Food Security and Livelihood Assessment Syria

October 2016 An assessment by RFSAN, FAO, iMMAP and the Food Security Cluster (South Turkey)

Table of Contents

5 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8 BACKGROUND 8 CONTEXT 8 METHODOLOGY 11 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS 13 MAIN FINDINGS 13 INTRODUCTION 13 SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 14 DISPLACEMENT 15 AREAS OF CONTROL 16 SECTION 2: LIVELIHOODS 16 INCOME 17 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME-GENERATING OPPORTUNITIES 19 DEBT AND COPING STRATEGIES 20 LONG-TERM CHALLENGES 21 SECTION 3: FOOD SECURITY 22 HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE 22 FOOD CONSUMPTION SCORE (FCS) 24 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE (HFIAS) 25 HOUSEHOLD HUNGER SCALE 25 FOOD EXPENDITURE 26 MARKET ACCESS 29 SECTION 4: AGRICULTURE 29 AGRICULTURAL LIVELIHOODS 32 MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL INPUTS 33 VALUE CHAINS AND MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL OUTPUTS 35 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BY ASSESSMENT CLUSTERS

37 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 CONCLUSION 38 RECOMMENDATIONS

40 ANNEX A: SUMMARY OF LIVELIHOODS INDICATORS BY ASSESSMENT CLUSTERS 41 ANNEX B : SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURE INDICATORS BY ASSESSMENT CLUSTER 42 ANNEX C: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE 48 ANNEX D: RAINFALL ZONES 49 ANNEX E: CALCULATION OF INDICES AND INDICATORS 54 ANNEX F: COMMUNITIES ASSESSED

Abbreviations and acronyms

AoC Area of Control CARI Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators CFSAM Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission CSI Coping Strategy Index FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCS Food Consumption Score FGD Focus Group Discussions FSA Free Syrian Army FSL Food Security and Livelihoods FSLA Food Security and Livelihood Assessment GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information Systems GoS Government of Syria HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale HH Household HHS Household Hunger Scale HoH Head of Household IDP Internally Displaced Person ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and Syria KII Key Informant Interview NGO Non-Governmental Organization NFI Non Food Items rCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index RFSAN Regional Food Security Analysis Network SYP Syrian Pound UN United Nations USD United States Dollar Executive Summary

