Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in...

Comprehensive Food Security

Assessment in Darfur

UN WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

STATE MINISTRIES OF AGRICULTURE

STATE MINISTRY OF HEALTH – NORTH DARFUR

1

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 5

WHO ARE THE FOOD INSECURE? .......................................................................................................... 5 HOW MANY ARE THEY? ........................................................................................................................ 6 WHERE DO THEY LIVE? ......................................................................................................................... 6 WHAT ARE THE INTERVENTIONS RECOMMENDED? ................................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 8 FOOD AND LIVELIHOOD ASSISTANCE IN DARFUR .................................................................................. 8 LIVELIHOOD ZONES ............................................................................................................................. 9

1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 11

1.1 THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 11 1.2 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 11 1.3 SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................... 13 1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 14

2.0 FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................... 15

2.1 HUMAN CAPITAL ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Displaced Populations ........................................................................................................ 15 2.1.3 Education .......................................................................................................................... 16

2.2 NATURAL CAPITAL .................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Agricultural production at household level ........................................................................... 17

2.3 PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL............................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Housing, water and sanitation ............................................................................................ 20 2.3.2 Wealth Index .................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.3 Livelihood zones ................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.4 Livelihoods and income sources .......................................................................................... 23

3.0 CURRENT HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY STATUS ....................................... 25

3.1 FOOD SECURITY ........................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.1 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Relative expenditure on food .............................................................................................. 26 3.1.3 Food consumption classification .......................................................................................... 26 3.1.4 Sources of food consumed.................................................................................................. 29

3.2 FOOD INSECURITY ..................................................................................................................... 30

4.0 HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY PROFILING ..................................................... 34

4.1 SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ........................................................................................................ 34 4.2 EDUCATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ........................................................................................... 35 4.3 EMPLOYMENT AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES .............................................................................. 36 4.4 COMMUNITY TYPE AND FOOD SECURITY STATUS ....................................................................... 37 4.5 HOUSEHOLDS WITH MEMBERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ................................................................... 38 4.6 LIVELIHOOD ZONES ................................................................................................................... 39 4.7 HOUSEHOLD WEALTH ............................................................................................................... 39 4.8 COPING STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................. 41

2

5.0 FOOD UTILIZATION AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS ........................................ 42

5.1 CHILDREN'S NUTRITIONAL STATUS ............................................................................................ 42 5.2 CHILD FEEDING PRACTISES ......................................................................................................... 43 5.3 DISEASE ..................................................................................................................................... 45

6.0 LOCALITY PROFILING............................................................................................ 46

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 47

List of Tables

Table 1. Number of sampled households (planned) ......................................................................................... 12

Table 2. Households composition by state ........................................................................................................ 15

Table 3. Community type ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 4. Education level of head of household .................................................................................................. 17

Table 5. Seasonal Calendar - Darfur .................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6. Land ownership and agriculture production per household by state .......................................... 18

Table 7. Livestock ownership by state ................................................................................................................ 19

Table 8. Type of housing, water sources and sanitation ................................................................................. 20

Table 9. Livelihood zones by state........................................................................................................................ 23

Table 10. Weights and justification for food consumption score ................................................................. 27

Table 11. Estimated population of food insecure households ....................................................................... 32

Table 12. Use of key coping strategies by state ................................................................................................ 41

Table 13. Prevalence of GAM by State ................................................................................................................ 42

Table 14. Prevalence of SAM by State ................................................................................................................. 42

List of Charts

Chart 1. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – North Darfur ...................................................................... 21

Chart 2. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – South Darfur ....................................................................... 22

Chart 3. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – West Darfur ........................................................................ 22

Chart 4. Percentage of households and main livelihood activities by State ................................................ 24

Chart 5. Main livelihood activity by community type ....................................................................................... 24

Chart 6. Cost of the minimum healthy food basket (MHFB) ......................................................................... 25

Chart 7. Food items contribution to the food consumption score ............................................................. 27

Chart 8. Food Consumption Categories ............................................................................................................ 28

Chart 9. Food Consumption Categories by beneficiary status ..................................................................... 28

Chart 10. Weekly food consumption by group ................................................................................................ 29

Chart 11. Food sources and food security ......................................................................................................... 29

Chart 12. Food sources by food security and community type .................................................................... 30

Chart 13. Food Security Categories .................................................................................................................... 32

Chart 14. Sources of food by food security status and state ......................................................................... 33

Chart 15. Sex of household head and food security status ............................................................................ 34

Chart 16. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – North Darfur......... 35

Chart 17. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – South Darfur .......... 35

3

Chart 18. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – West Darfur .......... 36

Chart 19. Employment of household head and food security status by state ........................................... 37

Chart 20. Food security by livelihood group ..................................................................................................... 37

Chart 21. Community type and food security status ....................................................................................... 38

Chart 22. Households with special needs member by food security and state ........................................ 38

Chart 23. Livelihood zones and food security status ....................................................................................... 39

Chart 24. Wealth quintiles and food security status ....................................................................................... 40

Chart 25. Wealth quintiles by food security and state .................................................................................... 40

Chart 26. Households experiencing food security stress by state ............................................................... 41

Chart 27. Prevalence of GAM by child age group and state .......................................................................... 42

Chart 28. Prevalence of malnutrition by community type .............................................................................. 43

Chart 29. Prevalence of GAM and SAM by livelihood group ........................................................................ 43

Chart 30. Child feeding practises by age ............................................................................................................. 44

Chart 31. Child dietary diversity by household food consumption ............................................................. 44

Chart 32. Education of household head and child dietary diversity ............................................................. 45

Chart 33. Recent child illness by state................................................................................................................. 45

List of Maps

Map 1. Darfur Food Security Assessment locations ........................................................................................ 13

Map 2. Food security by locality............................................................................................................................ 31

4

Acknowledgements

WFP would like to thank everyone who was involved in the Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in Darfur for their tireless support and contribution, which has made this survey a success.

Special thanks go to the State Ministries of Agriculture in North, West and South Darfur, and State

Ministry of Health in North Darfur for their hard work and dedication to the project. Without this

support, the Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in Darfur could not have been successfully

carried out.

WFP also wish to thank each individual team member whose tireless engagement throughout the

mission is highly appreciated.

Last but not least, we wish to thank the people of Darfur for their responsiveness and kind

cooperation.

For questions/queries, please contact:

Hazem Almahdy, Head of VAM, WFP Sudan – [email protected]

Bakri Osman, VAM officer, WFP Sudan – [email protected]

Trude Bruun Thorstensen, VAM Officer, WFP Sudan – [email protected]

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Comprehensive Food Security Assessment was conducted in October and November 2011 by

the State Ministries of Agriculture in the three Darfur states1, and the State Ministry of Health in

North Darfur with support from WFP Sudan. The survey covered almost all localities in North,

South and West Darfur, distributed across eight different livelihood zones. The main objectives of

the assessment were:

to provide a reliable and detailed assessment of the food security and vulnerability situation

of the Darfur population;

to assess some of the causes and risk factors for food insecurity and vulnerability and;

to identify pockets of vulnerability where assistance and targeting may be required in the

future.

The results of the survey are intended to assist WFP and the Government of Sudan in determining

the best interventions, improve geographic and social targeting and to help policymakers in exploring

options for establishing a food security-based safety net programme.

The assessment covered 37 out of 38 planned localities in the three Darfur states. A classic cluster

sampling approach was adopted with locality used as primary clusters. For the three states, the

sampling frame and the primary sampling units were updated according to the census of 2008 and

projected up to 2011 using the annual population growth rates, based on information provided by

the WFP Area Offices.

Livelihood zones within each locality were also used to stratify the sample. Information was

collected from around of 5,600 households; 1,570 households from North Darfur, 2,940 households

from South Darfur and 1,100 households from West Darfur. The total number of sampled

cities/villages within each locality was based on the proportion of the population size in the different

livelihood zones within each locality. Included in the assessment were households from several types

of community groups such as IDPs, residents, returnees and nomads.

In total, 401 cities/villages were randomly visited from the localities and a minimum of 14 households

were randomly selected and interviewed from each location, using a detailed household survey

questionnaire designed to measure household food security. Health and feeding information was

collected along with the mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) measured for nearly 7,700 children

between 6 and 59 months of age.

Who are the food insecure?

Households most vulnerable to food insecurity include those headed by women and the head of

household is not educated or unemployed. The type of household livelihood activity also influences

household food security status. For instance, household heads engaging in agriculture based labour

are the most likely to be food insecure. Agricultural labour is a seasonal activity, and is also

impacted by the climate fluctuations such as rainfall.

Food insecure households are also more likely to rely on collection of grass, charcoal or firewood to

earn income. Other livelihood activities utilised by food insecure households are those associated

with petty trade such as brick making, donkey carts or wheel barrow transport as well as reliance on

transfers such as gifts, food aid or begging.

Wealth and poverty have a clear impact on the food security situation where poor households with

few assets are more likely to be food insecure compared to those with more assets.

In this survey, the main factors affecting food insecurity in Darfur are:

Wealth status

Income and expenditure

Education level of the household head

1 At the time of the survey, the Darfur region consisted of 3 states.

6

Gender of household head

Livelihoods

Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) was measured for nearly 7,700 children aged between 6-59

months. Using a cut-point of < 12.5 cm for global acute malnutrition (GAM), a total of 6.9 percent of

the children measured were acutely malnourished, ranging from 6.0 percent in West Darfur to 8.9

percent in North Darfur. Children 6-23 months of age were more likely to be malnourished (15.6

percent) than those two years of age and over (3.2 percent).

How many are they?

Findings from the comprehensive food security assessment show that the highest percentage of food

insecure households are found in North and West Darfur (23 percent each), compared to 11

percent of the households in South Darfur. In addition, about one-third of households in both

North and West Darfur were vulnerable to food insecurity at the time of the survey. In all, two-

thirds of households in South Darfur are food secure, compared to just over 40 percent each in

North and West Darfur.

When using the projected population figures for 2011, an estimated population of 529,000 people in

North Darfur, 484,000 people in South Darfur and 322,000 people in West Darfur are food

insecure. Furthermore, an estimated population of 782,000 people are vulnerable to food insecurity

in North Darfur, compared to approximately one million people in South Darfur and 504,000

people in West Darfur.

These numbers represent the overall situation in Darfur. However, it is important to note that

approximately 1.7 million IDPs are living in camps across the three Darfur states. For years, these

IDPs have been supported based on their community status and not necessarily their vulnerability

status. The high number of IDPs in camps in Darfur significantly contributes to the total number of

beneficiaries in Darfur who are being supported by WFP and other humanitarian organisations. In

West Darfur, 30 percent of the IDPs are food insecure compared to 23 percent in North Darfur

and 17 percent in South Darfur. In all three states, the food security status for IDPs is similar to that

of residents, meaning that the food assistance provided to IDPs likely has a stabilizing effect on their

food security situation. Other IDPs live in villages but face continuous threats from the ongoing

conflict that adversely affect their ability to produce agricultural goods, access income generating

activities and access food to meet their consumption requirements. As a result, they are heavily

reliant on food aid as a main source of food.

Where do they live?

Analysis of food insecurity within the three states shows that El Fasher, Mellit and Saraf Omra

localities are the most food insecure in North Darfur state. Furthermore, Buram in South Darfur

and Beida, Azum and Zalingei localities in West Darfur have the highest levels of food insecurity in

those states.

What are the interventions recommended?

Based on the results from the Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in Darfur, this report

recommends continued use of geographical targeting to provide assistance to the most food

insecure in vulnerable areas with a programme for intervention, which could offer some of the

following elements:

Targeted food aid reaching most vulnerable and food insecure groups;

Food for training to teach mothers childcare and nutrition best practices;

Food for education among the poorest areas to ensure children receive their nutritional

requirements and remain in school, with particular emphasis placed on female attendance;

Scaling up micronutrient programmes including iodine in salt and vitamin A and iron

fortification of locally available food items.

7

Findings also provide some guidance on what non food interventions or activities should be

prioritized with special attention to be paid to the following:

Capacity building for government institutions to enhance their ability to monitor and analyze

food security trends;

Capacity building for public and private institutions in establishing adequate food based safety

nets targeting the most vulnerable segments of the population;

Improving maternal and child care practices;

Improve nutrition through appropriate actions in agriculture, rural development, water

supply and sanitation, social protection, education, gender and community-driven

development.

8

INTRODUCTION

Background

Sudan is one of the most geographically and ethnically diverse countries in Africa. Two rounds of a

North-South civil war have cost the lives of 1.5 million Sudanese and the ongoing conflict in the

western region of Darfur has driven 2 million people from their homes. After years of insecurity and

displacements, exacerbated by drought, failed harvests and high food prices since 2009/2010, a

complex humanitarian crisis continues in many parts of Sudan. Conflict and insecurity continuing to

disrupt livelihoods in rural areas preventing the large-scale return of IDPs, being the poorest

segments of the Darfur population, and who remain highly vulnerable and largely dependent on food

aid to meet daily food requirements.

Darfur is a region in western Sudan which is comprised of three states with total population of

about 8.1 million persons (2011 projection):

North Darfur, with the capital of El Fasher and an estimated population of 2.3 million

West Darfur, with the capital of El Geneina and an estimated population of 1.4 million and;

South Darfur, with the capital of Nyala and a population estimated at 4.4 million.

Most households in the Darfur region depend on agriculture and livestock for their livelihoods.

Traditional rain-fed agriculture is the dominant seasonal farming activity across the region. Millet is

the main staple food cultivated in the northern and eastern parts of the region while sorghum is

cultivated in the south and in the lowlands (wadi). Livestock rearing among the agro-pastoralist

groups has considerably diminished due to the conflict that erupted in 2003. Most of the households

tend to keep only a few domestic goats to avoid looting, which is common amongst large herd

owners. For agro-pastoralists, the hunger season occurs during the rains between late June and late

September when labour requirements are highest but food availability is the lowest.

Nearly all households attempt to diversify their incomes by engaging in petty trade, firewood and

grass collection and sale, domestic labour, long-distance labour migration as well as to augment

through remittances, gathering and consumption of wild foods. As a result of the current conflict,

the disruption of households’ livelihoods and coping mechanisms and subsequent displacement for

many has contributed to increased food insecurity and malnutrition2.

Food and livelihood assistance in Darfur

Conflict-affected populations including IDPs, refugees, returnees, and vulnerable residents,3

represent the majority of WFP targeted beneficiaries. The balance of the WFP beneficiaries are

individuals and families, who are acutely vulnerable to food insecurity, as a result of conflict and

livelihoods affected by depleted natural resources. Frequent natural disasters and persistent high

food prices further compound households’ food insecurity.

In addition, certain demographic groups have been targeted for specific support, including children

under five years of age, school-aged children and pregnant and lactating women. These groups are

disproportionately exposed to risks associated with the ongoing conflict as well as broader

socioeconomic trends such as limited investments in health and education services.

In North Darfur a total of 1.1 million people have been supported through food assistance in 2011

with more than 65 percent being rural residents affected by conflict. Seasonal food assistance is the

main intervention during the lean season. The duration of the assistance varies based on the harvest

condition, poorer harvests require a longer assistance period and the assisted caseload also

increases. In addition, children less than five years of age are targeted and supported with

supplementary feeding programmes.

2 Emergency Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Darfur, Sudan 2006. WFP and UNICEF 3 Vulnerable residents are identified in Darfur through the WFP Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS).

9

WFP has the largest number of different activities in North Darfur but many of the same activities

are also in place in South and West Darfur. In South Darfur, approximately 770,000 IDPs and rural

residents and approximately 630,000 IDPs, refugees, returnees and residents in West Darfur will be

supported through general food distributions and seasonal support activities in 2012.

Livelihood Zones

The Darfur region consists of nine livelihood zones4. In this assessment, eight livelihood zones are

included, because the Cattle Dominant Agropastoral livelihood zone is very sparsely populated and

is therefore not incorporated in this assessment. The eight livelihood zones are:

1) Western Agropastoral Millet: This zone’s topography is plains with sand dunes, and stony hills

on the far north-west Marra plateau; the natural cover is north sahelian-type scattered bush and

grasses. Landholdings tend to be relatively large but yields are low on the infertile sandy soils.

Mean annual rainfall in much of the area is well under 300mm, which is at best marginally

adequate for millet cultivation but not for cash crops such as groundnuts or sesame, although

small amounts may be grown for home consumption. Rainfall is frequently erratic, with a late or

hesitant start up to July, and damaging dry spells thereafter.

2) North Darfur Tobacco: This is a niche production zone spreading out from the western foot of

Jebel Marra. The soil is alluvial and fertile and some 70 percent of the land area is normally

covered by tobacco. Millet and sorghum are also grown and all cultivation is purely rainfed.

Rainfall is modest at an annual mean precipitation of 280-350mm.

3) Western Wadi Cultivation: Straddling the conjunction of West, North and South Darfur, this

zone is characterized by seasonal water-courses – wadis – fed by the drainage of the Marra

highland and plateau. This allows irrigated horticulture on the fertile alluvial wadi soils, so that

most households, whether wealthy or poor, make most of their money from market gardening.

The main items are onions, tomatoes, okra and beans, with mangoes and guava as principal

fruits. Market access is good with reasonable proximity to the big town markets.

4) North Kordofan Gum Arabic Belt: This is a plains area straddling the North and South

Kordofan boundaries and stretching into South and North Darfur. Gum arabic grows naturally

across a wide semi-arid area of the country, but this zone offers a special resource in both wild

and cultivated gum arabic, thus making a major contribution to Sudan’s status as the principal

exporter of gum arabic in the world.

5) Western and Central Pastoral: This is a vast zone with a scattered and very sparse population

surviving in a semi-desert ecology with mainly nomadic camel and small livestock pastoralism.

It stretches across the north of Darfur and Kordofan and comprises also the pastoral part of Nile

state that lies to the east of the river. Rainfall is between 50mm and 150mm per year, and

insufficient for crop cultivation except in certain moisture-retaining wadi areas in Darfur and

Buttana where poorer pastoralists with little livestock have turned to cultivation and usually

manage a small millet harvest.

6) Jebel Marra Mixed Highland Cultivation: This is a densely populated hill and mountain

formation rising out of the arid plains of West Darfur to a peak of 1008 meters above sea level,

with relatively cool temperatures and reliable rainfall with an annual mean of 800-1000mm of

rainfall. This not only supports surplus rain fed production cereals - millet and sorghum, with

wheat at higher altitudes – but also gravity-fed irrigation of gardens and orchards. There are also

forest resources exploited for timber. The garden items are cultivated in a later cycle than the

cereals. Tomatoes in dried form as well as fresh potatoes and onions are traded as far as

Khartoum. Fruits, notably navel oranges, also go as far as Khartoum. The surplus cereals are

absorbed by the domestic Darfur market.

4 Livelihoods Zoning “Plus” Activity in Sudan. A special report by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET)

August 2011.

10

7) Western Agropastoral Millet and Groundnuts: This zone contains most of South Darfur, with

margins in West Darfur and Kordofan. It is largely a plains area with scattered bush cover, sandy

soils and average annual rainfall of 250-350mm. The rainfall is sufficient to support cereals,

especially millet on these soils, as well as groundnuts, but is frequently erratic. Watermelon

seed and hibiscus for the kerkedey drink are valuable additional produce and okra is chief

amongst vegetables grown for home consumption. The other part of the economy is livestock-

herding, and this is an area where it is overwhelmingly small stock that are kept, more sheep

than goats by wealthier people, more goats than sheep by poorer people. Better off households

also keep small numbers of camels and/or cattle. Conflict is caused by livestock damaging crops,

notably the animals of herders from the north who pass through with cattle and small livestock

on their way to southern pastures in the dry season.

