Sindh Drought Needs Assessment

Preliminary Findings: Agriculture, Livelihood, Nutrition, Health, Water and Sanitation, Assistance Drought Vulnerability Index in Sindh

• Southern Sindh prone to moderate droughts. • Before this drought, severe drought years were 1969, 1974, 1987 and 2002.

Exposure to Drought

• Drought Started in 2013 / Ended with the heavy monsoon 2015, but rainfall deficiency resumed in October. • Most severe in the bare and desert areas of Tharparkar and Jamshoro. • Droughts have more disastrous consequences when pressure on water supply is high and institutional management capacity is low. • Drought was most severe in Western and South Eastern Regions, two already very arid areas. • Drought was mediated by access to tube well irrigation in the West. • Drought was mostly moderate in the East • Most of the irrigated zone was spared by the meteorological drought, but the hydrological drought is largely determined upstream. 20% of households surveyed in the irrigated zone (mostly tail ends) experienced extreme water scarcity.

Methodology MAP with districts and sampled • Sample Selection ucs • 9 districts (Khairpur, Sanghar, Mirpur Khas, Umerkot, Tharparkar, Badin, Thatta, Jamshoro and Dadu) • 33 tehsils • 100 union councils • 272 villages • 3565 households • 3 stage sample • UCs: Negative NDVI and population considerations. • Villages in dry areas. • Households: 10 Male headed 3 female headed. • Questionnaire focusing on the impact of drought on livelihoods. • Understand how droughts affect livelihoods, food security, and nutrition. • How can targeted responses be put in place in the short, medium and long term to mitigate their impact?

Distribution of Surveyed Households by Drought Status & District

Umerkot 100.0%

Thatta 37.4% 62.6%

Tharparkar 100.0%

Sanghar 29.9% 70.1%

Mirpur Khas 41.8% 41.8% 16.5%

Khairpur 13.7% 86.3%

Jamshoro 10.1% 89.9%

Dadu 10.3% 41.4% 48.3%

Badin 100.0%

Overall 19.9% 9.7% 27.1% 43.3%

No Drought Low Moderate High Distribution of Surveyed Households by Agriculture Water Scarcity Status & District

Umerkot 83.8% 13.1% 3.1%

Thatta 60.7% 16.0% 23.3%

Tharparkar 100.0%

Sanghar 10.2% 89.8%

Mirpur Khas 9.7% 34.4% 55.9%

Khairpur 10.1% 13.1% 76.8%

Jamshoro 53.9% 29.7% 16.4%

Dadu 48.3% 27.6% 24.1%

Badin 12.3% 48.6% 39.1%

Overall 42.2% 21.4% 36.4%

Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity Impact Analysis

Methodology:  Disaggregation by Agro-climatic Zone  And by Households Assets / Income Sources Impact of Drought on Water Scarcity Impact of Water Scarcity on Agriculture Food Security and Nutrition Vulnerability to Water Scarcity

Agro-climatic Zones in Sindh • Defined using the three dominant features of the land-cover. • West zone: Bare areas and Sparse Vegetation with Some irrigated croplands. • Irrigated zone: Irrigated Croplands • East zone: Bare areas with Shrubs and some irrigation. • South East zone: Bare areas with Shrubs, no irrigation West of the Irrigated Zone West Zone

22.1%

• Districts: 15.4% 62.5% -East Jamshoro -East Dadu Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS -North Thatta Excluding flooded communities

Hazards: - Severe Drought (extreme water Scarcity 62%) -Floods (excluded from analysis)

West Changes in Wheat Production (%) by Water Scarcity Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total

West Zone: Wheat 12.2 10

3.6 1.7 0.5 0

- Only 40% of households cultivate -10

-18.2 land -20 -25.5 -26.1 -26.6 -28.3 -30 -28.8 -31.5 -Harvests reduced by 28% overall. -32.5 Land Cultivated Yield Harvest

The most vulnerable areas in this Excluding flooded communities region seem to be those which had moderate water scarcity (most West Changes in Guar Production (%)

reliant on canal irrigation rather than Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total 0 tubewell irrigation in severely scarce -1 -0 -1

areas). -20 - Strong Correlation between Change

-35 -35 -40 in harvest and water scarcity for -45 -44

-55

cotton. -56 -60

Land Cultivated Yield Harvest - Farmers tried to offset yields losses Excluding flooded comunities with increased land cultivation area.

West Zone: Causes of Harvest Reduction West Causes of Harvest Reduction 83.6

Water Scarcity is the 80 main cause of harvest

reduction everywhere in 60 52.8 the region. 39.1 Water Scarcity highest in 40

moderate water scarcity 20 10.2 10.2 12.2 areas 4.7 5.4 4.4 1.1 0.0 2.0 Other causes increase as 0 Low WS water scarcity decreases. Extreme WS Moderate WS Floods affected some Water Scarcity Lack of Inputs Unproductive Land Other areas of Jamshoro. Excluding flooded communities West Zone: Livestock • 82% of households own West livestock (on average 3.5 Percentage Change in Number of Animals buffalos, 11 sheep or goats, Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS 3.4 poultry. 0.6 equine 2 0 years ago). Lost up to 65% of their animals. -14.2

-20 • Buffalos and Goats the most vulnerable to water -28.7 -27.6 -27.4 -32.9 scarcity. Moderately water -34.7

-40 scarce areas (relying on -42.3 -44.3 -48.1 -48.1 canal irrigation) most -49.8 affected. -60 • Highest number of buffalos -65.0 of all regions. Buffalos Sheeps and Goats Poultry Equines