With the Syrian crisis now in its sixth agriculture FGDs, which also informed livelihoods a priority. Cash-for-work year, the humanitarian situation across the subsequent analysis. Household activities focused on improving and the country continues to deteriorate. survey data was cross-checked repairing agricultural infrastructure Since March 2011, violence in Syria against secondary data sources would not only provide households has claimed hundreds of thousands as well as information from key with incomes but help ensure the of lives and resulted in more than informants in order to contextualize long-term viability of the sector as 11 million people – over half of the the findings. a whole. Microfinance initiatives population - fleeing their homes. may help households to replace Approximately 4.8 million Syrians lost livelihoods with new income- have taken refuge in the region, Livelihoods generating opportunities and support most notably Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, households dependent upon skilled Jordan, Egypt and North Africa. As of The results indicate that livelihoods trades or farming to restore productive December 2015, out of a population have experienced severe strain as assets. As they have lower access of around 18 million, 6.5 million a result of the conflict. More than to income-generating opportunities, people were estimated to be internally half of households reported that women and female-headed displaced. A deep economic recession, their main sources of income are households should be specifically depreciating national currency, different than before the crisis and targeted as should youth at risk of soaring food and fuel prices, disrupted a large majority (80%) reported a joining armed groups. With levels of markets, and food insecurity continue severe decline in income in the year income falling and costs rising during to contribute to extreme vulnerability prior to the assessment. Salaried the winter months, assistance should throughout the country.2 employment, work in skilled trades, take into account seasonal variations. and government jobs have largely To better understand pressures on disappeared in many areas of the Food Security food security and livelihoods and country, forcing households to take low-skill and/or high-risk jobs. to support strategic planning for Livelihoods pressures have had a interventions, the Food Security There has been dramatic growth in jobs such as processing fuel and significant effect on household food Cluster in Gaziantep, Turkey security. The vast majority of the commissioned a Food Security and collecting firewood as well as in remittances. Many households have households interviewed accessed food Livelihoods Assessment that was from markets, and their diminished carried out between December 2015 come to also depend on agricultural wage labour, despite the fact that purchasing power has forced them to and February 2016. The assessment cut back on the quality and quantity drew upon several methods of primary farmers are increasingly unable to pay for assistance to plant or of the food they consume. While a data collection, including household- majority of households were found level interviews, focus group harvest. Accordingly, most households interviewed did not have sufficient to be food secure at the time they discussions (FGDs) and key informant were interviewed, many were at risk interviews (KIIs). income to meet their needs, with strains being felt most acutely during of food insecurity, based on the types of foods they reported consuming as A total of 1,995 household surveys the winter months. Many have had to take jobs that are less stable than the well as a widespread use of coping were conducted in 150 randomly mechanisms. Overall, households selected communities across eight ones they held previously and have had to resort to taking on debt and reported low levels of hunger but a geographic clusters throughout dependence upon foods that were Syria. Clusters were identified on relying on coping strategies in order to make ends meet. high in energy and low in nutrients. the basis of geographic proximity of While most reported access to communities to one another as well as In light of these challenges, there is a markets that stocked most essential shared socio-economic and livelihoods food commodities, isolated shortages characteristics. The survey design need to provide livelihoods-supporting assistance across the entire value and reports that many food items process was guided by the findings of are often difficult to obtain may previously conducted livelihoods and chain. The rapid growth of high-risk and low-skill jobs, including ones make obtaining food a challenge for households even when they have the 6 2 OCHA. 2015. Humanitarian Needs Overview http:// focused on short-term resource reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ exploitation makes support for means to afford it. Unsurprisingly, resources/2016_HNO_English_20%FINAL.pdf the vast majority of households ways they use land, abandoned pre- reported that they were in need of crisis/traditional agricultural practices, humanitarian food assistance. and shifted to planting more profitable Overall, there is a need to promote non-food crops. Many households and encourage food production reported liquidating their herds and on a local level. One means to do flocks and selling trees for firewood. this is through the use of cash and vouchers, which reinforces how most The challenges facing the agricultural households already access food sector in Syria are immense, but while supporting local producers addressing the toll the conflict has and sellers. Given that many of taken on pre-crisis support systems the households reported relatively may be the first step in encouraging high levels of market functionality agricultural production. This includes (albeit with challenges related providing technical and extension to specific commodities), careful services, seeds, fertilizers, veterinary monitoring systems must be in place support and the rehabilitation of to understand when markets stop irrigation systems. Restoring value functioning. Furthermore, even when chains is also crucial and entails markets are functional, vulnerable restoring infrastructure and production populations, including female-headed facilities. While households’ households, may require in-kind practices have changed, finding assistance. Promoting households’ ways to increase the productivity engagement in agriculture, whether of their current holdings may help it is for income generation or ease pressures on livelihoods until consumption, may make important access to land, inputs and services contributions as well. have improved. Encouraging forms of agriculture that had not been Agriculture used previously in some areas, such as greenhouses, may also enhance A majority of households interviewed production and provide employment for this assessment lived in rural areas during winter months. and were engaged in agriculture as a source of income generation or food production. Households engaged in crop or livestock production typically reported higher indicators associated with livelihoods and food security. They also reported scaling back their engagement in agriculture over the past two years and approximately 15% had stopped altogether. Difficulties obtaining or affording inputs were the main reasons for households to stop or scale back their production, but at the same time, changes in value chains make it increasingly unprofitable for households to remain engaged in agriculture. In an effort to continue 7 farming, households have changed the Background Context As the conflict in Syria continues, availability and increased cost of This decrease in national production the humanitarian situation and the farming inputs (seed, fertilizers, has had significant effects on impact on the country’s economy animal feed, veterinary supplies, etc.), economic access to basic food have become increasingly dire. As damage to farming equipment and supplies. Decreased crop yield, high of October 2015, an estimated 4.18 infrastructure (including irrigation, fuel prices, and other challenges such million Syrians had fled the country storage and seed processing as road closures, checkpoints, market and another 6.5 million Syrians had facilities), and limited veterinary disruptions, and generalized insecurity been displaced internally. Throughout supplies and services have devastated have caused food prices to rise Syria, an estimated 8.7 million the country’s agricultural capacity on sharply.10 With less to be harvested, people are estimated to need of both a household and national level.5 the agricultural sector is failing food assistance.2 Decreased national to provide income and livelihood agricultural production and severed In particular, the compounding opportunities at its pre-crisis level rural-urban supply lines have led to destruction of prolonged conflict has when it supported over one-third of rising food prices; on average, the cost greatly diminished the availability the population. of a standard food basket has tripled and capacity of infrastructure since the start of the crisis.3 The acute essential to the agricultural sector. The effects of these strains are effects of prolonged conflict on food Electricity failures and damage being felt heavily on the household security and livelihoods are being felt to power lines and stations have level. Price hikes and stagnant or on both the national and household incapacitated pumping stations decreasing wages have left over level throughout the country. used for irrigation. Worse, in many three in four Syrians living in poverty, cases, pumps have been damaged unable to afford sufficient basic food In the first three years of the conflict, and stolen and irrigation canals have items. Despite large-scale food and the economy lost 3 million jobs; been destroyed and left in disarray livelihoods assistance programs in the unemployment stood at 57% in the due to security concerns and the high country, one in three households in fourth quarter of 2014, up from 10% at cost or unavailability of replacement Syria reported going to sleep hungry the start of the conflict. Dependence parts. In addition, rainfall anomalies three to ten times a month in 2015.11 on assistance as well as high-risk or have led to additional strains, with For livelihoods, the impact includes illegal jobs has grown. As many as many farmers either forced to cut falling wages, rising unemployment, four out of five Syrians live below the back on irrigation or revert to rain- decreased production, and rising poverty line, while nearly two-thirds fed production.6 Faced with these prices. live in extreme poverty and are unable challenges, individual farmers have to cover basic needs, including food.4 reduced their production levels or have Methodology abandoned agriculture altogether. The effects of the conflict on This assessment was commissioned agricultural production and Crop production has decreased sharply in the interest of better understanding agriculture-based livelihoods have and livestock numbers have been the current food security, agriculture, been particularly severe. Before significantly reduced. For example, and livelihoods situation in Syria on the crisis, the agriculture sector in 2015, despite receiving highly the household level in order to be was a mainstay of the productive favourable rainfall7, cereal production able to drive efficient and effective economy, contributing to 18% of the for the year remained 40% below the humanitarian and early-recovery gross domestic product (GDP) and pre-crisis average.8 The 2015 CFSAM interventions in accordance with the providing employment and livelihood estimated that numbers of cattle