Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC ......Agricultural Commodity Prices..... 81...
Transcript of Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC ......Agricultural Commodity Prices..... 81...
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee
(ZimVAC)2017 Rural Livelihoods
Assessment Report
Zim
ZIMBABWE
VulnerabilityAssessment Committee
VAC
Foreword
George D. KemboFNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson Dr. Leonard Madzingaidzo
Interim Chief Execu�ve Officer - SIRDC
3
The Na�onal Food and Nutri�on Security Informa�on System is essen�al for understanding the breadth and scope of food and nutri�on insecurity thereby assis�ng
in priori�sing and planning food and nutri�on interven�ons and broader livelihoods. In its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutri�on security for
all people at all �mes’, the Government of Zimbabwe has con�nued to exhibit its commitment for reducing food and nutri�on insecurity, improving livelihoods and
reducing poverty amongst the vulnerable popula�ons in Zimbabwe. In this light ZimVAC, ac�ng as the technical advisory commi�ee on assessments, undertook the
17�� edi�on of the Rural Livelihoods Assessment in May 2017.
The 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment (RLA) provides updates on per�nent rural livelihoods issues such as educa�on, food and income sources, income levels,
expenditure pa�erns and food security among other issues. It recognises and draws from other contemporary surveys that define the socio-economic context of
rural livelihoods.
This report provides a summa�on of the results of the processes undertaken and focuses on the following thema�c areas: Household demographics, social
protec�on, educa�on, food consump�on pa�erns, food sources and nutri�on, income and expenditure pa�erns and levels, agriculture, markets, household food
security , health and nutri�on, water, sanita�on and hygiene, community livelihood challenges and development priori�es, resilience, shocks and hazards and gender
based violence. The report concludes by giving specific recommenda�ons on each of the thema�c areas outlined in the report. It is our hope that these
recommenda�ons will aide to your development of response strategies.
The ac�ve par�cipa�on of all food and nutri�on structures at Na�onal, Provincial, District levels and the community at large is greatly appreciated. The Government
of Zimbabwe and Development partners’ financial support provided all the impetus the ZimVAC required to meet the cost for this exercise. We also want to thank our
staff at the Food and Nutri�on Council (FNC) for providing leadership, coordina�on and management to the whole survey.
We submit this report to you all for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for las�ng measures in addressing
priority issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutri�on insecurity.
4
Table of ContentsForeword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..………… 1Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..………………… 3Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………… 4Background and Introduc�on ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………… 5Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………….. 12Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………... 15Demographic Descrip�on of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………….................. 20Social Protec�on …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………............. 27Educa�on....…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….................. …………………………………..…………..……………………..... 33Access to Extension Services.....……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..……………………...... 38Effects of the Fall Armyworm............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47Crop Produc�on …..………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………….……….…….……...... …………………………………..…………..…………............... 57Households Access to Irriga�on ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………............. 64Livestock Produc�on ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….…………………………………………..…………..……………........... 67Market Access..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78Agricultural Commodity Prices............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 81Incomes and Expenditure.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………...... 97ISALS/ Mukando….…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..……………..... 104Household Consump�on Pa�erns..................................................................................................... ………………………………………………………..…………..……………......... 108Resilience ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....... 121Household Food Security Status Projec�ons………..……......................................... ………………………………………………………………………..……………..…………..……………....... 131Nutri�on........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 149Feeding Prac�ces in Children 6-59 months ..……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………... ………..…………..….................... 150Women Dietary Diversity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 157Community Health Services……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 160Water, Sanita�on and Hygiene ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………..…………..………………….... 165Child Nutri�on Status…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 180Gender Based Violence ………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……..……………... 185Community Challenges and Development Priori�es . ………………………………………………………………………..…………………. ………………..... ………..…………..…..................... 190Conclusions and Recommenda�ons …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..………………….... 195Annexes …..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………..…………..…………………... 205
5
Acknowledgements The technical and financial support received from the following is greatly appreciated:
• Office of the President and Cabinet
• Food and Nutri�on Council
• SIRDC
• Ministry of Finance
• SADC RVAC
• Zimbabwe Na�onal Sta�s�cs Agency
(ZIMSTAT)
• Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and
Irriga�on Development
• Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social
Welfare
• Ministry of Health and Child Care
• Ministry of Local Government, Public Works
and Na�onal Housing
• Ministry of Rural Development, Promo�on and
Preserva�on of Na�onal Culture and
Heritage
• Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educa�on
• United Na�ons Development Programme
(UNDP -ZRBF)
• United States Agency for Interna�onal
Development (USAID)
• UN Women
• Food and Agriculture Organiza�on (FAO)
• United Na�ons Children’s fund (UNICEF)
• Famine Early Warning System Network
(FEWSNET)
• World Food Programme (WFP)
• Rural District Councils
• Adven�st Development and Relief Agency
(ADRA)
• Save the Children
• Amalima
• SNV/Environment Africa/CAFOD
• Hope for Child in Christ (HOCIC)
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
• GOAL
• Hand in Hand
• AFRICAID
• Tony White
• Ac�on Contre la Faim (ACF)
• Welthungerhilfe
• CATCH
• DOMCCP
• Higher Life Founda�on
• Na�onal AIDS Council
• Mwenezi Development Training Centre
• World Vision
• ENSURE
• Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT)
• Development Aid from People to People (DAPP)
• Cluster Agricultural Development Services
(CADS)
• United Methodist Commi�ee on Relief
(UMCOR)
• C o m m u n i t y Te c h n o l o g y D e ve l o p m e nt
Organiza�on (CTDO)
• Red Cross
• Chris�an Care
• Caritas
• Plan Interna�onal
• Family Aids Caring Trust (FACT)
• Ac�on Aid
• CARE Interna�onal
• Lower Guruve Development Associa�on (LGDA)
• Aquaculture Trust
6
Acronyms EA� � Enumera�on Area
FGD� � Focus Group Discussion
FNC� � Food and Nutri�on Council
FNSP� � Food and Nutri�on Security Policy
GAM� � Global Acute Malnutri�on
HDDS� � Household Dietary Diversity
HHS� � Household Hunger Score
MAD� � Minimum Acceptable Diet
MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity
MMF Minimum Meal Frequency
RLA� � Rural Livelihoods Assessment
SAM� � Severe Acute Malnutri�on
ZimVAC� Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Commi�ee
7
Background and Introduc�on
8
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Commi�ee (ZimVAC)
ZimVAC is a consor�um of Government, UN agencies, NGOs and other interna�onal organisa�ons established in 2002, 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 mul�-sectoral
response to food insecurity and nutri�on problems in a manner that ensures that every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutri�on.
ZimVAC supports Government, par�cularly the FNC in:
• Convening and coordina�ng na�onal food and nutri�on security issues in Zimbabwe
• Char�ng a prac�cal way forward for fulfilling legal and exis�ng policy commitments in food and nutri�on security
• Advising Government on strategic direc�ons in food and nutri�on security
• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and suppor�ng and facilita�ng ac�on to ensure commitments in food and nutri�on are kept on track by
different sectors through a number of core func�ons such as:
§ Undertaking food and nutri�on assessments, analysis and research,
§ Promo�ng mul�-sectoral and innova�ve approaches for addressing food and nutri�on insecurity, and:
§ Suppor�ng and building na�onal capacity for food and nutri�on security including at sub-na�onal levels.
9
Background
• Since 2011, Zimbabwe’s Gross Domes�c Product growth rate has been declining from a high of 11.9% to 1.5% in 2015 It was es�mated .
at 0.6% in 2016 but is now projected to rise to 3.7% in 2017 and to taper off slightly to 3.4% in 2018 mainly on the back of improved
performance of the agricultural sector (Ministry of Finance, 2017; World Bank, 2017).
• Year on year infla�on rate has been in the nega�ve for the whole of 2016 but has accelerated into the posi�ve, from -0.7% in January
2017 to 0.5% in April 2017. The increase in annual headline infla�on was mainly driven by food infla�on (ZIMSTAT, 2017).
• Decent and secure employment remain subdued and the economy con�nues to be gripped in the throes of deep and widespread cash
shortages that have mainly arisen from sustained higher imports against lower export earnings. As of May 2017, the country was
experiencing a cash shortage of USD347 million, which is an improvement from an average shortage of USD450 million experienced
during the greater part of 2016 (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, 2017).
• The ZimSTAT 2011/2012 Poverty Income and Consump�on Survey es�mated 76% of rural households to be poor and 23% were deemed
extremely poor. This situa�on is likely to have worsened given the economic performance in the intervening period up to 2016.
• The normal to above normal 2016/17 rainfall season, coming a�er a devasta�ng El Nino induced drought, coupled with support from
both Government and the Private sector through the Special Maize Programme as well as other suppor�ve ini�a�ves such as contract
farming had a posi�ve impact on the agriculture sector.
• Given the importance of the agricultural sector to rural livelihoods as well as the Zimbabwean economy, this significant improvement in
the agricultural sector denotes improvements in rural livelihoods in general.
• Most dams in the seven catchment areas were full and spilling over. Average na�onal dam levels as at 5 May 2017 were 81.3%, up from
71.5% reported in February (Zimbabwe Na�onal Water Authority, 2017).
10
Background - The 2016/17 Rainfall and Agricultural Season Quality
• The 2016/17 rainfall season started in November 2016 for most
parts of the country. The bulk of the country received effec�ve ndrainfall during the 2 dekad of November.
Zimbabwe Calculated SOS (used as plan�ng dekad for maize) for
2016/17 season as of dekad 2 of April 2017.
• The rains were generally on �me for most parts of the
country and slightly early in some parts of the country
and it was 10-30 days late in most of the areas where its
onset was in December 2016.
Zimbabwe Start of Season Anomaly (compared to
average) 2016/17 season as of dekad 2 of April 2017.
11
Background - The 2016/17 Rainfall and
Agricultural Season Quality
• Generally, the rainfall distribu�ons in space and �me over the
season were good. By the end of the rainfall season in April
2017, most areas across the country had received normal to
above normal rains.
• Given the normal to above normal rains received across the
country as well as the generally good distribu�on, the maize
crop performance ranged from good to very good for most areas
and was average in the southern part of the country. A few
isolated areas had mediocre maize crop performance.
12
Background - 2016/17 Rainfall and Agriculture
Season Challenges • Zimbabwe faced cri�cal shortages of fer�lizers this season as fer�lizer companies experienced liquidity challenges to pay for raw materials.
As a result, most communal farmers planted without basal fer�lizers.
• The Fall Armyworm wreaked havoc ini�ally in the western parts of the country but spread to all provinces and some peri-urban areas,
a�acking crops (maize, small grains and others).
• The worm proved more difficult to control compared to the common African Armyworm. Shortage of the right chemicals and poor liquidity
among farmers made it difficult to contain the outbreak. However, the pest’s impact on crop yields were minimal. Nonetheless, this pest
has poten�al to undermine future crop produc�on and overall na�onal food security if effec�ve control strategies are not put in place
urgently.
• In mid-February, the southern parts of the country (mainly Masvingo, southern Midlands and the Matabeleland Provinces) were hit by the
effects of the tropical depression Dineo, which precipitated flooding that destroyed crops, livestock, property, infrastructure (roads,
bridges, dams etc.), worsening the preceding damage from the persistent rains that had been received across the country (FEWSNET,
2017).
• Due to the extent of the problem, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe Cde. R.G. Mugabe, in accordance with
Subsec�on (1) of Sec�on 27 of the Civil Protec�on Act of 1989 declared a State of Flood Disaster on 2 March 2017. The declara�on covered
severely flood affected areas in communal, rese�lement lands and urban areas of Zimbabwe.
13
Background - Areas Most Affected by the Effects of the Tropical Depression Dineo
ZIMBABWE
VulnerabilityAssessment Committee
VAC
• Areas most affected by flooding and waterlogging
include Tsholotsho, Lupane, Nkayi, Binga,
Umguza, Hwange urban, Matobo, Umzingwane,
Bulilima, Insiza, Beitbridge, Gwanda, Gokwe
North, Gokwe South, and Mberengwa, Chivi,
Mwenezi, Chiredzi, Masvingo rural, Bikita, Kariba,
Zvimba, Hurungwe, Mutare rural, Mutasa,
Buhera, Chipinge, Chimanimani, Guruve, Mt.
Darwin ,Mutoko and Marondera (rural) District.
• The worst affected district was Tsholotsho where a
total of 859 people were le� homeless.
14
Assessment Purpose
• The overall purpose of the 2017 Rural Livelihoods Assessment was to provide an annual update on rural livelihoods for the purposes of informing policy formula�on and programming appropriate interven�ons.
15
Specific Objec�ves
The 2017 ZimVAC Rural Livelihoods Assessment was conducted with the broad objec�ve of assessing the prevailing food and nutri�on
insecurity situa�on and impact of the food assistance and input support programmes on rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe. The assessment’s
specific objec�ves were:
• To es�mate the popula�on that is likely to be food insecure in the 2017/18 consump�on year, their geographic distribu�on, gender
distribu�on and the severity of their food insecurity;
• To assess the nutri�on status of children of 6 – 59 months in rural households;
• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteris�cs as their demographics, access to basic services
(educa�on, health services and water and sanita�on facili�es), income sources, incomes and expenditure pa�erns, food consump�on
pa�erns, consump�on coping strategies and livelihoods coping strategies;
• To determine the coverage and impact of livelihoods interven�ons in rural households;
• To iden�fy viable response interven�ons to community challenges in rural households;
• To iden�fy development priori�es for rural communi�es in rural provinces of the country; and
• To measure household resilience and iden�fy constraints to improving community resilience and rural livelihoods including opportuni�es
and pathways of addressing them in the face of prevailing and unpredictable shocks and stresses.
16
Technical Scope
• Household demographics
• Social Protec�on
• Educa�on
• Food consump�on pa�erns
• Income and expenditure pa�erns and levels
• Agriculture
• Markets
• Household food security
• Nutri�on
• Water, Sanita�on and Hygiene
• Community livelihood challenges and development priori�es.
• Resilience, Shocks and hazards
• Gender Based Violence
The 2017 RLA collected and analysed informa�on on the following thema�c areas:
17
Assessment Methodology
18
Methodology and Assessment Process
• The assessment design was informed by the mul�-sectoral objec�ves generated through a mul�-stakeholder consulta�on process.
