Respondents were asked what they considered to be their most important food source(s) in 1998/99: own urban production, own rural production, purchased food or food donations. A detailed overview of the answers is given in Table A6.4 (Annex 6). Table 6.5 below shows how often each of the four possible sources was mentioned. For one fifth of the households in the two towns, their urban production was the most important food source during that year (Table A6.4), while for another 42%, their own urban production was among their important food sources. In other words, two-thirds of the households mentioned their own urban production as an important food source (Table 6.5). Although not specifically asked for, ‘urban production’ undoubtedly refers first of all to urban crop production. It is therefore clear that the figure for Morogoro is lower than the percentage of crop cultivators there (81%, see Chapter 3). Apparently, there is a category of households in Morogoro for whom crop cultivation in town
Table 6.5 Summary of most important food sources in 1998/99, by town (number of times mentioned; %)
Morogoro Mbeya Total
(N=) (293) (297) (590)
Own urban production 66.6 63.3 64.9
Own rural production 23.5 40.7 32.2
Purchased 63.1 54.5 58.8
Donations/gifts 0.7 1.0 0.8
Source: Annex 6, Table A6.4.
8 Percentages of households for whom the rural plot was an income source as well as a food source:
- high-income 65% versus 40% of the other income categories;
is either only marginally contributing to the household food needs, or not at all. In Mbeya, however, the percentage of households for whom their own urban pro- duction was an important food source is very much the same as the percentage of urban crop cultivators.
Almost one third (31%) of respondents mentioned their own rural production
as an important food source (Table 6.5) and for 29% of these it was the most important source (Table A6.4). The two towns differ in this respect, as rural production was more often mentioned in Mbeya than in Morogoro. This is in line with the percentages having access to a rural plot and shows that for all of those who have access to this type of food source, rural crop cultivation makes an important contribution to household food security.
Although urban, for ‘only’ 59% of the households was purchased food an important food source (Table 6.5). A much smaller percentage (15%) depended solely on purchased food (Table A6.4). The two towns differed considerably in this respect. Compared to Morogoro, twice as many households in Mbeya depended (partly or wholly) on purchased food. This may be due to, for instance, the smaller percentage of households cultivating crops in town and the smaller size of the plots in Mbeya, possibly in relation to the somewhat larger households in town. Moreover, average household income was somewhat lower in Mbeya (Chapter 3), so the cost of travelling to rural plots was more onerous for Mbeya households than for those in Morogoro. Finally, five households mentioned
donations/gifts as an important source of food. For one of them, it was even the
most important source.
Again, a cross-tabulation was carried out with a number of household charac- teristics (household income, household size; sex, age and education of the house- hold head) thought to possibly influence food sources. None of the characteristics showed any relationship with the source of food. However, other household characteristics – namely whether urban and/or rural farming was undertaken –
did influence the source of food (Table 6.6). For 85% of the urbancrop cultiva- tors, their cropping activities in town constituted an important food source. For non-cultivators, this was 13%. At first sight, the latter figure may look surprising but it is possible that these respondents were referring to livestock as a source of food (for example, milk). Not surprisingly, urban production was very important for urbanfarmers (i.e. the group of urban crop cultivators and the group of urban livestock keepers together). For 80% of the rural crop cultivators, their rural production was an important food source.
Three other observations can be made from Table 6.6. Firstly, as suggested earlier in this chapter, urban livestock keeping had little effect on the importance of the various food sources. Secondly, the (49) people who did not farm in town
Table 6.6 Most important food sources, by household farming characteristics (number of times mentioned; %)*
Urban Rural Pur-
(N) production production chased Urban crop cultivator? yes (426) 84.7 24.2 54.9
no (164) 13.4 53.0 68.9
Urban livestock keeper? yes (340) 63.2 29.7 59.4
no (250) 67.2 31.6 58.0
Urban farmer? yes (541) 70.8 27.9 59.0
no (49) 0.0 79.6 57.1
Rural crop cultivator? yes (239) 44.4 79.5 46.9
no (351) 78.9 0.0 67.0
* Missing cases have been omitted from the analysis. Source: Survey data 2000.
relied relatively more heavily on rural food sources than people who did farm in town, and vice versa; a finding that suggests that there is some degree of substi- tution between urban and rural crop cultivation.9 And thirdly, crop cultivators, whether urban or rural, had to purchase food somewhat less frequently than non- cultivators. Further analysis by town revealed that these patterns were the same for the two towns.
