Rapid Assessment Report on Crop and Food Supply Situation in Tanzania for the 1999/2000 Agricultural Season

Transcription

1 Rapid Assessment Report on Crop and Food Supply Situation in Tanzania for the 1999/ Agricultural Season Coordinated by the Disaster Management Department of the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Food Security Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Dar es Salaam In collaboration with Tanzania Food Security Information Team (FSIT) 1 July 25, 1 FSIT was established in May and is composed of members from Government Departments, International Agencies and NGOs Rapid Assessment Report, July

2 Rapid Assessment Report on Crop and Food Supply Situation in Tanzania for the 1999/ Season A. Introduction A rapid assessment was carried out from June covering all regions and districts in Tanzania Mainland. The Assessment mission was coordinated by the Disaster Management Department of the Prime Minister s Office (DMD-PMO) and the Food Security Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (FSD-MAC). The collaborating partners were the Tanzania Food Security Information Team (FSIT), regional and district technical staff from their respective locations. Ten teams were deploye d from Dar es Salaam. Data were obtained from the regional, district and lower administrative levels, farmers, civil groups, traders and markets. The main tools used for the assessment were discussions, reviewing previous reports, documenting secondary data, and observations. All teams used the same set of questions to facilitate collecting consistent information from the field. B. Objectives of the Assessment The objectives of the assessment were: 1.1 To assess the crop and livestock production for the 1999/ agricultural season and determine its impact on the food availability, access and the general welfare conditions of the population in the country. Two issues were of particular importance.?? First to establish the food production outlook in the grain-basket southern highlands and western regions in order to ascertain food availability from these regions, which could be moved to the deficit regions.?? Second, to assess the food security situation in areas where below average production is expected in both unimodal and bimodal regions in order provide the GoT, donors and NGOs accurate information for appropriate responses and interventions. 1.2 To analyze the degree of self-sufficiency derived from production and coping strategies at disaggregated sub-national levels. To estimate geographically the vulnerable or likely to be vulnerable population to food insecurity this season versus previous and norm. To determine response decisions required. To evaluate logistics and available options necessa ry to respond to vulnerable populations. 1.3 To strengthen the existing efforts of sharing information on food security in the country and continuing efforts for capacity development at sub-national levels. 1.4 To update the database on crop and livestock production and other indicators to food security in the country. 1.5 To produce a joint assessment report and recommendations to GoT and donors for appropriate decisions Rapid Assessment Report, July 2

3 C. Assessment Findings C.1 Performance of Rainfall during the 1999/ Season 1. Rainfall performance during the 1999/ cropping season was generally poor in the bimodal areas receiving short rains (vuli) except in Kagera and Kigoma Regions, which received normal precipitation and a good harvest. In unimodal areas, the long rains were very variable in time and space. Southern highlands and southern coast areas received adequate rains and obtained normal harvests. Elsewhere in the country, masika and seasonal rains were sporadic and lower than normal in both bimodal and unimodal regions resulting in significant crop failure and harvest losses. Figure 1 summarizes rainfall distribution derived from satellite imagery. Figure 1: METEOSAT Rainfall estimates compared to normal, August 1999 to June Normal Area included mm AUG SEP AUG SEP OCT Southern Coast Tanzania OCT Lake Victoria Areas NOV DEC NOV DEC JAN JAN FEB FEB Months MAR APR MAR APR MAY JUN JUL MAY JUN JUL AUG AUG SEP OCT Central Tanzania NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Southern Highlands Tanzania SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL JUL AUG AUG SEP Northern Tanzania OCT DEC FEB APR Western Tanzania OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUN JUL Source: USAID Famine Early Warning System 2. The cumulative effects of drought conditions from vuli, masika and seasonal rains resulted into reduced harvest prospects of both food and cash crops consequently increasing food insecurity to a larger population in the country. The livestock sector in the drought-affected areas has been equally affected due to shortage of water and pasture. Other factors likely to have affected crop production include low level of input usage notably improved seeds and fertilizers, and a general poor crop husbandry. C.2. Crop and Livestock Production 3. The above factors have resulted to the decline of total food production by 7 percent below the five-year average (1994/95 to1998/99). The total domestic food availability is estimated at 7.8 million metric tons (MMT) composed of MMT of cereals and MMT of non-cereals. 4. The national cereal crop production is estimated to decline by a significant % (792, MT) and 13% (471, MT) compared to the five-year average and 1998/99 season respectively (Table 1a). In particular, maize, the major staple is estimated to decrease by 17% or 475, MT over the five -year average and 18%, or 491, MT from the Rapid Assessment Report, July 3