• An appropriate survey design and protocol, informed by the survey objec�ves, was developed.
• The assessment used a structured household ques�onnaire, a community Focus Group Discussion ques�onnaire and 2 District key
informant ques�onnaires as the primary data collec�on instruments.
• ZimVAC na�onal supervisors and enumerators were recruited from Government, United Na�ons, Technical partners and Non-
Governmental Organisa�ons. These underwent training in all aspects of the assessment (background, data collec�on tools, assessment
sampling strategy and assessment supervision).
• The Ministry of Rural Development, Promo�on and Preserva�on of Na�onal Culture and Heritage through the Provincial Administrators’
offices coordinated the recruitment of district level enumerators and mobilisa�on of vehicles in each of the 60 rural districts of Zimbabwe.
• District enumera�on teams comprised of officers from Government and local NGOs. Each district enumera�on team had one
Anthropometrist who had the responsibility of measuring children aged 6-59 months. District enumera�on teams were trained by na�onal
supervisors.
• Primary data collec�on took place from the 8�� to the 28�� of May 2017, followed by data entry and cleaning from the 22ⁿ� to the 30�� of
May 2017.
• Data analysis, report wri�ng and edi�ng ran from the 29�� of May 2017 to the 15�� of June 2017. Various secondary data sources were used
to contextualise the analysis and repor�ng.
• Data analysis and report wri�ng were done by a team of 30 technical officers from Government, United Na�ons and technical partners
under the leadership and coordina�on of FNC.
19
Data Collec�on Methods and Sample Size
Province Households Children under 5 Community
FGDs
Manicaland
1379
447
155
Mashonaland
Central
1579
660
173
Mashonaland East
1795
675
159
Mashonaland West
1376
470
119
Matabeleland
North
1387
523
134
Matabeleland
South
1384
550
123
Midlands
1568
610
158
Masvingo
1390
487
149
Total11858 4422 1170
• The sample was drawn from the ZIMSTAT 2012 Master sample.
• The sampling design was mul�-pronged and comprised of;
• non-probability sampling (purposive sampling) for district level key informant
interviews and community level focus group discussions
• probability sampling for household surveys where
• household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator for sample
size determina�on
• results for the key indicators are sta�s�cally representa�ve at district, provincial
and na�onal level at 95% level of confidence
• a two stage cluster sampling was employed with
• the first stage involved EA selec�on using the PPS principle
• the second stage involved household selec�on using systema�c random
sampling
• Primary data collec�on was undertaken in 25 Enumera�on Areas (EAs) in each district,
selected using systema�c random sampling applying the propor�on to popula�on size
principle.
• Households were systema�cally randomly sampled in one randomly selected village in each
of the sampled EAs.
• The final sample of households was 11 858 and that for children aged 6 to 59 months was 4
422
• One community key informant Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was held in each of the
selected wards, bringing the total community key informant FDGs to 1 170.
• Two district level key informant interviews on food assistance and school feeding
interven�ons were administered in each of the 60 rural districts.
• In addi�on to the above, field observa�ons and systema�c secondary data review yielded
valuable informa�on that was used in the analysis and wri�ng of the assessment report.
20
Sampled Wards
ZIMBABWE
VulnerabilityAssessment Committee
VAC
21
Data Prepara�on and Analysis • All primary data was captured using CSPro and was consolidated and converted into SPSS datasets for:
• Household analysis
• Child Nutri�on
• Community key informant interviews
• District key informant interviews
• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, ENA, Stata, Microso� Excel and GIS packages.
• Analyses of the different thema�c areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant local and interna�onal
frameworks, where they exist.
• Gender, as a cross cu�ng issue, was recognised throughout the analysis.
22
Demographic Descrip�on of the Sample
23
Popula�on Distribu�on by Age and Sex
12.4
38.6
40.6
8.4
11.8
34.9
43.4
9.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0-4 years 5-17 years 18-59 years 60 years +
Pe
rce
nt
Po
pu
la�
on
(%
)
Male Female
• The highest popula�on group in the sampled households was in the 18-59 years age category.
• The pa�ern is similar to the one observed last year and in previous surveys.
24
Popula�on Distribu�on by Age
12.5
13.2
12.1
12.6
11.2
11.5
12.1
11.7
12.1
37.0 35.5
35.5
34.5
37.8 36.3
37.6
39.5
36.7
41.6
44.0 42.3
45.6
40.7
41.5
41.5 38.9
42.0
8.9
7.3
10.2
7.4
10.3
10.7
8.8
9.9
9.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f P
op
ula
�o
n (
%)
0-4 yrs 5-17 yrs 18-59 yrs 60 yrs +
• Na�onally, the 18 – 59 age group had the highest propor�on (42.0%) of the sampled households followed by age group 5 - 17 (36.7%).
• Children aged 0-4 years cons�tuted 12.1% while the elderly age group 60 years and above were 9.2%.
25
Sex and Age of Household Head
64
76 68
75 65
57
70 63
67
36
24 32
25 35
43
30 37 33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Male Female
• Most households (67%) were headed by males while 33% were female headed.
• Of these household heads, 0.5% represented child headed households while 32% represented the elderly headed households.
• There was a decrease in child headed households from 2% (2016) whereas the elderly headed households increased from 27%.
• The average age of household heads was 50 years.
• The average household size was 5.
26
Marital Status of Household Head
64.7
73.3 64.0
72.8 62.6
50.8
66.1 58.4
64.3
6.4
2.9
7.8 3.4
8.3
10.0
6.0
10.2 6.8
5.6 6.1
5.4 4.4
4.9
5.7
4.7
3.7 5.1
21.2 16.3
20.7 17.1
21.7
29.1
21.3
26.1 21.5
2.1
1.4
2.1
2.3
2.5
4.3
1.9
1.5
2.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
He
ads
(%)
Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widow/widower Never married
• A greater propor�on of household heads (64.3%) were married and living together with their spouses while (21.5%) were widows and
widowers.
27
Vulnerability A�ributes
6
8
22
5.9
5.5
21.5
2.5
4.3
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
Chronically Ill Physically/Mentally challenged Orphans
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s w
ith
at
leas
t a
me
mb
er
(%)
2015 2016 2017
• The above results show a declining trend in households’ burden of vulnerability from 2015 to 2017.
28
Dependency Ra�o • Household dependency ra�o was calculated as
follows:
Number of economically inac�ve members/
number of economically ac�ve members.
• The average household dependency ra�o was 1.7.
• The highest dependency ra�o was recorded in
Masvingo, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland
South (1.8).
• The lowest dependency ra�o was recorded in
Mashonaland West at 1.5.
Province 2016 Dependency Ra�o 2017 Dependency
Ra�o
Manicaland 1.8 1.7
Mashonaland Central 1.6 1.6
Mashonaland East
1.7
1.6
Mashonaland West
1.5
1.5
Matabeleland North
1.9
1.8
Matabeleland South
1.9
1.8
Midlands
1.9
1.7
Masvingo
2.0
1.8
Na�onal
1.8
1.7
29
Social Protec�on
30
Background to 2016/17 Social Assistance and Protec�on
Beneficiaries of food assistance at a distribu�on point. Workers stacking bags of maize grain at a GMB depot.
• The 2015/16 produc�on year was affected by adverse weather condi�ons (El-Nino) which resulted in the na�on declaring a state of
emergency as well as launching the Domes�c and Interna�onal Appeal for food supply assistance in February 2016.• The 2016 Rural Livelihoods Assessment es�mated that 4.1 million rural people would be food insecure in the peak hunger period (Jan-
March 2017).• Government and partners mobilised resources from both within and outside the country and supported the vulnerable and food insecure
popula�ons.• Over the period October 2015 through to May 2017, Government had distributed more than 550 000 Mt of maize grain to food insecure
households (Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare) while UN/NGO partners imported and distributed 39 423.20Mt of maize
grain between February 2016 and May 2017 (WFP).
31
Households which Received Support
51
65 58
70 67 70 67
68 65 60
75
62
68
80 78 75 74 71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2016 2017
• During the 2016/17 consump�on year, about 71% of rural households received some support in at least one of the following forms; food,
cash, crop inputs, livestock inputs as well as Water, Sanita�on and Hygiene.• There has been an increase in the propor�on of households that received support during the 2016/17 consump�on year compared to the
previous one.• All the rural provinces reported an increase in the propor�on of households that received support except for Mashonaland West which had
a slight drop from 70% in 2015/16 to 68% in 2016/17.
32
Sources of Support
Province Government % UN/NGO % Churches %
Rela�ves within rural
areas %
Rela�ves within urban
areas %
Remi�ances outside
Zimbabwe %
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16 2016/17
Manicaland
49
74.1 18.7
44.3
3.1
3.6
10.7
10
13.6
13.9
4.6
5.8
Mash Central
71.1
90.5
14.3
24.5
1.3
2.7
6.5
11
5.3
12
1.5
1.8
Mash East
42.6
64.1
5.9
30.6
2.7
2.8
14.8
16.7
25.4
30.3
7.8
9.2
Mash West
67.7
93.3
8.5
9.6
1.3
2.7
6.7
8.8
11.6
10.7
3.9
1.8
Mat North
43.5
77.9
24.9
32.2
1.1
2
9.2
5.9
12.4
10.4
8.3
11.2
Mat South
29.4
75.2
20.6
37.5
2.7
3.4
8.8
10.8
13
16.2
24
31.4
Midlands
51.9
75.0
14.9
36.6
1.7
2.5
9.1
13.7
15.1
18.8
7.1
9.9
Masvingo
36
63.4
24.7
40.3
2
2.5
13.9
9.7
14.9
16.2
8.1
9.1
Na�onal 48.5 76.7 16.4 32 2 2.7 10.1 10.9 14.2 16.3 8.3 10.3
• There was a remarkable increase in Government support from 48.5% (2015/16) to 76.7% (2016/17).
• Mashonaland West (93.3%) had the highest propor�on of households receiving support from Government followed by Mashonaland
Central (90.5%).
• UN/NGOs support was highest in Manicaland (44.3%) followed by Masvingo (40.3%).
• Matabeleland South (31.4%) had the highest percentage of remi�ances from outside Zimbabwe followed by Matabeleland North (11.2%).
• UN/NGO support also doubled from 16.4% (2015/16) to 32% (2016/17). • Support from churches, from rela�ves within and outside Zimbabwe increased marginally in 2016/17 from their 2015/16 levels.
33
Forms of Support
40
31
72
6
6
48
24
30
3
3
59
24
34
2
2 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Food Support Cash Support Crop Support Livestock Support WASH support
Pro
po
r�o
no
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015 2016 2017
• Food as a form of support to vulnerable households increased from 40% (2015) to 59% (2017) whereas cash support dropped from 31%
(2015) to 24% (2016 and 2017).
• Crop input support has also been fluctua�ng from a high of 72% in 2015 down to 30% in 2016 then rising to 34% in 2017.
• Livestock inputs and WASH inputs as forms of support have been on a downward trend since 2015.
34
Forms of Support
Province
Food Support % Cash support % Crop Input support % Livestock support % WASH support %
2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017
Manicaland 31.9 39 44.1 25.6 18 17.9 72.4 21.9 28.3 4.1 1.7 1.4 1.8 0.9 0.7Mash Central 15.9 43.1 65.8 11.3 13.4 19.3 87.6 46.2 49.5 3.9 2.8 1.1 4.7 2.6 0.9
Mash East
45
39.3
51.9
37.4 28.3
19.9
80.2
36.2
29.8
5.8
3.3
3.0
3
1.4
2.1
Mash West
25.7
53.8
58.4
25.7 13.6
8.6
80.2
46
37.8
6.9
1.9
1.2
3.2
3.3
1.3
Mat North
54
60.3
69.4
32.3 21.8
23.1
49.5
12.9
29.2
5.3
1.3
2.2
2.6
3.5
2.9
Mat South
54
53.6
66.9
45.5
39
41.5
58.2
16
29.3
4.7
2.8
2.2
4
1.8
5.9
Midlands
33.9
42.4
57.5
23.3
27.5
34.1
72.7
36
40.4
6
3.1
1.6
8.7
3.1
1.8
Masvingo
63.3
54.2
59.4
46
31.3
28.2
59.9
20.2
27.6
11.1
2.7
2.3
22.3
4.6
1.5
Na�onal
40.4
47.8
59.0
31.4
24.1
24.0
72
30.1
34.2
6.1
2.5
1.9
6.4
2.6
2.1
• The most common form of support received by households was food (59.0%) followed by crop inputs (34.2%).
• Matabeleland North had the highest propor�on of households receiving food (69.4%) followed by Matabeleland South (66.9%).
• Livestock support remained very low across all provinces.
• Crop Inputs support was high in Mashonaland Central (49.5%) followed by Midlands (40.4%).
35
Educa�on
36
School A�endance by Children
84.7
15.3
88.4
11.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In school Not in school
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f sc
ho
ol g
oin
g ag
e c
hil
dre
n (
%)
2016 2017
• About 88.4% of the children of school going age were in school during the survey period.
• The propor�on of children out of school during the survey period decreased from 15.3% in 2016 to 11.6% in 2017.
37
School A�endance by Sex
88
12
89.3
10.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In school Not in school
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f sc
ho
ol g
oin
g ag
e c
hil
dre
n (
%)
Male Female
• About 89.3% of female children and 88% of male children were in school at the �me of the survey.
38
Reasons for not A�ending School
42
23
7
6
5
5
3
2
32
24
5
4
3
2
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Expensive or no money
Child considered too young
Illness
Distance to school too far
Arrears/Non-payment of school fees
Not interested in school
Pregnancy/marriage
Disability
Propor�on of school going age children (%)
2016 2017
• Of those children who were not in school during the survey period, 42% were not in school due to financial constraints followed by 23%
who were considered too young.
• The reason that children were being considered too young to go to school and that of schools being too far may be sugges�ve of limited
physical access to school, par�cularly those that cater for Early Child Development levels.
• About 7% were not in school due to illness.
39
Children Turned Away From School Due to
Non - Payment of Fees
76
57 60
70 64 61
65
50
63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f sc
ho
ol g
oin
g ag
e c
hil
dre
n (
%)
• This graph shows the propor�on of children of school going age who were turned away from school, at one �me or another, during the first
term of 2017 due to non-payment of school fees.