and following goals: opportunities to approximately sheep have fallen by 30% and 40%, 37% of the population. However, respectively. Poultry flocks – generally • Improve understanding of the years of restricted access to land one of the most affordable sources implications of the crisis in Syria due to conflict, internal population of animal protein – have reportedly on food security, livelihoods and displacement and the reduced shrunk by half.9 agricultural production. • Understand issues of that remain 8 2 OCHA. “Humanitarian Needs Overview – Syrian Arab 5 Ibid. Republic,” October 2015 (HNO 2015 6 RFSAN. NDVI and Rainfall Anomaly. http://rfsan.info/ to be addressed for food security, 3 Ibid. portfolio/3 4 FAO/WFP. “Crop and Food Security Assessment 7 Ibid. 10 WFP. mVAM Price Monitoring Mission to the Syrian Arab Republic,” 23 July 2015 8 Op. cit., HNO 2015 11 Op. cit., HNO 2015 9 Op. cit., CFSAM 2015 livelihoods and agricultural The following subsections provide FGDs per rainfall zone. A map of production and their implications additional information on the data these zones is presented below while on future programming. collection approaches and tools used additional information about how they during the assessment. Because the were derived is presented in Annex E. The assessment was conducted household-level interviews comprised between December 2015 and February the main source of data used in the Household-Level interviews 2016 by the Food Security (FSL) cluster assessment, the methodologies used in Turkey in cooperation with the to complete them, particularly the Household-level interviews were Research and Management Team sampling frame that was utilized, are the primary data source used in the (RM Team) as well as the Regional discussed in greater detail. assessment. Due to access difficulties, Food Security Analysis Network it was not possible for sampling to (RFSAN12) and was funded by the Food Focus Group Discussions be conducted on the basis of Syria’s and Agriculture Organization of the administrative subdivisions. Instead, United Nations (FAO). The FS Cluster The first phase of the assessment sampling was based on a multi- Secretariat contracted the RM Team consisted of focus group discussions stage cluster sampling approach in to coordinate field work and conduct (FGDs) covering topics related to which different communities were training and data management. The livelihoods and agriculture. A total grouped into clusters based on analysis phase and data processing of 30 gender-segregated livelihoods geographic proximity and shared were conducted and overseen by a FGDs were conducted in 15 randomly livelihoods attributes. Throughout consultant and FSL experts of the selected communities across these clusters, households in a total RFSAN team in Amman, Jordan and different rainfall zones. In addition to of 150 communities were surveyed. Gaziantep, Turkey. livelihood focus group discussions, These communities were randomly teams conducted 15 FGDs focused selected from 2,000 villages and The assessment employed a phased on challenges affecting agricultural neighborhoods identified prior to the mixed-methods approach, using production. Whenever possible, field work phase of the assessment. information drawn from multiple teams targeted participants who were 13 Finally, households within selected primary data collection methods, farmers with different land holding communities were also randomly which were complemented by types and different sizes of land. selected, and enumerators sought to available secondary data. Primary data Livelihoods and agriculture FGDs conduct 15 household interviews in collection consisted of the following were held before the household-level each. stages: interviews and the information they provided informed the subsequent • Stage 1: Focus Group Discussions design of the household-level • Stage 2: Household Interviews questionnaire. Selection was based • Stage 3: Key Informant Interviews on rainfall zones, with a target of six livelihoods FGDs and three agriculture Consultations with FSL Cluster 1a partners took place throughout Figure 1: Rainfall the various stages of primary data Zones in Syria Al-Hasakeh 1b collection, and partners provided their Aleppo Ar-Raqqa 2 technical support during the design Idleb and the analysis phases, particularly Lattakia 3 Hama for portions of the assessment Deir-ez-Zor Tartous focused on agriculture. Finally, 4 enumerators’ direct observations were Homs taken into account during debriefing sessions and were used to inform the Rural Damascus analysis and presentation of findings. Damascus Quneitra 13 Communities were assessed in Al-Hasakeh, Aleppo, 12 The Regional Food Security Analysis Network Dara As-Sweida Ar-Raqqa, Damascus, Dar’a, Deir-ez-Zor, Hama, 9 (RFSAN) is a joint initiative between the Food and Idleb, Lattakia and Rural Damascus Governorates Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and iMMAP. Figure 2: Assessment Coverage Clusters from Idleb, Aleppo, Lattakia, and Hama Governorates. These communities depend on a wide variety of crops, including as fruit trees, olives, vegetables and wheat. Rainfall levels in these areas are higher than the rest of the country and households have access to multiple sources of water, including groundwater and rivers. • Greater Damascus: This cluster is located in central Syria and includes communities in both Damascus and Rural Damascus Governorates. Agricultural activities are widely dependent on rain, in several urban areas such as addition to water from rivers Description of Clusters Mayadeen, Deir ez-Zor City and underground wells for • East Hasakeh: Located and Ashara. Agriculture is the irrigation. These areas produce in the Northeast of Syria and main income source due to the a large number of both summer bordering Iraq and Turkey, a large area of land available for and winter crops such as majority of the communities in cultivation near the Euphrates vegetables, fruits, cereals and this cluster are rural and are River as well as the stable barley. located near the Tigris River supply of water for irrigation. • Southern Syria: This and its tributaries. This cluster Oil production is also a major cluster is located in the south has a large agricultural base source of income. of Syria, close to Jordan. with the main crops being • Central Ar-Raqqa: The The population in this cluster wheat and cotton. majority of the communities in mainly lives in rural centres • West Hasakeh: All the this cluster are located close but depends upon agricultural communities in this cluster to the Euphrates River and its production for income. The are located in Al-Hasakeh tributaries, and the main crops main crops cultivated in this Governorate in the north of grown are wheat, barley and cluster are wheat, barley, Syria, close to the Turkish vegetables. Agriculture is the chickpeas and lentils. border. A majority are rural, main income source, and the with the exception of few population lives in both rural major cities such as Qamishli. and urban areas. Agriculture provides the main • Northern Aleppo and Ar- livelihoods sources. The main Raqqa: Communities in this sources of water for irrigation cluster are located in the north are water wheels, with the Al- of Syria, close to the Turkish Khabour River passing near or border. Agriculture is one of the through many communities. main sources of income for the • Deir ez-Zor: All the population, with wheat, barley, communities in this cluster cotton and vegetables being were located in Deir ez-Zor the main crops. governorate in the east of • Northwest Syria: Located in Syria. These areas are mostly 10 the west of the country, this rural, with the exception of cluster included communities Figure 3: Number of Households names of governorates or regions in some cases, they are not intended to be conterminous with established administrative subdivisions. While the assessment was able to cover all four major areas of control within Syria, restrictions on data collection resulted in only 5% of the total number of household interviews having taken place in areas controlled by the Government of Syria. While Assuming completely randomized and and included agronomists, local a significantly larger sample was non-clustered selection of households, council members, major traders, major obtained in other areas of control, the the margin of error for each cluster livestock owners and veterinarians. fact that a disproportionately large would have ranged between 5-12%, number of interviews were conducted with confidence intervals of 90- Challenges and Constraints in areas outside of government control 95%. Two clusters, Deir ez-Zor and needs to be taken into account when Northwest Syria, were assessed at interpreting the results. The sampling approach used to a 95% confidence level and a 5% conduct the household assessment margin of error, while the remainder The approximately 2,000 communities sought to account for food security fell below this threshold. Given the that were identified as being and livelihoods conditions across design effects associated with the accessible to enumerators consisted multiple rainfall zones and lines approach used, this level of statistical of both urban and rural areas of control throughout Syria in the significance was not attained. (Please with varying populations. Rural context of an operational environment see Challenges and Constraints communities with small populations in which a larger scale statistically section, below.) were just as likely to be selected as representative sample of the entire urban ones with large populations, country was not possible. In spite The data collected in the field level leading to results that were more of challenges, it represents one of was cross-checked and triangulated likely to reflect trends within rural the first assessments of its kind using secondary data. Where areas than in Syria as a whole. and provides a critical baseline applicable, data was discarded if of information on food security, outliers could not be cross-verified. Along similar lines, enumerators livelihoods, and agriculture that did Each enumerator was debriefed at the were instructed to randomly sample not exist previously. conclusion of their field work in order households in communities selected to provide more details about the for interviews without regard to Research Design findings and difficulties faced. IDP status. This likely contributed to an over-sampling of permanent Results of the household-level Key Informant Interviews residents at the expense of displaced assessment as well as other stages populations. With the 2016 HNO of primary data collection may be Following the household-level estimating that 6.5 million Syrians considered indicative but not fully interviews, teams conducted are IDPs – a figure corresponding representative of trends throughout key informant interviews in 25 with at least one third of the country’s the country. Taking into account pre-identified communities (five remaining population – the proportion design effects of the cluster approach per agricultural zone) chosen by of IDP households obtained in the that was utilized as well as the fact Agriculture Working Group members sample from this assessment, 13%, that communities within clusters were and taking into account the findings was low. This prevented a better not sampled in proportion to their of the results of the agriculture FGDs. understanding of the needs of IDPs population, a lower level of statistical Key informants were individuals and the role that displacement plays significance was attained. with substantial knowledge about in vulnerability. 11 topics covered in the assessment, While clusters have been given particularly agriculture and livestock, Data Collection and Field Operations

