south sudan annual needs and livelihoods assessment 2009/2010
TRANSCRIPT
South Sudan Annual Needs and Livelihoods Assessment 2009/2010
Northern Bahr el Ghazal State Report
A collaborative assessment by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MOAF),
World Food Programme (WFP),
World Vision International (WVI)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC),
South Sudan Commission for Census, Statistics and Evaluation (SSCCSE)
World food Programme Ministry of Agriculture
Rehabilitation and
Forestry
Food & Agriculture
Organization
South Sudan Commission
for Census, Statistics and
Evaluation
South Sudan Relief &
Rehabilitation
Commission
February 2010
2
Note on Geographical References
Northern Bahr el Ghazal denotes one of the ten states administered by the Government of the Southern
Sudan. The administrative units and their names shown on this map do not imply acceptance or
recognition by the Government of Southern Sudan nor United Nations and its partners.
This map aims only to support the work of the Humanitarian Community.
Source for the Boundaries: National and State boundaries based on Russian Sudan Map Series, 1:200k,
1970-ties. County Boundaries digitized based on Statistical Yearbook 2009, Southern Sudan Commission
for Census, Statistics and Evaluation - SSCCSE. Digitized by IMU OCHA Southern Sudan
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With gratitude, WFP acknowledges the support of all the state ministries, NGOs, UN agencies, local
authorities and individuals who participated in planning, conducting and providing information that
formed the basis for the production of this report.
WFP compiled the report with technical assistance from VAM unit (Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
Unit) and greatly indebted to all, too many to list here, who participated in the assessment exercise and
without whom the task would not have been possible. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
National counterparts: SSRRC, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, SMoA,
NGOs: WVI, CORDAID, TEAR FUND, CONCERN WORLD WIDE
UN agencies: FAO, UNMIS -RRR, UNHCR & WFP
4
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACF Action Conte La Faim
ANLA Annual Needs and Livelihoods Assessment
CFSAM Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission
CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement
CSI Coping Strategies Index
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FCS Food Consumption Score
GAM Global Acute Malnutrition
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoSS Government of Southern Sudan
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons
IOM International Organisation for Migration
IRD International Relief and Development
MOAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
MOH Ministry of Health
MT Metric Tonnes
NBEG Northern Bahr El Ghazal
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PCA Principal Components Analysis
SAFORD Sun Rise Agency For Relief & Development
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition
SDG Sudanese Pounds
SHHS Sudan Household Health Survey
SIFSIA Sudan Institutional Capacity Programme Food Security Information for Action
SMoA State Ministry of Agriculture
SSCCSE South Sudan Commission for Census, Statistics and Evaluation
SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Reconstruction Commission
TOT Training of Trainers
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNMIS United Nations Mission in Sudan
UNRCO United Nations Resident Coordinator's Office
UNU Upper Nile University
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Unit
VSF Veterinaries San Frontiers
WFP World Food Programme
5
WVI World Vision International
YARRDS Youth Agency for Relief, Rehabilitation & Development for South Sudan
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 6
2 BACKGROUND / CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................. 7
3 METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 7
3.1 SAMPLING STAGE I – SELECTING SITES .................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 PARTNERSHIP AND CONSULTATION PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3 LIVELIHOODS AND LIVELIHOOD ZONES ................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................................ 10
4 DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................................... 10
5 FOOD AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 RAINFALL PATTERNS ........................................................................................................................................ 11
5.2 AGRICULTURE ................................................................................................................................................. 12
5.3 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 14
5.4 FISHING ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
6 MARKETS AND PRICES ................................................................................................................................. 15
7 HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY SITUATION .................................................................................................... 17
7.1 FOOD CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 17
7.2 FOOD ACCESS ................................................................................................................................................. 18
7.3 COPING STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................................ 20
7.4 FOOD SECURITY GROUPS .................................................................................................................................. 21
8 HAZARDS, OPPORTUNITIES AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES ......................................................................... 23
9 HEALTH AND NUTRITION ............................................................................................................................. 23
10 CONCLUSION ON THE FOOD SECURITY SITUATION ...................................................................................... 24
11 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 24
12 ANNEX A: LIST OF LOCATIONS .................................................................................................................... 25
13 ANNEX B: PARTICIPANT LIST – STAKEHOLDERS, DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE OPTIONS .. 25
13.1 TRAINING, DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 25
13.2 INTERPRETATION QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESULTS, RESPONSE OPTIONS ANALYSIS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
ON OVERALL FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 26
6
1 Executive Summary
The 2009/10 Annual Needs and Livelihood Assessment (ANLA) was conducted in order to assess the
food security situation in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, establish the likely impact and extent of different
shocks on food security, and identify vulnerable sub-groups within the state in an effort to inform
stakeholders and decision makers on assistance needs, response options, and targeting. To this end, a
household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews were held in 10 purposively
selected locations within the state.