• Na�onally, at least 63% of the children experienced being turned away for non payment of school fees. Generally, the propor�on of
children who were turned away from school during the first term of 2017 was high in all provinces. This is so despite there being in place a
policy that discourages this prac�ce.
40
Access to Agricultural Extension Services
41
Households which Received Agricultural Training
46
29
46
29
39 35 35 37 38
42 34 35
28
36 30
39 33
35
41 34 32 28
39 31
34 34 34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015 2016 2017
• The propor�on of households receiving agricultural training has remained rela�vely low for the past 3 years at 38% in 2014/15, 35% in
2015/16 and 34% in 2016/17.
• This calls for the need to capacitate extension service.
42
Access to Agricultural Training by Household
Characteris�cs
29
42 41
59
31 31 43 39 39
49
37 43
27
49 55 41 49 44
17 16 14 11
13 9 13 9
13
2 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Father Mother Both mother and father Daughter Son Other rela�ve
• Mothers and fathers par�cipated more in agricultural training at 44% and 39% respec�vely.
• With the excep�on of Mashonaland West province, households with mothers that par�cipated in the trainings were more than those with
fathers that did so across all provinces.
• Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North had the highest propor�on of households with mothers who par�cipated in training at 55%
and 49% respec�vely.
• Mashonaland West had the highest propor�on of households with fathers who par�cipated in the trainings at 59%.
43
Households which Received Extension Visits
33 29 27 25 26 25
31 25
28
34 36 30 30 32
25
31 29 31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015/16 2016/17
• The propor�on of households that received extension visits marginally increased from 28% to 31% between 2015/16 and 2016/17, but
generally remained low across all provinces.
• The propor�on of households that received extension visits increased in all provinces except Midlands where it remained unchanged.
44
Households which Sought Agricultural Advice
32 26 25 21 24
19 25 24 25
29 30 28 25 24 19
27 24 26
0102030405060708090
100
2015/16 2016/17
Agricultural Advice Cropping Advice
26 23 24 21 28 24 28 24 25
29 30 28 25 24 19 27 24 26
0102030405060708090
100
Livestock advice Cropping advice
• The propor�on of households which sought cropping advice was high in Mashonaland Central and Manicaland.
• The propor�on of households which sought livestock advice was high in Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South, Midlands and
Masvingo Provinces.
• There was no significant increase in the propor�on of households that sought cropping advice out of their own ini�a�ve from 25% in the
2015/16 season to 26% in the 2016/17 season.
45
Crop Extension Providers
89 82
91 88 88 83
88 91 88
8
7
3 5 8 10
7 5
7
1 8
3 6 2 2
3 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 1 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Government NGOs Private companies Research organiza�on Lead farmer
• Government was reported as the most common provider of crop extension services in all provinces (88%) followed by NGOs (7%).
• The highest propor�on of households which received support services from Lead Farmers was reported in Matabeleland South (4%).
46
Livestock Extension Providers
95 92 97 96 89 87 90 93 92
3 4
2 1 9
6 5 5 4
1 3 0 2 1 1
1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1
7 3 2 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Government NGOs Private companies Research organiza�on Lead farmer
• Government was reported as the major provider of livestock extension services in all provinces (92%) followed by NGOs (4%)
• The highest propor�on of households which received support services from Lead Farmers was recorded in Matabeleland South (7%)
47
Households with Livestock that were Vaccinated
57 51 53
62
71 65 64
67 62
56
47 48
56 57 60 56
64
55
37
50
33
42
35 37 38 41 39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
FMD Anthrax New Castle
• About 62% of rural households with ca�le reported that their ca�le were vaccinated against Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and 55 %
reported vaccina�on against Anthrax
• About 39% of households with chickens reported their flock was vaccinated against New Castle disease.
• The highest propor�on of households with ca�le that were vaccinated against FMD was in Matabeleland North (71%), Masvingo had the
highest vaccina�ons against anthrax (64%) and Mashonaland Central had the highest vaccina�ons against New Castle disease (50%).
48
Households Trained in Par�cipatory Disease
Surveillance
63 67 64
58
50
57 59 59 60
37 33
36
42
50 44 42 41 41
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
No Yes
• About 41% of the households owning ca�le received training in par�cipatory disease surveillance between April 2016 and March 2017.
• Matabeleland South had the highest propor�on of households that received training (50%) and Mashonaland Central had the lowest
propor�on of households (33%).
Effects of the Fall Armyworm
Maize Crop Damaged by the Fall Armyworm
Fall Armyworm on Growing Cob
Premature Drying on Damaged
Cob
49
Propor�on of Households Affected by the Fall Armyworm 2016/17
16
53
23
32
45
37
45
38 36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
50
• At least 36% of households were affected by the Fall Armyworm in the 2016/17 agricultural season.
• Mashonaland Central had highest propor�on of affected households (53%) while Manicaland had the least affected (16%).
Crops Affected by the Fall Armyworm
96
6
2
1.5
2.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl millet Cowpeas
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
51
• About 96% of the households reported that their maize crop was affected by the Fall armyworm.
• Other crops of major agricultural importance a�acked by the pest include sorghum, millets, cowpeas, groundnuts, potatoes, soyabean
and co�on.
Crop Development Stage Affected
8.8
63.8
37.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Emergency Vegeta�ve Reproduc�ve
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
52
• About 63.8% of the households whose crops were infested by fall armyworm indicated that their crops were mostly first a�acked when
they were in their vegeta�ve stage.
Period the Fall Armyworm was First Observed
.1
.1
1.6
7.8
37.2
43.1
8.9
1.2
.0 0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
53
• The Fall armyworm was observed for the first �me in September 2016 in isolated cases and became more prevalent in January and February
2017 when most households observed it across all the provinces. • Infesta�on levels of the pest were highest in February 2017 when about 43.1% of those households that were affected by fall armyworm
first observed the worm on their crop. As the majority of the crop was planted mid November 2016, in February the crop was at its
op�mum vegeta�ve stage.
• Infesta�on in April (12%) decreased as most crops had reached physiological maturity although the pest feeds on kernels as well.
54
Measures Taken to Control Fall Armyworm
62.5
17.8
9.1
13.5
2.3
3.2
1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
nothing tradi�onal control applied commercialpes�cides (more
than recommended)
applied commercialpes�cides
(recommended)
applied commercialpes�cides (less than
recommended)
applied othersubstances
other methods
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Of the households whose crops were a�acked by fall armyworm, about 62.5% of them did not take any measures to control the pest
resul�ng in extensive damage to crops.
• Other households used commercial pes�cides (including recommended ones) while others applied other substances like sand and ground
amaranthus. Other households resorted to handpicking and squashing the worms in an a�empt to control them.
55
Success of Control Measures
18.8
42.4
47.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Extremely effec�ve Somewhat effec�ve Not effec�ve
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• About 47.2% of the affected households reported that the methods used were not effec�ve. This includes those who applied pes�cides at
different levels which were less than the recommended dosage, the recommended dosage and more than the recommended dosage.
56
Reasons for not Using Pes�cides
4
4
77
4
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
the pest damage was insignificant pes�cides were not available at localshops
no money to purchase the pes�cides did not know which pes�cides to apply other
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• About 77% of households that did nothing did so because of lack of money to purchase chemicals, 4% the households could not find the
pes�cides and 4% did not know the pes�cides to apply .
57
Methods Used to Apply Pes�cide or Substance
29
69
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pouring/splashing no equipment Knapsack sprayer Other
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Method Used
• About 69% of the households that sprayed the pest used knapsack sprayers to apply pes�cides against the recommended method of
pouring used by 29% of the households.
• Spot spraying of affected plants directly into the funnel increases chances of contact between pest and insec�cide. Drenching funnels also
increases chances of drowning and suffoca�ng the pest.
58
Provision of Extension Advice to Households
Affected by Fall Armyworm
69
26
2
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Extension Officer Neighbour or friend Pes�cide seller or agro dealer Others
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• About 36% of the households affected by the fall armyworm received extension advice.
• Of these 69% received it from Government extension officers and 26% from neighbours or friends.
• Some households also received relevant informa�on on the Fall armyworm through the mass media (radios, television, flyers and
newspapers).
59
Crop Produc�on
60
Propor�on of Households which Planted Crops
84
43
34
28 26
20
12 10
4 3
10
2 2
88
47
40
28 31
27
12 10
26
20
11
2 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Maize Groundnuts Cowpeas Sorghum Roundnuts Tubers P. Millets Sugar beans Tobacco Co�on F. Millet Soyabeans Sunflowers
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015/2016 2016/17
• Maize (88%), groundnuts (47%) and cowpeas (40%) were the most common planted crops by households. The propor�on of households
growing small grains remains low, despite all the efforts and rhetoric to promote the growing of these crops.
• There was a general increase in the propor�on of households that planted all crops. The greatest increase was in the propor�on of
households that grew tobacco and co�on due to support these crops got from the private sector and the Government, respec�vely.
61
Propor�on of Households which Planted Cereals
by Province
86 88 89
86 84 82
96 93
88
23 26
19
9
41
47
28
35
28
10 4
6 1
36
25
5
14 12 11
2
13
2
7
11 12
26
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Maize Sorghum P. Millet F. Millet
• Over 80% of households in all the provinces planted maize.
• As in the previous seasons, Matabeleland South, Matabeleland North and Masvingo had high propor�ons of households which grew small
grains in the 2016/2017 agricultural season.
62
Adequacy of Agricultural Labour
91 92 90 89 92 92
96 94 92
55
57
48
53 49
53
62
53
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Prac�ced Inadequate labour
• Na�onally, 92% of the households prac�ced agriculture. Of these, 54% of the households reported inadequacy of agricultural labour during
the agricultural season.
• The inadequacy of agricultural labour across all provinces calls for increased use of agricultural labour saving technologies.
63
Hiring of Agricultural labour
91 92 90 89
92 92 96
94 92
18 19 22 22
17 18 17 15
19 15
11 15
19 22 22
18 15
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Prac�ced Hired Assisted
• About 19% of the households hired casual labour for agricultural purposes.
• Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West had the highest propor�on of households that reported to have hired labour (22%) and
Masvingo the least (15%).
• About 17% of the households accessed agricultural labour from rela�ves and friends.
64
Sources of Seeds Used by Households During the
2016/2017 Agricultural Season Crops Purchase
(%)
Government (%)
NGOs
(%)
Carryover
(%)
Retained
(%)
Remi�ance (%)
Private Companies
(%)
Labour exchange
(%)
Other (%)
Maize
41.8
28.5
2.3
4.2 14.2
6
0.2
1.9
1.0
Sorghum
15.3
5.3
6.7
8.5
42.1
17.2
0.6
2.5
1.9
F. Millet
12.8
0.7
1.2
11.6
52.0
16.3
0.3
1.6
3.5
P. Millet
9.2
1.2
2.6
11.5
56.0
16.4
0
1.1
2.0
Tubers
16.8
1.1
0.4
15.0
46.0
15.6
0
2.1
3.2
Cowpeas
19.9
18
2.5
8.8
47.5
15.7
0.1
1.7
2.1
Groundnuts
25.0
1.4
0.8
10.0
47.5
11.6
0.1
2.4
1.1
Roundnuts
24.0
1.3
0.4
10.8
46.5
12.8
0
2.8
1.3
Sugar Beans
45.3
3.9
1.2
8.5
31.9
6.7
0.2
1.2
1.2
Soyabeans
8.3
0
8.3
8.3
41.7
0
0
0
33.3
Tobacco
72.0
3.2
0.8
0.5
1.3
2.7
15.1
2.4
1.9
Co�on
16.5
46.0
1.9
2.9
2.3
2.6
25.9
1.3
0.6
Paprika
59.3 7.4 0 0 9.3 1.9 20.4 0 1.9
Sunflower 19.9 5.8 1.0 9.3 42.6 14.1 1.4 0.7 5.2
• Purchases were the
main source of seed for
maize, tobacco, paprika
and sugar beans.
• Retained seed was the
major source for small
grains, cowpeas, tubers,
groundnuts and round
nuts.
• The main source of
inputs for co�on was
Government.
65
Average Household Cereal Produc�on by Province
Province Maize (kg) Small grains (kg)
2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017
Manicaland 292.4 108.6 335.1 24.8 4.9 30.9
Mash Central 525.8 136.2 517.5 32.8 7.7 45.9
Mash East 367.0 124.1 378.7 15.1 2.9 23.7 Mash West 462.2 397.6 739.2 5.4 6.2 1.1 Mat North 142.8 48.1 240.5 127.1 57.1 88.1 Mat South
74.6
22.8
174.5
15.3
19.1
68.4
Midlands
292.7
132.3
522.9
10.1
11.4
29.0
Masvingo
136.4
42.3
356.7
14.7
21.9
86.1
Na�onal
293.5
126.5
480.9
29.5
16.4
42.2
• Na�onally there was a 266% increase in average household cereal produc�on, 280% increase in average household maize produc�on and
157% increase in average household small grains produc�on from last season.
• The average household produc�on was highest in Mashonaland West 739.2kg and the least in Matabeleland South with 174.5kg.
• Masvingo had the highest increase from 42.3kg to 356.7kg and Mashonaland West had the least from 397.6kg to 739.2kg.
• Considering the high household cereal produc�on and findings from previous ZimVAC assessments which indicated that most households
use improper facili�es to store their grain, there is need to foster good post harvest management to minimize poten�ally high post harvest
losses.
66
Household Access to Irriga�on
67
Propor�on of Wards with Irriga�on Schemes
• About 22.1% of the wards had irriga�on schemes
• Of these, 55.4% of the irriga�on schemes were func�onal, 22.0% par�ally func�onal and 22.6% were non-func�onal.
68
Reasons for Non-Func�onality of Irriga�on Schemes
20.6
13.5
9
8.1
8.1
7.2
6.3
5.4
4.9
4.5
3.1
3.1
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
13.8
14.1
11.8
2.9
4.7
10.2
2.9
4.7
4.7
11.2
2.5
4.1
10
1.2
0.6
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pumping unit broken down
In-field works need rehabilita�on/maintenance
Lack of capital
The� of produce
Infrastructure or equipment not yet installed or incomplete installa�on
Fencing broken down
Vandalism
Dam/weir silted
No electricity - transformer broken down or other fault
Seasonality of water source
Poor leadership
Dam/Weir not big enough
Dam wall washed away/collapsed
Cannot afford inputs
Unavailability of inputs at the market
ZINWA bills
Conflicts
Not yet commisioned
Propor�on of wards (%)
Par�ally func�onal non- func�onal
• Equipment breakdown, the need for infield works habilita�on and seasonality of water sources, lack of capital and failure to afford inputs
con�nue to be the main challenges faced in most irriga�on schemes.
