Post on 10-Aug-2020
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Academic year 2010 – 2011
Gender analysis of the food security status, assets,
shocks and coping strategies among EFSP beneficiaries
in the KwaZulu Natal Province (South Africa)
Victoria Flavian Gowele
Promoter-s: Prof. dr. ir. Luc D’Haese Prof.dr. ir. Marijke D’Haese Tutor: Lotte Staelens
Master’s dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Nutrition and Rural Development, main subject: Human Nutrition
i
Copyright
“All rights reserved. The author and the promoters permit the use of this Master’s
Dissertation for consulting purposes and copying of parts for personal use. However, any
other use falls under the limitations of copyright regulations, particularly the stringent
obligation to explicitly mention the source when citing parts out of this Master’s
dissertation.”
Ghent University, 26th of August, 2011
Promoter Promoter II
Prof. dr. ir. Luc D’Haese Prof. dr. ir. Marijke D’Haese
The Author
Victoria Flavian Gowele
ii
ABSTRACT This study was conducted to assess gender differences on household food security status,
access to farm production resources, access to cash income sources, prevailing shocks,
coping strategies, reliance mechanisms and factors influencing household food security
status among beneficiaries of the Empowerment for Food Security Programme (EFSP) in
KwaZulu Natal province, South Africa. The study was conducted in Four (4) purposively
selected Districts (Zululand, Ugu, Umkhanyakhude and Umgungundlovu) in Eight (8)
Municipalities (eDumbe, Pongola, Vulamehlo, Umuziwabantu, Big 5 False Bay,
Umhlabuyalingana, Richmond and Umsunduzi/ Umgeni) of Kwazulu-Natal Province,
South Africa.
This cross sectional study was conducted between July and August 2010 in which the
sample size of 390 respondents was employed. For this study, non-probability sampling
technique (purposive sampling) was used. Data were collected by using structured
questionnaires and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) for
windows version 18.0.In the study Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
Measurement of food access was used.
The study revealed significant difference in food security status between male and female-
headed household. Almost (63%) of female-headed households were severely food
insecure as compared to (49%) of their male counterparts. Households differed
significantly on family size. Majority of female-headed households comprised of between
6-8 persons while their male counterparts was between 9-10 persons. Almost (40%) of
respondents had no formal schooling. Access to farm resources were limiting as (above
60%) of respondents had less than 1 hectare of land, less than (46%) had access to water
for farming, less than (40%) had access to market to buy farm inputs and sell produce, less
than (25%) had access to savings and credit facilities. Promising access was on extension
services where above 85% had access. The main cash income sources were social support
grants accessed by more than 85% respondents while farm income was main source for
less than (27%).Low income levels and money spent on food below recommendations for
adequate diet were noted. respondents were affected mostly by rise in price of food,
drought, death of livestock, theft, rise in cost of food production and serious injury or
chronic illness of a household member. Important factors that were found to influence
household food security were geographical location, limited access to education, limited
access to livestock, low levels of income and reliance on social support grants.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The accomplishment of this study is a result of a combination of efforts, ideas, views and
support from various people. The list is not complete as all of them can not be mentioned.
For those who will not be mentioned, be assured that your contributions to this work are
highly appreciated.
I have no words to express my great sense of gratitude to my “God almighty” who gave me
the potential and strengths throughout my studies until completion of this work.
I sincerely appreciate the technical assistance of the Flemish Government for its
scholarship award through VLIR-UOS.I am so grateful for the opportunity to study at
Ghent University.
Sincerely, I acknowledge with thanks my supervisors Prof.Dr.ir.Luc D’Haese and
Prof.Dr.ir.Marijke D’Haese of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent
University Belgium, for their valuable suggestions, constructive comments, tireless
guidance and perseverance in seeing this study to its completion.
I also acknowledge with thanks the advice, encouragement and forbearance of my tutor Ms
Lotte Staelens of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University Belgium.
Special thanks go to Mrs Mie Remaut the Coordinator Master of Nutrition and Rural
Development, Ghent University Belgium. Ms Marian Mareen, Dr.ir.Tharcisse Nkuzimana
and Ms Ellen Vandamme. Gratitude is also extended to the staff of Cedara Agriculture
College, KwaZulu Natal South Africa, enumerators and respondents in the area of study
for their cooperation during the whole exercise of data collection.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to my loving parents Mr Flavian Gowele and Mrs Margaret
Gowele; my beloved husband Peter Siyao for his material and moral support. Peter
together with our beloved son and daughter that is Brian and Careen you deserve special
thanks for your tireless prayers and endurance you bear during my absence. May God bless
you all abundantly.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
DAEA Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs
DFID Department for International Development
EFSP Empowerment for Food Security Programme
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FHH Female-headed Households
FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping systems
GHS General Household Survey
HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council
IES Income and Expenditure Survey
IFSS Integrated Food Security Strategy
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
MHH Male-headed Households
NGOs Non-governmental Organisations
R Rand
SA South Africa
SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
v
List of Contents
Copyright ............................................................................................................................ ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... iv List of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background on the Study ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Problem statement ....................................................................................................... 5 1. 3. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 7
1.3.1. General Objective ............................................................................................... 7 1.3.2. Specific Objectives ............................................................................................. 7
1.4. Research Questions .................................................................................................... 7 1.5. The significance of the study ..................................................................................... 8 1.6. Scope and limitation of the study .............................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 9 2.1. Key concepts and meanings ....................................................................................... 9 2.2 The Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Livelihood outcomes ......................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Livelihood assets ............................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.1 Human capital ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.2.2 Social capital .................................................................................................. 13 2.2.2.3 Natural capital ................................................................................................ 15 2.2.2.4 Physical capital ............................................................................................... 16 2.2.2.5 Financial capital ............................................................................................. 17 2.2.3 Livelihood strategies ......................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Coping Strategies .............................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 21 3.1 Study area ................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Justification of the study area ................................................................................... 22 3.3 Study Population ....................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Sampling method ...................................................................................................... 23 3.5 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 24 3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 24 3.7. Ethical Issues ........................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Descriptive analyses ................................................................................................ 25
4.1.1. Human capital .................................................................................................. 25 4.1.1.1. Education and employment status ................................................................. 26 4.1.2. Social capital .................................................................................................... 27
4.2. Household heads access to production resources .................................................... 28 4.2.1. Natural capital .................................................................................................. 28 4.2.1.2. Land tenure status.......................................................................................... 29 4.2.1.3. Water ............................................................................................................. 30 4.2.2. Financial and physical capital .......................................................................... 30 4.3.1. Income and expenditure of the household heads ............................................. 32
4.4. Household food security status ................................................................................ 33 4.5. Common shocks faced by household heads ............................................................ 35 4.6. Coping strategies adopted by household heads ....................................................... 36
vi
4.6.1. Households coping strategies during income shortage .................................... 36 4.6.2. Households coping strategies during food shortage ......................................... 37
4.7. Reliance mechanisms adopted by household heads ................................................ 38 4.8. Support types provided to household heads ............................................................ 39 4.9. Gender differences on the factors influencing food security ................................... 41
4.9.1. Influence of geographical location on food security ........................................ 41 4.9.2. Influence of access to human and social capital on food security ................... 44 4.9.3. Influence of access to natural capital on food security .................................... 46 4.9.3.1. Land tenure status.......................................................................................... 47 4.9.4. Influence of access to farm resources on food security ................................... 48 4.9.5. Influence of access to financial capital on food security ................................. 50 4.9.5.1. Influence of household main source of income ............................................ 52 4.9.5.2 Household monthly income and expenditure on food ................................... 55 4.9.6. Influence of various shocks on food security ................................................... 55 4.9.7. Influence of the choice of coping mechanisms on food security ..................... 56 4.9.7.1. Coping strategies during income shortage .................................................... 56 4.9.7.2. Coping strategies during food shortage ......................................................... 57 4.9.8. Influence of the reliance mechanisms on food security ................................... 58 4.9.9. Influence of the support type provided on food security ................................. 59
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............... 61 5.1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 61 5.1.1. Gender on asset levels ........................................................................................... 61
5.1.2 Gender on livelihoods ....................................................................................... 61 5.1.3 Gender on income ............................................................................................. 62 5.1.4 Gender on food security .................................................................................... 62 5.1.5 Gender on shocks and coping mechanisms ....................................................... 62 5.1.6 Gender on reliance mechanisms and support types .......................................... 62
5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 63 5.3 Policy implications ................................................................................................... 63 5.4. Suggestion for further research. ............................................................................... 64
References ........................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 72
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Sustainable livelihoods framework ........................................................................ 10
Figure 3.1: The Map of Kwazulu- Natal Province showing surveyed areas. ........................... 22
Figure 4.1: Food security status by gender of the household head .......................................... 34
Figure 4.2: Common shocks faced by household heads .......................................................... 36
Figure 4.3: Reliance choices by household heads .................................................................. 39
Figure 4.4: Support types provided to household heads .......................................................... 40
Figure 4.5: Distribution of MHH based on their food security categories ............................. 43
Figure 4.6: Distribution of FHH based on their food security categories ............................... 43
Figure 4.7: Distribution of household heads by their daily per capita income in USD .......... 50
vii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents by age and household size ......................................... 26
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by education level and employment status ............... 27
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondents by marital status categories ....................................... 28
Table 4.4: Distribution of household heads by access to land ................................................ 29
Table 4.5: Distribution of respondents by tenure access types ............................................... 30
Table 4.6: Distribution of household heads by access to water resources ............................ 30
Table 4.7: Distribution of household heads by access to savings, credit facilities, extension
services and markets ................................................................................................................ 31
Table 4.8: Distribution of household heads by access to the main cash income sources ....... 32
Table 4.9: Income and expenditure compared by household head gender ............................. 33
Table 4.11: Distribution of household heads by types of shocks faced ................................. 35
Table 4.12: Distribution of household heads by coping strategies-income shortage ............. 37
Table 4.13: Distribution of household heads by coping strategies-food shortage ................ 38
Table 4.14: Distribution of household heads by reliance choices .......................................... 39
Table 4.15: Distribution of household heads by support provided ........................................ 41
Table 4.16: Food security level compared by districts ........................................................... 42
Table 4.17: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by socio-economic
characteristics and gender ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 4.18: Food security level compared by access to education ......................................... 45
Table 4.19: Food security level compared by access to formal employment ......................... 45
Table 4.20: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by access to natural capital and
gender ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.21: Food security level compared by access to livestock .......................................... 46
Table 4.22: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by land access types and gender . 48
Table 4.23: Food security level compared by access to farm resources ................................. 49
Table 4.24: Food security level compared by access to grazing land and irrigation facilities
.................................................................................................................................................. 49
Table 4.25: Food security level compared by daily income per capita in USD ..................... 51
Table 4.26: Food security level correlated to income ............................................................. 51
Table 4.27: Food security categories compared by income ................................................... 52
Table 4.28: Food security level compared by the main income sources ................................ 53
viii
Table 4.29: Food security level correlated to income sources ............................................... 54
Table 4.30: Food security level correlated to income sources ............................................... 55
Table 4.31: Food security level compared to proneness to the main shocks ......................... 56
Table 4.32: Food security level compared to coping mechanisms during income shortage .. 57
Table 4.33: Food security level compared to coping mechanisms during food shortage ...... 58
Table 4.34: Food security level compared by coping mechanism-Food intake reduction ..... 58
Table 4.36: Food security level compared to reliance mechanisms ....................................... 59
Table 4.36:Food security level compared to support provided during food/income shortage
.................................................................................................................................................. 60
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background information for this study. The proceeding components
include: problem statement, motivation of the study, overall objective of the study, specific
objectives, and research questions, significance of the study and the scope and limitation of
the study.
1.1 Background on the Study
In today’s world, food security is a widespread phenomenon which historically started to
make a serious impact on the development debate in the 1970s and has continued to do so for
the last three decades (Hart, 2009). Principally, food security assessments were done at macro
level by assessing national food production and supply. This aggregated means of assessing
food security often however masks major disparities at the micro level. Therefore, to help
policy planning and effective allocation of resources, food security must also be considered at
the household or at the individual level (Becquey et al., 2010).
Food security at the individual, household, national, regional, and global levels exists when all
people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life
(FAO, 2001).The main goal of food security is for individuals to be able to obtain adequate
food needed at all times and to be able to utilize the food to meet the body’s needs (Olarinde
and Kuponiyi, 2005).
The concept of gender came up in the 1990s and is linked to food security in a fundamental
way (World Bank, 2009). Gender refers to socially constructed roles and relationships
between men and women which can vary widely across cultures. These socially constructed
roles are usually unequal in terms of power and decision making, as well as in terms of having
control over assets, freedom of action and ownership of resources among others (Ellis, 2000).
The concept of gender has also been considered in agriculture and development where
agricultural opportunities are recognised not to be the same for men and women (Omwoha,
2007). Gender-based inequalities all along the food production chain “from farm to plate”
hinder the attainment of food and nutritional security (World Bank, 2009).
Farming is the primary occupation by most members of rural households in many developing
countries. Both men and women farmers play important roles in agricultural production.
2
Numerous factors influence food production among smallholder farmers in developing
countries. Socio-economic characteristics of the household have been stated in literature as
important determinants of household food security status. Gender of the household head,
educational level of the household head, farm size, household’s access to extension agents,
household livelihood strategies, household heads’ membership of cooperative societies and
value of household assets are listed as factors influencing household food security (Amaza et
al., 2006).These factors affect both men and women in their abilities to achieve greater
productivity in agriculture.
Based on literature, problems faced by women farmers are more distinct due to socio-cultural
constraints that affect their access to and control over essential assets necessary for improving
their livelihoods and those of their households (Mikalitsa 2010; Mtshali 2002; Amaza et al.
2007). The majority of women farmers are constrained by a lack of access to land, extension
services, credit, income and low education level (Mikalitsa, 2010). Despite having resource
constraints and heavy domestic duties at household level (such as food preparation, fetching
water, child care and caring for the old and sick family members) women farmers are reported
to be producers of half of the world food production, accounting for between 60 and 80
percent of the food in most developing countries (Ellis et al., 2006 and Deji 2010).
Gender and food security related studies conducted in Zambia, Malawi and South Africa
reported that, food insecurity rates are higher among households headed by females than
households headed by men (Kapungwe 2005; WFP 2010; Rose & Charlton 2002).These
higher food insecurity rates can be explained by the limited access to income, land and
property among female-headed households compared to men (Lemke et al., 2003).In addition,
results from a study conducted in Kenya revealed that, while both male and female
smallholders lack sufficient access to agricultural resources, women generally have much less
access to resources than men (Auma et al., 2010).
The adverse effects of the lack of access to land by women has been shown by the study
conducted in Tanzania by Ellis and Mdoe (2003) when they pointed out that, poverty
reduction goals cannot be achieved because customary laws exclude women from land
ownership or inheritance rights. Moreover, World Bank (2009) pointed out that even when
women have access to land for food production and access to improved technologies, they
face more constraints than men in accessing complementary resources for success. They have
3
less access to credit and less access to inputs such as fertilizer, they are less likely to benefit
from agricultural extension services and therefore they have less access to improved
technologies.
Contrary to this, a study conducted in Bangladesh that investigated the food security status of
male- and female-headed households with particular attention to indigenous ethnic groups
revealed no significant differences in the food security status between these two types of
households (Debdulal and Mohammad, 2010). The absence of social and cultural restrictions
among the surveyed group permitting women greater freedom to participate in the labour
force coupled with informal redistributive mechanism was attributed to the result. Debdulal
and Mohammad (2010) further concluded that, noneconomic institutions can significantly
impact economic outcomes such as food security.
Gender differences in access to various income sources exist. Household income sources
include income from crop production, livestock maintenance, non-farm self-employed
enterprises, wage employment, remittances and other sources. In addition, savings and access
to credit facilities also reflects the efficiency of the household in functioning as a small
enterprise. It has generally been proven that, women have less access to wage employment,
less job security and lower wages than men due to their restricted mobility caused by their
reproductive role (Mtshali, 2002).The gender gap in access to credit is also confirmed by
Ellis, Manuel and Blackden (2006) who documented that, women entrepreneurs in Uganda
receive just 1 percent of the available credit in rural areas. This is explained by the fact that
women do not have the same rights or control over the types of fixed assets that are usually
necessary as collateral to access credit markets. In addition, cultural and societal norms and
family obligations limit the economic activities in which women can engage (FAO, 2011).
Evidence from empirical studies has proven significant advantages regarding the control of
income sources by women. Mentioned by Ellis (2000), the share of total household income
controlled by women has a positive and significant influence on the calorie consumption of
the household. In addition, income increases controlled by women have a greater impact on
household food security, child health and schooling than those controlled by men
(Quisumbing et al., 1998). Lemke et al. (2003) added that women still seem to take better
care of themselves and their children with the little they have as compared to their male
counterparts.
4
The context in which households reside, the available opportunities and the constraints their
localities presents, predominantly determine their livelihoods (Tolossa, 2008). Context
involves the environmental, economic, political and social situations that operate in a given
locality and beyond. Occurrence of changes in the context aspects can make households
vulnerable to shocks and long term stress (Tolossa, 2008). Shocks are referred by WFP (2009)
as events that have negative impacts on food security and/or nutrition status that can occur
naturally or caused by human action. The environmental situations that households reside are
manifested by idiosyncratic risks such as illness and death, the threat of theft of assets such as
livestock, and physical insecurity, and covariate risks such as weather related or natural
shocks (droughts, floods and earthquakes) and price fluctuations (Christiaensen and
Subbarao,2005). Shocks represent a particular challenge to livelihood sustainability (Blaikie
et al., 1994) cited by (Ellis, 2000).Shocks also results in erosion of assets indirectly as a
consequence of enforced sales and disposals made so as to maintain consumption during
sequence of responses that occur during times of crisis.
Dercon et al. (2005) define shocks as adverse events that lead to a loss of household income, a
reduction in consumption and/or a loss of productive assets. They further divided shocks into
Climatic (drought and flooding, but also erosion, frosts and pestilence affecting crops or
livestock), Economic (problems in terms of access to inputs both physical access and large
increases in price, decreases in output prices, and difficulties in selling agricultural and non-
agricultural products), Political/social/legal shocks (confiscation of assets or arbitrary taxation
by government authorities, social or political discrimination or exclusion and contract
disputes), Crime shocks include the theft and/or destruction of crops, livestock, housing, tools
or household durables as well as crimes against persons) and Health shocks that include both
death and illness.Shocks can destabilize the households for many years and have an effect on
the welfare and livelihood strategies of the household members. Food insecurity and income
shortage are among the major outcomes of the failures in livelihood. The methods that are
used by households to survive when confronted with such failures are literally referred to as
coping strategies.
Coping strategies entails short term and immediate response an individual or household takes
against changes of context due to various shocks, whereas survival strategies refers long-term
adjustments that can change the mix of ways in which food is acquired (Tolossa,2008).People
pursue a range of livelihood strategies in attempting to increase their income and asset base
5
(‘accumulation strategies’), spread or reduce risk (increase security through ‘adaptive
strategies’), mitigate the impact of shocks (‘coping strategies’), and at the extreme, ensure
survival through ‘survival strategies’ (Devereux, 1999; Scoones, (2000) cited by Misselhorn,
2005).
Based on literature, the incidence of these shocks differs among male and female-headed
households. Results from a study conducted in Ethiopia revealed that, female-headed
households are more adversely affected by droughts than male-headed households while
illness shocks are much more commonly reported by male-headed households (Dercon et al.,
2005).In addition, sudden increases in food prices affects female-headed households in
particular, partly because they tend to spend proportionally more on food than male-headed
households and therefore are highly affected by higher food prices (FAO, 2008).
1.2 Problem statement
South Africa ranks among the countries with the highest rate of income inequality in the
world (Altman et al., 2009). Tremendous disparities in food security exist between
communities and households across the country, reflecting continuing social and economic
inequalities (Drimie et al., 2009).The majority of South Africans living in rural areas are food
insecure despite the high levels of national food self-sufficiency (Leroy et al., 2001).Reports
from General Household Survey (2009) revealed an estimate of 20% South African
households having inadequate or severely inadequate access to food.
