Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA)

Summary Report, Q1 2021

May 2021

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Introduction The Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA) was conducted from December 2020 to early March 2021 against the backdrop of ongoing economic instability and persistent chronic food insecurity and malnutrition. The assessment was conducted in all 18 states in Sudan and sought to ascertain the food security situation of the resident population, assess risk factors that contribute to food insecurity, and highlight vulnerable geographical areas. This information on vulnerability will enable well- informed decision-making processes for programme design and targeting purposes, as well as provide evidence for the expansion of future assistance programs. The CFSVA results are also a major data source for IPC, HNO and HRP.

During this food security assessment, data was collected from approximately 36,300 resident households were completed in 181 localities distributed across all 18 states. The findings were aimed to be representative of households at the locality level. The questionnaire included information at the household level on demographics, housing, assets, livelihoods, expenditures, coping strategies and food source and consumption. Additional information was collected on child health and caring practices as well as awareness of nutrition related messages.

Due to different methodologies of assessing food security, CFSVA figures are different from the IPC figures. Also, as CFSVA covers more diverse indicators, it is mainly used for WFP’s internal programme decision making purposes.

WFP would like to thank State Ministries of Production and Economic Resources for their role in data collection, and HAC and COR for their role in field coordination. Executive Summary Despite the season’s above-average harvest (CFSAM), the food security situation has not improved significantly compared to last year (which had a poor harvest). This is likely due to the ongoing economic downturn, conflict induced displacements and impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods. Economic vulnerability has played a major role in this food insecurity as 91 percent of households are spending more than 65 percent of their total expenditure on food. According to CARI indicator, around 27 percent of the resident population households are estimated to be food insecure.

While the prevalence of poor food consumption was on the lower side, almost half of households relied on livelihood-based negative coping strategies, focusing on immediate food needs and depleting their assets. The most common livelihood coping strategies included spending savings and cutting down on expenses for other basic needs such as education and health. High market reliance was observed. The households’ market reliance for food commodities often reached higher than 90 percent, with the other significant source being own production.

With the deterioration of macroeconomic environment characterized by high inflation and food prices, the purchasing power of the households has significantly diminished. Other contributing factors include protracted political instability and the COVID-19 pandemic which has negatively impacted livelihoods. Households headed by women were more likely to be food insecure than a household headed by men by at least 11 percent, mostly due to limited access to the labour market. Considering that data was collected during the harvest season, and with the ongoing economic crisis and upcoming of the lean season in May, the food security situation is expected to worsen in the coming months.

1

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Demographics Figure 1: Gender of household-head

18%

82%

Male-headed HHs Female-headed HHs

Figure 2: Highest level of education of household-head

6%

17% 31%

45%

None Primary Secondary University

The main income source was non-agricultural wage labour (which includes raksha, labour, wheel barrow or working as porter) and crops. 21 percent rely on these activities as their primary income source respectively. This is followed by business, which includes donkey cart, selling water, tea, handcraft or petty trade, and salaried work. Between 12 and 16 percent of respondents reported that one of these were their primary income sources.

2

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 3: Primary income source

21% 21% 16% 13% 12% 6% 6% 3% 3% 0% 0%

Overall, the main income sources for the female-headed and male-headed households were similar. However, 12 percent of female-headed households relied on informal transfers such as remittances, which is three times the prevalence observed in male-headed households (4 percent). Male-headed households relied significantly more on non-agricultural wage labour (23 percent).

Figure 4: Primary income source for female-headed and male-headed households

1% Begging % 10% Salaried work 12% 1% Mining 3% Firewood/charcoal 3% 0% 3% Food aid sale 0% 15% Non- Agricultural Wage labour (Raksha, Labour, Wheel… 23% 15% Agricultural wage labour 13% 19% Business (Donkey cart, Selling water/Tea/Handcraft, Petty… 15% 12% Transfers (Remittances, Gift, Donation) 4% 4% Livestock 6% 20% Crops 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Female-headed HH Male-headed HH

Food Security (CARI) Food insecurity is determined by the WFP corporate indicator, Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Security (CARI). Central to the approach is an explicit classification of households into four descriptive groups: food secure, marginally food secure, moderately food insecure, and severely food insecure. CARI combines a suite of food security indicators, including food consumption score (FCS), food expenditure share, and livelihood coping strategies, into a summary composite indicator.

