Namibia National Food Security and

Vulnerability Assessment and Monitoring Report

2010-2011

Office of the Prime Minister

Directorate Disaster Risk Management
July 2010

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements:................................................................................................................................ 3
Acronyms and Abbreviations: ................................................................................................................. 4
1.

Highlights of the 2010/2011 Vulnerability Forecast ................................................................... 5

1.1 Summary of Vulnerability Analysis by Livelihood Zones ............................................................... 9

2.

Methodology and Analysis Processes ........................................................................................... 10

2.1
The Key Parameters Assessed in May/June 2010 ............................................................... 12
2.3
Levels of Vulnerability by Livelihood Zones......................................................................... 13
2.3.1
Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone (NBUCL) ...................................... 13
2.3.2 North Central-Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone (NCU&NFI) ............................ 14
2.3.3 Caprivi Low Land Maize and Cattle Zone (CLMC) ............................................................. 15
2.3.4
Kunene -Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone ......................................................... 17
2.3.5
Erongo-Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone (EKSNR) .............................. 18
2.3.6
Southern Communal Small Stock Zone (SCSS) .............................................................. 19
2.3.7
Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone (SFSS) ................................................................. 20
2.3.8
Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching (OOCR) Zone ......................................... 21

3. Implications of the Analysis and Recommendations: ...................................................................... 23

4.1 Recommendations to address the short-term food security: .................................................... 23
4.3 Recommendations to address the medium-term (recovery and rehabilitation interventions) . 24
4. Recommendations to address the long-term (development oriented interventions): ............... 25
Appendix A: Current Year Issues and Analysis ................................................................................. 26
1.0
Crop Production................................................................................................................ 26
1.2
Availability of casual labour .............................................................................................. 27
1.3
Casual labour wages.......................................................................................................... 27
1.4
Prices of Staple Foods ....................................................................................................... 27
1.5 Domestic Food Prices ......................................................................................................... 28
1.6
Prices of Livestock and Livestock Products ....................................................................... 28
1.7
Prices of Items in the Minimum Non Staple Basket.......................................................... 29
1.8
Price of Items in the Essential Expenditure Basket ........................................................... 29
1.9
Nutrition ............................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix B: Annual Cereal Balance Sheet ...................................................................................... 30
Appendix C: Sample Assessment Form ............................................................................................ 31

Acknowledgements:
The Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee (Nam-VAC) would like to thank the following
participants and their organisations, by contributing directly and indirectly to field work, analysis
and providing the information in this report. Special thanks also goes to the Directorate Disaster
Risk Management and SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (RVAA-Programme)
who provided the required funds for the field work.
Amunyela Anastasia

Directorate Disaster Risk Management

Timothy Shixungileni Directorate Disaster Risk Management

Iifo Festus

Ministry of Regional Local Government, Housing & Rural Development

Nambala Sylivanus

National Planning Commission

Kandjimi Olavi

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

Kalimbo Sylivia

Oshana Regional Council

Amakali Kristofina

Ohangwena Regional Council

Martin Ausiku

Omusati Regional Council

James Acidri

Nam-VAC Advisor (RHVP)

We would also like to thank all those who participated in the discussions and contributed
towards the improvement and completion of the report.
Special thanks to the men and women from all the Villages visited, who took part in the
exercise. We hope this report will influence appropriate interventions for the rural communities.

Disclaimer
Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Office of the Prime Minister, but
entirely those of the Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee.
Iitenge Japhet
Chairperson, Nam-VAC
Director, Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM)
July 2010

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

CBO

Central Bureau of Statistics

DEM

Directorate Emergency Management

FAO

Food and Agricultural Organisation

HEA

Household Economy Assessment

LZ

Livelihood Zone

MDGs -

Millennium Development Goals

NAD -

Namibian Dollars

NamVAC - Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee

NDP 3 -

National Development Plan 3

NPC

National Planning Commission

RHVP -

Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme

RVAA -

Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis

SADC -

Southern African Development Community

1.0

Highlights of the 2010/2011 Vulnerability Forecast

National Food Balance Sheet: An increase in cereal production in the communal areas
and relatively good harvest in the commercial sector, implies the country will have an
improvement in annual cereal production compared with 2009/10 agricultural season.
Under normal circumstances any national deficit is expected to be covered through
commercial imports.

Overall trends show that agricultural productivity, particulary crop harvest in the flood
affected areas is lower than, the 2009/10 harvest season. A combination of factors such
presence of flood waters within the fertile soils along the Liambezi lake basin and
flooding of the Zambezi river in low lying areas of Kabe constituency have resulted into
failure of the staple cereal crops during the 2010/11 harvest season. The situation was
further excerbated by untimely and below normal rainfall in some of the small grain
growing upland areas of Caprivi and Kavango regions.

The presence of the 2008/09 flood waters in the traditional maize growing areas around
the Liambezi lake basin compounded by 2010 floods, has resulted in a crop failure in the
Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone which lies in the low lying areas of Caprivi and
Kavango regions. This has caused survival and livelihood protection deficits amongst an
estimated 31 and 39 percent of households within Caprivi and along the Kavango river
basin in North Eastern parts of the country.

Other negative impacts of the 2010 flood in Caprivi and Kavango regions include loss of
cash income from various livelihood strategies particulary within the informal sector.
This has reduced household cash income derived from various livelihood activities such
as agricultural labour employment, non-farm and self employment opportunities such as
sale of local construction matierals, i.e thatching grass, reeds and poles among others.
The 2010 flood also reduced physical access to trade and markets for populations in the
low lying areas of Caprivi and Kavango regions.

Generally survival and livelihood protection deficits among the poorest rural households
will be caused by specific socio-economic factors such as extreme household poverty,
increase in staple food prices, limited access to key regional food markets and in some
areas poor state of rural feeder roads.