Excluding flooded communities Irrigated Zone Water Availability in Irrigated Zone • Districts: -Badin 20.4% -Mirpukhas

-Sanghar 55.1% 24.5% -Parts of Jamshroro, Thatta & Umerkot

Hazards: 25% or less than usual 25% to 75% the normal level Over 75% Excluding flooded communities - Recurrent “Hydrological” droughts (20% extreme water scarcity) - Frequent Floods - Floods and inundations this year (excluded in drought impact analysis) Irrigated Zone Changes in Wheat Production (%) by Water Availability

Irrigated Zone: Wheat & Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total 10

3.5 2.0

Cotton 0

-1.8 -2.1 -2.6 -3.0 -5.0 -6.4

51% of households cultivate -10 -10.5

land -16.0 -20 -21.5

-25.8

Significant linear relationship -30 for wheat and cotton Land Cultivated Yield Harvest production and water Excluding flooded communities availability. Irrigated Zone Changes in Cotton Production (%) by Water Scarcity

Up to 21% and 35% harvest Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total 0 reduction in extremely water -1.0 -2.3 -2.7 -3.6 -3.2 scarce areas for wheat and -4.5 cotton respectively. -10 -9.2 -8.9

-18.1 -20 -20.7

Tail ends and distribution of -30 -28.5 -35.3

surface water are likely to be -40 the most important issue in Land Cultivated Yield Harvest this region Excluding flooded communities

Irrigated Zone : Causes of Harvest Reduction Water is the main Irrigated Zone Causes of Harvest Reduction

problem in areas with 39.8 40 very low water 34.6 availability, but as water

availability increases, 30 other causes increase. 23.4 22.5 18.4 17.9 20 12.5 10.2 10.2

Other Reasons: 7.9 10 5.0 Financial Constraints, lack 1.2

of inputs. 0

Low WS Extreme WS Moderate WS

Water Scarcity Lack of inputs Unproductive Land Other Excluding flooded communities Irrigated Zone: Livestock Irrigated Zone Percentage Change in Number of Animals 78% of households Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total

surveyed owned 0

livestock. (on -2.7 -4.6

average, 2 buffalos. -10 -8.7 7 sheep or goats, 1 -13.7 -15.3

-20 -18.3 poultry and 0,4 -19.8 -21.6 -22.6 -23.3 equines two years -25.1 ago) -30 -30.0

-37.4 Linear relationship -40

between water -45.2 scarcity and -50 -48.8 -52.9 livestock loss. Up to 63% in extremely Buffalos Sheeps or Goats water scarce areas. Poultry Equines Excluding Flooded Communities East Zone East of the irrigated Zone

• Districts: Part of Sanghar, 25.3% Khairpur &

60.2% Tharparkar districts 14.6% bordering with irrigated areas

Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS • Hazards: -Mild to Moderate Drought - Extreme Water Scarcity 60% -Heavy rains

East Zone: Guar & Wheat

50% of households East cultivate crops Changes in Guar Production %

0 Guar only produced in extremely water scarce -10 -9.2 areas. 53% reduction in harvest. -20

-30

Changes in wheat -35.7 production were actually -40

positive on average (1.39%) -50 compared to a normal year. -53.2 Drought was mild, and wheat is only cultivated in Extreme WS irrigated areas. Land Cultivated Yield Harvest Excluding flooded communities

East Zone: Causes of Harvest Reduction East Causes of Harvest Reduction Over half of Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total

households blame the 60 lack of water for their 53.4 harvest reduction in

water scarce areas. 40 36.7

25.2 21.4 Other Reasons: 19.2 17.4 20 16.2 12.5 Financial Constraints + 10.3 11.0 7.7 8.1 Heavy Rains. 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0

0

Water Scarcity Lack of inputs Unproductive land Other Excluding flooded communities East Zone: Livestock East Livestock breeders owned Percentage Change in Number of Animals 12.5 sheep or goats, 2.9 Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total 1.7 0.0

buffalos, 0.8 chicken and 0

0.7 equine 2 years ago -10 Buffalos the most -11.4 -10.6

vulnerable to water -16.5 -20 scarcity -23.5 -22.5 -25.1

-30 -28.5 Up to 48% reduction in -30.3 -33.2

livestock in extremely -34.9 -40 water scarce areas. -41.6

-50 -48.1-48.7 -50.0 (too few observations for Buffalos Sheeps or Goats Poultry Equines equines). Excluding flooded communities East Zone: Causes of East Livestock Change Causes of Change in Number of Animals Extreme WS Moderate WS Low WS Total

62.5 60 Disease is the main 53.7 cause of change, 44.0 followed by water 36.8 scarcity. 40 28.4 27.1 22.4 19.219.2 19.6

20 16.6 Disease and distress 13.5 11.8 11.6 9.6 8.3 sales) are again much 6.7 7.7 5.3 3.2 3.8 3.2 higher in water scarce 0.0 0.0 areas than areas with 0 low water scarcity. Fodder or Water Scarcity Disease Normal Sale Distress Sale Purchase / Birth / Gifts Other

Excluding flooded communities South East Water Availability in Bare Areas with Shrubs

• Districts: -Tharparkhar

-Part of Umerkot 100.0%

Hazards: - Severe Drought - Extreme water scarcity (100%) - Flood Caused by Heavy rains

