South Kordofan Interagency Rapid Food Security Assessment Presentation of findings

Structure of the presentation 1.Assessment process 2.General findings 3.Who and how many are food insecure (and secure)? 4.Where are the food insecure? 5.Response options and recommendations

Sampling and methodology Assessing food security of flood affected communities in South Kordofan Flood impact: 34 communities (176, 881 persons) –Sampling universe reduced to 21 communities (84,761 persons) due to insecurity Two stage random sampling (15 clusters and 20 households per cluster) Total sample 300 households Household and community questionnaires plus focus group discussions

Assessment process Questionnaire design in Khartoum Training of team leaders and enumerators in Kadugli Two field teams Two weeks of field work between 5 – 16 March Data entry in Kadugli Data analysis in Khartoum (quantitative and qualitative) Presentation of findings in Kadugli and Khartoum

Participating Agencies and Authorities WFP HAC-SRRC FAO Norwegian Refugee Council Save the Children US Care International State Ministry of Agriculture SAAR State Ministry of Health RRR

Market findings

Prices and terms of trade Average cereal prices –Cereal prices rose by 76% for sorghum and 47% for millet compared last year Average livestock prices –Livestock prices dropped by 31% for cattle and 37% for sheep and goats compared to last year Terms of Trade –Terms of trade for pastoralists and wage laborers has declined substantially since last year

Findings in the general population

Basic demographics Mean Number of household members7.3 Number of dependents in household3.60 Number of independents in household3.72 Dependency ratio (higher number implies less proportion of productive household members) 1.26

Resident groups Most households are residents Very few internally displaced persons and nomads sampled

Sex of household head Almost one third of households are headed by women

Source of income Half of households have only one source of cash income

Land ownership Access to land is very high

Cereal production Average cereal production dropped by almost 50 percent Cereal is sorghum, millet and maize Y axis measurement is kg/household member

Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) 1.25 donkeys 1.25 cattle 1 horse 1 camel == 10 sheep 10 goats == 1 TLU = =

Livestock ownership Most households own no or little livestock Mean tropical livestock unit: 1.51 Thresholds: 1) No or little: TLU 2) Medium: TLU 3) Large: 2.5 TLU -

Access to credit A majority of households have no access to credit

Use of credit Buying food is by far the most common use of credit

Remittances About one out of five households receive remittances

Food shortage and coping Eating less quantities and getting food on credit are the most common coping strategies

Short-term priorities Food aid is the highest priority for most households, in the short run Cash assistance is the second highest

Long-term priorities Agricultural inputs is the most common priority, in the long run Health services and cash assistance comes next

Food security

Key concepts Food security Food security = Food consumption + Food access Food consumption Seven day food consumption Food access Absolute food expenditure Relative food expenditure Cereal production

Food consumption Majority of households have acceptable food consumption Thresholds: 1) (sorghum daily, pulses twice a week, vegetables once) 2) ) 35 -

Absolute food expenditure Mean absolute food expenditure per capita: 6.7 SDG Half of households have acceptable absolute expenditure on food Thresholds: 1) 0 – 2 SDG ( median of the two bottom quintiles) 2) 2 – 4.6 SDG (median of the distribution) 3) 4.6 -

Relative food expenditure Mean relative food expenditure: 55% Almost a third of households spend more than half of their income on food Thresholds: 1) 0% - 50% 2) 50% - 65% 3) 65% -

Cereal production Mean cereal production per capita: 38 kg/person The vast majority of households produce less than half of their requirement Thresholds: 1) 0 – 73 kg/person 2) kg/person 3) 146 kg/person -

Food security Severely food insecure: 34,022 persons Moderately food insecure: 44,490 persons Food secure: 17,665 persons

Who are the food insecure?

Sex of household head Food insecurity strongly associated with sex of household head Members of women headed households are vulnerable

Cereal production Dramatic harvest decline Decline in harvest hitting severely and moderately food insecure disproportionately

Livestock ownership Food insecure households tend to hold less livestock

Food source Food insecure households rely more on own production and less on the market for food.

