Research Paper Series Republic of Mozambique
Transcrição
Research Paper Series Republic of Mozambique
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Directorate of Economics Research Paper Series Farmer Income Support Project (FISP) Coconut Farmers’ Survey Report Reprint of Report to Millennium Challenge Corporation December 31, 2009, Revised March 14, 2010 By Cynthia Donovan, Byron Reyes, Raul Pitoro and Ellen Payongayong Research Report No.69E November 2010 Republic of Mozambique DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS Research Paper Series The Directorate of Economics of the Ministry of Agriculture maintains two publication series for research on food security issues. Publications under the Flash series are short (3-4 pages), carefully focused reports designated to provide timely research results on issues of great interest. Publications under the Research Paper series are designed to provide longer, more in-depth treatment of food security issues. The preparation of Flash reports and Research Reports, and their discussion with those who design and influence programs and policies in Mozambique, is an important step in the Directorate’s overall analyses and planning mission. Comments and suggestion from interested users on reports under each of these series help identify additional questions for consideration in later data analyses and report writing, and in the design of further research activities. Users of these reports are encouraged to submit comments and inform us of ongoing information and analysis needs. Victorino Xavier National Director Directorate of Economics Ministry of Agriculture Victorino Xavier National Director Directorate of Economics Ministry of Agriculture ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics in association with the Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University. The activities are funded through a collaborative agreement between United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and MSU, with guidance from the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The survey data collection effort was conducted by MINAG/DE, with technical support of MSU, and funded by the Mozambican Millennium Challenge Account. The authors would like to express gratitude to their colleagues on the household survey team for the Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA) in the Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics, Department of Statistics. The enumerators and the farm households gave their time and energy to collecting the information essential for understanding what is happening in the coconut zones, and the TIA team efficiently developed the database out of the survey effort. Thanks also go to Jigar Bhatt and David Amenyaw for their support and guidance for this research, and to the local MCA and MCC teams for their efforts. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Mozambican Ministry of Agriculture, Michigan State University, Millennium Challenge Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, nor the Mozambican Millennium Challenge Account. iii MINAG/MSU RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS Victorino Xavier, National Director, Directorate of Economics Lucia Luciano, Deputy National Director, Directorate of Economics Eulalia Macome, Coordinator of Policy Analysis Department (DAP) Sofia Manussa, DAP analyst Celia Cassimo, DAP analyst Adriano Chamusso, DAP analyst Aurélio Mate, Head, Statistics Department Domingos Diogo, Advisor, Statistics Department Arlindo Miguel, SIMA Coordinator and DEST analyst Simão C. Nhane, Senior Assistant to SIMA Coordinator Dolito Lucas, SIMA Analyst Fazila Gomes, SIMA Analyst Zeferino Zunguene, SIMA Analyst Francisco Morais, Enumerator/Trainer Abel Custódio Frechaut, Junior Assistant to SIMA Coordinator Raúl Óscar R. Pitoro, IIAM/MSU Research Analyst Helder Zavale, UEM/MSU Research Analyst Maria Jose Teixeira, Administrative Coordinator Amélia Soares, Administrative Assistant Gilead Mlay, MSU Country Coordinator in Mozambique Ellen Payongayong, MSU Analyst and Statistics Training Coordinator in Mozambique Cynthia Donovan, MSU Analyst in Mozambique David Tschirley, MSU Analyst Duncan Boughton, MSU Analyst David Mather, MSU Analyst iv Farmer Income Support Project (FISP) Coconut Farmers’ Survey Report Reprint of Report to Millennium Challenge Corporation December 31, 2009, Revised March 14, 2010 Cynthia Donovan, Byron Reyes, Raul Pitoro and Ellen Payongayong* Michigan State University ** All authors are associated with the Department of Agricultural, Food, And Resource Economics, Michigan State University (MSU). Cynthia Donovan is Assistant Professor of International Development, Byron Reyes is a graduate student and research assistant, Raul Pitoro is a research analyst with MSU in Mozambique, and Ellen Payongayong is a survey specialist and research analyst with MSU in Mozambique. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Farmer Income Support project under the Millennium Challenge Compact for Mozambique is designed to reduce poverty and increase incomes in the coconut zones of Zambezia and Nampula Provinces. Coconut lethal-yellowing type disease (CLYD) has threatened livelihoods which rely on coconut trees to generate incomes and provide consumption goods. Burning diseased trees and planting new coconut varieties tolerant to the disease is only one part of the program, as farmers need to develop sources of income and consumption during the tree growth period, as well as more diversified income sources in the longer run. The Ministry of Agriculture’s Directorate of Economics and Michigan State University designed and implemented a household survey in the project areas. The survey combined households from the nationally representative rural household survey known as the Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA) 2008 with additional households in the project area. By combining efforts with TIA, there were significant cost savings, and a total of 771 households were interviewed and retained in the database. Due to coordination issues, the survey was conducted in two distinct periods (late 2008 for TIA households and early 2009 for additional FISP households). The survey covered agricultural production information as well as information on off-farm income, demographics, and household assets. The document details the sample selection methods which help to ensure that the households are representative of the population of coconut growing households, including households that have lost all coconut trees to disease. For purposes of sampling and design, a rapid appraisal was conducted with MCC, MCA, MINAG, and MSU in August 2008. With the delay in obtaining detailed aerial maps on coconuts and the disease, the Rapid Appraisal was useful to classify zones according to CLYD incidence at the time: 0% CLYD; 1>10% CLYD; 11-70% CLYD; and greater than 70% CLYD. For analytical purposes, the two lowest incidence zones were combined into a single 0-10% CLYD zone. The sample was not designed to be representative at a provincial level. In addition to CLYD level, we are able to analyze based on sex of the head of household, with 25% of households headed by women. The key results of the survey concern incomes sources, existing cropping systems, differences between households depending on the sex of the household head, and differences between the CLYD zones. The majority of adults, especially among women, depend on agriculture as a main source of income. However, the higher the CLYD incidence, the more likely it is that the household does not rely on agricultural income. Both the average value of agricultural production and average total income are significantly lower in the highest CLYD zone compared to the two lower CLYD zones. Regarding household assets, the households in the highest CLYD zone tend to have lower asset levels. For example, 30% of households in the highest CLYD area have bicycles, compared to 53% in lowest CLYD areas. Overall households in the zones of highest CLYD incidence tend to be poorer, both in terms of income as well as assets. Livestock ownership is confined to primarily chickens (65% of households), ducks (21% of households) and goats (14% of households) across the coconut zones. When calculating the number of tropical livestock units, we find that the average among livestock owners is only 0.24 (equivalent to 24 chickens or about 2 goats). Across all households, the average ownership is 0.16 units (equivalent to 16 chickens). The farm sizes in the coconut zones ranged from a mean of 1 hectare in the 0-10% CLYD zone to 0.8 hectare in the >70% CLYD zone. Male-headed households tended to have larger overall land size, with 1.0 hectares compared to just 0.6 hectares for female-headed households. Of the 2071 farm plots that were evaluated, only 2% have any written document on land use rights, with many vi households gaining use rights simply by occupying land or receiving from their parents or other relatives. Farmers had considered getting land use rights (DUAT) for only 12% of the plots. Those who failed to obtain indicated that they faced problems with a lack of funds or a lack of information on how to proceed. There is little correlation between land area and number of coconuts trees suggesting that land may not be a limiting factor in expanding coconut production. Households average 29 coconut trees that they consider their own (with rights to the harvest), and that does not vary greatly by total land size groups. Farmers with more than 5 hectares of land average 32 trees whereas farms with less than 0.75 hectares average 25 trees. On the farms, coconuts are usually not concentrated in a single field, plantation style, but rather are found in small areas of available land, including near the homestead, along the boundaries of crop plots, and along roadsides or paths. When coconut trees are grown in specific plots, they are most commonly intercropped with cassava and rice. A small percentage of farmers indicated planting groundnuts, cowpeas, bambara nuts, and sweet potatoes in the same plots with coconut trees, with the general tendency to intercrop up to three crops. Note that the intercropping may entail bands of crops along borders, rather than interspersed planting. Cassava and rice are the two crops grown by the majority of the farmers across the zones. Maize, sweet potatoes, and cowpeas are also important throughout the coconut region, with 30% or more of farmers cultivating. In the zones in which coconut had disappeared, analysts found cassava and cowpeas as the most common crops. Among households that identified CLYD as a problem and had removed trees, the household had generally removed their own trees, rather than have a third party remove them. Further work is needed to understand if households are only willing to take out trees once they are no longer productive or in the earlier stages of the disease as productivity begins to drop. For FISP, it will be important to understand if tree removal is taken as a preventative measure to stop the spread of the disease, and if so, under what conditions. This survey indicated a total of 5.5 million coconut trees under smallholder control in Zambezia and Nampula coconut zones. Coconuts contribute to the local economy in many ways. In this research, farmers were asked about various sources of revenues related to coconut production, including sales of fresh coconuts, beverages, and copra. The income from coconuts will be underestimated here as there is also income from selling palm fronds for thatching, using coconut wood for artisanal goods as well as other uses that are included as part of income, just not specifically coconut-related income. Loss of coconut trees thus has a range of repercussions on the local economy. For farmers selling coconut products, farmers in the higher CLYD zone have average coconut income that is only 60% of the coconut income in the lowest CLYD zone. Across all farmers in the three zones, farmers in the higher CLYD zone had an average of 170 MTN per year from coconuts, compared to 655 MTN for the lowest CLYD zone, on average. The value of sales is higher when looking at just the households selling coconuts and although the metical amounts vary across the CLYD zones, coconut-related income is about 16% of average total income. FISP interventions will involve the use of productivity-enhancing inputs and farmer information; this baseline study demonstrates that the initial levels are very low for fertilizers use, improved seeds, credit, and market information. An average of 5% of farmers use improved seed (from original packaging) and less than 1% used fertilizers. Use of technology may be related to very low rates of access to credit, with only 2.3% of the farmers using credit, primarily men. Only 7% of the farmers received extension advice during 2007/2008, whether from NGO or the public extension service. Only about one-third of farmers received market price information, most frequently via radio or friends and relatives. vii The analysis and results indicate that this household survey could serve as a baseline for impact evaluation, but much will depend on the interventions selected and the implementation strategy and zones, decisions taken after the baseline survey was conducted. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... iii MINAG/MSU RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... vi ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................... xiv 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1 1.1. MCC/MCA FISP Project Focus ................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Project Objectives and Activities ................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Outcomes and Outputs ................................................................................................................. 2 1.4. FISP and baseline survey considerations ..................................................................................... 3 1.5. Structure of report ........................................................................................................................ 4 2. BASELINE SURVEY DESIGN, SAMPLING, AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................ 4 2.1. Rapid Appraisal on CLYD incidence .......................................................................................... 4 2.2. SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3. 2.2.1. Sampling for TIA ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2. Sampling for FISP........................................................................................................................... 5 Baseline Survey............................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.1. TIA 2008 survey ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.3.2. TIA Survey design .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.3. Field work for MCA/FISP additional sample ................................................................................. 9 2.3.4. Data collection for MCA/FISP ....................................................................................................... 9 3. Baseline Data of Sample Villages .............................................................................................. 10 3.1. Sample and Population Statistics ............................................................................................... 10 3.2. Analytical domains: CLYD zone and sex of household head for coconut farmers ................... 10 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ................................................................................................ 10 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11 4.2. Family size and occupation ........................................................................................................ 11 ix 4.3. Non-land family assets ............................................................................................................... 11 4.4. Livestock assets .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.5. Farm size .................................................................................................................................... 13 4.6. Land ownership and titling ........................................................................................................ 17 5. HOUSEHOLD INCOME .......................................................................................................... 19 5.1. Gross revenue for agricultural commodities and livestock ........................................................ 19 5.2. Non-agricultural income ............................................................................................................ 19 5.3. Total family income ................................................................................................................... 20 5.3.1. Total family income, comparing MCA/FISP households to TIA 2008 in the sample .................. 20 6. CHARACTERISTICS OF COCONUT TREES AND COCONUT ECONOMY .................... 22 6.1. Household coconut tree stocks ................................................................................................... 22 6.2. Coconuts and intercropped plots ................................................................................................ 24 6.3. Percent of coconut tree stock infected with disease ................................................................... 26 6.4. CLYD identification................................................................................................................... 26 6.5. Tree removal practices ............................................................................................................... 27 6.6. Production and Income from coconuts and related products ..................................................... 28 6.6.1. Household coconut income, comparing MCA/FISP households to TIA 2008 in the sample ....... 31 7. CROPPING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 32 7.1. Agricultural activities potentially important to the FISP project ............................................... 32 7.2. Extension Services ..................................................................................................................... 34 7.3. Crops grown, intercropped with coconut trees .......................................................................... 36 7.4. Use of agricultural technologies (crop rotation, fertilizers, row planting, etc.) ......................... 38 7.5. Association membership and use of agricultural credit ............................................................. 39 8. REVIEW OF SURVEY AS A BASELINE FOR FISP ............................................................. 39 8.1. Key areas of usefulness as a baseline for impact assessment .................................................... 39 8.2. Challenges for impact assessment .............................................................................................. 40 8.3. Recommendations for monitoring and evaluation ..................................................................... 40 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 41 x ANNEXES Annex 1: Rapid Appraisal Maps for Assessment of CLYD, 2008 Annex 2: Field notes, Rapid Appraisal of Coconut Zones in Zambezia, May 2008. Ellen Payongayong. MSU Annex 3: FISP enumeration areas on TTI Maps Annex 4: Sample Design and Weighting Procedures for the FISP Baseline Survey, David Megill Annex 5: Relatório Final de Operações de Campo do Inquérito aos Agregados Familiares Rurais nas Zonas Produtoras de Coqueiro, Miguel and Achicala 2009 Annex 6: Household survey instrument for Trabalho de Inquerito Agricola 2008 and for FISP Coconut Zone Survey 2008 (in Portuguese) Annex 7: Guide used during survey implementation to help farmers identify lethal yellowing type disease and beetle attacks in their coconut trees Annex 8: Additional output from Coconut Farmers Survey 2008 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Distribution of Sample Enumeration Areas (EAs) and Sample Households with Completed Interviews for FISP Coconut Producers Survey, with MCA/FISP and TIA 2008 surveys, by CLYD Stratum and Province ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2 Selected characteristics of coconut growing households, by CLYD zone ............................. 12 Table 3 Sources of income: Percentage of household members with different sources, by CLYD zone ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4 Percentage of households owning various assets, by CLYD zone ......................................... 13 Table 5 Percentage of farmers owning each type of livestock ........................................................... 14 Table 6 Average number of livestock owned, by type of livestock and CLYD zone, only for farmers owning that livestock .............................................................................................................. 14 Table 7 Total farm size and cultivated area, by CLYD Zone and gender of household head ............ 15 Table 8 Average number of trees per household, by land size category ............................................. 16 Table 9 Source of land use rights ........................................................................................................ 18 Table 10 Land law and titling issues, by CLYD zone and sex of head ............................................... 18 Table 11 Percentage of plots for which there was conflict, reasons and sources of conflict, by sex of household head .................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 12 Household income for cropping year 2007/2008 (in meticais), by CLYD zone .................. 21 Table 13 Coconut trees: estimated stock and productive stock of trees ............................................. 23 Table 14 Coconut trees per household for households with coconut trees, by CLYD zone .............. 23 Table 15 Productive coconut trees per household for households with coconut trees, by CLYD zone, based on 2007/8 season .............................................................................................................. 23 Table 16 Proportion of farmers with intercropped coconut plots who are interested in having land title, by CLYD zone ............................................................................................................................. 24 Table 17 Location of coconut intercropped plots, by CLYD zone...................................................... 25 Table 18 Coconut intercropped plots by years of possession and source of use rights, by CLYD Zone ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 19 Proportion of coconut intercropped plots with land conflict and that expect conflict in future, by CLYD Zone ......................................................................................................................... 26 Table 20 Percentage of farmers indicating disease problems and treatment of dead trees, among farmers with coconut trees ................................................................................................................... 27 Table 21 Percentage of farmers in a given zone that harvested or produced selected coconut products, by CLYD zone ..................................................................................................................... 28 Table 22 Percentage of farmers in a given zone that sold selected coconut products, by CLYD zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 23 Coconut quantities produced and quantities sold (in kgs), per household, by CLYD zone 29 Table 24 Copra quantities sold, per household (in kgs), by CLYD zone ........................................... 29 Table 25 Household income from coconut sales (in MTN) and percentage of income from coconuts, by CLYD ............................................................................................................................. 31 xii Table 26 Comparison of coconut sales values for MCA/FISP and TIA 2008 samples, by CLYD zone, for farmers selling coconuts and copra ...................................................................................... 32 Table 27 Percentage of farmers growing crops, by CLYD zone ........................................................ 33 Table 28 Income from selected crops, net of cash inputs, all households, by CLYD zone ............... 34 Table 29 Households receiving information or advice from an extension agent, by CLYD zone ...... 35 Table 30 Sector for which information or advice received, for households receiving information .... 35 Table 31 Percentage of farmers receiving price information and source of information, by CLYD zone ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 32 Percentage of plots growing specific crops, by CLYD zone ................................................ 36 Table 33 Proportion of number of crops intercropped with coconut trees ......................................... 37 Table 34 Identification of crops found in intercropping with coconut, based on number of different crops in plot ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 35 Percentage of farmers using specific agricultural practices, by CLYD zone ....................... 38 Table 36 Percentage of farmers using improved seeds, by CLYD zone ............................................. 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Farm size distribution, in hectares......................................................................................... 16 Figure 2 Distribution of Income per capita, by CLYD zone .............................................................. 22 Figure 3 Household level coconut product sales value, by CLYD zone, mean and median values (MTN), only using households that sell .............................................................................................. 30 xiii ACRONYMS CLYD DEFF DEFT DPA EA FISP GOM INE MCC MCA MINAG MSU SME TIA Coconut Lethal Yellowing-type Diseases Design Effect Design Factor Provincial Directorate of Agriculture Enumeration Area (sampling) Farmer Income Support Project Government of Mozambique Instituto Nacional de Estatísticas (National Statistics Institute) Millennium Challenge Corporation Millennium Challenge Account - Mozambique Ministry of Agriculture Michigan State University Small and medium scale enterprises Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (Rural Agricultural Household Survey) xiv 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In 2007, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Government of Mozambique (GOM) established the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), based upon the signed Compact. The Compact is designed to fund activities that will reduce poverty in Mozambique through economic growth, and increase economic opportunities for Mozambicans living in the northern region of the country. The overall program objective is “to increase the productive capacity of the population in selected districts in Northern Mozambique with the intended impact of reducing the poverty rate, increasing household income, and reducing chronic malnutrition in the targeted districts” (MCC/MCA Compact, 2007). There are four main components of the Compact, and this current work focuses on the Farmer Income Support Programme (FISP) designed to address critical aspects of farmer livelihoods in the coconut zones of Zambezia and Nampula Provinces (MCC/MCA Compact, 2007). These zones are threatened by coconut tree diseases and pests that are rapidly destroying productive trees in the zone. Farmers need a combination of efforts to avoid the elimination of coconut related incomes while developing new sources of agricultural income. As an independent institution, Michigan State University’s Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics has been contracted by MCC to implement impact evaluation1 for the FISP as well as for the Land Tenure components of the Compact. 1.1. MCC/MCA FISP Project Focus Coconuts have long been an important crop in Mozambique and the copra made from them is an important commodity for export. In 2007/8, for example, Mozambique was one of the world’s top ten producers of copra, according to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS, 2010), producing 50,000 metric tons of copra that year. Coconut production is currently under threat from pests and diseases, especially Coconut Lethal Yellowing-type Diseases (CLYD). Areas of Zambezia and Nampula Province are currently affected by CLYD and the potential for rapid spread of the disease would mean that more than 50% of coconut production could be lost by 2015 (Eden Green 2006). Additional damage is caused by rhinoceros beetles, feeding off of the sick and dead trees, as well as newly planted seedlings (Eden-Green 2008). These threats to smallholder incomes and local industry have motivated the government of Mozambique with MCC to design a program of interventions for smallholders in the affected coconut production zones. Based on experience in Ghana and elsewhere, experts have proposed that all trees that are no longer productive be removed and destroyed, to be replaced with new varieties that are more resistant to the disease. Smallholders will need technical assistance to develop income sources to sustain them until new trees come into production in several years, and to supplement coconut incomes in the longer run. 1.2. Project Objectives and Activities As indicated in the MCC/MCA Compact, there is a “five-component program of coconut disease control and rehabilitation measures combined with the introduction of new cropping value-chains that is designed to show a positive rate of return within an eight-year timescale” (MCC 2007). As designed, government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmer and commercial estate sectors will work together towards mitigating the effects of CLYD and diversifying into new crop 1 The impact evaluation component for FISP has been modified to focus on the survey during the initial period, with later evaluation as to whether it will be able to serve as a baseline. This will be discussed further in Chapter 8. 1 value chains. As planned, FISP will help 250,000 families2 to stabilize their income, diversify their income sources, and improve their livelihoods in the coconut zones of Nampula and Zambezia Provinces (MCC/MCA Compact 2007). Under FISP, smallholders will receive training in productivity enhancing technologies as well as in intercropping and alternative crops to attempt to ameliorate the impact of coconut disease and pests on agricultural income. Diversification of crop income and development of value chains for short term-crops such as beans, root crops, tubers, and fruits will be key objectives of FISP. In addition, with FISP, there will various actions designed to hinder the spread of CLYD and the potential devastation of coconut production in the zone (MCC/MCA Compact 2007). Under this program, both public and private sector should develop capacity to generate, adapt and apply plant protection measures. During the design and implementation of FISP and other MCC/MCA activities, there will be extensive work to include communities and small scale farmers in the process. A key aspect of the MCC/MCA Compact is the sensitivity to gender considerations, as will be discussed further when looking at analytical domains. A service provider has been selected for the FISP implementation and will be incorporating these aspects into their activities. During the time of the Compact, the FISP service provider has two major objectives: (1) CLYD control and mitigation will provide the short-term control measures of surveillance, prompt eradication of diseased palms focused on tree cutting in the early years of the contract and replanting with the less susceptible Mozambican Green Tall coconut variety; and (2) Technical Advisory Services will introduce alternate crop-diversification options that demonstrate strong market demand and income generation potential, especially for farm enterprises participating in the CLYD control and mitigation program that are seeking short-term income alternatives during the period of coconut tree regrowth (MCC/MCA Compact 2007). 1.3. Outcomes and Outputs According to the MCC/MCA Compact, there are two key components within FISP to be evaluated for which a household baseline is useful. First is the Farm Productivity Improvement component and second in the Business Development Fund. This baseline primarily serves to inform the farm productivity component. For this aspect, the FISP will focus on increased production and productivity improvement in selected crops as well as coconut. This includes planting new coconut trees, identifying and assisting farmers cultivate new crops, and improve production of existing crops, including coconut production. With the FISP project, action areas were classified in the following way: 1) combined endemic and post-endemic zones; 2) epidemic zones (zones with increasing incidence of the disease); and 3) high risk zones (yet without incidence of the disease, but likely to experience CLYD in the near future). Post-endemic means that virtually all coconut trees have died. 3 Intercropping and diversification assistance will focus mainly on interventions in the post-endemic and endemic zone 2 These are MCC/MCA planned beneficiary numbers; actual beneficiaries will be confirmed with further analysis. 3 It will be seen later, with the 2008 rapid appraisal, zones were classified on estimates of percentage of tress affected by CLYD. The post-endemic zones were combined with the parts of the endemic zones in which more than 70% of the trees are affected by CLYD. Another endemic zone was identified in which 11-70% of trees have been affected by CLYD. 2 where coconut trees have survived or will be replanted. For intercropping, the scope within mature stands of coconut is very different from that when replanting coconut. As detailed in project documents, income generation will focus on crop diversification and intercropping with coconut trees, and soil fertility enhancements, either through nitrogen-fixing plants (such as legumes) or through application of nutrients for both coconut trees and other crops. The choice of diversification crops through FISP is oriented to crops with market demand. For this component, the expected outcomes are the following: “1) At least 80% of target farmers maintaining young coconut palms in good state of growth by end of year 3; and 2) at least 50% of participating smallholders are maintaining productivity improvements of the intercrops by end of year 3 and 60% by end of year 4” (MCC/MCA, 2007). The Business Development Fund is designed to raise agricultural productivity through financial support via targeted grants to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They will focus on those SMEs that serve a critical role in the value-chains of the coconut industry and intercrop products based on market analysis in the coconut belt. 1.4. FISP and baseline survey considerations As indicated above, MSU was contracted by MCC to provide an independent analysis on the impact of the FISP.4 To assess impact, it is necessary to establish a baseline of farmers, both those who are potential participants or beneficiaries of FISP as well as selected farmers who would be candidates but are in locations that will not receive the FISP program benefits. However, the original plan for a baseline survey and follow-up post-project impact evaluation (IE) survey have been modified due to several constraints. A key difficulty is that the selection of the implementing partner for the FISP Technical Advisory services was delayed, making it impossible to develop a baseline survey that was designed based on actual implementation plans. Second, the detailed CLYD maps expected to be available were not available at the time of sampling design, so there was a need to conduct a rapid appraisal to look at the incidence of CLYD. Sampling had to be based on the incidence determined through the rapid appraisal, given that different activities and investments would occur in different zones, as indicated above. A third consideration was the recognition that the FISP technical assistance component was not the most substantial investment under the Compact and thus would not necessarily warrant a large investment in IE, compared to other investments, thus resulting in a need to keep costs down. This third consideration was not the most important, but given the other challenges, it reinforced the idea of keeping the effort reduced and building on existing efforts. In the end, the FISP survey approach was pragmatic and economical, using existing capacity and activities of the Ministry of Agriculture in Mozambique. To maintain comparability and make use of the extensive survey methods investment by MINAG, the FISP survey was based on the 2008 nationally representative rural household survey, Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (known as TIA 2008). There are two ways in which FISP linked with TIA 2008: 1) FISP coconut farmer used the survey instrument, enumerators, and survey systems designed for TIA 2008; and 2) FISP coconut farmer household dataset combines households from the TIA 2008 survey, as well as additional households interviewed under a special contract between MCA and MINAG to ensure sufficient sampling in the coconut regions. 