According to the CARI console, 27 percent of resident households are classified as food insecure. Among the food insecure, 24 percent of households were moderately food insecure and 3 percent of households

3

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

were severely food insecure. Moderate food insecurity is characterized by significant consumption gaps, or marginally able to meet minimum food needs only with the aid of irreversible coping strategies. Households that are severely food insecure often have extreme food consumption gaps or have suffered significant loss of livelihood assets that will eventually lead to food consumption gaps.

On state level, the highest prevalence of food insecurity was observed in the Darfurs, North , and . had the highest level of food insecurity at 51 percent, followed by at 43 percent, at 39 percent, at 38 percent, and Blue Nile at 31 percent.

Figure 5. Prevalence of food insecurity by state

51% 43% 38% 39%

30% 29% 31% 27% 28% 27% 21% 22% 17% 15% 16% 16% 17% 12% 8%

4

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 6. Map of food security situation in Sudan according to CFSVA

Table below is the list of localities with the highest prevalence of food insecurity (50 percent and above). See full table with all localities in annex 2.

Table 1: Localities with 50 percent or above food insecurity

CARI Severely State Locality Food food Insecure insecure Blue Nile Kurmuk 50% 12% North Kordofan Om Rwaba 51% 10% North Darfur Umkedada 52% 10% Gadarif Basonda 53% 10% North Darfur Malha 53% 11% Central Darfur Azoom 53% 6% Central Darfur West Jabel Marra 53% 6% Bielel 54% 5% North Darfur Dar El Salam 54% 7% South Darfur Gerida 55% 4% South Darfur Reheed EL Berdi 55% 5%

5

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

North Darfur Mellit 55% 13% West Darfur Fur Barnga 56% 7% Halaib 60% 15% West Darfur Habila 61% 10% Red Sea Gabit-Elmadien 61% 7% North Darfur Tawila 65% 6% North Darfur Saraf Omra 66% 3% North Jabel Marra Central Darfur (Rokero 67% 7% West Darfur Bida 71% 7%

Profile of Food Insecure Population Households with the following traits are identified to be food insecure based on the CFSVA data.

Socio-economic factors:

• Households headed by women were more likely to be food insecure than households headed by men. 36 percent of the female headed households are food insecure, as opposed to 25 percent of their counterparts. • Household heads with a lower level of education were more likely to be food insecure. 34 percent of those with no education and 26 percent of those with only primary education were food insecure. Household heads that had a secondary or university education were less food insecure. • Households that owned more physical assets were highly likely to be food secure compared to households with less of them.

Livelihoods activities:

• Households that engaged in more sustainable and high return livelihood activities such as salaried work, mining and business were the most food secure. 83 percent of households with salaried work and 82 percent of the households with mining as main income were food secure. This was followed by households engaging in business (75 percent) and crop production (73 percent). • Households with begging, firewood/ charcoal collection and food aid sale as their main source of income were the most vulnerable group.

6

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 7. Prevalence of food insecurity by livelihood type

Begging 1% 11% 38% 50% Salaried work 4% 79% 16% 1% Mining 4% 78% 17% 2% Firewood/charcoal 1% 53% 38% 7% Food aid sale 0% 58% 37% 5% Non- Agricultural Wage labour 3% 72% 23% 3% Agricultural wage labour 4% 64% 29% 4% Business 3% 72% 23% 2% Transfers 5% 64% 26% 5% Livestock 3% 65% 29% 3% Crops 6% 66% 25% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Food secure Marginally food secure Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure

Adequacy of Food Consumption The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite indicator that takes into account the quantity and diversity of food groups consumed at household level a week prior to the survey to create a score for each household. It is a proxy of households’ food access and a core WFP indicator used to classify households into different food consumption groups (poor consumption, borderline consumption, and acceptable consumption).

In Sudan, 83 percent of resident households had acceptable food consumption. 14 percent had borderline food consumption and 4 percent had poor food consumption. South Darfur had the highest prevalence of households with poor food consumption (7 percent), followed by Central Darfur (6 percent), and North Darfur (6 percent). Outside Darfur, Gedaref and North Kordofan had the highest prevalence of poor food consumption of 5 and 4 percent respectively.

