EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT AGRO-PASTORAL CONDITIONS MACINA DISTRICT SÉGOU REGION, FEBRUARY 16-19, 2018

Transcription

1 EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT AGRO-PASTORAL CONDITIONS MACINA DISTRICT SÉGOU REGION, FEBRUARY 16-19, 2018 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Niek de Goeij Country Representative ALPHALOG Modibo Diarra Program Coordinator

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents Context Methodology Quantitative Results Demographics Gender of respondent Household position of respondent Marital Status Ethnicity Household status Distance to weekly market Distance to livestock market Primary livelihood activity Secondary livelihood activity Agriculture Household practices agriculture Area cultivated in Area cultivated in Change in area cultivated in Primary crop for meeting household food needs Food needs covered by harvest in Harvest in compared to harvest in Foods needs covered by harvest in Constraints on agricultural production Off-season vegetable gardening Principle off-season crop Secondary off-season crop Constraints on off-season vegetable gardening Price of agricultural products at nearest market Animal Husbandry Animal husbandry practice Type of animal husbandry practiced Primary types of livestock fodder Secondary type of animal fodder Price of oilcake Household stock of livestock fodder Duration of stock of fodder Water source for livestock Livestock shelter type Distance to livestock shelter Stature of livestock Price of livestock Plans to sell livestock Timing of livestock sale Primary constraint on animal husbandry Labor Migration

3 3.4.1 Household members engage in labor migration Number of household members engaged in labor migration Food Security Number of meals eaten per day Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) Household Reduced Coping Strategy Index Score (RCSI) Household grain reserve Duration of grain reserve Household assets Type of NGO support received Ability to meet household food needs Needs Household s greatest concern at present Preferred type of assistance Qualitative Results Agricultural production Coping strategies Assistance Security and market function Conclusions Annexes Annex 1: List of communes and villages covered Annex 2: Female vs. male-headed households, key statistics Annex 3: Distribution of hectares cultivated by type of agriculture Annex 4: Calculation of number of households in need of assistance Report Date: March 7, 2018 Photo: Rice cultivation, Macina District (Source: Malijet.com) 3

4 Executive Summary In October and November 2017, the Government of Mali and a variety of early warning systems predicted that zones across the Western Sahel and northern regions of Mali would see lowerthan-average agricultural production, largely due to a net deficit of rainfall and low river and surface water levels. 1 Macina District, located in eastern Ségou region, was identified as likely to see zones of poor production along the Niger River, which bisects the district. 2 Early warning systems also predicted reduced pasture in the district, resulting from the below average rainfall across the Western Sahel region between May and July. 3 During the period February 16-19, 2018, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and Malian NGO ALPHALOG conducted an emergency assessment of agro-pastoral conditions covering three communes of Macina District along the Niger River to collect data on verify levels of food security, identify risks to agro-pastoral livelihoods and assess households level of preparedness for a shock to food production systems. Conducted approximately three months after the start of the traditional cereal and rice harvest period, 4 the rapid assessment comprised 404 household interviews, and two key informant interviews. The assessment found that 29.7 percent of respondent households had elevated scores on indices used to measure food insecurity, 5 with food security across the district likely to deteriorate substantially in the coming months. Eighty-two percent of respondent households said they do not currently have a stock of grain, and 54 percent of respondent households said they would be able to meet their household food needs for less than a month. By mid-may, 92 percent of respondent households expected to be unable to meet their food needs. To limit the deterioration of food insecurity and protect productive assets, such as animals, seed stocks and agricultural tools, this report recommends the provision of cash assistance to a minimum of 5,850 households (91,000 individuals) 6 with elevated food insecurity index scores over the course of an extended lean season, ensuring that household have access to increased liquidity prior to planting season for cereals (June) and rice (June), based on household agricultural patterns. 7 Further assessment of the functionality of local markets and of security dynamics in the region is recommended to confirm that cash is an appropriate modality for distributing assistance. 1 SAP, Note Technique, Evaluation Provisiore de la Situation Alimentaire du Pays, Campagne Agropastorale, , Oct Ibid 3 Ibid, FEWS Net, Mali: La saison selon les images, Oct. 30, FEWS Net, Livelihood Zoning and Profile Report, January Food Consumption Score (FCS), Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI); WFP Coping Strategies Index, Field Methods Manual 2008; WFP VAM Technical Guidance Sheet 6 See Annex 4 for calculation 7 FEWS Net, Livelihood Zoning and Profile Report, January

5 5

6 1 Context In October and November 2017, the Government of Mali and a variety of early warning systems predicted that zones across the Western Sahel and northern regions of the country would see lower-than-average agricultural production, largely due to a net deficit of rainfall and lower than average river and surface water levels. 8 Based on expected agricultural production, reduced pasture due to poor rainfall, and continuing insecurity in northern and central Mali, the regional early-warning system Cadre Harmonise predicted that the number of Malian households in Phase 3 (Crisis) food insecurity would increase from 1.5 percent of the population (290,740 individuals) in October-December 2017 to 4.2 percent (795,000) in June-August 2018, at the height of the agricultural lean season. 9 Macina District, located in eastern Ségou region and bisected by the Niger River, was among a number of districts nationwide expected to see significant pockets of poor agricultural production in The district is defined by three major livelihoods zones: Office du Niger rice production and market gardening along the Niger River, sorghum and millet cultivation in areas further from the river, and a pocket of millet cultivation and animal husbandry in the northeast corner of the district. 10 In October 2017, the early warning system of the GOM s Commissariat à la Sécurité Alimentaire noted that the region had experienced irregular rainfall and an overall deficit of precipitation between May and July, and predicted poor harvest Figure 1: In October 2017, the GOM Commissariat à la Sécurité in zones along the Niger River due Alimentaire predicted poor harvests in the Office du Niger zone of Macina District (white box), with poor rainfall leading to low river and to the low river levels, with the surface water levels, on which local agricultural production depends. early recession of water in adjacent marsh zones leaving fields planted with rice with insufficient water. 11 The Commissariat à la Sécurité Alimentaire also noted that deteriorating security in the central part of the country was negatively impacting the ability of households in the central and northern portions of eastern Ségou to move with animal to areas with sufficient pasture FEWS Net, Mali: La saison selon les images, Oct. 30, Bulletin du Cluster Sécurite Alimentairé, Dec USAID, FEWS Net, Mali Livelihood Zones, Ibid 12 Ibid 6