The increase in staple food prices will mainly affect the poorest rural households in
Southern and Eastern parts of the country, where the staple cereal prices have increased
by 110 to 160 percent respectively compared with the Nam-VAC livelihood baseline
prices. Despite the existing Government policy on zero rating of basic food commodities,
the poorest households are still unable to derive the full benefits of subsidisation of
basic commodities due to their inability to access key regional markets.

Extreme levels of poverty among poorest households subsisting at a low level of

disposable income, particularly in Southern Namibia, parts of Kavango,Otjozondjupa and
Omaheke regions (the Sani community) compounded by low wage rates and livestock
prices implies that, the trickle down impact of existing pro-poor poverty reduction
strategies may require review for purposes of effective implementation and reduction of
rural household poverty.

A combination of existing policy practices may also excerbate the household

vulnerability in the 2010/11 marketing year. The following are some of the specific
policy practices identified in the course of the baseline and current year analysis
assessment
a) Policy practices aimed at environmental protection
b) Non compliance to the existing policy on access to basic education in some parts of
the country.
c) Relatively high cost of user fee for basic utilities such as water and electricity
d) Non competitive pricing system for livestock, i.e pre-set prices by auctioneers and
middle men.
e) Inadequate mechanisms for human wild life conflict prevention and compensation
packages
f) Lack of effective subsidised agricultural input support systems for subsistence
farmers

The above policy practices are some of the major impediments limiting the poorest households
potential in addressing their vulnerability to both climatic harzards and economic shocks as well
as extreme poverty.
The various factors outlined above will result into varying levels of survival and livelihood
protection deficits among rural households in Namibia during the 2010/11 marketing year. Map
1 below shows scenario 1 which indicates the level of survival deficits for 2010/11 marketing by
livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of survival deficit are Caprivi, parts
of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

Map 1 below shows scenario 1, which indicates the level of survival deficits for 2010/11
marketing year by livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of survival deficit
are Caprivi, parts of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

Map 2 below shows scenario 1, which indicates the level of livelihood protection deficits for
2010/11 marketing year by livelihood zone in Namibia. Overall areas with highest levels of
livelihood protection deficit are also Caprivi, parts of Kavango and Otjozondjupa regions.

1.1 Summary of 2010/11 Marketing Year Vulnerability Analysis by

Livelihood Zones and Administrative Regions
Administrative
Regions &
Livelihood Zones

Caprivi Lowland
Maize & Cattle
Zone

Southern
Communal Small
Stock Zone

Southern
Freehold Small
Stock Zone

Omaheke &
Otjozondjupa
Cattle Ranching
Zone

Caprivi

21,451

Kavango

53,924

Omaheke

9,587

Otjozondjupa

8,695

Hardap

4,033

5,509

Karas

3,098

Totals

75,375

4,033

8,607

18,282

Grand Total

106,297

1.2 Implications of 2010/11 Vulnerability Analysis for Programming and

Response
Items

Survival Deficit

Livelihood Protection
Deficit

Total

No of Beneficiaries

42,100

106,297

106,297

Food required to fill

deficit (MT)

2,440

7,877

MT 10,317

OR cash required to
fill deficit (NAD)

14,092,855

45,005,737

NAD 59,098,592

Conclusion:
The livelihood based analysis shows that common risk and vulnerability factors have become
the main impediments for rural household food and livelihood security. It is important for this to
become a main focus of national and regional policy attention. Poorest households try to
manage uncertainty using a variety of ex-ante, ex-post risk management strategies and through
community support systems. But these are both fragile and economically damaging for
sustainable livelihood security.

Government led interventions working through food, labour or credit markets, although
expensive, could be carefully designed and linked to promote both production and consumption
within social protection and livelihood security interventions among the poorest people in rural
parts of the country.

2.

Methodology and Analysis Processes

In October and November 2008, the Nam-VAC started a livelihood based vulnerability
assessment and analysis by initially conducting a national livelihoods zoning exercise. This
process was followed by livelihood baseline assessments and analysis in 8 rural livelihood zones
covered using the Livelihood Based Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (LBVAA) methodology
in the country.
Nam-VAC then moved to the use of advanced modelling methods in order to present its results
in both survival and livelihood protection deficits. In addition, the analysis enables Nam-VAC to
express its results in both survival deficit expressing hunger and cash terms expressing poverty
for purposes of making appropriate decisions on various interventions.
The recommendations bear in mind the cost implications and compatibility with long term
development strategies as outlined in the National Development Plan (NDP) 3, Millennium
Development Goals and National Vision 2030.

Livelihood protection deficit: According to the Nam-VAC analysis, livelihood protection deficit
occurs when households can afford to purchase the balance of food required to make up 100%
of their energy requirements, but cannot afford to purchase all items in the livelihood
protection basket. The essential livelihood basket is comprised of items such as payment for
education, health care, agricultural inputs such as quality seeds, fertiliser, ploughing services
and livestock drugs among others.
A survival deficit occurs when households cannot afford to purchase the balance of food
required to make up 100% of their energy requirements. This is in addition to not being able to
afford anything in the essential livelihood protection basket.
In each livelihood zone, the Nam-VAC has calculated survival deficits expressed as a percentage
of the minimum per capita energy requirement based on the requirement of 2,100 Kcal per
person per day. This information is converted into staple cereal equivalent or cash for ease of
interpretation.
The Nam-VAC calculates the livelihood protection deficit by multiplying the deficit per
household with the total number of affected households. The total livelihood protection deficit
is also converted into staple cereal equivalent to show the extent of resources required for a
particular intervention or policy option.
The key rationale underlying this modelling is that, there is a sequence in household response to
effects of a particular shock such as crop failure due to floods or increase in food prices, which
has resulted in missing of its minimum food requirements.

