source of data Assumptions Confidence e.g. Good- no action required Poor- requires verification

1. Which commodities have the highest price increase? 2. Which grousp of houesholds are mostly affected by changes in prices? 3. How do these households cope with the current situation? 4. Have you bought any subsidised maize meal in the past six months? If Yes, which

months and from where did you buy? 5. Any comments about the current price situation?