PROSAN Project
BASELINE REPORT Funhalouro & Homoine Districts Inhambane, Mozambique Funded by Irish Aid Fund
Data Collected June 2014 Maputo, 30 January 2015
PROSAN Baseline Report
This study was led by Leila Oliveira (Consultant –
[email protected] ) technical director of Co Arq Lda under the direct supervision of Helena Cikanda (
[email protected]) and Delphine Pinault (
[email protected]). Field researcher training, field work supervision and logistics coordination were conducted by Pablo Renk. Maria Joao Nazareth developed the database entry and carried out most of the analysis. As part of the study, CARE field researchers collected household level data under the supervision of Rogerio Zunguze. The authors wish to acknowledge the 800 households that spared their valuable time to answer our questions.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared by an independent consultant. Responsibility for the report’s contents, including its findings and recommendations rests solely with the consultant. The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of neither CARE nor its staff. 2
PROSAN Baseline Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 9 Conservation Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 16 Cashew Production & Trade................................................................................................................. 16 Chicken Ownership and Management .............................................................................................. 17 Female Empowerment ........................................................................................................................... 17 Diverse and Non-Agricultural Income Sources ............................................................................. 17
1. Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 19 1.1 Project Background.......................................................................................................................... 19 1.2 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 22
2. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 22 2.1 Sampling .............................................................................................................................................. 22 2.1.1 Target area.................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.2 Sample size ................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.1.3 Sample selection......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.1.4 Sample results ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.2 Field and Data Analyses Issues................................................................................................. 24 2.2.1 Field Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Training.......................................................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 25 2.2.4 Data Collection Issues .............................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.5 Data Entry ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.6 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.7 Indicators, parameters and methods................................................................................................. 26
3. SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 30 Indicator 1: % of HH with slight or no Hunger (Household Hunger Scale < 2) .................. 31 DIETARY RELATED COPING STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 33 Indicator 2: Average Months of Adequate Food Provision....................................................... 35 Indicator 3: % of households with Household Dietray Diversity Score (HDDS) ≥ 4 ........ 37 INTAKE OF NUTRITIOUS FOOD ............................................................................................................................. 38 NUMBER OF MEALS ................................................................................................................................................. 40 GENDER SENSITIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 41 Indicator 4: % of households able to recover from weather related shocks ..................... 43 LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP ......................................................................................................................................... 48 AREA CULTIVATED WITH CASSAVA ...................................................................................................................... 49 Indicator 5: % of households with at least 3 strategies that allow better adaptation to climate change........................................................................................................................................... 50 Indicator 6: % of staff from relevant CSO and government institutions at district and provincial levels reporting increased capacity in promotion and implementation of disaster risk reduction and community based adaptation strategies. ................................. 52 3
