1

Swazi VAC 2015

Annual Vulnerability Assessment

Dissemination Presentation

20th August,2015

Mafini conference centre

9/21/2015

Outline of the Presentation

Objectives

Major hazards

Methodology

National Overview

Rainfall Performance

Health and Evironment

Concepts and Definitions

2015 Results

Sources of Energy

Food Consumption

Livelihood Inputs

Households Shock and Coping Means

Food Production and Insecurity

The 2015 Swaziland VAA Objectives

Objectives

Identify share of the population with inadequate food by region

and Livelihood zone.

Identify hazards and shocks experienced by the regions and

livelihood zones that have impacted to inadequate food

production.

Identify disease outbreaks on both the population and livestock

living within livelihood zones.

Understand issues of water and sanitation within the livelihood

zones and regions.

2015 Major Hazards

Long dry spells

Crop failure

Dry grazing lands

Hazard Map (Crop Failure)

Methodological Approach to the VAA 2015

Household Methodology used

The assessment was conducted in all the four regions of

the country

Two-stage sampling with EAs selected from the 7

livelihoods zones, using probability proportion to

estimated size (PPES), coming from the Swaziland

population and housing census of 2007, sampling frame.

Utilized tablets for households data collection and SPSS 21 for

analysis

A total of 143 Clusters were visited

HEA Methodology

The assessment was conducted in all the four regions of

the country and targeted areas identified as hotspots, in

which interviews were conducted with communities on

both crop and livestock production in order to cover

issues of food production and livestock keeping,

challenges if there exist.

23 communities were visited during this year’s assessment

Conducted FGDs separated into wealth groups

National Context

2014/2015 Agriculture Season Rainfall Performance

Rainfall Performance - Highveld

Rainfall Performance - Middleveld

Rainfall Performance - Lowveld

Rainfall Performance – Lubombo Plateau

Nutrition Indicators

MICS 2000 DHS 2007 MICS 2010 MICS 2014

Under Weight 9.6 5.4 5.8 5.8

Wasting 1.2 2.5 0.8 2

Stunting 28.7 29 31 25.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PER

CEN

TAG

ES

REPORTS

Water and Sanitation

67.3

53.8

72

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Use of improved drinking water Use of improved sanitation

2010

2014

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Sep-14 Oct 14 Nov-14 Dec 14 Jan-15 15-Feb Mar 15 15-Apr May 15 June 15

Inflation Rate

Inflation Rate

The 2015 Results

Asset WealthWealth is the value of all natural, physical and financial assets owned by a household, reduced by its liabilities.

Asset Wealth is a composite measure defined on the basis of the number of different types of productive and /or non productive assets owned by the households.

Use asset ownership as a proxy indicator of household wealth.

Ownership of 21 different types of assets is considered when classifying households.

Households are then classified as:

•Asset poor = 0-4 different types of assets

•Asset medium = 5-9 different types of assets

•Asset rich = 10+ different types of assets

Sources of Energy

Energy Sources

Energy Sources for Cooking

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Wood Electricity Gas Paraffin Coal

Hhohho Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Total

Energy Sources for Lighting

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Hhohho Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Total

Food Consumption

Food Consumption Score (FCS)

FCS is a composite score based on:

dietary diversity = number of foods groups consumed over a reference period (the past week) by the household

food frequency = number of days (in the past week) that a specific food group has been consumed by the household

relative nutrition importance of different food groups (food groups have weights)

The higher the FCS the more likely dietary diversity will be and the more likely that a household will be nutritionally adequate.

– Households are classified as having either ‘poor’, ‘borderline’ or ‘acceptable’ consumption based on the food consumption score.

Food Consumption Score (Region)

1.80%

9.40%

5.30%

0.30%

4.10%

27.80%

14.80%17.00%

14.30%

19.60%

70.40%

75.80%77.70%

85.40%

76.30%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Lubombo Shiselweni Manzini Hhohho Total

FSC

(%

)

Region

Poor Normal Acceptable

Food Consumption Score (LZ) Food Consumption Score (Asset Level)

3.6

0%

1.3

0%

1.2

0%

2.5

0%

4.5

0%

1.3

0% 10

.10

%

4.1

0%13

.60

%

20

.90

%

19

.70

%

11

.70

%

20

.60

%

10

.00

%

28

.70

%

19

.60

%

82

.80

%

77

.80

%

79

.20

%

85

.90

%

74

.90

%

88

.80

%

61

.20

% 76

.30

%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

FCS

(%)

Livelihood Zones

Food consumption groups Poor

Food consumption groups Normal

Food consumption groups Acceptable

10.60%

3.40%5.50% 4.10%

23.40%20.90%

14.80%

19.60%

66.00%

75.70%79.70%

76.30%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Asset poor Asset medium Asset better-off Total

FSC

(%

)

Asset Level

Food consumption groups Poor

Food consumption groups Normal

Food consumption groups Acceptable

Livelihood Activities

Livelihood activities

• Livelihood activities (main source of income

and food) help understand the sustainability of

households and their resilience to shocks.

• Usually household’s have several ways to earn

income so in assessments we try to collect

information on more than one activity.

