Created on TAJIKISTAN Acute Food Insecurity Situation Overview 10/04/2015 Phases of Food Insecurity – April 2015 Analysing food security data for the period of October 2014 to March 2015, the majority of the population in rural Livelihood Zones was classified in “Stressed” situation (Phase 2), maintaining minimally adequate food consumption, but unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures without using coping strategies. An estimated 11% of the population (about 660,000 people) with major gaps in food consumption classified as being in a “Crisis” situation (Phase 3) (Figure 1). Over 20% of the population in the following Jamoats were classified in Crisis Phase: Alichur, Rangkul and Savnob in Livelihood Zone 1 Sartalo, Muqsu and Algha in Livelihood Zone 4 Sarichashma, Garauti and Navzamin in Livelihood Zone 6 Lakai Karmishev (Kushkiya) and Firuza in Livelihood Zone 7 Urmetan, Ivan Tojik, Shing, Mogiyon and Farob in Livelihood Zone 9 Amodara, Khurmi, Yor in Livelihood Zone 10 Communism and Yakhtan in Livelihood Zone 11 Pongoz, and Utkansoy in Livelihood Zone 12 The food security situation in Livelihood Zone 8 was classified as “Minimal” (Phase 1): over 80% of the population is able to meet essential food and non-food needs without needing to use coping strategies. The situation of Livelihood Zone 3 and 13 shifted from “Minimal” (Phase 1) in the previous IPC Analysis in June 2013 to “Stressed” (Phase 2). During the next 6 (six) months (April - September 2015), an increase in income opportunities associated with agriculture, availability of vegetables and fruits, and seasonal remittances are expected to contribute to improved food availability and access. However, near-record levels of food prices and reducing remittances remain concerning challenges in rural areas to improve their livelihoods and meet their nutritional needs. Figure 1: IPC Classification for Tajikistan for current period (April 2015) IPC Global Partners Part 2: Summary of Findings, Methodology and Next Steps Main contributing factors Reduced agricultural outputs In 2014, domestic production of cereal and potatoes was reduced by 5.4% and 23.5% respectively on a year-on- year basis1. The Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) conducted by WFP in December 2014 also confirmed that households had less winter food stocks compared to the same period of 2013 due to reduced harvest, particularly in Livelihood Zone 6, 7 and 11, where a large share of the population produces crops for both domestic consumption and sale or exchange of the surplus in local markets. Heavy and unexpected snowfall and frost in March 2015 damaged livelihoods and households assets in a number of districts in the Sughd region. Reductions in remittances A sharp depreciation of Russian rouble and economic slowdown started in late 2014 resulted in the reduction of remittance inflow by 8% in US dollar terms and decrease of the number of labour migrants by 11% in first 3 months of 2015. The results of the FSMS in April 2015 also showed reduced frequency and amount of the remittances due to an increased cost of work permit in Russia. The depreciation of the Russian Rouble against the US Dollar and Tajik Somoni compounded the decrease in the volume of remittances and hence the purchasing power of the families of migrant workers. High food prices The prices of some basic food commodities, including wheat flour remained alarmingly high. This strengthened the pressure on low income households who spent over 60% of their income on food, potentially worsening their diets. These effects were compounded by reduced purchasing power due to reduced remittances and crop failure in some areas. Physical access Remoteness also pushed food security situation of the part of the population in highland and mountainous areas of Livelihood Zone 1, 3, 9 and 12 to “Crisis” (Phase 3). The physical access to market was constrained by long distances and high transportation in these areas. In Murgab, Rushan, Jergatol, Kuhistoni Mastchoh, Panjakent and Asht the access was hampered by heavy snow and avalanches. Food security outlook for the next 6 months (Apr - Sep 2015) During April to September 2015, an increase in income opportunities associated with agriculture, winter harvest, availability of vegetables and fruits, and seasonal remittances are expected to contribute to improved food access in most areas of Tajikistan. The weather conditions during the growing seasons have been favourable, with close to normal precipitation in winter and spring, and the IPC consultation participants confirmed increased availability of irrigation water for the crops of the winter harvest. However, it is unlikely that basic foods prices will go down significantly during the coming months, given a relatively high export