69
Livestock Produc�on
70
Ca�le Ownership
72
58 59 61
47 53
47 46 55
64
11
14 13 10
11 10 18 19
13
11
10
16 16 14
17 15
18 18 16
13
7 13 13 16
25 22 17 18 16 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland MashCentral
Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal2017
Na�onal2016
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to two Three to five More than five
• About 45% of rural households own ca�le, a 9% increase from last year with 32% owning more than 2 beasts and 13% owning 1 or 2
beasts.• The highest propor�on of households owning ca�le was in Masvingo (54%) followed by Matabeleland North and Midlands (53%). • The lowest propor�on of households with ca�le was in Manicaland (28%).• Matabeleland North (25%) had the highest propor�on of households with more than 5 ca�le.
71
Ca�le Dra� Power Ownership
75 64 67 67
60
77
50 58
64 69
5
7 8 4
5
4
7 4
6 5
21 29 25 29
36
19
43 38 30 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal2017
Na�onal2016
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One Two plus
• About 36% of rural households own dra� ca�le, 5 % more than the previous season. 6 % owned 1 dra� animal and 30% owned 2 or more.
• The highest propor�on of households with dra� ca�le was in Midlands at 50%.
72
Ca�le Herd Dynamics
92.0
5.4 1.7 0.9
-29.9
-56.5
-8.6 -5.1
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Births Purchases assistance other sold deaths slaughter stolen/lost
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Increases in the ca�le herd during the period April 2016 to March 2017 were due to births (92%), purchases (5.4%) and
assistance (1.7%).
• Losses in ca�le were due to deaths (56%) and sales (30%).
• Stolen or lost ca�le contributed 5% of the total a�ri�on.
73
Livestock Mortality Rate
10 8 11
6 9
14 11 11 10
18
11 16 14 16 17
25
19 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Mo
rtal
ity
rate
s (%
)
Ca�le Mortality Goats Mortality
• Mortality rates for ca�le and goats were high (10% for ca�le and 17% for goats). These were above the na�onal threshold levels of 5% for
ca�le and 8% for goats. • High ca�le mortality rates were reported in Matabeleland South (14%) and high goat mortality rates were reported in Midlands (25%).• Low ca�le mortality rates were reported in Mashonaland West (6%), whilst low goat mortality rates were reported in Mashonaland Central
(11%).
74
Causes of Ca�le Deaths
36
23 17 13
25
51
29
58
33
55
66 76 76
64
41
62
37
58
1 3 4
5 6 5
1 1
3 4 2 2 2 2 5 1 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Drought Diseases Predators Lack of water Slaughter for own consump�on Drowning/Floods Other
• About 58% of total ca�le deaths were due to diseases, followed by 33% due to drought.
• Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West reported high deaths due to diseases (76%).
75
Reasons for Selling Ca�le
31.3
18.7
10.9
10.5
10.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Purchase food
Pay educa�on expenses
Pay medical expenses
No longer needed
Other household costs
Other
Pay debt
Pay for transport expenses
Business of selling livestock
social event
Funeral related expenses
Business investment
Propor�on of Households (%)
• Most households sold ca�le to purchase food (31.3%) and pay educa�on expenses (18.7%).
• About 10.5% of the households sold ca�le because they were no-longer needed and had exhausted their usefulness.
76
Goats Ownership
66 65 62 64
42 40
53 43
54 62
11 12 13 11
12 6
15
19
13
11
15 14 16 13
21
19
20 23 18
15
8 9 9 12
25 35
13 15 16 13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal 2017 Na�onal 2016
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Zero One to two Three to five More than five
• About 46% of households owned goats, an increase from last year’s 38%. Of these, 34% own 3 or more goats , while 13% own 1 to 2 goats.
• The highest propor�on of households which owned livestock was in Matabeleland South (60%) and the lowest propor�on was in
Manicaland (34%).
77
Goat Dynamics
91.9
6.5
0.7
0.8
-25.0
-43.4
-27.1
-4.5
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Births Purchases assistance other sold deaths slaughter stolen/lost
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• The increases in goats during the period April 2016 to March 2017 were due to births (91.9%), purchases (6.5%) and assistance (0.7%).
• About 43.4% of the total a�ri�on was due to deaths, 27.1% due to slaughter and 25% due to sales.
• Stolen or lost goats contributed 4.5% of the total a�ri�on.
78
Reasons for Selling Goats
46.1
22.1
7.2
7.1
5.9
3.2
3.1
1.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Purchase food
Pay educa�on expenses
Other household costs
No longer needed
Pay medical expenses
Pay for transport expenses
Pay debt
Other
Funeral related expenses
Business of selling livestock
Business investment
Pay/donate to social event
Grinding mill costs
Propor�on of Households (%)
• Most households sold goats to purchase food (46%) and pay educa�on expenses (22.1%).
79
Causes of Goats Deaths
13.8 14.5 8.4 6.3 11.0
24.1
9.5 18.7 14.6
70.6 72.7 73.3 81.1
77.0 49.8 71.1
66.7 67.6
8.3 6.4 7.6
6.3 8.5
19.0 9.1 8.8 10.6
0.9 0.9 3.8 2.1
0.5 1.6 6.2 1.2 2.3 3.7 1.8 3.9 4.2 1.5 2.9 2.9 4.1 3.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Drought Diseases Predators Lack of water Slaughter for own consump�on Drowning/Floods Other
• About 67.6% of deaths were due to diseases, 14.6% due to drought and 10.6% due to predators.
• Mashonaland West reported the highest deaths due to diseases (81.1%)
• Cases of drowning were recorded in most provinces with high incidences recorded in Midlands (6.2%).
80
Agricultural Produce Market Access
81
Loca�on of Main Markets for Crops-Buying
78 72
85 87 80
58
9 13
5 5 9
14
8 10 3 3 7
13
3 3 4 3 1 3 0 1 1 3 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
maize grain maize meal Sorghum Pearl millet Sugarbeans Irish potatoes
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
ard
s (%
)
Same ward Neighboring ward Within District Within Province Outside Province Outside Zimbabwe
• Most households accessed food crops from within their wards.
• About 3% of the wards had households which accessed pearl millet from outside Zimbabwe and 1% which accessed maize meal and
sorghum from outside Zimbabwe.
82
Type of Market for Crops-Selling
76 81 82 82
66
14 11 10 12
26
5 2 1 1 2 2 5 4 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Maize grain Sorghum grain Pearl Millet Sugarbeans Irish Potatoes
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
ard
s (%
)
Other households in the area Private Traders GMB Auc�on Floors
Local Millers Distant Markets Contrac�ng Companies Other
• Most households sold crops to other households in the area and private traders.
• About 5% of wards had households which sold maize to the Grain Marke�ng Board (GMB) while 2% had sold sorghum to GMB.
83
Agricultural Commodity Prices
84
Cereal Availability by District as at May 2017 Maize Grain Availability Maize Meal Availability
• At the �me of the assessment, maize meal was readily available in more districts compared to maize grain.
85
District Average Maize Grain Prices (USD/kg) as at
May 2017
• The highest maize grain prices were reported in
Mangwe, Tsholotsho and Bulilima at above
USD 0.50/kg
• Lowest prices were reported in Gokwe South,
Gokwe North, Zvimba, Makonde, Mhondoro
and Mwenezi ranging between USD 0.17/kg
and USD 0.21/kg
• The Na�onal average maize grain price dropped
slightly from USD 0.40 in 2016 to USD 0.38 this
year.
86
District Average Maize Meal Prices (USD/kg)
as at May 2017• High maize meal prices ranged between USD
0.52 to USD 0.70/kg
• The Na�onal average maize meal price
changed, insignificantly, from USD 0.61 in
2016 to USD 0.60 this year.
87
District Average Ca�le Prices (USD) as at May 2017
• The highest Ca�le prices were reported in
Hwange, Masvingo, Umzingwane, Umguza
and Mberengwa ranging between USD 390
and USD 400.
• Lowest Average price was reported in Mbire
(USD 151).
• Na�onally, the average ca�le price increased
from USD 306 in 2016 to USD 320 this year.
88
District Average Goats Prices (USD) as at May 2017 • Highest goat prices were reported in
Umzingwane, Bubi, Bulilima, Umguza, Insiza
and Matobo ranging between USD 41 and
USD 48.
• Lowest Average price was reported in Mbire
at USD 13.
• The Na�onal average goat price increased
slightly from USD 29 in 2016 to USD 30 this
year.
89
Ca�le: Type of Market
42 35
57 52
28 23
48
75
45
43 62 25 35
49 47
30
15
38
3 3 12 24 5
1 6
12 3
15 13 12 6
17 10 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
ard
s (%
)
Other households in the area Private Traders Sale pens/Auc�ons Aba�oirs
• About 45% of the wards sold ca�le to other households in the area whilst 38%, 11% and 6% sold to private traders, aba�oirs and
auc�ons respec�vely.
• Matabeleland South (24%) had the highest propor�on of wards with households which sold ca�le through auc�ons.
90
Goats: Type of Market
91
64
97 93 91
76
92 97
87
9
37
1 7 6
15
6 3
11 1
8 1 1 1 2 2 3 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Other households in the area Private Traders Sale pens/Auc�ons Aba�oirs
• Goats were mostly sold to other households in the area and private traders.
• Matabeleland South had the largest propor�on of households that sold goats through auc�ons (8%).
91
Incomes and Expenditure
92
Current Most Important Sources of Income
20.9
20.5
7.8
7.8
7.3
6.5
5.9
4.7
3.5
3.2
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Casual labourFood crop produc�on/sales
Remi�ance from withinVegetables produc�on/sales
Food assistanceLivestock produc�on/sales
Formal salary/wagesRemi�ance from outside
Cash crop produc�onPe�y trade
Mineral salesSkilled trade/ar�san
PensionGathering natural products
Own businessGi�s
Other
Propor�on of households (%)
• The most important sources of income were casual labour and food crop produc�on.
• Vegetable produc�on and sales and remi�ances were amongst the most important sources of income for about 7.8% of the households.
93
Average Household Income as of April 2017
59 55
78
64
50
81
56
55
62 56
90
73
120
62
79
55
58
74
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
USD
2016 2017
• Na�onally, the average household income for the month of April was USD74, about 20% higher than the same �me last year, April 2016.
• Mashonaland West (USD 120) had the highest average monthly income while Midlands (USD 55) had the lowest average monthly income.
• The biggest increase in average household income was observed in Mashonaland West (88%) followed by Mashonaland Central (64%).
94
Expenditure
95
Average Household Expenditure for April 2017
47 43
60 55
36
59
46 44
49 49
55
60 61
42
60
49 43
52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
USD
2016 2017
• The na�onal average household expenditure increased from USD 49 to USD 52.
• Mashonaland West (USD 61), Matabeleland South (USD 60) and Mashonaland East (USD 60) had the highest average expenditure while
Matabeleland North (USD 42) and Masvingo (USD 43) had the lowest average expenditure.
96
Propor�on of Food Expenditure
60 58 56 55
58
65 63 58
59 52
55
49
51
57 59 55
53
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f to
tal e
xpe
nd
itu
re (
%)
2016 2017
• Na�onally, the propor�on of food expenditure decreased from 59% to 54%. This pa�ern was also observed across all provinces.
• Matabeleland South had the highest propor�on of food expenditure (59%) followed by Matabeleland North (57%).
• Mashonaland East had the least propor�on of food expenditure (49%).
97
Average Household Expenditure For November
2016 to April 2017
56.73
51.77
27.14
8.53 7.67
2.38 2.06
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Agriculture Educa�on Other Health Business Remi�ance Taxes
USD
• Average household expenditure for six months was highest for agriculture (USD 56.73) followed by educa�on expenditure (USD51.77).
Taxes (USD2.06) had the lowest expenditure.
• Other expenditure included expenditure on clothes, social occasions, funerals and loan repayment.
98
Decision Making on Household Expenditure
28
31
26
39
21
19
30
26
30
46 32
40
28
41
49
35
43 32
24 35 31 29 34
27 33 28 22
1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1
5
1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Father Mother Both father and mother Daughter Son Other rela�ve
• Generally, decision making on household expenditure was mostly done by mothers except in Mashonaland West where fathers (39%) were
the main decision makers compared to mothers (28%).
99
Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies
100
Introduc�on
• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges.
• Livelihood coping strategies are employed in order to increase food availability outside of their normal livelihoods.
• The livelihood coping strategies have been classified into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as according to the WFP Technical Guidance note 2015.
101
Category Coping Strategy
Stress • Borrowing money, spending savings, selling assets and more livestock than usual.
Crisis
• Selling
produc�ve
assets
directly
reduces
future
produc�vity,
including
human
capital
forma�on.
• Withdrawing
children
from
school
• Reducing
non
food
expenditure.
Emergency
• Selling
one's
land
affects
future
produc�vity,
but
is
more
difficult
to
reverse
or
more
drama�c in
nature.
• Begging
for food.
• Selling
last
breeding
stock
to buy food.
Categorisa�on of Livelihoods Coping Strategies
102
Households Engaging at Least one Livelihoods
Based Coping Strategy
38
46 44
33
42
29
43
52
41
7
9
6
8
5
5
6
6
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2016 2017
• The propor�on of households that engaged at least one livelihoods based coping strategy in April decreased from 41% in 2016 to 6% in
2017. This indicates an improved food access situa�on which led to less coping than last year where households had experienced two
consecu�ve poor food crop produc�on seasons.
• Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland West had the highest propor�on of households which engaged at least one livelihood coping
strategy during the month of April 2017.
Reasons for not Engaging Livelihoods Coping
Strategies in April 2017
71
1
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
it wasn't necessary households had already sold those assetsor done this ac�vity within the last 12
months and could not con�nue to do it
households did not have assets
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
103
• The households that did not engage any coping strategy in April 2017 did not do so mainly because it was not necessary (71%) whilst 28%
did not have any assets to dispose of and 1% had already disposed of the assets or done the ac�vity prior to April and could no longer
con�nue to do so.