4 MSU has also been contracted to conduct impact evaluation (IE) of the Land Tenure projects of the Compact, a separate activity from the FISP IE. 3 The TIA 2008 survey instrument reflects several years of TIA efforts in Mozambique, with improved systems and reliability. The survey instrument was designed to collect information on agricultural production and marketing as well as nonfarm income sources, demographics and other household aspects related to food security. It was partially modified to suit FISP purposes. Since TIA 2008 collected data in the coconut zones of Nampula and Zambezia Provinces as part of the representative survey, for the FISP baseline, selected households from TIA 2008 form part of the FISP sample. The challenge was to identify additional households to complement the TIA 2008 sample to have a sample that could represent the coconut farmers. FISP design was based on the classification of zones facing different levels of incidence of the disease, and so baseline indicators would need to be developed based on that classification. MSU collaborated with MCC/MCA in a rapid appraisal of the coconut zones to assess CLYD incidence (Eden-Green 2008) and to classify the zones. As will be detailed in the sampling section, the rapid reconnaissance activity enabled MCC/MCA to take advantage of coconut producing households already in the TIA 2008 survey sample and expand the sample in those coconut areas in Nampula and Zambezia not included in the TIA sample. 1.5. Structure of report After the background information presented in Chapter 1, there are seven remaining chapters. Chapter 2 will describe in detail the survey activities including the sampling and field work. Chapter 3 follows with a presentation in the sample and description of the analytical domains. Chapter 4 presents to profile of coconut growing households in the coconut zones, including demographics, basic income sources and farm sizes. Next, Chapter 5 looks in greater depth at incomes source. Chapter 6 provides a look at the coconut sector more specifically, including disease patterns and actions taken. Chapter 7 looks at the other crops grown in the coconut zones, as well as access to information and use of different production technologies. The final chapter, Chapter 8, reviews aspects concerning the survey as a baseline exercise, including recommendations for further monitoring and evaluation. 2. BASELINE SURVEY DESIGN, SAMPLING, AND IMPLEMENTATION 2.1. Rapid Appraisal on CLYD incidence As indicated in the short summary above, rapid appraisals were carried out in May 2008 in the main coconut growing districts of Inhassunge, Nicoadala, Namacurra, and Maganja da Costa to update information on the disease’s advance and to select and classify regions for the baseline as well as for FISP activities. Eden-Green (2008) summarized the findings of these rapid appraisals: • The disease has gotten much worse since the November 2006 situation analysis, both in extent and intensity but mainly the latter. • There are strong indications that the development of disease symptoms is influenced by seasonal factors, with a lot of leaf yellowing symptoms appearing at the end of the main rainy season. • In endemic zones, attacks by rhinoceros beetle are rampant and are damaging and killing off the remaining palms that have escaped CLYD. • The main threat is to replacement coconut seedlings and younger plants which are favoured feeding sites of the beetles and are easily damaged or killed. However: 4 • There are increasingly large areas where most coconuts have not only died but the dead trunks have already rotted away, and where beetle populations are likely to be much lower and damage less of a problem. • The best strategy may be to concentrate rehabilitation efforts in these “post-endemic” areas where there will be little need for cutting and burning, with consequent saving in costs of tree removal and reduction in possible adverse environmental effects of burning. • There is also likely to be greatest food insecurity, poverty and demand for project interventions in these areas. • In contrast, control in epidemic and high risk areas will not be easy. Disease “fronts” are now very confused owing to the multiplicity and scattered nature of disease outbreaks. • It will be necessary to maintain control at disease fronts even after infection levels increase above the proposed 10% threshold for selection, in order to maintain a phytosanitary barrier or “disease firebreak” behind the advancing disease front. The best strategy may be to concentrate on isolated disease foci (Eden-Green, 2008). Based on the Rapid Appraisal, the coconut zones of Zambezia and Nampula Province were classified into four mutually exclusive categories: 1) coconut growing risk zones with 0% CLYD ; 2) epidemic zones with CLYD of 10% or less; 3) endemic zones with greater than 10% CLYD incidence but less than or equal to 70% incidence; and 4) endemic zones with greater than 70% CLYD as well as post-endemic areas with essentially no coconut trees surviving. The maps in Annex 1 indicate the classifications as determined during the rapid appraisal. Researchers modified maps from earlier work of the PASCOM project (Anon. 2001), based in the information from the 2008 rapid appraisal (Annex 2). Recent work has overlaid indicators for the survey enumeration areas with the TTI maps (see Annex 3) to understand the linkage between the survey areas and the zones as classified by TTI. 2.2. SAMPLING 2.2.1. Sampling for TIA As detailed in Megill (2008), TIA 2008 sampling used two-stage stratification, based on a newly developed frame from the National Census of Population and Households completed in 2007. The TIA is designed to provide statistically reliable results at national and provincial levels. The sampling design also ensures that households from all 15 agroecological zones identified by the Mozambican Agricultural Research Institute are included in the sampling from the national frame. The primary sampling units, or enumeration areas (EAs), are designed as geographical units with about 100 to 150 households. Almost 6,000 households were interviewed, including households in all 128 districts and limited urban zones. The stratification and clustering of this design necessitate using statistical methods to adjust the standard errors of estimates. In TIA 2008, 236 sample households in Nampula and Zambezia were found to have coconuts and could be included in the analysis for this FISP baseline study. 2.2.2. Sampling for FISP The sampling strategy for the FISP project was based on the need for a stratified sample based on the estimated incidence of CLYD that would be representative of the coconut zones of Zambezia and Nampula Provinces. In Annex 4, Megill (2009) details the criteria used to develop the sampling to meet the FISP evaluation needs, and includes a summary on the sample frame and approach to weighting the resulting sample to generate population estimates for the indicators to be developed. 5 Using analysis based on previous TIA, an effective total sample size of 750 households was determined, across the TIA and FISP additional samples. As indicated above, there were 236 households that were sampled during the original TIA 20085 and then additional coconut-zone households sampled to increase the confidence in estimates specifically in the coconut zones. Given the analytical need to have estimates by CLYD zone, the selection of EAs was adjusted to include more EAs and households from the higher CLYD incidence areas than would have occurred with EA selection proportionate to population (see Table 1). While there are four categories developed during the FISP rapid appraisal and populations were sampled in each of these four categories, there are three analytical domains based on the Rapid Appraisal assessments of CLYD incidence in mid-2008: 0-10% CLYD, 11-70% CLYD, and greater than 70% CLYD. Based on the adjusted sampling, the FISP additional households would total 545, to be added to the original TIA 2008 236 households from the coconut zones. Given the importance of understanding the dynamics of households in high incidence zone (71-100% CLYD), an additional EA was added to the sample, making 13 EAs. Megill, with assistance from Payongayong and additional information on National Census 2007, developed appropriate weighting for the complex survey sampling methods to obtain population estimates. For those purposes, each sample is considered to represent a proportion of the total sampling frame based on the proportion of the combined sample. As detailed by Megill, the MCA/FISP survey sample consisted of 545 households, which is about 70% of the full sample. TIA households represent another 30% of the sample. The final weights were adjusted based on this distribution, such that the sample as a whole is considered to represent about 190,500 coconut producing households in Zambezia and Nampula Provinces (Megill 2009). There were some delays in establishing the appropriate sampling weights both for TIA 2008 and for FISP. These delays stemmed primarily from difficulties with the National Census numbers and the relationship between EAs and their geographical location. Researchers were constrained in conducting analysis until final population numbers from the national census were released by the National Statistics Institute (INE) and the population weights for FISP were finalized early in December 2009. Based on the complex sampling, with clustering and stratification, the standard errors of estimates will need to be adjusted, and confidence intervals developed using the revised standard errors. The design effects of the sampling are two-fold. Clustering of the sample (using the EAs) can result in standard errors that must be adjusted upward, for households within a cluster are more likely to be similar than households selected randomly. Stratification can help reduce the sample size efficiently, to be able to include several analytical domains that would need much higher sample sizes if randomly selected. Megill (2002) explains the statistical and computational issues and we use STATA (Stata 2008) to implement the adjustments, determining the Design Effect (DEFF) and its square root, the Design Factor (DEFT). When the DEFT is above 2.0, it means that the sampling resulted in standard errors that are roughly twice what they would be under simple random sampling, i.e. the clustering and other design effects are fairly significant. In that case, there is a loss in precision of the estimates and confidence intervals will be wider than if the sample had been a simple random sample.6 5 Megill 2008 details the overall TIA 2008 sampling strategy, which was based upon preliminary numbers from the 2007 Population Census. 6 For the sake of brevity, DEFF and DEFT will not be presented in this report for all components; however, they can and have been estimated. The adjusted standard errors are also used in all hypotheses testing of differences. 6 Table 1 Distribution of Sample Enumeration Areas (EAs) and Sample Households with Completed Interviews for FISP Coconut Producers Survey, with MCA/FISP and TIA 2008 surveys, by CLYD Stratum and Province Survey 0-10% CLYD zone 11-70% >70% Overall MCA/FISP Nampula Sample Eas 8 1 3 12 120 15 35 170 8 7 10 25 Sample HHs 120 105 150 375 Total MCA/FISP Sample Eas Sample HHs 0 16 240 8 120 13 185 37 545 TIA 2008 0 20 154 0 0 36 394 386 11 70 2 12 33 236 19 190 190 15 197 194 70 781 771 Sample HHs Zambezia 0 Sample Eas Sample Eas Sample HHs Overall FISP survey Sample Eas Sample HHs interviewed Sample HHS retained Source: Adapted from Megill 2009. Notes: CLYD is coconut lethal yellowing –type disease and stratum indicates approximate incidence of the disease assessed during 2008 rapid appraisal; EA are enumeration areas. Eleven FISP households with completed interviews were excluded for being out of scope (no coconuts, recent past or present), leaving an effective sample of 771 households. "hhs" indicates households. 2.3. Baseline Survey7 As indicated earlier, the baseline survey was conducted in two separate exercises. In late 2008, 256 households were interviewed within the TIA 2008 survey. As indicated in the sampling section above, additional households were surveyed by the Ministry of Agriculture in collaboration with MCA – Mozambique between March 31st and May 7th, 2009 in Nampula and Zambezia Provinces. That process was documented by Miguel and Achicala (2009)8. We will refer to the later survey as 7 The use of the term “Baseline Survey” may not be the most appropriate here. A key factor is that the specific interventions in the FISP zones had not been determined at the time of the survey, and the survey used an existing survey effort to capture the information. If the FISP service provider decides on interventions that are not already captured in the survey, there will be no baseline measurement for those interventions. 8 The section on survey sampling relies heavily on Miguel and Achicala (2009) for documentation on survey implementation for the FISP additional survey. That report is found in Annex 5. For TIA 2008, see Megill 2008. 7 the MCA/FISP survey, whereas the full FISP coconut survey dataset includes both the TIA 2008 coconut farmers as well as the MCA/FISP coconut farmers.9 The delay between the TIA 2008 and the MCA/FISP data collection is not expected to cause bias in the results. The area for greatest concern is coconut products, because there was a harvest period between the two data collection periods. The bias would occur if recall periods were not the same for each or if farmers reported production and sales for the most recent harvest for the MCA/FISP, rather than the earlier harvest which is the recall for the TIA 2008 survey. We will be evaluating for such difficulties in the coming sections. 2.3.1. TIA 2008 survey The survey instrument for TIA 2008 was developed by MINAG. Based on MSU collaboration with MINAG, it was adapted to some extent to capture more of the information needed for the FISP baseline survey on the coconuts zones. Unfortunately, the agreement between MCA and MINAG on data collection was not signed until after the TIA survey began implementation, so there were no financial resources available at the time to add extensive additional coconut questions that could have been valuable but would have required additional interview time. On the positive side, the TIA 2008 survey interviewed 236 households in the coconut zones, obtaining extensive information at no cost to MCA or MCC. The survey instrument, found in Annex 6 and Annex 7, encompasses a range of information including livestock production, farm size, crop production, CLYD incidence, as well as the land tenure. The reference period for production is the cropping season 2007/2008. As with most surveys, there were three main phases: a) survey design, b) training, and c) data collection. In this case, there were two survey implementation periods, the first with the MINAG TIA 2008 survey implementation and the second with the MCA FISP additional survey. Since MCA funding was provided for the MCA/FISP additional households, the MCA/FISP survey will be documented more thoroughly below. 2.3.2. TIA Survey design The TIA survey instrument has evolved over time, from the early efforts at rural household surveys in 1991 through the present TIA 2008. With each TIA exercise, the questionnaire is revisited with an eye to priorities and activities of the government of Mozambique, to ensure that it can be responsive to information needs. With each change in the instrument, extensive pre-testing is conducted by MINAG staff with MSU, in coordination with the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA). The preparation of training materials and field visits is carried out by MINAG with technical assistance of MSU. Over time, extensive efforts have gone into aspects related to measurement of land areas, harvest estimation for roots and tubers, especially cassava, and systems for estimating income from farm and non-farm activities. For the CLYD work, a laminated sheet with color photographs was developed to ensure identification of CLYD and beetles (Annex 7). These developments have resulted in the TIA becoming a standard for rural household surveys in Mozambique. The guides for field operations, data entry and logistics ensure that quality control occurs all along the way (eg. MINAG 2008). CSPro (CSPRO 2008) is the software used for data entry and TIA 2008 data entry was conducted in the field.10 9 Analysis in the document will use the full FISP coconut farmer survey database, unless otherwise indicated. 10 For more information on the TIA systems, see Kiregyera, Megill, Eding and Jose 2007. 8 2.3.3. Field work for MCA/FISP additional sample In March 2009, with funding from MCA, MINAG staff from the Directorate of Economics trained 22 enumerator candidates selected from Nampula and Zambezia Provinces (Annex 5). The training of enumerators consisted primarily in the incorporation of questions on access to land and additional pertinent questions on coconut to the standard questionnaire used for TIA 2008 (Miguel and Achicala, 2009). All of the trainees had been involved previously in the TIA surveys and were experienced enumerators. There were 9 candidates for Nampula and 13 candidates for Zambezia. The Provincial Directorate of Agriculture was involved with the logistics and also provided technical assistance, with its coconut specialist and staff from the Department of Economics. Both MSU and MCA-Mozambique had staff present at the training. 2.3.4. Data collection for MCA/FISP Using systems developed by MINAG for the TIA, data collection in Zambezia and Nampula was performed by five teams (brigadas), each comprising one supervisor (head of the brigade), three enumerators, and one driver. These teams covered the five districts in Zambezia and 2 districts in Nampula Province. Based on the survey sampling design detailed above, 15 households were selected randomly from a household listing in each of the selected enumeration areas (EA)s. There were 37 EA selected for this sample, to complement the existing TIA 2008 households. In Zambezia province, the following districts in coconut producing areas were selected: Nicoadala (5 EAs), Namacurra (5 EAs), Maganja da Costa (7 EAs), Inhassunge (6 EAs) and Chinde (2 EAs). In Nampula province, Moma (4 EAs) and Angoche (7 EAs) were selected. During the implementation of the survey, the research team observed some difficulties (Miguel and Achicala 2009). The main difficulties encountered during the fieldwork were the following: 1) household refusals to be listed for interviews in the district of Namacurra in the administrative post of Macuse (EA Mulevala and Manong), but once households were listed, none refused to participate in the interviews; 2) household refusals to be interviewed in Angoche District, EA 26, Napruma11, so another village was substituted; 3) not all land area measurement could be completed, especially for plots of rice that were reported flooded, plots found on islands without access, and plots found to be inaccessible by road or other means; and some selected EAs in which no coconut trees were found.12 With TIA 2008, data entry was conducted in the field, enabling faster verification and easier access to information for corrections to surveys. Due to logistical constraints, the data entry for the MCA/FISP survey was not conducted in the field, but rather in Maputo. This created some delays and made it more difficult to deal with possible errors, but the MINAG data entry staff were experienced with data entry and so were able to recognize and correct some errors based on previous experience. 11 In this village and on several other occasions, inhabitants mistakenly associated enumerators as people who would contaminate their village with cholera and so refused to work with them. See Miguel and Achicala 2009 in Annex 5 for greater detail. 12 See Miguel and Achicala 2009 for greater detail. 9 3. Baseline Data of Sample Villages 3.1. Sample and Population Statistics The FISP sampling was designed to represent approximately 191,000 coconut-growing households in the coconut regions of Zambezia and Nampula Province, out of a total of 1.5 million rural households in those two provinces. There were 781 completed household interviews, for an interview rate of 0.4%, and these households will be used in the tables to be created.13 In some cases, households did not currently have coconuts but did have coconuts in earlier years and had lost them due to pests and disease. Such households were retained in the sample. The sample was not designed with province as an analytical domain, so we will not be analyzing the data based on that administrative division. Analysis was conducted in STATA 10.1 (StataCorpLP, 2009), using complex survey weighting to adjust for the clustering and stratification of the sample. After the survey implementation, analysis determined that 11 households should be considered out of this sample of coconut farmers, for they did not have any coconuts and they did not indicate having had coconuts in the past. Sampling weights were adjusted to incorporate this exclusion and the resulting population numbers for each CLYD zone, by province are in Table 1. The survey is considered to represent about 191,000 households in the coconut regions of Nampula and Zambezia. 3.2. Analytical domains: CLYD zone and sex of household head for coconut farmers Given the objectives of FISP, the sample should allow for disaggregation by CLYD classification and for disaggregation by the sex of the household head and by coconut production. It was not possible to use all three criteria to design the sampling for FISP without a much larger and costly sample size. Instead, the sample selection was stratified by four CLYD zones, the key criterion based on FISP workplans and objectives. These zones were converted to three analytical CLYD zones, in collaboration with MCC and MCA staff. While the sample was not stratified by sex of the household head, in rural Mozambique, female-headed households make up about 25% of all households and so a random sample of sufficient size will capture enough of female headed households for analytical purposes. It was not possible to stratify by coconut production, due to the difficulties of designing efficient listing instruments to capture coconut production data. As detailed in Megill (2009), the variability of these key aspects was assessed using TIA 2007 data and then the sample design developed. Table 1 indicates the distribution of the FISP coconut survey based on those analytical requirements. Testing indicates that there is no significant difference between the CLYD zones for percentage of female headed households, so they are well distributed with the existing sample, as anticipated. 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE14 A preliminary examination of the coconut producing households in the project area can be found below. Key characteristics include demographics of the family, education, assets, and total income. 13 Some tables only involve a subset of households and that will be clearly indicated in the table. 14 Annex 8 provides basic output tables for the FISP Coconut Farmers Survey, complementing what can be found in the text here. 10 It is anticipated that the zones most affected by CLYD would reflect lower income and asset levels, due to losses in income with CLYD. 4.1. Introduction Table 2 presents a few key characteristics of the coconut farming households in the FISP action zones. As was expected, about 25% of households in the coconut growing region are headed by women. Looking at the total adult population, there are 53 women out of every 100 people. Among the household heads, 43% had no formal schooling, and there were no significant differences between the CLYD zones (Table 2). Looking across all household members age 10 years or greater, 42% were said to be able to read and write. Additional analysis shows that three or fewer years of schooling is strongly associated with lack of literacy in these households. 4.2. Family size and occupation The average household in the coconut zones has 4.7 people (Table 2). A typical household might have one infant, two young children, and two adults. While the average numbers vary between the regions, we found no significant differences in the means among the CLYD zones. Across the coconut zone, a minority of producing households is involved in salaried jobs or selfemployment (outside own agricultural production) (Table 3). Agriculture is the principal activity for a majority of people over 10 years of age, but there are substantial numbers of households who either do not practice agriculture or who only have agriculture as a secondary activity. Women are significantly more likely to declare agriculture as their primary activity, with 83% declaring so, and significantly fewer women indicated self-employment or salaried income. Additional analysis shows that among women household heads, fully 95% have agriculture as their main source of income. 4.3. Non-land family assets In the coconut producing households, the most common household assets are gas lantern, radio and bicycle. Land will be discussed in greater detail in a later section. The survey asked questions on both productive assets related to agriculture and then household assets such as tables and radios. Table 4 presents the results. Various assets have not been included in the table due to the extremely low number of households owning them (less than 1%). Falling into this category are cereal mills, motorcycles, trucks, cars, refrigerators and water pumps. The majority of households did have machetes and hoes. About 52% of households had axes, and another 71% had machetes. Female-headed households were also significantly less likely to have axes and machetes than maleheaded households. For the household assets and quality of housing, the majority of families have straw or thatched roofs, with only 11% having zinc or other quality roof. Only 7% of female headed households had improved roofs of zinc or other material and that was significantly lower than the 13% of maleheaded households. Improved quality roofs were distributed across the different CLYD zones. 11 Table 2 Selected characteristics of coconut growing households, by CLYD zone A 0-10% Characteristic CLYD Zone B 11-70% Testing1 C >70% Overall Household headed by women (%) Age of household head (years) 24% 43 27% 42 31% 46 25% 43 Education of Head No formal schooling (%) 1-3 years of schooling (%) 4-6 years of schooling (%) More than 6 years of schooling (%) 40% 20% 30% 10% 42% 17% 27% 15% 45% 26% 20% 8% 41% 19% 29% 11% 46% 42% 42% 45% 0.8 1.6 2.4 4.8 0.7 1.4 2.2 4.4 0.8 1.6 2.8 5.2 0.8 1.5 2.4 4.7 Literacy (% persons over 10 years of age) Household composition: Average number of members per age group Infant (<5 years) Child (5-<15 years) Adult (>=15 years) Total number of members * C > A&B Women, as a percentage of all adults, 15 years of age or older 57% 55% 54% 56% 1 Significance testing: * indicates significant difference at 10* level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 3 Sources of income: Percentage of household members with different sources, by CLYD zone CLYD zone Characteristic A B C 0-10% 11-70% >70% Women Men Overall Adults salaried employment 13% 10% 12% 12% 5% 20% Adults with self-employment income 21% 24% 17% 21% 5% 40% Adults with agriculture as main source of income 71% 69% 67% 67% 83% 55% Adults with agriculture as a second source of income 23% 23% 21% 22% 14% 33% Adults with no agricultural income 6% 8% 12% 7% 2% 12% Note: Adults are all persons age 15 and older. Testing results: For non-ag income, C>A at 5% level. Otherwise for CLYD zones, no significant differences. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 12 Table 4 Percentage of households owning various assets, by CLYD zone CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% Asset Sickle Machete Ax 15% 73% 56% 7% 70% 48% Testing >70% Overall 4% 60% 45% 12% 71% 52% Household assets Kerosene Lantern 61% 60% 62% 61% Radio 47% 44% 40% 46% Bicycle 53% 45% 30% 49% ** A > C Latrine 18% 15% 16% 17% Table 44% 44% 47% 44% Improved roof 15% 12% 11% 14% Improved cereal storage 3% 7% 8% 4% Note: Improved roof includes zinc, lusalite, tiles, or metal sheets. Testing: ** indicates significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 4.4. Livestock assets Livestock ownership often helps to indicate the wealth of a household, but can also be important in terms of income earning potential. Here we look at the stock of livestock assets and in Chapter 5, we will discuss the income aspects. Chickens and ducks are widely spread throughout the four CLYD zones (Table 5). Few households have cattle or cows, and those households are mainly in the 0% CLYD zones. For the most affected CLYD zones, sheep, cattle and pigs are virtually nonexistent among these coconut farmers. To be able to view total livestock ownership across the different types, FAO (2009) has developed standards to convert animals into a “tropical livestock unit” (TLU). When examining the households that own these different animals and poultry, it can be seen that the average household ownership is low. As can be seen in Table 6, there is variability across the different CLYD zones, and the 11-70% CLYD zone has significantly lower TLU per household than the other zones. 4.5. Farm size Land area measurement is one of the most difficult things to accomplish in Mozambique and farmers often do not have an accurate sense of land area in terms of hectares. In this work, 25% of the households have plots measured by the enumerators to get a sense of land area and for the rest, farmer estimates are used, with some adjustments based on comparison between stated area and measured area (see Mather, Cunguara and Boughton, 2008 for more details.) 13 Table 5 Percentage of farmers owning each type of livestock Livestock Cattle/cows Goats Sheep Pigs Chickens Rabbits Ducks Guinea Fowl 0-10% 23% 15% 6% 1% 63% 0% 22% 1% CLYD zone 11-70% >70% (% of farmers owning) 0% 1% 9% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 63% 69% 0% 1% 17% 18% 1% 1% Overall Testing 2% 14% 4% 1% 64% 0% 21% 1% * B<C ** A>B Notes: Testing: * indicates significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 6 Average number of livestock owned, by type of livestock and CLYD zone, only for farmers owning that livestock Livestock Cattle/cows Goats Sheep Pigs Chickens Rabbits Ducks Guinea Fowl CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Overall (mean number owned among farmers owning) 5.5 5.9 5.5 4.3 5.0 5.3 4.6 3.6 -* 3.9 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.9 6.3 2.0 2.0 5.4 4.6 4.3 5.2 6.7 3.4 5.2 5.9 Tropical Livestock units (TLU) All farmers 0.19 Livestock owners 0.29 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.24 Note: * Only one household had sheep in CLYD zone 11-70%. TLU are estimated using FAO conversion units: cattle=0.5; pigs=0.2; sheep & goats=0.1; poultry=0.01; and rabbits=0.02. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 14 There is a particular challenge with these data as related to coconuts. The word in Portuguese machamba generally refers to a cultivated plot and farmers view it as those plots with annual crops (intercropped with trees or not). Enumerators are trained to ensure that orchards and plantationstyle plots with trees are included as machambas but there is a possibility of under-counting for such plots. In addition, the estimation of cultivated area excludes the homestead area (where the house is located), a logical exclusion. Since coconuts are often found scattered around the homestead land15, it also means an underestimate of cultivated land and land planted to coconuts. Another complication on land area to coconuts was observed during the rapid appraisal (Payongayong 2008). Coconuts may be found on land to which the farmer does not have cultivation rights and coconuts may be scattered, alongside irrigated plots of rice or elsewhere. While the trees are counted, the land area is not estimated. These aspects will become critically important when we look at intercropping and coconuts. As found by Walker et al (2004), farmers in Mozambique on average cultivate 1.5 ha, and rarely exceed 2 hectares and we find similarly small land areas in this study in Zambezia and Nampula coconut zones (Table 7). For land ownership, we also looked at male and female-headed households.16 Female-headed households have lower average landholdings and cultivated areas than male-headed households. Table 7 Total farm size and cultivated area, by CLYD Zone and gender of household head Mean area by gender of head CLYD Zone Total farm size Cultivated area Median Mean (hectares) Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval] (hectares) Male Female (hectares) 0-10% 11%-70% >70% Overall 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.81 0.53 0.60 0.77 1.26 0.94 0.98 1.10 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0-10% 10%-70% >70% 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.44 0.55 0.71 1.16 0.88 0.88 1.01 1.1 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 Overall Testing: Significant differences found between male and female headed household for total land area and cultivated land area. For these variables, the 0-10% CLYD zone was significantly higher than the 11-70% CLYD zone, at the 5% level. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 15 See Payongayong 2008, found in Annex 3 to this document. 16 In this baseline report, we focus on CLYD zonal issues. Clearly there is substantial work that can be done in the future with analysis by gender of household head. 15 Figure 1 demonstrates graphically what the numbers in the table tell us: the vast majority of Mozambican smallholders have very little land, less than 2 hectares per household. This has implications for agriculturally based strategies to reduce poverty. 0 .2 Density .4 .6 .8 Figure 1 Farm size distribution, in hectares 0 5 10 Total area (ha) 15 20 Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Table 8 Average number of trees per household, by land size category Farm size Average number of coconut trees per household less than 0.75ha 0.75-1.745 ha 1.75-5.00 ha More than 5.00 Total 25 31 34 32 29 Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. While we cannot estimate land area specifically in coconuts, we did look at the average number of trees per household, based on total land estimates for the household (Table 8). It is surprising that the average number of tress remains fairly constant, regardless of the total land area available to the farmer. We will examine coconut tree stocks in more detail later in this report. 16 4.6. Land ownership and titling17 The household head was asked if anyone in the household was familiar with the Land Law, and only 16% of heads indicated that at least one person in the household was familiar with the law. For female-headed households, only 5% responded positively, a significantly lower percentage than for male-headed households. When comparing the responses for the CLYD zones, the highest incidence zone had significantly fewer households with knowledge of the land law, compared to the other zones (Table 9). Various questions were asked at a plot level within each household to assess the sense of security of land tenure for that plot. Only one household in the sample had a plot with a title. About 2% of the plots had other documents to demonstrate the households’ land use rights, of which one half were in the 0% CLYD zone. Table 9 indicates the source of the land use rights, at a plot level for the 2071 plots in the sample. As can be seen, occupying land, obtaining through parents, and inheriting it from parents after their deaths are the most important ways to obtain use rights, regardless of gender of the heads or CLYD zone. When asked further about whether the household had ever thought of getting a title for the plot, the households had considered getting the land title for 12% of the plots (Table 10). Among femaleheaded households, only for 5% of plots had titling been considered. For households who had thought of getting a title, the most frequent response for failing to do so was the lack of information on how to arrange it and the second most common response was lack of money. Female-headed households were more likely to mention their lack of knowledge on where to get a title than maleheaded households. There were conflicts over land tenure for 4% of the plots (Table 11). About 56% of these conflicts were concerning the errors in the ownership boundaries or in demarcation of the plot, although a few plots had inheritance issues, sales to more than one person, lack of proper community input and other reasons. Neighbors were the main source of conflict in 57% of land conflicts; private firms were the source of conflict in 17%, while relatives were involved in 8% of conflicts. There were no significant differences between the zones for presence of a conflict. While we do not present the data in Table 11, household heads indicated the potential for future tenure conflicts for about 4% of the plots, and the two most cited agents with whom conflicts were anticipated were neighbors and private firms. There are no significant differences between the CLYD zones on these responses, and looking at sex of the household head, there are no significant differences.18 17 Several land questions concerning the Land Law were asked in an additional Survey Annex sheet (see last page of Annex 6). The Annex was prepared in time to include in the MCA/FISP survey, but revisits to households have been required for the TIA 2008 households. Data for the TIA 2008 households will only be available later in 2010. 