The findings suggest that 19% of households (or nearly 140,000 people) in the state are severely food
insecure with an additional 43% of households (or approximately 309,000 people) moderately food
insecure. The primary proximate cause of food insecurity in 2009 was the erratic and delayed rains in
June and July and the resulting poor harvest in much of the state in August 2009 which normally brings
the hunger season to an end. This not only reduced the ability of households to meet their food needs
through ‘own production’, but through market purchases as well owing to inflated cereal prices brought
about by the decrease in supply and increased demand for cereals. Importantly - given that most rural
households in the state are agro-pastoralists - the livestock-to-sorghum terms of trade did improve
following the August 2009 harvest. However, it still remains below the terms of trade prior to the 2009
hunger season.
The dim prospects for the November/December 2009 harvest suggests that the situation is unlikely to
improve prior to the August harvest in 2010 and may well deteriorate. The severely food insecure are
the most vulnerable and in need of immediate assistance in order to bridge the extended hunger season
between now and August 2010. However, the moderately food insecure are also vulnerable and at risk
of becoming severely food insecure during this period if their livelihoods are not supported and
protected. As such, a combination of food assistance and the timely provision of agricultural inputs are
needed alongside continuous monitoring of the food security situation in the state.
Finally, the potential for insecurity and conflict associated with the upcoming elections merits mention
as this could well exacerbate the already tenuous food security situation in the state – either directly
through displacement and the destruction of livelihoods or indirectly through the additional burden IDPs
place on already burdened host communities. Those who have returned to Northern Bahr el Ghazal to
rebuild their lives and livelihoods further add to the burden on these communities and also constitute a
vulnerable (and sizable) sub-group themselves.
7
2 Background / Context
As with the rest of southern Sudan, those who inhabit Northern Bahr el Ghazal are in the process of
rebuilding their lives and livelihoods and recovering from the ravages Sudan’s decades-long civil war. In
terms of the latter, the state is comprised primarily of agro-pastoralists. However, fishing, trade, and
skilled labor constitute important livelihood sources for a significant proportion of the population.
There has been some progress in re-establishing trade links - both within the state and with neighboring
states. This has been possible due to the combination of relative calm and security and the states
opportune location as a thoroughfare to other southern states. The state is divided into five counties -
Aweil South, Aweil North, Aweil Central, Aweil East and Aweil West. In terms of location, it is bordered
by Western Bahr el Ghazal to the west and south, Warrap to the east, and South Darfur and Western
Kordofan to the north.
3 Methodology and Objectives
The principal aim of the 2009/10 Annual Needs and Livelihood Assessment (ANLA) was to assess the
food security situation in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, establish the likely impact and extent of different
shocks on food security, and identify vulnerable sub-groups within the state in order to inform
stakeholders and decision makers on assistance needs, response options, and targeting. To this end,
multiple and complementary data collection methods were employed, including a household survey,
focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The purpose of this approach was to allow for
the triangulation of findings from these different methods - that is, to allow for more in-depth and
meaningful interpretation of quantitative household survey data and to substantiate the qualitative (and
anecdotal) findings gleaned from focus groups and key informants. These primary data sources were
supplemented by secondary data sources, including the 2009 CFSAM.
3.1 Sampling Stage I – Selecting Sites
At the first stage of sample selection, 10 locations (villages and their surrounds) were purposively
selected for inclusion in the assessment based on a combination of a) their accessibility and b) the
extent to which they collectively ‘represented’ the food security situation in the state. The locations
selected included Chelkou, Udhum, Tieraliet/Rumthol, Nyanlath, Mayom Deng Akol, Rumbuol, Marial
Baai, Awilic, Rumrol and Barmayen/Mondit. Although the purposive selection of these sites imposes
some limitations in terms of interpreting the findings (see 3.4), it was a pragmatic necessity owing to the
inaccessibility in some locations.
8
3.1.1 Sampling Stage II – Selecting Key Informants and Focus Group Participants
Within each of these locations, focus group discussion participants and key informants were selected
purposively – the former as representative of the community (and various sub-groups within in it) and
the latter as uniquely positioned to provide insights about the community. Interview/discussion guides
were then used to capture information on livelihood patterns, economic differentiation of households,
food access and hazards/shocks affecting food security.
3.1.2 Sampling Stage II – Selecting Households
Within each selected location, 30 households were selected for participation in a household survey for a
total sample size of 300 households overall in the state. The selection of households was done
randomly in an effort to balance out the risk and potential sources of bias inherent in relying on
purposive selection of households through community leaders.
Randomization was achieved using a variation of the pencil spin method popularized by UNICEF for use
with the Expanded Program for Immunization (EPI) surveys (box 1). A structured questionnaire was
then used to capture information on various aspects of food security. The primary aim of the survey and
questionnaire was to generate an estimate of the proportion of households whose lives and livelihoods
are at risk by categorizing each household as severely food insecure, moderately food insecure or food
secure. A secondary aim was to identify the characteristics of households in each of these groups in
order to inform targeting.