4 previous season. Production estimates of all other cereals declined significantly as indicated in the Table 1a. Despite the overall production estimates of non-cereals indicating an increase of 8% and 13% relative to the five -year average and 1998/99 season, pulses are estimated to drop by a significant 13% and 18% respectively from the same reference period (Table 1b). Table 1a: Cereal Production from 1999/ Relative to Five - Year Average and 1998/99 Crop 1999/ 1998/99 94/95-98/ / Diff 1999/ Diff 1999/ 1999/ Production Production Production from Average from 1998/99 % Diff from % Diff from Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Average 1998/99 Maize 2,254,316 2,744,989 2,728, ,5-49, Millet 154,87 163,983 19,14-36,17-9, Paddy 4,88 37, , ,383 29, Wheat 32,67 4,742 4,41-7,434-8, Sorghum 391, , ,171-15,275 7, Total Cereals 3,232,994 3,74,322 4,24,64-791,61-471, Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July Table 1b: Non-Cereal Production from 1999/ Relative to Five- Year Average and 1998/99 Crop 1999/ 1998/99 94/95-98/ / Diff 1999/ Diff 1999/ 1999/ Production Production Production from Average from 1998/99 % Diff from % Diff from Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Metric tons Average 1998/99 Pulses 636,55 78, ,323-98, , Other Foods 3,21,755 2,615,493 2,836, , , Total Non-Cereals 3,847,35 3,396,44 3,571, , , Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July The significant decline in cereal production will conceivably cause extended food insecurity to a larger population in the regions whose greater proportion of food supply is composed of cereals. The major cereal dependent regions, which are also food deficit regions this season, are Singida, Dodoma, Arusha, Shinyanga and Tabora followed by Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Mwanza and Mara Regions (Table 2). Table 2 indicates further that cereal crop production from these regions is estimated to decrease from the five-year average by 4-43%. 5. The non-cereal crop production increased marginally by 8 percent over the five-year average, which accounts for 56 percent of the total food supply compared to 47 percent of the s ame average. Consequently, the national food consumption for the /1- market year will potentially shift towards non-cereals. However, their bulkiness, poor infrastructure and high transportation costs in the country limit their availability and eludes the possibility of non-cereals to absorb the cereal deficit in the drought-affected regions. Rapid Assessment Report, July 4

5 Table 2: Percent Contribution of Cereals to Total Food Availability for /1 Compared to the Five - Year Average % Contribution of Cereals % Contribution of Cereals /1 Region to Total Food Supply to Total Food Supply Deviation from for /1 Market Year for 1995/ Average Five-year Average Singida Dodoma Morogoro Arusha Shinyanga Tabora Kilimanjaro Tanga Mwanza Mara Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July 6. The regions whose staples are composed non-cereals mainly roots, tubers and plantains are likely to have a stable food security situation in the coming year. High food retention of the latter will ensure supply throughout the /1 market year mostly in Mtwara, Kigoma, Coast, Lindi and Kagera Regions. 7. Production levels of cash crops in the country are varied. The 1999/ production of three of the most important traditional cash crops namely cotton, sunflower and tobacco is estimated to be below the five -year average. This will significantly deny cash income to households consequently intensifying food insecurity in producing areas particularly Dodoma, Singida Tabora, Shinyanga, Mwanza and Mara Regions. However, above average production is estimated for simsim, cashewnuts and coffee, which should improve the purchasing power and food security of producing households. 8. Livestock production in regions where the sector plays a significant role in the livelihood of the people could be jeopardized by the deteriorating conditions of animals, which could lead to unfavorable terms of trade between selling livestock and purchasing food. Pasture and water conditions are likely to deteriorate fast in the key livestock areas of Arusha, Dodoma, Mwanza, Shinyanga, Singida, Mara and Tabora Regions due to below normal rainfall during the season. C.3 Food Availability and Access 9. The national self-sufficiency ratio for the /1 market is estimated to be 91 percent, 4% below the 1999/ market year and subsequently causing an overall food deficit of 662,879 MT cereal equivalent (CEq). About 2.79 million people in the country particularly in the ten affected regions are likely to continue experiencing localized food shortages from September until the next expected harvest in February 1 in bimodal regions and April 1in unimodal regions. The affected regions are Arusha, Dodoma, Kilimanjaro, Mara, Morogoro, Mwanza, Shinyanga, Singida, Tabora and Tanga. Figure 2 and Table 3 shows the levels of food security status by region. This year is worse than the 1998/99 season, which had a national food deficit of 39, MT of cereal equivalent (CEq) and caused a food shortage to about 1.6 million people. Rapid Assessment Report, July 5

