Manicaland Province Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report

ZimVAC is coordinated by the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) housed at SIRDC: 1574 Alpes Road, Hatcliffe, Harare

Tel: +263-242-862586/ +263-242-862025. Website: www.fnc.org.zw. Email: info@fnc.org.zw

Twitter: @FNCZimbabwe. Instagram: fnc_zim. Facebook: @FNCZimbabwe.

ForewordIn its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrition security for all people at all times’, the Government of Zimbabwe continues to exhibit its

commitment towards reducing food and nutrition insecurity, poverty and improving livelihoods amongst the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe through

operationalization of Commitment 6 of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP). Under the coordination of the Food and Nutrition Council, the Zimbabwe

Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) undertook the 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment, the 21st since its inception. ZimVAC is a technical advisory committee

comprised of representatives from Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. Through its assessments, ZimVAC continues to

collect, synthesize and disseminate high quality information on the food and nutrition security situation in a timely manner.

The 2021 RLA was motivated by the need to provide credible and timely data to inform progress of commitments in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS 1) and

inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people in both their short and long-term vulnerability context. Furthermore, as the ‘new normal’ under

COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, the assessment sought to provide up to date information on how rural food systems

and livelihoods have been impacted by the pandemic. The report covers thematic areas which include the following: education, food and income sources, income levels,

expenditure patterns, food security, COVID-19, WASH, social protection and gender-based violence, among other issues.

Our sincere appreciation goes to the ZimVAC as well as the food and nutrition security structures at both provincial and district levels for successfully carrying out the

survey. These structures continue to exhibit great commitment towards ensuring that every Zimbabwean remains free from hunger and malnutrition. We also extend our

appreciation to Government and Development Partners for the financial support and technical leadership which made the assessment a resounding success. The

collaboration of the rural communities of Zimbabwe as well as the rural local authorities is sincerely appreciated. The leadership, coordination and management of the

whole assessment displayed by the staff at the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) is also greatly appreciated.

We submit this report to you for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasting measures in addressing priority

issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity.

George D. Kembo (DR.)

FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson2

Table of Contents

3

Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………..……………………………………………….…..2Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………..……………………………………………….…….…….4Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..…………..…..6Background and Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………….……………………..………………………7Assessment Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..………………11Assessment Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………17Demographic Description of the Sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..……………………….27Education …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….................. …………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..……………………….33Chronic Illness…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36Social Protection …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..…42Agricultural Production ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..………………………………………………..………………………….48Incomes and Expenditure ……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………..…………………..………………..95Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………100Food Safety…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….111Access to Services and Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....118ISALS and Loans…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….137Food Consumption Patterns…………………………………………………………………….……………..……..………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………..……….……………………………………...143Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..………………….153Complementary Feeding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………………..……………….158Child Nutrition Status………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…162Gender Based Violence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..167COVID-19 and Livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………………………. ………………………………………………………………………….173Shocks and Stressors……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..………………………..…..………………………………179Development Challenges……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….184Food Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….187Conclusions and Recommendations …..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..……………………………………………………....……….198

Acknowledgements

• Office of the President and Cabinet

• Food and Nutrition Council

• SIRDC

• Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

• Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Waterand Rural Resettlement

• Ministry of Public Service, Labour and SocialWelfare

• Ministry of Health and Child Care

• Ministry of Local Government, Public Works andNational Housing

• Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Smalland Medium Enterprise Development

• Public Service Commission

• Ministry of Health and Child Care

• United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

• Zimbabwe Defence Forces

• Mercy Corps

• United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

• United Nations Development Programme- ZRBF

• UNFPA-Spotlight Initiative

• Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

• Progress

• United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)

• Sizimele

• MELANA

• Coordinamento Delle Organizzazioni Peril ServizioVolontario (COSV)

• Local Initiatives and Development Agency (LID)

• Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA)

• Caritas

• World Vision

• Lutheran Development Services (LDS)

• Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe

• MAVAMBO

• Rural District Councils (RDCs)

• Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger andMalnutrition (REACH)

• Bindura University of Science Education

• Marondera University of Agricultural Sciencesand Technology

• Hand in Hand

• Care International

• Tsuro

• Welthungerhilfe (WHH)

• GOAL

• Plan International

• Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT)

• Mwenezi Development Training Centre(MDTC)

• Nutrition Action Zimbabwe (NAZ)

• Africa Ahead

• Action Aid

• CARITAS Harare

The technical and financial support received from the following is greatly appreciated:

4

Acknowledgement of Support

ZIMBABWE

5

Acronyms

EA Enumeration Area

FNC Food and Nutrition Council

FNSP Food and Nutrition Security Policy

FNSIS Food and Nutrition Security Information System

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

HHS Household Hunger Score

NNS National Nutrition Survey

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee

6

Introduction and Background

7

Introduction

• ZimVAC livelihoods assessments’ results continue to be an important tool for informing and guiding policies

and programmes that respond to the prevailing food and nutrition security situation. To date, 21 rural and 8

urban livelihoods updates have been produced.

• ZimVAC plays a significant role in fulfilling Commitment Six, of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP)

(GoZ, 2012), in which the “Government of Zimbabwe is committed to ensuring a national integrated food

and nutrition security information system that provides timely and reliable information on the food and

nutrition security situation and the effectiveness of programmes and informs decision-making”.

• It has become mandatory for FNC to coordinate annual livelihoods updates with the technical support of

ZimVAC.

8

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)

ZimVAC is a consortium of Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. It was established

in 2002 and is led and regulated by Government. It is chaired by FNC, a department in the Office of the President and Cabinet

whose mandate is to promote a multi-sectoral response to food insecurity and nutrition problems in a manner that ensures that

every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutrition.

ZimVAC supports Government, particularly FNC in:

• Convening and coordinating national food and nutrition security issues in Zimbabwe

• Charting a practical way forward for fulfilling legal and existing policy commitments in food and nutrition security

• Advising Government on the strategic direction in food and nutrition security

• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and supporting and facilitating action to ensure sector commitments in food and nutrition are

kept on track through a number of core functions such as:

▪ Undertaking food and nutrition assessments, analysis and research;

▪ Promoting multi-sectoral and innovative approaches for addressing food and nutrition insecurity, and:

▪ Supporting and building national capacity for food and nutrition security including at sub-national levels.

9

Assessment Rationale• The performance of the agricultural season, with the disruption of food systems and markets, the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the prevailing

macro-economic environment has affected the livelihoods of the rural population.

• The impact on the livelihoods, which has ripple effects on household wellbeing outcomes, had not been quantified and ascertained hence the

need to carry out a livelihoods assessment.

• The assessment results will be used to:

• Inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people, given the prevailing situation in the country as well as their long

term vulnerability context.

• Inform short, medium and long term interventions that address immediate and long term needs as well as building resilient livelihoods.

• Monitor and report towards commitments within the guiding frameworks of existing national food and nutrition policies and strategies

among them the National Development Strategy 1, the Food and Nutrition Security Policy and the Zero Hunger Strategy.

• Monitor interventions to ensure adherence to the principles spelt out in regional and international frameworks which Zimbabwe has

committed itself to which include the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the SDGs.

• Guide early warning for early action 10

Purpose

The overall purpose of the assessment was to provide an annual update on livelihoods in Zimbabwe’s rural

areas, for the purposes of informing policy formulation and programming appropriate interventions.

11

ObjectivesThe specific objectives of the assessment were:

• To estimate the population that is likely to be food insecure in the 2021/22 consumption year, their geographic distribution and the severityof their food insecurity.

• Assess impact and severity of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods.

• To assess the nutrition status of children of 6 – 59 months.

• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteristics as their demographics, access to basic services(education, health services and water and sanitation facilities), assets, income sources, incomes and expenditure patterns, food consumptionpatterns and consumption coping strategies.

• To determine the coverage of humanitarian and developmental interventions in the country.

• To identify development priorities for communities.

• To determine the effects of shocks experienced by communities on food and nutrition security.

• To measure household resilience and identify constraints to improving their resilience.

• To identify early recovery needs in order to determine short to long term recovery strategies.

12

Background• The 2021 RLA was undertaken against a continuously evolving food and nutrition security situation.

• The Government came up with the National Development Strategy 1:2021-2025 (NDS1) towards the end of 2020. The overarching goal of NDS1 is to ensure high,

accelerated, inclusive and sustainable economic growth as well as socio-economic transformation and development as we move towards an upper middle-income

society by 2030.

• One of the priority areas for the NDS1 is Food and Nutrition Security. NDS1 seeks to improve food self-sufficiency and to retain the regional breadbasket status. The

main objective is to increase food self-sufficiency from the current level of 45% to 100% and reduce food insecurity from the high of 59% recorded in 2019 to less

than 10% by 2025.

• Agriculture as one of the key economic sectors and fundamental to the projected economic growth had a good 2020/21 rainfall season. The season recorded an

increase in the area planted to maize at 1 951 848 Ha of land owing to the overwhelming support by Government and the private sector. The total cereal

production was 3 075 538 MT against a national cereal requirement of 1 797 435 MT for human and livestock 450 000 MT consumption.

• The rains received improved livestock condition, drinking water availability for livestock and pasture quality and availability. However the incessant rains increased

tick borne diseases.

• With the majority of the rural population’s livelihoods mostly influenced by agriculture (both crops and livestock), the experienced climate related shocks have

implications on access to food and the nutrition status of children.

13

• Poverty continues to be one of the major underlying causes of vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity as well as precarious

livelihoods in Zimbabwe. According to the ZIMSTAT Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2017 Report, 70.5% of the

population were poor whilst 29.3% were deemed extremely poor. The official exchange rates have remained stable, while basic food prices

are on an increase. Year on year inflation for April 2021 was at 194.1%.

• The new normal under COVID-19 has implications on food security and nutrition. Globally, food supply chains have been disrupted due to

lockdowns triggered by the global health crisis, but also a major global economic slowdown. This has led to lower incomes and higher food

prices, making food out of reach for vulnerable households.

• The impact of the pandemic, amidst other shocks, has caused significant deterioration and erosion of livelihoods and productive assets,

food security and nutrition of vulnerable households. The closure of rural food and livestock markets affected the incomes of rural

livelihoods.

• The vulnerable rural households have little to nothing to cushion the effects of the shock (pandemic). They experience market failures and

have little or no access to formal insurance and credit and risk management mechanisms. The vulnerable households have challenges in

accessing liquidity, worsened by reduced casual wage labour opportunities and the closure of informal markets, where they tend to sell

production.