8) Rainfed Sorghum Belt: This is a very extensive zone, of medium population density, comprising

part of West and South Darfur and the greater part of South Kordofan. The common factors are

substantial and mainly reliable rainfall with a mean annual precipitation above 600mm, and

relatively fertile clay and sandy-clay soils. Sorghum is by far the main crop, but some millet is

also grown, while poorer people grow more sorghum than millet. Cowpeas are commonly

intercropped with the cereals. Wealthier farmers are normally fully self-sufficient in grain but

choose to buy a certain amount of wheat in the form of bread as part of their diet. Poorer

households are able to feed themselves from their harvest for about half the year before

depending on the market and on grain received as direct payment for labour.

In 2009, the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) created a livelihood zone map of Greater Darfur

with 17 zones, while the map created by FEWSNET and partners has nine livelihood zones. It is

difficult to ascertain the livelihood zones with 100 percent accuracy, and especially the borders of

the zones might not accurately reflect the situation on the ground5.

5 Livelihoods Zoning “Plus” Activity in Sudan. A special report by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, 2011

11

1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 The need for a comprehensive assessment

The WFP Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) in Darfur was launched in February 2009. The

system was set up to provide a regular snapshot and update on the food security situation among

the different community groups (IDPs, refugees, resident and mixed communities) in purposively

sampled locations where WFP is providing food assistance. The FSMS was conducted four times a

year - in February, May, August and November - with an average of 20 sentinel sites per state

covered in each round.

In the new strategy for food security monitoring, the number of rounds per year has been reduced

from four to three, to better follow the seasonal calendar in the Darfur region. The data collection

for the FSMS is now conducted in January (post-harvest), May (pre-hunger) and September (pre-

harvest).

The implementation of the FSMS is in partnership with the State Ministries of Agricultural which are

expected to take over the implementation of the exercise in the future. Since the FSMS covers

limited geographical areas and focuses mainly in areas where WFP is providing assistance, the

generalization of its results to the state level is not possible. Thus, there was a need for a more

comprehensive assessment, especially as no major food security and vulnerability survey has been

done in Darfur since 2007.

1.2 Objectives

The primary objectives of the comprehensive food security assessment in Darfur are:

to provide a reliable and detailed assessment of the food security and vulnerability situation

of the Darfur population;

to assess some of the causes and risk factors for food insecurity and vulnerability and;

to identify pockets of vulnerability where assistance and targeting may be required in the

future.

The results of the survey are intended to assist WFP and the Government of Sudan in determining

the best interventions, improve geographic and social targeting and to help policymakers in exploring

options for establishing a food security-based safety net programme.

1.3 Sampling

A classic cluster sampling approach6 was adopted with locality used as primary clusters. For the

three Darfur states, the sample frame and the primary sampling units were updated according to the

census of 2008 and based on information provided by the WFP Area Offices. The 2011 population

numbers were projected based on the population census numbers from 2008 multiplied with the

annual population growth rate. This again, was used as the sample frame for the survey. The survey

covered 37 out of 38 planned localities in the three Darfur states. The eight livelihood zones within

each locality were also used.

The proportions of locality population to the total population within each state were used to

determine the sample size. The design was set at 38x141 (38 localities and 141 households within

each locality) to yield 5,368 households (approximately 5,400 households) in the three states. The

proportions of the state population to the total population of the three states were used to

determine the sample size within each state. When conducting the survey, information was

collected from more households than what was calculated in the design, with a total of 5,600

household interviews; 1,570 households from North Darfur, 2,940 households from South Darfur

and 1,100 households from West Darfur. The total number of sampled cities/villages within each

locality was based on the proportion of different livelihood zones within each locality.

6 Details on sampling are provided in a separate Annex document

12

In all, 401 cities/villages were randomly visited from the localities and a minimum of 14 households

were randomly selected and interviewed from each city/village. When selecting the households, the

teams used the city/village centre as a starting point, and head off in different directions to cover the

whole city/village. To find the interval between households, the estimated number of households

was divided by the number of interviews to be conducted from the location.

Since the survey as intended was to be conducted in conflict areas, there was a possibility of not

being able to access some of the selected locations. Hence, the sample design considered issues of

inaccessible sample locations by selecting the nearest alternative locations within the same locality

and livelihood zone.

In addition, data was collected from a total of 61 locations for the regular Food Security Monitoring

System (FSMS), with a total of 1,640 household questionnaires. Data was collected from 545

households in 19 locations in North Darfur, 450 households from 20 locations in South Darfur and

645 households in 22 locations in West Darfur. The findings from the FSMS locations will be

presented in three separate reports, one for each of the three Darfur states.

Table 1 presents the number of cities/villages and households both for the FSMS and for the

Comprehensive Food Security Assessment that were visited in Darfur. The reasons for the

discrepancy between the planned and actual numbers are due to no access because of insecurity in

some locations in North and West Darfur.

Table 1. Number of sampled households (planned)

Localities Cities/Villages Number of HH Cities/Villages Number of HH Cities/Villages Number of HH

Al Fasher 25 350 Adayala 18 252 Al Geneina 14 196

Al Laait & Tewisha 8 112 Al Deain 20 280 Azum 5 70

Al Teina 7 98 Al Salam 9 126 Beida 4 56

Dar El Salam 6 84 Bahr Al Arab 16 224 Habillah 7 98

Kabkabiya 10 140 Buram 25 350 Kereinik 7 98

Kalimendo 4 56 East Jebel Marra 4 56 Kulbus 6 84

Kuma 4 56 Edd al Fursan 26 364 Mukjar 6 84

Kutum 10 140 Kas 13 182 Nertiti 4 56

Malha 8 112 Nyala 32 448 Rokoro 4 56

Mellit 7 98 Rehed Al Birdi 13 182 Sirba 4 56

Saraf omra 10 140 Shearia 13 182 Umm Duhkun 4 56

Seraif 8 112 Tulus 21 294 Wadi Salih 9 126

Um Kadada 5 70 Zallingi 5 70

Sub Total 112 1,568 Sub Total 210 2,940 Sub Total 79 1,106

North Darfur South Darfur West Darfur

13

Map 1. Darfur Food Security Assessment locations

1.4 Data collection

Over the last year, WFP has built a strong partnership with the State Ministries of Agriculture in

Darfur, and has held several workshops to build their capacity in terms of food security assessments,

14

data collection and analysis. In North Darfur, the State Ministry of Health was involved for the first

time in the assessment for collecting MUAC data and other information on children’s health.

The household questionnaire7 was designed to collection information on livelihoods, risk, and

vulnerability in order to best understand food insecurity in the region. The questionnaire was divided

into the following 10 modules:

Household Demographics/Circumstances

Income and Market

Expenditures

Food Sources and Consumption

Coping Strategies

Food Aid

Agriculture

Household Assets

Child Feeding and Health

Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)

The design of the questionnaire was intended to allow better understanding of the current problems

facing the people of Darfur and understanding of the types of livelihood activities adopted by food-

secure and food-insecure households. This kind of information will help to determine the type of

risks affecting food-insecure households and how best to assist them.

The questionnaire was made available in two languages, Arabic and English. The month used as a

reference period when reporting all income and expenditures was October 2011. A series of

extensive training workshops were conducted by WFP on all household survey modules, for WFP

national staff and staff from the State Ministries of Agriculture.

The data was collected using structured interviews with household members that reflect WFP’s

Vulnerability Analysis Mapping (VAM) standard framework of key questions which characterise food

insecurity and vulnerability. The following questions guided the process of designing and carrying out

this study:

What is the current food security and vulnerability situation of the Darfur population?

Who are the food insecure?

Why are they food insecure (causes and risk factors for food insecurity and vulnerability)?

How many are they?

Where do they live (identify pockets of vulnerability where assistance and targeting may be

required in the future)?

What can be done to assist (interventions, improve targeting)?

1.5 Limitations of the Study

Insecurity remains a challenge in Darfur, and a few locations could not be reached due to insecurity.

In West Darfur, WFP planned to visit four locations in Rokoro locality. However, due to insecurity

the area is a no-go area and neither WFP nor the State Ministry of Agriculture was able to access

this area. In North Darfur, four locations in Al Teina were not reached due to insecurity.

7 The questionnaire is found in a separate Annex document.

15

2.0 FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

2.1 Human capital

2.1.1 Demographics

Data from this assessment indicate that 27 percent of the households in North and West Darfur

are headed by women. In South Darfur, 18 percent of the households are headed by a female.

Furthermore, South Darfur has the largest average household size with 7.5 members, compared to

6.8 members in North Darfur and 6.2 members in West Darfur. In both North and South Darfur,

15 percent of the households have members with disabilities compared to 12 percent in West

Darfur. The majority of the disabilities are physical.

In this survey, the analysis of household composition in all states shows that 22 percent of the

population are children less than five years of age, around one-third are school aged (6-15 years),

around forty percent are adults of working age (16-60 years) and around four percent are elderly.

Table 2. Households composition by State

State


Average household size 6.8 7.5 6.2

under 5, Male 13% 12% 11%

under 5, Female 11% 11% 10%

6 -1 5 yrs, Male 16% 18% 17%

6 -1 5 yrs, Female 16% 16% 16%

16 -60 yrs, Male 20% 19% 19%

16 -60 yrs, Female 21% 20% 23%

over 60 yrs, Male 1% 2% 2%

over 60 yrs, Female 2% 2% 2%


Male 73% 82% 73%

Female 27% 18% 27%

% of Disabled 15% 15% 12%

Physical 11% 11% 10%

Mental 4% 4% 2%

Both < 1% - < 1%

2.1.2 Displaced Populations

The three Darfur states host a large number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). In North

Darfur, an estimated 355,000 IDPs live in a total of ten camps across the state. The camps are Abu

Shouk, As Salam, Zamzam, Shedad, Shangil Tobay, Rwanda, Dali/Argo, Kassab, Fata Borno and Abbasi.

Additionally, many IDPs live in urban areas, and approximately 35,000 IDPs live in Al Fasher town.

Furthermore, between 70-75 percent of the approximately 55,000 people living in Saraf Omra are

IDPs, 60-65 percent of the estimated 70,000 people in Kabkabiya and 50-60 percent of the

approximately 45,000 people in Kutum towns are IDPs.

In South Darfur, an estimated 590,000 IDPs live in eighteen camps across the state. The largest

camps around Nyala town are Kalma, Otash and El Salam. The largest camp in South Darfur is

Gereida camp with approximately 120,000 IDPs.

16

In West Darfur, an estimated 580,000 IDPs live in a total of twenty-eight camps across the state.

The largest camp is Mornei with approximately 75,000 IDPs. In addition, West Darfur hosts

approximately 8,000 refugees from Chad in two refugee camps in the state - Mukjar and Um Shalaya.

The residential status of the population under study reveals that South Darfur has the highest

percentage of IDPs (19%) followed by West Darfur (14%) and North Darfur (7%). North Darfur

has the highest resident percentage (91%) compared to South Darfur (73%) and West Darfur

(67%).

The highest percentage of returnees is in West Darfur accounting for 10 percent of the population,

compared to 6.5 percent in South Darfur and 1.5 percent in North Darfur. The survey data shows

that seven percent of the West Darfur sample and 1.5 percent of the South Darfur sample are

nomadic populations. In addition, three percent of the West Darfur sample is refugees.

Table 3. Community type

State


IDPs 7% 19% 14%

IDPs in camp 2% 10% 8%

IDPs outside camps 5% 9% 6%

Residents 91% 73% 67%

Returnees 2% 7% 10%

Nomads - 1% 6%

Refugees - - 3%

The highest percentage of longstanding IDPs is found in North Darfur, where 71 percent of IDPs in

camps have been there for more than five years. In both West and South Darfur, there are

relatively large percentages of newer IDPs, where 18 and 14 percent respectively have been in the

camp between 1-2 years.

The duration of displacement varies according to where the camps are located. For camps in Nyala,

Al Fasher, Kutum, Kereinik and Wadi Salih, localities more than 70 percent of the interviewed

households were found to have been displaced for more than six years. However, newly displaced

persons (< 1 year) are recorded in Umm Duhkun and Nertiti in West Darfur, Kass locality in South

Darfur and Dar El Salam locality in North Darfur.

The returnee community is distributed mainly in West and South Darfur and Beida, Azum and

Mukjar in West and Shearia and Buram in South Darfur have the highest percentages of returnees.

2.1.3 Education

Analysis shows that a high percentage of household heads in all three Darfur states do not have any

education. In West Darfur, 60 percent do not have any education, while it is 49 percent in North

Darfur and 46 percent in South Darfur. Out of the educated heads of household, the majority of

the household heads have primary education, with only a very small percentage holding a university

degree. Analyzing the education level by community type shows that the percentage of uneducated

heads of households among nomads in Darfur is much higher compared to residents and IDPs.

17

Table 4. Education level of head of household

State


None 49% 46% 60%

Primary 39% 44% 34%

Secondary 10% 8% 5%

University 2% 2% 1%

2.2 Natural Capital

In Darfur, land preparation usually takes place in May, and the harvest season starts in November.

As a consequence, this region has three distinct seasons. The pre-hunger season is before the land

preparation starts, in April and May. After that follows the hunger season from June to September,

when the production from last season has been exhausted and the new season is yet to be

harvested. The last season is the post-harvest season, from November to February.

The seasonal calendar in Darfur is outlined in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Seasonal Calendar - Darfur

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rainfed

Crops Land Preparation, Planting, Weeding Harvest

Hunger Season

Post-Harvest

Pre-Hunger Hunger Season

Post-Harvest

The Darfur region is traditionally largely agro-pastoralist. In North Darfur, the northern part is

dominated by pastoralists (Kutum, Kuma, Waha, Malha and Al Sereif Ben Hussein). In the central and

eastern parts, people are mainly cultivating millet (El Fasher, Mellit, Dar el Salam and Um Kadada) and

in the western parts of the state (Kabkabiya, Saraf Omra and parts of Kutum) cash crops (onions and

potatoes) are also being cultivated. The cash crop is mainly cultivated in irrigated projects, enabling

the farmers to cultivate twice a year.

In South Darfur, the south-western part of the state is populated by the pastoralist, predominantly

cattle herders. Millet and groundnuts are mainly being cultivated in areas in the east, the north-east

and centre of South Darfur. The southern part of the state is a semi-savanna belt.

In West Darfur, in the northern parts of the state, the agro-pastoralists cultivate mainly millet in

addition to livestock holdings. The agro-pastoralists in the south cultivate mainly sorghum. The

south-eastern part of the states is largely agricultural where the farmers cultivate sorghum on the

banks of the wadis.

2.2.1 Agricultural production at household level

Households were questioned on cultivation and a high percentage replied positively, ranging from 92

percent in West Darfur to 87 percent in South Darfur having cultivated during the season. The

main reasons for not cultivating during the season in North Darfur were poor/irregular rains (43

percent) and no access to land (15 percent). In South and West Darfur, the most common reason

was no access to land. A large percentage in all the three states did not give any reasons why they

are not cultivating.

The majority of the people cultivate their own land, followed by those who rent the land, and a small

percentage that received the land as a gift. In North Darfur, the majority of households repay in

kind for land rental, while in South and West Darfur the majority repay in cash. Repayment in kind

will affect the households overall net production, particularly in North Darfur, where the estimated

cereal (sorghum and millet) production per households is not significant compared to the two other

18

states. More than 45 percent of the IDPs in the three states are renting land for cultivation and an

average of 15 percent have received the land as a gift, while more than 50 percent of the returnees

reported that they have cultivated their own land.

In North Darfur, 67 percent felt that that the rainfall in term of quantity was worse than normal

compared to 55 percent in West Darfur and 32 percent in South Darfur. In South Darfur, 25

percent of farming households believe the rainfall has been better than normal compared to 11

percent in West Darfur. However, there is agreement over the unevenness of the rainfall

distribution.

Table 6. Land ownership and agriculture production per household by state

North

Darfur

South

Darfur

West

Darfur Greater Darfur

Ownership of the land cultivated

Owned 66% 58% 60% 61%

Rented 26% 35% 21% 29%

Gift 8% 7% 19% 10%

Means of renting

Cash 21% 79% 57% 62%

In kind 77% 20% 35% 36%

Both 2% < 1% 8% 2%

% Household cultivated this season

Yes 89% 87% 92% 89%

No 11% 13% 8% 11%

Reason for not cultivating

No reasons given 18% 45% 16% 33%

Insecurity 9% 3% 4% 5%

No access to land 15% 22% 45% 24%

No inputs 2% 14% 3% 9%

Poor/irregular/no rains 43% 1% 3% 11%

Floods - < 1% - < 1%

Not farmers 13% 16% 28% 17%

Rainfalls quantity this year as per the household

Better 7% 25% 11% 17%

Average 26% 43% 34% 37%

Worse 67% 32% 55% 46%

Rainfall distribution on time and geographical basis as per the household

Good 3% 17% 9% 11%

Even 8% 25% 6% 16%

Uneven 89% 59% 85% 73%

Source of seeds this season

Own production 50% 45% 53% 48%

Purchase 39% 43% 31% 39%

FAO, NGOs, GOS 11% 12% 16% 12%

The most important source of seeds is households’ own production followed by purchase from the

market and donation. On average, the area cultivated in 2011 in the three states is similar to area

cultivated in 2010, for all crops. Overall, households in South Darfur have the largest average area

19

cultivated with 3.2 mukhamas8 groundnuts, 2.6 mukhamas millet and 1.9 mukhamas sorghum. The

second largest average area cultivated is in North Darfur, with 4.5 mukhamas millet and one

mukhamas each of sorghum and groundnut.

Consequently, the largest expected average household production is in South Darfur with 23 bags

(45 kg) of groundnut and five bags (90 kg) of millet and sorghum. In North Darfur, the average

household millet production is expected to be approximately three 90 kg bags, and 3.6 bags (45 kg)

of groundnuts, and in West Darfur three bags (45 kg) of groundnuts, three bags (90 kg) of millet and

two bags (90 kg) of sorghum.

A large percentage of the households in all the three Darfur states own livestock but the highest

percentage of households owning livestock are found in North Darfur. This is summarised in Table

7 below.

Table 7. Livestock ownership by state


cattle % Holding 11% 22% 20%

Size/HH .4 2.7 1.0

poultry % Holding 50% 45% 42%

Size/HH 2.2 2.1 2.1

shoat % Holding 60% 41% 36%

Size/HH 6.8 3.4 2.8

camel % Holding 10% 3% 2%

Size/HH .3 .0 .0

donkey % Holding 88% 78% 83%

Size/HH 1.4 1.3 1.3

The 2011 harvest season is expected to be poor in Darfur compared to the exceptionally good

harvest in 2010. In North Darfur, a rapid agriculture and livestock assessment was carried out by

the Food Security and Livelihood cluster in November 2011. The assessment found that some of

the main problems and constraints this season are shortage and fluctuation of rains, long dry spells

and poor flooding of the Wadis, as well as pest infestation in some localities in North Darfur. In

addition, the increasing labour cost has negatively affected the agricultural productive area.

In West Darfur, the State Ministry of Agriculture reports that approximately 2.7 million feddans

were cultivated in 2011. Farmers are expected to harvest 65 percent of the cultivated area. The

challenges encountered by farmers during the 2011 agriculture season are similar to the ones in

North Darfur and includes late rains, a dry spell in June that resulted in replanting in some areas and

heavy rains in mid-July and August that negatively affected crops due to flooding.

