|
Back to Index
Assessment
of the Food Situation in Zimbabwe - April 2003: SUMMARY
National NGO
Food Security Network (FOSENET)
May 13, 2003
Download the
full report
- Microsoft
Word version - 156KB
- Acrobat
PDF version - 268KB
If
you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download
it from the Adobe website by clicking
here.
The National
NGO Food Security (FOSENET) involves 24 non government organisations
that collectively cover ALL districts of Zimbabwe, and all types
of communities. FOSENET members subscribe that food distribution
in Zimbabwe must be based on a platform of ethical principles derived
from international humanitarian law:
- The right
to life with dignity and the duty not to withhold or frustrate
the provision of life saving assistance;
- The obligation
of states and other parties to agree to provide humanitarian and
impartial assistance when the civilian population lacks essential
supplies;
- Relief not
to bring unintended advantage to one or more parties nor to further
any partisan position;
- The management
and distribution of food and other relief with based purely on
criteria of need and not on partisan grounds;
- Respect for
community culture and values of solidarity, dignity and peace
As one of its
functions FOSENET is monitoring food needs, availability and access.
Fosenet monitoring
for April 2003 is drawn from 151 monitoring reports from
58 districts from all provinces of Zimbabwe, with an average
of 2,6 reports per district
Nearly two thirds
of districts (60%) report improved food security primarily due to
early harvests and relief supplies, although a fifth report a worsening
situation with falling national supplies and quantities in relief
packages. Ensuring a balance between production, relief and local
deliveries is important and demands transparent and responsive co-ordination
mechanisms locally.
There are a
number of indicators of continued food insecurity, such as the continuing
inadequacy or absence of GMB supplies, continued reported sale of
assets for food in 67% of districts, and food related movements
into or out of districts in 38% of districts in April.
Household food
stocks have however gradually improved: An estimated 20% of households
had more than one months food supply, up from no households in December
/January. The large majority of households still have less than
one months supply.
Fertiliser and
maize seed prices show up to twentyfold ranges in variation between
formal and parallel markets and between areas, moreso for seed than
fertilizer. The costs of seed, fertilizer and transport are reported
to be significant limiting factors to yields. The number of people
reported returning from resettlement areas indicate that making
seed, fertilizer and transport available and affordable are as critical
as land to agrarian reform and food security strategies.
The area planted
increased later in the season as people took advantage of late rains,
but crop yields are reported to be poor to average, especially in
Manicaland, Midlands, Matabeleland South and North, due to erratic
or late rains and poor access to seed and fertilizer.
These conditions
make it important to obtain quantitative information on the share
of households who experienced early drop failure, were unable to
replant and now face poor yields. This will give a closer understanding
of food security than overall yields and aggregate grain availability
in areas.
There was some
evidence of a small increase in frequency and volumes of GMB deliveries
in April over March, although fuel shortages were reported to affect
deliveries, the price of GMB maize was reported to have risen and
political bias in access continued to be widely reported. Many people
are now reported to have stopped trying to buy GMB food, relying
instead on relief foods and own harvests. There appears to have
been little progress in resolving bias in access to GMB maize or
in making GMB maize sales more transparent within communities.
While parallel
market prices have remained high in April they have not risen further
and in some areas the widespread availability of relief food and
milling of local maize by small scale millers has brought informal
market prices down. Urban dwellers who do not access relief or local
produce are likely to face inflated prices for longer.
From reports
the expansion of relief cover appears to have begun to plateau,
with reports of unmet relief needs in farmworkers, settlers, urban
areas and rural workers.
While food supplies
have increased in the month due to relief and harvest yields, there
are thus a number of indications of high levels of household food
insecurity.
- Poor harvest
yields, erratic rainfall and cost barriers to seed and fertilizer
undermining effective land use and household food production
- Continued
inadequacies and bias in the delivery of GMB food to poor households,
and leakage into parallel markets selling at inflated prices
- Reliance
on relief food as a primary source of staples in rural areas
- Poor regulation
and high levels of speculation in food markets
- Household
sale of assets to purchase food from markets deepening household
poverty and undermining future ability to withstand shocks
There are reports
of interventions at community level to deal with these problems,
including to monitor and organize for fair management and distribution
of food at local level, ensure improved and more open performance
of local management committees, and stop food theft and leakages
to parallel markets.
This round highlights
that the economic, social, political and institutional factors undermining
household food production and food access are by no means resolved.
Relief has mitigated these problems, but has not solved them. While
community social action is yielding some returns in making local
food distribution fairer and more accountable, this needs to be
backed by stronger measures at all levels to deal with production
costs and inputs, ensuring the transparent and effective performance
of the GMB, the control of price speculation and ensuring participation
and accountability in co-ordination of food security at local and
national level.
FOSENET
welcomes feedback on these reports.
Follow
up queries and feedback to: FOSENET, Box CY2720, Causeway, Harare
- fsmt2@mweb.co.zw
Visit the FOSENET
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