10

The first response is to adapt normal coping mechanisms such as sell of livestock. In-case this
does not cover the missing food requirement; the household will draw from discretionary
expenditure such as clothes and transport expenses. However if this does not cover the missing
food requirement, then the household will switch to income meant for accessing essential
livelihood protection basket comprised of education and agricultural inputs among others.
This will result to a livelihood protection deficit and if the missing food entitlement is likely not
to be covered, even after all essential expenditure has been used to buy food, then the
household experiences both livelihood protection and survival deficits.
Geography and wealth are key determinants of livelihood patterns and it is for this reason that
Nam-VAC focuses on analysis by Livelihood Zone to be able to pick up the specific conditions
that affect households in each of the zones. This would not be possible, if one used only the
administrative units of analysis. The wealth status of the household determines the options
available for the access to food and income. This is the other reason Nam-VAC goes through the
process of defining wealth groups in each Livelihood Zone as part of the household economy
baseline development.
Having grouped households according to where they live and their wealth, the step is to
generate baseline profiles for typical households in each group for a defined baseline or
reference year. Food access is determined by investigating the sum of ways households obtain
food, i.e. how much food they get from own crop, livestock, gifts and purchases. Information is
also collected on how much cash income is earned in a year and what essential needs are met
with the earned income. Once the baseline is established, analysis can be made of the likely
impact of a shock or hazard in a bad year. This involves assessing how food access will be
affected by the shock, what other food sources can be added or expanded to make up for the
initial shortfall and what final deficits emerge after exhausting all coping strategies.
The Nam-VAC selected 2006/07; 2007/08; 2008/09 and 2009/10 as the baseline/reference years
for the eight rural livelihood zones and therefore its current analysis reflects the impacts of the
current problems on the baseline/reference situation in the above years.
The Nam-VAC assessment team spent two weeks in June assessing the baseline/reference
situation for all the eight rural livelihood zones in the country understanding the current year
situation in a total of 62 villages. In each village interviews were conducted with key informants
(village leaders and representatives of each of the four wealth groups, i.e. the very poor, and
poor, middle and better-off. A total of 120 wealth group interviews were conducted with
each interview having 5-6 participants from different households.
In addition other key informant interviews were conducted with traders and local business men
to understand changes in market prices. Informal interviews were also conducted with relevant
regional officials and other key informants such as livestock traders. The assessment team spent
six days analyzing the field data.

11

2.1

The Key Parameters Assessed in May/June 2010

After the process of establishing the livelihood baseline profiles in 2008, 2009 and 2010, key
parameters for monitoring were identified in each zone. Regarding food sources, a source that
contributes at least 2% of total annual household minimum food energy required is considered
a key parameter for monitoring. All income sources are key parameters as well as prices of food,
labour, livestock and the prices of items in the Minimum Non Staple and Essential Expenditure
baskets.
The key parameters assessed included;

Household access to food from own crop production and how this compares to access in
the baseline years
Household access to food from agricultural labour exchange and how this compares to
access in the baseline year
Access to food from livestock and livestock products and how this compares to access in
the baseline year
Access to income in the current year from crop sales, livetsock sales, agricultural labour
and other casual labour, brewing, sale of livestock products such as milk, petty trade and
natural resource exploitation, i.e self employment
The current prices of maize, livestock (cattle, goats and poultry) in the current years and
compared to 2007 and the baseline year prices
The price of items in the minimum non staple basket ( soap, paraffin/candles, matches,
vaseline, beans, cooking oil and salt) and the essential expenditure basket (education,
health care and agricultural inputs)

The findings from the key parameter analysis formed the current year problem specification for
the scenario modelling with the baseline data. In some cases it was difficult to estimate changes
in prices of some items in the livelihood protection basket, due to lack of consistent data.

12

2.3

Levels of Vulnerability by Livelihood Zones

2.3.1 Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone (NBUCL)

The Upland Cereal and Livestock zone lies in most of the drier parts of Caprivi, upland areas of
Kavango and much of Ohangwena, Omusati and Oshikoto with a small portion of Oshana region.
The soils are mainly a mixture of sandy loam and windblown sandy soils drained by parallel
ridges of dunes running east to west as well as seasonal rivers such as the Omatako, making it
suitable for the cropping of small grain cereals such as millet (mahangu) and sorghum. Other
crops produced in the area include beans, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, pumpkins and melons.
The 2010 agricultural season had relatively normal rainfall without any major floods affecting
crop and livestock conditions. Unlike 2009, the season has not also experienced any major
livestock disease out breaks.

Implication of the analysis (Income Graph)

Overall there are no household wealth groups having survival and livelihood protection
deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year. This implies that, there is no need for any vulnerability
related food or cash assistance in the livelihood zone during the 2010/11 marketing year, unless
there is a major shock that will change the current food security and livelihood vulnerability
analysis.
Conclusion: The Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone has no survival and
livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

13

2.3.2 North Central-Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone (NCU&NFI)
This zone lies in the north central part of Namibia, bordering Angola; it mainly covers north
eastern Omusati, Northern Oshana, North West Oshikoto and Western Ohangwena regions. It
covers the most densely populated part of Namibia. Main crops grown in the area include millet
(mahangu) and sorghum; however overall food production is insufficient to cover peoples
annual food needs. Many households in the area own cattle that are kept outside the zone,
supplemented with small stock such as goats.
Due to the high population density, livelihoods have been diversified particularly into non-farm
income sources, such as trading, self employment activities (crafts and sell of labour)
The 2010 rainfall did not have any negative impact on the population in this zone compared
with 2009/10 agricultural season. Overall crop and livestock conditions were not affected
compared with the 2006/07 baseline year.
The only changes in 2010/11 marketing year were the reduction of cash incomes among poorest
households due to the following:

Increase in staple food prices compared with the 2006/07 baseline prices
The cumulative impact of the 2008 and 2009 floods, which have slowed household recovery
in 2010/11 marketing year
Loss and damages of capital and productive assets respectively within the informal and
private sector
Some reduction in agricultural labour (weeding and harvesting) income among the very
poor and some poor households.
Lack of increase in wage labour rates compared with the baseline prices