18 There are only 31 plots for which women-headed households indicated concerns about future conflicts, thus limiting our ability to make inferences. 17 Table 9 Source of land use rights CLYD zone Source of Tenure Authorized by traditional leaders Authorized by Government authorities Given by parents Rented Loaned Occupied land Purchased Inherited Others 0-10% 11-70% 2% 2% 23% 1% 9% 25% 13% 25% 1% 2% 4% 24% 1% 2% 27% 11% 25% - >70% Overall % of households 0% 2% 5% 3% 18% 23% 1% 2% 4% 7% 28% 26% 11% 12% 34% 26% 0% 0% Male headed hhs Female headed hhs 2% 2% 22% 2% 7% 25% 13% 25% 1% 2% 5% 25% 0% 5% 27% 9% 27% 0% Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 10 Land law and titling issues, by CLYD zone and sex of head CLYD zone Land aspect 0-10% 11-70% >70% 20% 14% 10% na 15% na 8% na 9% 2% 12% 44% 15% 34% 9% 38% 22% 74% 9% 7% 41% 18% 30% 3% 4% 23% 7% 0% 9% 6% 5% Someone familiar with land law Have some document indicating use rights Considered getting a title If considered, why not get a title? Not know how Not know where No money Do not need it Other Testing CLYD Overall zones % of households 17% % of plots ** A>B ** B<A,C ** B>A,C ** A>C; *B>C Male headed hhs Female headed hhs 19% 5% 2% 15% 2% 5% 41% 14% 33% 38% 62% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% Note: Total of 2074 plots evaluated. “na” indicates not applicable, too few cases to evaluate. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 18 Table 11 Percentage of plots for which there was conflict, reasons and sources of conflict, by sex of household head Land aspect Someone had a conflict over plot If conflict, with whom? Traditional authorities Formal authorities Family members Neighbors Firms Others If conflict, over what? Boundaries Inheritance problems Deficient land demarcations Sales to more than 1 person Community leaders not properly consulted Other reasons Overall Male headed Female headed hhs hhs % of plots 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 8% 57% 17% 17% 1% 1% 6% 56% 19% 17% 0% 0% 14% 60% 6% 20% 49% 10% 7% 2% 47% 9% 9% 2% 56% 14% 0% 0% 2% 31% 2% 31% 1% 29% Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 5. HOUSEHOLD INCOME Households earn income from a range of sources and in a dynamic rural economy there are strong linkages between agricultural and non-agricultural incomes and income growth. The income estimates for the cropping year 2007/2008 are presented in Table 12, with additional details in Table 25 (income coconuts) and Table 28 (income from more specific crop categories). For this work, a full income approach is used. This includes valuing all crop production whether for sales or home consumption. Cash inputs, such as hired labor and purchased seeds and fertilizers are deducted from crop production. For more information on TIA income estimates, see Mather et al (2008). 5.1. Gross revenue for agricultural commodities and livestock Based on reported crop production and declared prices for agricultural commodities, the average and median value of production can be estimated. As seen in Table 12, the zones most affected by CLYD have significantly lower crop income. With this cross-sectional data, we are unable to attribute causality for lowered incomes to CLYD, although it seems a logical conclusion. Only 24% of the households have sold livestock or livestock subproducts (eggs, milk, etc.), and the highest values are in the 0-10% CLYD zones. In Table 12, values are reported across all households (including 0 values) and then just for households with some sales to get a sense of how important such sales could be for those participating in the activity. 5.2. Non-agricultural income There are various sources of non-agricultural income which can be estimated for these rural households. Here, the following sources are combined: 1) salaries and wages; 2) income from non19 farm self-employment activities; 3) retirement, remittances and other transfers; and 4) rental of land or other assets. For the TIA and hence for this work as well, there are challenges in estimating the net income from non-farm activities, especially from self-employment activities. For example, large investments (such as machinery) may all be attributed to a single year or inputs may be spread across outputs that are not yet sold. 5.3. Total family income Using the full income approach (valuing all production, regardless of whether consumed in the home or marketed), the average across the coconut farmers is about 2542 meticais per capita annually in current values (US$85 using 30 MTN per dollar) (Table 12). As is expected, the distribution is skewed, and the median value is lower, at 1572 meticais per capita annually.19 The highest CLYD zone has average income that is significantly lower than the 0-10% CLYD zone and the 11-70% CLYD zone. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the total incomes for each CLYD zones. The distribution for the highest CLYD zone is clearly more skewed to the left, the lower income levels, compared to the other two CLYD zones. 5.3.1. Total family income, comparing MCA/FISP households to TIA 2008 in the sample Since there were six months between the data collection for TIA 2008 and for MCA/FISP, we examined total income estimates to see if there were significant differences between the two samples. For total income and income per capita, there are no significant differences overall. As mentioned earlier, a key aspect in this baseline analysis is whether the coconut income shows signs of bias due to the timing of surveys and that will be evaluated in Chapter 6. 19 Researchers are still evaluating the prices chosen for valuation as well as others aspects with income, thus of interest is the relative values, rather than the absolute levels of the income estimates. 20 Table 12 Household income for cropping year 2007/2008 (in meticais), by CLYD zone Income Measure 0-10% Total value of agricultural production For all HHs Mean 7955 Median 4727 CLYD zone 11-70% >70% Overall (value in Meticais) 6682 4538 4311 2839 7349 4491 Testing ** A, B >C Total value of livestock and sub-product sales For all HHs Mean Median 471 0 84 0 148 0 348 0 Mean Median 1864 225 397 150 704 200 1455 200 Mean Median 6467 1080 5810 1200 4714 1000 6163 1090 Mean Median 9876 3510 8810 3534 6949 3000 9368 3510 Mean Median 11542 6691 10613 7149 7965 5034 11026 6734 ** A, B > C Total Income per capita 1 For all HHS Mean Median 2591 1512 2614 1887 1886 1278 2542 1572 ** A, B > C For HHs w/livestock sales Total nonfarm income For all HHS 1 For HHs with nonfarm income Total Income 1 For all HHs 1 One household with nonfarm income of 251,000 MTN was excluded as it was highly influential and clearly not common. Estimates for all households unless indicated otherwise. HHS means households. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 21 Figure 2 Distribution of Income per capita, by CLYD zone B:11-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20 C:>70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0 5 10 15 Percent 5 10 15 20 A:0-10% CLYD May 2008 RA 0 5000 10000 15000 Total income Graphs by class Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. 6. CHARACTERISTICS OF COCONUT TREES AND COCONUT ECONOMY 6.1. Household coconut tree stocks Each household was asked about their coconut trees. Smallholder “ownership” of a tree may come about in various ways in rural Mozambique. Trees may be in farmers’ fields, where the farmer has a title or other form of use right (legal or customary). Trees may also be along the roads or paths or near the homestead, or a farmer may have planted the tree in public space, such that customary use is identified with a particular family or person and thus part of the household stock of trees. Using the baseline survey data, total tree stocks among the smallholders are estimated to be 5.5 million trees in the study zone, although the variability in the sample is high, especially in the 0-10% CLYD zone, as seen in the confidence interval estimates in Table 13. This is also true with the declared smallholder productive stock at about 4.24 million trees, so analysis on these stocks should take into account the distribution of values. For households who had coconut trees at the time of the interview, the average number of trees across all regions was 24, ranging from an average of 21 in the highest CLYD zone to 42 trees in the zone with 11-70% CLYD (Table 14). The lowest average number of trees was in the highest CLYD zone, as might be expected, but was only slightly lower than for the lowest CLYD zone. Since the distributions are skewed, the median might be more appropriate to examine and use in economic evaluations: overall median of 12 trees ranging from 9 in the highest CLYD zone to 20 in the zone with 11-70% CLYD. 22 Table 13 Coconut trees: estimated stock and productive stock of trees CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Total CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Total Estimated total stock of coconut trees (000s of trees) Total Trees S.E. 95% Confidence interval 3, 250 931 1,396 5,100 1,995 536 927 3,064 228 54 120 335 DEFF 10.9 1.6 0.5 DEFT 3.3 1.3 0.7 7,615 4.8 2.2 Estimated stock of productive coconut trees, 2007/2008 Total Trees S.E. 95% Confidence interval 2,592 795 1009 4175 1,546 475 600 2,493 104 27 51 158 4,243 926 2,398 6,088 DEFF 9.7 1.5 0.3 4.2 DEFT 3.1 1.2 0.6 2.1 5,473 1,075 3,331 Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 14 Coconut trees per household for households with coconut trees, by CLYD zone Number of coconut trees owned by household 1 DEFF DEFT CLYD zone Median Mean S.E. Mean 95% Confidence interval 0-10% 10 25 4.4 17.2 33.7 3.8 2.0 11-70% 20 42 11.1 19.9 64.2 1.7 1.3 >70% 9 21 5.0 10.9 30.8 0.6 0.8 12 24 3.8 21.8 37.0 2.1 1.5 Total 1 Ownership refers to the farmer's perceived ownership. It may be based on customary rights to harvest coconuts from the trees, or based on trees located on property for which farmer has use rights or title. Calculated for households with coconut trees. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 15 Productive coconut trees per household for households with coconut trees, by CLYD zone, based on 2007/8 season Number of productive coconut trees owned by household 1 95% Confidence interval DEFF DEFT CLYD zone Median Mean S.E. of Mean 0-10% 7 20 3.8 12.8 27.8 3.8 2.0 11-70% 13 33 10.0 12.7 52.5 1.6 1.3 >70% 2 10 3.1 3.5 15.7 0.6 0.8 7 23 3.5 15.8 29.8 2.1 1.4 Total 1 Ownership refers to the farmer's perceived ownership. It may be based on customary rights to harvest coconuts from the trees, or based on trees located on property for which farmer has use rights or title. Testing: Significant differences in mean productive trees: ** A, B > C. ** indicates significant at 5% level. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 23 Looking at issues related to production and incomes, it may be more important to examine the number of productive trees for each household. As expected, the number of productive trees is lower than the total number of trees, with an average of 23 trees for 2007/2008 season (Table 15). Once again, due to skewness of the distribution with a few producers with high numbers, the median stated for the households may better reflect the population. With only 7 producing trees per household across the zones, only in the intermediate CLYD zones does the number reach a median of 13 trees per household. 6.2. Coconuts and intercropped plots As indicated in Chapter 4, land area in coconuts is difficult to estimate. There are, however, a total of 60 plots (out of 2,100 plots) that have a combination of coconuts and other crops for which we have information. Analysis of these plots may provide some insights, but researchers recognize that coconuts in Zambezia and Nampula Provinces are most commonly found outside the boundaries of such plots. In addition, intercropping may occur on borrowed plots containing coconut trees. In this case, farmers are basically laborers on a plantation, with no rights to the coconuts, but they can plant other things with intercropping, such that farmers may have more experience with intercropping than considered in these 60 plots. The analysis for this section is based on a combination of information from sections F, E, and M of the FISP survey. The analysis indicates that: 1. 8% of farmers who own coconut trees are interested in acquiring land title, mostly under the high CLYD zone (Table 16), 2. The plots with coconut trees are equally distributed between upland areas and lowland areas. In both cases the major concentration of plots with coconut trees is under regions with 0% CLYD, 3. Plots in zones with lower CLYD incidence tend to be located farther away from farmers’ houses than those in the zones with higher incidence of CLYD. 4. No investments in irrigation or other aspects were made in these intercropped plots with coconut trees. Table 16 Proportion of farmers with intercropped coconut plots who are interested in having land title, by CLYD zone Interested on having land title Yes No Total Proportions of plots by CLYD zone 0-10% 7% 55% >10%-70% 0% 30% >70% 1% 4% Total 8% 92% 65% 30% 5% 100% Analysis limited to farmers possessing plots identified as having coconuts and crops (60 farmers and 60 plots). Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. 24 Table 17 Location of coconut intercropped plots, by CLYD zone Location Upland fields Lowland fields Total over 60 plots 0-10% 31% 35% CLYD zone >10%-70% 11% 18% >70% 4% 1% Total 46% 54% 65% 30% 5% 100% Traveling time (hours) 0.8 0.5 0.2 Analysis limited to 60 plots having coconuts and crops. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. 0.7 Table 17 indicates the placement of the fields and the distance from homes. There is little difference between the zones, and plots average less than 1 hour walking time from the homestead. Results in Table 18 indicate that in general, farmers acquired plots where they grow coconut trees at least one decade ago, and mostly were ceded by their parents, occupied or inherited. One important aspect to note is that 12% of the plots with coconut trees were purchased; this is clear indication that there is land market developing in the region. Unfortunately we cannot say where they did purchase the land, but purchases indicate the development of informal land markets. Table 18 Coconut intercropped plots by years of possession and source of use rights, by CLYD Zone Time of possession* (years) CLYD zone 0-10% 11%-70% 15 12 >70% 11 Total 13 Source of land use rights** Ceded by traditional authorities 3% 4% 0% 7% Ceded by formal authorities 0% 0% 1% 1% Ceded by parents 19% 11% 1% 31% Occupied 19% 5% 2% 26% Purchased 7% 5% 1% 12% Inherited 18% 6% 0% 24% Total 65% 30% 5% 100% *Number of obs = 37, **Number of obs = 60. Only coconut intercropped plots considered (60 plots). Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population*base is 2009 Farmers reported being involved in land conflict for only 5% of the plots (Table 19), and there was insufficient information to evaluate the type of conflict, the time when it started and ended. Farmers expressed some concern of having land conflict in future. It is unclear if the presence of coconuts helps to establish use rights and that resulted in the low number of conflicts. 25 Table 19 Proportion of coconut intercropped plots with land conflict and that expect conflict in future, by CLYD Zone Land conflict Concerned about land conflict in future Yes No Total Yes No Total 0-10% 2% 63% 65% 3% 62% 65% CLYD Zone 11%-70% 3% 27% 30% 3% 27% 30% >70% 0% 5% 5% 0% 5% 5% Total 5% 95% 100% 6% 94% 100% Only coconut intercropped plots considered (60 plots). Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. 6.3. Percent of coconut tree stock infected with disease The survey included households in the coconut zone who once had coconut trees and no longer have them. Within the sample, 75 of 771 households indicated previous ownership with loss of trees. When weighted according to population statistics, this is only 3.4% of the farmers in the coconut zones. As can be expected, the majority of these households (60% of them) can be found in the highest incidence CLYD zone, with greater than 70% CLYD, and another 23% are in the 1170% CLYD zone, providing evidence that the classification of zones makes sense. Within the highest incidence CLYD zone, fully 26% of the households indicated that they had once had coconut trees and now had none, due to plant diseases and pests. All of the sample households that no longer have coconut trees identified CLYD as a cause of death of the trees, and about 1/3 of the sample households identified rhinoceros beetle as a problem as well. When asked about how many trees had been affected by the disease, the time frame was not the same recall period and so it would not be justified to calculate a percentage of trees affected in the 2007/2008 period. 6.4. CLYD identification During the rapid appraisal, it became apparent that farmers were generally able to identify the CLYD, especially in the later stages, and so they were asked several questions concerning the disease and its impact, as well as that of rhinoceros beetles. When asking those households with coconut trees if any trees had been affected by CLYD in the previous 12 months (prior to the survey), 38% of all households indicated that they had affected trees (Table 20). For households that still have coconut trees, 90% of the households in the highest CLYD zone identified the loss of coconut trees due to CLYD. Even in the zones classified as 0-10% CLYD in the rapid appraisal of 2008, 29% of households indicated that they had lost at least some trees due to CLYD.20 When asked how many trees had died due to CLYD, the counts ran from 1 to 952 trees, with an average of 24 trees and a median of 5 trees, with the highest losses in the highest CLYD zone. It is interesting to note that even in the 0-10% CLYD zone, trees were mostly taken down by the farmers themselves (Table 20). 20 It will be important for researchers to look carefully to understand if the farmers mis-identified CLYD or if the disease spread since the 2008 Rapid Appraisal. 26 Table 20 Percentage of farmers indicating disease problems and treatment of dead trees, among farmers with coconut trees CLYD zone Responses Farmers citing loss of productivity of trees due to any tree disease Farmers citing death of a tree due to CLYD Farmers indicating that trees were taken down and burned1 If trees destroyed, by whom? Self NGO Private firm Others (neighbors, relatives) Testing for CLYD zones Maleheaded Femaleheaded 0-10% A 11-70% B >70% Overall C % of households 34% 47% 68% 39% ** A<C; * B<C 42% 33% 29% 48% 90% 38% **A,B <C 42% 28% 40% 42% 32% 39% 43% 27% 86% 0% 3% 11% 81% 3% 4% 11% 85% 1% 10% 4% 84% 1% 4% 10% 85% 1% 5% 8% 77% 0% 5% 18% 1 Only for farmers indicating having had problems with CLYD. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. As indicated in Eden-Green (2008), rhinoceros beetles are also a threat to the coconut trees in Zambezia and Nampula Provinces. This question was only asked within the MCA/FISP sample of households, so only 65% of the sample is included in the analysis. In the MCA/FISP coconut growers’ survey, some 30% of households indicated that rhinoceros beetles had killed at least one of their coconut trees, and on average 6 trees (median of 3 trees) were killed. These numbers should be used with caution due to the linkages between CLYD, beetles, and problems with identification of cause of death, as well as the lack of information from the TIA 2008 survey. 6.5. Tree removal practices Eden-Green’s work highlights the critical need to take out diseased and dead trees as they are hosts for the rhinoceros beetle, which also can feast off new plantings and kill them. For those households that indicated tree deaths due to CLYD, only 40% of farm households with coconut trees responded that affected trees had been taken down and burned (Table 20). There were no significant differences in this percentage across the CLYD zones; however, female-headed households were less likely to have taken them down, with only 27% of households indicating removal, whereas among male-headed households, 43% indicated removal. Of those with destruction of the trees, 84% had done the work themselves, rather than the work being done by others. 27 6.6. Production and Income from coconuts and related products Coconuts are used for both home consumption and sales of a range of products (Table 21 and Table 22). Green coconuts are eaten fresh, first drinking the coconut water and then eating the tender pulp inside. Sura is a traditional alcoholic beverage made from an extract of the coconut tree itself (not from the nuts), and extracted in such way that it prevents the formation of the nuts. Copra is the dried white flesh of the coconut, from which coconut oil is extracted. Coconuts may be sold for industrial use or for family consumption, but copra is generally produced for sales directly to industry. As seen in Table 21, the zones with the highest CLYD have the lowest participation in each of the products. For example, only 38% of coconut households in the highest CLYD zone harvested coconuts and only 5% participated in producing copra in a zone that previously would have been very active in coconut and copra. The average production and sales of copra is still high in the highest CLYD zone, for those households with trees still in production. Female headed households were significantly more likely to produce sura than male-headed households, but for the other commodities, there were no significant differences. Table 21 Percentage of farmers in a given zone that harvested or produced selected coconut products, by CLYD zone CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Total Green coconut 63% 74% 35% Coconut 80% 83% 38% Copra 1 8% 21% 5% Sura 2 3% 7% 2% 64% 77% 11% 4% 1 Copra is the dried white flesh of the coconut, used for extracting coconut oil. 2 "Sura" is an alcoholic beverage made from extract from the coconut plant. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 22 Percentage of farmers in a given zone that sold selected coconut products, by CLYD zone 1 CLYD zone 0% CLYD 11-70% >70% Total Green coconut 20% 19% 13% 19% Coconut 43% 55% 42% 46% Copra 2 93% 100% 100% 96% 1 Percentage based on household producing or harvesting the commodity. 2 Copra is the dried white flesh of the coconut, used for extracting coconut oil. Sura 3 71% 84% 10% 73% 3 "Sura" is an alcoholic beverage made from extract from the coconut plant. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 28 Table 23 Coconut quantities produced and quantities sold (in kgs), per household, by CLYD zone CLYD zone Median Mean S.E. of Mean 95% Confidence interval DEFF DEFT Avereage quantities of coconut produced, across all households producing coconuts 0-10% 48 105 15 74 135 3.97 11-70% 44 136 47 41 230 3.94 >70% 33 64 15 34 94 0.23 40 112 16 79 144 3.55 Total 2.00 1.99 0.48 1.88 Average quantities of coconut sold, across all households producing coconuts 0-10% 43 9 26 60 11-70% 73 33 8 138 >70% 12 6 0 24 48 10 29 68 Total 2.99 3.85 0.39 3.20 1.73 1.96 0.62 1.79 Average quantities of coconuts sold, over households selling coconuts 0-10% 66 125 20 85 165 11-70% 66 160 63 35 286 >70% 32 78 25 28 127 66 135 24 87 183 Total 2.40 3.04 0.18 2.68 1.55 1.74 0.42 1.64 Notes: Production estimates based on households producing; sales estimates based on household producing and on just households selling. Based on coconuts sold as coconuts and does not include coconuts sold in other forms (sura, lanho, etc.) Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 24 Copra quantities sold, per household (in kgs), by CLYD zone CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Total Median 94 94 141 94 Mean 177 100 183 139 S.E. of Mean 50 11 43 23 95% Confidence interval 77 276 77 123 95 271 91 187 DEFF 1.50 0.90 0.29 1.38 DEFT 1.22 0.95 0.53 1.17 Notes: Sales estimates based on households producing and selling. Almost all copra is sold, and thus there are no significant differences between production and sales, and only sales information reported. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. As can be seen in Tables 22 and 23, copra is produced for marketed sales for industrial purposes. Sura is also produced for local sales. Green coconut is most likely to be consumed at home, rather than sold. 29 For production and sales quantities, we will focus on the total value of sales of coconuts and copra.21 As with income, the distribution is skewed (Figure 3), with many households with low income, and a few households with relatively high income, so both the weighted average (mean) and the weighted median are presented, differentiating between using all households and using only households who sold at least some coconut products. As expected, coconut income in 2007/2008 was much lower in the highest CLYD zone than in the other zones, although coconut income is still an important part of household incomes (Table 25). This reflects the lower overall income earned by households in the highest CLYD zone. 0 500 MTN per household 1,000 1,500 2,000 Figure 3 Household level coconut product sales value, by CLYD zone, mean and median values (MTN), only using households that sell 0-10% 11-70% Mean >70% Median Note: Estimates are weighted by population. Income includes green coconuts, mature coconuts, and copra, excluding sura. Only households selling some coconut products are included. Source: Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 21 Data for sura is being analyzed and it was excluded to avoid double counting. 30 Table 25 Household income from coconut sales (in MTN) and percentage of income from coconuts, by CLYD Income Measure 0-10% A CLYD zone 11-70% >70% Overall B C (value in Meticais) Testing Total value of coconut product sales All HHs HHs selling coconut products Mean Median Mean Median Sample N 655 0 945 128 170 0 691 0 1738 826 139 1771 739 103 1043 503 44 1727 800 286 ** A>C; * B>C **A>C * B>C Percentage total income from coconuts for households selling coconuts (% of total income) HHs selling coconut products Mean 15% 18% 15% 16% Median 11% 9% 10% 11% Estimates for all households unless indicated otherwise. HHs means households. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008, Estimates weighted to reflect population. 6.6.1. Household coconut income, comparing MCA/FISP households to TIA 2008 in the sample As discussed briefly in the income section, there is a need to evaluate whether or not the two survey periods result in any data bias. The MCA/FISP survey took place during and after a key period of the year for coconut product sales, whereas the TIA 2008 survey took place six months earlier. Did the MCA/FISP households indicate higher incomes because they looked at a recent sales period rather than the 2007/2008 season? Enumerators were trained to avoid these problems. Table 26 presents the results of an examination of coconut product incomes, both total income at the household level and the percentage of income coming from coconuts. 31 Table 26 Comparison of coconut sales values for MCA/FISP and TIA 2008 samples, by CLYD zone, for farmers selling coconuts and copra Income Measure 0-10% A CLYD zone 11-70% >70% B C Overall Testing Total income from coconut products for households selling coconuts (value in meticais) TIA 2008 sample Mean 1156 3039 1 2149 681 36 1855 865 103 1200 43 994 510 60 1 MCA/FISP sample Median sample N Mean Median sample N 878 81 1594 800 205 2 1333 758 42 ** A>B,C Percentage total income from coconuts for households selling coconuts (% of total income) TIA 2008 sample Mean Median 11% 6% 23% 1 17% 17% 1 10% MCA/FISP sample Mean 16% 15% 18% 16% Median 12% 5% 14% 11% 1 Only 2 households in TIA 2008 in this category, so not reported. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 7. CROPPING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 7.1. Agricultural activities potentially important to the FISP project Producers in the coconut zones crop a range of commodities, but there is variability among the CLYD zones (Table 27). Both rice and cassava are key crops in the coconut zones. Cassava is grown by 86% of the smallholders in the coconut region, reaching 95% in the zones of highest CLYD incidence. Sweet potatoes are also commonly grown in the zones with CLYD, reaching 47% of households in both zones with greater than 10% CLYD. Total quantities of each produced, however, are largest in the in lower CLYD zones. With regard to the cash crops from the TIA22, only a few households in the 0-10% CLYD zone cultivate cotton and sesame. In the zone with greater than 70% CLYD, none of these crops were grown by smallholders in the 2007/2008 season. For the types of crops likely to be included for diversification and intercropping, the average mad median household income was estimated and is presented in Table 28. Roots and tubers are the 22 The cash crops included are cotton, tobacco, sisal, tea, sugarcane, sunflower, sesame, soy, paprika and ginger. 32 most important across the three zones. Beans and groundnuts are significantly more valuable a source on income in the 0-10% CLYD zone than in the other zones.23 Table 27 Percentage of farmers growing crops, by CLYD zone Crop Maize Rice Sorghum Millet Large Groundnuts Small Groundnuts 0-10% 38% 60% 4% 1% 6% 38% CLYD zone 11-70% >70% 33% 37% 91% 72% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 13% 9% Overall 37% 69% 3% 1% 5% 29% Testing *A>B **A>B,C **A<B ** A>C Pulses Common beans Cowpeas Earth pea "jugo" Pigeon pea Mung beans 1% 47% 23% 25% 5% 6% 52% 2% 8% 2% 0% 65% 10% 3% 16% 2% 49% 16% 19% 5% *A<B **A<C **A>B,C **A>B,C *B<C Roots and Tubers Cassava 83% 81% 94% 83% **B<C *A<C 3% 1% 2% 3% 32% 47% 47% 37% *A<C 3% 9% 0% 16% 0% 8% 2% 11% ** B>C Orange-fleshed sweet potato White fleshed sweet potato Cash crops 1 Sesame Sugar cane 1 Cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, paprika, and soybeans, were not grown in this region. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 23 The data can be further disaggregated for purposes of FISP programming. 33 Table 28 Income from selected crops, net of cash inputs, all households, by CLYD zone Income Measure 0-10% CLYD zone 11-70% >70% Total value of cereals production (net cots of cash inputs) Mean 1506 1321 950 Median 525 764 419 Overall Testing 1416 605 Total value of beans and groundnuts production (net cost of cash inputs) Mean Median 645 150 184 20 140 23 488 88 ** A>B,C Total value of roots and tubers production (net cost of cash income) Mean 3750 3623 2849 3648 Median 1393 1524 1290 1403 Total value of fruits and vegetables (net cost of cash income) Mean 427 76 34 Median 0 0 0 308 0 Estimates for all households unless indicated otherwise. HHS means households Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 7.2. Extension Services Given the agricultural base of the economy in these coconut zones, farmers need access to information on production technology, diversification strategies, and ways to counteract pests and diseases. The public extension services have not been able to reach many producers and the survey does not indicate a strong NGO presence for the cropping year 2007/2008. Thus, only 7% of farmers indicate that they or someone in the household received extension information or advice (Table 29). It was not uncommon for both men and women to receive advice. Most often the information concerned agriculture (Table 30), and in the 0-10% CLYD zone, livestock and processing information was also received. Market information seemed to be concentrated in the 11-70% CLYD zone. 34 Table 29 Households receiving information or advice from an extension agent, by CLYD zone CLYD zone 0% CLYD 11-70% >70% Overall A B C Received extension info 8% 5% 3% 7% Testing Of those receiving, gender of person receiving Men Women Both 29% 23% 48% 52% 9% 39% 28% 20% 52% 33% 21% 46% * A>C Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Table 30 Sector for which information or advice received, for households receiving information CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Overall Agriculture 100% 96% 100% 99% Sector for which information or advice received Livestock Forestry Fish farming Processing 22% 2% 2% 6% 14% 1% 0% 0% 18% 9% 0% 0% 21% 2% 2% 4% Markets 6% 39% 0% 12% Testing was completed and no significant differences found between CLYD zones. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. Extension agents are increasingly being asked to assist farmers with the marketing of their products, whether providing information on possible markets, commodities with good sales potential, or prices for commodities. The survey asked specifically about the receipt of market price information and we found that this information was received by about 30% of the coconut farmers in the region (Table 31). Radio was the most common single source of information Table 31). One of the radio sources is the MINAG Sistema de Informação de Mercados Agrícolas (SIMA) and its Nampula provincial SIMAP have broadcast market price information on national and local stations, although not consistently in 2008. 35 Table 31 Percentage of farmers receiving price information and source of information, by CLYD zone CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Overall A B C Received any price info 34% 19% 29% 30% Radio 57% 51% 54% 55% For farmers receiving price information, the source of the information Association Extension Publications NGO 16% 9% 11% 6% 14% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 5% 0% 14% 7% 10% 4% Other 37% 51% 49% 40% Testing * A>B ** A>C Note: Farmers could have more than one source of information. Others include friends and traders, among others. Testing: * indicates significant difference at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level. If not noted, no significant differences found. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 7.3. Crops grown, intercropped with coconut trees While the number of plots for analysis is limited to 60, as explained above, it is valuable to look at the crops that can by found intercropped with coconut trees in these plots. Table 32 indicates that rice and cassava are the commonly grown crops in the study area, grown in a total of 26% and 30% of plots in the area, respectively. The second group of crops comprises maize, cowpea and pigeon peas grown in less than 10% of the intercropped plots in the study area, with concentration in the CLYD zones. Table 32 Percentage of plots growing specific crops, by CLYD zone Crops 0-10% Maize 4% Rice 14% Sorghum 1% Groundnut (large seed) 1% Groundnut (small seed) 6% Cowpea 5% Bambara nut 4% Pigeon pea 4% Cassava 19% Sweet potato 3% Cane 0% Pumpkin 1% Cucumber 0% Total 70% Number of obs = 3219 CLYD Zone >10-70% >70% 1% 0% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 8% Overall 7% 26% 1% 1% 7% 8% 4% 6% 30% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% Note: These are intercropped plots, so more than one crop on a plot. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 36 Results in Table 33 indicate that in the 60 plots with coconut trees, the number of crops that coconut trees are intercropped with range from one to seven, with major proportion between one and 3 crops (75%) and minor part composed by more than 3 crops (25%). Table 33 Proportion of number of crops intercropped with coconut trees Number of crops Total Aggregated intercropped Proportions proportions 1 15% 75% 2 38% 3 21% 4 9% 25% 6 6% 7 10% Total 100% Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. The 75% of plots with up to 3 crops intercropped with coconut trees, rice and cassava are the most commonly intercropped crops (Table 34). In most cases, when cassava is grown along the road, it is with alternating rice and coconut tree bands (Payongayong, 2008). In essence there are few crops truly grown in intercropping with coconut. A special attention should be paid interpreting results reported for intercropping with rice, because in many cases what is reported as intercropping refers to rice grown alternating with coconut bands or rice fields alternating with other trees and few coconut trees (Payongayong, 2008). Having this in mind, the number of crops under intercropping with coconut trees reduces even more. The analysis above focuses on the limited number of plots with intercropping and coconut trees. Looking across the cropping system, beyond coconuts, intercropping is a common practice in Zambezia and Nampula. During the Rapid Appraisal we observed that cassava and cowpeas are present in the post-endemic areas, where coconut trees used to be grown, but were lost to CLYD (Payongayong, 2008). In our analysis we did not consider the intercropping with cashew trees. Including cashew trees, the number of intercropped plots would increase. Field observations as reported by Payongayong (2008) indicate that in low-lying areas with no visible CLYD there are coconut/other tree combination alternating rice fields. 37 Table 34 Identification of crops found in intercropping with coconut, based on number of different crops in plot Proportions For plots with For plots with up to 3 crops more than 3 crops Total Crops Maize 2% 5% 7% Rice 13% 0% 13% Sorghum 0% 1% 1% Millet 0% 1% 1% Ground nut (large seed) 3% 0% 3% Ground nut (small seed) 5% 2% 8% Cowpea 4% 2% 6% Earth peas 1% 1% 3% Pigeon pea 5% 4% 9% Cassava 30% 2% 32% Sweet potato 0% 2% 2% Sweet potato (orange) 7% 2% 10% Bambara nuts 0% 1% 1% Cane 4% 0% 4% Total 75% 25% 100% Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 7.4. Use of agricultural technologies (crop rotation, fertilizers, row planting, etc.) Few farmers in Mozambique have adopted the use of new cropping methods and new technologies and farmers in the coconut zone demonstrate the same tendency. While intercropping is quite common, crop rotation and line planting are both practiced by one third or less of farmers overall (Table 35). Table 35 Percentage of farmers using specific agricultural practices, by CLYD zone Use the following agricultural practices CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Overall Crop rotation Intercropping Line planting 31% 72% 26% 33% 74% 18% 36% 72% 19% 32% 73% 23% Note: Farmers could use more than one practice. Testing: No significant differences found among CLYD zones. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 38 Less than 1% of the households used fertilizer or pesticides. Compost use was found in less than 1% of the households. In other surveys, these practices tend be to be related to cash cropping (especially cotton, tobacco and sugarcane) which are not commonly grown in the coconut growing zones. Improved seeds were used for some crops, principally maize, small groundnuts (Spanish-style), and rice (Table 36). No farmers used improved seeds for sorghum; only one farmer use improved millet seeds and only one farmer used improved large groundnut seeds, so those crops of left off Table 36. Regarding fertilizer and pesticides and compost, less than 1% of farmers used these products in their cropping and so not reliable statistics can be generated. Table 36 Percentage of farmers using improved seeds, by CLYD zone Use of improved seeds CLYD zone 0-10% 11-70% >70% Overall Maize 3% 13% 16% 6% Rice 4% 1% 4% 3% Small groundnut 5% 7% 11% 5% Note: Only for farmers cultivating a given crop. Source: FISP Coconut Farmer Survey, 2008/9. Estimates weighted to reflect population. 7.5. Association membership and use of agricultural credit Both association membership and credit access can be linked to income growth. In the case of the coconut zones of Zambezia and Nampula Province, only 8% of household indicated that someone in the household participated actively in an association. The person participating was a man in 35% of households, a woman in 39% of households, and both men and women activity participated in 26% of the households. Almost no smallholders in the coconut zones obtained agricultural credit during the 2007/2008 cropping season. Only 2.3% of coconut farmers obtained credit in the past year (23 households in the sample), with about 44% of those receiving credit from the government, another 35% from association, and the remaining from banks, traders and NGOs. The government credit was extended by the District Economic Activities Service, associated with the District Agricultural office. Much of this credit was in-kind for inputs (seeds and fertilizer). The households were asked who in the household received the credit and in 75% of the cases, men received the credit, in 15% of cases, women received it, and in the remaining 10%, it was a combination of men and women. 8. REVIEW OF SURVEY AS A BASELINE FOR FISP 8.1. Key areas of usefulness as a baseline for impact assessment With the full income components, both farm and nonfarm, the FISP baseline components will be able to assess how households change with time, both in the areas of low CLYD incidence at the time of the original assessment and for those heavily affected by CLYD. By following these 39 different households, MCA and others will be able to understand which households are able to make improvements to income or assets. Focusing on the income components in this survey helps to identify sources of change, something that a consumption survey would be unable to do. While some FISP indicators can only be tracked through project recordkeeping, the household surveys do enable us to evaluate several key aspects: 1)Increases in crop income of the crops with expected FISP intervention will be captured; 2) stocks of trees among smallholders and farmer indications of disease; 3) coconut related income; 4) new tree plantings by farmers in the zone; 5) farmers receiving marketing or processing advice; 6) farmers using purchased inputs, including improved seed, fertilizers, and pesticides. Given the variability within strata (CLYD zones) and the changing nature of the zones, it is recommended that analysis of performance be focused on the overall results, not the strata level results. 8.2. Challenges for impact assessment The Baseline Survey was based on TIA 2008, prior to designation of an implementing partner for FISP. The impact evaluation proposal suggested implementation conducted in such a way as to enable impact evaluation, but it is unknown if that will influence implementation. It is not clear if a true control will be established through timing of interventions or limiting regions of action of FISP. The TIA collected a substantial amount of information, but if designed solely for impact evaluation baseline, it might have contained additional questions on coconuts. Ideally, the interventions under FISP would have been determined prior to the baseline, such that researchers would be able to ensure that the survey captured a baseline for the interventions. Researchers worked based on the FISP terms of reference, but there are no guarantees that the survey captured a baseline for future interventions. Researchers identified the rapidly rising incidence of CLYD in certain zones, so areas which may have been in the 0-10% CLYD range may face acute problems with the time frame of the project. Additional monitoring work will be needed to capture the CLYD incidence at the end of the project, using similar diagnostic methods as the rapid appraisal. 8.3. Recommendations for monitoring and evaluation The baseline survey has generated results that can assist in monitoring and evaluation of the FISP. For example, as FISP implementation moves forward, it will be necessary to understand how farmers define their plots and how coconuts are allocated to land areas. There may not be many actual farmed plots in which plantation style coconut cropping currently occurs but it may be part of a strategy with replanting in post-endemic zones. Many of the indicators for the FISP entail outcomes based on the idea that coconuts are planted plantation style. Since much of the effort will be on replanting coconut trees and income from those trees will only be available after several years, monitoring and evaluation can focus on the income derived from the other crops on which FISP implementation will be based. Clearly tracking the use of inputs and the crops cultivated will give an idea of progress, since crop diversification and crop income is lowest in the high CLYD incidence areas. Technology adoption levels are very low and changes can easily be identified. Continued monitoring on the incidence of the disease will be needed, as even in the 0% CLYD zones, farmers identified problems with the disease. As Eden-Green (2008) indicated, the disease can move fast. 40 REFERENCES Eden-Green, S.J. 2006. An assessment of Coconut Lethal Yellowing-type Disease (LYD) in Mozambique. Unpublished consultant’s report to MCC. Larkfield, Kent: EG Consulting. Available at http://www.clubofmozambique.com/solutions1/solutions/social_development/lethal_yellow _disease.pdf Eden-Green, S.J. 2008. Summary report on visit to Mozambique to assist in rapid appraisal of coconut lethal yellowing disease in preparation for baseline survey for the Farmer Income Support Project: 19-29 May 2008. Unpublished report. Larkfield, Kent: EG Consulting. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2009. FAOStats Database Annex 2: Definitions. Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/other-statistics/socio-economic-agricultural-andenvironmental-indicators/compendium-of-agricultural-environmental-indicators-1989-91to-2000/annex-2-definitions/en/ . Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 2010. Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) database: World Production Statistics. Washington DC: Foreign Agricultural Service, United State Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.fas.usda.gov/currwmt.asp . Kiregyera, Ben, David Megill, David Eding, and Bonifácio José. 2007. A Review of the National Agricultural Information System in Mozambique: Review Report. Maputo: Ministry of Agriculture. Available at www.mpd.gov.mz . Mather, David, Benedito Cunguara, and Duncan Boughton. 2008. Household income and assets in rural Mozambique, 2002-2005: Can pro-poor growth be sustained? Research Report No 66. Maputo: Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics. Available at http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/mozambique/wps66.pdf . Megill, David. 2008. Sample Design for the Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA) 2008. Unpublished consultant’s report. Maputo: Ministério de Agricultura, Moçambique. Megill, David. 2009. Sample Design and Weighting Procedures for the FISP Baseline Survey. Unpublished consultant’s report. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. Miguel, Arlindo, and Rafael Achicala. 2009. Relatório final de operações de campo do inquérito aos agregados familiares rurais nas zonas produtoras de coqueiro. Unpublished report to MCA-Mozambique. Maputo: Ministério da Agricultura, Direcção de Economia, Departamento de Estatística. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). 2007. Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States of America acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Government of the Republic of Mozambique. Compact document. Washington, DC: Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Ministério da Agricultura (MINAG). 2008. Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola: Manual de Organização do Trabalho de Campo e Operações. Maputo: Ministério da Agricultura, Direcção de Economia, Departamento de Estatística. Ministério de Agricultura (MINAG). 2009. Resultados preliminares do TIA 2008. Presentation to to MINAG staff, April 5, 2009. Maputo: Ministério da Agricultura, Direcção de Economia, Departamento de Estatística. 41 PASCOM. 2000. Etude Filière Cocotier/Coprah au Mozambique : Rapport Phase Faisabilité. Project scoping report SODETEG-CIRAD. Montpellier: SODETEG-CIRAD. Available at http://www.mca.gov.mz/en/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=10&It emid=17&el_mcal_month=8&el_mcal_year=2011 StataCorp LP. 2009. Stata/SE 10.1 for Windows. College Station, Texas: StataCorp LP. TTI Production. 2009. Cartography of Coconut Zones, Mozambique. Nimes, France: TTI Productions. 42 Annex 1: Rapid appraisal maps for assessment of CLYD, 2008 Annex Figure 1 Coconut areas of Zambezia from Rapid Assessment on CLYD Notes: Disease distribution and severity data combined from a rapid appraisal carried out in May 2008 (diamond symbols), some earlier information from a local NGO (circles) and estimates of disease incidence by district from the estate sector (squares). Distribution of coconut plantings based on reports from a previous project (PASCOM), with some updated information on estate boundaries. Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 2 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 3 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 4 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 5 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 6 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 7 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 1 Coconut areas of Zambezia from Rapid Assessment on CLYD Notes: Disease distribution and severity data combined from a rapid appraisal carried out in May 2008 (diamond symbols), some earlier information from a local NGO (circles) and estimates of disease incidence by district from the estate sector (squares). Distribution of coconut plantings based on reports from a previous project (PASCOM), with some updated information on estate boundaries. Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 2 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 3 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 4 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 5 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 6 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 7 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2: Field notes, Rapid Appraisal of Coconut Zones in Zambezia, May 2008. Ellen Payongayong. Annex 2- page1 Annex Figure 1 Coconut areas of Zambezia from Rapid Assessment on CLYD Notes: Disease distribution and severity data combined from a rapid appraisal carried out in May 2008 (diamond symbols), some earlier information from a local NGO (circles) and estimates of disease incidence by district from the estate sector (squares). Distribution of coconut plantings based on reports from a previous project (PASCOM), with some updated information on estate boundaries. Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2- page2 Annex Figure 2 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 3 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2- page3 Annex Figure 4 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex Figure 5 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2- page4 Annex Figure 6 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2- page5 Annex Figure 7 Source: MSU, adapted from PASCOM, 2001. Annex 2- page6 Field notes, Rapid Appraisal of Coconut Zones in Zambezia, May 2008. Ellen Payongayong. MSU. OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are 1 1.01 2 1.02 36 57.000 -17 54.000 NICOADALA DISTRICT 3 1.03 36 57.700 -17 54.330 NICOADALA DISTRICT 4 1.04 36 57.480 -17 54.770 NICOADALA DISTRICT Barrio Inhagulue, Zona Termane. Interviewed community leaders. Former MADAL plantation area donated to community in 2007. Coconut trees being cut down to build school. Area divided by leaders into talhões. Each talhão composed of 3 coconut trees squared is given to each family in the area. CLYD 6/56 diseased in small area measured by Simon. NICOADALA DISTRICT Inside Pineapples tried as intercrop but failed 5 1.05 b/ Pictures NICOADALA DISTRICT 36 56.766 -17 56.134 MADAL. P1000196 Soil not good for any other crops. Between 4-5: Rice grown in nearby low-lying areas (baixas) P1000254 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page7 1 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District NICOADALA DISTRICT Inside MADAL. Met with the chief of the station and checked viveiro. 150/500 germination rate. 65/150 rejected and used as copra. Coconut trees have been cut NICOADALA DISTRICT CLYD 12/34 trees diseased in small area measured by Simon. 6 1.06 36 57.100 -17 55.067 7 1.07 36 58.230 -17 56.940 8 1.08 36 58.870 -17 57.292 9 1.09 36 59.687 -17 57.060 10 1.10 36 59.960 -17 11 1.11 37 1.000 -17 Family sector. NICOADALA DISTRICT Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures P1000265 Photo 100% diseased. Fire damage also evident. P1000318 NICOADALA DISTRICT . MADAL. Simon visited this area in 2007, CLYD was 50% then, now 100%. CLYD 100% Woman farmer growing small beds of tomrato, carrots, common bean and cowpea in homestead as per instructions from MADAL station chief. Wider planting of cowpeas in are ‘intercropped’ with trunks. P1000327 56.901 NICOADALA DISTRICT CLYD 100% 56.560 NICOADALA DISTRICT MADAL. MUNGAUE Station. Met with the chief of the station (Antonio Machanunge). Trees planted 8 meters apart. MADAL. MADAL. P1000332 CLYD almost 100%, a few healthy-looking trees. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page8 2 EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 12 1.11a 37 2.100 -17 55.241 NICOADALA DISTRICT 13 1.12 37 2.400 -17 55.110 14 1.13 37 3.760 -17 54.600 15 1.14 37 3.860 -17 53.240 16 115 37 5.400 -17 51.578 17 1.17 37 6.000 -17 51.000 OBS No. Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures MADAL. Field trial areas. NICOADALA DISTRICT MADAL. MAGROMANE Station. Well-maintained plantation. NICOADALA DISTRICT MADAL. MACHINGUE NICOADALA DISTRICT No disease. Dwarf variety from Brazil protected by pine tree curtain. P1000352 No disease Between 13-14: no disease CLYD>50% as per Simon just outside the station King of rhinoceros beetle ZALALE STATION Between 14-15: many cut trees P1000374 NICOADALA DISTRICT No disease. MADAL. MACHINGUE station. NICOADALA DISTRICT Between 16-17: Jatrofa intecropped. 18 1.18 37 6.160 -17 50.780 NICOADALA DISTRICT BAGONE STATION. Spoke to Station chief Manlito Vasco. No disease. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page9 3 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District NICOADALA DISTRICT Family sector. Coconuts planted along roadside. CLYD isolated cases. NICOADALA DISTRICT CLYD isolated cases. Coconuts and rice found. 19 1.19 37 7.195 -17 48.900 20 1.20 37 6.300 -17 48.700 21 1.21 37 5.631 -17 48.000 22 1.23 37 0.880 -17 47.755 Family sector NICOADALA DISTRICT Family sector NICOADALA DISTRICT MOCORE. Interviews done. Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ CLYD isolated cases. Rice and coconuts band Pictures P1000390 P1000391 Between 21-22: Alternating rice and coconut bands. No evidence of CLYD viewed from car. 22: CLYD isolated cases 23 1.24 37 3.790 -17 46.452 NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR plantation. Sector familiar in view. Note this plantation not indicated on map. No evidence of diseased trees. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page10 4 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 24 1.25 37 3.795 -17 46.434 25 1.26 37 4.362 -17 45.912 26 1.27 37 3.848 -17 45.671 27 1.28 37 3.033 -17 46.297 28 2.01 36 55.578 -17 45.376 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 29 2.02 36 54.032 -17 44.000 NAMACURRA DISTRICT On the road. Rice fields alternating with other trees and a few coconut trees. 30 2.03 36 50.008 -17 36.700 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Rice fields. 31 2.04 36 49.354 -17 36.675 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 32 2.05 36 57.062 -17 29.572 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 33 2.06 37 5.239 -17 20.838 NAMACURRA DISTRICT NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR station with family sector in view. NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR station. Spoke to station chief Zacarias. NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR plantation. Sector familiar running alongside road. NICOADALA DISTRICT Possibly just outside Boror property On the road. On the road. CLYD isolated cases in family sector (Picture 1000498). Boror area, no evidence of diseased trees (P1000410). Pictures P1000408 P1000410 CLYD 30% (need to verify) CLYD isolated cases. CLYD isolated cases. 2 cases CLYD Rice fields alternating with coconut fields On the road. On the road. Family sector. DDA reported that Boror fez abate de 4000 coqueiros Clumps of coconut trees CLYD isolated cases. Clumps of coconut trees. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page11 5 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 34 2.07 37 5.057 -17 30.344 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 35 2.08 37 5.963 -17 30.218 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 36 2.09 37 6.009 -17 37 2.09a 37 7.413 38 2.10 37 39 2.11 40 Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures CLYD isolated cases. P1000422 Family sector. Between 34-35: Sugar cane, cashew trees, mango trees, cassava P1000424 31.248 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Very few coconut trees. -17 32.700 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 9.256 -17 34.348 NAMACURRA DISTRICT On the road. Cashew, coconut and mango trees 37 9.660 -17 34.600 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Rice paddies. 2.12 37 10.007 -17 35.214 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 41 2.13 37 11.865 -17 35.940 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 42 2.14 37 17.287 -17 36.403 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 43 2.15 37 14.482 -17 38.155 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Family sector. On the road. On the road. On the road. Pasture land, rice, a few coconut trees On the road. On the road. On the road. Mostly rice area with coconut trees Market area. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page12 6 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures 44 2.16 37 14.597 -17 38.390 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Boror property Old trees on south side, P1000439 beetle-ridden trips on north side. 45 2.17 37 14.941 -17 39.194 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Beetle problem 46 2.18 37 15.217 -17 39.725 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 47 2.19 37 15.489 -17 40.327 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 48 2.20 37 15.150 -17 40.467 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 49 2.21 37 14.400 -17 40.783 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Mix of problems start, beetle and CLYD. 50 2.22 37 13.507 -17 41.157 NAMACURRA DISTRICT CLYD 8/50 diseased trees in a small area that Simon counted. Boror station Boror station Boror station Boror station Boror station near family sector. Family sector. P1000441 Beetle problem Beetle problem Beetle problem both sides of the road. P1000455 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page13 7 OBS No. 51 EP Ref a/ 2.23 GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 37 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 12.947 -17 41.394 Family sector. Interviews done. 52 2.24 37 12.850 -17 41.725 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 53 2.25 37 12.763 -17 41.810 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Interview done Family sector, border with MADAL. Interview done. Household 54 2.26 37 12.780 -17 41.984 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 55 2.27 37 12.257 -17 41.452 NAMACURRA DISTRICT MADAL Macuse Station MADAL Macuse Station Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ CLYD cases in village. Pictures P1000458 P1000463 Household interviewed reported 15 out of 50-70 coconut trees with CLYD, head says “better to cut coconuts”. CLYD cases in village. CLYD cases in village. Household reports coconut trees have been dying in the area for 2 years now. CLYD > 75% P1000466 CLYD > 75% P1000467 P1000468 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page14 8 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 56 2.28 37 12.217 -17 42.234 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 57 2.29 37 11.895 -17 42.372 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 58 2.30 37 11.838 -17 42.540 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 59 2.31 37 11.582 -17 43.061 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 60 2.32 37 11.293 -17 43.310 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 61 2.33 37 12.315 -17 42.715 NAMACURRA DISTRICT MADAL Macuse Station MADAL Macuse Station MADAL Macuse Station Macuse Macuse Station MADAL Macuse station. Spoke to Alberto Tenente. Exiting MADAL Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures CLYD > 75% CLYD > 75% P1000470 CLYD 100% CLYD 100% P1000476 P1000475 CLYD problem A few trees among the bare trunks P1000480 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page15 9 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 62 2.34 37 12.748 -17 42.792 NAMACURRA DISTRICT Family sector. 50% of bare trunk s may be from beetle problem. 63 2.35 37 13.291 -17 42.875 NAMACURRA DISTRICT CLYD exists in area. 64 2.36 37 14.720 -17 42.633 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 65 2.37 37 14.994 -17 42.491 NAMACURRA DISTRICT 66 3.03 36 51.663 -17 54.507 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 67 3.04 36 50.880 -17 59.691 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Family sector. Interview. Family sector. Maronga, Museliwa. CLYD exists in area. Pictures P1000487 Family sector. Market area. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters from road on either side. MADAL plantation road CLYD present Cassava, cowpeas already grown. In all likelihood, where cassava and cowpeas are present, coconut trees used to be grown and lost to CLYD. P1000499 P1000506 CLYD present Coconut trees, cowpeas a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page16 10 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 68 3.05 36 50.060 -18 0.074 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 69 3.06 36 49.874 -18 0.186 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT CLYD about 30% Cassava along the road; alternating rice and coconut tree bands 70 3.08 36 50.995 -18 0.357 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT CLYD present Cassava, bare trunks 71 3.08a 36 49.534 -18 0.620 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT CLYD about 20% Bare trunks on one side, 40% still with crown on the other side of road 72 3.09 36 49.320 -18 0.859 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 73 3.10 36 48.992 -18 0.776 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Family sector Family sector Family sector Stopped at DDAE (Ag district office) CLYD present Bare trunks, rice, cassava Pictures P1000510 P1000513 CLYD present CLYD present. Coconut trees sparse along the road. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page17 11 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 74 3.11 36 48.699 -18 0.340 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 75 3.12 36 48.646 -18 0.410 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 76 3.13 36 49.175 -18 2.089 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 77 3.14 36 48.977 -18 2.405 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Cassava planted alongside road. Further away on the coconut plantation, only 20-40% have any crowns, the rest are bare trunks. Family sector further away on either side of road. 78 3.16 36 48.224 -18 2.333 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT CLYD greater 50% in family sector as seen from MADAL 79 3.17 36 48.027 -18 3.625 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Family sector. Interviews done. Family sector. Interviews done Nursery. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. CLYD < 50% Pictures P1000518 CLYD < 50% CLYD about 10% Coconut trunks, trees, young seedlings, cassava and cowpea present CLYD about 80% Cassava grown along side road. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page18 12 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 80 3.18 36 47.732 -18 4.088 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 81 3.19 36 47.495 -18 4.349 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 82 3.20 36 47.065 -18 4.817 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 83 3.21 36 46.456 -18 5.592 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 84 3.22 36 46.263 -18 5.871 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 85 3.23 36 45.914 -18 6.269 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. MADAL plantation road, family sector a few hundred meters away on both sides. MADAL plantation Family sector Family sector Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures CLYD about 90% Cassava grown along side road P1000529 CLYD almost 100%; Cassava grown alongside road P1000532 CLYD 100%, just trunks Cassava grown P1000533 CLYD % high Seedlings have been planted Seedlings have been planted a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page19 13 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 86 3.24 36 45.497 -18 4.682 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 87 3.25 36 44.008 -18 6.032 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 88 3.26 36 43.843 -18 5.981 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 89 27 36 43.462 -18 5.869 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT CLYD 40% in some areas in this plantation. 90 3.28 36 45.254 -18 7.660 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Post-endemic area. Only young seedings planted. Intercropped. 91 3.29 36 44.956 -18 7.433 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Family sector. Post-endemic area. Cassava. Cowpeas, rice, mango trees; 92 3.30 36 45.564 -18 6.760 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Post-endemic area. 93 3.31 36 47.677 -18 4.227 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 94 3.32 36 48.702 -18 2.785 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 95 3.33 36 49.115 -18 2.072 INHASSUNGE DISTRICT Family sector Pictures CLYD 100% Rice grown. Family sector Plantation. MADAL Matulune station. Spoke to stationn chief Veloso Albano. Family sector. Family sector. Family sector. Family sector. Epidemic zone, per Simon Disease developing, less than 20% of trees cut P1000556 CLYD above 50% Active disease 5-10% Family sector. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page20 14 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District INHASSUNGE DISTRICT 96 3.34 36 50.007 -18 0.957 97 4.01 36 58.000 -17 48.030 Family sector NICOADALA DISTRICT Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ CLYD about 50% guarded by one person for a salary. Parcela system, farmers care for land and ‘sell’ coconuts to Boror for a fixed price. Land better maintained under guarda system. Split trunk coconut 4.02 37 0.032 -17 47.253 NICOADALA DISTRICT 99 4.03 37 1.107 -17 46.564 NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR estate BOROR estate P1000573 1-2 trees with CLYD. BOROR estate. Toured with manager and team (Mr. Sarasan, Mr. Ajith, Mr. Wasavan) Family sector some 200 meters on either side from estate road. Part of the family sector from old estate of Companhia Zambezia. 98 Pictures Guarda system 1000 trees Some tree observed with only trunks left. P1000578 P1000579 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page21 15 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 100 4.04 37 1.967 -17 45.961 NICOADALA DISTRICT 101 4.05 37 3.468 -17 44.940 NICOADALA DISTRICT 102 4.07 37 4.113 -17 44.328 NICOADALA DISTRICT 103 4.08 37 4.656 -17 43.686 BOROR estate BOROR estate. Drying station. BOROR estate NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR estate Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Isolated cases of CLYD. Boror has bigger problems with beetles. Pictures P1000596 Jatrofa, sandalwood, other trees from India planted. Guarda system at right, well maintained land. Isolated case(s) of CLYD P1000597 P1000601 Manager noted increasing yellowing of leaves in recent weeks. Noted that period of leaf yellowing occurs (or peaks)at certain months of the year. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page22 16 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 104 4.09 37 4.306 -17 44.144 NICOADALA DISTRICT 105 4.11 37 4.800 -17 45.044 NICOADALA DISTRICT 106 4.13 37 4.200 -17 45.008 NICOADALA DISTRICT 107 4.14 37 3.340 -17 46.517 NICOADALA DISTRICT 108 4.15 37 1.867 -17 47.045 NICOADALA DISTRICT 109 4.16 37 0.836 -17 47.905 NICOADALA DISTRICT BOROR estate BOROR estate. At this point, 12kms long and about 100 meters wide. Family sector on either side. Interviewed villagers walking through estate. BOROR estate. BOROR estate BOROR estate and private sector (small coconut plantation) on one side of BOROR. BOROR estate and private sector Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures Isolated cases, immediately P1000603 cut down. Isolated cases of CLYD. Villagers knew CLYD by name. They have no problem with their trees being cut. Noted beetle problem worse. P1000628 P1000629 Isolated cases of CLYD. Cashew trees. Isolated cases of CLYD. Alternating bands of coconuts and rice. Isolated cases of CLYD. Rice and cowpeas. Isolated cases of CLYD in private plantation. Rice in low-lying areas. Cassava. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page23 17 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 110 4.18 36 59.575 -17 48.397 NICOADALA DISTRICT 111 4.19 36 57.125 -17 49.244 NICOADALA DISTRICT On the road. No CLYD visible. Cashew, mango trees and other trees. Rice. 112 4.20 36 56.302 -17 50.887 NICOADALA DISTRICT No CLYD visible. 113 4.21 36 55.583 -17 50.678 NICOADALA DISTRICT 114 4.22 37 30.577 -17 18.798 NICOADALA DISTRICT Rice and some low-lying areas. 115 5.03 37 31.451 -17 21.876 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. Some trees look affected by CLYD (candidates for laboratory identification). Very little beetle damage. Rice in low-lying areas and pasture land for BOROR herd of cattle. 116 5.04 37 32.326 -17 23.582 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 117 5.05 37 33.294 -17 24.265 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 118 5.06 37 33.504 -17 24.966 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. Existing BOROR estate. Passing MADAL property and former Companhia Zambezia estates several hundred meters from road. On the road. On the road. On the road. BOROR property, more for pastureland. Crossing 4kms of rice and coconuts bands. Family sector. Family sector. Pictures No CLYD visible. Rice and cowpeas also observed. No CLYD visible. Cashew trees. No CLYD visible. No CLYD visible. Rice fields No CLYD visible. Alteranting low-lying areas and coconut/other tree mixtures P1000638 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page24 18 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ 119 5.07 37 33.985 -17 25.525 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 120 5.08 37 34.205 -17 25.789 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 121 5.09 37 34.622 -17 26.295 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. Very wide low-lying area not planted to crops. 122 5.10 37 35.836 -17 26.794 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. Coconuts and wide rice band stretching all the way to Nante, Zambezia. 123 5.11 37 35.864 -17 28.236 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 124 5.12 37 35.585 -17 28.150 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 125 5.13 37 35.524 -17 28.988 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. Family sector. MADAL property. Family sector. Family sector. MADAL Estate. MADAL Estate. MADAL Estate. Pictures No CLYD visible. Alteranting low-lying areas and coconut/other tree mixtures Isolated case of CLYD. Alteranting low-lying areas and coconut/other tree mixtures P1000639 Coconut plantations and low-lying areas. Beetle damage, so dead trees encountered may not be due to CLYD but beetle damage. Coconut treees not growing well owing to poor soil condition. Simon notes that this may not be a very productive plantation. Very wide low-lying area, capim(weeds), and pastureland. Bands of coconut and capim. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page25 19 OBS No. EP Ref a/ GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 126 5.14 37 35.529 -17 29.280 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 127 5.15 37 33.106 -17 31.255 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 128 5.16 37 34.972 -17 30.223 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 129 5.17 37 35.785 -17 29.688 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 130 5.18 37 36.666 -17 30.814 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. MADAL Estate. MABALA station. Spoke to station chief Cassiano Ferreira. MADAL estate. Exiting MADAL estate and entering family sector. Family sector CABUIR area. Family sector. Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ Pictures Thousands of coconut trees have been cut due to CLYD. 800 trees cut a day. Beetle problem exists. Trunks cut down used to build bridges. Problem started two years ago and is not yet well-known. Many coconut trees near beach 60-70 years old, probably at end of productive life per Simon. Density of coconuts not too high. Tried Jatrofa in areapoor yields. Coconut trees, rice and P1000645 uncultivated ares observed. Alternating bands rice and coconut trees, about 1 km from ocean at this point CLYD from 10- 40%, the closer to the ocean, the higher the incidence. P1000646 a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page26 20 OBS No. 131 EP Ref a/ 5.19 GPS Coordinates: X deg, X min, Y deg Y min District 37 MAGANJA DA COSTA DIST. 39.731 -17 29.489 CABUIR area. Family sector. Interviews. Incidence of CLYD / Cropping patterns in are b/ CLYD from 10- 40%, the closer to the ocean, the higher the incidence. Disease appeared 3 years ago according to one respondent, 5 according to another. Pictures P1000647 All assessments of disease based on view from, based on trees, trunks, etc. a/ Ellen’s reference number. b/ Percentage of CLYD refer to that still visibly observed (trees/trunks that are still standing, or coconut stumps, if close by). Diseased trees that have been cut are not (and could not be) factored in. Only exceptions are where the description says ‘post‐endemic’ areas. Annex 2- page27 21 Annex 3: FISP enumeration areas on TTI maps Annex 3- page 1 Annex 3- page 2 Annex 3- page 3 Annex 3- page 4 Annex 3- page 5 Annex 3- page 6 Annex 3- page 7 Annex 3- page 8 Annex 3- page 9 Annex 3- page 10 Annex 4: Sample Design and Weighting Procedures for the FISP Baseline Survey, David Megill Annex 4- page 1 Sample Design and Weighting Procedures for the FISP Baseline Survey David J. Megill Sampling Consultant Michigan State University December 2009 1. Background One component of the Farmer Income Support Project (FISP) is the control and mitigation of coconut lethal yellowing disease (CLYD) in Nampula and Zambézia. The purpose of the FISP Baseline Survey is to serve as a baseline for measuring the project impact based on different indicators from a representative sample of coconut farming households. The Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA) is a comprehensive annual agricultural survey that includes the types of data on coconuts needed for estimating the indicators of interest. However, this national survey does not have a sufficient number of sample coconut farms in the project areas of Nampula and Zambézia to provide reliable estimates. A cost-effective solution was to select a complementary sample of segments and coconut farming households in the project areas for a special FISP Baseline Survey. The tabulation of indicators and the analysis will be based on the combined TIA and FISP Baseline Survey data for the project areas. Therefore the sample design for both components of sample will be described here. 2. TIA Sample The sampling methodology for the TIA 2008 is documented in the report on “Sample Design for the Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA 2008)”. This survey was based on a stratified two-stage sample design. The sampling frame for TIA was developed from the preliminary data from the 2007 Mozambique Census of Population and Housing. The primary sampling units (PSUs) were the enumeration areas (EAs), which are small segments delineated on maps for the census enumeration. The EAs generally have between 100 to 150 households each, corresponding to the workload of one enumerator during the census. Therefore the EAs have an effective size for the purpose of conducting a new listing of households. The sampling frame for TIA 2008 excludes the four major cities of Mozambique (Maputo Cidade, Matola, Beira and Nampula Cidade), but covers all of the FISP coconut project areas in Nampula and Zambézia. The TIA sampling frame was stratified by province, urban and rural areas, and agro-ecological zone. Within the FISP project coconut areas, the TIA 2008 sample includes 43 EAs with 236 sample households with coconuts. This includes 16 sample EAs with 72 sample households with coconuts for Nampula, and 27 sample EAs with 164 sample households 1 Annex 4- page 2 with coconuts for Zambézia. Since the TIA data for these sample households were already available, these households were all included in the data set for the CLYD study. 3. Sample for FISP Baseline Survey The sampling frame from the 2007 Mozambique Census used for TIA in the coconut project areas of Nampula and Zambézia was also used for selecting the sample EAs for the FISP Baseline Survey, after excluding the EAs already selected for TIA. Maps showing the coverage of the different levels of CLYD infestation were used to stratify the EAs into the following four categories of CLYD infestation: (1) 0%; (2) 1-10%; (3) 1170%; and (4) 71-100%. A map identifying these areas is presented in Annex I. The distribution of the EAs by CLYD stratum is shown later in Table 1. Based on the experience from the TIA analysis, it was determined that a sample of at least 750 households with coconuts would provide a sufficient level of precision for most of the indicators. Since 236 sample households with coconuts were already available from the TIA 2008 data, it was only necessary to select an additional sample of about 540 additional households with coconuts for the FISP Baseline Survey. An effective sample design was to select 36 sample EAs with 15 sample households each. In order to determine the allocation of the 36 sample EAs to the different CLYD strata, we examined the distribution of the EAs in the sampling frame by stratum, shown in Table 1. Table 1. Distribution of EAs in the Sampling Frame for the FISP Baseline Survey by Province and CLYD Category, with Proportional and Adjusted Allocation of 36 EAs Number of EAs in Frame CLYD Stratum 0% 1-10% 11-70% 71-100% Total Nampula 877 113 55 45 1,090 Zambézia 872 66 429 170 1,537 Total 1,749 179 484 215 2,627 % of Proportional Adjusted Total Allocation Sample EAs of 36 EAs Allocation 66.6% 24 12 6.8% 2 4 18.4% 7 8 8.2% 3 12 100.0% 36 36 This table first shows a proportional allocation of the 36 sample EAs. It can be seen that given that two thirds of the EAs in the frame belong to the 0% CLYD category, 24 sample EAs would be allocated to this stratum, and only 3 EAs would be allocated to the stratum with the highest CLYD infestation (71-100%). Given the nature of the survey, it was more effective to increase the sampling rate for strata with a higher level of CLYD. It is especially important to have a reasonable sample size for the 71-100% CLYD category to study the characteristics of the endemic (75-99% CLYD) and post-endemic (100% CLYD) zones. Therefore the sample allocation was adjusted as shown in Table 1, with a third of the sample (12 EAs) allocated to the 71-100% CLYD category. This 2 Annex 4- page 3 sample distribution would not be sufficient to treat each of these strata as domains of analysis, but it would ensure that the individual categories are adequately represented in the results. It is also recognized that the actual CLYD classification for some areas may have changed. Later an additional sample EA for Nampula was selected in the 71-100% CLYD stratum, for a total of sample of 37 EAs for the FISP Baseline Survey. The sample EAs within each stratum were selected with probability proportional to size, where the measure of size was based on the number of households in the EA from the preliminary 2007 Mozambique Census frame. The sample EAs within each stratum were ordered by province (Nampula and Zambézia), providing an implicit geographic stratification of the frame. However, the provinces were not used as explicit strata since they are not considered domains of analysis for this study. During the survey operation it was necessary to select random replacements for 3 of the sample EAs because of problems of accessibility. A listing of households was conducted in each of the 37 sample EAs, which screened the households to identify those that had coconuts. The remaining households (without coconuts) were considered out-of-scope for the survey. At the second stage a sample of 15 households with coconuts was selected from the listing for each sample EA. Table 2 shows the final distribution of the sample EAs and households with completed questionnaires by province and stratum. Table 2. Distribution of Sample EAs and Sample Households with Completed Interviews for FISP Baseline Survey by CLYD Stratum and Province Province CLYD Stratum 0% 1-10% 11-70% 71-100% Total Nampula Sample Sample EAs households 5 75 3 45 1 15 3 35 12 170 Zambézia Sample Sample EAs households 7 105 1 15 7 105 10 150 25 375 Total Sample Sample EAs households 12 180 4 60 8 120 13 185 37 545 When the TIA 2008 data for the project areas are added to those from the FISP Baseline Survey, the final effective sample size (with completed questionnaires) for the analysis was 781 households with coconuts: 242 households in Nampula and 539 households in Zambézia. 4. Weighting Procedures In order for the sample estimates from the combined TIA and FISP Baseline Survey data to be representative of the target population, it is necessary to multiply the data by a sampling weight, or expansion factor. The basic weight for each sample household is 3 Annex 4- page 4 equal to the inverse of the overall probability of selection (calculated by multiplying the probabilities at each sampling stage). Based on the sample design, the probabilities of selection for the sample households in the FISP Baseline Survey can be expressed as follows: phi = nh × M hi mChi , × Mh M Chi where: phi = overall probability of selection for the FISP Baseline Survey sample households in the i-th sample EA in stratum h nh = number of sample EAs selected for the FISP Baseline Survey in stratum h Mhi = total number of households from the preliminary 2007 Mozambique Census frame in the i-th sample EA in stratum h Mh = total number of households in stratum h from the preliminary 2007 Mozambique Census frame (cumulated measure of size for stratum h) mhi = 15 = number of households with coconuts selected for the FISP Baseline Survey from the listing for the i-th sample EA in stratum h MChi = total number of in-scope households with coconuts listed in the i-th sample EA in stratum h The full design weights for the sample households with coconuts in the FISP Baseline Survey were calculated as the inverse of this probability of selection, as follows: Whi = M h × M Chi , nh × M hi × mChi where: Whi = basic weight of the FISP Baseline Survey sample households in the i-th sample EA in stratum h This basic weight was adjusted at the sample EA level to take into account any noninterviews, as follows: Whi = M h × M Chi m M h × M Chi × Chi = , nh × M hi × mChi m'Chi nh × M hi × m'Chi 4 Annex 4- page 5 where: W’hi = adjusted weight of the FISP Baseline Survey sample households in the i-th sample EA in stratum h m’hi = number of sample households with completed interviews for the FISP Baseline Survey in the i-th sample EA in stratum h The original weighting procedures for the TIA 2008 data are described in the report on “Sample Design for the Trabalho do Inquérito Agrícola (TIA 2008)”. Therefore that report can be used as a reference document for the calculation of the corresponding full weights. The weights for both the TIA and FISP sample households were also adjusted based on the estimated total number of households with coconuts in the areas covered by the FISP Baseline Survey. These areas had a total of about 276,275 households in the preliminary 2007 Mozambique Census frame. Although the frame does not have a count of all the households with coconuts in these areas, from the TIA 2008 data we estimated that about 68.9% of the households in these areas of Nampula and Zambézia have coconuts. Based on this percentage, it is estimated that there were about 190,460 households with coconuts in the frame for these areas, so this is the size of the frame used for adjusting the weights from the survey data. Given that the database for the survey analysis includes independent samples from the TIA 2008 and the FISP Baseline Survey, the combined estimates will be the equivalent of a weighted composite of the estimates from the two samples. It will be effective to have each sample represent a proportion of the total frame based on the proportion of the combined sample that was selected for the survey. Since 545 of the 781 households in the combined sample for the target areas were from the FISP Baseline Survey, this survey will represent 69.8% of the composite estimate from the two independent samples, and the TIA 2008 data will represent the remaining 30.2%. In other words, the full weights for the individual surveys used to represent the entire frame were multiplied by these corresponding proportions so that together the weighted total number of households from the combined data should be close to the estimate of 190,460 households with coconuts in the project areas. 5 Annex 4- page 6 Annex I. Maps of Coconuts Areas in Nampula and Zambézia Covered by FISP Baseline Survey 1 Annex 4- page 7 2 Annex 4- page 8 3 Annex 4- page 9 4 Annex 4- page 10 5 Annex 4- page 11 6 Annex 4- page 12 7 Annex 4- page 13 Annex 5: Relatório Final de Operações de Campo do Inquérito aos Agregados Familiares Rurais nas Zonas Produtoras de Coqueiro Annex 5- page 1 MINISTÉRIO DA AGRICULTURA DIRECÇÃO DE ECONOMIA DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTATÍSTICA RELATÓRIO FINAL DE OPERAÇÕES DE CAMPO DO INQUÉRITO AOS AGREGADOS FAMILIARES RURAIS NAS ZONAS PRODUTORAS DE COQUEIRO Elaborado por: Arlindo Miguel Rafael Achicala Agosto de 2009 1 Annex 5- page 2 Índice I. Introdução............................................................................................................................05 II. Metodologia de trabalho......................................................................................................05 a. Fase preparatória do inquérito.................................................................................05 i. Elaboração do plano de actividades e orçamento do inquérito...................05 ii. Préteste do questionário e preparação de material de formaçã e de campo5 iii. Revisão e manutenção dos meios de transporte.........................................05 iv. Reprodução de questionários e manuais.....................................................06 v. Formação de inquiridores............................................................................06 b. Constituição das brigadas.........................................................................................06 c. Meios usados para recolha de dados.......................................................................07 III. Amostra................................................................................................................................07 IV. Digitação de dados..............................................................................................................08 V. Resultados alcançados.........................................................................................................08 VI. Principais dificuldades, pontos positivos de campo e recomendações...............................09 a. Dificuldades encontradas no campo........................................................................09 b. Pontos positivos durante o trabalho de campo........................................................10 c. Recomendações........................................................................................................10 VII. Anexos..................................................................................................................................11 2 Annex 5- page 3 Lista de Tabela Tabela 1: Resumo dos Inquéritos Realizados por Distrito................................................................09 Lista de Anexos Anexo I: Constituição das Brigadas de Campo por Província............................................................11 Anexo II: Plano de Trabalho de campo por Província.......................................................................12 Anexo III: Programa de Formação de Inquiridores, Inquérito de Coqueiro (Quelimane).................13 Anexo IV: Fotografias tiradas durnate o trabalho de campo............................................................15 Outros Anexos (não foi possível inserir dentro do documento pelo seu tamanho) Anexo V: Cronograma de actividades do inquérito Anexo VI: Amostra do inquérito Anexo VII: Matriz de campo do inquérito por província Anexo VIII: Questionário Final‐PME Anexo IX: Questionário comunitário Lista de Figuras Figura 1: Incidência de amarelecimento letal de coqueiro numa das aldeias seleccionadas no distrito de Namacura (Posto Administrativo de Macuse).................................................................15 Figura 2: Parte da equipa de inquiridores e supervisores da província da Zambézia.......................15 3 Annex 5- page 4 Lista de Abreviaturas AE Área de Enumeração AFs Agregados Familiares CSPro Sistema de Processamento de Inquéritos e Censos DE Direcção de Economia DPA Direcção Provincial da Agricultura FISP Projecto de Apoio ao Rendimento dos Agricultores GPS Geographic Position System MCA‐Moçambique Millenium Challenge Account Moçambique MINAG Ministério da Agricultura MSU Michigan State University PME Pequenas e Médias Explorações SDAE Serviços Distritais de Actividades Económicas SPA Serviços Provinciais de Agricultura TIA Trabalho de Inquérito Agrícola UPA Unidade Primária de Amostragem 4 Annex 5- page 5 Introdução No âmbito da parceria entre o Millenium Challenge Account Moçambique (MCA – Moçambique) e o Ministério da Agricultura (MINAG), representado pela Direcção de Economia (DE), realizou‐se entre os dias 31 de Março a 7 de Maio do corrente ano o inquérito aos agregados familiares nas zonas rurais produtoras de coqueiro, nas províncias da Zambézia e Nampula. Este inquérito caracterizou‐se fundamentalmente por um levantamento de dados de Base de carácter sócio‐ económico para o Projecto de Apoio ao Rendimento dos Agricultores (FISP) do MCA‐Moçambique, e teve como grupo‐alvo os agregados familiares seleccionados aleatoriamente e líderes das comunidades seleccionadas das duas províncias. Da informação recolhida, destacam‐se dados referentes a campanha agrícola 2007/08 (machambas cultivadas, tipos de culturas, produção e perdas), produção pecuária, incidência da doença de amarelecimento letal do coqueiro e Orytes, uso de insumos, bem como sobre o uso e posse de terra pelos agregados familiares rurais. II. Metodologia de Trabalho a) Fase Preparatória do Inquérito O levantamento de dados no campo foi antecidido de várias fases preparátorias, a saber: i) Elaboração do plano de actividades e orçamento do inquérito Esta actividade, foi desenvolvida pelos técnicos da DE em estreita coordenação com os técnicos do MCA – Moçambique. Foi uma das primeira actividades a ser desenvolvida logo após a assinatura do memorandum de entendimento entre as duas direcções. Esta actividade permitiu desenhar um calendário de actividades e orçamento, que foi seguido nas fases subsequentes do inquérito. ii) Pré‐teste do questionário e preparação de material de formação e de campo Todo o trabalho de pré‐teste foi realizado pela MSU em coordenação com as DPAs de Nampula e zambézia. A preparação de material de formação e de campo foi realizadas pelos técnicos da DE com orientação técnica da MSU. O material de formação consistiu basicamente na incorporação das questões sobre acesso a terra e sua formatação final, já que duma forma geral o questionário usado foi igual do TIA 2008. Também foi feita a preparação de listas de listagem dos AFs, algumas apresentações para formação em Powerpoint, vários exercícios para os candidatos resolverem durante o período da formação, a calibração dos GPS, etc. Para o campo, basicamente foi o trabalho na área de logística (tendas, GPS, Bússolas e fita métricas), bem como o aviso aos distritos seleccionados sobre a realização do inquérito. iii) Revisão e manutenção dos meios de transporte Esta ectividade foi realizada em coordenação com as DPAs de Nampula e Zambézia. Ao todo foram reparadas 7 viaturas (4 para a província da Zambézia e 3 para província de Nampula. Esta I. 5 Annex 5- page 6 operação consistiu no levantamento inicial dos problemas por cada viatura e orçamento, para posterior reparação das mesmas e no final do trabalho de campo as mesmas viaturas foram sujeitas a uma revisão geral, antes da sua devolução as respectivas DPAs. iv) Reprodução de questionários e manuais Depois da finalização do questionário, seguiu‐se a fase de elaboração do respectivo manual que contém os principais passos e metodologia de preenchimeto dos questionários no campo. Foram elaborados dois (2) tipos de questionários, nomeadamente (i) Pequenas e Médias Explorações e respectivo manual e (II) Questionário Comunitário. A reprodução destes instrumentos foi feita em Maputo, pela empresa Cegraf, Lta, onde foram reproduzidos cerca de 700 questionários (PME) , 50 questionários comunitários e cerca de 25 manuais. Também fora reproduzidas as listas de listagem aos AFs e as tabelas aleatórias. v) Formação de inquiridores A formação de inquiridores para este inuérito foi realizado na cidade de Quelimane nas instalações de Sporting, entre os dias 4 e 9 de Março de 2009. O evento contou com a participação de 26 pessoas, dos quais 22 candidatos a inquiridores para as duas províncias (9 candidatos para Nampula e 13 candidatos para Zambézia). 1 técnico do Departamento de economia por província e 1 técnico por província especialista em coqueiro. Esta formação foi administrada por três (3) técnicos dos quais 2 da Direcção de Economia e 1 da MSU (Michigan State University). Esta formação foi também monitorada pela Ellen Payongayong (MSU). e Arlindo Manjate (MCA). b) Constituição das Brigadas O trabalho de recolha de dados nas províncias da Zambézia e Nampula foi realizado por 5 (cinco) brigadas, cada uma compostas por (ver anexo I): • 1 controlador (chefe da brigada) • 3 Inquiridores • 1 motorista Normalmente cada brigada trabalhava sozinha (ver anexo II) numa determinada aldeia e em alguns casos houve a necessidade de unir as brigadas, dependendo das dificuldades de localização das aldeias em causa ( vias de acesso). Por cada aldeia cada brigada trabalhava normalmente com 3 guias locais. Chegados ao distrito, as brigadas dirigiam‐se aos SDAEs onde apresentavam o seu programa e solicitava‐se um técnico para acompanhar as brigadas às Unidades Primárias de Amostragem (UPAs). Com a confirmação do nome da UPAs e com a permissão das estruturas locais, as brigadas iniciavam o trabalho de listagem nominal dos chefes dos agregados familiares na respectiva residência ou seja casa a casa. Todos AFs tiveram a mesma probabilidade de selecção para a entrevista. 6 Annex 5- page 7 No total estiveram envolvidos neste trabalho cerca de 35 técnicos (dos quais 20 inquiridores, 7 motoristas, 2 técnicos dos Serviços Provinciais da Agricultura, dos quais 1 especialista em coqueiro (Zambézia) e 1 da área de sanidade vegetal (Nampula), 2 técnicos do departamento de economia provincial ( com a responsabilidade de supervisionar e coordenar todo o processo de selecção de inquiridores, reparação e revisão das viaturas, logística de material de campo, coordenar os avisos de trabalho entre a DPA/SDAE e comunidades seleccionadas), 2 técnicos da Direcção de Economia – Maputo (com a missão de providenciar a assistência técnica durante todo processo de recolha de dados, corrigir sempre que necessário a informação recolhida pelos inquiridores e explicar a forma correta de fazer as perguntas e preenchimento , de modo a garantir o seguimento da metodologia previamente traçada para o sucesso do inquérito). Também foram envolvidos técnicos dos Serviços Distritais das Actividades Económicas (SDAE) dos distritos seleccionados na amostra (7 técnicos). Para além destes técnicos foram também utilizados por cada aldeia guias locais, que serviam para acompanhar os inquiridores nas diversas etapas de trabalho (listagem, inquérito e medição de machambas). Por cada aldeia, foi feita a listagem nominal dos chefes dos agregados familiares que compõem a aldeia, seguia‐se a selecção aleatória dos 15 agregados familiares que seriam objecto de inquérito. Destes os primeiros 4 agregados familiares seriam também medidas as suas machambas exploradas na campanha agrícola 2007/08. Para além destes inquéritos, por cada aldeia foi realizado 1 questionário comunitário (onde tomavam parte os principais tomadores de decisão na aldeia). Durante o trabalho de campo tivemos uma visita de supervisão por parte do MCA, na pessoa de Arlindo Manjate, que trabalhou com as brigadas nas aldeias seleccionadas no distrito de Namacurra, onde assistiu a realização de entrevistas junto aos agregados familiares e também na reavaliação da incidência de ataque da doença do amarelecimento letal do coqueiro, juntamente com o técnico do SPA especialista na área. Esta visita durou dois dias. c) Meios Usados para Recolha de Dados Os meios usados para o trabalho de campo foram: • Viaturas, motorizadas, barcos, bicicletas e tendas; • Manual de inquiridor, questionário de Pequenas e Médias Explorações, lista de listagem, Tabela de selecção aleatória; • Pranchetas de madeira, lápis, borracha, afiador, esferográficas, blocos, pastas plásticas e mochilas, máquinas calculadoras simples; • GPS, bússolas, máquinas calculadoras programáveis, fitas métricas, pilhas alcalinas e feijões III. Amostra Para este trabalho, foram seleccionados 7 (Sete) distritos, 5 (cinco) para a província da Zambézia e 2 (dois) para Nampula. Para a província da Zambézia, foram seleccionados os seguintes distritos: 7 Annex 5- page 8 IV. V. Nicoadala (5 UPAs), Namacurra (5 UPAs), Maganja da Costa (7 UPAs), Inhassunge (6 UPAs) e Chinde (2 UPAs). Para a província de Nampula foram seleccionados os distritos de Moma (4 UPAs) e Angoche (7 UPAs). No total, foram seleccionadas 36 UPAs nas duas províncias. Por cada UPA foram seleccionadas 15 AFs pequenas explorações para responderem o inquérito (com a excepção da UPA 26 em Nampula onde foram seleccionados 15 AFs mas responderam o inquérito somente 5 AFs) (mais detalhes vide a matriz de campo em anexo) Digitação de Dados A digitação de dados estava prevista para ocorrer nas duas províncias (escritórios da Direcção Provincial da Agricultura(DPA)), mas porque a aquisição de computadores foi tardia, mudou‐se o local de digitação para Maputo. Esta decisão permitiu que os assistentes que estiveram no campo pudessem coordenar, monitorar e supervisionar todo o processo. Inicialmente estava previsto que o trabalho fosse feito por cinco digitadores, mas acabou sendo feito por sete digitadores, uma vez que dois deles iniciaram o trabalho, mas desistiram (demora de envio de questionários da província da Zambézia para Maputo e os 2 digitadores tiveram outras ocupções profissionais) antes da conclusão do trabalho. Este trabalho durou cerca de duas semanas e meia (mês de Junho). De referir que todos digitadores possuem uma larga experiência neste tipo de trabalho. Para a digitação usou‐se o pacote estatístico conhecido por CSPro, o mesmo que foi usado pelo MINAG na digitação dos dados do Trabalho de Inquérito Agrícola (TIA). Este processo passa por várias fases: primeiro faz‐se a adição dos questionários, depois a verificação dos mesmos (trocando os digitadores) e por último lugar as modificações (correcções). Foram digitados e verificados 546 questionários de pequenas e médias explorações (PME) e 36 questionários comunitários. Resultados Alcançados Segundo a tabela 1, na província da Zambézia, foram listadas no total cerca de 4833 agregados familiares, dos quais 3204 foram objecto da selecção aleatória. Foram realizados 375 inquéritos às pequenas explorações, arroladas cerca de 264 machambas exploradas na campanha agrícola 2007/08, mas destas foram medidas 225 machambas (39 machambas não foram medidas, devido principalmente a longas distâncias, vias de acesso intransitáveis e alagamento das machambas principalmente as de arroz, causada pelas fortes chuvas que se fizeram sentir nas zonas abrangidas pelo inquérito). Foi listado e inquirido uma média exploração e foram realizadas 25 entrevistas comunitárias. Ainda, segundo a tabela 1, na província de Nampula, foram listadas no total cerca de 1435 agregados familiares, tendo sido objecto de selecção aleatória cerca de 1070 agregados familiares. Foram realizadas 170 inquéritos as pequenas explorações. Não foram inquiridos 10 agregados familiares no distrito de Angoche, na UPA de Napruma por recusa dos mesmos. Foram declaradas cerca de 115 machambas e medidas 98 machambas. 17 machambas não foram medidas, pelas mesmas razões envocadas na província da Zambézia. Também foram realizados 11 inquéritos comunitários. 8 Annex 5- page 9 Tabela 1: Resumo dos Inquéritos realizados por distrito (mais detalhe ver anexo da matriz) Agregados familiares Listados Encontrados PE inq. Mag.da Costa Nicoadala Inhassunge Chinde Namacurra Moma 1470 1104 1101 180 978 428 971 739 711 113 670 343 105 75 90 30 75 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Angoche 1007 727 110 6268 4274 545 Nampula Zambézia Província Distrito Total # inquérito Machambas PE não ME inq inq. Comunitários Declaradas Medidas 0 1 0 0 0 0 67 50 70 24 53 35 63 44 58 11 49 35 7 5 6 2 5 4 10 0 80 63 7 10 1 379 323 36 VI. Principais dificuldades, pontos positivos de campo e Recomendações a) Dificuldades encontradas no campo: As principais dificuldades encontradas durante o trabalho de campo nas duas províncias foram: • Para as duas províncias, duma forma geral, apesar dos meios de transporte terem sido previamente reparados, necessitavam sempre de reparação e outros acessórios, principalmente de pneus e lubrificantes. • Na província da Zambézia, houve alguns casos de recusa na listagem de alguns agregados familiares no distrito de Namacurra, no Posto Administrativo de Macuse, na UPA de Mulevala e Manonga ‐ sede, mas ninguém recusou‐se a participar nas entrevistas. • Na província da zambézia não foi possível medir todas as machambas declaradas pelos AFs, principalmente as de arroz por se encontrarem totalmente alagadas por causa das fortes chuvas que cairam, tendo até certo ponto cortado as vias de acesso. • Especificamente, no distrito de Chinde, na província da Zambézia, também não foi possível medir algumas machambas porque normalmente os AFs culivam nas ilhas e muito distante das zonas onde residem. • Problemas das vias de acesso por causa das fortes chuvas e carros sem tracção, dai recorrer‐se muitas vezes a ajuda de camponeses para empurrar. • Em algumas aldeias não foi possível chegar de carro, houve necessidade de se recorrer ao aluguer de bicicletas, motas e barcos. • Na província de Nampula, no distrito de Angoche, UPA 26 Napruma não se completou o trabalho devido a problemática de cólera, pois a população recusou ser entrevistada mesmo com intervenção do chefe da localidade. No primeiro dia foi feita a listagem e inquiridos 5 AFs e quando se foi no segundo e último dia a população havia já abandonado o local. Segundo instruções recebidas esta UPA foi substituída e para a selecção usou‐se 2 aldeias das 10 existentes na localidade de Sangage, uma vez que 6 têm problemas relacionadas com desinformação sobre cólera e outras 2 não possuem coqueiros. Mesma situação aconteceu no distrito de Moma, UPA 15 Mudidicoma, onde esta foi substituída pelo Nathaca por inexistência de coqueiros. No entanto, nesta aldeia não se trabalhou 9 Annex 5- page 10 devido a problema acima descrito ‐ as brigadas foram mais uma vez impedidas de trabalhar em virtude de terem sido acusadas de irem distribuir cólera. Deste Modo, esta UPA também foi substituida por Lalane, onde 5 comunidades concorreram na selecção nomeadamente Nather, Mavela, Lalane, Macuir e Maganha. • Na localidade de Jacoma, distrito de Moma, não existem coqueiros, por isso, não foi inquirida a UPA 04‐Mutana e Chocho teve que ser substituída pela localidade de Naicole concretamente a aldeia/comunidade sede. b) Pontos positivos durante o trabalho de campo: • A supervisão de campo foi muito útil, na medida que foi possível corrigir os erros no terreno. • No geral, é de louvar a colaboração das autoridades distritais de todos distritos seleccionados para inquérito, bem como das comunidades locais. No entanto, há a realçar a boa colaboração das autoridades distritais de Inhassunge, na pessoa do Sr. Administrador e SDAE, que sempre se prontificaram em ajudar as brigadas a realizarem o seu trabalho naquele distrito, visto que as brigadas não tinham nenhum meio de transporte. c). Recomendações: • Os documentos que serão apresentados como justificativos do trabalho devem ser previamente discutidos e acordados pela DE e MCA, de modo a evitar o que aconteceu neste inquérito de coqueiro, em que tinhamos que voltar a procurar os membros das brigadas para assinarem recibos depois do fim do trabalho de campo. • A componente financeira de imprevistos deve ser bem revista nos próximos trabalhos e ajustada em conformidade com o tipo e estado de meios existentes para o trabalho de modo a não ficar comprometido. • Recomenda‐se a inscrição no orçamento de campo para além dos técnicos do SDAE, o próprio Director da Agricultura, que funciona como elo de ligação entre as diferentes estruturas distritais, para não incorrermos na falta de colaboração deles durante o trabalho de campo. • O tempo entre a formação de inquiridores e trabalho de campo deve ser o mais curto possível, se for possível deve haver uma ligação entre os dois momentos (separados por não mais que uma semana para a organização e logística das brigadas, avisos aos distritos seleccionados e harmonização do plano de trabalho). • Para os próximos trabalhos os inquiridores recomendam a compra de mochilas de costas, pois são mais estáveis e fáceis de carregar. • Para os próximos trabalhos de campo recomenda‐se a digitação de dados no terreno, porque melhora a limpeza dos dados juntos aos agregados familiares entrevistados. • Deve haver maior divulgação e mobilização nas zonas seleccionadas antes da chegada das brigadas, com vista a ter maior acolhimento e evitar mal‐entendidos, isto é, existem várias organizações políticas, ONGs e entre outras a recolherem dados dos seus interesses, facto que confunde as comunidades. 