Makovere%20Drought%20mitigation%20strategies

International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy
2013; 1(4): 101-107
Published online December 10, 2013 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijepp)
doi: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20130104.19
Effectiveness of drought mitigation strategies in Bikita
District, Zimbabwe
Terence Darlington Mushore, Chipo Muzenda/Mudavanhu, Theresa Makovere
Geography Department, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe
Email address:
tdmushore@gmail.com (T. D. Mushore), chipomuzenda@gmail.com (C. Muzenda/Mudavanhu), tcmakovere@gmail.com (T. Makovere)
To cite this article:
Terence Darlington Mushore, Chipo Muzenda/Mudavanhu, Theresa Makovere. Effectiveness of Drought Mitigation Strategies in Bikita
District, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. Vol. 1, No. 4, 2013, pp. 101-107.
doi: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20130104.19
Abstract: Drought induced famine has been the worst disaster from which most rural people experience immense anguish.
It still remains a National Policy agenda and a problem in most developing countries like Zimbabwe. Due to climate change,
the impacts of droughts are expected to deepen where the capacity to adapt is low. Though it remains a challenge in
communities, local people have devised different coping mechanisms based on the resources that are locally available but the
effectiveness of these mechanisms are questionable. Therefore, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods this
paper aims at identifying the drought mitigation strategies used in the Ward 2 of Bikita District, assess the impacts of these
strategies and examine the challenges faced during attempts to implement them. Results indicated that in Ward 2 of Bikita
District, people are using drought mitigation strategies which include food aid, food for work, and sale of livestock,
remittances and irrigation scheme. It was also revealed that the most effective drought mitigation strategies were provision of
food aid and food for work whereas the least effective were remittances and irrigation. The study also revealed that 72% of
the community was not satisfied with the effectiveness of all the drought mitigation strategies being used. These strategies are
held back by challenges in the Ward which include poor service delivery by NGOs and Government departments in
mitigating droughts, poverty, corruption, lack of resources and unclear selection criterion of beneficiaries as well as lack of
markets thereby leading to inefficiency of the drought mitigation strategies. The study recommended the construction of more
dams and necessary infrastructure for irrigation, adoption of local knowledge into mitigation strategies, improving access to
agricultural inputs and enhanced provision of technical assistance to farmers in the area.
Keywords: Drought, Mitigation, Strategies, Adaptation, Vulnerability, Bikita, Irrigation
1. Introduction
Drought is one of the most common disasters which can
undermine livelihoods and well-being despite the use of
various mitigation strategies (Mogotsi et al, (2012). It is a
creeping phenomenon whose effects accumulate over time
before they are felt and lingering on long after the actual
event while problems associated with it can have economic,
environmental and social impacts. They can cause decline in
crop yields resulting in reduction in income for farmers
which will cause increase in market prices of products
(Dercon et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to ensure that
measures are in place to minimize impacts of drought on
human beings and their livelihoods although the strategies
also have limitations.
An effective drought mitigation and preparedness plan is
based on established policies and institutional capacity.
Drought impacts and losses can be substantially reduced if
authorities, individuals and communities are well prepared,
ready to act and equipped with knowledge for effective
drought management. Therefore, the goal of mitigation and
preparedness is to reduce impacts of drought, reduce
vulnerability and foster drought resilient societies (Ncube,
2010). According to Buckland et al., (2000), within the
agricultural sector drought is arguably the most important
climatic challenge and has major impacts on rural
livelihoods. In most rural areas in Zimbabwe rain-fed
agriculture is the basis of livelihoods such that fluctuations
in annual rainfall cause corresponding variations in viability
of agriculture. About 70% of the Zimbabwe`s population
lives in rural areas and derive their livelihoods from
subsistence agriculture and other rural activities (Buckland,
et al., 2000).
In Zimbabwe food security was at a critical level,