7 In February 2018, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which implements a USAID-funded rapid evaluation and response mechanism in central and northern Mali, conducted an emergency assessment of agro-pastoral conditions covering three communes of Macina District, along the Niger River, in partnership with the Malian NGO ALPHALOG (Association Libre Pour la Promotion de l Habitat et Logement). The objective of the assessment was to verify current levels of food security, identify risks to agro-pastoral livelihoods and evaluate households level of preparedness for a shock to food production systems. 2 Methodology Conducted during the period February 16-19, 2018, the assessment comprised 404 household interviews across nine villages in the communes of Kokry, Kolongo and Macina, and two key informant interviews, with a commune-level mayor s office representative and state agricultural technician. The institution of a ban in early February on travel by motorcycle and pick-up truck in the zone and uncertainty about the application of the ban led to the delay of data collection activities by more than a week, and impacted access to key informants, who were not available on two weekend days when data collection was conducted. The three communes covered by the assessment were selected based on their location along the Niger River. 13 Villages included in the sample were selected to ensure a reasonable degree of geographic distribution (See Annex 1 for a list of villages covered by the assessment). As the assessment team was not able to secure lists of households in each village to allow for random selection of respondents, assessment teams divided each village into quarters, based on a central reference point, and proceeded to select respondents using an every-third-household approach in villages and every fifth-household approach in towns, moving outward from the reference point. Three assessment teams, each consisting of three enumerators and one team leader (responsible for coordination and ensuring data quality), engaged in data collection, under the supervision of a CRS assessment coordinator. Enumerators collected data using tablets and the electronic data-collection system iformbuilder. The survey questionnaire was developed in French by CRS staff members with experience in agriculture, humanitarian assistance and Monitoring-Evaluation-Accountability-and-Learning (MEAL), who trained assessment staff on the questionnaire prior to the start of data collection. Data collection was conducted in relevant local languages, with enumerators selected based on their familiarity with the target zone and primary languages spoken by respondents. The major limitations of the assessment were the lack of random sampling in selecting villages and the lack of random sampling at the level of household selection within villages. The overall sample size exceeds the sample size of 385 needed to ensure a 95 percent level of accuracy with a margin of error of 5 percent for Macina District as a whole USAID, FEWS Net, Mali Livelihood Zones,

8 3 Quantitative Results The following section presents results of quantitative data collection, divided into five sections demographics, agriculture, animal husbandry, food security, and needs with statistics presented at the commune level, and in aggregate for the assessment area (column entitled total ). 15 Key statistics disaggregated for male and female household heads are presented in Annex Demographics The section below presents key demographic statistics for the assessment sample frame of 404 households Gender of respondent Men constituted 91 percent of respondents in the sample frame, with women accounting for 9 percent of respondents. Gender of respondent (N = 404) Gender Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Female 4% 3% 15% 9% Male 96% 97% 85% 91% Household position of respondent Of the 404 respondents, more than 99 percent were household heads. Household position of respondent (N = 404) Position Kokry Kolongo Macina Total HH head 100% 100% 99% 100% Non HH head 0% 0% 1% 0% Marital Status Ninety-one percent of respondents were married, with 54 percent saying they are part of a polygamous family unit and 37 percent saying they are part of a monogamous family unit. Widows or widowers accounted for an additional 7 percent of respondents. With regard to the most common type of family units, Kolongo differed from Kokry and Macina, with 79 percent of respondents being part of polygamous household units, as compared to 54 percent of respondents in Kokry and 39 percent of respondents in Macina. Household position of respondent (N = 404) Status Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Single 0% 0% 1% 1% Married (monogomous) 44% 15% 47% 37% Married (polygamous) 54% 79% 39% 54% Separated 1% 2% 1% 1% Widow(er) 1% 3% 13% 7% 15 Percentages are rounded in all tables, and consequently not all columns sum to 100 percent as presented 8

9 3.1.4 Ethnicity While respondents identifying as belonging to the Bozo ethnic group accounted for more than half of respondents, the sample frame included individuals belonging to more than 10 different ethnic groups, with Bambara being the second most common (28 percent). Ethnicity of household head (N = 404) Ethnicity Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Bozo 49% 81% 41% 54% Bambara 29% 11% 38% 28% Sarakole 4% 2% 9% 5% Peulh 2% 3% 3% 3% Dogon 3% 0% 2% 2% Sonrai 0% 1% 3% 2% Miyanga 5% 0% 0% 1% Foregon 0% 2% 1% 1% Tamachek 1% 1% 0% 1% Other 8% 0% 3% 3% Household status Local residents accounted for 98 percent of the assessment sample, with 2 percent of individuals identifying as returnees or displaced. Household status (N = 404) Status Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Resident 100% 97% 96% 98% Displaced 0% 2% 2% 1% Returnee 0% 1% 1% 1% Repatriated 0% 0% 1% 0% Distance to weekly market Overall, more than half of respondents live within 5 km of a weekly market, with an additional 24 percent living between 5 and 10 km from a weekly market. Distances traveled to a market were greater in Macina, with more than two-thirds of respondents saying said they must travel between 11 and 40 km to reach a weekly market. Distance to weekly market (N = 404) Distance Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0-5 km 84% 88% 9% 52% 5-10 km 7% 12% 3% 7% km 9% 0% 33% 17% km 0% 0% 34% 15% 9