Propor�on of Households Engaging at Least One
Coping Strategy in Each Category
10
11
7
8
11
6
7
8
9
7
8
3
5
7
2
4
3
57
6
4
3
9
3
4
4
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Stress Crisis Emergency
104
• The propor�on of households which engaged at least one coping strategy in the stress category was 9% with 5% of the households
engaging crisis and emergency strategies each.
• Matabeleland North and Mashonaland Central engaged the most stress strategies whilst Mashonaland Central engaged the highest crisis
strategies.
• Matabeleland North and Manicaland engaged the most emergency strategies.
The Highest Severity of Livelihood Coping
Engaged
86
84
89
86
84
92
88
88
87
4 5
5 6 4
4 5 6 5 3 5
3 5 3
1 3 2 3 7 6 4 3 9
3 4 4 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Households not adop�ng coping strategies Stress coping strategies Crisis coping strategies Emergency coping strategies
105
• The propor�on of households which did not engage any livelihood coping strategies was 87% followed by 5% of the households which
engaged only stress strategies
• About 3% engaged a combina�on of strategies but their most severe was crisis and 5% engaged in a combina�on but their most severe
being emergency strategies.
ISALS/Mukando
106
Propor�on of Households with a Member in an
ISAL/Mukando Group
12
79
6
2
1
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Father Mother Both fatherand mother
Daughter Son Otherrela�ve
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f
ho
use
ho
lds
(%)
86.7
13.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NO YES
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (
%)
107
• About 13.3% of households had a member of their household who was in an ISAL/Mukando group.
• Of the households with members in ISAL groups, the majority of members were reported to be mothers (79%).
ISAL/Mukando Groups by Province
18.3 11.8
13.7
9.4
12.1
10.7
15.8
14.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
108
• Manicaland had the highest propor�on of households (18.3%) with a member in any ISAL/Mukando group.
• Mashonaland West had the lowest number (9.4%).
Types of Mukando/ISAL
11
5
66
8 7 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Groceries Food only Cash only Cash and Food Household utensils Produc�ve Assets
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f gr
ou
ps
(%)
109
• The largest propor�on of ISAL groups reported were cash only groups (66%).
110
Household Consump�on Pa�erns
Average Household Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2017
Province Cereal Stocks 2016 (kgs)
Cereal Stocks 2017 (kgs)
Manicaland 53.2 145.7
Mashonaland Central 47.3 91.3
Mashonaland East 45.4 99.4
Mashonaland West 45.2 157.2
Matabeleland North 38.7 122.9
Matabeleland South 30.0 57.7
Midlands 39.0 101.9
Masvingo 49.5 108.0
Na�onal 43.2 109.6
111
• Average household cereal stocks were about 109.6kgs as at 1 April 2017.
• Mashonaland West had the highest average cereal stocks (157.2kgs), Matabeleland South had the least (57.7kgs).
• Generally, this year households had more stocks as compared to the same �me the previous year.
Household Consump�on Coping Strategies
28
22 19
33 30
28 25
14
25
19
29
24
27
33
18
27
35
27
16
17
13
17
12
10
18
14
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Co
pin
g St
rate
gy In
dex
2015 2016 2017
112
• Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is an indicator used to compare the hardship faced by households by measuring the frequency and severity of
the behaviours they engage in when faced with food shortages.
• The (CSI) decreased greatly from 27 in 2016 to 15 in 2017. This shows improved food access from 2016 which is partly a�ributable to the
emergency food assistance by Government and its partners as well as the improved main harvest.
• All provinces showed an improvement in the consump�on coping strategies employed from the extreme methods adopted last year to the
less severe and less frequent coping habits employed this year.
The Food Consump�on Score • The Household Food Consump�on Score (FCS) is a food consump�on indicator that is used as a proxy for household food security. Food consump�on
indicators are designed to reflect the quan�ty and quality of people’s diet.
• The FCS is a measure of dietary diversity, food frequency and the rela�ve nutri�onal importance of the food consumed. A high food consump�on
score increases the possibility that a household achieves nutrient adequacy.
Food Consump�on Score
Groups Score Descrip�on
Poor 0-21 An expected consump�on 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 consump�on 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 ea�ng meat, fish, egg, oil, and complemented by other foods such as pulses, fruits, milk
113
Food Consump�on Categories
8
29
63
12
33
54
16
29
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poor Borderline Acceptable
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015 2016 2017
114
• There has been a decrease in the propor�on of households which are consuming an acceptable diet from 63% in 2015 to 55% in 2017.
• However, the propor�on of households consuming a poor diet has increased from 8% in 2015 to 16% in 2017.
Food Consump�on Categories by
Province 2016 FCS 2017 FCS
18 18 12
17 25
14 14 13 16
31 33
29 29
29
27 29 27 29
51 49 59
54 46
59 58 60 55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Poor Borderline Acceptable
10 11 9 11 19
12 13 13 12
36 37 32 31
37
34 31 30 33
54 52 59 58
44 54 56 56 54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Poor Borderline Acceptable
115
• The propor�on of households with acceptable food consump�on scores improved from 54% in 2016 to 55% in 2017, those with borderline
consump�on decreased from 33% to 29% and those with poor consump�on pa�erns increased from 12% to 16%.
• Matabeleland North (25%) had the highest propor�on of households consuming poor diets and had worsened from last year where 19%
had poor food consump�on pa�erns.
Propor�on of Households Consuming Iron-rich Foods
40
49
40
36
52
49
43
42
44
52
46 51
52
41
44 50
50
48
8 5 9 12
7 6 7 7 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Never consumed Consumed some�mes Consumed at least daily
116
• The propor�on of households consuming iron rich foods daily remained below 10% across all provinces except in Mashonaland West
(12%).
• Matabeleland North had the highest propor�on of households that were not consuming iron rich foods 7 days prior to the assessment
(52%).
• As Iron deficiency con�nues to be of public health concern, nutri�on sensi�ve livelihoods programming is recommended.
Propor�on of Households Consuming Protein-Rich Foods
15
18
13
15
19
16
13
12
15
48
48
46
43
42
37
46
43
44
37
34 41
41
39
47
41
45
41
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Never consumed Consumed some�mes Consumed at least daily
117
• The propor�on of households that consumed protein rich foods at least daily in the 7 days prior to the survey was 41% whilst 44%
consumed between 1 to 6 days and 15% had not consumed at all.
• Matabeleland South had the highest propor�on of households which consumed protein rich foods at least daily (47%).
Propor�on of Households Consuming
Vitamin A - Rich Foods
9
6
4
6
16
12
7
3
8
23
24
22
25
32
30
26
19
25
68
71
74
68
52
58
67
79
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 Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Never consumed Consumed some�mes Consumed at least daily
118
• About 67% of the households consumed Vitamin A rich foods at least daily, 25% consumed some�mes and 8% never consumed during the 7
days prior to the survey.
Household Dietary Diversity Score
5.8 5.6
6.2
5.6
4.8
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.6
6.1
5.5
6.3
5.8
5.4
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.8
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
HD
DS
2016 2017
119
• The Dietary Diversity indicator is the number of different food groups consumed over a given reference period of �me. It gives an
es�ma�on of the quality of the diet. The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) shows the number of food groups consumed by
households out of a total of 12 food groups and is used as a proxy for food access. Even among households that sa�sfy calorie requirements,
those which consume a non-diversified, unbalanced and unhealthy diet can be classified as food insecure. • Na�onally, the HDDS was 5.8, a slight improvement from 2016 (5.6). • All provinces except for Mashonaland Central had improved HDDS from 2016.• On average, households consumed about 6 out of the 12 food groups within the seven day recall period. • Mashonaland East and Manicaland consumed the highest number of food groups (6.3 and 6.1 respec�vely) while Matabeleland North had
the lowest score (5.4). This trend is similar to that of 2016.
Average Number of Days Households Consumed
Food from the Various Food Groups per Week
7
6
6
5
3
2
2
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cereals
Condiments
Oil
Sugar
Vegetables
Milk
Pulses
Fruits
Meat
Number of Days
Foo
d G
rou
ps
120
• The majority of households consumed mostly cereals while meat was consumed the least.
• This pa�ern is consistent with what has been observed in previous ZimVAC RLAs.
Household Hunger Score
91
86.9
93.8
83.1
90.9
90.7
91.2
92.1 90
9 13.1 6.2
16.9
9.1 9.3 8.8 7.9 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Li�le to no hunger Moderate to severe hunger
121
• The Household Hunger Score is a household food depriva�on scale which focuses on the food quan�ty dimension of food access.
• Most households in the rural communi�es were experiencing li�le to no hunger (90%) whilst 10% experienced moderate to severe hunger. • Mashonaland West had the highest propor�on of households facing moderate to severe hunger (16.9%) whilst Mashonaland East had the
lowest propor�on (6.2%).
Propor�on of Households Using Iodized Salt by
Province
91.2
72.8
93.2 90
81.7 77.9
81.3
90.3
84.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
122
• Na�onally, 84.8% of households used iodised salt. This is above the 80% threshold for universal salt iodisa�on.
• Mashonaland Central (72.8%) and Matabeleland South (77.9%) had the least propor�on of households that used iodised salt.
Resilience
123
Introduc�on Why Resilience in Zimbabwe?
• Persistent food insecurity, stun�ng levels and poverty levels in the country remain topical issues despite huge investments made by Government and its development partners to address them.
• This led the Government of Zimbabwe and its development partners to spearhead the development of the Resilience Strategic Framework for Zimbabwe in 2015.
• The framework lays down what resilience means for Zimbabwe, provides a conceptual framework and key principles to be used in resilience programming.
Defini�on of Terms
Resilience: The ability of at risk individuals, households, communi�es and systems to an�cipate, cushion, adapt, bounce back be�er and move on from the effects of shocks and hazards in a manner that protects livelihoods and recovery gains and supports sustainable transforma�on’. (Zimbabwe Resilience Strategic Framework 2015).
Hazard: A process, phenomenon or human ac�vity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disrup�on or environmental degrada�on (UNISDR, 2007). Hazards may be natural or anthropogenic in origin. Natural hazards are predominantly associated with natural processes and phenomena. Anthropogenic hazards, or human-induced hazards, are induced by human ac�vi�es.
124
Resilience Conceptual Framework
Resilience Pathway
• Food Security
• Adequate Nutri�on
• Environmental security
Vulnerability pathway
• Food Insecurity
• Malnutri�on
• Environmental Degrada�on
125
Shocks
Tsholotsho Siphepha Flood Disaster Source: DCP
126
Propor�ons of Households which Reported Different
Shocks Between April 2016 and March 2017
46.9 42.7
32.3 29.9
12.6 12.4 9.6 9.3 8.6 5.2 4.9 4.8 3.6 3.4 3.4 3 2.9 2.4 0.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Cash shortages (46.9%), water logging (42.7%), drought (32.3%) and crop pests (29.9%) were reported as shocks which affected households between April 2016 and March 2017.
• Some households experienced localised shocks which included flooding (9.6%), human wildlife conflict (4.8%) and veld fires (0.9%).
Cereal p
rice ch
anges
127
Severity of Impact of Shocks Experienced Between
April 2016 and March 2017
5 6
6 9
11 7 9 8
12 8 9
10 9 6
13 9 4 8
11
31 36
25
41 49
36 32
40 37 28
43
28
48
22
32
42
20
29 19
64 59
69
50 41
57 59 52 51
64
48
62
43
72
55 49
76
63 70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Minor Moderate Severe
• A propor�on of households who experienced shocks reported severe impact of cash shortages (64%), water logging (59%) , impact of the 2015- 2016 El Nino induced drought (69%) and crop pests (50%).
• Less commonly experienced shocks which had severe impact include human wildlife conflict (62%), floods (59%), death of main income earner (76%) veld fires (70%) and loss of employment by breadwinner (72%).
128
Households’ Preparedness Levels for An�cipated
Hazards In The Next 12 Months
40
45
16
Unable to cope Able to cope with difficul�es Able to cope without difficul�es
• About 40% of the sampled households who indicated that they experienced shocks and hazards in the last 12 months reported that they will be unable to cope with similar shocks and stressors if they recur in the next 12 months,
• At least 45% of the households reported that they will be able to cope but with difficul�es.
• Only 16% indicated that they will be able to cope without difficul�es.
129
Households’ Perceived Ability to Cope with Future
Hazards
47 41
38
46 42 43
39
23
11 16
24
31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Drought Crop pests and disease outbreaks Livestock disease outbreak Floods
Unable to cope Able to cope with difficul�es Able to cope without difficul�es
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (
%)
• Without external assistance, the majority of households reported that they will either be unable to cope or may cope with difficul�es if they are to experience either drought, floods, livestock diseases, crop pests or crop diseases in the next season.
130
Resilience Measurement• Customised KPI4 Methodology –Measures the number of people/communi�es whose resilience has been improved
as a result of humanitarian and development support.
• The methodology was developed by DfID in one of its projects- Building Resilience and Adapta�on to Climate
Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) in Ethiopia and Nepal.
• The methodology was customised to suit the Zimbabwean context and it taps from the exis�ng resilience indicators in
ZimVAC surveys to form a resilience score based on;
1 Livelihoods and assets based Coping Strategy Index score
2 Food Consump�on Score
3 Average number of income sources per household
4 Average monthly household income per household
5 Perceived ability to cope with shocks and stresses
6 Households Hunger Scale (HHS)
131
Propor�ons of Households by Vulnerability and
Resilient Pathways Categories
4 1 0 1 3 0 2 1 2
66 62
50
62
70
54
63 59 60
30
37
50
37
28
45
35 40 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland MashonalandCentral
MashonalandEast
MashonalandWest
MatabelelandNorth
MatabelelandSouth
Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Vulnerability Wellness Threshold Resilient
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• The majority of the households were at the wellness threshold (60%), 38% were in the resilient category while 2% were in the vulnerability trap.
132
Household Food Security Status Projec�ons
To es�mate the rural popula�on that is likely to be food insecure in the 2017/18 consump�on year,
their geographic distribu�on and the severity of their food insecurity
133
Food Security Analy�cal Framework
• Food security exists when all people at all �mes, have physical, social and economic access to food which is safe and
consumed in sufficient quan�ty and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences and it is supported by an
environment of adequate sanita�on, health services and care allowing for a healthy and ac�ve life (Food and Nutri�on
Security Policy, 2012).