102 Terence Darlington Mushore et al.: Effectiveness of Drought Mitigation Strategies in Bikita District, Zimbabwe
primarily due to the lack of food, as the country passed
through the peak of the hunger season prior to the new
harvest experienced in April 2008. However, the biggest
challenge to farming and food security in Zimbabwe today is
not funding, not skills shortage but climate change and
global warming (FAO., 2008). In February, the rains tapered
off causing extreme dry weather conditions in several
provinces of the country (Ministry of Agriculture., 2008).
There was a long dry spell which seriously damaged the
crops and yields for the main season crops. The worst
affected provinces included Masvingo, Manicaland,
Mashonaland East and Matabeleland South (FAO., 2008).
Changing climate and weather systems pose a serious threat
to agriculture, as they have disrupted rains, caused droughts
and resulted in higher average temperatures. Efforts should
be made to effectively minimize the impacts droughts in
view of climatic trends which point towards more frequent
droughts in Southern Africa.
World Development Report (2010) revealed that the
impacts of a changing climate are already being felt, with
more droughts, floods, strong winds and heat waves and it
will increasingly pose challenges to development.
Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change;
higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable
crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation.
Although there will be gains in some crops in some other
regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change
on agriculture are expected to be negative threatening global
food security. In Bikita district, subsistence farmers are
producing less on their fields as the years are progressing; as
a result there is a food shortage and effects of drought are
worsening with time. Rainfall is erratic, poorly distributed
and falls predominantly for only a few months each year
resulting in livelihood insecurity since water scarcity and
food security are interrelated problems. The mitigation
strategies are used by the households but the effects of
drought are increasing demanding for continuous
assessment and improvement of these coping mechanisms.
There are also challenges associated with the
implementation of the strategies and these should be
identified and combated for to increase the effectiveness of
the strategies. Therefore the study seeks to assess the
mitigation strategies in order to reduce the impacts and
challenges faced by households in mitigating droughts in
Ward 2 of the Bikita District.
2. The Bikita District
The Bikita district is found in the Masvingo Province of
Zimbabwe (Figure 1a) it is located about 80km East of
Masvingo town.
Figure 1. Map of Zimbabwe showing Bikita (a) and Map of Ward 2 of Bikita (b)
Table 1. The tools applied during the research
Method Description of use Stakeholders involved
Questionnaire 29 members participated Heads of households
Interview 7 interviews were held
Key informants: Ward Councillors, Headman and representatives of NGOs (CARE
International and Batanai HIV and AIDS Services Organization [BASO]).
Observation
Guided visual observations done by
the researcher
Done as the researcher moved around and interacted with stakeholders.
Focus Group Discussions 4 FDGs with 10 members per group. Households heads