In South Africa households access food mainly through three sources: the markets,
subsistence production and transfers from public programmes or other households (Baiphethi
and Jacobs, 2009). In rural areas, most of the households are net deficit food producers; their
access to food is partially or wholly reliant on household income (Drimie et al., 2009).
Reported in the 2005/06 Income and Expenditure Survey (IES) of Statistics South Africa
(Stats SA, 2007) about 92% of rural black households effect most of their purchases in chain
stores or other formal sector retailers for grain products while for dairy, meat and vegetables,
the figures are 94%, 94% and 72%, respectively (Baiphethi and Jacobs, 2009).
The majority of unemployed are black African women, often those living in rural areas. In
addition, working women tend to earn less than their male counterparts (Altman et al.,
2009).Although aggregate data for unemployment rate by race and gender are limited
Kingdon and Knight (2004) reported a rose from 29 to 42% of unemployment rate in South
6
Africa for the period 1995 to 2003. The broad unemployment rate rose from 23 to 36% for
men and from 38 to 48% for women. Overall results indicated that women maintained their
share of total unemployment over the 8 years, at 57% of the total
Small-scale and subsistence agriculture might be one option to contribute to incomes and/or
savings, encouraging food diversification and hence improve households access to food but it
has been reported that only 7% to 13% of black households have some access to land for
agricultural purposes (Altman et al., 2009).
The first Millennium Development Goals’ target to halve the proportion of people who suffer
from hunger is extremely important in Southern Africa, where food security has become
increasingly problematic over the last 20 years (Love et al., 2006). In South Africa, food
security has increasingly become a central focus of many Government and Non-Government
programmes. Various interventions not directly fall under the ambit of food security, but
which impact on food security such as food gardening, exists (Lima, 2008). South Africa’s
Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS) declares its ‘primary objective to overcome rural
food insecurity by increasing the participation of food insecure households in productive
agricultural sector activities (De Klerk et al., 2004).In this regard, a joint collaboration
between the KwaZuluNatal Provincial Department of Agriculture and the Government of
Flanders established the KZN Empowerment for Food Security Programme (EFSP). This five
years programme that began on 1st April 2006 aims at improving the livelihoods of poor
households by providing access to food for consumption and sale. Food access problems are
serious in KwaZulu-Natal which ranks the second province in South Africa with 23, 1% of
households having inadequate or severely inadequate food access (GHS, 2009).
A gender based comparison study on food security status and resource endowment is
necessary because men and women are important members of the society and each play
different roles. It is also important because as has already been outlined before/ as has been
shown in literature, women are more prominently affected than men among population groups
and most vulnerability assessments identified that female- heads of households are more food
insecure and resource poor than male-headed households. Since men and women experience
these problems differently, their response might also be different indicating that the causes
and consequences of food insecurity and resource access constraints are gender related.
Limited access to productive resources (be it income, water, land, and support systems) have
7
consequences for agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability making
households prone to food insecurity.
In a South African rural situation, most reproductive and productive activities take place in
the domestic sphere or household domain (Mtshali, 2002).In order to provide clear
understanding of the gendered dimensions of food security and enhance a match between
policy and programmatic work, this study focuses on comparison between male and female
EFSP beneficiaries to explore if household headship by gender significantly influences their
food security status and access to productive resources.
1. 3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective
This study aims at identifying the household food security status and productive resource
endowments among beneficiaries of the Empowerment for Food Security Programme (EFSP)
in KwaZuluNatal province, South Africa. Particularly this study focuses on the analysis of
how different productive resources of smallholder farmer beneficiaries can influence the food
security situation of households with a special attention to gender comparisons of the
household heads. The kinds of shocks faced and coping mechanisms adopted will further be
explored.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
1. To identify the food security status of the male and female headed households
participating in the study.
2. To assess the productive resource endowments access of the male and female headed
households participating in the study.
3. To identify the major cash income sources of the male and female headed households
participating in the study.
4. To explore the diverse shocks/stresses faced and coping mechanisms adopted by
female-and male-headed households participating in the study.
1.4. Research Questions
The investigation in this study was guided by seeking answers to the following research
questions:
1. What is the food security status among the male and female headed households in the
8
study area?
2. What are the productive resource endowments do male and female headed households
in the study area have access to?
3. What are the major cash income earning sources of male and female headed household
in the study area?
4. What kinds of shocks/stress faced and coping mechanisms adopted by male and
female headed households in the study area?
1.5. The significance of the study
This study makes contribution through adding information and understanding to gender and
food security related research studies, policy making and design of intervention programs and
projects. In addition, the following contributions should also be observed:
1. The findings will serve as an informative tool for the programme implementers and policy
makers to understand how best the interventions can be addressed to tackle the problems of
the target group.
2. Findings of the study will contribute to the existing literature, identify the research gaps in
this topic and provide a point of departure for other researchers.
3. Findings of the study will provide information about the current status of productive asset
ownership among the study population the livelihood stress/shocks faced and the methods of
coping chosen in order to sustain their livelihoods.
1.6. Scope and limitation of the study
This study focus on the analysis of the food security status, productive resource endowments,
shocks and choice of coping strategies among beneficiaries of the Empowerment for Food
Security Programme (EFSP) in a gender perspective. Both male and Female-headed
households of the beneficiaries were targeted. This study covered the selected districts and
municipals in KwaZulu- Natal province where the programme was implemented. Limitations
during the process of data collection were observed especially due to language used by
majority of the respondents (IsiZulu) that reduced direct conversation between the researcher
and the respondent. Data collection process was made possible through the use of trained
enumerators who spoke both English and IsiZulu languages.
9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Key concepts and meanings
The concept of household food security can be clearly understood by focusing on the
household as a fundamental unit. In this perspective, understanding gender relations and
headship roles of the household is also important. Literally, two types of gender of household
heads exist; male and female heads.
A male-headed household is defined as a unit in which there is an ‘intact’ couple or at least
other adult female’s if not the man’s spouse (Kite, 2006).Different meanings are assigned to
describe female headed households. Kite (2006) defined female headed household as a unit
where an adult woman (usually with children) resides without a male partner. In other words,
a head of household is female in the absence of a co resident legal or common-law spouse (or,
in some cases, another adult male such as a father or brother).According to world Bank (2009)
demographic definition of female headed households, two main types are explained; De jure
female-headed households referring those where the male head is permanently absent as a
result of death, divorce, and desertion and in the case of unmarried women. In this category
the self reported female head does not have any legal or common law union male partner. The
second category is de facto female-headed households where the husband is temporarily
absent from the home half or more of the time. Often these households may be supported by
male partner who are migrant workers but still play a role in decision making and income
contribution.
As mentioned earlier on, food security at the household level can be influenced by
multivariate factors including gender of the household head. Thus, gender and household
headship roles are important components to be addressed taking into consideration that based
on gender, household heads may have different levels of access and control over resources
that may affect food security status of their households.
2.2 The Conceptual Framework
This study used the conceptual model Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) as adapted
from DFID (2000) as shown in Figure 1. The model was used because it incorporates
important aspects of food security, livelihood assets, vulnerability context, coping strategies
and livelihood outcomes of which are the subjects of the study. The model was also used as a
10
guide for data collection, developing the research questions as well as relating the research
findings of this study.
Figure 2.1: Sustainable livelihoods framework
Transforming
structures and
processes
Policies
Institutions
Government
NS
FP
HVulnerability
Context
Shocks
Seasonality
Trends
Influence &access
Livelihood
Strategies
Livelihood
Outcomes
-More income
- Increased well
being
- Improved food
security
-More sustainable
use of natural
resource base
KEY
H = Human capitalN = Natural capitalF = Financial capital
P = Physical capitalS = Social capital
Source: Adapted from DFID, 2000
Livelihood is defined as “a household’s capabilities, assets and activities required to secure
basic needs - food, shelter, health, education, and income” (WFP, 2005).The livelihoods
framework is a tool to improve our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods
of the poor (DFID 2000). The arrows within the framework are used to denote a variety of
different types of relationships, all of which are highly dynamic. None of the arrows imply
direct causality, though all imply a certain level of influence (DFID 2000).
The starting point is the vulnerability context within which people operate including shocks
(natural disasters, conflicts, economic traumas, health problems and crop or livestock
distress), trends (in population resources, health problems, the economy or governance) and
seasonality(cyclic fluctuations in prices, production, health and employment). Attention is
next given to the assets that people can draw upon for their livelihoods in the form of various
‘capitals’ (e.g. social, human, financial, physical, and natural).
The five types of capital assets are defined as follows:
1. Human Capital: Denotes skills, knowledge, good health and ability to work and
knowledge about the properties, use and location.
11
2. Social Capital: Refers to formal and informal relationships including their degree of
trust, reliability and adaptability.
3. Natural Capital: Consists of natural resources such as wildlife, land, water, forests
including their flows and services.
4. Physical Capital: refers to producer goods and physical infrastructure (production
equipment, communications, transport, energy supplies, water facilities) that provides
means for people to pursue their livelihoods.
5. Financial Capital: Comprise of financial resources available to people (regular
remittances, pension, savings, and credit supplies) that provides different livelihood
options to them.
Assets interact with policies, institutions and processes to shape the choice of livelihood
strategies. These, in turn, shape the livelihood outcomes (which may be positive or negative)
meaning the types of impact we are interested in (e.g. improved food security, increased
wellbeing etc).
Coping strategies entails short term and immediate response an individual or household takes
against changes of context due to various shocks (Tolossa, 2008).People pursue a range of
coping strategies to mitigate the impact of shocks using their five forms of capital assets.
Coping strategies also influences livelihood outcomes.
2.2.1 Livelihood outcomes
Potential livelihood outcomes are the types of impacts we are interested in which may be
positive or negative. These include conventional indicators such as income, food security,
well being, vulnerability and sustainable use of natural resource base. Food security being the
primary goal of sustainable agricultural development and a cornerstone for economic and
social development is an outcome or achievement of the livelihood strategies adopted by
households. Food security analyzed at the household level is conditioned by a household’s
own food production and household members’ ability to purchase food of the right quality
and diversity in the market place (World Bank, 2009).
There is fundamental link between agriculture and food security. In each country agriculture
sector is dependent on the available natural resources, national and international policy and
the institutional environment that governs those resources (World Bank, 2009).Men and
women are influenced by these factors in their choice of crops and food production. Food
availability and access are two essential determinants of food security. Agriculture production
12
being the only source of food for direct consumption and as raw material for refined foods
determines food availability. Domestic policies, including social protection policies and
agricultural investment choices that reduce risks (such as droughts) in the agriculture
production cycle govern the stability of access to food through production or purchase (World
Bank, 2009).
2.2.2 Livelihood assets
In the process of pursuing their livelihood, people can have numerous assets from which they
can rely upon to make a living. These include: social capital, human capital, natural capital,
financial capital and physical capital. These assets can influence the status of the people in
different ways. These assets are put together to form an “asset pentagon” which is used to
assess people overall asset base.
This framework suggests the importance of adequate ownership of livelihood assets for
pursuing a range of livelihood opportunities, and this determines the livelihood performance
and ability to accumulate assets for optimal production and for smoothing consumption in the
face of seasonal climatic and market risks. Reducing asset poverty is the key to enhancing
food security and livelihoods for poor and vulnerable rural agricultural populations (Matshe,
2009).
2.2.2.1 Human capital
This can be analysed in terms of education, skills, knowledge, health, nutrition and labour
power of household members. In the form of available labour and human resources is a key
for smallholder farmers’ community to achieve positive livelihood outcomes. It is argued that
Human capital is required in order to make use of the other four types of capital (social,
physical, financial and natural capital (Reid and Vogel, 2006). Human capital (education) for
example can improves peoples’ capacity to diversify assets and activities, increase
productivity and income, foster resilience and comprehensiveness, access information on
health and sanitation, strengthen social cohesion and participation. All these are essential
elements to ensure food security in the long run (Buchenrieder & Dufhues , 2006). Education
enhances knowledge and skills, improve individual's access to opportunities for employment
and income generation. It is therefore concluded that, education for rural people is essential
tool for promoting overall national food security (FAO, 2006).
Health is also a core component of human capital. Good physical and mental health is
essential for participation of household members in production activities bearing in mind that
13
most rural people rely on physical labour for income in cash or in kind. Health impairment or
illness can lead to a severe drain on household resources and thus affecting household’s
economic stability (Mtshali, 2002).
The lack of knowledge regarding good farming practices and market information can be a
constraint to farmers for sustaining their livelihoods. The information and assistance
regarding seed types, planting dates, herbicides, and types of fertilizers through extension
services is essential for smallholder farmers. Access to accurate market information is
essential for accessing profitable markets. In addition, information on production and research
innovations is important to improve their efficiency of production and be more competitive as
noted by Siyao (2010).
Emphasizing the importance of education, Leroy et al. (2001) pointed out that, increased
efficiency in farm production, farm management and farm size could increase yields and,
consequently, food security. Moreover, this could be achieved by improving farmers’
knowledge of management techniques and by providing management information (record-
keeping) through extension services.
2.2.2.2 Social capital
This is defined by Putnam (1995) as the characteristics of social organisation, such as social
networks, norms and social trust, which foster coordination and cooperation among
community members, enabling them to act collectively for mutual benefits. It is also referred
to as the networks that facilitate collective action and use of resources (Burchi 2006).This
capital can be seen as the social resources upon which people draw on in order to pursue
livelihood objectives (DFID, 1999). When a social unit such as a household is affected by a
shock or stress coping mechanisms become necessary for survival. Among the factors that
determine a household’s resilience or ability to cope is access to resources of extended
families and community support (Drimie and Casale, 2009).
Ellis (2000) explained that, social capital is based on personal or family networks comprising
near or remote kin and close family friends that offer diverse potential means of support when
past favours are reclaimed. In addition, whereas human capital resides in individuals, social
capital resides in relationships (Woolcock, 2001) cited by Buchenrieder and Dufhues (2006).
Through networking, people can gain direct access to economic resources such as loans,
14
investment tips, protected markets, insurance services (Portes, 1998) as cited by Buchenrieder
and Dufhues (2006) .
Three dimensions of social capital i.e. bonding, bridging and linking are distinguished by
Pretty (2003).Described by Pretty, bonding refers to the relations between homogenous
groups or communities which build social cohesion needed for everyday living; bridging
focuses on the structural relations and networks between groups and communities involving
coordination or collaboration with other groups, external associations, mechanisms of social
support or information sharing across communities and groups; linking is the capacity of
groups to gain access to resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the
community.
Social capital can be examined by identifying claims made on individuals or households,
relatives, neighbours, community groups, NGOs, the state and the international community
(Mtshali, 2002).Defined by Chambers and Conway(1992) cited by Mtshali (2002), claims are
an intangible asset, demands and appeals, which can be made for material, moral or other
practical support or access. Furthermore, claims of food, loans, gifts or work are frequently
made at the time of stress or shock. Through claims people can call upon material, moral and
practical assistance or support.
Regarding the mechanisms of social support, study results in South Africa revealed that,
social grants appear to have been the most important contributor to reducing poverty and food
insecurity in the poorest households (Van der Berg, 2006). Reported by Drimie et al. (2009),
there was a significant increase in social grants between 2002 and 2004 in South Africa, a
trend which is likely to continue to substantially increase the incomes of the poor.
Furthermore, social protection system that involves ensuring receipt of social grants where
households qualify, strategies to reduce and/or stabilise food prices, education for poor
families to better plan their food purchases, and food gardens and ‘soup kitchens’ is
essentially needed to stabilise food consumption(Altman et al.,2009).
Social networks are not a natural given, they must be constructed and maintained through
investment strategies oriented to the institutionalization of network ties (Bourdieu (1980;
1985) cited by Buchenrieder and Dufhues (2006).
15
2.2.2.3 Natural capital
Comprise of the natural resource stocks from which resource flows useful to livelihoods are
derived, including land, water and other environmental resources (Rakodi, 1999). Natural
capital provides a critical resource base for rural household security. Various assets which can
be converted to resources, such as air, rain, water, land, rivers, forests, wild plants and
animals are provided by the natural environment (Mtshali, 2002). While financial assets are
more critical to the urban poor, natural capital .i.e. land and land related resources e.g. soil,
vegetation and water are essential factors to make livelihoods among the rural populations
(Tollosa, 2008). Access to land is often considered a determinant of people’s involvement in
Agriculture (Altman et al., 2009). There cannot be enough smallholder production and
household food security if households do not have access to land of enough quantity and
quality to make a difference in either the quantity produced or the amount of income
generated from the output (Matshe, 2009). Households with land can either use it for
production or to gain income through land rentals. For this reason, land entitlement is an
important source of livelihood (WFP, 2010).
Regarding water availability, climatic conditions may pause great risks to household food
security and strategies to cope with are essential. Variation in rainfall pattern can cause food
insecurity due to uncertainties and failure in crop production. Extreme weather conditions
such as drought and floods have devastating effect on the livelihoods of the poor (Naravan et
al., 1999) cited by Mtshali (2002). The presence of efficient irrigation systems is crucial to
ensure regular harvests, especially in areas affected by frequent drought. Households with no
access to irrigation are exposed to frequent variations in rainfall during the season (WFP,
2010).
Because of inequalities in access to land and insecure tenure, increasing the volume of land
available to the rural poor or improving their tenure rights is often advocated as an essential
component of a poverty reduction programme (Stewart (1995) cited by Rakodi, 1999). The
two principal land tenure systems found in Southern Africa are customary and statutory
tenure. While Customary land tenure systems are governed by unwritten traditional rules and
administered by traditional leaders, Statutory land tenure systems are governed by modern
laws, are supported by documentary evidence such as a title deed or lease certificate and are
administered by the government(Mutangadura, 2007).
16
Given secure access to some land, farmers may seek to increase their production and incomes
by extending planting, selling a higher proportion of their produce, switching to higher value
crops, purchasing more inputs and/or hiring additional labour or equipment (Rakodi,
1999).Furthermore when smallholder farmers have an access to arable land in which irrigation
schemes can be applied, food production and its availability throughout the year will increase.
This will also increase the income of smallholder farmers. On the other hand, lack of access to
land and water has been the cause of food insecurity in most parts of Africa.
Access to land and water, erosion protection and biodiversity can improve food security and
ultimately lead to improved livelihood. In KwaZuluNatal, majority of rural households are
found in the steep slopes and rugged terrain of the province that is often unsuitable for
agriculture also inhibits the construction of major infrastructural services needed to provide
basic services for enhancing rural livelihood security (Mtshali, 2002).
2.2.2.4 Physical capital
Refers to the infrastructure assets, such as roads, irrigation canals, power lines, water supply
equipment, tools for agricultural and other income generating activities and buildings for
community services (Mtshali,2002).Mentioned by Ellis (2000), physical assets comprise of
capital that is created by economic production process e.g. Buildings, irrigation canals, roads,
production tools, transport and machines. Emphasizing on households, physical assets that
can be converted into resources include land, agricultural equipment, household and other
productive equipment, housing and other personal or household property.
Most of the smallholder farmers rely on crude implements for their farming activities such as
ploughing, weeding, planting and harvesting. These activities should be mechanised since it
has been proved that technology increases agricultural production (Oni et al., 2010). Irrigation
facilities are also important to improve access to water for production purposes. Time
allocated for the collection of water decreases the overall time budget for other activities.
Gladwin et al. (2001) pointed out that, the constant availability of water through the irrigation
scheme is possibly the ‘life-blood’ of the community and enables the majority of households
to sustain a livelihood. Smallholder farmers need clean drinking water and sanitation services
in the area. The lack of formal services, example piped water and sanitation results in the river
water being largely used for domestic use as well as irrigation. It is here that health issues
occur due to the poor quality of the water, especially in times of low flow. In this case, natural
17
and physical capitals are having a detrimental effect in terms of decreasing the productivity of
farmers when they fall ill.
Markets are essential components of physical infrastructures. Access to markets is an
important source of income, assets, and factors of production and consumption to sustain the
needs of the household and welfare of the family. Agricultural markets include product, input,
labor (in agriculture and agribusiness), financial, land, and water markets (World Bank,
2009). In many areas, participation in lucrative markets is often dependent on access to and
control of capital, mobility, and socio-cultural factors, where potential gender asymmetries
persist for example; Poor and small producers, often women, may be excluded from the
lucrative high-value markets because they may not be able to compete in terms of costs and
prices with larger producers (World Bank, 2009).