Food shortage and coping Severely food insecure households experience more food shortage About 60% of severely food insecure households eat less than normal (or less preferred food)

Where are the food insecure? Zoning: highlands and lowlands

Food security More severely food insecure live in the highlands More food secure live in the lowlands

Sex of household head More female headed households live in the highlands

Main income source – past 6 months Non agricultural labour is dominant in the lowlands Sale of firewood, charcoal and grass is important in both areas Livestock sale is important for the highlands Remittances are more important in the highlands

Cultivation More households did not cultivate in the lowlands

Cereal production Both areas produced less in 2007 compared to 2006 Highlands produced less than lowlands in both agricultural seasons

Livestock ownership Households in the highlands in average tend to own more livestock than households on the lowlands

Food source Household in the highlands rely more on own production and from other sources Household in the lowlands tend to rely mainly on the market Lowlands’ economies tend to be more cash- based

Assets Households in the lowlands tend to have in average more assets

Access to credit Household in the highlands have less opportunities to access credit

Short-term priorities Food aid for both areas nut higher for highlands Cash assistance requested especially in the lowlands

Long-term priorities Agricultural inputs felt as important Drinking water in the highlands

Food aid Households in the highlands tend to be recipient of food aid

Response options and recommendations

Points to consider Reduced food production Food access problem at household level Lean season is about to start Market accessibility (areas cut-off) Unsustainable sources of income (charcoal production) Zones (highlands and lowlands)

Points to consider (continued) Chronic food insecurity Very low production, few assets, few animals, poor or borderline food consumption, reliance or casual labour and other sources of income and food (sustainability issue) Transitory food insecurity Reduction in cereal production compensated by alternative sources of income and food (resilience/sustainability)

Conclusions About 29,300 people (35% of sampled population) are severely food insecure: produce insufficient food, own little livestock and assets, they are currently reducing their food quantities consumed, rely on migration and casual labour coupled with collection of wild products Female headed households tend to be more vulnerable to food insecurity

Conclusions (continued) Highlands tend to be more vulnerable to food insecurity due to chronic and transitory factors About 18,000 people (42% of highlands sampled population) are severely food insecure and 19,700 (46%) are moderately food insecure

Conclusions (continued) Lowlands suffered the impact of the shock on cereal production but economic opportunities mitigated the adverse effects (resilience/sustainability) About 11,300 people are severely food insecure (27% of the sampled population in the lowlands) while 19,700 (47%) are moderately food insecure.

Food for work / assets / recovery StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Supports livelihoods (assets creation, rehabilitation) Self- targeting Not feasible during the agricultural season and harvest Implemented in the dry season Aimed at improving roads Potential to support traditional collective work systems Migration during dry season

Cash for work StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Supports livelihoods (assets creation, rehabilitation) Works well cash based and market integrated economy Not feasible during the agricultural season and harvest Lack of market integration, high prices Implemented in the dry season Aimed at improving roads Migration during dry season High food prices Lack of cash transfer network/ institutions

Training on skills, income generation activities StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Increase income generation opportunitie s Time for implementat ion and need for skilled staff Build on local skills Cash /market based economy Lack of partners Weak project design / targeting

General food distribution StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Life saving in areas cut off from markets Not suitable in market integrated areas Logistics constraints Quick response to food gap during the lean season Dependenc y (free hand-out) Poor targeting

Cash / vouchers distribution StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Works well in areas where markets are integrated Flexible for household Not suitable in areas cut-off from markets or not integrated Supports cash and market based economy Attracts traders Lack of adequate cash transfer system or retailers Dependency (free hand- out) Poor targeting High prices

Other livelihoods interventions Seeds, tools Livestock services Water points Rural credit schemes

Recommendations One-off general food distribution in areas with high food insecurity and likely to be isolated from markets (generally highlands) Food vouchers in areas where markets are accessible all year and with relatively stable prices (generally lowlands) Livelihood interventions to support cultivation (seeds and tools) Plan rural assets/infrastructure creation/rehabilitation (dry season) Skills/income generation training for rural areas

South Kordofan Interagency Rapid Food Security Assessment Fabrizio Andreuzzi Anders Petersson Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Unit World Food Programme Khartoum Sudan