Research Paper Series Republic of Mozambique

Transcrição

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
Ministry of Agriculture
Victorino Xavier
National Director
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
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.
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.
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
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%
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.
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%
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
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
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.
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).
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.
differences found.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
differences found.
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.
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%
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
Annex Figure 3
Annex Figure 4
Annex Figure 5
Annex Figure 6
Annex Figure 7
Annex Figure 2
Annex Figure 3
Annex Figure 4
Annex Figure 5
Annex Figure 6
Annex Figure 7
Annex 2: Field notes, Rapid Appraisal of Coconut Zones in Zambezia, May
2008. Ellen Payongayong.
Annex 2- page1
Annex 2- page2
Annex Figure 2
Annex Figure 3
Annex 2- page3
Annex Figure 4
Annex Figure 5
Annex 2- page4
Annex Figure 6
Annex 2- page5
Annex Figure 7
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/
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 /
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.
2 EP
Ref a/
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 /
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.
3 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
NICOADALA DISTRICT Family
sector. Coconuts planted
along roadside.
CLYD isolated cases.
NICOADALA DISTRICT
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 /
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.
4 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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)
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
Clumps of coconut trees.
5 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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 /
b/
Pictures
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.
6 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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
7 OBS
No.
51
EP
Ref a/
2.23
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
Incidence of CLYD /
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”.
Household reports coconut
trees have been dying in
the area for 2 years now.
CLYD > 75%
P1000466
CLYD > 75%
P1000467
P1000468
8 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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
Macuse Macuse Station
MADAL Macuse station.
Spoke to Alberto Tenente.
Exiting MADAL
Incidence of CLYD /
b/
Pictures
CLYD > 75%
CLYD > 75%
P1000470
CLYD 100%
CLYD 100%
P1000476
P1000475
CLYD problem
A few trees among the
bare trunks
P1000480
9 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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
10 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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.
11 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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
done.
done
Nursery.
family sector a few
hundred meters away on
both sides.
family sector a few
both sides.
family sector a few
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.
12 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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
family sector a few
both sides.
family sector a few
both sides.
family sector a few
both sides.
MADAL plantation
Family sector
Family sector
Incidence of CLYD /
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
13 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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.
14 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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 /
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
15 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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 /
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.
16 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
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 /
b/
Pictures
Isolated cases, immediately P1000603
cut down.
Villagers knew CLYD by
name. They have no
problem with their trees
being cut. Noted beetle
problem worse.
P1000628
P1000629
Cashew trees.
Alternating bands of
coconuts and rice.
Rice and cowpeas.
Isolated cases of CLYD in
private plantation. Rice in
low-lying areas. Cassava.
17 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
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
117
5.05
37
33.294
-17
24.265
118
5.06
37
33.504
-17
24.966
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
18 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
Incidence of CLYD /
b/
119
5.07
37
33.985
-17
25.525
120
5.08
37
34.205
-17
25.789
121
5.09
37
34.622
-17
26.295
Very wide low-lying area
not planted to crops.
122
5.10
37
35.836
-17
26.794
Coconuts and wide rice
band stretching all the way
to Nante, Zambezia.
123
5.11
37
35.864
-17
28.236
124
5.12
37
35.585
-17
28.150
125
5.13
37
35.524
-17
28.988
Family sector.
MADAL property.
Family sector.
Family sector.
MADAL Estate.
MADAL Estate.
MADAL Estate.
Pictures
No CLYD visible.
mixtures
Isolated case of CLYD.
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.
19 OBS
No.
EP
Ref a/
min, Y deg Y min
District
126
5.14
37
35.529
-17
29.280
127
5.15
37
33.106
-17
31.255
128
5.16
37
34.972
-17
30.223
129
5.17
37
35.785
-17
29.688
130
5.18
37
36.666
-17
30.814
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 /
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
20 OBS
No.
131
EP
Ref a/
5.19
min, Y deg Y min
District
37
39.731
-17
29.489
CABUIR area. Family
sector. Interviews.
Incidence of CLYD /
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.
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