Implication of the analysis (Income Graph)

Overall there are no household wealth groups having survival and livelihood protection
deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.
14

This implies that, there is no need for any vulnerability related food or cash assistance in the
livelihood zone during the 2010/11 marketing year, unless there is a major shock that will
change the current food security and livelihood vulnerability analysis.
Conclusion: The North Central Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income Zone has no survival and
livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

2.3.3 Caprivi Low Land Maize and Cattle Zone (CLMC)

The Lowland Maize and Livestock is a spatially distributed zone, which mainly covers the low
altitude areas of Caprivi region in areas such as riverine woodlands and the eastern flood plains,
parts of Katima Mulilo, Impalila Island and the Kavango river basin.
The zone is drained by the Zambezi, the Kwando/Linyanti/Chobe and the Okavango rivers, which
receive most of their water from direct rainfall (550-650mm per annum) and ground flowing
water in Angola and Zambia.
The area is characterized by flat plains with gentle slopes towards the south and fertile clayloam rich soils known as Sitapa upon which much of the large scale maize in the area is grown.
There are frequent floods and it is also suitable for recession cropping, particularly of maize
after floods.
Comparatively the 2010 flood has more negative impact on the local population compared with
2009 flood.
Specific factors such as the excess flood water emanating from the 2009 floods along the
Liambezi lake basin limited farmers access to the traditional fertile maize growing areas in
Katima rural and Lanyanti constituencies. The situation was exacerbated by the 2010 flood
water from Zambezi River that mainly destroyed the maize crop in Kabe constituency.
Other factors which affected crop production in the higher areas of the livelihood zone include
untimely rainfall and human wild life conflict, particularly elephants that destroyed crops in
villages neighbouring the conservancy in Linyanti constituency.
The impact of the floods is not only limited to crops, but other sources of livelihood. Among
these include self employment opportunities such as sale of thatching grass, reeds and poles.
The lack of access to these natural resources has directly affected households, which depend on
this source of income. This implies there will be reduced purchasing power among the local
population.

15

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor and poor households in this zone with an estimated population of 33 percent
will face a survival deficit of 32 percent and livelihood protection deficit of 2,859 NAD compared
with poor households estimated to be about 41 percent (41,009) people who are likely to face
a livelihood protection deficit of 4,209 NAD per household as a result of switching expenditure
from discretionary and essential livelihood protection basket to purchase of staple foods in the
2010/11 marketing season. However all cash income switched for purchase of food to meet the
survival deficit will not be adequate to cover the 100 percent minimum annual food
requirement per person particularly among the very poor households.
This implies that, the very poor households will require 2,256MT of maize to fill the survival
deficit or a cash equivalent of 12,634,219 NAD. The total livelihood protection deficit for the
very poor in this zone is 13,637,067NAD or maize equivalent of 2,435 MT.
Meanwhile the poor households will require 4,510 MT of maize or 25,257,401 NAD to fill the
livelihood protection deficit.
Conclusion: The Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone has survival and livelihood protection
deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year. Expressed in cash terms the combined survival and
livelihood protection deficit for the very poor and poor households can be covered by
51,528,687 NAD. Expressed in maize equivalent, the combined survival and livelihood
protection deficit can be covered by 9,201 MT.

16

2.3.4 Kunene -Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone

This zone is located in the North West of the country, specifically in North-West Kunene.
This communal cattle and small stock zone lies in the former Kaokoveld mainly inhabited mostly
by Himba-speaking people. It is characterized by gravel plains and lies within an altitude of 9001200m and has a low average annual rainfall of between 100-300mm.
Not affected by any climatic hazards such as flood and drought tin 2010, the zone experienced
relatively good rainfall in the 2009/10 agricultural season resulting into good pasture conditions
and adequate surface water for livestock. Overall this has contributed to good livestock
conditions and average production of animal products such as milk and meat among others.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The poor households in this zone with a population of 19,212 people are part of the
population on watch due to the possibility of risk to survival deficit in the 2010/11 marketing
year.
It is important to monitor key risk and vulnerability indicators such as price of maize meal and
barter trade particularly the terms of trade for exchange of livestock with maize meal as the
year draws closer to the lean/hunger period (September-December) of the 2010/11 marketing
year in this zone.
Conclusion: The Kunene Communal Cattle and Small Stock Zone has no survival and livelihood
protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

17

2.3.5 Erongo-Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone (EKSNR)

This zone lies in Erongo and parts of Kunene region. It is characterized by gravel plains with an
altitude of 900-1200m and low rainfall between 100-300mm per annum from the west rising
towards the east, the area is more suitable for seasonal grazing. Its extension inland rises to
Escapement Mountains, sometimes cut and broken down by river valleys and deep gorges and
chasms. The main vegetation is Mopane and mixed woodland which slopes down towards the
Etosha pan in the east. It is also a semi arid area.
People derive their main livelihoods from extensive rearing of small stock such as goats and sheep
with high reliance on non-farm income obtained from natural resources (precious stones and local
crafts) tourism, hospitality services and trophy hunting activities. Employment opportunities are
limited, but remittances are received from family members in the marble mining areas and coastal
beach services including the fishing industry in Walvis Bay.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The entire population in this zone is not at risk in the 2010/11 marketing year. It is however
important to monitor key risk and vulnerability indicators such as price of maize meal and barter
trade particularly the terms of trade for exchange of livestock with maize meal as the year draws
closer to the lean/hunger period (September-December) of the 2010/11 marketing year in this
zone.
Conclusion: The Erongo Kunene Small Stock and Natural Resources Zone has no survival and
livelihood protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.