10 3.1.7 Distance to livestock market Approximately 7 in 10 respondents said they live within 10 km of a livestock market, with 64 percent living 5 km or less from a market. In Macina commune, 59 percent of respondents said they needed to travel 11 km or more to reach a livestock market, including 22 percent who need to travel more than 40 km. Distance to weekly market (N = 404) Distance Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0-5 km 84% 84% 38% 64% 5-10 km 7% 12% 3% 7% km 9% 2% 18% 11% km 0% 1% 19% 8% 40+ km 0% 1% 22% 10% Primary livelihood activity In all three communes 90 percent or more of respondent households identified agriculture as their primary livelihood activity. Skilled labor was the next most common primary livelihood strategy at 2 percent, with 4 percent of those in Kolongo primarily depending on skilled labor to meet their subsistence needs. Primary livelihoods activity (N = 404) Activity Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Agriculture 16 91% 90% 97% 93% Skilled labor 1% 4% 1% 2% Agricultural labor 3% 1% 0% 1% Small commerce 2% 1% 0% 1% Salaried work 1% 0% 1% 1% Herding 1% 0% 1% 0% Secondary livelihood activity More than 60 percent of households reported not having a secondary livelihood strategy, with a high of 76 percent in Kokry commune. The most common secondary livelihood activity was agricultural labor (9 percent of beneficiary households), followed by skilled labor (8 percent). Secondary livelihoods activity (N = 404) Activity Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Small commerce 6% 5% 23% 13% Agricultural labor 6% 23% 1% 9% Skilled labor 7% 10% 7% 8% Agriculture 2% 7% 2% 3% Seasonal work 0% 0% 6% 2% Animal sales 2% 1% 1% 1% Herding 1% 0% 1% 1% Salaried work 0% 0% 1% 0% 16 Defined as cultivation of land owned or rented by the respondent, as opposed to working the land of another person in return for payment 10

11 None 76% 55% 58% 62% 3.2 Agriculture This section describes the agricultural characteristics of households participating in the assessment, and agricultural production in and Household practices agriculture Ninety-three percent of households assessed said they practice agriculture, with more than 90 percent of respondent households engaged in agriculture in all three communes. Household practices agriculture (N = 404) Practices Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 91% 90% 97% 93% No 9% 10% 3% 7% Area cultivated in In , more than two-thirds of households engaged in agriculture cultivated at least 3 hectares of land. The highest percentage of households cultivating two hectares or less was in Kolongo (52 percent). Total area cultivated in (N = 374) HA Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0 3% 7% 5% 5% <1 8% 2% 2% 4% % 43% 30% 33% % 36% 28% 37% 5-6 8% 7% 16% 11% 7 or more 2% 5% 18% 10% Area cultivated in In , the percentage of households cultivating at least 3 hectares of land fell by 6 percentage points, with the largest change in Macina, where the percentage of households cultivating 3 hectares or more decreased by 19 percentage points, from 62 percent to 43 percent. Total area cultivated in (N = 374) HA Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0 3% 12% 14% 10% <1 8% 2% 4% 4% % 40% 39% 36% % 40% 36% 43% 5-6 4% 5% 5% 5% 7 or more 0% 1% 2% 1% 11

12 3.2.4 Change in area cultivated in Overall, 80 percent of households cultivated the same number of hectares in as in , but beneficiaries reported substantial reductions in Macina. While 67 percent of households in the commune cultivated the same number of hectares in as in , 6 percent cultivated at least 1 hectare less and 18 percent reduced the amount of land they cultivated by 2 hectares or more. For more information regarding distribution of land cultivated between semi-inundated, inundated and dry fields, please see Annex 3. Total area cultivated in (N = 374) HA Kokry Kolongo Macina Total % 4% 18% 10% -1 3% 3% 6% 5% Same 90% 91% 67% 80% +1 3% 1% 1% 2% % 1% 1% 1% +5 or more 0% 0% 7% 3% Primary crop for meeting household food needs Nearly all respondents who practice agriculture in Kokry (97 percent) and Kolongo (100 percent) said rice is their primary crop for meeting their household food needs (through consumption and through sale as a cash crop). In Macina, 54 percent of respondent said rice was their primary crop for meeting household food needs, with 42 percent of households relying on millet. Primary crop for meeting household food needs (N = 374) Crop Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Rice 97% 100% 54% 78% Millet 0% 0% 42% 19% Peanuts 0% 0% 1% 0% Other 3% 0% 4% 3% Food needs covered by harvest in In , just 8 percent of respondent households produced a harvest that met their household food needs for seven months or more, and 21 percent of households produced enough to meet their food needs for four months or more. Notably, in Macina and Kolongo, 53 percent and 51 percent of respondent households, respectively, reported having a harvest that met fewer than one month of household food needs. Months of household food needs covered by harvest in (N = 374) Period Kokry Kolongo Macina Total <1 month 15% 53% 51% 42% 1-3 months 68% 33% 20% 37% 4-6 months 13% 11% 15% 14% 7-9 months 2% 2% 8% 5% months 2% 1% 6% 3% 12