International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy 2013; 1(4): 101-107 103
The area is mountainous characterized by steep slopes
with sandy-loamy soils. It is subject to seasonal droughts
(Unganai, 1996) and was particularly hard hit by 1992,
1994, 2002, 2004 and 2008 droughts. It covers an area of
approximately 10,000 km², and has a population of around
200,000 people. 81% of the district is classified as
belonging to the natural regions (4 and 5) with mean annual
rainfall ranging from 400mm to 700mm. Agriculture is the
major livelihood activity in the area with maize being the
dominant crop grown (Matthew, 2003). The Figure 1b is
showing study sites which include 5 villages namely
Maziva, Ninga, Mashavira, Maparo and Zengeya in Ward 2
of Bikita District. The researchers used a sample size of 30
households which was selcted from 250 households at a
represantative of 12% of the total population.
3. Methodology
A case study design was used because the research
focused at a single entity or case which is the Ward 2 of
Bikita District. The main tool used was the questionnaire
although other tools were also employed which included the
interviews, observational guides and focus group
discussions. Major enquiries done were about
• Experiences of drought in the area
• Causes of vulnerability to drought
• The mitigation strategies used in the area
• The extent to which the communities are benefiting
from the mitigation strategies
• The challenges encountered in mitigating droughts in
the area and
• Possible solutions to the challenges.
4. Results
4.1. Household Drought Mitigation Strategies
The most common drought mitigation strategy was food
aid which was acknowledged by all the 30 households
sampled and the least common was irrigation acknowledged
only by 4 of the 30 sampled households (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Household drought mitigation strategies
The other strategies included food for work, drought
resistant crops, sale of livestock, conservation farming and
remittances. The food aid is received from the Government
and Care International only. Among drought mitigation
strategies in Kenya food aid was also found to be the most
common as indicated by Nyamangwe (1995). At an
interview, organizations confirmed that they distribute food
aid to ward 2 every year. An interviewee outlined that food
aid given by organizations has been helping the households
for a long time.
As illustrated in Figure 2 food for work was another
strategy used by households with a frequency of 22, also the
interviews revealed that food for work by NGOs is
important since there is a gradual shift from free handouts to
food for work. This was strongly backed by, Sweet (1998)
whose research findings revealed that NGOs and the
Government assisted in food for work projects in Namibia.
Some households responded that they employ drought
resistant crops like sorghum, millet and rapoko. As also
obtained by the research findings of Bhavnani et al (2008)
the impacts of droughts were reduced by Ministry of
Agriculture through introduction of drought resistant crops.
Although access to the seeds is still very limited to the
majority of the households and they rely heavily on maize
production.
The responses from households as illustrated in Figure 2
showed that selling of livestock is one of the strategies
employed by the communities. During droughts times the
effects are seen through livestock death. Therefore the
households are forced to sale their livestock at a lower price
and barter trade one cattle with a bag of maize which is not
profitable.
In Figure 2, about 7 households indicated reliance on
remittances from relatives to keep food on the table and to
meet their daily needs during droughts. The remittances are
in the form of money, food and groceries. The remittances
were sent by either relatives or family members who work in
other areas in town or nearby growth points; Nyika and
Jerera.
Irrigation schemes are not very common as few
households benefited from (Figure 2). The locals generally
do not directly benefit from the irrigation scheme that
explains the least number of household using this strategy.
There is need to consider that farmers benefit from
irrigation.
4.2. Food Crops
Fifty four percent major of the respondents claimed the
popularity of cultivation of maize above any other crops
although drought resistant crops survive under harsh
conditions more than maize (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Food crops grown in Ward 2 of Bikita District
Sorghum is the most dominant drought resistant crop
grown in the ward which was cited by 26%. Sorghum is an
important drought tolerant food grain in Zimbabwe and is
mainly cultivated by Natural regions 4 and 5 which
experienced harsh climatic conditions (Kaseke, 1996).
According to Kaseke (1996), the majority of farmers were
growing maize on large hectarage while small grains such as
millet, rapoko and sorghum were given small hectarage.
Millet and rapoko were not that common due to lack of
access to seeds. This is true in Bikita District as most of the
households still cultivate maize in marginal areas rather than
drought resistant crops like sorghum, rapoko and millet.
4.3. Sources of Food
Own production is the most common source of food
(Figure 4) because in rural areas majority of the
households still depend on rain fed agriculture as their
basis of livelihood although there are recurrent droughts.
The households produce their own food through subsistence
farming and maize being the dominant crop which is
threatened by erratic rainfall in these southern parts of
Zimbabwe resulting in low agricultural yields.
Figure 4. Sources of food in Ward 2 of Bikita District
Some farmers sell their produce and use the money to buy
other food stuffs from the market as illustrated in Figure 4
that 15 households indicated that they acquire food from the
market. As a drought strikes about 18 households acquire
food from drought relief programs which include food aid
and food for work programs. The households receive food
aid and also benefit from food for work programs from the
Government and NGOs such as SAT, BASO and Care.
Casual labour is another strategy which helps people to have
access to food through income generated from the labour.
The households work in other people`s field and get food or
money in return in what they called “Nhimbe”
4.4. Impact of Drought Mitigation
Strategies
The impact of drought mitigation strategies was assessed
basing on the availability of the food in different households.
Figure 5 shows that food aid and food for work were cited as
the most effective of the strategies in place.
Figure 5. Perceived impacts of drought mitigation strategies in Ward 2
Food aid was very a popular drought mitigation strategy
since the majority of the households receive food hand-outs
during drought times when there are food shortages. Munro
(2006) concurred that most vulnerable households have
benefitted from food aid in Zimbabwe and this program has
run for years since the 1991/92 drought. It reduces the extent
of hunger and starvation although some of the households
stated that they face challenges in accessing the aid.
Food for work was also labeled by participants as
effective in the ward as people do gully reclamation and
self-help projects to receive food from organizations in
return. One of the organizations confirmed in an interview
that households are working very well and the program is
progressing. The households would work in projects while
increasing food availability and reducing drought impacts.
Some of the respondents argued that the program sometimes
benefits the most vocal people in the ward leaving out the
vulnerable groups.
Drought resistant crops are deemed less effective, since
access to the crops is still very limited among households
and the crops are mainly for beer brewing in the community.
Therefore, drought resistant crops are popular for other uses
than providing feed for the households. However, there are
some households who are benefitting since the crops act as
security during drought times (Figure 5).

