VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR MOZAMBIQUE1997/1998
An Initial Analysis of Current Vulnerability to Food and Nutritional Insecurity
Inter-sectoral Vulnerability Assessment and Mapping GroupMAF, MPF, MOH, FEWS, WFP
Maputo, February 1998
Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
Risk AnalysisDomestic ResourceCapacity
VULNERABILITY
Targeting Vulnerable districts
1) Droughts2) Floods3) Pests4) Landmines5) Physical access6) Price changes
1) Livestock2) Fisheries3) Other sources of Income4) Food Systems5) Land use
Assessment of District LevelFood Production
C. Initiatives for a Collaborative Vulnerability Analysis
· identify areas and population groups most vulnerable to food insecurity and specific nutritional deficiencies and problems;· promote inter-sectoral discussion on vulnerability in Mozambique, its causes and identify important interventions to mitigate and alleviate hronic and transitory food insecurity;· establish links between vulnerability analysis, policy formulation and planning interventions; and· ensure that there is a capacity within Mozambican institutions to periodically update the vulnerability assessment on a regular basis.
D. A Framework of Analysis
Vulnerability:
¨ the probability of an acute decline in food access, or consumption levels, below some critical value. According to Chambers, vulnerability represents "defencelessness, insecurity and exposure to risks, shocks and stress ... and difficulty in coping with them."
Vulnerability to food and nutritional insecurity comprises two components:
· the risk of an event occurring (e.g. drought, cyclone, floods, and pest outbreaks); and · the coping ability of households to deal with that event (such as income, asset ownership and other sources). An assessment of risk and coping ability should encompass a time frame both for short and medium-term perspective. Levels of income and assets (domestic resource capacity) are important in assuring food security of the population in the short-term along with availability and accessibility to health, nutrition and education services in the medium and long-term. In the sum:
. Assessment of Risks: Conditions for Food production
A: Historical Drought-risk Areas.
C. Flood Risk/Prone Areas
· First degree risk consists of 1.7 million hectares within an elevation of less than 20 metres above sea level (masl) and within 10 km. distance from major river basins, · Second degree flood risk is defined by an elevation of 20-50 meters above sea level (masl) and comprises of 2.7 million hectares (an estimated 9.6%) of national land cover. · Third degree flood risk is defined by an elevation class of 50 -100 metres asl. and within 10 km of major rivers consists of nearly 4 million hectares; · Fourth degree flood risk is less endemic to flood risk than the other three types and it can only have an effect in some years as flood risk associated with dam water and/or regional floods.
D: Pest Infestation and their Occurrence
· Red Locust affects principally maize and attacks are more common after floods. This pest is endemic in Buzi District, Sofala Province, Dondo, Nhamatanda and Gorongoza, Gondola, Manica and Sussundenga in Manica Province.
· Green Locust is prevalent in the coastal zone in the central and northern provinces of the country, attacking rice and millet crops during the germination and early growth stages of plant development in rice and millet.
· The spiny locust is endemic in Changara District in Tete, and its effect is limited to this area.
· Army-worm is found principally in the Central Provinces of Sofala and Manica affecting maize, sorghum, rice and beans in the districts of Dondo, Nhamatanda and Gondola.
· The emergence of this pest coincides generally with dry years or low humidity, and destroys plants in the vegetative growth stage.
· Quellea birds are endemic in Gaza province, and are found principally in Chokwe District. particularly active in Cabo Delgado Province where they eat grain, which has been seeded.
· Rats also have a heavy impact on maize production in some districts in the south, mainly after inundation or dry periods. Rats destroy the ears, and can destroy 100% of the harvest of a field. In all the country, rats are the source of large losses of grain from granaries.
E. Limitation of Physical Access to Roads
F. Market Price Changes
White maize prices have risen sharply since the 1996/7 harvest, with an average increase between June and November 1997 of 92% in the 25 SIMA markets.
Sharp price rises in the Centre and Centre North of the country: · Specifically the towns of Beira, Manica, Chimoio, Tete, Quelimane and Mocuba. · The rise in this area of the country reflects primarily the heavy export trade that emerged this year to Malawi as well as probably withholding of stocks in anticipation of poor harvest next season. · Angoche, Nampula Province has also seen a sharp rise, likely associated with its switching from surplus during the harvest to deficit currently (relatively little maize is produced in and around the city of Angoche).
In contrast rice prices have been generally stable this year, with an average increase of only 3% in the 25 SIMA markets. · Quelimane (35%), Montepuez (29%) and Chokwe (26%) have shown the largest price increases.