18

2.3.6 Southern Communal Small Stock Zone (SCSS)

This zone is located in the southern part of Namibia. This area has low rainfall, between 75220mm per annum, and sparse vegetation consisting of scrubs grass and isolated trees. Dry
spells are a norm rather than an exception making it suitable for intensive small stock farming
and not for crop production. The main livestock kept in the zone include goats and some sheep.
There is little crop farming in this area, except for some seasonal vegetables produced to
supplement local diet.
The population copes with the low productivity of the land and extreme levels of poverty
through migratory labour (mainly to urban areas), which has undermined household labour.
The main source of food is local market purchases using state pensions, sale of livestock,
wage/self employment and remittances from migrant workers in urban areas and neighbouring
commercial farming and mining areas.
The main food markets are the local shops located in main trading routes and centres.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The entire population in this zone has no survival deficit, but the very poor households face
some livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.
Conclusion: The Southern Communal Small Stock Zone has no survival deficit, but there is
livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.
Expressed in cash terms the livelihood protection deficit for the very poor and poor
households can be covered by 181,822 NAD and 22,473 NAD respectively. Expressed in staple
cereal equivalent, the livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 182MT and 22MT among
the very poor and poor respectively.
Combined livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 204,295NAD or equivalent of main

19

2.3.7 Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone (SFSS)

This zone is located in the southern part of Namibia. The area has low rainfall, between 75220mm per annum, and sparse vegetation consisting of scrubs grass and isolated trees. Dry
spells are a norm rather than an exception making it suitable for intensive small stock farming
and not for crop production. The main livestock kept in the zone include goats and some sheep.
There is little crop farming in this area, except for some seasonal vegetables produced to
supplement local diet.
The population copes with the low productivity of the land and extreme levels of poverty
through migratory labour (mainly to urban areas), which has undermined household labour.
The main source of food is local market purchases using state pensions, sale of livestock,
wage/self employment and cash remittances from migrant workers in urban areas and
neighbouring commercial farming and mining areas.
The main food markets are the local shops located in main trading routes and centres.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor households in this zone with a population of 8,711 people are part of the
population at risk, due to a survival deficit of 10 percent and livelihood protection deficit of 907
NAD in the 2010/11 marketing year.
The main factors for their vulnerability include increase in staple food prices compounded by
the low levels of household cash income. The high level of dependency on the market for food
and high levels of extreme poverty among some of the households in the zone implies they are
vulnerable to any economic shocks such as increase in food prices and market failure.
Conclusion: The Southern Freehold Small Stock Zone has both survival and livelihood
protection deficits in the 2010/11 marketing year.
Expressed in cash terms the survival deficit for the very poor can be covered by 1,458,636
NAD or 184 MT of staple cereal.

20

The livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 1,316,814 NAD or 166MT of staple cereal.
Combined survival and livelihood protection deficit can be covered by 2,775,450 NAD or
350MT of staple cereal.

2.3.8 Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching (OOCR) Zone

This zone lies on the western edge of the vast Kalahari basin of deposits. The area is endowed
with two fossil rivers and part of the central plateau, which extends from Khomas region to
Omaheke and Otjozondjupa. Annual rainfall in this area is 350-450mm per annum. The
vegetation is mainly savannah wood and grassland and is well suited for cattle.
The main sources of food include local market purchases in shops within towns and villages,
livestock products such as meat and milk, food assistance; with some own crops particularly
small scale vegetable production, fishing, hunting and gathering veldt foods and products.
Main household sources of income include sale of livestock in neighbouring urban areas and to
some extent for export, self employment, petty trade, formal employment and social pensions.

Implications of the analysis (Income Graph)

The very poor households in this zone with a population of 18,133 people are part of the
population at risk, due to livelihood protection deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.
The main reason being increase in staple food prices and low levels of income and wage labour
rates paid particularly to the very poor households comprised of people without any
productive assets, gainful employment opportunities and pursuing unsustainable livelihood
strategies such as hunting and gathering.
Conclusion: The Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching Zone has livelihood protection
deficit in the 2010/11 marketing year.
Expressed in cash terms the livelihood protection deficit for the very poor can be covered by
2,217,369 NAD or 271 MT of staple cereal.
21

2.3.9 Critical Assumption under pinning the 2010/11 marketing year analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

No further changes in current year staple and non staple food prices
Availability of basic food and non food commodities in the market
Accessibility of livestock and staple food and non food markets
Relatively stable macro economic conditions such as inflation
Stability of the different sources of household cash income such as social pension and
wage labour among others.
6. No major livestock disease outbreaks and other common shocks such as stock theft and
poisonous plants among others in the differenet livelihood zones.
7. No major outbreak of human diseases in the rural areas covered in the assessment

22

3. Implications of the Analysis and Recommendations:

The livelihood based analysis shows that common risk and vulnerability factors have become
the main impediments for rural household food and livelihood security. It is important for this to
become a main focus of policy attention. Poorest households try to manage uncertainty using a
variety of ex-ante, ex-post risk management strategies and through community support
systems, but these are both fragile and economically damaging for sustainable livelihood
security.
Government led interventions working through food, labour or credit markets, although
expensive, could be carefully designed to cover both production and consumption within social
protection and livelihood security interventions, through the following recommendations:

4.1 Recommendations to address the short-term food security:

Market accessibility: In the short term, the survival and livelihood protection deficits
among the very poor households in the Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle; Southern
Freehold Small Stock Zone, Southern Communal Small Stock and Omaheke and
Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching Zone can be addressed through food or cash for work
schemes to enable populations at risk of survival and livelihood protection deficits
access the minimum food and essential livelihood items.
The conditional nature of this transfer should be emphasized through provision of food
for permanent resettlement of flood affected people; increased agricultural production
in the next season; rehabilitation of community assets such as feeder roads, water
points, temporary learning centers and public toilets among others. However it is more
appropriate to implement a food other than cash for work scheme in remote areas due
to lack of functional food markets and difficulties faced with cash for work programmes.