Figure 8. Food consumption group by state

52% 58% 71% 78% 74% 79% 81% 87% 85% 83% 91% 92% 94% 93% 93% 94% 96% 94% 99%

43% 36% 24% 15% 22% 15% 19% 10% 14% 7% 6% 10% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 1%

Poor Borderline Acceptable

7

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

This trend is also reflected in the mean food consumption score, as states that had a high prevalence of poor food consumption also had a lower food consumption score.

Figure 9: Food consumption score by state

85.2 87.9 81.9 78.8 75.2 74.3 68.9 66.5 63.1 63.2 65.5 61.8 59.1 55.1 58.2 58.0 48.3 51.2

The Food Consumption Score-Nutrition (FCS-N) takes a closer look at the consumption of protein rich, iron rich or Vitamin A rich foods. Protein plays a key role in child growth and is crucial for the prevention of wasting as well as stunting which takes place largely within the first 1000 days. Iron deficiency is one of the main causes of anemia which affects approximately 25 percent of the world’s population, mainly pre- school children and women. Vitamin A deficiency, if not tackled before the age of five, can increase child mortality and infectious diseases such as measles, diarrhea and malaria by up to 30 percent.

The FCS-N results show low consumption of vitamin A rich foods, as 18 percent do not consume food rich in vitamin A. Furthermore, 15 percent of resident households never consume food that is rich in hem- iron.

8

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 10: FCS-N

11%

59% 70%

74%

22%

28% 18% 15% 2% Protein Rich Food Vitamin A Rich Food Hem Iron Rich Food

Never Sometimes At least daily

The Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) is a dichotomous indicator of whether or not women aged 15-49 have consumed at least five out of ten defined food groups1 the previous day or night2. This is a proxy indicator to reflect the micronutrient adequacy of women’s diets. The results showed that in all states apart from Al Shimalia, the majority of women do not meet the minimum acceptable diet, which may indicate intra household disparity between male and female members in terms of food intake.

Figure 11: Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) for Women in Sudan

92% 89% 88% 85% 85% 84% 86% 81% 80% 75% 77% 75% 64% 64% 60% 56% 55%55% 44% 45% 45% 40% 36% 36% 25% 25% 23% 20% 19% 16% 15% 15% 14% 12% 8% 11%

Does not meet minimum acceptable diet Meets minimum acceptable diet

1 These food groups are: grains, white roots and tubers, and plantains; pulses (beans, peas and lentils); nuts and seeds; dairy; meat, poultry and fish; eggs; dark green leafy vegetables; other vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables; other vegetables; other fruits 2 Food and Agriculture Organization, link: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf

9

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Sources of Food The sources of food varied by the commodity. About one-fourth of households obtained cereals through their own production in Q1 2021. A similar proportion of households obtained milk and dairy products from their own production. More than 80 percent of households bought the rest of the foods including pulses, meat, vegetables, fruits, oil, and sugar from markets. This highlights the importance of markets in maintaining adequate and diverse food consumption for households.

Table 2: Sources of food group according to group

OWN MARKET MARKET OTHER PRODUCTION (CASH) (CREDIT) CEREAL 25% 66% 3% 7% PULSES 7% 81% 5% 8% MILK AND 25% 67% 4% 4% DAIRY MEAT FISH 1% 93% 2% 4% EGG VEGETABLES 2% 92% 4% 3% FRUITS 3% 90% 4% 4% OIL 5% 84% 7% 4% SUGAR 0% 89% 8% 3%

Vulnerability to Food Security Food based coping strategies

The degree of vulnerability caused by shocks is measured by the negative coping strategies adopted by the households. Coping strategies are divided into food and livelihood based coping strategies.

Food-based coping strategies (reduced coping strategies index, rCSI) uses a standard set of coping behaviors to show how households manage or cope with shortfalls in food consumption. Data is collected on the frequency of specific coping behaviours (recall period is 7 days) and the severity of those strategies, which is combined in a single score, the coping strategies index. This is an indicator of a household’s food security status, where a higher score indicates a greater level of coping, and hence increased food insecurity. A coping strategy index score above 11 indicates high coping. A score between 6 and 11 indicates medium coping, while a score below 6 indicates low coping, which is tailored to local context.

Overall, more than one-fourth of the surveyed households had to adopt food-based coping mechanisms to maintain minimum food consumption levels. Among them, 9 percent of households employed a high level of food-based coping mechanisms, which includes eating less preferred food, borrowing money to buy food, limiting portion sizes, reducing the number of meals, and reducing adult consumption to favor smaller children.

