Food Insecurity, and It’s determinants and Consequences in Tanzania Disaster Risk Reduction on Food security Food insecurity is one of the major risk that make people vulnerable from natural disaster and man-made disaster from house level to the national level; if its determinants will not be considered as a threat to well being of human kind, resilient of disaster will be impossible to achieve from house level to the national level. 2012 Gudat Paul Lehada Pragely Company Ltd 7/6/2012
23
Embed
Food Insecurity, and its determinants and consequences in Tanzania
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Food Insecurity, and It’s determinants and Consequences in Tanzania Disaster Risk Reduction on Food security Food insecurity is one of the major risk that make people vulnerable from natural disaster and man-made disaster from house level to the national level; if its determinants will not be considered as a threat to well being of human kind, resilient of disaster will be impossible to achieve from house level to the national level.
2012
Gudat Paul Lehada Pragely Company Ltd
7/6/2012
2
FOOD INSECURITY, AND ITS DETERMINANTS AND CONSEQUENCE IN TANZANIA
1.1: Introduction.
Food insecurity describes the instability of national or regional food supplies over time
(Frongillo, 2001; Rose, Basiotis, and Klein, 1995). It include a lack of secure provisions at the
household and individual levels
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hunger and undernutrition. A major factor
contributing to this international problem is food insecurity. This condition exists when people
lack sustainable physical or economic access to enough safe, nutritious, and socially acceptable
food for a healthy and productive life. Food insecurity may be chronic, seasonal, or temporary,
and it may occur at the household, regional, or national level.
The United Nations estimates there are 840 million undernourished people in the world. The
majority of undernourished people (799 million) reside in developing countries, most of which
are on the continents of Africa and Asia. This figure also includes 11 million people located in
developed countries and 30 million people located in countries in transition (e.g., the former
Soviet Union).
Food security according to the LSRO definition means access to enough food for an active,
healthy life. It includes at a minimum (a) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and
safe foods and (b) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways
(e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping
strategies). Food insecurity exists whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe
foods or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways is limited or
uncertain
Broadly, the concept of food security is built on three pillars: i) Food availability: sufficient
quantities of food are available to people on a consistent basis; ii) Food access: people have
sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet; iii) Food utilization:
people have sufficient knowledge of nutrition and care practices and access to adequate water
and sanitation to derive sustenance food. There is a direct and cyclical relationship between
poverty and food insecurity, whereby poverty contributes to food insecurity, which contributes
to poor nutrition, health, and cognitive development, which in turn contribute to poverty.
The World Food Summit (WFS) in 1996 and, more recently, the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) in 2000 set target for hunger reduction by using indicators of food deprivation, such as
MDG indicator 1.9, which reflects the proportion of a population below the minimum level of
dietary energy consumption, and the number of people suffering from food deprivation. The
MDG target aims to reduce hunger by half in terms of the population proportion (MDG 1.9),
3
whereas the WFS target calls for halving the number of hungry people. The MDG targets for
hunger reduction also include MDG indicator 1.8, which reflects the prevalence of underweight
children under 5 years of age. These MDG and WFS indicators reflect the magnitude and trends
of hunger at national, regional, and global levels.
