2012

Food Insecurity, and Its 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.

Gudat Paul Lehada Pragely Company Ltd 7/6/2012

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), 2

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 19602000, 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) 3

Figure 1.1 : Population and production growth, 19612007 (%)

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 4

Region Ausha

District Arusha DC Karatu Longido Ngorongoro Iringa Chato Muleba

Total Iringa Total Kagera

Total Kilimanjaro Moshi Mwanga Total Manyara Mbulu Total Mwanza Kwimba Magu Misungwi Total Pwani Kibaha DC Total Shinyanga Bariadi Bukomba Kahama Kishapu Maswa Maetu Shinyanga ( R) Shinyanga (U) Total Tanga Kilindi Lushoto Mkinga Total Tabora Igunga Nzega Total GrandTotal 5

Acute Food Insecure %Acute Food Insecure Total Population population Population. 382,932 15,708 248,963 19,240 68,881 8,073 172,859 17,352 873,635 60,373 277,937 22,338 277,937 22,338 564,274 50,636 509,794 17,459 1,074,068 68,095 476,992 22,015 143,397 7,915 620,289 29,930 343,124 6,984 343,124 6,984 397,598 52,831 531,219 86,079 325,088 77,306 1,253,905 216,216 177,424 2,433 177,424 2,433 889,677 60,962 591,129 10,209 883,649 123,042 353,671 71,444 452,362 57,527 367,432 17,379 401,903 221,269 4,161,092 181,503 517,305 132,475 831,283 452,282 582,583 1,034,865 10,647,622 15,066 12,802 368,431 3,644 6,327 3,953 13,924 70,085 86,715 156,800 945,524

4 8 12 10 3 8 1 9 3 2 5 6 2 2 0.5 13 16 24 6 1 0.2 7 2 14 20 13 5 4 6 9 2 1 3 1 15 15 6 9

Source; Muchali-FSNA Report 2012.

Fig 1.2Source; FSNA 2012

2; Food Insecurity and its determinants and consequences; Fig 1; Food Insecurity, and its determinants and consequences Social and Functional limitation

Livelihood strategies

Economic factor

Physical Environment and personal factors

Management Strategies

FOOD INSECURITY Uncertainty, insufficient or unacceptable availability, access or utilization of food.

Poor Dietary intake Poor health status, ie, malnutritio n

Hunger

Worry & Anxiety

Distress & Adverse, Family & Social Interactions

Deprivation & alienation Lack of well-being

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)

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 8

ecology and ample land resources to sustain high levels of agriculture growth. (MFTS 20072010). 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 Tanzanias 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 sectors 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 9

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-activitiesoutcomes 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 peoples 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 10

interventions to address this groups 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.

11

.
modifying and contextual factors (e.g output prices, food aid) Outcomes enhance, or erode, assets

ASSETS: NR capital,
human and social capital, physical capital, financial capital etc

LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMES
Food security, wellbeing, income, conservation etc

Assets are transformed by

strategies result in outcomes

ACTIVITIES
combine to make Strategies

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:

12

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 shocks (e.g. drought, floods, pests, disease, civil war) would principally cover exogenous factors (Ellis, 2000: 37). While the distinction between exogenous and endogenous factors may not be as clear cut in practice, it does however provide a useful axis for identifying and differentiating those factors that fall within the remit of governments and the potential of pro-poor policies to influence.

13

2.1.3: Economic Strategies Macro-economic determinants can affect very fundamentally the constraints and incentives which individuals face when trying to satisfy their food needs. The macro-economic environment is determined by certain crucial parameters and rules, often set by government, which affect the basis on which nations trade with one another, and the conditions for longerterm economic growth within the economy. These parameters can be classified into three broad areas: those affecting international resource flows, such as exchange rate regulations; those concerned with the monetary regime, such as the rate of interest; and those set by government to finance its own operation, fiscal mechanisms such as taxation and public expenditure levels. These parameters and policy options may well have as much, or more effect, on food security as policies aimed specifically at the food and agricultural sectors, yet the links between the macroeconomy and food security are often not well understood. Even where they are, the longer term objectives of achieving more permanent food security for all citizens and the short-term issue of protecting existing levels of food security often has to take second or third place to what are seen as more immediate concerns of controlling a balance of payments crisis or tackling high levels of inflation. However, these different objectives need not always be incompatible. Governments can make choices between alternative strategies for achieving economic growth in ways which are sustainable, some of which may be more beneficial to their most vulnerable citizens than others. If major policy decisions have to be made in ways which have a negative impact on those who are already food insecure, then there may be ways of offsetting that damage by implementing specially designed and targeted welfare programmes. Macro-economic policy and the decision to change certain crucial macro-economic parameters can have both a direct impact on a country's food supply and an impact on the price incentives facing domestic producers. Direct effects are most likely to take place through changes in fiscal policy. Attempts to cut public expenditure may affect various agricultural support services, such as the provision of extension services, or the financing of public sector research initiatives, which could lead to improved crop varieties or more effective production techniques. Changes in the foreign exchange rate, usually devaluation, can also have an effect on the provision of government services, to the extent that these services use imported goods, such as fuel, or imported capital equipment. This may be particularly important for the upkeep of state-owned infrastructure, such as roads and market places, all important in the decision to provide food products to the market, rather than keep them for household consumption