Background

14

Background

• The enforcement of social distancing combined with the covariate nature of the crisis will likely overwhelm and/or reduce

the rural households’ access to traditional community networks and institutions of social reciprocity, which have historically

provided a safety net in times of crisis.

15

Assessment Methodology

16

Methodology – Assessment Design• The assessment was a cross-sectional study whose

design was guided and informed by the Food and

Nutrition Security Conceptual framework (Figure 1),

which Zimbabwe adopted in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012), and

the conceptual framework on food security dimensions

propounded by Jones et al. (2013).

• The assessment was also guided and informed by the

resilience framework (figure 2) so as to influence the

early recovery of households affected by various

shocks.

• The assessment looked at food availability and access

as pillars that have confounding effects on food

security as defined in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012).

• Accordingly, the assessment measured the amount of

energy available to a household from all its potential

sources hence the primary sampling unit for the

assessment was the household.Figure 1: Food and Nutrition Conceptual Framework

17

Figure 2: Zimbabwe resilience framework (UNDP Zimbabwe, 2015)

18

19

Methodology – Assessment Process• ZimVAC, through multi-stakeholder consultations, developed an appropriate assessment design concept note and data collection tools

informed by the assessment objectives.

• The primary data collection tools used in the assessment were the android–based structured household questionnaire and the

community Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide.

• ZimVAC national supervisors (including Provincial Agritex Extension Officers and Provincial Nutritionists) and enumerators were

recruited from Government, United Nations, Technical partners and Non-Governmental Organisations. These underwent training in all

aspects of the assessment. In order to minimise risk of spreading COVID-19, training for both supervisors and enumerators was done

virtually.

• The Ministry of Health and Child Care was the lead ministry in the development of the Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC)

guidelines which guided processes from survey planning to data collection.

• The Ministry of Local Government, through the Provincial Development Coordinators’ offices coordinated the recruitment of district

level enumerators and mobilisation of provincial supervision and district enumeration vehicles. Enumerators for the current

assessment were drawn from an already existing database of those who participated in one or two previous ZimVAC assessments. Four

enumerators were selected from each district for data collection. In selected districts, two additional enumerators were recruited as

anthropometrists.20

Methodology – Assessment Process

• Primary data collection took place from 3 to 20 July, 2021. In recognising the risk of spreading COVID-19 during data collection,

innovative approaches were used to collect vital information without causing any harm. The RLA was guided by global and

country specific recommendations and all necessary precautions were taken to avoid potential transmission of COVID-19

between enumerators and community members.

• In order to reduce exposure to COVID-19 through person to person physical contact, primary caregivers were capacitated to

measure their children using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tapes and assessment of oedema. In the case of

anthropometrists recruited from MoHCC, additional appropriate PPE was provided (gloves, disposable plastic aprons) to

enable them to measure participants aged 5 to 19 years in twenty selected districts.

• Data analysis and report writing ran from 23 May to 3 June 2021. Various secondary data sources and field observations were

used to contextualise the analysis and reporting.

21

Methodology - Sampling and Sample Size • Household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator to

determine the sample to ensure 95% confidence level of statistical

representativeness at district, provincial and national level.

• The survey collected data from 1500 randomly selected Enumerated Areas

(EAs):

• A two staged cluster sampling was used and comprised of;

• Sampling of 25 clusters per each of the 60 rural districts, denoted as

EAs in this assessment, from the Zimbabwe Statistics Agency

(ZIMSTAT) 2012 master sampling frame using the PPS methodology

• The second stage involved the systematic random sampling of 10

households per EA (village).

• At most, 250 households were interviewed per district, bringing the total

sampled households to 1741.

• 5 FGDs were held per district.

Districts Number of Sampled

Households

Buhera 252

Chimanimani 249

Chipinge 246

Makoni 250

Mutare 252

Mutasa 248

Nyanga 244

Manicaland 1741

22

Methodology – Sampled Wards

23

Data Preparation and Analysis

• Primary data was transcribed using CSEntry on android gadgets and using CSPro. It was consolidated and converted into

SPSS, STATA and DBF datasets for:

• Household structured interviews

• Community Focus Group Discussions

• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, STATA, ENA, Microsoft Excel and GIS packages.

• Analyses of the different thematic areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant local and

international frameworks, where they exist.

• Gender, as a cross cutting issue, was recognised throughout the analysis.

24

Technical Scope

• Education

• Health

• WASH

• Nutrition

• Agriculture and other rural livelihoods activities

• Food security

• Resilience

• Social protection

• Linkages amongst the key sectoral and thematic

areas

• Cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability

The 2021 RLA collected and analysed information on the following thematic areas:

25

Assessment Findings

26

Demographic Description of the Sample

27

Household Characteristics: Household Size

• The average household size was 4.3

District Average Minimum MaximumBuhera 4.8 1.0 11.0

Chimanimani 4.9 1.0 15.0

Chipinge 4.6 1.0 20.0

Makoni 4.0 1.0 11.0

Mutare 4.7 1.0 10.0

Mutasa 3.8 1.0 9.0

Nyanga 3.6 1.0 9.0

Manicaland 4.3 1.0 20.0

28

Characteristics of Household Head: Sex and Age

• About 66.4% of the households were male headed.

• The average household head age was 51.9 which is within the productive age group.

Household Head Sex % Household Head Average Age

District Male FemaleAverage

MinimumBuhera 72.2 27.8 50.1 20.0

Chimanimani 64.3 35.7 52.8 20.0

Chipinge 65.0 35.0 48.5 16.0

Makoni 64.4 35.6 62.8 20.0

Mutare 66.3 33.7 50.1 22.0

Mutasa 66.5 33.5 49.6 19.0

Nyanga 66.0 34.0 49.2 18.0

Manicaland 66.4 33.6 51.9 16.0

29

Characteristics of Household Head: Education Level Attained

4

1316

6

18

4

12 10

28 3035

46

37

2723

32

24

1720

1410

1812

16

4238

2733 34

46 47

38

1 1 1 0 2 3 4 22 2 1 1 0 2 3 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

He

ad (

%)

None Primary level ZJC level O' level A' level Above A' Level

• Nyanga had the highest proportion of household heads who had attained O’ level education and above (54%).30

Characteristics of Household Head: Marital Status

• A higher proportion of household heads were married and living together, 64% while 21% were widowed.

• Chimanimani had the highest proportion of household heads who were widowed 27%.

7465 66

5763 60 60 64

6

26

8

810 7

7

2

5

7

83 8

55

17

2719

26 23 20

1821

1 2 2 2 2 210

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s H

ead

s (%

)

Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widowed Never married

31

Characteristics of Household Head: ReligionRoman Catholic

(%)

Protestant

(%)

Pentecostal

(%)

Apostolic Sect (%)

Zion

(%)

Other Christian

(%)

Islam

(%)

Traditional

(%)

Other religion

(%)

No religion

(%)

Buhera

5.6 5.6 12.4 53.0 8.4 4.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 10.0

Chimanimani

4.0 22.2 19.8 23.8 16.5 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.4 10.1

Chipinge

3.7 3.3 11.9 32.4 19.7 1.6 0.0 1.2 6.1 20.1

Makoni

16.9 28.5 14.1 29.3 0.0 4.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 5.6

Mutare

2.8 19.0 9.1 44.0 8.3 4.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 11.1

Mutasa

6.0 8.5 13.7 40.3 6.0 12.9 0.8 0.4 2.4 8.9

Nyanga

21.1 8.9 21.5 30.8 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.8 12.7

Manicaland

8.5 13.8 14.6 36.3 8.7 4.5 0.5 0.5 1.4 11.2

• The majority of household heads were of the Apostolic Sect, 36.3% with Buhera having the highest proportion at 53%.

32

Education

33

School Attendance

84 82 82 80 82 8279

82

62

36

65

41

61

39

16

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Currently going to school Ever sent away from school during the first term because of non- payment of fees

• In the province, 18% of the children were not going to school.

• Of the children that were sent away due to non-payment of fees, the highest proportion was in Chipinge, 65%.

34

Major Reasons for Children Not Being in School

Illness

(%)

Work for food or money

(%)

Not interested in school

(%)

Distance to school too

far (%)

No food at home

(%)

Expensive or no

money(%)

Child considered too young

(%)

Pregnancy/marriage

(%)

Expelled from

school(%)

Completed O/A level

(%)

Non-payment of

last term school fees

(%)Buhera 3.8 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 15.4 34.6 7.7 0.0 15.4 0.0

Chimanimani 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0

Chipinge 0.0 6.7 0.0 13.3 6.7 13.3 0.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

Makoni 4.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 18.2 22.7 27.3 4.5 9.1 0.0

Mutare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 29.2 12.5 0.0 29.2 0.0

Mutasa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0

Nyanga 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5

Manicaland 1.8 1.8 3.6 2.7 0.9 14.4 23.4 13.5 1.8 13.5 0.9

• The major reasons for children not being in school were child considered too young, 23.4% and expensive or no money, 14.4%.

• The highest proportion of children considered too young was in Mutasa, 57.1%.35

Chronic Illnesses

36

Households with Members who had Confirmed Chronic Conditions

3.6 5.4 4.3

12.8

5.28.2 5.7 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• At least 6.3% of the households at provincial level had members who had confirmed chronic conditions.

• Makoni district (12.8%) had the highest proportion.

37

District HIV infection,

AIDS

(%)

Heart disease

(%)

Diabetes, high

blood sugar(%)

Asthma

(%)

Hypertension, High

blood pressure

(%)

Arthritis, chronic

body pain

(%)

Tuberculosis

(%)

Kidney diseases

(%)

Ulcer, chronic

stomach pain(%)

Other

(%)

Cancer

(%)

Stroke

(%)

Buhera36 14 6 6 12 10 8 2 2 4 0 0

Chimanimani

16.7 5.1 16.7 10.3 32.1 2.6 2.6 0 0 6.4 1.3 3.8Chipinge

18.6 10.2 32.2 5.1 25.4 0 1.7 0 1.7 1.7 3.4 0Makoni

29 3.9 21.3 6.5 21.9 4.5 0 0 3.2 3.9 2.6 1.3Mutare

29.9 1.3 9.1 9.1 36.4 2.6 1.3 0 1.3 3.9 1.3 0Mutasa

31.5 2.2 10.9 3.3 39.1 2.2 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 2.2Nyanga

25.5 3.6 25.5 9.1 21.8 1.8 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0Province

27 4.9 17.5 6.9 27.6 3.4 1.4 0.4 2.3 3.9 1.4 1.2

Proportion of Households with Members who had Chronic Illnesses

• Of those with chronic illnesses , the highest proportion of chronically ill household members had hypertension (27.6%) and HIV and AIDS

infections (27%).