Since 1990, developing regions have made some progress towards the MDG target of halving
the proportion of people suffering from hunger. The share of undernourished populations
decreased from 20 per cent in 1990-1992 to 16 per cent in 2005-2007, the latest period with
available data. However, progress has stalled since 2000-2002. Overall progress in reducing the
prevalence of hunger has not been sufficient to reduce the number of undernourished people. In
2005-2007, the last period assessed, 830 million people were still undernourished, an increase
from 817 million in 1990-1992. (MDG Report 2010
The international food crisis in 2007 and 2008 showed that poor countries are the most affected
by such crises, since poor people tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on
agricultural products. Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world, ranking 151st in the
Human Development Report, with 90 per cent of the population living on less than a dollar a
day. However, stable economic growth at around 4 per cent during the last decade has fuelled
hopes that Tanzania has finally found itself back on the path of sustainable economic growth
and poverty reduction. Skyrocketing international food prices in 2007 and 2008, though, caused
a devastating blow to many economies. For instance, it is estimated that up to 26 million people,
especially those in poor countries, were driven into extreme poverty (IMF, 2008). Hence, as a
poor country, one would expect Tanzania to be among those most affected by the crisis. (Kiratu
S, et.al 2011)
In Tanzania 2009, about 280,000 people (5 percent of the total population) are food insecure;
with most parts of the country being classified as overall food secure (FEWSNET 2009). Regions
facing food shortages include Arusha, Dodoma, Kagera, Kigoma, Kilimanjaro, Lindi, Mara, and
parts of Mbeya, Morogoro, Mtwara, Shinyanga, and Tanga. (Arusha Times, 2009). However,
failure of rainfall in the bimodal northern, northeastern, and northern coastal areas, and
continuous increases in maize, rice, and bean prices to 40-60 percent above their five year
averages has resulted in food shortages. (FEWS NET 2009)
However, the population growth rate (red line), the food production growth rate (blue line) and
the absolute change in the FPI (dotted line) over the period 1960–2000, and its linear trend
(green line) showing that food production increased on average only linearly, as is indicated by
the almost horizontal trend line, whereas population increased exponentially at a stable rate
between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. From this point of view, the crucial policy challenge has been to
overcome this Malthusian dynamic by introducing structural reforms that increase
productivity, and the recent spike in the agricultural growth rate seems promising in this
regard. (Kiratu, S. 2011)
4
Figure 1.1 : Population and production growth, 1961–2007 (%)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on World Bank (n.d.)
Food security situation in majority of the households in the assessed villages are continuing to
deteriorate in terms of availability, access and utilization despite the overall fairly adequate
2010/2011-food crop production in the country. Deterioration of food situation was due to little
contribution of vuli harvest (8 to 20%) compared to normal of 30 to 40 percent of annual
production. At the time of assessment, food commodities were available in the markets and
households were accessing the commodities in the markets. The assessment further revealed
that, food crop supplies in the market have generally been steady; however, prices have been
rising thus affecting the purchasing power of most households particularly the resource weak
households. It should further be noted that during the period of assessment (March, 2012) some
areas were receiving food assistance in terms of free food and subsidized food. (FSNA REPORT
2012)
District with acute food shortage-National Summary 2012
5
Region District Total Population Acute Food Insecure population
%Acute Food Insecure Population.
Ausha Arusha DC 382,932 15,708 4
Karatu 248,963 19,240 8
Longido 68,881 8,073 12
Ngorongoro 172,859 17,352 10
Total
873,635 60,373 3
Iringa Iringa ® 277,937 22,338 8
Total
277,937 22,338 1
Kagera Chato 564,274 50,636 9
Muleba 509,794 17,459 3
Total
1,074,068 68,095 2
Kilimanjaro Moshi ® 476,992 22,015 5
Mwanga 143,397 7,915 6
Total
620,289 29,930 2
Manyara Mbulu 343,124 6,984 2
Total
343,124 6,984 0.5
Mwanza Kwimba 397,598 52,831 13
Magu 531,219 86,079 16
Misungwi 325,088 77,306 24
Total
1,253,905 216,216 6
Pwani Kibaha DC 177,424 2,433 1
Total
177,424 2,433 0.2
Shinyanga Bariadi 889,677 60,962 7
Bukomba 591,129 10,209 2
Kahama 883,649 123,042 14
Kishapu 353,671 71,444 20
Maswa 452,362 57,527 13
Maetu 367,432 17,379 5
Shinyanga ( R) 401,903 15,066 4
Shinyanga (U) 221,269 12,802 6
Total
4,161,092 368,431 9
Tanga Kilindi 181,503 3,644 2
Lushoto 517,305 6,327 1
Mkinga 132,475 3,953 3
Total
831,283 13,924 1
Tabora Igunga 452,282 70,085 15
Nzega 582,583 86,715 15
Total
1,034,865 156,800 6
GrandTotal
10,647,622 945,524 9
6
Source; Muchali-FSNA Report 2012.
