PRA-PILOT STUDY
CHITSEKO VILLAGE - CHITSEKO SECTION
ULONGWE E.P.A. - BALAKA R.D.P.
1.
HISTORICAL TIMELINE
Migrating from Mulanje and Zomba, headman Chitseko chose
the current site/area insearch for fertile cultivable/arable land.
The name Chitseko refers to the grandfather who always used
to be the last person/man of contact (Judge) by the village
members in terms of solving their day to day problems and or
disputes: No any other person beyond him could do that.
At the time of arrival at the site, only one (1) village existed by
the name of Chaponda. With the uncontrollable increase in
population, the village grew extremely big fastly so much that
the Traditional Authority directed to split the Chaponda village
into 3 namely Ntelera, Chaponda and finally Chitseko.
2.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
1970 :
Migration of headman Chitseko and establishment
of the village.
1982 :
Construction of an earth road from Ulongwe
Trading Centre to Katema through Chitseko village.
1990 :
An underfive (U5) clinic/shelter established in the
village. During relief programmes, food distribution
is also done at this place.
1991 :
Construction of a Primary School in the village.
1994 :
Entry into the Multiparty era.
1998 :
The village was blessed with the Starter Pack
Initiative Scheme to acquire free inputs eg. Maize
and Soyabean seeds and fertilizers (both basal and
top dressers).
3.
WEALTH CATEGORISATION/DEFINITIONS
(a)
WEALTHY/IER PERSON:
-
Has enough food whose surplus could be exchanged for
ganyu by the poor.
-
Ably sends children to school
-
Possesses a good looking/modern house with Iron roof.
-
Practises Crop and Livestock diversification.
-
Ably buys better clothes for the family.
NB * (b)
WEALTHIEST PERSON :
-
(c)
32% of the households in the village are of the wealth/
Wealthier category.
He who has characteristics above or more than those
indicated in 3 (a) above. No wealthiest person exists in
the village.
POOR PERSON:
-
Generally does not have/possess all those items that a
wealthy/ier person has.
-
Spends most of his/her time doing ganyu labour to
upkeep and sustain the welfare of the family.
-
Is always a beggar.
NB *
(d)
A 52% representation in the village falls into this
category.
POOREST PERSON:
-
NB *
Refers to any person beyond those characteristics
indicated in 3 (c).
16% of the
Category/class.
households
are
contained
in
this
TOTAL SCORES = 25, No of Group Members = 5 (5 Stones each)
Poorest
Poor
Wealthy/ier
Wealthiest
4.
SCORES
4
13
8
0
% OF TOTAL
16%
52%
32%
0%
MAPPING AND TRANSECT:
The Village Social sketching was done on the ground by 31
members with a breakdown of 26 mhh and 5fhh. Later on
transfer onto the Flip Chart was done by 7 members (5 mhh
and 2 fhh) whilst other remaining members were assigned
separate duties with all other participants in attendance. No
age range for the participating members was recorded.
No transect walk was conducted in this IGA influenced
Cluster/EPA for reasons as highlighted in the Bilira EPA/Cluster
(specifically Kalumba 1 Village) report on transect.
5.
SEMI STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE:
8 Households (all mhh) had the questionnaire administered to
them. Other explanations on this issue are similar to the other
piloted villages.
6.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
The first paragraph on background information is equaly the
same as for Nauma Village.
PART 1 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS.
Females are dominant in the Village with a representation of
36% for female adults; 32% female children; 18% male adults
and finally 14% male children.
The dominating age group is the Underfive (L5 years of age)
Reflecting a 33% rating; 5 - <18 years (25%); 18 -<30 years
(15%); 30 - 60uears (14%) and lastly there exist very few
individuals with >60 years of age (13%).
As is the case with all other piloted villages, nobody has ever
attended the University level whilst the majority have never
been educated (40%) seconded by those who have attended
std6-8 (30%); STD 1-5 (15%); 10% have attained secondary
education. Some households have attended some adult literacy
level (5%).
Indications on land holding size reveal that the majority of
households cultivate within the range > 0.1 - 0.5 ha. (40%);
>0.5 - 1 ha (34%); 0-0.1 ha (23%); >1 - 5 ha (2%) and lastly
very few households cultivate above 5 ha (1%).
The
impression here would be that land pressure accrues of the
escalating population within the village.
PART 2 HOUSEHOLD USAGE OF SP BY DIFFERENT WEALTH
GROUPS.