Livelihood Activities4

3.4

0%

12

.20

%

4.9

0%

11

.20

%

7.1

0%

6.5

0%

2.0

0%

29

.60

%

12

.00

%

15

.40

%

10

.80

%

9.7

0%

2.6

0% 5.4

0%

22

.30

%

12

.70

%

20

.30

%

8.3

0% 11

.00

%

1.3

0%

3.3

0%

16

.70

%

24

.10

%

12

.60

%

5.4

0% 8.2

0%

8.5

0%

9.9

0%

30

.20

%

14

.70

%

12

.20

%

9.3

0%

8.8

0%

4.9

0%

4.7

0%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Formalsalary/wages

Remittance Other Small business Casual labour Pension Petty trade(firewood sales,

etc.)

Livelihood Sources

Hhohho Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Total

Households Shock and Coping Means

Shocks and Coping Strategies

• Shocks: Events that have negative impacts on food security and/or nutrition status. Can be natural or manmade.

• Coping Strategies or means: Activities to which people resort to obtain food, income and/or services when their normal means of livelihoods have been disrupted

Major shocks as per region

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Hhohho Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Total

Coping Strategies

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Rely on lesspreferred, lessexpensive food

Spent savings Reduced number ofmeals per day

Borrowed food,helped by relatives

Reduced theportion size of the

meals for all

Worked for foodonly

Hhohho Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Total

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Asset poor Asset medium Asset better-off

Rely on less preferred, less expensive food

Spent savings

Reduced number of meals per day

Borrowed food, helped by relatives

Reduced the portion size of the meals for all

Worked for food only

Borrowed money

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Poorconsumption

Normalconsumption

Adequateconsumption

Rely on less preferred, less expensive food

Spent savings

Reduced number of meals per day

Borrowed food, helped by relatives

Reduced the portion size of the meals for all

Worked for food only

Coping Strategies per Asset Level Coping Strategies per Consumption Level

Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

An indicator of households food insecuritybehaviour that reveals how they manage or copewith shortfalls in foood consuption. Responses toshortfalls are formulated into simple numericscore reflecting the frequency and percievedseverity of these coping behaviours. The higherthe score the greater the coping, reflecting ahigher level of food insecurity.

Coping Strategy Index (Region)

5.76

8.46

15.17

10.57Hhohho

Manzini

Shiselweni

Lubombo

22.296.99

9.16

CSI Food Consumption Groups

Poor consumption

Normal consumption

Adequateconsumption

24.89

10.46

3.53

CSI by Asset Category

Asset poor

Asset medium

Asset better-off

6.56

8.71

6.94

10.4914.83

13.3

4.18

CSI by Livelihood Zone

Timber highlands

Highveld cattle and maize

Moist middleveld

Dry middleveld

Lowveld cattle and maize

Lubombo plateau

Puri urban

Food Production and Insecurity

Maize 5 Year Average: 2011 - 2015

82 057

76 091

81 934

101 041

81 623.00

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N (

MT)

YEAR

National Food Balance Sheet

Figures in ‘000 Metric Tonnes

Maize Wheat Rice All

A. Domestic Availability

81.62 0.00 0.15 81.77

B. Gross Domestic Requirement

157.31 43.44 4.99 205.74

C. Domestic Shortfall/ Surplus

-72.89 -43.44 -4.84 -121.17

D. Planned Imports

Commercial 43.00 36.00 76.00 155

Food Aid 0.81 0 0 0.81

Definitions

• Survival deficit:

Shortage of money and food required to cover the cost of preparing and consuming food

• Livelihood deficit:

Shortage of money that must be spent on items that are essential in terms of

– maintaining access to basic services (health, etc) or

– the maintenance of livelihoods in the medium to longer term

Survival Deficit 2015-16 consumption year

Survival Populations by Region

Region PopulationVulnerablePop Cash (SZL) Maize (Tons)

Hhohho 318,493 1,963 166,416 51

Lubombo 226,800 31,132 2,638,657 814

Manzini 364,170 4,809 407,571 126

Shiselweni 209,913 6,718 569,414 176

Grand Total 1,119,376 44,622 3,782,057 1,166

Livelihood Deficit 2015-16 consumption year

Population at Risk

Vulnerable Rural Populations

Region PopulationVulnerable

PopCash (SZL) required

Hhohho 318,493 39,085 7,626,545

Lubombo 226,800 91,071 28,203,816

Manzini 364,170 38,904 9,038,091

Shiselweni 209,913 31,837 6,351,110

Grand Total 1,119,376 200,897 51,219,562

Communities having a food deficit

5 Year Trend AnalysisYear Production Population

Affected

Rural

Population

Affected

Population in

Percentages

2011 82057 88511 825826 10.72

2012 76091 115713 833896 13.88

2013 81934 289920 842036 34.43

2014 101041 223249 850203 26.26

2015 81628 200897 858347 23.41

% Change from

Previous year

-19.213 -10.0121 0.957889 -10.8659

5 Year Avearge 84550 183658 21.73766

Conclusions….

• The country experienced long dry spells andthe situation was serious in the Lubombo andShiselweni regions

• Food consumption levels on average stilladequate in the country, however theLubombo (Lowveld and Shiselwni Region in acritical state, thus requiring close monitoringduring the consumption period.

Conclusions• Improvement in the provision of services in the

country as improvements seen in WASH and Nutritionindicators. However chronic malnutrition still remainshigh in the country.

• Weather related shocks were a major limiting factor in food security in the country, affecting food production, livestock and water availability especially in the lowveld and Lubombo regions.

• 44,622 people are currently in need of food inSwaziland

• 200,897 will face both food and cash deficits for thecurrent consumption period

THANK YOU