• The four dimensions of food security include:
• Availability of food
• Access to food
• The safe and healthy u�liza�on of food
• The stability of food availability, access and u�liza�on
• Household food security status was determined by measuring a household’s poten�al access to enough food (from
various livelihood op�ons available to the household) to give each member a minimum of 2100 kilocalories per day in
the consump�on period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.
134
Food Security Analy�cal Framework • Each of the surveyed households’ poten�al food access was computed by es�ma�ng the household's likely disposable
income (both cash and non cash) in the 2017/18 consump�on year from the following possible income sources;
• cereal stocks from the previous season;
• own food crop produc�on from the 2016/17 agricultural season;
• poten�al income from own cash crop produc�on;
• poten�al income from livestock ;
• Poten�al income from casual labour and remi�ances; and
• Income from other sources such as gi�s, pensions, gardening and formal and informal employment.
• Total energy that could be acquired by the household from the cheapest available energy source (maize was used in
this assessment) using its poten�al disposable income was then computed and compared to the household’s minimum
energy requirements.
• When the poten�al 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 poten�al energy access is below
its minimum energy requirements.
135
Main Assump�ons Used in the Food Security Analy�cal
Framework • Households’ purchasing power will remain rela�vely stable from April 2017 through the end of March 2018, i.e.
average household income levels are likely to track households’ cost of living. This assump�on is made on the premise
that year-on-year infla�on will remain stable throughout the consump�on year.
• The na�onal average livestock to maize terms of trade will remain rela�vely stable throughout the 2017/18
consump�on year.
• Staple cereals in the form of maize, small grains (sorghum and millets) or mealie meal will be available on the market
for cereal deficit households with the means to purchase to do so throughout the consump�on year. This assump�on
is based on the Government maintaining the liberalised maize trade regime.
• Na�onal co�on, tobacco and soya bean producer prices will average out at USD 0.36/kg, USD 2.75/kg and USD
0.50/kg respec�vely for the whole 2017/18 marke�ng season.
136
Food Insecurity Progression by Quarter
1
3
7
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• Rural food insecurity for the period April to June 2017 was es�mated at 1% and is projected to reach 11% during the peak hunger period (January to March 2018).
• As expected, there is a progressive increase in the propor�on of food insecure households as the consump�on year progresses toward the peak hunger period.
137
Trend In Food Security Progression by Quarter
2
5
10
30
6
23
35
42
1 3
7
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015 2016 2017
• The 2017/18 consump�on year food insecurity prevalence is 11% and is lower than that for the 2016/17 consump�on year during the peak hunger period.
138
Food Insecure Rural Popula�on by Quarter
92,988
304,175
647,630
1,052,768
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
Po
pu
la�
on
• About 1.1 million rural people are es�mated to be food insecure during the January – March peak hunger season.
139
Food Insecure Popula�on by Quarter
150,888
462,096
924,192
2,829,159
986,452
2,199,223
3,390,224
4,071,233
92,988 304,175
647,630
1,052,768
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
Po
pu
la�
on
2015 2016 2017
• At least 1.1 million are projected to be food insecure during the peak hunger period.
140
Food Insecurity Progression by Income Source
96
64 62 57
51
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Stocks Plus food crops Plus cash crops Plus cereals from casuallabour and remi�ances
Plus livestock Plus all other incomes
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
• All other poten�al sources of cereals (stocks, food and cash crops, casual labour and remi�ances and livestock) except incomes rendered approximately 49% of rural households to be food secure.
• Adding all other incomes, the food insecurity prevalence is projected to be 11% in the 2017/18 consump�on year.
141
Trend in Food Insecurity Progression by Income
Source
96
81 78 71 68
30
98
87 85 82
73
42
96
64 62 57
51
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Stocks Plus food crops Plus cash crops Plus cereals fromcasual labour and
remi�ances
Plus livestock Plus all other incomes
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2015 2016 2017
• Approximately 4% of the households had cereal stocks as at 1 April 2017 to last them the en�re 2017/18 consump�on year compared to about 2% at the same �me in 2016.
142
Food Insecurity by Quarter by Province
1 1 0
1
2 1 1 1 1
3 3 1
3
7 6
4 2
3
6 6
4
5
12 10
7 7 7
11 10
7 8
18
16
12 12 11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
• A general increase in the propor�on of food insecure households is projected across all provinces.
• Matabeleland North (18%), Matabeleland South (16%), Masvingo and Midlands (12%) are projected to have the highest propor�ons of food insecure households at peak hunger period.
• Mashonaland East (7%) and Mashonaland West (8%) are projected to have the least propor�ons of food insecure households.
143
Food Insecure Popula�on by Quarter by Province
13,206
11,434
5,283
8,486
13,764
9,455
17,246
14,113
50,425
33,540
15,848
33,002
48,174 37,347
50,013 35,825
103,250
77,753
52,074 62,233
85,231
67,603
97,438 102,048
175,285
121,203
89,808 98,064
132,876
101,641
156,936
176,956
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo
Po
pu
la�
on
Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar
• Masvingo (176,956),Manicaland (175,285), and Midlands (156,936) are projected to have the highest number of people es�mated to be food insecure during the peak period.
144
Districts with the Highest Food Insecurity Levels
District Jan - Mar 2017 Jan - Mar 2018 District Jan - Mar 2017 Jan - Mar 2018
Buhera 70 27 Goromonzi 25 19
Mangwe 45 27 Umzingwane 54 19 Binga 79 26 Chivi 57 18
Bulilima
52
25
Mutare
48
18
Nkayi
44
25
Bindura
41
17
Mbire
53
23
Insiza
42
15
Tsholotsho
54
21
Kariba
64
15
Gokwe North
49
21
Chirumanzu
65
15
Mwenezi
68
21
Umguza
75
14
Lupane
42
20
Zvishavane
68
14
145
Districts with the Lowest Food Insecurity Levels
District Jan-Mar 2017 Jan-Mar 2018 District Jan-Mar 2017 Jan-Mar 2018 Hurungwe 11 1 Masvingo 35 5
Marondera 14 2 Gwanda 40 5
Murewa 30 2 Hwedza 25 5
Kwekwe 30 3 Mazowe 20 5
Makonde 19 3 Chegutu 27 5
Mutasa 45 3 Gokwe South 41 5
Guruve
31
3
Shamva
34
6
Mutoko
53
4
Chipinge
41
6
Seke
20
4
Chikomba
45
6
Chimanimani
39
4
Gutu
44
7
146
Food Insecure Popula�on During the Peak
Hunger Period by Province
147
District Food Insecure Propor�on During the
Peak Hunger Period
148
Food Insecure Popula�on by District
149
Livelihood Zone Food Insecure Propor�on During
the Peak Hunger Period
150
Nutri�on
151
Feeding Prac�ces in Children 6 – 59 Months
152
Feeding Prac�ces in Children 6-59 Months
153
• Good feeding prac�ces of children are among the most important determinants of their health, growth and development. • Good feeding will prevent malnutri�on and early growth retarda�on.
• At 6 months of age, children should start to receive nutri�onally adequate and safe solid, semisolid and so� foods while breas�eeding
con�nues for up to two years of age or beyond.
• The solids, semi solid, so� foods should be from at least 4 out of 7 food groups (grains, roots and tubers, legumes and nuts, dairy products,
meat and fish, eggs, vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables , other fruits and vegetables).
• Foods of animal origins such as meat, fish and milk are an important source of Iron and Vitamin A. While vegetables and fruits such as
pumpkin, carrots, squash, yellow/orange sweet potatoes dark green leafy vegetables; ripe mangoes, ripe paw-paws are vital sources of
vitamin A.
• Iron plays an important role in the preven�on of anaemia while vitamin A prevents nutri�onal blindness, significantly reduces the severity
of illnesses and even death from such common childhood infec�ons such as diarrhoea and measles.
Defini�ons of Key Child Feeding Terms
154
• Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD): A child is considered consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity if the diet is made up from 4 or more of the 7 food
groups below:
ü grains, roots and tubers
ü legumes and nuts
ü dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese)
ü flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats)
ü eggs
ü vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables
ü other fruits and vegetables
• Minimum Meal Frequency (MMF) refers to the minimum number of �mes solid, semi-solid, or so� foods or milk feeds are consumed by children of a specific
age group. The minimum recommended number of �mes (frequency) depends on whether a child 6-23 months of age is breas�ed or non-breas�ed. The
recommended minimum meal frequency for the specific age groups is given below:
ü 2 �mes for breas�ed infants 6–8 months
ü 3 �mes for breas�ed children 9–23 months
ü 4 �mes for non-breas�ed children 6–23 months
• Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) measures the quality of diets consumed by children aged 6-23 months by combining both MDD and MMF.
Minimum Dietary Diversity Children 6-23 Months
15
23 26
15 10
15 19
15 18
12 18
21
10 10 10 12 8
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f c
hild
ren
(%
)
2015 2017
155
• The propor�on of children that consumed diets that met the minimum dietary diversity remained generally very low across all the provinces of the country.
• Na�onally, 13% of children aged 6 to 23 months consumed a minimum dietary diversity. This is lower than 18% reported in 2015.
Propor�on of Children 6-59 Consuming Iron-rich Foods
156
• Compared to 2016, there has been a general decrease in the propor�on of children consuming iron-rich foods across all provinces.
• About 29.1% of children aged 6-59 months consumed iron-rich foods 24 hours prior to the survey.
• Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South (23%) had the lowest propor�on of children 6-59 months who consumed iron-rich foods.
34.2
28.0
36.2
39.9
29.6
23.2
30.6 30.8 31.9
31.0
28.9
34.9 35.5
23.0 23.0
24.9
30.7 29.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
2016 2017
Propor�on of Children 6-59 Consuming Vitamin A
Rich Foods
157
• Na�onally, 93% of children 6-59 months consumed Vitamin A-rich foods 24-hours prior to the survey and this is higher than what was observed last year (90%).
• The lowest propor�on of children 6-59 months who consumed vitamin A rich foods was in Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South (90%).
91
67
92 93 93
87 91
94 90
95 95 96 93
91 90 90 94 93
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Masvingo Mat North Mat South Midlands Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f C
hild
ren
(%
)
2016 2017
Minimum Acceptable Diet for Children 6-23 Months
6.8 10.6
12.9
6.9 6 8.4 7.5 6
8.3 11.3
8.9 10.6
4.8 10.0
6.3 7.9 9.5 8.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f ch
ildre
n (
%)
2015 2017
158
• The propor�on of children 6-23 months consuming a minimum acceptable diet was very low across all the provinces since 2015
• Na�onally, 8.6% received a minimum acceptable diet 24 hours prior to the survey.
• Mashonaland West had the lowest propor�on at 4.8%.
Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women of Child
Bearing Age
159
• Women of child bearing age (WCBA) (15-49 years) are o�en nutri�onally vulnerable because of the physiological demands of pregnancy and lacta�on.
• Requirements for most nutrients are higher for pregnant and lacta�ng women than for adult men.
• Outside of pregnancy and lacta�on, other than for iron women require a more nutrient-dense diet to meet their increased micronutrient needs.
• Insufficient nutrient intakes before and during pregnancy and lacta�on can affect both women and their infants.
• The Minimum Dietary Diversity for WCBA (MDD-W) indicator is a food group diversity indicator that has been shown to reflect one key dimension of diet quality, that is micronutrient adequacy.
Dietary Diversity for Women 15-49 years
Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) Dietary Diversity
42
43
50 36
31
30
38
44
40
58
57
50 64
69
70
62
56 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
om
en
(%)
Consumed 5 food groups & above Consumed less than 5 food groups
4.3 4.5
4.6
4.1 3.8 3.8
4.1 4.4 4.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Ave
rage
Average dietary diversity for women
160
• Na�onally 40% of women of childbearing age achieved a minimum dietary diversity (MDD) and therefore more likely to have adequate micronutrient intakes.
• Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North had the least propor�on of women whose diets met MDD.
• The average dietary diversity for women of child bearing age was 4 across all provinces.
Average Number of Food Groups Eaten 24hrs Prior to the Survey by WCBA
16
14 8
20
24
26 16
15
17
22 20
18
24
23
23
21
21
21
21 23
24
19
22
21
25 19
22
42 43 50
36 31 30
38 44
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland MashCentral Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
om
en
(%
)
1-2 Food Groups 3 food groups 4 food groups 5 or more food groups
161
• Na�onally 17% of women consumed foods from 1-2 food groups indica�ng that they are not likely to receive adequate micronutrients from their diets.
Community Health Services
162
• One strategy for stun�ng reduc�on is to scale up high impact interven�ons which include community health services
• Provision of individual Community Infant and Young Child Feeding (cIYCF) at community level has been shown to greatly improve caring and feeding prac�ces.
• Con�nued support within the first 1000 days, a window of opportunity for addressing stun�ng, at community level has been proven to have posi�ve health outcomes for the mother and child dyad
Propor�on of Pregnant and Lacta�ng women
Visited by a Village Health Worker
11.5 8.9 5.9
9 8.4 7.5 9.1 7.1 8.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
om
en
(%
)
163
• Na�onally, the propor�on of pregnant and lacta�ng women visited by a Village Health Worker was 8.3%.
• Manicaland (11.5%) had the highest propor�on of pregnant and lacta�ng women visited by a Village Health Worker whilst Mashonaland
East had the lowest (5.9%).
Community Health Services Received by Pregnant and Lacta�ng Women
37
18
35
14 15
26 22
27 24
18
26
10
28
20 21
12 10
19 16
13
19
12
20 19 17
23 17
4 5 3 5 4 3 8
3 5
25
38 32
42 41
32
41 37 36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f w
om
en
(%
)
Ante Natal Care Maternal Nutri�on Post Natal Care Family Planning General Care
164
• Out of the 8.3% of women that received community health services from a Village Health Worker, 36% received general care services and
24% received antenatal care.
Propor�on of Households with Children Under 2
Years Visited by Village Health Worker
21
14
8
16 14 13 13 11 13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (
%)
165
• Na�onally, only 13% of households with children under 2 years of age were visited by a Village Health Worker.• Mashonaland East (8%) had the least propor�on.