Cassava is a crucial crop for food security, being more drought resistant than maize and with a harvest period that falls during the hungry season. Analysis of cassava prices, however is problematical for several reasons: only a small proportion of production is marketed; and trade in this product is more localised than for maize and rice.
· Prices in individual markets can rise and fall sharply, and at any point in time there may be large price differentials between different markets where prices range from less than 800 mts/kg to over 5,400 mts/kg. · And price changes from June to November range from negative 40% to positive 197%. The only general conclusion that can be drawn from the cassava data is that local cassava prices should be monitored closely in areas considered vulnerable.
White Maize Rice CassavaLocation
Price 11/97 % change since6/97
Price 11/97 % Change since6/97
Price 11/97 % Changesince 6/97
Maputo 3,166 65 4,753 0 -- --
Xai-Xai 3,041 -- 5,504 -- 5,275 --
Chokwe 3,391 54 6,954 26 -- --
Inhambane 2,906 80 5,618 5 1,725 (21)
Maxixe 2,603 84 5,712 (7) 2,118 57
Massinga 2,694 58 5,155 1 760 14
Vilanculos 2,713 49 5,769 (3) 2,472 9
Homoine 3,265 92 5,815 (1) 5,401 197
Beira 2,675 150 6,680 11 1,483 9
Caia 1,554 37 5,067 (20) -- --
Sena -- -- -- -- -- --
Manica 2,374 139 9,248 1 3,214 --
Chimoio 2,374 161 7,886 (4) 1,928 (3)
Tete 1,978 112 8,201 1 -- --
Mutarara 1,714 78 8,613 20 -- --
Quelimane 2,614 167 6,181 35 2,575 (40)
Mocuba 1,695 185 5,961 16 -- --
Nampula 1,526 82 7,855 7 907 (19)
Ribaue 965 57 8,432 (18) -- --
Monapo 1,130 73 5,427 (13) 1,978 55
Nacala 1,130 6 5,146 (3) -- --
Angoche 2,720 188 7,093 (4) 1,154 37
Pemba 1,831 59 8,328 (10) -- --
Montepuez 1,143 28 8,145 29 1,978 11
Lichinga 1,813 100 9,643 2 -- --
Mean 2,209 91 6,799 3 2,355 26
Table ---. National cash market price behaviour of maize, rice and manioc during marketing year 1997/98
Source: Sistema Nacional de Informacao de Mercados Agricolas (SIMA, MAP/DE
G. Conditions of Health and Nutrition
Principal causes of morbidity (1993 - 1996):
· Malaria, anaemia · malnutrition, pneumonia · measles, TB
Meningitis
H: Landmine Risk
· Landmine, a formidable threat to human lives, has a long history in Mozambique --- some were planted during the struggle for liberation and others during the civil war. · Two types of land mines were planted: the anti-personnel and anti-tank. · Official estimates indicate about 2 million mines throughout the country. The locations are mostly related to military defence positions along roads, military bases, and strategic locations such as bridges, factories, dams and some villages. · While agricultural land was not specifically targeted for landmine in terms of risk to food security, the fear of mines can have as great an impact as their physical existence.
II. Analysis and Results: Domestic Resource Capacity
1. Resources: Land Use
B: Food Systems of Mozambique
· The planalto (highlands) and midlands food system: · The lowland plains and coastal food system: · Major river basin food system: · The drylands and semi-arid food system:
Land Area for Different Food System of MozambiqueMajor food systems Total Area in km2 Total Area (%)
River basins 308,065 31.5
Coastal lowlands 131,684 13.4
Dry-land/semi-arid 145,728 14.9
Planalto/midlands 355,486 36.4
Planalto/highlands 35,826 3.7
Total 976,789 100.0
Livestock
Areas with high animal production potential include theprovinces of Tete, Gaza, Maputo and Inhambane consistingof 65% of cattle, 89% of swines, 96% of goats and a highpercentage of poultry.
A large portion of animal production is held as analternative source of revenues to meet specific needsespecially in the hungry season. An average of 4 to 5chickens is sold per rural family, though variable by seasonand location. A family sector livestock map would indicategreater concentration of animals in ‘dry areas’ for cropproduction, including south of Tete and Manica and mot ofGaza and Maputo.