The respondents were also asked whether they had always had enough to eat in 1998/99. This variable can be considered as an indication of household food security in the year prior to the survey. Table A6.5 provides a full overview of the answers, while Table 6.7 below presents a summary. Taking the two towns together, 60% of the households always had enough to eat that year. In other words, 40% did not. The two towns differed considerably in this respect, i.e. the
Table 6.7 Summary of “Did you always have enough to eat in 1998/99?”, by town (%)*
Morogoro Mbeya Total
(N=) (296) (301) (597)
Yes, always 45.3 74.1 59.8
About half of the time or less 35.2 14.9 25.0
Source: Annex 6, Table A6.5.
9 However, as mentioned above, we also found that there was no relationship between whether urban
crop cultivation was undertaken or not, on the one hand, and the rural plot being a source of food/income, on the other. We have no ready explanation for this seeming discrepancy.
percentage of households having experienced food shortages was much higher in Morogoro (55%) than in Mbeya (26%). Quite serious food shortages can be said to have occurred in those households stating that they had had enough to eat at most about half the time. This occurred in 35% of the Morogoro households and in 15% of Mbeya households.
Further analysis of this measure of the level of household food security was remarkable. At the level of the whole study population, i.e. the two towns taken together, hardly any relationship with the various household characteristics could be established. However, Table A6.6 (Annex 6) reveals that, at town level, this appeared only to be the case for households in Mbeya. In Morogoro, the food security level seemed (as with other variables) to be positively influenced by household income and the educational level of the household head. An interest- ing finding was the relatively high level of food security among the very large households (i.e. those with ten or more members) in Morogoro, all the more so as in Mbeya it seemed to be the other way around.
Does urban farming have a positive impact on the perceived level of food security? As Table 6.8 shows, the answer for Mbeya is ‘no’ (at least for this very crude measure), because the percentages of households answering ‘yes, always’ is the same for urban farmers and urban non-farmers. In Morogoro, however, there seemed to be a relationship with livestock keeping in town (and not with crop cultivation in town, as with the sources of food in Table 6.6). Compared
Table 6.8 “Did you always have enough to eat in 1998/99?”, by household farming characteristics and by town (%)*
Always enough to eat?
Morogoro Mbeya half the half the
N yes, time N yes, time
(=100%) always or less (=100%) always or less Urban crop yes (241) 45.6 33.2 (192) 75.0 17.2 cultivator? no (55) 43.6 43.6 (109) 72.5 11.0 Urban livestock yes (112) 65.2 19.6 (232) 74.6 15.1 keeper? no (184) 33.2 44.6 (69) 72.5 14.5 Urban farmer? yes (268) 47.0 33.2 (280) 73.9 15.7
no (28) 28,6 53,6 (21) 76.2 4.8
Rural crop yes (88) 47.7 35.2 (150) 76.7 13.3 cultivator? no (208) 44.2 35.1 (151) 71.5 16.6
* Missing cases have been omitted from the analysis. Source: Survey data 2000.
with crop cultivation, livestock keeping is of a more commercial nature and food can be purchased with the money obtained from selling livestock and livestock products (see also below).10 Finally, rural crop cultivation seemed to have no im- pact at all on food security levels, at least not during the year under review.
Those households that had faced a food shortage in 1998/99 were asked how they had coped. Various methods had been employed, as can be seen in Table A6.7 (Annex 6), while Table 6.9 below provides a summary. Most households (75%) had been able to purchase the food they needed, while another 9% prac- tised this coping strategy in combination with other measures. A minority (12%) became involved in some small-scale business (Table 6.9). There was also a category, however, that received food from relatives in order to overcome their problems. Opportunities to increase crop cultivation in town were apparently very limited, as only three households were able to do so. Finally, there were two households who admitted that they had gone without food now and then, which shows that they had not been able to pursue any of the coping mechanisms described above. The ways the food-deficit households coped with food short- ages differed substantially between the two towns (Table 6.9). The large majority in Morogoro were able to buy the food they lacked. In Mbeya, however, many did not have the ready cash and were forced to engage in some small business activity so as to be able to buy the food they required. Almost one fifth of the Mbeya households were (wholly or partly) dependent on donations from family members.