South Darfur has been less affected by the poor rains, and the average rainfall for the whole rainy

season of 2011 was 528.9 mm, which is similar to 2010 (559.6 mm). Based on recent field

information, most of the harvest in 2011 will consist of groundnuts due to its cooperative

advantages, while millet yields have significantly decreased compared to the previous year.

8 mukhamas Sagyer = 1.25 feddan; 1 feddan = 4200 square metres (m²) = 1.038 acres

20

2.3 Physical and financial capital

2.3.1 Housing, water and sanitation

Collected data indicate that the most common housing structure in Darfur is thatched house, with

93 percent in North Darfur, 79 percent in South Darfur and 71 percent in West Darfur. In West

Darfur, 19 percent live in plastic shelter, which is the highest percentage of all three Darfur states,

followed by 15 percent of the households in South Darfur. The remaining households live in

mud/mud brick houses.

In North Darfur, the main source of drinking water is unprotected well/spring (36 percent),

followed by borehole with hand pump/engine (30 percent) and water bladder (16 percent). In South

Darfur, the main source of drinking water is from a borehole with hand pump/engine (31 percent),

followed by surface water (25 percent), and unprotected well/spring (24 percent). In West Darfur,

the main source of drinking water is from a borehole with hand pump/engine (48 percent), followed

by surface water (27 percent) and unprotected well/spring (18 percent).

Around half of the surveyed households in Darfur use bush/stream as toilet facility. For the rest of

the households, most use a traditional pit latrine/open pit as toilet facility, while only a small

percentage in the three states have access to an improved latrine with cement slab which is

considered ‘improved’ by UNICEF standards. This information is summarised by state in Table 8

below.

Table 8. Type of housing, water sources and sanitation

State

North South West

Type of housing

Mud/mud brick 3% 2% 6%

Stone/concrete/brick 2% 2% 4%

Thatch 93% 79% 71%

Plastic shelter 1% 15% 19%

Other 1% 1% -

Main source of drinking water

Public tap/standpipe or piped water 3% 7% 1%

Borehole with hand pump/engine 30% 31% 48%

Protected dug well/spring 3% 3% 3%

Unprotected well/spring 36% 24% 18%

Water bladder 16% 1% 1%

River, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal 8% 25% 27%

Vendor 1% 3% 1%

Cart with small tank or drum 3% 6% 1%

Kind of toilet facility

Traditional pit latrine 45% 52% 40%

Improved latrine with cement slab 5% 4% 12%

Bush, stream 50% 44% 48%

21

2.3.2 Wealth Index

Wealth is the value of all natural, physical and financial assets owned by a household. While

measuring wealth is possible, it is difficult and requires making assumptions about the value of assets.

Therefore, as a proxy measure, a wealth index was constructed using a series of different socio-

economic measures.

The type of household assets assessed in the survey include: bed, table, chair, lantern, cooking

utensils, bicycle, cart, hoe, axe, muhurat (donkey plough), radio/tape player, and jewellery or watch.

In addition, households were asked about livestock ownership.

The most commonly owned assets were an axe (91%), cooking utensils (90%), hoe (86%) and a bed

(81%). Only 7% of households owned a bicycle. On average, households in each state own about 5-

6 of the assets with little variation between states. By community type, refugees had the lowest

asset ownership while the residents had the highest.

The first step in the construction of the wealth index in Darfur was to identify a series of assets or

socioeconomic proxies that would be a comparable measure of wealth across localities. A number

of variables were determined to meet this criterion. Using these variables, a principal component

analysis (PCA) was conducted. The first component was selected and wealth quintiles (poorest,

poorer, moderate, richer and richest) were developed.

Chart 1. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – North Darfur

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

poorest second third fourth richest

wealth index quintiles

wealth index

Radio/Tape Jewellery/watch Cart Chair

Cattle_holders Table Lantern Muharat

Poultry_holders Sheep and Goat_holders Bed

22

Chart 2. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – South Darfur

Chart 3. Asset ownership by wealth quintile – West Darfur

For all assets in these graphs, as wealth increases ownership of the various assets also increases. A

typical example is bed and tables, where a low percentage of households in the poorest wealth

quintile own these assets, almost all the households in the richest quintile own beds and tables.

2.3.3 Livelihood zones

In this assessment, five livelihood zones in all the three Darfur states were visited. The assessment

has considered the geographical coverage of each livelihood zones within the localities and the

states. The number of households selected in each livelihood zones proportionally represents the

livelihood zones in the locality and the state. In North Darfur, the most important livelihood zone

is Western Agropastoral Millet where 52 percent of the interviewed households live, followed by North

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



wealth index

Chair Jewellery/watch Radio/Tape

Table Lantern Cattle_holders

Cart Sheep and Goat_holders Poultry_holders

Muharat Bed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



wealth index

Chair Radio/Tape Table

Jewellery/watch Cart Lantern

Cattle_holders Sheep and Goat_holders Poultry_holders

Muharat Bed

23

Darfur Tobacco (22 percent) and Western Wadi Cultivation (14 percent). In South Darfur, the most

common zone is Western Agropastoral Millet and Groundnuts (71 percent) followed by Rainfed Sorghum

Belt (15 percent) and Western Wadi Cultivation (11 percent). Finally, in West Darfur the most

populous zone is Rainfed Sorghum Belt (33 percent), followed by Western Wadi Cultivation (32

percent) and Western Agropastoral Millet (29 percent).

Table 9. Livelihood zones by State

State


Western and Central Pastoral 5%

Rainfed Sorghum Belt

15% 33%

Western Agropastoral Millet and Groundnuts

71% 4%

Western Agropastoral Millet 52% 1% 29%

Jabel Marra Mixed Highland Cultivation

2%

Western Wadi Cultivation 14% 11% 32%

North Darfur Tobacco 22%

North Kordofan Gum Arabic Belt 6% 2%

2.3.4 Livelihoods and income sources

More than 94 percent of all households in North, South and West Darfur report that heads of

household are employed. For the unemployed population, illness/aging was the most important

reason for not working followed by no opportunity for work.

Households were asked to name all livelihood activities and the contribution to total income. About

40 percent of the households named only one activity while 44 percent named two activities. The

rest had three or more livelihood activities with only two percent of households naming six or seven

sources.

The most common activities were: agricultural wage labour (29%), cereal sales (26%), sales of other

crops (21%), sales of livestock or livestock products (16%), firewood/grass sales (16%), salaried work

(10%), other petty trade (10%) or sale of charcoal.

The chart below outlines the percentage of households engaged in the main activities. The main

difference is the higher percentage of households in South Darfur who earn income from crop sales

compared to the two other states. However, households in South Darfur are less likely to earn

income as agricultural wage labourers than those in North or West Darfur. The last major

difference is that a higher percentage of households in North Darfur earn income from sales of

livestock or livestock products than in the other two states.

24

Chart 4. Percentage of households and main livelihood activities by State

When looking at the main livelihood activities by community type in Darfur there are some

differences. The chart below compares the IDP, resident and nomad communities. Obviously most

households in the nomadic community are involved in sales of livestock and their products while

households in IDP and resident communities are equally reliant on agricultural wage labour.

Households in resident communities are more reliant on sales of cereals and other crops for income

compared to the other two groups, while households in the IDP communities are more reliant on

sales of firewood and grass and handicrafts than the other groups.

Chart 5. Main livelihood activity by community type

Households in the returns communities are mostly reliant on agricultural wage labour (39%) and the

sales of firewood and grass (32%) and other crops (17%) as well as charcoal sales (17%). Lastly

households in the refugee communities are very reliant on agricultural wage labour (65%), followed

by brick making (15%), construction (15%) and renting out donkey carts (13%) for income.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

agric

wage

labour

livestock firewood

& grass

sales

cereal

sales

other

crop sales

salaried

work

other

petty

trade

charcoal

sales

Main livelihood activities by State

North

South

West

66%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

agric wage labour

livestock firewood & grass sales

cereal sales other crop sales

salaried work

other petty trade

handicrafts

Main livelihood activities by Community Type

IDPs

Residents

Nomads

25

3.0 CURRENT HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY STATUS

3.1 Food Security

Food Security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to

sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an

active and healthy life (World Food Summit, 1996).

In this assessment, food security is an indicator that is based on three different variables; absolute

expenditure, relative expenditure on food and the household food consumption score. After

creating the food security variable, households are classified into three different groups: food secure,

vulnerable to food insecurity and food insecure. The following sections will give a more detailed

description of the three variables.

3.1.1 Expenditure

In this assessment, expenditure is used as an income proxy indicator. When analyzing household

expenditure, this approach uses the cost of the Minimum Healthy Food Basket (MHFB). The MHFB

consists of eight food items; cereals (sorghum), milk, dry vegetables, cooking oil, goat meat, cow

meat, onions and sugar. The amount of each food needed for the MHFB is calculated in order to

meet the WHO minimum requirements of 2,100 kilocalories per person per day. The requirement

in grams is then multiplied by the market prices of different food items.

After calculating the cost of the minimum healthy food basket, households are classified into three

different categories based on their purchasing power. The first group is the poor category, where

households cannot even afford the cost of one minimum healthy food basket. The second group is

the borderline category, where households can afford between one and two baskets. Finally, the

third group can afford more than two baskets and are therefore the acceptable category.

The chart below shows the trends in the cost of the minimum healthy food basket per state since

February 2009.

Chart 6. Cost of the minimum healthy food basket (MHFB)

0.75

1.00 0.98 1.07

1.18

1.63 1.79

1.21

1.47

1.63

2.12

0.75

1.15 1.05

1.37 1.21

1.51

1.86

1.27

1.59

1.78

2.07

0.74

0.80

1.12 1.24

0.94 1.07

1.25

1.15

1.32

1.45

1.85

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

SDG

Price of MHFB (SDG/person/day)

North Darfur

South Darfur

West Darfur

26

Cost of Minimum Healthy Food Basket

The November 2011 cost of one MHFB in North

Darfur was 2.12 SDG per person/day, which was an

increase from 1.63 SDG in May 2011. The price of oil

has experienced the most dramatic increase, up from

4.5 SDG in May 2011 to 14.87 SDG in November

2011, but also prices of cow and goat meat and dry

tomatoes have increased considerably.

In South Darfur, the cost of the MHFB was 2.07

SDG per person/day, which was an increase from

1.78 SDG in May 2011. The price of oil has increased

significantly from 8.96 SDG in May 2011 to 14.4 SDG

in November 2011.

In West Darfur, the cost of the MHFB was 1.85 SDG

per person/day, which was a significant increase from

1.45 SDG in May 2011. The largest price increases

have been for oil, from 10.75 SDG to 14.33 SDG and

dry tomatoes which increased from 4.71 SDG to

10.56 SDG.

The cost of one minimum healthy food basket in November 2011 in North Darfur was 2.12 SDG

(Sudanese Pound) per person/day, which is an increase from 1.63 SDG in May 2011. The cost of the

basket is based on a price average from seven markets in the state; Kutum, Kebkabiya, Saraf Omara, Al

Fasher, Mellit, Malha and Um Kadada. Prices of all items in the basket have increased compared to

May 2011. The price increase for oil is largely due to limited supply, as the new production had not

yet started and the previous year’s production is

almost exhausted. However, groundnut

production is expected to be good, and as a

consequence the price of oil is expected to

decrease.

In South Darfur, the cost of the MHFB is 2.07

SDG per person/day, which is an increase from

1.78 SDG in May 2011. The cost of the basket is

based on a price average from three markets;

Nyala, Ed Daein and Kass. Prices of most of the

items in the basket have remained relatively stable

compared to May 2011 with the exception of

cooking oil.

In West Darfur, the cost of the basket is 1.85 SDG

per person/day, which has increased from 1.45

SDG in May 2011. The cost of the basket is based

on a price average from three markets; El Geneina,

Zalingei and Habila. Prices of most of the items in the basket have increased compared to May 2011.

There are two main factors behind the price increases in the Darfur region. Prices of locally

produced cereal have increased largely because of expectations of a poor harvest. On the macro

level, prices have increased because of the devaluation of the Sudanese Pound. Prices are expected

to increase further because the government has decided to cut subsidies on sugar and wheat flour9.

In North and West Darfur, more than half of the households cannot even afford the cost of one

MHFB, making more than half of the population very vulnerable to future price increases. In South

Darfur, 30 percent of the households cannot afford the cost of one MHFB. South Darfur has the

highest percentage of households who can afford more than two MHFBs (30 percent), while only

around 10 percent of the households in West and North Darfur can afford the same. One reason

for this is that the average income per person per day in North Darfur is 1.58 SDG and in West

Darfur it is1.55 SDG, which is significantly less than the cost of the food basket. In South Darfur,

the average income per person/day is 2 SDG which is similar to the cost of the food basket.

3.1.2 Relative expenditure on food

In Sudan, the World Bank threshold for estimating vulnerability to shocks in terms of food access is

set at 65 percent of expenditures for food. Less than 65 percent of total monthly expenditure on

food is regarded as good and over 65 percent is poor where any changes in food prices could have a

detrimental outcome. In West Darfur, 72 percent of the households spend more than 65 percent

of their monthly expenditure for food, compared to 62 percent for households in North Darfur. In

comparison, South Darfur is much better off, with only 38 percent of the households spending

more than 65 percent of their monthly expenditure for food.

3.1.3 Food consumption classification

When calculating the food consumption score (FCS), a 7-day recall period is used and information is

collected on the variety and frequency of the intake of different food and food groups. Weights are

based on the nutritional density of the foods and households are classified as having either ‘poor’,

‘borderline’ or ‘acceptable’ consumption based on analysis of the data.

9 IMF presentation to UN Security Management Team, November 28, 2011

27

The table below outlines the weights and their justification for each food/food group used to

calculate the food consumption score.

Table 10. Weights and justification for food consumption score

Food group Weight Justification

Main staples 2 Energy dense, protein content lower and poorer quality than legumes, micronutrients.

Pulses 3 Energy dense, high amounts of protein but of lower quality than meats, micronutrients,

low fat.

Vegetables 1 Low energy, low protein, no fat, micronutrients.

Fruit 1 Low energy, low protein, no fat, micronutrients.

Meat and fish 4 Highest quality protein, easily absorbable micronutrients, energy dense, fat. Even when

consumed in small quantities, improvements to the quality of diet are significant.

Milk 4 Highest quality protein, micronutrients, vitamin A, energy.

Sugar 0.5 Empty calories. Usually consumed in small quantities.

Oil 0.5 Energy dense but usually no other micronutrients.

In this survey, households with a food consumption score less than 28 are classified as having poor

consumption; those with a score from 28 to 42 are classified as borderline while households with a

score greater than 42 are considered to have acceptable consumption. In Sudan people tend to

consume sugar on a daily basis.

Based on analysis of the entire sample, Chart 7 below shows the relative contribution (and

importance) of food items as consumption improves. Nearly all households eat cereal on a daily

basis while sugar and vegetables are also very important in the Darfur diet, followed by the

consumption of oils/fats.

Chart 7. Food items contribution to the food consumption score

Overall, the food consumption situation is quite good in the three states. In South Darfur, three

out of four household have acceptable food consumption while in North and West Darfur two out

-

7

14

21

28

35

42

49

56

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94

cu

mu

lati

ve c

on

sum

pti

on

fre

qu

en

cy

Food Consumption Scores

Cereal Pulses Vegetables Fruits Animal Protein Milk Sugar Oil/fats

28

of three households have acceptable food consumption. However, households in North Darfur are

the most likely to have poor food consumption.

Chart 8. Food Consumption Categories

Chart 9 below shows the level of household food consumption by food aid recipient status and

state. For the most part, the beneficiary households have worse consumption than the non-

beneficiaries demonstrating that the targeting of food assistance in the Darfur region is good.

However, it also reflects that the amount of food assistance going into the region is only making a

partial contribution to improved household food security.

Chart 9. Food Consumption Categories by beneficiary status

To understand qualitatively what the consumption categories mean, the chart below highlights the

typical diet of households in each group. Households with poor consumption consume sorghum,

sugar and dry vegetables on a daily basis. They also consume oil/fat five days a week and dry meat

only once a week. Households with borderline consumption eat sorghum, oil/fat, milk/yoghurt,

sugar and dry vegetables on a daily basis, supplemented by dry meat three days a week and fresh

meat and fresh vegetables once a week.

12% 7% 3%

24%

17%33%

64%76%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

North South West

Food consumption classification by State

Acceptable

Borderline

Poor

13% 12% 7% 9% 4% 4%

25% 23%

16%18% 29%

39%

62% 65%77% 73%

67%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

None Food aid None Food aid None Food aid

North South West

Food consumption by Food aid beneficiary

Acceptable

Borderline

Poor

29

Chart 10. Weekly food consumption by group

3.1.4 Sources of food consumed

The sources of different foods consumed are analyzed as an attempt to understand how reliance on

particular sources of food can impact household food security. The main sources of food in the

Darfur context include food from a family’s own production, purchase, and food aid. Other sources

such as gifts, borrowing, in-kind payments or hunting/gathering/fishing were considered in the survey.

Chart 11. Food sources and food security

The chart above shows that for all states and all food security groups, purchase from shops and

markets is the main source of food. In all states, households with poor consumption are more

reliant on food aid and less reliant on production for their food. Households in West Darfur rely

less on purchase than those in the other two states yet have a slightly higher reliance on food aid for

consumption. Those with acceptable consumption in West Darfur are also the most reliant on

their own production for food.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Days per week food items/groups consumed by consumption

category

poor

borderline

acceptable

4% 8%14%

6% 8% 12% 11% 11%17%

86%85%

80%88% 89% 86%

75% 77%76%

7% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1%

11% 9%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

po

or

bo

rderl

ine

acce

pta

ble

po

or

bo

rderl

ine

acce

pta

ble

po

or

bo

rderl

ine

acce

pta

ble

North South West

Sources of food by food consumption group and state

other

food aid

purchase

production

30

Strangely enough, households in South Darfur are more reliant on purchase for their food, despite

the fact that the production is higher. However, they are also more likely to have a more diversified

diet which would require more purchase.

The seemingly lesser reliance on food aid for household consumption could be that many WFP

beneficiaries are receiving a 50 percent ration and due to the timing of the data collection, they are

likely to have consumed the food aid quickly and switched to purchase to meet the rest of their

monthly needs.

When analysing reliance on food sources by community type it is clear that refugee households are

the most reliant on food aid for their household consumption, with one-quarter of all food

consumed in the previous week coming from food aid. Households in the nomad communities are

more reliant on their own production due to regular access to products from livestock. Households

in resident communities are more likely than those in IDP communities to source food from their

own production.

Chart 12. Food sources by food security and community type

3.2 Food Insecurity

In this assessment, household food security is determined using three different types of information:

Ability to afford at least two minimum healthy food baskets10, which is a measure of household

poverty;

Relative expenditure on food or the share of monthly household expenditures spent on food

where a household is better off if it uses less than 65 percent of total expenditure for food

which reflects household purchasing power.

Household dietary diversity and food frequency which is a measure of current household food

security.

The households were classified as being food insecure, vulnerable or food secure based on the

above-mentioned indicators. These findings were then used to draw conclusions about food

insecurity at the locality level.

Based on the composite analysis presented above, households in North and West Darfur were

most likely to be food insecure (23 percent each) while only 11 percent of households in South

Darfur were food insecure. However, about one-third of households in both North and West

Darfur were vulnerable to food insecurity at the time of the survey. In all, two-thirds of households

10 The MHFB consists of eight food items; cereals (sorghum), milk, dry vegetables, cooking oil, goat or cow meat, onion and sugar.

7%13%

8%17%

5%

83%

83%85%

80%

69%

9%3%

4%2%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

IDPs Residents Returnees Nomads Refugees

Sources of food by community type

other

food aid

purchase

production

31

in South Darfur were food secure, compared to just over 40 percent each in North and West

Darfur.