quotation in Kazakhstan and depreciation of national currency. Inflation is forecast to accelerate to 10% in 20152. This will continue to put economic pressure on low income groups who spend a large proportion of the budget on food. 1 The State Statistics Agency under the President of RT: The Socio-Economic Situation in Tajikistan, Jan-Apr 2015 2 Asian Development Outlook 2015, ADB: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/154508/ado-2015.pdf A heavy snowfall and frost during March 29 to April 1 damaged field crops and orchards in Sughd Region, Livelihood Zone 12. The preliminary results of an assessment estimated that the frost affected over 30,000 ha of the orchards, which is more than 80% of the total area of the commercial plantations in northern part of the country. The TWG in Sughd concluded that many households in the region will face difficulty in meeting their basic food and non-food needs. Most of the affected areas are already classified as Phase 2 (Stressed). Without appropriate recovery, some of the areas could fall to Phase 3 (Crisis). The IPC: Methodology and Process In Tajikistan the IPC is conducted in a participatory manner since 2009, involving a wide range of food security stakeholders, including partners from the Ministry of Agriculture and the country’s Statistics Agency. Its goal is to produce an accurate picture of the food security situation in the rural areas in the country. Required evidence on the data analyzed included in IPC Analysis Worksheets and is available in the Annexes. During this round the 5 consultative forums were held bringing together over 90 specialists and experts to examine data and research on essential indicators for food security. Participants reviewed information from various secondary sources, which was then organized according to IPC outcome indicators (Food consumption, livelihood change, Nutritional status and Mortality) and contributing factors as per the IPC analytical framework. Major sources of information included various reports and data from the State Statistical Agency under the President of RT, the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional and District Departments of Health and Social Protection, Economic Development and Trade, Irrigation and Water Resources, the Committee of Emergency Situations and Civil Defense, WFP, FEWS Net, FAO/GEWS, MOEDT/UNDP, the World Bank, the ADB, IMF, the IFPRI, the DHS, Media, and periodic reports and data. Food Security Seasonal Calendar and Monitoring Implications IPC TWGs in regions concluded that consistent and regular monitoring of the food security situation in the country should be maintained and strengthened. Particular attention should be given to indicators that measure economic access to food and malnutrition in regional and district levels. Increased efforts in monitoring nutrition in rural areas and combined agriculture, water and health programs with nutrition is required to be designed and implemented by Authorities and partners. Recommendations for Analysis and Decision-Making Based on discussions leading to consensus among the IPC Technical Working Groups (TWG) in Kurgan- Tyube, Kulob, Gharm, Khujand and Khorog, experts recommended the following activities and interventions: Close partnership with the Government, including local authorities is essential to design, target and implement relevant interventions to address the current food insecurity in households’ level. Unconditional forms of assistance should be provided to vulnerable families that do not have able bodied members, and who cannot undertake the manual works. Such intervention is particularly appropriate in areas, which population are in IPC Phase 3 (with more than 20% of the population classified to be in “Crisis” acute food insecurity situation) and is particularly important when rising food prices may remain already severely affected groups in a desperate situation with respect to food security and living standards. Households residing in food insecure and disaster prone areas should be supported in designing new projects directed to livelihoods protecting and disaster risk reduction. The aim of these programmes should be supporting households’ food requirements in the short term, while generating useful community assets that support local agricultural production, income generation and builds resilience to food insecurity in future. This intervention is recommended in areas, where the population experiences “Stressed” food security outcomes. Special emphasis should be given to programs that aim to improve irrigation systems and provide better access of the households and the farmers to water. Coordination in identifying vulnerable zones and geographical priorities for water resource management projects should be improved between