BASELINE REPORT (GROUP 2) 2013-2014 - Lesotho CSA...2014) FAO LESOTHO Emergency and Resilience Programme (ERP) BASELINE REPORT (GROUP 2) 2013-2014

2014)

FAO LESOTHO

Emergency and Resilience

Programme (ERP)

BASELINE REPORT

(GROUP 2)

2013-2014

FAO Lesotho Emergency and Resilience Programme – Baseline Report Group 2 (2013-2014)

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 6

I. Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

II. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

III. Baseline Survey Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 12

IV. Study Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 12

1. Geographical and demographic profile of respondents ................................................................................. 12

2. Vulnerability and access to assets .................................................................................................................. 13

3. Access to agricultural land and crop production ............................................................................................ 20

4. Home gardening and Food Processing ........................................................................................................... 32

5. Livestock ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

6. Household Nutrition and Sources of Food ..................................................................................................... 40

V. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 44

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45


3 | P a g e

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIG 1 – PHASING OF EMERGENCY AND RESILIENCE PROGRAMME (ERP) ........................................................................................................ 8

FIG 2 – MONITORING & EVALUATION CALENDAR ...................................................................................................................................... 9

FIG 3 – MAP ILLUSTRATING THE DISTRICTS AND VILLAGES THAT WERE SAMPLED FOR THE BASELINE STUDY .......................................................... 10

FIG 4 – VULNERABILITY CRITERIA OF RESPONDENTS AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................................ 13

FIG 5 – VULNERABILITY STATUS OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AT NATIONAL LEVEL ......................................................................................... 13

FIG 6 (A & B) – VULNERABILITY OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ....................................................................................................................... 14

FIG 7 – RESPONDENTS LEVEL OF EDUCATION .......................................................................................................................................... 15

FIG 8 – RESPONDENT'S SOURCES OF INCOME AT NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................................................... 15

FIG 9 – SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER .................................................................................................................................................. 17

FIG 10 – SOURCES OF COOKING FUEL AT NATIONAL LEVEL ......................................................................................................................... 17

FIG 11 – SOURCES OF LIGHTING AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................................................................ 18

FIG 12 – HOUSEHOLDS ASSETS OWNED AT NATIONAL LEVEL ...................................................................................................................... 18

FIG 13 – ACCESS TO AGRICULTURAL ASSETS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................................................. 19

FIG 14 – LAND OWNERSHIP/ACCESS OF THE RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................................... 20

FIG 15 – LAND NORMALLY PLANTED IN ALL CROPS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................................ 21

FIG 16 – LAND NORMALLY PLANTED DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................ 22

FIG 17 – REASONS FOR NOT PLANTING ALL THE LAND AT NATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................................................... 23

FIG 18 – HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS CULTIVATING THE LAND .......................................................................................................................... 23

FIG 19 – AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS OF CROPS AVAILABILITY AT NATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................................... 24

FIG 20 (A, B, C & D) – CROPS AVAILABILITY FROM OWN PRODUCTION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................. 25

FIG 21 – LAND ALLOCATION PER CROP AT NATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................................................ 26

FIG 22 – PROBLEMS AFFECTING CROP PRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 26

FIG 23 – AGRICULTURAL METHODS HEARD BY THE RESPONDENTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................................... 27

FIG 24 – METHODS EVER PRACTICED BY RESPONDENTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................................................. 28

FIG 25 – CURRENT LAND PREPARATION METHODS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................................ 29

FIG 26 – SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................ 30

FIG 27 (A & B) – CROPS EXTENSION SUPPORT RECEIVED IN THE LAST SEASON ............................................................................................... 30

FIG 28 –TYPE OF SUPPORT RECEIVED BY RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................................ 31

FIG 29 – PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BUYING AGRICULTURAL INPUTS AND ACCESS TO THE MARKET .............................................................. 31

FIG 30 – PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS SELLING THEIR PRODUCE AND MARKET ACCESSIBILITY ......................................................................... 31

FIG 31 (A & B) – FARMERS WHO HAVE A HOUSEHOLD GARDEN ................................................................................................................. 32

FIG 32 – VEGETABLES GROWN LAST SEASON AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................................................ 32

FIG 33 (A & B) – VEGETABLES GROWN LAST SEASON PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE ....................................................................................... 33

FIG 34 (A, B & C) – AVERAGE MONTHS’ AVAILABILITY OF VEGETABLES AT NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................. 33

FIG 35 – PROBLEMS WHEN GROWING VEGETABLES .................................................................................................................................. 34

FIG 36 – SOURCES OF IRRIGATION WATER AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................................................... 35

FIG 37 (A & B) – VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PRESERVATION/PROCESSING METHODS .......................................................................................... 35

FIG 38 (A, B & C) – SOURCES OF ANIMAL FEED ...................................................................................................................................... 37

FIG 39 – LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS PRODUCED AT NATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................................................................. 38

FIG 40 (A, B & C) – LIVESTOCK PROBLEMS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................................................. 38

FIG 41 – LIVESTOCK ADVICE RECEIVED AT NATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................................................ 39

FIG 42 – FOOD GROUPS EATEN THE DAY BEFORE THE INTERVIEW AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................................................... 40

FIG 43 (A & B) – SOURCES OF FOOD GROUPS CONSUMED ........................................................................................................................ 41

FIG 44 – HELPING INSTITUTIONS WHEN FOOD IS INSUFFICIENT ................................................................................................................... 42

FIG 45 – COPING STRATEGIES DURING LEAN PERIOD AT NATIONAL LEVEL ...................................................................................................... 43


4 | P a g e

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE 1 – DISTRICTS AND NUMBER OF SAMPLED RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................. 11

TABLE 2 – AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES AND NUMBER OF SAMPLED RESPONDENTS ........................................................................................... 11

TABLE 3 – SEX AND NUMBER OF SAMPLED RESPONDENTS .......................................................................................................................... 11

TABLE 4 – DISTRICTS AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE ............................................................................................................................... 12

TABLE 5 – HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS (%) .......................................................................................................................................... 13

TABLE 6 – VULNERABILITY STATUS OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ................................................................... 14

TABLE 7 – SOURCES OF INCOME PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................................................................. 16

TABLE 8 – SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ................................................................................................. 17

TABLE 9 – ACCESS TO AGRICULTURAL ASSETS PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................................................ 19

TABLE 10 – AREA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED/ACCESSED BY THE RESPONDENTS ..................................................................................... 20

TABLE 11 – PERCENTAGE AREA NORMALLY PLANTED PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) .................................................................................. 21

TABLE 12 – LAND NORMALLY PLANTED ................................................................................................................................................. 21

TABLE 13 – LAND NORMALLY PLANTED DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) .......................................................... 22

TABLE 14 – REASONS FOR NOT PLANTING ALL THE LAND PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%).............................................................................. 23

TABLE 15 – AVERAGE CROP PRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 24

TABLE 16 – AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS OF CROPS AVAILABILITY PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE .................................................................... 25

TABLE 17 – AGRICULTURAL METHODS HEARD BY THE RESPONDENTS PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) .............................................................. 27

TABLE 18 – METHODS PRACTICED BY RESPONDENTS PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ................................................................................... 28

TABLE 19 – LAND PREPARATION METHODS PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................................................... 29

TABLE 20 – LAND UNDER CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE AND CONVENTIONAL FARMING (%) .......................................................................... 29

TABLE 21 – SOURCES OF IRRIGATION WATER PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................................................ 35

TABLE 22 – RESPONDENT'S LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................................. 36

TABLE 23 – AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMALS OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS .................................................................................................. 36

TABLE 24 – LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS CURRENTLY PRODUCED BY RESPONDENTS PER AGRO ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) .................................................... 38

TABLE 25 – FOOD GROUPS EATEN THE DAY BEFORE THE INTERVIEW PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................... 41

TABLE 26 – THREATS EXPERIENCED BY THE RESPONDENTS (%) ................................................................................................................... 43

TABLE 27 – COPING STRATEGIES DURING LEAN PERIOD PER AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE (%) ............................................................................... 44

TABLE OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 – BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEX 2 – M&E PLAN GROUPS 1 & 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 45


5 | P a g e

ACRONYMS

CA – Conservation Agriculture

CERF – Central Emergency Response Fund

COMESA – Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

CSA – Climate Smart Agriculture

CT – Conventional Tillage

DFID – UK Department for International Development

ECHO – European Commission Humanitarian Office

ERP – Emergency and Resilience Programme

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

HG – Home Gardening

HH – Household

LVAC – Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee

MAFS – Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

OFDA – US Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance

RC – Resource Centre

SADC – Southern African Development Community

SDC – Swiss Development Cooperation

SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Sciences

STAT – Statistics


6 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the Food Security crisis declared in 2012 by the Government of Lesotho, FAO Lesotho designed an Emergency

and Resilience Programme (ERP) in partnership with the MAFS and MFLR. ERP promotes, over a cycle of three years,

sustainable and integrated agriculture practices leading to increased resilience of rural communities. ERP is structured around

three pillars of action: Sustainable production, Capacity development and Information and analysis.

FAO Lesotho established an improved M&E system to assess the performance of ERP with more comprehensive

questionnaires, feeding three surveys monitoring the progress along the agricultural cycle: Baseline, Post Planting and Post-

Harvest surveys.

ERP assists a total of 18,500 families across all ten districts of Lesotho. 11,000 families were enrolled in 2012 as Group 1 and

additional 7,500 were enrolled in 2013 as Group 2. This Baseline survey (2013-2014) assesses Group 2, with a sample of 150

families selected from the 7,500 households enrolled in the ERP in 2013. The survey covers all 10 districts of the country and

the four main agro ecological zones: Mountains, Senqu River Valley, Foothills and Lowlands.1

Group 2 is very similar to Group 1 despite some areas where emphasis on certain features may be less pronounced in one or

the other group. These differences are highlighted along this report.