9
3.2 Partnership and Consultation Process
The assessment brought together a number of government line ministries, international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN agencies under the auspices of a food security technical
group, including SSRRC, SMAARF, Cordaid, FAO, RRR and the Tearfund. This collaborative consultation
process began at the planning (29/09/2009 to 16/10/2009) and data collection stages (29/10/2009 to
05/11/2009) - including the identification of sample sites - and continued through the process of data
analysis and forming conclusions.
3.3 Livelihoods and Livelihood Zones
The bulk of Northern Bahr el Ghazal falls within the broadly defined Western Flood Plain livelihood zone
and is part of the greater Savannah woodland. The small southern portion of the state that falls within
the Ironstone Plateau livelihood zone constitutes less than 10% of the state’s total land mass.
As noted earlier, the state is comprised primarily of agro-pastoralists. The main crop produced is
sorghum. However, sesame, groundnuts, okra, beans, cassava, millet, and maize are also grown. Most
Box 1 – Steps Used to Randomly Select Households for Inclusion in Survey
Use community members to locate the approximate center of each selected site/boma
Spin a pencil to identify the direction to walk to select sample households
Count and number all households encountering from the center to the perimeter of the
site/boma walking in the identified direction
Divide this number (X) by the number of households desired (n=30) in order to determine the
sampling interval (X/30=SI)
Select a random starting household between 1 and the SI
Add the SI to the starting household to select the 2nd household, the SI to the 2nd household to
select the 3rd household and so on until 30 households are interviewed
If number of households in that direction < 30, interview all and repeat process to choosing a
2nd direction in order to identify the remaining households for inclusion
10
households produce at subsistence levels. Crops are occasionally sold for income, but only following
above average harvests. Livestock figure importantly as both a food and income source in most parts of
the state. However, there is a dearth of reliable information on the number of livestock held at
household and community levels due to cultural prohibitions against sharing such information.
Nevertheless, the presence of female animals in the market does provide a proxy indicator of pastoral
livelihood stress as distress sales of female animals only occurs when the food security situation is dire.
Finally, some fishing is done for food and income along Lol and Kueng rivers.
3.4 Limitations and Constraints
The purposive selection of sites is not to say the sites and household included are not representative,
but rather that the subjective basis for their representative-ness does not adhere to the strictures
required to employ statistical/probability theory as a basis for extrapolating findings from the sample (n)
to the population (N). It was however done in the field through a consultative process with agencies
who know the areas very well. In previous years attempt to do randomly select locations have been
precluded by accessibility, which is a major factor during the time of the ANLA and falls at the end of the
rainy season. This year, locations that were known to be inaccessible were not considered for inclusion
and thus it is possible that the results are underestimating the extent of food insecurity.
The purposive selection of sites based on accessibility and a subjective determination of livelihood zone
representative-ness was a pragmatic necessity and was informed by the costly, time-consuming and
difficult experience of attempting to reach and locate randomly selected sites during last year’s food
security assessment. Nevertheless, this necessity and pragmatism does impose a number of analytic
limitations and constraints on the household survey data.
4 Demographics
Approximately 71% of households included in the household survey were female-headed with the
remaining 29% male-headed. However, it is reasonable to suspect that many of these female-headed
households are in fact satellite households connected to a polygamous male head – itself a reflection of
the relatively common practice of polygamy among pastoralist in southern Sudan. In turn, this suggests
that a more nuanced approach to gauging gender of the head of household in the next assessment is
needed and one that is capable of distinguishing between these female-headed satellite households and
female-headed households that are truly on their own. This need is made all the more compelling by
11
the fact that polygamous male-headed households and the female-headed satellite households
attached to them are likely to be better off than either non-polygamous male-headed households or
truly female-headed households owing to the relationship between the practice of polygamy and
wealth.
The average size of households surveyed was 7.8 persons. This is larger than the average household size
of 7 persons in last year’s assessment. Differences in the methodologies used make it difficult to
ascertain whether this reflects a real change over time or not. However, the large percentage of
households that are hosting returnees and IDPs or returnees and IDPs (see below) suggest that the
average household size in the state may well have increased in 2009.
Among households interviewed 8% indicated that they were returnees - meaning that they had returned
to the state within the last 12 months. An additional 3% of households were IDPs and the remaining
89% residents (figure 1). However, the true non-resident population appears to be much larger than
this with 25% of households indicated that they were hosting returnees, 2% IDPs, and an additional 5%
of household hosting both (figure 2).