10

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 12. Prevalence of food-based negative coping strategies by state

Sudan 74% 10% 7% 9% 75% 10% 9% 6% AL Gazira 66% 9% 6% 19% AL Shimalia 68% 3% 7% 22% Sinnar 62% 10% 15% 13% 72% 8% 8% 12% Gadarif 89% 4% 3% 4% 76% 12% 5% 6% West Kordofan 85% 5% 4% 7% North Kordofan 69% 13% 10% 8% 71% 8% 8% 13% Blue Nile 54% 8% 24% 14% Red Sea 63% 10% 9% 19% 66% 10% 7% 16% 73% 6% 2% 19% Central Darfur 73% 20% 6% 1% West Darfur 63% 29% 6% 3% South Darfur 92% 5% 3%1% North Darfur 77% 10% 6% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No coping Low coping Medium coping High coping

In Blue Nile state, 46 percent of the surveyed households adopted food-based coping strategy, the highest among the 18 surveyed states. This was followed by the Red Sea, West Darfur and Sinnar (38 percent). The adoption of high coping mechanisms was highest in Al Shimalia (22 percent), followed by Al Gazira, Red Sea and East Darfur (19 percent).

Table 3: Most common food-based coping strategies

FOOD-BASED COPING STRATEGIES PERCENTAGE RELY ON LESS PREFERRED AND LESS EXPENSIVE 31% FOOD REDUCE NUMBER OF MEALS PER DAY 23% LIMIT PORTION SIZE OF MEALS 16% EAT BORROWED FOOD OR BORROW MONEY 14% TO BUY FOOD RELY ON HELP FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES 9% (MUSAADA) RESTRICT CONSUMPTION OF ADULTS TO FEED 7% CHILDREN

The most common food-based coping strategy was to rely on less preferred or less expensive food, with 31 percent of total households resorting to this negative coping strategy. It was followed reducing number of meals per day (23 percent) and limiting portion size at meal times (16 percent).

Livelihood based coping strategies

11

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Livelihood-based coping module is used to understand longer-term coping capacity of households and if they are able to meet challenges in the future. The recall period is 30 days. Livelihood-based coping strategies are classified as stress, crisis or emergency strategies depending on their severity. Stress strategies indicate a reduced ability to deal with future shocks due to a current reduction in resources or increase in debts (e.g. buying food on credit or spending savings). Crisis strategies directly reduce future productivity, including human capital formation. (e.g. selling productive assets). Emergency strategies affect future productivity, but are more difficult to reverse or more dramatic in nature (e.g. begging, selling last female animal).

The results show that 45 percent of resident households had to resort to livelihood-based coping strategies, most prevalent of which was spending their savings on food, employed by 26 percent of households. 16 percent of households were forced to cut down on medical expenses, and 12 percent had to sell their last remaining female animals causing an irreversible loss of livelihoods.

Table 4: Most common livelihood-based coping strategies

LIVELIHOOD COPING PERCENTAGE SPENT SAVINGS 26% REDUCED NON FOOD EXPENSES ON 16% HEALTH SOLD LAST FEMALE ANIMAL 12% SOLD MORE ANIMALS (NON- 11% PRODUCTIVE) THAN USUAL SOLD HOUSEHOLD ASSETS 9% BORROWED MONEY FROM FORMAL 8% LENDER WITHDREW CHILDREN FROM 6% SCHOOL SOLD PRODUCTIVE ASSETS OR 6% MEANS OF TRANSPORT SOLD HOUSE OR LAND 4% BEGGED 3%

Based on their severity, livelihood-based coping strategies are classified into stress, crisis, and emergency strategies. Overall, 16 percent of households adopted emergency coping, 17 percent adopted crisis coping strategies, and 13 percent adopted stress coping strategies.

66 percent of households in East Darfur adopted livelihood-based coping strategies, the highest in Sudan. This was followed by 60 percent of households in Al Shimalia and 58 percent in Blue Nile. The highest proportion of households adopting the emergency coping mechanisms were found in East Darfur at 31 percent, followed by Red Sea with 28 percent.