Community Health Services Received by Children
Under 2 years
39
16
20 13
14
28 22
27 23
39
49 48
43
54
42 36
50 45
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
12
3
7 4
5
18
30 28
32 28
30
34
18
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
cIYCF counselling Growth Monitorng Other Vitamin A Supplementa�on Health Counselling
166
• Of the 13% of households with children under 2 years of age visited by Village Health Workers, 45% received growth monitoring services.
Water, Sanita�on and Hygiene (WASH)
167
168
Categories of Sanita�on
169
Open Defeca�on Defeca�on in fields, forests, bushes, bodies of water or other open spaces or disposal of human faeces
with solid waste.
Unimproved Sanita�on Facili�es
Unimproved sanita�on facili�es: Facili�es that do not ensure hygienic separa�on of human excreta from
human contact. Unimproved facili�es include pit latrines without a slab or pla�orm, hanging latrines and
bucket latrines.
Improved Sanita�on Facili�es
Improved sanita�on facili�es: Facili�es that ensure hygienic separa�on of human excreta from human
contact. They include flush or pour flush toilet/latrine, Blair ven�lated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with
slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.
Improved water sources
Improved” drinking water sources are further defined by the quality of the water they produce, and are
protected from fecal contamina�on by the nature of their construc�on or through an interven�on to
protect from outside contamina�on.
Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public
tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; protected spring; or rainwater collec�on
Unimproved water sources
Unprotected dug well, unprotected spring, cart with small tank/drum, tanker truck, surface water (river,
dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irriga�on channel), and bo�led water are not considered improved
sources.
Households’ Water Sources and Sanita�on Facili�es
71
47
37
73
61
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Improved Water Source Improved Sanita�on Open Defaeca�on
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (
%)
2016 2017
170
• Na�onally there was an improvement in access to safe drinking water and sanita�on.
• Open defeca�on decreased from 37% to 30%.
Access to Improved Water
70 74 72
69
81
72
65 69 71
77 76 79
65
78
72 71
65
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
2016 2017
171
• The na�onal average for access to improved water sources increased marginally from 71% to 73% in 2016.
• There was a general increase in all provinces, with the excep�on of Mashonaland West, Matabeleland North and Masvingo.
Access to Improved Water Sources by District
ZIMBABWE
VulnerabilityAssessment Committee
VAC
172
• Districts such as Gokwe North, Hurungwe,
Binga and Chiredzi had the lowest
propor�on of households with access to
improved water sources ranging from 36.4-
50%
Households which Changed Main Water Source
88 90 91 91 88
90 90 89 90
12 10 9 9 12
10 10 11 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
No Yes
173
• Na�onally 10% of the households changed their main source of water during the 3 months preceding the survey.
Reasons for Change in Main Drinking Water Source
45
31
44
42
40
51
35
53
42
19
8
17
17
10
18
16
13
15
18
43
16
21 37
19
30
17 26
10 5 12 10
2 2
5
7 7
4 4
4 7
3 6
6
3 4
5 10
7 3
8 4
9 6 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Availability of alterna�ve water sources close by Main water source has dried up Main water source has broken down /not func�onal
Main water source silted/polluted Main water source flooded Other
174
• Of the households that changed their main drinking water source, 42 % of them did so as a result of the availability of alterna�ve water
sources being closer by due to the good rains.
• Masvingo and Matabeleland South had the highest propor�on of households accessing water from a nearer source at 53% and 51%
respec�vely.
Distance Travelled to Main Water Source
55
67
49
53
65
73
52
65
52 39
32
42 40
50
35
47
46
55
26
22
30 33
20
18
20
22
32 38
33
34 28
30
35
31 29
28
18 11
20 15 15
8 22
14
36 23
34 24
32
20 30
23 25 17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above
175
• According to Sphere Standards, the maximum distance that any household should travel to the nearest safe water point is 500m.
• The propor�on of households travelling more than 1km to fetch water decreased from 25% in 2016 to 17% in 2017.
• Na�onally, 55% of households travelled less than 500m to the nearest water source, whilst 17% travelled more than 1km.
• Matabeleland South, Matabeleland North and Masvingo had the highest propor�on of households that travelled more than 1 km at 24%
and 23% respec�vely.
Household Member Fetching Water
82
9
5
2
2
0
78
11
6
3
3
1
74
15
5
4
2
1
79
10
5
3
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Adult woman [18 yearsand above]
Adult man [18 years andabove]
Female child (under 18years)
Male child (under 18years)
Both Male and FemaleChild (under 18 years)
Other
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above Na�onal
176
• Adult women were the predominant household members reported to be fetching water. This scenario remained constant regardless of the
distance travelled to the water source.
Propor�on of Households Trea�ng their Water
6
5
7 5
4
4
4
4
5
12
12
14 11
12
14
10
11
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Improved Water Source Unimproved Water Source
177
• The prac�ce of water treatment remains generally low across all rural provinces.
• Na�onally, 12% of households that used water from unimproved sources did not treat their drinking water. This is of concern as it exposes
households to waterborne diseases, a situa�on which is exacerbated when there is excess rainfall and flooding.
Household Sanita�on Facili�es
70 64
74
54 42
66 55 57 61
17 18
8
8
3
3
9 6 9
13 18 18
38
55
32 36 37
30
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
Improved Sanita�on Unimproved Sanita�on Open defeca�on
178
• The propor�on of households which accessed improved sanita�on facili�es was 61%.
• Matabeleland North Province had the lowest propor�on of households with access to improved sanita�on (42%).
• Open defeca�on was prac�ced by 30% of households na�onally, while Matabeleland North had the highest (55%.
Prevalence of Open Defeca�on
ZIMBABWE
VulnerabilityAssessment Committee
VAC
179
• Most districts in Matabeleland North province
recorded the highest prevalence of open
defeca�on ranging from 56.1-75%.
• Most districts in Manicaland recorded the
lowest prevalence of open defeca�on ranging
between 0.5-16%.
Households with Handwashing Facilities
13
7
9
16
33
28
14
21
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f H
ou
seh
old
s (%
)
180
• At least 16% of the households with sanita�on facili�es had handwashing facili�es . Of these, 40% had water available at the
handwashing facility, 25% had soap whilst 3% had both water and soap available at the handwashing facility.
• Mashonaland Central had the highest propor�on of households without handwashing facili�es (93%) whilst Matabeleland North and
South had the highest propor�on of households with handwashing facili�es where both water and soap or detergents were available.
Frequency of Handwashing at Cri�cal Times
84
63
10
84
3 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
A�er using the toilet
Before handling
food
A�er changingchildren's
nappies/diapers
Before/a�er ea�ng A�er assis�ng thesick
Other
Pro
po
r�o
n (%
)
181
• The cri�cal �mes most observed by households for handwashing were a�er using the toilet and before or ea�ng (84%) and before
handling food (63%).
• The least observed cri�cal �me was a�er assis�ng the sick (3%).
182
Child Nutri�on Status
183
Defini�on of Terms • Measurements of weight, height and age of a child are converted to nutri�onal indices to indicate the nutri�on
status of a child.
• Any of the two measurements are combined to form indices as follows: Weight for height, Weight for age, Height for age
• Weight for height is a measure of thinness or fatness which is sensi�ve to sudden change in energy balance.
• Weight for height index of between 2 and 3 standard devia�on below the mean is called Moderate Acute Malnutri�on (MAM) /Was�ng.
• A child with weight for height of more than 3 standard devia�on below the mean and or has oedema is classified as Severe Acute Malnourished (SAM).
• MAM or SAM are o�en due to acute starva�on and or severe disease.
• For nutri�on emergencies, children less than 5 years are measured since their measurements are more sensi�ve to factors that influence nutri�onal status such as illness or food shortages.
• Global Acute Malnutri�on (GAM) is a sum of Moderate Acute Malnutri�on and Severe Acute Malnutri�on.
• The prevalence of Global Acute Malnutri�on is usually below 5% in any developing country, provided there is no food shortage.
• Height for Age is an index of growth and development. It is an expression of long term exposure to nutri�onal inadequacy and indicates chronic malnutri�on in children lacking essen�al nutrients but also related to poor sanita�on, repeated infec�ons, diarrhoea and inadequate care.
• Stun�ng is defined as Height for age index more than two standard devia�on below the mean of the WHO reference popula�on.
184
Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutri�on (GAM)
by Province
6
2.4 2.5 2
3.9
1.9
4.4
2.3
3.1
3.9 3.8
2.2 2.2
6.4
2.5
3.8
1.3
3.3
4.9
3 2.4
2.1
5.2
2.2
4.1
1.8
3.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f ch
ild
ren
(%
)
Boys Girls All
• Na�onally, the prevalence of GAM was 3.2%.• The prevalence is lower than the 4.4% observed in the 2016 May ZimVAC RLA.• Matabeleland North had the highest prevalence of GAM (5.2%) with girls (6.4%) more affected than boys (3.9%).• Generally across most provinces, girls were most affected than boys except in Manicaland, Mashonaland East, Midlands and
Masvingo.
185
Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutri�on
(GAM) by Year and Province
3
5
2.6
6.7
4.9
4
4.9
3
4.4 4.9
3 2.4
2.1
5.2
2.2
4.1
1.8
3.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f ch
ild
ren
(%
)
2016 2017
• In comparison with findings from the 2016 ZimVAC RLA, there has been a general decrease in GAM across most provinces except in
Manicaland and Matabeleland North.
• There was a significant decrease in Mashonaland West from 6.7% in 2016 to 2.1% in 2017.
186
Prevalence of Severe Acute Malnutri�on (SAM)
by Province 2.8
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.6
0.7
2.5
1.2 1.2
1.7
1.9
0.6
1.3
1.1
0
1.7
0.9
1.1
2.2
1.1
0.6
0.9
1.3
0.4
2.1
1
1.2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f ch
ild
ren
(%
)
Boys Girls All
• The prevalence of severe acute malnutri�on was 1.2%. This was lower than that of the 2016 ZimVAC RLA (1.9%).
• Manicaland (2.2%) and Midlands (2.1%) had prevalence above the World Health Organisa�on (WHO) emergency threshold of 2%.
187
Gender Based Violence
188
189
Physical and Sexual Violence by Province
• More males and females reported having experienced physical violence than sexual violence. • Physical violence was experienced by about 3.3% of the men and 4.2% of the women. • The highest propor�on of men that experienced physical violence was in Mashonaland Central (4.7%) and that of women was in
Manicaland (7.7%).• The highest propor�on of men that experienced sexual violence was in Mashonaland Central (1.0%) and that of women was in
Manicaland (1.6%).
3.5
4.7
2.0
3.3 3.0
1.9
4.4
3.4 3.3
0.6 1.0
0.2 0.6 0.3
0.8 0.7 0.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f M
ale
s (%
)
Male Physical Male Sexual
7.7
5.1
3.8
5.4
3.2
1.7
3.4 2.4
4.2
1.6 0.8 0.7
1.3 1.1 0.2
1.1 0.4
0.9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f Fe
mal
es
(%)
Female Physical Female Sexual
190
Perpetrators of Physical and Sexual Violence
Perpetrator Males (%) Females (%)
Mother/Step Mother 4.4 6.6
Father/ Step Father 2.9 3.5
Sister/
Brother
2.9
6.0
Other Rela�ve
18.2
13.3
Spouse
19.0
35.8
Former Boyfriend/Girlfriend
1.5
4.1
Employer
6.6
1.3
Other
19.0
11.4
Perpetrator Males (%) Females (%)
Current husband/ Partner 2.2 6.3
Former husband/
partner
2.2
1.6
Current/
former boyfriend
2.2
Other rela�ve
19.6
24.4
In law
4.3
2.4
Physical Violence Sexual Violence
• Spouses were reported as the perpetrators by 35.8% of the females and 19% of the males who had experienced physical violence.
• Of concern were incidences of sexual violence in both males and females that were mostly perpetrated by other rela�ves (19.6% and 24.4% respec�vely).
191
Prevalence of Spousal Violence by Sex and
Province
3.0 2.8
1.8 1.8 1.6
2.2
2.7 2.2 2.3
5.7 5.4
4.1
5.4 5.3
2.3
3.3
2.6
4.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Na�onal
Pro
po
r�o
n o
f m
ale
s an
d f
em
ale
s (%
)
Male Female
• Na�onally, about 4.2% of women reported having experienced spousal violence.
• Manicaland had the highest reports of spousal violence among both women and men (5.7% and 3.0% respec�vely).
192
Community Development Challenges and
Development Priori�es
193
Community Challenges
9
9
9
7
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Drought
Shortage of cash
Poor road infrastructure
Lack of Irriga�on infrastructure
Lack of income genera�ng projects
Unemployment
Inadequate markets
Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure
Poor Water and sanita�on facili�es
High cost of Inputs and implements
Lack of/ limited Water for domes�c use
lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock produc�on
No primary/secondary school in the ward
Draught Power shortage
Poverty
Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall pa�erns
Lack of /intermi�ent Electricity supply
Poor access to livestock/produce markets
Unavailability of crop/livestock inputs on the local market
Propor�on of communi�es (%)
• The greatest propor�on of communi�es indicated drought, shortage of cash, poor road infrastructure (9%) and lack of irriga�on infrastructure (7%) as their major development challenges.
194
Community Challenges by Province
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo Lack of income genera�ng projects 19 31 32 24 20 12 18 19
Draught Power shortage 5 10 10 12 10 8 16 10
Drought 25 37 35 14 24 46 51 59
No primary/secondary school in the
ward
10 20 16 8 16 24 13 3
Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 20 20 23 19 17 18 15 15 Inadequate markets 34 20 25 6 8 11 18 23 High cost of Inputs and implements 18 30 20 21 4 2 23 17 lack of Irriga�on infrastructure 32 29 28 23 27 24 30 34 Shortage of cash 39 26 45 39 35 43 38 30 Poor road infrastructure
42
29
34
46
38
37
32
32
Unpredictable and unreliable rainfall
pa�erns
4
9
11
3
13
4
11
9
Poverty
16
5
11
5
5
13
4
11
Unemployment
18
16
15
25
19
22
22
28
Poor Water and sanita�on facili�es
24
22
14
18
14
18
19
14
Lack of/ limited Water for domes�c use
16
20
8
24
29
18
14
10
lack of /limited Water for crop and
livestock produc�on
10
12
8
5
33
36
11
5
• Matabeleland South and Midlands reported drought as their major development challenge (59% and 51%) respec�vely.