The assessment management team was based in Turkey, where there was limited access to field teams due to border restrictions and security concerns. As a result, the team coordinating the assessment used a remote training approach. Five trainers conducted online training of enumerators that covered the questionnaires and indicators used in the assessment as well as humanitarian principles, data collection techniques, and security and logistics protocols. Still, in several cases, communities initially selected for assessment had to be excluded due to access problems.

At the time of the assessment, the prevailing security situation throughout Syria prohibited the use of mobile data collection tools. Instead, paper-based data collection tools were used, which led to a significantly longer period of time spent on data cleaning and validation.

Additional data collection challenges included inconsistent understandings amongst enumerators and interviewed households of the recall period associated with some questions. For example, income figures were variously reported as the average or cumulative amounts. Some households reported monthly income whereas others reported annual income, and further discrepancies were found when analysing the number of persons contributing to the household income as well as in the reporting of the primary, secondary and tertiary income sources. Issues with the quality of data from ISIS-held areas in Ar-Raqqa led to surveys from 12 some communities being excluded. Main Findings Introduction

The following sections of the report strains resulting from the conflict. A In most cases, aggregate as well as present the main findings of the third section presents an overview cluster-level findings are presented, household interviews, FGDs and KIIs. of standard food security indicators with geographic variations highlighted The first section provides a summary included in the household questionaire in graphs and charts. (Annex sections of the demographic characteristics as well as information specific to the at the end of the report also provide of the households interviewed and context of the Syria crisis, particularly more detailed profiling of the includes information on household the role that the conflict has had in characteristics of each of the clusters composition, characteristics of household-level access to food. Finally, included in the assessment.) While heads of household, age and gender, a fourth section presents key findings the sampling approach used during special needs, and displacement. related to agriculture, including an the household-level interviews did The second section provides an overview of agricultural livelihoods and not yield a large enough sample size overview of household livelihoods, agricultural markets. to analyze the needs of IDPs and covering trends related to income other vulnerable groups in-depth, and employment while highlighting salient variations amongst groups are highlighted in cases where they were Section 1: Demographics and observed. Household Composition The following section summarizes a total of 13,839 individuals were sizes over eight, while in the Greater information on the demographics and represented by the household Damascus Cluster the average was composition of the 1,995 households interviews. below six. interviewed for the assessment. It is worth mentioning that the figures The average and household size presented represent a summary of across all households surveyed was Figure 4: Households Education the households interviewed in the seven, with an average of 3.2 children assessment and may not correspond under the age of 14, 3.5 members with UN or official figures. between the ages of 15 and 64, and one person over the age of 64 in Overall, 93% of the respondents in every four households. Differences the assessment were male and 7% in household size were observed female. Of the respondents, 96% across clusters as represented in were heads of household; 97% of the graph below. The West Hasakeh heads of household were men and and Northern Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa 3% were women. The vast majority Clusters both had average household of heads of household were married Figure 5: Average Household Size by Cluster (93%), while 5% were widowed and 2% were single. The average age of the household head was 44. The vast majority of the heads of household (80%) had some education, with 43% completing primary education, 22% having attended secondary education, and 10% having attended university. Youth under the age of 14 years comprised 46% of the surveyed households. There was an almost even representation of males (50.8%) 13 and females (49.2%). Altogether, Displacement

In total, 264 households (13%) across seven clusters Figure 6: Proportion of Displaced Household by Cluster were IDP households. Of these households, almost three out of four (74%) had been displaced for more than six months. The length of displacement by cluster is shown in Figure 7 below. Traditionally, newly displaced IDPs are harder to reach via random sampling methodology as their dwellings are often in flux or not fully established. As discussed in the Challenges and Constraints section above, the sampling approach utilized obtained a disproportionately small number of IDPs in comparison with other commonly accepted estimations, such as the 2016 HNO.

Figure 7: Length of displacement

In total, 38% of households reported having at least one member with at least one of the three specific needs included in the survey: chronic illness (19%), disability (15%), or being pregnant or lactating (12%). The majority (83%) of these households reported having one member with only one of the specific needs addressed in the assessment. As Figure 8 (below) shows, the proportion of households with specific needs varied by cluster.