13 3.2.7 Harvest in compared to harvest in Relative to their harvest in , 72 percent of respondents said their harvest in was much worse. In Macina, 88 percent said their harvest was much worse, while 63 percent said their harvest was much worse. In Kolongo 26 percent of respondents said their harvest was slightly worse. In Kokry, 52 percent of respondents said their harvest in was much worse than in , and 41 percent said it was slightly worse. Months of household food needs covered by harvest in (N = 374) Harvest Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Much worse 52% 63% 88% 72% Slightly worse 41% 26% 7% 21% Same 3% 3% 2% 2% Slightly better 1% 8% 3% 4% Much better 3% 0% 0% 1% Foods needs covered by harvest in In terms of meeting household food needs, 8 percent of respondents expected their harvest to meet their food needs for four months or more. At the commune level, the greatest percentage of respondent households saying they had a harvest that would meet one month of food needs or less was in Macina (68 percent). Months of household food needs covered by harvest in (N = 374) Period Kokry Kolongo Macina Total <1 month 19% 58% 68% 52% 1-3 months 73% 32% 25% 40% 4-6 months 6% 8% 6% 6% 7-9 months 0% 1% 1% 1% months 2% 1% 0% 1% Constraints on agricultural production Two-thirds of respondents said that insufficient rainfall was the major constraint on agricultural production in , followed by having insufficient finances to purchase inputs (10 percent). An additional 9 percent of respondents said insufficient access to water was the primary constraint. Lack of inputs was most pronounced as a constraint in Kokry (23 percent), and lack of land was cited by 14 percent of respondents in Kolongo. Seven percent of respondents in Macina said that insecurity was the greatest constraint on agricultural production. Months of household food needs covered by harvest in (N = 374) Constraint Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Lack of rain 53% 61% 77% 66% Lack of inputs 23% 10% 1% 10% Lack of surface water 12% 7% 9% 9% Lack of land 1% 14% 1% 4% 13

14 Insecurity 0% 0% 7% 3% Pest attack 2% 0% 4% 2% Crop disease 6% 0% 0% 2% Too much rain 1% 5% 0% 2% Bird attack 0% 0% 1% 1% Poor quality inputs 0% 2% 0% 1% Other 1% 0% 1% 1% Off-season vegetable gardening Eleven percent of households said they engaged in off-season gardening. Household engages in off-season cultivation (N = 404) Gardens Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 14% 10% 10% 11% No 86% 90% 90% 89% Principle off-season crop Among the 46 respondents whose households engage in off-season gardening, 78 percent said that onions were their primary off-season crop, with 9 percent primarily growing cereals in the off-season, and 7 percent growing tomatoes. Cereal cultivation in the off-season was most common in Macina commune (22 percent) Household engages in off-season cultivation (N = 46) Gardens Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Onions 88% 83% 67% 78% Cereals 0% 0% 22% 9% Tomatoes 6% 8% 6% 7% Cabbage 0% 0% 6% 2% Other 6% 8% 0% 4% Secondary off-season crop Tomatoes were the most common secondary off-season crop grown by respondent households, followed by onions and cabbage. Household engages in off-season cultivation (N = 46) Gardens Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Tomatoes 50% 75% 28% 48% Onions 19% 25% 22% 22% Cabbage 19% 0% 22% 15% Cereals 0% 0% 17% 7% Eggplant 6% 0% 6% 4% Other 6% 0% 6% 4% 14

15 Constraints on off-season vegetable gardening The major constraint on off-season agricultural production varied by commune. In Macina, 83 percent of households said that insufficient rainfall or lack of access to water was the major constraint. In Kokry and Kolongo, 69 percent and 50 percent of respondents, respectively, said lack of money to purchase inputs was the major constraint. One quarter of respondents in Kolongo said security was the principle constraint on off-season vegetable gardening. Principle constraint on off-season vegetable production (N = 46) Constraint Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Lack of water 31% 25% 83% 50% Lack of money 69% 50% 0% 37% Insecurity 0% 25% 17% 13% Price of agricultural products at nearest market Across the three communes, 97 percent of respondents said that agricultural product prices at their local market are higher than at the same time in Prices of agricultural products at nearest market compared to this time last year (N = 404) Price level Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Higher 98% 100% 94% 97% Same 2% 0% 6% 3% Lower 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.3 Animal Husbandry The section below presents key statistics related to animal husbandry and herding practices. For the purposes of the assessment, cattle, oxen, camels, horses, donkeys, sheep, goats and pigs were considered large animals, while fowl were not considered when asking questions about animal husbandry Animal husbandry practice Across the 404 respondents households, just 18 percent reported practicing animal husbandry, with a high rate of practice in Kolongo (20 percent) and a low in Kokry (12 percent). Household practices animal husbandry (N = 404) Practices Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 12% 20% 17% 16% No 89% 80% 83% 84% Type of animal husbandry practiced Fattening (39 percent) was the most common type of animal husbandry practiced among the 64 households, followed by intensive animal husbandry (33 percent). Fattening was the most common form of animal husbandry practiced in Kolongo (57 percent), with roughly equal levels of fattening, intensive and semi-intensive animal husbandry practiced in Kokry and Macina. 15