The availability and affordability of transport in order to take produce to markets would
ensure a positive livelihood outcome. On the other hand, farmers’ lack of access to markets
may be due to the lack of transport. This failure to access markets further may constrains
financial capital resources that could be used to purchase seed or equipment to enable farmers
in turn to be more productive (Gladwin et al ., 2001).
2.2.2.5 Financial capital
Financial capital can be seen as flows of cash and stocks, example cows, car, house, and many
others. Tolossa (2008) defined financial capital as assets in terms of cash that can be drawn
from employment, savings, pension, remittances and credits. Ellis (2000) mentioned that,
financial capital refers to stocks of money that a household has access.
Available stocks and regular inflows of money are the two main sources of financial capital as
mentioned by DFID (2000). Available stocks such as savings are more preferred as financial
capital because there are no liabilities attached to. In addition savings can be held in several
forms: cash, bank deposits or liquid assets such as livestock and jewellery. Regular inflows of
money include pensions, or other transfers from the state, and remittances.
Results from studies conducted in South Africa among smallholder farmer’s population
revealed that, Farming is the greatest contributor to household income generating more than
40 percent of total household income, old-age pension is the second most important source
18
with a contribution of about 25 percent followed by wages contributing about 20 percent.
Non-farm income sources as a category contribute more to household income than farming;
about 60 percent of total household income is from non-farm sources (Machethe,2004).Farm
income include the one derived from the sale of farm produce while non-farm sources
included old-age pension, remittances, wages, family business and other sources. This is also
supported by Drimie et al. (2009) who mentioned that, in South Africa the main sources of
cash among the poor are insecure piece jobs, the government social welfare safety net of old
age pensions and child support grants, and private transfers from working relatives and
neighbours.
South Africa, unlike many developing countries, has a comprehensive social security system
that is comparable to those found in many developed countries (Van der Berg 2005). The
system comprises several types of cash and non-cash transfers of which the most common and
frequently accessed are old age pension, child support grant, disability grant, care dependency
grant, and the foster care grant. In addition, non-cash transfers provided include the food
parcels and vouchers that are mostly accessed by families in temporary distress (Jacobs et al.,
2010).The authors further reported that, at the end of 2009/10 fiscal period, there were 13.9
million recipients of grants, receiving more than R80bn from the national budget and by 2013,
it is projected that social security benefits will be delivered to 16 million people.
Regarding financial resources, Mtshali (2002) pointed out that, rural households in South
Africa have low income levels and spend a large portion of their income on food. People often
do not have access to credit facilities because they lack collateral and there exists low
percentage of households with savings. In addition, lack of useful and credible financial
institutions in rural areas contribute to the low percentage of households that save money.
2.2.3 Livelihood strategies
Livelihood strategies are the organized set of lifestyle/behavioural choices adopted by people
to make a living including how people access food; earn income; allocate labour, land and
resources; their patterns of expenditure; the way they manage and preserve assets; how they
respond to shocks; and the coping strategies they adopt (WFP,2010). People livelihood
sources reflect their ability to acquire food. The livelihood sources as outlined by Sen (1991)
cited by (Young et al., 2001) are as follows: production (crop and livestock), labour and
19
professions, trade and inheritance and transfer livelihood sources (from state or private and
loans).
Access to different levels and combinations of assets may influence people’s choice of
livelihood strategies. Some activities require particular skills or may be very labour intensive
hence require high levels of human capital. Good physical infrastructure for the transport of
goods (physical capital); natural capital example land as the basis for production or access to a
given group of people achievable through existing social connections (social capital).
“Different livelihood activities have different requirements, but the general principle is that
those who are amply endowed with assets are more likely to be able to make positive
livelihood choices. That is, they will be choosing from a range of options in order to
maximise their achievement of positive livelihood outcomes, rather than being forced into any
given strategy because it is their only option” (DFID, 2000).
The extent to which households, especially rural ones, are able to feed themselves depends on
both, non-farm income as well as their own agricultural production (Chapman & Tripp,
2004) cited by Baiphethi and Jacobs (2009).While farming still remains important for rural
households, people are looking for diverse opportunities to increase and stabilise their
incomes. This indicates that, rural livelihoods are not solely based on agriculture but on a
diverse array of income generating activities.Diversification in income generation decreases a
household’s vulnerability to financial shortfalls when there may be a crop failure or when
other external remittances are lost.
Livelihood entails various means of supporting life and meeting individual and community
needs (Forsyth et al., 1998) cited by Dovie et al. (2005). Households being the most important
units of production and consumption in the entire community can sustain life from various
income sources. There are households that derive their livelihoods from on-farm income i.e.
the sum of crop and livestock production activities, off-farm activities that include all
activities performed off of the household’s own land (agricultural and non-agricultural wage
labour, self employment, transfers and other income activities) and non-farm activity which
comprise of non-agricultural wage labour and self employment(Davis et al.,2010).
A study conducted in KwaZulu-Natal as reported by FAO (2004), which involved 1031
households concluded that households engaging in agricultural activities tend to be less poor
than those not participating in agricultural production. In addition, the study notes that the
20
level of farm income increases with total household income suggesting that agriculture
remains an important source of income even for households deriving a significant proportion
of their income from non-farm sources.
2.2.4 Coping Strategies
Livelihoods in many regions of the world are under stress from multiple causes. The external
environment in which people lives and the wider availability of assets are fundamentally
affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and seasonality over which they have limited
or no control (DFID,2000).
Households under stress from hunger, poverty or disease will be adopting a range of strategies
to mitigate their impact through complex multiple livelihood strategies. These entail choices
that are essentially “erosive” (unsustainable, undermining resilience) and “non-erosive” of
which are easily reversible (De Klerk et al., 2004). The distinction between erosive and non-
erosive strategies depends crucially on a household’s assets (for example, natural capital,
physical capital, financial capital, social capital and economic capital), which a household can
draw upon to make a livelihood. Taking an example where in some level livestock sales is
normal and does not result in increased poverty (non-erosive), at a certain point, however,
household livestock holdings reduce to the level where they are no longer sustainable. At this
point, livestock sales become erosive. Nevertheless, sales of chickens, goats or cattle are
classic coping strategies that households all over sub-Saharan Africa engage in (De Klerk et
al., 2004).
The common coping strategies adopted in the early stages of famine as mentioned by Young
et al. (2001), include the migration of household members especially men to look for work,
searching food and selling non-productive assets (consumer durables, livestock, shops and
houses). A common early strategy is to reduce food intake, or to change the diet, people may
also switch to cheaper, less desirable and perhaps less nutritious food or they may reduce the
number or size of meals. People may choose to go hungry in order to preserve their
productive assets for future livelihoods.
Furthermore, De Klerk et al. (2004) added that, consumption reducing and switching
strategies are generally the first line of defense against food shortage. Households may, for
example, switch to “wild foods” or skip entire days without eating. Another option for
21
households under stress is the removal of children from school in order to release them for
household strategies requiring labour or to relieve costs associated with school attendance
(fees, uniforms, stationary). The “erosive” nature of such a strategy is the diminishing stock of
human capital for future livelihood options. Another “negative” strategy for food security is
that these children may be removed from school feeding schemes and denied opportunities for
nutritional balance.
The study conducted by Hendriks et al. (2009) to investigate the food insecurity coping
strategies among the sample households from the Embo community in the Umbumbulu
district of KwaZulu-Natal concluded that, households applied short-term food consumption
coping strategies to cope with food shortages. These were reported as relying on less
preferred/inexpensive food; borrowing food, or relying on help from friends or relatives;
gathering wild food, hunting or harvesting immature crops; consuming seed stock held for the
next season; sending household members to eat elsewhere; limiting portion size at meal times;
restricting adult consumption in favour of small children; reducing the number of meals eaten
in a day; skipping entire days without eating and begging from neighbours or friends.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study area
The study was carried out in Four (4) purposively selected Districts (Zululand, Ugu,
Umkhanyakhude and Umgungundlovu) in Eight (8) Municipalities (eDumbe, Pongola,
Vulamehlo, Umuziwabantu, Big 5 False Bay, Umhlabuyalingana, Richmond and Umsunduzi/
Umgeni) of Kwazulu-Natal Province, South Africa (Figure.2).KwaZulu-Natal is one among
the nine provinces in South Africa.Formed by combining the former Zulu homeland and Natal
Province. KwaZulu-Natal is now South Africa’s largest province, containing more than 10
million people based on the Population Census (2009) mid year population estimates
(www.info.gov.za).
The province is located on the eastern side of South Africa occupying an area of 92,100 km².
It lies between latitude 280 40’ and 0’’South of the Equator and Longitude 300 40’ and 0’’ to
the East of Greenwich (www.info.gov.za). The principal language spoken is IsiZulu, followed
by English and Afrikaans. According to the 2000 National Census, the population is made up
mainly of Black (85%), followed by Indian (9%) and Whites (5%). KwaZulu-Natal ranks
second as a major contributor to the economy, accounting for 16.7% of South Africa’s GDP
22
(www.info.gov.za).
KwaZulu-Natal is South Africa’s domestic tourism leader; the ports of Durban and Richards
Bay are some of the busiest in South Africa. Richards Bay is the second-largest exporter of
steam coal in the world and the centre of operations for South Africa’s aluminium industry.
The manufacturing sector is the largest in this province contributing 21% to GDP. The
KwaZulu-Natal coastal belt forms the mainstay of the economy and agriculture yielding sugar
cane, wood, oranges, bananas, mangoes and other tropical fruit. Forestry is another major
income source in the areas around Vryheid, Eshowe, Richmond, Harding and Ngome, which
is also known for its tea plantations (www.info.gov.za).
Surveyed Districts in Kwazulu- Natal Province, Source: Lima, (2008)
3.2 Justification of the study area
KwaZulu-Natal Province was chosen because it is the implementation site of empowerment
for food security programme. This was based on its vulnerability status on food insecurity and
Figure 3.1: The Map of Kwazulu- Natal Province showing surveyed areas.
23
HIV/AIDS prevalence that is leaving behind myriad social problems such as elderly-headed
households, child-headed households, female-headed households and orphans
(http://agriculture.kzntl.gov.za).
KwaZulu-Natal has the highest HIV prevalence rate of 15.8% in the country. Almost 1
million people have already died of HIV/AIDS diseases and conditions (Lima, 2008). In 2005
there were approximately 3.4 million orphans in South Africa, of which one quarter or 26%
were resident in KwaZulu- Natal. Households affected by HIV/AIDS suffer from income
poverty due to loss of household income (due to illness, inability to work and death of
breadwinners) and engage in coping strategies (such as skipping meals) that further weakens
the immune system and increases prevalence of disease and malnutrition in children and
adults. The empowerment for food security programme aims to generate skills to mitigate the
devastating impacts of HIV/AIDS and lack of income by providing access to food for
consumption and sale (http://agriculture.kzntl.gov.za).
The data obtained from the national statistics as reported by Lima(2008) shows a situation in
KZN whereby 1.9 Million people are unemployed (31.7%) , in rural areas 64-70% of people
live almost entirely off social grants, malnutrition in children is as follows: 18.5% are stunted,
4 % wasted, and 63% have chronic malnutrition. In KZN, around 15%-17% of the working
age population is engaged in agriculture (either as a main source of income or as an extra
source of food).
3.3 Study Population
The study population consisted males and females beneficiaries of the Empowerment for
Food Security Programme. The study used household as the unit of analysis. Household was
defined as a unit of consumption and consisted of all the people who usually ate and slept
under the same roof and who shared the same bundle of incomes to support their
consumption. Household heads were the primary sources of information and sometimes a
delegated member was the respondent. In households where it was difficult to isolate a
respondent, a collective household interview was conducted.
3.4 Sampling method
The study based on the baseline survey which was conducted between April 2007 and July
2008 in which the sample size of 646 respondents was used. For this study, non-probability
24
sampling technique (purposive sampling) was used and a total of 390 households participating
in small-scale vegetable and livestock production were interviewed. The respondents were
obtained from the list provided by the Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Department of Agriculture
and was initially used in the 2007-2008 Baseline Study. New project members who registered
after the baseline study were also interviewed.
3.5 Data Collection
Both primary and secondary data were used in this study. The secondary data was collected
from various sources including official government reports and research papers.
Primary data were obtained by the use of structured questionnaires containing closed and
open-ended questions; face – to - face interviews, interviews with key informants, and
personal observations were used to supplement information that was collected by the other
methods.The household survey questionnaire was used to collect data on socio economic
characteristics, food consumption patterns, shocks and application of coping strategies
(Appendix 1). Pre- testing of questionnaires and interview guide was done using a small
number of respondents who were not part of the sample but had similar characteristics as the
target population to determine the validity and reliability of the instruments.
3.6 Data analysis
The study used Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of food
access. The HFIAS score is a continuous measure of the degree of food insecurity (access) in
the household in the past four weeks (30 days). The maximum score for a household is 27
.The higher the score, the more food insecurity (access) the household experienced. The lower
the score, the less food insecurity (access) a household experienced (Coates et al., 2007).
The collected quantitative data such as socio economic characteristics, household income
sources, type of assets, type of shocks, choice of coping strategies and reliance mechanisms
were analysed using the statistical package for social scientists (SPSS) for windows version
18.0. The purpose was to obtain descriptive statistical results. Statistical calculations such as
means, frequency tables, and standard deviations were done. Cross tabulations using Chi
squared test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), independent sample t-test and correlation
(bivariate) were performed to assess the significance of association between different
variables. These tests were undertaken with the assumption that the characteristics of
household food security variables and household headship by gender were significant.
25
3.7. Ethical Issues
Considering their willingness to take part in the study, respondents were informed of the
purpose of the research and any other information that was required by them before being
interviewed. This was also stated clearly in the front page of the questionnaire.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Descriptive analyses
The study focused on comparison between the male-headed households and female-headed
households on various factors that influences their food security status. A total of 390
household heads participated in the study of which 215 (55.1%) were males and 175 (44.9%)
females. Descriptive analyses were done on various factors that influence food security status
of the respondents. Based on the context of this study, these factors are important to be
examined since they represent various household’s livelihood capital endowments that
influence the overall household welfare and food security status in particular. The Pearson
chi-squared test was used to depict significance of associations (p ≤ 0.05).
4.1.1. Human capital
Demographic factors such as age, household size, education and occupation fall into this
category of livelihood asset. The number of people residing (size) and also their age structure
may vary from one household to another. Results in Table 4.1 show that majority of the
respondents (about 29%) were aged between 45-54 years. This was observed in both genders
of the household heads. The age distribution indicated predominance of adult population. Age
may influence the food security status of the household. Child and elderly headed households
are reported to be more vulnerable to food insecurity (WFP, 2009). Age between genders of
the respondents did not differ significantly (p=0.869).
26
Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents by age and household size (N and % between brackets)
FHH (N=175)
MHH (N=215)
χ2
value p-value
Age class (Yrs) 2.492 0.869 15-24 1(0.6) 1(0.5) 25-34 8(4.6) 6(2.8) 35-44 28(16.0) 38(17.7) 45-54 52(29.7) 63(29.3) 55-64 42(24.0) 43(20.0) 65+ 33(18.9) 48(22.3) Household size class
9.463 0.024
1-5 people 35(20.0) 26(12.1) 6-8 people 69(39.4) 70(32.6) 9-10 people 45(25.7) 76(35.3) Above 10 people 26(14.9) 43(20.0) Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Household size differed significantly between male and female-headed households (p=0.024).
The overall sample had a mean of 6.7 members per household. Results in Table 4.1 show
majority of the FHH having between 6 and 8 people (39.4%).MHH had higher family size of
between 9 and 10 people as reported by 35.3% of the respondents. Households are
characterized by relatively large family size. Number of people in the household determines
food requirements. The larger the household size the more the food is required. This may
influence household food security status through the choice in quantity and quality of foods to
be consumed.
4.1.1.1. Education and employment status
The level of education attained by majority of the respondents indicated low schooling rates.
Results in Table 4.2 show large percentage of MHH (40%) and FHH (36.6%) reported no
schooling or had only attended junior primary school .i.e. (21.4%) and (19.4%) respectively.
This is contrary to the results reported by Oni et al. (2010) in a study conducted in Limpopo
province among smallholder farmers where (98%) of the ones interviewed had acquired
formal education. Good schooling rates are positively correlated with improved food security
as education is important for enhancing the ability to make appropriate food choices,
improving individual's access to opportunities for employment and income generation
sources. The differences in education between genders of the respondents are not significant
(p=0.538).
27
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by education level and employment status (N and % between brackets) FHH
(N=175) MHH
(N=215) χ
2 value
p-value
Education level attained
5.047 0.538
No schooling 64(36.6) 86(40.0) Junior primary 34(19.4) 46(21.4) Senior primary 29(16.6) 26(12.1) Some Secondary 20(11.4) 33(15.3) Completed high school
9(5.1) 9(4.2)
Courses or certificates for formal training
1(0.6) 1(0.5)
Diploma or degree 1(0.6) - Employed/working 12.278 0.000 Yes 22(12.6) 58(27.0) No 153(87.4) 157(73.0) Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Difference between genders of the household heads on the employment status were
statistically significant (p=0.000).Majority of the MHH (73%) and FHH (87.4%) reported no
formal employment (Table 4.2). Unemployment rates were much higher among the FHH.
This situation is also supported by Mtshali (2002) who reported that women have less access
to wage employment, less job security and lower wages than men due to their restricted
mobility caused by their reproductive role. Unemployment limits the household heads access
to income and eventually access to food.
4.1.2. Social capital
Social capital comprise of factors such as marital status. Results in Table 4.3 shows
significant differences in marital status between FHH and MHH (p=0.000). Majority of FHH
were comprised of the widows (48.6%) and singles (26.3%) contrary to the MHH where the
married (60.9%) and co-habitants (28.8 %) formed the largest portion. Household food
security status is often found to be related with certain marital status categories. Single
mothers, widows or widowers are expected to be more prone to poor food security levels
(WFP, 2009).
28
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondents by marital status categories (N and % between brackets)
FHH (N=175)
MHH (N=215)
χ2
value p-value
Marital status 186.275 0.000 Married 30(17.1) 131(60.9) Living together like husband and wife
8(4.6) 62(28.8)
Widow/widower 85(48.6) 12(5.6) Divorced or separated
6(3.4) 1(0.5)
Single 46(26.3) 9(4.2) Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.2. Household heads access to production resources
The respondents in this study are smallholder farmers. Their easy access to agricultural
resources is essential to improve agricultural productivity and food security at the household,
community and national levels. Production resources can be categorized into the natural,
physical and financial kinds of livelihood assets. Gender comparisons on access to land,
water, extension services, savings, credit facilities and markets were examined between the
male and female-headed households in the study area.
4.2.1. Natural capital
Land and water forms the greatest portion of natural resources that respondents may use to
pursue their livelihoods. Results in Table 4.4 show no significant differences in access to all
types of land between FHH and MHH. Gardens and fields for cultivation were accessed by
majority of the respondents. MHH dominated the grazing land category (35.8%) as compared
to their female counterparts (25.1%).Further analysis on the access of land by size revealed a
remarkable portion (above 60%) of household heads in both genders possessing below than 1
hectare (Table 4.4).This situation negatively affects agriculture productivity and hence food
security status of the household. These findings are supported by another study conducted in
KZN province by Mtshali (2002) who reported that 62.7 percent had one hectare and less
land.
29
Table 4.4: Distribution of household heads by access to land (N and % between brackets)
FHH
(N=175)
MHH
(N=215)
χ2
value
p-value
Garden/small plot 135(77.1) 176(81.9) 0.170 0.680 Field for cultivation 106(60.6) 147(68.4) 0.287 0.592 Grazing land 44(25.1) 77(35.8) 1.813 0.178 Private land size (ha) 4.259 0.372 < 0.9 111(63.4) 135(62.8) 1.0-2.0 28(16.0) 38(17.7) 2.1-3.1 2(1.1) 1(0.5) >3.2 - 4(1.9) Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.2.1.2. Land tenure status
Land is an important factor of production for smallholder farmers. Secure access to land
provides opportunities for improved agriculture productivity and enhancement of food
security for the households. The secure access to land is determined by the land tenure status a
household head might have. Customary and statutory tenure are the two principal land tenure
systems found in Southern Africa. While the former is governed by unwritten traditional rules
and administered by traditional leaders, the latter is governed by modern laws, supported by
documentary evidence such as a title deed. Access to various tenure systems was assessed
between both genders of the household heads and results are as shown in Table 4.5.
