South Africa Case study Limpopo Content I. Project introduction - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
south africa
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

South Africa Case study Limpopo Content I. Project introduction - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 08, 2023 224 likes •710 views

Food security vulnerability in South Africa Case study Limpopo Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology III. General results IV. Food security determinants V. Policy priorities Content I. Project introduction II. Methodology

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Food security vulnerability in South Africa

Case study Limpopo

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Different actors & partners

slide-5
SLIDE 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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Objectives lead to…

  • Development of an accessible assessment tool

to measure food security vulnerability

  • Policy advice and new strategies related to

food security

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-8
SLIDE 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

slide-9
SLIDE 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
slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 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 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student Mopani Giyani (60) Maruleng (60) Total: 120 surveys  data collection  data entry 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student Sekhukhune Fetakgomo (60) Tubatse (60) Total: 120 surveys  data collection  data entry 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student Vhembe Mutale (60) Thulamela (60) Total: 120 surveys  data collection  data entry 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student Waterberg Mogalakwena (60) Mookgopong (60) Total: 120 surveys  data collection  data entry 4 enumerators + 1 student 1 student

slide-12
SLIDE 12

post- data collection phase…

  • 15th of August – 25th of August:

– Data analysis

  • Obtained results?
  • Interpretation of results?

– Writing of report

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-14
SLIDE 14

General results

  • Food security & Poverty
  • Human capital
  • Food production
  • Access to resources
  • Household income
  • Food consumption pattern
  • Shocks & stresses
slide-15
SLIDE 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% 26% 53%

Food secure Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Food security status district level

(N= 599)

14.4% 12.4% 36.8% 21.2% 18.8% 24.6% 24.0% 34.2% 33.1% 15.4% 61.0% 63.6% 29.1% 45.8% 65.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% capricorn district mopani district sekhukhune district vhembe district waterberg district Food secure Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure

  • Highest food insecurity levels in Waterberg & Mopani district
  • Lowest food insecurity levels in Sekhukhune district
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Food security municipality level

(N = 599)

  • Highest food insecurity levels in Mookgopong, Maruleng & Mogalakwena
  • Lowest food insecurity levels in Fetakgomo & Tubatse

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Blouberg Molemole Giyani Maruleng Fetakgomo Tubatse Mutale Thulamela Mookgopong Mogalakwena

10.6% 19.2% 14.8% 10.0% 43.1% 30.5% 18.3% 24.1% 12.1% 25.4% 27.3% 21.2% 23.0% 25.0% 31.0% 37.3% 40.0% 25.9% 20.7% 10.2% 62.1% 59.6% 62.3% 65.0% 25.9% 32.2% 41.7% 50.0% 67.2% 64.4%

food secure moderately food insecure severely food insecure

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Poverty on district level

(N = 599)

  • Highest poverty rates in Mopani District
  • Lowest poverty rates in Vhembe & Sekhukhune District

69% 81% 79% 50% 62% 31% 19% 21% 50% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Waterberg district Vhembe district Sekhukhune district Mopani district Capricorn district >1US $/day (per capita) <1 US $/day (per capita)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Poverty on municipality level

(N = 599)

  • Highest poverty rates in Maruleng & Giyani

66% 72% 75% 87% 83% 75% 43% 57% 63% 62% 34% 28% 25% 13% 17% 25% 57% 43% 37% 38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mogalakwena Mookgopong Thulamela Mutale Tubatse Fetakgomo Maruleng Giyani Molemole Blouberg >1 US$ per day (per capita) <1 US$ per day (per capita)

slide-20
SLIDE 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%

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Education level (household head)

  • Overall education levels are lowest in Mopani and highest in Vhembe

39% 42% 36% 13% 33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% capricorn mopani sekhukhune vhembe waterberg No schooling Junior primary Senior primary Some Secondary Completed high school Courses or certificates for formal training Diploma or degree

slide-22
SLIDE 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%

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Crop production

  • Vhembe district: crop production most popular
  • Sekhukhune & Waterberg district: crop production less popular

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% maize mango pawpaw spinach

  • ranges

tomatoes capricorn mopani sekhukhune vhembe waterberg general Share of total households (N=599)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Livestock production