10 Annex 5- page 11 • Melhorar a disseminação de informação técnica sobre a doença de amarelecimento letal do coqueiro (extensão) junto das comunidades mais afectadas, de modo a que elas sejeam capazes de perceber a gravidade do problema e cooperarem com as actividades do projecto de plantio de novas mudas. VII. Anexos a) Anexo I: Constituição das brigadas de campo por Província Província da Zambézia Nº da Brigada Nome 1 2 3 Função Código Benedito André Controlador 410 Helga Vicente Iocheremua Inquiridora 411 Maturino Caetano Inquiridor 412 João Alfredo Duarte Inquiridor 413 Júlio Lampião Muloiua Motorista Gildo Campira Controlador 420 Alesta Nádia Ingive Inquiridor 421 Nicolau H. Razão Inquiridor 422 Lúcio Sebastião Inquiridora 423 Evaristo Pinto Mussa Motorista Clementina Eva Mussa Controladora 430 Leonel Choé Inquiridor 431 Noa Frank Wisk Inquiridor 432 Catija Branquinho Armação Inquiridora 433 Momade Alberto Rofino Motorista Supervisão e Assistência Técnica Clementino Mariano Téc. DE provincial (Coord. e supervisão) Arlindo Miguel MINAG‐DE (A. Técnica e Supervisão) Eusébio Rosse Técnico SPA – Especialista Coqueiro Paulo Jorge Motorista (supervisão) António Pinho Motorista SPA Província de Nampula Nº da Brigada Nome 1 Chaid Ali Ussene Benvinda B. Cassimo Pedro Carlos Faria Aiupa Eburamo Nacozeria 402 401 Função Código Controlador Inquiridora Inquiridor Inquiridor 310 311 312 313 11 Annex 5- page 12 Tomás Panchoneia Lucas Caetano Gazela Adones Ginesio Luis Motorista Controlador Inquiridor 320 321 Agostinho Tomás Ramadane João Ossufo Inquiridor Inquiridora 322 323 Monteiro Jaquissone Motorista Supervisão e Assistência Técnica Manuel Pitinga Téc. DE provincial (Coord e supervisão) Rafael Achicala Pedro Mbobo José Ricardo Raisse 2 MINAG‐DE (A. Técnica e Supervisão) Técnico SPA Motorista (supervisão) Anexo II: Planos de Trabalhos de Campo por Província a) Plano trabalho de campo da Zambézia Período de permanência Distrito Nº UPAS Dias totais no distrito Nicoadala 5 6 30/03 ‐ 6 /04 Namacurra 5 7 7/04 ‐ 13/04 Maganja da Costa 7 10 14/04 ‐ 22/04 Inhassunge 6 8 24/04 ‐ 30/04 Chinde 2 7 01/05 ‐ 07/05 Total 25 38 Brigadas trabalham juntas em 2 UPAs e separadas em 3 UPAs Brigadas trabalham juntas em 2 UPAs e separadas em 3 UPAs Brigadas trabalham juntas em 1 UPA e separadas em 6 UPAs, 1 dia para mudança das UPAs Cada brigada trabalha separada, dificuldade transporte reservamos 1 dia para mudança de UPA Serão constituídas 2 equipas para Chinde Traçamos a seguinte rota de trabalho: Nicoadala, Namacurra, Maganja da Costa, Inhassunge e Chinde. b) Plano de Trabalho de Nampula Dia BRIG 1 TIAREF BRIG 2 TIAREF Observações Viagem 17 05 Abril 1 MOMA 2 3 4 CURRUCURO (Namichir) 17 Régulo Coropa ‐ 05 Namahuria MOMA CURRUCURO (Namichir) Régulo Coropa Namahuria ‐ 12 Annex 5- page 13 5 6 Domingo 7 8 9 10 ANGOCHE RÉGULO MÓRIA (Bairro Gepa) 01 RÉGULO MUCUALA (Aldeia Nacucha) 03 ANGOCHE RÉGULO MÓRIA (Bairro Gepa) 01 RÉGULO MUCUALA (Aldeia Nacucha) 03 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sangage (Tophasede) Sangage (Napruma) Bairro Uphalaque Bairro Campo Ilha Maziuane 25 26 13 14 02 Sangage (Tophasede) Sangage (Napruma) Bairro Uphalaque Bairro Campo Ilha Maziuane 25 26 13 14 02 Domingo Domingo Uso de barco a motor 23 (Aluguer) 24 MOMA MOMA Viagem 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mudidicoma Mutana (Chocho) FIM DO INQUÉRITO 15 04 Mudidicoma Mutana (Chocho) 15 04 Domingo Viagem Nota: juntar 2 (duas) brigadas numa 1ª fase, com andar do tempo e consoante a complexidade do trabalho podemos separar a qualquer momento. Anexo III: Programa de Formação de Inquiridores, Inquérito de Coqueiros (Quelimane) 4‐Mar‐09 Dia 1 Registo dos Participantes Abertura Apresentação do Programa/Participantes/Documentos do curso Estrutura, Objectivos do Inquérito, Amostra e Cobertura Principais Conceitos e Definições Secção A: Identificação das Explorações Secção B: Membros do Agregado Familiar Secção C: Acesso aos Serviços, Associações, Créditos e Ocorrência de Calamidades Naturais Secção D : Indicadores de Rendimento (D1, D2, D3 e D4) Secção E: Áreas das Machambas e Pastagens na Campanha 2007/08 Secção F: Área Espaço Relativo das Culturas e Medição da Machamba 5‐Mar‐09 Dia 2 Esclarecimento de Dúvidas 13 Annex 5- page 14 Filme sobre Jogo de Feijões/slides sobre o espaço relativo Secção F: Medição da Machamba Instrumentos de Medição (Familiarização) Filme sobre Medição de Machambas Unidades de medidas, Secção G e H Secção I Práticas de entrevistas em linguas locais (secções F a I) Secção J Secção K e L Secção M1: Cajueiros, produção e venda Secção M2: Coqueiros, produção e venda nos últimos 12 meses 6‐Mar‐09 Dia 3 Esclarecimento de Dúvidas Slides sobre as doenças/pragas mais comuns do cajueiro Secção N : Produção e Efectivo Pecuário Nos ùltimos 12 Meses 7‐Mar‐09 9‐Mar‐09 Secção O Secção P Secção Q1 e Q2 Pagina adicional sobre terra Questionário Comunitário Metodologia de Listagem para as Pequenas e médias Explorações Dia 4 Palavras Introdutórias Na UPA/AF (Em Português) Palavras Introdutórias Na UPA/AF (Em Linguas locais) Debate sobre as palavras introdutórias Técnicas de Fazer entrevistas Prática de entrevistas em línguas locais Prática de Medições das Machambas (os dois métodos) Dia 5 Esclarecimento de Dúvidas Simulação de listagem e classificação de explorações (Fichas) Calculo e estimação de áreas/ celeiros e conversões Regras de conduta de inquiridores Debate e esclarecimento de dúvidas Preparação do Trabalho de Campo Operações de campo Formadores Ellen Payongayong Arlindo Miguel Rafael Achicala Raúl Pitoro Facilitadores Arlindo Manjante Eusebio Rossi Mbobo Supervisão Manuel Petinga Clementino 14 Annex 5- page 15 Anexo IV: Fotografias tiradas durante o trabalho de campo Fotografia 1: Incidência de amarelecimento letal de coqueiro numa das aldeias seleccionadas no distrito de Namacura (Posto Administrativo de Macuse) Fotografia 2: Parte da equipa de inquiridores e supervisores da província da Zambézia 15 Annex 5- page 16 Annex 6: Household survey instrument for Trabalho de Inquerito Agricola 2008 and for FISP Coconut Zone Survey 2008 (in Portuguese) CONFIDENCIALIDADE E AUTORIDADE ESTATÍSTICA (Lei 7/96 de Julho) Artigo 6 AUTORIDADE ESTATÍSTICA- O princípio da autoridade estatística consiste no poder conferido ao Instituto Nacional de Estatística de, no exercício das actividades estatísticas, realizar inquéritos com obrigatoriedade de respostas nos prazos que forem fixados, bem como efectuar diligências para a produção de estatísticas. República de Moçambique Ministério da Agricultura Direcção de Economia / Departamento de Estatística Artigo 14 CONFIDENCIALIDADE ESTATÍSTICA- Todas as informações estatísticas de carácter individual recolhidas pelos orgãos produtores de estatísticas oficiais, são de natureza estritamente confidencial. Voltar a corrigir as secções: INQUÉRITO AOS AGREGADOS FAMILIARES NAS ZONAS COM COQUEIROS 2009 PEQUENAS E MÉDIAS EXPLORAÇÕES A. Identificação Da Exploração A01. Província A02. Distrito A02A A02B Posto Administrativo Localidade A05. A06. Número do AF Tipo de exploração baseada na listagem Nome da UPA A07. Nome do chefe do AF A08. Nome da pessoa entrevistada A14. Data da 1ª entrevista (dd/mm/aaaa) A03. A04A Localização da UPA 1- Rural 2- Urbana 1-Pequena 2- Média (Aldeia/Comunidade/Povoado/Quarteirão/Área de Enumeração) A04. Código da Unidade Primária de Amostrgem (UPA) A09. A exploração tem machamba? 1- Sim 2- Não A10. A exploração cria ou criou animais? 1- Sim 2- Não A15. Tempo da 1ª entrevista A11. A exploração tem cajueiros ou coqueiros? 1- Sim 2- Não A16. Data da 2ª entrevista (dd/mm/aaaa) A12. A exploração tem árvores de fruta ou fruteiras? 1- Sim 2- Não A17. Tempo da 2ª entrevista A13. A exploração tem questionário de medição? 1- Sim 2- Não A18. A19. Data da 1ª digitação (dd/mm/aaaa) Nome do 1º digitador __ __ / __ __ / 2009 A22. O AF foi localizado? A20. Data da 2ª digitação (dd/mm/aaaa) __ __ / __ __ / 2009 A23. Caso não: A21 Nome do 2º digitador A24. O AF foi entrevistado? A25. Caso não: A26. A entrevista é completa? Caso não: __ __ __ __ : __ __ 1- Sim-> A24 1- Mudou-se / __ __ / 2009 à __ __ : __ __ / __ __ / 2009 à __ __ : __ __ 2- Não 2- Não identificado 3- Dissolução 4- Outro, especificar ________________ 1- Sim-> A26 2- Não A28. Coordenadas GPS da casa LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: A29. Localização / Endereço da casa A30. Nome do Inquiridor A31. A32. Nome do Controlador Nome do Assistente/Supervidor Adjunto 1- Recusou 2- Faleceu 3- Viajou A27. __ __ __ __ : __ __ 4- Outro, especificar___________________ 1- Sim-> A28 2- Não 1- Recusa 2- Outro, especificar ___________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ B. Membros do Agregado Familiar (AF) B00 B00A B01 B02 B03 Nº. Nome Sexo Relação com chefe Idade Estado civil em anos B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 Sabe ler e escrever? Nível de escolaridade Fez trabalho remunerado? Fez trabalho por conta própria? Pratica actividade agropecuária como actividade Tem formação agrária de pelo menos 3 meses? Quantos meses nos últimos 12 meses que não viveu aqui? DÊ EXEMPLOS DÊ EXEMPLOS 1- Sim 2- Não 0- Sem escola formal 1 à 12 13- Nível superior 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Próprio 1- M 2- F 2- Cônjuge 3- Filho(a) 4- Irmão(a) 5- Pai / Mãe 6- Sobrinho(a) 7- Neto(a) 8- Outro parente 9- Sem relação 1- Solteiro(a) 2- Casado(a) 3- União marital 4- Polígamo 5- Divorciado(a) 6- Separado(a) 7- Viúvo(a) 1- Principal 2- Secundária 3- Não pratica 1- Sim 2- Não SÓ PARA PESSOAS COM 10 ANOS OU MAIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 C. Acesso aos Serviços, Associações, Crédito e Ocorrência de Calamidades Naturais e Práticas Agrícolas C1. ACESSO AOS SERVIÇOS DE EXTENSÃO C01 C02 C2. ASSOCIAÇÕES, CRÉDITO C03 C04 C05 C06 C07 C08 C09 C10 C11 O responsável Quem Sobre que assunto recebeu a Nos últimos 12 meses, recebeu Será que a in- Será que a in- O respon- Quem no AF Algum memDe quem Quem da exploração ou algum recebeu esta infor- informação ou conselho? alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via: formação que teve sobre maçao ou conselho? participa activamente nessa associação? bro do AF recebeu? recebeu crédito nos últimos 12 meses? no AF membro do AF recebeu informação ou sável da exploração ou algum membro do AF pertence a alguma 2- Não conselho de um agente de extensão nos últimos preços influen- preços influenciou a sua de- ciou a sua cisão sobre a escolha de 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim SE FOREM "NÃO" TODAS AS RESPOSTAS SALTE PARA C07 12 meses? esp, 1- Sim 1- Homens 2- Não--> C04 2- Mulheres 3- Ambos Proces- Mercasamento dos e Agricul- Pecuá- FloPisci- de protura ria restas cultura dutos comercializ. Rádio Asso- Exten- Publi- ciações são Rural cações C3. OCORRÊNCIA DE CALAMIDADES NATURAIS, USO DE FOGO C12 Nos últimos 12 meses, perdeu parte das culturas, animais ou outros bens por causa de: C13 Recebeu semente de emergência durante esta última campanha? 1- Sim 2- Não C14 Durante a campanha 2007/08, alguma das suas machambas foram afectadas por queimadas descontroladas? Ciclo- SelvaSeca Cheia ne gens Culturas alimentares 1 Milho 5 Amendoim Gr 2 Arroz 6 Amendoim Peq 3 Mapira 7 F. Manteiga 4 Mexoeira 8 F. Nhemba ONG área que cultivou ou pensa cultivar na campanha culturas que semeou ou pensa semear na campanha 2008/09? em 2008/09? 1- Muito influente 2- Moderadamente influente 3- Pouco influente Outro, 4- Não influente 5- Não sabe esp 1- Muito influente 2- Moderadamente influente 3- Pouco influente 4- Não influente 5- Não sabe recebeu o crédito? 1- Governo 2- Banco 3- Associações associação agrária? 4- Empresas 5- ONG´s 6- Comerciantes 7- Lojas 8- Familiares 9- Amigos 1- Sim 1- Homens 1- Sim 2- Não--> C09 2- Mulheres 3- Ambos 2- Não--> C12 10- Outro, esp 1- Homens 2- Mulheres 3- Ambos C4. PRÁTICAS AGRÍCOLAS C15 Durante a campanha 2007/08, o agregado familiar utilizou fogo para desbravar machambas? Animais formação que teve sobre 1- Sim 1- Sim 1- Sim 2- Não-> 2- Não 2- Não C17A 9 F. Jugo 13 Bat. D Alar 10 F. Boer 14 Bat. D. Não Alar 11 Batata Reno 15 F. Verde 12 Mandioca 16 F. Oloko C16 Em que meses utilizou fogo para desbravar machambas? 1- Jan ... 12-Dez C17A Pratica rotação de culturas? 1- Sim 2- Não--> Início Cul. Rendimento 20 Algodão 21 Tabaco 22 Sisal 23 Chá folha Fim C17B-C De quem recebeu este conhecimento? 1- Agente de extensão 2- ONG 3- Empresa 4- Vizinho 5- Familiar C18A Pratica consociação? 1- Sim 2- Não--> C18A 28 Paprica 25 Girassol 29 Gengibre 27 Soja 1- Agente de extensão 2- ONG 3- Empresa 4- Vizinho 5- Familiar 6- Outro Esp C19A 24 Cana doce 26 Gergelim C18B-C De quem recebeu este conhecimento? Hortícolas 311 Abóbora 321 Alface 331 Alho 341 Beringela C19A Pratica cultivos em linhas? 1- Sim 2- Não-> C19B-C De quem recebeu este conhecimento? C20 Na última campanha quais são as culturas que cultivou em linhas? 1- Agente de extensão 2- ONG 3- Empresa 4- Vizinho 5- Familiar 6- Outro Esp SEC D 351 Cebola 401 Melancia 441 Quiabo 361 Cenoura 411 Pepino 451 Repolho 371 Couve 421 Pimenta 461 Tomate 381 Ervilha 430 PiriPiri 490 Outro 3 D1. Trabalho Remunerado Fora da sua Própria Exploração Nos Últimos 12 Meses D101. Nos últimos 12 meses alguma pessoa no seu agregado familiar trabalhou como ... A. B. C. D. Trabalhador agrícola ou pecuário incluindo ganho-ganho ? Trabalhador fora do país Professor, serviço de saúde Mecânico ou trabalhador de construção E. F. G. H. 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| Gestor, contabilista, secretária Trabalhador doméstico (cozinheiro, jardineiro, etc) Trabalhador florestal/faunístico Outro tipo de trabalho remunerado __________________ 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| 1 Sim 2 Não |____| D102 D103 D104 D105 D106 D107 D108 D109 D110 Quem fez o trabalho [.. D101A, B, C, ETC. SE A RESPOSTA FOR SIM .. ] ID Tipo de trabalho Tipo de empregador Onde realizou este trabalho? Nos últimos 12 meses, trabalhou todos meses? Ganhou o mesmo salário em cada mês? Quanto é que ganhou mensalmente? Tipo de Recebeu moeda 13º salário? 1- Agrícola 2- Pecuário 3- Florestal/Faunístico 4- Técnico agro-pecuário 5- Funcionário Público 6- Professor /Serviços de Saúde 7- Gestor/ Contabilista/ Secretária 8- Mecânico / Construção 9- Mineiro 10- Motorista 11- Trababalhador Doméstico 12- Outra mão-de-obra especializada 13- Mão-de-obra não especializada 1- Exploração agrícola familiar 2- Exploração média/grande 3- Exploração Florestal/ Faunístico 4- Fábrica 5- Estado 6- Comerciante 7- ONG 8- Outro, Esp 1- Na Aldeia 2- Dentro do Distrito 3- Dentro da Província 4- Outra Província ou Maputo 5- Malawi 6- Zimbabwe 7- RSA 8- Outro país, Esp D111 1- Sim 2- Não Salta para D114 1- Sim 2- Não->D112 1- Sim 2- Não->D112 1 2 3 4 D112 D113 D114 a. Em que meses nos últimos 12 meses trabalhou? [ MARQUE COM “U” NO CANTO DE CIMA NA CAIXA CORRESPONDENTE AO MÊS.] b. Gostariamos de saber quanto é que recebeu em cada um dos meses em que trabalhou? Tipo de moeda Recebeu também outro pagamento em espécie? (transporte,etc) 1-Fez trabalho remunerado mas o rendimento entrou no AF como remessa Mar 08 Abr 08 Mai 08 Jun 08 Jul 08 Ago 08 Set 08 Out 08 Nov 08 Dez 08 Jan 09 Fev 09 D115 Qual é o valor em dinheiro deste pagamento? D116 D117 Tipo de moeda A informação foi declarada pela 1 Sim 1 Própria pessoa 2 Não->D117 2 Outra pessoa TIPO DE MOEDA 1 MT (Metical) 2 Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3 Kwacha (Malawi) 4 Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5 Rand 6 Xelim (Tanzania) 7 Dólar americano 8 Outro (especificar) 1 2 3 4 4 D2. Trabalho por Cónta Própria: Produtos Florestais, Faunísticos e Pesca NOTA: MESMO QUE SEJA "NÃO" NA PERGUNTA B08, DEVE-SE FAZER ESTA SECÇÃO. D201 Cod D203 D204 D205 D206 Praticou [.actividade.] nos últimos 12 meses? Vendeu os produtos desta actividade? Quem são as pessoas responsáveis pela venda? Sendo responsável por esta actividade, diga-nos na sua opinião quais são os meses que obteve os rendimentos mais altos; a seguir os mais baixos; e finalmente os meses sem rendimento 2 - Alto Corte/Apanha de lenha Produção de carvão 2 Não-> próxima próxima actividade actividade D211 Tipo de moeda INDIQUE SE CAPAZ 1 MT (Metical) A RESPOSTA num mês de num mês de DE 2 Dólar(Zimb) FOI DADA rendimento mais alto? LEMBRAR POR MÊS 3 Kwacha(Mal) 4 Kwacha(Zâm) 5 Rand PELO RESPONSÁVEL PELA VENDA TOTAL ESTIMADO 7 Dólar amer. de receitas de receitas rendimento mais baixo? 6 Xelim(Tanz) COLOCAR ID Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Set Out Nov Dez Jan Fev 1ª 2ª 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 8 Outro, esp. 1 Pessoa responsável 2 Outra pessoa 2 3 Corte de estacas, Lacalaca 4 Recolha de mel, plantas, frutos silvestres, ovos de animais bravios 5 Pesca 1 Sim 2 Não-> D210 1 Corte de capim, caniço, folhas de coqueiro, palmeira Caça 1 Sim 1-Baixo 0-Nenhum D207 D208 D209 Qual é o Qual é o valor habitual valor habitual SE NÃO É 6 7 Produção de madeira 8 Captura de pássaros e répteis 9 5 D3. Outro Trabalho por Cónta Própria *NOTA: EXCLUINDO AS BEBIDAS PROVENIENTES DAS ÁRVORES DE FRUTA E FRUTEIRAS DA SECÇÃO L e M. D301 D303 D304 D305 D306 D307 D308 Alguém no AF praticou [actividade] nos últimos 12 meses? Quem são as pessoas responsáveis pelas vendas? Onde realizou este trabalho? Na sua opinião, quais são os meses nos últimos 12 que obteve os rendimentos mais altos? rendimentos mais baixos? meses sem rendimento? Qual é o valor habitual de receitas e custos num mês de rendimento mais alto? Qual é o valor habitual de receitas e custos num mês de rendimento mais baixo? 1 Na aldeia 2 Dentro dist. 3 Dentro prov. 4 Outra prov. COLOCAR 1 Sim ID Fabrico e venda de bebidas caseiras (cana de açucar, frutos silvestres e de origem florestal)* 10 Compra e venda de bebidas 11 Compra e venda de produtos alimentares 12 Compra e venda de produtos não alimentares 13 Compra e venda de peixe 14 Compra e venda de animais de grande porte e subprd.pecuário 15 Compra e venda de animais de porte médio e subprd pecuário 16 Compra e venda de animais de peq. porte e subprd pecuário 17 Trabalho artesanato/ ourives/ carpintaria ou marceneiro 18 Trabalho de alfaiate/ modista 19 Reparação de rádios, bicicletas 20 Produção de blocos, tijolos, ferreiro, pedreiro 21 Operação de moageira ou actividade de agro-process. 22 Outra actividade _______ 23 2 - Alto 5 Malawi 1-Baixo 0-Nenhum D310 SE NÃO É Tipo de moeda CAPAZ 1- MT (Metical) DE 2- Dólar(Zimb) LEMBRAR 3- Kwacha(Mal) POR MÊS 4- Kwacha(Zâm) 5- Rand (RSA) TOTAL 6- Xelim(Tanz) ESTIMADO 7- Dólar 6 Zimbabwe 2 Não-> próxima actividade ou Maputo D209 1ª 2ª americano 7 RSA Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Set Out Nov Dez Jan Fev Receita 8 Outro pais 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 Custo Receita Custo Receita Custo 8- Outro, esp. 09 6 D4. Remessas E Pensões D401. Durante os últimos 12 meses, este agregado familiar recebeu dinheiro, alimentos ou outros bens de alguém que vive fora desta exploração ou de algum membro enquanto vivia fora desta exploração? ..................... 1- Sim 2- Não |__| SE FOR NÃO SALTE PARA D411 D403 D404 D405 D406 D407 D408 D409 De quem recebeu dinheiro, alimentos ou bens nos últimos 12 meses? Qual é a relação do [..D403..] com o CHEFE do AF? Quem foi o benificiario deste dinheiro, alimento ou bem? Recebeu ... Em que meses recebeu dinheiro, alimento, bens? Marque com (1) os meses Valor Total de alimentos, bens, ou dinheiro recebido Tipo de moeda CÓDIGOS 1- Sim 2- Não COLOCAR ID ABAIXO 99 Toda família 1ª Dinheiro Alimento Bens 2ª Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Set Out Nov Dez Jan Fev 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 1 2 3 4 5 D410 D411 Durante os últimos 12 meses, este AF mandou dinheiro para alguém que vive fora desta exploração? Durante os últimos 12 meses, este AF mandou alimentos ou outros bens para alguém que vive fora desta exploração? 1 Sim 2 Não 1 Sim 2 Não D412 SE A RESPOSTA FOR SIM A D410 OU D411 Qual é o valor TOTAL do dinheiro, alimentos ou bens que mandou nos últimos 12 meses? D413 D414 D415 D416 Tipo de moeda Alguém neste AF recebeu uma pensão (de uma instituição empregadora)? durante os últimos 12 meses? Qual é o valor TOTAL recebido durante os últimos 12 meses? Tipo de moeda 1 Sim 2 Não->SECÇÃO E RELAÇÃO COM CHEFE 1- Próprio 2- Cônjuge 3- Filho (a) 4- Irmão (a) 5- Pai / Mãe 6- Sobrinho(a) 7- Neto (a) 8- Outro parente 9- Sem relação TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- DÓLAR (Zimbabwe) 3- KWACHA (Malawi) 4- KWACHA (Zambia) 5- RAND (RSA) 6- XELIM (Tanzania) 7- DOLAR (Americano) 8- Outro, esp. 7 E1. Machambas/Parcelas e Pastagem na Campanha 2007/08 E01. Você ou outro membro do AF tem machambas cultivadas, pomares/ plantações exploradas na campanha 2007/08? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-Sim 2- Não |___| SE FOR NÃO SALTE PARA E29 E02 E02A E03 E04A E04B No Localização das machambas, plantações, pomares Zona Nome da pessoa responsável pela machamba Coloque o Quanto tempo leva para o código chegar à machamba? da pessoa responsável (ver Secção B). E05 Km E06A Horas E06B Em que ano obteve esta machamba? Como obteve esta machamba? E07A E07B Se fôr Tipo de comprada, moeda quanto é que pagou? CÓDIGOS ABAIXO Minutos (ANO - AAAA) 9- Não sabe 1 Alta 2 Baixa 1 2 3 4 5 E02 E08A E08B E09 No Se fôr alugada Tipo de De quem qual é o valor de moeda alugou esta aluguer em machamba ? dinheiro ou espécie ? 1- Autoridades tradicionais 2- Autoridades formais 3- Familiares 4- Vizinhos 5- Empresas 6-Imigrantes 7- Outros, esp _____________ E10A E10B E10C E10D Fez investimento na machamba nos últimos 2 anos ? 1- Sim 2- Não 3- Já tem especif. Vedação Canais/ Sulcos/ poços Melhoramentos de solos Outros, espec. COMO OBTEVE ESTA MACHAMBA 1- Cedida pelas autoridades tradicionais 2- Cedida pelas autoridades formais 3- Cedida pelos parentes 4- Arrendada 5- Emprestada 6- Ocupada 7- Comprada 8- Herdada 9- Outros TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimb) 3- Kwacha (Mal) 4- Kwacha (Zâm) 5- Rand 6- Xelim (Tanz) 7- Dólar americano 8 O t 1 2 3 4 5 8 E2. Posse de Terra, Machamba/Parcela na Campanha 2007/08 E02 E11 No A machamba tem título? E12 Tipo de título 1- Sim 2- Não, --> E16 1- Definitivo (DUAT) 2- Provisório E18 E19 E13 E14 Quando obteve o título? E15 E16 Quanto tempo Qual é o grau levou para obter este título? (ANO-AAAA) (MESES) Alguma de parentesco vez pensou entre o chefe do em obter AF e o detentor título ? do título? 1- Próprio 2- Cônjuge 3- Filho(a) 4- Irmão(a) 5- Pai/Mãe 6- Sobrinho (a) 7- Neto(a) 8- Outro Parente 9 Sem Relação 1- Sim 2- Não, --> E18 E17 Porque ainda não obteve título? 1- Não sabe como tratar 2- Não sabe onde tratar 3- Não tem dinheiro 4- Não precisa 5- Outro, esp.: __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 E02 Nº E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 Tem outro Alguma O conflito era Com quem Em que Em que Preocupa-se Com quem documento vez teve sobre o quê? teve este ano ano foi que pode pensa que para mostrar conflito conflito ? começou? resolvido? entrar em pode entrar que tem de terra ? conflito sobre em conflito? direito de usar a terra? 1 2 3 4 5 E20 1- Sim 1- Sim 2- Não 2- Não, --> E24 1- Erros nos limites 2- Fraco controle dos Serviços de Cadastro 3- Desavenças entre herdeiros 4- Deficiente demarcação das parcelas 5- Vendas para mais de uma pessoa 6- Consulta às comunidades mal feita 7- Outras, esp. 1- Autoridades tradicionais 2- Autoridades formais 3- Familiares 4- Vizinhos 5- Empresas 6-Imigrantes 7- Outros, esp _______________ esta machamba? (ANO-AAAA) (ANO-AAAA) 99 - ainda não foi resolvido 1- Sim 2- Não, --> E29 1- Autoridades tradicionais 2- Autoridades formais 3- Familiares 4- Vizinhos 5- Empresas 6- Imigrantes 7- Outros, esp _______________ 9 E3. Pastagem Na Campanha 2007/08 (continuação) E29. Você ou outro membro do seu agregado familiar tem machambas que não foram cultivadas nesta última campanha agrícola 2007/08?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- Sim E30 E31 Nº. Nome ou localização E32 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA E33 22 __ __,__ __ __ __ 23 __ __,__ __ __ __ E35 Há quantos anos não foi cultivada? Coloque o código da pessoa responsável (ver Secção B). Ha __ __,__ __ __ __ SE FOR 'NÃO' SALTE PARA E36 E34 Quem é a pessoa responsável por esta machamba? Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba? 21 2- Não Porque não cultivou? 1- Falta de mão-de-obra 2- Falta de dinheiro 3- Repouso da terra 4- Falta de mercado para produtos 5- Falta de chuva 6- Falta semente 9- Outro, esp. ____________ E36. Você ou outro membro do seu AF tem machambas que arrendou ou emprestou a outros nesta campanha ?... 1- Sim 2- Não E37 E38 Nº Nome ou localização E39 E40 Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba? 31 __ __,__ __ __ __ 32 __ __,__ __ __ __ E41 Quanto recebeu com o arrendamento nos últimos 12 meses? Ha Tipo de moeda 99- Emprestado COMO OBTEVE ESTA MACHAMBA TIPO DE MOEDA 01- Cedida pelas autoridades tradicionais 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimb) 3- Kwacha (Mal) 4- Kwacha (Zâm) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanz) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro,esp 02- Cedida pelas autoridades formais 03- Cedida pelos parentes 04- Arrendada 05- Emprestada E42 E43 Nº E44 Como obteve esta área do [..]? 99- N/A-> SEC E46 SE FOR 'NÃO' SALTE PARA E44 E45 06- Ocupada Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta área? Ha COMP X LARG SE DADO 41 Quintal __ __,__ __ __ __ 51 Pastagem __ __,__ __ __ __ 07- Comprada com título 08- Comprada sem título 09- Herdada 10- Outras E46. Você ou outro membro do seu AF tem conhecimento da lei de terra?... 1- Sim 2- Não 10 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 1 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 11 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 2 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 12 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 3 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 13 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 4 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 14 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 5 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 15 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 6 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 16 F. Áreas, Espaço Relativo das Culturas, Medição de Machambas e Uso de Insumos F01 F02 ÁREA DA MACHAMBA/POMAR F04 ÁREA F05 ÁREA F06 F07 Quantos hectares foram cultivados com culturas anuais na 1ª época? Quantos hectares estiveram em pousio nesta machamba? Quantos hectares são ocupados pelas culturas permanentes? F12 Nº UMA COLUNA Quantos hectares no TOTAL tem esta machamba incluindo a parte ocupada por culturas permanentes e a parte não cultivada? F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 Área medida Erro de Fecho (%) Perímetro Número de [...] nesta machamba Nº do inquiridor PREENCHA APENAS Quantas árvores tem ? Número de lados de toda machamba SE FOR SUPERIOR A 2% DEVE FAZER-SE NOVA MEDIÇÃO Coqueiros HA COMP X LARG SE DADO , 7 Nº HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ F08A F08 Quais são as Cód. HA , __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F09 F10A F10B F11A Espaço Usou rega? Tipo de rega F11B 99 =GPS , __ __,__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ F11C Cajueiros (metros) F08C F08D F10C F10D F11D F11E F11F Na campanha 2007/08, Quais são as Cód. Usou rega? Tipo Na campanha 2007/08, o seu agregado familiar culturas anuais de o seu agregado familiar utilizou [...........] que praticou rega utilizou [...........] Medição de Machamba com Bússola Nº Distância 1º A-B B-A 2º B-C C-B 3º C-D D-C 4º D-E E-D 01 5º E-F F-E 02 6º F-G G-F culturas anuais Relativo que praticou [..Cultura..] nesta machamba na 1ª época? FAÇA O JOGO DE FEIJÕES 1- Sim 2- Não, --> F11A [..Cultura..] 1- Sim nesta 2- Não machamba na 1- Sim 2ª época? 2- Não, --> Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Estrume 1- Sim F11D 2- Não Fertiliz. Pesti- químicos cidas Angulos Estrume 03 7º G- H-G 04 05 8º H-I I-H 06 9º I-J J-I 07 10 J-K K-J K-L L-K L-M M-L 08 11 09 12 10 11 13 M- 12 14 N- N-M O- 13 14 Culturas Alimentares Culturas de Rendimento Hortícolas 01- Milho 07- Feijão Manteiga 13- Batata Doce Polpa Alaranjada 20- Algodão 26- Gergelim 140- Inhame ou madumbi 361- Cenoura 430- PiriPiri Tipo de rega (F10B, F10D) 1- Manual 02- Arroz 08- Feijão Nhemba 14- Batata Doce Polpa não Alaranjada 21- Tabaco 27- Soja 311- Abóbora 371- Couve 441- Quiabo 2- Meios mecanizados 03- Mapira 09- Feijão Jugo 15- Feijão Verde 22- Sisal 28- Paprica 321- Alface 381- Ervilha 451- Repolho 3- Gravidade 04- Mexoeira 10- Feijão Boer 16- Feijão Oloko 23- Chá Folha 29- Gengibre 331- Alho 401- Melancia 461- Tomate 4- Bombas pedestrais 05- Amendoim Grande 11- Batata Reno 24- Cana Doce 341- Beringela 411- Pepino 490- Outro 06- Amendoim Pequeno 12- Mandioca 25- Girassol 351- Cebola 421- Pimenta 17 G. Produção e Venda de Culturas Alimentares Básicas: Cereais e Amendoim 1. PRODUÇÃO DA CAMPANHA 2007/2008 G00A G01A G02 G03 Culturas Cód Praticou esta cultura? Utilizou Comprou semente semente? melhorada (que vem em embalagem)? 1- Sim 2- Não -> PRÓXIMA CULTURA Milho 01 Arroz 02 Mapira 03 Mexoeira 04 VEJA EXPLICAÇÃO EM BAIXO 1- Sim 2- Não G04 1- Sim 2- Não -> G06 G05A G05B Onde comprou semente? Quanto Tipo gastou de no moeda total? 1- Casa agrária 2- Loja 3- Mercado 4- Vizinhos 5- Feira agrária 9- Outro, esp. G05C G06 G07A G07B G07C Volume da colheita Fez sementeira - 1ª época QuantiUniEstado dade dade 1- Sim 2- Não -> G09 SE FOR "0" SALTE PARA G09 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca G08A G08B G08C Volume da colheita noutro estado Quantidade SE FOR "0" SALTE PARA G09 Uni- Estado dade 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca G09 G10A G10B G10C Volume da colheita e/ou Fez volume que espera colher sementeira - 2ª época Quanti- Uni- Estado dade dade 1- Sim 2- Não -> G11 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca Amendoim gran. 05 Amendoim peq. 06 UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade LISTA DAS CULTURAS E POSSÍVEIS ESTADOS: 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90 Kg 13- Saco de 70 Kg 14- Saco de 60 Kg 15- Saco de 50 Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L 1- Milho: Fresco (1), Em espiga (2) e Em grão (3) 2- Arroz: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 3- Mapira: Em espiga (2) e Em grão (3) 4- Mexoeira: Em espiga (2) e Em grão (3) 5- Amendoim grande: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 6- Amendoim pequeno: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) Agora, queremos saber se o seu agregado familiar utilizou semente melhorada. Semente melhorada pode ser comprada na loja, mercado, feira ou fornecido pelos serviços de agricultura, ONG's ou outras. Normalmente vem em embalagens, é tratada e apresenta coloração verde, azulada ou avermelhada. [Espere resposta]. Usou esta semente nas campanhas 2005/06 ou 2006/07 e parte da sua própria produção foi usada como semente na campanha 2007/08? 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 18 G. Produção e Venda das Culturas Alimentares Básicas: Cereais e Amendoim, (continuação) 2. VENDAS G00B G01B G11 Culturas Cód. Vendeu a produção desta cultura? G12A G12B Unidade 1- Sim 2- Não-> G18 01 Arroz 02 Mapira 03 Mexoeira 04 Amendoim grande 05 Amedoim pequeno 06 G13 G14A G14B Vendeu PREENCHA APENAS tudo UMA COLUNA num Preço por Valor total rece- só dia? unidade de Quantidade Milho G12C Qual é o volume TOTAL já vendido? Estado 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 6- Farinha 1- Sim 2- Não-> G15A G15A G15B G15C G16A Qual foi a maior quantidade vendida num só dia? G16B PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por Valor total recebido pela bido pela unidade de medida em quantidade em medida em quantidade em G12B G12A, G12B G15B G15A, G15B Quantidade Unidade DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA G17 Estado 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 6- Farinha G17 Tipo de moeda 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimb) 3- Kwacha (Mal) 4- Kwacha (Zâm) 5- Rand 6- Xelim (Tanz) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro, esp 3. OUTROS DESTINOS G00C G01C G18 G19A Culturas Cód. Espera vender [mais desta] cultura? Qual é a quantidade que espera vender? G19B Quanti- Unidade dade 1- Sim 2- Não -> G20 Milho 01 Arroz 02 Mapira 03 Mexoeira 04 Amendoim grande 05 Amedoim pequeno 06 G19C G20 G21 G22 Teve perda da sua produção antes da colheita? Principais Razões da Perda Teve perda Principais Razões da sua proda Perda dução depois 1- Cheias da colheita? 2- Pragas Estado 1- Sim 2- Não -> G22 1- Cheias 2- Pragas 3- Animais selvagens 4- Animais domésticos 5- Queimadas 6- Doenças/ Apodrecimento 7- Excesso de chuvas 8- Falta de chuva 9 Outros, esp p 1- Sim 2- Não -> PRÓXIMA CULTURA G23 3- Animais selvagens 4- Animais domésticos 5- Queimadas 6- Apodrecimento 9- Outros, esp p UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90Kg 13- Saco de 70Kg 14- Saco de 60Kg 15- Saco de 50Kg 16- Saco de 25Kg 17- Saco de 12.5Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L LISTA DAS CULTURAS E SEUS ESTADOS: 1- Milho: Fresco (1), Em espiga (2), Em grão (3) e Farinha (6) 2- Arroz: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 3- Mapira: Em espiga (2), Em grão (3) e Farinha (6) 4- Mexoeira: Em espiga (2), Em grão (3) e Farinha (6) 5- Amendoim grande: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 6- Amendoim pequeno: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) ESTADO 1- Fresco 2- Em espiga 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 6- Farinha 19 H. Produção e Venda de Culturas Alimentares Básicas: Feijões 1. PRODUÇÃO DA CAMPANHA 2007/2008 H00A H01A H02 Culturas Cód. Praticou esta cultura? H03 H04 H05A H05B H05C Utilizou semente melhorada Comprou semente? Onde comprou semente? Quanto gastou no total? Tipo Fez de semenmoeda teira - 1ª época (que vem em embalagem)? 1- Sim 2- Não -> VEJA EXPLICAÇÃO EM BAIXO PRÓXIMA CULTURA Feijão Manteiga 07 Feijão Nhemba 08 Feijão Jugo 09 Feijão Boer* 10 Feijão Oloko 16 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não-> H06 1- Casa agrária 2- Loja 3- Mercado 4- Vizinhos 5- Feira agrária 9- Outro, esp. H06 1- Sim 2- Não-> H09 3- Ainda não colheu H07A H07B H07C H08A Volume da colheita Quantidade Unidade SE FOR "0" SALTE PARA H08B H08C H09 H10A Volume da colheita e/ou volume que espera colher Estado Fez sementeira - 2ª época Volume da colheita noutro estado Estado Quantidade 1- Fresco 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 7- Seco em vagem SE FOR "0" SALTE PARA Unidade 1- Fresco 1- Sim 3- Em grão 2- Não-> 4- Com casca H11 5- Sem casca 3- Ainda 7- Seco em não vagem colheu H10B H10C Quanti- Uni- Estado dade dade 1- Fresco 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 7- Seco em vagem Outros feijões Agora, queremos saber se o seu Agregado Familiar utilizou semente melhorada . Semente melhorada pode ser comprada na loja, mercado, feira ou fornecido pelos serviços de agricultura, ONG's ou outras. Normalmente vem em embalagens, é tratada e apresenta coloração verde, azulada ou avermelhada. [Espere resposta]. Usou esta semente nas campanhas 2005/06 ou 2006/07 e parte da sua própria produção foi usada como semente na campanha 2007/08? *A sementeira de Feijão Boer é feita na primeira época e a colheita é feita a partir da segunda época. Preencha o volume da produção já colhida no tempo da entrevista em H07A-H07C, e o volume que espera colher em H10A-H10C. UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90 Kg 13- Saco de 70 Kg 14- Saco de 60 Kg 15- Saco de 50 Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg LISTA DAS CULTURAS E POSSÍVEIS ESTADOS: 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L 7- Feijão Manteiga: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 8- Feijão Nhemba: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 9- Feijão Jugo: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 10- Feijão Boer: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 16- Feijão Oloko: Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 49- Feijão Macaco: Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 50- Feijão Fava: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 20 H. Produção e Venda das Culturas Alimentares Básicas: Feijões (continuação) 2. VENDAS H00B H01B H11 Culturas Cód. Vendeu a produção desta cultura? H12A H12B Unidade 1- Sim 2- Não-> H18 07 Feijão Nhemba 08 Feijão Jugo 09 Feijão Boer 10 Feijão Oloko 16 H13 H14A H14B Vendeu PREENCHA APENAS tudo UMA COLUNA num Preço por Valor total rece- só dia? unidade de Quantidade Feijão Manteiga H12C Qual é o volume TOTAL já vendido? Estado 1- Fresco 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 7- Seco em Vagem 1- Sim 2- Não-> H15A H15A H15B H15C bido pela medida em quantidade em H12B H12A, H12B DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA H17 H16A Qual foi a maior quantidade vendida num só dia? Quantidade Unidade Estado 1- Fresco 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 7- Seco em Vagem H16B PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por Valor total rece- unidade de bido pela medida em quantidade em H15B H15A, H15B H17 Tipo de moeda 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimb) 3- Kwacha (Mal) 4- Kwacha (Zâm) 5- Rand 6- Xelim (Tanz) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro, esp Outros feijões 3. OUTROS DESTINOS H00C H01C H18 H19A Culturas Cód. Espera vender [mais desta] cultura? Qual é a quantidade que espera a vender? H19B Quanti- Unidade dade 1- Sim 2- Não -> H20 Feijão Manteiga 07 Feijão Nhemba 08 Feijão Jugo 09 Feijão Boer 10 Feijão Oloko 16 Outros feijões H19C H20 H21 H22 Teve perda da sua produção antes da colheita? Principais Razões da Perda Teve perda Principais Razões da sua proda Perda dução depois da colheita? 1- Cheias Estado 1- Sim 2- Não -> H22 1- Cheias 2- Pragas 3- Animais selvagens 4- Animais domésticos 5- Queimadas 6- Doenças/ Apodrecimento 7- Excesso de chuvas 8- Falta de chuva 9 Outros, esp p 1- Sim 2- Não -> PRÓXIMA CULTURA H23 2- Pragas 3- Animais selvagens 4- Animais domésticos 5- Queimadas 6- Apodrecimento 9- Outros, esp p UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90Kg 13- Saco de 70Kg 14- Saco de 60Kg 15- Saco de 50Kg 16- Saco de 25Kg 17- Saco de 12.5Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L LISTA DAS CULTURAS E SEUS ESTADOS: 7- Feijão Manteiga: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 8- Feijão Nhemba: Fresco (1), Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 9- Feijão Jugo: Com casca (4) e Sem casca (5) 10- Feijão Boer: Fresco (1) e Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) 16- Feijão Oloko: Em grão (3) e Seco em vagem (7) ESTADO 1- Fresco 3- Em grão 4- Com casca 5- Sem casca 7- Seco em Vagem 21 I. Produção e Venda de Mandioca e Batata Doce I00 Culturas I01 I02 Cód. Praticou [..cultura..] I03 I04 I05 I06 I07 I08 Comprou Quanto Praticou Gostaríamos de saber quais dos ÚLTIMOS Durante os estacas/ra- gastou no [..cultura..] 