Majority of the respondents had access to customary forms of tenure systems. Access to
tribal/traditional land (above 85%), free land (above 67%) and communal land (above 83%)
were reported by the household heads in both genders (Table 4.5).
Below 30 percent of respondents had access to statutory kind of tenure of which in this case
was the bought land category. There were no significant differences in the access to various
tenure systems between the respondents (Table 4.5).
30
Table 4.5: Distribution of respondents by tenure access types (N and % between brackets) FHH
(N=175) MHH
(N=215) χ
2 value
p-value
Tribal/ traditional 155(88.6) 186(86.5) 0.172 0.678 Bought by household 41(23.4) 62(28.8) 0.050 0.822 Person in charge allows 72(41.1)
79(36.7) 2.075 0.150
Work for the person in charge 4(2.3)
4(1.9) 0.246 0.620
Pays rent through produce 4(2.3)
2(0.9) 1.452 0.228
Working for land owner 3(1.7)
5(2.3) 0.045 0.832
Land for free 118(67.4) 156(72.6) 0.279 0.597 Communal land 148(84.6) 179(83.3) 0.410 0.522 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.2.1.3. Water
Limited access to water prevails in both gender categories of the household heads. Less than
46% of the respondents had access to either type of water resources assessed (Table 4.6).
Results are supported by another study conducted in Ekuthuleni, KZN by Bob (2002) who
reported that households had no ownership rights to the critical resources of water, which is
central to agricultural production. Households admitted to steal water from neighbouring
farms because the settlement location was determined by access to roads rather than to water
supply. Having access to water sources assessed was independent from the gender of the
household head according to χ2 –tests (p=0.303, p=0.267 and p=0.225) in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Distribution of household heads by access to water resources (N and % between brackets)
FHH
(N=175)
MHH
(N=215)
χ2
value
p-value
Dam 32(18.3) 32(14.9) 1.063 0.303 River 53(30.3) 76(35.3) 1.231 0.267 Irrigation facilities 66(37.7) 98(45.6) 1.471 0.225 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.2.2. Financial and physical capital
Savings and access to credit facilities forms the main category of financial production
resources assessed in this study. They both reflect the efficiency of the household in
functioning as a small enterprise through investments in agriculture production. Access to
extension services and markets represented physical capital endowments of the respondents.
Results in Table 4.7 show low levels of financial resources among the respondents. Less than
31
25 percent of respondents had access to either savings or credit facilities. Access to credits
was very limiting as reported by 13.1% of FHH and 11.6% of their male counterparts.
Regarding the physical capital resources, extension services were accessed by more than 85%
of the respondents. This might have been contributed by respondents’ participation to EFSP.
Access to markets for buying farm inputs and selling produce was limiting (less than 40%) as
shown in Table 4.7. This was relatively higher as compared to the study conducted in Greater
Sekhukhune South Africa by Drimie et al. (2009), where households reported low levels of
access to a place to buy products (17.8%) and to sell produce (17.3%).No significant
differences were observed (p > 0.05). Gender of the household head was independent from
access to the assets mentioned as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Distribution of household heads by access to savings, credit facilities, extension services and markets (N and % between brackets)
FHH
(N=175)
MHH
(N=215)
χ2
value
p-value
Savings 42(24.0) 53(24.7) 1.712 0.425 Credit facilities 23(13.1) 25(11.6) 0.100 0.751 Extension services 155(88.6) 184(85.6) 0.711 0.399
Market to buy farm inputs
68(38.9) 81(37.7) 0.151 0.698
Market to sell produce/stock
46(26.3) 57(26.5) 0.042 0.838
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.3 Household heads access to cash income sources
The access to various income sources by households explains their livelihood strategies. Cash
income is a form of financial asset that provide access to regular inflows of money on which
households may rely on for pursuing their means to sustain life. The main contributors of
income to the households of the EFSP beneficiaries were household heads and children
through the social support grants attached to them (child support grant).In this study access to
cash income from farming and non-farming sources by both gender categories of the
household heads were assessed and compared.
Results in Table 4.8 show majority of the MHH and FHH (above 85%) reported reliance on
grants and gifts as main income source. Old age pension was the second in order of
importance as mentioned by more than 30% of the respondents. No significant differences
were noted in the access to the assessed cash income sources between the respondents
32
according to chi squared test results in Table 4.8.This lack of significant difference explains
that gender of the household head is independent from the access to the assessed cash income
sources.
Table 4.8: Distribution of household heads by access to the main cash income sources (N
and % between brackets)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
χ2
value p-value
Formal salary in main income sources
60(27.9) 40(22.9) 1.290 0.256
Remittances in main income sources
33(15.3) 32(18.3) 0.599 0.439
Grants & gifts in main income sources
180(87.3) 150(85.7) 0.294 0.587
Farm income in main income sources
56(26.0) 40(22.9) 0.529 0.467
Child support grant 55(25.6) 43(24.6) 0.052 0.819 Old age pension 68(31.6) 64(36.6) 1.053 0.305 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
These results are supported by the ones reported in a study involving 138 smallholder
irrigation farmers in Limpopo Province by Machethe et al. (2004), where Old-age pension
was the second most important source of household income contributing about (25%)
followed by wages (20%).Contrary to the results obtained in KwaZuluNatal, in Limpopo
farming was the greatest contributor to household income by more than 40 percent.
4.3.1. Income and expenditure of the household heads
Literally, food security exists when people have physical, social, or economic access to food
(FAO, 2003).Food can be accessed physically through farm production, socially through
networks with friends neighbours or relatives and economically income availability
determines access to food. Low income levels limit access to food hence predisposing
households to food insecurity situation. Significant difference in average monthly income
(Rands) between male and female-headed households (p=0.006) was revealed as shown in
Table 4.9.The average monthly income values were higher in male-headed household
compared to their female counterparts. The average values in monthly income per capita and
monthly expenditure on food were independent from the gender of the household head (Table
4.9).
Despite of the noted significant difference in income between MHH and FHH, the average
33
monthly income per capita of the respondents fall below the recommended amount of R
R262,66 to meet dietary energy food basket’ (2 053 kcal/p/d) but higher than R189,25 that is
recommended for cost of the ‘below average’ basket (1 554 kcal/p/d).The recommendations
are as per South Africa, IES 2005/2006 reported by Jacobs (2009).This explains that
respondents in this study have limited access to the recommended adequate diets.
Table 4.9: Income and expenditure compared by household head gender (Rands, mean and standard deviation in parentheses) N MHH FHH t- stat p-value Average monthly income 387 1326
(868) 1080 (871)
2.775 0.006
Average monthly income per capita
387 222 (193)
227 (266)
0.738 0.858
Monthly expenditure on food 387 477 (296)
462 (290)
0.504 0.614
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Observed values for monthly expenditure on food covers food needs of less than 5 people.
The lowest per capita expenditure on food is slightly below R120 or R117 based on GHS
2007 as reported by Jacobs (2009).The estimation of total spending in a household having 5
people is R1100 based on IES 2005/2006 reported by Jacobs (2009).Taking into consideration
the average household size of 6.7 people respondents in this study have, the food expenditure
values are low and this may lead to food insecurity.
4.4. Household food security status
Based on the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food
access the household’s food security status was obtained after comparison with pre-
established scores as explained previously. Higher score values indicate more food insecurity
the household experienced. Lower HFIAS scores indicate less food insecurity a household
experienced. Results for the classification are as shown in Figure 4.1.Statistical tests were also
performed to examine the significant differences between genders of the household heads on
food security status as presented in Table 4.10. High levels of food insecurity prevail as
shown in figure 4.1 where almost two thirds (63%) of female-headed households are severely
food insecure.
34
Figure 4.1: Food security status by gender of the household head (%)
Results in Table 4.10 show significant differences in food security levels between male and
female-headed households (p=0.003).The mean HFIAS score were higher in both gender
categories. Male heads of household had lower mean HFIAS score (18.1±5.3) compared to
their female counterparts (19.8±5.6).
Table 4.10: Food security level compared by gender of the household head (mean
HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
F-stat p-value
HFIAS score 18.1(5.3) 19.8(5.6) 9.168 0.003 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
The poor situation in food security status among FHH is supported by Rose and Charlton
(2002) in a study conducted in South Africa and Kapungwe (2005) in a study conducted in
Zambia. The authors reported that food insecurity rates were higher among households
headed by females. Literally, the main reason that explains this situation is unequal access to
livelihood assets by female heads thus making their households prone to food insecurity. This
formed the basis of this study. Further gender analyses to explore the differences over access
to livelihood assets are captured in the sections that follow.
35
4.5. Common shocks faced by household heads
The adverse events that may lead to a loss of income, a reduction in consumption and/or a
loss of productive assets are considered as shocks or stress to the household. Such events may
be due to various factors that are beyond the control of the households. This could be
associated with the economic situation, health conditions, environment and climate on which
the households’ reside (Figure 4.2). Occurrence of shocks in the households headed by males
and females was assessed and compared; the findings are as shown in Table 4.11.
More than 75 percent of household heads in both genders reported to be affected by the rise in
food prices (Table 4.11).This is also supported by Hart (2009) who reported according to the
National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) of South Africa, a year-on-year food price
increase for 2008 was 16.7% significantly higher than a year-on-year increase of 6.7% in
2006. In addition; Jacobs (2010) pointed out that impact of intersecting livelihood shocks;
rapid food price inflation and economic downturn, virtually affected all South Africans in
2008.Other important shocks that were mentioned by the respondents included, rise in food
production cost (about 50%), drought (more than 40%), theft (more than 20%) and death of
livestock by more than 25 percent (Table 4.11).
Table 4.11: Distribution of household heads by types of shocks faced (N and % between brackets)
MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) χ
2 value
p-value
Number of people increased 72(33.5) 60(34.3) 0.168 0.682 Increased food production costs 106(49.3) 90(51.4) 0.037 0.847 Cut-off/decrease of government grant 28(13.0) 26(14.9)
0.132 0.716
Flood 26(12.1) 21(12.0) 0.066 0.797 Tornado/Storm/Cyclones 25(11.6) 32(18.3) 2.513 0.113 Droughts 92(42.8) 72(41.1) 0.202 0.653 Serious injury or chronic illness 90(41.9) 89(50.9) 4.298 0.038
Loss of a job of the main breadwinner 37(17.2) 24(13.7)
0.360 0.548
Loss of remittances 29(13.5) 29(16.6) 0.703 0.402 Loss of possessions/theft 61(28.4) 38(21.7) 0.300 0.584 Death of many livestock 68(31.6) 45(25.7) 0.934 0.334 Food prices increases 166(77.2) 134(76.6) 0.255 0.613 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
According to a χ2 -test (p=0,038), female heads of households (50.9%), were significantly
affected by the serious injury or chronic illness of a household member than their male
counterparts (Table 4.11).This is supported by Kerr (2005) who mentioned that, majority of
the smallholder farmers in northern Malawi noted the effect of a family member falling ill or
36
the women herself jeopardised food security since her labour was drawn away from food
production. This was contrary to what Dercon et al. (2005) reported that the incidence of
illness shock was higher among the male-headed households in Ethiopia.
Figure 4.2: Common shocks faced by household heads (%)
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.6. Coping strategies adopted by household heads
Coping strategies are short term and immediate response that may be taken by an individual
or household against changes of context due to various shocks or adverse effects that
threatens their livelihoods .In this study coping mechanisms against income and food shortage
were assessed and compared by gender.
4.6.1. Households coping strategies during income shortage
Results in Table 4.12 show that according to a χ2 -test (p=0,004), male heads of household
(41.9%) were more significantly likely to sell livestock as compared to their female
counterparts. Receiving gifts or money was a significant option for female heads of household
37
(24%) as compared to male according to a χ2 -test (p=0,011).These findings show that the
choice in the ways of coping against the effects of shocks may differ depending on gender.
The differences in the way of coping could be due to the level of assets the household heads
have in possession.
Table 4.12: Distribution of household heads by coping strategies-income shortage (N and % between brackets)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
χ2
value p-value
Sell livestock 90(41.9) 49(28.0) 8.080 0.004 Sell land, tools, or other assets 5(2.3) 4(2.3) 0.001 0.979 Use own savings 33(15.3) 24(13.7) 0.207 0.649 Borrow money from relatives or friends
131(60.9) 109(62.3) 0.075 0.784
Take out a loan from mashonisa* 33(15.3) 38(21.7) 2.625 0.105 Take out a loan from a formal institution
7(3.3) 4(2.3) 0.331 0.565
Borrow food from relatives or friends
99(46.0) 94(53.7) 2.269 0.132
Take on additional work 41(19.1) 25(14.3) 1.571 0.210 Reduce spending 112(52.1) 83(47.4) 0.840 0.360 Reduce food consumption 96(44.7) 73(41.7) 0.339 0.560 Reduce or stop dept/loan repayments
17(7.9) 16(9.1) 0.190 0.663
Receive gifts or money 30(14.0) 42(24.0) 6.469 0.011 Receive professional counselling 19(8.8) 23(13.1) 1.861 0.172 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010 * A township moneylender who lends out his/her own money for profit
4.6.2. Households coping strategies during food shortage
Results in Table 4.13 show that according to a χ2 -test (p=0,011), male heads of household
(35.3%) were more significantly likely to sell livestock as compared to their female
counterparts. Gender of the household head was independent in the choice of other coping
strategies according to χ2 -test (p> 0.05) in Table 4.13.Food intake reduction and help from
neighbours or relatives were the options of almost 60 percent and above 70 percent of
respondents respectively. This indicates remarkable degrees of food insecurity and reliance on
social capital endowments by the respondents.
38
Table 4.13: Distribution of household heads by coping strategies-food shortage (N and % between brackets)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
χ2
value p-value
Reduce food intake 123(57.2) 101(57.7) 0.010 0.920 Asked neighbours/relatives help 151(70.2) 133(76.0) 1.621 0.203 Household found extra income 33(15.3) 37(21.1) 2.199 0.138 Household member moved 2(0.9) 5(2.9) 2.032 0.154 Sold household assets 7(3.3) 7(4.0) 0.154 0.694 Sold livestock 76(35.3) 41(23.4) 6.528 0.011 Worked for payment in kind 29(13.5) 31(17.7) 1.323 0.250 Appeal for food aid 26(12.1) 26(14.9) 0.638 0.424 Depend on charity 58(27.0) 46(26.3) 0.024 0.878 Borrow money 90(41.9) 80(45.7) 0.583 0.445 Take children out of school 1(0.5) 2(1.1) 0.581 0.446 Do nothing 17(7.9) 20(11.4) 1.393 0.238 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
From the findings it is worth noting that only 1 percent or below of the respondents did not
opt for removal of children from school which is a negative or erosive kind of strategy that
diminishes stocks of human capital for future livelihoods as mentioned by De Klerk et al.
(2004).In addition, coping mechanisms adopted by respondents in this study were supported
by Hendriks et al. (2009) who reported similar kinds of coping mechanisms being employed
by households from the Embo community in the Umbumbulu district of KwaZulu-Natal.
4.7. Reliance mechanisms adopted by household heads
Reliance of household heads to different kinds of social networks of their choice during
difficulties depends on their degree of trust, reliability and adaptability. This represents access
to social capital endowments. A clear vision of reliance mechanisms adopted by respondents
is presented in Figure 4.3.The relationship of reliance choices and gender was analysed by
cross tabulations using Chi squared test and results are as shown in Table 4.14.
39
Figure 4.3: Reliance choices by household heads (%)
According to a χ2 -test (p=0.045) female heads of household (68%) were more significantly
likely to rely on neighbours during difficulties as compared to their male counterparts (Table
4.14).Reliance on relatives or family within an area was the option for more than 66 percent
of the respondents though differences were not significant between MHH and FHH.
Table 4.14: Distribution of household heads by reliance choices (N and % between brackets)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
χ2
value p-value
Neighbours 125(58.1) 119(68.0) 4.005 0.045 Relatives/ family in area 142(66.0) 116(66.3) 0.002 0.960 Relatives/ family elsewhere 66(30.7) 69(39.4) 3.249 0.071 Church 31(14.4) 26(14.9) 0.015 0.903 Other 7(3.3) 5(2.9) 0.051 0.821 Source: Field survey KwaZulu Natal July-August 2010
4.8. Support types provided to household heads
When households are affected by various shocks or stresses, reliance on social networks is
important to avoid detrimental effects on their livelihoods. In most cases individuals or
households seek for social assistance in order to meet the most basic needs for their survival.
As shown in Figure 4.4, food and money were the most important claims made on their social
networks by almost 70 percent and above of the respondents. According to a χ2 -test
(p=0.015) a small portion of female heads of household (12.6%) significantly benefited from
40
childcare as compared to their male counterparts (Table 4.15).
Figure 4.4: Support types provided to household heads (%)
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Support of child care for female heads of household is important basing on their multiple
roles. Female heads of household play both productive and reproductive roles. To be able to
access other livelihood opportunities including earning income for their households a support
of child care is essential. This is supported by Mtshali (2002) who reported that, women have
less access to wage employment, less job security and lower wages than men due to their
restricted mobility caused by their reproductive role.
The support of food and money received by majority of the respondents indicates prevalence
of low financial capital and food insecurity in the studied population (Table 4.15).
41
Table 4.15: Distribution of household heads by support provided (N and % between brackets)
MHH (N=215)
FHH (N=175)
χ2
value p-value
Food 149(69.3) 128(73.1) 0.691 0.406 Money 159(74.0) 128(73.1) 0.033 0.857 Counselling 58(27.0) 51(29.1) 0.225 0.635 Childcare 12(5.6) 22(12.6) 5.923 0.015 Other 2(0.9) 8(4.6) 1.636 0.201 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
The findings in Table 4.15 relates to what Mtshali (2003) reported from a study in KwaZulu
Natal that claims of food, loans, gifts or work are frequently made at the time of stress or
shock.
4.9. Gender differences on the factors influencing food security
Literally, food security is a phenomenon that is determined by multiple of factors. Household
or its member’s food security status is the outcome of the influence of such factors.
Household food security levels are proxied by the HFIAS score with low score indicating
higher food security levels. Although food security is influenced by multiple of factors, in the
context of this study, assessment on the influence of geographical location and access to
various forms of livelihood capital assets was done together with gender comparisons of the
household heads. Analyses were done using t-test for independent samples at 95% confidence
interval, Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) and correlation.
4.9.1. Influence of geographical location on food security
From the viewpoint of the multidimensional nature of food security, the researcher found it
worthwhile to further carry out gender comparisons on a factor that is literally mentioned to
have either positive or negative influence on food security at household, community as well as
national levels. This factor is geographic location. Household in one locality may differ in
food security level from the one in another locality due to various factors including, access to
food markets, markets to buy farm inputs or sell produce, and kinds of shocks or stress
encountered.
Food security levels of the male headed and female headed households were compared within
genders according to the districts they reside. The influence of location was analysed using
Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) see results in Table 4.16. Distribution of household
heads by food security categories district wise is presented in Figure 4.5 for male-headed
42
households and Figure 4.6 for female-headed households.
Table 4.16: Food security level compared by districts (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) Zululand Mkhanyakude Ugu Umgungundlovu F-stat p-
value MHH 17.2a
(5.0) 19.3a,b
(5.3) 17.0b,c
(5.2) 18.9 (6.0)
3.022 0.031
FHH 17.6a
(4.5) 21.5a,b
(5.3) 19.2 (6.0)
20.9 (6.0)
5.149 0.002
a-b:Districts differ significantly at 5% level (Tukey HSD). a-c: Districts differ significantly at 5% level (LSD)
Results in Table 4.16 show significant differences in food security level within male-headed
households from different districts (F (3.022), p=0.031) as well as within female-headed
households from different districts (F (5.149), p=0.002). The mean HFIAS scores between the
male-headed households in Zululand (17.2±5.0) differed significantly from their gender mates
in Mkhanyakude (19.3± 5.3). This was also the case between the male-headed households in
Mkhanyakude and Ugu (17.0±5.2).The mean HFIAS scores between the female-headed
households in Zululand (17.6±4.5) differed significantly from their gender mates in
Mkhanyakude (21.5± 5.3).