  • Livestock production most popular in Vhembe district

Share of total households (N=599) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% poultry goats cattle pigs capricorn mopani sekhukhune vhembe waterberg general

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Acces to resources

(N = 599)

  • Average land size 0.95 ha (SD: 2.36)
  • Most popular: communal land (41% of households)

Land resources

  • Yard tap: 33%
  • Public tap: 20%
  • Borehole: 20%

Water sources

  • 92% is connected to electricity

Energy

  • Burial insurance: 57%
  • Savings account: 42%

Financial

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Household income

  • Average income per capita: 605 R/month (SD: 1200 R/month)
  • Vhembe highest, Mopani lowest income per capita

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

monthly income per capita 5 10 15 20 25 7.6 4.5 6.7 20.0 11.1 21.2 15.5 5.7 7.6 share of households (monthly income categories)

slide-27
SLIDE 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

20 40 60 80 100 grants & gifts formal salary farming income remittances skilled labour or business unskilled labour

  • ther income

75 31 15 13 7 5 1.5 share of households having specific income source

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Income sources

  • Waterberg most reliant on grants & gifts
  • Vhembe -> farming income
  • Sekhukhune -> formal salary

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% grants & gifts formal salary farming income remittances skilled labour or business unskilled labour

  • ther income

Share of total households (N=599)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Food consumption pattern

  • Cereals, bread & non red meat -> 60% of

food expenditure

  • Red meat ->6% of food expenditure

34% 15% 15% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2% Food expenditure pattern cereals bread non red meat fruits & veggies red meat eggs roots & tubers dairy legumes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Food secure Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure

21% 33% 40% 19% 17% 13% 19% 16% 14% 7% 6% 6% 10% 5% 4%

  • Food insecurity
  • Relatively more spend on cereals
  • Relatively less spend on meat &dairy
slide-30
SLIDE 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

  • pportunities
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Importance of coping strategies

10 20 30 40 50

borrow money from relatives/friends borrow food from relatives/friends reduce food consumption reduce spending selling livestock use own savings receive grants or gifts look for additional employment take out loan from mashionisa take out loan from formal institution

40.8 33.3 32 31.5 18.9 14.9 13.7 7.5 6.9 5.7

share of households that use coping strategy (N = 380)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-33
SLIDE 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?
slide-34
SLIDE 34

Determinants of food security

Food security

Human capital Access to resources Household income Farming system

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Overview determinants

Human capital

  • Household

size

  • Education

level

  • Gender head
  • Dependency

ratio

  • Migrant

workers Farming system

  • Subsistence

food production

  • Livestock

production Access to resources

  • Land
  • Water
  • Schooling

Household income

  • Income per

capita

  • Remittances

per capita

  • Type of

income

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Identification determinants

  • Two different multivariate analysis

– Regression analysis – Cluster analysis

  • Different methods

– Check for robustness of findings

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Outcome regression analysis

Coëfficient Test value constant 5.42*** HUMAN CAPITAL Household size 0,202 5,21*** Age household head

  • 0.19
  • 4.37***

Education level (household head)

  • 0.23
  • 4.69***

Gender (household head) 0.08 2.06** Dependency ratio (income earners/total hhsize) 0.004 0.092 FOOD PRODUCTION Maizeproduction (dummy)

  • 0.01
  • 0.27

Mango production (dummy)

  • 0.05
  • 1.14

Pawpaw production (dummy)

  • 0.04
  • 1.03

Spinach production (dummy)

  • 0.08
  • 1.85*

Tomatoe production(dummy)

  • 0.01
  • 0.22

Cattle (dummy)

  • 0.06
  • 1.55

Goats (dummy) 0.04 0.91 Poultry (dummy) 0.06 1.45

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Outcome regression analysis

Coëfficient Test value ACCESS TO RESOURCES Cropping land size (ha)

  • 0.05
  • 1.24

Distance to water source (m) 0.08 2.24** HOUSEHOLD INCOME Monthly income per capita (Rand/month)

  • 0.09
  • 2.14**

Formal income (dummy)