12

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 13. Prevalence of livelihood-based negative coping strategies by state

Sudan 55% 13% 17% 16% River Nile 59% 22% 10% 9% AL Gazira 47% 13% 31% 10% AL Shimalia 40% 22% 21% 17% Sinnar 53% 12% 20% 15% Khartoum 47% 17% 25% 11% Gadarif 62% 16% 10% 12% South Kordofan 57% 11% 19% 13% West Kordofan 63% 10% 14% 13% North Kordofan 48% 11% 17% 25% White Nile 62% 12% 14% 12% Blue Nile 42% 12% 26% 21% Red Sea 45% 7% 20% 28% Kassala 64% 11% 12% 13% East Darfur 34% 17% 19% 31% Central Darfur 66% 10% 11% 13% West Darfur 48% 19% 23% 11% South Darfur 62% 9% 13% 17% North Darfur 55% 14% 13% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No coping Stress coping Crisis coping Emergency coping

Economic Vulnerability The CARI console sheds more light on the major driving forces behind household level food insecurity. Across the surveyed population, economic vulnerability remained one of the major reasons behind household food insecurity. Economic vulnerability is measured by expenditure share of food out of total expenditure. This indicator is based on the premise that the greater the importance of food within a household’s overall budget (relative to other consumed items/services) the more economically vulnerable the household. If food expenditure share is less than 50 percent, the household is considered to be economically better off, while more than 65 percent is considered to be economically vulnerable, as a large proportion of food expenditure means that households are forced to prioritize immediate short- term food needs over important longer-terms investments in e.g. health care or education.

The share of expenditure spent on food remains high in Sudan. 91 percent of resident households are spending more than 65 percent of their expenditure on food, which is a reflection of high food prices and indicates economic vulnerability. The highest economic vulnerability was observed in Red Sea state with 96 percent of households spending more than 65 percent on food, followed by North Kordofan (95 percent). The state with the lowest economic vulnerability was observed in Central Darfur (87 percent).

13

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Figure 14. Prevalence of economic vulnerability by state

94% 96% 95% 94% 94% 90% 93% 91% 92% 92% 91% 90% 91% 91% 89% 87% 88% 87% 89%

While such a disproportionate amount of expenditure on food prevented the widening of the food gap, it also added more risk factors to an already fragile economic situation and thus exposed them to future food insecurity and degradation of their overall well-being. Households were forced to cut on their health and education expenditures and were unable to create or invest in livelihood assets as highlighted by the adoption of livelihood-based coping mechanisms.

The persistent increase in food commodity prices has reduced the purchasing power, eroding food security further. 53 percent of residents cannot afford the local food basket without depleting their assets, which is an increase compared to the previous round (48 percent). According to WFP monthly market monitor, sorghum price is hitting record high every month due to inflation and high production costs. Inflation hit 304.3 percent in January 2021. Despite the season’s above-average harvest (CFSAM), food availability is concerning with the upcoming lean season.

Figure 15. Prevalence of resident households that cannot afford the local food basket

53% 48%

Q1 2020 Q1 2021

14

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

In Khartoum state, 99 percent cannot afford the local food basket without depleting assets, which is a stark increase from the previous assessment when the figure was 51 percent. In East Darfur and South Darfur, nearly three quarters cannot afford the local food basket.

Figure 16: Prevalence of households that cannot afford the local food basket by state

99%

75% 71% 74% 72% 67% 63% 56% 57% 55% 53% 42% 36% 35% 24% 25% 20% 21% 18%

Coping strategies expected to increase include compromising on food intake terms of quality and quantity, distress sales at unfavourable terms of trade, borrowing money and buying food and other essential commodities on credit. Conclusion and Recommendations Overall, in Sudan, 27 percent of the households were food insecure. Increased economic vulnerability induced by the economic downturn remained the major contributing factor. 91 percent of the households spent more than 65 percent of their total expenditure on food, limiting their ability to create or invest in livelihood assets. More than 25 percent of the households had to adopt food based coping strategies to maintain minimum food consumption levels. Almost half the households had to resort to livelihood based coping strategies.

With the ongoing economic crisis and the onset of lean season, the food security situation is expected to worsen throughout the coming months at least until the next harvest season. Looking at the inflation rate which reached 379 percent as of May 2021, it is highly likely that the high inflation rate will continue. Sudanese pounds are also constantly being devaluated, putting upward pressure on commodity prices.

Unless positive economic factors such as the government’s access to the World Bank and IMF funding and debt relief make fundamental changes to the macroeconomy, the sustained food insecurity and economic crisis will likely continue even after the end of lean season.