South East Changes in Guar Production (%) 1.3

South East: Guar and Millet 0

-5 • > 20% reduction in land

cultivated, particularly for Guar -10

and Millet. -15

• Between 20% and 34% -20 -19.4 -21.5 reduction in harvests for Guar Land Cultivated Yields Harvest and Millet compared to a South East normal year Changes in Millet Production (%) • Note that heavy rains broke the 0

drought in July. -10 -10.4 -20 -22.0

-30

-34.7 -40

Land cultivated Yield Harvest Exluding flooded communities South East: Causes of Harvest Reduction Bare Areas with Shrubs Causes of Harvest Reduction • Water Scarcity is 77.8 overwhelmingly 80 the main cause

of harvest 60 reduction

41.4 40 • Lack of draught animal –salinity – Heavy Rains 20 10.0

4.2 0 Water Scarcity Lack of Inputs Unproductive Land Other South East: Livestock All Regions • Of all regions, households Percentage Change in Number of Animals had the highest number of West Irrigated Zone East South East Total livestock (18) 2 years ago in 0

the Bare and Shrub area. -8.7

• ….But they’ve also had the -20 -19.8 -23.3 -22.5 -23.9 -25.1 -24.9 -27.7 highest reduction -30.0 -32.5 -33.2

-34.9 -35.0 -40 • Animals most affected are -41.0 -40.8 the most owned: Sheeps, -44.0 -52.4

Goats and Buffalos. -60 -57.8-57.3

-66.8 -80

Buffalos Sheeps and Goats Poultry Equines Excluding flooded communities Causes of Livestock Loss All Regions Causes of Change in Number of Animals South East has the highest rate West Irrigated Zone East South East Total of households reporting diseases 64.3 of all regions. Distress sales are 60 also very high. 50.5 45.2 44.0 38.7

36.8 40 32.7 31.0 Strong and positive correlation 29.5 25.6 between disease incidence (as 23.7 19.7 19.6 reported by farmers) and water 17.117.0 16.6 20 16.3 16.0 13.8 scarcity. 11.9 13.1 12.4 9.9 8.3 9.5 4.8 5.1 Same for distress sales, which 3.8 3.2 4.5

appears to be a coping strategy 0 for water scarcity. Fodder or Water Scarcity Disease Normal Sale Distress Sale Purchase / Birth/ Gift Other Excluding flooded communities Women in agriculture

• Women headed households involved in every stage of agricultural production in Land Ownership, Land Cultivation, and Livestock Ownership (%) Sindh. by Gender of Head of Household • Women significantly less likely to own or Male Headed Female Headed

cultivate land or own livestock. 65 60 • Women significantly more likely to rely 54 on agricultural labour for their 51 livelihood.

• No significant difference in crops 39 cultivated by men or women. 40 32 • Women owned significantly less animals 30 than men, but lost less to disease.

• Inverse relationship between number of 20 animals owned and disease generally, also applies to women. • Women were more likely to resort to

distress sales. 0 Own Land Cultivate Land Own Livestock Farmers’ Needs to Cope With Drought

Farmers' Needs to Cope with Drought • Bare and Shrubs bordering Irrigated Irrigated croplands Improved inputs are 81.0

73.2 the most needed, 80 60.0 59.3

60 followed by 38.5 38.1

40 27.5 irrigation repair, or 14.7 14.7

20 9.0

2.0 4.5 new irrigation 0 Shrubs/Bare/Mosaic croplands Sparse vegetation/Bare/Mosaic croplands system. 83.9 82.9

80 64.1 55.7 60 41.7 35.8

30.4 40 17.2 18.7 9.7 11.7

20 2.5 0

Seeds or Fertilizer Irrigation System Repair Irrigation System (New) Extension Services Credit Other

Graphs by LC class Livestock Needs

Livestock Breeders' Needs to Cope with Drought • Fodder and Bare and Shrubs bordering Irrigated Irrigated croplands Medicines are by far

100 80.9 77.5 the most needed 80 52.6 60 40.8 support. 40 21.2 • Lack of fodder or 20 5.3 0.0 0.0

0 water and disease Shrubs/Bare/Mosaic croplands Sparse vegetation/Bare/Mosaic croplands are the primary 93.6 94.2

85.9 100 73.7 causes of reduction

80 in the number of 60

40 26.2 animals. 14.1

20 0.0 0.0 0

mean of needs_fodder_feed mean of needs_vaccines_med mean of needs_restocking mean of needs_other_livestock

Graphs by LC class Summary Table: Impact of Water Scarcity on Crops

• Wheat (irrigated crop) losses most important in the West, particularly for moderately scarce but canal irrigated areas. Losses were least severe in the East where canal irrigation (too few observations for South East). 30% of hh abandoned cultivation of wheat in the West – households maintaining cultivation sheltered by tubewell irrigation. • Millet (rainfed crop) and Guar losses were most severe in the East. And the irrigated zone. 41% of hh abandoned rainfed cultivation in the West. • Table below shows only the results for households who expressly blamed the lack of water for the harvest reduction, in order to provide an unbiased estimate of the impact of the drought on harvests.

Average % Change in Harvests By Water Scarcity Level Region West Irrigated Zone East South East Water Scarcity Level Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Wheat -24.31 -32.07 -31.12 -21.48 -20.93 23.95 10.98 -17.88 -12.80 -80.78 Average % Guar -56.42 -35.00 -51.61 -33.22 -57.74 -16.98 Change in Millet -33.33 -44.18 -25.00 -53.07 -32.53 Harvests Cotton -34.30 -21.02 4.79 33.74 -17.24 -25.68 -85.71 % of Wheat 30.8% 6.8% 3.2% 24.8% 3.5% 2.8% 16.9% 0.0% 19.8% households Guar 41.7% 33.3% 0.0% 20.8% 25.0% 49.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% who Millet 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 27.8% 49.3% 0.0% 14.4% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% abandoned cultivation Summary Table: Impact of Water Scarcity on Livestock. • Irrigated areas also affected by floods and inundations. Access to tubewell irrigation also seems to shelter livestock from the drought. • Farmers reporting “other causes of livestock reduction” are excluded from the table to provide an unbiased estimate of the drought on ivestock.