6 Levels of Self-sufficiency Ratios by Region for /1 Market Year Kigoma Kagera Mara Mwanza Shinyanga Rukwa Tabora Mbeya Dodoma Singida Arusha Kilimanjaro Tanga Morogoro Iringa Coast Dar es Salaam Legend Highly Food Deficit (9-8%) Moderately Food Deficit (81-99%) Food Surplus (125+%) Not Assessed KM Lindi 1 Ruvuma Mtwara Figure 2: Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July Table 3: Food Security Status by Region for /1 Market Year Region Population Production Needs Balance Percent of Percent of /1 % /1 in Cereal in Cereal in Cereal Food Needs Met Food Needs Met Food Needs Met Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent for /1 for 1999/ Difference from Metric Tons Metric Tons Metric Tons 1999/ Dar es Salaam 2,31,351 48, , , Arusha 2,15, ,24 51, , Shinyanga 2,623, , , , Singida 1,98,15 111,671 26, , Kilimanjaro 2,5, , , , Mara 1,485,84 224, , , Dodoma 1,64, , , , Tabora 1,353, ,67 321,58-73, Tanga 1,647, ,458 39,934-68, Mwanza 2,695, , ,478-5, Morogoro 1,684,55 354, ,659-45, Lindi 8,873 25, ,752 55, Coast 817, ,7 193,934 84, Ruvuma 1,162, , ,842 11, Kagera 1,915,77 566,26 454,51 111, Mbeya 1,99,5 594, , , Mtwara 1,13,81 41, , , Rukwa 1,262, , , , Kigoma 1,177, , ,36 158, Iringa 1,664,726 64,62 394,956 9, National 32,637,6 7,8,299 7,743, , Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July 1. At sub-national levels, food insecurity will intensify in 32 districts as indicated in Figure 3 and Table 4a. These districts are classified as highly food insecure and immediate food needs assessments are needed to determine the magnitude of vulnerability and required relief interventions. Localized food insecurity is likely to occur in another 21 districts, which are currently classified as moderately food insecure but could be highly food insecure before the expected harvests (Table 4b). Needs assessment in these districts Rapid Assessment Report, July 6