To mitigate the high levels of food insecurity, following recommendations are necessary.

- Continue lifesaving support to the most vulnerable population identified by assessments such as WFP assessments and IPC.

15

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

- Maintain the purchasing power of cash assistance by revising the transfer value frequently based on market prices collected. - Create sustainable and stable livelihood opportunities, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as women. On top of poverty and high vulnerability, their purchasing power is further eroded by the limited employment opportunities, lack of access to productive resources, as well as the increase and volatility of commodity prices. Schemes such as PSN should be prioritized to promote the building or rehabilitation of assets that will improve long-term food security and resilience. - Support the government in strengthening the national disaster management system. Disasters are amongst the main drivers of hunger and malnutrition and strengthened disaster management system will be vital to Sudan’s recovery. - Improve agricultural production and productivity. Supporting the availability of financial services and agricultural inputs to small scale producers will promote productivity and generate new employment as well as strengthen food availability. - Reducing food loss is necessary. Smallholder farmers lose up to a third of the food they produce because of inadequate storage systems. Post-harvest losses reduce incomes for farmers, exacerbate food insecurity, and have negative impacts on the environment. Land, water, farm inputs and energy are all used to produce food that is not consumed. Initiatives such as WFP’s hermetic storage bag and raising awareness of the smallholder farmers should continue to be promoted. - Continue assisting the government in developing a comprehensive social protection system. The Sudan Family Support Programme (SFSP) is a good example that provides direct cash transfers each month to support vulnerable families to mitigate the effects of the ongoing economic difficulties. - Investment in productive infrastructure is necessary. Productive infrastructures are foundations for economic growth. There are areas in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile that cannot be accessed by main transport corridors, which limits the communities’ livelihood activities and access to basic need services. The “Peace Roads” initiative to connect the areas to the main transport corridors would create income generating opportunities, trade, and better access to basic needs. This will also help small farmers connect to functioning markets. Other investments include enhancing the capacity of Agricultural Bank of Sudan, the Strategic Reserve Cooperation, such as increasing storage capacity, and investing in strategic silo system to avoid food shortages.

16

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Annex 1: Methodology Data collection for the CFSVA takes place once per year during the harvest season and covers all 18 states in Sudan. The household data collection for this round of monitoring was conducted between December 2020 and March 2021. The findings were aimed to be representative of the households at the locality level. The survey design followed a two-stage stratified sample methodology, in which the samples were stratified by the states and localities. Within each locality, 13 locations were randomly chosen as the primary sampling units (PSU) and 16 households were sampled within each location (PSU). Indicators Food insecurity is determined by the WFP corporate indicator, Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Security (CARI). Central to the approach is an explicit classification of households into four descriptive groups: food secure, marginally food secure, moderately food insecure, and severely food insecure. CARI combines a suite of food security indicators, including food consumption score, food expenditure share, and livelihood coping strategies, into a summary indicator.

Household food consumption data was collected and analysed using standard WFP methodology: the variety and frequency of foods consumed over a 7-day period was recorded to calculate a household food consumption score. Weights were based on the nutritional density of the foods. Using standard thresholds, households were classified as having either poor, borderline or acceptable food consumption.

The local food basket in Sudan consists of eight food items that have been identified by focus group interviews with the IDP, refugee and resident population communities based on food preferences and cost minimization. The eight items are sorghum, onion, vegetable oil, milk, cow meat, goat meat, dry tomatoes and sugar in amounts sufficient to attain a nutritionally acceptable diet, while minimizing the cost. The prices of these items are combined to constitute the local food basket.

The coping strategy index is an indicator of household food security about how households manage to cope with a shortfall in food for consumption, and results in a numeric score. Data is collected on the frequency of specific coping behaviours and the severity of those strategies, which is combined in a single score, the coping strategies index. This is thus an indicator of a household’s food security status, where a higher score indicates a greater level of coping, and hence increased food insecurity. An coping strategy index score above 11 indicates high coping. A score between 6 and 11 indicates medium coping, while a score between 1 and 6 indicates low coping.