Distribution of Cattle ownership by District
Province Major LivestockProducingDistricts
Cattle (No) %Distribution
Tete Changara 39,915 11.8%Tete Moatize 9,812 2.69%Tete Cahora-Bassa 4,567 2.47%Tete Angonia 15,019 4.69%Tete Tsangano 7,882 2.05%Gaza Manajacaze 7,833 2.23%Gaza Xai-Xai 21,247 5.33%Gaza Chokwe 14,883 4.40%Gaza Mabalane 9,968 3.06%Gaza Chicualacuala 10,356 2.51%Gaza Chibuto 12,259 2.77%
Manica Manica 17,825 4.54%Zambezia Nicoadala 9,978 4.43%
Sofala Buzi - Sofala 5,748 2.8%Maputo Moamba 8,297 2.58%
Inhambane Zavala 8,376 2.16%All otherdistricts
RemainingDistricts
158,19945.02%
TOTAL 352,164 100,00%
Cows Per Thousand Families
Red: Less than 100Yellow: 100-500Green: 500-1000Pink: > 1000
Fisheries Resources
Registered contribution of the fishery sectors in metric tons 1991 – 1996.
Sector 1991Mt %
1993Mt %
1995Mt %
1996Mt %
Industrial 19,050 74.6 12,522 65.2 17,2 17 69.1 16,281 46.6Semi-Industrial
941 3.7 2,834 14.7 4,181 16.8 7,123 20.4
Artesian 5,544 21.7 3,839 20.0 3,512 14.1 11,511 32.9Total 25,535 100.0 19,195 100.0 24,913 100. 34,915 100.0
No. Of boats & labour engagement in fish catch by provinceProvince No.
Boats
% Permanentworkers
% Temporaryworkers
% Fishermenwithoutboat
%
Niassa 962 7.55 3085 5.83 1438 17.74 2046 9.80Cabodelgado
2035 15.97 6624 12.51 2781 34.30 8073 38.67
Nampula 3176 24.93 19229 36.33 1961 24.19 2289 10.96Zambézia 1946 15.27 5460 10.32 380 4.69 552 2.64Tete 901 7.07 1287 2.43 109 1.34 46 0.22Manica 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0Sofala 1501 11.78 7873 14.87 SI SI SI SIInhambane
1085 8.52 5043 9.53 993 12.25 5222 25.01
Gaza 651 5.11 2492 4.71 47 0.58 325 1.56Maputo 483 3.79 1838 3.47 399 4.92 2323 11.13Total 1274
0100.00
52931 100.00
8108 100.00
20876 100.00
Gender and Fish CollectionProvince No. Men No. Women % WomenNiassa 100 0 0Cabo Delgado 3854 4532 54.04Nampula 2048 4331 67.89Zambezia 5 36 87.80Tete 0 0 0Manica 0 0 0Sofala 209 100 32.36Inhambane 1844 3002 61.95Gaza 20 9 31.03Maputo 2183 450 17.09Total 10263 12460
Red indicates high numbersof centers while Blue indicateslow numbers of centers
Other Sources Of Income:
Petty trading
Is one of the more important sources of income for poorfamilies, with on average 34% of income being obtainedfrom this source. This category includes sale ofmanufactured goods (cigarettes, soap, fuel etc.) locallyproduced alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and crafts.
Ganho-ganho
Is a form of exchange of labour for food or cash. Thisexchange normally takes place between kin or neighbours.On average poor households obtain 18% of their cashincome from ganho-ganho. Ganho-ganho as a source ofincome is most important in Cabo Delgado, Tete andMaputo Provinces. In these areas ganho-ganho is alsoimportant as a source of food. Ganho-ganho is normallyused for agricultural tasks, therefore if there is a reductionin agricultural activities (e.g. through drought) then incomefrom ganho-ganho would also be reduced. Thus thedistricts in the south and Tete would be most affected inthis way.
Sale of food and or cash crops
Is not an important source of income for poor families. Onaverage 14% of income is received from this source. Aswould be expected, the areas with greater productivepotential are the ones where poor families obtain incomefrom the sale of crops.
Firewood collection and charcoal production
Poor households receive 9% of their income from Firewoodand charcoal sales are more important for poor familiesclose to cities: Maputo, Pemba and Tete; the BeiraCorridor; and in districts bordering neighbouring countries:e.g. Mutarara, and Mechanelas. While this source ofincome may not be affected by drought, an increaseddependence on it (through existing families intensifying theactivity or additional families engaging in the activity)could provoke environmental problems.
Remittance and other sources of transfer
Include gifts, donations, begging, and remittances. ItRepresents 7% of income for poor households. It isinteresting to note that this data from the profiles appears toindicate that even in the southern parts of the country whichhistorically been involved in migrant labour; this sourcedoes not represent more than 25% of income for poorfamilies. This may reflect lower participation in migrantlabour practices among poorer households.