14 Figure 8: Households with Specific Needs

Areas of Control

Clusters sometimes comprised Figure 9: Proportion of Interviews Conducted in Each Cluster by different areas of control. The Area of Control East Hasekeh, West Hasekeh, and Northern Aleppo and Raqqa Clusters were under Kurdish control; Deir ez-Zor and Central Ar-Raqqa were under ISIS control, and the majority of the Northwest Syria and Southern Syria Clusters were under the control of armed opposition groups. The Greater Damascus Cluster was the only cluster that was substantially divided between different conflicting groups; approximately two-thirds of households interviewed were in areas controlled by the Government of Syria while one-third of the households interviewed were in areas controlled by opposition groups.

15 Section 2: Livelihoods The following section presents key These topics constitute the main several years. With many households findings with regard to income, focus of this section. First a short facing additional livelihoods employment and income-generating subsection presents findings on pressures, a third subsection opportunities. At the time of the household income, including summary examines coping strategies and assessment, the vitality of livelihoods statistics and trends, challenges household debt in greater depth. had deteriorated significantly from related to income, and information on Finally, as many of the challenges the previous year, with households primary income sources. A subsequent households face may take years to reporting lower incomes, mounting subsection on employment highlights address, a brief subsection highlights debts, reduced purchasing power, trends resulting from the crisis, long-term challenges. fewer jobs, and a high use of coping including areas of employment that mechanisms. have grown or declined over the past

and low-skill jobs as well as cases, households took on Key Findings financial transfers increased. debt to pay for agricultural or • A majority (80%) of households • In the month prior to the livelihoods assets. reported that their incomes assessment, households • The main livelihoods had fallen over the previous surveyed spent an average of challenges as ranked by the year, with nearly 60% reporting 24,880 SYP (62. 51 USD) on households were that income that the reduction had been food, the equivalent of 57% of sources no longer covered significant. total household expenditures. the cost of living, income was • The main sources of income • Nearly two-thirds of unavailable or insufficient in were agricultural wage households (64%) contracted the winter months, and that labor, skilled trades, and debt in the past year, indicating work was unavailable. non-agricultural wage labor. that many households faced • The vast majority of The proportion of households economic challenges in households (95%) reported reporting salaried work, meeting their needs. The level employing coping strategies, including government jobs, of debt for the majority of with reducing household declined significantly. The the households was 197,107 expenditure on health and proportion of households SYP (495.24 USD) on average education, spending savings, reporting income sources (approximately three to five and selling assets being the associated with high-risk months of wages). In most most common.

Income

Households were asked to provide The assessment showed that the In most households, male heads information about their three main conflict has caused widespread shifts of household were reported as the sources of income in the month prior in income sources; less than half primary income earners; only 5% of to the household interview. Overall, (47%) reported their current primary households reported female primary 43% of households reported one sources of income were the same as income earners. A small proportion source of income, 39% indicated they before the crisis. As discussed below, of households, only 2%, reported had two sources of income and 18% there has been a shift towards lower- children as contributing income, a reported three. Only a small proportion skill employment with households figure that is likely understated, taking of households (approximately 0.3%) moving into jobs such as agricultural into account data collected on the use reported no source of income at all. wage labour or the fuel processing of livelihoods coping mechanisms as after losing higher-skill jobs. well as the stigma associated with child labor.

16 Across all households surveyed, the Figure 10: Median Income by Cluster overall average annual and monthly income was 60,579 SYP (152.21 USD) and the median was slightly lower, 40,000 SYP (100.50 USD)14 Incomes varied considerably between the clusters assessed, with a high of 51,000 SYP/month (128.14 USD/ month in Central Raqqa Cluster and 48,000 SYP/month (120.60 USD/ month) in Deir ez-Zor Cluster, to a low of 25,000 SYP (62.81 USD/month) in the communities assessed in the Southern Syria Cluster.

Employment and Income- FGDs highlighted significant changes Figure 11: Income Trends (Past Three in livelihoods sources, with a sharp Month) Generating Opportunities reduction in high-skill occupations in Nearly all households reported at favor of low-skilled, non-professional least one source of income. In many jobs. The public sector, private cases, however, the types of income businesses and industry have been sources respondents described were severely disrupted and have largely low-skill, temporary or offered only ceased to provide employment in limited earning potential. Sources many locations. The pre-crisis middle of income not associated with work, class in particular is struggling with The income figures reflect, in most particularly remittances, which high competition over unskilled cases, a steady reduction in household grew nearly seven-fold as a primary employment. Therefore, in many of the earnings from their pre-crisis levels income source among households FGDs, population groups previously as well as a steep decline over the surveyed, appeared to be a rapidly employed in high-skilled occupations previous year. Approximately 80% growing means of making ends meet. were frequently identified to be most of households reported that their It is worth noting, however, that vulnerable to food insecurity, due incomes had fallen over the past year, the assessment did not account for to the lack of access to the highly with nearly 60% reporting that the other income streams, including ones competitive labour market for low- reduction had been significant. Only related to humanitarian aid. skilled jobs. 6% of households reported that their incomes had risen in comparison with the previous year. Households that reported significant increases Figure 12: Increased and decreased sources of Income in income had household members working in the medical professions, in NGOs or in other professional occupations. A minority of households involved in the wood and fuel trades, agriculture, education, and skilled trades also experienced increases in income.