7 may be necessary beginning October this year. The remaining 41 districts are currently food secure. Levels of Food Supply and Security Status by District for /1 Market / Legend High Food Deficit Low Food Deficit Normal/Food Surplus Not Assessed KM 1 Figure 3 2 Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July Table 4a: Highly Food Insecure Districts for /1 Market Year Food Production Food Needs Surplus/Gap Percent of Food No. Region District Population CEq CEq CEq Needs Met for the /1 Metric Tons Metric Tons Metric Tons /1 Market Year 1 Mara Bunda 458,545 25,245 18,79-83, Mara Musoma 41,88 15,972 95,158-79, Tanga Lushoto 463,961 33,33 11,75-76, Shinyanga Shinyanga 613,181 78, ,477-66, Shinyanga Bariadi 511,889 62, ,446-58, Singida Singida Rural 43,836 38,924 95,81-56, Morogoro Kilosa 455,38 62,563 18,22-45, Arusha Karatu 195,311 1,769 46,338-44, Shinyanga Meatu 249,167 15,882 59,115-43, Dodoma Dodoma Urban 272,523 22,156 64,656-42, Tanga Handeni 356,815 42,187 84,654-42, Mwanza Magu 424,4 6,67 1,694-4, Iringa Iringa 611,985 15,18 145,193-4, Kilimanjaro Rombo 27,173 26,548 64,99-37, Shinyanga Maswa 31,736 38,7 73,722-35, Arusha Mbulu 195,311 1,974 46,338-35, Singida Manyoni 6,991 14,58 49,19-34, Singida Iramba 359,649 52,429 85,327-32, Tabora Nzega 47,622 65,83 96,78-3,96 68 Tabora Tabora 287,49 42,743 68,7-25, Tabora Igunga 221,95 27,124 52,455-25, Dodoma Mpwapwa 23,993 3,333 54,83-24, Mwanza Misungwi 294,476 46,517 69,864-23, Arusha Monduli 17,537 17,164 4,46-23, Arusha Simanjiro 153,371 13,93 36,387-22, Arusha Hanang 173,178 19,694 41,86-21, Arusha Ngorongoro 18,116 4,83 25,651 -, Dodoma Dodoma Rural 469,75 9, ,288 -, Kilimanjaro Mwanga 124,48 1,14 29,533-19, Kilimanjaro Same 217,89 34,131 51,675-17, Arusha Kiteto 153,371 21,99 36,387-14, Tanga Pangani 43,466 2,77 1,312-7,65 26 Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July 2 Numbers in the map correspond with those of the districts in Table 4a. Rapid Assessment Report, July 7