Livelihood-based coping is used to understand longer-term coping capacity of households and if they are able to meet challenges in the future. The recall period is 30 days. Livelihood-based coping strategies are classified as stress, crisis or emergency strategies depending on their severity. Stress strategies indicate a reduced ability to deal with future shocks due to a current reduction in resources or increase in debts (e.g. buying food on credit or spending savings). Crisis strategies directly reduce future productivity, including human capital formation. (e.g. selling productive assets). Emergency strategies affect future productivity, but are more difficult to reverse or more dramatic in nature (e.g. begging, selling last female animal).

Economic vulnerability was measured by expenditure share of food out of total expenditure. This indicator is based on the premise that the greater the importance of food within a household’s overall budget (relative to other consumed items/services) the more economically vulnerable the household. If food expenditure share is less than 50 percent, the household is considered to be economically better off, while

17

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

more than 65 percent is considered to be economically vulnerable, as a large proportion of food expenditure means that households are forced to prioritize immediate short-term food needs over important longer-terms investments in e.g. health care or education. For more information contact Seokjin Han, Head of Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping, at [email protected].

Annex 2: List of localities by prevalence of food insecurity CARI Severely State Locality Food food Insecure insecure South Darfur Shataia 2% 1% Gadarif El Garbia 2% 0% River Nile ElBuhira 3% 0% Gadarif East Galabat 4% 0% South Darfur Kabom 4% 0% River Nile Berber 4% 0% River Nile Atbara 4% 0% River Nile Abu Hamad 7% 0% AL Gazira Al Kamlin 8% 0% South Darfur Kass 8% 2% White Nile EL Deweem 8% 1% Gadarif Gadarif 8% 0% AL Shimalia Dongola 8% 1% AL Gazira Al-Hasaheisa 9% 0% Sinnar Sinnar 9% 0% East Darfur ED Deain 9% 0% West Kordofan Gibeish 9% 1% AL Shimalia Alborgaig 9% 1% Kassala West Kassala 10% 0% River Nile Ad Damar 10% 1% AL Gazira Al Qurashi 10% 0% Red Sea Sinkat 10% 1% Red Sea Haya 10% 0% South Kordofan abugebiha 10% 0% Sinnar Sinja 10% 1% West Kordofan Wad Banda 11% 0% AL Gazira Madani Alkobra 11% 1% White Nile Rabak 11% 1% Kassala Kassala 11% 1% North Darfur Kalimenda 11% 0% Kassala Girba 11% 0%

18

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

Red Sea Port Sudan 11% 1% White Nile Um Rimta 11% 2% Khartoum Sharg EL Neel 12% 0% Khartoum Bahri 12% 1% AL Gazira Um AlQura 12% 1% AL Shimalia Dalgoo 12% 1% River Nile El Matamma 13% 1% North Darfur El serief 13% 0% AL Gazira Almanagil 13% 1% South Darfur Dimso 13% 1% White Nile EL Jableen 13% 1% River Nile Shendi 13% 1% Red Sea Suakein 14% 3% AL Shimalia Halfa 14% 2% North Darfur El Tewiasha 14% 1% South Darfur EL Salam 14% 1% White Nile EL Geteena 14% 1% South Kordofan Gadir 14% 1% Khartoum Karrari 15% 2% Kassala Wadelhelio 15% 2% Gadarif EL Fashga 15% 1% Khartoum Khartoum 15% 3% West Kordofan Babanosa 15% 1% Sinnar Aldali 15% 1% South Darfur Kateela 16% 1% South Darfur Tulus 16% 1% Kassala Atbara River 16% 3% Gadarif El Bottana 16% 1% Kassala Halfa El Jadeeda 16% 1% Sinnar Abohugar 17% 1% AL Gazira South El 17% 1% West Kordofan Al Khowai 17% 0% Sinnar Al Suki 17% 1% White Nile Tendalti 17% 1% Red Sea Gunb/Awlib 17% 0% West Kordofan Abo Zabad 17% 0% Gadarif EL Gerisha 18% 2% White Nile Guli 18% 2% South Darfur North Nyala 18% 3% Khartoum Jabel Awlia 18% 6% Khartoum Um Bada 18% 2%