14 The exchange rate during the period of HH 17 Interviews data collection was on 398 Syrian Pounds (SYP) per United States Dollar (USD) Figure 13: Primary Sources of Income Overall across all clusters reported that their income does not cover the cost of living. The second, third and fourth-ranked challenges were that there were no jobs available in their communities, that there was not enough income in the winter months, and that work was unstable. These findings were also highlighted in the FGDs: While the shift from high-skill to low-skill jobs ensures households a basic income, earnings are often For those households that reported a income declines during the winter insufficient to cover the needs of the change in their main income sources, months. Falling demand for labor has household. the top three pre-crisis income sources depressed wages and increased the were trade, employment in the public strain on individuals and families, Livelihood FGDs mentioned two sector, and service provision. Reduced leaving little room for savings to sources of income that have been engagement in these sectors and the cover seasonal variations. Unable to growing since the start of the increased prevalence of agricultural cover the cost of living throughout crisis: working in the fuel trade (oil wage labour found in the assessment the year, households have been refinement and fuel markets) and displays a clear shift from high-skilled moving towards higher-risk jobs, while collecting firewood. The fuel trade labour to more low-skill and low- vulnerable groups, such as IDPs and has absorbed many workers that paying livelihoods across all zones. children, are engaging in low-paying were once engaged in agriculture and low-skill activities. while IDPs and children have been Agricultural wage labour, the largest increasingly engaged in collecting source of employment income When respondents were asked to rank firewood. Both, however, have also amongst households both before and the top three challenges they faced been absorbing workers pushed out of after the crisis, grew as a primary related to livelihoods, households other occupations. source of income by one-third despite the fact that agricultural production Figure 14: Main Changes in Primary Income Sources has been simultaneously decreasing. The reduction of agricultural production likely creates less need for additional assistance during harvest and planting times, placing further downward pressure on wages and an increase in sporadic, temporary, and seasonal employment. At the same time, it is worth mentioning the situation facing households engaged in agriculture, whether as a household food source or as a primary, secondary or tertiary source of income, is itself unique. These pressures and difficulties are detailed more fully in a separate section on agriculture below. With diminishing opportunities for skilled employment, the seasonal nature of income-generating 18 opportunities poses specific challenges. One of these is that Figure 15: Livelihoods and Employment reported the frequent use of coping • Emergency: Strategies that may Main Challenges strategies, particularly crisis pose long-term consequences livelihoods strategies such as selling or are drastic in nature. These productive assets, removing children include taking jobs that are high- from school, and selling seed stocks. risk and/or socially degrading, This suggests that these households sending adult household members have already exhausted less extreme to beg or sending children measures and are at high risk of household members to beg. becoming food insecure. The strategies can be used to derive a The survey asked households if they composite indicator of asset depletion had utilized any livelihoods coping and coping capacity. If households strategies that were classified into have exhausted specific strategies three broad groups:15 because they have no more resources left to utilize them, they are still • Stress: Strategies that decrease counted as having been utilized. a household’s ability to weather Debt and Coping Strategies future shocks due to a reduction of Overall, the vast majority of resources or an increase in debt, households surveyed (95%) reported Approximately 34% of households spending savings, purchasing food using one or more coping strategies reported taking on additional debts on credit or borrowing money to in the month prior to the survey. In in the year preceding the survey. buy food and spending less money most cases, households used multiple Among households owing debts, on other needs (e. g. education or coping mechanisms that encompassed average total amounts are equivalent health). both stress and crisis strategies. to three months of income (197,107 • Crisis: Strategies that negatively Approximately one-fifth of households SYP or 495 USD). Asked about the affect future productivity. These (22%) used one or more emergency top three reasons they took on on include selling household assets strategies, indicating that they debts, households across all zones (jewellery, phone, furniture, etc.) have already exhausted less severe indicated that they had borrowed or selling productive goods/ measures and are food insecure or at money to buy agricultural inputs, assets (sewing machine, tools/ risk of food insecurity. followed by payment of household machinery, car, livestock, etc.) bills (e. g., water and electricity) and health expenses. The collapse of the Figure 17: Overall Prevalence of Coping Mechanism among Households by Severity pre-crisis financial support system provided by the government has forced farmers to borrow money from other sources in order to buy inputs for agriculture. If the crisis continues, households will likely exhaust their access to credit or be forced to resort to coping strategies. With mounting debts, households

Figure 16: Household Debt (in the past year)

15 WFP. 2014. VAM Guidance Paper; Consolidated Approach for Reporting Indicators of Food Security 19 (CARI). https://resources.vam.wfp.org/sites/default/ files/CARI_Final_0.pdf The table below details the prevalence with approximately two-thirds of frequently used strategy, reported of specific coping strategies used households (64%) using this strategy. by 48% of households and with 18% amongst households in the 30 days Spending savings was the next most having already exhausted it. It was prior to the household assessment. common strategy (59%); however, also common for households to report Most commonly, households reported 15% of households had already used that they had removed their children spending less on education or health, and exhausted their savings. Sale of from school, but in most cases this household assets was the third most was due to security concerns rather than work pressures. Figure 18: Overall Proportion of Households Utilizing Specific Livelihoods Coping Strategies

Figure 18 above shows variations Cluster had the highest use of to aid was highlighted as a in the severity of coping strategies livelihoods coping strategies, while serious concern. amongst the clusters assessed. On households in the East Hasakeh average, households reported an Cluster reported using coping Problems that participants average coping capacity score of 3, strategies that were less severe on believed they may face in the which corresponds with moderate average. future varied by cluster and by food insecurity. The Greater Damascus areas of control. The survey showed that armed conflict Figure 19: Overall Proportion of Households Long-term Challenges was a major concern for 62% Utilizing Specific Livelihoods Coping Strategies of the households across all In the long term, the impact of conflict clusters while difficult access on all aspects of daily life, including to humanitarian assistance was war-related disabilities and injuries, a major concern for another the collapse of the Syrian Pound, and 51% of the households. In ISIS the erosion of social cohesion and and opposition-held areas, family nucleus, were the main threats bombings were a concern for to livelihoods identified in FGDs. over 80% of the households. Fear of besiegement and road/border Lack of sufficient arable land closures were also a great concern. for gardening was not a major Male FGDs further highlighted concern in government, Kurdish concerns around conflict-related and opposition-controlled areas destruction of crops and agricultural but were elsewhere. Access land, decrease of humanitarian to health services, a lack of assistance as well as displacement, processing facilities and a lack as further threats to food security of fuel for heating and cooking 20 in the coming months. In female were the major concerns in FGDs, the decrease of humanitarian government-controlled areas. assistance along with unequal access Section 3: Food Security As defined by the FAO World Food Summit held in 1996, food security Key Findings “exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access • Across all geographic clusters, • While the vast majority of to sufficient, safe and nutritious food 61% of households reported households reported that to meet their dietary needs and food acceptable food consumption they could access markets preferences for an active and healthy scores; 30% reported and that they depended on life.” 16 borderline scores associated them for most of the food with a high risk of food they consumed, households Household-level interviews included insecurity, and 9% reported commonly reported questions to derive a number of poor scores, suggesting difficulties obtaining key international standard composite food that they were already food food commodities, and other security indicators to evaluate the insecure. measures of food access, food security status of households. • Over 91% of the households such as the Household Food These included the Household used some kind of food-related Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) coping strategy; relying on suggested that many were at and the Food Consumption Score, less-preferred food sources risk of food insecurity. which measure dietary diversity was the most common. • Of the households surveyed, and nutrient adequacy. Additional • Households commonly reported 90% felt that they needed indicators of access and adequacy are low levels of hunger, but many humanitarian food assistance also discussed below including the have prioritized consuming and nearly one-third reported Household Hunger Scale (HHS). foods with high energy and low actually receiving food aid. nutrient value. The conflict in Syria has changed • There appeared to be a how markets function as well as strong correlation between how households access food. As a food security and livelihoods result, the assessment paid special indicators (income levels attention to how households access and employment) as well as staple items and whether or not they IDP status and household have access to markets. Indicators characteristics. (Female- of market access, including how headed households and IDPs, households source the items they for example, appeared more consume as well as the difficulties likely to be food insecure.) they face in doing so are presented alongside more universal indices, including the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS).