14

Source; Woodward, D., 1992, Fig; 2.1.3: Economic determinats, external shocks, internal shocks and monetary expansion Macro-economic policy will also affect the availability of imported food. When there are tight balance of payments constraints, then these constrain the country's capacity to import food to relieve domestic shortages. Devaluation will increase the price of imported food, and if there is no response from domestic agriculture, then the overall availability of food in the country may fall. A country's access to concessionary food imports, or food aid, may be improved if it is perceived to be following a stable and sustainable set of macro-economic policies. This is particularly true for non-emergency programme food aid. Individual and household access to food is determined by the prices they have to face in the market for food and other basic needs, their income from their own labour, either in the labour market or through selling their own production and services, particularly in the informal sector, and through entitlement to state benefits and subsidies. The demand for labour and the prices 15

at which labour, goods and services are exchanged are all dependent on the important macroeconomic prices, the wage rate, the interest rate and the foreign exchange rate. Social factors and physical limitation are all determinants of food insecurity. For example, income and social status is the most significant determinant of well being that is, the more money you have the healthier you will be. Income plays a major role in access to food and has a significant impact on food security. Just as having enough money is good for your health; poverty and inequality are very bad for your health. Not having enough to eat and not having good quality, nutritious food can have short- and long-term effects on mental and physical health. For example, poor nutrition leads to chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes. In Tanzania, some of groups of people are more vulnerable to food insecurity than others. Vulnerable groups include: victims of conflict (e.g., refugees and internally displaced people); migrant workers; marginal populations (e.g., school dropouts, unemployed people, homeless people, and orphans); dependent populations (e.g., elderly people, children under five, and disabled and ill people); women of reproductive age; ethnic minorities; and low literacy households To understand the magnitude of food insecurity, one must consider both the continued rapid growth in world population and the number of individuals below the poverty line. In 1999 the world population reached 6 billion. The United Nations estimates the world population will exceed 8 billion by 2025. In terms of poverty, the World Bank estimates that nearly 1.2 billion people live on less than one dollar a day, which is the internationally recognized standard for measuring poverty. Another 2.8 billion live on less than two dollars a day. Environment determinants such as climate change, floods and heavy rainfall may lead to food insecurity. The consequences of climate change for agriculture and food security in developing countries are of serious concern. Due to their reliance on rain-fed agriculture both as a source of income and consumption, many low-income countries are generally considered to be most vulnerable to climate change. Here, we estimate the impact of climate change on food security in Tanzania. Representative climate projections are used in calibrated crop models to predict crop yield changes for 110 districts in Tanzania. These results are in turn imposed on a highlydisaggregated, dynamic economy-wide model of Tanzania. We find that, relative to a no climate change baseline and considering domestic agricultural production as the principal channel of impact, food security in Tanzania appears likely to deteriorate as a consequence of climate change. The analysis points to a high degree of diversity of outcomes (including some favorable outcomes) across climate scenarios, sectors, and regions. The economic modeling indicates that markets have the potential to smooth outcomes on households across regions and

16

income groups, though noteworthy differences in impacts across households persist both by region and by income category. (FEWS NET, 2009).
3: CONSEQUENCES OF FOOS INSECURITY