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
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
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
porte médio e subprd pecuário
16
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
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
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
o seu agregado familiar
culturas anuais
de
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.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
12- Mandioca
25- Girassol
351- Cebola
421- Pimenta
12
F.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
12- Mandioca
25- Girassol
351- Cebola
421- Pimenta
13
F.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
12- Mandioca
25- Girassol
351- Cebola
421- Pimenta
14
F.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
12- Mandioca
25- Girassol
351- Cebola
421- Pimenta
15
F.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
12- Mandioca
25- Girassol
351- Cebola
421- Pimenta
16
F.
F01 F02
F04
ÁREA
F05
ÁREA
F06
F07
Quantos hectares
estiveram em pousio
nesta machamba?
Quantos hectares
são ocupados
pelas culturas
permanentes?
F12
Nº
UMA COLUNA
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
Quais são as
Cód. Usou rega?
Tipo
culturas anuais
de
utilizou [...........]
que praticou
rega
utilizou [...........]
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
Hortícolas
01- Milho
20- Algodão
26- Gergelim
361- Cenoura
430- PiriPiri
1- Manual
02- Arroz
08- Feijão Nhemba
21- Tabaco
27- Soja
311- Abóbora
371- Couve
441- Quiabo
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
05- Amendoim Grande
11- Batata Reno
24- Cana Doce
341- Beringela
411- Pepino
490- Outro
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
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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
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?
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
5- Queimadas
6- Doenças/
Apodrecimento
8- Falta de chuva
9 Outros, esp
p
1- Sim
2- Não ->
PRÓXIMA
CULTURA
H23
2- Pragas
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),
9- Feijão Jugo: Com casca (4) e
Sem casca (5)
10- Feijão Boer: Fresco (1) e
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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
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
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
5- Queimadas
I22
Teve
casos de
PODRIDÃO
RADICULAR
DA
MANDIOCA
6- Doenças/ Apodrecimento
1- Sim
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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)
3- Kwacha (Malawi)
4- Kwacha (Zâmbia)
5- Rand (RSA)
6- Xelim (Tanzania)
7- Dólar americano
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
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
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
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%
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
via associação
5.3
2.6
.4
4.2
via Extensão
3.0
.0
.0
2.0
via Publica
3.6
1.3
1.5
2.9
via ONG´s?
1.9
.0
.0
1.3
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%
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%
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
causa cheia
14.7
16.3
16.1
15.2
causa ciclone
30.4
6.7
29.6
24.3
causa animais selvagens
9.3
10.5
10.7
9.7
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
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
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
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
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%
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%
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
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%
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
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%
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
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
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
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
3.0%
2.8%
Outros, esp
1.5%
1.5%
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
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
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
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
*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
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
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
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%
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
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
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
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%
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
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%
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%
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%
43.7%
Pragas
58.3%
Outros, especificar
41.7%
100.0%
63.4%
36.6%
100.0%
78.0%
22.0%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
3,184
37,710
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
3,236
794
698
2,770
BATATA DOCE NÃO
508
592
ALARANJADA
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
172,150
41,816
23,045
237,011
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
utilizou mão-de-obra a
temporário (%)
20.4
10.5
10.5
17.1
.2
.0
.0
.1
utilizou tracção animal (%)
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
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?
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%
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%
Annex 8- page 41

Research Paper Series Republic of Mozambique

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Sentinela - Zelia Fonseca

Property Sheet PDF - Signature Properties Solutions

Por favor, não matem a cotovia Realizador

religiões comparadas da ásia

Property Sheet PDF - Signature Properties Solutions

Ingles - Ken - 3 trim - Colégio Leonardo de Jundiaí

Property Sheet PDF

Proverbs Provérbios

Cabo Verde águas de terra engulo em seco várias vezes é a saliva

0504 first language portuguese