16 Type of animal husbandry practiced by the household (N = 64) Type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Fattening 31% 57% 29% 39% Intensive 38% 26% 36% 33% Semi-intensive 23% 17% 36% 27% Transhumance 8% 0% 0% 2% Primary types of livestock fodder Primary fodder type varied across respondent households, with five different types of fodder being the primary fodder type for at least 10 percent of households. In Kokry, rice bran (54 percent) was the most common primary type of fodder, while hay was the most common in Kolongo (26 percent) and cereal stalks in Macina (36 percent). Primary type of animal fodder (N = 64) Type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Cereal stalks 0% 13% 36% 20% Hay 15% 26% 11% 17% Rice bran 54% 13% 0% 16% Oilcake 15% 17% 7% 13% Millet bran 8% 13% 11% 11% Wild fodder 0% 4% 14% 8% Bean leaves 0% 4% 11% 6% Peanut leaves 0% 0% 7% 3% Rock salt 0% 9% 0% 3% Cereal grain 8% 0% 0% 2% Other 0% 0% 4% 2% Secondary type of animal fodder Millet bran and rice bran were the most common secondary fodder type for animals, utilized by 22 percent and 20 percent of respondent households, respectively. Fourteen percent of households listed oilcake as their secondary animal fodder type, with a high of 23 percent in Kokry. Secondary type of animal fodder (N = 64) Type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Millet bran 23% 13% 29% 22% Rice bran 15% 48% 0% 20% Oilcake 23% 4% 18% 14% Straw 0% 13% 11% 9% Peanut leaves 0% 4% 14% 8% Bean leaves 0% 0% 14% 6% Rock salt 15% 4% 4% 6% Cereal stalks 0% 9% 7% 6% Wild forage 23% 0% 0% 5% Rice grain 0% 4% 0% 2% Other 0% 0% 4% 2% 16

17 3.3.5 Price of oilcake Sixty-nine percent of respondent households engaged in animal husbandry said that the price of oilcake is higher than it was at the same time , and 28 percent said the price was the same. In Kolongo, 9 in 10 respondents said oilcake prices are higher than a year earlier. Price of oilcake (N = 64) Price level Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Higher 62% 91% 54% 69% Same 23% 9% 46% 28% Lower 15% 0% 0% 3% Household stock of livestock fodder Of the 64 respondents whose households practice animal husbandry, 42 percent said they currently have a stock of animal fodder, with a high of 62 percent in Kokry and a low of 32 percent in Macina. Household has a stock of fodder for livestock (N = 64) Stock Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 62% 43% 32% 42% No 38% 57% 68% 58% Duration of stock of fodder Among households practicing animal husbandry, 86 percent said they have a stock of fodder that will last for three months or fewer. Expected duration of household stock of fodder for livestock (N = 64) Period Kokry Kolongo Macina Total <1 month 8% 4% 7% 6% 1-3 months 31% 22% 18% 22% 4-6 months 8% 13% 7% 9% 7-9 months 0% 4% 0% 2% months 15% 0% 0% 3% None 38% 57% 68% 58% Water source for livestock The primary source of water utilized for livestock varied across communes. More than 85 percent of households in Kokry and Kolongo rely on the Niger River or canals to water their animals, while in Macina 96 percent of households use boreholes or pastoral wells. Type of water source utilized for livestock (N = 64) 17

18 Source Kokry Kolongo Macina Total River 69% 78% 4% 44% Boreholes 8% 13% 46% 27% Pastoral wells 8% 0% 50% 23% Canal 15% 9% 0% 6% Livestock shelter type Among respondent households practicing animal husbandry, more than 80 percent of those in Kokry and Kolongo utilize a permanent shelter for their animals, while temporary shelter was more common in Macina (80 percent). Type of livestock shelter utilized (N = 64) Type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Permanent 85% 87% 43% 67% Temporary 15% 13% 57% 33% Distance to livestock shelter Ninety-seven percent of respondent households engaged in animal husbandry utilize a structure within 5 km of their residence. Distance to livestock shelter (N = 64) Distance Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0-5 km 100% 100% 93% 97% 5-10 km 0% 0% 0% 0% km 0% 0% 0% 0% 40+ km 0% 0% 7% 3% Stature of livestock Overall, 17 percent of respondent households engaged in livestock husbandry reported that their animals are of good stature at this point in the season, and 77 percent said their animals are of medium stature. The highest percentage of households reporting their animals are of good stature was in Kokry (31 percent) and the lowest in Macina (7 percent). Stature of livestock (N = 64) Stature Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Good 31% 22% 7% 17% Medium 62% 78% 82% 77% Poor 8% 0% 11% 6% Price of livestock Across the three communes, households reported differing price levels for livestock relative to at the same time a year. Eighty-seven percent of respondents in Kolongo, 54 percent of respondents in Kokry, and 32 percent of respondents in Macina said prices were higher. 18

19 Price of livestock at present relative to during the same period (N = 64) Price level Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Higher 54% 87% 32% 56% Same 31% 13% 64% 39% Lower 15% 0% 4% 5% Plans to sell livestock Among the 64 households engaged in animal husbandry, 84 percent said they plan to sell animals to meet household needs in the coming months. Household plans to sell livestock in the coming months to meet household needs (N = 64) Plans to sell Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 92% 87% 79% 84% No 8% 13% 21% 16% Timing of livestock sale More than a third of respondents practicing animal husbandry plan to sell animals to meet household food needs in the next two months, including 53 percent of those in Macina. Length of time after which household plans to sell livestock (N = 64) Period Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 1 month 0% 13% 39% 22% 2 months 23% 9% 14% 14% 3 months 31% 35% 0% 19% 4 months 8% 9% 0% 5% More than 4 months 8% 17% 4% 9% No plans to sell animals 31% 17% 43% 31% Primary constraint on animal husbandry Households engaged in animal husbandry identified insufficient pasture and lack of water as the two primary constraints on livestock production at present. In Kokry, 38 percent of respondents said insufficient pasture was the major constraint, and 36 percent said livestock diseases were the major constraint. In Kolongo 61 percent of respondents said insufficient pasture was the primary constraint, with another 30 percent saying lack of water was the primary constraint. In Macina, 61 percent of respondents said the primary constraint was lack of water, with 25 percent saying lack of pasture was the primary constraint. Primary constraint on animal husbandry during this period (N = 64) Constraint Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Insufficient pasture 38% 61% 25% 41% Lack of water 15% 30% 61% 41% 19