Agroclimatic Change in the Number of Animals by Water Scarcity Level Region West Irrigated Zone East South East Water Scarcity Level Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Moderate Low Extreme Buffalos -50.45 -41.61 -40.18 -42.11 -22.31 -12.59 -49.28 -5.89 -34.46 -63.92 Sheep and -47.90 -59.44 -46.02 -37.82 -21.92 -21.99 -47.81 -18.45 -10.69 -55.94 Goats Poultry -44.50 -44.86 -19.94 -38.51 -10.50 -9.76 -11.19 1.67 -41.56 -54.23 Equine -32.42 -13.80 -16.75 -18.68 .48 -3.57 -24.83 -50.00 -42.87 Impact of Water Scarcity on Households’ Livelihoods

• IPCC FRAMEWORK: Vulnerability depends mostly on households’ : • Exposure to droughts (Drought Frequency) • Vulnerability: Household Assets and reliance on Agriculture. Vulnerability to food insecurity also depends on: • Availability • Access • Stability • Utilization • Coping Capacity: Households’ Food Security

Household Type Household Livelihoods West Irrigated Zone East South East Total • Landless households in the agricultural sector (including livestock breeders, or agricultural labourers) • Landless households off-farm

• Smallholders who own land below or 7% 9% 6% 4%13% 8% 11% 17% 28% 8% 29% 19% 2% 11% 28% equal to median land size in their 39% 10% 10% 11% 9% region (4 acres in the irrigated zone 16% 7% 7% 6% 1% and the East, 5 in the West and 6 in 26% 37% 33% 53% 36% the South East) • Largeholders who own land above the region median landsize • Households having a stable off-farm income regardless of their land or livestock ownership. Landless/Agric Landless/off-farm Sharecropper Smallholder Medium large holder Skilled/Stable

By Agroclimatic Zone Livestock Average Number of Animals by Household Type • Nearly all households 5.9 surveyed owned livestock, 6 although the proportion 4.3 3.9 4 was a bit lower in the 3.2 3.1 irrigated zone (80% to 90% 2.0 1.7 of household) 2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 • Medium and large farmers 0.2 0.0 0.1 own the most animals, 0 followed by landless households relying on the

agricultural sector (over Smallholder

Sharecropper Skilled/Stable 90% of landless Landless/Agric

households). Landless/off-farm Medium large holderMedium large

• Sharecroppers own the Buffalos Sheep and Goats Poultry Equines least animals on average. Change in Income Sources: Reliance on Agriculture decreases by over 1/3rd.

Main Income Sources 2 years Ago Main Income Sources Now

21% 30%

4% 29%

13% 9% 51%

21%

Agric Labour Crop Sales Agric Labour Crop Sales Livestock sales Private Sector and NGOs Livestock sales Private Sector and NGOs Handicrafts Government Employment Handicrafts Government Employment Other Other Women’s income Main Income Sources of Women Earners

• Women mostly vulnerable 3.9% through agric labour and livestock sales: the two 33.3% income sources that seem 44.3% most affected by the drought. • High share of women relying 6.4% on handicrafts. 11.8% 0.3% • Women headed hh less likely to own land. Agric Labour Crop Sales Livestock sales Private Sector and NGOs Handicrafts Government Employment Household’s Economic Vulnerability

• Drought affects access directly for those who rely on their own crops for food and income. • Smallholders and shareholders the most vulnerable to both, but medium and large holders also severely affected in the West and South East • Low proportion of households relying on agriculture is the result of the drought. • Agricultural labourers largely affected through reduction in labour opportunities. This affects particularly women. Coping Capacity: Debt & Migration

Migration • Migration correlated by Water Availability with both floods and West Irrigated Zone East South East 100

water scarcity. 100

• In Tharparkar a whole 80 village reported migrating due to 60

floods. 40 32 27

17 17 15 16 20 9 7 3 3 0 0

0

Flood Flood Flood

Flood

Low WS Low WS Low WS Low WS Low

Extreme WS Extreme WS Extreme WS Extreme WS Extreme

Moderate WS Moderate WS Moderate WS Moderate WS Moderate Coping Capacity: Livelihood Coping Strategies

Livelihoods Coping Strategies

4% 3% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% • Coping capacity appears 6% 9% 13% 17% 7% 7% lowest in the South East 29% 38% 17% 42% and Western Regions. 43% 47% 14% 48%

15%

97% • Resort to asset depleting 24% 84% 83% 26% 32% coping strategies 38% 27% 69% 68% correlated with both 53% 35% water scarcity and floods 30% 22% 20% 16%

Extreme Moderate Low WS Flood Extreme Moderate Low WS Flood Extreme Moderate Low WS Extreme WS WS WS WS WS WS WS West Irrigated Zone East South East HH not adopting coping strategies Stress coping strategies

crisis coping strategies emergencies coping strategies Water Availability and Nutrition

• Determinants of Nutrition are • Food Consumption • Care • Healthy Environment

Water is an important factor for the assimilation of food. Relationship FCS - Malnutrition

• MUAC of children under 5 generally increases with food consumption scores. • Not statistically significant in most areas, because other determinants may be more important (breasfeeding, access to safe drinking water…) • Relationship between FCS and MUAC is statistically significant in the South East: Poor Food consumption is a dominant cause of malnutrition in this region.