8 Table 4b: Current Moderately Food Insecure Districts for /1 Market Year Food Production Food Needs Surplus/Gap Percent of Food No. Region District Population CEq CEq CEq Needs Met for the /1 Metric Tons Metric Tons Metric Tons /1 Market Year 1 Dar es Salaam Kinondoni 1,123,848 15,91 266,633-25, Dar es Salaam Temeke 673,581 21, ,87-138, Kilimanjaro Moshi 1,163, ,48 276,8-137, Dar es Salaam Ilala 512,922 11, ,691-11, Arusha Arumeru 458,95 15,952 18,886-92, Mwanza Mwanza 34,481 3,154 72,238-69, Kigoma Kigoma 531,422 65,37 126,8-6, Kagera Bukoba 558,223 73, ,438-58, Arusha Arusha 225,579 1,57 53,519-52, Mara Tarime 465,7 59,28 11,338-51, Mtwara Masasi 43,436 61,651 12,121-4, Singida Singida Urban 127,63 5,89 3,28-24, Tabora Sikonge 191,66 22,289 45,471-23, Kagera Muleba 359,13 62,473 85,197-22, Lindi Kilwa 9,48 32, 49,699-17, Dodoma Kondoa 436,6 86,299 13,583-17, Arusha Babati 316,968 6,325 75,1-14, Lindi Lindi 199,924 33,231 47,432-14, Rukwa Sumbawanga Urban 156,537 24,47 37,138-12, Mbeya Mbarali 2,484 37,38 48,39-1, Morogoro Kilombero 28,219 55,956 66,482-1, Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July Table 4c: Currently Food Secure Districts for /1 Market Year Food Production Food Needs Surplus/Gap Percent of Food No. Region District Population CEq CEq CEq Needs Met for the /1 Metric Tons Metric Tons Metric Tons /1 Market Year 1 Dodoma Kongwa 23,993 45,412 54,83-9, Morogoro Ulanga 188,675 4,499 44,763-4, Coast Kibaha 15,182 21,44 24,954-3, Shinyanga Kahama 469,396 19, ,364-2, Mbeya Chunya 218,548 49,868 51,851-1, Lindi Liwale 72,738 15,434 17,257-1, Coast Mafia 5,61 1,54 12,7-1, Ruvuma Mbinga 43,896 95,487 95, Kigoma Kibondo 23,697 59,87 54,733 4, Mbeya Ileje 115,13 32,388 27,287 5, Tanga Tanga 254,249 67,86 6,321 7, Tanga Muheza 27,742 73,446 64,234 9, Coast Kisarawe 124,9 39,229 29,421 9, Mwanza Kwimba 294,476 8,77 69,864 1, Mtwara Mtwara 336,448 9,139 79,822 1, Rukwa Sumbawanga Rural 398,37 16,691 94,498 12, Iringa Makete 159,479 51,413 37,836 13, Mbeya Rungwe 3,713 9,568 76,89 14, Morogoro Morogoro 76, ,348 18,393 14, Kagera Ngara 252,5 76,438 59,96 16, Mwanza Sengerema 399, ,317 94,723 17, Coast Bagamoyo 233,856 75,21 55,482 19, Shinyanga Bukombe 469, , ,364 21, Mbeya Kyela 165,412 68,127 45,282 22, Mwanza Ukerewe 224,6 79,39 53,286 25, Rukwa Nkansi 183,5 69,918 43,54 26, Lindi Nachingwea 138,87 6,864 32,932 27, Coast Mkuranga 124,9 58,247 29,421 28, Mwanza Geita 753,674 7,75 178,89 28, Tabora Urambo 245,381 89,649 58,217 31, Coast Rufiji 179,76 74,45 42,648 31, Iringa Mufindi 319,396 19,793 75,777 34, Mbeya Mbeya 472, , ,92 34, Kagera Biharamulo 274,971 16,147 65,237 4, Tanga Korogwe 258,537 12,955 61,338 41, Ruvuma Tunduru 223,749 95,517 53,84 42, Mbeya Mbozi 495, ,22 117,527 51, Mtwara Newala 181,959 12,214 43,17 59, Ruvuma Songea 535, 186, ,933 59, Lindi Ruangwa 199,924 18,919 47,432 61, Kilimanjaro Hai 229, ,365 54,547 72, Iringa Ludewa 138, ,115 32,944 8, Mara Serengeti 161, ,534 38,23 86, Mtwara Tandahimba 181, ,963 43,17 113, Rukwa Mpanda 523, , , , Iringa Njombe 435,1 224,723 13,6 121, Kagera Karagwe 47,91 247,3 111, , Kigoma Kasulu 415, ,549 98, , Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, June/July Rapid Assessment Report, July 8

9 11. Despite an overall cereal production deficit at the national level, maize production from the grain basket southern highlands regions (Iringa, Mbeya, Rukwa and Ruvuma) is estimated to be slightly above the five -year average. There is an estimated potential surplus of over 35, MT of maize, which will be very important to offset shortages in deficit areas elsewhere in the country and build Strategic Grain Reserve (SGR) stocks. Internal cereal distribution will be very crucial. However, poor road conditions and high transportation costs pose a potential food movement problem and access. Access of food to deficit areas is also limited by local food movement bans. There are restrictions imposed by local administration at regional and district levels to move food particularly maize and rice from one location to another in the country. These have consequently limited food access to deficit areas and denied income to surplus producers. 12. The crop failure this year is adding up to four consecutive seasons of food deficit in the country subsequently resulted deepening food insecurity and eroding traditional coping capabilities of the vulnerable population. A significant proportion of the affected people will not be able to cope with the continuing food crisis and will therefore urgently need emergency relief intervention. According to Table 6, 2.7 million people in the 1 most affected regions and Ir inga District (Iringa Region) will be highly food insecure for a period of five to seven months beginning September. The government should meet part of the deficit by releasing SGR stocks to commercial traders to stabilize markets. Another part of the deficit should be met by the government and donors through relief food interventions to the most vulnerable and poor populations. According to field reports, it is estimated that 1.1 million people or 37% of the affected population (2.7 million) from the highly food insecure districts are in need of relief food aid for a period of 5-7 months beginning September. A minimum of 66, MT of cereals and about 7, MT of pulses food aid will be required. However, these figures derived from the rapid assessment are only indicative. Detailed needs assessments are necessary to verify these figures and further identify the most vulnerable population to facilitate objective targeting. 13. An import requirement of 274, MT of cereals will be necessary to offset the food deficit in the country (See Table 5) and provide access to those having the purchasing power. Out of these, 15, MT is the planned (normal) import by private commercial traders and 124, MT constitutes the non-committed amount. Table 5: National Food Balance Sheet for /1 Market Year (MT in ) Item Metric Tons (MT) A Opening Stocks (SGR, Commercial and on-farm) 43 B Domestic Production 7,8 C Domestic Availability without SGR (A+B -G) 7,43 D Domestic Requirement 7,743 E SGR Annual Target 15 F SGR Current Stock 8 G Domestic Balance with Opening stock (C-D) -34 H Expected Commercial Imports (Planned) 15 I Expected Food Aid 66 J Exports K Import Gap without SGR (G-H-I) - non committed 124 L Required to Replenish SGR (F-G) 7 Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, July Rapid Assessment Report, July 9