Fig 1.2Source; FSNA 2012
7
2; Food Insecurity and its determinants and consequences;
Fig 1; Food Insecurity, and its determinants and consequences
2.1; Food Insecurity Determinants
Food insecurity determinants are managerial strategies, livelihood strategies, economic factors,
social and functional limitation, and physical environment and personal factors.
2.1.1; Management Strategy
2.1.1.1; Agriculture policy
The existing Agricultural (and Livestock) Policy was established with the goal of improving the
well being of the people whose principal occupation and way of life were based on agriculture,
that is commercializing agriculture so as to increase income levels. (ESRF)
FOOD INSECURITY
Uncertainty, insufficient or
unacceptable availability, access or
utilization of food.
Social and
Functional
limitation
Economic factor Livelihood
strategies
Poor
Dietary
intake
Hunger Distress & Adverse, Family &
Social Interactions
Management
Strategies
Poor health
status, ie,
malnutritio
n
Lack of well-being
Worry &
Anxiety
Deprivation &
alienation
Physical
Environment and
personal factors
8
Agriculture has four important roles to play: provider of food security; earner of foreign
exchange; major GDP contributor; and the vehicle for inter-sectoral backward and forward
linkages. To enable farmers to access these opportunities, agriculture needs well-functioning
markets with a coherent marketing policy environment. In Tanzania, agricultural marketing is
one of the major impediments to agricultural growth and overall prosperity of the farming
communities around the country, as has been particularly evident during the post- trade
liberalization regime.
Since Independence, Tanzania has experimented with different policy regimes, starting from
unregulated markets, to cooperative based marketing, to centralized crop authorities and back
to unregulated markets (Amani et al 1983; ERB 2001). Agricultural marketing in the country has
evolved through three major regimes, namely: the pre-Arusha Declaration unregulated
marketing system (1961 to 1967), the post-Arusha Declaration centrally controlled marketing
system (1967 to 1980) and the current liberalized marketing structure. (ESRF ) all this policy was
not successful to increase production level in Tanzania
Agricultural policies in Tanzania are aimed at increasing income from agriculture rather than at
positive human development. Such agricultural policies are usually focused on external
markets and ignore the needs of the local market. This focus is probably due to a lack of
awareness of the needs of local people by programme implementers, where policy is geared
towards the achievement of revenue goals without regard for the population, resources
allocated for human development. The existing Agricultural and Livestock Policy was
established with the goal of improving the well being of the people whose principal occupation
and way of life were based on agriculture, that is commercializing agriculture so as to increase
income levels.goals worldwide will be insufficient. (Kiratu, S. et. 20110)
2.1.1.2: Agriculture development;
Agriculture is the foundation of the Tanzania economy, underpinning employment, food
production and export. As in the previous reports, the agriculture sector, which comprises
crops, animal husbandry, fishery and hunting sub-sectors, has remained the dominant sector: it
employs about 80% of the population, accounts for about 49.1 percent of GDP in 1999 and
slightly dropped to about 46.8 percent in 2003, 46.3 percent in 2004 and now about 45.6 percent
in 2005. Food crop production dominates the agricultural economy totaling 36.5% of total GDP,
and livestock accounting for 6.1%. The scope for immediate faster growth in production is
highest in this sector. Basic data indicates that there has been a major contribution of food
production, due partly to recent reforms that favored food crops, which induced a shift of
resources away from export crops to domestic food production. More important, it is the main
source of food supply and raw materials for the industrial sector. The country has a diverse
9
ecology and ample land resources to sustain high levels of agriculture growth. (MFTS 2007-
2010).
In recent years, however, the contribution of the sector to GDP has dropped to less than 25 per
cent and the fraction of employees fell to 75 per cent in 2006. A number of reasons account for
this trend, but the recent growth of mining, tourism and other services seems to the most
apparent one. (Runyoro, 2006)
The country is well endowed with a high potential base for agriculture development, yet
productivity remains very low. Agriculture is predominantly characterized as a smallholder
business, with farm sizes ranging in size from 0.9 to 3 hectares, dedicated to subsistence with
limited marketable surpluses. On the other hand, the few bigger enterprises have been
responsible for more than 80 per cent of Tanzania’s exports (especially cash crops such as coffee,
tea, cashew nuts, tobacco and sisal), albeit with a declining share since the late 1990s due to the
increasing importance of minerals and ores.