12 MESES que o seu agregado familiar fez colheita meses de total? na cam- de grandes quantidades de [..cultura..] maior colheita esta panha e quais são os meses que fez colheita de me- [LEIA MESES] [LEIA MESES] campanha? 2006/07? nores quantidades para o consumo ou venda ? quantas vezes quantas vezes por dia, sema- por dia, sema- na ou mês fez na ou mês fez na campanha mas para 2007/08? SE I02 E I05=NÃO SALTE PARA PRÓXIMA CULTURA 1 Sim 2 Não--> I05 1 Sim 2 Não--> I05 1 Sim 2 Não Bat. Doce nao alar. Vezes Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Set Out Nov Dez Jan Fev CONTOS Mandioca Bat. Doce alaranjada colheita? 2- Mês de MAIOR colheita 1- Mês de MENOR colheita 0- Mês SEM colheita 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 1 Dia 2 Sem 3 Mês I09 I10 De cada uma das Durante os De cada uma das vezes que colheu meses de vezes que colheu, quanto é que tirou? menor colheita quanto é que tirou? colheita? Quanti- Uni- Estado dade dade 1 Fresca Vezes 8 Seca 9Tapioca Quanti- Unidade dade 1 Dia 2 Sem 3 Mês Estado 1 Fresca 8 Seca 9Tapioca 09 12 13 14 UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 11- Saco de 100Kg 02- Unidade 12- Saco de 90 Kg 13- Saco de 70 Kg 14- Saco de 60 Kg 15- Saco de 50 Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L TIPO DE MOEDA 1- CONTO(=1000MT) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 22 I. Produção e Venda de Mandioca e Batata Doce, (continuação) I00B Culturas I01B I11 I12A Cód. Vendeu a produção I12B I12C I13 Qual é o volume Vendeu TOTAL já vendido? tudo I14A I14B I15A PREENCHA APENAS Qual foi a maior I00B Culturas PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA I17 I18 Tipo Espera Qual é a quantidade de vender que espera vender? Preço por Valor total Preço por Valor total unidade de recebido pela unidade de recebido pela de ] medida em I12B quantidade em I12A, I12B medida em I15B quantidade em I15A, I15B esta cultura? Uni- dade dade Estado 1- Sim 1- Fresca 1- Sim 2- Não-> 6- Farinha 2- Não 8- Seca ->I15A DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA I17 Quanti- Uni- dade dade moeda I19A I19B I19C [ mais num só dia? Quanti- num só dia? I16B cultura? Estado Quanti- Uni- dade dade Estado 1- Fresca 1- Sim 1- Fresca 6- Farinha 2- Não-> 6- Farinha 8- Seca 9- Tapioca I20 8- Seca 9- Tapioca 12 13 14 I01B I20 I21 Cód. Teve perda Principais Razões da Perda da sua produção antes 1- Cheias ou depois 2- Pragas da colheita? 3- Animais selvagens 4- Animais domésticos 5- Queimadas I22 Teve casos de PODRIDÃO RADICULAR DA MANDIOCA 6- Doenças/ Apodrecimento 1- Sim 7- Excesso de chuvas 2- Não-> 8- Falta de chuvas 1- Sim 9- Outros, especificar 2- Não I22 Mandioca Bat. Doce alaranjada Bat. Doce não alar. I16A quantidade vendida UMA COLUNA 9- Tapioca Mandioca I15C desta I18 Bat. Doce alaranjada Bat. Doce não alar. I15B UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90Kg 13- Saco de 70Kg 14- Saco de 60Kg 15- Saco de 50Kg 16- Saco de 25Kg 17- Saco de 12.5Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 12 13 14 23 J. Culturas de Rendimento da Campanha 2007/08 J00 J01 J02 J02A J03A Culturas Cód. Praticou Se sim, teve apoio duma empresa ou ONG? Qual é o volume TOTAL da colheita nos últimos 12 meses? esta cultura? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓX. CULT. Algodão 20 Tabaco 21 Chá folha 23 Girassol 25 Gergelim 26 Sisal folha 22 Soja 27 Paprica 28 Gengibre Cana de açucar 29 1- Sim 2- Não Quantidade J03B Unidade J04 J05A J05B Vendeu esta cultura? Qual é o volume TOTAL já vendido? J06 J07A J07B Vendeu PREENCHA APENAS tudo UMA COLUNA num Preço por Valor total só dia? unidade de recebido pela medida em J05B 1- Sim 2- Não-> Quanti- UniJ12 dade dade 1-Sim 2-Não> J08A quantidade em J05A, J05B DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA J10 J08A J08B J09A Qual foi a maior quantidade vendida num só dia? Quanti- Unidade dade J09B PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por unidade de medida em J08B Valor total recebido pela quantidade em J08A, J08B J10 J12 Tipo Espera de vender moeda [mais] desta cultura? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓX. CULT. J13A J13B Qual é a quantidade que espera vender? Quantidade Unidade 24 UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90 Kg 13- Saco de 70 Kg 14- Saco de 60 Kg 15- Saco de 50 Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg 21- Lata de 25L 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L 26- Fardo 27- Rodilhas 35- Molho TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 24 K. Hortícolas e Outras Culturas K01A K01 K02 K03 K04 K05 K08 K09 Praticou esta cultura Comprou semente desta cultura? Quanto gastou no total para semente? Vendeu esta cultura? Valor total das vendas Tipo de moeda 1 Sim 2 Não-> próxima hortícola Batata reno 11 Abóbora 311 Alface 321 Cebola 351 Couve 371 Melância 401 Pepino 411 Quiabo 441 Tomate 461 Feijão verde 491 1 Sim 2 Não-> K05 CONTOS 1 Sim 2 Não-> próxima hortícola ____________ ____________ NOTA: Perguntar ao Inquirido se pratica estas culturas OUTRAS HÓRTICOLAS 331 341 361 381 Alho Beringela Cenoura Ervilha 421 430 451 490 Pimenta PiriPiri Repolho Outro TIPO DE MOEDA 1 MT (Metical) 2 Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3 Kwacha (Malawi) 4 Kwacha (Zambia) 5 Rand (RSA) 6 Xelim (Tanzania) 7 Dólar (Americano) 8 Outro, esp. 25 L. Árvores de Fruta e Fruteiras LO1A L01 L02 L03 O AF tem Quantas esta árvore árvores de fruta ou tem no fruteira? total ? L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 Quantas árvores estão em produção? O AF colheu estas frutas? O AF vendeu estas frutas ou bebidas? Da produção obtida nos últimos 12 meses, qual foi a parte vendida como fruta? Preço por unidade da venda Tipo de moeda Que quantidade de aguardente vendeu nos últimos 12 meses? Preço por unidade da venda Tipo de moeda Que quantidade de sumo ou óleo vendeu nos últimos 12 meses? Preço por unidade da venda Tipo de moeda 1 Sim 2 Náo-> próxima árvore 1 Sim 2 Náo-> próxima árvore 1 Sim 2 Náo-> próxima árvore Abacateiro 511 Ananazeiro 521 Bananeira 540 Goiabeira 551 Jambalueiro 662 Laranjeira 561 Limoeiro 571 Mafurreira 611 Mangueira 621 Papaeira 631 Tangerineira 661 Quantidade Unidade Quantidade Unidade Quantidade Unidade Outro ________ NOTA: Perguntar ao Inquirido se tem as Outras árvores de fruta ou fruteira OUTRAS ÁRVORES 531 Ateira 581 Litcheiro 591 Macieira (Maça) 601 Maçaniqueira 641 Pera 651 Pessegueiro 671 681 691 700 Toranjeira Videira (Uva) Maracujeira Outra Arvore de Fruta / Fruteira, esp. TIPO DE MOEDA 1 MT (Metical) 2 Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3 Kwacha (Malawi) 4 Kwacha (Zambia) 5 Rand (RSA) 6 Xelim (Tanzania) 7 Dólar (Americano) 8 Outro, esp. UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 1 Kilograma 2 Unidade 11 Saco de 100Kg 12 Saco de 90 Kg 13 Saco de 70 Kg 14 Saco de 60 Kg 15 Saco de 50 Kg 16 Saco de 25 Kg 17 21 22 23 24 25 31 32 Saco de 12.5 Kg Lata de 25L Lata de 20L Lata de 10L Lata de 5L Lata de 1L Cacho grande Cacho médio 33 34 35 36 37 Cacho pequeno Canteiro Molho Montinho Caixa 40 41 42 43 45 Garrafa 300 ml Garrafa 500 ml Garrafa 750 ml Litro Galón (5 litros) 26 M1. Cajueiros: Produção e Venda na Campanha Agrícola 2007/08 M00A M01A M02 Cultura M03 M04 M05A A explora- Quantos Quantos cajueiros Na campanha 2007/08 … ção tem cajueiros plantou na cam- cajueiros? estão: panha 2007/08? 1- Sim 2- Não-> M09 Cajueiros Em Em Cresci- Prodmento ução Velhos Mudas M05B M05C M05D M06 M07A M07B Os seus cajueiros Fez, na campa- Quantos Os seus cajueiros Quantos foram afectados nha 2007/08,a cajueiro foram afectados, foram na campanha pulverização pulveri- na campanha afectados dos seus zou? 200/08, por por queimadas descontraladas? Recebeu De quem Comprou De quem 2007/08 por alguma mudas mudas comprou recebeu/ Não mudas 1- Sim 2- Não-> M05C M08A M08B doença/pragas que diminuiu a produção? cajueiros con- tra o oídium? queimadas descontraladas? 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não->M08A 1- Sim ' 2- Não --> M09 1- Sim 2- Não-> M06 18 Mesmo que a exploração não tenha a cultura, deve-se perguntar se apanhou/colheu/produziu o produto M00B Produto M01B M09 Cód. Apanhou/ colheu/ produziu [ .produto.. ] durante a campanha 2007/08? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓXIMO PRODUTO Castanha bruta 181 Amêndoa 182 Sumo 185 Aguardente 186 M10A M1 M11A M11B M11C M12A Onde vendeu A quem vendeu Qual é o volume Quantidade de castanha Vendeu este bruta que apanhou/ colheu/ produziu? produto? este produto? Quanti- Unidade UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 02- Unidade 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg 11- Saco de 100Kg 21- Lata de 25L 12- Saco de 90 Kg 22- Lata de 20L 13- Saco de 70 Kg 23- Lata de 10L 14- Saco de 60 Kg 24- Lata de 5L 15- Saco de 50 Kg 25- Lata de 1L dade Vendeu tudo este TOTAL já produto? vendido? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓXIMO PRODUTO 40- 300ml 41- 500ml 42- 750ml 43- 1litro 45- Galão (5 litros) M12B M13 M05B: DE QUEM COMPROU /RECEBEU MUDAS 1- DDA (Incajú) 2- Associação 3- ONG's 4- Outro, especificar: num só dia? Quanti- Uni- dade dade 1- Sim 2- Não -> M15A M11B: ONDE VENDEU 1- Na Aldeia 2- Aldeia próxima 3- Sede do Distrito 4- Outro Distrito/Sede da Província 5- Outra Província 6- Fora do País M14A M14B PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por unidade de medida em M12B Valor total recebido pela quantidade em M12A, M12B DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA M17 M11C: A QUEM VENDEU 1- Vizinho (dentro da UPA) 2- Loja local 3- Comerciante ambulante 4- Associação/Cooperativa 5- Clientes do mercado M15A M15B M16A Qual foi a maior quantidade vendida num só dia? Quanti- Uni- dade dade M16B M17 PREENCHA APENAS Tipo de UMA COLUNA Preço por unidade de medida em M15B 6- Companhia fomentadora 7- Comerciante fora do País 8- Companhia/Comerciante grossista 9- Outro, especificar: Valor total re- moeda cebido pela quantidade em M15A, M15B TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 27 M2. Coqueiros: Produção e Venda nos Últimos 12 meses M00A M01A M02 Cultura M03 M04 A exploração Quantos Número dos tem coqueiros t coqueiros coqueiros? no total ? em produção, durante os últimos 12 meses? M05 M06 M07 M08 M08A M08B Quantos coqueiros plantou nos últimos 12 meses? Os seus coqueiros foram afectados nos últimos 12 meses por alguma doença que diminuiu a produção? Os seus coqueiros foram afectados nos últimos 12 meses pelo amarelecimento letal? Alguma vez teve coqueiros que morreram por causa do amarelecimento letal ? Quantos coqueiros foram afectados pelo amarelecimento letal ? Alguém fez Quem fez ? abate e queima de 1- Próprio 2- ONG coqueiros afectados ? 3- Empresa 1- Sim 2- Não --> M08 Coqueiros 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não M08C 1- Sim 2- Não --> M08D 1- Sim 2- Não --> M08D M08D M08E Alguma vez teve coqueiros que morreram por causa do Orytes? Quantos coqueiros foram afectados pelo Orytes? 4- Outro, esp. ___________ 1- Sim 2- Não --> M09 19 Se a exploração não tem a cultura, deve também perguntar se apanhou/colheu/produziu o produto M00B M01B Produto Cód. M09 M10A Apanhou/ colheu/ produziu [ ... ] durante a última campanha? Quantidade que apanhou/ colheu/ produziu? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓX. PRODUTO Coco 192 Lanho 191 Copra 193 Sura 194 UNIDADE DE MEDIDA 01- Kg 02- Unidade 11- Saco de 100Kg 12- Saco de 90 Kg 13- Saco de 70 Kg Quantidade 14- Saco de 60 Kg 15- Saco de 50 Kg 16- Saco de 25 Kg 17- Saco de 12.5 Kg 21- Lata de 25L M10B Unidade M11 M12A Vendeu este produto? Qual é o volume TOTAL já vendido? 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓXIMO PRODUTO Quantidade 22- Lata de 20L 23- Lata de 10L 24- Lata de 5L 25- Lata de 1L 40- 300ml M12B Unidade M13 M14A Vendeu tudo num só dia? PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por Valor total reunidade de cebido pela medida em quantidade em M12B M12A, M12B 1- Sim 2- Não -> M15A 41- 500ml 42- 750ml 43- 1litro 45- Galão (5 litros) M14B DEPOIS DE PREENCHER UMA COLUNA, SALTE PARA M17 TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) M15A M15B Qual foi a maior quantidade vendida num só dia? Quantidade M16A M16B PREENCHA APENAS UMA COLUNA Preço por Valor total unidade de recebido pela medida em quantidade em M15B M15A, M15B M17 Tipo de moeda Unidade 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 28 N1. Produção e Efectivo Pecuário Nos Últimos 12 Meses 1. NÚMERO DE ANIMAIS N0A N00 N01 Animais Cód. O seu AF N02 cria ou criou [..animal..] nos últimos 12 meses? PRÓX Valor animais tem hoje? comprou para criar nos últimos 12 meses? total da compra ( incluindo crias) ANIMAL Bovinos 81 Caprinos 82 Ovinos 83 Suínos 84 Burros 85 Coelhos 92 Galinhas 91 Patos 93 Gansos 94 Perús 95 G.do mato 96 N04 Quantos 1 Sim 2 Não-> N03 Quantos SE FOR '0' SALTE PARA N05 M o e d a N05 N06 N07 N08 N09 Quantos Quantos Quantos Quantos Quantos recebeu de fomento pecuário ou de ou- recebeu como ofertas nos últimos nasceram nos últimos 12 meses? ofereceu a outros nos últimos 12 meses? vendeu total das vivos nos vendas últimos 12 meses? (dos tros AFS que 12 meses? beneficiaram nos últimos 12 meses? SE FOR '0' SALTE PARA N11 N10 Valor animais vivos) N11 M o e d a Quantos abateu para venda nos últimos 12 meses? SE FOR '0' SALTE PARA N13 N12 M o total das e vendas d a Valor N13 N14 Quantos Quantos Quantos abateu para consumo nos últimos perdeu (doença ) nos últimos 12 meses? perdeu (roubo, acidente, envene- 12 meses? N15 namento) nos últimos 12 meses? 2. CLASSIFICAÇÃO DE BOVINOS N16 TIPO DE MOEDA 1 - MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) Dos bovinos que tem hoje, quantos são... TOUROS BOIS VACAS NOVILHOS NOVILHAS VITELOS 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) VITELAS 29 N2. Serviços Pecuários Nos Últimos 12 Meses N17 N17A N18 N25 N25A N26 N29 N30 N37 N38 N41 N41A N42 N45 Vacinou gado bovino nos últimos 12 Se sim, quantas vezes? Pagou pelo serviço? Banhou o seu gado contra carraças parasitas externos nos últimos Se sim, quantas vezes? Pagou pelo serviço? Utilizou matadouro/ casa de matança/ lugar de abate nos últimos Pagou pelo serviço? Utilizou outros serviços veterinários nos últimos 12 meses? Pagou pelo serviço? Vacinou galinhas nos últimos 12 meses? Se sim, quantas vezes? Pagou pelo serviço? Vias de administração da vacina 1- Sim 2- Não -> Secção N3 1- Injecção 2- Gota no olho 3- Água de bebida meses? 1- Sim 2- Não -> N25 12 meses? 1- Sim 2- Não Castração/ marcação 12 meses? 1- Sim 2- Não -> N29 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não -> N37 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não-> N41 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não -> Secção N3 N3. Produtos de Origem Animal/ Despojos N301 N302 Produto N303 O agregado familiar PRODUZIU este produto durante os últimos 12 meses? 1- Sim 2- Não--> PRÓXIMO PRODUTO Leite de Vaca 601 Ovos de Galinha 602 Pele de Bovinos (Bois+Búfalos) 603 Outro leite/pele ________ 999 N307 O agregado familiar vendeu este produto nos N308 Valor total N309 N310 TIPO DE MOEDA O agregado familiar consumiu [..] 1 MT (Metical) últimos 12 meses? da própria produção? 5 Rand (RSA) 6 Xelim (Tanzania) 7 Dólar americano 8 Outro (especificar) 1- Sim 2- Não--> N310 1- Sim 2- Não da venda Tipo de moeda 2 Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3 Kwacha (Malawi) 4 Kwacha (Zâmbia) 30 O. Mão-de-obra, Tracção Animal e Outros Meios de Produção 1. USO DE TRACÇÃO ANIMAL E ARRENDAMENTO DE MEIOS PARA TRACÇÃO ANIMAL O21 O22 O23 O24 O25 O26 O27 Na campanha 2007/08 a exploração utilizou tracção animal? Arrendou animais a outras explorações para tracção animal nos últimos 12 meses? Qual foi o valor total recebido pelo arrendamento? Tipo de moeda Arrendou carroças ou charruas a outras explorações para tracção animal na campanha 2007/08? Qual foi o valor total recebido pelo arrendamento? Tipo de moeda 1- Sim 2- Não 1- Sim 2- Não--> O25 TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) 2. TIPO DE TRACÇÃO ANIMAL, MEIOS MECANIZADOS E DE TRANSPORTE NA CAMPANHA 2007/08 O31A O31 O32 Meio Utilizou este 1- Sim 2- Não --> PRÓXIMO MEIO O34 Utilizou meios .... 1-Sim 2-Não Próprios 98- está incluído no arrendamento de animais 3. TIPO DE MEIOS DE AGRO-PROCESSAMENTO E MANUAIS NA CAMPANHA 2007/08 O33 meio? 1- Sim 2- Não--> O32 TIPO DE MOEDA 1- MT (Metical) 2- Dólar (Zimbabwe) 3- Kwacha (Malawi) 4- Kwacha (Zâmbia) 5- Rand (RSA) 6- Xelim (Tanzania) 7- Dólar americano 8- Outro (especificar) Meio de agropro- O35 Cód. cessamento Utilizou este O36 Utilizou meios ..... meio? Empres- Alugado ou 1- Sim tados 2- Não--> PRÓXIMO MEIO prestação de serviço Bovinos 01 Moageira 18 Burros 02 Debulhadora 19 Charruas de tracção animal 03 Prensa de óleo 20 Carroças 04 Outro meio, esp. 21 Tractores 10 Enxada 22 Charruas de tracção mecanizada 11 Foice 23 Atrelados 12 Catana 24 Bicicletas 13 Machado 25 Camioneta/Camiões 14 Motorizadas 15 Motobombas 16 Electrobombas 17 1- Sim 2- Não Próprios Empres- Alugados tados ou prestação de seriço 31 O. Mão-de-obra, Tracção Animal e Outros Meios de Produção (cont) 4. TRABALHADORES A TEMPO INTEIRO O41. Utilizou trabalhadores a tempo inteiro para as actividades agrícolas ou pecuárias? 1- Sim 2- Não--> O51 Agora, queremos obter alguma informação mais detalhada sobre a quantidadede trabalhadores empregados. O42A Actividade principal O42 Cód. O43 O44 Quantos empregou? O45 O46 Quanto pagou no total? SÓ TRABALHADORES COM 10 OU MAIS ANOS Homens TIPO DE MOEDA Tipo 1 MT (Metical) de 2 Dólar (Zimbabwe) moeda 3 Kwacha (Malawi) 4 Kwacha (Zâmbia) Mulheres 5 Rand Agrícola 1 6 Xelim (Tanzania) Pecuária 2 7 Dólar americano Agro-Pecuária 3 8 Outro (especificar) 5. TRABALHADORES TEMPORÁRIOS O51. Utilizou trabalhadores temporários para as actividades agrícolas ou pecuárias? 1- Sim 2- Não--> SECÇÃO P Agora, queremos obter alguma informação mais detalhada sobre os trabalhadores empregados nas diferentes actividades. O52A Actividades O52 Cód. O53 O54 O55 Utilizou trabalhadores temporários para [ ... ]? Quantos empregou? SÓ TRABALHADORES COM 10 OU MAIS ANOS O56 Quanto pagou no total? O57 Tipo de moeda 1- Sim 2- Não-> PRÓXIMA ACTIVIDADE Preparação da terra/lavoura 1 Sementeira/transplante 2 Sacha 3 Colheita 4 Cuidar dos animais 5 Outra: _______________ 6 Homens Mulheres 32 P. Indicadores de Bem Estar, Segurança Alimentar e Vulnerabilidade do Agregado Familiar P01 P02A PO2B O seu agregado familiar tem [ … ]? De que material é constituído De que material são constituídas O seu agregado O Sr(a) acha que o seu AF o tecto da casa PRINCIPAL? as paredes da casa PRINCIPAL? familiar possui está em melhor, igual ou celeiros melhorados? pior condições económicas quando comparado com 3 anos atrás? 1- Sim 2- Não Candeeiro à petróleo Rádio Bicicleta (V. Económico) Latrina 1- Capim/caniço/palha 2- Zinco 3- Luzalite/telhas 4- Chapa 5- Outros Mesa P05 1- Pau a pique/estacas 2- Bloco de matope 3- Bloco de cimento/tijolo 4- Capim/caniço/palmeiras 5- Chapa 6- Outro P06 O seu agregado familiar comprou estes produtos nos ÚLTIMOS 30 DIAS? Milho Farinha em de grão milho Arroz Comprou este produto durante a ÉPOCA DE FOME PASSADA? 1- Sim 1- Sim 2- Não 2- Não Óleo Milho Mandi- Amenalimen- em oca doim Feijões tar grão Farinha de milho Arroz P03 1- Melhor agora do que à 3 anos atrás 2- Igual agora comparado à 3 anos atrás 3- Pior agora do que à 3 anos atrás 1 Sim 2 Não P07 P08 Qual é o alimento básico mais consumido para o agregado familiar? Tinha reserva deste alimento proveniente da sua produção da campanha 2006/2007? 1-Milho 2-Arroz 3- Mapira Óleo 4- Mexoeira Mandi- Amenalimen- 12- Mandioca oca doim Feijões tar 13- B. Doce P04 P09 Qual é a situação de reservas para o consumo deste alimento da sua própria produção? Tinha reserva no mes de [.. MES / ANO .. ] 1-Sim 1- Tem reserva 2- Não tem reserva 2-Não praticou a cultura-> P10 3-Perdeu-> P10 4-Prod. baixa Mar 08 Abr 08 Mai 08 Jun 08 Jul 08 Ago Set 08 08 Out 08 Nov Dez Jan Fev 08 08 09 09 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 O que consumiu mais o seu AF no periodo sem reservas? Quantas O AF passou um Nesta Mecanismos de sobrevivência usados refeições periodo de fome altura fez passava nos últimos 12 compras por dia na meses durante dos Baixou a Reduziu o Aumento acti- Consumiu Vendeu Pediu em- Pediu as- Mandou Retirou Compartilhou época de o qual teve alimentos qualidade número de vidades gera- toda ou animais prestado sistência crianças para crianças comida com fome? dificuldades em alimentar todos os membros? básicas fora do normal? de refeições refeições uma parte ou bens de semente fora do reservada normal dinheiro do governo, igreja, ONG fora da casa/ migração dos membros da escola família, vizinho ou man- ou a comunidou para dade trabalhar 1- Sim 2- Não-->Sec Q1 1- Sim 2- Não doras de receitas, por exemplo ganhu-ganhu, pequenos negocios 1- Milho 2- Arroz 3- Mapira 4- Mexoeira 12- Mandioca 13- Bat. Doce 1- Sim 3 N/A não tem animais 2- Não 3- Não aplicável Outro, esp. DÊ EXEMPLOS 3 N/A não tem crianças 33 Q1. Saídas no Agregado Familiar desde a 3 anos atrás Q101. Existiu alguém que era membro deste agregado familiar que saiu deste agregado familiar desde [. ESTE MÊS .] de 2005 até agora por qualquer razão, incluindo as pessoas que faleceram? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sim 2 Não |___|SE FOR NÃO SALTE PARA PRÓXIMA SECÇÃO Q100A No Nome Q102 Q103 Sexo 1M 2F Porque saiu? Q104 Quando saiu? 1 Casamento 2 Estudar 3 Faleceu 4 Doença 5 Emprego 6 Procurar trabalho 7 Divórcio/ Separação 8 Acompanhar pais 9 Viver com outra família 99 Outro __ __/__ __ 2 __ __/__ __ 3 __ __/__ __ 4 __ __/__ __ 5 __ __/__ __ Q111 Q106 Q107A Período de tempo 1 Dia 2 Sem 3 Mês 4 Ano Estado civil quando saiu 1 Solteiro(a) 2 Casado(a) 3 União marital 4 Polígamo 5 Divorciado 6 Separado 7 Viúvo(a) Quanto tempo não conseguiu trabalhar? Número Q107B Q108 Q109 PESSOAS COM 10 ANOS OU MAIS Q112 Quanto tempo ficou doente? Número Idade em anos quando saiu MM/AA 1 Q102A Q105 Período de tempo 1 Dia 2 Sem 3 Mês 4 Ano Sabia ler e escrever quando saiu Nível de escolaridade quando saiu 0 Sem escola formal 1 Sim 2 Não 1 à 12 13 Nível superior Q113 A pessoa deixou Quando saiu praticava actividade agropecuária como actividade SE FALECEU: Qual foi a causa ? Q110 ESCREVA INFORMAÇÃO SOBRE A DOENÇA DADA VOLUNTARIAMENTE PELO INQUIRIDO 1 Acidente 2 Acto do parto 3 Doença 4 Outro SE A RESPOSTA FOR 1, 2 ou 4 1 Principal SALTE PARA O 2 Secundária PRÓXIMO 3 Não pratica MEMBRO Q114 A pessoa era... filhos ... ? 1 Neste AF 2 Outro AF 3 Ambos 4 Não tinha filhos 5 N/A 1 Chefe deste AF 2 Chefe doutro AF 3 Conjuge do chefe 4 Conjuge do chefe doutro AF 5 Outro, esp. 1 2 3 4 5 34 Q2. Doenças Q201. Existe alguém neste agregado familiar que esteve ou está gravemente doente neste momento ou tem sofrido de uma doença grave durante os últimos 12 meses? . . . . . . . 1 Sim 2 Não |__| --> SE FOR NÃO FIM DA ENTREVISTA LISTE AS PESSOAS QUE FICARAM DOENTE No Q203A Q203 Nome COLOCAR ID DA Q204 Q205 Quanto tempo ficou doente? SECÇÃO B Q206 Quanto tempo não conseguiu / não consegue trabalhar? Quem cuidou/ cuida mais desta pessoa? SÓ PARA MEMBROS COM SE FOR MEMBRO 10 ANOS OU MAIS Número Período Número Período COLOCAR ID E Q207 A pessoa que cuidou/ cuida é o(a) [.. relação..] da pessoa doente Q208 Qual é o sexo da pessoa que cuidou/cuida do doente 1 Chefe SALTE PARA 2 Cônjuge PRÓXIMA 3 Filho (a) de tempo de tempo 4 Irmão (a) 1 Dia 1 Dia 6 Sobrinho(a) 2 Sem 2 Sem 3 Mês 3 Mês 98 Próprio 8 Outro parente 1- M 4 Ano 4 Ano 99 Não é membro 9 Sem relação 2- F 5 Pai / Mãe 7 Neto (a) 35 Anexo 1. Lei de Terras Será que a mulher tem direito de herdar terra dos seus pais numa base igual com os seus irmãos? Será que a mulher tem direito de manter alguma porção de terra do seu ex-marido em caso de divórcio? 1. Sim 2. Não 1. Sim 2. Não AN01 Qual é a sua opinião sobre a nova lei em termos de fortificar a segurança da posse de terra? 1. Muito útil ---> AN11 2. De alguma utilidade ---> AN11 3. Inútil 4. Não posso dizer > AN11 AN09 Será que a mulher tem o Está informado(a) Caso sim, quanto Através de que canais sobre a lei de sabe sobre o direito de solicitar a teve conhecimento contexto da lei? sobre a lei de terras? obtenção de um título terras de 1997? formal? 1. Sim 2. Não AN02 Na sua opinião qual deve ser a razão principal que levou a que a nova lei não ajudasse a melhorar a segurança na posse de terra? ESCREVA A RESPOSTA NO AN10 1. Sim 2. Não, ---> AN07 AN03 AN04 1. Nada 2. Pouco 3. Algum 4. Muito AN05 1. Lideres locais 2 . Disseminação pelas autoridades de governo distrital ou de nível superior AN06 Tera recebido algum material ou documento de dessiminação da Lei de Terras de 1997? 1. Sim 2. Não O(A) Sr(a) tem conhecimento de direitos específicos na base da lei de 1997? 1. Sim 2. Não AN07 AN08 De acordo com a lei de 1997, o/a Sr(a) pode comprar ou vender a sua terra? 1. Sim 2. Não 3. Não sabe AN11 36 Annex 7: Guide used during survey implementation to help farmers identify lethal yellowing type disease and beetle attacks in their coconut trees SINTOMAS DE AMARELECIMENTO LETAL DE COQUEIROS INFESTAÇÃO DE ORYCTES RHINOCEROS Queda prematura de cocos O Oryctes rhinoceros Morte e apodrecimento da folha central da coroa Photo: Simon Eden‐Green Amarelecimento ou bronzeamento sucessivo das folhas, de baixo para cima da coroa Morte da coroa que cai, deixando o tronco Sintomas Necrose das inflorescências IMPORTANTE: O amarelecimento das folhas de coqueiro pode ter outras causas: o tipo e a quantidade aplicada de fertilizante, falta de nutrientes, ou a variedade de coqueiro. Se encontrar só um coqueiro com sintomas, isto pode ser foco de amarelecimento letal, mas também pode ser sintoma de outra doença. A ausênçia de coqueiros com sintomas pode significar que os coqueiros afectados já foram abatidos. Por isso, o/a inquiridor(a) não deve assumir que a doença não existe neste lugar. MINAG/DE. Trabalho de Inquérito Agrícola 2008. Annex 8: Additional output from FISP Coconut Farmers Survey, 2008 Annex 8- page 1 Table A.1 - Number of households interviewed (Número de agregados familiares/agregados familiares inquiridas) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total NAMPULA 192 15 34 241 ZAMBEZIA 195 175 160 530 Total 387 190 194 771 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table A.2 - Weighted number of households (Número ponderado de agregados familiares/agregados familiares inquiridas) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA NAMPULA ZAMBEZIA Total >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 43,170 3,077 4,081 50,328 85,597 45,902 10,876 142,375 128,767 48,980 14,956 192,703 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 2 Table B.1 - Demographic characteristics of households interviewed (Características demográficas dos agregados familiares inquiridos) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Média tamanho do agregado Total 4.36 5.19 4.71 4.77 4.28 5.18 4.68 Homens 76.0% 73.1% 69.6% 74.8% Mulheres 24.0% 26.9% 30.4% 25.2% 42.99 42.20 45.87 43.02 52.06 53.60 51.09 52.38 56.99 55.49 54.05 56.38 39.9% 41.9% 45.3% 40.8% 1 2.2% 5.6% 3.6% 3.2% 2 6.8% 4.0% 11.2% 6.4% 3 10.5% 6.9% 11.3% 9.6% 4 7.5% 9.1% 7.1% 7.9% 5 13.0% 7.3% 7.9% 11.1% 6 10.0% 10.6% 5.3% 9.8% 7 5.9% 10.1% 4.2% 6.8% 8 .7% 2.2% 1.0% 1.1% 9 .9% .0% 2.4% .8% 10 1.8% 1.7% .7% 1.7% 12 .9% .5% Media Idade do chefe % de mulheres entre todos os miembros % de mulheres adultos entre todos os adultos Chefe: nivel de escolaridad >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 4.78 Média tamanho do agregado (membros presente pelo menos 6 meses no ano passado) Chefiadas por: >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA Analfabeto .7% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table B.2 - Percentage literate and participating in socio-economic/agricultural activities, persons age 10 years or over Percentagem alfabeto e percentagem que participou nas activitdades sócio-económicas/agrícolas, pessoas 10 anos ou mais 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Sabe ler e escrever? 45.7 40.7 42.3 44.2 Fez trabalho remunerado? 10.3 8.1 10.2 9.7 17.0 18.7 14.5 17.2 Principal 58.2% 55.1% 57.7% 57.4% Secundária 30.5% 30.4% 25.0% 30.0% Não pratica 11.4% 14.5% 17.3% 12.7% Fez trabalho por conta própria? Pratica actividade agro-pecuaria como principal MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 3 Table B.1 - Demographic characteristics of households interviewed (Características demográficas dos agregados familiares inquiridos) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Média tamanho do agregado Total 4.36 5.19 4.71 4.77 4.28 5.18 4.68 Homens 76.0% 73.1% 69.6% 74.8% Mulheres 24.0% 26.9% 30.4% 25.2% 42.99 42.20 45.87 43.02 52.06 53.60 51.09 52.38 56.99 55.49 54.05 56.38 39.9% 41.9% 45.3% 40.8% 1 2.2% 5.6% 3.6% 3.2% 2 6.8% 4.0% 11.2% 6.4% 3 10.5% 6.9% 11.3% 9.6% 4 7.5% 9.1% 7.1% 7.9% 5 13.0% 7.3% 7.9% 11.1% 6 10.0% 10.6% 5.3% 9.8% 7 5.9% 10.1% 4.2% 6.8% 8 .7% 2.2% 1.0% 1.1% 9 .9% .0% 2.4% .8% 10 1.8% 1.7% .7% 1.7% 12 .9% .5% Media Idade do chefe % de mulheres entre todos os miembros % de mulheres adultos entre todos os adultos Chefe: nivel de escolaridad >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 4.78 Média tamanho do agregado (membros presente pelo menos 6 meses no ano passado) Chefiadas por: >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA Analfabeto .7% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 4 Table C.2 - Percent of households that received market price information (Percentagem de agregados familiares que receberam informação sobre preços) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Recebeu informação sobre preços >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 33.5 19.1 29.4 29.5 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via rádio? 18.9 9.7 15.8 16.3 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via associação 5.3 2.6 .4 4.2 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via Extensão 3.0 .0 .0 2.0 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via Publica 3.6 1.3 1.5 2.9 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via ONG´s? 1.9 .0 .0 1.3 Recebeu alguma informação sobre preços agrícolas via Outros 12.3 9.8 14.5 11.8 Muito influente 15.6% 15.9% 3.9% 14.8% Moderadamente influente 18.5% 11.0% 3.7% 16.1% Pouco influente 22.3% 21.9% 18.3% 21.9% Não influente 39.8% 40.4% 74.1% 42.5% 3.9% 14.9% Será que a informação que teve sobre preços influenciou na área que cultivou Não sabe Será que a informação que teve sobre preços influenciou escolha de culturas que 3.8% 10.8% Muito influente 16.7% 11.8% Moderadamente influente 20.1% 6.6% 3.2% 16.6% Pouco influente 17.8% 25.6% 18.4% 19.2% Não influente 41.6% 48.2% 73.7% 45.1% 3.8% 7.8% .8% 4.2% Não sabe 4.6% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 5 Table C.3 - Percent of households that belong to an agricultural association/ received credit (Percentagem de agregados familiares que pertencem a alguma associação agrária ou receberam crédito 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA O responsável da exploração ou algum membro pertence a algum membro do AF perten Quem no AF participa activamente nessa associação? Total 9.3 3.7 7.6 Homens 3787 1294 105 5185 Mulheres 3782 1739 183 5704 Ambos 2024 1503 267 3795 2.7 1.7 1.3 2.3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Estado 44.5% 50.8% 18.8% 44.6% Banco 6.0% Associações 4.6% 31.6% ONG's 49.2% 32.1% 34.9% 32.1% 5.5% 17.0% .7% 87.1% 67.9% 75.5% 12.9% 32.1% 5.3% Comerciantes Quem no AF recebeu crédito? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 7.4 Algum membro do AF recebeu crédito nos últimos 12 meses? De quem recebeu? >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA Amigos 12.5% Homens 73.1% Mulheres 18.9% Ambos 9.7% 14.5% 8.0% 10.0% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table C.4 - Percent of households that lost part of their crops, livestock or assets Percentagem de agregados familiares que perderam parte das culturas, animais ou bens 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Perdeu parte das culturas, animais ou outros bens por causa seca 60.6 80.0 64.1 65.8 Perdeu parte das culturas, animais ou outros bens por causa cheia 14.7 16.3 16.1 15.2 Perdeu parte das culturas, animais ou outros bens por causa ciclone 30.4 6.7 29.6 24.3 Perdeu parte das culturas, animais ou outros bens por causa animais selvagens 9.3 10.5 10.7 9.7 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 6 Table D.1 - Percent of households that had a household member who did salaried employment, by type of work 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Trabalho agrícola Trabalho fora do país >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 16.4 7.3 >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 5.5 13.2 .0 1.9 .5 .5 Profesor, serviço do saude 2.7 1.0 3.4 2.4 Construção, mecánico 3.2 4.3 .9 3.3 Gestor, secretária, contabilista .1 .0 .0 .0 Trabalhador domestico .2 1.4 .2 .5 Outros .0 .0 .0 .0 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table D.2 - Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticou trabalho por conta-propria: produtos florestais, faunísticos e pesca pequenas e médias agregados familiares, resultados preliminares 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA CORTE/APANHA DE LENHA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 28.2 9.0 27.2 23.2 1.9 .4 3.6 1.6 CORTE DE CAPIM, CANIÇO, FOLHAS DE COQUEIRO PALMEIRA CORTE DE ESTACAS, LACALACA 18.6 12.3 6.9 16.1 6.7 4.1 8.4 6.2 RECOLHA DE MEL, PLANTAS E FRUTOS SILVESTRES CAÇA .2 1.1 3.6 .7 PRODUÇÃO DE CARVÃO .8 .0 4.4 .9 10.6 11.3 22.5 11.7 PRODUÇÃO DE MADEIRA .1 .5 .7 .3 CAPTURA DE PÁSSAROS E RÉPTEIS .4 .0 .0 .3 PESCA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 7 Table D.3 - Percent of households that had a member that did other types of self-employment (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticou outro tipo de trabalho por conta-propria) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total FABRICO E VENDA DE BEBIDAS CASEIRAS INCLUINDO AS DE ORIGEM FLORESTAIS 7.2 18.7 1.8 9.7 COMPRA E VENDA DE BEBIDAS 7.4 5.2 4.9 6.7 COMPRA E VENDA DE PRODUTOS ALIMENTARES 9.3 7.4 4.6 8.5 COMPRA E VENDA DE PRODUTOS NÃO ALIMENTARES COMPRA E VENDA DE PEIXE 4.3 1.7 7.0 3.8 6.3 4.7 5.7 5.9 .4 1.4 .0 .6 .5 .4 .0 .5 .1 .0 .0 .1 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.8 .8 .7 2.1 3.0 3.2 2.7 3.0 .8 2.0 .5 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 2.9 2.2 2.1 COMPRA E VENDA DE ANIMAIS DE GRANDE PORTE E SUBPRODUTOS PECU COMPRA E VENDA DE ANIMAIS DE MÉDIO PORTE E SUBPRODUTOS PECUÁ COMPRA E VENDA DE ANIMAIS DE PEQUENO PORTE E SUBPRODUTOS PEC TRABALHO ARTESANATO/OURIVES/CARPINTARIA OU MARCENEIRO TRABALHO DE ALFAIATE/MODISTA REPARAÇÃO DE RÁDIOS, BICICLETAS PRODUÇÃO DE BLOCOS, TIJOLOS, FERREIRO, PEDREIRO OPERAÇÃO DE MOAGEIRA OU ACTIVIDADE DE AGROPROCESSAMENTO OUTRA ACTIVIDADE MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table D.4 - Percent of households that received / sent remittances or received pensions (Percentagem de agregados familiares que receberam ou mandaram remessas / receberam pensões) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Durante os últimos 12 meses, este AF recebeu dinheiro, alimentos ou outros bens 11.3 12.5 18.8 12.2 Nos últimos 12 meses, o AF mandou dinheiro para alguem fora? 10.5 14.5 .0 11.3 Durante os últimos 12 meses, este AF mandou dinheiro para alguem que vive fora d 16.6 8.8 13.7 14.4 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 8 Table E.1 - Percent distribution of plots by mode of acquisition (Distruibuição de machambas cultivadas por maneira de obtenção da machamba) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Cedida pelas autoridades tradicionais 2.0% 2.1% .2% 1.8% Cedida pelas autoridades formais 1.9% 4.3% 4.9% 2.9% 22.9% 23.8% 18.2% 22.7% Arrendada 1.2% 3.4% 1.0% 1.8% Emprestada 8.6% 3.5% 2.8% 6.7% Ocupada 24.7% 26.9% 27.7% 25.5% Comprada 13.3% 10.9% 10.8% 12.4% Herdada 24.8% 25.2% 34.2% 25.8% .2% .5% Cedida pelos parentes Outros .7% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 NB. Exclue machambas arrendadas aos outros e machambas que deixaram completamente em pouisio. Table E.2 - Distruibution of plots by type of investment done on the plot (Distruibuição de machambas por tipo de investimento feito na machamba) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Fez investimento na machamba em Vedação? Total 1.8% .3% 1.2% 1.4% Não 98.2% 98.8% 98.7% 98.4% .9% .1% .2% Sim 2.8% 1.5% .4% 2.3% Não 97.1% 98.5% 99.6% 97.7% Já tem Fez investimento na machamba em Melhoramentos de solos? Fez investimento na machamba em Outros? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Sim Já tem Fez investimento na machamba em Canais/Sulcos/Poços? >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA .1% .1% Sim 2.1% .7% Não 97.9% 99.3% Sim .2% .2% Não 99.8% 99.8% 1.5% 100.0% 98.5% 100.0% 99.8% .2% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 NB. Exclue machambas arrendadas aos outros e machambas que deixaram completamente em pouisio. Annex 8- page 9 Table E.3 - Mean number of cultivated plots (Média número de machambas) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA ´Média número de machambas >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.6 1 16.5% 8.9% 4.6% 13.6% 2 37.1% 40.6% 31.0% 37.5% 3 31.0% 29.1% 31.8% 30.5% 4 11.0% 9.7% 19.4% 11.3% 5 4.3% 10.8% 12.2% 6.6% 6 .1% .6% .7% .3% .2% .3% .1% 7 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table E.4 - Percent distribution of plots by type of land title and the amount of time it took to obtain a title (Percentagem das machambas com títulos, tipo de título e o tempo que levou para obter um título) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA A machamba tem título? >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Sim .0% .0% Não 100.0% Tipo de título Provisório 100.0% 100.0% Quanto tempo levou para obter este título? 1 à 3 meses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Note: An significant number of plots have titles. Annex 8- page 10 Table E.5 - Reasons cited by landowners for not seeking titles for their plots, and percentage that hold other documentation to show their right to the land Razões dadas pelos donos da terra por não ter títulos e percentagem que tem outro tipo de documentação sobre direito a terra 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA O dono alguma vez pensou de obter título (%) Porque ainda não obteve título? 14.9 >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 7.5 9.2 12.4 Não sabe como tratar 27.1% 7.0% 55.1% 23.3% Não sabe onde tratar 23.8% 45.8% 17.7% 29.4% Não tem dinheiro 20.1% 14.3% 2.9% 17.5% Não precisa 22.4% 27.1% 20.9% 23.6% 6.5% 5.8% 3.5% 6.1% 3.3 .3 .7 2.2 Outro, esp Tem outro documento para mostrar que tem direito de usar a terra MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 11 Table E.6 - Occurence of land conflict 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Alguma vez teve conflito da terra (%) O conflito era sobre o quê? Erros nos limites Total 4.0 3.1 4.0 48.9% 48.2% 53.5% 49.1% Desavenças entre herdeiros 9.7% 12.5% 4.4% 10.0% Deficiente demarcação das parcelas 4.9% 13.2% 6.8% Vendas para mais de uma pessoa .6% 4.3% 1.6% Outras, esp 35.9% Autoridades tradicionais 2.4% 15.8% 1.8% 19.4% 26.3% 30.7% 1.3% .9% Autoridades formais Familiares 7.6% .5% 4.0% 16.8% 4.4% 7.5% Vizinhos 54.3% 61.4% 64.4% 56.9% Empresas 23.0% 3.6% 8.3% 16.7% Imigrantes 5.3% 14.3% Outros, esp 12.1% 3.9% 15.4% 10.1% 3.2 4.7 10.9 4.3 Preocupa-se que pode entrar em conflito da terra (%) Com quem pensa que pode entrar em conflito? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 4.1 Consulta às comunidades mal feita Com quem teve este conflito? >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA Autoridades tradicionais 7.3% 1.7% .8% Autoridades formais 3.3% .8% Familiares 10.6% 22.8% 5.1% 12.8% Vizinhos 38.8% 28.8% 56.1% 39.9% Empresas 34.2% 38.3% 34.9% 35.6% Outros, esp 14.8% 10.1% .6% 10.1% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 12 Table F.1 - Percentagem de agregados familiares que utilizou rega, fertilizantes, pesticidas e estrume >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Utilizou rega? Utilizou fertilizantes químicas? Utilizou pesticidas? Utilizou estrume? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .0 2.2 .0 .6 .4 .0 .0 .2 1.1 .0 .0 .7 .7 .0 .0 .5 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table F.2 - Total cultivated and fallow land (ha) (Area cultivada e area em pousio) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Area da machamba Média % distribuição <0.5 ha 1.0 >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA .7 .8 Total .9 .4% .7% .2% .4% 0.5-0.99ha 38.4% 45.7% 39.8% 40.4% 1.0-1.99 28.5% 34.5% 37.1% 30.7% 2.0-4.99 20.6% 14.2% 19.5% 18.9% 5 or more 11.4% 4.4% 3.0% 8.9% .8% .5% .4% .7% 6.00 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 13 Table G.1 - Percent of households that grew cereals and groundnuts, by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam cereais e amendoim, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 37.8 33.1 37.0 36.6 ARROZ 59.7 91.0 72.1 68.6 MAPIRA 4.3 1.2 .2 3.2 MEXOEIRA 1.3 .0 .0 .9 AMENDOIM GRANDE 6.5 2.4 1.2 5.0 37.7 13.2 9.0 29.2 AMENDOIM PEQUENO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.2 - Percent of households that grew cereals and groundnuts and used improved seeds, by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam cereais e amendoim e utilizaram semente melhorada, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA MILHO 3.0 13.0 ARROZ 3.3 MAPIRA .0 . MEXOEIRA Total 16.2 6.3 1.4 4.3 2.8 .0 100.0 .6 . . . AMENDOIM GRANDE 5.1 .0 .0 4.4 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 4.5 7.5 11.1 5.0 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 14 Table G.3 - Percent of households that grew cereals and groundnuts and purchased seeds, by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam cereais e amendoim e compraram semente, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 47.7 55.3 60.0 50.4 ARROZ 21.8 19.5 32.5 21.9 MAPIRA 39.8 .0 100.0 36.4 MEXOEIRA 20.5 . . 20.5 AMENDOIM GRANDE 46.5 77.9 100.0 51.3 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 47.8 47.5 81.4 48.6 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.4 - Source of purchased seed by crop: households that grew cereals and groundnuts (Fonte de semente comprado por cultura: os agregados familiares que praticam cereais e amendoim) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MILHO Casa agrária Loja ARROZ .5% >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 6.5% 1.1% 2.1% 3.1% 2.0% Mercado 61.7% 84.0% 77.1% 68.8% Vizinhos 30.3% 9.4% 18.6% 23.9% 3.2% 2.3% Feira agrária 3.0% Outro, especificar 1.4% Casa agrária .9% 17.2% Loja 9.9% 5.9% 11.0% 3.1% Mercado 51.6% 64.3% 63.5% 56.9% Vizinhos 26.4% 15.0% 25.5% 22.9% 4.8% 6.7% Feira agrária Outro, especificar MAPIRA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 8.1% Loja Mercado 4.8% 2.4% 100.0% 38.6% 1.5% 38.0% Vizinhos 61.4% 60.5% MEXOEIRA Mercado 100.0% 100.0% AMENDOIM GRANDE Loja AMENDOIM PEQUENO 4.0% 3.1% Mercado 67.7% 65.6% Vizinhos 28.3% 34.4% 100.0% 68.5% 28.3% Casa agrária 4.0% 3.4% Loja 5.8% 4.9% Mercado 57.1% 72.4% 92.7% 60.2% Vizinhos 25.2% 27.6% 7.3% 24.8% Feira agrária 3.1% 2.6% Outro, especificar 4.8% 4.1% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 15 Table G.5 - Percent of households that sold cereals and groundnuts (growers of the crop), by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que vendem cereais e amendoim (dos que praticam), por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 11.8 1.7 1.3 8.7 ARROZ 21.4 16.4 3.5 18.2 MAPIRA 1.6 .0 .0 1.5 .0 . . .0 AMENDOIM GRANDE 14.7 28.7 .0 16.1 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 42.9 36.2 7.9 41.3 MEXOEIRA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.6A - Percent of households that grew cereals and groundnuts and had pre-harvest losses (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram cereais e amendoim e tiveram perdas, ANTES da colheita) por cultura 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 79.3 71.3 92.1 78.5 ARROZ 69.9 81.8 83.4 75.0 MAPIRA 57.2 100.0 .0 60.9 MEXOEIRA 59.0 . . 59.0 AMENDOIM GRANDE 56.5 100.0 100.0 62.6 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 66.5 74.1 78.6 67.7 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.6B - Percent of households that grew cereals and groundnuts and had post-harvest losses (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram cereais e amendoim e tiveram perdas, DEPOIS da colheita) por cultura 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 14.6 10.3 5.2 12.9 ARROZ 22.6 19.9 22.7 21.7 MAPIRA 13.9 .0 .0 12.5 4.8 . . 4.8 AMENDOIM GRANDE 21.9 28.7 .0 22.3 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 18.8 7.1 5.7 17.2 MEXOEIRA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 16 Table G.7A - Principal reason cited for pre-harvest losses, by crop (Razao principal das perdas ANTES da colheita, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MILHO ARROZ Cheias 2.6% Pragas 2.8% 4.2% 8.5% 11.9% 17.5% 7.2% 7.5% Animais domésticos 2.4% 1.7% Doenças/ Apodrecimento 6.0% 4.2% Excesso de chuvas 4.5% 5.8% 1.7% 4.5% Falta de chuva 37.9% 55.4% 47.3% 42.5% Outros, esp 27.4% 12.1% 35.2% 24.9% Cheias 17.3% 5.7% 8.8% 12.3% Pragas 10.9% 5.6% 5.1% 8.4% 1.0% 7.8% Excesso de chuvas Falta de chuva Outros, esp 3.4% .5% 2.3% .2% .4% 1.3% 2.9% 1.6% 4.6% 2.6% 57.7% 75.3% 78.9% 66.1% 7.9% 3.5% 2.3% 5.8% Pragas 10.9% 9.2% Excesso de chuvas 24.2% 20.5% Falta de chuva 13.4% Outros, esp 51.5% 43.5% Cheias 34.7% 34.7% Falta de chuva 34.7% 34.7% Outros, esp 30.6% 30.6% Pragas 12.2% 22.1% 13.7% Animais selvagens 12.6% 10.9% 11.9% Animais domésticos 3.1% Doenças/ Apodrecimento Excesso de chuvas Falta de chuva 15.6% 100.0% 26.9% 2.4% 17.7% 15.5% 3.7% 52.9% 2.9% 49.2% Outros, esp AMENDOIM PEQUENO Total 4.6% Doenças/ Apodrecimento AMENDOIM GRANDE 5.0% 14.7% Queimadas MEXOEIRA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Animais selvagens Animais selvagens MAPIRA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 50.5% 100.0% 3.1% Cheias 2.0% 4.3% Pragas 8.3% 20.8% 9.3% 9.9% Animais selvagens 3.4% 8.0% 3.5% 3.9% Animais domésticos 2.2% 4.4% 3.7% Doenças/ Apodrecimento 21.5% 4.3% 18.7% Excesso de chuvas 11.5% Falta de chuva 31.4% 49.8% 74.1% 34.9% Outros, esp 17.5% 12.8% 13.1% 16.8% 9.8% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 17 Table G.7B - Principal reason cited for post-harvest losses, by crop (Razao principal das perdas DEPOIS da colheita, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MILHO Cheias 1.3% Pragas 87.5% >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 1.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.2% Animais domésticos 1.5% 1.2% Doenças/ Apodrecimento 2.8% 2.2% Outros, esp ARROZ >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 6.8% 5.3% Pragas 66.7% 80.4% 97.1% 73.6% Animais selvagens 24.3% 17.1% 1.5% 20.1% Animais domésticos 7.7% 2.5% 1.3% 5.6% Outros, esp 1.2% .7% Pragas 88.2% 88.2% Animais domésticos 11.8% 11.8% MEXOEIRA Animais domésticos 100.0% AMENDOIM GRANDE Pragas MAPIRA AMENDOIM PEQUENO 90.9% Animais selvagens 100.0% 61.9% 86.5% 38.1% 5.8% Animais domésticos 4.5% 3.8% Doenças/ Apodrecimento 4.5% 3.8% Cheias 1.0% Pragas 70.6% 72.4% .9% Animais selvagens 6.8% 27.6% Animais domésticos 100.0% 70.9% 7.7% 17.1% 16.2% Doenças/ Apodrecimento 3.0% 2.8% Outros, esp 1.5% 1.5% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 18 Table G.8 - Production of cereals and groundnuts (tonnes) (Produção de cereais e amendoim (toneladas)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 3,803 753 78 4,633 ARROZ 17,609 6,177 1,422 25,209 198 2 0 200 56 . . 56 MAPIRA MEXOEIRA AMENDOIM GRANDE AMENDOIM PEQUENO 162 27 0 189 4,419 218 16 4,652 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.8A - Mean production of cereals and groundnuts by households that grew the crop (kg) (Média produção de cereais e amendoim dos agregados familiares que praticaram a cultura (kg)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 78.0 46.5 14.1 65.7 ARROZ 229.1 138.6 131.9 190.6 MAPIRA 35.6 4.2 .0 32.4 MEXOEIRA 33.0 . . 33.0 AMENDOIM GRANDE 19.4 23.2 .9 19.5 AMENDOIM PEQUENO 91.1 33.8 11.5 82.6 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 19 Table G.9 - Sales of cereals and groundnuts (tonnes) (Venda de cereais e amendoim (toneladas)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MILHO ARROZ >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 329 28 1 357 1,852 341 31 2,225 MAPIRA 2 . . 2 MEXOEIRA . . . . AMENDOIM GRANDE AMENDOIM PEQUENO 14 14 . 27 2,105 156 3 2,264 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table G.9A - Mean sales of cereals and groundnuts by households that grew the crop (kg)* (Média venda de cereais e amendoim dos agregados familiares que praticaram a cultura (kg) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MILHO 58.3 100.1 7.4 59.6 ARROZ 112.7 46.7 83.8 92.2 MAPIRA 24.8 . . 24.8 . . . . 11.2 40.9 . 17.5 101.2 66.6 31.2 97.4 MEXOEIRA AMENDOIM GRANDE AMENDOIM PEQUENO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 *Households that did not sell the crop are recorded here as having 0 sales. Annex 8- page 20 Table H.1 - Percent of households that grew beans, by type of bean (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam feijões, por cultura ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .6 5.7 .0 1.8 FEIJÃO NHEMBA 46.5 51.9 64.9 49.3 FEIJÃO JUGO 22.7 2.2 9.6 16.5 FEIJÃO BOER 24.6 8.2 3.3 18.8 5.3 2.3 16.1 5.4 FEIJÃO OLOKO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.2 - Percent of households that grew beans and used improved seeds, by type of bean (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam feijões e utilizaram semente melhorada, por cultura ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .0 .0 . .0 1.1 4.8 1.1 2.1 FEIJÃO JUGO . . . . FEIJÃO BOER . . . . FEIJÃO OLOKO . . . . FEIJÃO NHEMBA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.3 - Percent of households that grew beans and purchased seeds, by type of bean (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam feijões e compraram semente, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 100.0 .0 . 20.7 FEIJÃO NHEMBA 34.2 47.2 49.7 39.2 FEIJÃO JUGO 25.8 11.9 17.4 24.9 FEIJÃO BOER 17.9 .0 21.1 16.0 FEIJÃO OLOKO 56.2 15.9 37.8 47.5 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 21 Table H.4 - Source of purchased seed by type of bean: households that grew beans (Os agregados familiares que praticam feijões e compraram semente: onde compraram, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA Mercado FEIJÃO NHEMBA Casa agária >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 100.0% 1.1% 1.1% .4% 1.1% 1.6% .4% 80.4% 81.5% 78.9% 80.5% Vizinhos 15.7% 16.5% 17.6% 16.2% .7% 1.4% 2.5% Outro, esp. .9% .3% Casa agária Mercado 64.1% Vizinhos 30.3% Feira agrária 100.0% 24.7% .8% 50.7% 62.7% 24.7% 31.2% 5.6% 5.3% Loja 12.0% Mercado 45.9% Vizinhos 32.3% 31.8% 9.8% 9.6% Feira agrária FEIJÃO OLOKO 1.3% Mercado Feira agrária FEIJÃO BOER Total 100.0% Loja FEIJÃO JUGO >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 11.8% 100.0% Casa agária 46.8% 100.0% 3.7% Mercado 89.2% 96.2% 87.2% Vizinhos 10.8% 3.8% 9.1% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.5 - Percent of households that sold beans (growers of the crop), by type of bean (Percentagem de agregados familiares que vendem feijões (dos que praticam), por cultura ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .0 33.3 . 26.4 4.5 4.4 3.6 4.4 FEIJÃO JUGO 17.9 38.1 .0 17.8 FEIJÃO BOER 6.8 18.9 13.2 8.2 FEIJÃO OLOKO 1.3 .0 1.4 1.2 FEIJÃO NHEMBA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 22 Table H.6A - Percent of households that grew beans and had pre-harvest losses (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram feijões e tiveram perdas, ANTES da colheita) por cultura 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 100.0 66.7 . 73.6 FEIJÃO NHEMBA 70.5 71.5 87.6 72.5 FEIJÃO JUGO 68.1 35.6 100.0 68.5 FEIJÃO BOER 60.2 64.4 79.2 61.0 FEIJÃO OLOKO 76.4 49.0 74.5 73.0 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.6B - Percent of households that grew beans and had post-harvest losses (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram feijões e tiveram perdas, DEPOIS da colheita) por cultura 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .0 16.7 . 13.2 FEIJÃO NHEMBA 11.8 13.6 13.5 12.4 FEIJÃO JUGO 11.4 .0 .0 10.5 FEIJÃO BOER 9.6 14.5 .0 10.0 FEIJÃO OLOKO 7.3 .0 18.5 9.1 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 23 Table H.7A - Principal reason cited for pre-harvest losses, by crop (Razão principal das perdas ANTES da colheita, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA Falta de chuva FEIJÃO NHEMBA Cheias 1.9% 1.0% 6.4% 2.2% Pragas 25.9% 17.9% 9.6% 21.8% Animais selvagens 6.3% 8.3% 2.4% 6.3% Animais domésticos 1.1% 1.0% Doenças/Apodrecimento 3.2% 2.0% 8.3% 3.5% 50.8% 63.5% 57.2% 54.9% Outros, especificar 8.3% 6.2% 16.1% 8.7% Cheias 3.0% 38.0% 5.2% Pragas 7.9% Animais selvagens 2.6% Animais domésticos 1.1% Doenças/Apodrecimento 6.3% Falta de chuva FEIJÃO JUGO Excesso de chuvas Falta de chuva FEIJÃO BOER .9% 1.6% 7.3% 8.6% 33.3% 1.1% 71.6% 2.9% 1.0% 42.3% 4.3% 66.7% 6.5% Cheias 4.3% Pragas 15.1% 33.2% Animais selvagens 1.8% 40.3% Animais domésticos 2.0% Excesso de chuvas 100.0% 2.6% Outros, especificar Doenças/Apodrecimento FEIJÃO OLOKO 100.0% Total FEIJÃO MANTEIGA Excesso de chuvas 100.0% >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 9.1% 1.3% 66.8% 6.8% 6.4% 3.7% 15.8% 17.3% 6.3% 1.7% 14.3% 15.8% 9.0% 12.6% 7.8% Falta de chuva 32.9% 10.7% 36.0% 30.4% Outros, especificar 20.5% 15.8% 32.4% 20.2% Pragas 42.9% 33.8% 10.5% 34.6% Animais domésticos 33.8% 2.5% Doenças/Apodrecimento 1.6% 1.1% Excesso de chuvas 1.7% 1.2% Falta de chuva Outros, especificar 51.1% 2.7% 32.5% 87.7% 58.3% 1.8% 2.3% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 24 Table H.7B - Principal reason cited for post-harvest losses, by crop (Razão principal das perdas DEPOIS da colheita, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Pragas FEIJÃO NHEMBA Cheias 2.4% Pragas 79.4% 78.8% 95.3% 80.9% Animais selvagens 7.2% 21.2% 4.7% 11.0% Animais domésticos 8.2% 4.9% Outros, especificar 2.9% 1.8% 66.4% 66.4% FEIJÃO JUGO FEIJÃO BOER FEIJÃO OLOKO Pragas 100.0% Total FEIJÃO MANTEIGA 100.0% 1.4% Animais selvagens 3.6% 3.6% Animais domésticos 30.0% 30.0% Pragas 56.3% Doenças/Apodrecimento 43.7% Pragas 58.3% Outros, especificar 41.7% 100.0% 63.4% 36.6% 100.0% 78.0% 22.0% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 25 Table H.8 - Production of cereals and groundnuts (tonnes) (Produção de feijões (toneladas)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA FEIJÃO NHEMBA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 3 98 0 102 1,394 484 198 2,076 FEIJÃO JUGO 939 31 9 979 FEIJÃO BOER 1,448 238 12 1,697 143 9 43 195 FEIJÃO OLOKO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.8A - Média produção de feijões das agregados familiares que praticaram feijões (toneladas) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 4.425 35.519 . 29.091 FEIJÃO NHEMBA 23.279 19.063 20.354 21.852 FEIJÃO JUGO 32.118 29.508 6.080 30.853 FEIJÃO BOER 45.790 58.876 23.906 46.954 FEIJÃO OLOKO 20.888 8.065 17.990 18.799 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 26 Table H.9 - Venda de feijões (toneladas) (Venda de feijões (toneladas)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA FEIJÃO NHEMBA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total . 25 . 25 94 24 13 131 FEIJÃO JUGO 153 14 . 167 FEIJÃO BOER 342 25 3 369 1 . 2 3 FEIJÃO OLOKO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table H.9A - Média venda de feijões das agregados familiares que venderam a produção (toneladas) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA FEIJÃO MANTEIGA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total . 27.491 . 27.491 34.819 21.152 37.024 31.318 FEIJÃO JUGO 29.251 34.253 . 29.611 FEIJÃO BOER 159.232 33.083 38.502 124.183 10.356 . 48.438 20.823 FEIJÃO NHEMBA FEIJÃO OLOKO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 27 Table I.1 - Percent of households that grew roots and tubers, by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram tuberculos, por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MANDIOCA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 83.2 80.6 94.4 83.4 3.5 1.3 2.5 2.8 BATATA DOCE NÃO 32.0 46.8 ALARANJADA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 47.2 37.0 BATATA DOCE ALARANJADA Table I.2 - Percent of households that sold roots and tubers (growers of the crop), by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que venderam tuberculos (dos que praticam), por cultura ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA MANDIOCA 22.7 20.8 BATATA DOCE ALARANJADA 64.1 >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 14.6 21.5 34.7 .0 56.2 BATATA DOCE NÃO 30.1 5.7 ALARANJADA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 10.8 20.3 Annex 8- page 28 Table I.3 - Quantidade da produção de tuberculos (toneladas) por cultura (Quantidade da produção de tuberculos (toneladas) por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA MANDIOCA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 246,465 82,819 18,356 347,640 14,395 522 260 15,177 BATATA DOCE NÃO 20,969 13,558 ALARANJADA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 3,184 37,710 BATATA DOCE ALARANJADA Table I.4 - Mean production of roots and tubers (kg), by crop (Média quantidade da produção de tuberculos (kg) por cultura) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total MANDIOCA 2,297 2,097 1,300 2,160 BATATA DOCE ALARANJADA 3,236 794 698 2,770 BATATA DOCE NÃO 508 592 ALARANJADA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 451 529 Annex 8- page 29 Table J.1 - Percent of households that grew cash crops, by crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam culturas de rendimento, por cultura ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA ALGODÃO >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 1.1 .0 .0 .7 TABACO .1 .6 .0 .2 SISAL FOLHA .0 .0 .0 .0 CHÁ FOLHA .0 .0 .0 .0 9.3 15.9 8.4 10.9 GIRASSOL .0 .0 .0 .0 GERGELIM CANA DE AÇÚCAR 2.8 .4 .0 2.0 SOJA .0 .0 .0 .0 PAPRICA .0 .0 .0 .0 GENGIBRE .0 .0 .0 .0 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table J.2 Cash crop production (toneladas), culturas seleccionadas (Quantidade da produção (toneladas)), selected crops 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA ALGODÃO TABACO GERGELIM >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 970 . . 970 1 8 . 10 409 2 . 411 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 30 Table K.1 - Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticaram horticolas, por cultura seleccionada (Percentagem de agregados familiares que praticam horticolas, por cultura seleccionada) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA BATATA RENO ABÓBORA CEBOLA COUVE MELANCIA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total .2 .5 .0 .2 14.7 10.3 18.9 13.9 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.4 .8 1.6 .5 1.0 5.6 .0 3.6 4.0 PEPINO 10.7 4.7 20.4 9.9 QUIABO 11.8 10.7 17.0 11.9 TOMATE 11.5 23.3 21.5 15.3 .1 .0 .3 .1 FEIJÃO VERDE MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table K.2 - Percent of households that sold horticultural crops (among growers), by selected crop (Percentagem de agregados familiares que vendem horticolas (dos que praticaram a cultura), por cultura seleccionada) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total BATATA RENO 2.0 2.0 . 2.0 ABÓBORA 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 CEBOLA 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.6 COUVE 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.9 MELANCIA 1.9 . 1.6 1.9 PEPINO 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 QUIABO 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 TOMATE 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 FEIJÃO VERDE 2.0 . 2.0 2.0 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 31 Table L.1 - Percent of households that have fruit trees, by selected fruit tree (Percentagem de agregados familiares que tem árvores de fruta, por árvor seleccionado) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA ANANAZEIRO >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 7.3 6.7 2.8 6.8 BANANEIRA 42.6 54.2 49.7 46.1 GOIABEIRA 15.0 9.8 26.6 14.6 LARANJEIRA 29.3 32.0 33.9 30.3 LIMOEIRO 22.8 28.2 32.4 24.9 MANGUEIRA 74.6 80.4 83.5 76.8 PAPAEIRA 36.0 35.8 46.0 36.7 8.8 8.0 4.4 8.3 TANGERINEIRA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table L.2 - Percent of households that sell fruits or subproducts (among households that own trees), by selected fruit tree (Percentagem de agregados familiares que vendem fruta ou subprodutos (dos agregados familiares que tem arvores), por árvores seleccionado) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA ANANAZEIRO BANANEIRA GOIABEIRA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 1.1 .0 .0 .9 22.1 27.0 16.3 23.0 .1 .0 3.7 .6 LARANJEIRA 38.0 41.2 19.1 37.8 LIMOEIRO 24.3 10.7 6.4 18.6 MANGUEIRA 22.4 7.7 3.1 16.7 1.1 .0 4.1 1.1 30.9 .0 26.5 23.2 PAPAEIRA TANGERINEIRA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 32 Table M.1A - Percent of households that own cashew trees, number of growing trees, productive trees, old trees, trees planted in the last 12 months (Percentagem de agregados familiares que tem cajueiros, número de cajueiros em crescimento, em produção, velhos, plantados) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Percentagem de agregados familiares que tem cajueiros (%) >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 49.2 34.3 32.4 44.1 139,695 7,686 716 148,098 2,032,610 100,175 8,000 2,140,785 Quantos cajueiros estão velhos? 548,872 36,799 14,975 600,647 Quantos cajueiros plantou (Mudas)? 20,812 0 370 21,182 Quantos cajueiros plantou (Não Mudas)? 34,156 0 0 34,156 Quantos cajueiros estão em crescimento? Quantos cajueiros estão em produção? MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.1B - Percent of households that received seedlings and source (Percentagem de agregados familiares que recebeu ou comprou mudas de cajueiros e fonte) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Percentagem de agregados familiares que recebeu mudas (%) De quem recebeu mudas? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 3.5 .0 1.3 2.7 37.0% .0% 100.0% 38.7% 63.0% .0% .0% 61.3% 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Associação 12.6% .0% .0% 12.6% ONG's 87.4% .0% .0% 87.4% DDA (Incajú) ONG's Percentagem de agregados familiares que comprou mudas (%) De quem comprou mudas? >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 33 Table M.1C - Percent of households that had cashew trees that were affected by pests ou diseases, that sprayed their trees against oidium and number of trees sprayed (Percentagem de agregados familiares que foram afectadas pela praga ou doença de cajueiros, que fez pulverização contra oidium e número de cajueiros pulverizados) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Os seus cajueiros foram afectados por alguma doença/praga que diminuiu a produçã 49.5 44.8 42.7 48.2 Fez, na campanha 2006/07, a pulverização dos seus cajueiros contra o oidium? 12.5 1.2 2.5 9.7 Quantos cajueiros pulverizou? 921,384 7,385 370 929,139 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.2 - Percent of households with cashew trees that were affected by wildfires and number of trees affected (Percentagem de agregados familiares com cajueiros que foram afectadas pelas queimadas descontraladas e número de cajueiros afectados) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Percentagem de agregados familiares que foram afectados pelas queimadas descontroladas (%) Número de arvores afectados pelas queimadas descontroladas (%) >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 15.8 9.1 4.7 13.8 334,326 13,880 315 348,521 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 34 Table M.3 - Percent of households that gathered, harvested or produced cashew and subproducts (Percentagem de agregados familiares que apanhou / colheu / produziu produtos ou subprodutos de caju) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total CASTANHA 36.3 24.8 10.0 31.3 AMENDOA 16.4 14.5 1.4 14.8 SUMO 10.9 2.4 .0 7.9 2.3 1.3 .0 1.9 AGUARDENTE MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.4 - Percent of households that sold cashew and subproducts (among gatherers or growers) (Percentagem de agregados familiares que vendeu castanha de caju e subprodutos (dos que apanharam/produziram) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA CASTANHA AMENDOA SUMO AGUARDENTE >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 47.1 18.4 .0 40.2 .0 3.6 .0 .9 3.7 .0 . 3.4 71.5 39.6 . 65.8 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.5 - Production of cashews (toneladas) (Produção e venda de castanha de caju ) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Produção 3,234 270 6 3,510 Venda 2,110 132 . 2,242 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 35 Table M.6 - Percent of households that have coconut trees or had coconut trees lost to coconut lethal yellowing disease (Percentagem de agregados familiares que tem coqueiros e percentagem que teve coqueiros que perderam por causa da amarelecimento letal) >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA A exploração tem coqueiros? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Sim 99.2% 96.9% 73.0% 96.6% Não .8% 3.1% 27.0% 3.4% 29.2% 48.1% 90.1% 38.2% 70.8% 51.9% 9.9% 61.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% AFs que tem coqueiros Alguma vez teve coqueiros Sim que morreram por causa do Não amarelecimento letal? AFs que não tem coqueiros Alguma vez teve coqueiros Sim que morreram por causa do MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.7 - Number of coconut trees, productive trees and trees plantes in the last 12 months (Número de coqueiros total, número em produção, número que foram plantada nos últimos 12 meses) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Quantos coqueiros tem no total? 3,249,797 1,995,380 227,512 5,472,688 Número dos coqueiros em produção, durante os últimos 12 meses? 2,592,289 1,546,225 104,458 4,242,972 Quantos coqueiros plantou nos últimos 12 meses? 172,150 41,816 23,045 237,011 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.8 - Percent of households that had coconut trees that were affected by disease (Percentagem de agregados familiare que tem coqueiros que foram afectados pela doença) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Percentagem de AFs que tem coqueiros que foram afectados por alguma doença que diminuiu a produção(%) 34.4 46.5 67.6 39.4 Percentagem de AFs que tem coqueiros que foram afectados pelo amarelecimento letal (%) 24.8 39.4 69.3 31.1 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 36 Table M.9 - Number of coconut trees affected by CLYD, percentage of households that felled and burned affected trees and who felled and burned them (Numero de coqueiros afectados pela doença, e quem fez abate e queima dos coqueiros afectados) >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Quantos coqueiros foram afectados pelo amarelecimento letal? Percentagem de AFs que fez abate de coqueiros afectados (%) Quem fez? Próprio ONG Empresa Outro, esp. >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 406,622 322,671 764,947 1,494,240 12.3 21.2 32.0 16.4 86.3% 80.2% 85.0% 84.1% .0% 2.7% 1.0% 1.1% 2.6% 6.3% 10.1% 5.2% 11.0% 10.8% 3.9% 9.7% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.10 - Produção e venda total de coco e copra (toneladas) (Produção e venda total de coco e copra (toneladas)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA COCO COPRA Produção >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 10,751 5,526 360 16,637 Venda 5,524 3,597 183 9,304 Produção 1,769 1,017 125 2,910 Venda 1,760 1,037 137 2,934 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table M.11 - Mean household production and sales of coconut and copra (kg) (Média produção e venda de coco e copra por agregado familiar (kg)) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA COCO COPRA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Produção 104.5 135.7 64.0 111.5 Venda 125.1 160.2 77.5 134.9 Produção 168.9 100.3 177.2 136.6 Venda 176.7 100.2 183.2 139.3 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Note: Mean production is based on data from all producers. Mean sales is based on data from all sellers. Annex 8- page 37 Table N.1 - Percent of households that raise livestock, by type of animal (Percentagem de agregados familiares que cria animais, por tipo de animal) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA BOVINOS CAPRINOS >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total 2.6 .0 .6 1.8 15.4 9.0 19.5 14.1 OVINOS 6.0 .4 .0 4.1 SUINOS 1.1 .0 .0 .7 BURROS GALINHAS COELHOS PATOS GANSOS PERÚS G. DO MATO .0 .0 .0 .0 63.2 62.8 68.8 63.5 .0 .0 .7 .1 22.0 17.3 18.4 20.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.2 MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table N.2A - Total number of animals, by type of animal (Número de animais, por tipo de animal) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total BOVINOS 18,315 0 559 18,873 CAPRINOS 67,184 14,959 11,749 93,892 OVINOS 22,818 2,667 0 25,485 SUINOS 8,884 0 0 8,884 0 0 0 0 427,243 148,065 53,139 628,447 BURROS GALINHAS COELHOS 0 0 213 213 133,074 35,811 9,153 178,039 GANSOS 0 0 0 0 PERÚS 0 0 0 0 9,815 1,726 753 12,294 PATOS G. DO MATO MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 38 Table N.2B - Mean number of animals raised per household, by type of animal (Média número de animais por agregado familiar, por tipo de animal) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total BOVINOS .2 .0 .0 .1 CAPRINOS .7 .5 .9 .6 OVINOS .2 .1 .0 .2 SUINOS .1 .0 .0 .1 BURROS .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.7 GALINHAS COELHOS .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 1.1 .7 1.2 GANSOS .0 .0 .0 .0 PERÚS .0 .0 .0 .0 G. DO MATO .1 .1 .1 .1 PATOS MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table N.3 - Number of animals (stock input and output), by type of animal (Número de animais (entradas e saidas), por tipo de animal) BOVINOS 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Comprado 2,453 0 0 2,453 Recebido do fomento 1,117 0 0 1,117 Recebido como oferta 0 0 0 0 Oferecido aos outros 0 0 62 62 Vendido vivos 2,676 0 123 2,799 Abatido para venda 2,929 0 0 2,929 0 0 0 0 Perdido por causa da doença 507 0 62 569 Perdido por causa de roubo, acidente, etc 568 0 0 568 Abatido para consumo MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 39 Table O.1 - Percent of households that hired labor and used animal traction (Percentagem de agregados familiares que utilizam mão-de-obra e tracção animal) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Percentagem de AFs que utilizou mão-de-obra a tempo inteiro (%) 2.0 .5 .4 1.5 Percentagem de AFs que utilizou mão-de-obra a temporário (%) 20.4 10.5 10.5 17.1 .2 .0 .0 .1 Percentagem de AFs que utilizou tracção animal (%) MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table O.3 - Percent of households that used animals, machinery and equipment for production (Percentagem de AFs que utilizou meios de produção) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total BOVINOS .2 .0 .0 .1 BURROS .0 .0 .0 .0 CHARRUAS DE TRACÇÃO ANIMAL CARROÇAS .2 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 TRACTORES .0 1.6 .7 .5 CHARRUAS DE TRACÇÃO MECANIZADA ATRELADOS .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .1 47.9 41.6 28.0 44.8 CAMIONETA/CAMIÕES 2.8 2.5 3.6 2.8 MOTORIZADAS 4.8 .8 .7 3.5 MOTOBOMBAS .0 1.9 .0 .5 ELECTROBOMBAS .0 .0 .0 .0 BICICLETAS MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 40 Table P.1 - Percentagem com bicicleta, radio, latrina e celeiros melhorados 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total O seu AF tem candeeiro à petróleo? 61.1 59.8 61.8 60.9 O seu AF tem rádio (v. económico)? 47.5 43.6 40.4 46.0 O seu AF tem bicicleta? 52.6 45.5 30.3 49.1 O seu AF tem latrina? 17.7 15.4 16.5 17.0 O seu AF tem mesa? 43.8 43.9 47.2 44.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 O seu AF possui celeiros melhorados? MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table P.2 - Responses to household food security questions (Respostas a perguntas sobre a seguranca alimentar) >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA Qual é o alimento básico mais importante para o AF? Tinha reserva deste alimento proveniente da sua produção? Total Milho 10.6% 23.7% 25.4% 17.5% Arroz 10.3% 32.1% 22.3% 18.7% Mapira .0% .5% .0% .1% Mexoeira .0% .5% .0% .1% Mandioca 79.1% 43.2% 52.3% 63.5% Sim 68.5% 59.5% 49.0% 61.4% Não praticou a cultura 11.1% 17.4% 23.4% 15.7% Perdeu O AF passou um período no qual teve dificuldades em alimentar todos membros? >70% CLYD May 2008 RA 2.8% 4.7% 6.3% 4.2% Prod. baixa 17.6% 18.4% 21.4% 18.7% Sim 34.1% 26.3% 41.2% 34.0% Não 65.9% 73.7% 58.8% 66.0% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Table P.3 - Perception of respondent on current household economic conditions at compared to conditions three years back from time of interview (Percepção do (agregado familiar) sobre as condições económicas comparando com 3 anos atras) 0%-10% CLYD May 2008 RA O Sr(a) acha que o seu AF está em melhor, igual ou pior condições económicas com >10%-70% CLYD May 2008 RA >70% CLYD May 2008 RA Total Melhor agora do que à 3 anos atrás 18.6% 14.2% 4.1% 13.9% Igual agora comparado à 3 anos atrás 36.2% 37.4% 33.5% 35.8% Pior agora do que à 3 anos atrás 45.2% 48.4% 62.4% 50.3% MCC Survey of Households in the Coconut Belt of Zambezia and Nampula 2008/09 Annex 8- page 41