Subsidisation of basic food commodities: The current zero rating policy for basic food
commodities has not yileded the expected benefits for the poorest households in rural
areas. Additional policy initiatives aimed at lowering food prices through Government led
subsidies aimed at reducing cost of transportation of food by private traders in remote rural
areas should be considered.

Strategic food reserves: The construction of local grain stores in the communal cereal
producing zones was a positive step towards the stabilization of local food security
situation in areas such as Kavango and Caprivi regions. The fast tracking of this
programme by addressing existing structural defects and purchasing of excess cereal
production in bumper years should be implemented. This will lead to staple cereal
availability in bad/crisis years such as the 2010/11 marketing year.

23

4.3 Recommendations to address the medium-term (recovery and

rehabilitation interventions)

Poverty reduction through small capital grants: Based on livelihood proetction deficits
among very poor and some poor households in various zones, scaleup of Savings
and Credit Co-operatives (SACCOs) initiatives should be implemented to enable the
affected households acquire some financial capital in the meduim term. This can be
achieved through training of local community saving groups and providing an initial
revolving fund to enable them participate in the economic growth and development
process of the country.

Poverty reduction through productive asset creation: Although asset creation among
very poor and some poor households is ideal, key impediments such as predators,
wild life destruction of livestock and adequate food for consumption should be
addressed prior to supporting these households with assets such as small stock, oxen
and ox ploughs. The provision of productive assets (small stock) through restocking
programmes as a start up capital for asset poor households within the very poor and
some poor households may help them graduate from the current levels of extreme
poverty.

Poverty reduction through settlement of land less people: The high levels of extreme
poverty in some parts of southern and central Namibia is mainly caused by lack of
ownership of land among the population in these areas. The high levels of extreme
poverty among landless people in Hardap, Karas and parts of Khomas regions, could be
addressed through settlement by the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement.

Permanent resettlement: Fast tracking the implementaion of permanent settlement for

flood and human wild life conflict affected households in various regions such as Kavango
and Caprivi should also be considered. This can only be achieved through allocation of
resettlement land and provision of basic social services such as water and sanitation
facilities, schools and health centers in the designated relocation areas.

Development planning: There is need for more active involvement and participation of
communties in development planning processes. Some of the current developemnt
priorities such as rural electrification and water and sanitation projects are not fully utilised
by the rural population, due to high utility costs. It is therefore important to ensure
employment creation through more active participation and involvement of local people in
the identification of development projects aimed at addressing the high unemployment
within the country.

Livestock marketing policies: The existing livestock marketing policies do not necessarily
favour subsistence livestock farmers. A review of the existing livestock pricing policy through
auctioning would ensure more competitive pricing and protection of subsistence farmers,
while ensuring value for their livestock. One possible option is to support subsistence
livestock farmers to form livestock marketing co-operatives. This will enable them to
mitigate soem of the existing exploitative practices within the marketing system. Other
initiatives could include provision of improved processing and marketing facilities for
livestock products such as milk.
24

Provision of social services: A review of policies on the provision of basic services such as
health centers, schools and other social facilities should also be considered to ensure
improved physical access of social services.

Access to basic education: Some of the existing policy practices on access to basic social
services have some limitations. An example is the policy statement on non explusion of
learners, due to failure of school fees payment. Practically this policy statement is not
working in some rural parts of the country. There is a need for the review and enforcement
of this policy statement inorder to ensure achievement of the National Development Plans
(NDP) and the Millenuim Development Goal (MDG) on free universal primary education.

Co-ordination among Government line ministries: General observations show limited

co-ordination among Government line ministries in the delivery of social services in rural
areas. Improvement in the co-ordination of common sectors and social services is
required, in order to address the extreme levels of poverty among some communities in
rural areas.

4. Recommendations to address the long-term (development oriented

interventions):

Improvement of rural feeder roads, trade and markets: Overall Namibia has very good
feeder roads. The over reliance on centralized regional markets such as Katima, Opuwo
and Oshakati central markets are a key constraint for effective participation of local
people in economic activities. More investment in rural feeder roads and markets
particularly in highly populated areas through food or cash work activities would
facilitate local trade among the population in the zone. Other options for relocation of
highly disadvantaged people should also be explored.

Preservation of community forests-The continued cutting of trees for construction of

temporary structures by internally displaced people due to floods has become another
major environmental risk. There is need to promote planting of trees in the higher
ground areas, which normally host the internally displaced people within the zone.

25

Appendix A: Current Year Issues and Analysis

1.0 Crop Production
An increase in cereal production in the communal areas compared with 2009/10 agricultural
season and relatively good harvest in the commercial sector has enabled the country to produce
about 49 percent of its annual cereal requirement. Under normal circumstances the deficit is
expected to be covered through commercial imports.
The Nam-VAC quantified production estimates from the community interviews in respect to
2010/11 harvest. Overall trends showed a reduction in production in most of the flood affected
areas. The Nam-VAC assessment compared the 2010/11 production figures with the Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) National Early Warning Unit (NEWU) and the results
were similar.
The main reasons for low crop production in two of the crop producing livelihood zones were
the following:
Late planting of crops
Flood waters which resulted into soil leaching and stunting of crops
Flood waters which occupied the traditional maize growing areas particulary along the
Lake Liambezi Basin.
Untimely and irregular rainfall in some araes.
Lack of hard work towards streanous work among some households.
As a result much of crops in the low lying flood plains were affected by floods between February
and April 2010.
As a result much of crops in the low lying flood plains were affected by floods between February
and April 2010.

Trends in Cereal Production (2004-2010)

Agricultural year
Estimated production (MT)
2004-2005
154.4
2005-2006
179.0
2006-2007
116.4
2007-2008
108.1
2008-2009
111.7
2009-2010
155.1
2010 compared with Baseline Year Averages
139 percent
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry-National Early Warning Unit (NEWU)
The Nam-VAC used community level information combined with estimates for 2010 and the
baseline year production (2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10) to calculate percentage
changes in production that constitutes the current year cereal production in the three main
cereal producing livelihood zones in the country. The details of changes in cereal and other crop
production problem specifications are provided in the specific sections of livelihood zone
analysis.