Finally, the respondents were asked how they thought their food situation could be improved.11 A detailed list of all answers is presented in Table A6.8
Table 6.9 Summary of “How did you cope with food shortages?”, by town (number of times mentioned; %)*
Morogoro Mbeya Total
(N=) (152) (65) (217)
Purchased food 94.7 59.9 84.3
Undertook small-scale business 2.6 32.3 11.5 Received donations from children/relatives 2.6 18.4 7.3
* Missing cases have been omitted from the analysis. Source: Annex 6, Table A6.7.
10 Keeping livestock is usually described as mradi wa ng’ombe in Swahili, meaning ‘a cattle project’. 11 Strictly speaking, this question was to be answered only by the 217 households who had “not always
had enough to eat in 1998/99”. However, for 42 of these, no answer was recorded. On the other hand, 162 of the households that had “always had enough to eat in 1998/99” nevertheless thought that their food situation could be improved, so they answered the question. In total, therefore, 337 households gave a reply to this question. Although we cannot say whether this group is representative of the whole study population, the findings are interesting enough to be presented.
(Annex 6). The answers have also been grouped in broader categories and are shown in Table 6.10. The most noticeable observation from both tables is that, with only a few exceptions, all respondents were referring to their own farming activities in town and not to any general measures that could be taken by the (local) authorities. A second general observation is that people either referred to farming in general or to crop cultivation. Livestock keeping is mentioned only by a few, although “borrow money/find capital” could be interpreted as obtaining money to invest in livestock. Despite this latter point, it again appears that live- stock are seen more as an investment than as an important source of food.
Table 6.10 Summary of “How to improve your food situation?”, by town (number of times mentioned; %)*
Morogoro Mbeya Total
(N=) (184) (153) (337)
Farming (in general) 47.3 60.1 53.2
Crops: inputs/techniques 39.7 48.0 43.7 Money/capital 20.1 45.0 31.3 Farm management 26.6 9.2 18.7 Advice/assistance 14.0 10.5 12.5 Storage 9.8 2.0 6.2 Livestock 1.6 6.5 3.9 Other 2.1 0.7 1.5
* Missing cases have been omitted from the analysis. Source: Annex 6, Table A6.8.
The most frequently mentioned individual answer was “cultivate more land” either in town or in the rural areas (40% of respondents; see Table A6.8). When asked how much land they would need, replies varied considerably, from one to no less than 100 acres. In general, Mbeya households were somewhat more modest in this respect: one third would be happy with one or two acres; in Morogoro this applied to one sixth of the households. This difference is likely to be related to the higher population density in Mbeya as compared to Morogoro, in town as well in the surrounding rural areas, but could also be connected with the relatively easier access to land in Morogoro.
The second most mentioned answer had to do with lack of money (Table A6.8). For more than a quarter of the respondents, this was an obstacle to im- proving their food situation, though much more so in Mbeya (36%) than in Morogoro (19%). For many respondents (44%), one of the ways to enhance the household’s food situation was to increase crop cultivation, either by using (all
kinds of) chemical inputs or by improving farming techniques. Management practices could apparently also be improved, especially in Morogoro (25%). Finally, relatively few respondents saw a clear role for agricultural and livestock extension officers.
* * *
Although this is an urban study, quite a number of the households in the two towns appeared to be living off farming alone. In Mbeya, this applied to one third of the population, with livestock keeping being the dominant activity. For over half of the households in the two towns, urban crop cultivation was a major
source of food. Looking at it from another angle, Morogoro appeared to be roughly 75% self-sufficient regarding the supply of the two basic staple crops (maize and rice), while the concomitant figure for Mbeya was 50% (maize and beans). Nevertheless, in qualitative terms, the perceived level of food security appeared to be higher in Mbeya than in Morogoro.