Note: The Community and Household Surveillance system is a regional initiative in operation that covers eight Southern Africa countries; namely, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Lesotho, and Swaziland. The hard copy of this thorough UN World Food Programme analysis has many colourful charts and graphs which the electronic version is unable to reproduce.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements
List of Acronyms
Executive Summary
Introduction
Purpose of the report
Methodology
Data collection
1. Household demographics
2. Asset and livestock ownership
3. Household income and external support
3.1. Household expenditure patterns
4. Food security situation
4.1. Households cereal stocks and sources
4.2. Coping Strategies Index
4.3. Agricultural Production
5. Food consumption and utilisation
6. HIV and AIDS
7. Water and sanitation
8. Transfer preferences
9. WFP programming implications
Annexes
Glossary of Terms

Executive Summary

Livelihood Security

Forty-four percent of the interviewed households are considered to be asset poor, owning four or less household assets. These asset-poor households, on average, did not own any cattle and had poor food consumption patterns. Households in the asset-medium category (49%) on average owned two cattle and asset-rich households owning 5 cattle. The proportion of households classified as asset poor has steadily increased from Round 5 to Round 8.

At least three quarters of the households have a primary source of income; the three main sources are agricultural casual labor, petty trade and vegetable sales. Household expenditure has continued to spiral, despite the low incomes that households are generating. Expenditure on food was reported to be the highest, followed by education, medical expenses and debt.

Trends in Food Security

The food insecurity situation has deteriorated between Round 7 and Round 8. More than three quarters of the interviewed households reported that they did not have any cereals stocks from their own production. Both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households showed a worsening situation in terms of their use of negative coping strategies. Coping Strategies Index scores (CSI) have significantly risen, indicating that there is continued need for support at the household level. Both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households resorted to more severe coping strategies to meet household food needs. However, the CSI for the beneficiary households is slightly lower compared to that for the non-beneficiary households. Initially the CSI for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households had improved from Round 6 to Round 7. In Round 6 and Round 7, both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households had less difficulty in coping with food shortages as indicated by the CSI.

However, beneficiary households fared better in terms of the consumption patterns and dietary diversity. The proportion of beneficiary households with low Food Consumption has remained less when compared to the proportion of non-beneficiary households with a low Food Consumption.

Vulnerability and Targeting

There has been a significant improvement in the targeting and selection of households from Round 7 to Round 8. This improvement is illustrated by the increase in the proportion of beneficiaries possessing three or more socio-economic targeting criteria from Round 7 to Round 8. The VGF programme appears to be the most effective at targeting, with more than three quarters of the beneficiaries possessing three or more socio-economic targeting criteria. The analysis confirmed the continued need to combine multiple targeting criteria to ensure that the most vulnerable households are identified. The best single predictor of household food insecurity was asset ownership.

Orphans and Vulnerable children

Most of the beneficiary households were hosting orphans, and were also female headed. By province, Mashonaland West had the highest proportion of households hosting orphans.