Food Deprivation caused by the drought • Households were asked if the drought caused a change in Households Reporting reducing Food Consumption due to the Drought their food consumption. (%) West Irrigated Zone East South East

• 90% of households in the South 100 East responded it had. This 90

proportion was much lower in 80 other areas (which have access to irrigation) at around 50%. 60 54 51 • It can be safely concluded that 47 food deprivation caused by the drought in the South East is 40 increasing and worsening

malnutrition. 20 0 Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) and Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) by Agro-climatic Zone

GAM and SAM by Agroclimatic Zone West Irrigated Zone East South East • GAM: MUAC < 12.5 or 31

30 29 Oedema • SAM: MUAC <11.5 or 23 Oedema

20 18 • For children 6 to 59 months.

12 11

10 8

5

0

GAM SAM Healthy Environment and Nutrition

• SAM and GAM GAM and SAM by Agroclimatic Zone by Water Source prevalence West Irrigated Zone

26 significantly lower 30 20 17 20 among households 11 8 7 10 5 using safe water 1 0

sources except in the Potentially Safe Potentially Safe Potentially Unsafe Potentially Unsafe

West. East South East 32 26 26 30 24 20 11 13 8 7 • Effect particularly high 10 in South East region. 0 Potentially Safe Potentially Safe Potentially Unsafe Potentially Unsafe

GAM SAM Graphs by agrozone Health Mean Distance (KM) to Mostly Accessed Health Facilities by District

17.1

15.5

13.5

11.2 11.1 10.4 9.9

8.2 7.9

7.2

Overall Badin Dadu Jamshoro Khairpur Khas Mirpur Sanghar Tharparkar Thatta Umerkot

• Overall, households travel 11.2 KMs to access health care. • Households in Tharparkar travel the longest distance on average to access health care followed by households in Dadu and Jamshoro. Significant difference between districts Mean Distance (KM) to Mostly Accessed Health Facility by Water Mean Distance (KM) to Mostly Accessed Health Facility by Drought Scarcity Status Status

12.8 14.1

11.3 11.1

10.4

7.9 8.4

No Drought Low Moderate High

Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

• The households in high drought and extreme water scarcity areas travel the longest distance on average to access health care. • Statistically significant difference in mean distance covered by drought status. Level of Accessibility By District

Umerkot 22.7% 77.3% Thatta 12.3% 87.7% Tharparkar 26.2% 73.8% Sanghar 20.0% 80.0% Mirpur Khas 6.6% 93.4% Khairpur 28.8% 71.2% Jamshoro 10.1% 89.9% Dadu 14.7% 85.3% Badin 23.0% 77.0% Overall 18.5% 81.5%

Easy Difficult/Very Difficult

Access to Health Care (Difficult/Very Difficult)- Overall Access to Health Care (Difficult/Very Difficult (Tharparkar) 83.9% 77.1% 83.8% 72.1% 64.0% 82.1%

80.9% 79.9%

Male Female Majority Community Minority Community Male Female Majority Community Minority Community Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status • Overall, overwhelming majority of households (81.5%) consider access to nearest health facility is difficult/very difficult. • In Mirpur Khas 93.4% households consider it difficult/very difficult followed by Jamshoro (89.9%) and Dadu (85.3%). • Overall, more female headed and less minority community households reported difficult/very difficult access to health care compared to male and majority community households. Deaths by District 10.9% 9.3% 8.1% 8.4% 7.1% 6.5% 6.8% 5.9% 5.7% 5.1% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.1% 3.8% 4.2% 4.0% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 3.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 1.6%

1.0%1.5% 1.5% 1.3%

Dadu

Badin

Thatta

Overall

Sanghar

Khairpur

Umerkot

Jamshoro

Tharparkar MirpurKhas

Any Death Child Death Adult Death

Share of Child Deaths in Total Deaths

80.5% 81.6%

60.8% 57.2% 56.1% 47.6% 45.2% 42.8% 40.0% 37.5%

Overall Badin Dadu Jamshoro Khairpur Mirpur Khas Sanghar Tharparkar Thatta Umerkot

• Overall, 6.5% , 3.8% and 3.1% households reported death of any household member , child and adult respectively in past 12 months. • Proportion of households reporting any death, any child’s death and any adult member’s death is highest in Mirpur Khas, Tharparkar and Thatta respectively. • Thatta, Tharparkar and Badin are the top 3 districts with higher share of child deaths in total deaths. Deaths by Gender of Head of Household-Overall Deaths by Gender of Head of Household-Tharparkar 8.6% Male Female 8.7% 7.8% 5.9% 5.9% 7.1% Male Female

4.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.6% 2.3% 1.2%

Any Death Child Death Adult Death Any Death Child Death Adult Death

Deaths by Community Status-Overall Deaths by Community Status-Tharparkar

14.0% 6.9% 12.0%

5.5%

3.8% 3.9% 6.5% 3.5% 5.5%

1.9% 2.0% 1.4%

Any Death Child Death Adult Death Any Death Child Death Adult Death Majority Community Minority Community Majority Community Minority Community

• Significantly higher proportion of female headed households reported any and adult member’s death during past 12 months compared to male headed households. • Further, compared to majority community, lower proportion of minority households had any and child death. Deaths by Drought Status 7.6% 6.5% 6.1% 4.9%