The overall situation shows high level of food insecurity with a somehow better situation in
Zululand for the male and female-headed households (Table 4.16).Majority of female-headed
household had poor food security status. The situation differed between districts. In Figure 4.5
(57.9%) of male headed households in Umgungundlovu were severely food insecure. Their
female-counterparts also took the lead where almost 80 percent were severely food insecure
(Figure 4.6).These findings explain the influence of geographical location on household food
security level. There must be factors that are beyond the scope of this study which relates to
the geographical location of Umgungundlovu that increase the vulnerability of the residing
households to food insecurity.
43
Figure 4.5: Distribution of MHH based on their food security categories (%)
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Figure 4.6: Distribution of FHH based on their food security categories (%)
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
44
4.9.2. Influence of access to human and social capital on food security
This section covers the influence of socio-economic characteristics of the household. The
selected socio-economic factors are as shown in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by socio-economic characteristics and gender (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Marital status Married 17.8(5.3) 19.0(6.2) -1.081 0.281 Co-habiting 18.4(5.2) 21.8(4.3) -1.719 0.090 Widow 19.5(6.9) 19.6(4.6) -0.040 0.969 Divorced 28.0(0) 16.8(7.8) - - Single 17.3(4.2) 20.7(6.6) -1.489 0.142 HH size class 1-5 people 17.8(7.3) 19.2(6.0) -0.782 0.437 6-8 people 18.0(5.4) 20.0(5.4) -2.178 0.031 9-10 people 18.4(4.9) 19.6(5.1) -1.337 0.184 Above 10 people 18.0(4.6) 20.4(6.3) -1.650 0.107 Employment Yes 16.6(5.3) 17.6(5.8) -0.685 0.496 No 18.7(5.2) 20.1(5.5) -2.326 0.021 Education No schooling 18.5(5.2) 20.7(5.5) -2.549 0.012 Junior primary 17.3(4.8) 19.2(6.0) -1.539 0.128 Senior primary 17.3(5.2) 18.9(4.5) -1.160 0.251 Some secondary 19.2(6.2) 20.5(5.2) -0.749 0.457 Completed high school
17.0(4.4) 14.3(5.9) 1.086 0.294
Courses/cert. training
9.0(0) - - -
Diploma/Degree - 15.0(0.0) - - Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
No significant effect in the mean HFIAS score between the male and female heads of
households was found in all marital status categories (p>0.05).Results in Table 4.17 show a
remarkable high mean HFIAS scores among the widower (19.5±6.9), co-habiting (21.8±4.3)
and single (20.7±6.6) female heads of household indicating poor food security status. Even
though, these findings we observe are not significantly different (p=0.334) for female headed
households and (p=0.287) for male headed households.
Household size of between 6-8 people had significant influence on the food security level
especially for the female household heads (20.0±5.4, p=0.031). Significant influence of
employment status on the food security level was also noted and female heads of household
45
who had no employment were highly affected (20.1±5.5,p=0.021).Food security status of the
female household heads was significantly affected by not attending school compared to their
male counterparts (20.7±5.5,p=0.012).It is also worth noting that female heads of households
who completed high school plus further training had low mean HFIAS scores (14.3±5.9)
compared to their male counterparts (17±4.4).
To check for the influence of education on the food security status of the female-headed
households, analysis of variance test was done and the results are as shown in Table 4.18
Table 4.18: Food security level compared by access to education (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) N=154 No
schooling Junior
primary Senior
primary Some
secondary Completed
high school
F-value
P-value
FHH 20.7a,c
(5.5) 19.2 (6.0)
18.9 (4.5)
20.5b,c
(5.2) 14.3a,b,c
(5.9) 3.137 0.016
a-c: Education level differ significantly at 5% level (Tukey HSD).
Significant differences in the mean HFIAS score were noted within female heads of
households based on the highest level of education completed (p=0.016).In Table 4.18,female
heads of household who completed high school had remarkable low mean HFIAS score
compared to their gender mates who had no formal schooling and those who had some
secondary education. This significantly explains the importance of access to education by
females as a measure to improve food security status of their households.
Access to education provides livelihood opportunities such as formal employment hence helps
households to diversify their means of earning income and maintains sustainable livelihoods.
Results in Table 4.18 and 4.19 are supported by Amaza et al. (2006) and Jacobs (2010) who
reported that socio-economic characteristics of a household such as, gender, educational level
of the household head and wages or employment status are among the important determinants
of household food security status.
Table 4.19: Food security level compared by access to formal employment (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) N=173 No formal employment Formally
Employed F-value P-value
FHH 20.1 (5.5)
17.6 (5.8)
3.949 0.048
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
46
Significant difference in the mean HFIAS score within female headed households who had
formal employment and those who did not was noted (p=0.048) in Table 4.19. Female heads
of household who reported having formal employment had low mean HFIAS score compared
to their gender mates who did not have (Table 4.19). This explains importance of formal
employment as a source of income on household food security.
4.9.3. Influence of access to natural capital on food security
Land and livestock determine wealth and livelihood strategies of a household. Households’
access to these forms of natural capital is important so as to achieve acceptable levels of food
security. Results in Table 4.20 shows a significant effect of land access to food security level
for those with land below 1 hectare (p=0.019). The mean HFIAS scores were relatively higher
among the female heads of household as compared to their male counterparts.
Table 4.20: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by access to natural capital and gender (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t- stat p-value
Land available Below 1 ha 18.1(5.3) 19.8(5.4) -2.356 0.019 Above 1 ha 18.3(5.6) 19.4(6.8) -0.803 0.425 Livestock Yes 18.2(5.5) 19.0(5.0) -1.273 0.204 No 17.7(4.4) 21.4(6.4) -3.124 0.002 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Limited access to livestock significantly affected the food security level of female headed
households (21.4±6.4, p=0.002) as compared to their male counterparts (Table 4.20).
To check for the influence of livestock on the food security status of the female-headed
households who seems to be worse off in food security status, analysis of variance test was
done and the results are as shown in Table 4.21)
Table 4.21: Food security level compared by access to livestock (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) N=173 Have livestock No livestock F-value P-value FHH 19.0
(5.0) 21.4 (6.4)
7.170 0.008
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010.
Significant difference in the mean HFIAS score within female headed households who had
livestock and those who did not was noted (p=0.008) in Table 4.21. Female heads of
47
household who reported having livestock had low mean HFIAS score compared to their
gender mates who did not have (Table 4.21). This explains importance of livestock as stock of
wealth that helps to buffer households when encounter shocks or unforeseen events such as
failure in crop production thus maintaining their access to food.
4.9.3.1. Land tenure status
Security of land tenure determines households’ involvement in agriculture. Various land
tenure systems were assessed and results are presented in Table 4.22. Significant difference
between gender of the respondents were noted on access to land allocation by tribal or
traditional authority (p=0.022).The mean HFIAS scores of respondents who had access to this
tenure status were relatively lower as compared to those who reported to have it. This seems
to explain the insecurity of customary land tenure system that is governed by unwritten
traditional rules and administered by traditional leaders as mentioned by Mutangadura (2007).
Significant differences on access to land by buying were noted between both gender
categories of household heads who accessed this form of tenure (p=0.028) and those who did
not (p=0.045).Respondents who had access to this tenure status had higher mean HFIAS
scores compared to those who did not (Table 4.22).
Significant differences were noted in the mean HFIAS score between MHH and FHH who
had no access to land through the person in charge (p=0.023) .FHH who did not accessed this
form of tenure had higher mean HFIAS score than of their gender mates who had access to it
as well as their male counterparts (Table 4.22).
Significant differences were noted between the mean HFIAS scores of MHH and FHH having
access to land for free (p=0.026).The mean HFIAS scores were lower among the male and
female heads of household who had accessed this tenure status compared to those who did not
(Table 4.22).This was also the case for the communal land tenure status (p=0.004).These
findings explains that respondents rely more on the customary land tenure systems of which
though some significant differences have been noted on their mean HFIAS score, overall
situation explains high levels of food insecurity between respondents. Customary land tenure
is associated with problems of lacking clarity on land rights that constrain infrastructure and
service provision. There are tensions between local government bodies and traditional
authorities over land allocation for development projects such as provision of irrigation
schemes (Cousins, 2007).
48
Table 4.22: Food security level (HFIAS score) compared by land access types and gender (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t- stat p-value
Tribal/traditional authority
Yes 18.4(5.3) 19.7(5.5) -2.306 0.022 No 16.8(5.4) 18.3(6.6) -0.580 0.568 HH bought land Yes 17.9(4.7) 20.3(6.3) -2.229 0.028 No 17.6(5.1) 19.4(4.7) -2.023 0.045 Person in charge allows
Yes 17.2(4.5) 18.3(4.8) -1.524 0.130 No 18.5(5.9) 21.7(5.9) -2.327 0.023 Land for free Yes 17.6(5.0) 19.0(5.4) -2.238 0.026 No 20.0(6.3) 23.1(5.2) -1.701 0.097 Communal land Yes 17.8(5.1) 19.6(5.5) -2.928 0.004 No 19.2(6.7) 22.0(5.3) -1.021 0.320 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.9.4. Influence of access to farm resources on food security
Adequate access to farming resources is important for smallholder farmer’s performance in
agriculture. Assessment on access to these assets was made together with a gender
comparison and the findings are presented in Table 4.23.
There were significant differences on access to grazing land (p=0.003) and irrigation facilities
(p=0.029) in both gender categories of household heads. The mean HFIAS score for male and
female headed households that had no access to grazing land and irrigation facilities were
higher than of their gender mates who had access to these resources (Table 4.23).
Female headed households in particular had higher mean HFIAS scores in all categories of
farm resources they reported not to have accessed with an exception of not having access to
seeds through purchase as compared to their male counterparts.
49
Table 4.23: Food security level compared by access to farm resources (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Grazing land Yes 17.9(5.3) 19.5(6.3) -1.541 0.126 No 17.9(5.9) 21.7(5.7) -3.090 0.003 Irrigation facilities Yes 17.9(5.1) 19.1(5.1) -1.423 0.157 No 18.6(6.2) 21.9(6.4) -2.222 0.029 Improved farm tech. Yes 17.9(5.1) 19.5(5.3) -2.541 0.012 No 19.3(6.2) 21.4(6.5) -0.983 0.332 Seeds by purchase Yes 18.2(5.2) 20.0(5.4) -2.972 0.003 No 15.8(5.3) 18.4(7.6) -1.152 0.258 Seeds EFSP,NGOs,govt
Yes 18.2(5.5) 19.7(5.4) -2.605 0.010 No 17.3(4.0) 22.8(6.9) -2.510 0.019 Extension services(DAEA)
Yes 18.1(5.4) 19.6(5.6) -2.520 0.012 No 16.9(5.0) 21.3(4.5) -1.804 0.091 Market/shop to buy farm inputs
Yes 18.9(5.8) 20.4(5.7) -1.580 0.116 No 18.1(5.3) 21.1(6.5) -2.363 0.020 Market/shop to sell produce
Yes 16.8(5.1) 18.4(5.7) -1.504 0.136 No 19.1(5.9) 21.4(6.0) -1.938 0.055 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
To check if access to grazing land and irrigation facilities were determinants of household
food security the mean HFIAS score for male and female headed households were compared.
The analysis of variance test ruled out the possibility as shown in Table 4.24 where no
differences were noted.
Table 4.24: Food security level compared by access to grazing land and irrigation facilities (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) Yes No F-stat p-value Access to grazing land (N=387) MHH 17.9(5.3) 18.3(5.3) 0.254 0.615 FHH 19.5(6.3) 19.9(5.3) 0.138 0.711 Access to irrigation facilities (N=387) MHH 17.9(5.1) 18.3(5.5) 0.280 0.597 FHH 19.1(5.1) 20.3(5.8) 1.892 0.171 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010.
50
4.9.5. Influence of access to financial capital on food security
Poverty and food insecurity are related. Low levels of financial capital have implication on
household standard of living and food security status. In this section access to income and
expenditure on food were the elements of financial capital assessed. Income and expenditure
aspects explain the purchasing power of the household on access to various basic needs
including food for sustenance of their livelihoods. In addition, assessment of poverty using the
per capita income levels of below 1 dollar or 2 dollars a day were used to determine their
influence on households’ food security level. Gender differences on the poverty levels were
also examined as results shows in Table 4.25. Distribution of respondents based on income
categories is shown in Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7: Distribution of household heads by their daily per capita income in USD (%)
Results in Table 4.25 show significant differences between male and female headed
households on the mean HFIAS scores for those having a daily per capita income of either
below or above 1 USD (p=0.032 and p=0.015) respectively. Significant differences on the
mean HFIAS scores between genders of the household head were also noted for those having
below 2 USD daily per capita income (p=005).
51
Table 4.25: Food security level compared by daily income per capita in USD (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t- stat p-value
Below (<1 USD/day) Yes 19.1(5.0) 20.5(5.6) -2.154 0.032 No 16.0(5.5) 18.4(5.3) -2.474 0.015 Below (<2 USD/day) Yes 18.5(5.1) 20.1(5.4) -2.806 0.005 No 14.9(6.0) 15.8(6.2) -0.362 0.720 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
The correlation coefficient between the mean HFIAS score and daily income per capita in
USD was calculated as shown in Table 4.26 in order to further assess the differences
observed.
Table 4: 26: Food security level correlated to income (mean income/HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) N=387 HFIAS
score Daily
income per capita(USD)
Pearson Correlation
p-value
One US dollar a day MHH 18.1(5.3) 1.0(0.9) -0.331** 0.000 FHH 19.8(5.6) 1.0(1.2) -0.253** 0.001 Less than one US dollar a day MHH 18.1(5.3) 0.68 0.273** 0.000 FHH 19.8(5.6) 0.66 0.183* 0.016 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficients (r) between the mean HFIAS score and daily per capita income
(1USD) for male and female headed households were negative and significant at p< 0.01 level
(r = -0.331, and r = -0.253) respectively. This show that HFIAS score is negatively correlated
to daily per capita income as the income increases HFIAS score decreases. An increase in
income will lower the mean HFIAS scores hence good levels of food security could be
achieved. Correlation coefficients (r) between the mean HFIAS score and daily per capita
income (below 1USD) for MHH and FHH were positive and significant at p< 0.01 and p<
0.05 level respectively (r = 0.273 and r = 0.183).This indicate that if levels of daily per capita
income less than one US dollar increases, the mean HFIAS score also increases hence poor
levels of food security (Table 4.26).These findings signifies that the more the income the
better is the household food security level.
To check if average monthly income and average monthly income per capita (in Rands)
influence household food security the mean monthly income categories as shown in Table
52
4.27 for male and female headed households were compared by food security categories .The
analysis of variance test revealed significant differences exist in the average monthly income
and per capita income between male and female headed household based on the food security
categories. Higher average income levels indicated classification to good food security status
(Table 4.27).
Table 4.27: Food security categories compared by income (mean income-Rands and standard deviation in parentheses) N=390 Food
Secure Mildly Food
Insecure
Moderate Food
Insecure
Severe Food
Insecure
F-value P-value
Average monthly Income
1983(1746)
1814(806) 1287(869) 1025(667) 14,779 0,000
MHH 2086(841)
1889(856) 1428(975) 1071(679) 10,341 0,000
FHH 1833(2628) 1667(721) 1054(599) 981(657) 4,283 0,006 Average monthly income/capita
474.5(450) 395(263) 225(256) 178(132) 18,871 0,000
MHH 473(333) 402(260) 222(163) 164(128) 19,613 0,000 FHH 477(605) 381(285) 230(365) 192(136) 4,530 0,004 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010.
The household real average monthly provincial income of KZN was reported to be R2605 and
for agriculture workforce R627 (Elsenburg, 2009).In addition 55% of South African
households are reported to have less than R1000 average monthly income (Jacobs, 2009).The
average monthly income of the respondents fall below the provincial level and for the severe
food insecure FHH households relates to what has been reported by Jacobs (2009).Low
income is a limitation on households to meet their dietary needs thus may become food
insecure.
4.9.5.1. Influence of household main source of income
In order to maintain their livelihoods, households rely on various sources of income in order
to meet their daily basic needs including food in particular. In this study the influence of
reliance on various income sources as reported by the respondents to their food security levels
was assessed and results are presented in Table 4.28.
53
Table 4.28: Food security level compared by the main income sources (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Formal salary in main income sources
Yes 15.9(4.1) 19.8(5.3) -3.861 0.000 No 19.0(5.5) 19.8(5.7) -1.232 0.219 Remittances in main income sources
Yes 17.0(4.4) 17.4(4.5) -0.313 0.755 No 18.3(5.5) 20.4(5.7) -3.258 0.001 Grants & gifts in main income sources
Yes 18.2(5.1) 20.2(5.6) -3.487 0.001 No 18.0(6.3) 17.3(4.6) 0.496 0.622 Farm income in main income sources
Yes 17.3(5.2) 17.9(5.0) -0.540 0.591 No 18.4(5.4) 20.4(5.6) -3.041 0.003 Child support grant Yes 20.7(5.2) 21.3(6.3) -0.486 0.628 No 17.2(5.1) 19.3(5.3) -3.457 0.001 Old age pension Yes 17.1(4.8) 19.3(5.0) -2.540 0.012 No 18.6(5.5) 20.1(5.9) -2.133 0.034 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
Significant differences in mean HFIAS scores were noted between MHH and FHH on the
forms of income sources assessed (Table 4.28).A remark is made on the influence of access to
formal salary on food security level. The male headed households that had an access to this
income source had lower mean HFIAS scores (15.9±4.1, p=0.000) as compared to their
female counterparts and gender mates who had no access to this income source.
Significant differences in mean HFIAS scores between MHH and FHH were noted on
respondents who had no access to remittances (p=0.001), farm income (p=0.003) and old age
pension (p=0.034) Table 4.28. Their mean HFIAS scores were relatively higher than those
who had access. Female headed households were more affected as compared to their male
counterparts in the above mentioned categories. It is also worth noting that significant
differences in the mean HFIAS scores between MHH and FHH having no access to child
support grants were noted (p=0.001).Households headed by either male or female head that
had no access to this form of social support had relatively lower mean HFIAS scores than
54
those who had access to it (Table 4.28).
The correlation coefficients between the mean HFIAS score and the selected income sources
were calculated as shown in Table 4.29 in order to further assess the differences observed.
Table 4.29: Food security level correlated to income sources (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) HFIAS
score Pearson
Correlation p-value
MHH (N=211) 18.1(5.3) Formal salary in main income sources -0.263** 0.000 Main income-Child support 0.287** 0.000 FHH (N=173) 19.8(5.6) Remittances in main income sources -0.209** 0.006 Grants & gifts in main income sources 0.185* 0.015 Farm income in main income -0.184* 0.015 Main income-Child support 0.149* 0.050 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results in Table 4.29 show that for MHH formal salary and child support grant were the
income sources that influenced their food security status. Formal salary negatively correlated
with HFIAS score (r = - 0.263) indicating that, mean HFIAS score decreases as formal salary
increase thus good food security levels.
The income sources that influence food security level of FHH are as shown in Table
4.29.Child support grants and other forms of grants and gifts had negative effect on food
security levels of respondents as they were positively correlated to mean HFIAS score (r
=0.149 and r = 0.185) respectively. An increase in reliance to these income sources also
increases mean HFIAS score thus poor food security status. This can be explained by the
amount a household receives from such grants. Monthly, R1010 (old age pension and
disability grant) and R240 child support grant is provided by the government (Jacob et al.,
2010).These amounts fall below the expenditure on food basket of R1100 for a household of 5
persons (Jacobs, 2009).
Remittances negatively correlated with HFIAS score (r = - 0.209) indicating that, mean
HFIAS score decreases as remittances increase thus good food security levels. This explains
significant influence of remittances on food security status of FHH.