PROSAN Baseline Report Indicator 7: % Of HH Applying At Least 2 New CA Technologies In Their Own Field ...... 52 OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ...................................................................................................................... 54 Indicator 8: Average number of months without own cereal production .................... 55 Indicator 9: % of households planting at least 3 nutritious crops ................................... 57 Indicator 10 to 12: Mean production per capita for key crops ......................................... 58 Indicator 13: % households planting fields of cassava .............................................................. 60 Indicator 14: % of households with cashewnuts trees producing ................................... 61 Indicator 15: Mean kilos produced per HH (only among those producing) ................ 63 Comparison per Standard Vulnerability Indicators ............................................................................... 64 Indicator 16: % of households with increased cashew production from one year to another ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 Indicator 17: % of HH who practice at least 2 improved cashew orchards management practices (only among those who have trees producing) ........................ 65 Indicator 18: % households receiving any income from sale of cashew nuts (only among those who have trees producing) ..................................................................................... 67 Indicator 19: % of households Owning at Least 10 Chickens .................................................. 68 Indicator 20. % of households adopting at least 2 improved chicken management practices ..................................................................................................................................................... 69 Indicator 21 % of households with more than 1/3 of its current number of chicken dying in the previous month ............................................................................................................................ 71 Indicator 22: % women who report power sharing attitudes by men at HH level for any decision .............................................................................................................................................. 73 Indicator 23: % of female spouses of head of HH who believe that they influence decisions on income expenditure in the household (either always or someti mes) 74 SOURCE OF CONFLICT ............................................................................................................................................. 76 Indicator 24 & 25: % of women (spouse) participating in associations (any associations) & % of women (head) participating in associations (any associations) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Indicator 26: % of HH with at least 2 different income sources (not including marginal or social support sources) .............................................................................................. 77 Indicator 27: % of HH with income from non-agricultural sector within the 5 main sources of income ................................................................................................................................... 79 Indicator 28: % of HH that are member of an income generating association or group ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Indicator 29: % of HH that accessed loans (for any use) ...................................................... 83 Indicator 30: % of HH heads with official Identification Card ........................................... 86 Indicator 31: % of eligible HH with access to government social protection schemes ......................................................................................................................................................................... 87 Indicator 32: % of women that know about the four laws (Family, Land, Domestic Violence, and Sexual Abuse) .............................................................................................................. 89 Indicator 33: % of women that seek legal support (among those who needed) ....... 91
Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................... 92 4