  • 0.12
  • 2.51**

Grants & gifts (dummy) 0.10 2.12** Unskilled labour income (dummy) 0.17 4.65*** Remittances (dummy)

  • 0.16
  • 4.19***

Skilled labour or entrepreneurial activity (dummy) 0.05 1.18 Farm income(dummy)

  • 0.07
  • 1.60
  • Independent HFIAS score (Food insecurity score)
  • Negative coëfficients result in higher food security levels
  • R= 0.57; R2=0.32

*10% significance level, **5% significance level, ***1% significance level.

slide-39
SLIDE 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 Food production Access to land Food security indicators

Food security indicators

  • Food insecurity score
  • Importance of food in total expenditure (%)
  • Importance of cereals in food expenditure (%)
slide-40
SLIDE 40

Different clusters

Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Test Education level (1-7) 2 3 5 38.56*** Total household size 7.4 5 5.1 11.82*** Dependency ratio 0.87 0.81 0.67 34.14*** Land size (ha) 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.95 Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) 2.1 2.4 3.6 2.34* Livestock index (Σ different animal types) 2.1 2.8 5.0 25.13*** Income per capita (Rand/month) 240 830 1900 1898*** Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) 0.86 0.64 0.32 Food insecurity score (0-27) 12 6 4 17.66*** Food expenditure (share of total monthly expenditure) 0.62 0.54 0.37 27.38*** Expenditure on cereal (share of total monthly food expenditure) 0.39 0.24 0.17 15.35***

*10% significance level, **5% significance level, ***1% significance level.

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Different clusters

Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) 2 3 5 Total household size 7.4 5 5.1 Dependency ratio 0.87 0.81 0.67 Land size (ha) 0.8 1.3 1.5 Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) 2.1 2.4 3.6 Livestock index (Σ different animal types) 2.1 2.8 5.0 Income per capita (Rand/month) 240 830 1900 Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) 0.86 0.64 0.32 Food insecurity score (0-27) 12 6 4 Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) 0.62 0.54 0.37 Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) 0.39 0.24 0.17

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
slide-42
SLIDE 42

Different clusters

Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) 2 3 5 Total household size 7.4 5 5.1 Dependency ratio 0.87 0.81 0.67 Land size (ha) 0.8 1.3 1.5 Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) 2.1 2.4 3.6 Livestock index (Σ different animal types) 2.1 2.8 5.0 Income per capita (Rand/month) 240 830 1900 Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) 0.86 0.64 0.32 Food insecurity score (0-27) 12 6 4 Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) 0.62 0.54 0.37 Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) 0.39 0.24 0.17

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
slide-43
SLIDE 43

Different clusters

Cluster 1 (N=384) Cluster 2 (N=132) Cluster 3 (N=25) Education level (1-) 2 3 5 Total household size 7.4 5 5.1 Dependency ratio 0.87 0.81 0.67 Land size (ha) 0.8 1.3 1.5 Crop index (Σ crops cultivated) 2.1 2.4 3.6 Livestock index (Σ different animal types) 2.1 2.8 5.0 Income per capita (Rand/month) 240 830 1900 Grants & gifts as income source (dummy) 0.86 0.64 0.32 Food insecurity score (0-27) 12 6 4 Food expenditure (share of total expenditure) 0.62 0.54 0.37 Expenditure on cereal (share of total food expenditure) 0.39 0.24 0.17

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
slide-44
SLIDE 44

Identification determinants

  • From these analysis we find the most important

determinants of food security in Limpopo area

Household food security status

Education level Household Income Dependency

  • n grants &

gifts Type of employment

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Content

I. Project introduction

  • II. Methodology
  • III. General results
  • IV. Food security determinants
  • V. Policy priorities
slide-46
SLIDE 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

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Policy priorities

  • Promote education in rural areas

Low education level

  • Decrease by ensuring job opportunities & facilitating

the labour market

High dependency ratio

  • Support female headed households
  • Special focus on girls and women in rural

development policies

Vulnerable female headed household

  • Promote employment
  • Facilitate labour market
  • Ensure sustainability of income

Low household income

  • Promote employment
  • Manipulate incentives
  • Modify grant system

High dependency on grants & gifts

  • Promote the potential for household food production

to contribute to food security

Food production