Figure 2 - Hosting of Returness and IDPs
25%
5%2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Returnees Both IDPs
% o
f H
H
Figure 1 - Residential Status
89%
8%3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Residents Returnees IDPs
% o
f H
H
5 Food Availability
5.1 Rainfall Patterns
In a normal year, rainfall in the state begins in April or May and ends in October or November. However,
this year was characterized by a normal start to the rains followed by an atypical dry spell in June and
12
July in much of the state. As a result of this the cumulative rainfall for the state at the time of the
assessment was only 40% of that in a normal year (Sudan Seasonal Monitor, 2009). The impact of this
on livelihoods is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of households (82%) surveyed identified
erratic rainfall and atypical dry spells as a major shock in 2009. The highlands in the upper part of the
state were the most adversely affected. Southern parts of the state such as Aweil Center and Aweil
South fared far better and, in fact, were able to harvest owing to the lack of floods that have prevented
them from doing so in recent years.
5.2 Agriculture
In nearly all counties, short, medium and long-term sorghum varieties were planted following the onset
of rains. In the highlands, the atypical and prolonged dry spell in June and July caused widespread crop
failure in the highlands such that both production and yields during the August 2009 harvest were far
below that of the previous year. Conversely, the lack of flooding in the lowlands noted above resulted in
an above average harvest for most crops.
Some households replanted medium and long-term varieties. However, many did not owing to lack of
seeds and continued uncertainty about the prospects for the November/December harvest. As a result,
there was a significant and widespread decrease in the area under cultivation (figure 3). In addition,
those who did replant reported that some of their crops had been invaded by striga weed, reducing
expectations for the November/December harvest further still. As further evidence of this, the
November 2009 CFSAM estimates that the state will have a cereal deficit of 14,667 tonnes for the
2009/10 consumption year (table 3).
13
Area Under Cultivation
10% 9%12% 14%
7%5% 7%
31% 32%25%
45% 44%
36%
52%59% 59%
62%
42%48%
59%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sorghum /
Short Term
Sorghum /
Medium
Term
Sorghum /
Long Term
Groundnuts Cassava Maize Other
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s
Increased Same Decreased
Figure 3 – Change in Area Under Clutivation by Crop from 2008 to 2009
Table 3: NBEG State - Estimated Cereal Area, Yield, Production, Consumption and Balance (traditional
sector) in 2009/10 - Source: CFSAM special report, 2009
State/County
Area harvested (ha)
Yield (t/ha)
2009 gross cereal production (tonnes)
2009 net cereal production1 (tonnes)
Population mid-20102
Consumption (t/year)
Surplus/ deficit (tonnes)
NBEG 71 239 1.0 69 560 55 648 820 834 70 315 -14 667
Returnees 3 264 0.90 2 938 2 350 67 531 7 428 -5 078
Awiel North 13 317 1.0 13 317 10 654 134 931 10 795 -141
Awiel East 30 430 0.90 27 387 21 909 323 852 25 908 -3 999
Awiel South 8 058 1.4 11 281 9 024 77 124 6 170 2 855
Awiel West 15 334 0.90 13 800 11 040 173 689 13 895 -2 855
Awiel Centre 837 1.0 837 669 43 707 6 119 -5 450
1 Assuming a 20 percent post-harvest loss
2 Assuming a population growth rate of 2.052 percent per annum
14
The opportunities and constraints for agricultural production identified by communities visited in the
state’s lowlands and highlands are presented in the tables 4 and 5 below:
Table 4 - Western Flood Plains - Lowlands
Opportunities Constraints
Access to agricultural land Erratic rainfall
Security in the area is stable Pests and diseases
Ready market for agric. products (Aweil)
Table 5 - Western Flood Plains - Highlands
Opportunities Constraints
Access to agricultural land Erratic rainfall
Security in the area is stable Inaccessibility in rainy season (some areas)
Availability of agricultural inputs
5.3 Livestock Production
Livestock body condition is purported to be stable and similar to previous years despite the prolonged
dry spell in June and July negatively affecting vegetation and pasture conditions. Indeed, pasture does
not appear to be nearly as affected by the erratic and delayed rainfall as crops. There was purported to
be a notable increase in the number of livestock brought to market in Aweil town and a corresponding
decline in livestock prices. Such distress sale are attributed to the extended hunger season as this not
only reduced the ability of households to meet their food needs through ‘own production’, but drove up
market prices for cereals and drove down the livestock-to-sorghum terms of trade. There was some
recover in the terms of trade following the August harvest, but not to pre-hunger season levels. The
greatest opportunity for livestock production is the relative peace and stability in Northern Bahr el
Ghazal vis-à-vis other states. The greatest constraints are poor pasture in the dry season and poor
access to veterinary services.
5.4 Fishing
15
Fishing from rivers and streams does contribute significantly to the food security and livelihoods of some
households in the state. This is particularly true of households in close proximity to the Lol, Kueng, and
Alok rivers, but also of households who fish the flood plains in the rainy seasons. Fish is consumed fresh
during rainy season or dried and stored for consumption during dry season. As such, it makes a
significant contribution to the diets of some households (see 7.1). In 2009, fish production was
significantly affected by the prolonged dry spell and erratic rainfall noted above. As such, fishing was
confined to Kueng, Lol and Alok rivers, but not practiced in the flood plains due to the lack of seasonal
flooding that occurs in typical years.