• Those members with diabetes were highest in Chipinge district (32.2%) whilst cancer was high in Chipinge (3.4%). 38

HIV Positive Members who Received Support

16.7

38.9

14.3

41.2

16.9

33.7

48.8 47.2

31.3

4.20

3.6 5.9

02.9

0 1.9 2

75

55.6

76.8

47.1

75.3

63.5

5047.2

63.1

4.2 5.6 5.40

5.20 1.3 1.9 2.6

0 0 0

5.92.6

0 0 1.9 0.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Food aid Cash transfer for care givers Counselling sessions/ home visits School support Vocational training

• Nationally, of those members that had HIV/AIDS, the majority received support in the form of counselling sessions/home visits (63.1%).

• For Manicaland, the proportion of those who received support was also high for counselling sessions/home visits (75%).39

Chronically Ill Persons Who Missed Medication

21.7

13.8

24

35.2

22.2

13.8

21.2 23.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• The proportion of households with a chronically ill member who missed their medication in the province was 23.1%.

40

Reasons for Missing Medication

52.7

10.1

8.9

7.7

4.1

4.1

3.6

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Medication too expensive and could not afford

Did not have the required currency to purchase

Lack of transport to go and collect the drugs

No money to pay for transport

Failed to follow the instructions for taking the medicines

Failure to access the health facility for more medication

Other

Was not interested

Proportion of Households (%)

• The main reasons for missing medication by the chronically ill were medication too expensive so could not afford (52.7%), did not have the

required currency to purchase (10.1%) and lack of transport to go and collect the drugs (8.9%).41

Social Protection

42

Households that Received Any Form of Support

7882

56

8278

52

73 71

5962

78 80

6762

67 68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

2020 2021

• The proportion of households that received any form of support reduced from 71% in 2020 to 68% in 2021.

• Makoni (80%) and Chipinge (78%) had the highest proportion of households which received any form of support.

43

Peak Hunger Period Support

3538

31

54 53

32

58

43

35

18

41

22

35

4

24 26

1410

18 18

27

3

2116

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

GVT UN/NGO Both Gvt & UN/NGO

• Government and development partners provided support in all districts.

• The proportion of households which received support from both government and development partners was highest in Mutare (27%)

and lowest in Mutasa (3%).

44

Sources of Support

Government Support

(%)

UN/NGO Support

(%)

Church Support

(%)

Rural Relatives

(%)

Urban Relatives

(%)

Diaspora

( %)

Charitable Groups

( %)

Buhera33 34 3 4 4 1 2

Chimanimani42 25 9 14 10 5 13

Chipinge34 41 11 24 15 7 9

Makoni70 23 10 20 26 11 3

Mutare54 35 9 8 9 2 2

Mutasa39 5 7 5 12 5 21

Nyanga60 22 3 12 9 3 3

Manicaland 47 27 7 12 12 5 7

• The main source of support in the province was from Government (47%) followed by UN/NGO agencies (27%).

• Makoni (70%) had the highest proportion of households which received support from government.

45

Forms of Support from GovernmentDistrict Food

(%)

Cash

(%)

Crop

input

(%)

Livestock

support:

pass-on

(%)

Livestock

support:

Teak grease

(%)

Other

Livestock

support

(%)

WASH

inputs

(%)

Weather

and

Climate

(%)

COVID -19

related

support

(%)

Other

(%)

Buhera 89.1 4.3 34.5 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 1.1

Chimanimani 68.9 4.7 24.5 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 8.5

Chipinge 61 11 40.2 1.2 3.7 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

Makoni 28.1 7.9 85.4 0 1.1 0 7.9 13.5 16.3 0.6

Mutare 80.9 19.1 49.3 0.7 3.7 0 11 0.7 0.7 0

Mutasa 11.6 2.1 86.3 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.2

Nyanga 60.7 0 75.9 0 22.1 0.7 2.1 0 2.8 0.7

Manicaland 55.6 7.2 60.2 0.2 5 0.2 4.6 3.4 4.4 2

• The major form of support received in the province was crop inputs (60.2%) and food assistance (55.6%) .

• Mutasa had the highest proportion of households (86.3%) which received crop inputs support whilst Chimanimani received the least support

(24.5%). 46

Forms of Support From UN/NGOsFood

(%)

Cash

(%)

Crop inputs

(%)

Livestock support: pass-on

(%)

Livestock support: Teak

grease

(%)

Other livestock support

(%)

WASH inputs

(%)

Weather and climate

(%)

COVID19 related support

(%)

Other

(%)

Buhera 98 9.9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Chimanimani 40 26.7 26.7 0 0 0 6.7 0 13.3 6.7

Chipinge 96.9 0 2.4 0 3.1 0.8 0.8 0 0 0

Makoni 95 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Mutare 94.5 2.7 8.2 0.9 3.6 0 0.9 0 3.6 0.9

Mutasa 98.3 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.8

Nyanga 100 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

Manicaland 95.6 3 4.4 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 1.4

• Food (95.6%) was the major form of support received in the province.

• Nyanga (100%) had the highest proportion of households .

47

Agriculture Production

48

Cereal Stocks

49

Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2021

• The average household cereal stocks as at 1 April for the province

was 24kgs per household.

• Chipinge (44.7kgs) had the highest average household stocks

whilst Mutasa (12.6kgs) had the least.

District Cereal stocks (kgs)

Buhera

25.1Chimanimani

32.7Chipinge

44.7Makoni

25.2Mutare

15.6Mutasa

12.6Nyanga

29.6

Manicaland 24.0

50

Maize Stocks from Casual Labour and Remittances

Casual Labour (Kgs) Remittances (Kgs)

Buhera 63.3 4.5

Chimanimani 42.1 0.8

Chipinge 44.4 0.0

Makoni 39.9 3.9

Mutare 26.0 0.9

Mutasa 7.5 0.0

Nyanga 18.7 1.5

Manicaland33.6 1.3

• The average maize stocks from casual labour and remittances was 33.6kgs.

• Buhera (63.3kg) had the highest average stocks of cereals from casual labour.

51

Households that Grew Various Crops

• Maize was the commonly grown crop across all districts in the province.

• Groundnuts, pearl millet, tubers, roundnuts and cowpeas were mainly grown in Buhera.

77

41

10

32

38

54

64

47

6

0

87

22

3 2

21

1116

3

28

0

70

30

3 1

22

149

49

0

92

6

15

1

38

30

37

22 20

1

89

23

117

12

3128

16

40

77

1 2 0

17

27

1

22

2

85

17

41 2

5

39

38

1

82

20

7 6

22 21

29

14 14

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Maize Sorghum Finger millet Pearl milllet Tubers Cowpeas Groundnuts Roundnuts Sugar beans Soya beans

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

52

Cereal Self Sufficiency Districts

0 – 3 Months

4- 6 Months

7- 9 Months Mutare

9 – 12 Months

Over 12 months Buhera, Chipinge, Makoni, Mutasa, Nyanga, Chimanimani

• In the province, 6 out of 7 districts produced over 12 months supply of cereal.

53

Value Chain Practices

54

Market Information Access

• In the province, 22% of the households were familiar with market information.

• Makoni had the highest proportion of households that were familiar with market information (52%), used the information (27%) and were

trained (43%).

30

14 13

52

1412

21 22

12

510

27

8 813 1212

7 9

43

9 8 1014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with market information Use of market information received Training on market information

55

Use of Improved and Community Granaries

• Use of improved granaries was limited as only 12% indicated that they had used them.

• About 7% also indicated that they had used community granaries.

• This could have a negative effect on post harvest management.

22

4

14

40

73

1114

10

15

20

1 3 5 710

15

32

2 14

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Community Granaries Use Community Granaries

Training on Community Granaries

37

2014

64

17 1721

27

15

47

43

25 4

12

20

8 6

49

7 7 5

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100P

rop

ort

ion

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

(%)

Familiar with Improved granary at household

Use Improved granary at household

Training on Improved granary at household

56

Post- Harvest Grain Storage Conditions

• In the province, 25% of households stored their grain in bags and used chemicals, whilst only 9% used temperature and air control technique

(use of hermetic bags, metal silos, air-tight boxes etc.)

• Makoni (40%) had the highest proportion of households which used temperature and humidity control technique.

36

1813

72

34

23

35 33

2114

10

59

1421

33

2521

138

63

1417

2723

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100P

rop

ort

ion

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

(%)

Familiar with Storing in bag with chemicals

Storing in bag with chemicals

Training on storing in bag with chemicals

19

5 5

55

82 4

148

3 3

40

3 2 499

5 4

49

62 3

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with temperature and humidity control technique

Use of temperature and humidity control technique

Training on temperature and humidity control technique

57

Livestock

58

Cattle Ownership

Households which Owned Cattle Households which Owned Draught Cattle

74 80 7962

72

93

6876

75 4

128

2

56

10 6 512

10

1

118

7 7 9 10 9 213 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

zero one to two three to four five > five

91 87 9383 84

9781 88

6 10 615 13

2

149

2 2 0 2 3 1 5 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

zero one to two three to four five > five

• The proportion of households which owned cattle in Manicaland was only 24%.

• Of the 24%, only 12% had draught cattle.

59

Households which Owned Goats

• In Manicaland, the proportion of households which did not own goats was 69%.

• Mutasa (89%) followed by Nyanga (87%) had the highest proportions of households which did not own goats.

6269 67 64

58

89 87

69

1514 18 19

25

7 13

1713

10 8 12 11

2 0

96 1 1 2 3

0 02

4 6 6 4 3 2 0 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

zero one to two three to four five > five

60

Average Livestock Numbers per Household

• The average cattle herd size per household in the province was 4, whilst the average goat flock size per household was 5.

• Chipinge had the highest average holding of cattle and goats per household at 6 and 7 respectively.

• Mutasa had the lowest average of cattle per household (2).

44

6

4 3

2

5

445

7

44

44

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Ave

rage

Liv

est

ock

pe

r H

ou

seh

old

Cattle owned Goats owned

61

Poultry Ownership

6672

54

62

56

33

5156

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• The proportion of households which owned poultry in the province was 56%, with Chimanimani district having the highest of 72% and Mutasa with

the lowest of 33%.62

Livestock Offtake Rates

• Percentage offtake refers to the number of animals sold/slaughtered annually as a fraction of total herd. It is an indicator of the business approach

in livestock production, and its contribution to household livelihoods.

• Offtake rates in the province were generally low with an average of 2.5% for cattle and 17% for goats.

Cattle Goats

3.81.2

3.3 3.4 2.2 3.10.6

2.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Off

take

Rat

e (

%)

18 19 20

11

18

12

2017

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Off

take

Rat

e (

%)

63

Theileriosis (January Disease) and Lumpy Skin Disease Outbreaks

• Theileriosis is a tick-borne disease that has caused

most cattle fatalities in the last three years.

• Outbreaks were highly concentrated in Buhera.

Source: Department of Veterinary Field Services 64

Households that Reported Cattle Deaths and Causes of Death

Cattle Deaths Causes of Death

35

57

80

44

68

9082

61

32

25

13

29

14

715

2116

8

2

158

3 3

953

37 1

0 0312 7 2 5 8

0 0 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

zero one to two three to four five > five

5

62

171

13 11

91

27

5093 91

100 80 81

20

0

3 6 0 20

0

25

0 0 0 12

12 8 3 3 7 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Drought/Lack of water DiseasesPredators Slaughter for own consumption

• The highest proportion of households which experienced cattle deaths was in Buhera (65%)

• Buhera (12%) also reported most cattle deaths of more than five.

• Of those households that reported cattle deaths in the province, diseases (81%) was the main cause of death.65

Cattle and Goats Mortality Rate

• Mortality rates for cattle and goats were highest in Buhera at 24% and 20% respectively.

Cattle Mortality rate Goat Mortality rate

66

Calving Rate • Calving rate, defined as the

proportion of cows/heifers that

dropped calves over a defined

period of time is a measure of

productivity of the cow herd.

• Calving rate was highest in

Chimanimani at 50%.

67

Improved Livestock Practices

68

Use of Services of Community Animal Health Worker

• In the province, 30% of the households were familiar with the use of community animal health worker (Paravet).

• Buhera (55%) had the greatest proportion of households which were familiar with these services.

55

30

19

40

23

10

3330

33

19 17

27

117

21 19

28

17 16

35

137

19 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s(%

)

Familiar with Use of services of community animal health worker ( Paravet)

Use of services of community animal health worker ( Paravet)

Training on Use of services of community animal health worker ( Paravet)

69

Use of Locally Available Ingredients to Make Homemade Animal Feed

• Makoni (45%) had the highest proportion of households which had knowledge on use of locally available ingredients to make homemade animal feed

and also use of these feeds (25%).

39

1924

45

10 9

27 25

1712

2125

6 4

201515 14

18

41

84

1316

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Homemade animal feeds made with locally available ingredients including legumes

Use Homemade animal feeds made with locally available ingredients including legumes

Training on Homemade animal feeds made with locally available ingredients including legumes

70

Animal Fodder Production For Ruminants

• Makoni (38%) had the highest proportion of households which were familiar with animal fodder preservation for ruminants.

• The district also had the highest proportion of households that used animal fodder preservation for ruminants (21%).

27

7

17

38

74

8

1511

4

14

21

3 37 9

126

12

32

3 2 4

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)e

Familiar with Animal fodder production for ruminants Used Animal fodder production for ruminants

Training on Animal fodder production for ruminants

71

Improved Livestock Breeds

• Makoni (56%) had the highest proportion of households which were familiar with improved livestock breeds.

51

19

28

56

23

10

2831

19

2

14

33

7 6 713

23

1116

42

12

48

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Improved livestock breeds Used Improved livestock breeds Training on Improved livestock breeds

72

Livestock Vaccinations

• Buhera (34%) had the highest proportion of households which administered home vaccinations.

73

60

1922

48

18

5

3329

34

13

19

26

12

4

1317

30

1719

40

13

5

1420

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Home vaccinations ( farmer administered vaccinations) Home vaccinations ( farmer administered vaccinations)

Training on Home vaccinations ( farmer administered vaccinations)

Deworming and Dipping

Deworming Dipping

• Buhera had the highest proportion of households which were familiar and deworming (67%) and dipping (87%)

• In the province 19% dewormed their animals and 33% dipped their animals.

67

48

28

54

34

16

3440

30

22 1927

148

1519

2923

16

41

19

9 12

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Deworming Used Deworming

Training on Deworming

87

69

5865

73

31

7165

50

27 29

41

30

13

42

33

46

2927

54

25

13

41

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Familiar with Dipping Used Dipping Training on Dipping

74

Smart Agriculture

75

Household Knowledge of Pfumvudza

92

81

52

85 83

53

797573

57

31

73

52

38

5955

77

65

32

79

59

46

68

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Pfumvudza Households which Practised Pfumvudza Households Trained on Pfumvdza

• In the province, 75% of households were familiar with pfumvudza, 55% had practiced it while 61% had received training.

• Buhera and Makoni districts (73%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced pfumvudza while Chipinge (31%) had the lowest.

76

Use of Quality Certified Seeds

86

5146

78

72

45

6063

71

4236

75

58

42

6055

61

32 31

72

45

36

5047

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Certified Seed Households which used Certified Seed Households Trained on Certified Seed

• The use of quality certified seed was at 55% in the province.

• Makoni had the highest usage of certified seed at 75%.

77

Use of Community Seed Banks

37

8

36

48

84

13

2217

4

3134

3 3 5

1420

7

22

40

52

8

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Seed Banks Households which used Seed Banks Households Trained on Seed Banks

• The proportion of households which used community seed banks was 14% for the province.

• Makoni (34%) had the highest.

78

Households which Adapted Suitable Improved Varieties

67

4347

67

53

27

17

4645

32 35

56

36

23

15

3541

35 35

63

32

22

15

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Improved Varieties Households which used Improved Varieties

Households Trained on Improved Varieties

• In the province, 35% of the households adapted to the use of suitable improved varieties, with the highest proportion in Makoni (56%).

79

Households Growing Small Grains

• In the province, 32% of the households grew small grains.

• Buhera (58%) had the greatest proportion of households which grew small grains with Mutasa (6%) had the lowest.

83

4440

69

50

13

49 50

73

2226

35 35

6

25

32

73

2421

55

30

7

3034

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households familiar with small grains Households who grew small grains Households which were trained on small grains

80

Use of Compost/Organic Fertilizer

86

63

51

77

52

37

63 6166

4237

63

32

23

55

46

64

43

28

69

34

21

52

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Compost Households which used Compost Hoseholds Trained on Compost

• Only 46% of the households used compost across the province.

• The use of compost was highest in Buhera ( 66%) and lowest in Mutasa (23%).

81

Use of Drip Irrigation

37 39

31 30

1116

27 27

138 10

17

24

8 913 12

9

26

5 610 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Drip Irrigation Households Using Drip Irrigation Households Trained on Drip Irrigation

• The use of drip irrigation was low across all districts.

82

Plant Spacing

43

17 19

36

18 16 16

2429

1013

17

7

1410

15

27

15

8

32

914 12

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with proper spacing Households which practised proper spacing Households Trained on spacing

• Only 15% of households in the province practised proper plant spacing.83

Intercropping Practice

75

54

43

65

52

3341

52

63

3528

44

2925

2936

51

35

25

57

2619

26

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Intercropping Households which practised Intercropping Households Trained on Intrecropping

• Intercropping was practiced by 36% of the households in the province.

• Buhera (63%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced intercropping while Mutasa (25%) had the lowest.

84

Cover Cropping

53

30

22

50

21 21

10

3033

1215

28

712

7

16

27

1713

38

12 10 8

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Cover Cropping Households which practised Cover Cropping Households Trained on Cover Cropping

• Cover cropping was practiced by only 16% of the households in the province.

• Buhera (33%) had the highest number of households which practiced cover-cropping while Mutare and Nyanga ( 7%) had the lowest.

85

Mulching94

86

66

80

73

54

85

7784

60

40

55

3239

6053

80

57

31

70

38 35

64

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Mulching Households which practised Mulching Households Trained on Mulching

• About 53% of the households practiced mulching in the province.

• Buhera (84%) had the highest proportion of households which used mulch with the lowest being Mutare (32%).

86

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

69

46

34

72

30

17

47 4548

34

26

62

2113

37 35

44

33

21

66

25

13

35 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar IPM Households which practised IPM Households Trained on IPM

• Integrated pest management was practiced by 35% of the households in the province, with the highest usage reported in Makoni (62%).

87

Crop Rotation

79

43 40

70

48

26

52 51

71

26 26

48

26

15

4137

63

3125

61

31

19

39 38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Households Familiar with Crop Rotation Households which Practised Crop Rotation Households Trained on Crop Rotation

• Crop rotation was practiced by 37% of the households across the province.

• Buhera (71%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced crop rotation.

88

Irrigation

89

Proportion of Communities with Irrigation Schemes

20

60

80

20

40

1420

35

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland National

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

om

mu

nit

ies

(%)

• Generally there were few communities with irrigation schemes (35%) across the province.

• However, Chipinge (80%) and Chimanimani (60%) had relatively higher proportions of communities with irrigation schemes than the rest of

the districts.90

Functionality of Irrigation Schemes

• In the province, the majority of the established irrigation schemes were functional (34).

• Chimanimani and Mutare (11) recorded the highest numbers of functional irrigation schemes.

• Those that were non-functional were due to electricity cuts due to non-payment, infrastructure not yet installed, broken fence and

unaffordability of inputs

1

118

1

11

1 1

34

0 02

0 0 0 02

02 2

0 0 0 0

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Nu

mb

er

of

Irri

gati

on

Sch

em

es

Functional Partially functional Non-functional

91

Agricultural Produce Markets

92

• The highest average cattle price was reported in Chipinge (USD 339). The lowest price was reported in Mutare (USD 238).

• The highest goat prices were recorded in Chipinge (USD 34). The lowest prices were recorded in Nyanga (USD 25).

District Cattle Price (USD) District Goat Price (USD)

Cattle and Goats Prices

93

• Maize grain prices ranged from USD 4 to USD 6

• The highest maize grain prices were reported in Buhera and Makoni at USD 6/bucket, and lowest was in Nyanga at USD 4.

• Maize meal prices ranged from USD 3 to USD 6.

• The highest maize grain prices were reported in Mutare and Chipinge at USD 6/10kg , and lowest was in Chimanimani at USD 3.

Maize Grain Price (USD) Maize Meal Price (USD)

Maize Grain and Maize Meal Prices

94

Income and Expenditure

95

Current Most Important Source of Income

• Most households relied on casual labour (31.2%) as the most important source of income, followed by formal salary/wages (13.1%) and food

crop production/sales (12.4%).

96

31.2

13.1

12.4

9.6

7.2

5.3

4.0

3.2

2.7

2.6

2.3

2.0

1.0

0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Casual labour

Formal salary/wages

Food crop production/sales

Remittance within

Cash crop production

Vegetables production/sales

Livestock production/sales

Remittances outside

Own business

Petty trade

Skilled trade/artisan

Pension

Small scale mining/mineral sales

Other

Average Household Monthly Income and Expenditure for April 2021

• Average monthly income was highest in Mutasa at USD 98.

• Expenditure was highest in Chimanimani at USD 56.

IncomeExpenditure

97

10

3223

2939 39

26 2733

64

8375

57

98

81

68

0102030405060708090

100

Inco

me

(U

SD)

2020 2021

9

2315

24

11

2516 17

23

56 52

30 3340 40 38

0102030405060708090

100

Exp

en

dit

ure

(U

SD)

2020 2021

Food Expenditure

• The proportion of food expenditure was USD 58 a decrease from USD 65 reported in 2020.

• The assumption is that households had more to spend on other essential services such as health and education.

7064

6964

60 62

7065

5954 55 56

6257

6158

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Foo

d E

xpe

nd

itu

re (

USD

)

2020 2021

98

Average Household 6 Month Expenditure

• The highest expenditure was education at USD38.

38

24

4 3 3 31

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Education Agriculture Other Construction Businessexpenses

Medical Social Taxes

Exp

en

dit

ure

(U

SD)

99

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

100

Ladder for Drinking Water ServicesService Level Definition

Safely Managed Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on premises, availablewhen needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination.

Basic Drinking Water Basic drinking water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source,provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.

Limited Drinking Water Services Limited water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, wherecollection time exceeds 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.

Unimproved Water Sources Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.

Surface Water Sources Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation channel.

Note :“Improved” drinking water sources are further defined by the quality of the water they produce, and are protected fromfaecal contamination by the nature of their construction or through an intervention to protect from outside contamination.Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well;protected spring; or rainwater collection. This category now includes packaged and delivered water, considering that bothcan potentially deliver safe water.

101

Households using Unimproved Water Sources

29

10

27

17

29

1311

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• In Manicaland , the proportion of households which used unimproved water sources was 20%.

• Buhera and Mutare (29%) had the highest proportion of households which used unimproved water sources.

102

Main Drinking Water Services

65

86

6976

67

85 8276

6

4

4

7

5

2 9

527

10

2715

27

13 718

2 1 0 2 1 1 2 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Basic water services Limited water services Unimproved water services Surface water services

• The proportion of households which accessed basic water services in Manicaland province was 76%.

• Despite the majority of households accessing basic water services, Mutare and Buhera (27%) had the highest proportion of households

which used unimproved water sources.103

Access to Adequate Domestic Water

71

84

70

79

92

85 83 8076

89

7984

9692

83 85

66

83

73

81

9287

80 80

66

82

73

83

9286

7780

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Drinking Needs Cooking Needs Personal Hygiene Needs Other Domestic Needs

• More than 80 % of the households in the province had adequate water for cooking, drinking, personal hygiene and other domestic needs.

104

Distance Travelled to Main Water Source

59

7867 69

7687

5971

32

1829 27

21

13

32

24

8 4 4 4 3 09 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

tio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above

• At provincial level, 71% of the households travelled a distance of less than 500m to a water source.

• Nyanga (9%) had the highest proportion of households which travelled a kilometre and more to get to a water source.

105

Time Spent Queuing at Water Source and Violence at Water Source

Time spent at water source Violence at Water Source

3 310

4 5 3 6 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• The proportion of households which spent less than 15 minutes queuing at a water source or had a water source within premises was 76%.

• Chipinge (10%) recorded the highest proportion of households which reported violence at a water source.

61

89

72

88

74

91

61

76

33

9

18

8

18

6

2317

62

83 5 3

136

0 1 2 1 3 1 3 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Less than 15minutes (or within premises) 15- 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour More than 1 hour

106

Service level Definition

Safely Managed Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite.

Basic Sanitation Facilities

Use of improved facilities which are not shared with other households.

Limited Sanitation Facilities

Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households.

Unimproved Sanitation Facilities

Facilities that do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact.Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.

Open Defecation Disposal of human faeces in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste.

Note: Improved sanitation facilities: Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include flush or pour flush toilet/latrine, Blair ventilated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.

Ladder for Sanitation

107

Access to Improved Sanitation

33

12 12 10 141

15 14

10

15 18

56

9

5 10

57

73 70

84 8090

80 77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Open defecation Unimproved Improved

• In the province, 77% of households had access to improved sanitation facilities.

• Buhera district (33%) had the highest proportion of households which practised open defaecation.108

Ladder for Hygiene

Service level Definition

Basic Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water.

Limited Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water.

No Facility No hand washing facility on premises.

Note: handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps,

tippy taps, and jugs or basins designated for hand washing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap,

powdered detergents and soapy water but does not include sand, soil, ash and other handwashing

agents.

109

Access to Hand Washing Facilities

93 92 94

8091 87 92 90

0 0 0

0

00

0 0

7 8 6

2010 13 8 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

No service Limited Basic

• There were generally no handwashing facilities at most households (90%) across the province.

• Mutasa (13%) had the highest proportion of households which had basic handwashing facilities.

110

Food Safety

111

Considerations when Purchasing Food

• In the province, 68.6% of households reported that they considered the expiry date when purchasing food for their families.

• Chimanimani (35.4%), had the highest proportion of households which considered nutritional content when purchasing food.

57.5

32.5

44.9 46.4

25.9

8.7

73.6

42.1

71.4 73.2

59.3

88

70.8

61.8

54

68.6

32.535.4

25.1

17.2

2.99.2

5

18.5

1.6

29.3 31.3

8

21.4

28.5

10.9

18.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaand

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Brand/source Expiry /Best before date Nutritional content Other

112

Safe Preparation of Food

• In the province, 72.5% of households reported that washing hands with soap before preparation and serving food was important in safe

food preparation.

• Only 2.7% of households did nothing to ensure food safety during preparation of food.

52.4

83.8

74.7

84.6

58.5

45.442.5

63.4

74.278.1

67.9

84.680.9

48

71.7 72.5

53.2

75.3

66.2 67.571.4

23.1

54.559.1

0.4 0.8 2.1 4.5 2.96.1

2.1 2.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Use of safe water for preparation/ cooking Washing of hands with soap before preparation and serving of food

Washing food utensils thoroughly with safe water and soap Do nothing

113

Ways to Keep Food Safe

• Keeping food closed to avoid contamination (75%) was the frequently mentioned method of keeping food safe.

50

6762

68

47

2831

51

7176

72

90

82

53

7975

35

49

5953

32

16 18

38

0 2 41

4

17

5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Proper storage of food at correct temperatures Avoid contamination of cooked food by keeping it closed

Keeping cooked food separate from raw food Other

114

Household Food Safety During COVID-19 Lockdown Period

82

29

6367

86

68

31

57

27

73

58

40

14

36

76

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s(%

)

Buying perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far Eating food undergoing spoilage

• Mutare (86%) had the highest proportion of households which bought perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far during the January

to March 2021 national lockdown.

• Nyanga (76%) had he highest proportion of households which ate food undergoing spoilage during the lockdown period.

• At provincial level 51% of the households reported that they ate food under spoilage during the lockdown period.115

Purchase of Expired or Spoiled Food

33.7

10.116

5.7

13.316.7

4.9

14.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• Buhera (33.7%) had the highest proportion of households which purchased expired or food undergoing spoilage due to its reduced price.

116

Information on Food Safety

• In the province, only 10.4% of the households received information on food safety issues.

• Chimanimani (18.6%), had the greatest proportion of households which received information on food safety issues.

8.3

18.6

12.3

18.4

4.5 7.33.3

10.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

117

Access to Services and Infrastructure

118

Access to Any Agricultural Extension Services

• In Manicaland 89% of households received some form of agricultural extension services support in the past year.

9893

83

93

8186 89 89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

119

Households that Received Agricultural Training from Extension officers( breakdown of 89%)

• Generally, the proportion of households which received agricultural training from extension officers remained high across all districts.

99 9691

9892

96 97 98

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

120

Households that Received Agriculture Extension Visits from Extension Officers

( breakdown of 89%)

• A total of 89% of households reported that they received agricultural extension visits from extension officers.

97 9591 90

60

8995

89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

121

Households that Received Agricultural Advice from Government Extension Officers

Cropping Advice Livestock Advice

• The proportion of households that received cropping advice from extension officers was generally high across all the districts.

• In Manicaland , the proportion of households that received livestock advice was 69%.

98 9383

93

8186 89 91

0102030405060708090

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

) 90

58

7075

6154 52

69

0102030405060708090

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)122

Households that Received Extension Support on Fall Army Worm

• In the province, 69% of households received extension support on Fall Army Worm.

90

58

7075

6154 52

69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

123

Households that Received Extension Support on Weather and Climate

• The proportion of households that received extension support on weather and climate was 77%.

93

7679

90

48

59

7577

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

124

Access to Animal Health Centres

• Access to Animal Health Centres was generally low across all districts, with only 48% of households reporting

that they had access at provincial level.

58

45 43

60

40

50

35

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

125

Police Services Reachable Within One Hour

• Only 53% of households reported that police services were reachable within one hour.

73

59

51

45

37

58

46

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

126

Access to Victim Friendly Services

• Access to victim friendly services was generally low across all districts except in Mutasa (64%).

