The Impact of HIV and AIDS The Impact of HIV and AIDS on ...

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>HIV</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>AIDS</strong>on Agriculture <strong>and</strong> FoodSecurity: Focus on householdvulnerabilityA Case study in Limpopo Province, South AfricaDefinition in context• Household vulnerability is the extent to which<strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> <strong>and</strong> other factors affect ahousehold’s s food security status, <strong>and</strong> thehousehold’s ability or inability to withst<strong>and</strong> theshock caused by these factorsP.Chaminuka, L.K. Debusho, F. Anim & S.NqangweniUniversity <strong>of</strong> Limpopo <strong>and</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Pretoria3/17/2008 2Background• One-third<strong>of</strong> the global population living with<strong>HIV</strong> is in sub-SaharanAfrica.• SA hosts about 5 million people living with<strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong>, at least 250,000000 die each year• About 35% <strong>of</strong> South Africa’s population isestimated to be vulnerable to food insecurity(de Klerk, et al., 2004).• Agriculture <strong>and</strong> related industries contributesabout 13% to GDP <strong>and</strong> provide livelihoods toabout 40% <strong>of</strong> population.<strong>The</strong> Problem• Lack <strong>of</strong> quantitative data on impacts, mostlydescriptive in nature <strong>and</strong> reliant on crosssectional analysis.• Existing data does not allow comparison withother states in the SADC region to facilitatecollective action at regional level.• Extent <strong>of</strong> impact not differentiated i d betweengroups <strong>of</strong> households

Research Objectives• Investigate the impacts <strong>of</strong> the p<strong>and</strong>emic onagricultural production <strong>and</strong> household foodsecurity.• Determine the vulnerability <strong>of</strong> households t<strong>of</strong>ood insecurity <strong>and</strong> estimate the extent towhich <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> affects the vulnerability <strong>of</strong>households.• Describemitigation <strong>and</strong> coping strategiesadopted by households

3/17/2008 6

STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY• Area- Capricorn District, Limpopo Province,South Africa.• Purposive selection <strong>of</strong> villages• Seven Villages,• Non affected- (100hhlds)• Affected (118hhlds)- Morbidity- Mortality- Hybrid• Stratification, 240 households• Surveys, Focussed Group Discussions• Descriptive statisticsttitiDATA ANALYSIS• Multiple linear regression• Multiple LOGIT• ANOVA• <strong>The</strong> Household vulnerability index (HVI) - todeterminetheextenttowhichdifferenthouseholds are vulnerable to food insecurity.HVI Computation• Variables from the survey data grouped intodifferent clusters corresponding to the impactareas <strong>of</strong> <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong>.• Four main dimensions <strong>of</strong> the livelihood assetsaffected are• Human capital• financial capital• social capita <strong>and</strong>• physical py capital56.054.052.050.0% hholds48.046.044.042.040.0Research FindingsAffected Non affected Total sampleCategoryMaleFemale3/17/2008 9

Findings continuedFindings: <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> <strong>and</strong> household income <strong>and</strong> expenditureKey indicators meanHousehold categoryNot Affected Illness DeathDependency ratio 0.44 0.45 0.45Hours lost per household0.34 6.24 7.13per dayPurchased Agricultural R194.94 R135.28 R106.85InputsLabour input intoagriculture8.55 hours 7.87 hours 7.30 hoursCultivated l<strong>and</strong> area 2004 1.433 ha 1.103 ha 1.060 haChange in l<strong>and</strong> under0.025 ha -0.173 ha -0.446 hacultivation 2003-20042004Maize produced in tonnes 0.487 0.410 0.362AverageIncome <strong>of</strong> thehousehold peradultNot AffectedHousehold categoryR311Mdi Medical expenditureR306per household/yrFood ExpenditureEducationexpenditureR4538R761IllnessR306R1114R4179R623DeathR245R2290R3955R440HOUSEHOLD VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS• <strong>The</strong> aggregated levels <strong>of</strong> vulnerability used in theanalysis are;• Coping Households (CHH) – a household in vulnerablesituation but still able to cope• Acute Level households (ALH) – a household that hasbeen hit so hard that it badly needs assistance to the degree<strong>of</strong> an acute health care unit in hospital. With some rapid-response type <strong>of</strong> assistance the family may be resuscitated.t • Emergency Level Households (ELH) – the equivalent <strong>of</strong>an intensive care situation – almost a point <strong>of</strong> no return –but could be resuscitated only with the best possibleexpertiseHousehold Vulnerability IndexHVI level HVI RangeSituation <strong>of</strong>Household Freq PercentVulnerability 00 0.0 – 33.3% 3% Coping63 28.9Level 1-CHouseholds(CHH)VulnerabilityLevel 2-A33.4 – 66.7% Acute Levelhouseholds (ALH)153 70.2Vulnerability66.8 –100% Emergency Level2 09 0.9Level 3-EHouseholds (ELH)Total 218 100.03/17/2008 133/17/2008 14

Reasons for high vulnerability• Social grants thinly spread• Low maize yields – dry area• High unemployment• Few livestock• Transitory <strong>and</strong> chronic household foodinsecurityCoping <strong>and</strong> Mitigation Strategies• Hiring <strong>of</strong> labour• Seeking remittances from non-residentmembers <strong>and</strong> relatives• Food parcels• Assistance from home based care groups• Seeking social grants• Selling cattle3/17/2008 15Why <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> within AHEAD?• Cross cutting issue-huge social & economicimplications• Labour impact- Livestock systems, L<strong>and</strong> usepossibilities, i Increased dependency d on naturalresources• Animal health expenditure second to human healthexpenditure• Look at diseases ses such as TB beyond thewildlife/livestock interface- Concept <strong>of</strong> ONEHEALTH3/17/2008 17