10 Table 6: High Food Insecure Population in the 1999/ Drought Stricken Regions Region District Total Population Food Insecure % of Total Reference Total Dec- Population Population Period Months ARUSHA Hanang 173,178 47,4 27 Sep - Jan 5 Karatu 195, , 73 Aug - Jan 6 Kiteto 153,371 43,5 28 Sep - Jan 5 Monduli 17, ,32 74 Sep - Jan 5 Mbulu 195, , 58 Sep - Jan 5 Ngorongoro 18,116 6, Sep - Jan 5 Simanjiro 153,371 17,36 7 Sep - Jan 5 Sub Total 1,149, ,11 56 DODOMA Dodoma R , Sep Mar 7 Dodoma U 272,523 7, Sep Mar 7 Mpwapwa 23,993 73, Sep Mar 7 Sub Total 972,591 38, IRINGA Iringa 611,985 91, Sub Total 611,985 91, KILIMANJARO Rombo 27,173 14,95 39 Sep - Jan 5 Mwanga 124,48 73, Sep - Jan 5 Same 217,89 138, Sep - Jan 5 Sub Total 612, ,43 52 MARA Bunda 458,545 5,849 1 Sep - Jan 5 Musoma (R) 41,66 9,235 2 Sep - Jan 5 Sub Total 859,611 15,84 2 MOROGORO Kilosa 455,38 16,7 4 Sep Jan 5 Sub Total 455,38 16,7 4 MWANZA Misungwi 294,476 55,63 19 Sep - Feb 6 Magu 424,4 14,46 25 Sep - Jan 6 Sub Total 718,896 16,63 22 SHINYANGA Shinyanga (R) 447,857 53, Sep - Mar 7 Meatu 249, , Sep - Jan 7 Maswa 31,736 53, Sep - Jan 7 Bariadi 511, , Sep - Jan 7 Sub Total 1,519, , SINGIDA Iramba 359, ,7 37 Sep Mar 7 Manyoni 6, , Sep Mar 7 Singida 43, ,534 4 Sep Mar 7 Sub Total 97, ,63 46 TABORA Nzega 47,622 14, Sep - Mar 7 Igunga 221,95 87,743 4 Sep - Jan 7 Tabora 287,49 3, Sep - Jan 7 Sub Total 916,7 258, TANGA Pangani 43,466 6, Dec- May 5 Handeni 356,815 16,86 5 Dec- May 5 Lushoto 463,961 91,396 Dec- May 5 Sub Total 864, , National Total 9,65,622 2,728,48 28 Source: Rapid Assessment Mission, July Rapid Assessment Report, July 1

11 14. The future food security situation of the majority of the population in the food insecure areas and indeed elsewhere in the country will depend on the stabilization of market prices in rural and urban areas and a good /1 vuli season harvest in the bimodal regions. So far there is a general stabilization of food prices due to availability from fresh harvests. Maize and bean prices are stable below the 1998 and 1999 levels but increasing gradually (Figure 4). The declined production from this season will likely reduce availability and access and trigger an increase in food prices. Similarly, a poor vuli season could deny the nation an important supply of 15-% of total food. These scenarios could consequently increase food insecure and vuln erability to future shocks among most households. Therefore, close monitoring of the market behavior and provision of early warning of threatening food security indicators remain critical. National Average Wholesale Prices of Maize National Averege Wholesale Prices of Beans Tsh Per 1kg Tsh Per 1kg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 4: National Wholesale Prices of Maize and Beans Source: Marketing Development Bureau, MAC 15. In areas experiencing four consecutive poor production seasons, seed availability will be critical in the coming season. High demand of drought tolerant varieties notably pearl millet, sorghum, peas and early maturing maize varieties prevails among resource-poor farmers. A well-targeted seed supply implemented during the critical October - November period (on-set of the season) is inevitable. Seeds requirement for the people in need of assistance is provisionally estimated at 96MT. The breakdown is provided in Table There are high post harvest losses particularly cereals reported to reduce food availability in the country. It is estimated that over 6, MT of cereals disappears annually from the harvesting time to preparations before they are consumed. Maize alone comprise of over two-thirds of the losses. Poor storage facilities, low-level of storage technology, poor quality insecticides and unavailability are blamed for these losses. Rapid Assessment Report, July 11

12 Table 7: Seed Requirements to Vulnerable Households for /1 Cropping Season Region Crop Recommended Quantity Number of Households Varieties Metric Tons to Benefit Arusha Maize Pan/Pioneer 4 1,6 Kilima 4 1,6 Beans Lyamungu Wheat Mbayuwayu 3 3 Dodoma Sorghum Pato/Macia 7 14, Maize Katumani/Kito 5 2, Kilimanjaro Maize Pan/Pioneer 35 1,4 Katumani/Kito 8 Sorghum Pato/Macia 38 Tegemeo Wheat Selian Mara Sorghum Serena/Macia 3 6, Maize CG 4141/ , Beans Lyamungu Morogoro Maize Kilima 35 1,4 TMV1 25 1, Mwanza Maize CG 4141/ , Katumani/Kito 3 1, Sorghum Pato/Macia 4, Singida Sorghum Pato/Macia Serena Maize Kilima 4 1,6 Katumani/Kito 15 6 Shinyanga Sorghum Pato/Macia 3 6, Tabora Maize CG 4141/ ,6 Katumani/Kito 3 1, Sorghum Pato/Macia 4 8, Tanga Maize TMV1 3 1, Katumani/Kito 8 Kilima 8 Beans CWB Lyamungo Total 96 62,624 Source: FAO, Dar es Salaam 17. The shortage of cereals in some of the neighboring countries particularly Kenya is likely to increase cross-border transaction of maize between Tanzania and Kenya and further reduce the domestic availability. However, cross-border trade in maize, and other products such as beans and livestock has positive food security impact on the food security status of producers, traders and consumers in both Tanzania and Kenya. For example, market outlets in Kenya offer more favorable maize prices to producers in Tanzania than in domestic markets within the country. Similarly, maize imports from Tanzania have been reported to moderate prices in deficit markets in Kenya. Cross border trade benefits to producers and consumers in both countries are illustrated in Figure 5, which compares maize prices between Arusha (Tanzania) and Nairobi (Kenya) markets. There is a perceptible difference of US$5.-7. per 1kg bag in the prices of maize between Arusha and Nairobi markets. High prices in one market Rapid Assessment Report, July 12

13 (often the deficit area) triggers an automatic flow of maize from the surplus area where prices are generally low. For many years, the flow of maize has always been from Tanzania to Kenya except during November 1998 and April/May 1999 when the flow reversed following a severe food deficit in Tanzania and a sharp increase in maize prices. Currently, maize price s are higher in Nairobi and other markets in Kenya than in Tanzania. For example, in June this year, the differential price of one bag of 1kg of maize between Arusha and Nairobi was US$7. (US$18. in Arusha compared to US$25 in Nairobi). This difference automatically spurs the flow of maize from Tanzania and provides mutual benefits in both countries. 35 Comparative Wholesale Prices in the Parallel Arusha and Nairobi Markets Prices (US$) per 1-Kg Bag Arusha Nairobi Jan. '97 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Figure 5: Comparative Wholesale Prices of Maize Source of Data: Arusha (MDB) and Nairobi (MIB) Jan. '98 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan. '99 Month and Year Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan. ' Mar May However, most of this trade is informal and ofte n conducted against restrictions imposed by governments consequently excluding primary producers from direct participation in cross-border trade thus curtailing accruing benefits. In particular, the export trade ban excludes the risk-averse primary producers and forces them to get only a small proportion of what they could potentially obtain. Trade ban is also counter-productive and may actually increase food insecurity. It simply acts as a disincentive to production, increases transaction costs and consu mer prices. Rapid Assessment Report, July 13

