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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 (%

)


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 (%

)


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


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


Pro

po

r�o

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)


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


Pro

po

r�o

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Pro

po

r�o

n o

f h

ou

seh

old

s (%

)


• 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


Po

pu

la�

on


• 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%


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


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


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%


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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).


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.


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

[email protected]

Banda Mirriam

Food and Nutri�on Council

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

Rongai Machinga


Development

[email protected]

Perpetual Nyadenga


[email protected]

Carol Mukanduri


[email protected]

Lloyd Chadzingwa


[email protected]

Arnold Damba

ZIMSTAT

[email protected]

Mildred Mapani

Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare

[email protected]

Ruramai

Mpande

Ministry of Primary and Secondary Educa�on

[email protected]

Siboniso

Chigova


[email protected]

216

Name Organisa�on Email

Shamiso Chikobvu Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisa�on and Irriga�on

Development

[email protected]

Alfa Ndlovu Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]

Yvonne Mavhunga Food and Nutri�on Council [email protected]

Rutendo Nyahoda


Development

[email protected]

Disalice Kunaka

Ministry of Rural Development, Promo�on and

Preserva�on of Na�onal Culture and Heritage

[email protected]

Innocent Mangwiro


[email protected]

Kudzi Mukudoka

UNICEF

[email protected]

Tinashe Sande

UNWOMEN

�[email protected]

Themba Nduna

USAID

[email protected]

Shupikai Zimuto

UNDP

[email protected]

Tendai Mugara

FAO

[email protected]

Angela Kafembe

FEWSNET

[email protected]

Report Wri�ng Team

217

Overall Coordina�on Team

• George D. Kembo

• Blessing Butaumocho

• Yvonne Mavhunga

218

Supported by

Date post:	05-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC ......Agricultural Commodity Prices..... 81...

Documents