6 Markets and Prices
At the time of the assessment, market prices for food commodities were between 30% and 40% higher
in most markets than they were at the same time last year. As noted earlier, this is attributable to the
erratic and delayed rains and the resulting failure of the August harvest in the highlands as this both
reduced supply and increased demand in the market. Predictions of poor production/yields for the
November/December harvest have also kept prices abnormally high. Continued high taxation and
transport costs were also cited as causes.
On a positive note, market activity and integration has improved in most parts of the state as a result of
improvements to trade infrastructure. Moreover, all markets surveyed during the assessment (October
2009) had sorghum readily available with the bulk purported to be sourced from within the state.
Retailers also noted that demand for food commodities had declined of late, but anticipated an increase
in the prices of commodities over the next three months in line with the expectations of a poor
November/December harvest noted above.
The price per malwa (3.5 kg) of sorghum ranged between 3 and 6 SDG - or between 77 and 154 per 90
kg bag - across the state and was generally far lower than in neighboring states. Nevertheless, there has
been general upward trend in price this year over last as illustrated in the October 2009 market price
comparisons in figure 4 and the month by month prices in the state capital of Aweil presented in figure
5. In regard to the latter, the dip in prices in September each year is in response to the August harvest.
The more recent decline in October/November 2009 is indicative of the decline in demand noted above.
16
Sorghum prices at selected sites in Oct 2009
103 103 103
154
77
129129129129
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Udhum Nyanlath Rumrol Rumboul Nyanlath Marial Bai Chelkou Barmayen Aw ilic
SD
G p
er
90 k
ilo
gra
ms
Price of sorghum for a 90 kg bag Average sorghum price in Aweil (2008)
Average sorghum price in Aweil (2009)
Figure 4 – Sorghum Prices per 90 kg at Select Markets, October 2009
Average sorghum prices at Aweil market
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008 2009
SD
G p
er
90 k
ilo
gra
ms
Sorghum price for a 90 kilogram sack
Linear (Sorghum price for a 90 kilogram sack)
Figure 5 – Average Monthly Sorghum Price (90 kg) in Aweil Market 2008-09
The livestock-to-sorghum terms of trade declined steadily throughout the first half of the year as it
normally does during the hunger (or lean) season due to decreased supply and increased demand for
cereals in the market. In line with expectations, it improved following the August harvest. Indeed, it did
so far more in Northern Bahr el Ghazal than in other states where widespread crop failure and a meager
August 2009 harvest extended the hunger gap and did little to improve the livestock-to-sorghum terms
of trade in the latter half of the year.
17
Terms of trade: sorghum versus cattle in Aweil
0
200
400
600
800
Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09
Kg
s o
f s
org
hu
m p
er
be
as
t s
old
Figure 6 – Livestock-to-Sorghum Terms of Trade (Aweil Market)
7 Household Food Security Situation
7.1 Food Consumption
Household food consumption data were
collected using a 7 day recall period. Based
on the frequency and dietary value of
individual food items consumed, these data
were then used to calculate a Food
Consumption Score (FCS) for each
household. Using established thresholds,
these scores were then used to classify each
household as having poor, borderline or
acceptable consumption. The results of this
analysis suggest that approximately 15% of
households in the state have poor
consumption, 32% borderline consumption and the remaining 53% adequate consumption (figure 7).
The average frequency of consumption for various foods is shown in figure 8.
Figure 7 - Food Consumption Groups
15%
32%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Poor Borderline Acceptable
% o
f H
H
18
These state-level aggregates and averages are useful for gauging the overall nature and magnitude of
the food consumption problem. However, they also mask significant variation in this regard among the
10 locations included in the sample. In particular, it is worth noting that the average percentage of
households with poor consumption among the two sample locations in the Ironstone Plateau (23% and
37% for an average of 30%) is more than double that of households in the Western Flood Plains (12%).
The percentage of households with poor location in one location in Western Flood Plains – Awilic – was
within the same range as those in the Ironstone Plateau at 23%. However, all others were substantially
lower.
Consumption of individual food items
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sor
ghum
Maize
Cass
ava
Oth
er cer
eals an
d tube
rs
Pulse
s
Veg
etab
les
Fruits
Mea
t and
pou
ltry
Egg
sFis
h
Dairy
pro
ducts
Sug
ar, h
oney, swee
ts
Oil, fa
ts
Avera
ge n
um
ber
of
days
Figure 8 - Average Consumption Frequency of Various Foods (7 day recall)
7.2 Food Access
7.2.1 Food and Income Sources
The two main food sources among
households included in the sample
were ‘own production and ‘market
purchases’ which accounted (on
average) for 43% and 44% of food
consumed by households over a 7 day
recall period respectively (figure 9).