19

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

West Kordofan Almayram 18% 2% Gadarif Fau 18% 6% Kassala North Delta 19% 2% South Kordofan Talodi 19% 0% West Kordofan Elsanoot 19% 2% West Kordofan 19% 2% Gadarif El Rahad 19% 1% Khartoum Om Durman 19% 3% AL Gazira East El Gezira 19% 1% East Darfur Adila 19% 3% Blue Nile Wad El Mahy 19% 4% West Kordofan AL Dibub 21% 3% Kassala Rural Kassala 21% 2% Kassala Aroma 21% 2% Sinnar Dinder 22% 0% South Darfur Buram 22% 2% Gadarif AL Mafaza 22% 1% South Kordofan Rashad 22% 2% North Darfur Um Buru 23% 1% South Kordofan Kadugli 23% 3% South Kordofan Al Liri 23% 1% Blue Nile El damazine 24% 2% Blue Nile EL Tadamon 24% 6% AL Shimalia Al Daba 24% 2% North Darfur Kuma 24% 3% Red Sea Dourdieb 24% 2% North Kordofan Bara 24% 3% Central Darfur Wadi Salih 25% 3% AL Shimalia Merowe 25% 0% Kassala Hamshkoreeb 25% 3% Blue Nile El Rosaries 26% 2% Sinnar East Sinnar 26% 1% East Darfur El Firdos 26% 2% South Darfur EL Radoom 26% 1% Blue Nile Giessan 26% 2% South Kordofan eltadamoon 26% 3% Kassala Telkok 26% 1% North Darfur El Fasher 27% 4% AL Shimalia Al Goled 27% 0% White Nile EL Salam 27% 2% West Kordofan Lagawa 28% 2%

20

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

North Darfur Kornoi 29% 4% West Kordofan Keilak 29% 3% South Darfur EL Wihda 29% 7% South Kordofan dilling 30% 4% East Darfur Shearia 30% 2% South Darfur Netega 30% 5% East Darfur Abu Jabra 30% 4% East Darfur Abu Karinka 30% 3% West Kordofan Elfoula 31% 2% East Darfur Asslaya 31% 2% West Kordofan Al Udayyia 32% 7% North Darfur Al lait 32% 1% East Darfur Bahar EL Arab 33% 1% East Darfur Yassien 33% 5% South Kordofan Habila 33% 3% Central Darfur Bindisi 34% 1% Central Darfur Mukjar 34% 4% South Darfur Mershing 34% 4% North Kordofan Shikan 35% 7% North Kordofan Gabrat Al Sheikh 35% 5% Gadarif Central Gadarif 35% 0% North Kordofan West Bara 35% 7% West Kordofan Al Nuhod 36% 2% West Darfur EL Genina 37% 2% South Darfur South Nyala 38% 3% South Kordofan Abbasiya 38% 4% South Darfur East Jabel Marra 39% 5% Central Darfur Um Dukhon 39% 11% South Kordofan Elgoze 40% 2% Central Darfur Zalengi 40% 6% South Darfur EL Sunta 40% 6% South Kordofan Dallami 41% 6% Red Sea Agig 42% 3% North Kordofan Sodari 42% 7% South Kordofan Elref Elsharig 42% 5% South Darfur Um Dafog 43% 1% Red Sea Tokar 43% 3% North Kordofan Al rahad 43% 11% South Kordofan Abukrshola 44% 5% West Darfur Kulbus 45% 3% Blue Nile Bau 45% 10%

21

Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA), Q1 2021

West Darfur Sirba 45% 4% North Darfur Kutum 46% 8% Central Jabel Marra Central Darfur (Golo 47% 2% West Darfur Jebel Moon 48% 7% West Darfur Kerenik 48% 2% South Darfur ED EL Firsan 48% 6% North Darfur Kebkabiya 49% 2% North Kordofan Um Dam 49% 8% Gadarif Galaa EL Nahal 49% 1% Blue Nile Kurmuk 50% 12% North Kordofan Om Rwaba 51% 10% North Darfur Umkedada 52% 10% Gadarif Basonda 53% 10% North Darfur Malha 53% 11% Central Darfur Azoom 53% 6% Central Darfur West Jabel Marra 53% 6% South Darfur Bielel 54% 5% North Darfur Dar El Salam 54% 7% South Darfur Gerida 55% 4% South Darfur Reheed EL Berdi 55% 5% North Darfur Mellit 55% 13% West Darfur Fur Barnga 56% 7% Red Sea Halaib 60% 15% West Darfur Habila 61% 10% Red Sea Gabit-Elmadien 61% 7% North Darfur Tawila 65% 6% North Darfur Saraf Omra 66% 3% North Jabel Marra Central Darfur (Rokero 67% 7% West Darfur Bida 71% 7%

22