There are certain differences between agro-ecological zones in terms of access to land and proportion of land planted (more alternatives to on farm production in the Lowlands). However, taking into account the high proportion of families depending on their own farm production to complement their livelihoods, it is again confirmed that the ERP should target all agro-ecological areas.

Food insecurity is widespread among respondents. The contribution of their own production to their food needs for staple and vegetables is excessively low and many families incur in negative coping mechanisms.

According to the findings of the Baseline, the targeting of the ERP has succeeded to select vulnerable families as per the vulnerability criteria established in the programme in similar lines than Group 1. The report provides evidences confirming that the ERP design is well adapted to the vulnerability profile and perceived hazards by respondents.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a technology addressing a number of production challenges (e.g. scarcity of water, erosion, loss of soil fertility) while its knowledge and practice need to be intensively promoted strengthening extension services, lead farmers and communication tools including radio and TV.

Home Gardening and Nutrition awareness is a good complement to the production of staple food through CA. While Home Gardening is not new to ERP beneficiaries, there is significant room for improvement in the availability of vegetables during the year, increase of varieties planted per family and practice of food preservation methods.

Once again, the baseline highlights the role played by MAFS extension services in providing agricultural information, which is critical. Strengthening the extension network -including lead farmers-, is necessary to maintain the adequate technical advice in the future. Capacity Development efforts should be a priority area and represent the core of ERP midterm and long term efforts. It is only through Capacity Development of extension services and lead farmers that CSA will be mainstreamed and up scaled country wide.

Despite differences among agro-ecological areas in access to land, area planted and the choice of crops, it is clear that agriculture remains a major contributor to the livelihood strategy of most rural families in Lesotho. It is thus relevant to upscale the promotion of resilience building technological improvements in the entire country as envisaged by ERP.

1 Baseline 2012-2013 was relevant for Group 1 and it covered 3 agro-ecological zones: Mountains, Senqu Valley and Lowlands

(very few beneficiary families were located in the foothills).


I. Background 7 | P a g e

I. Background

Over the last decade, Lesotho’s food security has gradually declined, reaching in 2012 the highest number of households in need of humanitarian aid ever recorded by the Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee (LVAC). The impact of drought and late rains in 2012 cropping season added to the increasingly vulnerable situation of the rural Basotho after a poor harvest in 2011 due to heavy rains. Up to 725,000 individuals (equivalent to 1 out of 3 Basotho) were considered to be in need of external emergency aid to meet livelihood requirements

2.

Irregular temperature and rainfall patterns, exacerbated by Climate Change, affect agriculture performance with frequent delays of rains and dry spells. These meteorological phenomena are compounded by environmental and social challenges to agricultural production, nutrition and food security in Lesotho. Some key obstacles include severe land degradation caused by overgrazing, deforestation and other poor land use practices, and limited access to agricultural technologies and quality inputs. Besides, HIV/AIDS pandemic, which affects 23% of Lesotho total M1.8 population, has generated 220,000 orphans and vulnerable children. Poverty is widespread with 56% of households living below the national poverty line, of which about 40% are extremely poor, mainly in rural areas.

Despite its declining contribution to the GDP, agricultural sector in Lesotho remains important for rural livelihoods. 50% of the rural population relies on farming as their main livelihood source (90% of these are subsistence farmers) and up to 80% of Lesotho's population engage in some form of agriculture-related activity, including on-farm casual work. The three main food crops in Lesotho are: maize, wheat and sorghum, maize being the preferred staple food with 75% of total crop production.

FAO EMERGENCY AND RESILIENCE PROGRAMME FOR LESOTHO

Against this background, FAO Lesotho designed its Emergency and Resilience Programme (ERP) in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) and the Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (MFLR). FAO Lesotho ERP promotes sustainable and integrated agriculture practices leading to increased resilience of rural communities.

The ERP is structured around three pillars of action:

Sustainable production: with an integrated range of CSA practices such as CA, Home Gardening, Nutrition and Food Use, Agro-forestry and Natural Resources management (Integration of Livestock and Agriculture, Water and Soil Conservation).

Capacity development: promotion of CSA technologies among national, district and community stakeholders increasing know-how and knowledge transfer capacities. Special emphasis is made on communication and visual training material development.

Information and analysis: integrated analysis of food security challenges and vulnerabilities supporting more effective evidence-based decision-making by relevant stakeholders.

Since the adoption of new production technologies require sustained support, ERP is structured in a 3-year cycle. This 3-year cycle programme combines capacity development through training and technical support to vulnerable households with the distribution of quality agricultural inputs allowing the progressive adoption of the following technologies and improved practices

3:

Conservation Agriculture (CA)

Home Gardening (HG)

Nutrition and Food Use awareness

2 LVAC (Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee) Report July, 2012

3 Agroforestry (fruit trees) was initially planned as Year 3 activities but due to lack of financial support, this activity has not

been implemented. However, fruit tree care and maintenance has been included in the Home Gardening and Nutrition training materials designed by ERP and Sustainable Land Management training materials will be designed in 2015 as part of the ERP.

FAO Lesotho Emergency and Resilience Programme – Baseline Report 2013-2014

I. Background 8 | P a g e

ERP started in 2012 assisting 11,000 households (Group 1) with “Year 1: Phase In” package. In 2013, FAO and MAFS continued

to assist these same 11,000 households with “Year 2: Consolidation” package. Besides, additional 7,500 new households have

been enrolled in 2013 (Group 2). These two groups bring the total number of ERP beneficiaries to 18,500 households or

92,500 individuals (approximately 5% of the total national population). Group 2 will receive the last item in Year 2 package

inputs (i.e. Grazing Vetch) in February 2015.

ERP target group is selected based on vulnerability criteria among the head of household (i.e. women, elder, orphan,

chronically ill – often HIV AIDS affected) and members of household (i.e. same categories as above plus children under five

and pregnant or lactating mothers).

Furthermore, vulnerable active farmers are selected in groups of 15 households approximately per village. These groups

select a lead farmer in coordination with MAFS technical field staff (extension staff). Lead farmers act as mentors for the

groups. Lead farmers are part of the Unified Extension System in Lesotho and play a significant modelling role among

farmers.

Together with the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force (NCATF), ERP has developed visual training materials on CA

for farmers to be used by MAFS extension staff improving the efficacy and efficiency of the training at community level. Since

2012, ERP has trained over 530 extension staff and 600 lead farmers and local leaders on CA, Home Gardening and Nutrition

in 2013. Furthermore additional training on mechanical CA was conducted for 110 extension officers in 2014. Besides 270

teachers from primary and secondary schools were trained on CA and armyworm in Q2 2014 and 250 principals were trained

on CA and home gardening/nutrition in Q4 2014.

The design of additional training materials on home gardening, nutrition and food utilisation has been completed in 2014 and

will be distributed in 2015. Design of Sustainable Land Management visual training material started in Q4 2014 and is

expected to be completed by end 2015.

ERP has received in 2012 and 2013 a total financial support of USD4.8m from ECHO, DFID, CERF and Belgium4. Additional

USD1.5m has been provided by ECHO, SDC, OFDA and COMESA for the period 2014-2015 5.

4 The project codes supporting ERP in 2012-2013 directly are: OSRO/LES/201/BEL (Belgium), OSRO/LES/202/EC (ECHO),

OSRO/LES/203/CHA (CERF), OSRO/LES/301/EC (ECHO) and OSRO/LES/204/UK (DFID). Additional funding from USAID (OSRO/RAF/205/USA and OSRO/RAF/303/USA) and COMESA (OSRO/RAF/307/COM) has contributed to coordination and training on Conservation Agriculture in the same period. 5 The projects supporting ERP in 2014-2015 are: OSRO/LES/401/EC (DIPECHO), OSRO/LES/401/SWI (Swiss Development

Cooperation), OSRO/RAF/307/COM (COMESA) and OSRO/RAF/402/USA (USAID)

Fig 1 – Phasing of Emergency and Resilience Programme (ERP)


II. Methodology 9 | P a g e

II. Methodology

In order to ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation of the Emergency and Resilience Programme (ERP)6, FAO Lesotho

M&E structure foresees the implementation of Baseline, Post-Planting and Post-Harvest reports following the sequence

outlined in Fig.2 below.

Fig 2 – Monitoring & Evaluation Calendar

Baseline

July-Oct

Post-Planting

Feb-Mar

Post-Harvest

July-Oct

2012 Group 1 (sampling = 270 HH)

2013 Group 2 (sampling = 150 HH) Group 1 (sampling = 110 HH) Group 1 (sampling = 270 HH)

2014 Group 1 (sampling = 110 HH) Group 1 (sampling = 270 HH)

Group 2 (sampling = 100 HH) Group 2 (sampling = 150 HH)

2015 Group 1 (sampling = 270 HH)

* Group 2 (sampling = 150 HH)

2016

* Group 2 (sampling = 150 HH)

Group 1: total of 11,000 Households

Group 2: total of 7,500 HH

[*A post planting survey was initially foreseen in Feb-Mar 2015 and 2016. However, after assessing the limited added value of

this report in Year 2 and Year 3 of ERP it was decided to cancel the post planting reports during those seasons and support

instead Government initiatives to assess nationally crop status and forecasts before harvest. ERP will concentrate its resources

in the post-harvest surveys which have a larger sample size and provide a more in depth analysis.]

This Baseline Report 2013-2014 (see above borderline in red) assesses the situation among a sample of 150 families selected

out of the 7,500 households enrolled under ERP in 2013, Group 2 (2013-2014 agricultural season)7. The same beneficiaries

will be assessed in the Post-Harvest surveys. A reduced number of 100 families from this same group will also be contacted to

conduct the Post-Planting survey in 2014.

