Determinants of Stock Theft and Its Implication on Household Dietary Diversity in Semiarid Regions of Zimbabwe: Case of Gwanda District

Stock theft is a major threat to livestock production in Africa and has been on the rise in recent years. Zimbabwe is no exception. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors that contribute to stock theft in rural areas. The study used a mixed research design. The study was limited to wards 20 and 24 of Gwanda district of Matabeleland South Province. The linear regression model was used to analyze the factors that affected stock theft in rural areas. The majority (57.1%) of the interviewed household heads were males and aged below 50 years (55.8%) with an average household size of 5 members. On average, each household owned 5 cattle, 2 sheep, 17 goats, 4 donkeys, and 5 chicken. The participants kept livestock mainly for income generation, source of school fees, draught power, meat, milk, manure, and eggs. The major causes of livestock loss apart from stock theft were drought, disease outbreaks, trapped in mine holes, and predators. All the respondents practiced livestock identification which includes branding, ear notching, and the use of ear tags. The most vulnerable livestock species to stock theft were goats, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and chicken. Stock theft mostly takes place before midday and on Mondays and Wednesdays. It is at its peak levels in January and November. Goats and donkeys were the main stolen livestock species. The stolen livestock is mostly sold to meat processors. The distance from the border, the use of livestock identification tags, the total number of livestock units owned by the household, and the day of the week were significant in influencing the intensity of stock theft ( $p<0.10$ ). Stock theft does not directly affect household dietary diversity ( $p>0.05$ ) because rural households do not use livestock for their nutritional benefit, particularly goats, sheep, and cattle. Thus, if dietary diversity is taken as a proxy for food security, it can be concluded that stock theft does not significantly affect the household’s food security status. Working in groups through neighborhood watch committees, livestock branding, tending livestock which reduces the time that the livestock roam freely unattended, and assisting the police with investigations whenever there is a case of stock theft were identified as important mitigation strategies. At the service provider level, it was suggested that the law enforcing needed to increase its efficiency to mitigate stock theft.