Food security vulnerability in South Africa. Case study Limpopo

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Food security vulnerability in South Africa. Case study Limpopo"

Lisa Wilkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 Food security vulnerability in South Africa Case study Limpopo

2 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

3 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

4 Different actors & partners

5 Objectives Identify the factors influencing food security (vulnerability) at household level and at municipality level Compute a Food Security Index (FSI) based on four major components: AVAILABILITY ACCESSIBILITY UTILISATION STABILITY

6 Objectives lead to Development of an accessible assessment tool to measure food security vulnerability Policy advice and new strategies related to food security

7 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

8 Methodology Data source and collection: Secondary data Surveys (field data collection) Survey on food security & determinants Survey background information, municipality level Qualitative and quantitative data

9 Overview questionnaire 1. Survey identification 2. Household demographics 3. Food availability & consumption 4. Agricultural production 5. Household income & expenditure 6. Characteristics of household 7. Stresses, shocks & coping strategies

11 Data collection (28/07-13/08) DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY 1 MUNICIPALITY 2 RESPONSIBLE? Capricorn Blouberg (60) Molemole (60) Total: 120 surveys data collection data entry Mopani Giyani (60) Maruleng (60) Total: 120 surveys data collection data entry Sekhukhune Fetakgomo (60) Tubatse (60) Total: 120 surveys data collection data entry Vhembe Mutale (60) Thulamela (60) Total: 120 surveys data collection data entry Waterberg Mogalakwena (60) Mookgopong (60) Total: 120 surveys data collection data entry 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student

12 post- data collection phase 15th of August 25th of August: Data analysis Obtained results? Interpretation of results? Writing of report

13 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

14 General results Food security & Poverty Human capital Food production Access to resources Household income Food consumption pattern Shocks & stresses

15 Food security & poverty in Limpopo (N = 599) 53% severely food insecure 32% less then 1US $/ per day/ per person 60% less then 2 US $/ per day/ per person 21% Food secure 53% 26% Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure

16 Food security status district level (N= 599) waterberg district 18.8% 15.4% 65.8% vhembe district 21.2% 33.1% 45.8% sekhukhune district 36.8% 34.2% 29.1% Food secure Moderately food insecure mopani district 12.4% 24.0% 63.6% Severely food insecure capricorn district 14.4% 24.6% 61.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Highest food insecurity levels in Waterberg & Mopani district Lowest food insecurity levels in Sekhukhune district

Food security municipality level (N = 599) Mogalakwena 25.4% 10.2% 64.4% Mookgopong 12.1% 20.7% 67.2% Thulamela 24.1% 25.9% 50.0% Mutale 18.3% 40.0% 41.7% Tubatse 30.5% 37.3% 32.

17 Food security municipality level (N = 599) Mogalakwena 25.4% 10.2% 64.4% Mookgopong 12.1% 20.7% 67.2% Thulamela 24.1% 25.9% 50.0% Mutale 18.3% 40.0% 41.7% Tubatse 30.5% 37.3% 32.2% food secure Fetakgomo Maruleng 10.0% 43.1% 25.0% 31.0% 65.0% 25.9% moderately food insecure severely food insecure Giyani 14.8% 23.0% 62.3% Molemole 19.2% 21.2% 59.6% Blouberg 10.6% 27.3% 62.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Highest food insecurity levels in Mookgopong, Maruleng & Mogalakwena Lowest food insecurity levels in Fetakgomo & Tubatse

18 Poverty on district level (N = 599) Capricorn district 62% 38% Mopani district 50% 50% Sekhukhune district 79% 21% >1US $/day (per capita) <1 US $/day (per capita) Vhembe district 81% 19% Waterberg district 69% 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Highest poverty rates in Mopani District Lowest poverty rates in Vhembe & Sekhukhune District

19 Poverty on municipality level (N = 599) Blouberg Molemole Giyani 62% 57% 63% 38% 43% 37% Maruleng 43% 57% Fetakgomo Tubatse Mutale 75% 83% 87% 25% 17% 13% >1 US$ per day (per capita) <1 US$ per day (per capita) Thulamela 75% 25% Mookgopong 72% 28% Mogalakwena 66% 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Highest poverty rates in Maruleng & Giyani