The study was conducted in the ten districts of the country and it covered the four agro-ecological zones of the country:

Mountains, Senqu River Valley, Foothills and Lowlands (Northern and Southern)8. See Annex 2 for additional information on

sampling per agro-ecological zone and farmers per village.

6 ERP was initially named Emergency and Rehabilitation Programme

7 A Baseline 2012-2013 with a sample of 270 families out of the 11,000 households enrolled under ERP in 2012-2013 (Group

1) is available. 8 In Group 1 surveys, since there were very limited number of households from the Foothills, they were included as part of

the Lowlands.



It should be noted that the territory of most districts is shared among several agro-ecological zones. In Tables 1 and 2 below,

the geographical distribution of beneficiaries and sampled households is presented per district and agro-ecological areas. The

analysis in this report is, in some topics, broken down per agro-ecological zone rather than district to increase the sample

power. Proportion of beneficiaries and sampled HH per agro-ecological zone is respected. While figures in Table 2 are merged

for lowlands and foothills, the analysis of the responses offers both agro-ecological zones separately.

Fig 3 – Map illustrating the districts and villages that were sampled for the baseline study



Since some Resource Centres have areas both in lowlands and foothills, ERP cannot state the amount of beneficiaries in

foothills or lowlands though respondents from each agro-ecological zone can be established. It should also be noted that this

report opted for assessing both areas separately in an attempt to identify expected differences between foothills and

lowlands, which was not possible with Group 1 since foothills area was less covered by ERP.

Table 1 – Districts and number of sampled respondents

District name Frequency Percentage Number of beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries

Berea 15 10.0 604 8.0

Butha-Buthe 15 10.0 897 11.8

Leribe 19 12.7 761 10.0

Mafeteng 14 9.3 712 9.4

Maseru 24 16.0 1047 13.8

Mohale's Hoek 15 10.0 770 10.2

Mokhotlong 18 12.0 890 11.7

Qacha's Nek 6 4.0 400 5.3

Quthing 6 4.0 591 7.8

Thaba-Tseka 18 12.0 888 11.7

National 150 100.0 7560 100.0

Table 2 – Agro-ecological zones and number of sampled respondents

Agro-ecological zone Frequency Percentage Number of beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries

Lowlands/ Foothills 73 48.6 3669 48.5

Mountains 65 43.3 2930 38.7

Senqu River Valley 12 8.0 961 12.7

National 150 100.0 7560 100.0

Table 3 below indicates a higher participation of women among respondents with 61%9 of sampled HH being represented by

a female farmer. This was expected since the ERP includes single headed households as priority and women are predominant

in agriculture related activities while men are more predominant in livestock production.

Table 3 – Sex and number of sampled respondents

Sex Lowlands Mountains Foothills Senqu River Valley National

Male 25.9 56.9 36.8 0 38.7

Female 74.1 43.1 63.2 100 61.3

Structured questionnaires for the three surveys (i.e. Baseline, Post Planting and Post-Harvest) have been designed and used

in all interviews (see annex 1, Baseline questionnaire).

The data was computed and analysed using the IBM Software Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS).

9 It was 60% in Group 1 Baseline


III. Baseline Survey Objectives / IV. Study findings 12 | P a g e

III. Baseline Survey Objectives

“Baseline Report (GROUP 2) 2013-2014” assesses the following parameters among ERP beneficiaries:

1. Geographic and demographic profile.

2. Vulnerability profile and access to assets

3. Access to agricultural land and crop production

4. Home Gardening and food processing

5. Livestock assets

6. Nutrition, dietary diversity and food sources.

7. Coping mechanisms during lean periods.

IV. Study Findings

1. Geographical and demographic profile of respondents

Table 4 – Districts and average household size

District name Household size Average age of the farmer

Berea 5 45

Butha-Buthe 4 55

Leribe 7 57

Mafeteng 6 57

Maseru 6 51

Mohale's Hoek 6 56

Mokhotlong 7 41

Qacha's Nek 6 35

Quthing 5 53

Thaba-Tseka 5 59

National 6 52

Table 4 summarizes the ERP household average size per district and the age of respondents. ERP Household average size (6 people) is larger than the national household average size of 5.4

10. In terms of age, the average age of head of households is

relatively high (52 years old)11

. ERP eligibility criteria gave priority, among other categories, to elderly headed households.

10

Community and Household Surveillance (CHS) report, Nov/Dec 2012 11

Group 1 Baseline: household size was 6 and average age of head of household was 53.


IV. 2. Vulnerability and access to assets 13 | P a g e

Table 5 – Household demographics (%)

Age Respondent HH members per age category Males Females

Under 5 14.8 7.3 7.5

6 to 14 22 12.6 9.4

15 to 49 46.5 23.9 22.6

More than 50 16.8 5.4 11.4

National 100.1 49.2 50.9

The results in Table 5 indicate a relatively low presence of active members (46.5% of HH members are between 15 and 49 years old) while 37% of HH members are children under 15 years old

12.

2. Vulnerability and access to assets

The ERP selected beneficiaries among active vulnerable farming HH based either on vulnerability of head of households (Fig. 5) or its members (Fig. 6). The selection of vulnerable HH has been adequate with 93% of HH meeting at least one vulnerability criterion (see Fig.4 below). The 7% of HH not presenting vulnerability criteria

13 are mainly related to the lead

farmers HH also covered in the programme to assist technically the communities in the adoption of new technologies. The vulnerability profile of ERP beneficiaries is confirmed by the Baseline findings presented in this section.

Head of households meeting vulnerability criteria are predominantly elder or single female headed households.

12

Group 1 Baseline had a similar household demographic profile: 12%, 24%, 44% and 20% respectively. 13

For Group 1, this value was 6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Widow Elderly Chronically ill

Disabled Divorced Orphan None of these

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Head of HH vulnerability status at national level

7%

93%

Vulnerability criteria and respondents situation

No vulnerability criteria

At least one vulnerability criteria

Fig 4 – Vulnerability criteria of respondents and their households

Fig 5 – Vulnerability status of the head of household at national level



Group 2 heads of household meeting at least one vulnerability criteria are 55% while this percentage was 45% among Group

1 heads of household. In Group 2, chronically ill are 19% while in Group 1 there were 6%. Chronically ill is largely related to

HIV/AIDS cases, though not exclusively.

Table 6 – Vulnerability status of the head of household per agro-ecological zone (%)

Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Elderly 16.7 36.8 24.6 8.3 22

Chronically ill 18.5 26.3 18.5 16.7 19.3

Disabled 3.7 5.3 1.5 0 2.7

Orphan 0 0 1.5 0 0.7

Divorced 0 5.3 1.5 8.3 2

Widow 37 36.8 27.7 50 34

None of these 46.3 26.3 50.8 33.7 44.7

When assessed per agroecological zone, Foothills and Senqu River Valley areas outstand as those with higher amount of

heads of household meeting vulnerability criteria, 73.7% and 66.3% respectively.

Vulnerabilities of household members are more diverse and largely spread. 60% reported having at least one member under

5 years old. 30% reported hosting at least one orphan and 26.7% reported having at least one member chronically ill, which

includes largely HIV AIDS cases. Taking into account the relatively high average age of heads of household (52 years) the

household profile seems to be an expanded household hosting members from other fragmented households (6 members

against 5.4 as national average). Details on vulnerabilities of HH members per agro-ecological zone are available in Fig. 6B.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Under 5 years Orphan Chronically ill Disabled Pregnant/Lactating None of these

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 6. A - Vulnerabilities of household members at national level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Under 5 years Orphan Chronically ill Disabled Pregnant/Lactating None of these

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 6. B - Vulnerabilities of household members per agro-ecological zone

Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley

Fig 6 (A & B) – Vulnerability of household members



The results in Fig. 7 illustrate low level of education among ERP beneficiaries Group 2, further confirming the vulnerability profile described above

14 with nearly half of respondents having uncompleted primary education.

14

Group 1 Baseline has a similar level of education profile.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Primary uncompleted

Primary completed

Secondary uncompleted

Secondary completed

Above secondary

Never been to school

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Respondents level of education

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

37

30 30 29

24

14

10 10 8 8

2 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Casual labour (non agric.)

Vegetables sales

Crop sale Sale of live animals

Sale of livestock products

Casual labour (agric.)

Salaried employment

Petty trade

Old age pension

Remmitance Small business (formal)

Social grants

Pensions

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Sources of income at national level

Fig 7 – Respondents level of education

Fig 8 – Respondent's sources of income at national level



Table 7 – Sources of income per agro-ecological zone (%)


Casual labour (non-agric.)

42 35.3 33.9 25 36.6

Vegetables sale 30 35.3 28.8 25 29.9

Crop sale 32 23.5 32.2 12.5 29.9

Sale of live animals 16 23.5 39 50 29.1

Sale of livestock products

10 11.8 40.7 12.5 23.9

Casual labour (agric.) 24 17.6 6.8 0 14.2

Salaried employment

10 11.8 8.5 25 10.4

Petty trade 14 17.6 3.4 25 10.4

Old age pension 12 17.6 3.4 0 8.2

Remittance 8 11.8 5.1 12.5 7.5

Small business (formal)

4 0 0 0 1.5

Social grants 0 0 3.4 0 1.5

Pensions 0 0 1.4 0 0.7

The five main sources of income among ERP respondents are by rank of importance: casual labour (off farm), vegetable sales, crop sales, sale of live animals and sale of livestock products

15. These sources reflect heavy dependence on agriculture-

related production activities among ERP beneficiaries for survival. ERP supports increased production in two of the three main income sources among respondents: vegetable and crops

16. It is

worth noting that despite having 30% of households hosting at least one orphan and 60% reportedly having at least one member under 5 years old (see above Fig. 6A), only 1.5% of respondent households reported receiving a social grant

17.

However, old age pension is received by 8.2%18

. The sources of income reported by Group 2 seem slightly more diverse than the sources of income of Group 1.