3.5% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 3.3% 2.4% 1.2% 1.5%

No Drought Low Moderate High Any Death Child Death Adult Death

Deaths by Water Scarcity Status

6.8% 7.2% 5.7%

4.1% 4.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9%

Any Death Child Death Adult Death

Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

• Proportion of households reporting any death, child or adult death is highest in high drought areas. • There is a statistically significant difference in any and child death by drought status. • More households reported deaths in extreme water scarcity areas but no significant difference by water scarcity status. Diarrhea Among Under 5 Children-Overall

13.8%

10.3% 9.4% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.4% 7.5% 4.5%

Male Female Majority Community Minority Community Potentially Safe Potentially Unsafe Water only Water & Soap Water and Ash/other Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status Access to Water Washing Hands Products

Diarrhea Among Under 5 Children -Tharparkar

16.7% 14.7%

8.2% 9.0% 7.1% 7.8% 6.7% 5.3% 3.4%

Male Female Majority Community Minority Community Potentially Safe Potentially Unsafe Water only Water & Soap Water and Ash/other Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status Access to Water Washing Hands Products

• Overall, 8.7% households reported under 5 children who suffered from diarrhea during past month preceding the survey. • Significantly more female headed households have under 5 children who suffered from diarrhea compared to male headed Significantly more households of minority community have under 5 children with diarrhea. • Slightly more households with access to potentially unsafe water sources and washing hands with water only reported diarrhea. • No significant difference by water source and washing hands. WASH Access to Potentially Unsafe Drinking Water Source

67.6%

51.9% 43.8% 37.3%

27.7%

16.2% 13.1% 8.0% 6.5%

Badin Dadu Jamshoro Khairpur Mirpur Khas Sanghar Tharparkar Thatta Umerkot

Overall, 29.8% households access water from potentially unsafe water sources. Highest in Tharparkar followed by Mirpur Khas and Thatta. Statistically significant difference in access to water. Access to Potentially Unsafe Drinking Water Source by Water Scarcity Access to Potentially Unsafe Drinking Water Source by Drought Status Status 42.4%

40.5%

27.0% 22.9% 23.1%

19.2%

7.5%

No Drought Low Moderate High Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

• Apart from no drought areas, as drought intensity increases, more households access water from potentially unsafe drinking water sources. Statistically significant difference.

• Access to potentially unsafe source rises with water scarcity. Access to Unsafe Water Source (Overall) 37.2% 33.1% 31.2% 29.0% 27.0% 27.7%

Male Female Majority Minority No Yes Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status HH has Under 5 Children

Access to Unsafe Water Source (Tharparkar) 73.2% 71.9% 66.7% 68.1% 67.4% 55.0%

Male Female Majority Minority No Yes Gender of Head of Household Household Community Status HH has Under 5 Children

Significantly higher proportion of female headed, minority community, and households that have under 5 children access water from potentially unsafe sources compared to male headed, majority community, and households that do not have under 5 children. Distance to Water Source

Overall 29.5% 21.8% 19.7% 29.1% Umerkot 26.7% 33.6% 16.7% 23.0% Thatta 24.4% 7.3% 11.8% 56.6% Tharparkar 8.7% 17.5% 27.8% 46.0% Sanghar 44.4% 34.4% 16.8% 4.5% Mirpur Khas 11.5% 24.6% 37.7% 26.2% Khairpur 75.1% 6.0% 7.6% 11.3% Jamshoro 31.5% 18.0% 24.9% 25.7% Dadu 12.4% 26.3% 22.0% 39.2% Badin 26.8% 28.9% 14.3% 30.0%

In the house/compound Less than 10 minutes walk 10-30 minutes walk More than 30 minutes walk

Distance to Drinking Water Source by Water Scarcity Status Distance to Drinking Water Source by Drought Status

Low Water Scarcity 40.7% 22.0% 17.8% 19.4% High 20.3% 23.8% 24.5% 31.3%

Moderate Water Moderate 29.6% 21.9% 17.2% 31.2% 31.2% 15.5% 21.6% 31.7% Scarcity Low 73.8% 5.5% 7.9% 12.8% Extreme Water 18.8% 24.7% 20.3% 36.2% Scarcity No Drought 26.9% 25.3% 18.2% 29.6%

In the house/compound Less than 10 minutes walk In the House/Compound Less than 10 Minutes Walk 10-30 minutes walk More than 30 minutes walk 10-30 Minutes Walk More than 30 Minutes Walk

• 57% households in Thatta, 46% in Tharparkar and 39% in Dadu walk more than 30 minutes to collect water. • • The percentage of households having drinking water source in the house/compound is highest in low drought and low water scarcity areas. Washing Hands Products

8.4% 12.6% 9.5% 8.4% 10.8% 8.4% 14.3% 27.5% 29.8% 30.1% 40.1% 36.1%

77.3% 64.1% 61.5% 47.2% 54.4% 59.3%

Male Female Majority Community Minority Community No Yes Gender of Head of Household Community Status Presence of Under 5 Children in Household

Water Only Water and Soap Water and Ash/Other

Washing Hands by Activity 95.4% 85.7% 86.9% 89.6%

65.6%

After Using Latrine After Cleaning Child Bottom Before Preparing Food Before Eating Food Before Feeding Child

• Female headed households have significantly higher and minority community have significantly lower proportion of households that wash hands with soap compared to male headed and majority households. • No significant difference in hand washing with soap by presence of under 5 children. • Hygienic practices are not followed in all households particularly hands are not washed before feeding a child in one-third households. Washing Hands by Drought Status 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% After Using Latrine After Cleaning Child Bottom Before Preparing Food Before Eating Food Before Feeding Child