14 D. Recommendations D.1 Short-term Interventions Recommended Are: 1. Immediate food needs assessment should be conducted to the 32 highly food insecure districts to determine the needed interventions to prevent widespread hunger and possible famine, and to minimize excessive sale of productive household assets. Also beginning October this year, food needs assessment should be extended to the other 21 districts, which are currently classified as moderately food insecure to identify households dropping from the ability to cope and recommend appropriate interventions. The Disaster Management Department, the Tanzania Food Security Information Team (FSIT) and the regional and district disaster committees and technical teams should coordinate and conduct the assessments. 2. Farmers particularly in surplus areas should be encouraged to use rationally the available stocks and dispose off any amount beyond their consumption needs. Also farmers in deficit areas should be advised to sparingly use the available products. Similarly, livestock keepers should be advised to sell their animals particularly cattle when prices are favorable and purchase adequate stocks of grains at this time of the year when prices are low. 3. The extension services should assist farmers on the best methods to preserve the stocks through use of both traditional and modern storage facilities, obtain and use pesticides formulations and techniques. 4. The government should facilitate domestic-marketing channels by enhancing market supply of cereals particularly maize and encourage the flow of grain within regions. Also it should devise ways and means to appropriately manage cross border trade that will not jeopardize domestic markets. This may mean issuing a clear policy and guidelines (not blanket) on the purchase and movement of food within and outside the country, reducing local taxes and actively involving private traders. 5. The government should purchase maize of up to the tune of 7, MT from southern highland regions to replenish the strategic grain reserve (SGR) to the required level of 15, MT. Also, local governments should establish a fund to purchase grains and build own stocks, which could be used to intervene at local levels during emergencies. 6. The government should facilitate the importation of maize during the effective period of three months between September and November this year. This may mean a policy review to regulate import duties with a possibility of waiving import taxes on maize during the critical period. 7. The government should use part of its SGR stocks for relief food (free food aid and food for work) to the most vulnerable poor populations after they have been identified. The government may request financial assistance from the donor community for operational costs of this relief food. At the best appropriate time during the year, the government should release part of SGR stocks to private commercial traders to stabilize market prices. 8. The government should launch an appeal to the donor community for relief intervention and mitigation through relief food and seeds (for the coming season). Interventions are recommended for a period of August/September onwards depending on the needs. A working figure of 66, MT of cereals plus 7, MT of Rapid Assessment Report, July 14

15 pulses is an indication of the relief food requirements. Need assessments are urgently required to quantify the amount of relief assistance required in each district and to facilitate effective targeting. Also a provisional amount of 96 MT of free seeds will be required to the most vulnerable populations. Seeds should be distributed with the relief food aid (using the community-managed system). Note: A contingency plan at all levels (central and local governments in collaboration with donors, NGOs and other actors) must be developed and acted upon to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations. D.2 The Medium Term Measures Should Include: 9. The government to review the food and trade policy to appropriately manage cross border trade that will not jeopardize domestic markets and cause disincentive to primary producers. 1. The government to review the input-supply system to ensure favorable environment for private traders to provide services to farmers particularly in the rural areas. The government still has a role to play to facilitate the trade liberalization policy such as quality control. 11. The government should provide a framework for supporting the formation of cooperative societies or saving and credit schemes to enable farmers obtain credit for investing in agriculture and livestock production. Rapid Assessment Report, July 15