20 Disease 36% 9% 11% 15% Other 10% 0% 4% 4% 3.4 Labor Migration This section presents key statistics related to labor migration, which is most common during the period in Mali during the period September-January, in connection with the primary cereal and rice harvest season, when the demand for agricultural labor is high Household members engage in labor migration During the last year, 7 in 10 respondent households in Kokry and Kolongo had a household member working and livening outside the village, while in Macina fewer than half of households had a member working and living outside the village. A household member worked and lived outside the village in the last 12 months (N = 404) Labor migrant Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 74% 73% 43% 60% No 26% 27% 57% 40% Number of household members engaged in labor migration With regard to the number of household members engaging in labor migration during the previous 12 months, 16 percent of respondent households had a single member working and living outside the village, while 44 percent had two or more members living and working outside the village. Number of household members that worked and lived outside the village in the last 12 months (N = 404) Number Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 0 27% 27% 57% 40% 1 12% 15% 18% 16% 2 23% 28% 13% 20% 3 13% 11% 8% 10% 4 7% 10% 2% 5% 5 5% 4% 1% 3% 6 or more 12% 5% 1% 5% 3.5 Food Security This section presents key statistics related to the current level of food security among the households assessed, and assets that play an important role in ensuring food security. 17FEWS Net, Mali Perspective sur la sécurité alimentaire, Octobre 2017 à Mai

21 3.5.1 Number of meals eaten per day At present, more 81 percent of respondent households are consuming three meals per day, with 12 percent consuming two meals per day. The highest rates of households reporting consuming two meals or fewer per day were in Kokry (26 percent) and Macina (23 percent). Number of meals eaten per day (N=404) Meals Kokry Kolongo Macina Total 3 meals/day 74% 93% 77% 81% 2 meals/day 25% 6% 7% 12% 1 meal/day 1% 1% 16% 8% Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) With regard to food consumption, 34 percent of households consumed a diet with an acceptable combination of quantity and diversity during the seven days prior to the assessment, based on the Food Consumption Score (FCS) methodology with standard weighting. 18 Seventyseven percent of respondent households had borderline or poor consumption in Kolongo, 67 percent had borderline or poor consumption in Kokry, and 59 percent had poor or borderline consumption in Macina. The highest percentage of households with poor consumption was in Kolongo (55 percent). Household Food Consumption Score (N = 404) Score Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Acceptable 34% 23% 41% 34% Borderline 41% 22% 27% 29% Poor 26% 55% 32% 37% Household Reduced Coping Strategy Index Score (RCSI) Based on the Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI), which measures food-related coping during the previous seven days based on the frequency of five behaviors associated with food insecurity, percent of respondent households are utilizing a high degree of food-related coping strategies, and 30 percent are engaged in a moderate degree of coping strategy use. The highest percentage of respondent households engaged in a high-degree of coping strategy use was in Kokry (81 percent). Household Reduced Coping Strategy Index score (N = 404) Score Kokry Kolongo Macina Total High 81% 38% 31% 47% Moderate 17% 26% 40% 30% Low 3% 36% 29% 24% 18 WFP VAM Technical Guidance Sheet; Food Consumption Analysis, WFP, 2008; Poor (0-28 points), Borderline ( ), Acceptable (35+). 19 WFP Coping Strategies Index, Field Methods Manual (2008); Low level of coping (0-3 points), Moderate level of coping (4-9), High level of coping (10+). 21

22 3.5.4 Household grain reserve Just 18 percent of respondent households said they currently have a grain reserve, with a slightly larger percentage in Kolongo (20 percent) and Macina (20 percent), saying they had a grain reserve than in Kokry. Household has a grain reserve (N = 404) Reserve Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Yes 14% 20% 20% 18% No 86% 80% 80% 82% Duration of grain reserve Across the 404 respondent households, 97 percent said they had a grain reserve that would last three months or fewer, with 84 percent having no reserve or a reserve that will last less than a month. Expected duration of grain reserve (N = 404) Duration Kokry Kolongo Macina Total No reserve 86% 80% 80% 82% < 1 month 0% 9% 0% 2% 1-3 months 11% 9% 17% 13% 4-6 months 2% 3% 3% 2% 7-9 months 0% 1% 0% 0% months 2% 0% 0% 0% Household assets With regard to other household assets or resources to which households have access that could be utilized to meet food needs, 100 percent of households say they have agricultural assets and 22 percent of households said they have household items could sell in the case of a shock. Overall, 23 percent of households have savings, and 62 percent said they are generally able to borrow money in the case of a shock. Fifteen percent of households said they receive remittances, and 12 percent said they have received support from an NGO. The percentage of households in Kokry with savings, households items that could be sold, and the ability to borrow money was higher than in Kolongo and substantially higher than in Macina. The percentage of households with access to remittances in Kolongo was twice as large as in Kokry, and three times as large as in Macina. Assets available to the households that could be sold or otherwise utilized to meet household needs (N = 404) Asset Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Agricultural assets 100% 100% 100% 100% Large animals 11% 20% 16% 16% Savings 46% 30% 3% 23% HH items to sell 47% 26% 2% 22% Able to borrow money 96% 71% 33% 62% Remittances 13% 28% 9% 15% NGO assistance 9% 1% 21% 12% 22