The only other significant source of
Figure 9 - Food Sources (Share of Food Consumed)
43%
44%
8%5%
Own Production
Market
Gathering
Other
19
food was gathering which accounted (on average) for 8% of the food households consumed. In turn,
this underscores the deleterious impact of the erratic and delayed rains and subsequent failure of the
August 2009 harvest as this not only eroded the ability of households to meet their food needs through
‘own production’, but their ability to purchase food in markets by decreasing supply, increasing demand,
and driving up cereal prices.
The main income sources identified by households were highly variable. The sale of alcohol, firewood,
grass and cereals were the most commonly cited with between 13% and 19% of households identifying
them as a ‘main’ income source. Such diversity would appear to reduce vulnerability at the community
(if not household) level. However, based on a subjective judgment of the reliability and sustainability of
various income sources, more than half of households (54%) in the state rely on income sources that –
even if diverse within and between households - are unreliable and unsustainable. An additional 27%
rely on sources that are only moderately reliable and sustainable.
7.2.2 Expenditure
The percentage of total expenditure spent on food provides a proxy indicator of food security status, as
well as a measure of constraints on the ability of households to meet their food and non-food needs.
Households spending in excess of 65% of their total expenditure on food are clearly vulnerable in this
regard as such a high percentage suggests that the household is forced to choose between meeting their
food and non-food needs or reduce consumption of one or both below their needs. The analysis of data
for Northern Bahr el Ghazal suggests that over half (52%) of households surveyed fall into this category.
An additional 18% indicated that they spent between 50% and 65% of their total expenditure on food
and are thus also vulnerable in terms of their ability to meet their food/non-food needs (figure 10).
Share of expenditure on food
30%
18%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<50% 50-65% >65%
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f H
ou
se
ho
lds
Figure 10 – Percentage of HH by Food Expenditure Group
20
An analysis of absolute expenditure further suggests that the vast majority (82%) of households
surveyed in the state spend less than 1.6 SDG per day. It also suggests that the purchasing power of
over half (55%) of the households surveyed is inadequate to buy more than ½ of a minimum food basket
with an additional 21% only able to buy between ½ and 1 minimum food basket. As with food
consumption, there is significant variation in this regard between livelihood groups with 80% of the
households in the two locations surveyed in the Ironstone Plateau indicating purchasing power
inadequate to buy more than ½ a minimum food basket in comparison to just less than half (49%) of
households surveyed in the Western Flood Plains. This apparent association mirrors the association
between food consumption groups and livelihood zones noted earlier. Both are elaborated upon in
section 7.4.
7.2.3 Food Access
A composite indicator of food access classifying households as having poor, average or good access was
derived by combining the categorical variable for ‘expenditure on food as a percentage of total
expenditure’ and the subjective valuation of the reliability and sustainability of income sources noted
earlier. Based on this, 54% of households surveyed had poor food access with an additional 28% having
average food access (figure 11). Taken together, this suggests that approximately 82% of households in
the state are vulnerable in this regard.
7.3 Coping Strategies
Well over half (57%) of households
indicated that they had experienced food
short-falls over the 7 days preceding the
survey and engaged consumption coping
strategies as a result. The most
frequently employed of these were
reducing the number of meals eaten in a
day, limiting portion size at meals, and
relying on less preferred and less
expensive foods. A second tier of
consumption coping strategies in terms of
how frequently they were employed
include restricting consumption of food
Figure 11 - Percentage of HH
by Food Access Groups
54%
28%
18%
poor
average
good
21
by adults so that small children can eat, borrowing food or relying on help from family and friends, and
collecting (and consuming) unusual amounts and/or types of wild foods with a not insignificant number
of households also indicating that they had skipped an entire days without eating
The frequency with which individual households adjusted their consumption patterns in these ways to
deal with food shortfalls and the perceived severity of each of these strategies were combined to derive
a Coping Strategies Index (CSI) score for each household. Households that employed consumption
coping strategies perceived to be severe and/or employed these and other consumption coping
strategies frequently have higher CSI scores than those who employ less severe consumption coping
strategies and/or employed these and other consumption coping strategies infrequently. As such, CSI is
a measure of food insecurity – the higher the CSI for a household, the more food insecure.
Based on these scores and locally developed thresholds, 12% of households surveyed exhibiting either
frequent/severe consumption coping or moderately frequent/severe consumption coping. Such
behaviors themselves are not atypical and, in fact, are typically engaged each year. However, the timing
(after the August harvest) underscores the degree to which the failure of that harvest due erratic and
delayed rains has extended the hunger season and forced households to adopt ways of coping with food
short-falls that - despite being reversible – could undermine nutritional status if frequently employed
over an extended period of time.
7.4 Food Security Groups
As described in box 2, this section of the report brings together categorical indicators of food
consumption, access and coping outlined in the preceding sections (7.1 to 7.3) within a single composite
food security indicator – namely, food security groups. On the basis of this, it is estimated that 19% of
households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal are severely food insecure, 43% moderately food insecure and
the remaining 38% food secure (figure 12).