20 Human capital Human capital indicators General Household size 6-7 (3) Education level (share of household head with no schooling) 33% Gender (share of female headed households) 40% Dependency ratio (income earners/ total householdsize) 0.85 (0.18) Migrant workers (share of households with contributing migrant) 25,5%

21 Education level (household head) waterberg vhembe sekhukhune 13% 33% 36% No schooling Junior primary Senior primary Some Secondary mopani capricorn 42% 39% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Completed high school Courses or certificates for formal training Diploma or degree Overall education levels are lowest in Mopani and highest in Vhembe

22 Food production 57% of households involved in crop production 50% of households involved in livestock production Most popular crops: Maize & Mango: 27% Pawpaw:15% Spinach: 15% Tomatoes & Oranges: 13% Banana & Guava: 10% Most popular animals: Poultry: 50% Cattle & goats: 22%

23 Crop production Share of total households (N=599) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% capricorn mopani sekhukhune vhembe waterberg general 10% 0% maize mango pawpaw spinach oranges tomatoes Vhembe district: crop production most popular Sekhukhune & Waterberg district: crop production less popular

24 Livestock production Share of total households (N=599) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% capricorn mopani sekhukhune vhembe waterberg general 0% poultry goats cattle pigs Livestock production most popular in Vhembe district

25 Acces to resources (N = 599) Land resources Average land size 0.95 ha (SD: 2.36) Most popular: communal land (41% of households) Water sources Yard tap: 33% Public tap: 20% Borehole: 20% Energy 92% is connected to electricity Financial Burial insurance: 57% Savings account: 42%

Household income Average income per capita: 605

Mopani lowest income per capita 25 20 15 10 5 7.

6 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 monthly

26 Household income Average income per capita: 605 R/month (SD: 1200 R/month) Vhembe highest, Mopani lowest income per capita monthly income per capita 0 share of households (monthly income categories)

Income sources For 57% of the households, grants or gifts are reported as most important source of income Classification for different types of income sources 0 20 40 60 80 100

27 Income sources For 57% of the households, grants or gifts are reported as most important source of income Classification for different types of income sources share of households having specific income source grants & gifts formal salary farming income remittances skilled labour or business unskilled labour other income

28 Income sources Share of total households (N=599) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% grants & gifts formal salary farming income remittances skilled labour or business unskilled labour other income Waterberg most reliant on grants & gifts Vhembe -> farming income Sekhukhune -> formal salary

Food consumption pattern 6% Food expenditure pattern 4% 3% 2% 4% 6% 15% 15% 34% cereals bread non red meat fruits & veggies red meat eggs roots & tubers dairy legumes Cereals, bread & non red meat ->

29 Food consumption pattern 6% Food expenditure pattern 4% 3% 2% 4% 6% 15% 15% 34% cereals bread non red meat fruits & veggies red meat eggs roots & tubers dairy legumes Cereals, bread & non red meat -> 60% of food expenditure Red meat ->6% of food expenditure 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 10% 7% 19% 19% 21% Food secure Food insecurity 16% 14% 17% 33% Moderately food insecure 5% 4% 6% 6% Relatively more spend on cereals Relatively less spend on meat &dairy 13% 40% Severely food insecure

30 Shocks, stresses and coping strategies Increase in food price is most important stress in the area Most important coping strategies: Borrowing money & food from relatives (social capital) Reducing food consumption & spending Only 7,5% of households look for more employment opportunities

Importance of coping strategies share of households that use coping strategy (N = 380) 0 10 20 30 40 50 borrow money from relatives/friends 40.

31 Importance of coping strategies share of households that use coping strategy (N = 380) borrow money from relatives/friends 40.8 borrow food from relatives/friends reduce food consumption reduce spending selling livestock 18.9 use own savings receive grants or gifts look for additional employment take out loan from mashionisa take out loan from formal institution

32 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

33 Food security determinants Description of different food security categories What is the difference between food secure and food insecure households? Who has highest probability of being food insecure? What are the determinants of food insecurity?