15

It should be noted that ERP beneficiaries profile (vulnerable active farmer) is different from the rural standard profile where the 5 main sources by importance are: casual labour, remittances, pension, brewing, and food crop production and sales (CHS, Nov/Dec 2012) 16

Group 1 Baseline had larger proportion of Salaried than Group 2. Group 2 has also higher percentage of sale of live animals, which could be related to the relative overrepresentation of mountain households in the sample, agro-ecological zone where this source of income is widely spread unlike in the other agro-ecological areas. 17

Ministry of Social Development in partnership with UNICEF and funding from EU is expanding the Child Grant Programme (CGP) which supports very vulnerable families hosting children and orphans (25,000 HH covered by 2014) 18

Old Age Pension is universal among individuals above 70 years old in Lesotho



A large majority of ERP respondents (90%) are using protected sources as their source of drinking water, mainly public taps

19.

Table 8 – Sources of drinking water per agro-ecological zone (%)


Public tap 85.2 100 58.5 83.3 75.3

Protected dug well/spring

11.1 0 20 0 12.7

Piped into the house/yard/plot

0 0 0 8.3 2

Unprotected dug well/spring

11.1 0 20 0 10

Pond/lake/river/creek 0 0 0 0 0

Per agro-ecological zone, the poorest serviced area in terms of protected water sources is the Mountains with up to 20% accessing water from unprotected sources.

Firewood is used by a majority of respondents (96%) as a cooking fuel

20. This is a problem in terms of deforestation and

depletion of forest resources which can certainly generate further soil erosion and land degradation. Use of firewood has also negative consequences for respiratory infections among direct users, mainly women and children.

19

Group 2 access to public tap is around 7% less than Group 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Firewood Gas cylinders Kerosene Electricity

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Sources of cooking fuel at national level

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Public tap Protected dug well/spring

Piped into house/yard/plot

Unprotected dug well/spring

Pond/lake/river/creek

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Sources of drinking water

Protected sources Unprotectd sources

Fig 9 – Sources of drinking water

Fig 10 – Sources of cooking fuel at national level



Only 6.7% of respondents have access to electricity for lighting while most of the respondents (78%) use kerosene and further 12%, candles

21.

The main 4 assets owned among ERP respondents are: mattress/sofa, cell phones, radios and stove. As for the other assets, the percentages of ownership are low. The presence of radios (60.7%) is being taken into account in the design of extension messages through public media among rural population

22.

20

Group 2 beneficiaries have a more extended use of firewood (96%) than Group 1 (87%). Group 1 had 9% of households using gas cylinders, while Group 2 has just 2%. 21

Group 2 registers further limited access to electricity (6.7%) compared to Group 1 (14%) 22

Group 1 Baseline reflected a higher percentage of cell phone ownership (76%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Kerosene/palm oil Candles/firewood Electricity Flash lights/ batteries

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Sources of lighting at national level

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cellphone Mattress Radio Electricty/ gas stove

Battery/ generator/

solar

Sofa Television Fridge Telephone Bicycle Car/truck Motorcycle/ scooter

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Households assets owned at national level

Fig 11 – Sources of lighting at national level

Fig 12 – Households assets owned at national level



As it could be expected, a decline in ownership can be seen as the value of the assets increases. Assets like hand hoe, sickle,

axe and plough are accessible to the majority of households. The difficulties to access more sophisticated equipment should

be noted. Only 30% could access a tractor23

. It underlines the need to promote a diverse range of Conservation Agriculture

(CA) technologies, from manual (using hand hoe) to animal or tractor drawn planting equipment so all different groups can

be catered according to their possibilities in the adoption of CA. Diversifying the technologies from manual to mechanical

would also avoid stigmatisation of CA as a “poor farmer” option.

Table 9 – Access to agricultural assets per agro-ecological zone (%)

23

In Group 1 Baseline, the percentage having access to tractor reached 50%, likely related to the higher proportion of respondents from lowlands where access to tractor is widely spread in opposition to the other agro-ecological zones.

Items and accessibility Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Sickle

Own 75.9 68.4 73.8 66.7 73.3

Access 20.4 31.6 24.6 33.3 24.7

Neither own nor access 3.7 0 1.5 0 2

Axe

Own 46.3 63.2 41.5 66.7 48

Access 40.7 36.8 52.3 25.0 44

Neither nor access 11.1 0 6.2 8.3 8

Hoe

Own 94.4 94.7 81.5 100 89.3

Access 5.6 5.3 16.9 0 10

Neither own nor access 0 0 1.5 0 0.7

Tractor

Own 7.4 5.3 0 16.7 3.3

Access 57.4 5.3 12.3 0 28

Neither own nor access 35.2 89.5 87.7 83.3 68.7

Harrow

own 18.5 21.1 24.6 8.3 20.7

Access 38.9 47.4 52.3 25.0 44.7


Plough

Own 38.9 47.4 61.5 58.3 51.3

Access 50.0 52.6 38.5 41.7 44.7

Neither own nor access 11.1 0 0 0 4

Planter

Own 42.6 31.6 9.2 25.0 25.3

Access 51.9 68.4 30.8 50.0 44.7

Neither own nor access 5.6 0 60.0 25.0 30

Scotch cart

Own 37.0 36.8 13.8 8.3 24.7

Access 53.7 52.6 26.2 16.7 38.7


Oxcart

Own 14.8 31.6 46.2 25.0 31.3

Access 14.8 21.1 21.5 16.7 18.7

Neither own nor access 70.4 47.4 32.3 58.3 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

Hand hoe Sickle Axe Plough Ox cart Scotch cart Planter Harrow Tractor

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Agricultural assets at national level Own Access Neither own or access

Fig 13 – Access to agricultural assets at national level


IV. 3. Access to agricultural land and crop production 20 | P a g e

3. Access to agricultural land and crop production

100% of the respondents declared having access to agricultural land.

A large majority of respondents owns land (92%)

24, while the rest could share, borrow or rent it. This makes it possible for

them to perform agricultural activities, a necessary condition for the ERP. Ownership levels are slightly lower in Senqu River Valley (83%) compared to the rest of the country. Table 10 – Area of agricultural land owned/accessed by the respondents

The average of land owned/accessed among respondents at national level is 2.52 acres (1.1 Ha)25

. Per agro-ecological zone, the average of land owned/accessed is higher in Senqu River Valley (3.38 acres), followed by foothills and lowlands (2.79 and 2.7 acres respectively). The smallest average area owned/accessed among respondents is reported in the mountains (2.15 acres).

24

Group 1 Baseline registered 90% of ownership of land 25

1 Ha is equivalent to 2.2 acres.

Less than

1 acre 1 acre

Between 1.1 and 2 acres



Above 4 acres

Average area of land owned/accessed (acres)

Lowlands 7.4 7.4 22.2 22.2 22.2 18.5 2.7

Foothills 26.3 0 5.3 21.1 21.1 26.3 2.79

Mountains 23.1 9.2 24.6 12.3 18.5 12.3 2.15

Senqu River Valley

0 0 16.7 16.7 41.7 25 3.38

National 16 6.7 20.7 17.3 22 17.3 2.52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Owned Share cropping Borrowed land Rented

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Land ownership/access of the respondents

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

Fig 14 – Land ownership/access of the respondents



At national level, a great majority of respondents (86%) report planting all their accessible land. This percentage is markedly higher than Group 1, maybe due to the fact that the two seasons preceding Group 1 baseline were featured by strong shocks (floods and drought).

Table 11 – Percentage area normally planted per agro-ecological zone (%)

Agro-ecological zone

% of land normally planted


None (0%) 0 5.3 1.5 16.7 2.7

Only a little (25%) 3.7 0 1.5 0 2

Half of my land (50%) 3.7 0 4.6 8.3 4

Most of my land (75%) 5.6 5.3 3.1 16.7 5.3

All of my land (100%) 87.0 89.5 89.2 58.3 86

Per agro-ecological zone, it is worth noting that Senqu River Valley area is the most distinct one from a similar pattern in all other areas. While Senqu River Valley reported having the highest average of accessible land (Table 10), it is also the area with lowest optimization of land.

Table 12 – Land normally planted


Average area of land owned/accessed (acres)

Percentage of area planted (%)

Average area planted (acres)

Lowlands 2.7 94 2.5

Foothills 2.79 93 2.6

Mountains 2.15 94 2.0

Senqu River Valley 3.38 75 2.5

TOTAL Average 2.52 92 2.3

Respondents from Group 2 report a much higher optimization of land than Group 1 respondents which had a slightly bigger area of land (2.67 acres) but planted on average only 65.5% while Group 2 average is 92%. Again, this could be due to the disasters affecting communities immediately before the Group 1 baseline survey.

86

5,3 4 2 2,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All of my land (100%) Most of my land (75%) Half of my land (50%) Only a little (25%) None (0%)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Land normally planted in all crops at national level

Fig 15 – Land normally planted in all crops at national level



Group 2 seems to have a quite stable planting practice over the last 3 years with marginal decrease (“less area”) compensated with increase (“more”) and slight increase of “not planted”. Instead, in Group 1, the trend was clearly towards reduction of planting area or not planting at all which could be related to the fact that the seasons 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were featured by successive disasters (floods and drought respectively). More details per agro-ecological zone are presented below.