26

1.2

Availability of casual labour

Normally the very poor and poor households access a significant portion of their minimum
annual food intake and cash income from casual labour employment opportunities such as
agricultural and nonfarm activities. This year such activities have been affected by the floods
and irregular rainfall patterns particularly in the Caprivi Lowland Maize and Cattle Zone.
As a result the current year problem expressed as a percentage over the baseline years in the
crop producing livelihood zones is: Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock 93 percent;
North Central Upland Cereal and Non Farm Income 93 percent; Lowland Maize and Cattle 31
percent and Kunene Cattle and Small Stock Zone remained at 100 percent.

1.3

Casual labour wages

Casual labour is an important source of cash income for the very poor and poor households
contributing up to 26% of total annual household income. The overall daily wage for casual
labour did not have any significant change from the baseline prices. As such it remained at 100
percent compared with baseline prices.

1.4

Prices of Staple Foods

Over the last three years global food prices have soared posing a threat to global food and
nutrition security. A number of casual factors for the dramatic food price increases have been
identified and include, low global food stocks currently at the lowest in 20 years and yet
demand is ever on the increase for both human and animal feed. Experts claim that, the low
stock levels and high demand is responsible for the food price increase growth.
Conversion of maize into bio-fuel production has also been identified as a major causal factor in
the global food price crisis, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the price increase.
High fuel prices over the past years were also responsible for the high food prices, pushing the
cost of ploughing services/cultivation, fertilizer and transport.
Extreme weather conditions associated with climate change, causing floods and drought
conditions among others are also contributing to the low crop production in the sub Saharan
and southern Africa sub region.
Overall the current year situation has been worsened by the cumulative impact of global
financial crisis, highlighting income inadequacies due to reduced cash remittances and economic
growth in some developing countries.

27

1.5

Domestic Food Prices

General trends show increase in staple food prices. The same trend was observed with national
and sub national food prices in the country. Overall the upward changes in food prices were
relatively lower than during the 2009/10 marketing year. Overall trends of sub national food
prices indicate that, the Government led price subsidisation policy of zero rating basic food
commodities is making some positive contribution in centralised regional markets, but not in
the remote, rural parts of the country.
Whereas centralised regional markets show evidence of subsidisation, due to the zero rating
policy, there are upward changes of staple food prices in the remote and rural markets (shops)
in at least 12 of the 13 regions covered under the vulnerability assessment and analysis
programme.
The poorest people in rural areas do not have access to the subsidised markets; as such they
mainly purchase food at higher prices due to the following:

Limited access to subsidised regional markets

Poor feeder roads in some areas such as Kunene region
Irregular and high cost of transport
Irregular access to cash income limiting household ability to access subsidised markets

Overall prices of staple cereals ( maize meal and millet) changed by 110 to 160% compared with
the 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2010/11 Nam-VAC baseline prices in the eight rural
livelihood zones covered during the assessment.

1.6

Prices of Livestock and Livestock Products

The assessment looked at the prices of livestock and livestock products and compared them
with the baseline prices. Price data for cattle, goats and chicken were also collected.
In general, the prices of cattle and goats increased by 105 to 180% respectively compared with
the baseline price. However there are no major changes in livestock prices in some of the
livelihood zones whose baseline years were among the most recent years. An example is the
Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Cattle Ranching zone, whose baseline year was 2009/10.
Other factors likely to affect livestock prices include livestock diseases such as foot and mouth;
rift valley fever in the north east and southern parts of the country. Specific price increases by
livelihood zone are presented in sections on the analysis by livelihood zone.

28

1.7

Prices of Items in the Minimum Non Staple Basket

The minimum non staple basket is constructed in the baseline to ensure that some minimum
expenditure is maintained by households in the various wealth groups even in the most difficult
situations. This basket contains items such as salt, cooking oil, candle, matches, domestic water,
soap, beans, vegetables and Vaseline.
The amount of cash income allocated to buy this basket is reserved or locked up during
modelling and can therefore be converted to purchase food even in the worst case scenarios.
The price of each commodity in the basket was collected and compared to the baseline price
and the overall percentage increase was about 20 percent.
This in effect means more cash is withdrawn and allocated for the basket and therefore less is
available for food purchase this year. This partly explains the survival and livelihood protection
deficits faced by some households in four of the eight rural livelihood zones.

1.8

Price of Items in the Essential Expenditure Basket

The essential livelihoods expenditure basket contains average household expenditure such as
education, health care, clothing, agricultural inputs (quality seeds and ploughing services) water
for animals and in some cases cost of grinding grain.
The expenditure can be switched to buy food in bad and crisis years. However this decision has
major negative consequences such as children not attending school or failure to purchase vital
agricultural inputs resulting into further reduction in crop production. It is therefore important
to preserve this essential household livelihood basket expenditure. During this assessment, it
was not possible to collect prices for all items within the essential livelihood basket. However for
those items whose prices were established the change was about 12 percent over the 2006/06;
2007/08; 2008/09 and 2009/10 Nam-VAC baseline prices in the various livelihood zones
respectively.
Unlike in the case with minimum non staple basket, the increase in the cost of the minimum
essential expenditure basket means less cash is allocated to this basket thus increasing the
livelihood protection deficit.

1.9

Nutrition

There are published nutritional surveys 2010, however the general field observations by the
team is that, there are cases of malnutrition, particularly stunting among some children in the
rural areas. This is also closely linked to limited physical access to health centres and extreme
levels of poverty in some livelihood zones. It is recommended that, the Ministry of Health and
Social Services conducts more nutrition surveys to have a better understanding of the general
rates of malnutrition in the rural parts of the country.