These findings are supported by Drimie et al.(2009) who reported that in South Africa the
main sources of cash among the poor are insecure piece jobs, the government social welfare
55
safety net of old age pensions and child support grants, and private transfers from working
relatives and neighbours.
4.9.5.2 Household monthly income and expenditure on food
The influence of food expenditure on the food security level was analysed. Results are as
shown in Table 4.30.Based on the average household size of 6.7 for respondents in this study,
Households had less than recommended amount of expenditure on food basket of R1100 per
month for a household of 5 persons as reported by Jacobs (2009).This explains the prevailing
situation of household food insecurity in the study area.
Table 4.30: Food security level correlated to income sources (mean income; mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) HFIAS
score Income/expenditure
in Rands Pearson
correlation p-value
MHH (211) 18.1(5.3) Average monthly income (N=213) 1326(868) -0.370** 0.000 Monthly food expenditure (N=215) 477(296) -0.159* 0.021 FHH (N=173) 19.8(5.6) Average monthly income (N=174) 1080(871) -0.218** 0.004 Monthly food expenditure (N=175) 462(290) -0.229** 0.002 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Income and expenditure are negatively correlated to the mean HFIAS score indicating an
increase on either income or expenditure on food reduces the mean HFIAS score thus good
levels of food security (Table 4.30).
4.9.6. Influence of various shocks on food security
The influence of various forms of shocks encountered by households headed by a male or
female on their food security level was assesses and the findings are presented in Table 4.31.
Significant differences in mean HFIAS scores were noted between MHH and FHH based on
the kinds of shocks assessed (p>0.05). Depending on whether they faced the particular kind of
shock or not there was an effect on their food security levels that was either positive or
negative (Table 4.31).
Female headed households had relatively higher mean HFIAS scores than their male
counterparts in all kinds of shocks assessed. This indicates a higher degree of vulnerability to
food insecurity when these households face adverse conditions such as shocks or stresses.
Households headed by men were significantly affected by drought (p=0.009). The mean
HFIAS score for those who had not faced such kind of a climatic shock were lower than their
56
gender mates who encountered it as well as their female counterparts who either encountered
it or not (Table 4.31).
Table 4.31: Food security level compared to proneness to the main shocks (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Increased number of people
Yes 18.2(5.4) 19.4(6.2) -1.218 0.226 No 18.1(5.3) 20.0(5.2) -2.894 0.004 Increase in food price
Yes 18.1(5.2) 19.8(5.5) -2.689 0.008 No 18.2(5.6) 19.9(5.8) -1.381 0.171 Serious injury/chronic illness
Yes 18.7(4.9) 20.2(5.5) -1.859 0.065 No 17.7(5.6) 19.5(5.6) -2.209 0.028 Drought Yes 19.1(5.5) 20.7(6.1) -1.730 0.085 No 17.4(5.1) 19.2(5.1) -2.633 0.009 Food production cost increase
Yes 18.9(5.1) 20.2(5.5) -1.726 0.086 No 17.4(5.4) 19.4(5.6) -2.513 0.013 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010.
4.9.7. Influence of the choice of coping mechanisms on food security
Income and food shortage are the most common kinds of shocks encountered by households.
The influence of coping mechanisms employed by households headed by a male or female
when facing these kinds of shocks on their food security level was assessed and the findings
are presented in Table 4.32 and 4.33.
4.9.7.1. Coping strategies during income shortage
Female headed households had relatively higher mean HFIAS scores than their male
counterparts in all kinds of coping mechanisms assessed (Table 4.32). This indicates a higher
degree of vulnerability to food insecurity when these households employ any of the assessed
coping mechanisms. The negative effect of reducing food consumption on the food security
levels of the households headed by male and female was significantly noted
(p=0.016).Highest mean HFIAS scores were observed in households that employed this
57
coping mechanism (Table 4.32).
Table 4.32: Food security level compared to coping mechanisms during income shortage (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Sell livestock Yes 18.2(5.2) 20.1(4.2) -2.124 0.035 No 18.0(5.4) 19.7(6.0) -2.273 0.024 Borrow money from relatives or friends
Yes 18.2(4.8) 20.3(5.2) -3.170 0.002 No 18.0(6.0) 19.1(6.0) -1.047 0.297 Borrow food from relatives or friends
Yes 18.3(5.0) 20.1(4.9) -2.447 0.015 No 17.9(5.6) 19.5(6.2) -1.798 0.074 Reduce spending Yes 18.8(4.9) 20.5(4.9) -2.334 0.021 No 17.4(5.7) 19.2(6.1) -2.139 0.034 Reduce food consumption
Yes 19.5(5.2) 21.4(4.9) -2.428 0.016 No 17.0(5.2) 18.7(5.8) -2.219 0.028 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.9.7.2. Coping strategies during food shortage
Similar to what was experienced on coping against income shortage, the households headed
by female had relatively higher mean HFIAS scores than their male counterparts in all kinds
of coping mechanisms assessed (Table 4.33). This allows a similar remark to be made that
female headed households are more vulnerable to food insecurity when any of the assessed
coping mechanisms are employed.
58
Table 4.33: Food security level compared to coping mechanisms during food shortage (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Reduce food intake Yes 18.8(5.2) 20.9(4.7) -3.063 0.002 No 17.2(5.4) 18.4(6.3) -1.233 0.219 Asked neighbours/relatives help
Yes 18.5(5.4) 20.2(5.2) -2.657 0.008 No 17.3(5.1) 18.6(6.5) -1.199 0.233 Sold livestock Yes 18.2(4.8) 20.1(4.4) -2.192 0.030 No 18.1(5.6) 19.7(5.9) -2.281 0.023 Borrow money Yes 19.1(5.2) 20.8(4.2) -2.346 0.020 No 17.5(5.3) 19.0(6.4) -1.926 0.055 Depend on charity Yes 19.0(4.2) 19.8(5.0) -0.858 0.393 No 17.8(5.6) 19.8(5.8) -2.949 0.003 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
The positive effect of not reducing food intake as a coping mechanism on the food security
levels within the households headed by male and female was significantly noted (p=0.033 and
p=0.006) for MHH and FHH respectively (Table 4.34).Lowest mean HFIAS scores were
observed in households that did not employed this coping mechanism which indicates higher
levels of food security status as compared to their gender mates (Table 4.34).Reduction in
food intake may lead the weakening of the immune system making these households members
prone to diseases and malnutrition both in children and adults.
Table 4.34: Food security level compared by coping mechanism-Food intake reduction (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) Reduced- Yes Reduced-No t- stat p-value
MHH(N=215) 18.8(5.2) 17.2(5.4) 2.151 0.033
FHH (N=175) 20.9(4.7) 18.4(6.3) 2.825 0.006
Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
4.9.8. Influence of the reliance mechanisms on food security
These mechanisms explain the dependence of households on their social capital endowments.
The influence of reliance choices made by households on their food security levels were
analysed and results are presented in Table 4.36.
59
Differences in the HFIAS mean scores between male and female-headed households based on
reliance to relatives or family within area and elsewhere were significantly noted (p=0.018
and p=0.032) respectively. The male-headed households benefited more on these reliance
mechanisms as their mean HFIAS scores were relatively lower compared to their female
counterparts (Table 4.36).
Table 4.36: Food security level compared to reliance mechanisms (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Rely on neighbours Yes 18.3(5.4) 20.0(5.2) -2.420 0.016 No 17.8(5.2) 19.4(6.4) -1.651 0.101 Rely on relatives/family within area
Yes 17.7(5.2) 19.2(5.4) -2.374 0.018 No 18.9(5.4) 20.8(5.8) -1.905 0.059 Rely on relatives/family elsewhere
Yes 17.7(5.1) 19.7(5.2) -2.164 0.032 No 18.3(5.4) 19.9(5.8) -2.248 0.025 Rely on church Yes 19.3(5.4) 20.4(6.3) -0.716 0.477 No 17.9(5.3) 19.7(5.4) -2.981 0.003 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
The findings in Table 4.35 are supported by Carter and Maluccio (2003) who reported that
households residing in communities with more social capital seem better able to weather
shocks.
4.9.9. Influence of the support type provided on food security
The influence of kind of support offered on food security level of the households headed by
male and female was analysed and results are presented in Table 4.36.
60
Table 4.36: Food security level compared to support provided during food/income shortage (mean HFIAS score and standard deviation in parentheses) MHH
(N=215) FHH
(N=175) t-stat p-value
Food Yes 18.9(5.6) 20.5(5.1) -2.470 0.014 No 16.5(4.3) 18.0(6.2) -1.462 0.148 Money Yes 18.0(5.3) 19.6(4.7) -2.756 0.006 No 18.6(5.5) 20.3(7.5) -1.317 0.192 Counselling Yes 17.7(4.9) 19.3(5.7) -1.606 0.111 No 18.3(5.5) 20.0(5.5) -2.587 0.010 Child care Yes 18.0(3.8) 20.0(4.8) -1.170 0.251 No 18.1(5.4) 19.8(5.7) -2.788 0.006 Source: Field survey KwaZuluNatal July-August 2010
There was a significant difference in the mean HFIAS scores of the households headed by
male and female based on receiving food support (p=0.014).Highest mean HFIAS scores were
observed in households that received this kind of support as compared to those who did not
receive (Table 4.36).Assistance on food gives an indication that the particular households
possess low levels of assets such as farm recourses that affects food availability through
agriculture production, financial capital such as income hence low purchasing power of which
limits access to food, also constraints in marketing such as high price for food or distance
from their localities to where they can buy food may give no option to such households but
rather to rely on food supports from their social capital networks.
It is also worth noting that significant differences on the mean HFIAS scores between the
male and female-headed households based on not receiving counselling as a support during
difficulties were noted (p=0.010).The households that did not received this kind of support
had higher mean HFIAS scores compared to those who received (Table 4.36).Although
assessment on types of counselling support was beyond the scope of this study, from what
respondents reported that they received any kind of counselling provide an indication that
counselling benefits the welfare of respondents.
61
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATI ONS
5.1. Summary
This study focused on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers participating in the
Empowerment for Food Security Programme (EFSP) in KwaZulu Natal province, South
Africa. The Sustainable Livelihood Framework was used as a tool for assessing gender
differences on the level of access to livelihood assets, production resources, food security
status, shocks encountered, coping strategies adopted, reliance mechanisms in coping with
difficulties, the kind of support received and the influence of factors affecting food security
status of EFSP beneficiaries.
5.1.1. Gender on asset levels
The findings from this study have revealed low levels of human capital on access to education
in both genders of the household heads. Respondents differ significantly on their household
size, while majority for female headed households comprised of 6-8 persons their male
counterparts had between 9-10 persons. Low levels of natural capital on access to land and
water were noted. Majority of the respondents had access to less than 1 hectare of land and
also had limited access to water and irrigation facilities. Customary land tenure systems
provided access of land to the majority. Access to physical capital especially to markets for
buying farm inputs and selling produce was also limiting. It is worth noting that access to
extension services was highly promising by majority of the respondents. On aspects of social
capital marital status of the household heads differed significantly. Majority of the female
heads of household comprised the de jure group meaning the widows and singles while for
their male counterparts the married and co-habitants formed the majority. Low levels of
financial capital were noted as few respondents had access to savings and credit facilities.
5.1.2 Gender on livelihoods
Majority of respondents reported not having access to formal employment and this was
significantly higher for female-headed households. The main income sources for the
respondents were remittances, grants and gifts, old age pension, child support grant, farm
income and formal salary .for male headed households. The social support grants and gifts
formed the largest portion of income source that was relied by majority of the respondents.
The respondents did not differ significantly on their access to all income sources assessed.
62
5.1.3 Gender on income
Basing on the average income at provincial level and recommended income to cover for
adequate diets, the findings from this study have revealed low levels of income and amount
spent on food in both respondents’ gender categories. Their average income and amount spent
on food were not adequate to meet the recommendations for accessing adequate diets.
5.1.4 Gender on food security
High levels of severe food insecurity among the EFSP beneficiaries were noted. Female-
headed households’ had significantly poor levels of food security as compared to their male
counterparts. Based on the analyses of factors influencing food security, geographical
location, low schooling rates, limited access to land, limited access to livestock, reliance on
social support grants and low income levels plus amount spent on food were the main factors
that influenced food security status of the respondents in the study area. The food security
status of female-headed households was significantly negatively affected by limited access to
livestock, education and reliance on social support grants as main income source.
5.1.5 Gender on shocks and coping mechanisms
Rise in food price, livestock death, theft, serious injury or chronic illness, drought, increase in
number of people and increase in food production costs were the most common shocks
encountered by the respondents. Significant difference was noted on serious injury or chronic
illness of a household member shock whereby female-headed households were highly
affected compared to their male counterparts.
The coping strategies were categorised in two groups of which were during food and income
shortage. The main coping strategies employed when households faced income shortage were
selling of livestock, borrow money or food from relatives or friends, reduce spending,
receiving gifts or money and reduce food consumption. Coping strategies employed when
households faced food shortage were, reduce food intake, asked neighbours or relatives for
help, selling livestock, dependence on charity and borrowing money. Male-headed households
significantly relied on livestock sales while their female counterparts relied significantly on
receiving gifts or money on coping against income or food shortage.
5.1.6 Gender on reliance mechanisms and support types
Respondents relied on social networks of neighbours, relatives or family within their localities
and elsewhere in most cases when faced shortage in income, food or other difficulties. Gender
63
differences were significantly noted on the reliance on neighbours where female-headed
household benefited more on this aspect of social capital compared to their male counterparts.
The main support types received by respondents were food, money, counselling and childcare.
Gender differences were noted on the support of child care whereby female-headed
households benefited more on this support as compared to their male counterparts.
5.2 Conclusions
The findings from this study have made it clear that some factors influencing household food
security status are either gender specific or neutral. The overall situation of food security
status among the respondents is quite poor. Female-headed households were severely food
insecure as compared to their male counterparts. Specific explanation for this situation is
limited access to formal education, livestock ownership, reliance on social support grants
(child support in particular) and effects of serious injury or chronic illness of a household
member significantly affect their food security status. Male heads of households were also
affected by limited access to formal education. The factors that were neutral to gender of the
household head that had an influence on the food security status of the households were,
limited access to production resources e.g. land, water, savings, market to buy farm inputs or
sale of produce and credit facilities. Low levels of financial capital especially on average
monthly income and amount spent on food were below the recommendation to meet the
consumption of adequate diets. The influence of geographical location was noted as
respondents food security status differed significantly across districts. The overall situation in
food security based on the mean HFIAS score was far better in Zululand and much worse in
Mkhanyakude and UMgungundlovu. The effects of shocks such as increase in food price,
drought and an increase in food production cost were important on their influence to the food
security status. Some coping strategies such as Reducing food intake or overall consumption
that were employed by respondents could be detrimental to their health and food security
status. Overall social capital networks were promising as respondents reported to benefit from
this aspect of livelihood asset when faced difficulties.
5.3 Policy implications
• Provincial level
The provincial government of Kwazulu Natal should govern secure land rights in customary
tenure systems on land allocation to smallholder farmers so as to improve agriculture
productivity and enable households to improve their food security status.
64
Through the department of agriculture and environmental affairs, start up packages and
training on livestock production should be part of the plan towards improving food security
status of the households.
Improvements should be made on increasing access to water facilities for home use and home
gardens in order to enhance food availability through production in home gardens.
• Programme level
Continue to provide support for farm inputs such as seeds, pesticides and inorganic fertilizer,
extension services and including a package of training on entrepreneurship so as to equip
farmers with knowledge on how to do business and search for markets of their produce.
The program may assist the beneficiaries through provision of links to markets for easy access
to buy farm inputs and sell their produce.
Geographical targeting should be part of the plan on improving food security status of its
beneficiaries. Specific needs of the beneficiaries depending on the problems faced in their
districts should be addressed.
Support of off farm activities through provision of training and start up package for small
scale food processing industries in order to increase shelf life of produce and enabling
beneficiaries to earn income through sales.
• National government level
Improvements should be made on the package of social support grants to meet minimum
requirements for adequate diet.
Measures should be taken to provide access to adult education for rural farmers because most
of adult farmers or those that are older for enrolment age could have missed the opportunities
to attend school when they were young. Education is also important on enhancing food
choices, employment and market seeking opportunities.
Institutional support for micro credits and promoting local banking services in rural areas is
important so as to encourage savings and investment in agriculture.
The government should take measures on controlling food price inflation through facilitating
farmers in agriculture production to increase national food supplies.
5.4. Suggestion for further research.
Gender analysis on comparison between male and female at individual or household headship
level is not sufficient on addressing differences between them. Since food security is
determined by multiple factors, it is important to investigate within each gender category the
specific constraints faced because comparing men and women can mask the most important
65
gender specific issues that are worthy to be addressed in order to reduce the impact of food
insecurity in the study population. Nutritional status should be part of food security
assessments in order to address the component of food utilization which is important for
targeting specific intervention related to health aspects of food security.
66
References Aliber, M., and Hart, T.G.B. (2009). Should subsistence agriculture be supported as a strategy to address rural food insecurity?. Agrekon, 48(4), 434-458. Altman, M., Hart, T.G.B., Jacobs, P.T. (2009). Household food security status in South Africa. Agrekon, 48(4), 345-361.
Amaza, P. S. J., Helsen, U.J. and Adejobi, A. O. (2006).Determinants and Measurement of Food Insecurity in Nigeria: Some Empirical Policy Guide: Contributed Poster prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia Auma, J. O., Lagat, J.K. and Nagigi, M.W. (2010). A comparison of male-female household headship and agricultural production in marginal areas of Rachuonyo and Homa Bay districts, Kenya. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6(4), 601-616. Baiphethi, M.N., & Jacobs, P.T. (2009). The contribution of subsistence farming to food security in South Africa. Agrekon, 48(4), 459-482. Becquey, E., Martin-Prevel,Y., Traissac,P., Dembe´le´,B., Bambara,A., Delpeuch,F.(2010).The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale and an Index-Member Dietary Diversity Score Contribute Valid and Complementary Information on Household Food Insecurity in an Urban West-African Setting. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 2233–2240 Blaikie, P.M., Cannon, T., Davies, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London. Bob, U. (2002). Rural African Women, Food (In) Security and Agricultural Production in the Ekuthuleni Land Redistribution Project, KwaZulu-Natal. Agenda, 51(1), 16-32. Burchi, F. (2006). Identifying the Role of Education in Socio-Economic Development. International Conference on Human and Economic Resources. Buchenrieder, G., & Dufhues, T. (2006). Making rural households’ livelihoods more resilient: The importance of social capital and the underlying social networks. Proceedings of the 26th
International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Brisbane/Queensland, Australia, August 12-18, 2006. Christiansen, L. J. and Subbarao, K. (2005). Towards an Understanding of Household Vulnerability in Rural Kenya, Journal of African economies, 14( 4), 520–558. Coates,J., Swindale.A., Bilinsky.P. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3). Washington, D.C: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development. Cousins, B. (2007). More than socially embedded: The distinctive character of ‘communal tenure’ regimes in South Africa and its implications for land policy. Agrarian Change, 7 (3), 281–315.
