Research Results from the Department of Policy Analysis MADR-Directorate of Economicsfood security, food policy, Mozambique, rural household, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Q18,

Arlindo, Pedro

Benfica, Rui M.S.

Tschirley, David L.

Weber, Michael T.

English

Research Papers in Economics

March 15, 2000  No.  19E
http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/mozambique/flash19e.pdf
Research Results from the Department of Policy Analysis
MADR-Directorate of Economics
*
Representative Characteristics of Rural Households in Areas of Central and Southern
Mozambique Affected by The 2000 Floods
Rui Benfica, Pedro Arlindo, Michael T. Weber, and David Tschirley
Background:  The worst floods in nearly 50 years in
parts of Southern and Central Mozambique have resulted
in death and serious damage to people, crops and
livestock, as well as to rural housing, communication
infrastructure and small and large-scale business assets
of many kinds.  As flood waters recede and immediate
emergency needs are determined and increasingly met,
local and national Government, as well as NGO and
Donor organizations are turning attention to
conceptualizing and designing longer-term rehabilitation
programs and projects.  Systematic information about
the rural population in the affected areas is needed to
assist these efforts.  This Flash is a shortened version of 
Research Report No. 40  also published by the Policy
Analysis Department, which  is downloadable at: 
http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/mozambique
Objectives:  The primary objective of the report is to
utilize an existing rural household data base to describe
key social and economic characteristics of smallholder
farmers in the flood areas.   
Methods:  The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development completed for the 1995/96 agricultural
season a survey of smallholder agriculture, interviewing
3889 family sector households (TIA-96). The February
2000 floods affected 22 districts, and TIA-96 obtained
data in 10 of these.  Based on this overlap (10/22), it was
decided to utilize TIA-96 to characterize representative
household resources and economic activities in flooded
areas of each Province.   Descriptive results presented in
this study are based on the sample size permitted by the
data, and need to be used with caution. 
Results:   Table 1 is a synthesis of several tables
presented in the longer Research Report.  It contains
estimates of provincial-level averages for key household
level-variables.  It also reports estimates of overall
averages for the entire flooded area in Southern and
Central parts of the country.  These overall averages are
based on a much larger number of observations than the
district numbers, but are still limited to the 10 flooded
Districts covered by TIA-96.  Estimates of household
averages for different variables  are clearly useful, but
must also be used carefully.  Flood rehabilitation
program design needs to be aware of the range of needs
and the likely significant differences present among the
flood victims.  To provide users with an indication of the
degree of variability in the results for any given
Province, many tables in the Research Report include a
breakdown of overall average results for all flood
affected areas by tercile of household area cultivated. 
Some important characteristics for rehabilitation
program and project design shown by these results are:
• Household behavior varies significantly
according to area cultivated, and rehabilitation efforts
will need to identify and provide variable levels of
assistance to meet different needs.
• It will be especially important to understand any
special needs of female headed households, who
constitute approximately 1 in 5 of all households in
affected areas.
• Household cropping patterns across the flooded
areas are dominated by maize, but the relative 
importance of other annual and tree crops varies by area
affected.  This has implications for the design of seed
packs to be distributed to affected households.
• In Maputo, Gaza, Sofala and Manica, while
majorities of households reported having fields in “zonas
altas”, substantial minorities (from 21% in Manica to
47% in Gaza) reported having fields only in “zonas
baixas”.  These households were especially likely to
have lost all their crops and many household assets.
• A significant number of households depended
on
income from selling labor, as well as on non-farm
enterprises.  Much of this labor was likely done on
neighboring farms, and such opportunities will not be
available for some time.  Work on larger farms or nearby
factories will also have been disrupted for many
households.  Thus, cash for work schemes will be