29

Appendix B: Annual Cereal Balance Sheet for the 2009/10 Marketing Year
Explanation of the Balance Sheet as of 1st May, 2010
Namibia: Cereal Supply/Demand Forecast 1 May 2010 - 30 April 2011 ('000 tonnes)
Wheat
Maize
Millet/Sorghum
Total
Domestic Availability
17.7
66.6
96.2
180.5
st
Opening stocks (as at 1 May 2010)
1.4
9.0
15.0
25.4
Forecasted Production
16.3
57.6
81.2
155.1
Total Utilization
75.4
163.7
79.4
318.5
Food use
64.6
147.9
52.2
264.7
Losses and other uses
0.8
5.8
12.2
18.8
Closing stocks
10.0
10.0
15.0
35.0
Domestic Shortfall
-57.7
-97.1
16.8
-138.0
Commercial imports received
16.0
2.7
0.1
18.8
Commercial Imports expected
68.1
83.8
2.2
154.1
Export already shipped
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
After trade Deficit/Surplus
26.4
-10.6
14.6
30.4

The food balance sheet is a tool which is used to estimate national cereal availability against the
requirement. It is calculated every marketing year (1st May to 31st April) and updated monthly
using the imports received.
1. Opening Stocks: This is stock held by the major millers at the end of May 2010. This
stock becomes the opening stock for the beginning of the following marketing year (1st
May 2011)
2. Forecasted Production: This was estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Early Warning
Unit during the crop assessment forecast conducted in May/June 2010.
3. Domestic Availability: is made up of the opening stock plus forecasted crop production.
4. Gross Domestic Requirement: This has been calculated using kilocalories required by
each person for the period of one year. This year it has been decided to use this
methodology, so as to avoid inconsistency with other stakeholders. The minimum
kilograms estimated by Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) indicate the need for
127kg of maize or millet, 42 kg of wheat and some 12 kg of other cereals such as
sorghum. The total projected population of 2,144,291 people by Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS)-National Planning Commission (NPC) has been used in calculating the
domestic requirement. The Kilo-calorie method gives a more realistic picture, given
that it is based on food energy requirements of 2,100 Kilocalories per person per day
calculated for a whole year.
5. Domestic Shortfall: This is the difference between domestic availability and the
requirement.
6. Expected Commercial Imports: This is the expected imports to bridge the domestic
shortfall.
7. After Trade Deficit/Surplus: Any deficit or surplus as after expected commercial
importation.

30

Appendix C: Sample Assessment Form

Key Parameters and Problem Specification Sheet- 2010/11 Marketing Year
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Village/Constituency Name:
Region:
Livelihood Zone: Northern Border Upland Cereal and Livestock Zone
Wealth Group:
Date:
Inteviewers:
Baseline Year: 2006/2007

KEY
PARAMETERS

VERY POOR

POOR

MIDDLE

BETTER-OFF

FOOD

Food crops
(milletmahangu,
sorghum)
Market
purchases
Non farm
income
(domestic work,
cattle herding,
basket
marketing &
brewing)
Social Grants
Petty trade
Cuca shops

Food crops
(milletmahangu,
sorghum)
Market
purchases
Non farm
income
(domestic work,
cattle herding,
basket
marketing &
brewing)
Social Grants
Petty tradeCuca shops

Food crops
(millet-mahangu,
sorghum)
Market purchases

Food crops
( millet-mahangu,
sorghum)
Market purchases

Agriculture (Crops &

Cattle)
Entrepreneurial
/trade
Natural resource
exploitation

Agriculture (Crops
& Cattle)
Entrepreneurial
/trade
Natural resource
exploitation

Education
Water

Education
Water

Education
Water

Education
Water

INCOME

EXPENDITURE

PROBLEM SPECIFICATION
Livestock Quantity

Baseline quantity-2006/07

Current/projected
quantity

Periods (months)

Cattle (herd size)

Goats (herd size)
Sheep (herd size)
Harvest

Baseline quantity

Current/projected
quantity

Current/projected as %
of baseline quantity

Millet (mahangu)
Sorghum
Maize
Beans

31

Groundnuts

Notes:
Food SourceQuantity

Baseline quantity

Current/projected
quantity

Current/projected as
% of baseline quantity

Baseline quantity

Current/projected
quantity

Current/projected as
% of baseline quantity

Labour exchange
Wild foods
( fruits/fish ect)
Livestock products
(milk, meat etc)

Notes:
Income SourceQuantity
Sale of cattle
Sale of goats
Brewing
Construction labour
Self employment
Trade

Income Sourcemarket price

Baseline price

Last years price

Nearest
primary
market

Nearest
secondary
market

Nearest
central
market

Cattle
Construction income
price
Self employment
prices

Price data- May/June 2010

Expenditure
Items-Price

Baseline price

Current/projected
price

Nearest
primary
market

Nearest
secondary
market

Nearest
central
market

Salt
Soap
Candles/Kerosene
Vaseline
Matches

32

Cereal flour prices:

Measure
(Kg)

Millet
(Mahangu)
May
2007

% Change

May
2010

Maize
May
2007

% Change
May
2010

Sorghum
May
2007

%
Change
May
2010

1 Kg
12.5 kg
25 kg
50kg

Notes:
Livestock
Cattle
Goats
Sheep
Poultry (Indigenous)
Pigs
Piglets

May 2007

May 2010

% Change in Price

CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
Component of
Problem
specification

Source of data

Assumptions

Confidence e.g.
Good- no action required
Poor- requires verification

1.
2.
3.
4.

Which commodities have the highest price increase?

Which grousp of houesholds are mostly affected by changes in prices?
How do these households cope with the current situation?
Have you bought any subsidised maize meal in the past six months? If Yes, which
months and from where did you buy?
5. Any comments about the current price situation?

33