67
Davis, B., Winters, P., Carletto, G. (2010). A cross country comparison of rural income generating activities. World Development, 38 (1), 48–63. Debdulal, M., Mohammad, R. (2010). Are Female-Headed Households More Food Insecure? Evidence from Bangladesh. World Development, 38(4), 593-605 Deji,O.F., Abas,M.A., Opoku-Asiama,M.(2010). Gender Gaps in Rural Household Heads’ Sources and Access to Agricultural Resources: A Case Study of Osun State, Nigeria. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science, 43(3), 129-138. Department for International Development (DFID). 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance sheets, Department for International Development, London. Dercon.S. Woldehanna, T., Hoddinott.J. (2005). Shocks and consumption in 15 Ethiopian Villages, 1999-2004.Journal of African Economies, 14(4), 559-585. De Klerk, M, Vogel,C., Swardt, C.de and Kirsten, J. (2004). Food Security in South Africa: Key Policy Issues for the Medium Term. Human Sciences Research Council Integrated Rural and Regional Development Position Paper. Also available at http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000685/Food_security_SA_January2004.pdf Drimie, S., T.Germishuyse, Rademeyer, L . & Schwabe, C. (2009). Agricultural Production in Greater Sekhukhune: the Future for Food Security in Poverty Node of South Africa? Agrekon,48 ( 3),245-275. Drimie, S., Casale, M. (2009). Multiple stressors in Southern Africa: the link between HIV/AIDS, food insecurity, poverty and children’s vulnerability now and in the future. AIDS Care, 21(S1), 28-33. Dovie, D.B.K., Witkowski, E.T.F., Shackleton, C.M. (2005). Monetary valuation of livelihoods for understanding the composition and complexity of rural households. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(1), 87–103. Dovie, D. B .K, Witkowski, E .T .F and Shackleton, C.M. (2003). Direct-use Value of Smallholder Crop Production in A Semi-Arid Rural South African village. Agricultural Systems 76 (1), 337–357. Ellis, F. and Mdoe, N. (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Tanzania. World Development 31( 8), 1367–1384. Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New York. Ellis, A., Manuel, C., Blackden, M.C. (2006). Gender and Economic Growth in Uganda: Unleashing the Power of Women. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank Washington DC, USA.
68
FAO (2001). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Project Cycle Management Technical Guide. Rome: SEAGA, Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis Programme, FAO. FAO (2003).The Role of Aquaculture in Improving Food Security and Nutrition. Committee on World Food Security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome FAO (2004). Socio-economic Analysis and Policy Implications of the Roles of Agriculture in Developing Countries. Summary Report, Roles of Agriculture Project, FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO (2005). Rural Women and Food Security in Asia and Pacific: Prospects and Paradoxes. http: //www.fao.org/docrep/008/af348e/af348e03htm#bm3 FAO, (2006). Education for Rural People: a Neglected Key to Food Security. http://www.fao/document/en/detail/ 236613. FAO (2008) ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World. High Food Prices and Food Security – Threats and Opportunities’ (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0291e/i0291e00.pdf). FAO (2011). Gender differences in assets. ESA working paper No. 11-12 March 2011. Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Gladwin, C.H., Anne, M. T. , Peterson, S. J. and Anderson, A. S.(2001). Addressing Food Security in Africa via Multiple Livelihood Strategies of Women Farmers. Food Policy 26(1), 177–207 Hart,T. (2009). Exploring definitions of food insecurity and vulnerability: Time to refocus assessments. Agrekon, 48(4), 362-383 Hendriks,S.L., Ngidi,M., Mjonono,M.(2009).Investigating household food insecurity coping strategies and the impact of crop production on food security using Coping Strategy Index (CSI). 17th International Farm Management Congress, Bloomington/Normal, Illinois, USA Hesselberg, J.and Yaro, J.A. (2006). An Assessment of the Extent and Causes of Food Insecurity in Northern Ghana Using a Livelihood Vulnerability Framework.Geojournal,67 (1),41–55 Jacobs, P.T (2009). The Status of Household Food Security Targets in South Africa. Agrekon. 48(4),410-433. Kerr,B.R. (2005). Food Security in Northern Malawi: Gender, Kinship Relations and Entitlements in Historical Context: Journal of Southern African Studies, 31 (1), 53-74 Kite, A.G. (2006). Food security situations and resource endowments of rural households in D’irashe special Woreda in southern Ethiopia: A comparative study of male- and female- headed households. PHD Thesis University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
69
Lima (2008), Baseline Study for the Formulation of a Programme for the Empowerment for Food Security in KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa.
Lemke,S., Vorster, H.H, Rensburg, N.S. and Ziche, J. (2003).Empowered women, social networks and the contribution of qualitative research: Broadening our understanding of underlying causes for food and nutrition insecurity. Journal of Public Health Nutrition: 6(8), 759–764
Leroy, P. Jef, L.J, Johan van Rooyen, Luc D’Haese and Anne-Marie de Winter (2001). A Quantitative Determination of the Food Security Status of Rural Farming Households in the Northern Province of South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 18(1), 5-17
Love,D., Twomlow,S.,Mupangwa,W., Van der Zaag.P., Gumbo,B. (2006). Implementing the millennium development food security goals – Challenges of the southern African context. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 3,731–737 Machethe, C.L. (2004). Agriculture and poverty in South Africa: Can agriculture reduce poverty? Paper presented at the Overcoming Underdevelopment Conference held in Pretoria, 28-29 October 2004 Matshe, I. (2009). Boosting Smallholder Production for Food Security: Some Approaches and Evidence from Studies in Sub Saharan Africa. Agrekon, 48(4), 483-511 Mikalista, S.M. (2010). Gender -specific constraints affecting technology use and household food security in western province of Kenya. AJFAND 10(4), 2324-2343. Misselhorn, A (2005), What Drives Food Insecurity in Southern Africa?. A Meta-analysis of Household Economy Studies. Global Environmental Change 15(1), 33–43. Mtshali,S.M. (2002). Livelihood Security in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. PhD Thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen Mutangadura, G. (2007). The incidence of land tenure insecurity in Southern Africa: Policy implications for sustainable development. Natural Resources Forum, 31 (1), 176–187. Olarinde, L. O. and Kuponiyi, F. A. (2005). Rural Livelihood and Food Consumption Patterns Among Households in Oyo State, Nigeria: Implications for Food Security and Poverty Eradication in a Deregulated Economy. Journal of Social Science 11(2), 127-132. Oldewage-Theron, W.H., Dicks, E.G., Napier, C.E. (2006). Poverty, household food insecurity and nutrition: Coping strategies in an informal settlement in the Vaal Triangle, South Africa. Public Health, 120(9), 795-804. Omwoha, J.N. (2007). Gender contribution and constrains to rural agriculture and household food security in Kenya: Case of Western province. African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) 2nd International Conference: Agricultural Growth, Poverty Reduction and Millennium Development Goals in Africa 20 August 2007 - 22 August 2007.
70
Oni, S.A., Maliwichi, L.L., Obadire, O.S. (2010). Socio-economic factors affecting smallholder farming and household food security: A case of Thulamela local municipality in Vhembe district of Limpopo province, South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(17), 2289-2296. Quisumbing, R.A., Haddad,L., Meinzen-Dick,R., Brown,R.L. (1998). Gender issues for food security in developing countries: Implications for project design and implementation. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 19(4), 185-208. Pretty, J. (2003). Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources. Science
302(5652), 1912- 1914.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining social Capital. The Journal of Democracy 6 (1), 65-78 Rakodi, C. (1999). A Capital Assets Framework for Analysing Household Livelihood Strategies: Implications for Policy. Development Policy Review 17:315–342. Reid, P and Vogel, C. (2006). Living and Responding to Multiple Stressors in South Africa—Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal. 16, 195–206 Siyao, P.O (2010). Tanzania Agricultural Information Needs and Information Seeking Behavior of Small-Scale Sugar Cane Growers in a Gender Perspectives: The Case Study of Kilombero District. M.A (Information Studies), University of Dar Es Salaam. Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) (2007). Income and expenditure of households 2005/2006 . www.statssa.gov.za (Accessed 14/07/2011). Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) (2010). General household survey 2009 . www.statssa.gov.za (Accessed 18/07/2011). Stefano, L.A, Hendricks, S.L., Stilwell, C. and Morris, C. (2005). Printed Information Needs of Small-Scale Organic Farmers in Kwa Zulu-Natal, Libri, University of KwaZulu-Natal 55(1),56-66. Tolossa, D. (2008).Understanding the Realities of Urban Poor and their Food Security Situations: A Case Study at Berta Gibi and Gemachu Safar in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia.Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.Chiba-shi, Chiba, Japan. Also available at: http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Vrf/pdf/440.pdf Van der Berg S (2005). Public Spending and the Poor since the Transition to Democracy, in: Bhorat H & Kanbur R (eds.). Poverty and Policy in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
World Bank (2009). Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, Agriculture and Rural Development, Washington, DC– USA.
71
World Food Programme (2009). Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook, second edition, Food Security Analysis Service, Rome – Italy. World Food Programme (2005). Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook Methodological guidance for better assessments First Edition, Emergency Needs Assessment Branch (ODAN World Food Programme, OMXF Food Security Analysis Service (2010). Rural Malawi Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis. World Food Programme (WFP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (2010). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises Young, H., Jaspars S., Brown, R., Frize, J. and Khogali, H. (2001). Food –Security Assessments in Emergencies: A livelihood Approach. Humanitarian Practice Network paper, Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom.
72
APPENDIX
Good day, I’m ........ . I am part of a team from the department of Agriculture and environmental affairs of KZN. We are currently questioning all the households involved in the program called Empowerment for Food Security Program (EFSP). Through these interviews we wish to see the progress and impact of the program. We wish to have information on how we can improve and do better in the future. We can assure you that the answers that you give, will not have any negative impact on your participation in the program. Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any question and you may choose to stop the discussion at any time. Refusing to participate will not affect you or your family in any way. We would like you to answer as honestly as possible. We want to emphasize that your responses will be kept confidential. Are you willing to participate in this study? If YES -> move to A3 If No -> stop the questionnaire
SECTION 0: SURVEY IDENTIFICATION A1. SURVEY RECORD NUMBER :
A2. HH_ID NUMBER :
A3. ENUMERATOR_Code
A4. PROJECT_Name : ........................................................... /___/ A5. MUNICIPALITY_CODE: n°: /___/___/ eDumbe 11 Umuziwabuntu 32 ePongola 12 Vulamelho 33 Big 5 False Bay 21 Msunduze 41 Umhlabuyalingana 22 Richmond 42 Umzumbe 31 Umugeni 43 A6. Latitude: /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/ A7. Longitude: /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/ A8. Altitude : /____/____/____/____/____/____/___/ A91. Date: /__/__//__/__/2010 A92. Respondent’s position /_____/ (fll in right number)
1. Head 2. Spouse 3. Other PARTICULARS OF VISITS
DAY MONTH
TIME STARTED
TIME COMPLETED
**RESPONSE
HR
MIN
HR
MIN
First visit / / 2010
Second visit / / 2010
**RESPONSE CODES
Completed questionnaire = 01
Partially completed questionnaire (specify reason) = 02
Revisit
Appointment made = 03
Selected respondent not at home = 04
No one home = 05
Do not qualify
Vacant house/flat/stand/not a house or flat/demolished
= 06
No person qualifies according to the survey specifications
= 07
Respondent cannot communicate with interviewer because of language
= 08
Respondent is physically/mentally not fit to be = 09
Questionnaire 1. FOOD SECURITY VULNERABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN S OUTH
AFRICA. Case study of Kwa-Zulu-Natal
73
interviewed
Refusals Contact person refused = 10 Interview refused by selected respondent = 11 Interview refused by parent = 12
CHECKING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Survey checked by Tharcisse 2. Ellen 3. Mie 4. Luc 5. Other (specify)
Date: /___/___//___/___/2010 Signature of Supervisor: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS INTERVIEWER PLEASE NOTE: A household is a person or a group of persons who eat from the same pot and share resources, and are normally living together at least 4 nights a week. The following information must be obtained in respect of every person in this household. Do not forget babies. Write the initials in the space provided in the attached sheet next to the HOUSEHOLD person number and refer to this when asking the HH questions. If there are more than 10 persons in the household, use extra pages you number the columns, starting with no. 11 in the first column.
Person (respondent) number
Please make sure that you write down the Head or the Acting head of the household in column 1
1…… HEAD
2…..
3….. 4….. 5….. 6….. 7….. 8….. 9….. 10….. 11... 12… 13…
1.1. Is........ 1 = Male
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 = Female 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.2 Age in completed years (if < 6 months, then ‘0’) Give age in figures Round off to the top after 6 month
1.3. What population group does..... belong to? 1 = African
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2= Coloured 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3= Indian 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4= White 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5= Oher 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.4.For children older than 6, is .... currently enrolled and attending school? Yes
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ask for every person who attends primary school 1.5. Does this person get free food from a school-feeding scheme?
1= Yes, usually 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2= Yes, sometimes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3= No, never 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4=Don’t know 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1.6 For those aged 6 and older: What is the highest
level of education completed?
1 = No schooling
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 = Junior primary (Gr 0 through to Gr 4/ Std 2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 = Senior primary (Gr 5/ Std 3 to Gr 7/ Std 5) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 = Some Secondary (Gr 8/ Std 6 to Gr 11/ Std 9/ Form
4)
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 = Completed high school (Gr 12/Std 10/Form 5/
Matric)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 = Courses or certificates for formal training 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7 = Diploma or degree
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
1…… HEAD
2…..
3….. 4….. 5….. 6….. 7….. 8….. 9….. 10….. 11... 12… 13…
1.7. Is .......... currently working for cash or in-kind
income?
Yes
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1.8. If ...... is not working, why did......... no work
during the past seven days?
01= Has found a job, but is only starting at a definite
date in the future
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
02 = Scholar or student and prefers not to work 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 03 = Housewife/homemaker and prefers not to work 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 04 = Retired and prefers not to seek formal work 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 05 = illness, invalid, disabled or unable to work (handicapped)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
06 = too young or too old to work 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 07 = seasonal worker, e.g. fruit picker, wool-shearer 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 08 = lack of skills or qualifications for available jobs 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 09 = cannot find any work 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 = cannot find suitable work (salary, location of work or conditions not satisfactory)
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
11 = contract worker, e.g. mine worker resting according to contract
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
12 = retrenched 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 = other reason 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
SECTION 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD
2.1. How long have you been involved in the EFSP program /_____/ months
2.2. Are any of the following facilities within a 30-minutes (2 km) walk of your house?
Facility Yes No Do not know
A51 Train station 1 2 3
A52 Bus stop 1 2 3
A53 Minibus taxi pick-up point 1 2 3
A54 Shop where basic food can be bought 1 2 3
A55 Market to buy goods and food 1 2 3
A56 Market where you can sell goods and food 1 2 3
2.3. How long has the household been living in this area?
2.4. Give in “M²” your private farm holding size. 2.5. Give in “M²” the part of community garden that you have access to /___/___/ M² 2.6. Do you have irrigated land (land that you add extra water to)1. YES 2. NO 2.7. If yes, what is the surface (m²)?
2.8. What is the marital status of the household head?
Migrant workers
[A migrant worker is someone who is absent from home for more than a month each year to work or to seek work. Working includes self-employment as well as working for someone else.]
2.9 Do you have any household or extended family members who live away from the household? 1 = Yes 2 = No (�2.15)
2.10
If yes, where? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
1 Nearby town – Specify
2 Elsewhere in this municipality – Specify
3 Another municipality or province – Specify
4 Johannesburg, Cape Town or Durban – Specify
5 Other country in the region – Specify
6 International (UK, etc.) – Specify
7 I don’t know
2.11 How many household/family members are working away from home? Regular migrants (returns every month)
Seasonal migrants (for a limited period each year)
Prolonged period away (more than 6 months at a time)
2.12 Does the household receive money (or other contributions) from the migrants?
1 = Yes 2 = No (� 2.15)
Less than 3 months 1 Between 5 and 10 years 4
Between 3 months and 1 year
2 Between 10 and 20 years 5
Between 1 and 5 years 3 More than 20 years 6 1 = married 1 2 = living together like husband and wife 2 3 = widow/widower 3 4 = divorced or separated 4 5 = single 5
2.13 If YES, how often do you receive money (or other contributions)?
1 Once a year
2 Every few months
3 Monthly
2.14 How much did this household receive from remittances (money or contribution expressed in monetary value) in yearly?
1 < R500
2 R500 to R1,000
3 R1,001 to R3,000
4 More than R3,000
5 I don’t know
2.15. Does this household, or a household member, have any of the following financial assets?
2.16. Does a household member participate in any other intervention program (any kind at all)? 1. YES 2. NO (If no, go to the section 3)
If YES complete the table below:
2.17. Main intervention program(s) in which household members participated
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Financial asset Yes No Don’t know
A Money in a savings account at a bank/ post office 1 2 3
B Burial insurance 1 2 3
C Rotating saving bags 1 2 3
D Other savings, specify.............................................. 1 2 3
SECTION 3: FOOD AVAILABILITY, CONSUMPTION AND DIET ARY DIVERSITY IN THE HOUSEHOLD 3.1. For each of the following questions, consider what has happened in the past 30 days Please answer whether this happened never, rarely (once or twice), sometimes (3 to 10 times) or often (more than 10 times) in the past 30 days. Explain clearly: no negative consequences or effect on program interventions or other help... Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Never 1-2 times
in the past month
3-10 times in the past month
>10 times in the past month
A Did you worry that your household would not have enough food? 1 2 3 4
B Were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of food you preferred because of a lack of money? 1 2 3 4
C Did you or any household member eat just a few kinds of food day-after-day owing to a lack of money? 1 2 3 4
D Did you or any other household member eat food that you preferred not to eat because of a lack of money to obtain other types of food? 1 2 3 4
E Did you or any household member eat a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was not enough food? 1 2 3 4 F Did you or any other household member eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food? 1 2 3 4 G Was there ever no food at all in your household because there was not money to get more? 1 2 3 4 H Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 1 2 3 4 I Did you or any household member go a whole day without eating anything because there was no food? 1 2 3 4
3.2 In which of the last 12 months did you experience a lack of food or money such that one or more members of your household had to go hungry?
A) Aug B) Sept C) Oct D) Nov E) Dec F) Jan G) Feb H) Mar I) Apr J) May K) June L) July Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3.3. If there is not enough food for every member of your household, which members will get less to eat then necessary to fulfil their needs? (circle)
Yes No
A Children younger then 5 years old 1 2
B Children aged between 5 and 18 years 1 2
C Female adults (older then 18 years) 1 2
D Male adults (older then 18 years) 1 2
3.4. How many times (meals) did the adults in this household eat yesterday (number of times)? /_______/ 3.5. How many times (meals) did the children (3-6y) in this household eat yesterday (number of times, including school meals)? /_______/ 3.6. Questions to get a broad idea of consumption before are detailed in the table below Did you or anyone else in the household eat ……. yesterday? [Fieldworker: read out each food group below] During the past seven days, how many days did you or anyone in your household eat..........? (If the food item was eaten more than one time in one day, it should be counted as one). What is the main source of.............? (see code below)
Food group examples Ate it yesterday
3.7. Number days consumed in past 7 days
3.8. Main source of food consumed
(use codes below) Yes No (0 to 7)
A Maize or maize products
mielie-meal porridge (stiff, crumbly or soft), samp, whole maize (corn-on-the cob) 1 2
B Other cereals wheat, bread, breakfast cereals, sorghum, rice, pasta, oats, morvite fermented/sour porridge, mahewu
1 2
C Roots and tubers potatoes, sweet potatoes, potato salade, amadumbe 1 2
D Vitamin A-rich fruit & vegetables
yellow/orange coloured fruit and vegetables: mango, peach, butternut, carrot, pumpkin, paw paw, yellow; Dark-green leafy vegetables: spinach, mifino, amaranth, pumpkin leaves, beetroot leaves, dried green cowpea leaves
1 2
E Other vegetables beetroot, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, chickpeas, cucumber, green beans, green peas, green pepper, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, tomato,
1 2
F Other fruit apple, apricot, banana, grapes, grapefruit, guava, lemon, lime, morula fruit, naartjie, orange, peach, pear, plum, pineapple, prickly pear, raspberries, strawberries, watermelon, wild fruit, dried fruit, canned fruit
1 2
G Meat , poultry & fish beef, pork, lamb, goat, mutton, sausage, chicken/chicken parts, chicken giblets, stew with any meat, canned meats, ham, wild game, mopani worms, insects, rabbits, birds, intestines/tripe, liver, kidney, heart, lung, Fish: fresh, canned, frozen or fish cakes
1 2
H Eggs eggs 1 2
I Legumes, nuts & seeds
baked beans, dried peas, cowpeas, peanuts, nuts, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, dried beans, sugar beans,
1 2
J Dairy milk, amasi/maas, yoghurt, condensed milk, powdered milk, cheese 1 2
K Oils and fat any food made with oil, margarine, butter or Holsum 1 2
L Sugars sugar, syrup, sweets, honey, chocolate, sugarcane 1 2
M Beverages tea, coffee, cool drink, fruit juice, beer, home made beer 1 2
1 = Purchase 3 = Hunting 5 = Gift 7 = Food aid 2 = Own production 4 = Gathering (collect in wild) 6 = Exchange
3.9. Since you participated in the project do you feel your daily consumption and the daily consumption of your household has changed? 1. YES 2. NO 3.10. Do you feel that now, compared to before you entered the project you can eat more Yes No
Traditional foods (isijingi, amadumbe, sweet potatoe...) 1 2
Different types of foods (diversity) 1 2
More healthy foods 1 2
More processed foods 1 2
SECTION 4: FOOD PRODUCTION IN THE HOUSEHOLD
4.1 DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE ACCESS TO THE FOLLOWING FOR KEEPING AND
PRODUCING LIVESTOCK, FISH, PLANTING OF GRAINS, VEGETABLES, OR FRUITS ETC.?