16 World Food Summit, Declaration on World Food Security. Held in Rome, Italy 17-13 November 1996. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm 21 Household Dietary Diversity Score

The household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) 17 is a proxy indicator for household nutrient adequacy and is defined as the number of unique food groups consumed over a one-week period. Studies have shown that an increase in dietary diversity is associated with socio-economic status and household food security (household energy availability). 18 The indicator is based on 12 food groups and a score is given ranging 0-12, with 0 being no food groups consumed and 12 indicating at least some quantity of each group was consumed. It is important to note that the HDDS does not measure quantity or quality of food consumed. A sample of the survey form including the twelve food groups can be found in Annex F. The average HDDS of the households surveyed was 9.4. While there are no standard cut-offs associated with the HDDS, this is a relatively high average, considering that the maximum score is 12. There was significant variation between clusters, with the Northern Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa Cluster reporting an average score of 8 and the East Hasakeh Cluster reporting an average score of 10.9. Differences in local production and the functionality of supply chains could be attributed to some Figure 20: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) by Cluster of these variations, with Hasakeh, for example, having high levels of agricultural production and the communities assessed in the Northern Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa being affected by conflict and interrupted supply lines at the time of the assessment. While there were not significant variations between IDP and non-IDP households, there were variations between other household types. For example, female-headed households had HDDS scores of 7.9 on average versus 9.5 in male-headed households. Lower access to markets for women as well as lower incomes amongst female-headed households are likely the main factors contributing to such low scores. Food Consumption Score (FCS):

The FCS uses the information provided about weekly food consumption by type of food and frequency of consumption (how many days per week) and weights it against nutritional value to provide an indication of a household’s consumption patterns and food security. Once scored, a household’s food consumption is classified into three categories based on the following thresholds and intervals: 19 • “Poor:” Households with an FCS less than or equal to 28 are considered food insecure. • “Borderline:” Households with food consumptions above 28 Figure 21: Food Consumption Scores by Cluster and less than or equal to 42 are considered vulnerable to food insecurity. • “Acceptable:” Households with food consumption scores greater than 42 are considered food- secure. While FCS helps to provide a snapshot of dietary diversity and consumption, 17 The HDDS was developed by the USAID funded Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) Project in collaboration with Cornell, Tufts, Africare and World Vision 18 Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary Diversity, FAO, http://www.fao.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/wa_workshop/docs/FAO- 22 guidelines-dietary-diversity2011.pdf 19 These thresholds are commonly used in Syria and surrounding countries and account for high intakes of sugar and oil in the region. like the HDDS it accounts neither risk for food insecurity than non-IDP vegetables, oils, and milk products for the amount of food a household households. Although the sample in the week before the assessment. consumes nor for its quality. A more size in the household survey was Approximately three-quarters of extensive technical explanation is too small to indicate overall trends households consumed meats (78%) available in Annex F of the report. for some of these groups, the data and pulses (72%) while consumption The Central Ar-Raqqa and Northwest available appears to confirm findings of eggs was relatively higher (86%). Syria Clusters had the highest from the FGDs. For example, 21% of Consumption rates of fruit were proportion of households with female-headed households reported relatively low (61%), a factor that may poor food consumption scores. poor food consumption scores. have to do with data being collected Households in the Central Ar-Raqqa Despite reporting incomes that were during the winter season. Only a Cluster also had a high proportion similar to the population as a whole, small proportion of households (11%) of households with borderline food IDPs were more likely to have poor reported consuming fish. consumption scores, indicating that food consumption scores (12%), as many households were at risk of food were households with disabled or Despite the relatively high proportion insecurity. chronically ill heads of household of households that reported (15%). consuming nearly all items included In FGDs participants identified female- in the FCS index in the week prior headed households, households with As the chart below highlights, nearly to the survey, a closer examination disabled or chronically ill members, all households reported consuming of consumption patterns shows and child-headed households as cereals and grains in the week that in many cases, households are the groups most vulnerable to prior to the household interview. prioritizing intake of high-energy foods food insecurity. Focus groups also Large proportions of households and consuming fruits and vegetables indicated that IDPs are at greater also reported consuming tubers, and sources of protein less frequently.

Figure 22: Percentage of HH Consuming Food Groups in the Week Prior to the Survey

Figure 23, highlights some of the Figure 23: Food Consumption Score differences in food consumption between households with acceptable, borderline and poor food consumption scores.