As with the food consumption and
expenditure indicators presented
earlier, these state-level food security
group aggregates mask what may be a
potentially important difference in food
security status between the Western
Flood Plains and Ironstone Plateau
livelihood zones. Indeed, the
Figure 12 - Percentage of HH
by Food Security Groups
19%
43%
38% Severely Food
Insecure
Moderately
Food Insecure
Food Secure
22
percentage of severely food insecure households among the two locations surveyed in the Ironstone
Plateau (58%) is nearly six times that of households in the eight locations surveyed in the Western Flood
Plains (10%) with the larger number of locations included in the sample from the latter driving the
overall estimate of the percentage of severely food insecure households downward to 19%. To be
certain, the percentage of moderately food insecure households is more than double in the Western
Flood Plains sample at 48% versus 21% in the Ironstone Plateau sample. Yet, even still, this means that
the percentage of food secure households in the Ironstone Plateau sample (21%) is half that of
households in the Western Flood Plains sample (42%).
Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due the small sample size in each livelihood zone -
and the Ironstone Plateau in particular - as well as the sampling approach taken (see section 3).
However, the magnitude of the difference is large enough and suggestively compelling enough to
Box 2 – Defining Food Security Groups
The food security groups presented in this section of the report were created by combining
household measures of food consumption, food access (income and expenditure) and coping
strategies. For food consumption, households were categorized as having poor (0 to 21), borderline
(21.5 to 35) or acceptable (>35) consumption on the basis of their Food Consumption Scores – a
weighted index that takes account of both frequency of consumption and various foods contribution
to dietary adequacy. For food access, a combination of the reliability of income sources (good = 4,
medium = 2, poor =1) and poor (>65%), medium (50%-65%) and good (<50%) percentage of total
expenditure spent on food were used and then cross-tabulated to define poor medium, and good
food access groups. For coping strategies, Coping Strategies Index (CSI) scores that capture both
the frequency and severity of coping were used to define high, medium and low coping based on
locally-established thresholds. All three of these categorical variables were then combined to define
food security groups as depicted in the fictitious example below:
Poor Borderline Acceptable
High 0% 0% 1%
Medium 1% 1% 1%
Low 4% 4% 8%
High 0% 0% 1%
Medium 1% 1% 2%
Low 3% 4% 13%
High 0% 0% 2%
Medium 1% 2% 4%
Low 5% 10% 31%
Severely Food Insecure 12%
Moderately Food Insecure 24%
Food Secure 66%
MediumCoping
Strategies
Index
GoodCoping
Strategies
Index
Food Consumption
Ability to
access food
PoorCoping
Strategies
Index
23
warrant further investigation into whether this apparent association between livelihood zone and
community-level food security status is real and causally-driven or merely an anomaly due to the type of
sampling used.
8 Hazards, Opportunities and Community Priorities
As noted earlier in the section on food availability, the atypical dry spell that occurred in June and July
and the widespread crop failure stemming from it was perceived as a major shock by the vast majority
of households (82%). Moreover, half of the households surveyed (50%) cited the abnormally high prices
of cereals and other food commodities resulting from it as another major shock (figure 13). Other
shocks identified by at least a quarter of the households surveyed include insecurity, human sickness,
and weeds/pests.
Shocks Experienced
31%
50%
5%
18%
5%
33%
5%
82%
25%18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Inse
curit
y/viol
ence
Food
too e
xpen
sive
Lack
of f
ree a
cces
s/m
ovem
ent
Live
stoc
k di
seas
es
Flood
s
Hum
an sickn
ess
Late
food
aid
distri
butio
n
Del
ay o
f rai
ns
Weed
s/pe
st
Oth
er
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f h
ou
seh
old
s
Figure 13 – Major Shocks Identified by Households
9 Health and Nutrition
The most prevalent diseases in the state are malaria, respiratory tract infections (RTIs), skin diseases and
diarrhoea. About 60% of households in the state rely on water from untreated sources without boiling
or treating prior to consumption. In addition, less than 10% of households have toilets and nearly early
24
80% do not wash hands after urinating and/or defecating. Both offer likely explanations for the high
prevalence of diarrhoea in the state. Access to health services is also limited with those who are sick
purportedly travelling long distances to get assistance in Aweil town. When combined with inadequate
food consumption, the collective impact of these individual health threats may well contribute to a
deterioration of nutritional status, particularly among the severely food insecure.
10 Conclusion on the Food Security Situation
As indicated in section 7.4, it is estimated
that 19% of households in Northern Bahr
el Ghazal were severely food insecure at
the time of the ANLA with an addition
43% moderately food insecure and the
remaining 38% food secure. Translating
this into population figures on the basis of
available census data, it is estimated that
there are currently 139,713 severely food
insecure people in the state with an
additional 309,130 moderately food
insecure (figure 14). There is some
suggestive evidence that the food security
situation is comparatively worse in the Ironstone Plateau livelihood zone. However, additional
investigation is needed to confirm or refute this. The presence of relatively well functioning markets
and trade within and beyond the state also suggests that food insecurity throughout Northern Bahr el
Ghazal is largely a product of poor food access rather than food availability - even in years, such as
2009/10, when a net cereal deficit projected.
