Global Environmental Change and AIDS: Assessing Effectiveness of Food Security Interventions to Multiple Stresses in Zimbabwe

Introduction Global environmental change in Zimbabwe is intertwined with a challenging political environment, excessive economic decline, the depletion of scarce skills, and a generalized AIDS epidemic. Against this background, a development initiative known as the Protracted Relief Programme (PRP), led by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) working with nongovermental organizations (NGOs) and supported by the Department for International Development (DFID), sought to build on and support existing livelihoods. This response was in contrast to the dominant form of external intervention—the distribution of food aid and the development of farming input schemes. The PRP targeted poor households by boosting their food production through promoting community gardens, conservation agriculture, seed multiplication, improving access to water, and providing care to the chronically ill. The purpose of the study was twofold: to understand the interaction of multiple stresses, in particular global environmental change and HIV, as well as to assess the role of interventions in contributing to household food security and mitigating the impacts of the AIDS epidemic. Taking place in 2006 and 2007 across three districts, namely Chivi, Tsholotsho and Uzumba-Maramba-Pfungwe, a total of 60 households were chosen per study site from AIDS-affected households. These sites were selected in consultation with the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee and the FAO Agricultural Coordination Working Group using the sampling criteria of frequency of food insecurity, high prevalence of HIV, diversity of interventions and NGO representation, and different agro-ecological zones. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was used including key informant interviews, focus group discussions with key members of each village, transect walks, community mapping followed by an in-depth survey of the 180 households. Follow up discussions and feedback sessions were facilitated in all three sites.