34 Determinants of food security Human capital Farming system Food security Access to resources Household income

35 Overview determinants Human capital Farming system Access to resources Household income Household size Education level Gender head Dependency ratio Migrant workers Subsistence food production Livestock production Land Water Schooling Income per capita Remittances per capita Type of income

36 Identification determinants Two different multivariate analysis Regression analysis Cluster analysis Different methods Check for robustness of findings

37 Outcome regression analysis Coëfficient Test value constant 5.42*** HUMAN CAPITAL Household size 0,202 5,21*** Age household head *** Education level (household head) *** Gender (household head) ** Dependency ratio (income earners/total hhsize) FOOD PRODUCTION Maizeproduction (dummy) Mango production (dummy) Pawpaw production (dummy) Spinach production (dummy) * Tomatoe production(dummy) Cattle (dummy) Goats (dummy) Poultry (dummy)

38 Outcome regression analysis Coëfficient Test value ACCESS TO RESOURCES Cropping land size (ha) Distance to water source (m) ** HOUSEHOLD INCOME Monthly income per capita (Rand/month) ** Formal income (dummy) ** Grants & gifts (dummy) ** Unskilled labour income (dummy) *** Remittances (dummy) *** Skilled labour or entrepreneurial activity (dummy) Farm income(dummy) *10% significance level, **5% significance level, ***1% significance level. Independent HFIAS score (Food insecurity score) Negative coëfficients result in higher food security levels R= 0.57; R 2 =0.32

39 Cluster analysis Creating clusters using different variables Looking for overlap between different determinants & different indicators of food security Different types of variables included Human capital Access to land Food production Food security indicators Food security indicators Food insecurity score Importance of food in total expenditure (%) Importance of cereals in food expenditure (%)

40 Different clusters Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-7) *** Total household size *** Dependency ratio *** Land size (ha) Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) * Livestock index (Σ different animal types) *** Income per capita (Rand/month) *** Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) Food insecurity score (0-27) *** Food expenditure (share of total monthly expenditure) Expenditure on cereal (share of total monthly food expenditure) *10% significance level, **5% significance level, ***1% significance level. Test *** ***

41 Different clusters Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) Total household size Dependency ratio Land size (ha) Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) Livestock index (Σ different animal types) Income per capita (Rand/month) Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) Food insecurity score (0-27) Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) Low education level, Least land and low crop & livestock indices Lowest income, most dependent on grants & gifts High food insecurity score, High importance of food & staple foods in expenditure

42 Different clusters Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) Total household size Dependency ratio Land size (ha) Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) Livestock index (Σ different animal types) Income per capita (Rand/month) Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) Food insecurity score (0-27) Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) Higher education level, More land and higher crop & livestock indices Higherincome, less dependent on grants & gifts Lowest food insecurity score, Lower importance of food & staple foods in expenditure

43 Different clusters Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) Total household size Dependency ratio Land size (ha) Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) Livestock index (Σ different animal types) Income per capita (Rand/month) Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) Food insecurity score (0-27) Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) Higher education level, More land and higher crop & livestock indices Medium income, still very dependent on grants & gifts Lower food insecurity score, Still high importance of food in expenditure

44 Identification determinants From these analysis we find the most important determinants of food security in Limpopo area Household Income Dependency on grants & gifts Education level Household food security status Type of employment

45 Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities

46 Most important policy priorities Based on determinants of food security certain policy can be prioritised Not all determinants can be tackled directly through policy

47 Policy priorities Low education level Promote education in rural areas High dependency ratio Decrease by ensuring job opportunities & facilitating the labour market Vulnerable female headed household Low household income High dependency on grants & gifts Food production Support female headed households Special focus on girls and women in rural development policies Promote employment Facilitate labour market Ensure sustainability of income Promote employment Manipulate incentives Modify grant system Promote the potential for household food production to contribute to food security

FOOD SECURITY. Limpopo Province

FOOD SECURITY. Limpopo Province FOOD SECURITY Limpopo Province Research team: Prof. Dr. Ir. D Haese L., Prof Dr. Van Rooyen J., Prof Dr. Vink N., Prof. Dr. Kirsten J., Assistant Staelens L., Ir. Vandamme E., Prof. Dr. Shönfeld H., Ir.