Further, the agricultural sector is characterized by traditional farming methods with low levels
of technology, low utilization of modern inputs and inefficient resource allocation
(Mashindano & Kaino, 2009; Runyoro, 2006). It has poor linkages to other domestic sectors,
with a poorly developed marketing system in general and under-developed infrastructure that
affects access to both domestic and international markets
In management strategies there is lack of Involvement of the private sector in efforts to enhance
agricultural growth and development, and hence the income of the farmers is crucial. The
Ministry must develop mechanisms to involve the private sector in agricultural extension
including creation of a local input dealer cadre, promotion of medium and large-scale
investment, building capacities for research and diversifying export crops. Yet, the Ministry like
other Government institutions is faced with financial constraints that demands prioritization.
Hence, with regard to research initiatives, respondents felt that research should focus on yield
improvements, supporting year-round farming and reduction of input cost to the farmer. As for
the dissemination of the research findings, it was felt that the ideal platforms are agricultural
extension staff, farmer organizations and the media. (MTSP 2007-2010)
The agricultural sector’s weakness resonates with an unsatisfactory level of food security and
consequent widespread poverty and poor quality of life (URT, 2005; Mashindano & Kaino,
2009). Food production has remained low, failing to meet household and national requirements
(Runyoro, 2006). Furthermore, the dependency on agriculture as the mainstay of the economy
has made the Tanzanian economy more vulnerable to both external and internal shocks, given
the lack of other important productive sectors such as manufacturing. As a result, the food
security situation in Tanzania varies from one region to another and from one season to
10
another. There are some perennial pockets of food shortages, particularly the coastal regions of
Pwani, Lindi, Mtwara and Tanga, together with the semi-arid central regions of Dodoma and
Singida and some parts of Shinyanga, Morogoro, Kigoma and Mara (Ashimogo, 1995).
2.1.2: Livelihood Strategy
Livelihood strategies are composed of the various activities undertaken by the household to
generate a living. They are the patterns of behaviour adopted by the household as a result of the
mediation processes on the household assets. As an intrinsic part of the assets-activities-
outcomes cycle, livelihood strategies are generally adaptive over time, responding to both
opportunities and changing constraints.
Livelihood strategy is one of the reasons that can lead to food insecurity. Although many
researchers and agencies have developed their own definitions of livelihoods and related
concepts, most of these definitions share common characteristics, including a focus on various
categories of assets (rather than income, the standard focus of poverty analysis) and the
institutions that influence individual or household access to these assets. Some definitions
include an explicit focus on livelihood strategies (‘how the poor make a living’) such as
agricultural intensification, livelihood diversification, or migration (Scoones 1998).
A good working definition of livelihoods is provided by Frank Ellis (2000:10): ‚the assets
(natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities, and the access to these
(mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by
individual or household‛. Later work indicates that it might be useful to add political capital as
this can be a key asset defining livelihood activities, access to resources and opportunities.
Livelihoods approaches reflect the diverse and complex realities faced by poor people in
specific contexts. Unlike many ‘conventional’ approaches to poverty assessment and project
design, a focus on livelihoods requires incorporating an understanding of the ways in which
various contextual factors – political, institutional, environmental as well as macroeconomic –
either constrain or support the efforts of poor and vulnerable people to pursue a viable living.
