Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) 2021 ...

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: [email protected]: @FNCZimbabwe Instagram: fnc_zim Facebook: @FNCZimbabwe

1

http://www.fnc.org.zw/

mailto:[email protected]

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

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


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


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


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


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 (%

)


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


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


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f h

ou

seh

old

s (%

)


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


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)


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


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


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 (%

)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


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


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


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


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


• 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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 (%)


Suffered abuse (%)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


• 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


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


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

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) 2021 ...

Documents

Transcript of Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) 2021 ...