Employment
On average 6% of income is obtained from formalemployment. Even in districts close to cities, poor familiesappear not to rely heavily on this source.
3. Assessment of Food Access: District Level staple Food Production.
A. Analysis of District Food Production
Month of self-provisioningcapacity
No. & % distributionof districts
Contribution of ownproduction
< 6 months 20 (15.5%) Very poor6 – 9 months 20 (15.5%) Poor9 – 12 months 14 (11.0%) Low to average> 12 months 75 (58.0%) High (Surplus)
(i) Districts with very poor food production (less than 6 months)
Table --- Districts with very low staple food production (less than 6 months)Explanatory FactorsNo. Regional
LocationDistricts Months of
self-provisioning
Location infood system
Risk factors
1 GAZA Chokwe 1.90 Dry landfood system
Flood effect
2 TETE Mutarara 2.13 River basin Flood effect3 GAZA Massangena 3.41 Dry lands Moisture stress4 GAZA Massangir 3.85 Dry land Moisture stress5 TETE Magoe 3.89 Dry land/
river basinMoisture stress +flood effect
6 MAPUTO Boane 3.93 Coastal Flood effect7 SOFALA Chemba 4.00 Coastal Flood effect8 GAZA Mabalane 4.01 Dry land Moisture stress9 GAZA Xai-Xai 4.09 Coastal Moisture stress +
flood10 GAZA Chigubo 4.21 Dry land Moisture stress11 CABO
DELGADO Ibo 4.34 Island???
(Coastal)12 GAZA
Chicualacuala4.53 Dry land Moisture stress
13 INHAMBANE Mabote 4.68 Dry land Moisture stress14 MAPUTO Marracuene 5.06 Coastal Moisture stress +
flood15 MAPUTO Moamba 5.43 Dry land Moisture stress16 INHAMBANE Govuro 5.52 Dry land Moisture stress17 SOFALA Cheringoma 5.74 Coastal Moisture stress +
???18 TETE Changara 5.76 Dry land Moisture stress +
pest19 SOFALA Maringue 5.92 ???? Pests20 GAZA Guija 5.99 Dry land +
river basinMoisture stress
(ii). Districts with poor staple food production (6 to 9 months)
Table --- Districts with low food production (6 to 9 months)Explanatory FactorsNo. Regional
LocationDistricts Months of
self-provisioning
Location inFood System
Risk Factors
1 MAPUTO Manhica 6.00 Coastal Flood2 ZAMBEZIA Chinde 6.27 Coastal + river
basinFlood
3 SOFALA Muanza 6.29 Coastal ???4 SOFALA Chibabava 6.38 Dry land Moisture
stress5 SOFALA Caia 6.48 River basin Flood6 MAPUTO Matutuine 6.51 Coastal + dry
land???
7 SOFALA Buzi 6.72 Coastal + riverbasin
Flood, pest
8 SOFALA Marromeu 6.75 Coastal ???9 MAPUTO Namaacha 6.80 ??? ??10 NAMPULA Nacala 7.04 Coastal Flood11 GAZA Chibuto 7.07 River basin +
dry land??
12 INHAMBANE Inhassoro 7.14 Coastal + dryland
???
13 INHAMBANE Vilankulo 7.43 Coastal + dryland
???
14 GAZA Bilene -Macia
7.43 Coastal
15 MAPUTO Magude 7.45 Dry land Moisturestress
16 SOFALA Gorongosa 7.68 River basin +planalto
17 INHAMBANE Funhalouro 8.10 Dry land18 SOFALA Machanga 8.20 Coastal + river
basin19 TETE Cahora-
Bassa8.80 Dry land Flood
20 SOFALA Nhamatanda 8.80 Coastal
(iii). Districts with low to average staple food production (9 to 12 months)
Table --- Districts with low to average food production (9 to 12 months)Explanatory FactorsNo. Regional Location Districts Months of
self-provisioning
Location in FoodSystem
Risk Factors
1 TETE Zumbu 9.03 Planalto Pests2 ZAMBEZIA Nicoadala 9.12 Coastal Pests3 ZAMBEZIA Inhassunge 9.50 Coastal Flood + moisture
stress4 GAZA Mandlakazi 9.59 Coastal Flood + moisture
stress5 INHAMBANE Massinga 9.80 Coastal + dry land6 ZAMBEZIA Mopeia 9.94 River basin Flood7 CABO DELGADO Muidumbe 9.95 Coastal + planalto +
river basin8 TETE Moatize 9.95 Dry land9 CABO DELGADO Palma 10.23 Coastal + river basin10 INHAMBANE Panda 10.94 ??? Moisture stress + pests11 MANICA Tambara 11.21 ?? Pests12 SOFALA Dondo 11.51 River basin + ??? Flood + pest13 ZAMBEZIA Gurue 11.61 ??? Pests14 ZAMBEZIA Mocuba 11.68 ?? ???