The ‘sustainable livelihoods approach’ (SLA) also emphasizes the ability of people to maintain a
viable livelihood over time, whereas conventional poverty analysts tend to measure income or
consumption at a point in time. Another virtue of livelihoods approaches is that they attempt to
build on the strengths already present in people’s existing assets, strategies and objectives,
rather than ‘importing’ blueprint development models that often ignore or even undermine
these positive features. For instance if certain livelihood groups are identified as being at above
average risk of food insecurity, the explanation frequently lies in the low returns or high
vulnerability of the livelihood activity being pursued, which in turn suggests appropriate policy
11
interventions to address this group’s food insecurity – raising returns, reducing vulnerability, or
encouraging diversification away from that source of livelihood. ( Devereux, S. et al. 2004)
Livelihood strategies here in Tanzania in which various contextual factors such as political,
institutional, environmental as well as macroeconomic constrain the efforts of poor and
vulnerable people to pursue a viable living. In addition to assets and activities, and the factors
that mediate access, livelihood considerations must take account of the outcomes of the
interaction of these components. Livelihood outcomes would ideally be what people seek and
strategize to achieve through their activities, albeit in practice the means or the choice of
activities may be restricted or absent and the ends will not always be realized.
Desired outcomes might include increases in income (monetary), food and water security,
health, physical security, independence, knowledge, status, or time – the inverse of various
poverty dimensions. The outcomes in turn will usually have a direct effect on the asset base and
activities (and possibly on the access regimes), so in this sense there is a cyclical relationship
between assets, activities and consumption outcomes (see Figure 1.3).
Most livelihood models focus on the household as the most appropriate social group for the
investigation of livelihoods, albeit external measures to manage risk may be social or public in
nature. Household livelihoods are however founded on the aggregation and dynamics of its
individual members, which suggests that to develop understanding of the pervasive features of
rural households some account of the intra-household dynamics (e.g. by gender, age or status)
will be necessary.
12
.
modifying and
contextual factors (e.g
output prices, food aid)
Outcomes enhance,
or erode, assets
Assets are transformed by strategies result in outcomes
modifyi
ng and
context
ual
factors
(e.g.
input
prices,
market
proximi
ty)
modifying and contextual
factors (e.g. land tenure, user
rights, village council)
Fig 2; A generic livelihood model Source; ( Morris M, undated)
The ‘external’ mediating environment (the block arrows in Figure 1.2.2) directly influences the
internal workings of the assets-activities-outcomes relationship. It provides the context within
which household decision-making processes unfold, mediating access to household assets and
the use to which they can be put, influencing the strategies - sets of activities - households adopt
and their potential outcomes. The nature of the diverse constituent factors will be elaborated
later. Their influence however might affect the following:
ASSETS: NR capital,
human and social capital,
physical capital, financial
capital etc
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES Food security, wellbeing,
income,
conservation etc
ACTIVITIES combine to make
Strategies
13
Quality and quantity of assets (e.g. disease reduces human capital, education increases
human capital, soil degradation reduces natural capital, devaluation reduces financial
capital).
Activities and the terms on which they transform assets (e.g. drought leads to coping
activities which may transform productive assets into liquid assets and thus denude the
asset base).
The relationship between activities and consumption outcomes (e.g. the influence of
different types of prices, such as minimum wage rates, income taxes, which may set a
type of floor for the impact of labor on consumption; price stabilization policy which
may affect the rate at which agricultural output increases are related to consumption
outcomes).
All livelihood models acknowledge the role and importance of the mediating environment – the
'modifying and contextual forces' of Figure 1.3 - in translating individual or household assets
into livelihood strategies and outcomes.
The DFID model divides these external forces into 'transforming structures and processes' – or
‘policies, institutions and processes’ - (e.g. levels of government, private sector, laws, policies,
culture, institutions), and the 'vulnerability context', described in terms of shocks (e.g. civil and
climatic), trends (e.g resource stocks, population, technology, politics and economics) and
seasonality (Carney, 1998).
Ellis similarly distinguishes between the modifying influence of 'social relations, institutions
and organizations’, and the contextual 'trends and shocks'. In making this distinction however,
he suggests that the nature of social relations (e.g. gender, class, age, ethnicity), institutions (e.g.
rules and customs, land tenure, markets in practice) and organizations (e.g. associations, NGOs,
local administration and state agencies), will be predominantly endogenous to the society
within which the household operates. While the category of trends (e.g. population, migration,
technological change, relative prices, macro policy, national and global economic trends) and