No Drought Low Moderate High

Washing Hands by Water Scarcity Status 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% After Using Latrine After Cleaning Child Bottom Before Preparing Food Before Eating Food Before Feeding Child

Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

• Excluding the households in no drought areas, hand washing after cleaning child bottom and before feeding child in lowest in high drought areas. • Washing hands after using latrine, before preparing food and eating food is lowest in moderate drought areas. • Contrary to analysis by drought status, hand washing after or before each activity is most reported in extreme water scarcity areas and least in moderate water scarcity areas. Assistance Assistance Received

Other 3.4%

Drinking Water 3.7%

Irrigation Repair .4%

Livestock Support 3.9%

Agricultural Inputs 1.4%

Cash Grants 1.8%

Tents/Shelter Material 2.3%

Nutritional Support 9.5%

Zakat/Khairat 4.0%

Cash/Food for Work/Training 9.5%

Government Compensation 28.7%

Free Food 23.0% Assistance Received by Source

Other 19.7% 58.1% 8.5% 13.7%

Drinking Water 37.8% 52.8% 9.4%

Livestock Support 20.6% 66.2% 6.6% 6.6%

Agricultural Inputs 4.2% 50.0% 18.8% 27.1%

Cash Grants 50.8% 37.7% 11.5%

Tents/Shelter Material 17.7% 73.4% 3.8% 5.1%

Nutritional Support 7.6% 86.6% 4.6% 1.2%

Zakat/Khairat 27.0% 7.3% 65.0%

Cash/Food for Work/Training 10.4% 78.0% 9.8% 1.8%

Government Compensation 97.2% 2.3%.5%

Free Food 78.4% 15.6% .5% 5.5%

Government NGO UN Other

• Free food, government compensation and cash grants were mainly provided by the government. • Cash/food for work/training, nutritional support, agricultural inputs, livestock support, drinking water and other supports were mainly provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). • Z.zakat/khairat was mainly given by other sources such as relatives/friends/neighbours/member of community etc Assistance Received by District

Badin Dadu Jamshoro Khairpur Mirpur Khas Sanghar Tharparkar Thatta Umerkot Free Food 5.1% 6.1% 20.4% 5.4% 12.1% 2.6% 95.9% 6.0% 52.1%

Government 26.3% 37.7% 19.4% 25.5% 20.9% 24.3% 27.0% 24.9% 52.4% Compensation

Cash/Food for 13.8% 1.1% 2.0% 0.5% 28.5% 14.6% 7.1% 17.6% 2.4% Work/Training

Zakat/Khairat 1.2% 2.4% 6.0% 1.5% 4.7% 2.3% 4.6% 11.7% 1.8% Nutritional 11.6% 6.6% 3.8% 0.3% 4.1% 18.7% 20.4% 4.6% 14.7% Support Tents/Shelter 2.4% 1.6% 5.5% 2.8% 2.9% .5% 0.8% .8% 3.1% Material Cash Grants 0.7% 1.9% 2.3% 0.3% 4.7% 0.8% 0.5% 4.3% 1.0% Agricultural 0.2% 1.3% 1.5% 0.5% 5.9% 0.5% 1.8% 0.8% 0.5% Inputs Livestock 4.3% 4.2% 0.5% 0.0% 6.5% 0.3% 16.8% 1.4% 1.6% Support Irrigation Repair 0.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% Drinking Water 6.0% 4.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.8% .5% 14.8% 1.4% 1.0% Other 4.6% 1.9% 3.8% 1.3% 3.2% 3.6% 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% Assistance Received by Gender of Head of Household 35.0% Male Female 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

Other

at

ng

Water

for

on

Repair

Drinking

Support

Inputs

Livestock

Irrigation

Support

FreeFood

Nutritional

r Materialr

Cash/Food

Agricultural

Zakat/Khair

CashGrants

Work/Traini

Compensati

Government Tents/Shelte

Assistance Received by Community Status 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

0.0%

Other

Repair

Support

Inputs

Livestock

Irrigation

Support

FreeFood

Nutritional

Material

Agricultural

CashGrants

Government

Tents/Shelter

Zakat/Khairat

Cash/Foodfor

Compensation

Work/Training DrinkingWater

Majority Community Minority Community

• More female headed households received all types of assistance, though difference is only significant in receiving cash/food for work/training, zakat/khairat and livestock support. • more households of minority community received all types of assistance except zakat/khairat, tents/shelter material, cash grants and irrigation repair. • However, the difference is statistically significant in case of receiving free food, cash/food for work/training, nutritional support, cash grants and livestock support. Assistance Received by Presence of a Disabled Member 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

Other

FreeFood

Material

CashGrants

Government

Tents/Shelter

Zakat/Khairat

Cash/Foodfor

Compensation

Work/Training

DrinkingWater IrrigationRepair

No Yes Livestock Support

AgriculturalInputs NutritionalSupport

Assistance Received by Presence of Under 5 Children 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

Other

Repair

Support

Inputs

Livestock

Irrigation

Support

FreeFood

Nutritional

Material

Agricultural

CashGrants

Government

Tents/Shelter

Zakat/Khairat

Cash/Foodfor

Compensation

Work/Training DrinkingWater

No Yes

Presence of a disabled member in a household has a positive association with receiving all types of assistance except nutritional and other support. Difference is significant in case of government compensation, cash/food for work/training, zakat/khairat, agricultural inputs and livestock support. Proportionally more households with under 5 children received all types of assistance compared to no under 5 children. significant difference in receiving free food, zakat/khairat, nutritional, livestock related and other support. Assistance Received by Drought Status 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