• Mashonaland West and Manicaland highlighted poor road infrastructure as their major challenge (46% and 42%) respec�vely.
195
Community Development Priori�es
12
11
11
10
8
8
7
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Income Genera�on Projects promo�on
Road infrastructure development
Water Supply- boreholes, piped water scheme
Dams/Water reservoirs construc�on
Health services and related infrastructure improvement
Agricultural markets availability and access development
Educa�on and related infrastructure improvement
Employment crea�on
Electricity infrastructure development
Livestock restocking
Other specify
Voca�onal Training Centres
Livestock disease surveillance and control
Control of wildlife
Skills and capacity Development
Revival and development of Industries
Propor�on of communi�es (%)
• At least 12% of the communi�es reported income genera�on projects as their major development priority. • Revival and development of industries, skills and capacity development and control of wildlife were considered less important on the
priority list.
196
Development Priori�es by Province
Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo
Dams/Water reservoirs construc�on 22 28 39 28 57 58 55 39
Educa�on and related infrastructure
improvement
19 37 31 24 31 35 24 11
Electricity infrastructure development 19 18 19 25 4 5 10 14
Employment crea�on 21 17 16 17 19 24 19 26
Health services
and
related
infrastructure
improvement
28
32
41
25
33
30
28
28
Income Genera�on
Projects
promo�on
44
42
46
58
42
46
44
59
Irriga�on infrastructure
development
64
34
48
35
45
45
41
68
Agricultural markets
availability
and
access
development
41
27
34
32
25
20
31
30
Road infrastructure
development
44
40
45
57
45
34
47
38
Water
Supply-
boreholes,
piped
water
scheme
40
64
39
42
34
42
42
32
• Mashonaland Central cited water supply as their major development priority (64%).
• Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South indicated water reservoir construc�on as their major priority (57% and 58%) respec�vely.
197
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons
198
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • Joint efforts by both Government and partners in food distribu�on through various interven�ons ensured that most
vulnerable and food insecure rural households had access to food. Government and UN/NGO support to vulnerable
households increased remarkably during the 2016/17 consump�on period (71.6%) compared to the 2015/16
consump�on period (65%).
• In 2016/2017, the bulk of resources from both Government and partners went towards emergency and immediate
food requirements for households. However, it is recommended that during the 2017/18 consump�on year, more
resources be channelled towards Government input support, household economy strengthening and building
produc�ve community assets. Interven�ons that strengthen households’ economy and resilience are thus
recommended to ensure households remain food and nutri�on secure.
• The propor�on of children not a�ending school due to illness is a cause of concern. We recommend the priori�sa�on
of resource alloca�on towards the strengthening of the School Feeding and School Health Programmes.
• The propor�on of children of school going age who were not in school due to financial constraints remains significant.
There is need for the Government to increase Basic Educa�on Assistance Module (BEAM) funds so that vulnerable
children can be supported.
• The high propor�on of children who were turned away from school due to non-payment of school fees is worrisome.
This calls for stricter monitoring of the implementa�on of the Government Policy for universal primary educa�on and
its complementary policy which states that no child should be denied access to schooling for failure to pay school fees.
199
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons
• The propor�on of households that grew the major food and cash crops increased as compared to last season. The good
rainfall season coupled with the different input programmes that were put in place resulted in increased household
produc�on. However some areas were affected by water logging and some farmers failed to get enough fer�liser. This
calls for efforts to urgently ensure that inputs are readily available on the market.
• Inadequate labour, coupled with use of unimproved seed varie�es con�nue to constrain agriculture produc�on and
produc�vity among small-holder farmers and hence the need for extension to capacitate farmers on the need for good
agricultural prac�ces
• There is need to promote labour saving technologies given the fact that many households had inadequate agricultural
labour.
• The level of average household produc�on this season was significantly high. This calls for good post-harvest handling
techniques at household level so as to reduce post-harvest losses.
• The increase in cereal produc�on is likely to increase supply of grain on the market which in turn offers the country the
opportunity to replenish its Strategic Grain Reserves. Therefore the Grain Marke�ng Board should be capacitated to be
able to collect, �meously pay farmers and properly store the grain in the Strategic Grain Reserve.
• Equipment breakdown and seasonality of water have been cited as reasons for par�al and non func�onality of
irriga�on schemes. Given that climate change is real and that the country has been experiencing droughts there is need
for Government and partners to facilitate rehabilita�on of par�ally func�onal and non-func�onal irriga�on schemes.
This also calls for promo�on of water harves�ng technologies so as reduce the effects of climate change and variability.
200
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • There is need for capacity building for Government extension service providers to increase coverage of extension
services for small-holder farmers.
• The propor�on of Households selling livestock as a business is very low, raising issues on the quality of meat produced.
There is need for Government to come up with strategies and packages that support farming as a business.
• There is need for Government to increase sale pens and auc�ons across all provinces to reduce inclusion of
middlemen.
• The household consump�on indicators show an improved food access situa�on for the majority of households
compared to last year.
• The coping strategies, Household Hunger Scores, Household Dietary Diversity as well as consump�on of protein, iron
and vitamin A rich foods improved from last year mainly due to the presence of the diverse field crops and food
assistance.
• The livelihood coping strategies engaged by households have decreased this year which shows that there is an
improved food access situa�on. The livelihood coping strategies however remain a cause of concern as deple�on of
assets directly reduces future produc�vity and affects households’ ability to cope with future shocks and may lead to
future food consump�on gaps. Resilient livelihood ac�vi�es are therefore recommended for all rural households.
201
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • Water, Sanita�on and Hygiene (WASH) educa�on programmes need to be integrated to achieve improved public
health by scaling up sanita�on-focused par�cipatory hygiene and health educa�on, schools health clubs, sanita�on
ac�on groups and community health clubs.
• Specific material resources are needed to support na�onal behaviour change programmes and to re-equip and
enhance the impetus of the Environmental Health Prac��oners who are the primary extension officers for household
sanita�on, water supplies, hygiene promo�on and health educa�on.
• A paradigm shi� from primarily relying on unimproved drinking water sources to improved communal water points
and improved piped water into households using renewable energy sources (solar) is recommended.
• Elimina�on of open defeca�on through availing of resources (both so� and hardware) for the construc�on of latrines
using locally available resources is recommended. Customised service standards should reconcile with technology
choice and service levels with the economic capacity of user groups.
• Women were iden�fied as the primary household member fetching water for household consump�on. Par�cipants
within the WASH sector should consider support and promo�on of �me and labour saving technologies such as ‘roller
drums’ that reduce the burden on women and therefore increase their �me to engage in economically produc�ve
ac�vi�es.
202
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • Generally incomes for rural households are following a downwards trend since 2014. We therefore recommend some
income genera�ng projects for rural households to be ini�ated.
• Casual labour and food crop produc�on were been reported as the most important sources of income for the majority
of rural households. We therefore recommend that markets for crops should be made available.
• ISALs have proven successful as an approach that protects household assets, smooth cashflow, improves number of
meals consumed, and increases household incomes and expenditure. As such, ISAL groups should be scaled up in poor
rural communi�es in all provinces to improve food security and livelihoods.
• Communi�es con�nue to face challenges of drought, cash shortages and poor road infrastructure among other
challenges. Efforts to address rural community development challenges should focus on construc�on and
rehabilita�on of water bodies as well as promo�on of climate smart technologies.
203
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • The na�onal prevalence of GAM was 3.2% and this is below the 5% emergency threshold. Matabeleland North had the
highest prevalence of GAM (5.2%) with girls being more affected at 6.4%. Generally across most provinces girls were
most affected than boys except in Manicaland, Midlands and Masvingo.
• The minimum dietary diversity for children 6-23months remains below the cut-off to contribute to meaningful
reduc�on to stun�ng. More mul�sectoral efforts are recommended to improve on the quality of children’s diets.
• The minimum dietary diversity for women aged 15-49yeras was 40% and this reflects that most women are not
consuming a quality diet that is adequate to meet their micronutrient requirements. A mul�sectoral approach to
address and strengthen interven�ons to enhance the nutri�onal content of family diets is required. Strategies to
employ include produc�on of diverse plant and animal food sources, promo�on of consump�on of diverse diets and
value addi�on of locally available foods.
• The food consump�on score reflects that there has been an increase in the propor�on of rural households consuming
poor diets. Mul�sectoral efforts to improve consump�on pa�erns are recommended to impact greatly on nutri�on
outcomes. Emphasis should be put on broadening na�onal agricultural programmes through diversifica�on of both
crop and livestock produc�on.
204
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons • The propor�on of children under 2 and pregnant and lacta�ng women who were reached by community health
services is below the 80% na�onal target. CIYCF and similar community based interven�ons should be strengthened to
scale-up coverage of stun�ng preven�on ac�vi�es within their local context.
• More than 80% of rural households consumed iodised salt. Efforts to increase coverage is recommended for provinces
with low coverage and regular monitoring for those at the recommended coverage of 80%.
• Fall armyworm affected all the provinces with 36% of the households managing to iden�fy it as a new pest. Maize is the
crop most infested and against the background that 88% of the households grew maize in 2016/17 season it is unlikely
that farmers will want to abandon maize. There is a likelihood of the new pest to affect wheat during the winter season.
• About 62.5% of the households affected by the new pest did not take any measures to control it. Households which
took ini�a�ves to control it used a variety of methods which included biological control, applica�on of commercial
pes�cides, tradi�onal control and other methods. However, these measures were generally not successful. It is
therefore recommended to build capacity of;
• Extension agencies in providing the relevant and high quality informa�on to farmers on Fall armyworm
• Research ins�tu�ons to determine sustainable ways of managing the pest including efficacy of pes�cides and
indigenous control measures, most effec�ve, lowest-risk, economical, accessible and easily used by smallholders
(without sophis�cated machinery).
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons
205
• The adult female moth of the Fall armyworm is a strong flyer and will con�nue to spread across the country.
Popula�ons of the pest may con�nue to build as they find more host plants to mul�ply on and in the absence of natural
biological enemies (general predators like ants and earwigs,) specialized parasitoids and a host of insect pathogens
(virus, bacteria and fungi). It is therefore important to increase awareness raising on the new pest among different
stakeholders, strengthen monitoring mechanisms/capaci�es (iden�fica�on, informa�on relaying systems) and
response systems from na�onal to sub-na�onal levels.
• About 36.5% of households used various measures to control Fall armyworm both conven�onal and tradi�onal. It is
important to learn from the experiences of farmers and researchers locally and interna�onally. The best
recommended prac�ces will be tried and adapted in the field through Farmers’ Field Schools. It is therefore
recommended that support for designing and tes�ng of a sustainable pest management programme for smallholders
should be provided. The best recommenda�ons will then be communicated and shared with farmers, farmers’
organiza�ons and Government.
• The true extent of Gender Based Violence is difficult to measure as it is o�en under-reported in most cases. It is
perceived that reported cases in this report represent only a small frac�on of the overall total that could be present.
Gender Based Violence campaigns need to be scaled-up to empower women and men and encourage them to report
and seek help.
• Further research is required to understand the underpinning causes of physical violence which was reported more
than sexual violence.
Conclusions and Recommenda�ons
206
• Communi�es are faced with a host of shocks and hazards both natural and anthropogenic impac�ng nega�vely on
their ability to access their food and non-food requirements. The situa�on is being compounded by the recurrent
under-performing macro-economic situa�on with cash shortages being one of the immediate areas requiring the
a�en�on of Government and stakeholders.
• There is need for proac�ve mul�-stake holder resilience building interven�ons to ensure that vulnerable communi�es
meet their daily food and non-food requirements before they venture into nega�ve coping strategies that may lead to
loss of their produc�ve assets.
• Considering that communi�es have limited capaci�es to recover from disasters, Government and development
partners should consider improving and broadening community social protec�on and resilience building programmes
to enhance early recovery from emergencies and disasters. This may include scaling up of programmes such as
Harmonised Social Cash transfers and Produc�ve Community Works.
• Government with support from partners should consider scaling up structural and non-structural measures to deal
with flooding and human wildlife conflict taking advantage of the on-going land re-distribu�on programme to relocate
communi�es at risk
• Rural food insecurity prevalence in June 2017 was es�mated at 1% and is projected to reach 11% during the peak
hunger period (January to March 2017). This is lower compared to last year. This food insecurity prevalence translates
to 1,052,768 rural people compared to 4.1 million in the previous consump�on year.
• Food assistance programmes should be targeted to those households that have been found to be food insecure
Annexes
207
Manicaland
208
Mashonaland Central
209
Mashonaland East
210
Mashonaland West
211
Masvingo
212
Matabeleland North
213
Matabeleland South
214
Midlands
215
Report Wri�ng Team Name Organisa�on Email
George D. Kembo Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]
Blessing Butaumocho Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]
Herbert Zvirere Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]
Margaret Tawodzera Ministry of Health and Child Care margaret.tawodzeragmail.com
Lameck
Betera
Ministry of Local Government
Banda Mirriam
Food and Nutri�on Council
Nester Gumbo
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and Irriga�on
Development
gumbo nester @gmail.com
Manyika Ngoni
Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare
Rongai Machinga
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and Irriga�on
Development
Perpetual Nyadenga
Food and Nutri�on Council
Carol Mukanduri
Food and Nutri�on Council
Lloyd Chadzingwa
Food and Nutri�on Council
Arnold Damba
ZIMSTAT
Mildred Mapani
Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare
Ruramai
Mpande
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educa�on
Siboniso
Chigova
Food and Nutri�on Council
216
Name Organisa�on Email
Shamiso Chikobvu Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and Irriga�on
Development
Alfa Ndlovu Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]
Yvonne Mavhunga Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]
Rutendo Nyahoda
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and Irriga�on
Development
Disalice Kunaka
Ministry of Rural Development, Promo�on and
Preserva�on of Na�onal Culture and Heritage
Innocent Mangwiro
Food and Nutri�on Council
Kudzi Mukudoka
UNICEF
Tinashe Sande
UNWOMEN
Themba Nduna
USAID
Shupikai Zimuto
UNDP
Tendai Mugara
FAO
Angela Kafembe
FEWSNET
Report Wri�ng Team
217
Overall Coordina�on Team
• George D. Kembo
• Blessing Butaumocho
• Yvonne Mavhunga
218
Supported by