Map 2. Food security by locality

32

Chart 13. Food Security Categories

When using the projected population numbers for 201111, an estimated 1,335,000 people are food

insecure with a further estimated 963,000 people vulnerable to food insecurity. The highest

absolute numbers of food insecure are found in North Darfur while South Darfur hosts the largest

number of vulnerable people.

Table 11. Estimated population of food insecure households

State Total


2011 Projected population 2,300,000 4,400,000 1,400,000 8,100,000

Food insecure 529,000 484,000 322,000 1,335,000

Vulnerable 782,000 1,012,000 504,000 2,298,000

These numbers represent the overall situation in Darfur. However, it is important to note that

approximately 1.7 million IDPs are living in camps across the three Darfur states. For years, these

IDPs have been supported based on their community status and not necessarily their vulnerability

status. The high number of IDPs in camps in Darfur significantly contributes to the total number of

beneficiaries in Darfur who are being supported by WFP and other humanitarian organisations.

In West Darfur, 30 percent of the IDPs are food insecure compared to 23 percent in North Darfur

and 17 percent in South Darfur. In all three states, the food security status for IDPs is similar to

that of residents, meaning that the food assistance provided to IDPs likely has a stabilizing effect on

their food security situation. Other IDPs live in villages but face continuous threats from the ongoing

conflict that adversely affect their ability to produce agricultural goods, access income generating

activities and access food to meet their consumption requirements. As a result, they are heavily

reliant on food aid as a main source of food.

When reviewing sources of food and food security by state, there are a few differences. As

mentioned in the previous section, reliance on purchase for food is lower amongst households in

West Darfur compared to the two other states (see chart below). In addition, reliance on own

production increases with increased household food security in all states while reliance on food aid

11 Based on the 2008 Census

23%11%

23%

34%

23%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

North South West

Food security by State

Food Secure

Vulnerable

Food insecure

33

decreases. An interesting observation is that reliance on purchase is highest amongst food insecure

households in North and South Darfur, indicating that these households are extremely vulnerable

to price increases.

Chart 14. Sources of food by food security status and state

5%13% 13%

6% 11% 12% 10%17% 16%

86%80% 82%

89%86% 87%

76%74% 78%

7% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1%

11% 7% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

foo

d in

secu

re

vuln

era

ble

foo

d s

ecu

re

foo

d in

secu

re

vuln

era

ble

foo

d s

ecu

re

foo

d in

secu

re

vuln

era

ble

foo

d s

ecu

re

North South West

Sources of food by food security status and state

other

food aid

purchase

production

34

4.0 HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY PROFILING

This section explores the underlying causes of food insecurity. Decades of conflict and economic

sanctions have had a serious effect on Sudan generally, and Darfur specifically. Additionally,

environmental degradation and desertification has led to decreased natural resources available to

both farmers and pastoralists. As a consequence, the Darfur region has experienced increased

conflict over these scarce resources.

The purpose of this section is to characterize typical food insecure households and to identify

particular groups that are more likely to be food insecure in order to help guide more effectively the

targeting and design of food security interventions.

4.1 Sex of household head

In all three states, sex of household head has a significant impact on a household’s food security

status, and a much higher percentage of female headed households are food insecure and vulnerable

compared to male headed households. Overall, 28 percent of female headed households are food

insecure compared to 14 percent of male headed households. Sex of household head has the largest

effect in North Darfur, where 38 percent of female headed households are food insecure compared

to 17 percent of male headed households. A similar relationship exists amongst households in West

Darfur as well. When a female is heading the household, it usually means that the man is no longer

living in the households, due to different reasons, and the household then has fewer men of working

age to contribute to the household’s income.

Chart 15. Sex of household head and food security status

Similarly, when analyzing purchasing power and gender of household head, findings show that a

higher percentage of female headed households in Darfur cannot even afford one minimum healthy

food basket compared to male headed households. Furthermore, a higher percentage of female

headed households spend more than 65 percent of total monthly expenditure on food items

compared to male headed households.

As with the trends for other variables, gender of household head also has an effect on the Food

Consumption Score (FCS) and female headed households have higher percentages of households in

the poor and borderline food consumption category compared to male headed households.

17%

38%

9%18% 19%

32%

35%

33%

22%

27%35%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

MHH FHH MHH FHH MHH FHH

North South West

Food insecurity by Head of household and State

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

35

4.2 Education of household head

Education of household head has a clear effect on the food security status of a household. A higher

percentage of households headed by a person with no education are food insecure compared to

households where the household head is educated.

Analysis shows that level of education for the household head has a clear influence on a household’s

purchasing power, and the higher level of education the lower the percentage of households who

are unable to afford the cost of one minimum healthy food basket. Consequently, higher level of

education equates to higher percentage of households that are able to afford more than two MHFBs.

Level of education also has a positive influence on relative expenditure on food.

Chart 16. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – North Darfur

The chart above shows that regardless of education level, female headed households in North

Darfur are more likely to be food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity than households headed

by men.

Chart 17. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – South Darfur

22%15% 12%

39% 37%28%

37%

36%

26%

34% 34%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

none primary secondary+ none primary secondary+

Male HH Female HH

Household food security by sex and education of head - North Darfur

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

11% 8% 8%19% 15% 18%

25%21%

14%

27%25% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Male HH Female HH

Household food security by sex and education of head - South Darfur

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

36

For households in South Darfur, the same trend is evident but the differences in food security

between male and female headed households and education are not as great as in North Darfur. In

fact, for households headed by women, food insecurity levels remain similar, regardless of education

while the percentage of households vulnerable to food insecurity decreases with increased education

of female heads.

Chart 18. Sex and education level of household head and food security status – West Darfur

In West Darfur, there is a clear relationship between sex of the head of household, education and

household food security. In fact, it seems that female headship alone is a clear predictor of

household food insecurity or vulnerability to food insecurity. For households headed by men, 80

percent with secondary education or higher are food secure.

4.3 Employment and livelihood strategies

Employment has a clear effect on the food security status, and overall 29 percent of unemployed

households are food insecure, compared to 16 percent of households where the head is employed.

In West Darfur, working status has the clearest effect on the food security status, where 52 percent

of households are food insecure with the head unemployed compared to 22 percent of employed

head of household.

In South Darfur, 24 percent of households where the head is unemployed are food insecure,

compared to 10 percent of employed households. In North Darfur, employment has a more

limited effect, where 29 percent of unemployed households are food insecure, compared to 23

percent of employed households.

Analysis of the various livelihood activities reported by the households and their contribution to

total income resulted in 10 distinct livelihood groups:

Cereals and other crops sales = 25% of households

Sale of food aid, wheel barrow, rickshaw, begging = 2%

Remittances and kiosk = 6%

Agricultural wage labour, bricks, construction, porter, selling water = 5%

Donkey cart, gifts, tea/food selling, handicrafts = 9%

Salaried work = 7%

Agricultural wage labour = 17%

Selling firewood, grass and charcoal = 10%

Selling livestock and products = 10%

Skilled labour and other petty trade = 9%

21% 18%9%

34%25%

13%

39%34%

11%

40%

42%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Male HH Female HH

Household food security by sex and education of head - West Darfur

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

37

Chart 19. Employment of household head and food security status by state

Households relying on salaried work or sales of food and cash crops are the least likely to be food

insecure. However, households relying on agricultural wage labour alone or a combination of selling

firewood, grass or charcoal are the most likely to be food insecure or vulnerable as illustrated in the

chart below.

Chart 20. Food security by livelihood group

4.4 Community type and food security status

In North Darfur, the returnee community is the most likely to have food insecure households (27

percent), while 23 percent of households in both the resident and IDP communities are food

insecure. In general there is not much difference in food security status between communities in

this state. However in South Darfur, the highest levels of food insecurity are found amongst the

23%29%

10%

24% 22%

52%

34%31%

23%

25%36%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

employed unemployed employed unemployed employed unemployed

North South West

Employment of HH head and food security

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

9%21%

13%22% 22%

7%

29% 26%

9% 14%

23%

27%

27%

31% 30%

26%

35% 35%

30%28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CRPS FA, WB,

RKS, BG

REM, KSK AWL,

BRK,

CNST,

PRT,

WTR

DNK,

GFT,

CTR,

HNDC

SLW AWL FRW,

CHRC

LVST SKLB,

OPT

Food insecurity by Livelihood group

food insecure vulnerable food secure

38

nomads, followed by returnees. Only eight percent of resident households are food insecure,

compared to 17 percent for IDPs. Lastly, in West Darfur, returnee households are the most likely

to be food insecure (35 percent) compared to 30 percent for IDPs and 21 percent for residents.

Very few nomad households in this state are food insecure.

Chart 21. Community type and food security status

4.5 Households with members with special needs

In all three Darfur states, households that have members with disabilities have a higher percentage of

households in the food insecure category. Overall, 14 percent of households in the sample have at

least one member with special needs ranging from a low of 12 percent in West Darfur to 15

percent each in North and South Darfur states.

Chart 22. Households with special needs member by food security and State

Overall, female headed households are more likely to host a special needs member (16 percent)

than households headed by a male (14 percent). Households in refugee communities are most likely

23% 23% 27%17%

8%

23% 28% 30%21%

35%

3%

35% 34%36%

29%

21%

28%25%

40%

36%

36%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

IDPs

Resi

dents

Retu

rnees

IDPs

Resi

dents

Retu

rnees

No

mad

s

IDPs

Resi

dents

Retu

rnees

No

mad

s

North South West

Food security by community type and State

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

16%

19%

17%

15%16%

10%

14% 14%

11%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

North South West

% HH with special needs member by food security and State

food insecure

vulnerable

food secure

39

to be hosting a special needs member (16 percent) while those in nomad communities are the least

likely (11 percent). Sixteen percent of the households in the poorest wealth quintile are hosting a

special needs member, which is higher than in the other quintiles.

Nearly 20 percent of households in the poor food consumption group are hosting a special needs

member. In addition, 17 percent of households in the “donkey cart, gifts, tea/food selling,

handicrafts” and “selling firewood, grass & charcoal” livelihood groups are hosting a member with

special needs, compared to only 11 percent of households in the “salaried work” and “skilled labour

& other petty trade” livelihood groups.

4.6 Livelihood zones

When analyzing food security by livelihood zones, finding shows that households in North Darfur

Tobacco zone are the most likely to be food insecure (43 percent). One reason for this is that the

tobacco is being cultivated in the winter season and planting has not yet taken place as tobacco is

usually harvested in February and March. Thus, the typical households use their income on farming

activities which increase their expenditure on non-food items leaving them with less money to spend

on food. Furthermore, this is reflected in the food consumption score, with 74 percent of the

households in this livelihood zone having either poor or borderline food consumption.

Households in the Jabel Marra Mixed Highland Cultivation zone are also have a high probability of

being food insecure (27 percent) or vulnerable (47 percent). The poor food security situation in this

zone is attributed to the households’ low income due to restriction of movement and limited access

to markets and jobs. Agriculture is the main activity in this zone, and the food consumption score is

good. However, due to restricted movement, the farmers are not able to access markets to sell

their crops.

Chart 23. Livelihood zones and food security status

4.7 Household wealth

Wealth is clearly linked to food security status and food insecure households are also asset-poor

households. For households in the poorest wealth quintile, 37 percent are food insecure and 32

percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. The percentage of food insecure households decreases

steadily with increasing wealth quintile. However, the percentage of vulnerable households does not

19% 21%

10%16%

27%21%

41%

6%

35% 29%

22%

38%

47%

33%

33%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Western and Central Pastoral

Rainfed Sorghum Belt

Western Agropastoral

Millet and Groundnuts

Western Agropastoral

Millet

Jabel Marra Mixed Highland

Cultivation

Western Wadi Cultivation

North Darfur Tobacco

North Kordofan Gum Arabic

Belt

Livelihood zones and food security

food insecure vulnerable food secure

40

decrease as rapidly between the lowest four quintiles and dropping to only 20 percent of households

in the wealthiest quintile.

Chart 24. Wealth quintiles and food security status

When analyzing wealth index and food security status at the state level, the state specific findings in

North and West Darfur are even more significant. In North Darfur, 44 percent of the poorest

quintile is food insecure, compared to five percent of the richest quintile. In West Darfur, 52

percent of the poorest quintile is food insecure compared to 4 percent of the richest quintile.

Chart 25. Wealth quintiles by food security and State

The proportions of households with agricultural productive assets (muhurat, carts), domestic articles

(chair, bed, jewellery/watch, table and lantern) and livestock were higher among the food secure and

37%

22%13% 8% 4%

32%

31%

31%29%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

poorest second third fourth wealthiest

Wealth quintiles and food security

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

44%

31%

19% 15%5%

26%

13%7% 5% 3%

52%

30%20%

7% 4%

34%

39%

37%35%

27%

31%

26%

25%19%

14%

34%

35%

39%

45%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

po

ore

st

seco

nd

thir

d

fourt

h

weal

thie

st

po

ore

st

seco

nd

thir

d

fourt

h

weal

thie

st

po

ore

st

seco

nd

thir

d

fourt

h

weal

thie

st

North South West

Wealth quintiles and food security by State

food secure

vulnerable

food insecure

41

vulnerable households compared to the food insecure households. Particularly, the ownership of

furniture such as bed, table and chair differs according to the level of food security.

4.8 Coping strategies

In the survey a series of questions were used to understand what households do when they do not

have enough food or do not have enough money to buy food. In other words, the behavioural

responses or ‘coping strategies’ when faced with food insecurity, such as reducing the frequency of

meals, reducing the portions of food consumed during meals or shifting reliance to cheaper foods,

shifting reliance to less preferred or cheaper food types and other food consumption-related coping

strategies.

The chart below outlines the percentage of households by food security group and state who

experienced a situation in the week prior to the survey where they didn’t have enough food or

money to buy food. It is clear that in all states, food insecure households were more likely to have

experienced this situation, and this was more common in North Darfur than the other states. The

food secure households in West Darfur were the least likely to have experienced this situation than

any other group.

Chart 26. Households experiencing food security stress by state

When looking at the coping strategies adopted by households, the most common (from a fixed list)

is to borrow food or money to purchase food (69 percent in South Darfur) followed by relying on

less preferred/less expensive foods (63 percent in North Darfur). The table below outlines the use

of these different strategies by state for households who had experienced difficulty in accessing

enough food in the week prior to the survey.

Table 12. Use of key coping strategies by State

North South West

Eat less preferred/less expensive foods 63% 35% 42%

Borrow food or money to buy food 58% 69% 51%

Rely on help from friends or relatives (musaada) 21% 22% 18%

Limit portion size at mealtimes 35% 26% 10%

Reduce consumption by adults so children can eat 20% 19% 3%

Reduce the number of meals per day 41% 38% 10%

66%

59%

55%

44%

50%

26%

42%

50%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

North South West

Households experiencing food security stress by State

food insecure

vulnerable

food secure

42

5.0 FOOD UTILIZATION AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS

5.1 Children's nutritional status

Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) was measured for nearly 7,700 children aged between 6-59

months. Using a cut-point of < 12.5 cm for global acute malnutrition (GAM), a total of 6.9 percent of

the children measured were acutely malnourished, ranging from 6.0 percent in West Darfur to 8.9

percent in North Darfur. Children 6-23 months of age were more likely to be malnourished (15.6

percent) than those two years of age and older (3.2 percent).

Table 13. Prevalence of GAM by State

All 6-23 months 24-59 months

N % 95% CI N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

North 1985 8.9% 7.6-10.1 575 19.5% 16.2-22.7 1410 4.5% 3.5-5.6

South 4102 6.2% 5.5-7.0 1158 14.1% 12.1-16.1 2944 3.1% 2.5-3.8

West 1572 6.0% 4.9-7.2 524 14.5% 11.5-17.5 1048 1.8% 1.0-2.6

Total 7659 6.9% 6.3-7.4 2257 15.6% 14.1-17.0 5402 3.2% 2.8-3.7

The chart below shows the prevalence of GAM is highest in younger children and decreases rapidly

during the weaning period in all states. For children in North Darfur, the peak is among children

12-17 months of age (23 percent) while for children in South Darfur the peak is among children 6-

11 months of age (19 percent).

Chart 27. Prevalence of GAM by child age group and state

The prevalence of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) where MUAC is less than 11.5 cm is 1.7 percent

for the entire sample with the highest prevalence amongst children in South Darfur state.

Table 14. Prevalence of SAM by State

% SAM 95% CI

North 1.7 1.1-2.2

South 1.9 1.5-2.3

West 1.2 0.7-1.7

Total 1.7 1.4-2.0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

6-11 12-17 18-23 24-35 36-47 48-59

perc

enta

ge c

hildre

n

Prevalence GAM by child age and state

North

South

West

43

The chart below shows that children in IDP communities are the most likely to be malnourished,

having both the highest GAM and SAM rates. They are followed by children in resident

communities. Children in nomad communities are the least likely to be malnourished in Darfur.

Chart 28. Prevalence of malnutrition by community type

When looking at the prevalence of child under nutrition by livelihood groups, the children from the

households that rely on the sale of food aid, wheel barrow and rickshaw rental and begging are by

far the most likely to be malnourished (17.6 percent GAM) as illustrated in the chart below.

Children from households where the family relies on collection and sales of firewood and grass and

charcoal selling are also more likely to be undernourished than the other groups (8.6 percent GAM).

Children from households that depend on crop sales for their livelihood are the least likely to be

malnourished (5.2 percent GAM) while very few children from households with salaried workers are

severely malnourished.

Chart 29. Prevalence of GAM and SAM by livelihood group

5.2 Child feeding practises

An important contributing factor to a child’s health is the mothers feeding practices and knowledge

about child health. In this assessment, mothers were asked what her child ate in the previous day.

As illustrated in the chart below, breastfeeding is quite high (80-90 percent) amongst children 6-15

9.2%

6.6%

5.5%5.0%

2.5%

1.6% 1.4%

0.5%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

IDPs Residents Returnees Nomads

Prevalence of GAM and SAM by community type

GAM

SAM

5.2%

17.6%

7.3% 7.0% 7.4%6.6%

7.7%8.6%

6.6% 6.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

CRPS FA, WB,

RKS, BG

REM,

KSK

AWL,

BRK,

CNST,

PRT,

WTR

DNK,

GFT,

CTR,

HNDC

SLW AWL FRW,

CHRC

LVST SKLB,

OPT

GAM and SAM by livelihood group

GAM

SAM

44

months and then drops considerably to around 40 percent for children 20-23 months of age. It

appears that most children are weaned by 2 years of age.

It also appears that at 6 months of age, about 40 percent of the children are eating cereals (mostly

sorghum) and dairy (milk or yoghurt). Cereals continue to be introduced to the child’s diet and by

20 months of age, nearly all children are eating cereals. Consumption of dairy increases gradually

with age but reaches only about two-thirds of the young children in the 16-19 month age group.

Meat is the third most important weaning/complementary food in the Darfur child’s diet yet is not

consumed on a daily basis.

Chart 30. Child feeding practises by age

In all three Darfur states, the percentage of children consuming food from less than four food groups

is very high, ranging from 85 percent of the children in North Darfur, to 77 percent of the children

in South Darfur. This means that an extremely large percentage of children in Darfur do not receive

enough nutrients required for growth.

The chart below shows that child dietary diversity is closely linked to household dietary diversity and

for children with low dietary diversity, 55 percent live in households with poor and borderline food

consumption as measured by the food consumption score.

Chart 31. Child dietary diversity by household food consumption

Nearly 90 percent of the children eating four or more food groups are from households with

acceptable food consumption. Further analysis with wealth quintiles shows a strong relationship

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6 to 7

months

8 to 9 10 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 23 24 to 35

months

% c

hild

ren

Child feeding by age

cereals

nuts & beans

dairy

meat

fruits & veges

breastmilk

45

between wealth and dietary diversity in children where 32 percent of children from the wealthiest

quintile were eating four or more food groups compared to only six percent from the poorest

quintile.

Lastly, good child feeding practises as measured by child dietary diversity are also a factor of the

education of the household head. The chart below shows that the percentage of children with good

dietary diversity (four or more food groups) increases with increased education of the household

head. Of course it is noted that the education of the household head is also related to household

wealth.

Chart 32. Education of household head and child dietary diversity

5.3 Disease

To analyze child health, the respondent was also asked if the child has been ill in the past two weeks

prior to the assessment. South Darfur had the highest percentages of children with recent illness,

with 21 percent of the children having experienced fever in the previous two weeks, 16 percent with

acute respiratory infections (ARI) and six percent had suffered from diarrhoea. In North Darfur, 15

percent of the children had experienced ARI in the previous two weeks, 13 percent had fever and 8

percent had suffered from diarrhoea. In West Darfur, 18 percent of the children had experienced

fever in the previous two weeks, and nine percent had experienced diarrhoea or ARI. The chart

below shows the prevalence of illness by age category and state. In all, older children were less

likely to have experienced recent illness. Chart 33. Recent child illness by State

29% 27% 26%16%

58%56%

49%

41%

12% 17%25%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

none primary secondary university

Education of HH head and child dietary diversity

4 or more

2 to 3

0 to 1

53%

68%

49%59%

54%

68%

12%

6%

9%

5% 15%

7%19%

13%

18%15%

12%8%

16% 12%24% 20% 19% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 2 years 2-5 years < 2 years 2-5 years < 2 years 2-5 years

North South West

Recent illness in children by age and state

fever

ARI

diarrhoea

none

46

6.0 LOCALITY PROFILING

Please note: An additional document with detailed locality profiling will be prepared and circulated separately.

In this study, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used as a tool to capture the relationship

between key variables in order to minimize the numerous variables into those which best describe

the localities profile in terms of food insecurity and poverty. The result of the PCA was that there

were three leading indicators that explained most of the situation of food insecurity and poverty in

Darfur. They are as follows:

% of food insecure households

% of households in the lowest quintile of the wealth index

% of children less than 2 years of age with MUAC < 11.5cm

Using the three leading indicators mentioned above, a clustering analysis was used to group localities

together based on the similarity of characteristics.

Four clusters or four groups of localities were identified and are described below.

The Better off group is comprised of 13 localities across the Darfur region, where eight percent of

the households are food insecure and 23 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. With relatively

good food consumption, households in this cluster do not have a problem with food intake and they

have relatively good access to food in terms of purchasing power and wealth. This group has the

lowest percentages of children with Sever Acute Malnutrition (SAM) (4.4 percent).

A total of 14 localities make up the Vulnerable group, of which 17 percent of the households are

food insecure and 31 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. With relatively good food

consumption, households in this cluster do not have a problem with food intake. However, this

cluster has some problems with accessibility, with 44 percent of the households unable to afford the

cost of one minimum healthy food basket.

The Poor group is made up of five localities where 33 percent of the households are food insecure

and 35 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. With relatively good food consumption in this

cluster, the food security problems are mainly related to accessibility, and 60 percent of the

households cannot afford the cost of one minimum healthy food basket. In terms of employment,

this cluster has the highest percentage of household heads engaged in agricultural labour and they

are thus heavily dependent on seasonal work. This cluster also has the highest percentage of

households (62 percent) in the two poorest wealth quintiles.

Five localities are in the Food insecure group where 34 percent of the households are food insecure

and 35 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. The overall food security situation in this cluster is

affected by two factors. One is a problem with intake, and this cluster has the highest percentage of

households with poor food consumption (19 percent). Furthermore, this cluster also has an

accessibility problem with 61 percent of the households unable to afford the cost of one minimum

healthy food basket. In terms of employment, this cluster has the highest percentage (nine) of

household heads who are unemployed. This group also has the highest percentages of SAM (9.9

percent).

47

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lack of food it not the main reason behind household food insecurity. Low income and limited job

opportunities reduce households’ capacity in acquiring food. Improved access to income generating

activities is key to reducing vulnerability to food insecurity in Darfur.

Findings from the Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in Darfur show that an estimated

population of 529,000 people in North Darfur, 484,000 people in South Darfur and 322,000 people

in West Darfur are food insecure. Furthermore, an estimated population of 782,000 people are

vulnerable to food insecurity in North Darfur, approximately one million people in South Darfur

and 504,000 people in West Darfur.

Livelihood food security and vulnerability profiles

Households engaged in agriculture based labour are more vulnerable to food insecurity compared to

households engaged in other livelihood activities. Amongst households relying on this livelihood

activity, one in four households were food insecure and one in three households vulnerable to food

insecurity. People engaged in public services have more stable income compared to others and are

the most food secure group.

Geographic food security and vulnerability profiles

When the geographic distribution of food insecurity was examined, two clusters of five localities

each were found to be “poor” and “food insecure”. In the “food insecure” cluster, 34 percent of the

households are food insecure and 35 percent vulnerable to food insecurity. This cluster has both a

problem with the food intake with poor food consumption scores, and a problem with accessibility,

as 61 percent of the households cannot afford the cost of one minimum healthy food basket. This

cluster also has the highest percentage of household heads who are unemployed (nine percent).

In the “poor” cluster, 33 percent of the households are food insecure and 35 percent vulnerable to

food insecurity. The food security problems in this cluster are mainly related to accessibility, and 60

percent of the households cannot afford the cost of even one minimum healthy food basket. In

terms of employment, this cluster has the highest percentage of household heads engaged in

agricultural labour and they are thus heavily dependent on seasonal work.

Causes of food insecurity and vulnerability

This report has documented that there are several common characteristics that affect and determine

a household’s food security status in Darfur:

Wealth status

Income and Expenditure

Education level of the household head


Employment status

Livelihood activity

Wealth is clearly linked to food security status and food insecure households are also asset-poor

households. For households in the poorest wealth quintile, 37 percent are food insecure compared

to 3.5 percent of the richest quintile.

Recommended interventions

Based on the results from the Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in Darfur, this report

recommends geographical targeting assistance based on the most vulnerable clusters as identified in

this assessment.

Food Interventions

• Targeted food aid reaching most vulnerable and food insecure groups;

• Food for training to teach mothers childcare and nutrition best practices;

48

• Food for education among the poorest areas to ensure children receive their nutritional

requirements and remain in school, with particular emphasis placed on female attendance;

• Scaling up micronutrient programmes including iodine in salt and vitamin A and iron

fortification of locally available foods

Non-food Interventions

Special attention should be paid to the following:

• Capacity building for government institutions to enhance their ability to monitor and analyze

food security trends;

• Capacity building for public and private institutions in establishing adequate food based safety

nets targeting the most vulnerable segments of the population;

• Improving maternal and child care practices;

• Working to improve nutrition through appropriate actions in agriculture, rural development,

water supply and sanitation, social protection, education, gender and community-driven

development.

The “food insecure” cluster is the most vulnerable, and should be prioritized for assistance. This

cluster has the poorest food consumption score and general food distribution is vital. Furthermore,

with a low purchasing power, and the highest percentage of unemployed heads of households Food

for Work activities should be implemented to stimulate these households’ ability to access food.

Finally, to improve people’s skills and knowledge, Food for Training can be used as a capacity building

tool enabling them to pursue other income generating activities.

The “poor” cluster is also in need of Food for Work and Food for Training activities, to improve

their accessibility and to help them access other income generating activities. With the highest

percentage of household heads engaged in agricultural labour, seasonal support should be prioritized

in this cluster.

49

Annex 1. Sampling

The Sample Frame

The survey covered all 38 localities in the three states of Darfur. A classic cluster sampling approach

was adopted with locality used as primary clusters. For the three states of Darfur, the sample frame

and the primary sampling units were updated according to the census of 2008 and based on

information provided by the WFP Area Offices. Livelihood zones provided by FEWS-NET within

each locality were also used.

The proportions of locality population to the total population within each state were used to

determine the sample size. The design was set at 38x141 (38 localities and 141 households within

each locality) to yield 5,368 households (approximately 5,400 households) in the three states. The

proportions of the state population to the total population of the three states were used to

determine the sample size within each state leading to the collection of 1,541 households from

North Darfur, 2,953 households from South Darfur and 1,006 households from West Darfur. Total

number of sampled cities/villages within each locality was based on the proportion of different

livelihood zones within each locality. 387 cities/villages were randomly picked from 38 localities and

14 households randomly picked and interviewed from each city/village.

The number of sampled households was estimated using the following formula:

N = [(Z2 . P. (1-P)) / E2]. DF

Where:

N = required sample size,

Z = confidence level (95%), (.0.0 =α ) and Z = 1.96,

P = initial probability of the indicator and was set at 9% food insecure in Darfur estimated by

the 2010 Sudan Household Health- II report,

E = error term and was set at 7%,

DF = design effect (2),

This leads to:

2.07.0

91.09.96.12

2x

n = 128 Households

Then a 10% was added as a non response rate = 128 + (0.1 x 128) = 141 households.

50

Annex 2. Locality Profiling

State

Locality Kebkabiya El Fasher Kutum Malha Um Keddada

Dar El Salam

Al Laait & Tewisha

Al Teina El Serif Kalimendo Kuma Mellit Saraf Omra North Darfur State

Average household members 6.4 6.9 6.5 7.1 6.2 7.2 6.9 7.1 6.4 7.6 6.4 7.6 6.3 6.8% under 5, Male 13% 12% 13% 12% 9% 12% 14% 13% 11% 11% 13% 9% 13% 12%% under 5, Female 12% 11% 12% 14% 10% 11% 11% 13% 14% 8% 10% 7% 10% 11%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Male 16% 18% 20% 17% 18% 17% 17% 19% 18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 18%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Female 15% 16% 17% 21% 19% 18% 14% 18% 18% 18% 12% 19% 20% 17%% 16 -60 yrs, Male 21% 20% 18% 14% 16% 20% 20% 17% 17% 19% 21% 22% 18% 19%% 16 -60 yrs, Female 22% 21% 19% 20% 22% 20% 21% 20% 17% 21% 19% 22% 18% 20%% over 60 yrs, Male 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1%% over 60 yrs, Female 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1%

Residence statusResidents 97.9% 85.7% 81.8% 86.8% 96.4% 83.8% 96.4% 85.7% 99.1% 98.2% 92.9% 97.9% 98.4% 91.2%IDPs 2.1% 10.7% 14.5% 13.2% 3.6% 16.2% 3.6% 10.7% .9% 1.8% 2.4% 1.0% .8% 7.1%

IDP in camp 1.4% 4.7% 1.2% 3.8% 1.8% 4.0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% 1.0% .0% 2.1%IDP outside camps .7% 6.0% 13.3% 9.4% 1.8% 12.1% 3.6% 10.7% .9% .0% 2.4% .0% .8% 5.0%

Returnees .0% 3.6% 3.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.6% .0% .0% 4.8% .0% .8% 1.5%Nomads .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%Refugees .0% .0% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% .0% .1%

For IDP or refugee - Years spent in camp1-2 years .0% 6.7% 33.3% .0% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 12.5%3-4 years .0% 6.7% 66.7% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 16.7%5-6 years .0% 53.3% .0% .0% .0% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 41.7%>6 years 100.0% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 29.2%

Gender of household headMale 81.3% 71.7% 74.5% 65.4% 82.1% 42.4% 82.1% 92.6% 93.8% 46.4% 73.8% 74.0% 72.2% 73.3%Female 18.7% 28.3% 25.5% 34.6% 17.9% 57.6% 17.9% 7.4% 6.3% 53.6% 26.2% 26.0% 27.8% 26.7%

Education level of the household headNone 57.1% 31.7% 45.3% 62.3% 39.3% 49.0% 29.4% 53.6% 67.9% 55.4% 57.1% 67.7% 72.4% 49.0%Primary 34.3% 50.6% 44.0% 28.3% 51.8% 44.9% 45.9% 35.7% 28.4% 33.9% 33.3% 27.1% 19.5% 39.3%Secondary 7.9% 16.3% 8.2% 7.5% 7.1% 6.1% 20.2% 10.7% 1.8% 8.9% 9.5% 4.2% 8.1% 10.2%University .7% 1.4% 2.5% 1.9% 1.8% .0% 4.6% .0% 1.8% 1.8% .0% 1.0% .0% 1.5%

Type of housingMud/mud brick 5.0% 5.6% 9.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.6% 2.4% 3.2% .8% 3.4%Stone/concrete/brick 1.4% .3% 1.2% .0% .0% 6.2% .9% .0% 5.4% .0% .0% .0% 2.4% 1.5%Thatch 91.4% 92.7% 84.8% 92.5% 96.4% 93.8% 99.1% 100.0% 87.5% 96.4% 97.6% 96.8% 95.2% 92.9%Plastic shelter 2.1% 1.4% 4.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.3%Other .0% .0% .0% 7.5% 3.6% .0% .0% .0% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .9%

Main source of drinking waterPublic tap/standpipe or piped water .0% 10.7% 1.8% .0% .0% 1.0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1% .0% 3.1%Borehole with hand pump/engine 15.0% 50.4% 31.5% 1.9% 17.9% 14.3% 26.8% 50.0% 22.3% 14.3% 35.7% 12.6% 33.3% 29.6%Protected dug well/ spring 1.4% 1.1% 3.0% 3.8% 1.8% 2.0% .0% .0% 5.4% 7.1% 11.9% 6.3% 2.4% 2.8%Unprotected well/spring 62.1% 36.4% 61.2% 13.5% 10.7% 4.1% 1.8% .0% 67.9% 23.2% 7.1% 33.7% 50.0% 36.4%Water Bladder .0% .6% 2.4% 80.8% 46.4% 64.3% 33.9% .0% .0% 48.2% 19.0% 14.7% .0% 15.5%

North Darfur

North Darfur

State


Dar El Salam

Al Laait & Tewisha


North Darfur

Surface water (River, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel)

21.4% .8% .0% .0% 17.9% 5.1% .0% 50.0% 4.5% 5.4% 2.4% 27.4% 14.3% 8.0%

Tanker truck .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 7.1% 7.1% .0% .0% .0% 4.8% 2.1% .0% 1.3%Vendor .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.3% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% 2.1% .0% .7%Cart with small tank or drum .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.4% 2.0% 23.2% .0% .0% .0% 19.0% .0% .0% 2.7%

Type of toilet facility

Traditional pit latrine/ without slab/ open pit 25.0% 48.9% 36.0% 56.6% 73.2% 61.2% 89.9% .0% 4.5% 61.8% 88.1% 14.0% 50.8% 45.4%

Improved latrine with cement slab 12.1% 5.5% 9.8% 1.9% .0% 1.0% 1.8% .0% 3.6% 1.8% 9.5% 4.3% 2.4% 5.1%Bush, stream 62.9% 45.6% 54.3% 41.5% 26.8% 37.8% 8.3% 100.0% 92.0% 36.4% 2.4% 81.7% 46.8% 49.5%

Household members with special needsNo 83.3% 82.3% 85.4% 81.1% 80.4% 93.8% 82.1% 100.0% 86.4% 83.9% 76.2% 86.5% 91.0% 85.0%Yes 16.7% 17.7% 14.6% 18.9% 19.6% 6.3% 17.9% .0% 13.6% 16.1% 23.8% 13.5% 9.0% 15.0%

Physical 12.9% 9.9% 10.0% 17.0% 17.9% 4.2% 14.3% .0% 7.3% 12.5% 21.4% 12.5% 9.0% 10.8%Mental 3.8% 7.2% 3.1% 1.9% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4% .0% 6.4% 3.6% 2.4% 1.0% .0% 3.8%Both .0% .6% 1.5% .0% .0% .0% 1.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%

Working statusEmployed 97.9% 97.0% 97.6% 32.1% 94.6% 98.0% 94.6% 100.0% 96.4% 98.2% 95.2% 93.8% 97.6% 94.4%Unemployed 2.1% 3.0% 2.4% 67.9% 5.4% 2.0% 5.4% .0% 3.6% 1.8% 4.8% 6.2% 2.4% 5.6%

Reasons for unemploymentNo chance of work .7% 1.4% 1.2% 34.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% 1.0% .8% 2.1%Do not know how to find a job .0% .3% .0% 17.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .8%Did not find a suitable job .0% .0% .0% 5.8% .0% 1.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%Illness, aging 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 9.7% 5.4% 1.0% 5.4% .0% 2.7% .0% 4.8% 5.2% 1.6% 2.5%Security situation .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Main income sources (General)Farming (self employed) 55.6% 71.0% 63.8% 29.4% 5.7% 74.7% 81.1% 12.5% 44.4% 77.8% 35.0% 60.7% 68.3% 61.7%Agricultural labour .8% 9.5% 3.1% 5.9% 11.3% 4.2% 7.5% .0% 13.9% 5.6% .0% 11.2% 23.6% 8.5%Skilled labour 3.0% 4.6% 11.9% .0% 13.2% 8.4% 3.8% 50.0% 5.6% 7.4% 5.0% 5.6% 3.3% 6.7%Non-skilled labour 16.5% 4.9% 12.5% 11.8% 49.1% 6.3% 2.8% 37.5% 25.0% 1.9% 22.5% 15.7% 3.3% 11.9%Public servant 23.3% 6.3% 8.1% 52.9% 15.1% 6.3% 4.7% .0% 11.1% 7.4% 25.0% 3.4% 1.6% 9.3%Self-employed (non-farm) .8% 3.7% .6% .0% 5.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 12.5% 3.4% .0% 1.9%

Income sources (Detail)Sale of cereals (sorghum, millet) 32.8% 4.8% 11.0% 13.7% .0% 5.3% 5.6% .0% 8.3% 5.9% 2.5% 1.1% 9.6% 8.8%Sale of other crops 8.8% 17.7% 12.8% .0% .0% 10.5% 20.6% 3.6% .0% 3.9% .0% 2.1% 8.0% 10.1%Sale of livestock and animal products 10.9% 8.5% 25.6% 45.1% 10.7% 5.3% 14.0% 50.0% 29.4% .0% 20.0% 11.6% .0% 14.2%Remittances .7% 3.4% 4.3% 5.9% 1.8% 5.3% .0% 3.6% .0% 5.9% 7.5% 1.1% 4.8% 3.0%Renting out donkey cart 1.5% 1.1% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% 3.6% .0% .0% 2.5% .0% 4.0% 1.0%Gifts from family/relatives 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 3.9% 1.8% 4.2% .9% .0% 3.7% 2.0% .0% 5.3% .0% 2.1%Sale of food aid .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1%Agricultural wage labor 2.2% 33.2% 8.5% .0% 8.9% 32.6% 37.4% .0% 32.1% 29.4% .0% 21.1% 56.8% 24.9%Salaried work 19.7% 7.9% 11.6% 9.8% 16.1% 9.5% 3.7% 7.1% 12.8% 11.8% 20.0% 3.2% 2.4% 9.7%Skilled labor 1.5% 4.5% 6.1% .0% 8.9% 4.2% 5.6% 10.7% 4.6% 2.0% 5.0% 3.2% 3.2% 4.3%Wheal barrow/trolley .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

North Darfur

State


Dar El Salam

Al Laait & Tewisha


North Darfur

Domestic labor .0% .3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.5% 2.1% .0% .3%Brick-making .0% 1.4% .0% .0% .0% 2.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5%Construction .0% .6% 1.8% .0% 3.6% 2.1% .9% .0% .0% 5.9% 5.0% 3.2% .0% 1.3%Portering .0% .0% .0% 2.0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% 2.0% .0% 2.1% .0% .4%Sale of water .0% .8% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .8% .6%Tea seller/catering .0% 1.4% .0% 2.0% 3.6% 2.1% .9% .0% .0% 5.9% 7.5% .0% 1.6% 1.3%Kiosk 3.6% 1.4% 2.4% 5.9% 5.4% 3.2% 4.7% 10.7% 1.8% 2.0% 5.0% 1.1% 1.6% 2.8%Rickshaw driver .7% .3% .0% .0% 1.8% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%Sales of handicraft .7% 1.1% 1.2% .0% 1.8% 1.1% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% 5.0% 3.2% .0% 1.1%Sales of firewood/grass 9.5% 5.1% 6.7% 9.8% 25.0% 6.3% .9% 10.7% 2.8% 17.6% 7.5% 31.6% 3.2% 8.5%Sale of charcoal .0% .6% 2.4% .0% .0% 2.1% .0% .0% .0% 2.0% .0% 7.4% .0% 1.1%Other petty trade 5.8% 4.2% 1.2% .0% 7.1% 3.2% 2.8% .0% 1.8% 3.9% 7.5% 1.1% 4.0% 3.4%Others .0% .0% .6% 2.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.5% .0% .0% .2%

Adopt coping strategies related to food consumptionNo 46.4% 45.7% 70.3% 37.7% 60.7% 46.5% 42.0% 96.4% 38.4% 53.6% 42.9% 55.7% 64.3% 51.6%Yes 53.6% 54.3% 29.7% 62.3% 39.3% 53.5% 58.0% 3.6% 61.6% 46.4% 57.1% 44.3% 35.7% 48.4%

Coping mechanismNo coping 46.4% 46.3% 72.1% 37.7% 60.7% 46.5% 43.8% 96.4% 38.4% 55.4% 42.9% 56.7% 64.3% 52.2%Low coping 33.6% 8.5% 16.4% 11.3% 19.6% 46.5% 10.7% 3.6% 32.1% 37.5% 31.0% 15.5% 18.3% 19.9%Medium coping 17.9% 15.4% 8.5% 15.1% 19.6% 7.1% 13.4% .0% 25.9% 7.1% 26.2% 8.2% 7.1% 13.6%High coping 2.1% 29.8% 3.0% 35.8% .0% .0% 32.1% .0% 3.6% .0% .0% 19.6% 10.3% 14.3%

Receive food aidNo 97.9% 33.5% 8.5% 11.3% 8.9% 17.2% 100.0% 15.4% 99.1% .0% 16.7% 16.5% 68.3% 43.6%Yes 2.1% 66.5% 91.5% 88.7% 91.1% 82.8% .0% 84.6% .9% 100.0% 83.3% 83.5% 31.7% 56.4%

GFD .0% 41.2% 87.9% 43.4% 89.3% 15.2% .0% 75.0% .9% .0% 16.7% 75.3% .0% 33.4% FFR_FFW/FFT .0% .5% 13.3% 7.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.4% 4.1% .0% 2.3%SFP .0% 17.0% 5.5% .0% .0% 3.0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% 14.3% 35.1% .0% 7.9%BSFP .0% 34.1% 64.8% 62.3% 80.4% 79.8% .0% 14.3% .0% 100.0% 45.2% 7.2% 27.0% 35.0%School Feeding .0% 23.9% 50.9% 24.5% .0% 28.3% .0% .0% .0% 73.2% 2.4% 47.4% .0% 20.7%Food voucher .0% .0% .0% 3.8% .0% 2.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 31.0% 3.0%Milling voucher .0% 4.4% 4.8% .0% .0% 19.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8% 3.0%

Selling Food AidDid not sell 100.0% 93.6% 94.5% 97.8% 100.0% 82.9% .0% 95.2% 100.0% 82.1% 94.3% 98.8% 100.0% 93.4%Did sell .0% 6.4% 5.5% 2.2% .0% 17.1% .0% 4.8% .0% 17.9% 5.7% 1.2% .0% 6.6%

Child food groupsLess than four food items 79.6% 86.2% 85.8% 90.1% 87.3% 69.3% 87.7% 97.7% 86.3% 80.3% 86.5% 83.5% 92.2% 84.9%Four and more food items 20.4% 13.8% 14.2% 9.9% 12.7% 30.7% 12.3% 2.3% 13.7% 19.7% 13.5% 16.5% 7.8% 15.1%

Child health - IllnessNone 61.7% 71.2% 64.2% 51.1% 65.5% 79.7% 51.3% 60.5% 76.2% 71.4% 43.2% 65.0% 37.3% 63.9%Diarrhea 6.0% 10.7% 9.7% 13.6% 1.8% 4.6% 6.7% 10.5% 4.6% 2.9% 13.5% 9.0% 8.7% 8.2%ARI 9.3% 9.2% 15.3% 21.6% 23.6% 9.2% 26.0% 23.7% 6.0% 8.6% 37.8% 14.0% 32.9% 15.1%Fever 23.0% 8.6% 10.8% 13.6% 9.1% 6.5% 15.3% 5.3% 13.2% 17.1% 5.4% 12.0% 19.3% 12.6%Measles 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.3%

North Darfur

State


Dar El Salam

Al Laait & Tewisha


North Darfur

MUAC Measurements for children younger than 2 years<= 115 mm 3.2% 4.8% .0% 10.5% .0% 7.1% 9.6% .0% .0% 19.0% 5.0% 6.3% 8.3% 3.9%> 115 -125 mm 11.3% 17.7% 3.1% 57.9% 27.8% 21.4% 26.9% 18.8% 20.8% 19.0% 10.0% 28.1% 16.7% 16.8%> 125 mm 85.5% 77.6% 96.9% 31.6% 72.2% 71.4% 63.5% 81.3% 79.2% 61.9% 85.0% 65.6% 75.0% 79.3%

MUAC Measurements for children 2 - 5 years<= 115 mm .7% .3% .0% 4.3% .0% .9% .0% .0% 1.0% .0% .0% .0% .8% .6%> 115 -125 mm .7% 4.7% 1.8% 18.6% 13.5% 3.6% 4.7% .0% 8.6% 4.0% 6.5% 7.1% .0% 3.7%> 125 mm 98.6% 95.0% 98.2% 77.1% 86.5% 95.5% 95.3% 100.0% 90.5% 96.0% 93.5% 92.9% 99.2% 95.7%

Areas cultivated this season in MukhamasMillet 1.8 6.3 3.3 8.8 7.1 3.7 3.9 2.8 2.1 6.7 5.7 6.9 2.7 4.5Sorghum .5 1.2 .2 2.7 1.3 1.7 1.4 2.3 .5 2.4 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.2Groundnuts .0 .4 .1 .0 .2 1.4 3.8 . .3 1.9 .5 .2 .8 1.0Sesame .0 .6 .6 .0 .2 .7 .2 5.0 .3 1.7 2.8 .4 .0 .4Tombak .0 1.2 .2 .0 .0 2.2 .0 . .0 . .0 .0 .0 .5Watermelon seeds .0 .8 .4 .9 2.5 .5 1.2 . .0 5.0 3.7 1.8 .0 .9

Area cultivated last year in MukhamasMillet 1.7 6.7 4.1 10.2 6.3 5.3 4.1 4.0 2.1 6.3 5.8 8.0 2.4 4.8Sorghum .3 1.5 .3 1.9 1.2 1.7 1.2 4.7 .5 2.7 3.0 1.1 1.5 1.2Groundnuts .0 .4 .2 .0 .1 1.7 4.1 . .4 1.8 .5 .3 .8 1.0Sesame .0 .5 .5 .0 .0 .9 .2 5.0 .2 1.1 2.8 .4 .0 .3Tombak .0 1.5 .4 .0 .0 2.0 .0 . .0 . .0 .0 .0 .6Watermelon seeds .0 .7 .6 .4 2.4 .6 2.5 . .0 .3 3.5 2.3 .0 1.1

Production this season by number of bags (90kg)Millet 4.3 1.5 .5 .0 1.9 1.0 5.7 .0 3.5 2.5 .2 .3 7.9 2.7Sorghum .6 .0 .0 .0 .3 .9 1.6 .0 .3 3.4 .0 .1 3.2 1.0Groundnuts .0 .9 .0 .0 .2 1.9 21.0 . .3 2.9 .0 .0 .7 3.6Sesame .0 .1 .2 .0 .0 .5 .2 . .1 .6 .0 .0 .0 .1Tombak .0 1.0 .3 .0 .0 3.5 .0 . .0 . .0 .0 .0 .5Watermelon seeds .0 .4 .0 .0 .4 1.0 .8 . .0 .3 .1 .2 .0 .3

% of households describing rainfalls quantity this yearBetter 2% 0% 0% 0% 44% 21% 21% 0% 1% 30% 0% 1% 2% 7%Average 59% 14% 3% 0% 30% 27% 53% 0% 11% 45% 3% 3% 57% 26%Worse 39% 85% 97% 100% 26% 52% 26% 100% 88% 25% 97% 96% 40% 67%

% of households describing rainfall distributionGood 2% 0% 0% 0% 22% 7% 7% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 6% 3%Even 17% 1% 0% 0% 14% 18% 15% 0% 2% 29% 0% 0% 11% 8%Uneven 80% 99% 100% 100% 64% 76% 78% 100% 98% 59% 100% 100% 83% 89%

Source of seeds this seasonOwn production 32% 62% 63% 16% 14% 31% 30% 50% 57% 45% 47% 69% 60% 50%Purchase 56% 30% 21% 58% 78% 55% 59% 27% 40% 34% 37% 26% 34% 39%Donation (FAO, NGOs, GOS) 11% 8% 16% 26% 8% 14% 12% 23% 3% 21% 17% 5% 6% 10%

North Darfur

State


Dar El Salam

Al Laait & Tewisha


North Darfur

% of animal holdingCattle 17% 3% 5% 4% 7% 2% 22% 7% 44% 21% 10% 1% 6% 11%Sheep and Goats 52% 59% 73% 92% 80% 44% 69% 61% 70% 66% 67% 70% 13% 60%Poultry 40% 59% 35% 0% 73% 57% 64% 46% 44% 63% 45% 74% 35% 50%Donkey 80% 93% 88% 96% 96% 93% 85% 86% 90% 89% 79% 89% 72% 88%Camel 9% 4% 21% 47% 20% 3% 3% 4% 8% 5% 14% 16% 2% 10%

Wealth indexPoorest quintile 12.9% 17.9% 19.4% 24.5% 26.8% 27.3% 8.0% 57.1% 12.5% 19.6% 7.1% 20.6% 38.9% 20.1%Second 17.1% 17.3% 25.5% 22.6% 17.9% 23.2% 13.4% 32.1% 25.0% 17.9% 11.9% 25.8% 22.2% 20.3%Third 29.3% 14.3% 16.4% 17.0% 14.3% 18.2% 25.0% 7.1% 26.8% 21.4% 23.8% 24.7% 21.4% 19.9%Fourth 18.6% 23.1% 18.2% 17.0% 17.9% 14.1% 17.9% 3.6% 25.9% 30.4% 35.7% 19.6% 11.9% 19.9%Richest quintile 22.1% 27.5% 20.6% 18.9% 23.2% 17.2% 35.7% .0% 9.8% 10.7% 21.4% 9.3% 5.6% 19.8%

Food Consumption ScorePoor 1.4% 26.4% 9.1% 18.9% 5.4% 2.0% 7.1% .0% 6.3% 1.8% 2.4% 15.5% 15.9% 12.4%Borderline 20.7% 23.9% 18.8% 20.8% 17.9% 30.3% 26.8% 21.4% 7.1% 25.0% 11.9% 44.3% 34.1% 23.9%Acceptable 77.9% 49.7% 72.1% 60.4% 76.8% 67.7% 66.1% 78.6% 86.6% 73.2% 85.7% 40.2% 50.0% 63.7%

Relative Expenditure on Food<65% 45.7% 32.4% 33.3% 50.9% 16.1% 27.3% 57.1% 10.7% 32.1% 42.9% 50.0% 50.0% 41.3% 37.8%>65% 54.3% 67.6% 66.7% 49.1% 83.9% 72.7% 42.9% 89.3% 67.9% 57.1% 50.0% 50.0% 58.7% 62.2%

Absolute Expenditure (Minimum Healthy Food Basket)< 1 MHFB 32.1% 57.7% 67.9% 66.0% 62.5% 64.3% 16.1% 75.0% 53.6% 75.0% 23.8% 61.9% 55.6% 53.9%1-2 MHFB 50.0% 34.6% 27.9% 30.2% 23.2% 31.6% 45.5% 17.9% 35.7% 14.3% 52.4% 30.9% 29.4% 34.2%> 2 MHFB 17.9% 7.7% 4.2% 3.8% 14.3% 4.1% 38.4% 7.1% 10.7% 10.7% 23.8% 7.2% 15.1% 11.9%

Food Security Food Insecure 12.9% 36.0% 17.0% 24.5% 17.9% 25.5% 9.8% 21.4% 8.0% 10.7% 7.1% 35.4% 31.0% 23.0%Vulnerable to food insecurity 21.4% 31.6% 41.2% 32.1% 48.2% 37.8% 24.1% 53.6% 38.4% 55.4% 19.0% 37.5% 34.1% 34.3%Food Secure 65.7% 32.4% 41.8% 43.4% 33.9% 36.7% 66.1% 25.0% 53.6% 33.9% 73.8% 27.1% 34.9% 42.7%

North Darfur

Locality Adilla Buram Al Salam El Deain Kass Nyala Bahr Al Arab

Sharia East Jebel Marra

Edd al Fursan

Rehed Al Birdi

Tulus South Darfur State

Average household members 8.5 7.2 7.3 7.1 6.9 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.4 7.6 6.4 8.2 7.5% under 5, Male 12% 13% 13% 10% 11% 10% 10% 11% 9% 10% 12% 13% 11%% under 5, Female 11% 12% 10% 9% 11% 10% 11% 9% 10% 10% 11% 12% 10%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Male 18% 18% 19% 21% 18% 21% 20% 18% 17% 21% 22% 20% 20%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Female 18% 16% 16% 19% 17% 17% 18% 16% 17% 20% 19% 19% 18%% 16 -60 yrs, Male 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 21% 19% 17% 20% 17% 17% 16% 19%% 16 -60 yrs, Female 18% 21% 19% 19% 20% 20% 18% 23% 23% 19% 17% 19% 19%% over 60 yrs, Male 2% 0% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2%% over 60 yrs, Female 2% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2%

Residence statusResidents 95.1% 56.0% 97.1% 85.6% 76.5% 45.2% 95.2% 23.2% 46.3% 97.0% 92.4% 69.5% 73.0%IDPs .8% 24.3% 2.9% 6.5% 18.4% 43.6% 4.3% 54.8% 44.8% 3.0% .9% 20.8% 18.6%

IDP in camp .8% 16.3% 2.9% 5.4% 2.0% 34.3% 3.8% 21.4% 4.5% 1.4% .9% 1.9% 10.2%IDP outside camps .0% 8.0% .0% 1.1% 16.3% 9.4% .5% 33.3% 40.3% 1.6% .0% 18.8% 8.4%

Returnees 4.2% 19.7% .0% 7.2% 5.1% 10.2% .0% 20.2% 6.0% .0% .0% 1.6% 6.6%Nomads .0% .0% .0% .7% .0% 1.0% .0% 1.2% 3.0% .0% 5.4% 7.8% 1.5%Refugees .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% .6% .0% .0% 1.3% .3% .2%

For IDP or refugee - Years spent in camp1-2 years .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.4% .0% 41.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% 13.8%3-4 years .0% 3.6% .0% .0% .0% 6.5% .0% 38.2% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 9.6%5-6 years .0% 80.4% .0% 85.7% .0% 5.9% .0% 20.6% .0% 75.0% .0% .0% 27.3%>6 years .0% 16.1% 100.0% 14.3% .0% 75.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 49.3%

Gender of household headMale 91.8% 85.6% 81.9% 86.3% 84.7% 77.4% 98.6% 65.7% 67.2% 84.1% 62.3% 85.1% 82.1%Female 8.2% 14.4% 18.1% 13.7% 15.3% 22.6% 1.4% 34.3% 32.8% 15.9% 37.7% 14.9% 17.9%

Education level of the household headNone 39.5% 36.7% 32.1% 41.9% 27.2% 38.5% 62.2% 46.4% 37.3% 57.6% 62.3% 61.8% 46.0%Primary 47.9% 55.4% 59.9% 48.0% 60.0% 48.1% 33.8% 32.1% 49.3% 32.4% 37.7% 32.9% 44.2%Secondary 12.3% 7.6% 7.3% 8.3% 12.8% 11.4% 4.0% 14.9% 11.9% 7.8% .0% 3.6% 8.3%University .4% .3% .7% 1.8% .0% 2.0% .0% 6.5% 1.5% 2.2% .0% 1.6% 1.4%

Type of housingMud/mud brick .0% .0% .0% .0% 10.8% 9.4% .5% .0% .0% 1.4% .0% .0% 2.4%Stone/concrete/brick 3.4% 1.4% 2.2% .4% 2.1% 2.8% .0% 2.4% .0% 1.1% .5% 2.0% 1.7%Thatch 96.2% 58.6% 84.9% 85.1% 85.6% 59.1% 99.0% 60.5% 97.0% 95.3% 82.2% 83.1% 79.4%Plastic shelter .4% 35.3% 12.2% 14.5% 1.5% 28.7% .5% 37.1% 3.0% 1.9% 17.4% 9.5% 15.3%Other .0% 4.6% .7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3% .0% 5.4% 1.1%

Main source of drinking waterPublic tap/standpipe or piped water .4% 24.3% .0% 7.6% 1.0% 10.6% 18.8% .0% .0% .3% .0% 1.3% 6.7%Borehole with hand pump/engine 53.8% 20.2% 66.4% 29.1% 30.4% 39.0% 12.0% 60.1% 1.5% 26.4% 16.3% 19.7% 31.4%Protected dug well/ spring .8% 9.0% 2.1% .7% 4.6% 1.8% 1.0% 1.8% .0% 5.0% 1.8% 2.3% 3.0%Unprotected well/spring 3.4% 4.6% 21.4% 28.0% 33.0% 13.7% 42.8% 14.9% 11.9% 63.1% 45.2% 2.0% 23.7%

South Darfur

South Darfur



Edd al Fursan

Rehed Al Birdi


South Darfur

Water Bladder .4% .0% .0% .4% 1.0% 2.4% .5% 8.3% .0% .6% .0% 1.7% 1.2%Surface water (River, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel)

6.9% 41.9% 10.0% 25.5% 20.6% 19.7% 22.6% 11.3% 86.6% 4.4% 36.7% 53.3% 25.2%

Tanker truck 2.3% .0% .0% .0% .5% .4% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% .4%Vendor .0% .0% .0% .4% 5.2% 9.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 8.0% 2.6%Cart with small tank or drum 32.1% .0% .0% 8.4% 3.6% 3.4% 2.4% 3.6% .0% .3% .0% 10.7% 5.8%

Type of toilet facility

Traditional pit latrine/ without slab/ open pit 55.9% 26.1% 46.8% 51.3% 58.7% 63.1% 27.9% 86.8% 87.9% 79.7% 9.3% 43.3% 51.7%

Improved latrine with cement slab 1.1% 11.5% 2.9% .4% 2.0% 10.9% .5% 1.2% .0% 1.1% 3.7% .3% 4.0%Bush, stream 42.9% 62.4% 50.4% 48.4% 39.3% 26.0% 71.6% 12.0% 12.1% 19.2% 87.0% 56.4% 44.2%

Household members with special needsNo 75.5% 91.1% 80.2% 95.0% 76.9% 84.1% 84.5% 80.0% 90.0% 81.8% 92.9% 85.3% 85.0%Yes 24.5% 8.9% 19.8% 5.0% 23.1% 15.9% 15.5% 20.0% 10.0% 18.2% 7.1% 14.7% 15.0%

Physical 21.8% 5.7% 15.8% 2.5% 20.3% 10.5% 14.3% 10.9% 5.0% 16.6% 5.5% 9.3% 11.5%Mental 2.7% 3.2% 4.0% 2.5% 2.8% 5.1% 1.2% 9.1% 5.0% 1.6% 1.6% 5.3% 3.5%Both .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Working statusEmployed 97.3% 96.8% 100.0% 98.9% 97.4% 93.2% 95.2% 90.5% 97.0% 97.8% 97.3% 95.8% 96.2%Unemployed 2.7% 3.2% .0% 1.1% 2.6% 6.8% 4.8% 9.5% 3.0% 2.2% 2.7% 4.2% 3.8%

Reasons for unemploymentNo chance of work .4% 1.3% .0% .0% .6% 3.4% 1.1% 1.9% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% 1.1%Do not know how to find a job .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2% .5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3% .1%Did not find a suitable job .0% .0% .0% .4% .0% .0% .0% .6% .0% .3% .4% .3% .2%Illness, aging 2.3% 1.9% .0% .7% 1.9% 3.2% 3.2% 7.0% 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% 2.6% 2.5%Security situation .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Main income sources (General)Farming (self employed) 89.1% 68.6% 94.2% 70.0% 75.3% 54.0% 79.9% 63.6% 92.3% 62.4% 92.1% 78.4% 72.8%Agricultural labour 1.2% 9.3% .7% 8.1% 4.7% 2.6% 6.0% 8.6% .0% 22.0% .9% 3.8% 6.6%Skilled labour 4.0% 2.4% .7% 3.7% 1.6% 9.8% 5.0% 4.0% .0% 1.4% 1.9% 2.1% 3.7%Non-skilled labour 3.6% 15.9% .0% 10.4% 13.7% 23.0% 4.0% 7.3% .0% 6.4% 3.2% 10.5% 10.3%Public servant 2.0% 2.7% 4.3% 7.8% 4.2% 8.5% 5.0% 11.9% 7.7% 5.8% 1.9% 4.9% 5.5%Self-employed (non-farm) .0% 1.2% .0% .0% .5% 2.2% .0% 4.6% .0% 2.0% .0% .3% 1.0%

Income sources (Detail)Sale of cereals (sorghum, millet) 37.1% 10.6% 3.8% 7.7% 25.0% 4.0% 17.8% 4.4% 64.2% 73.4% 41.8% 20.4% 24.7%Sale of other crops 30.6% 10.3% 4.5% 26.9% 9.7% 6.5% 16.8% 10.1% 7.5% 3.9% 5.0% 15.7% 12.4%Sale of livestock and animal products 1.6% 5.1% 6.0% 10.3% 3.6% 5.6% 13.4% 11.4% 9.0% 2.2% 13.2% 21.5% 8.1%Remittances 1.2% 1.8% .8% .0% 1.5% 1.1% 2.5% 9.5% 3.0% .6% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8%Renting out donkey cart .0% .6% 2.3% 3.3% 2.6% 2.5% 3.0% 3.2% .0% 1.9% 1.4% .0% 1.8%Gifts from family/relatives 1.2% 2.4% .0% .7% 1.0% 1.8% .5% .6% .0% .6% 1.8% 2.9% 1.3%Sale of food aid .0% .3% .8% .7% .0% .0% .5% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2%Agricultural wage labor 8.9% 25.4% 35.3% 20.7% 16.3% 12.1% 16.8% 12.0% .0% 3.0% 18.6% 11.7% 14.9%

South Darfur



Edd al Fursan

Rehed Al Birdi


South Darfur

Salaried work 3.2% 3.3% 4.5% 7.4% 4.1% 7.8% 6.4% 11.4% 7.5% 5.5% 3.2% 4.4% 5.6%Skilled labor 3.2% 6.3% 4.5% 2.6% 2.0% 3.8% 5.9% 2.5% .0% .8% 3.6% 2.9% 3.4%Wheal barrow/trolley .0% .3% .0% .0% .0% 1.1% 1.5% .0% .0% .6% .5% .0% .4%Domestic labor .0% .0% .0% 1.5% 1.0% 2.2% .0% .6% .0% .0% .0% .7% .7%Brick-making .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% 1.1% .5% 1.3% .0% .6% .0% .7% .4%Construction .8% .0% .0% .0% 3.1% 4.5% .5% 1.3% 3.0% .3% .0% 2.2% 1.4%Portering .8% 2.4% .8% .4% 1.5% 1.6% .0% 2.5% 1.5% .0% .0% .0% .9%Sale of water .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% 1.3% 1.0% 1.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%Tea seller/catering 3.2% 2.7% .0% 3.3% .5% 1.6% 1.0% 5.1% 1.5% .8% 2.7% 1.8% 2.0%Kiosk 1.6% 3.3% .8% 1.5% 1.0% 2.7% 2.0% 3.2% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 2.2% 2.0%Rickshaw driver .4% .0% .0% .7% .5% .7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .3%Sales of handicraft .0% 3.3% 5.3% .0% 2.6% 6.3% 1.0% 4.4% .0% 1.7% .9% 1.8% 2.5%Sales of firewood/grass 1.2% 9.1% 12.0% 1.1% 10.7% 10.3% 1.0% 5.7% .0% .6% .9% 3.3% 4.9%Sale of charcoal .4% 2.4% 17.3% .4% 1.5% 13.6% .5% 7.0% 1.5% .0% .0% 1.1% 3.9%Other petty trade 4.0% 9.7% 1.5% 10.7% 10.7% 7.8% 6.9% 1.3% .0% 2.2% 2.7% 4.4% 5.9%Others .4% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1%

Adopt coping strategies related to food consumptionNo 7.4% 30.9% 34.8% 86.3% 53.1% 39.2% 51.9% 61.9% 79.1% 36.8% 96.4% 62.3% 49.0%Yes 92.6% 69.1% 65.2% 13.7% 46.9% 60.8% 48.1% 38.1% 20.9% 63.2% 3.6% 37.7% 51.0%

Coping mechanismNo coping 9.3% 30.9% 37.7% 86.6% 53.1% 42.6% 52.9% 64.3% 80.6% 38.0% 96.4% 64.1% 50.4%Low coping 15.6% 38.6% 42.0% 5.8% 41.8% 36.1% 39.0% 3.0% 14.9% 28.3% 3.1% 22.5% 26.0%Medium coping 31.5% 22.0% 8.0% 4.3% 4.1% 12.4% 6.2% 1.2% 4.5% 14.7% .5% 11.7% 11.9%High coping 43.6% 8.6% 12.3% 3.2% 1.0% 9.0% 1.9% 31.5% .0% 19.1% .0% 1.7% 11.7%

Receive food aidNo 52.2% 81.6% 100.0% 94.2% 89.7% 59.6% 100.0% 50.3% 100.0% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 82.2%Yes 47.8% 18.4% .0% 5.8% 10.3% 40.4% .0% 49.7% .0% .6% .0% .0% 17.8%

GFD 12.9% 10.6% .0% 3.2% 9.2% 7.2% .0% 47.0% .0% .5% .0% .0% 7.0% FFR_FFW/FFT .0% .0% .0% .4% .5% .2% .0% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1%SFP 21.7% .0% .0% 1.8% 2.0% 4.8% .0% 24.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% 4.3%BSFP 6.1% 7.4% .0% .7% 3.6% 27.1% .0% 10.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.7%School Feeding .4% .0% .0% 1.4% .0% .4% .0% 16.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1%Food voucher .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%Milling voucher .0% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 5.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1%

Selling Food AidDid not sell 96.3% 77.8% .0% 81.3% 94.4% 93.8% .0% 35.8% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 82.2%Did sell 3.7% 22.2% .0% 18.8% 5.6% 6.2% .0% 64.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% 17.8%

Child food groupsLess than four food items 86.1% 88.8% 80.9% 75.7% 89.8% 54.7% 83.7% 67.6% 52.9% 72.7% 81.2% 81.7% 76.8%Four and more food items 13.9% 11.2% 19.1% 24.3% 10.2% 45.3% 16.3% 32.4% 47.1% 27.3% 18.8% 18.3% 23.2%

South Darfur



Edd al Fursan

Rehed Al Birdi


South Darfur

Child health - IllnessNone 63.3% 42.2% 42.2% 78.4% 57.1% 61.3% 46.4% 67.3% 37.6% 47.4% 36.4% 73.8% 56.5%Diarrhea 4.0% 7.5% 2.7% 3.8% 10.8% 5.6% 4.6% 2.0% 7.1% 7.1% 6.3% 4.1% 5.6%ARI 18.9% 22.0% 39.5% 8.3% 13.8% 18.8% 28.1% 1.5% 20.0% 12.3% 9.9% 8.4% 16.0%Fever 13.0% 27.9% 15.6% 9.5% 17.1% 14.3% 20.9% 28.6% 31.8% 31.2% 47.4% 12.3% 21.3%Measles 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 3.5% 2.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7%

MUAC Measurements for children younger than 2 years<= 115 mm 11.1% 4.1% 9.1% .0% 3.3% 9.4% 7.0% 4.1% .0% 1.5% 4.3% 2.8% 3.8%> 115 -125 mm 6.9% 15.4% 18.2% 1.0% 10.0% 19.5% 17.4% 11.2% .0% 2.9% 29.0% 7.8% 9.1%> 125 mm 81.9% 80.5% 72.7% 99.0% 86.7% 71.1% 75.6% 84.7% 100.0% 95.6% 66.7% 89.4% 87.1%

MUAC Measurements for children 2 - 5 years<= 115 mm 3.0% .7% .7% .0% 1.1% 4.3% .0% 1.9% .0% .3% .0% .5% .9%> 115 -125 mm 2.5% 1.9% 3.3% .0% 4.3% 6.4% 3.7% 3.7% .0% .3% 3.4% .8% 2.0%> 125 mm 94.4% 97.4% 96.0% 100.0% 94.6% 89.3% 96.3% 94.4% 100.0% 99.4% 96.6% 98.7% 97.1%

Areas cultivated this season in MukhamasMillet 2.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 2.6 4.3 4.3 2.8 4.7 2.9 2.6Sorghum 1.7 1.3 2.1 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.9Groundnuts 3.5 2.0 6.7 4.2 1.3 2.6 3.7 7.1 .0 2.6 1.8 3.2 3.2Sesame .0 .1 .1 .1 .0 .2 .0 .3 .0 .1 .4 .9 .2Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 .1Watermelon seeds 1.5 .0 .1 .1 .0 .1 .6 .9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3

Area cultivated last year in MukhamasMillet 3.4 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.5 3.2 2.6 3.7 2.6 2.5Sorghum 1.5 1.0 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.0 .9 1.5 1.7Groundnuts 3.6 2.3 3.9 4.0 .9 2.4 4.0 5.4 .0 2.6 1.6 2.9 2.9Sesame .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .3 .0 .0 .3 .0 .1Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1Watermelon seeds .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .5 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1

Production this season by number of bags (90kg)Millet 3.6 5.6 2.4 3.3 1.8 3.1 5.0 3.9 18.1 5.5 6.9 7.6 4.9Sorghum 3.5 4.2 4.3 5.9 2.0 4.1 7.4 2.8 9.4 5.2 2.7 8.6 4.8Groundnuts 31.4 22.3 19.4 43.8 5.2 15.3 37.9 17.7 .0 16.0 9.6 26.9 22.6Sesame .1 1.0 .3 .6 .0 .1 .0 1.1 .0 .1 .6 1.8 .4Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 1.3 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2Watermelon seeds 4.3 .2 .0 3.6 .0 .2 1.9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .9

% of households describing rainfalls quantity this yearBetter 25% 27% 6% 54% 2% 13% 93% 12% 37% 1% 41% 9% 25%Average 71% 57% 25% 37% 49% 32% 6% 45% 63% 25% 47% 69% 43%Worse 4% 17% 68% 9% 49% 55% 2% 44% 0% 74% 12% 23% 32%

South Darfur



Edd al Fursan

Rehed Al Birdi


South Darfur

% of households describing rainfall distributionGood 18% 17% 6% 43% 3% 2% 81% 2% 31% 1% 13% 7% 17%Even 20% 35% 17% 38% 6% 5% 16% 18% 49% 7% 50% 54% 25%Uneven 62% 48% 78% 19% 91% 93% 3% 80% 20% 93% 38% 38% 59%

Source of seeds this seasonOwn production 33% 37% 55% 49% 28% 35% 35% 34% 52% 72% 76% 32% 45%Purchase 52% 51% 34% 41% 64% 42% 57% 57% 48% 24% 18% 48% 43%Donation (FAO, NGOs, GOS) 16% 12% 11% 10% 8% 23% 8% 9% 0% 4% 6% 20% 12%

% of animal holdingCattle 15% 17% 16% 31% 1% 8% 43% 26% 9% 36% 25% 36% 22%Sheep and Goats 50% 37% 39% 45% 11% 18% 51% 41% 60% 55% 60% 51% 41%Poultry 57% 40% 36% 46% 30% 28% 70% 34% 66% 55% 73% 33% 45%Donkey 83% 73% 89% 85% 79% 60% 85% 69% 91% 85% 91% 78% 78%Camel 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 2% 28% 2% 3% 3% 3%

Wealth indexPoorest quintile 17.9% 31.1% 19.3% 11.2% 37.2% 21.3% 12.9% 18.5% 3.0% 7.1% 33.6% 27.3% 20.8%Second 24.0% 21.7% 19.3% 16.6% 22.4% 14.7% 16.7% 10.7% 16.4% 22.5% 21.1% 17.9% 18.8%Third 20.5% 20.0% 25.7% 22.7% 20.4% 16.7% 21.4% 12.5% 35.8% 25.0% 22.4% 14.6% 20.3%Fourth 19.0% 13.1% 15.0% 22.7% 13.8% 19.7% 26.7% 16.7% 26.9% 26.4% 16.1% 24.4% 20.0%Richest quintile 18.6% 14.0% 20.7% 26.7% 6.1% 27.5% 22.4% 41.7% 17.9% 19.0% 6.7% 15.9% 20.0%

Food Consumption ScorePoor 1.5% 16.6% 6.4% 2.9% 3.6% 8.4% 3.8% 15.5% 6.0% 2.2% 1.4% 14.9% 7.3%Borderline 7.3% 17.1% 25.7% 13.0% 21.9% 24.0% 5.7% 12.5% 37.3% 4.9% 13.1% 30.0% 16.7%Acceptable 91.2% 66.3% 67.9% 84.1% 74.5% 67.6% 90.5% 72.0% 56.7% 92.9% 85.6% 55.1% 76.1%

Relative Expenditure on Food<65% 73.4% 59.1% 42.9% 56.0% 56.1% 67.7% 47.1% 66.7% 89.6% 62.8% 65.5% 58.7% 61.7%>65% 26.6% 40.9% 57.1% 44.0% 43.9% 32.3% 52.9% 33.3% 10.4% 37.2% 34.5% 41.3% 38.3%

Absolute Expenditure (Minimum Healthy Food Basket)< 1 MHFB 5.3% 37.4% 20.7% 23.8% 36.7% 25.3% 23.8% 64.9% 47.8% 14.4% 31.5% 52.9% 29.9%1-2 MHFB 36.1% 43.1% 58.6% 44.4% 43.9% 38.3% 42.4% 26.2% 46.3% 41.0% 32.9% 36.0% 40.0%> 2 MHFB 58.6% 19.4% 20.7% 31.8% 19.4% 36.5% 33.8% 8.9% 6.0% 44.6% 35.6% 11.0% 30.2%

Food Security Food Insecure 1.9% 21.1% 12.1% 7.6% 10.7% 12.7% 5.2% 18.5% 10.4% 1.9% 8.6% 19.1% 10.9%Vulnerable to food insecurity 6.9% 24.0% 27.9% 20.2% 31.1% 24.9% 21.4% 23.8% 34.3% 13.6% 19.0% 38.9% 22.9%Food Secure 91.2% 54.9% 60.0% 72.2% 58.2% 62.4% 73.3% 57.7% 55.2% 84.4% 72.4% 41.9% 66.1%

South Darfur

Locality El Geneina Habila/Furbaranga

Zalingei Kulbus Mukjar Azum Beida Krenik Nertiti Sirba Um Dukhun

Wadi Salih West Darfur State

Average household members 6.7 5.6 5.7 7.2 5.7 5.9 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.0 5.6 6.0 6.2% under 5, Male 8% 12% 11% 13% 15% 11% 7% 9% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11%% under 5, Female 9% 11% 11% 12% 13% 9% 11% 9% 12% 12% 10% 10% 10%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Male 22% 17% 18% 18% 18% 17% 22% 17% 22% 14% 21% 19% 19%% 6 -1 5 yrs, Female 21% 20% 19% 15% 16% 19% 20% 18% 19% 17% 18% 14% 18%% 16 -60 yrs, Male 18% 17% 19% 18% 16% 20% 18% 22% 15% 20% 18% 20% 19%% 16 -60 yrs, Female 19% 21% 20% 21% 19% 22% 20% 24% 18% 20% 19% 22% 21%% over 60 yrs, Male 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1%% over 60 yrs, Female 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%

Residence statusResidents 77.8% 83.0% 73.9% 87.0% 66.2% 32.7% 70.0% 53.5% 50.0% 52.9% 82.4% 58.2% 66.8%IDPs 15.0% 3.7% 1.7% 12.2% 11.8% 7.3% .0% 35.7% 50.0% 34.1% 3.2% 12.1% 14.3%

IDP in camp 12.2% .0% .0% .0% 11.0% .9% .0% 27.6% 50.0% 5.9% 1.6% 7.3% 8.5%IDP outside camps 2.8% 3.7% 1.7% 12.2% .7% 6.4% .0% 8.1% .0% 28.2% 1.6% 4.8% 5.8%

Returnees 7.2% .0% 11.3% .9% 17.6% 20.9% 30.0% 8.1% .0% 12.9% 3.2% 9.7% 9.6%Nomads .0% 13.3% 13.0% .0% 4.4% 2.7% .0% 2.7% .0% .0% 11.2% 20.0% 6.5%Refugees .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 36.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.8%

For IDP or refugee - Years spent in camp1-2 years 10.5% .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 4.9% .0% .0% 93.3% .0% 100.0% .0% 18.2%3-4 years 31.6% .0% .0% .0% 33.3% 2.4% .0% .0% 6.7% .0% .0% .0% 8.2%5-6 years 31.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% 80.5% .0% .0% .0% 40.0% .0% .0% 25.8%>6 years 26.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 12.2% .0% 100.0% .0% 60.0% .0% 100.0% 47.8%

Gender of household headMale 80.4% 51.9% 76.5% 67.8% 76.5% 72.7% 65.0% 79.5% 70.0% 64.7% 84.6% 73.8% 73.1%Female 19.6% 48.1% 23.5% 32.2% 23.5% 27.3% 35.0% 20.5% 30.0% 35.3% 15.4% 26.2% 26.9%

Education level of the household headNone 57.0% 79.9% 59.1% 51.4% 68.9% 66.4% 70.0% 47.8% 50.0% 64.3% 61.4% 49.7% 59.9%Primary 37.4% 19.4% 39.1% 39.3% 28.1% 31.8% 26.7% 39.6% 40.0% 28.6% 30.7% 46.0% 34.5%Secondary 5.6% .7% 1.7% 5.6% 1.5% 1.8% 3.3% 11.0% 10.0% 6.0% 7.0% 3.1% 4.7%University .0% .0% .0% 3.7% 1.5% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.2% .9% 1.2% .9%

Type of housingMud/mud brick 17.0% .7% 7.8% 7.8% 2.2% .9% 5.0% 9.2% 10.0% 1.2% 4.8% 2.4% 6.1%Stone/concrete/brick 14.2% .7% 2.6% 4.3% 3.0% .9% 1.7% 3.8% 6.7% 1.2% 6.5% 2.4% 4.3%Thatch 56.3% 90.4% 53.0% 85.2% 65.2% 49.1% 66.7% 74.6% 36.7% 96.5% 79.0% 74.5% 70.7%Plastic shelter 12.5% 8.1% 36.5% 2.6% 29.6% 48.2% 26.7% 12.4% 46.7% 1.2% 9.7% 19.4% 18.7%Other .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.2% .2%

Main source of drinking waterPublic tap/standpipe or piped water

2.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 14.1% 1.6% .6% 1.4%

Borehole with hand pump/engine

62.0% 36.3% 15.7% 58.3% 41.2% 80.0% 50.0% 50.3% 73.3% 24.7% 65.3% 37.0% 48.4%

Protected dug well/ spring 3.4% 4.4% .0% 8.7% .7% .9% 5.0% 3.2% .0% 3.5% 1.6% 3.0% 3.0%

West Darfur

West Darfur




West Darfur

Unprotected well/spring 15.6% 37.8% 18.3% 27.0% 24.3% .9% 33.3% 13.5% 3.3% 32.9% 7.3% 4.2% 17.7%Water Bladder 5.0% .7% 2.6% .0% 1.5% 2.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8% .0% 1.3%Surface water (River, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel)

7.3% 20.0% 63.5% 5.2% 32.4% 15.5% 11.7% 27.0% 23.3% 24.7% 21.0% 55.2% 26.5%

Tanker truck .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%Vendor 1.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% .5%

Cart with small tank or drum1.7% .7% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% 2.7% .0% .0% .8% .0% .8%

Type of toilet facilityTraditional pit latrine/ without slab/ open pit

59.8% 40.7% 7.0% 40.9% 14.7% 59.1% 21.7% 53.5% 20.0% 55.3% 34.7% 41.2% 40.2%

Improved latrine with cement slab

8.9% 16.3% 2.6% 32.2% 16.2% 1.8% 10.0% 4.3% 26.7% 20.0% 27.4% .0% 12.2%

Bush, stream 31.3% 43.0% 90.4% 27.0% 69.1% 39.1% 68.3% 42.2% 53.3% 24.7% 37.9% 58.8% 47.7%

Household members with special needsNo 81.8% 86.6% 84.3% 85.7% 92.4% 85.5% 80.0% 88.6% 86.7% 89.9% 98.3% 92.1% 88.0%Yes 18.2% 13.4% 15.7% 14.3% 7.6% 14.5% 20.0% 11.4% 13.3% 10.1% 1.7% 7.9% 12.0%

Physical 16.0% 10.3% 13.0% 13.3% 5.9% 11.8% 16.7% 7.4% 13.3% 8.7% .8% 5.3% 9.7%Mental 2.2% 3.2% 1.7% 1.0% 1.7% 2.7% 3.3% 4.0% .0% 1.4% .8% 2.6% 2.3%Both .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1%

Working statusEmployed 98.9% 98.5% 95.7% 97.4% 99.3% 99.1% 100.0% 99.5% 96.7% 100.0% 97.6% 97.6% 98.4%Unemployed 1.1% 1.5% 4.3% 2.6% .7% .9% .0% .5% 3.3% .0% 2.4% 2.4% 1.6%

Reasons for unemploymentNo chance of work .4% .0% 3.5% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8% .0% .5%

Do not know how to find a job.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Did not find a suitable job .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%Illness, aging .7% 1.5% .9% 1.7% .7% .9% .0% .5% 3.3% .0% 1.6% 2.4% 1.1%Security situation .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Main income sources (General)Farming (self employed) 27.1% 10.5% 40.0% 71.6% 56.0% 44.0% 18.3% 64.7% 27.6% 94.0% 57.4% 72.0% 50.2%Agricultural labour 10.7% 24.8% 15.5% .9% 24.6% 26.6% 50.0% 6.5% 37.9% .0% 15.6% 9.3% 15.5%Skilled labour 15.3% 3.8% 5.5% 3.7% 4.5% 9.2% 3.3% 9.2% 6.9% .0% 9.0% 3.7% 6.8%Non-skilled labour 37.3% 6.8% 36.4% 6.4% 7.5% 11.9% 6.7% 6.5% 27.6% 1.2% 9.0% 11.2% 14.1%Public servant 9.0% 10.5% 2.7% 14.7% 7.5% 8.3% 10.0% 13.0% .0% 4.8% 9.0% 3.7% 8.4%Self-employed (non-farm) .6% 43.6% .0% 2.8% .0% .0% 11.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 4.9%

Income sources (Detail)

Sale of cereals (sorghum, millet)4.6% 8.3% 11.3% 16.5% 14.8% 1.8% 8.3% 11.9% 6.7% 21.2% 16.8% 7.9% 10.7%

Sale of other crops 14.9% 1.5% 4.3% 22.6% 4.4% 1.8% 5.0% 1.6% .0% 14.1% 3.2% 4.8% 6.8%

West Darfur




West Darfur

Sale of livestock and animal products

10.9% 15.0% 13.0% 10.4% 10.4% 8.2% .0% 4.9% .0% 7.1% 10.4% 18.2% 10.3%

Remittances 1.7% .8% .0% 1.7% 3.7% 3.6% 1.7% 1.6% .0% 10.6% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9%Renting out donkey cart 5.1% 2.3% 1.7% 4.3% .7% 1.8% .0% 4.9% .0% 1.2% 5.6% 1.8% 2.9%Gifts from family/relatives .6% 2.3% 1.7% 2.6% .0% .0% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% 3.2% 1.8% 1.3%Sale of food aid .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%Agricultural wage labor 6.3% 27.1% 20.0% 7.8% 32.6% 47.3% 46.7% 31.4% 43.3% 3.5% 14.4% 23.6% 23.3%Salaried work 10.9% 7.5% 4.3% 15.7% 7.4% 7.3% 11.7% 13.5% .0% 8.2% 9.6% 10.3% 9.6%Skilled labor 10.3% 3.0% 5.2% 4.3% 4.4% 5.5% .0% 5.9% 6.7% 9.4% 6.4% 9.7% 6.3%Wheal barrow/trolley 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2%Domestic labor .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%Brick-making 2.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .6%Construction 6.9% .8% .0% .0% 2.2% 1.8% .0% 1.1% .0% 2.4% .0% .6% 1.6%Portering .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .0% .8% .0% .2%Sale of water 1.1% .0% .0% .9% .0% 1.8% .0% 2.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .6%Tea seller/catering 1.1% 1.5% .0% 3.5% 3.7% .9% 3.3% 1.1% 10.0% 2.4% 4.0% 1.8% 2.2%Kiosk 3.4% 2.3% .0% 1.7% 3.7% 4.5% 3.3% 2.2% .0% 4.7% 12.0% 3.0% 3.6%Rickshaw driver .0% .0% .0% .0% .7% .9% .0% .5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2%Sales of handicraft .0% .0% 3.5% .0% 1.5% .0% 1.7% 1.1% .0% 1.2% .8% .6% .8%Sales of firewood/grass 10.9% 6.8% 13.9% 4.3% 5.9% 9.1% 10.0% 9.2% 16.7% 9.4% 2.4% 3.0% 7.7%Sale of charcoal 4.0% 13.5% 7.8% .0% .7% .9% 8.3% 1.1% .0% 1.2% .0% 4.2% 3.6%Other petty trade 2.9% 7.5% 12.2% 3.5% 3.0% .9% .0% 2.7% 16.7% 3.5% 4.8% 3.0% 4.3%Others .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8% 1.2% .3%

Adopt coping strategies related to food consumptionNo 85.6% 29.9% 54.8% 87.8% 65.9% 64.5% 33.3% 87.0% 30.0% 96.5% 90.4% 61.2% 69.8%Yes 14.4% 70.1% 45.2% 12.2% 34.1% 35.5% 66.7% 13.0% 70.0% 3.5% 9.6% 38.8% 30.2%

Coping mechanismNo coping 86.1% 29.9% 54.8% 91.3% 65.9% 64.5% 33.3% 87.6% 30.0% 96.5% 91.2% 61.2% 70.3%Low coping 13.3% 60.4% 42.6% 7.0% 5.9% 33.6% 55.0% 11.9% 66.7% 2.4% 4.0% 37.6% 24.4%Medium coping .6% 7.5% 2.6% .9% 27.4% 1.8% 11.7% .5% 3.3% 1.2% 4.8% 1.2% 5.0%High coping .0% 2.2% .0% .9% .7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%

Receive food aidNo 72.6% 20.1% 97.4% 53.0% 62.7% 52.7% 43.3% 60.5% 73.3% 22.4% 76.8% 66.7% 59.6%Yes 27.4% 79.9% 2.6% 47.0% 37.3% 47.3% 56.7% 39.5% 26.7% 77.6% 23.2% 33.3% 40.4%

GFD 23.3% 78.5% 2.6% 47.0% 35.3% 45.5% 56.7% 39.5% 26.7% 69.4% 23.2% 33.3% 38.9% FFR_FFW/FFT .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.9% .0% .0% .3%SFP .6% 3.0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%BSFP .0% 75.6% .0% 6.1% .0% 5.5% 30.0% .0% .0% 41.2% .0% .0% 11.7%School Feeding 2.8% 6.7% .0% .0% .7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.4% .0% 1.2%Food voucher 2.2% .0% .0% .0% .7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%Milling voucher .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 11.2% .0% 1.6%

Selling Food AidDid not sell 97.9% 100.0% .0% 100.0% 85.7% 84.6% 94.1% 90.4% 62.5% 92.4% 86.2% 96.2% 92.7%Did sell 2.1% .0% 100.0% .0% 14.3% 15.4% 5.9% 9.6% 37.5% 7.6% 13.8% 3.8% 7.3%

West Darfur




West Darfur

Child food groupsLess than four food items 47.4% 68.8% 95.3% 72.5% 81.9% 87.8% 79.1% 80.8% 91.8% 75.4% 82.9% 95.5% 79.1%Four and more food items 52.6% 31.3% 4.7% 27.5% 18.1% 12.2% 20.9% 19.2% 8.2% 24.6% 17.1% 4.5% 20.9%

Child health - IllnessNone 68.7% 60.9% 48.4% 67.3% 60.6% 48.2% 42.9% 68.4% 49.0% 77.6% 80.6% 55.6% 63.2%Diarrhea 8.6% 4.3% 11.9% 7.7% 7.4% 14.5% 25.0% 11.6% 14.3% 4.8% 4.2% 11.2% 9.4%ARI 3.7% 10.9% 19.0% 8.9% 4.6% 12.7% 14.3% 5.8% 14.3% 4.8% 8.3% 14.8% 9.3%Fever 18.4% 23.9% 20.6% 16.1% 27.4% 24.5% 14.3% 13.7% 22.4% 12.8% 6.9% 17.9% 17.8%Measles 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% .3%

MUAC Measurements for children younger than 2 years<= 115 mm 7.0% 8.5% 4.4% 1.9% .0% 2.9% 7.4% .0% 23.5% 10.5% .0% 1.6% 3.3%> 115 -125 mm 8.8% 19.1% 13.3% 5.7% 19.1% 14.7% 25.9% 12.5% .0% 21.1% 13.6% 4.8% 10.4%> 125 mm 84.2% 72.3% 82.2% 92.5% 80.9% 82.4% 66.7% 87.5% 76.5% 68.4% 86.4% 93.7% 86.3%

MUAC Measurements for children 2 - 5 years<= 115 mm .0% .9% .0% .0% .7% 1.3% 3.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%> 115 -125 mm .7% 6.5% 3.7% 4.9% 2.2% 1.3% 9.4% 1.5% .0% 3.7% 2.0% .7% 2.4%> 125 mm 99.3% 92.5% 96.3% 95.1% 97.1% 97.4% 87.5% 98.5% 100.0% 96.3% 98.0% 99.3% 97.3%

Areas cultivated this season in MukhamasMillet 1.9 1.4 1.2 3.9 .9 1.0 1.7 2.4 1.0 2.7 1.5 .9 1.8Sorghum .6 1.0 .8 1.3 1.0 .8 1.2 1.0 .9 .7 .7 1.1 1.0Groundnuts .9 1.1 .3 1.2 .6 .4 1.8 .7 .2 .7 1.0 .5 .8Sesame .0 .7 .0 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .8 .6 .3Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0Watermelon seeds .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Area cultivated last year in MukhamasMillet 1.8 1.4 1.3 4.1 1.0 .8 1.5 2.3 1.0 2.6 1.4 .8 1.7Sorghum .5 1.0 .6 1.3 .9 .7 1.3 .8 .6 .7 .6 1.0 .8Groundnuts .7 1.1 .2 .8 .5 .3 1.7 .6 .1 .7 .8 .4 .7Sesame .0 .6 .0 .4 .1 .1 .2 .0 .1 .0 .4 .4 .2Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0Watermelon seeds .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Production this season by number of bags (90kg)Millet 2.4 1.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 1.6 2.8 4.2 1.3 3.0 5.4 2.4 3.0Sorghum .8 1.4 1.9 1.3 3.6 1.4 2.9 2.0 1.0 .8 4.0 3.9 2.3Groundnuts 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 4.7 1.2 4.9 2.7 .5 1.7 6.3 3.9 3.0Sesame .0 .7 .2 .1 .5 .1 .5 .0 .0 .1 2.3 3.3 .8Tombak .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 .0 .4 .0 .0 .1 .0 .2Watermelon seeds .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

West Darfur




West Darfur

% of households describing rainfalls quantity this yearBetter .8% .8% .0% 1.9% 20.0% .0% 1.7% .6% .0% .0% 73.9% 24.5% 11.5%Average 26.2% 5.3% 57.5% 11.4% 61.6% 48.6% 23.3% 50.3% 41.4% 12.9% 25.2% 31.1% 33.6%Worse 73.1% 93.9% 42.5% 86.7% 18.4% 51.4% 75.0% 49.0% 58.6% 87.1% .9% 44.4% 54.9%

% of households describing rainfall distributionGood .7% .0% .0% .0% 18.5% .0% 6.7% .0% .0% .0% 59.5% 16.0% 9.0%Even .0% 3.1% .0% .0% 14.5% .9% .0% 11.3% 3.4% 3.5% 6.3% 22.0% 6.5%Uneven 99.3% 96.9% 100.0% 100.0% 66.9% 99.1% 93.3% 88.7% 96.6% 96.5% 34.2% 62.0% 84.6%

Source of seeds this seasonOwn production 64.6% 41.5% 53.1% 60.6% 61.3% 35.2% 27.1% 61.9% 37.9% 57.6% 54.5% 55.8% 53.2%Purchase 29.2% 34.6% 34.5% 25.3% 18.0% 53.3% 39.0% 27.5% 17.2% 25.9% 27.3% 34.7% 31.2%Donation (FAO, NGOs, GOS) 6.2% 23.8% 12.4% 14.1% 20.7% 11.4% 33.9% 10.6% 44.8% 16.5% 18.2% 9.5% 15.6%

% of animal holdingCattle 20.0% 16.3% 35.7% 21.7% 23.5% 11.8% .0% 15.1% .0% 3.5% 32.0% 24.8% 19.5%Sheep and Goats 35.0% 37.8% 37.4% 52.2% 37.5% 27.3% 15.0% 34.1% 10.0% 43.5% 25.6% 43.6% 35.7%Poultry 38.3% 43.0% 57.4% 67.0% 34.6% 34.5% 10.0% 46.5% 26.7% 69.4% 35.2% 32.1% 42.4%Donkey 81.7% 86.7% 91.3% 83.5% 81.6% 74.5% 78.3% 83.2% 83.3% 91.8% 86.4% 78.8% 83.3%Camel 3.9% 5.2% 2.6% 2.6% .7% 4.5% .0% .5% .0% 1.2% .0% 1.8% 2.2%

Wealth indexPoorest quintile 10.6% 33.3% 20.0% .9% 27.2% 39.1% 45.0% 25.9% 13.3% 1.2% 9.6% 23.0% 20.7%Second 16.7% 27.4% 19.1% 9.6% 25.7% 22.7% 13.3% 11.9% 30.0% 9.4% 20.8% 27.9% 19.4%Third 17.2% 18.5% 30.4% 19.1% 19.1% 14.5% 15.0% 16.2% 26.7% 25.9% 19.2% 23.0% 19.8%Fourth 26.1% 12.6% 25.2% 27.8% 14.0% 15.5% 13.3% 20.5% 16.7% 29.4% 22.4% 15.2% 20.1%Richest quintile 29.4% 8.1% 5.2% 42.6% 14.0% 8.2% 13.3% 25.4% 13.3% 34.1% 28.0% 10.9% 20.0%

Food Consumption ScorePoor .6% 1.5% 5.2% .0% 3.7% 8.2% 8.3% 4.9% .0% 1.2% .8% 6.1% 3.4%Borderline 28.9% 42.2% 35.7% 15.7% 30.1% 40.0% 55.0% 34.6% 36.7% 20.0% 30.4% 38.8% 33.3%Acceptable 70.6% 56.3% 59.1% 84.3% 66.2% 51.8% 36.7% 60.5% 63.3% 78.8% 68.8% 55.2% 63.3%

Relative Expenditure on Food<65% 28.3% 29.6% 9.6% 40.9% 30.1% 20.9% 23.3% 26.5% 20.0% 32.9% 24.8% 37.6% 28.0%>65% 71.7% 70.4% 90.4% 59.1% 69.9% 79.1% 76.7% 73.5% 80.0% 67.1% 75.2% 62.4% 72.0%

Absolute Expenditure (Minimum Healthy Food Basket)< 1 MHFB 51.1% 51.9% 62.6% 59.1% 44.9% 65.5% 66.7% 59.5% 80.0% 77.6% 34.4% 46.1% 55.1%1-2 MHFB 32.8% 34.8% 33.0% 31.3% 42.6% 25.5% 30.0% 34.1% 16.7% 22.4% 51.2% 41.2% 34.9%> 2 MHFB 16.1% 13.3% 4.3% 9.6% 12.5% 9.1% 3.3% 6.5% 3.3% .0% 14.4% 12.7% 10.0%

Food Security Food Insecure 18.9% 28.9% 30.4% 4.3% 21.3% 34.5% 46.7% 22.7% 26.7% 14.1% 16.0% 22.4% 22.7%Vulnerable to food insecurity 34.4% 31.9% 40.0% 39.1% 28.7% 37.3% 30.0% 42.2% 46.7% 51.8% 27.2% 34.5% 36.2%Food Secure 46.7% 39.3% 29.6% 56.5% 50.0% 28.2% 23.3% 35.1% 26.7% 34.1% 56.8% 43.0% 41.2%

West Darfur

Date post:	14-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhkiet
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Comprehensive Food Security Assessment in...

Documents