Selling of livestock is not an effective mitigation strategy
in Ward 2 of Bikita District because it is not profitable
during drought times. Drought affect farmers through
livestock death since the distances to water sources increases
for the animal and the animal feed (pastures) will be
withered. The poor and most vulnerable do have no cattle or
herds that are too small to allow them to destock.
Most of the households are not benefiting from irrigation
because only a few have access to land or plots in the
irrigation scheme. The scheme has managed to help only the
Maziva village (Figure 1) where some are failing to fully
utilize the plots due to lack of inputs and farming techniques.
Conservation farming was also viewed by the respondents
as not effective in mitigating drought. In the ward there are
organizations who participate actively in conservation
farming of which the programs take a long period of time
and require a lot of labour. A similar finding was obtained by
Roncoli (2001), that labour constraints hindered soil and
water conservation implementation by NGOs in Burkina
Faso.
4.5. Impact of Drought Mitigation Strategies on
Households
The households who were claimed that they were not
benefiting from drought mitigation programs constituted
72% of the respondents. The majority of the households
pointed out that the drought mitigation strategies were
generally not effective in reducing food shortages and
hunger. Recurrent droughts exacerbate the rural poverty
since NGOs and the Government provides food handouts
which are effective only during drought times while leading
to dependency syndrome among households. Most of the
food for work programs is not sustainable due to lack of
integration and cooperation among stakeholders and the
households. There is lack of creativity and willingness to
work in projects so this will result in inefficiency of the
programs.
The bulk of the households argued that the drought
mitigation strategies especially coordinated by NGOs has
created conflicts and hatred among the community
especially on selection criterion. This has resulted in social
exclusion especially of the poor of the poorest. Although,
some households about 28% of the respondents argued
during a FGD that the drought mitigation strategies were
effective especially food aid because they receive free food
handouts. Despite the fact that most of them create
dependency syndrome and they are effective in the short run
while in the long run hunger and starvation will persist.
4.6. Challenges Faced in Drought Mitigation
The households are facing quite a number of setbacks
(Figure 6) in trying to reduce the impacts of drought and
these have contributed to the ineffectiveness of drought
mitigation strategies. Responses from questionnaires,
interviews and focused group discussions pointed out that
poverty, selection criterion, ineffective institutions, and
increased frequency of droughts and remoteness of the area
were the major challenges faced in trying to mitigate the
impacts of droughts.
Figure 6. Challenges faced in mitigating drought in Ward 2
Households emphasized increasing frequency of drought
as a clear and major challenge. The concern is growing that
drought might become more frequent in the region as a
result of global warming (UNFCC, 1998). Masvingo
Province was affected by poor rainfall amounts as well as
distribution especially in the most recent seasons (Ministry
of Agriculture Zimbabwe, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012;
Mushore, 2013).
For the majority of the population, absolute lack of assets
and means of livelihood and precarious economies with low
coping or adaptive capacity present key factors that enhance
vulnerability to impacts of drought. Poverty is the major
problem which is exacerbated by drought effects as
indicated by Maphosa (1994). The respondents mentioned
that due to lack of capital they do not have access to inputs
such as fertilizer, seeds and farming equipments.
During a FDG the households revealed that there are no
markets for their produce especially vegetables and drought
resistant crops such as millet and rapoko so the majority
cultivated maize for food production. A similar finding was
found by Chazovachii et al., (2010), there is no market for
drought resistant crops and people are only relying on the
local market. They said the ears of millet, rapoko and
sorghum plants might not ripen at the same time thus they
may have to be more than one harvest; hence, the majority of
villagers opted for maize.
The geographic location and remoteness of the ward
makes it more vulnerable to droughts since the area is in
Region 4 and 5 and is isolated from market centers as
Growth Points. The poor road networks and communication
networks makes the area inaccessible as the roads are very
poor such that the donors and investors shun away this ward.
This isolation due to a lack of infrastructure may limit
choices and coping strategies during times of stress and
drought.
There is lack of integration and coordination among
Government departments, NGOs and other institutions in
disaster management. Institutions face a number of