3034

50

34

22

64

3538

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

127

Approximate Distance of the Nearest Primary School

• In Manicaland, 68% of the households had their nearest school within a distance of the less than 5km.

73 7569

78

66 65

51

68

2522

30

16

31 33

43

28

2 3 15 3 2

63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

128

Access to Health Related Information

• Eighty six percent of households had access to health related information in Manicaland.

9298

8790

83

7577

86

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

129

Approximate Distance to the Nearest Health Facility

72 72

6167

56

78

56

66

2622

3628

33

21

40

29

16 3 5

10

1 4 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• About 54% of households were within a 5km radius to the nearest health facility, while 4% were more than 10km from their

closest clinic.

130

Access to Grain Facility

• Only 42% of households had access to a grain facility.

• Buhera (23%) had the lowest proportion of households which had access to grain facilities.

23

42

35

75

34 33

53

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

131

Structures Used to Store GrainOrdinary room

(%)

Traditional granary

(%)

Ordinary granary

(%)

Improved granary

(%)

Bin/drum

(%)

Crib

(%)

Hermetic bags

(%)

Metal silos

(%)

Buhera44 47 5 2 2 0 0 0

Chimanimani

85 7 4 0 0 0 5 0Chipinge

67 18 11 0 0 2 1 0Makoni

77 20 1 2 0 0 1 0Mutare

87 11 2 0 0 0 0 0Mutasa 83 6 10 1 0 0 0 0Nyanga 66 30 2 0 0 2 0 0Manicaland

74 19 4 1 0 1 1 0

• The most common structures used to store grain at household level were ordinary rooms (74%) followed by traditional granaries (19%).

• Of concern was the low usage of improved granaries (1%) and hermetic bags (1%) which are reliable methods that reduce post harvest losses.

132

Households which Received and Used Early Warning Information

Received early warningUsed early warning information to

plan response mechanisms

• At least 61% households received early warning information.

• Of those who received early warning information, 80% used it..

86

74

60

73

44

29

5661

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

) 92 93

7381

43

68

8680

0102030405060708090

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

133

Households which Received Information on Public Health Diseases

Rabies(%)

Anthrax(%)

Cholera(%)

Typhoid(%)

Dysentery(%)

Salmonella(%)

Listeria(%)

Buhera 83 64 78 24 12 0 0

Chimanimani 59 49 82 60 45 2 1

Chipinge 41 28 59 28 24 2 1

Makoni 64 69 81 61 40 13 13

Mutare 65 59 50 19 14 2 1

Mutasa 34 22 71 11 10 4 0

Nyanga 63 59 77 55 28 1 1

Manicaland 59 51 72 38 25 4 3

• A total of 72% of households received public health information on cholera, 59% on rabies and 51% on

anthrax.

134

Sources of Information on Gender Based Violence Services

Radio

(%)

Other household member

(%)

Television

(%)

Newspaper

(%)

Social media

(%)

Internet browsing

(%)

Government Extension

Worker

(%)

Health workers

(%)

Health promoters

(%)

Friends and

relatives

(%)

UN/NGOs

(%)

Police

(%)

Other

(%)

Buhera 44 17 10 2 26 1 35 54 19 23 10 43 1

Chimanimani 66 13 3 0 4 0 25 29 17 11 21 40 1

Chipinge 50 39 10 9 19 3 38 36 25 27 23 45 0

Makoni 76 10 3 2 6 1 18 23 17 12 13 32 5

Mutare 63 10 1 0 9 0 22 29 4 4 28 10 9

Mutasa 64 7 7 0 11 0 24 17 9 10 9 26 5

Nyanga 80 21 7 6 22 4 43 16 3 17 13 33 1

Manicaland 63 16 6 3 13 1 29 29 14 15 16 34 3

• The main sources of information on Gender Based Violence services were radio (63%), health workers (29%) and government

extension workers (29%).

135

Ownership of Assets that Enhance Food and Nutrition Security

Irrigation

(%)

Farming equipment

(%)

Fowl runs

(%)

Solar powered

water source

(%)

Borehole

(%)

Storage facility

(%)

Savings

(%)

Beehives

(%)

Nutrition garden

(%)

Agro-forestry

(%)

Other

(%)

Buhera 0 23 60 0 1 3 1 1 85 4 6

Chimanimani 21 15 33 0 2 16 2 1 20 0 30

Chipinge 24 8 37 1 2 3 14 1 17 1 18

Makoni 42 37 50 15 28 48 24 6 59 4 4

Mutare 0 10 21 1 4 10 4 1 19 0 40

Mutasa 8 12 48 0 2 20 4 2 25 1 12

Nyanga 8 7 48 2 9 11 4 2 52 1 5

Manicaland 15 16 43 3 7 16 8 2 41 2 16

• The most common assets that enhance food and nutrition security owned by households were nutrition gardens (41%), fowl runs

(43%) and farming equipment (16%).

136

ISALS and Loans

Households which Received Loans

5 63 3 2 3

5 6 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• About 4% of households received loans.

138

Sources of Loans

• Of the 5% households that received loans the majority of households reported that they received the loans from relatives or friends

(52%).

52

35

5

5

4

3

3

1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Friend/relative

ISAL/Mukando/Ukuqogelela

Banks

Local trader/ shopkeeper

Micro finance institution

Other financial services

Farmers organization

Government/Rural Credit fund

Money lender

Proportion of Households (%)

139

Type of Loan and Primary Use of the Loan

93

6 3 3 3 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f h

ou

seh

old

s (%

)Type of loan

3729

17 17 148 8

0102030405060708090

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• Most loans were cash (93%) and were mostly used for consumption (37%) and education or school fees (29%).

Primary Use of the Loan

140

Households with a Member in an ISAL Group

7 811 11

9 7 8 9

17 1513

26

9 107

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

2020 2021

• About 14% of households in Manicaland reported to be a member of Income Savings and Lending (ISAL) group, an increase from 9% in 2020.

• Makoni (26%) had the highest number of households that reported to be a member of ISAL.141

Use of Share-out From the ISAL Group

46

24 22

1410 10

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Food Household utensils Education Agricultural inputsand equipment

Livestock purchase Financing Incomegenerating projects

Buyingconstruction

materials

Health costs

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

• Food (46%) was the main use for the share outs from ISAL groups in Manicaland.

142

Food Consumption Patterns

143

Food Consumption Score

Food Consumption

Score Groups

Score Description

POOR 0-21 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 5-6 days, sugar 3-4

days, oil/fat 1 day a week, while animal proteins are totally absent

BORDERLINE 21.5-35 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 6-7 days, sugar 3-4

days, oil/fat 3 days, meat/fish/egg/pulses 1-2 days a week, while dairy

products are totally absent

ACCEPTABLE >35 As defined for the borderline group with more number of days a week eating

meat, fish, egg, oil, and complemented by other foods such as pulses, fruits,

milk

144

Food Consumption Patterns

• In the province 45% of households had poor consumption patterns with Mutare (61%) having the highest proportion.

39

46 4548

61

41

32

4541

27 2724

3028

38

31

20

27 28 28

9

31 3024

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Poor Borderline Acceptable

145

FCS – Houses with Poor Consumption Patterns

• Comparing with 2020 Mutare (12.4%) had the greatest percentage change in the proportion of households consuming poor diets (61.3%)

2020 2021

146

Average Number of Days Households ConsumedFood from the Various Food

1

1

1

2

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Legumes

Meats

Dairy

Fruits

Vegetables

Oils

Cereals

• Most of the households consumed cereals, vegetables and oil.

147

The Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges. The household consumption strategies are

food consumption behaviours that households adopt when faced with challenges in accessing food.

• The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) considers both the frequency and severity of pre-selected coping strategies that a

household used in the seven days prior to the survey. Reduced coping strategies index can be classified into three categories

depending on the severity as shown below.

Low or no coping (CSI 0-3)

High Coping (CSI ≥10)

Medium Coping (CSI 4-9)

148

Household Consumption Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

57

2226

17

23

17

302527

11

30

22

29

4

1915

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga National

Ave

rage

CSI

2020 2021

• Chipinge (30), Mutare (29), Buhera (27) and Makoni (22) reported the highest CSI higher than the provincial average of 20 and national average

of 15.

• Adoption of high coping by households is an indication that households could have been facing challenges in accessing food.

149

Household Consumption Coping Strategies

• The household consumption coping strategies that were employed when faced with challenges to access food included: relying on less expensive

foods (48%), reducing the number of meals consumed per day (38%) and reducing meal portion size (35%).

• The adoption of these strategies contributes negatively to nutrition outcomes.

48

38

35

33

28

22

21

21

16

13

8

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods

Reduce number of meals eaten per day

Limit/reduce portion size at mealtimes

Rely on casual labour for food

Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives

Purchase/borrow food on credit

Harvest immature crops

Reduce adult consumption so children can eat

Gather/hunt unusual types or amounts of wild food

Skip entire days without eating

Send household members to eat elsewhere

Send household members to beg

Proportion of households (%)

150

Household Hunger Scale

95 9180 78 80

9690 87

5 919 21 17

3 10 120 0 1 2 3 0 0 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Little to no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger

• The province had 12% of households facing moderate hunger.

• In Mutare, 3% were facing severe hunger. 151

Household Reduced Consumption Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)

• The highest proportion of households which reported high consumption based coping was in Chipinge (79%), Nyanga (70%) and Buhera (68%) above the

provincial average of 59%.

• Mutasa (48%) had the highest proportion of households which adapted low or no coping.

9

28

6

27

10

48

1116

23

33

15

2933

2519

25

68

39

79

44

58

27

70

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

No or low coping (CSI= 0-3) Medium (CSI = 4-9 High coping (CSI ≥10)

152

Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies

153

Households Livelihood Coping Strategies

• Livelihood Coping Strategies are behaviours employed by households when faced crisis and measures longer-term coping capacity of

households.

• The livelihoods Coping strategies have been classified into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as indicated in the

table below.

Category Coping Strategy

Stress Borrowing moneySpending savingsSelling more non-productive livestock than usualSelling household assets

Crisis Selling productive assetsWithdrawing children from schoolReducing non-food expenditure

Emergency Selling landBegging for foodSelling the last breeding stock to buy food

154

Households Engaging in Livelihood Based Coping Strategies

2823

1613 12 12

7 5 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stress Crisis Emergency

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

2019 2020 2021

• There has been a marked decrease in the proportion of households engaging in livelihood based coping strategies over the last three years.