Table 13 – Land normally planted during the past three years per agro-ecological zone (%)


% Area normally planted


20

10

/11

Less area 7.4 4.6 0 0 4.7

Same area 83.3 68.4 89.2 66.7 82.7

More 5.6 10.5 3.1 8.3 5.3

Not planted 3.7 21.1 3.1 25 7.3

201

1/1

2 Less area 0 0 1.5 0 3.3

Same area 77.8 78.9 90.8 58.3 82

More 3.7 10.5 3.1 16.7 5.3

Not planted 11.1 10.5 4.6 25 9.3

201

2/1

3

Less area 3.7 0 0 16.7 2.7

Same area 75.9 73.7 89.2 58.3 80

More 9.3 15.8 3.1 8.3 7.3

Not planted 11.1 10.5 7.7 16.7 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Less area Same area More Not planted

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Land normally planted during the past three years at national level (2010 to 2013)

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

Fig 16 – Land normally planted during the past three years at national level



The main reasons reported by ERP Group 2 respondents not to plant all their land are related to economic vulnerability: “unable to afford inputs” and “no access to draft power”

26. In a third place, a Climate Change related factor “drought/late

rains” is reported27

. It is worth noting that the percentages of respondents reporting these problems are higher than those in Group 1 but the planted average land is higher for Group 2. More details per agro-ecological zone are presented below. Table 14 – Reasons for not planting all the land per agro-ecological zone (%)

Reasons Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Unable to afford the inputs

53 67 50 40 52.6

No draft power 41 33 70 40 47.4

Drought/late rains 53 17 0 0 26.3

No labour 6 0 10 20 7.9

Field too far 0 0 0 20 2.6

No land 0 0 10 0 2.6

Livestock damage 0 0 10 0 2.6

The ERP Group 2 respondents indicated availability of at least one or more able bodied members who could work in the fields

(no household reported not having anyone able to work in this section). This could be related to the fact that households

26

These reasons are similar to those in Group 1 but were lower in percentage (with 34% and 30% respectively). 27

The same hierarchy was reported by Group 1 Baseline, but with significantly lower percentages: 34% “unable to afford inputs”, 30% “no draft power” and 21% “drought/late rains”.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Unable to afford inputs No draft power Drought/late rains No labour Field too far No land Livestock damage

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Reasons for not planting all the land at national level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 ≥6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Number of household members cultivating the land at national level

Fig 17 – Reasons for not planting all the land at national level

Fig 18 – Household members cultivating the land



needed to be “actively” farming for eligibility in the ERP. However it should be noted that at times a household may have an

able bodied member who can work the fields, but it does not mean that he or she actively works on the field season after

season even if access to land is quite spread or that the available work force is sufficient for the entire area accessed or

owned. The average of number of members per household working the land oscillates from 2.32 (foothills) to 2.58

(mountains).

Table 15 – Average crop production


Crops (kg) Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Maize 516 644 515 490 530

Sorghum 235 496 43 368 195

Wheat 47 0 110 25 67

Peas 0.4 0 37 0 16

Beans 39 77 47 76 50

The Baseline survey asked respondents about their “normal” production in several crop varieties. The amounts should be

taken with caution as they are just estimations by respondents and should be taken purely as indicative amounts.

Measurements of land and production based on respondents’ statements often offer a level of inaccuracy.

Food availability from own production is far from satisfactory and very dependent on maize. Fig. 19 and Table 16 present the

average availability in months for maize, sorghum, wheat, peas and beans at national level and per agro-ecological zone. Only

maize harvest last over 4 months (6.4 months) but is insufficient to cater for the year needs of the household. It should be

noted that this average duration is the period reported by respondents, not necessarily taking into account the size of the

portions (which could be inferior in kcal intake per person to the standard recommendations). Although insufficient, this

production is an important complement in livelihood strategies among HHs (see more details in Fig. 43 about Sources of Food

Groups consumed).

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Maize Sorghum Wheat Peas Beans

Nu

mb

er

of

mo

nth

s

Number of months of crops availability

Fig 19 – Average number of months of crops availability at national level



Table 16 – Average number of months of crops availability per agro-ecological zone


Crops Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Maize 7.1 6.6 5.9 5.7 6.4

Sorghum 4.4 5.2 1.8 4.7 3.4

Wheat 0.7 0.0 2.8 0.4 1.5

Peas 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.1

Beans 3.2 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.6

The differences among agro-ecological zones are most noticeable in the mountains (i.e. sorghum, wheat and beans) which

are due to the fact that these varieties are widely planted in the mountains and less often in other areas. More details on

crop availability are available in Fig. 20.

7%

13%

45%

35%

Fig. 20. A - % of maize available from own production

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 7 months

8 to 12 months

56%

4%

17%

23%

Fig. 20. B - % of sorghum available from own production

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 7 months

8 to 12 months

78%

4% 9%

9%

Fig. 20. C - % of wheat available from own production

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 7 months

8 to 12 months

36%

19%

26%

19%

Fig. 20. D - % of beans available from own production

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 7 months

8 to 12 months

Fig 20 (A, B, C & D) – Crops availability from own production at national level



Fig. 21 confirms that the majority of agriculture investment and resources allocation among respondents is devoted to maize,

which is in line with national trends reported by the Bureau of Statistics. Intercropping with major crop is frequent with beans

(which complement well with maize fixating nitrogen needed by maize). Intercropping is an agronomic practice promoted by

ERP as one of the CA principles.

From the ranking provided above, it is clear that a complex set of risks and threats is being strongly perceived among

respondents, with dry spell outstanding clearly over the rest. This profile is similar to Group 1 Baseline but with lower

intensity in Group 2. When combining categories of “major problem” and “problem”, all problems included in Fig. 22 for

Group 1 reached a minimum of 70%. In Group 2 the most acute problems are “Dry spell”, “Pests” and “Soil fertility”. This may

be due to the features of the season preceding the survey. In any case the variety of factors confirms the importance of

promoting technologies that help to address several of these challenges. Conservation Agriculture (CA) improves moisture

and water use, protects soil from erosion and increases soil fertility. CA is not a solution to all problems but it is certainly part

of the solution to the challenges faced by the agriculture sector in Lesotho among a large majority of farmers. Besides, pests

should not be underestimated. FAO implemented an armyworm control and prevention project in 2013-2014 and requests

for further assistance in this field, particularly to expand the varieties of pests that could be object of prevention and control

projects, as formulated by MAFS.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dry spell Pests Floods Soil erosion Hail Soil fertility Frost

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Problems affecting crop production

Major problem

Problem

Minor problem

Not a problem

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

None (0%) Only a little (25%) Half (50%) Most (75%) All (100%) Intercropping with major crop

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Land allocation per crop at national level

Maize

Wheat

Sorghum

Beans

Fig 21 – Land allocation per crop at national level

Fig 22 – Problems affecting crop production



Except from “Compost” (with 81%), a minimum of 96% of respondents reported having heard of all the other agricultural

methods indicated in Fig. 23. Information is somehow reaching the communities but as it can be seen below (Methods

practiced), this information is not sufficient to become active practice. It should be noted that the newly designed Home

Gardening training materials include information on compost making and tea compost preparation, intending to fill a gap

about compost related techniques.

Table 17 – Agricultural methods heard by the respondents per agro-ecological zone (%)


Methods Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Conservation Agriculture

100 100 97 100 98.7

Backyard Garden 100 100 98 100 99.3

Roof water harvesting 100 100 100 100 100

Fertilizer 100 100 98 100 99.3

Fodder 100 95 95 92 96.7

Compost 91 89 68 100 81.3

Herbicides 98 100 95 100 97.3

It is interesting to note that the mountains report the lowest knowledge on compost (68%) when this is the agro-ecological

zone (together with Senqu River Valley) with higher heads of cattle per family (see Table 23). It is also worth noting that,

based on previous FAO M&E team interactions with farmers, the mountains communities are reluctant to use fertilisers. In

this regard, Table 18 below shows lower levels of use of fertilisers in the mountains.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Backyard Garden Roof water harvesting

Fertilizer Herbicides Fodder Compost

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Agricultural methods heard by the respondents at national level

Fig 23 – Agricultural methods heard by the respondents at national level



The survey inquired further in terms of practice. Homestead gardening is consistently practiced (91%). All other practices are

clearly below 50% with CA reported as practiced at some point in time by 24.7% (not necessarily at the time of the survey).

The use of herbicides among respondents is not common (5%). Judging from previous FAO interactions with farmers where

the latter request herbicides, it would be safe to affirm that the limited use of herbicides is due to insufficient economic

access to these inputs. Herbicides are expected to reduce weeding labour investment, but the economic return of this

investment against the value of crops and alternative investment of labour force is not certain. More information per agro-

ecological zones is available below.

Table 18 – Methods practiced by respondents per agro-ecological zone (%)


Methods Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Conservation Agriculture 27.8 31.6 15.4 50.0 24.7

Fertilizer 81.5 52.6 13.8 25.0 91.3

Herbicides 9.3 5.3 3.1 0.0 42

Backyard Garden 94.4 89.5 87.7 100.0 44

Roof water harvesting 55.6 26.3 35.4 41.7 30

Fodder 29.6 63.2 20.0 33.3 45.3

Compost 38.9 47.4 53.8 25.0 5.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Backyard Garden Compost Fertilizer Roof water harvesting

Fodder Herbicides

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Methods ever practiced by respondents at national level

Fig 24 – Methods ever practiced by respondents at national level



Fig 25 – Current land preparation methods at national level

17.3 % of respondents reported having done CA at the time of the survey (against 24.7% reporting CA as a technology that has been tried earlier). Mechanical CA planting was not reported while a large majority of conventional farming planting is with animal power. ERP has started since end of 2013 to promote the use of CA planters both animal and tractor drawn. It is essential to provide farmers options adapted to their production capacities, from manual to animal drawn to tractor drawn.

Table 19 – Land preparation methods per agro-ecological zone (%)

Soil preparation

Lowlands (%) Foothills (%) Mountains (%) Senqu River Valley (%)

CA Conventional CA Conventional CA Conventional CA Conventional

Manual 18.5 3.8 26.3 10.5 9.3 13.8 41.7 8.3

Animal power 0 78.8 0 100 0 96.9 0 100

Tractor 0 65.4 0 5.3 0 7.7 0 16.7

In terms of land preparation methods per agro-ecological zone, it is worth noting that CA practice is more frequent in foothills and Senqu River Valley. An area such as the mountains, where we could assess bigger needs for conservation practices reports the lower percentage of CA practice. This is obviously a signal of the amount of awareness and CA promotion that is still required in Lesotho.