Other

Support

Inputs

Livestock

Support

FreeFood

Nutritional

Material

Agricultural

CashGrants

Government

Tents/Shelter

Zakat/Khairat

Cash/Foodfor

Compensation

Work/Training

DrinkingWater IrrigationRepair

No Drought Low Moderate High

Distribution of Assistance Received by Drought Status

Other 18.8% 4.3% 28.2% 48.7% Drinking Water 22.8% 0.0% 9.4% 67.7% Irrigation Repair 21.4% 0.0% 57.1% 21.4% Livestock Support 16.9% 0.0% 16.2% 66.9% Agricultural Inputs 16.7% 4.2% 41.7% 37.5% Cash Grants 24.6% 0.0% 29.5% 45.9% Tents/Shelter Material 19.0% 11.4% 36.7% 32.9% Nutritional Support 16.4% .3% 28.3% 55.0% Zakat/Khairat 10.9% 3.6% 27.7% 57.7% Cash/Food for Work/Training 24.2% .3% 38.8% 36.7% Government Compensation 18.6% 7.8% 33.7% 40.0% Free Food 5.9% 2.3% 29.6% 62.3%

No Drought Low Moderate High

• Proportionally more households in high drought areas received free food, zakat/khairat, nutritional support, livestock support, drinking water and other support. • Government compensation, cash/food for work/training, tents/shelter material, agricultural inputs, and irrigation repair were mostly received in moderate drought areas. Assistance Received by Water Scarcity Status 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

Free Food Free Compensation Work/Training Zakat/Khairat Support Nutritional Tents/Shelter Grants Cash Inputs Agricultural Support Livestock Repair Irrigation Water Drinking Other

Cash/Food for Cash/Food

Government Material

Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

Distribution of Assistance Received by Water Scarcity Status Other 41.0% 15.4% 43.6% Drinking Water 67.7% 10.2% 22.0% Irrigation Repair 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% Livestock Support 65.4% 12.5% 22.1% Agricultural Inputs 29.2% 33.3% 37.5% Cash Grants 36.1% 26.2% 37.7% Tents/Shelter Material 43.0% 22.8% 34.2% Nutritional Support 48.3% 19.8% 31.9% Zakat/Khairat 53.3% 18.2% 28.5% Cash/Food for Work/Training 28.1% 22.6% 49.2% Government Compensation 48.5% 18.0% 33.5% Free Food 82.5% 9.1% 8.4% Extreme Water Scarcity Moderate Water Scarcity Low Water Scarcity

• Free food, government compensation, zakat/khairat, nutritional support, livestock support and drinking water were mostly received by households in extreme water scarcity areas. Tents/shelter material, cash grants, agricultural inputs and irrigation repair in moderate whereas cash/food for work/training and other were mostly received by households in low water scarcity areas. Conclusion : Vulnerability to Drought

• Using the IPCC framework, all agricultural households were highly exposed to the 2013-2015 drought, highly vulnerable and had low coping capacity. • Households in the East were only moderately affected, but sharecroppers and smallholders have little coping coping capacity, being very likely to fall into higher levels of food insecurity in future droughts. • Households in the irrigated zone were least exposed, but have higher coping capacity (although still experience some level of food deprivation) than in other areas. VULNERABILITY TO DROUGHT Irrigated Zone East South East Exposure Coping Coping Exposure Coping to Coping Exposure Vulnerability Capacity Exposure Vulnerability Capacity to Drought Vulnerability Capacity Drought Vulnerability Capacity Landless/Agric High High Low Low High Moderate Moderate High Medium High High Low Landless/off- farm High Low Low Low Low Moderate Sharecropper High High Low Low High Moderate Moderate High Low High High Low Smallholder High High Low Low High Moderate Moderate High Low High High Low Medium large holder High High Low Low High Moderate Moderate High Moderate High High Low Skilled/Stable High Low Low Low Low High Moderate Low High High Low High Conclusion

• Drought has an impact on Food Security through Availability of food (reduction in harvests) and Access to food. • Water scarce areas are experiencing significantly higher levels of food security, together with flooded areas. • Food deprivation is worsening malnourishment in the South East. • The Drought also has an impact on the utilization of food through water consumption. • Households that have lost livestock and agricultural production, earning subsistence livelihood, and living in high drought and extreme water scarcity areas require support.

Recommendations Hazard Preparedness: Drought Plan

• Multi-sectoral Approach • Cooperation between specialized agencies • Meteorological • Water Accounting • Sector Expertise (WASH, Food Security, Agriculture…) • Migration and livelihoods.

• A good institutional framework that ensure an adequate flow of information between agencies is key Vulnerability and Risk Assessments:

• Water availability must be monitored along with climatologic droughts to assess the risk presented by droughts. • Estimates provided in this survey can be used to estimate the risk of future droughts.

• Once Risk and Vulnerability are established… • Sustainability and feasibility assessments are needed. • Prioritizing Interventions: Cost/Benefit Analysis. • Cost = Cost of intervention • Benefit = Number of households whose food security is constrained by water scarcity and who would benefit from the intervention.

What Worked in the Near East

• Multi-sectoral Drought Planning Task Force (Supervises the plan and coordination)

• Informed by Monitoring Committee (focused on estimating water scarcity)

• Risk Assessment Committee: Vulnerability and Risk Assessments