155

Households Engaging in Livelihoods Coping Strategies

9 94

810

5 37

5 210

56

3 3 5

16

4 5 4 2 38 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

stress crisis emergency

• At provincial level 6% of the surveyed households resorted to emergency coping mechanisms with the highest proportion reported in Buhera (16%),

followed by Nyanga at 8%.

• Households engaging in emergency livelihood coping strategies reduce their long term coping capacities.

156

Households Maximum Livelihoods Coping Strategies

70

85 81 84 8189 86 82

9

94

8 105

3 75

210

5 6 33 516

4 5 4 2 3 8 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

not coping stress crisis emergency

• At provincial level, 82% households did not use any coping strategies to maintain their access to food and other basic goods and services.

• Mutasa (89%) had the most households that did not engage in any livelihood coping strategies (89%).

157

Complementary Feeding

158

Complementary Feeding Practices

6.1

31.3

21.614.8 16.9

28.6

11.117.8

26.5

18.8

32.4

18.5

10.214.3

51.9

23.2

6.112.5 13.5

3.7 5.1

14.3

3.78.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

hild

ren

(%

)

Minimum Meal Frequency Minimun Dietary Diversity Minimum Acceptable Diet

• Only 3.7% of children aged 6-23 months received the Minimum Acceptable Diet in Nyanga and Makoni. Highest rates of MDD where in

Nyanga (51.9%).

• A minimum acceptable diet is an indicator that combines information on children who received the minimum dietary diversity and the

minimum meal frequency. It is essential to ensure appropriate growth and development for children aged 6-23 months.159

Continued Breastfeeding beyond 1 Year

66

76

57

7074

6461 62

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f ch

ildre

n (

%)

• Nationally, 67% of the children continued to be breastfed beyond 1 year.

• Mashonaland Central had the highest proportion of children who were breastfed beyond 1 year (76%).

160

Early Initiation of Breastfeeding

• Nationally, the proportion of children who were initiated to breastfeeding within an hour, as per recommended practice was 86%

• Manicaland, Midlands and Masvingo provinces reached the target of 90%.

9085

81 8288

81

90 9086

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f ch

ildre

n (

%)

161

Child Nutrition Status

162

Recommended Vitamin A Supplementation Schedule for Children 6–59 Months of Age

Target group Infants 6–11 Months of age Children 12–59 Months of age

Dose 100 000 IU 200 000 IU

Frequency Once a year Twice a year (Every 6 months)

Route of administration Oral

Children Aged 6-59 Months who Received the Recommended Dose of Vitamin A

• The proportions of children who received the recommended dose of Vitamin A in the past 12 months were: 84% for 6-11 months; 59% for 12-59 months

and 62% for the children 6-59 months.

• Only Mutasa (90%) reached the recommended target of 90% for children 6-11 months.

• Mutare (71%) had the highest proportion of children 6-59 months who received recommended Vitamin A doses and Mutasa (34%) had the lowest.

7180

8883

88 90 8984

59 5749

86

68

24

60 5960 5952

86

71

34

62 62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

hild

ren

(%

)

6-11 months 12-59 months 6-59 months

164

Child Illness

26

39

12

2629

39

11

26

6

18

4

19

9 11

2

1015

29

8

1722

4

1216

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f ch

ildre

n (

%)

Cough Diarrhoea Fever

• Mutasa and Chimanimani had highest proportion of children who had cough (39%).

• Chimanimani (29%) and Mutare (22%) had highest proportion of children who had fever.

• Child illness has an impact on dietary intake and nutrient utilization among children, hence can lead to acute malnutrition.

165

Acute Malnutrition Based on MUAC Measurements

0.72.9

8.9

0.01.4

4.5

0.02.6

0.01.7

4.5

0.01.5

3.00.0

1.50.7 1.04.5

0.0 0.01.5

0.0 1.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

hild

ren

(%

)

GAM MAM SAM

• Chipinge had the highest GAM rates of 8.9%, above the WHO threshold of 5%.

• However, the provincial GAM rate was 2.6 which is below the WHO threshold.

166

Gender Based Violence

167

Forms of Gender Based Violence

N

Physical abuse (%) Sexual abuse(%)

No Yes Refused to answer No Yes Refused to answer

Manicaland 1741 94.3 3.7 2.0 97.6 0.6 1.8

Mash Central 1999 96.2 3.5 0.3 99.0 0.7 0.3

Mash East 2257 96.6 2.8 0.5 99.1 0.6 0.3

Mash West 1722 95.9 3.1 1.0 98.3 0.8 0.9

Masvingo 1747 97.2 2.4 0.4 99.0 0.6 0.5

Mat North 1747 97.0 1.9 1.1 98.2 0.7 1.1

Mat South 1736 97.3 1.6 1.1 98.8 0.2 1.0

Midlands 1999 95.7 3.8 0.5 98.5 0.9 0.6

National 14948 96.3 2.9 0.8 98.6 0.6 0.8

• In Manicaland, 3.7% of the respondents reported that they experienced physical abuse while 0.6% experienced sexual abuse.

• Of the 3.7% who experienced GBV in Manicaland, only 3% reported the incidents.

• The highest proportion of respondents (43%) got GBV services from the Victim Friendly Unit.

168

Spousal Violence

169

Forms of Spousal Violence

10%

21%

41%

28%

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse

• Nationally emotional abuse(41%) was the most prevalent form of abuse among spouses.

• Sexual abuse was the least reported with 10%.170

Incidence of Spousal Violence

• Manicaland had the highest incidences of all forms of spousal violence in both males and females.

• Emotional abuse was the highest form of spousal violence for both males (8.8%) and females (9.4%).

Province

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse

(%) (%) (%) (%)

N Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Manicaland 1389 2.2 3.3 4.8 5.2 8.8 9.4 5.6 5.7

Mash Central 1766 1.3 1.9 2.7 4.4 8.4 6.6 4.9 4.3

Mash East 2042 1.2 1.0 3.3 2.5 6.8 6.5 5.3 3.3

Mash West 1322 1.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 6.4 9.3 3.4 5.5

Masvingo 1562 0.6 1.2 1.5 2.2 3.3 2.6 1.8 2.3

Mat North 1464 0.9 0.4 1.8 0.6 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.8

Mat South 1627 2.0 1.4 3.9 2.9 6.8 4.6 4.7 4.4

Midlands 1597 0.2 1.5 2.1 1.5 4.3 4.3 2.7 2.2

National 12769 1.2 1.5 2.8 2.7 6.0 5.8 3.9 3.7

171

Victims who Sought Medical Attention as a Result of Spousal Violence

Sexual Physical Emotional

Suffered abuse (%)

Sought medical attention (%)

Suffered abuse (%)

Sought medical attention (%)

Suffered abuse (%)

Sought medical attention (%)

Manicaland 2.67 17.9 4.97 18.6 9.01 17.8

Mash Central 1.59 10.3 3.57 32.8 7.54 17.8

Mash East 1.08 11.5 2.84 17.2 6.62 16.1

Mash West 1.59 8.7 2.5 17.1 7.88 25.5

Masvingo 0.83 0 1.73 15.2 3.07 15.3

Mat North 0.61 0 1.16 16.2 3.01 13.5

Mat South 1.72 22.2 3.44 21.1 5.84 13.3

Midlands 0.81 15.6 1.82 17.2 4.32 21.8

National 1.34 11.8 2.76 20.1 5.9 18.3

• In Manicaland, 17.9% sought medical attention after suffering sexual violence; 18.6% for physical and 17.8% for emotional

violence.

172

COVID-19 and Livelihoods

173

Sources of COVID-19 InformationCurrent Sources

• The proportion of households which heard about COVID-19 was high, above 90% in all districts. The main sources of COVID-19 information in the

province were the radio (79%), friends and relatives (48%) and community health workers (49%).

• The main preferred future sources of information on COVID-19 in the province were: clinic/health facility (69%), community/village health workers

(62%) and radio (53%).

• The highest proportion of households which were aware of the existence of the COVID-19 toll free lines, was in Buhera (53%).

Preferred Future Sources

794948

4220

18131211

9777

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

RadioCommunity Health…

Friends and relativesHealth worker

Social mediaSocial gathering

ChurchesNon-Governmental…

TelevisionTraditional leaders

NewspapersPosters

Road showsVehicles moving with hailers

Others

Proportion of Households (%)

69

62

53

21

15

12

10

10

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Clinic/ Health facility

Community/Village health…

Radio

Workshop

Posters

Print media

Opinion leaders

Television

Social media

Proportion of Households (%)

174

Effects of COVID-19 on Livelihoods

14

4039

16

35

25 28

131 7

100 2 6

42

11 1314

8 816

5348

40

57

22

65

49

62 4 3 7 6 7

83

25 25

4643

30

46

3 0 4 1 2 0 17

2216 17 15

17 14

0102030405060708090

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Mutare Mutasa Nyanga ManicalandPro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Loss of bussiness income Loss of employment Failed to access health facility

Failed to access basic commodities Reduced sources of income Reduced salaries

Reduced food sorces Gender-based violance (GBV) Restricted access to agricultural markets

175

• The main effects of COVID-19 on livelihood were reduced sources of income (49%) and reduced food sources (49%).

• Buhera had the highest proportion of households that reported reduced food sources (83%) as the main effect of COVID-19 on livelihoods

while Nyanga had the highest proportion of households that reported reduced sources of income (65%) as the main effect of COVID-19 on

livelihoods.

Access to Hand Sanitizers, Masks and Soap

17.1

27.4 27.8

36.431.9

26.2

37.0

29.1

49.2

87.5 84.9 84.892.3

81.0

92.9

81.7

50.4

73.078.0

85.287.1 87.1

93.3

79.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Hand Sanitizers Masks Soap

• Access to masks (81.7%) and handwashing soap (79%) was high. However, access to sanitisers was very low (29%).

• The trend was similar in all districts, that is, masks were accessible whereas hand sanitizers were not easily accessible.

• About 29% of the surveyed households could afford COVID-19 PPE and accessories. The lowest proportion was in Buhera at 8.5%.176

Trust in the COVID-19 Vaccine

2432

2536 32 35

2229

16

18 3421

2223 48

26

6050

41 44 46 4230

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Not at all Moderately Very much

• About a third of households reported that they had no trust in the COVID-19 vaccine.