The village has no wealthiest person but rather the other
Categories viz the poor (dominant with a 52% rating); the
wealthy/ier (32%) and finally the poorest representing a 4%
clocking. Of the poorest category 64% are fhh and 36% mhh.
The dominant Poor Category constitute 76% fhh and 24% mhh
while in the Wealth/ier Category only 28% are fhh as compared
to the majority mhh (72%). This is quite a true reflection of
the situation in this IGA influenced cluster as most mhh engage
Themselves in the Crafts/Sculpts business.
Regarding the Starter Pack distribution this season, it was
indicated that the majority of the recipients are the wealthy
category (58%). 24% represent the poor and only 18% of the
poorest category got the SP. Within the usage variable, the
wealthy used most (44%) whilst the poorest 30% and the least
users being the poor (26%). Use in this context refer to
planting of the seeds (Maize and Soya beans), application of
the fertilizer) for the wealthy/ire while the poor (26%) and
poorest (30%) mostly ate, gave away or sold the Starter Packs.
Of all the recipients this season, the majority who did not use
the SP are the poorest (60%) and mostly kept for use next
season as they received late due to administrative problems
that prevailed during distribution at Ulongwe EPA
Headquarters. The representation for the poor and wealthy
was little and equal (20% a piece). As a result of this scenario
the most households to realise SP benefits (mostly of high
production inducing food security and high income after sales)
sprout from the wealthy category (37%) seconded by the poor
(35%) and finally the poorest (28%).
PART 3 HOUSEHOLD WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO PAY FOR
STARTER PACK UNDER ZERO OR LOW SUBSIDY.
Despite other households not getting the SP this season, they
were very knowledgeable to indicate the composition of the
Pack as 2Kg Maize seed; 2Kg Soya seed; 5Kg Urea and 10Kg
23:21:0 fertilizers. However it was difficult for them to inform
the Market price of each SP. They were then informed that
each SP costs K450.
Most households are willing and able to pay, with the following
observations: an average of 54% wealthy group would pay for
the range K400 - K100; 39% the poor and only 7% the
poorest. However the situation changes when it comes to less
than K100 where the poorest top the categories with 64%
rating while the poor (16%) and the wealthy/ier 20%.
Engagement in the Public Work programme (work for Starter
Pack) gave a twist in that it is the poor category dominating to
work within the 4wk -2wk period at an average rating of 52%;
yet within the same periodical range, 33% for the poorest and
15% for the wealthy/ier group. However if it would be working
for a period below 1 week, the Poorest excel greatly in
representation with an average rating of 52% seconded by the
Poor (40%) and lastly the wealthy/ier (8%). This clearly
shows/indicates that the wealthy/ier do not favour the strategy
of working for Starter Pack.
PART 4 HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY
The Main Staple food crop is maize in the village. About 21
Crops are grown in this village viz by ranking; 1 - Maize; 2 G/nuts; 3 - Cassava; 4 - Pigeon Peas; 5 - Pumpkins; 6 Sorghum; 7 - Soya beans; 8 - Ground beans; 9 - Grams; 10 Velvet beans; 11 - Millet; 12 - European Potatoes; 13 - Sesame;
14 - Green Grams; 15 - Dimba crops; 16 - Sugarcanes; 17 Cotton; 18 - Tobacco; 19 - Sunflower; 20 - Chillies; 21 - Fruits.
Unlike in all other villages where the peak month for highest
food insecurity is February in all the e Seasons; Chitseko Village
experienced the most/highest insecurity in December (26%)
during the 1997/98 Cropping Season whilst for the other
seasons February remained the month for the highest food
shortage. During 1998/99 Season, hunger stroke most in
February (58%) indicating a shift from December in 1997/98:
this probably was due to high production as a result of SP
injection and this induced the households to have quite enough
reserves carrying them through December to February.
However the forecast for 2000 registered as better situation
(49%) than last year as evidently shown in the Process
documentation part of own production levels; where a higher
maize production 2000 is estimated.
In this Village, the copping mechanisms for the Insecure were
indicated as farm ganyu for cassava and other food crops;
selling of Crafts/Sculpts and selling of livestock.
Household indicated the following reasons for growing crops in
the village by ranking (Order of Importance): 1 - for Food; 2 for Money/Cash/Income; 3 - for Manure; 4 - as security crop
and finally 5 - for employment opportunities. The 21 Crops
were thus scored against each reason so as to find out the
actual reason for growing that particular crop as follows: (1) for
Food:- Maize (49%); Pumpkins (65%); Sorghum (78%);
Soyabeans (51%); Ground beans (72%); Grams (56%); Velvet
beans (51%); Millet (61%); European Potatoes (73%); Sesame
(86%); Green Grams (87%); Dimba Crops-vegetables (50%)
and sugarcanes (67%).