23 3.5.7 Type of NGO support received Across the 404 respondent households, 12 percent reported receiving NGO assistance, with food being the primary form of assistance received. The highest percentage of households receiving NGO assistance was in Macina, with 1 in 5 households reporting they were beneficiaries of NGO support. Type of NGO assistance received (N = 404) Type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Food 9% 1% 21% 12% Cash 0% 1% 0% 0% Assistance for animals 0% 0% 0% 0% NFIs 0% 0% 0% 0% None 91% 98% 79% 88% Ability to meet household food needs Given the food and non-food assets currently at their disposal, 54 percent of household said they will be able to meet their household food needs for less than a month, and 38 percent said they will be able to meet food needs for one-to-three months. In Kolongo, 72 percent of respondents said their households would be able to meet their food needs for less than a month, and another 23 percent said they would be able to meet their needs for one-to-three months. In Macina, 66 percent said they would be able to meet their food needs for less than a month, and 28 percent said they would be able to meet their food needs for one-to-three months. Household expects to be able to meet food needs (N = 404) Period Kokry Kolongo Macina Total < 1 month 19% 72% 66% 54% 1-3 months 69% 23% 28% 38% 4-6 month 9% 3% 4% 5% 7-9 months 0% 2% 1% 1% months 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.6 Needs This section presents the expressed needs of respondent households, and the type of assistance that households would find most relevant Household s greatest concern at present Across the three communes, 94 percent of respondent said meeting household food needs is their greatest concern at the moment, with another 1 percent of respondents most concerned by the price of food. One percent of respondents identified security as their greatest concern at present. 23

24 Household s greatest concern at present (N = 404) Concern Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Food needs of HH 91% 97% 95% 94% Insecurity 1% 0% 2% 1% High price of food 4% 1% 0% 1% Insecurity (animals) 1% 0% 1% 1% Health of HH 1% 1% 0% 1% Debt 0% 0% 1% 0% Lack of land 1% 2% 0% 1% Lack of inputs 0% 0% 1% 0% Others 1% 0% 1% 0% Preferred type of assistance Ninety-six percent of respondent households said food assistance would be the most relevant type of assistance in the coming months to ensure they are able to meet their household s needs, with 2 percent of households saying cash transfers would be the most relevant type of assistance. Assistance that would help the household best meet its needs in the coming months (N = 404) Assistance type Kokry Kolongo Macina Total Food assistance 93% 94% 98% 96% Cash transfer 4% 3% 1% 2% Seeds 2% 2% 0% 1% Water point 0% 1% 1% 1% Animal fodder 1% 1% 0% 0% 4 Qualitative Results As part of data collection activities, the survey team conducted two key informant interviews, one with a member of the mayor s office of Macina commune, and one with a state agriculture technician in Macina commune. A larger number of key informant interviews had been planned, but the delay of the assessment due to security considerations meant that data was collected during two weekend days, reducing access to state functionaries. Key observations from the two interviews are presented below by topic Agricultural production The commune has seen an overall diminution in agricultural production since 2012, and the 2017 yield was particularly poor, according the representative the Macina mayor s office. The Macina commune agricultural technician confirmed that while dry cereal production in was better than in and in terms of hectares harvested and tonnes of production, hectares of rice production declined by approximately percent relative to production in and , with four times as many hectares of rice cultivation lost in as compared to , and 2.5 times as many hectares lost as compared to Crops weren t able to finish their growing cycle because of the sudden cessation of rains and the early retreat of (delta) water, the agricultural technician explained. During years of more normal agriculture production, households are able to meet their food needs with 24

25 their harvest, with excess production sold to purchase other goods, pay off debt and prepare for the next agricultural season Coping strategies To cope with insufficient food stocks, households frequently send household members outside the zone to search for labor opportunities, borrow food, or purchase food on credit and sell animals to purchase food. The state agricultural technician noted that more vulnerable households sporadically engage in vegetable gardening as a means of coping with poor rice production, and some engage in brick production. Households in the region, facing shortage of fodder for animals frequently buy cereal bran to feed animals or engage in destocking of animals. Some households send their animals to neighboring Sikasso Region, or to Cote d Ivoire in search of pasture Assistance According to key informants, the GOM is planning to provide support to approximately 3000 displaced individuals in 22 villages, with 138 tonnes of food assistance to be distributed between February and May Security and market function Local markets continue to function, but theft and banditry constitute risks for those traveling to and from markets, and markets frequently end earlier in the day than usual. Increasing insecurity is also impacting access to pasture, leading to school closure or preventing children from attending school, and limiting the access of state technical services to parts of the district. The assessment team, comprising nine enumerators and three team leaders made observations at key markets during data collection and found that markets in Macina town, Bolibana town and Kokry town were satisfactorily provisioned with rice, millet and vegetables, in spite of poor agricultural production in several parts of the district. 5 Conclusions In October and November 2017, early warning systems in Mali predicted that a net rainfall deficit between May and July would lead to low river and surface water level, and consequently, to poor harvests in zones along the Niger River that depend on surface water for cultivation. Macina District in eastern Ségou region, which is bisected by the Niger River, was among the zones predicted to see below average agricultural production. The zone has also been affected by deteriorating security, which has limited access to pasture. 20 The findings of an emergency agro-pastoral conditions assessment carried out by CRS in early February 2018, approximately four months after the start of the traditional cereal and rice harvest period, found that 29.7 percent of respondent households had elevated food insecurity index scores, 21 with food security across the district likely to deteriorate substantially in the coming months. Eighty-two percent of respondent households said they did not have a stock of grain, and 54 percent of respondent households said they would be able to meet their household food needs for less than a month. By mid-may, 92 percent of households expected to be unable to meet their food needs. Diversity of livelihoods activities was also found to be low, 20 SAP, Note Technique, Evaluation Provisiore de la Situation Alimentaire du Pays, Campagne Agropastorale, , Oct Food Consumption Analysis, WFP, 2008 Food Consumption Score (FCS), Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI), WFP Coping Strategies Index, Field Methods Manual 2008; WFP VAM Technical Guidance Sheet 25