177

Vaccine Concerns

61.572.5

66.9 70.880.9

74.6 73.5 73.5

20.6

12.1 18.8 15.2

11.414.1 13.9 13.9

14.3 6.110.2 8.4

4.9 10.1 10.9 10.93.6

9.34.1 5.6 2.8 1.2 1.7 1.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

None Having serious reactions Illness Other specify

• The majority of households indicated no concern about the Covid-19 vaccine (73.5%).

• Having serious reactions (13.9%) was the most stated concern.178

Shocks and Stressors

179

Proportion of Households Experiencing Shocks

• Cash shortages (49.6%), water logging (46%), crop pests (29.1%) and COVID-19 pandemic (18.7%) were the most prevalent shocks experienced byhouseholds.

49.6 46.0

29.118.7 16.3 16.0 15.0

8.9 4.7 4.1 3.9 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.4 0.9 0.50

102030405060708090

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s(%

)

180

• Buhera (33%) had the highest proportion of households which were affected by COVID-19, the least affected were Chimanimani (8%),

Makoni (7%) and Nyanga (5%).

• Buhera (51%) had the highest proportion of households which were affected by crop pests and Chipinge (13%) had the least.

COVID-19 Crop Pests

Shocks and Stressors: COVID-19 and Crop Pests

181

• Buhera (85%) and Mutare (70%) had the highest proportion of households that were affected by water-logging.

• Buhera (51%) had the highest proportion of households that were affected by livestock deaths and diseases.

Water-logging Livestock Deaths and Diseases

Shocks and Stressors

182

Comparison Between Shock Exposure and Ability to Cope

14.6

8.38.8 8.7

9.3

5.6 5.3

8.98.1

4.9 4.95.6 5.7

4.2 4.65.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland

Ind

ex

Shock exposure index Ability to cope index

• Shock exposure was higher than the ability to cope across all districts.

• Households continue to be vulnerable to shocks and stressors and are not able to cope on their own. 183

Development Challenges

184

Development Challenges

29.616.0

11.28.8

6.44.8

3.23.2

2.41.61.61.61.61.6

0.80.80.80.80.80.80.80.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Prohibitive By-laws

Draught Power shortage

Drought

Drug Abuse

Unemployment

Gender Based Violence

Inadequate markets

Fewer or no vocational training centres

Poor access to livestock/produce markets

Poor road infrastructure

Poor Water and sanitation facilities

Proportion of Communities (%)

• Prohibitive by-laws (29.6%) was the major challenge reported by the majority of communities in the province, followed by lack of income

generating projects (16%) and draught power shortage (11.2%).185

Development Challenge Buhera(%)

Chimanimani(%)

Chipinge(%)

Makoni(%)

Mutare(%)

Mutasa(%)

Nyanga(%)

Manicaland(%)

Prohibitive By-laws 23.1 40.6 20.0 11.1 35.0 57.1 25.0 29.6Lack of income generating projects 15.4 9.4 26.7 5.6 10.0 42.9 25.0 16.0Corruption 0.0 6.3 6.7 0.0 15.0 0.0 25.0 8.8Draught Power shortage 7.7 9.4 0.0 16.7 10.0 0.0 25.0 11.2Drought 7.7 12.5 6.7 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 6.4Drug Abuse 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2No primary/secondary school in the ward 0.0 6.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2Lack of /intermittent Electricity supply 0.0 3.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6Fewer or no vocational training centres 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Gender Based Violence 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8High food prices 0.0 0.0 6.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6Inadequate markets 7.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6Lack of Irrigation infrastructure 15.4 0.0 13.3 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8Shortage of cash 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.6Poor access to livestock/produce markets 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Poor representation by leaders 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Poor road infrastructure 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Poverty 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Unemployment 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.4Poor Water and sanitation facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

• Mutasa (57.1%) recorded that most of their communities were affected by prohibitive by-laws for their development.

• Chipinge (26.7%) reported that their greatest challenge to development was lack of income generating projects and for Makoni (16.7%) it was

the draught power shortage.186

Food Insecurity

Food Security Dimensions

Figure 3: Dimensions of Food Security (Jones et al., 2013)

188

Food Security Analytical Framework

189

• Food security exists when all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to food

which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food

preferences and it is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care

allowing for a healthy and active life (Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012).

• The four dimensions of food security as give in Figure 3 are:

• Availability of food

• Access to food

• The safe and healthy utilization of food

• The stability of food availability, access and utilization

Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ minimum expenditure or the emergency nutrition sensitive food basket

was computed from the following annual food basket requirement for an individual:

190

Food Items Individual Annual Requirement

Maize Grain (Kgs) 148

Rice (Kgs) 15

Ration meat (Kgs) 14.6

Milk (Litres) 36.5

Cooking Oil (Litres) 13.5

Peanuts (Kgs) 0.73

Cabbage (Heads) 15

Beans (Kgs) 7.3

Sugar (Kgs) 12.1

Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ potential to acquire minimum expenditure food basket (Figure 3) was computed

by estimating the household's likely disposable income (both cash and non cash) in the 2021/22 consumption year

from the following possible income sources;

• Cereal stocks from the previous season;

• Own food crop production from the 2020/21 agricultural season;

• Potential income from own cash crop production;

• Potential income from livestock ;

• Potential income from casual labour and remittances; and

• Income from other sources such as gifts, pensions, gardening, formal and informal employment.

191

Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Food Security Status

• The total minimum expenditure food basket that could be acquired by the household from the

cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was then computed and compared to

the household’s minimum expenditure food basket.

• When the total minimum expenditure food basket that a household could acquire was greater than its

minimum expenditure food basket requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When

the converse was true, the household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its total minimum expenditure food basket requirements.

192

Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Cereal Security Status

• From the total minimum expenditure food basket, the total energy that could be acquired by the

household from the cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was also

extracted and compared to the household’s minimum energy requirements.

• When the potential energy a household could acquire was greater than its minimum energy

requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When the converse was true, the

household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its minimum energy requirements.

193

Cereal Insecurity Progression by Income Source100.0

90.4 88.3 86.481.7

22.5

99.9

87.383.5 82.4

74.2

26.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks plus food

crops

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks plus food

crops plus cash crops

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks plus food

crops plus cash crops plusremittances

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks plus food

crops plus cash crops pluslivestocks plus casual

labour and remittances

Cereal insecurity fromcereals stocks plus food

crops plus cash crops pluslivestocks plus casual

labour and remittancesplus income

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Manicaland National

• The cereal insecurity prevalence in the province is projected to be 22.5% during the peak hunger period of 2021/22.

• The combination of the pandemics which are precipitating macro-economic and social challenges contributed to this seemingly high prevalence. 194

Cereal Insecurity by DistrictDistrict Proportion of Households (%) Food Insecure Population

Jul - Sept Oct -

Dec

Jan - Mar Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar

Buhera 14 17 22 40680 51140 65088

Chimanimani 6 8 11 10083 12771 18149

Chipinge 13 17 24 46463 59531 85667

Makoni 24 32 38 75343 103438 121316

Mutare 24 36 40 79165 116801 131077

Mutasa 2 4 7 2903 7984 12339

Nyanga 10 12 15 14971 17965 21558

Manicaland 13 18 22 237485 324871 401977

National 16 21 27 1795204 2366104 2942897

• During the peak hunger period January to March 2022, 401.977 people will be cereal insecure in the province.

195

Cereal Insecurity by District

22

11

24

38 40

7

15

2227

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buhera Chimanimani Chipinge Makoni Mutare Mutasa Nyanga Manicaland National

Po

pu

lati

on

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

(%)

• During the peak hunger period (January to March 2022), Mutare (40%) will be having the highest food insecure population.

196

Cereal RequirementsDistrict Cereal Requirements (MT)

Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar

Buhera 1505 1892 2408

Chimanimani 373 473 672

Chipinge 1719 2203 3170

Makoni 2788 3827 4489

Mutare 2929 4322 4850

Mutasa 107 295 457

Nyanga 554 665 798

Manicaland 8787 12020 14873

National 66423 87546 108887

• The province will require 14.873MT of cereals during the peak hunger period January to February 2022.

197

Conclusions and Recommendations• Almost all the districts in the province (6 out of 7) had cereal sufficiency of over 12 months whilst only 3% of the households were using the

recommended post-harvest technologies. This may imply that households may loose their produce due to post-harvest losses. The Ministry

of Agriculture and its development partners should intensify promotion of production, marketing and use of affordable and sustainable

post-harvest management technologies.

• Cattle deaths were reported to be mainly due to diseases in Buhera (91%). Although a greater proportion of households in the province

(89%) received agricultural extension support, access to animal health centres was reported to be low at 48%. The Government of

Zimbabwe through the Ministry of Agriculture, should provide dipping services as prescribed in each season and capacitate the department

of Veterinary services with necessary resources to manage livestock diseases.

• The proportion of households accessing water from unimproved water sources (18%) and those practicing open defaecation (14%), with

Buhera having the highest proportion at 33% is worrisome. Sanitation provision is one of the major and important indicators in attaining

upper middle income economy status. The Government of Zimbabwe and its partners should revive and spearhead the strengthening of

WASH programmes to ensure that all people have access to safe water and sanitation services.

• Both adults and children were consuming diets of poor quality as indicated by almost half of the households (45%) in the poor Food

Consumption Category and only 8% of children 6-23 months consuming the minimum acceptable diets. This has negative effects on the

health and nutrition outcomes. This calls for the Government of Zimbabwe through the Ministry of Health and Child Care, relevant

ministries and partners to strengthen multi-sectoral community based nutrition specific and sensitive interventions to improve on dietary

diversity for all.

198

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The proportions of children 6-59 months who received the recommended dose of Vitamin A in the past 12 months was 62% which is below

the target of 90% in all districts. Vitamin A is essential for the immune system and lower supplementation may result in increased child

morbidity and mortality. The Government of Zimbabwe through the Ministry of Health and Child Care and partners need to strengthen the

Vitamin A Supplementation by community health workers and nutrition education on consumption of nutrient-rich foods including

fortified and bio-fortified foods.

• Almost a third of the communities (29.6%) reported that the need to develop their areas was hindered by prohibitive by-laws. There is

need for the ministry responsible for local government and all policy-makers to look into the by-laws and prepare conducive environment

for development of communities.

199