Back to Index

Assessment of the food situation in Zimbabwe - January 2008
National NGO Food Security Network (FOSENET)
February 20, 2008

Five years ago, in March 2002, a number of National NGOs viewed the growing food crisis with concern, and formed a network to share experience, views and resources on a response. This National NGO Food Security Network (FOSENET) involves 17 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 that derive from international humanitarian law, viz:

• 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 the provision of 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, and without adverse distinction of any kind
• Respect for community values of solidarity, dignity and peace and of community culture.

FOSENET Monitoring
As one of its functions FOSENET is monitoring food needs, availability and access through NGOs based within districts and through community based monitors. Monthly reports from all areas of the country are compiled by FOSENET to provide a monthly situation assessment of food security and access to enhance an ethical, effective and community focused response to the food situation.

This first round of monitoring is an assessment of the food security situation and covers NGO and community based monitoring nationally for the period January 2008. This round of monitoring includes information related to food security-poverty links, coping strategies and production outputs. Input from Fosenet NGOs is acknowledged. The next round will cover more detailed monitoring with more specific data.

Community reports indicate no improvement in rural food security in January 2008.In urban and rural areas the situation is reported to have worsened, with increased food needs and reduced supplies, little or no access to relief and poor GMB supplies and cash shortages.

Increased movement for food was reported with migration for food reported in 26 (45%) districts. Significant urban to rural movement was reported in December. This is a costly survival strategy given the high transport costs. In or out migration is reported in 41% of districts where people are pulled to urban areas by jobs or family support and pushed from urban areas by job loss, cost of living and food shortages. People are pulled to rural areas by search for food and opportunities for gold panning, and pushed from rural areas by displacement, unsuccessful resettlement and unemployment.

Input supply
Reports suggest that crop yields will be poor to average, due to excessive, rains and poor access to seed and especially fertilizer. Fertilizer and seed costs were high: Reported fertilizer prices reaching up to Z$45 000 000 in periurban and rural parallel markets.

Commercial maize meal supplies continue to be reported to be limited and erratic with cost and backdoor 'leakages' major barriers. Prices of food in parallel markets are reported to have increased by up to 167% between December 2007 and January 2008. In the period December and January, shortages of cash also posed serious problems for people buying food. Difficulties accessing cash and food are reported to be driving urban to rural migration.

Shortages of seed and fertilizer compounded by massive price increases make access to farm inputs a critical constraint to future food security, this also presents a significant threat to both poverty and food security in poor and HIV/AIDS affected rural households

Food in parallel markets is reported to be primarily coming from millers and from other private sales. Relief food was reported to be filtering into parallel markets in four districts. While reported barriers to accessing relief are few, these relate primarily to exclusion from lists, absence of relief in urban areas, transport and logistic problems and inadequate provision for rural civil servants not accessing GMB maize. The reports indicate problems with people being left off lists and with political control of local relief agents in some districts.

Coping strategies
Households are consuming a range of foods not normally consumed. Some, such as watermelons and grass seeds have little nutritional value, while others, such as wild mushrooms and cassava, have potential harmful effects. Treated seeds were being consumed in one district.

Households are selling assets for food, including TVs and radios - vital for communication- livestock - vital for savings, security and draught power - household furniture and production equipment. These sales signal that current food scarcities will have much longer-term effects on urban and rural household poverty.

In contrast to such individual coping strategies, in half the districts communities reported taking collective, social strategies. These included representations to officials or local leaders over food issues, including theft of food; solidarity support of vulnerable groups with food or transport; working on roads and bridges to facilitate food access and on projects to improve local food production.

These strategies reflect and reinforce Fosenet ethical principles that food security be based on community values and dignity. They are reported, however, to have received inadequate positive support or response. Investment is needed to shift individual coping mechanisms that have harmful effects towards social responses that strengthen community solidarity and power.

In rural areas relief is reported to provide the major source of food security. In urban areas severe constraints to GMB and formal market deliveries and high parallel market prices indicate an urgent need to unblock the urban food supply chain, whether through markets or relief. Urban vulnerability is causing urban to rural migration to seek relief food, adding further costs to urban households.

This round also highlights the contrast between the harmful impact of leaving poor households to 'fend for themselves' and the positive social and community efforts being made in some areas. Collective responses are reported to be hampered by lack of transparency and responsiveness from state structures, political intolerance and exclusion and lack of investment and information.

FOSENET welcomes feedback and contributions on these reports. Write to: fosenet@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