PROSAN Baseline Report Study Validity............................................................................................................................................. 92 Food Security ............................................................................................................................................. 92 Ability to recover from weather related shocks and adapt to Climate Change ................ 93 Conservation Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 94 Cashew Production & Trade................................................................................................................. 94 Female Empowerment ........................................................................................................................... 95 Diverse and Non-Agricultural Income Sources ............................................................................. 95 Loans ............................................................................................................................................................. 96 Ownership of Id cards, eligibly for governmental safety nets and knowledge about laws ......................................................................................................................................................................... 96
5
PROSAN Baseline Report
LIST OF GRAPHS MAP 1: STUDY AREAS (DISTRICTS) GRAPH 1: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HFIAS CLASSIFICATION GRAPH 2: % OF HHS CLASSIFIED AS FOOD SECURE OR MILDLY FOOD INSECURE AS PER HFIAS GRAPH 5: % OF HHS WITH LITTLE OR NO HUNGER GRAPH 6: % OF HHS BY HHS CLASSIFICATION GRAPH 7: % OF HHS WITH LITTLE OR NO HUNGER (HHS 0-1) BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 8: % OF HHS THAT HAD ENGAGED IN SPECIFIC DIETARY STRATEGIES IN THE PREVIOUS MONTH GRAPH 9: % OF HHS THAT HAD ENGAGED IN SPECIFIC DIETARY STRATEGIES IN THE PREVIOUS MONTH BY DISTRICT GRAPH 3: % OF MEMBERS THAT HAD ENGAGED IN SPECIFIC DIETARY STRATEGIES IN THE PREVIOUS MONTH BY SEX GRAPH 10: MEAN NUMBER OF MAHFP GRAPH 11: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF MAHFP GRAPH 12: % OF HHS WITH ADEQUATE FOOD PROVISION BY CALENDAR MONTH GRAPH 13: MEAN NUMBER OF MAHFP BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 14: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF FOOD GROUPS CONSUMED IN THE DAY PRECEDING THE SURVEY GRAPH 15: % OF HHS CONSUMING AT LEAST FOUR FOOD GROUPS IN THE DAY PRECEDING THE SURVEY GRAPH 16: % OF HHS EATING SPECIFIC FOOD GROUPS GRAPH 17: % OF HHS EATING SPECIFIC FOOD GROUPS BY DISTRICT GRAPH 18: % OF WOMEN EATING AT LEAST 3 FGS GRAPH 19: % OF WOMEN EATING VITAMIN A RICH FOODS GRAPH 20: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF MEALS ADULTS AND CHILDREN HAD EATEN IN THE PREVIOUS DAY GRAPH 21: % OF HHS IN WHICH MALE ADULTS HAD HAD AT LEAST TWO MEALS DURING THE PREVIOUS DAY GRAPH 22: % OF HHS EATING AT LEAST 4 FGS GRAPH 23: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL WOMEN DIETARY INTAKE GRAPH 24: % OF HHS CONSUMING AT LEAST 4 FOOD GROUPS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 25: % OF HHS CONSUMING AT LEAST 4 FOOD GROUPS 4 BY OTHER FOOD INSECURITY INDICATOR GRAPH 26: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF SHOCKS THAT THEY SUFFERED IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS GRAPH 27: % OF HHS RECOVERING FROM DROUGHT BY AMOUNT OF RECOVER GRAPH 28: % OF HHS RECOVERING FROM DROUGHT (TOTALLY OR PARTIALLY) GRAPH 29: % OF HHS CONSUMING AT LEAST FOUR FOOD GROUPS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 30: HISTOGRAM FOR ASSET OWNERSHIP GRAPH 31: % OF SAMPLED POPULATION BY SES STATUS GRAPH 32: % OF USUAL VULNERABILITY INDICATORS BY SES STATUS GRAPH 33: % OF HHS BY AREA PLANTED FOR CASSAVA GRAPH 34: % OF HHS USING CASSAVA SEEDS VARIETIES RESISTANT TO COMMON DISEASES AND ROTTING GRAPH 35: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF STRATEGIES FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION GRAPH 36: % OF HHS WITH AT LEAST 3 STRATEGIES THAT ALLOW BETTER ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE GRAPH 37: % OF HHS WITH AT LEAST 3 STRATEGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 38: % OF HHS ENGAGED IN 2 OR MORE CA PRACTICES GRAPH 39: % OF HHS ENGAGED IN 2 OR MORE CA PRACTICES BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 40: MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS OF CONSUMPTION FROM OWN CEREAL PRODUCTION GRAPH 41: % OF HHS EASTING FROM OWN CEREAL PRODUCTION BY MONTH GRAPH 42: MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS OF CONSUMPTION FROM OWN CEREAL PRODUCTION BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 43: % OF HHS PLANTING AT LEAST 3 OTHER CROPS GRAPH 44: % OF HHS PLANTING AT LEAST 3 OTHER CROPS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 45: MEAN NUMBER OF KILOS OF MAIN STAPLE CROPS HARVESTED PER CAPITA BY GENDER OF HEAD OF HH GRAPH 46: % OF HHS PLANTING ANY AREA OF CASSAVA GRAPH 47: % OF HHS PLANTING SPECIFIC AREAS OF CASSAVA GRAPH 48: % OF HHS PLANTING ANY AREA OF CASSAVA BY VULNERABILITY STATUS GRAPH 49: % OF HHS BY OWNERSHIP OF CASHEW NUT TREES GRAPH 50: % OF HHS THAT OWN PRODUCING CASHEW NUT TREES GRAPH 51: % OF HHS THAT OWN PRODUCING CASHEW NUT TREES BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 52: MEAN NUMBER OF KILOS PER HH OF CASHEWNUT PRODUCED IN LAST HARVEST GRAPH 53: MEAN NUMBER OF KILOS PER HH OF CASHEW NUT PRODUCED IN LAST HARVEST BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 54: % OF HH REPORTING INCREASE IN CASHEW NUT PRODUCTION OVER LAST 2 HARVESTS GRAPH 55: % OF HH REPORTING INCREASE IN CASHEWNUT PRODUCTION OVER LAST 2 HARVESTS BY VULNERABILITY GRAPH 56: % OF HHS ENGAGING IN AT LEAST 2 CASHEW NUT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GRAPH 57: % OF HHS ENGAGING IN AT LEAST 2 CASHEW NUT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE
22 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 45 45 46 47 48 48 49 49 51 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 66 66
6
PROSAN Baseline Report GRAPH 58: % OF HHS THAT SOLD ANY OF CASHEW NUT HARVEST GRAPH 59: % OF HHS THAT SOLD ANY OF CASHEWNUT HARVEST BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 60: % OF HHS OWN AT LEAST 10 CHICKENS GRAPH 61: % OF HHS OWN AT LEAST 10 CHICKENS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 62: % OF HHS THAT USES AT LEAST 2 OF 3 CHICKEN CARE PRACTICES GRAPH 63: % OF HHS THAT USES AT LEAST 2 OF 3 CHICKEN CARE PRACTICES BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 64: % OF HHS BY CHICKEN MORTALITY GRAPH 65: % OF HHS WITH MORE THAN 1/3 OF ITS CURRENT NUMBER OF CHICKENS DIED GRAPH 66: % OF HHS WITH MORE THAN 1/3 OF ITS CURRENT NUMBER OF CHICKENS DIED BY VULNERABILITY STATUS GRAPH 67: % OF SPOUSES OF HEAD WHO SAY THAT HUSBAND’S CONSULT THEM ON DECISIONS GRAPH 68: % WOMEN THAT BELIEVE TO INFLUENCE MEN’S DECISION E ON USE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME EXPENDITURE. GRAPH 69: % OF SPOUSES OF HEAD WHO BELIEVE TO INFLUENCE HH’S DECISIONS GRAPH 70: % OF SPOUSES OF HEAD WHO BELIEVE TO INFLUENCE HH’S DECISIONS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 71: % OF WOMEN SPOUSES THAT ARE MEMBER OF ANY ASSOCIATIONS GRAPH 72: % OF FEMALE HEADED HHS BY THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATIONS/GROUPS THEY BELONGED TO GRAPH 73: % OF HHS BY NUMBER OF INCOME SOURCES GRAPH 74: % OF HHS THAT HAVE AT LEAST 2 INCOME SOURCES GRAPH 75: % OF HHS THAT HAVE AT LEAST 2 INCOME SOURCES BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 76: % OF HHS WITH NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME SOURCE GRAPH 77: % OF HHS WITH NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME SOURCES GRAPH 78: % OF HHS WHERE MEMBERS PARTICIPATES IN AT LEAST 1 ASSOCIATION/GROUP GRAPH 79: % OF HHS WHERE MEMBERS PARTICIPATES IN INCOME GENERATING ASSOCIATION/GROUP GRAPH 80: % HHS THAT ACCESSED CREDIT OR LOANS GRAPH 81: % HHS THAT ACCESSED CREDIT OR LOANS BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 82: % HHS WITH IDENTITY CARDS (ID) GRAPH 83: % HHS WITH IDENTITY CARDS (ID) BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 84: % HHS RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT GRAPH 85: % HHS RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM GOV. BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 86: % WOMEN WHO KNOW ABOUT 4 FAMILY AND DOMESTIC LAWS GRAPH 87: % WOMEN WHO KNOW ABOUT 3 LAYS (LAND, FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) BY VULNERABILITY PROFILE GRAPH 88: % WOMEN WHO SOUGHT LEGAL SUPPORT
67 67 68 69 70 70 71 71 72 73 74 75 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 81 81 83 85 86 86 87 88 88 89 90 91
7
PROSAN Baseline Report
LIST OF TABLES TABLE I: PROSAN LOGICAL FRAMEWORK WITH BASELINE VALUES WITH SELECTED ADDED INDICATORS 10 TABLE 1: SAMPLE RESULTS 24 TABLE 2: QUESTIONS USED FOR HFIAS AND THRESHOLDS FROM FANTA AND THIS STUDY 27 TABLE 3: % OF HOUSEHOLDS SUFFERING WITH SHOCKS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS 44 TABLE 4: % OF HOUSEHOLDS SUFFERING FROM SHOCKS IN THE PREVIOUS TWELVE MONTHS 44 TABLE 5: % OF HOUSEHOLDS OWNING AT LEAST ONE ANIMAL BY TYPE OF LIVESTOCK 49 TABLE 6: % OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT OWNED A MINIMUM NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK 49 TABLE 8: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF CA AND OTHER AGRO ECOLOGIC PRACTICES 53 TABLE 9: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES THAT GO AGAINST CA 54 TABLE 10: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY USE OF IMPROVED STORAGE 54 TABLE 11: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF MONTHS OF CONSUMPTION FROM OWN PRODUCTION 55 TABLE 12: % OF HOUSEHOLDS CULTIVATING SPECIFIC CROP DURING PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS 57 TABLE 13: % OF HOUSEHOLDS CULTIVATING STAPLE CROPS DURING PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS 59 TABLE 14: MEAN NUMBER OF KILOS OF MAIN STAPLE CROPS HARVESTED PER CAPITA 59 TABLE 15: % OF HOUSEHOLDS ENGAGING IN CASHEW NUT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 65 TABLE 16: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY OWNERSHIP OF CHICKENS 68 TABLE 17: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY CHICKEN CARE PRACTICES 69 TABLE 18: % OF HOUSEHOLDS BY WOMEN INTERVIEWED 72 TABLE 19: % OF FEMALE SPOUSES SAYING THAT HUSBAND CONSULTS THEM ABOUT DECISIONS 73 TABLE 20: % OF WOMEN IDENTIFYING DECISIONS AS SOURCE OF CONFLICT AT HOME 76 TABLE 21: % HOUSEHOLDS THAT RECEIVED INCOME FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES 79 TABLE 22: % OF HOUSEHOLDS IN WHICH AT LEAST THE HEAD OR SPOUSE PARTICIPATED IN AN ASSOCIATION/SOCIAL GROUP 82 TABLE 23: % HOUSEHOLDS THAT ACCESSED LOANS 84 TABLE 24: % OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND RECEIVE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 88 TABLE 25: % OF WOMEN KNOWS ABOUT SPECIFIC LAWS 89