Food insecurity can be very stressful. Parents especially can be anxious about having enough food for their children and being able to give them good food so they grow up strong and healthy. Some parents even worry that their children might be taken from them if they cannot feed them enough good food. Some families can become preoccupied with foodworrying all day about whether there is enough food for dinner and the next day. This kind of stress can be bad for our relationships and health. Feeling stressed and insecure can lead to depression, anger, diabetes, and high blood pressure. It can also make it harder for us to fight off infections like colds and flu. Parents are right to be concerned about whether their children have enough good food. Poor nutrition in childhood can affect the development of both the body and mind. Not having enough good food can make it harder for children to do well at school and even stay in school. Poor nutrition in childhood has effects that can last a lifetime. In rural areas many people have been forced to leave their communities because they can no longer make a living as a farmer or fisher. In cities, food insecurity can lead to crime when people are driven to steal or sell drugs to avoid hunger or homelessness. Food insecurity can lead to us feeling that our neighborhood is not a safe, healthy or comfortable place to live. Individuals need adequate amounts of a variety of quality, safe foods to be healthy and wellnourished. Undernutrition results from an insufficient intake or an improper balance of protein, energy, and micronutrients. Nutritional consequences of insufficient food or undernutrition include protein energy malnutrition, anemia, vitamin A deficiency, iodine deficiency, and iron deficiency. Food insecurity and malnutrition result in catastrophic amounts of human suffering. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 60 percent of all childhood deaths in the developing world are associated with chronic hunger and malnutrition. In developing countries, persistent malnutrition leaves children weak, vulnerable, and less able to fight such common childhood illnesses as diarrhea, acute respiratory infections, malaria , and measles. Even the children who are mildly to moderately malnourished are at greater risk of dying from these common diseases. Malnourished children in the Tanzania suffer from poorer health status, compromised immune systems, and higher rates of illnesses such as colds, headaches, and fatigue.

17

The trend for severe acute malnutrition from 2009 to 2012 is shown in Figure 3.1, 2012 being the reference year. In 2010, Mbulu, Mkinga and Muleba districts were not assessed. In addition Hanang and Kilindi districts were not assessed in the year 2011, as they were not selected because the projections showed they did not have any food/livestock production problems. The food security and nutrition assessment conducted in 2009 showed the highest prevalence of severe acute malnutrition than all other years, with Mbulu district leading with highest prevalence. The 2012 nutrition assessment done in Arusha DC, Masasi, Longido, Mkinga and Muleba districts showed increase in prevalence of Severe Acute Malnutrition compared to 2011.To the contrary, Mbulu district showed the opposite trend. Furthermore, Longido district has continuously worsened off sevenfold in 2012 compared to 2011

Figure 3.1: Severe Acute Malnutrition Trend Source: FSNA 2012 The same picture is portrayed for Global Acute Malnutrition. The food security and nutrition assessment conducted in 2009 showed the highest prevalence of global acute malnutrition than all other years, with Mbulu and Kilindi districts leading with highest prevalence. Among eight districts, which had poor nutrition situation, the prevalence of GAM has shown to increase in 2012 when compared to 2011.The GAM rate of Longido district showed to be critical in nutrition situation compared to the other districts in that the nutrition situation remained

18

relatively steady for all the years. The poor nutrition situation implies food insecurity in the area. (See Figure 3.2 below).

Figure 3.2: Global Acute Malnutrition Trend Source; FSNA 2012 Adolescents and adults also suffer adverse consequences of food insecurity and malnutrition. Malnutrition can lead to decreased energy levels, delayed maturation, growth failure, impaired cognitive ability, diminished capacity to learn, decreased ability to resist infections and illnesses, shortened life expectancy, increased maternal mortality, and low birth weight. Food insecurity may also result in severe social, psychological , and behavioral consequences. Food-insecure individuals may manifest feelings of alienation, powerlessness, stress , and anxiety , and they may experience reduced productivity, reduced work and school performance, and reduced income earnings. Household dynamics may become disrupted because of a preoccupation with obtaining food, which may lead to anger, pessimism, and irritability. Adverse consequences for children include: higher levels of aggressive or destructive behavior, hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty with social interactions (e.g., more withdrawn or socially disruptive), increased passivity, poorer overall school performance, increased school absences, and a greater need for mental health care services (e.g., for depression or suicidal behaviors).