26 with just 18 percent of households practicing animal husbandry, and 62 percent of households saying that they did not have a secondary household livelihood strategy. To minimize the spread and depth of food insecurity in the region in the coming months, and protect affected household s productive assets, such as seed stock, agricultural tools and livestock, this report recommends the following: Provision of cash assistance to households with elevated food insecurity index scores targeting a minimum of 29.7 percent of households in the district, or approximately 5,850 households, consisting of 91,000 individuals (see Annex 4 for calculations). Assistance should cover an extended lean season, and be timed to ensure that households have access to sufficient liquidity during the crucial period prior to the planting seasons for cereals (June) and rice (June), depending on household s agricultural patterns. Assessment results suggest that local markets may be able to support the use of cash or vouchers as a modality for providing assistance; however, further research is recommended to confirm the level of market function and the potential to use mobile money as a mechanism for cash distribution. 26

27 6 Annexes 6.1 Annex 1: List of communes and villages covered Commune/Village Kokry 113 Sansanding Coura 56 Siranikoro 31 Tagala 26 Kolongo 115 Kayo Bozo 52 Kolongo Bozo 38 Noidaga 25 Macina 176 Kama 71 Soumini 69 Tinema 36 Total 404 N 6.2 Annex 2: Female vs. male-headed households, key statistics Statistics presented below cover respondents who identified as either a female or male head of household, and do not include respondents who did not identify as head of household. Primary livelihood activity Activity Female headed (N= 35) Male-headed (N = 368) Total Agriculture 86% 94% 93% Skilled labor 3% 2% 2% Daily labor (agriculture) 0% 1% 1% Small commerce 6% 0% 1% Salaried work 0% 1% 1% Herding 0% 1% 0% None 6% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% Secondary livelihood activity Female headed Activity (N= 35) Male-headed (N = 368) Total Agriculture 60% 32% 35% Small commerce 14% 13% 13% Daily labor (agriculture) 9% 9% 9% Skilled labor 6% 8% 8% Seasonal work 0% 3% 2% Sale of animals 3% 1% 1% Herding 0% 1% 1% Salaried work 0% 0% 0% None 9% 33% 31% Total 100% 100% 100% 27

28 Household practices agriculture Practices Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Yes 86% 93% 93% No 14% 7% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% Household practices off-season vegetable gardening Practices Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Yes 83% 89% 89% No 17% 11% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% Type of livestock husbandry practiced Type Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Fattening 0% 7% 6% Intensive 6% 5% 5% Semi-intensive 3% 4% 4% Transhumance 0% 0% 0% None 91% 83% 84% Total 100% 100% 100% Food Consumption Score Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Score Acceptable 17% 36% 34% Borderline 29% 29% 29% Poor 54% 35% 37% Total 100% 100% 100% Reduced Coping Strategy Index Score Score Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total High 31% 48% 47% Moderate 40% 29% 30% Low 29% 23% 23% Total 100% 100% 100% Household expects to be able to meet food needs Score Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total < 1 month 74% 52% 54% 1-3 months 17% 40% 38% 4-6 months 9% 5% 5% 7-9 months 0% 1% 1% months 0% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 28

29 Household s greatest concern at present Concern Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Food for HH 94% 93% 93% Price of food 6% 1% 1% Security of HH 0% 1% 1% Security of animals 0% 1% 1% Health off HH 0% 1% 1% Other 0% 4% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% The assistance that would help the household best meet its needs in the coming months Type Female headed (N = 35) Male-headed (N = 386) Total Food assistance 97% 95% 96% Cash 3% 2% 2% Seeds 0% 1% 1% Water point 0% 1% 1% Animal fodder 0% 1% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 6.3 Annex 3: Distribution of hectares cultivated by type of agriculture Distribution of hectares cultivated in Semiinundated % HA semi- % HA Commune Inundated Dry All HA inundated inundated % HA dry Kokry % 58% 21% Kolongo % 30% 11% Macina % 16% 36% Total ,416 45% 27% 28% Distribution of hectares cultivated in Semiinundated % HA semi- % HA Commune Inundated Dry All HA inundated inundated % HA dry Kokry % 58% 21% Kolongo % 32% 11% Macina % 17% 34% Total ,152 44% 31% 25% 6.4 Annex 4: Calculation of number of households in need of assistance The scatter plot presented below shows household food consumption scores (x-axis) and reduced coping strategy index scores (y-axis). Increasing food consumption scores denotes greater quantity and diversity of food consumed, while increasing reduced coping strategy index scores denote greater reliance on food-related coping strategies, such as reducing the number of meals consumed per day, borrowing food and restricting the portion size of meals. The calculation of households in need of assistance draws on the combination of RCSI and FCS. 29