Risk management and coping strategies

Ellis (2000) point to that risk management and copying strategies are two ways used to encounter vulnerability. The former is said to have the managing strategy prior to the expected risk or disaster and the latter is on how to deal with the risk or disaster incidence after it has occurred.

7.2.2.1. Risk management

The diversification within and outside on-farm activities is among risk management strategies applied by smallholder farmers. Farmers argue that land and water shortages subjected them to engage in other on-farm productions which do not acquire great amount of water to buffer the unstable weather conditions and secure food availability. A good example is how own land is distributed and how one grows a variety of crops in the individual households, say paddy, maize, sugarcane and cassava grown in the same cultivation seasons in either the same or different lands in order to cope with the embedded risks of the agricultural sector.

It has been observed that part of the harvested crops especially rice and maize are stored (20%-30%) and part are sold depending on the size of the household. This can be linked to a

119

conscious risk management strategy by the households. At Mkula village rice production is indicated as major crop to store values in order to sustain expected risks. At Msolwa A villages most households strengthen sugarcane production because is the accessible strategy to deal with expected risks, to generate cash which can be saved “for a rainy day”.

Households’ wealth groups have different strategies for managing risks. Low income families rely on human and social capital rather than other type of capitals. They can work a lot to manage savings which can serve as security for the expected risks. Cash and savings can be substituted to other forms of capital over which households have a control. Higher income families rely on financial capital to deal with expected risks. For example higher income families can replace a sick person by hiring wage labor.

In types of agriculture different risk management strategies are practiced. Rain-fed agricultural households tend to grow various crops on the same or different land with a major focus on resilient crops such as cassava. This is done is order to improve food security.

In improved and traditional irrigation farms rice is cultivated more than once in a year. This can also be linked to kind of risk management strategy. Smallholder farmers cultivate other crops, say maize and sugarcane in order to manage expected catastrophes. However, not all time risk management strategy work out, it can sometimes backfire. If the risk management strategy fails then the alternative can be a coping strategy.

7.2.2.2. Coping strategies

Coping strategy can be linked to short-term reactions against unexpected shocks in the livelihood activity and outcomes. Successful coping imply less vulnerability and vice versa. In the villages individuals are surrendering assets in order to cope with the prevailing situations. Households are selling or renting out properties (land, bicycles, poultry and others) in order to solve or minimize some crisis.

Others migrated away for some times and returned after recovery. In the villages around 20% of households migrated away for various reasons including sickness, drought, land scarcity and others. The situation was unbearable to them and forced to leave the village.

Common crisis/shocks found in the study villages include weather variations, price fluctuations, pest/herb/insect effects, water shortages, restriction of human activities in the forests. Different groups have different strategies for copying these crises.

120

By locations, the coping mechanisms are more or less the same, thus, weather variation at Msolwa A village is coped through growing range of crops (maize, cassava, sweet potatoes) which a resilience to drought in order to avoid serious crop failures. The same is applied at Mkula village. Price fluctuation is coped by storing the produce until the price stabilizes, but not all households can afford this. Some families become prone to the situation and are forced to engage in rural trade (food vendor, opening kiosk) or they turn to wage labor. Pest, insects and weed effects are coped by consulting the available experts seeking advice on which measures can be used to solve the problems. Special pesticides, insecticide and herbicides found in the study area used by farmers include “Thiodan, Round up, Kungfu, Caret, Dazban,

Kilomo Kwanza and others”.

Water shortage is affecting irrigation activities. The shock could be met by strengthening water allocation arrangements into optimal water utilization to all scheme members. Obtaining local environmental resources (fuel-wood, poles, fodders and others) is also still a pending issue to most families in both villages. People are still in shock about the restriction on forest an access was to use available trees around residential areas and other accessible material that can be used to make a fire or other activities.

Looking at households’ wealth groups, the weather variation seems to hit hard into the lower income group more than other groups. The situation can be linked to lower economic capacity to cope and this subjects low income families to engage in wage labor, rental activities and rural trade. Higher income families own more assets which can be used to substitute and diversify range of activities.

Price fluctuation by the households’ wealth group again impact at large extent the low income families. This is because of low savings to sustain until the price is stabilized as the higher income families do.

Pest, insect and weed effects are treated almost the same as they do in two locations. The existing difference is about the financial capabilities of the households. Others are benefiting from government subsidy but others remain vulnerable. About local environmental resources, low income families are potential victims of the arrangements. Higher income families have other alternatives following their financial positions compared to low income families.

121