Table 20 – Land under Conservation Agriculture and Conventional farming (%)


% land under CA and CT


CA CT CA CT CA CT CA CT CA CT

Only a little (25%) 14.8 0 26.3 0 3.1 6.2 33.3 8.3 12.7 3.3

Half of my land (50%) 1.9 1.9 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0.7 1.3

Most of my land (75%) 0 14.8 0 26.3 6.2 7.7 8.3 25 3.3 14

All of my land (100%) 1.9 76.7 0 68.4 1.5 83.1 0 66.7 1.3 76.7

Although the practice of CA is reported by 17.3% of respondents, the area of land under CA is marginal when compared to

conventional farming with most households reporting “Only a little (25%)”, which is less than half an acre when considering

the average planted area reported by respondents (2.3 acres, see Table 12).

17,3

0

9,5

91,9

28,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manual (basins) Mechanized planter Manual Animal power Tractor

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Land preparation methods

Conservation Agriculture Conventional farming



Government extension services are the main channel of agricultural information among ERP Group 2 respondents, followed by other farmers and radio. Penetration of private sector among this category of farmers is extremely limited, as it could be expected. Investing in strengthening extension services and lead farmers has a direct link to the quality of information available in the communities and remains one of the strategic priorities of ERP. Besides, radio is clearly the media allowing wider dissemination among the public (60% of respondent have one, see Fig. 12). While 21% of the respondents has a TV (see Fig. 12), less than 3% receive agriculture information through this channel. This may indicate a potential for greater use of information tools in TV and radio. ERP is finalising radio and TV spots on CA that will be aired by MAFS in 2015.

Just slightly more than a quarter of respondents reported having received support from extension services in the season preceding the survey. The higher frequency was in Senqu River Valley followed by the Lowlands.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Government extension

Radio Other farmers Private sector Television

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Agricultural information sources

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

Yes 27.3%

No 72.7%

Fig. 27. A - % of households who received crops extension

support

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 27. B - % of households who received crops extension support per agro-ecological zone

Fig 26 – Sources of agricultural information

Fig 27 (A & B) – Crops extension support received in the last season



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very easy Somehow easy Not easy

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Market accessibility for buying

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

Fig 28 explores the nature of the support provided to ERP respondents by the extension services during the season before

Group 2 was enrolled in ERP. The most predominant service received is Training (15% of respondents)28

followed by Inputs

and last, Land preparation.

Respondents who buy inputs

Percentage

Lowlands 68.5

Foothills 68.4

Mountains 60.0

Senqu River Valley

75.0

National 65.3

65% of respondents report buying agricultural inputs with similar levels across agro-ecological zones and slightly lower for

mountains29

. It is worth noting that Senqu River Valley respondents reported the most challenging access to markets

although they are the group with higher percentage of respondents buying inputs (75%), when remoteness and distance

affect even more heavily population in the mountains (the lowest agro-ecological zone in terms of respondents buying inputs

with 60%). This may be due to the fact that respondents’ perceptions are likely to affect their perceived access to markets. In

any case, the access to markets does not seem to be the main problem limiting the purchase of agricultural inputs since the

“Not easy” reply did not exceed 11% at national level.

Respondents who sell produce

Percentage

Lowlands 40.7

Foothills 26.3

Mountains 41.5

Senqu River Valley 33.3

National 38.7

Selling of produce is lower than purchase of inputs as it could be expected given the vulnerability profile of ERP beneficiaries. Respondents also find it more difficult to access markets for selling when compared to access to markets for buying. Again Senqu River Valley faces more perceived problems in reaching these selling markets.

28

Group 1 Baseline, 22% reported having received training on crops from extension. 29

Group 1 Baseline questions on market access were not properly formulated and could not be used in the analysis.

0

5

10

15

20

Inputs (seed, fertilizer) Training Land preparation

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Type of support received

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Very easy Somehow easy Not easy

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Market accessibility for selling the produce

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

Fig 28 –Type of support received by respondents

Fig 29 – Percentage of respondents buying agricultural inputs and access to the market

Fig 30 – Percentage of respondents selling their produce and market accessibility


IV. 4. Home gardening and food processing 32 | P a g e

4. Home gardening and Food Processing

Household gardens are available in almost all respondent households (98%). However there is still a lot of room to increase adoption rates of improved gardening methods (i.e. keyhole or trench gardens)

30.

Among the varieties of vegetables produced by respondents, green leafy vegetables rich in Vitamin A are predominant (e.g. spinach, Florida broad leaf, English Rape). Among orange coloured fruits also rich in Vitamin A, respondents indicated carrots and pumpkins were produced among 78% of respondents. Under other vegetables, cabbage, beetroot and tomatoes are the most commonly produced

31. More details per agro-ecological zone are available below.

30

Group 1 baseline had a similar availability of household gardens (98%) but a higher rate of keyhole gardens (65%) and trench gardens (55%) 31

Group 1 Baseline presents a very similar profile of predominant varieties produced though slightly lower percentages of production.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Spinach English rape

Carrot Pumpkin Florida Cabbage Beetroot Tomatoe Onion Green beans

Peppers

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Vegetables grown at national level

Vit. A rich veg. Other veg.

Yes 98%

No 2%

Fig. 31. A - Household garden ownership

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ordinary plot Keyhole garden Trench garden

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 31. B - Type of household garden

Fig 31 (A & B) – Farmers who have a household garden

Fig 32 – Vegetables grown last season at national level


IV. 4. Home Gardening and Food Processing 33 | P a g e

The mountain area is the region with lower production of vegetables. While the climate makes it more difficult in that agro-

ecological zone to grow certain vegetable varieties, it would be worthwhile to explore the combination of reasons behind this

drastic difference.

Availability of vegetable production does not exceed 5 months (except Spinach)32

. ERP aims at increasing month/vegetable

availability with the introduction of improved home gardening techniques.

32

Group1 Baseline had significantly lower availability with all varieties oscillating between 1 and 3 months (except from Spinach with 7 months).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Spinach Rape Carrot Pumpkin Florida

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 33. A - % of respondents producing Vitamin A-rich vegetables

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cabbage Beetroot Tomatoes Onions Green beans Peppers

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 33. B - % of respondents producing other vegetables

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

Spinach Carrots Pumpkin Onions Rape Cabbage Beetroot Florida Peppers Tomatoes Green beans

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 34. A - Average months availability at national level

Fig 33 (A & B) – Vegetables grown last season per agro-ecological zone

Fig 34 (A, B & C) – Average months’ availability of vegetables at national level



It should be noted that Senqu River Valley reports quite high availability in comparison to other agro-ecological zones that

could be considered more benign such as lowlands. Besides, Senqu River Valley reports high in four of the main problems

when growing vegetables (see Fig. 36). From this survey, production and availability do not seem to be conditioned so

strongly by weather. It would be worth to study the reasons behind these differences more in depth.

Pests are widely reported as the main challenge in home gardening. ERP training materials for Home Gardening will include

information on organic pest control and home remedies to control pests. The combination of drought and problems

accessing water represent also a challenge regularly reported.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pests Drought Livestock damage

Access to water Weeds

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Problems when growing vegetables

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

National

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Spinach Rape Carrots Pumpkin Florida

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 34. B - Average months availability for vitamin A rich veg per agro-ecological zone

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cabbage Beetroot Tomatoes Onions Green Beans Peppers

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 34. C - Average months availability for other vegetables per agro-ecological zone

Lowlands

Foothills

Mountains

Senqu River Valley

Fig 35 – Problems when growing vegetables



Group 2 main source of water is pond/lake/creek/spring followed by public tap. Group 1 had greater access to public taps than ponds, but in both with lower percentages than Group 2.

Table 21 – Sources of irrigation water per agro-ecological zone (%)

Sources of water Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Public tap 42.6 84.2 39.7 75.0 49.3

Pond/lake/creek/spring 64.8 31.6 65.1 33.3 58.1

Rain water harvesting 29.6 10.5 17.5 33.3 22.3

Dug well 14.8 0 17.5 0 12.8

Piped into the house 0 0 0 8.3 0.7

Tube well/ borehole with pump

1.9 0 0 0 0.7

It should be noted that the differences in accessing irrigation water are very significant across agro-ecological zones.

77% of respondents reported processing vegetable and foods (85% among Group 1), with fruit drying being the predominant

practice. Group 2 profile is slightly different to Group 1 (see Fig. 34 Group 1 Baseline), where fruit canning was predominant

and vegetable canning was also more extended. These results confirm space for improving and diversifying food

preservation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pond/lake/ creek/spring

Public tap Rain water harvesting

Dug well Piped into the house Tube well/borehole with pump

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Sources of irrigation water for vegetables at national level

Yes 77%

No 23%

Fig. 37. A - % of respondents processing/preserving vegetables

and fruits

0

20

40

60

80

Fruit canning Drying Vegetable canning

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 37. B - Vegetable and fruit processing methods

Fig 36 – Sources of irrigation water at national level

Fig 37 (A & B) – Vegetable and fruit preservation/processing methods


IV. 5. Livestock 36 | P a g e

5. Livestock

According to respondents’ replies at national level, in decreasing order, 68% of the respondents had poultry, 57.3% cattle,

38.7% goats, 36% sheep, 30% donkeys, 28% pigs and 20% horses.

Table 22 – Respondent's livestock ownership

Number owned Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Cattle

0 50 36.8 35.4 58.3 42.7

At least 1 50 63.2 64.6 41.7 57.3

Average number owned* 2 2 3 3 2.12

Horses

0 90.7 78.9 69.2 91.7 80

At least 1 9.3 21.1 30.8 8.3 20


Donkeys

0 79.6 73.7 60 75 70

At least 1 20.4 26.3 40 25 30


Goats

0 75.9 31.6 58.5 58.3 61.3

At least 1 24.1 68.4 41.5 41.7 38.7


Poultry

0 27.8 26.3 36.9 72.2 32

At least 1 72.2 73.7 63.1 27.8 68


Sheep

0 77.8 68.4 47.7 83.3 64

At least 1 22.8 31.6 52.3 16.7 36


Pigs

0 72.2 73.7 72.3 66.7 72

At least 1 27.8 26.3 27.7 33.3 28

Average number owned* 1 0 1 1 0.62 *Figures have been rounded.

In terms of average number owned, Group 2 is similar to Group 1 with slightly more goats and less poultry in Group 2 than

Group 1.

Table 23 – Average number of animals owned by the respondents


Cattle 1.57 1.79 2.57 2.67 2.12

Horses 0.13 0.21 0.51 0.08 0.30

Donkeys 0.30 0.42 0.77 0.50 0.53

Goats 0.98 4.79 6.71 12.00 4.83

Poultry 4.67 3.11 3.45 2.92 3.80

Sheep 2.76 1.74 13.32 2.25 7.17

Pigs 0.89 0.26 0.52 0.50 0.62

Per agro-ecological zone, Mountains and Senqu River Valley have higher numbers per household in cattle, donkeys and goats.

Mountains also have the highest number of horses and sheep. Pigs and poultry are more abundant in the lowlands.



Fig. 38 A illustrates one of the key environmental challenges faced in Lesotho: rangeland management. Almost no respondent

referred to managed rangeland as a feed source for its cattle, sheep or goats. Instead free range is used by almost all

respondents complemented mainly with crop residue in the case of cattle (similar profile to Group 1 Baseline). Furthermore,

the use of crop residue for feeding implies that less organic matter is left on the fields as cover which reduces the enrichment

of soil and increases erosion from wind and water. The second principle of CA, promoted by ERP, is soil cover through cover

crops and/or mulch cover. ERP promotes cover crops such as wheat and grazing vetch which mitigates the competition for

residues with animal feeding needs. Fodder production is also limited among respondents (less than 20%). Horses and

donkeys have a similar profile to cattle as illustrated below.

Fig. 38 C, on pigs and poultry, shows a different profile as it could be expected for these species, where food waste and grains are

predominant like in Group 1 Baseline (however the complementary feeding sources have different weights between Group 1 and Group 2

respondents). Sources of animal feed should be carefully considered in the design of small livestock support projects.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Free range grazing

Crop residue

Supplements, vitamins, salts

Fodder produced

Grains Crops for animals

Food wastes/ by-products

Fodder purchased

Managed rangeland …

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 38. A - Sources of animal feed (Cattle, Sheep & Goats) Cattle Sheep Goats

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Free range grazing

Crop residue


Fodder produced



Fodder purchased

Managed rangeland

grazing

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 38. B - Sources of animal feed (Horses & Donkeys)

Horses Donkeys

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Free range grazing

Crop residue


Fodder produced



Fodder purchased

Managed rangeland

grazing

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 38. C - Sources of animal feed (Pigs & Poultry)

Pigs Poultry

Fig 38 (A, B & C) – Sources of animal feed



Group 2 is slightly more invested in the production of livestock products. In Fig. 8, 24% of respondents reported receiving

income from this activity (against 17% in Group 1). Group 2 has a similar production profile but slightly higher in eggs, wool

and mohair and less milk. The low production reported in milk (15.5%) should be noted in a group where 57% have cattle.

Milk production remains an interesting area for development in Lesotho, particularly considering the low diet diversity and

high stunting rates. Additional info per agro-ecological zone is available below.

Table 24 – Livestock products currently produced by respondents per agro ecological zone (%)

Livestock products Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Meat 58.5 47.4 65.6 58.3 60.1

Eggs 45.3 42.1 59.4 58.3 52

Wool/mohair 18.9 42.1 53.1 33.3 37.3

Milk 11.3 15.8 21.9 0 15.5

Skins/hides 3.8 0 3.1 0 2.7

None 29.6 31.6 10.9 8.3 20.1

As it could be expected from the higher numbers of livestock, Mountains and Senqu River Valley are the agro-ecological

zones with higher number of respondents producing livestock products (89% and 91% respectively).

Problems related to livestock have been clustered in the same three groups as Fig. 39 for the sake of facilitating the analysis.

Fig. 40 A clearly identifies animal health as the main problem faced by respondents in the breeding of cattle, sheep and goats. It is closely followed by food source as a problem. Theft comes as the second problem followed by access to water. Investing in animal health would provide a substantial relief among small holders not having access to veterinary services.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Meat Eggs Wool/mohair Milk Skins/hides None

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Livestock products produced at national level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Diseases Feed Conflict Theft Water Killed

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 40. A - Livestock problems (Cattle, Sheep & Goats)

Cattle Sheep Goats

Fig 39 – Livestock products produced at national level

Fig 40 (A, B & C) – Livestock problems at national level



Horses and Donkeys reproduce a similar profile than Fig. 40 A but much less exposed to theft and still with similar water problems.

For pigs and poultry the main problems, with different intensity, remain diseases and feeding.

When asked about how many times respondents had received advice on livestock during the previous season before ERP started, over 88% of them reported having received no advice (it was 74% among Group 1). Given the pattern of problems reported above (see Fig. 40), extension services should be increased in this sector

33.

33

ERP is not including activities directly supporting livestock. The Baseline includes this sector as part of the vulnerability assessment since livestock has important repercussions in nutrition and livelihood. FAO Lesotho has supported MAFS in animal health interventions following the floods occurred in 2010-2011. An analysis of the animal health surveillance system was undertaken confirming the need to improve animal health sector.

0

20

40

60

80

100

No advice Once Twice 3 or more

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Livestock advice received

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 40. B - Livestock problems (Horses & Donkeys)

Horses Donkeys

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 40. C - Livestock problems (Pigs & Poultry)

Pigs Poultry

Fig 41 – Livestock advice received at national level


IV. 6. Household nutrition and sources of food 40 | P a g e

6. Household Nutrition and Sources of Food

It should be noted that this information should be taken with certain caution. The data was collected over a period of two

months and it offers certain bias of seasonality.

The fact that Lesotho has over 40% of stunting among children under 5 years old obliges all food security programmes to be

nutrition sensitive. Diversity of food groups eaten by respondents is limited.

The main two groups eaten daily by over 70% of respondents is limited to maize and oil/fats, with vegetables rich in Vitamin

A34

among 52% (the latter was higher in Group 1 with 67%).

Maize outstands among staple food varieties (93% of respondent ate it the day before the interview). All other groups reach

low percentages (apart from other cereals and sugars –slightly below 50%–, all other groups are below 30, 20 or 10%).

Consumption of animal protein is very restricted, especially taking into consideration the demographic profile of respondent

HH, with large quantities of individuals in groups requiring protein rich nutrition as children and chronically ill people (see

Table 6).

34

*”Vitamin A rich vegetables” includes yellow/orange coloured fruit and vegetables: mango, peach, butternut, carrot, pumpkin and dark-green leafy vegetables such as spinach, pumpkin leaves, beetroot leaves **”Other vegetables” includes beetroot, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, cucumber, green beans, green peas, green pepper, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, tomato, wild vegetables

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Maize Oils & fats Vit. A rich veg.*

Other cereals

Sugars Legumes, nuts, seeds

Beverages Dairy Eggs Meat/ poultry/

fish

Other veg.**

Other fruits

Roots/ tubers

Salt

Pe

rcen

tage

Food groups eaten the day before the interview at national level

Fig 42 – Food groups eaten the day before the interview at national level


IV. 6. Household nutrition and sources of food 41 | P a g e

Table 25 – Food groups eaten the day before the interview per agro-ecological zone (%)

Food groups eaten Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Maize 90.7 100 93.8 91.7 93.3

Oils & fats 79.6 78.9 72.3 91.7 77.3

Vit. A rich veg. 61.5 68.4 38.5 66.7 52.7

Other cereals 59.3 63.2 40.0 50.0 50.7

Sugars 57.4 26.3 47.7 50.0 48.7

Legumes/nuts seeds 77.4 15.8 40.0 16.7 28.9

Beverages 26.4 10.5 27.7 41.7 26.2

Dairy 13.0 10.5 18.5 16.7 15.3

Eggs 7.8 5.3 18.5 16.7 12.9

Meat/poultry/fish 11.5 15.8 13.8 0 12.2

Other vegetables 5.8 31.6 3.1 16.7 8.8

Other fruits 15.4 0 6.2 8.3 8.8

Roots tubers 7.5 5.3 3.1 8.3 5.4

Salt 100.0 94.7 90.6 100.0 95.2

Information per agro-ecological zone show marked differences in access to Vit. A rich vegetables (mountains), legumes

(foothills, Senqu River Valley), eggs (lowlands, foothills), meat (Senqu River Valley), other vegetables (lowlands, mountains),

other fruits (foothills).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sugars Salts Oils & fats Beverages Dairy Other vegetables

Roots Eggs Other fruits

Meat Legumes, nuts & seeds

Other cereals

Maize Vit. A rich veg.

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 43. A - Sources of food groups consumed (Purchase, Own production & Gathering/Hunting)

Purchase Own production Gathering/hunting

Fig 43 (A & B) – Sources of food groups consumed


IV. 7. Institutions that help with food and coping strategies used by respondents 42 | P a g e

The analysis of Fig. 43 A should be complemented with Table 16 (Average months availability of crops) and Fig. 34 (Average

months availability of vegetables). Oil/fats, the second main food group consumed (see Fig.42) is largely purchased. Most of

respondents had eaten their own maize the day before the interview. This was the opposite for Group 1 baseline, maybe

related to the fact that the 2012 harvest has been the worst ever recorded. The proportion of own production for Vitamin A

rich vegetable is high. Increasing availability throughout the year from own production seems to be the best approach to

improve the consumption of this important complement to the diet as well as other vegetables. It should be noted the

contribution of gathering/hunting in consumption of vegetables.