11 Future Developments and Recommendations
Given both the failure of the August harvest and the likelihood that long-term variety yields and
production will be below average in November/December 2009, the food security situation is unlikely to
improve prior to the harvest of short-term variety crops in August 2010. Indeed, the expectation is that
the hunger season could start as early as January 2010. In turn, this suggests that severely food insecure
households (nearly 140,000 people) whose lives are at risk are likely to remain vulnerable and in need of
food assistance. The fact that markets in the state are relatively well functioning
Figure 14 - Population by Food Security Groups
139,713
309,130
272,055Severely Food
Insecure
Moderately
Food Insecure
Food Secure
25
The likelihood that the food security situation will not improve before August 2010 also suggests that
moderately food insecure households (nearly 310,000 people) are vulnerable to becoming severely food
insecure during this period, particularly if their livelihoods are not supported and protected. As such,
there is also a need for the timely provision of agricultural inputs to allow for early preparation prior to
the onset of the next planting season in order to increase the odds of a good August 2010 harvest and
stave off the possibility of the already extended hunger season being extended further still.
Finally, it must be noted that the possibility of insecurity tied to the upcoming elections also poses a
potential threat to the lives and livelihoods of all households and could well exacerbate the already
tenuous food security situation in the state. Accordingly, continuous monitoring is needed to alert
stakeholders and decision makers to any significant changes in food security status stemming from the
extended hunger season, insecurity tied to elections, and/or the potentially devastating combination of
the two.
12 Annex A: List of Locations
County Payam Settlement Livelihood Zone
Aweil Centre Awuilic Awuilic Western Flood Plain
Aweil Centre Madhol Rumrol Western Flood Plain
Aweil Centre Nyalath Nyalath Ironstone Plateau
Aweil West Bar Mayen Bar Mayen Ironstone Plateau
Aweil South Tieraliet Tiaraliet Western Flood Plain
Aweil West Udhum Udhum Western Flood Plain
Aweil West Marial Bai Marial-baai Western Flood Plain
Aweil West Chelkou Chelkou Western Flood Plain
Aweil East Yargot Rumbuol Western Flood Plain
Aweil North Ariath Mayom Deng Akol Western Flood Plain
13 Annex B: Participant List – Stakeholders, Data Collection, Analysis and Response Options
13.1 Training, Data Collection and Qualitative Data Analysis
Name Organization
Yohannes Chaim Tob WFP World Food Programme
Abraham Ariik Piol SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitaion Comission
Lual Wol Lual SMAARF Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Resource and
26
Forestry
Aleu Garang Aleu WVI World Vision International
Unziga Asharaf RRR Returns Reintergration and Rehabilitation
Martin Kir Wol WFP World Food Programme
Augustino Aguot Lueth SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Resource and
Forestry
Yomo Lawrence WFP World Food Programme
Daniel Aduol Bol SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitaion Comission
Taban Simon Stanley Tearfund Tearfund
Alexander Makuach Kuol WFP World Food Programme
Santino Deng Ngor SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Resource and
Forestry
Angelo Deng Atem SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitaion Comission
Peter Wol Mayen Cordaid Cordaid
Felista Busi Poni WFP World Food Programme
Kiir Awen Mayen FAO/SIFSIA Food and Agriculture Organization
James Lual Dut SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Resource and
Forestry
Luka Dok Kuot Cordaid Cordaid
Nyanut Kiir Bol SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitaion Comission
13.2 Interpretation Quantitative and Qualitative Results, Response Options Analysis, Stakeholder
Consultation on Overall Findings
Name Organization
Samuel Ajing Uquda DARF
John Leon Lollis SOAFAF
Wani Samuel Henry Tear Fund Tear Fund
Taban Simon
stanley Tear Fund Tear Fund
Kur Awen mayen FAO Food Agriculture Organization
Ruth Macormacu ACF Action Against Hunger
Berhanu Haile
Save the
childern SS Save the childern in Southren Sudan
James Lual Dut SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal
Resource and Forestry
Angelo Chan angara
GOSS/MAF
NBGSA
Deng Deng Akuei MOAAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Maggie Tiernan AMURT Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team
Mac Yuang WFP Wold Food Programm
Augustino Aguot
Lieth SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal
Resource and Forestry
Aboud Suleiman FAO Food Agriculture Organization
Michael Njogu SCISS Save the childern in Southren Sudan
Yohhannes Tob WFP Wold Food Programm
27
Nofl Abdalla ACTIDG
Poul Anywayo WFP Wold Food Programm
Kiir Awen Mayen SMAARF
Sudan Ministry of Agriculture Animal
Resource and Forestry