19

4: Disaster Risk Management in food and agriculture Disasters have the most severe consequences on poor, vulnerable and agriculturally-dependent populations where by food and agriculture play a key role in increasing community resilience to threats. Natural disasters are a leading cause of hunger and affect all dimensions of food security including access to food, availability and stability of supplies, and nutrition. Most food insecure people live in areas prone to natural hazards and they are the least able to cope with shocks. Due to their vulnerability and limited capacity to manage risks, poor households are often trapped in a downward spiral of food insecurity and poverty. Globally, disaster risk is increasing due to climate change and population growth and disaster frequently bring with them a food crisis. 4.1: The Disaster Management approach Disaster management approach seek to build resilience and reduce risk; through activities such as soil and water conservation, rehabilitating infrastructure and training community members in disaster risk management and livelihood protection, Mitigate impact of crisis and help vulnerable people adapt, Reduce vulnerability of people before, during and after disasters, Continuum covers all phases of the DRM framework from pre-disaster (risk reduction), postdisaster (response, recovery and rehabilitation) to development, nevertheless management perspective that combines prevention, mitigation and preparedness with response, recovery and rehabilitation moving beyond Disaster Risk Reduction. FAO has a framework programme built on 4 pillars in food risk reduction: Institutional strengthening and good governance for DRR in agriculture sectors Information and early warning systems on food and nutrition security and transboundary threats Preparedness for effective response and recovery in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry Mitigation, prevention and building resilience with technologies, approaches and practices for food and nutrition security

20

5: Conclusion and Strategies 5.1: Conclusion; There were various coping strategies deployed by the households to cope with food insecurity problems. The strategies vary from one area to another. These strategies include excessive sale of livestock, agricultural labour, sale of charcoal, reduced number and size of meals. However, there were extreme coping strategies such as stopping children from going to school and temporal migration which was noted in Kilindi, Muleba and Ngorongoro districts. It was further noted that, recurring food shortage in some areas mainly due to drought could have a direct link with climate change. Thus climate change challenges might if not addressed, continue to limit agricultural labour opportunities hence most resource weak households resilience will continue to 19 deplete. Additional households therefore, will continue to rely on assistance from their neighbours and remittances, which are not adequate to meet basic food needs; nevertheless agriculture development should be taken as serious issue which needs urgent measure in order to accommodate the increase number of people in Tanzania.

5.2: Strategies; In Tanzania, agricultural production and productivity have not been able to attain levels that ensure sustainable food security and income generation for poverty reduction. There are many factors that undermine agricultural production and productivity. Among these are investment in productive and service sectors, weak base for provision of agricultural and cooperative development services, and weak base of technology development, transfer and utilization. Others factors include poor access to inputs and inefficient use of agricultural inputs, lack of value adding initiatives, and underdeveloped human and institutional capacities. The combined effects of these resulted in food insecurity. Nevertheless, most productive systems are rarely environmental friendly which adds the question of sustainability. In order to achieve production and productivity levels that will propel the growth rate of the sector and the economy in general, there is a need to implement the strategies, hit the targets and monitor the performance indicators stated below. Strategies Increase investment and interventions to improve productive and service sectors Improve sector services delivery systems Enhance technology development, transfer and utilization Improve access to and use efficiency agricultural inputs and implements Enhance value addition functions Improve land management and adoption of water conservation technologies and implementation of national plans under MEAs to halt desertification and restore degraded land

21

 Build and sustain the human resource capacity in the agriculture services delivery of the ministry Create awareness of the staff and stakeholders on pertinent issues Ensure environmental sustainability of the productive systems(through research, identify and promote modern environmental friendly farming technologies and practices for rural areas) Improve food security

22

6: REFERENCE; Devereux, S., al. (2004). Improving The Analysis of Food Insecurity Ellis, F., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press Scoones, I., 1998, Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis, Working Paper 72. Mike Morris, John Butterworth, Richard Lamboll, Evelyn Lazaro, Faustin Maganga, and Neil Marslandighton: IDS Household Livelihood Strategies in Semi-Arid Tanzania: Synthesis of Findings Sheila Kiratu, Lutz Mrker and Adam Mwakolobo, 2011., Food Security. Tanzania case. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Mukhebi, A. et al., An Overview of Food Security Situation in Eastern Africa

Woodward, D., 1992,: Debt, Adjustment and Poverty in Developing Countries, Vol. I & II, Save the Children, London Survey 2: Agricultural Trade Policies Tanzania Author: Economic and Social Research Foundation, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Assessment Report of the April, 2012: Prepared by Tanzania Food Security and Nutrition Analysis System - MUCHALI, Tanzania April 2012

23