Gifts are the main safety net among respondents (against food aid); however it affects less than 11% of respondents. Group 2

seems to receive less food aid support than Group 1 and be less active in exchange.

7. Institutions that help with food and coping strategies used by respondents

Families or neighbours are the backbone of Lesotho’s social network. They assist up to 90% (82% for Group 1) of the respondents when in need compared to a low 8.7% (3% for Group 1) from Government assistance and 12% from UN/NGO assistance (15% for Group 1). Given the extended vulnerabilities among rural population, excessive reliance on informal safety nets should be avoided. It also exposes beneficiaries to protection risks.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Legumes, nuts & seeds

Other cereals

Meat Dairy Salts Other vegetables

Vit. A rich veg.

Maize Eggs Oils & fats Beverages Sugars Roots Other fruits

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Fig. 43. B - Sources of food groups consumed (Gift, Exchange and food aid)

Gift Exchange Food aid

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Family UN/NGO Government assistance

No one

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Helping institutions when food is insufficient

Fig 44 – Helping institutions when food is insufficient


IV. 7. Institutions that help with food and coping strategies used by respondents 43 | P a g e

Table 26 – Threats experienced by the respondents (%)

Threats35


Would ran out of food 67.9 88.2 64.6 58.3 68.0

Ran out of food 63.0 82.4 60.0 50.0 62.8

Hungry and did not eat 18.5 35.3 23.1 33.3 23.8

From the reported experience of these threats, it seems that the foothills would be the agro-ecological zone the most exposed to hunger in Lesotho. These questions offer obviously limitations in terms of diversity and nutrition value.

Households have different coping strategies during lean periods as indicated in Fig. 45. Apart from borrowing food and eating

less preferred food, the most prominent coping strategies reported by respondents are negative and harmful: prioritizing

provision of food in HH, reducing portion of food, skipping meals. “Going entire days without food” reaches a worrying 22.7%

of respondents (26% among Group 1)36

. This is an alarming situation which indicates high levels of vulnerability in terms of

food security among respondents. More information per agro-ecological zone is available below.

35 These three threats were preceded by the following general question: “Were you affected by one of these threats in the

last 12 months?” It was included in an attempt to pilot some of the questions explored by the project “The Voices of Hungry”. 36

Group 2 has some differences with Group 1 in this section. Begging, migrant labour and leaving agricultural land for labour are double in Group 2.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Borrowing food

Eating less preferred

food

Prioritizing provision of food

Reducing portion

size

Skipping meals

Begging Seeking traditional

food

Eating immature

crops

Selling HH assets

Entire days without eating

Leave agric. land for labour

Migrant labour

Trees/charcoal for sale

Send children live elsewhere

Reliance on food programmes

Send children for wage employment

Take children out of school

Reduce spending on health/education

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Coping strategies during lean period at national level

Fig 45 – Coping strategies during lean period at national level


V. Conclusions and recommendations 44 | P a g e

Table 27 – Coping strategies during lean period per agro-ecological zone (%)

Coping strategies Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu River Valley National

Borrowing food 57.4 68.4 75.4 66.7 67.3

Eating less preferred food 51.9 57.9 60.0 58.3 56.7

Prioritizing provision of food 42.6 52.6 52.3 58.3 49.3

Reducing portion size 35.2 57.9 49.2 50.0 45.3

Skipping meals 38.9 52.6 44.6 41.7 43.3

Begging 37.0 57.9 40.0 50.0 42

Seeking traditional food 31.5 42.1 47.7 41.7 40.7

Eating immature crops 20.4 42.1 41.5 25.0 32.7

Selling HH assets 18.5 26.3 44.6 16.7 30.7

Entire days without eating 16.7 21.1 27.7 25.0 22.7

Leave agric. land for labour 14.8 26.3 27.7 16.7 22

Migrant labour 22.2 26.3 15.4 8.3 18.7

Trees/charcoal for sale 1.9 26.3 27.7 8.3 16.7

Send children live elsewhere 1.9 10.5 7.7 16.7 6.7

Reliance on food programmes 7.4 0 6.2 8.3 6

Send children wage employment 0 10.5 4.6 8.3 4

Take children out of school 1.9 0 0 8.3 1.3

Reduce spending on health/education

0 5.3 0 0 0.7

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

The targeting of the ERP for Group 2 succeeded to select vulnerable families as illustrated in the Baseline findings in similar lines than the targeting of Group 1.

This report also confirms that ERP design is well adapted to the vulnerability profile and perceived hazards by respondents.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a technology that will address a number of production challenges (e.g. scarcity of water, erosion, loss of soil fertility) while its knowledge and practice need to be intensively promoted through strengthening extension services, lead farmers and communication tools including radio and TV.

Home Gardening and Nutrition awareness is a good complement to the production of staple food through CA. While Home Gardening is not new to ERP beneficiaries, there is significant room for improvement in the availability of vegetables during the year, increase of varieties planted per family and practice of food preservation methods.

Once again, the baseline highlights the role played by MAFS extension services in providing agricultural information, which is critical. Strengthening the extension network, lead farmers included, is necessary to maintain the adequate technical advice in the future. Capacity Development efforts should be a priority area and represent the core of ERP midterm and long term efforts. It is only through Capacity Development of extension services and lead farmers that CSA will be mainstreamed and up scaled country wide.

Despite differences among agro-ecological areas in access to land, area planted and the choice of crops, it is clear that agriculture remains a major contributor to the livelihood strategy of most rural families in Lesotho. It is thus relevant to upscale the promotion of resilience building technological improvements in the entire country as envisaged by ERP.


ANNEXES 45 | P a g e

ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Baseline questionnaire

Annex 2 – M&E Plan Groups 1 & 2

All villages in this table are visited in Baseline and Post-Harvest surveys. Among these villages, the ones with a star (*) are visited in the Post-Planting survey.

GROUP 1

District R.Centre Agro-ecological

zone Villages N

o of villages Sample size

Mokhotlong

Thabang Mountains

Ntlholohetsane

3 15 Ha Mokone

Ha Mojakisane*

Libibing Mountains

Linakaneng

3 15 Mankeng*

Tsoenene

Qacha's Nek

Sehlaba-Thebe Mountains

Ha Mavuka

3 15 Ha Belebesi

Sekokoaneng*

Qhoalinyane Senqu

Ha Ramapane

3 15 Ha Matee

Ha Sejanamane*

Thaba-Tseka

Sehong-Hong Senqu

Ha Clark Lebung

3 15 Mashai*

Ha Khomo-Ea-Mollo

Mohlanapeng Mountains

Malakeng

3 15 Liphakoeng*

Ha Lekholoane

Quthing

Koali Senqu

Khohlong

3 15 Leralleng*

Ha Moqalo

Tele Senqu

Ha Lekhoba*

3 15 Ha Kholokholo

Aliwal Skop

Mohale's Hoek

Hloahloeng Senqu

Ha Nkau

3 15 Ha Phafoli

Ha Seqhoke*

Phamong Senqu

Ha Lengau

3 15 Ha Thabo*

Fika-la-ts'oene

Mpharane Lowlands Ha Kaphe*

2 10 Phohlokong

Taung Lowlands Ha Raubi

2 10 Tsoloane*

Mafeteng

Thabana-Morena Lowlands Ha Mabatla

2 10 Ha Sebaki*

Tsakholo Lowlands Ha Patsa

2 10 Makhanyeng 2*


ANNEXES 46 | P a g e

Maseru

Morija Lowlands Ha Toloane/Try-Hoek*

2 10 Mahloenyeng

Rothe Lowlands Taung*

2 10 Ha Rankhelepe

Berea

Pilot Lowlands Ha Bale*

2 10 Ha Nkalimeng

CX Lowlands Mafotholeng*

2 10 Ha Ts'epo

Leribe

Tale Lowlands Ha Mapape

2 10 Boribeng*

Mahobong Lowlands Naleli*

2 10 Ha Majara

Botha-Bothe

Nqabeni Lowlands Morifi

2 10 Makopo*

Khukhune Lowlands Tsime

2 10 Marakabei*

TOTAL 54 270

GROUP 2

District R.Centre Agro-ecological

zone Villages N

o of villages Sample size

Mokhotlong Mohlanapeng Mountains Masoleng*

2 18 Phahameng Mountains Ha Makhabane*

Qacha's Nek Letlapeng Senqu River Valley Paneng* 1 6

Thaba-Tseka Lilala Mountains Ha Khoanyane*

2 18 Mantšonyane Mountains Ha Leronti*

Quthing Central Senqu River Valley Pokane* 1 6

Mohale's Hoek

Makhaleng Foothills Maqoala* 2 15

Phamong Senqu River Valley Thibella*

Mafeteng Ribaneng Foothills Ha Seeiso*

2 14 Matelile Lowlands Ha Khotlela*

Maseru

Ramabanta Foothills Ha Ramabanta*

3 24 Ntsi Lowlands Ha Ponoane*

Semonkong Mountains Ha Lesala*

Berea Maqhaka Lowlands Ha Jubile*

2 15 Sefikeng Foothills Ha Moshati*

Leribe Maputsoe Lowlands Ha Mosae*

2 19 Pelaneng Mountains Vuka-Mosotho*

Butha-Buthe Selomo Lowlands Ha Selemo*

2 15 Nqoajane Lowlands Makeneng*

TOTAL 19 150

Documents

BASELINE REPORT (GROUP 2) 2013-2014 - Lesotho CSA...2014) FAO LESOTHO Emergency and Resilience Programme (ERP) BASELINE REPORT (GROUP 2) 2013-2014