(iv). Districts with high staple food production (more than 12months)
All the rest of the districts, that is 75 districts, obtained an averageproduction that sustains self-provisioning for more than 12 months.
Those districts with less than 6 months staple food crop production can be further classified as follows:
1. Those where although staple food crop production is low, households are accustomed to relying on purchasing a significant proportion of their staple food needs. Those districts that have a more diversified income together with reasonable market access include Chokwe and Boane. Districts, which are dependent on market purchases but have low non-agricultural income include Marracuene and Moamba. The districts in this category do not face widespread malnutrition problems.
2. Those where animal production, remittances and fishing play an important role Massangena, Changara, Chicualacuala, Xai-Xai and Moamba. These districts also have a dependency on coping strategies such as ganho-ganho, donations, and consumption of wild plants and fruits. These districts do encounter nutritional problems, in particular in drought years. Cases of vitamin C deficiencies have been reported in Moamba, and in Changara, pellagra and vitamin A deficiency.
3. Those with extreme market isolation problems Magoe, Chemba, Mabalene, Chicualacuala, Govuro, Maringue, Massangena, Mabote, Chigubo and Cheringoma. Districts which normally encounter malnutrition include Magoe, Chemba, Maringue and Cheringoma which has had cases of pellagra and vitamin C deficiency reported; in drought years problems occur in Chicualacuala, Massangena, Mabote and Chigubo. 4. Those where there is substantial production variation within the district, e.g. Mutuarara, Guija and Masingir. This implies the need for intra-district targeting. Masingir has reported micro-nutriente deficiencies; and Mutarara has general problems with malnutrition.
2. An Approach to Targeting
¨ Here we are proposing to introduce an event-driven targeting of scarce resources. Targeting must consider variations within a given situation as vulnerability generated by different disaster event has different economic, social and environmental impacts.
Targeting Objectives:
· Allocating food and other resources to populations that face emergency conditions and their survival is threatened;· Assisting population in absolute poverty and whose livelihood system has been eroded over time through food and other resources; · Providing non-food resources to poor populations to improve their food access and utilisation;· Providing non-food resources for improved national food availability;
Levels of targeting: · geographic, · community and · specific household /gender targeting. · However, due to limited data availability and the need to conduct an in-depth analysis of vulnerability issues, the discussion of initial framework for targeting is limited to geographic targeting with limited highlights about group targeting.
III. Conclusions, Responses and Interventions
1. Conclusions: Key Features of Food Insecure Districts
The following key issue standout from the analysis:
1. The study acknowledges the fact that agricultural production and other data, in its present form, does not provide a complete picture of food availability and access. The significance of second season crop production, livestock, fishery and other sources of income for many districts in the country cannot be over emphasised. For example, limited assessment of second season crop suggests that the season provide, on average 20 - 40% of 1st season production. In future crop sector analysis, the government of Mozambique should seriously consider assessing second season crop assessment into its national food balance sheet on a regular basis. Also, future VA analysis should take this into consideration.2. The analysis also suggests that food crop production is very important for the economy but is not the only determinant of vulnerability. Fishery, cash crop production, petty trading, livestock rearing, hunting and labour migration is important. It should, however, be noted that there is a significant variation of these alternative incomes between households and districts. This is determined by households' location in a particular food system or location in a particular geographic areas (access to South African mine industry).3. Current analysis suggests that large number of districts are vulnerable to both transitory and chronic food insecurity, even in years of better than average climatic regimes.
Current Vegetation Analysis: Sample OutputsDecember 1991 December 1997
January 1992 January 1998Areas shaded in redshow MUCH BELOWNORMAL vegetation
Price Changes between Sep 1997 and Dec 1997
Red and Yellow indicateareas where prices are greater than 125% of September prices inDecember
Price change in Major Cities (dec-Sep 97)
Cabo Delagado,Nampula, Niassa,and Zambezia showhigh price changes
Current Flood Risk: Sample output (1996/97)