needed to replace these lost cash incomes. * The opinions expressed here are the entire
responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the
official position of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development.Table 1. Rural Household Demographic, Cropping, Land Holding and Income Diversification Characteristics In Flood Areas
By Province For All Areas By Tercile of HH Area Cultivated
Maputo Gaza Inhambane Sofala Manica Sampled 1 2 3
Household Size                               ( # of  Members)
Female Headed Households                  ( % of HH’s)
6.0
 29
7.0
 20
7.0
 12
5.5
 22
7.4
 14
6.4
 22
Mean Area Cultivated (hectares) per ...
  Household                                             ( Ha per HH )
  Person                                              ( Ha per capita )
  Labor adult equivalent                            ( Ha per AE )
1.96
0.38
0.58
2.47
0.42
0.65
2.72
0.47
0.69
2.33
0.46
0.75
3.34
0.15
0.88
2.40
0.43
0.67
0.60
0.15
0.23
1.66
0.37
0.55
4.88
0.77
1.24
Households with Field(s) in “Zona Baixa” (% of hh)    60   55     5     50    53    51     48    52    52
Households with Field(s) in “Zona Alta”   (% of hh)    58   53   100     78    71    66      57    66    73
Households with Field(s) in Both Zones   (% of hh)     22      8      5     29     24    18        9    19     25
Households that Harvested    
  Maize                                        (% HH’s Harvesting)
  Rice                                          (% HH’s Harvesting)  
  Cassava                                   (% HH’s Harvesting) 
  Beans                                       ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Sorghum/Millet                         ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Sweet Potato                            ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Sesame                                    ( % HH’s Harvesting) 
  Peanuts                                    ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Cashew                                    ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Coconut                                    ( % HH’s Harvesting)
  Mafurra                                     ( % HH’s Harvesting)
84  
0  
8  
39  
1  
8  
3  
34  
10  
0  
3  
95   
5   
40   
72   
1   
13   
1   
24   
51   
2   
24   
95       
11       
10       
48       
75       
2       
11       
67       
19       
10       
0       
93     
21     
30     
42     
70     
6     
7     
36     
32     
9     
0     
97     
4     
11     
41     
54     
16     
26     
11     
0     
0     
0     
92            
7            
23            
51            
27            
9            
6            
32            
27            
3            
8            
87     
3     
17     
41     
15     
9     
2     
25     
23     
2     
8     
93     
9     
22     
54     
29     
10     
6     
29     
29     
4     
8     
95     
10     
30     
58     
38     
10     
10     
42     
28     
3     
10     
Households Selling Labor Off-Farm        ( % of HH)
  Primarily Farm Labor                                  ( % of HH)
  Primarily Non-farm Labor                            ( % if HH)
Households with Non-farm Business      ( % of HH)
Mean Number of Off-Farm Businesses    ( % of HH)
12 
6 
6 
 
57 
1.9 
31   
13   
20   
31   
1.5   
33       
18       
15       
43       
1.4      
22     
11     
12     
43     
1.2    
27     
8     
20     
60     
1.4    
24            
11            
14            
45            
1.6           
22     
 
15     
11     
40     
1.5    
23     
9     
14     
45     
1.7     
26     
9     
17     
52     
1.6     
Number of Trees per Household  (HH that Harvest)
  Cashew                                                   ( # of Trees)   
  Coconut Tree                                          ( # of Trees)
  Banana Tree                                           ( # of Trees)
  Grapefruit Tree                                        (# of Trees)
  Mango Tree                                             (# of Trees)
5 
2 
3 
14 
5 
46   
9   
6   
55   
8   
33       
21       
4       
19       
5       
54     
21     
0     
39     
15     
1     
0     
0     
19     
16     
43            
15            
6            
36            
11            
27     
5     
5     
37     
6     
58     
13     
7     
29     
11     
40     
21     
6     
42     
14     
Source of Estimated Household Characteristics: MADER-Trabalho de Inquerito Agricola ao Sector Familiar, 1996

Representative Characteristics of Rural Households in Areas of Central and Southern Mozambique Affected by the 2000 Floods

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics