Rapid Food Security Assessment for Anbar Province, Iraq March 2015 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Home , Fallujah District, Ramadi

World Food Programme (WFP)

Islamic Relief Worldwide

Acknowledgment

This report was written by Hadi Fathallah, Food Security Officer, FAO Iraq, with support from IRW Iraq and WFP Iraq, under the generous donation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the FAO Project “Increase food availability among conflict-affected vulnerable rural households and support continuous assessment and monitoring of the food security situation” (OSRO/IRQ/401/CHA) FAO, IRW and WFP are thankful to the households surveyed for participating in this assessment, to the brave field monitors who conducted this survey in difficult and insecure areas, and FAO and WFP for its technical support. At FAO, special thanks goes to Fadel El Zubi, Country Representative, Paul Schluncke, Emergency Coordinator, Nakd Khamis, Senior Agronomist, Mohamed AwDahir, Regional Food Systems Economist, and the rest of FAO Iraq team. At WFP, special thanks goes to Jane Pearce, Country Representative & Country Director and Venkat Dheeravath, VAM Officer and Tareq Abdulhaj, the rest of the WFP Iraq and Regional team. At IRW, special thanks goes to Mohamad Makki, Country Director, Firas Alrubayee, Shamal Yousef, Anmar Naji, Mostafa Azam, Sarah Alkhaffaf, and the rest of the Anbar team who courageously collected the data.

List of Abbreviations

DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussions GOI Government of Iraq HH Household ID Iraqi Dinars IDP Internally Displaced Person IOM International Migration Organization IRW Islamic Relief Worldwide KIIs Key Informant Interviews Kms Kilometres KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoMD Ministry of Migration and Displacement mVAM Mobile Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping NGO Non-Government Organization PDS Public Distribution System RFSA Rapid Food Security Assessment UTF Unilateral Trust Fund WFP World Food Programme

List of Figures

Figure 1: IDPs in Anbar by type shelter Figure 2: Number of samples per area from Anbar province Figure 3: Average household size including IDPs Figure 4: Number of Individuals per household per age group in Anbar Figure 5: Highest educational level achieved by household head Figure 6: Average number of families per household Figure 7: Combined household income in the past month in Iraqi Dinars Figure 8: Percentage share of agriculture in total household income Figure 9: Household sources of income in Anbar Figure 10: Income variation over the past 24 months of the conflict Figure 11: Average Household Expenditure on Needs per Months in Iraqi Dinars Figure 12: Top Perceived Reasons for Net Income Decrease Figure 13: Proportion purchasing less than 2,100 kilocalories per capita daily Figure 14: Food insecurity experience Figure 15: Food insecurity experience by families hosting IDPs Figure 16: Comparison of consumption patterns between household types Figure 17a: Livelihood Coping Strategies by residents Figure 17b: Livelihood Coping Strategies by host families Figure 18: Percentage of strategies used and not by HHs Figure 19: Frequency of use of coping strategies by household type Figure 20: Average size of cultivated land in Anbar Figure 21: Household access to space for agricultural activities versus the percentage use of available space for agricultural activities Figure 22: Percentage of households facing constrains in accessing water sources for agriculture Figure 23: Households needs for horticulture in Anbar Figure 24: Percentage of households selling their livestock vis-à-vis the causes of livestock sales in the past six month Figure 25: Household needs for livestock Figure 26: Price differentials of main commodities between Anbar and Baghdad governorates in February 2015 Figure 27: Percentage utilization of local food production from backyard agriculture Figure 28: Cost of access to markets in Anbar

Executive Summary

 FAO, in partnership with WFP and Islamic Relief, conducted a Rapid Food Security Assessment for Anbar during December and January. The initial analysis of the Anbar data reflected a challenge in access and utilization of food, rather than a challenge of food availability.  While food consumption grouping does not reflect any food insecurity regarding food availability, the reduced coping strategy index shows a great stress, especially in agricultural households, who have been spending their savings and selling household assets and productive goods to cope with reduced income. Around 79% of farming households have sold some of their livestock, primarily due for lack of income (35%) and lack of animal feed (29%).  Around 70% of the reporting households indicated experiencing mild food insecurity, with varying experiences of moderate and severe food insecurity. Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and Khaldya showed the highest percentages of food insecurity experience. In terms of food availability, on average around 17% only reported uncertainty about food, while a greater percentage of around 50% perceived their food of inadequate quality and around 33% perceived their food intake of inadequate quantity, reinforcing the possibility of changing dietary patterns and that the food insecurity challenge is not in food availability, but in access to food.  Negative coping strategies were particularly highly utilized in Hit, followed by Ramadi and Haditha, where conflict is on-going. These results confirm the Household Food Insecurity Experience gathered, where around 50% of the population in Haditha perceived themselves moderately to severely insecure, followed by Ramadi and Hit at around 40%.  Conflict in Anbar has dramatically affected agricultural livelihoods. For wheat and barley production, around 30% of farmers surveyed reported moderate decrease in production, and another 40% reported severe reduction in wheat and barley production. This will affect the general long term security of Anbar and Iraq at the macro level, and the farmer households at the micro level, who will not be also able to market this reduced production due conflict and disrupted supply chains to government controlled areas.  The reduction in vegetable production is more significant, with 28% of farmers reporting moderate decreases while 60% reported severe decreases in production. This decline in production is similarly reported for other crops, due to the increase in agricultural inputs costs, of which 96% of the farmers surveyed have reported. This has been due to the decrease in supply of inputs, namely subsidized seeds and fertilizers (mainly urea), with the latter being cut off the governorate due to military use of urea.  Around 80% of the farmer households surveyed indicated high need for agricultural inputs assistance in the form seeds and fertilizers, followed by around 65% indicating

need for pesticides. Around 85% requested assistance in sheep and cattle restocking, and for assistance in backyard activities, namely poultry production. Backyard agriculture contributes to around 60% of household food consumption and support to IDPs and relatives.  This report recommends a two-step approach to the crisis in Anbar, one that starts with early recovery that would be in lockstep with longer term rehabilitation and stabilization plan. To safeguard the food security of Anbar and recover, this report recommends rolling out cash for work programs to restore livelihoods and provide income for the vulnerable households in Anbar. To rebuild the agriculture sector and resume local food production, this report recommends the provision of assistance to farmers in the form of wheat and vegetable seed, fertilizers and pesticides, as well as assistance in restocking key livestock and poultry resources with necessary animal feed. Early warning and food security monitoring of the on-going crisis is critically recommended for needs assessment and proactive planning and assistance.

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 I. Background ...... 8 i. Context ...... 9 ii. Objectives and Methodology ...... 10 Sampling ...... 11 Implementation ...... 12 iii. Limitations and Challenges ...... 13 II. Key Findings ...... 14 i. Demographics ...... 14 ii. Key Household Economic Indicators ...... 16 iii. Food Security Status ...... 22 iv. Agriculture and Livelihoods Status ...... 29 Land and Water ...... 29 Agricultural Production ...... 31 Livestock ...... 33 v. Markets and Supply Chain Status ...... 34 III. Conclusions ...... 38 i. Need for Short-term Livelihood Assistance and Recovery ...... 38 ii. Need for Longer Term Livelihood Rehabilitation and Agricultural Development ...... 39 IV. Recommendations ...... 41 i. Food Security Monitoring and Early Warning ...... 41 ii. Cash for Works and Income Generation ...... 42 iii. Recovery and Rehabilitation of Livestock-based Livelihoods ...... 43 iv. Increase food availability among conflict-affected vulnerable rural households ...... 44 Annex I: IDP in Anbar by governorate origin ...... 46 Annex II: Questionnaire ...... 47

I. Background

Over 240,000 people have been newly displaced, mainly between September and February 2015, from within Anbar or from neighboring Salah Al-din and Babylon due to continued conflict and armed operations. Anbar, among all Iraqi governorates, has received the highest number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs). Around 523,616 IDPs are currently residing in Anbar according to IOM data, with overwhelming majority of IDPs residing in host communities, whether with host families, informal settlements and abandoned buildings (See Annex I - IOM DTM Anbar). More unregistered IDPs are estimated to be displaced within Anbar due to the ongoing and protracted armed conflict, with families being displaced for the third consecutive time.

Figure 1: IDPs in Anbar by type shelter (Source: IOM DTM – March 2015)

IDPs in Anbar By Type of Shelter

Religious Buildings 222

Informal-Collective Settlements 3795

Unfinished-Abandoned Buildings 7510

School Buildings 4868

Host Families 39890

Rented Houses 9167

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

With majority of IDPs residing within host communities, it has been projected that this large number of IDPs will result in a huge distress on host families in terms of food availability, agricultural activity and production, access to income and employment opportunities as well as increased prices of staple and other essential commodities. Loss of income and decreased access to food sources essential for dietary sufficiency and diversity (e.g. eggs, milk, meat and fresh vegetables) will translate into greater reliance on food basket assistance over an extended period of time, particularly among the displaced populations and the poor in the receiving communities.

Within Anbar, various reports have indicated that families with livestock and poultry have little access to animal feed as supply chains are interrupted and feed prices rise. Affected populations faced a multifaceted threat of reduced food production and access, rising food prices, reduced government subsidies, livelihood loss and, depletion of assets. With less access to their orchards and grazing areas, date and livestock farmers have lost the opportunity to generate income.

Therefore, there has been an urgent need to conduct an assessment to evaluate food security conditions and the status of agriculture in Anbar and to guide the interventions for safeguarding and restoring local livelihoods and food production cycles at the household level.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in partnership with Islamic Relief Worldwide and with technical support of the World Food Programme (WFP), initiated this Rapid Food Security Assessment (RFSA) for assessing the immediate, lifesaving agricultural, food and livelihoods needs of the people most affected by the displacements in Anbar. This RFSA focuses on evaluating the critical problem of food insecurity of IDPs and host communities and the revival of agricultural income generation activities in the most affected districts in Anbar. The assessment has been deemed necessary and timely to shed light on how provision of agricultural inputs, food aid, and cash for works programming can provide means to rebuild livelihoods, strengthen resilience and facilitate the acceptance of IDPs in their host communities, while increasing purchasing power and improving access to food.

This RFSA has been designed to guide future FAO and WFP interventions, and provide humanitarian and development actors with baseline information in order to establish a comprehensive strategy for food security and livelihoods interventions targeting both the host community and IDPs in Anbar. It also aims to allow the Ministries of Agriculture and Planning to better understand the impact of interventions conducted in support of the host and IDP communities.

i. Context

Al Anbar Governorate (or Anbar Province) is the largest governorate in Iraq geographically. Encompassing much of the country's western territory, it shares borders with Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The provincial capital is Ramadi, and other important cities in the province include Fallujah and Haditha. The Governorate is comprised of seven districts: Al-Qa'im, which neighbours Syria, followed by Anaa, Haditha, Heet, Ramadi, and Fallujah, all of which are situated in the Euphrates Rivers, in addition to Ar Rutba District, which constitutes two thirds of Anbar and is largely desert.

Conflict Insecurity has disrupted the economic life in Anbar. With majority of Anbar urban areas and transportation links under military operations, much of the inhabited areas of the governorate have been cut off from the rest of the country. Supply chains between cities and economic activities in urban areas have been disrupted, with the central government cutting of its support including the Public Distribution Systems (PDS) and support of government institutions and services.

Crop production is the major source of income for the majority of farmers in Anbar, while the rest depend on livestock or mixed crop and livestock enterprises. Grains, primarily wheat and barley, are Anbar’s main crops, along with date production. Dates are a major cash and food crop with fruit trees inter-planted in date palm orchards, making Anbar the biggest producer of dates in Iraq. Vegetables, mainly tomatoes and potatoes, are important irrigated crops in Anbar, depending on the Euphrates River for irrigation, which flows diagonally from the north to the southeast, passing through six of the seven districts. Raising Livestock is extensively practiced and inland fisheries and backyard poultry farming are valuable sources of protein and income for the rural population.

In spite of the insecurity, few humanitarian organizations have continued to deliver assistance, including Islamic Relief Worldwide. Lack of access, little understanding of the situation on the ground, daily changing security situation, IDPs experiencing multiple displacements and shortage in transportation providers for relief items (due to security concerns) remain the main challenges faced by agencies in their response.

ii. Objectives and Methodology

The main objective for this assessment is to assess the Food Security (FS) for Anbar households and evaluate the agricultural status of the governorate in terms of crops and livestock production and the impact of the security situation on livelihoods. The specific objectives:

1. Evaluate the food security situation, including household consumption and coping strategies, of Anbar households per livelihood group, using household surveys. 2. Identify livelihood groups among the community, through focus group discussions at community level 3. Assess market systems including factors affecting access and food availability, through key-informants interviews 4. Identify current opportunities for livelihood development to meet the needs of vulnerable local residents, using household surveys and focus group discussions.

The assessment was based on data collection through household (HH) interviews, informed by and complimented with a desk-based review of secondary data, Key Informants

Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The questionnaires were constructed and adapted by FAO Iraq based on harmonized questionnaires being utilized for RFSAs in neighbouring countries under FAOs Regional Food Security Analysis Network. The questionnaire were translated into Arabic and distributed through IRW. The translation of questionnaire was double checked by FAO and IRW senior staff to ensure reaching the meaning in a simple yet informative language. The results from the three questionnaires were cross-checked for obtaining a more realistic picture about the situation and needs on the ground. Quantitative data was gathered from HH interviews and qualitative data was gathered from KIIs and FGD review.

Sampling

HHs are the basic sampling unit for this assessment. A household unit consisting of one head of household and all individuals residing within the boundaries of the household – including family and non-family members – under the head of household’s care, are considered as a single household. In broader terms, a household can therefore be defined as a set of individuals or families sharing a corresponding shelter or set of shelters.

The initial sampling framework included sampling from the seven districts of Anbar. Ar Rutba was ruled out initially by IRW for inaccessibility due to remoteness, physical inaccessibility by field monitors due to transportation disruption, and security concerns. After confirming possibility of conducting the RFSA in the remaining districts, a sample frame covering the six major district centres including both urban and rural settings was devised. Additional sampling was taken from Habaniya and Khaldya in Ramadi District, and Rawah in Anaa District to cover the major settlements and agriculture areas in these districts. Fallujah, the centre of the Fallujah district was completely inaccessible and was replaced by Amiriyat Fallujah.

From each area (Al Qaim, Rawah, Anaa, Heet, Haditha, Habaniya, Khaldya, Ramadi and Amiriyat Fallujah), a sample of 68 was selected for a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 10%. Initial oversampling was planned to raise the sample from 68 to 80 in order to decrease the margin of error while still being attainable to achieve by field monitors and to compensate for any incomplete survey due to security situation and the resulted heightened fear from the community and high risks on the side of the field monitors. Random sampling was utilized, with samples coming from 61 villages and urban centres.

During implementation, the two areas which were initially thought to be the easiest to collect samples from, Rawah and Anaa, due to solid IRW presence and good tribal relations, turned out to be the hardest. Only 37 surveys from Rawah and 43 surveys from Anaa were completed due to heightened fear of households from reprisals. Al Qaim, which was initially prospected to be the hardest area for data collection due heightened security concerns, turned to be more relaxed. Field Monitors in Al Qaim oversampled and collected 159 surveys in order to gather as much input from HHs as possible.

To retain a statistically representative sample, no division between urban and rural settings pre-determined sampling in each district. Rather, data collection included geographic location that enabled disaggregated analysis by the two settings to allow for comparison. No division to the type of household was made, whether host HH, non-hosting HH or IDP. Rather data collected included inquiry if IDPs were residing within HH, in the principle that targeting will be made not on the basis of status (IDP vs Host), but on the basis of vulnerability.

Figure 2: Number of samples per area from Anbar province

Implementation

The HH questionnaire was conducted through field monitors for each area to distribute the questionnaire and conducting the face-to-face interview with head of families and other family members. The interview averaged around an hour and a half. The assessment was conducted from the period of 30 days, from 16/12/2014 to 16/1/2015. The collected information was logged from the hard copies and then transferred into a database and analysed. Delays in data logging was common due to delays in transportation of the hard copies to the nearest scanning and internet portal.

IRW team consisted of 21 persons. One project coordinator, one data entry employee, one tea leader and 18 field monitor. The field monitors were chosen based on the previous experience and familiarity with IRW and UN agencies projects implementation. For each area, two field monitors were assigned and all of the 18 field monitors were reporting to the team leader and conveying the hard copies of the questionnaires or in cases were the security situation prevented such transportation of such materials, they were responsible for scanning the questionnaires and sending it through the internet. The field monitors were

12 supervised by team leaders who reported on daily bases about the advance in conducting the interviews, the difficulties facing the process and the lessons learned from the field. The project coordinator supervised the work and followed up with the data entry employee that had being assigned with the task of entering data through database excel sheet.

For the KIIs and FGD questionnaires, the field monitors with coordination of team leader, had contacted interviews with agriculture department officials, representative of the cooperative farmers association and local council members. Due to the limitations of security situation the areas in which these interviews were conducted had been confined to four areas (Amiriyat Fallujah, Habbaniya, Ramadi and Khaldya). With 10 persons being interviewed for each questionnaire type, the interviewers reflected on the issues of food security and farmers agricultural resources, expressing a more systematic and official point of views. The questionnaires’ hard copies were conducted to team leader and then it was transferred into a database and analysed.

iii. Limitations and Challenges

The primary challenge for conducting this assessment was security. The areas of operation for conducting these interviews and filling questionnaire are known to be relatively secure (according to Anbar’s deteriorated security situation criteria), either under government, tribal or militant control. These areas had sustained partial governmental control but with shelling and armed clashes exploding randomly in any given hour of the day. Conflict and military operations in the area has made it difficult for both head of families and field monitors to meet and exchange information in a peaceful atmosphere. Many of head of families had expressed fear on being interviewed in such circumstances.

The second challenge was managing expectations. Households automatically build hopes on the first sign. On the other hand, some of the officials had expressed their concerns about the people perceive the interviews as governmental promises of improving the agriculture in the governorate, which may add burden to their shoulders. IRW team leader and project coordinator elaborated on the subject that FAO and IRW are not linked to governmental bodies by any means and that the RFSA is a humanitarian imperative to guide future humanitarian intervention by all actors.

The third challenge was communication and transportation. Due to the security situation, telephone and internet services are sparse, in many cases necessitating use of satellite communication. The utilization of GPS in the field also posed a great risk for the field monitors for fear of being perceived as military gear. In the cases of Haditha, due to siege of the city, the hard copy questionnaires needed to be transported out of the city by military helicopters. All hard copies were smuggled by field monitors through checkpoints to the

13 closet scanning and internet portal, sometimes necessitating transportation to Baghdad for logging. This has delayed data collection and logging tremendously by around one month.

II. Key Findings

i. Demographics

With around 720 households surveyed in six districts in Anbar, the average size of families including IDPs averaged around 9 individuals, varying slightly from each sample area. (See Figure 2) The deviation from this average per area sampled is also common, averaging a deviation by two individuals even in areas under current security operations or siege.

Figure 3: Average household size including IDPs

The majority of the heads of households surveyed were males, due to cultural norms and security situation. Due restrictions, females cannot move without a male relative, making the fielding of female field monitors difficult, thus hampering access to female headed households. The number of males per HH is slightly higher than females, with 52% to 48% ratio. Households are almost uniform in terms of age group representation, with young male adults within the 18 to 30 years slightly overrepresented. Around 10% of heads of HHs reported disabilities, a relatively high number, most probably due to constant military operations in Anbar since 2003. Out of the 720 HH surveyed, around 270 females reported to be pregnant or lactating women, indicating a high birth rate.

Figure 4: Number of Individuals per household per age group in Anbar

Educational level of the household heads varies from area to area, with most heads with some kind of education or training, most probably remnants of pre-2003 educational levels when literacy rates in Iraq were above 95%, where primary education was mandatory and guaranteed.

Figure 5: Highest educational level achieved by household head

Figure 6: Average number of families per household

The average number of families per households varies widely from area to area in Anbar, even within the same area. Amiryit Fallujah and Haditha reported the highest average number of families per HH. Amiryit Fallujah, the most eastern town of Anbar before Baghdad, has been the destination families fleeing Fallujah since 2004 and on the transit road to Baghdad. Haditha has been under siege from militants since December 2014, with many of the persecuted Bou Nemer tribe member taking refuge in the city from reprisals. The Bou Nemer tribe was singled out by militants for targeting due to their government cooperation and calls for liberating Anbar. Ramadi district, including Ramadi city, Habaniya and Khaldya reported a median number of families of two, even though Ramadi city being the capital of Anbar and under government control.

ii. Key Household Economic Indicators

With the recent militant incursion into Anbar and the rest of Iraq incurring substantial losses on the national and governorate economy, compounded by decrease in government spending due to focus on military spending and decreased oil prices, households in Anbar have suffered from reduced household income, affecting their expenditure and quality of life.

The household income generation has been hardly hit, with great disparity in incomes within each area surveyed. The average combined household income in Anbar was around

800,000 IQD, with Habaniya only standing out with a substantial household income, nevertheless with a high deviation from household to household within the area.

Figure 7: Combined household income in the past month in Iraqi Dinars

The share of Agriculture from the total household income varies with trends changing from area to area. What is particularly noticeable is the lower numbers of households solely depending on agriculture is a sole source for income. Households in Anbar complement their income from multiple sources. On average, households in Aana, Rawah and Ramadi tend to be less dependent on agriculture for their income, with more than 70% of the households with agriculture contributing less than 50% of the income. Households in Hadetha, Amriyat Fallujah and Habaniyah are generally more dependent on agriculture as main source of household income.

Figure 8: Percentage share of agriculture in total household income

Smallholder and subsistence agriculture and livestock production compromise the highest reported source of income, followed by government jobs and casual employment in the agriculture and construction sector. Households on average reported at least two different sources of income for household members, indicating a strategy for diversifying income. It is unorthodox to find households with smallholder or subsistence agriculture combined with a government job as a secondary source of income, or vice versa.

Figure 9: Household sources of income in Anbar

The majority of households reported decreased income over the past 24 months, which includes the start of the conflict between the central government and major areas in Anbar, followed by the militant incursion and control of major cities and towns in the governorate. Comparing areas relatively, Al-Qaim and Fallujah districts reported relatively little decrease compared to the substantial decrease in Hadetha, Hit, Khaldya and Ramadi, possibly due to the latter being more under government control and with access to central government support as compared to the former, which have been revolting against the central government. With the militant incursion into the government controlled areas, it is possible that households in these areas had more to lose compared to the other areas which have already lost much over the years.

Figure 10: Income variation over the past 24 months of the conflict

The perceived reasons for loss of income vary from area to area. Displacement cuts across the board as one of the main perceived reasons for net income decrease. While it is not clear from the data whether the displacement effect comes from the household members being displaced themselves or whether because of hosting displaced in their households, the data can be delineated to differentiate between displaced households and host households. In both cases, displacement had a toll on the net income of the surveyed households.

Remarkably in Hadetha only, military operations were perceived as a major source for loss of net income, possibly due to the on-going military operations at the time of data collection. On the other hand, the increased cost of livelihoods materials reported also substantially high in Hadetha, possibly also due to the siege laid at the time, which could have substantially affected market operations at the time.

Together, the decreases in demand for agriculture production, coupled by decreased prices of the produce have affected household income. Key informant interviews indicate that militants has tried to keep prices artificially low, in order to control public discontent.

The decreased income has also affected the household expenditure on priority needs. Food and Water take a substantial cut from the household expenditure, followed by expenditure on electricity, heating and cooking fuel. Expenditure on food needs is below average, but it cannot be discerned if that is due to depressed prices for basic household needs set by local militants or because of decreased expenditure due to conflict. Key informant interviews indicate that the expenditure on electricity and cooking fuel is above average due to scarcity in markets, especially cooking gas. Expenditure on agriculture in Al Qaim district was reported higher than other districts. Both expenditure on land rental and agricultural inputs cost was remarkably high compared to other districts in Anbar, even though key informant interviews indicated that militants try to keep market prices and agriculture activity in control. The key informant interviews indicated that the militants forced landowners to continue engaging in agriculture, and confiscated and rented out the lands of those who fled outside Anbar. Another outlier was spending on accommodation in Hadetha, which probably shot up due to the siege laid down on the city by the militants.

Figure 11: Average Household Expenditure on Needs per Months in Iraqi Dinars Electricity/h Housing Debt Communica Rental of Cost of eating/cooki Health Education Water Transport Food (rent) repayment tion costs farm land input ng fuel Al-Qaim 162,500 150,064 70,316 66,824 40,111 58,667 118,000 209,545 60,338 495,000 649,054 Amiriyit Fallujah 210,000 126,558 57,639 53,175 31,400 44,894 144,375 363,289 41,370 246,471 113,684 Ana'a - 241,212 91,071 58,077 27,182 36,923 100,000 267,647 106,724 163,889 Habaniya 175,900 103,250 - 75,000 83,910 200,000 437,500 78,377 80,000 109,241 Hadhetha 703,846 195,896 64,200 55,769 39,744 71,509 200,000 356,855 79,464 Hit - 113,875 83,875 47,727 - 51,574 176,014 326,250 31,835 114,125 Khaldya 200,000 157,375 92,628 - 25,000 87,722 233,529 363,125 44,103 113,607 Rawah - 225,405 70,946 68,000 25,000 - - 212,838 90,606 Ramadi 250,000 154,125 97,055 57,500 22,000 58,333 209,375 354,313 48,553 120,000 129,020

Figure 12: Top Perceived Reasons for Net Income Decrease

iii. Food Security Status

The initial analysis on food security status of the Anbar data reflected a challenge in access and utilization of food, rather than a challenge of food availability. While food consumption grouping does not reflect any food insecurity regarding food availability, the reduced coping strategy index shows a great stress, especially in agricultural households, who have been spending their savings and selling household assets and productive goods to cope with reduced income. Around 79% of farming households have sold some of their livestock, primarily due for lack of income (35%) and lack of animal feed (29%).

Negative coping strategies were particularly highly utilized in Hit, followed by Ramadi and Haditha, where conflict is on-going. These results confirm the Household Food Insecurity Experience gathered, where around 50% of the population in Haditha perceived themselves moderately to severely insecure, followed by Ramadi and Hit at around 40%.

Expenditure on Food

On average IDP host families spend 1018 Iraqi Dinars (IQD) on food purchased from the market1 per person per day, whereas other residents of the host community spend 1,316 IQD per person per day on food. This is compared to the 2011 average for Anbar at 1782 IQD per person daily2. Considering that the cost of dietary energy3 for Anbar during the time of the survey was 982 IQD per 1000 kilocalories, it is estimated that food acquired through direct purchases by IDP host families provides an average of 1,037 kilocalories per person daily. This is compared to an estimated 1,340 kilocalories per person daily for interviewed residents within the host community.

The analysis reveals that 96% of the interviewed IDP host families in Anbar Governorate acquire less than 2,100 kilocalories per person per day from purchases. This proportion falls to 85% among other residents in the host communities.

Figure 13: Proportion purchasing less than 2,100 kilocalories per capita daily

1 It should be noted that this reflects only expenditures on food purchased from markets and does not include the value of food acquired from other sources. 2 IKN survey, 2011 3 This figure is the cost of 1000 kilocalories among the poorest decile within Anbar Governorate. It is estimated based upon the baseline calculated from the GOI 2012 IHSES survey and updated to January 2015 prices using a food price index calculated for this purpose by WFP using food prices collected by WFP for 6 food commodities. Food price inflation from 2012 up to February 2015 is estimated at 81.8%.

Among those that are unable to acquire at least 2,100 kilocalories per person daily from food purchases, the consumption gap is estimated at 1,159 kilocalories per person per day for interviewed IDP host families and 1,023 for other residents.

Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) is a tool used to assess the severity of food insecurity at the household level, and compares access to food among population groups. It is composed of 8 questions on food consumption patterns and diet alterations precipitated by lack of resources. Households are classified food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure and severely food insecure.

In Anbar, more than 90 percent of the surveyed IDP hosting families had modified their diet patterns by limiting food variety due to lack of money or other resources and 82% of them were worried about running out of food.

Residents had not modified their food consumption patterns as much as IDPs hosting families, although over 72 percent of those surveyed were concerned about future food shortage and have restricted diet.

Figure 14: Food insecurity experience

Classifying the food security status of the survey respondents according to the FIES approach reveals that 99 percent of all interviewed IDP hosting families have experienced food insecurity during the 12 months preceding the survey, though to varying degrees. Moreover, only 10% of other residents in the host community did not experience food insecurity during the same reference period. It should be noted that more residents of host communities are estimated to be severely food insecure than host families. Figures 16 and 17 below further illustrate the FIES classification by population group.

Figure 15: Food insecurity experience by residents in host communities and families hosting IDPs

Frequency of Food Consumption and Food Sources

Respondents were asked to quantify the number of days in which they consumed food belonging to 8 different food groups during the 7 days preceding the survey and to specify the main source of the food. Figure 5 below presents the frequency of consumption of the food groups by residence status.

The results indicate that, on the whole, food consumption of the interviewed IDP hosting households in Anbar Governorate is considered to be adequate, using the food consumption score classification4, though 12.6% of other residents in the communities are considered to have poor or borderline poor food consumption. Moreover, it is apparent in figure 16 that IDP hosting families in Anbar Governorate exhibit greater dietary diversity than host families. While this may appear to contradict the results presented above – particularly expenditures on food and the FIES categories – it should be noted that the reported frequency of consumption also accounts for food received from sources other than direct purchases such as the PDS, own production or humanitarian assistance.

Figure 16: Comparison of consumption patterns between household types

Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies

Livelihood-based coping strategies are those mechanisms by which a family ensures a sufficient access to food. Such strategies are categorised into “stress”, “crisis”, and “emergency”, according to the severity of the coping strategy and the consequent effect on the households’ livelihood. More severe coping strategies have longer-term negative

4 The analysis considers different food groups to hold different weights (staples = 2, oils and sugars = 0.5, meat/eggs/fish and dairy = 4, vegetables and fruits = 1, beans and pulses = 3). These are aggregated intoa single score, which is then categorized into adequacy of consumption groups. In this analysis 28 or less was considered to be “poor” and those in the range 28.5 to 42 were considered to be “borderline”.

25 effects); for example, the sale of productive assets or the sale of arable land. Other coping strategies include borrowing of money and spending their savings.

The livelihood coping strategies listed in Figures 17a and 17b as well as their severity have been utilized for residents and host families in Anbar, with slight adjustment to the Iraqi context. The most commonly reported livelihood coping strategies were “spent savings”, “Spent money on other needs”, “Bought food on credit or borrowed money to buy food” for both residents and host families, with an exception of using “Sold household assets (jewelry, phone, furniture, etc.) as a copying strategy by the host families more frequently. The below Figures, are illustrate differences in severity using copying strategies. Where the most sever strategy found for both residents and host families to be the “Spent savings”. Whilst, other mentioned copying strategies above are remain not exhausted by the host families. The excepted strategy as mentioned above for the hosting families, its severity is equal to the resident families, where the both type families were exhaustedly used that livelihood copying strategy.

Figure 17a: Livelihood Coping Strategies by residents

Not Used Used Exhausted Spent savings Spent less money on other needs (eg.… Bought food on credit or borrowed… Sold productive goods/assets (sewing… Sold household assets (jewelry, phone,… Asked for remittances Any type of labour for food Taken jobs that are high risk, illegal… Asked charity (local charity, religious … Sent children household members to beg Sent adult household members to beg

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 17b: Livelihood Coping Strategies by host families

Not Used Used Exhausted Spent savings Spent less money on other needs (eg.… Bought food on credit or borrowed… Sold productive goods/assets (sewing… Sold household assets (jewelry,… Asked for remittances Any type of labour for food Taken jobs that are high risk, illegal… Asked charity (local charity, religious … Sent children household members to… Sent adult household members to beg

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Food-Based Coping Strategies

The analysis of the use of food based coping strategies reveals that more host families employ coping strategies than non-hosting families were not significant.

The most frequent coping strategies used among the three groups were relying on less preferred food and limiting portion size. While in addition to those, IDP had also employed the more severe strategies such as borrowing food (98.4 percent) and reducing adult consumption (19 percent), compared to 5.1 percent and 4.5 percent for residents respectively (Figure 18). The graph shows that IDPs are using coping strategies more regularly than the other two community groups.

Figure 18: Percentage of strategies used and not by HHs

However, it should be noted that among those using coping strategies, the frequency of use of coping strategies is higher among resident, non-hosting households compared to IDP hosting households. This is illustrated in the figure 19 below.

Figure 19: Frequency of use of coping strategies by household type

4.50 4.11 4.00 Eat cheaper food that is not as good 3.50 3.31 3.30 as normal 3.05 3.00 Borrowed food or received help from 2.72 2.66 friends or relatives 2.51 2.52 2.50 2.24 Eaten less meals a day than normal 2.07 2.00 2.00 Eaten smaller amounts of food than 1.58 normal at meals 1.50 Adults eat less so younger children can eat 1.00 Worked on producing your own food

Average Average of No. days the in past days 7 0.50

0.00 Resident Host Family

iv. Agriculture and Livelihoods Status

Land and Water

The majority of farmers in Anbar are smallholder and subsistence farmers, holding mostly small plots not bigger than 20 donumns. The majority of the land is rented from the government as part of the Agrarian Reform Law number 30 of 1958 (continuous program), which handed small plots out to farmers in the range of 10 donums per farmer. Another major type of cultivated land for agriculture (that discludes backyard agriculture) include shared communal and tribal land.

Figure 20: Average size of cultivated land in Anbar

Due to the geographic nature of Anbar, which is mostly desert, agriculture activity is constrained to space and water constraints. Agricultural activities nevertheless are not constrained to cultivated field lands, but also include smaller plots that can be utilized for agriculture and livestock production. Households in Anbar have access to a mix of spaces, but utilization for agriculture varies between areas surveyed. Households in Habaniyah, Hadetha, Hit, Khaldya and Ramadi reported to be almost completely utilizing available space for agriculture, including use of gardens adjacent to dwellings and private fields. This high utilization of available space shows that households have been maximizing on the use of available space for agricultural and livestock production, which can assist in sustaining livelihoods and filling gaps for food needs.

Figure 21: Household access to space for agricultural activities versus the percentage use of available space for agricultural activities

Access to Space for Agricultural Activities vs Use of Available Space for Agriculture Activities 100% 100 Communal Land 90% 90 Public Land 80% 80 Private Field 70% 70

60% 60 Large Garden close to Dwelling

50% 50 Small Garden Close to Dwelling 40% 40 Large Balcony 30% 30 Roof/Terrace 20% 20

10% 10 No Outdoors Space

0% 0 Percentage of Participants using Space for Agricultural Activities

Almost 94% of all crops cultivated in Anbar are irrigated. As most agricultural land lies on the Euphrates, household dependence on irrigation from rivers, streams and canals constituted the main source of water with around 65% of households depending on running water sources. Wells constitute the secondary source for irrigation water, with around 31% of households digging their own private wells. Usage of municipal water was rare with less than 1% of households reported, due to lack of water grid connection. Utilization of lakes and water reservoirs was also reportedly minimal. Surface irrigation is the most common utilized irrigation method, with almost 55% of farmer households utilizing flooding for irrigating their crops, followed by usage of sprinklers at 44%. Advanced methods for localized irrigation such as drip irrigation and micro sprinklers were rarely reported.

Households in Anbar faced constraints in accessing water sources for both domestic and agricultural use. Even though Habaniyah sits on the Duban regulator – which regulates the water flow of the Euphrates – and Haditha holds the Haditha Dam – which creates the Qadisiya lake – households in both areas witnessed severe constraints to access water

30 sources, possibly due to the siege on Haditha and its control over most dams and reservoirs in Anbar. Households in Khaldya, which is adjacent to Habaniya, also faced considerable constraints in accessing water sources.

Figure 22: Percentage of households facing constrains in accessing water sources for agriculture

Agricultural Production

Agricultural production in Anbar has been largely affected by the protracted crisis. Horticulture production in all produced crops has decreased over the past 24 months. Around 45% of households farming wheat, barley and potatoes reported around 25% decrease in production, while another 50% of the households reported a significant decrease of around 50% decrease. These are significant changes in staple food production, making Anbar more dependent on imports for these commodities. Focus group discussions with farmer households have attributed the decrease in production to the on-going military operations, displacement from land, and decrease in availability of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides in the local markets.

Production of vegetables, herbs and pulses on the other hand was significantly reduced, with around 70% of surveyed households reported significant decrease of around 50% in production. The decrease in production not only affects the direct income of these households from these cash crops, but also the nutritional diversity of available foods in the local markets and at the household level.

For date palm, citrus, grape and olive production has witnessed severe setbacks. Around 70% of households reported severe reduction in production of around 50%, with the rest reporting around 25% decrease. This has been attributed to inability of farmers to access their orchards due to on-going military operations, unexploded ordnance from government shelling and mines laid by militants. Focus group discussions indicated that the reduced production of date palm will have significant negative impact on the household income in Anbar, which has the highest production of dates in Iraq.

Figure 23: Households needs for horticulture in Anbar

The immediate agricultural needs reported for horticulture included seeds and fertilizers, with almost 85% of households surveyed requesting assistance. The focus group discussions indicated a major gap in seed and fertilizer availability, due to supply chain cut off from the central government. While seeds with varying qualities can be found through local suppliers, fertilizers are hard to come by, especially urea and NPK, due to government cut-off for fear of military use in explosives. Around 55% of interviewed households requested assistance in machinery, which was looted. Focus group discussions highlighted another important need, gasoil (diesel), which has mixed use. Household requested support in diesel for use with machinery and water pumps.

Livestock

Livestock holdings in Anbar revolve around raising cattle, sheep and goats in addition to poultry. Around 55% of sampled households held on average around three heads of cattle and around 20 heads of sheep and goats. Around 38% of sampled households held poultry with an average of 120 chickens. Beekeeping and fish farming was reported with less 6% of the sampled households, while holding of transportation animals (horses and donkeys) was close to none.

Livestock holdings have been largely affected by the protracted conflict. Around 79% of the sampled households reported selling of their livestock holdings. While 21% of those who sold their livestock did so as part of their normal livelihoods income generation, around 34% of households sold their holdings as a coping strategy and for need of cash. While 11% of those who sold their livestock was due to unavailability, another 29% did not have access due to increased prices of animal feed and thus had to sell their livestock on the market.

Figure 24: Percentage of households selling their livestock vis-à-vis the causes of livestock sales in the past six month

Restocking of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry registered as the priority need for the sampled households, with around 55% of sampled households requesting restocking

33 assistance. Animal feed for livestock and poultry are a high priority. Agribusiness material such as shelter, fencing, and equipment for animal watering and milking was secondary.

Figure 25: Household needs for livestock

v. Markets and Supply Chain Status

Markets have continued to work in Anbar, though at varying levels depending on the area. Two main routes maintained supply chains, one starting from Baghdad through Abu Ghraib, and the other Syria through Al Qaim. These routes continue to be disrupted depending on the daily security changes. Main bridges from Baghdad to Ramadi have been completely destroyed, nevertheless traders continue to find other routes. Key informant interviews have reported that militants have tried to maintain constant market prices for food items, as well as maintain supply of agricultural products and marketing for last year’s production. Nevertheless, militants have not been able to maintain control over markets in the areas it controls, while government controlled areas faced shortages of food items and water during militant incursions and sieges, like in Haditha and Hit.

To determine the market cost of purchasing food for an adequate diet, WFP through its remote interviews has calculated the cost of a standard daily food basket, comprising 225g of wheat flour, 225g of rice, 60g of lentils, 33g of sugar and 30g of vegetable oil. This basket provides 2,100 kcal per person, the minimum daily recommended dietary intake. Comparing the prices in conflict-affected areas with the prices that prevail in the governorates of Baghdad, analysis has shown that an adequate food basket in Anbar costs 25-30% more.

Figure 26: Price differentials of main commodities between Anbar and Baghdad governorates in February 2015

The analysis by commodity shows that high retail wheat flour prices are pushing up the price of the food basket. Wheat flour in Anbar costs more than double the price in Baghdad, presumably due to reduced distributions of PDS wheat flour in these areas. High wheat flour prices make bread – the key staple – more expensive. Differentials exceeding 75 percent are also observed for sugar in Anbar. Overall, the analysis showed that road closures are creating shortages of fresh fruit, eggs and dairy products. Sustained shortages of these foods could reduce dietary diversity.

Dependence on external markets from outside Anbar has been mitigated with local food production. Backyard agriculture, especially the cultivation of vegetables such as tomatoes, onions, cucumber and potatoes is contributing to local food security. On average, around 35% of the local produce from backyard agriculture is utilized for household consumption, with an additional average of 27% going into the support of IDPs and the community. The rest is sold on the market for income generation. This highlights the high importance of backyard agriculture in supporting the food security and resilience of Anbari household.

Figure 27: Percentage utilization of local food production from backyard agriculture

Anbari households depended on local shops in their vicinity for food purchase. Around 70% of households reported purchasing food from local shops, while around 20% still went to open air markets, which have been on the decline due to insecurity. Nevertheless, the majority of respondents utilized cars for taking the trip to purchase their food, possibly due to conflict and fear of insecurity, but could be also attributed to the geographic distribution of the sampled households. The average high cost for taking the return trip to market could be due to the high cost of gasoil and gasoline in the market, due to decreased supply.

Figure 28: Cost of access to markets in Anbar

Focus group discussions indicate that the high cost of gasoil (diesel) and gasoline is also affecting household in their production marketing. Around 62% of produce is marketed to wholesalers in the local markets, whereby farmers have to deliver produce to market. Around 38% sell at the farm gate, putting farmers at a disadvantage in selling at lower prices. With 96% of surveyed households reporting increased costs of agricultural inputs, the challenges facing local production of food are compounded.

With around 60% of households keeping some form of livestock, the decreased price of livestock is contributing to the deterioration of household resilience. Around 85% of respondents have indicated that livestock prices have decreased in Anbar, contributing to the major decrease in meat prices on the market. While cheap meat has helped in maintaining household food security and access to protein intake, on the long run, it is contributing to the deterioration of food insecurity in Anbar and significant reduction in livestock numbers. The major perceived source of livestock price decrease has been security situation, which has reduced the ability of households to access animal feed and grazing land. Key informant interviews have indicated that the oversupply of livestock in the local market, due to increased influx of livestock from Syria and placement of cheap livestock on the market that was either looted or confiscated from those displaced or persecuted.

III. Conclusions

The continuing conflict and ensuing displacement is causing increasing stress on host community infrastructure, services and local economies. Food and Agriculture is a high priority for both IDPs and vulnerable households in general, and food security has been exacerbated by a combination of recent fighting, displacement, uncertainty and decline in agricultural activity. With well over than 97 percent of IDPs estimated to be living outside of camps and communal shelters, coping strategies and financial difficulties are exacerbated by competition for accommodation, potentially driving up costs and leading to overcrowding and occupancy of substandard accommodation such as unfinished buildings, tents and crowded apartments. Women headed households have fewer coping mechanisms and are more dependent on external support.

Given the nature of the protracted crisis faced by Anbar, emergency aid alone is not going to sustainably improve the food, nutrition and livelihood condition of IDPs and host communities in the governorate. In addition to short-term humanitarian relief and livelihood protection assistance, medium-term integrated livelihood recovery programmes are necessary to sustain IDPs and their host communities, as well as returnees, in order to increase food production and household income, which ultimately reduce any the vulnerability of host communities and IDPs. Only around 7% of the surveyed households received some kind of assistance including government and international organizations, with majority of receivers in Haditha. Assistance through the PDS is not reported as the PDS has been in operational in Anbar.

i. Need for Short-term Livelihood Assistance and Recovery

The current escalation of armed conflict in Anbar has resulted into a precarious and dangerous humanitarian situation and led to significant deterioration of both accessibility and the quality of essential services in all the districts of the governorate. Overall, food security and livelihoods conditions have deteriorated with the displacement putting strain on hosting communities, in particular as large shares of IDPs have fled toward urban and peri-urban areas.

The large number of IDPs in Anbar has created high unemployment as well as increased pressure on local food production. The agriculture sector in Anbar has been declining and has been identified by both the Government of Iraq and the humanitarian community as a high priority for assistance and recovery.

IDPs in Anbar are coming from a mix of rural and urban areas, a number of whom have agricultural backgrounds on small scales in various types of livestock rearing, cereal crop

38 production and horticultural production. Furthermore, the crisis has particularly impacted smallholder farmers and host communities including their homestead agricultural activities such as production of vegetables, fruits and small livestock. Agricultural production and food security has been further impacted by disruptions to central procurement and distribution systems, particularly agricultural inputs, fuel supplies, harvest subsidies and payments and food supply chains. The decline of income and immediate food sources essential for dietary sufficiency and diversity (e.g. eggs, milk, meat and fresh vegetables and fruits) will translate into malnourishment, particularly among IDPs and the poorest households.

Thus, the severely affected populations in Anbar face a dangerous multifaceted threat of reduced food production and access, rising food prices beyond the reach of the poor and market dependent households, reduced government subsidies, livelihood loss and, ultimately, depletion of their resource base and purchasing power. There is a tremendous short-term need for livelihoods assistance, particularly in recovery of agriculture production, as well as creating temporary employment for restoring irrigation and agricultural services.

ii. Need for Longer Term Livelihood Rehabilitation and Agricultural Development

In Anbar, the agricultural sector has the potential for long-term sustained growth to cover a significant amount of domestic food consumption as well as for export, particularly for horticultural and animal products. Due to the conflict, the supply chain for transporting and storing agriculture production has been damaged. The current state of the silos for the strategic grains needs further critical assessment, and markets for connecting farmers to wholesalers and consumers need rehabilitation. The value chain of most food commodities is inefficient, especially for dairy, and value addition of the food sector in general is very low.

Although there a number of agro-input dealers operating in the major towns prior to the militant incursion, there were few providing some form of informal advice to farmers and livestock keepers in district centres. Dealers offer agricultural inputs and veterinary supplies along with other specialised inputs, such as farm tools and implements. Reinvigorating this private sector for supporting the agricultural recovery is necessary. Recreating the supply side for will induce the resumption of agriculture, creating the demand. The conflict has caused a steep decline in private sector in conflict-affected areas, creating a very limited number of jobs. Moreover, the current climate for investment is marked by the sharp reduction in the size and scope of the markets traditionally served by the private sector in such areas.

Key informant interviews have reported that the primary market network has largely been devastated by the conflict and many rural markets no longer function as the mobility of goods is severely restricted. Most of the secondary markets are still functioning but, some markets that were thriving before the conflict have severely declined. Meanwhile, other

39 markets have emerged, usually in conflict areas where mobility is more assured for local populations and there is a high demand for smuggled goods and local produce. However, even prior to the conflict, market linkages for smallholder horticultural and animal products were weak and post-harvest losses high.

To formulate sustainable livelihood protection and recovery programmes that can improve the resilience of IDPs, hosting households, and returnees in the medium and longer term, it is crucial to initiate a sustainable process that aim at gathering, analysing and disseminating information on the livelihood conditions and profiles of the affected populations. It will help timely, more efficient and focused targeting of the beneficiaries, as well as progressing towards a needs analysis and prioritisation response actions, particularly for vulnerable and impoverished rural and peri-urban populations and the agriculture sector.

IV. Recommendations

Using established corridors and with arrangements with relevant partners, urgent agricultural and livelihoods assistance is needed to restore economic activity and community resilience. Needed assistance includes distribution of grain, vegetable and pulse seeds for rapid local food production as well as provision of animal feed to enable the communities maintain some level of food security for a longer period than with food assistance alone. In areas where IDPs have settled and it is deemed feasible, some distribution of backyard farming units and cash for work programming is needed to augment and prolong food security and calorie intake.

i. Food Security Monitoring and Early Warning

FAO should build on lessons learned and tools and capacities in place from on-going projects, namely on its UTF-funded “Food security monitoring system in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region” and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)-funded “Increase food availability among conflict-affected vulnerable rural households and support continuous assessment and monitoring of the food security situation”, and the USAID-funded FAO sub-regional project “Inclusive food security information network to support emergency food security and livelihood support interventions in countries affected by the Syria crisis” and institute sustainable food security monitoring in Anbar. This should include effective sector coordination mechanisms in order to support needs assessments of affected rural and peri- urban areas, food security, nutrition and livelihoods’ situation and response analysis, data collection and analysis, information management and dissemination, and status monitoring and reporting. Such an endeavour would contribute to FAOs Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) to “Increase the resilience of livelihoods from disaster” and the FAO Regional Initiative for “Building resilience to enhance food security and nutrition.”

This report recommends the establishment and maintenance of an effective food and nutrition security co-ordination mechanism through a Food Security Monitoring and Early Warning System for the current crisis in Iraq including Anbar through:

• Design, testing and implementation of a food and nutrition security and livelihoods assessment refined methodology to gather and analyse data and process information at the governorate level to determine the status and needs of affected populations.

• Introduction, development and implementation of an emergency food security situation and response analysis framework to promote and facilitate transparent and evidence-based decision making at the sectoral level.

• Capacity building of humanitarian partners (local non-governmental organizations and civil society) and governments counterparts at the governorate level

ii. Cash for Works and Income Generation

This report has stressed on the socio-economic priorities of affected populations, highlighting the need of income-generating and job creation activities for both IDPs and local rural and peri-urban communities. More specifically, this report recommends increasing the capability of rural and peri-urban communities in affected districts to engage in viable farming micro-enterprises, reducing dependency on relief aid and helping them to move towards sustainable livelihood in more efficient way. Cash-for-work (in the form of cash transfers) – combined with the provision of necessary tools, capacity building and technical support – provides a means to rebuild livelihoods and facilitate social cohesion of the displaced in their host communities, while creating employment opportunities, increasing purchasing power and improving access to food.

Building on FAO lessons learned from on-going KSA-funded project “Quick impact food production and income generation,” this report recommends fielding of cash for works programming and development of income generation and job creation projects through supporting to cottage and micro-industries in Anbar. This would contribute to FAOs Strategic Objective 3 (SO3) on “Reducing Rural Poverty” and Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) to “Increase the resilience of livelihoods from disaster” and the FAO Regional Initiative for “Building resilience to enhance food security and nutrition.”

This report recommends:

 Identification of the needs for employments and productive community assets that prioritized for rehabilitation with focus on agricultural and irrigation schemes;  Implementation of targeted needs assessments to identify the strategic investments and interventions required to promote agro-industrial development;  Establishment and rehabilitation of vocational training centres in targeted communities to upgrade the technical and entrepreneurial skills of beneficiary groupings;  Development of a strong cadre of “training of trainers” (men and women) selected to lead training sessions in relevant and appropriate skills and technologies, including food processing and packaging and core business planning and management, which will also help to enhance the sustainability of interventions through institutional strengthening components;

 Provision of working capital and small business loans for expansion and financing of sustainable micro-industrial enterprises through guidance in savings and loans, micro-credit schemes, etc.

iii. Recovery and Rehabilitation of Livestock-based Livelihoods

Livestock are important for the social and economic fabric of rural areas in Anbar. Increased productivity of livestock would improve the incomes of farmers, pastoralists, and reduce rural and peri-urban poverty levels. In addition, to ensure the food and nutrition security of vulnerable rural and peri-urban communities by providing food needs, such as meat, milk and dairy products which are rich sources of protein and essential amino acids. Milk and dairy products have a good potential for growth given the increasing demand from the urban centres. Considerable investments in herd upgrading and cold-chain infrastructure for milk collection and processing are nevertheless required.

Restocking and maintaining the household livestock is a paramount need. The conflict have led to the loss of a number of animals, both during military operations and mass flooding of markets with cheap meat. Moreover, the cessation of breeding and genetic improvement programmes in the country, infections by different types of animal diseases, such as peste des petits ruminants (PPR), foot and mouth disease (FMD) and brucellosis and overgrazed rangelands and a lack or shortage of nutritious animal feed, ineffective veterinary services and the termination of state support to animal breeders is leading to major loss in livestock numbers, and jeopardizing both national and governorate food security down the line.

Building on lessons learned from on-going UTF funded project “Develop the performance of small ruminants (sheep and goats) and improve the level of income for small breeders in Ninewa Governorate” and the KSA funded project “Support to conflict-affected rural households by safeguarding animal survival, health and production,” this report recommends fielding a program on recovery of livestock production and pastoral livelihoods through increased small ruminant production. This would contribute to FAOs Strategic Objective 2 (SO2) on “Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable” and Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) to “Increase the resilience of livelihoods from disaster” and the FAO Regional Initiatives for “Building resilience to enhance food security and nutrition” and “Sustainable small-scale agriculture for inclusive development.” This report recommends:

• Conducting targeted needs assessments to identify the strategic investments and interventions required to promote recovery of livestock-based livelihoods and small ruminant development and selection of activities and beneficiaries in protracted crisis and post-conflict situations.

• Increase of productivity of sheep and goats (i.e. growth rates/weight gain and milk and wool yields) through: (i) improved animal health and bio-security and reduction of mortality rates, by fielding vaccination programs; and (ii) distribution of animal feed to poor households with livestock and animal breeders affected by the current crisis (with particular attention to women-headed households).

• Improvement of capacity of animal health services for the surveillance and control of TADs, including the strengthening of government veterinary hospitals and clinics, training of government and private veterinarians in modern approaches and techniques to TAD control, training of local NGOs in basic animal health care, establishment of community animal health services (along with the training and equipping of community animal health workers (CAHWs)), and implementation of necessary vaccination campaigns.

• Development of capacity of Government agricultural extension services to organise awareness campaigns/training courses for livestock keepers on the best methods of rearing small ruminants in order to achieve better economic performance commensurate with local agro-ecological conditions.

• Establishment smallholder “production groups” from “revolving funds/animal banks” and assist in developing wholesale market outlets, micro-credit schemes, etc.

iv. Increase food availability among conflict-affected vulnerable rural households

As the availability of staple food commodities like wheat will be affected, food access for many government-dependent households, poor families and the displaced will likely deteriorate further. And although full information on food prices is not yet available, costs of staple commodities are likely to rise.

Agriculture production and long term food security will be impacted by the lack of inputs as well as disruptions to central procurement and distribution systems, particularly regarding fuel supplies, harvest subsidies, payments and food supply chains – both within Anbar and the rest of Iraq. A rapid reduction in food supply levels and dependency on support from aid, combined with other risk factors, will cause staple food prices to rise beyond the reach of the poor and market dependent households.

The continuation of the current crisis will have a very negative impact on vulnerable rural households who are dependent on cereal crops for food and income sources. In a normal year, these households can harvest enough of their own wheat or earn enough income to meet their basic food needs throughout the year. However, given the poor production, the low level of household food stocks and decreased opportunities to generate income, rural

44 households are not in a position to acquire sufficient quantities of food. In addition, the price increases of agricultural inputs are seriously hampering the capacity of farmers to invest in the autumn 2015 planting season. Urgent assistance is required to mitigate the damage to food systems in Anbar and to enable farming communities to resume their crop production cycle through provision of cereal and vegetable seeds and fertilizers.

Building on lessons learned from on-going the KSA funded projects “Increase food availability among conflict-affected vulnerable rural households and support continuous assessment and monitoring of the food security situation” and “Support to Quick Impact Food Production and Income Generation,” this report recommends fielding a program for emergency food production assistance focusing on wheat and vegetable production. This would contribute to FAOs Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) to “Increase the resilience of livelihoods from disaster” and the FAO Regional Initiatives for “Building resilience to enhance food security and nutrition” and “Sustainable small-scale agriculture for inclusive development.” This report recommends:

• Conducting targeted needs assessments to identify the strategic interventions required to assist farmers in the upcoming wheat planting season and identifying backyard agriculture assistance with vegetable seeds and selection of activities and beneficiaries in protracted crisis and post-conflict situations.

• Distribution of quality wheat seeds, vegetable seeds, fertilizers and tools in time for planting season through cooperation with local government and implementing partners.

Annex I: IDP in Anbar by governorate origin

Annex II: Questionnaire

Unique Questionnaire Number |___|___|___|___|

Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment

First of all, inform and ask for Family’s consent:

We are monitoring the food security situation in Anbar. I would like to ask you some questions about your family. The interview usually takes 30 minutes to complete. Any information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will not be shown to other people. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want; however we hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? May I begin now?

0.1 Consent Given – Yes = 1 ; No = 0 |___| 1. General Information

1.1 Name of Interviewer

1.2 Interview Date |___|___|/|___|___|/|___|___| (dd/mm/yy) 1.3 Governorate

1.4 District

1.5 Town/Village

1.6 GPS Coordinates A. Lat: B. Long: (Decimal Degrees) |__|__|.|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|.|__|__|__|__|__|__|

2. Family Profile

2.1 What is the gender of person being 1 = Male 2 = Female |___| interviewed? 2.2 What is the gender of the head of family? 1 = Male 2 = Female |___| 2.3 What is the marital 1 = Married 3 = Widowed status of the head of 5 = Separated |___| 2 = Single 4 = Divorced this family? 2.4 What is the highest 3 = Completed 5 = Vocational 1 = None level of education Secondary Training 2 = Completed |___| obtained by the head of 4 = Completed 6 = Informal Primary this family? University Education

2.5 Does the head of family have a disability (Any disabilities or chronic Yes = 1; No = 0 |___| illness)?

2 = IDP 2.6 Describe this 1 = Host Family (with or without IDPs or |___| 3 = family: Refugees within HH) (if 1 Skip to 2.9) Refugee 2.7 If answer of 2.6 IDP/Refugee, when did you arrive at this |___|___|/|___|___| location (mm/yy)? 2.8 If answer of 2.6 IDP/Refugee |______| From where did you arrive?

2.9 How many Families are there in this Household Unit? |___|___|

For each family in the household (sharing a common food pot) answer the following questions: A. B. Family C. Family D. Family E. Family Interview 2 3 4 5 ed Family 2.10 Indicate which is the hosting      family (if applicable) (tick box) 2.11 Indicate which families the interviewed family (A) is related to     (tick box): For each family provide the number of people belonging to each age group (inclusive) TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILY |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.12 MEMBERS | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.13 Male 0 – 4 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.14 Female 0 – 4 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.15 Male 5 – 14 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.16 Female 5 – 14 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.17 Male 15 – 64 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.18 Female 15 – 64 years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.19 Male 65+ years | | | | | |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ 2.20 Female 65+ years | | | | | Do any of the HH members have 2.21 a physical or mental disability? |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| Yes = 1; No = 0 2.22 How many pregnant or lactating |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___ |___|___

3. Household Shelter & Living Space (in the building(s) that the household you are

part of lives in |___|___|___ 3.1 Living space in m2 | 3.2 Number of rooms |___|___| 3.3 Number of bathrooms |___|___| |___| (if 0 skip to Yes = 1; No 3.4 Do you have access to outdoor space or land? Error! Reference = 0 source not found.) Indicate from the list below which Yes = 1; outdoor spaces are accessible by the No = 0 family

3.5 No outdoor space |___|

3.6 Roof terrace |___|

3.7 Large balcony (greater than 3m x 3m) |___|

3.8 Small garden (less than 5m x 5m) next to dwelling |___| How far to this land B. <2km C. >2km Large garden (greater than 5m x 5m) next to A. Next to 3.9 |___| from from dwelling House house house

3.10 Private field |___|   

3.11 Public/governmental land |___|    Communal land (rented from the government / 3.12 |___|    state / municipality) Communal land (shared with family, friends or 3.13 |___|    neighbours) Communal land (Other type of undivided 3.14 |___|    property) Indicate which of the Yes = 1; Answer only if item is cultivated i.e. “YES” following items the family D. % No = 0 B. % C. % Given cultivates (if 0 skip to next A. % Sold spoiled or Consumed as a gift item) other 3.15 Dates |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.16 Grapes |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.17 Apples |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.18 Barley |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.19 Wheat |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.20 Maize |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.21 Tomatoes |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|

3.22 Potatoes |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.23 Cucumber |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.24 Oranges |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.25 Lemons |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.26 Onions |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.27 Olive trees |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 3.28 Other (specify) |___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|

Would you be interested in planting fruits and/or vegetables/ and Yes = 1; |___| 3.29 or other crops if you were provided with the necessary inputs and No = 0 (if NO skip to 4) any needed training? If yes, what types of training would you benefit from? Tick box 3.30 Agricultural production  3.31 Animal husbandry  3.32 Agricultural practices and improved inputs  3.33 Food Quality and Hygiene  3.34 Agricultural processing  3.35 Post-harvest practices  3.36 Adoption of modern machinery and irrigation techniques  How to work together in farmers’ associations or within cooperatives to better ensure 3.37  marketing of their products 3.38 Other (please specify) 

Store / Market-bought water 1 Private vendor (water truck) 2 Municipal connection (in home) 3 What is the main source of Drinking Municipal connection (shared by >1 HH) 4 3.39 Certified / authorised borehole or spring 5 |___| Water Unauthorised / unprotected water source 6 Well 7 Other (specify: ______) 8 Don’t know 9 |___| Before drinking this water, do you do Yes = 1; No = 0; Don’t 3.40 (If 0 or 9 skip to anything to make is safer to drink? know = 9 3.42 Boil 1 Add bleach or chlorine 2 Straining through a cloth 3 What do you most commonly do to make Use water filter (ceramic/sand/composite, etc.) 4 3.41 |___| your water safer to drink? Solar disinfection 5 Let it stand and settle 6 Other (specify: ______) 7 Don’t know 9 |___| Yes = 1; No = (If 0 or 9 skip to Does your household face any constraints about 3.42 0; Don’t Section Error! accessing water? know = 9 Reference source not found.)

If yes, what were the obstacles you faced in terms of accessing water (tick all that apply). in the last 30 days: 3.43 Water not available to household as often as we need it  3.44 Water is too expensive  3.45 Do not have enough water storage facilities at the household 

Indicate which of these items the family possess (not own by other families) directly. If more than one the answer is still “1 = yes”. 1 = Yes, 0 = Item 1 = Yes, 0 = No

Item No 3.46 Refrigerator |___| 3.47 Heating for house |___| 3.48 Table/Chairs |___| 3.49 Water heater |___| 3.50 Beds |___| 3.51 Motorcycle |___| 3.52 Mattresses |___| 3.53 Television |___| 3.54 Blankets |___| 3.55 Kitchen utensils |___| 3.56 Winter clothing |___| 3.57 Computer |___| 3.58 Stove/Kitchen |___| 3.59 Car |___| 3.60 Washing machine |___| 3.61 Truck |___| 3.62 Sofa set |___| 3.63 Air conditioning |___|

4. Livelihoods, Income, and Expenditure

Only for Current Income Activities

A. Status B. % Current Who is engaged in this activity (check box) 0 = Never Contribution to C. 1 = previous total Income of Frequency: Income Activity but no longer 1 = Seasonal Children Adults Elderly 2 = Current Family 2 = Temporary (0-14yrs) (15 – 64yrs) (65+ yrs) (Note, only one can (if 0 or 1 skip 3 = Regular D. E. F. G. H. I. to next activity) be 100%) Male Female Male Female Male Female Commercial 4.1 agriculture/livestock (large |___| |___|___|___| |___|       scale production Smallholder 4.2 |___| |___|___|___| |___| agriculture/livestock       Subsistence 4.3 |___| |___|___|___| |___| agriculture/livestock       Casual unskilled labour 4.4 |___| |___|___|___| |___| (agriculture)       Casual unskilled labour 4.5 |___| |___|___|___| |___| (construction)       Self-employed (commercial 4.6 |___| |___|___|___| |___| business owner)       Public sector/civil servant 4.7 (teacher, postal service, |___| |___|___|___| |___|       public administration). Public security official 4.8 |___| |___|___|___| |___| (military, police, etc.)      

Low skilled service industry 4.9 (No formal Education |___| |___|___|___| |___|       required; eg. driver, cleaner). Skilled service industry 4.10 (Apprenticeship required i.e. |___| |___|___|___| |___|       trade skills e.g. plumber, etc.) Highly skilled service industry 4.11 (Degree required (eg. Nurse, |___| |___|___|___| |___|       engineer, finance, etc.) Medical practitioners 4.12 (doctors, nurses, |___| |___|___|___| |___|       veterinarians) Gifts/in-kind assistance from 4.13 |___| |___|___|___| |___| family/friends       4.14 Pension from government |___| |___|___|___| |___|       4.15 Governmental aid |___| |___|___|___| |___|       4.16 Humanitarian aid |___| |___|___|___| |___|      

Other 4.17 |___| |___|___|___| |___| (specify______)      

1 = Very Low (0 – 1,000,000) 2 = Low (1,000,001 – 5,000,000) What is the range of income (Iraqi Dinar) for the 3 = Middle (5,000,001 – 4.18 |___| previous year? 10,000,000) 4 = Higher (10,000,001 - 15,000,000) 5 = Upper (>15,000,0000) 1 = Increased a lot (+50%) 2 = Increased a little bit (+25%) Has your income increased or decreased in the last 24 4.19 3 = Stayed the same |___| months? 4 = Decreased a little bit (- 25%) 5 = Decreased a lot (-50%) If your income has decreased over the past 24 months, what are the top 3 Check up to 3 4.20 reasons for this? Main reasons A Displacement  B Less job opportunities  C Salary decreased  D Cost of materials or items needed for livelihood increased  E The salaries of casual labourers or staff have increased  My customer base has decreased so there are less opportunities for F  my livelihood The prices I used to sell at have decreased, so we do not earn as G  much money H Other (specify): ______

In general, how much do you spend on the following basic Amount in IQD needs per month? |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.21 Housing (rent) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.22 Electricity/heating/cooking fuel __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.23 Health (medicine, treatment, etc) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.24 Education (school materials, uniform, etc) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.25 Water __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.26 Transport __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.27 Debt repayment __| Communication costs (telephone bill, internet connection, |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.28 phone credit) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.29 Rental of farm land __| Cost of input (animal feed, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.30 livestock drugs…) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.31 Labour costs __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.32 Other non-food costs (not mentioned above) __| |__|__|,|__|__|__|,|__|__| 4.33 All Food items for the household __|

|___| 4.34 Have you incurred any debts in the last 24 months? Yes = 1; No = 0; Don’t know = 9 (if 0 or 9 skip to Section 5) What is the % of your current debt compared to your annual income? 4.35 (e.g. half of your annual income = 50%) |__|__|__|% |__|__|/|__|_ 4.36 When did you last take a loan? _| mm/yy 4.37 How many loans do you currently have? |__|__|__|

4.38 Indicate the reasons for the loans of the 3 LARGEST AMOUNTS Chec Chec k k box box

To buy agricultural A. To buy food  inputs: B. Health expenses  K. Seeds  C. Education expenses  L. Livestock  M Livestock drugs D. To buy clothing   . E. To pay for housing/accommodation  N. Feed  To buy tools/machinery for livelihoods use (rent, O. Fertiliser F.   mortgage, etc) G. To pay household bills (gas, electricity, water, etc)  P. Pesticides  Q. Machinery for H. Travel expenses   agriculture I. To rent or buy land  R. Tools/equipment  J. Other (specify): ______ S. Other (specify) 

5. Food Consumption 5.1 Yesterday, how many meals were eaten by this family? |___| How many days over the last 7 days, did members of your household eat the following food items, prepared and/or consumed at home, and what was their source ? How many days over the last 7 days each of the following food items were included/ presented in the ration of members of your household? What was their source? (Use codes below, write 0 if not consumed in last 7 days) Note for enumerator: Determine whether consumption of fish, milk was only in small quantities.

Food acquisition codes 1 = Own production (fruits, vegetables, crops, animal) 2 = Fishing / Hunting 3 = Gathering 4 = Loan 5 = market/supermarket/store (purchase with cash or direct bank debit) 6 = market (purchase on credit/ by credit card) 7 = beg for food 8 = exchange labour or items for food 9 = gift (food) from family relatives or friends 10 = food aid from civil society, NGOs, government, WFP etc. 11 = from host family A- Number of days B- How was this food eaten in past 7 days acquired? Foods If 0 days, do not specify Write the main source of the main source. food for the past 7 days Cereals and grain: 5.2 |___| |___| Wheat bread (flour for home bakery), Rye bread, Buckwheat, Pasta, Rice, Oatmeal, Muesli Roots and tubers: 5.3 |___| |___| Potato, Beetroot, Radish/Turnip Legumes / nuts : 5.4 |___| |___| Beans, Peas/canned peas, other nuts, soy, corn Orange vegetables (Veg. rich in Vitamin A): 5.5 |___| |___| Carrot, Red pepper, Pumpkin Green leafy vegetables: 5.6 |___| |___| Spinach/Sour dock, Salad, Colour flower Other vegetables: 5.7 Onion, Cabbage, Tomatoes/Cucumbers, Zucchini, Sweet pepper, Eggplant, Mushrooms, |___| |___| Preserved/pickled/salted vegetables Orange fruits (Fruits rich in Vitamin A): 5.8 |___| |___| Apricot, Peach, Orange, Mandarin Other Fruits: 5.9 Apple, Pear, Plums, Lemon, Banana, Cherry-plum, Cherry, Currant, Pineapple, Watermelon, |___| |___| Melon, Preserved fruits

Flesh Meat: 5.10 |___| |___| Chicken, Beef, Lamb, Rabbit meat, Duck, 5.11 Liver, kidney, heart and / or other organ meats (including processed meat) |___| |___| Fish / Shelfish: 5.12 |___| |___| Canned tuna, Canned sardines, River fish, Sea fish

5.13 Eggs |___| |___| Milk and other dairy products: 5.14 |___| |___| Fresh milk, Cheese, Sour cream, Fuli (Kefir)/yoghurt, Curd, Condensed milk Oil / fat / butter: 5.15 |___| |___| Sunflower oil, Butter, Lard (as the fat for cooking), Margarine Sugar: 5.16 |___| |___| Sugar, Cakes/sweets/cookies, Jam, Honey Condiments / Spices: tea, coffee / cocoa, salt, garlic, spices, yeast / baking powder, lanwin, tomato 5.17 / sauce, meat or fish as a condiment, condiments including small amount of milk / tea coffee, and herbs |___| |___| or very small quantity of leafy vegetables like parsley and coriander used for flavour

In the LAST 7 DAYS how many times did you, as a HH, find yourself doing any of the following?

Record the number of days in which you experienced this in boxes provided for each (max = 7 days)

Eating less-preferred/expensive foods |___| 5.18

Borrowing food or relying on help from friends and relatives |___| 5.19

Limiting portion size at mealtime |___| 5.20

Limiting adult intake in order for small children to eat |___| 5.21

Reducing the number of meals per day |___| 5.22

Now I would like to ask you some questions about your food consumption in the last 12 0 No; 1 Yes; 98 Don’t know; months. During the last 12 MONTHS, was there a time when: 99 Refused You were worried you would run out of food because of a lack of money or other 5.23 |___|___| resources? You were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food because of a lack of money or 5.24 |___|___| other resources? 5.25 You ate only a few kinds of foods because of a lack of money or other resources? |___|___| You had to skip a meal because there was not enough money or other resources to 5.26 |___|___| get food? You ate less than you thought you should because of a lack of money or other 5.27 |___|___| resources? 5.28 Your household ran out of food because of a lack of money or other resources? |___|___| You were hungry but did not eat because there was not enough money or other 5.29 |___|___| resources for food? You went without eating for a whole day because of a lack of money or other 5.30 |___|___| resources?

During the past 30 days, did anyone in your household have to engage in any following behaviors due to a lack of B) food or a lack of money to buy food? If ‘No’, please clarify:

A) 1 = No, because it wasn't necessary 1 = Yes 2 = No, because I already sold those assets 2 = No (clarify or did this activity within the last 12 months response in next and I cannot continue to do it column (B) 3 = Not applicable Sold household assets/goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, 5.31 [___] [___] television, jewelry etc..) 5.32 Spent savings [___] [___]

5.33 Borrowed money / food from a formal lender / bank [___] [___] Reduced non-food expenses on health (including drugs) 5.34 [___] [___] and education Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing 5.35 [___] [___] machine, wheelbarrow, bicycle, car, etc.) 5.36 Withdrew children from school [___] [___]

5.37 Begged [___] [___] Entire household migrated 5.38 (NOTE: ONLY IF THIS WAS BECAUSE OF AN ISSUE OF FOOD [___] [___] NOT BECAUSE OF INSECURITY) 5.39 Sold house or land [___] [___]

5.40 Degrading sources of income, illegal work, or high risk jobs [___] [___]

6. Agriculture and Livestock [___] 6.1 Does the Family Engage in any Agriculture (other than gardens or small plots)? (If 0 skip to )

How much land do you cultivate (excluding land cultivated/planted by household ______(Dunums) 6.2 in outdoor space referred to in question 3.6 to 3.9)?

What is the type of tenure/ownership of the land that you cultivate, in % of % (100% total) total? 6.3 Legal ownership or similar |__|__|__| 6.4 Rented land |__|__|__| 6.5 Other types: as squatter basis, inheritance proceedings etc. |__|__|__| 6.6 Do not know |__|__|__|

What is the type of tenure of your land Check Box 6.7 Single-holding / private  6.8 Partnership: multiple holdings  6.9 Company  6.10 Public  6.11 Religious (waqf)  6.12 Other 

Yes = 1; No = 0; |___| 6.13 Are you a Tenant for the land you access? Don’t know = 9 (if 0 or 9 skip to Q 6.17)

Do you pay the landowner a portion of your Yes = 1; No = 0; |___| 6.14 crop/profits from the crop? Don’t know = 9 (if 0 or 9 skip to Q 6.17) What is the percentage given of each % 6.15 % of the crop |__|__|__| 6.16 % of the profits |__|__|__|

Which share in % of total land is? % 6.17 % Rainfed |__|__|__| |__|__|__| 6.18 % Irrigated (if 0 skip to Q 6.27) Check If irrigated, then which source of irrigation water system do you use? Applicable 6.19 River/spring/stream  6.20 Dams/Hill Lakes  6.21 Reservoirs/ponds  6.22 Wells (underground)  6.23 Municipal water supply  Check If irrigated, then which method of irrigation water system do you use? Applicable 6.24 Surface irrigation (flooding)  6.25 Sprinklers  6.26 Localized irrigation (drip, micro-sprinkler etc..) 

A. Has there B. If the yield Answer only if Decreased been any has slightly Yield change in yield decreased or What natural resources have between now significantly been reduced? (check all and 24 months decreased, why appropriate)

ago? do you think

this is?

Indicate which of

Tree Tree

Other

Yes = 1; Water the following (see Codes for ofLoss

C. erosion Soil

coverage items the family No = 0 A below) (see Codes for B E.

(if 0 skip to toaccess land

D. cultivates next item) below) 6.27 Dates |___| |___| |___|      6.28 Grapes |___| |___| |___|      6.29 Apples |___| |___| |___|      6.30 Barley |___| |___| |___|      6.31 Wheat |___| |___| |___|      6.32 Maize |___| |___| |___|      6.33 Tomatoes |___| |___| |___|      6.34 Potatoes |___| |___| |___|      6.35 Cucumber |___| |___| |___|      6.36 Oranges |___| |___| |___|     

6.37 Lemons |___| |___| |___|      6.38 Onions |___| |___| |___|      6.39 Olive trees |___| |___| |___|      6.40 Other (specify) |___| |___| |___|     

Codes for Question A 1 = Increased a lot ( 50% or more) 4 = Decreased a little bit, (-25%) 2 = Increased a little bit ( +25%) 5 = Decreased a lot ( -50% or more) 3 = Stayed the same

Codes for Question B 1 = Reduction in natural resources 4 = Increased cost of casual labour 2 = Increased cost of agricultural inputs 5 = I chose to reduce the area under crop production because of less market demand 3 = Increased cost of machinery 6 = I chose to reduce the area under crop production because I am relying on other income sources

1 = yes, cost of inputs has risen Have you noticed changes in |___| 6.41 2 = yes, cost of inputs has decreased (if 3 skip to Q cost of inputs? 3 = no, there have been no changes to the cost of inputs 6.43)

6.42 If Yes, Why? (specify)

1 = Yes, animal prices have increased Have you noticed changes in |___| 6.43 2 = Yes, animal prices have decreased (if 3 skip to Q animal production/prices? 3 = No, animal prices have not changed 6.45)

6.44 If Yes, Why? (specify)

Does anyone work on your |___| 6.45 Yes = 1; No = 0 (if No skip to Q land? 6.50) How many people work on your 6.46 |___|___|___| land? Check If one or more people work the land, who are they? Applicable 6.47 Family/friends  6.48 Permanent Hire  6.49 Seasonal Hire 

|___| 6.50 Do you keep livestock? Yes = 1; No = 0 (if No skip to Section 7)

What is the main use for each type of animal?

(tick all that apply)

A. Total B. Total C. How many Animals Animals animals are

over one year

Milk

Household Dairy product

Selling of live Selling

Sale of Sale meat

Ploughing or Type of animal Male Female old? Other product

D. D. consumption E. animal F. G. H. I. J. preparationfield Horses / donkeys |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|        6.51 / mules

Cattle |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 6.52       

Sheep/goats |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 6.53       

Poultry |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|        6.54

Beehives |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|        6.55

Fish farming |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|        6.56 (Trout...)

Have you sold any livestock/animals over the last 6 |___| 6.57 Yes = 1; No = 0 (if No skip to months? Section 7) Check If yes, then why did you sell them? Applicable 6.58 Need for money  6.59 Lack of fodder/pasture/animal feed  6.60 Could not afford fodder/pasture/animal feed  6.61 Infertility  6.62 Lack of shelter to house animals  6.63 Normal source of livelihood 6.64 other (specify): ______

7. Markets Answer only if YES to accessing the market on list B. How do you A. Do C. How long D. How much Access this market you does it take to get to this

Access 1 = Bus you to reach market? 2 = Foot this 3 = Car this market? market? 4 = Motorbike If by your own 5 = Taxi/moto-taxi/rented 1 = Less than 30 vehicle means = 0 minutes 6 = Other (specify) 2 = 30 min to 1 hour In IQD 1 = Yes 3 = Between 1 and 2 hours 0 = No 4 = More than 2 hours Open air market 7.1 (organized market [___] [___] [___] [___],[___]___]___] area) Local shops 7.2 (small established [___] [___] [___] [___],[___]___]___] stores) Kiosks (street 7.3 [___] [___] [___] [___],[___]___]___] vendors) Supermarket (large 7.4 [___] [___] [___] [___],[___]___]___] stores) 7.5 Other (specify) [___] [___] [___] [___],[___]___]___]

[___] 7.6 Do you sell farm produce? 1 = Yes; 0 = No (if 0 skip to Section 8) A. Do you sell B. What % Of your production here? Where do you sell this farm production? is sold here? 1 = Yes; 0 = No 7.7 At farm gates [___] [___]___]___] 7.8 At market places [___] [___]___]___] 7.9 Through agricultural cooperatives [___] [___]___]___] 7.10 Through contracts [___] [___]___]___] Other, please specify 7.11 [___] [___]___]___] (______)

8. Follow-up Contact

Please can we contact the head of household for more information in the near future?  Yes  No

Name______

Telephone number______