Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 VAM Unit World Food

NEPAL Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 VAM Unit World Food Programme Nepal September 2001 Nepal Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 PREFACE Global food security and the struggle against hunger are priorities that have been repeatedly emphasised by the international community. In 1996, in the Rome declaration of the World Food Summit, Heads of State and Government of 186 countries of the world ‘reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.’ They came forward with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people to half its present level no later than 2015. Past experience reveals that there is no easy way to escape from poverty, food insecurity and vulnerability. Additional efforts are needed to understand the factors that cause widespread hunger and poverty, and to design appropriate measures conducive towards an environment in which the goal of ‘food for all’ becomes a common goal, to which diverse initiatives are directed. For efficient utilisation of WFP resources, targeting is of the utmost importance and calls for an investigation into three interrelated questions: Who are the food insecure? Where are they? Why they are food insecure? With the objective of contributing to this effort, WFP/Nepal undertakes its own Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping. VAM at WFP Nepal performed secondary data analysis and produced a report which helped WFP to define its geographic targeting, as part of its new Country Programme (2002-06) design. More recently, to understand more fully the dynamics of food insecurity and vulnerability on the basis of vulnerable population’s own perceptions, WFP/Nepal carried out a field-based investigation; of which the outcome is this report before you. This report draws on primary information collected from 65 food insecure and vulnerable communities located in 19 districts of Nepal. In selecting communities for the fieldwork, a non-probability sampling method was used in order to select those communities that were the most food-insecure. WFP’s aim in doing a biased sampling was to focus on the dynamics of food insecurity and vulnerability where these aspects were most prevalent in a given ‘cluster’. Fieldwork was carried out using participatory methodologies and qualitative assessments; therefore, the findings depict ‘pictures’ of specific food- insecure and vulnerable areas, but are not necessarily representative of general characteristics of entire regions or the country as a whole. The findings and the conclusions of the report should be interpreted considering these methodological aspects. We consider that this report will be useful for all those who are aiming to achieve the common goal of eradication of hunger and poverty from the world, and in particular from Nepal. September 21, 2001 Douglas Casson Coutts Representative World Food Programme Nepal ii Nepal Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Targeting is an issue of increasing interest in an environment of tighter fiscal policies in developing countries and shrinking donor budgets. In order to have improved impact, WFP’s policy is to use geographic targeting to concentrate resources on food insecure areas within recipient countries, and at times, to use further targeting to identify intended beneficiaries within these geographic areas. Reaching the right people depends on identifying who they are, where they live, and when and why they are food insecure. WFP/Nepal has conducted secondary data analysis and based on some indicators of food insecurity identified the areas and cluster of districts where its programme should go. An outstanding example of this effort is the recent move of its programme to Karnali region of the country. In order to assist and further inform future efforts, WFP/Nepal conducted this study. This study is an outcome of primary data collected from field survey work, and of an intensive consultation process involving inputs from various organisations and individuals. Among the individuals, Mr Frank Riely, WFP Consultant, is the one to whom we are most grateful because it is he who conceived, planned, designed, and provided all the details, comments and feedback at the different milestones of the study. This study would not have been possible without his contribution. The other individuals whom we acknowledge are those who were involved in conducting the field surveys, which is the most important part of a primary data-based investigation. We must acknowledge all the respondents of the 65 communities who accepted our investigation with friendliness and good humour and spared their valuable time for furnishing their information. The communities where we undertook the surveys were identified by district stakeholders, including DDC Chairmen, and therefore we are very much grateful to all of them, without whose contribution the study would not have been a participatory study. During the course of the data analysis and write-up we benefited from comment and feedback received from Gerald Daly, Regional VAM Officer, New Delhi, and the programme staff of WFP Nepal. We would like to convey our thanks to all of them. Our heartfelt thanks and appreciation also go to all the participants of the UN agencies, donor organisations and government and non-government organisations who actively participated and provided comments during the Dissemination Seminar held in December 2000. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Douglas Casson Coutts, Representative, WFP Nepal, whose insights at different phases of the study helped to hone our investigation and boosted our morale to successfully complete this task. Ms. Sarah Laughton, Programme Manager, also was involved in all stages of the investigation, starting from her inputs in carrying out the clustering exercise, to ready comments on the reports at various times, and therefore we also acknowledge her comments and suggestions for the successful completion of this study. We are also thankful to Mr. Deepak Shah, the then Chief of the VAM Unit of WFP Nepal, who helped in different ways in early phase of this study. Lastly, we are grateful to Moushumi Chaudhury, editor, and to MASS Printing Press, the printers. VAM UNIT WFP - Nepal iii Nepal Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APP Agricultural Perspective Plan CBS Central Bureau of Statistics DDC District Development Committee DFAMS Department of Food and Agricultural Marketing Services DFID Department for International Development FGD Focus Group Discussion FINNIDA Finnish International Development Assistance FRISP Forest Resource Information System Project FY Fiscal Year FYM Farm Yard Manure GDP Gross Domestic Product GIP Girls Incentive Programme GNP Gross National Product GO Government Organisation GTZ Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Co-operation) HDI Human Development Index HMGN His Majesty’s Government of Nepal HYV High Yielding Variety INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation LRMP Land Resource Mapping Project MCHC Maternal and Child Health Care MLD Ministry of Local Development MOF Ministry of Finance MOH Ministry of Health MPFS Master Plan of Forestry Sector NFC Nepal Food Corporation NFHS Nepal Family Health Survey NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NMIS Nepal Multiple Indicators Surveillance NPC National Planning Commission NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society PPP Purchasing Power Parity RCIW Rural Community Infrastructure Works SFP School Feeding Programme UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping VDC Village Development Committee WFP World Food Programme hr. Hour MT Metric Tonne kcal Kilocalorie kg. Kilogram NRs. Nepalese Rupees One Ropani is equal to 0.05 hectare One Bigha is equal to 0.68 hectare One US $ is worth of NRs. 75.10 (15 May, 2001) Nepali Fiscal Year starts from mid-July iv Nepal Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Country 1 1.2 Development in the Past Decades 3 1.3 Agriculture’s Relative Decline 3 1.4 The Challenge 4 1.5 Past Efforts towards Food Security 4 1.6 Outline of Report 5 CHAPTER II FOOD SECURITY AND VILNERABILITY PROFILE METHODOLOGY 2.1 Main Aims and Purposes 6 2.2 Methodology of the FSVP 7 2.3 Limitation of the Assessment 9 CHAPTER III FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY STATUS IN NEPAL : AN OVERVIEW 3.1 Introduction 10 3.2 Theoretical Framework 10 3.3 Availability of Food 12 3.4 Access to Food 15 3.5 Utilisation of Food 16 3.6 Vulnerability 19 3.7 Coping Strategies 21 3.8 Summary 22 CHAPTER IV FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY IN NEPAL 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 Where Are the Food Insecure and Vulnerable? 24 4.3 Who Are the Food Insecure and Vulnerable? 26 4.4 Summary 32 CHAPTER V RISKS AND HAZARDS 5.1 Types of Risks and Hazards 34 5.2 Frequency and Severity of Hazards 36 5.3 Loss from Hazards 37 5.4 Summary 40 v Nepal Food Security and Vulnerability Profile 2000 CHAPTER VI RESPONSES TO RISKS BY HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITIES 6.1 Introduction 42 6.2 Risk Reduction Measures 43 6.3 Risk Mitigation Measures 45 6.4 Coping with Shocks 53 6.5 Summary 61 CHAPTER VII FOOD SECURITY AND GENDER 7.1 Introduction

Load more