4.2 DO YOU FEEL ACCESS TO THIS
HAS INCREASED DURING THE
PROJECT?
Yes No Yes No
A 1 2 Garden / small plot 1 2
B 1 2 Field for cultivation 1 2
C 1 2 Grazing land 1 2
D 1 2 Dam 1 2
E 1 2 River 1 2
F 1 2 Irrigation facilities 1 2
G 1 2 Improved farm technology (seeds, equipment, fertilizers) 1 2
H 1 2 Credit (borrow and pay rent) 1 2
I 1 2 Access to DAEA information 1 2
J 1 2 Access to other organisations providing information 1 2
K 1 2 Facility to sell produce / stock to 1 2
L 1 2 Market place/ shop to buy materials to cultivate/ keep stock 1 2
What is the official status (tenure ship) of the land you cultivate or keep stock on? [M AY BE MORE THAN ONE PLOT OR PIECE OF LAND , GO OVER DIFFERENT POSSIBLITIES
Yes No
4.7 Land has been allocated by tribal or traditional authority to a household member 1 2
4.8 The household has bought the land 1 2
4.9 The person in charge of the land allows a household member to use the land 1 2
4.10 The household has to provide a worker to work for the person in charge of the land 1 2
4.11 The household pays rent through a portion of the produce (Share cropping) 1 2
4.12 The household has right to use the land because one or more household members are working for the land owner 1 2
4.13 The household has access to the land for free 1 2
4.14 The household has access to a communal land (community garden) 1 2
4.15 Has the amount of land that you use for cultivation or that you keep stock on changed since you joined the project? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Unchanged 4.16 Which crops do you produce? (Either in your homestead or in the community garden) YES NO YES NO Maize/mieles 1 2 Beetroot 1 2 Cassava/amadumbe 1 2 Butternut 1 2 Wheat 1 2 Avocado’s 1 2 Other cereals 1 2 Other vegetable (specify) 1 2
4.3. Do you solely depend on rainfed agriculture?
4.4 If no: Is the extra water for free?
Yes no Yes No
1 2 1 2
4.5. Is part of the land you mentioned in 2.4 (private land) not used for cultivation? 1. Yes (not all used) 2. No (all used) If No ���� Go to 4.7 4.6 If all land or part of your private land is not used for production, why not? [MULTIPLE RESPONSES POSSIBLE] If no stock or planting a) Lack off seeds
1 Yes 2 No e) Pest 1 Yes 2 No i) Not interested 1 Yes 2 No
b) Lack of fertiliser 1 Yes 2 No f) Rented out 1 Yes 2 No j) Other purposes for the land 1 Yes 2 No c) Lack of water 1 Yes 2 No g) Too old/ young/ weak 1 Yes 2 No k) other specific reason 1 Yes 2 No d) Lack of labour 1 Yes 2 No h) Too little money
Sweet potatoes 1 2 Peaches 1 2 Potatoes 1 2 Other fruit 1 2 Cabbage 1 2 Beans 1 2 Carrots 1 2 Groundnuts 1 2 Tomatoes 1 2 Cotton 1 2 Onions 1 2 Tobacco plants 1 2 Lettuce 1 2 Sugar cane 1 2 Spinach 1 2 Chillies 1 2 Peanuts 1 2 4.17. For every type of vegetable that was produced, indicate for every vegetable the amount that you harvested (in pieces) in the last cropping season (for spinach the amount of seedlings that you planted), amount that was lost due to preharvest losses, the amount that you consumed, the amount that was used for animal feed, the amount that was given away Type of vegetable Amount that you harvested (in
pieces or in seedlings) Amount that was lost due to preharvest losses
Amount that was consumed Amount that was used for animal feed
Amount that was given away
Cabbage Spinach Onions Tomatoes Lettuce Carrots Beetroot Butternut Avocado Other vegetables (specify) Peaches Other fruit (specify) 4.18. Does your household produce other crops? YES NO If NO -> Go to 4.29 4.19. If YES: What are the other crops that your household produces in order of importance (max 5)? Fill in the table in order of importance: on total harvest, amounts directly consumed, amounts sold, amounts processed, amount post-harvest loss, amounts used for animal feed, amount in storage A) Fill in, in order of importance the crop code 4.20
B) How much did you harvest in the last cropping season?
(amount in kg)
4.21
C) How much did you directly consume?
(amount in kg)
4.22
D) How much did you sell?
(amount in kg)
4.23
E) What total price did you get for the crop you sold?
(total price in R)
4.24
F) How much was given away?
Amount (kg) 4.25
G) After harvest, how much was lost to insects, rotting…
(amount in kg) 4.26
H) How much of your production was used for animal feed?
(amount in kg) 4.27
I) How much of your production is still being stored by your household?
(amount in kg) 4.28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4.29. Since you joined the project have you introduced extra crops? 1. YES 2. NO ( If No, Go to 4.31) 4.30. If YES, which crops YES NO YES NO
Maize/mieles 1 2 Beetroot 1 2
Cassava/amadumbe 1 2 Butternut 1 2
Wheat 1 2 Avocado’s 1 2
Other cereals 1 2 Other vegetable (specify) 1 2
Sweet potatoes 1 2 Peaches 1 2
Potatoes 1 2 Other fruit 1 2
Cabbage 1 2 Beans 1 2
Carrots 1 2 Groundnuts 1 2
Tomatoes 1 2 Cotton 1 2
Onions 1 2 Tobacco plants 1 2
1 = Maize/mieles 4= Other cereals 7= Beans 10= Tobacco plants 13= Peanuts
2= Cassava/amadumbe 5 = Sweet potatoes 8 =Groundnuts 11 = Sugar cane
3 = Wheat 6 = Potatoes 9 = Cotton 12= Chillies
Lettuce 1 2 Sugar cane 1 2
Spinach 1 2 Chillies 1 2
Peanuts 1 2
4.31. In the last five years, have you suffered any large pre-harvest losses (diseases, pests,cyclones & drought..)? 1. YES 2. NO ( If No, Go to 4.33) 4.32. If YES for which crops?
YES NO YES NO Maize/mieles 1 2 Beetroot 1 2 Cassava/amadumbe 1 2 Butternut 1 2 Wheat 1 2 Avocado’s 1 2 Other cereals 1 2 Other vegetable (specify) 1 2 Sweet potatoes 1 2 Peaches 1 2 Potatoes 1 2 Other fruit 1 2 Cabbage 1 2 Beans 1 2 Carrots 1 2 Groundnuts 1 2 Tomatoes 1 2 Cotton 1 2 Onions 1 2 Tobacco plants 1 2 Lettuce 1 2 Sugar cane 1 2 Spinach 1 2 Chillies 1 2 Peanuts 1 2 4.33. How do you normally acquire seeds/ planting material? YES NO
Purchase 1 2
Exchange with farmers 1 2
Gift from relatives/family 1 2
Reserved from previous harvest 1 2
Received from NGOs, govt, EFSP, organisations 1 2
How many of the following livestock does your household own?
4.38 How many of the following livestock does your household own?
4.39 If you sold one of those animals that you possess today how much money could you get on average for it? (in R)
4.40 Has the number of animals changed since you joined the project? (fill in right number)
1) Increased 2) Decreased 3) Not changed
A Cattle
B Sheep
C Goats
D Horses
E Donkeys
4.34 Did you use fertiliser on your crops in the last cropping season? 1 Yes
2 No
4.35 If Yes, which ones?
1 Chemical – programme/gift
2 Chemical – purchased
3 Natural fertilizer (dung, compost, etc.)
4.36 Did you use any pesticides on your crops in the last cropping season?
1 Yes
2 No
4.37 If Yes, which ones? 1 Chemical – programme/gift
2 Chemical – purchased
3 Natural indigenous pesticides
F Mules
G Pigs
H Chickens
I Ducks/geese
4.41 How much is the household’s total production cost on yearly basis for
a) cultivating your crops (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, machinery,…)? R………
b) keeping livestock (e.g. feed, veterinary treatment, stable,…)? R………
4.42 Did you improve your livestock?
Yes No If yes, describe the technical improvement do you use?
Animal health 1 2
Animal nutrition 1 2
4.43 For who do you produce? Crop cultivation Yes No Livestock production Yes No
I produce crops solely for own consumption 1 2 I produce solely for own consumption 1 2
I sell a part of my crop production for the market, local companies,… 1 2 I sell a part of my production for the market, local companies,… 1 2
I sell my entire crop production for the market, local companies,… 1 2 I sell my entire production for the market, local companies,… 1 2
SECTION 5: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD
5.1. What would you say is the average total household income (cash) per month?
A No income 01
B R1 – R500 02
C R501 –R750 03
D R751 – R1 000 04
E R1 001-R1 500 05
F R1 501 – R2 000 06
G R2 001 – R3 000 07
5.2. What monthly income level do you consider to be the minimal for your household, i.e. your household could not make ends meet with less?
5.3. In which months, to the best of your memory, did your household suffer an income shortage during the past year? [CIRCLE CODE]
A) Aug B) Sept C) Oct D) Nov E) Dec F) Jan G) Feb H) Mar I) Apr J) May K) June L) July Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5.4. Since you joined the project do feel your average household income per month has changed? [CIRCLE CODE] 1 Increased 2 Decreased 3 Not change 4 Don’t know
H R3 001 – R5 000 08
I R5 001 – R7 500 09
J R7 501 – R10 000 10
K R10 001 – R15 000 11
L R15 001 – R20 000 12
M R20 001 – R30 000 13
N R30 000 + 14
O (Refuse to answer) 15
P (Uncertain/Don’t know) 16
A R1 – R500 01 B R501 –R750 02 C R751 – R1 000 03 D R1 001-R1 500 04 E R1 501 – R2 000 05 F R2 001 – R3 000 06 G R3 001 – R5 000 07 H R5 001 – R7 500 08 I R7 501 – R10 000 09 J R10 001 – R15 000 10 K R15 001 – R20 000 11 L R20 001 – R30 000 12 M R30 000 + 13 N (Refuse to answer) 14 O (Uncertain/Don’t know) 15
Now we will discuss the most important sources of household income. What are the four most important source of income for your household? Who generates this income? Who decides what to do with the money? For this specific income source how much(%) does it contribute to total income?
5.5 What are your household’s sources of income throughout the year? (use source code,most important 4 activities)
5.6 - Who generates this income? (use household member code)
5.7 Who makes decisions on how the resources from this activity are used? (use household member code)
5.8 Please estimate the percentage of total income that comes from this source
a. Main %
b. Second %
c. Third %
d. Fourth %
Livelihood source codes:
1 = Formal salary or wages
2 = Remittances (money from migrants)
3 = Pension
4 = Child Support Grant
5 = Other social grant (Foster Care, Disability, etc.)
6 = Small business
7 = Food crop production/sales
8 = Cash crop production/sales
9 = Livestock production/sales (non-poultry)
10 = Poultry production/sales
11= Fishing
12 = Petty trade (firewood sales, etc.)
13 = Skilled labour
14 = Brewing
15 = Vegetable and fruit production/sales
16 = Food assistance/gift
17 = Other assistance/begging/gifts
18 = No other source
Household Member Codes
1 = Head of the Household only 4 = Women only 7 = Women & children 2=Spouse of the head of the Household only 5 = Adults only 8 = Men & children 3 = Men only 6 = Children only 9 = Men & women & children 5.9. Do you know the amount of the monthly income you spend on purchasing food items for consumption? 1. Yes 2 No 5.10. If yes, what amount of the monthly income do you spend on purchasing food items for consumption by the household? R_____________________________ 5.11 In the last 30 days did you spend any money on the following items for household consumption? If none, write ‘0’; if don’t know, write 9999 and go to next item
Expenditure item Estimated expenditure in RAND during last month
Expenditure item Estimated expenditure in RAND during last month
A Cereals (mielie, mielie meal, rice, etc.) K Education (school expenses)
B Roots and tubers (potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc.)
L Rent
C Bread M Loan repayments
D Legumes (beans, peas, groundnuts) N Communications (Cellphone, telephone, internet)
E Fruits & vegetables O Transport
F Fish/Meat/Eggs P Fuel (wood, paraffin, etc.)
G Oil, fat, butter Q Water & Electricity
H Milk & milk products (ice cream, cheese, yoghurt)
R Personal items (clothes, shoes…)
I Milling S Soap
J Medical care T Other…
SECTION 6: STRESSES, SHOCKS, COPING AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES AFFECTING THE HOUSEHOLD We would like to know whether specific events or situations occurred in this household over the last 12 months and how many times they have occurred. 6.1 In the last 12 months has your household suffered from ...... 6.2. How many times did this happen
since you joined the project
Yes No
A Increased in the number of people in the family / household 1 2
B Increase in food production costs (water, rent, equipment, seeds, fertiliser) 1 2
C Cut-off or decrease of government grant which is not a result of the death of beneficiary
1 2
D Flood 1 2
E Tornado or storm 1 2
F Drought 1 2
G Serious injury or chronic illness keeping household member from doing normal activities
1 2
H Loss of a job of a breadwinner in the household 1 2
I Loss of remittances (money received from migrants) 1 2
J Loss of possessions, theft 1 2
K Death of many livestock 1 2
L Food cost or food price increases 1 2
6.3 If in the past your household was confronted with a sudden and
severe decrease in monthly income, what has been your response to that?
(DON’T SUGGEST) (IF NO PROBLEM WITH INCOME SHORTAGE, LEAVE BLANK)
Yes No
A Sell livestock 1 2
B Sell land, tools, or other assets 1 2
C Use own savings 1 2
D Borrow money from relatives or friends 1 2
E Take out a loan from mashonisa 1 2
F Take out a loan from a formal institution 1 2
G Borrow food from relatives or friends 1 2
H Take on additional work (e.g. farm labour) 1 2
I Reduce spending 1 2
J Reduce food consumption 1 2
K Reduce or stop debt/loan repayments 1 2
L Received gifts or money 1 2
M Received professional counselling (government services, organisations, projects....)
1 2
N Other, specify: 1 2
6.4. How safe do you feel in your community?
6.5. If your household did not have enough food available, how did your household cope with this? ? (DON’T SUGGEST) (IF NO PROBLEM WITH INCOME SHORTAGE , LEAVE BLANK )?
6.6. On whom do your household members rely mostly in difficult times? [CIRCLE CODE]
Neighbours Relatives/ family in area Relatives/ family elsewhere Church Other (Specify)……
Yes 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2
6.7. How do they mainly provide help? [CIRCLE CODE]
Food Money Counselling Childcare Other (Specify)……
Very safe 1 Safe 2 Unsafe 3 Very unsafe 4 No answer 5
1. Reduce food intake 2. Asked neighbours/
family relatives for help 3. Found extra income sources or use savings
4. Household members moved elsewhere
5. Sold household assets 6. Sold livestock
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2 2 2
7. Worked for payment in kind
8. Appeal for food aid 9. Depended on charity/welfare (no social grants
10. Borrowed money for food
11. Took children out of school
12. Could not do anything
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2 2 2
Yes 1 1 1 1 1
No 2 2 2 2 2
6.8. Has your household or has a member of your household been a beneficiary of any one of the following government programmes over the last 12 months?
Yes No
A Agricultural Starter Pack Programme (ASPP)? 1 2
B Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) 1 2
C Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP)? 1 2
D Food Parcel Scheme (FPS)? 1 2
E Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP)? 1 2
F Land Care Programme (LCP)? 1 2
G Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD)? 1 2
H Land Restitution Programme (LRP)? 1 2
I Municipality implemented food security projects 1 2
J National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP)? 1 2
K Poverty Relief Programme (PRP)? 1 2
L Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF)? 1 2
M Other government programmes (other than EFSP) (Specify) 1 2
6.9. What do you personally suggest this program can do to help households that are experiencing hunger or a lack of food? 1........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4..........................................................................................................................................................................................
SECTION 7:PROJECTS AND SOLUTIONS RELATED TO FOOD SECURITY 7.1 Indicate in which EFSP activity you are or have been involved
Yes No
7.2 Did you or a member of your household receive formal training in
A Community garden production (vegetables & fruits) 1 2 B Homestead garden production 1 2 C Cropping of dryland crops 1 2 D Broiler production 1 2
Yes No Vegetable production 1 2 Fruit production 1 2 Cropping of dryland crops 1 2 Broiler production 1 2
7.3. Answer the following question concerning the projects you were involved in Project: “Community garden production (vegetable & fruit production)” Yes No
7.3a1 Has this project increased your vegetable & fruit production? 1 2
7.3a2 Has this project increased your income from vegetable & fruit production? 1 2
7.3a3 Has this project increased your vegetable & fruit consumption? 1 2
7.3a4 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you consume 1 2
7.3a5 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you grow? 1 2
7.3a6 Has participation to this project led to a better management of your soil 1 2
7.3a7 Has this project stimulated you or other household members to start other economic activities
1 2
7.3a8 Has this project enabled children in your household to attend school more often or to invest more time in school work?
1 2
7.3a9 Has this project led to a more sustainable relationship with your neighbours, other community members,… (reinforcement of social cohesion)
1 2
How much do you contribute to the community garden project per year? R
How much do you receive from the community garden project per year? R
Project: “Homestead garden production (vegetable & fruit
production)” Yes No
7.3b1 Has this project increased your vegetable & fruit production? 1 2
7.3b2 Has this project increased your income from vegetable & fruit production?
1 2
7.3b3 Has this project increased your vegetable & fruit consumption? 1 2
7.3b4 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you consume
1 2
7.3b5 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you grow?
1 2
7.3b6 Has participation to this project led to a better management of your soil 1 2
7.3b7 Has this project stimulated you or other household members to start other economic activities
1 2
7.3b8 Has this project enabled children in your household to attend school more often or to invest more time in school work?
1 2
7.3b9 Has this project led to a more sustainable relationship with your neighbours, other community members,… (reinforcement of social cohesion)
1 2
Project: “Cropping of dryland crops”
7.3c1 Has this project increased your production of dryland crops? 1 2
7.3c2 Has this project increased your income from dryland crops? 1 2
7.3c3 Has this project increased your consumption of dryland crops? 1 2
7.3c4 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you consume
1 2
7.3c5 Has this project increased the number of crops (different types) that you grow?
1 2
7.3c6 Has participation to this project led to a better management of your soil 1 2
7.3c7 Has this project stimulated you or other household members to start other economic activities
1 2
7.3c8 Has this project enabled children in your household to attend school more often or to invest more time in school work?
1 2
7.3c9 Has this project led to a more sustainable relationship with your neighbours, other community members,… (reinforcement of social cohesion)
1 2
Project: “Broilers ”
7.3d1 Has this project increased the number of chickens you have? 1 2
7.3d2 Has this project increased the profit coming from chicken production? 1 2
7.3d3 Has this project increased your meat consumption? 1 2
7.3d4 Has participation to this project led to a better management of your soil (use chicken litter)
1 2
7.3d5 Has this project stimulated you or other household members to start other economic activities
1 2
7.3d6 Has this project enabled children in your household to attend school more often or to invest more time in school work?
1 2
7.3d7 Has this project led a more sustainable relationship with your neighbours, other community members,… (reinforcement of social cohesion)
1 2
How many chickens are currently in the broiler?
In general how many chickens are consumed per month by members?
In general how many chickens die per month before they are ready to sell?
In general how many chickens are stolen per month?
How much do you contribute to the broiler project per year? R
How much do you receive from the broiler project per year? R
Thank the respondent for his/her co-operation.