(2) For Money: Cotton (67%);
Tobacc0 (63%); G/nuts (37%); Sunflower (88%); Chillies
(89%) and Fruits 35%).
Observations therefore indicate that most crops are either
grown for food (majority) and money. However, an attempt
was further made to find out which crops must fit into the other
3 remaining reasons as follows: (3) For Manure: Velvet beans
(37%); (4) For acting as Security Crop(s): Cassava (19%) and
finally (5) For Employment opportunities: Cotton (3%);
Tobacco (28%).
In 1997/98 Cropping Season, the rainfall pattern mostly
favoured Cotton (51%), Tobacco (50%) and Sorghum (44%).
In 1998/99 however, Sweet potatoes and Pigeon Peas scored
highest production levels (40% a piece) due to the rainfall
pattern favouring the Crops. Maize and Cassava production
levels in the same cropping season were higher than 1997/98
Season (33% each). As for maize, the SP injection contributed
much to this high production level. The expectation for 2000
Cropping Season is that highest production levels shall exist in
Maize (47% mostly being attributed to SP injection) and
Cassava (46% due to favourable rainfalll pattern for the Crop).
The availability of Staple food both in markets and homesteads,
Income Trends, Employment and Demand for Labour hence
same situation as in NAUMA Village, although here there is no
Changalume Cement factory. Similarly, the Crop Production/
Seasonality Trends (Field Operations and Rainfall patterns by
months) in this Village equate those of all other villages
including NAUMA.
PART 5 INTERGRATION INTO CASH ECONOMY
Pertaining to the Poor Category, more Volumes of Sales in
Maize occurred during the 1998/99 Cropping Season (58%)
than in 1997/98 Season (only 17%) due to SP injection that
induced more production. The projection / forecast for 2000
however indicates less Sales (25%) than last year most
probably for fear of food insecurity by the households. As for
the groundnuts; more volumes of sales prevailed during the
1997/98 Season (35%) than in the rest of Seasons: 33% and
32% for 1998/99 and 1999/2000 respectively.
The Scenario amongst the wealthy/ier Category for both crops
is equally the same as in the poor Category. More Sales of
Maize existed in 1998/99 Cropping season (51%) than in the
other Seasons; 25% and 24% for 1997/98 Cropping Season
(44%) than in the rest of the other Seasons: 27% and 29% in
1998/99 and 1999/200 Seasons respectively.
PART 6 EFFECTS OF SP ON POVERTY REDUCTION
8.
As for NAUMA Village and all other villages piloted.
GROUPS COMPOSITION
GROUP NO.
Group A 1
Group A 2
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
GROUP MEMBERS
TYPE
OF
WORK
PARTICIPATED IN
31 Members (26mhh & 5fhh) Village Mapping.
- Drawing own the Ground
7 Members (5mhh & 2 fhh)
- Transfering on Flip Chart
5 members
(a) Wealthy Categorisation
(all MHH)
(b) Categorisaton by Gender
(c) Educational level of
Members.
(d) Willingness & Ability to Pay
(Rate & Labour)
10 Members
(a) Sex & Age of Vge members
(5mhh & 5 fhh)
(b) Land Holding sizes
(ci) Availability of food in the
markets/Homesteads (5);
Income
Trends
(6);
Employment and Labour
Demand.
(c ii) Valuing
the
Status/Importance of (ci) in
the village (Pairwise Rank).
14 Members
(a) Use of SP This season.
(13 mhh & 1 fhh)
(b) Reasons for growing selected
crops.
(c) All crops grown in the village
by Ranking.
(d) Levels of own production for
3 seasons.
13 Members
(a) Staple Food Availability
(9 mhh & 4 fhh)
(Months when runs out)
(b) Volumes of sales of Maize
and Gnuts for 3 seasons.
(c) Production Operations in
gardens and rainfall pattern
Seasonality Trends).
Totals
6 Groups
9.
80 Members
63 MHH; 17 FHH
CONCLUDING REMARKS
As explained or highlighted in NAUMA VILLAGE Report.
Msowoya Mc Newman Sahani
MIAWP CONSULTANCY
15th February, 2000
MZUZU - MALAWI