challenges which include political interferences, lack of
resources and lack of coordination in drought management.
At a FGD the respondents stated that only a few benefit from
programs since there is political interference thus the most
vocal benefit more than the poor of the poorest.
The households were benefitting from institutions to a
lesser extent since most of the assistance is helpful in the
short run just after drought but in the long run there are
persistent food shortages. Respondents also cited that
selection of beneficial to be incorporated in drought
mitigation strategies is usually done by the most vocal
persons and political elites. Consequently, corruption and
favoritism make only a few to benefit from the programs
done by agencies. The vulnerable households usually suffer
the most if they are not included in the program.
Recommendations
It is recommended that more dams and reservoirs should
be constructed in Ward 2 for irrigation purposes and the
community should fully utilize the existing irrigation
infrastructure. Civil Society should involve the local
traditional drought mitigation knowledge and practices as
this could provide the basis for development of more
effective strategies. Farmers should be provided with
technical assistance and other farming technologies to
improve agricultural yields by such organizations as
AGRITEX amongst others. The farmers should have access
to drought resistant crops since they sustain in drought prone
areas than maize. They should be encouraged to cultivate
small grains such as rapoko and millet and market for these
should be established as a trigger for production. Off-farm
income or income diversification should be promoted by the
organizations to avoid the risk associated with relying on
farming alone.
6. Conclusions
In the study households employed a number of drought
mitigation strategies and they heavily rely on drought relief
from NGOs and Government. Such drought response
measures often result in immediate effects on people`s lives
and livelihoods in the short term especially drought relief.
However, these efforts are also creating dependencies and
other new vulnerabilities and may not reduce the underlying
vulnerabilities. Although it is an important safety net
(drought relief) as shown in the study, and often politically
appealing it should not be the primary focus on drought risk
reduction.
The drought mitigation strategies have not been fully
effective in Ward 2 of Bikita. The majority of the households
argued that they are not benefitting from the strategies and
there are persistent food shortages. The study revealed that
food availability most of the strategies are not sustainable as
they are short term and vulnerability remains high after
them.
A number of challenges which include poverty, increased
drought frequency and selection criterion for beneficiary of
relief programs have contributed greatly to the perceived
ineffectiveness of drought mitigation strategies in Ward 2 of
Bikita District. The challenges have reduced the capacity of
the households to reduce the drought impacts and acquire
food surplus. The study recommended strategies which
capacitate the community and are sustainable.
References
[1] Bhavnani, R., Vordzoghe, S., Owur, M., & Bousquet, F.
(2008). Report on the status of disasters and Risk reduction
in the Sub Saharan African Region.
[2] Buckland, R., Eele, G., & Mugwara, R. (2000).
Humanitarian Crisis and natural disasters, A SADC
perspective, Food and Humanitarian security. Frank Cass
Production. London.
[3] Chazovachii, B., Chigwenyu, A., & Mushuku, A. (2010).
Adaptation of Climate Resilient Rural Livelihoods Through
Growing of Small Grains in Munyardzi Communal Area.
Gutu District. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8,
1335-1345.
[4] Dercon, S., Haddinolt, J., & Woldehanna, T. (2005). Shocks
and Consumption in Ethopia. Journal of African Economies,
14(4 ), 559-585.
[5] FAO. (2008). Zimbabwe 2008/07 Agricultural Season
Update.
[6] Kaseke, E. (1996). Social Security Systems in Rural
Zimbabwe. Weaver press, Harare.
[7] Maphosa, B., (1994). . (1994). Lessons From the 1992.
Drought in Zimbabwe: The Quest for Alternative Food
Policies Nodic Journal of Africa Studies, 3(1), 53-58.
[8] Matthew, B. (2003). The Ownership and Management of
Production. Water point Gardens in a time of Drought,
Zimbabwe. International Symposium on Water, Poverty and
Productive uses of Water at the Household Level, 140-154.
[9] Ministry of Agriculture Zimbabwe. (2008). Second Round
Crop and Livestock Assement Report.
[10] Ministry of Agriculture Zimbabwe. (2009). First Round
Crop and Livestock Assessment Report.
[13] Ministry of Agriculture. (2008). Second Round Crop and
Livestock Assessment Report. Harare.
[14] Mogotsi, K., Nyangito, M. M., & Nyariki, D. M. (2012).
The Role of Drought among Agro-Pastoral Communities in
Semi-Arid Environment. The Case of Botswana. Journal of
Arid Environments, 91, 38-44.
[15] Munro, L. T., (2006). . (2006). Zimbabwe’s Drought Relief
Program in the 1990s. A re-Assessment using the National
Household Survey Data. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 14(3), 125-141.

[16] Mushore, T. D. (2013). Climatic Changes, Erratic Rains and
the Necessity of Constructing Water Infrastructure: Post
2000 Land Reform in Zimbabwe. International Journal Of
Scientific & Technology Research 2(8).
[17] Ncube, S. P. (2010). Reservoir Operation under Different
Climate Scenarios: Case of Roswa Dam, Bikita District
University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare.
[18] Nyamangwe, N. (1995). Famine Mitigation in Kenya: Same
practices, impact lessons. Journal of The Middle State
Geographer, 28, 37-44.
[19] Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., & Kirshen, P. (2001). The Costs
and Risks of Coping with Drought Livelihood Impacts and
Farmers Responses in Burkina Faso. Climate Research,
Volume, 19(119-132).
[20] Sweet, J. (1998). Livestock coping with drought: Namibia a
case study. Nerma Livestock Development Project, Tsuneb.
[21] UNFCC. (1998). Expected Impacts of Climate Change
Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments in Zimbabwe.
[22] Unganai, L. S. (1996). Historic and future climatic change
in Zimbabwe. Climate Research, 6, 37-145.
[23] World Development Report. (2010). Vulnerability
Preparedness and Mitigation. Natural and Anthropogenic
Disasters. Springer, New Delhi.

Makovere%20Drought%20mitigation%20strategies

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Makovere%20Drought%20mitigation%20strategies (20)

Makovere%20Drought%20mitigation%20strategies