8
PROSAN Baseline Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The “Programa de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (PROSAN)”, which may be translated as “food and nutritional security program”, is funded by Irish Aid. PROSAN is currently implemented through local NGO Mahlahle . As mentioned in the proposal, there are plans to work with other partners, including HOPEM, Forum Mulher. The project is a five year-project (1st Dec 2012 to 1st Dec 2017) and is implemented in Funhalouro and Homoine districts in Inhambane province. Box 1: PROSAN Project at a Glance (excerpts from the PROSAN Project Proposal Document) PROSAN will aim at reaching 28,875 participants spread in 5250 poor and food insecure households, of which 80% will be women from CARE’s impact group, “socially, economically and politically excluded women experiencing food and nutritional insecurity who are highly dependent on natural resources'. PROSAN’s overall approach can be divided into two main pillars: economic empowerment on the one hand and social empowerment on the other. The economic pillar tackles household food and nutrition insecurity while strengthening resilience to natural disasters and climate change. Low agricultural production, the dependence on farm and natural resource based incomes and limited climate change adaptive capacity will be addressed in an effort to reduce the poverty and vulnerability of targeted communities. The social pillar, which will increase the efficacy of the economic pillar, addresses gender and power inequality. The pre-design study conducted for this program included a poverty and vulnerability mapping of the province which enabled CARE to narrow down the list of potential locations to two districts, Homoine and Funhalouro. In order to ensure that the impact of this project is verified with high accountability and accuracy, and that conclusions are specific and useful, the evaluation system chosen by CARE includes two stages: (i) a baseline assessment, and (ii) a final evaluation which will include an end line. This report describes findings from the baseline study, which took place in June 2014. In total 800 households were surveyed in the two-targeted districts through a randomized selection conducted over a period of 12 days (June 2014) done by 16 field researchers organized into two groups, who attended a five days training prior to the field work. Findings are valid for each of the two districts (Funhalouro and Homoine) as well as for the two areas together (refered as Regional level and including Funhalouro and Homoine). Key results from the assessment are summarised in the PROSAN logical framework table (table i) presented in the next page. The various conclusions and recommendations from this baseline should assist CARE not only to evaluate its project but also to serve as a basis for designing and tailoring future or complementary interventions that respond to the local needs.
Table i below highlights findings for all indicators, as per PROSAN’s Indicator Performance Tracking Table included in Annex 1.
9
PROSAN Baseline Report Table i: PROSAN logical framework with baseline values with selected added indicators relevant as per baseline findings
Indicator Number as per IPTT & Definition
Sample Size for All Areas
All Areas
Funhalouro
Homoine
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
CI - lower bound
CI - higher bound
CI - lower bound
CI - higher bound
CI - lower bound
HH Headed by Women Diff Statistically Women and Men CI - higher bound
Project Impact 74.8% 68.8% 81% % of HH with slight or no Hunger IM1 800 (Household Hunger Scale < 2) 71.7% 77.8% 64.3% 73.4% 76.8% 84.6% 8.1 7.9 8.3 Average # months of adequate food IM2 800 provision 7.8 8.3 7.6 8.3 7.9 8.6 % of HH with Household Dietary Diversity 54.1% 34.2% 74.2% IM3 Score equal or greater than 4 (out of 12 800 50.6% 57.6% 29.5% 38.3% 69.9% 78.5% Food Groups) 50.1% 46.0% 55.2% % of households able to recover from IM4 800 weather related shocks 45.9% 54.3% 40.3% 51.7% 48.9% 61.5% Objective 1: To strengthen community based climate change adaptation capacity and resilience to natural disasters of targeted poor communities % of PROSAN beneficiaries in target 21.0% 17.5% 24.6% communities with increased capacity to adapt to climate change (specific indicator: OC1 800 % of households with at least 3 strategies 18.2% 23.8% 13.7% 21.2% 20.3% 28.8% that allow better adaptation to climate change) Objective 2 To strengthen poor household food and nutrition security throughout the year % of HH who have applied at least 2 33.4% 29.8% 37.2% OC3 improved CA technologies in their own 775 30.1% 36.7% 25.2% 34.3% 32.3% 42.0% field OC4 760 6.4 5.9 6.5
HH Headed by Men Sig. between
** Statistically Valid (p