23 Figure 24: Average Number of Days Each Food Group was Consumed by main Food Consumption Group

Across households with different of households engaged in livestock Household Food Insecurity FCSs, respondents reported consuming production reported borderline or poor Access Scale (HFIAS) bread, potatoes, and vegetables with scores and only 32% of households comparable frequencies. Households engaged in crop production reported The HFIAS is designed to measure with acceptable food consumption borderline or poor scores. Notably, the experience of food insecurity scores consumed high-protein 63% of households that abandoned and is based on the premise that foods, such as pulses, meat, eggs agriculture in the past year reported households have similar reactions and milk at least several times per acceptable food consumption scores; and responses to food insecurity that week, while these items were nearly however, these households were can be compared across contexts absent from the diets of households more likely to report poor food and be adapted into a quantifiable with poor food consumption scores. consumption scores (15% vs 5% scale. The HFIAS is based on nine Consumption of these items was amongst households still engaged questions that measure perceptions minimal (approximately one day per in agriculture), suggesting that of food vulnerability or stress, while week on average) in households with abandoning farming may have severe others ask about the respondents’ borderline food consumption scores. consequences for some households. behavioural responses to food insecurity over the past four weeks. 20 Unsurprisingly, FCSs appeared to Figure 25: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) by Cluster be closely correlated with income. Households that reported acceptable food consumption scores had incomes of 69,412 SYP (174.40 USD) per month on average, while ones with poor FCS earned almost half that amount – 36,364 SYP (91.37 USD) per month on average. Household with borderline FCSs earned 49,613 SYP (124.66 USD) per month on average.

Food consumption scores were markedly higher among households engaged in agriculture; only 26%

24 20 Coates, Jennifer, Anne Swindale and Paula Bilinsky. “Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide.” The majority of the households had low food access concerns as measured by the HFIAS. 15% of households felt they had sufficient access to cover all of their needs, while the 52% were mildly food insecure in terms of access. Overall, only 10% of the HH indicated that they were severely food insecure in terms of access.

Household Hunger Scale (HHS)

Questions from the HFIAS contribute to the Household Hunger Scale (HHS), a measure of household food access that captures insufficient food quantity based on physical consequences of hunger experienced in a household over the past 30 days. The HHS is unique compared to other food insecurity indicators in that it has been developed and validated for cross-cultural use and is comparable across contexts. The index measures whether households fall into severe or moderate categories of hunger or whether they exhibit “little to no” hunger.

Figure 26: Household Hunger Scale (HHS) by Cluster

As Figure 26 above shows, approximately 84% of households exhibited little to no hunger, while 13% exhibited moderate hunger. A small proportion, 3%, exhibited severe hunger. The highest rates of hunger were reported by households in the Greater Damascus Cluster, a result that may owe to the high number of besieged locations there. IDP households were more likely to report severe hunger (6%) versus the overall population assessed, as were female- headed households (5%).

Food Expenditure

Food comprised households’ largest category of household expenditure, followed by fuel and electricity costs, healthcare, and debt repayment. On average, households allocated 57% of their overall expenditures to food in the month prior to the survey, an equivalent of 24,880 SYP (62.51 USD). As a proportion of household expenses, spending on food was highest in the West Hasakeh Cluster at 65%, while in the Greater Damascus Cluster and the Southern Syria Cluster, food comprised only 47% and 44% of household expenses each, respectively.

25 Figure 27: Food Expenditure Share by Cluster same time, qualitative data from FGDs and KIIs, show that households often struggle to access adequate food from markets and may need to travel further than they did before the conflict or through insecure areas to obtain it.

The vast majority of households surveyed (94%), reported being able to access markets. These households overwhelmingly reported that a majority of their food consumption came from items that they purchased themselves from markets in the week prior to the survey. The 6% of households that were not able to access markets cited dangerous While food expenses comprised the is low or nearly non-existent. The travel conditions, transportation, and greatest proportion of households’ collapse of infrastructure, road a lack of male family members as expenses, fuel (9,943 SYP or 24.98 blockages, and changing areas of reasons for lacking access. Levels of USD/month), education (4,008 SYP control also pose further challenges in access were lowest in the Greater or 10.07 USD/month) and health areas that are relatively less affected. Damascus (82%), Northwest Syria care (3,096 SYP or 7.78 USD/month) Furthermore, markets, bakeries and (85%), and Northern Aleppo and Ar- also comprised significant areas of other food infrastructure have become Raqqa clusters (91%). Given levels of expense, on average. targets of attack, raising additional conflict and number of besieged and concerns about availability and hard-to-reach areas in these clusters Female-headed households and IDPs access. at the time of the assessment, the allocated a smaller proportion of their fact that market access was more household expenditures to food. IDPs Household interviews indicated that of a problem in these areas is not spent approximately 53% of total households rely predominantly on unexpected. Women and female- household expenditure on food, while markets as a food source and that headed households in particular, female-headed households spent levels of access are high. Households’ appear to have the greatest difficulties approximately 50%.While higher own production and humanitarian aid accessing markets overall. levels of food expenditure are often a generally play a secondary and tertiary After markets, households’ own sign of stress, in these cases, lower role in ensuring food security. At the production was the second-most food expenditure may reflect the fact frequently reported source of food. that households have to devote higher Figure 28: Reasons for being unable to access markets proportions of their income to other expenses, such as rent, and have less to spend on food.

Market Access

The conflict in Syria has disrupted markets for food, and the household survey as well as the FGDs and KIIs included a number of questions related to market access and functionality. Due to the conflict, 26 market access and functionality in besieged and hard-to-reach areas Rates of consumption of food items consuming pulses indicated that Overall, approximately one-quarter produced at home were highest for they obtained them through food (26%) of households reported milk products, cereals, and eggs, with aid rather than markets or their receiving some amount of food aid 15-25% of households citing their own production. A small proportion in the month prior to the survey; own production as the source of these of households (approximately however, two-thirds (67%) reported foods in the week prior to the survey. 4%) reported that they consumed that they required food aid but had not Overall, humanitarian aid was the cereals and grains, eggs, and oils received it. Only a small proportion third most important source of food, and fats that they obtained from (less than 1%) reported receiving food but there were significant variations food aid. aid even though they did not require it. by individual food item. Approximately High levels of access to markets 12% of the households that reported reported in the household survey may

Figure 29: Source of Food Consumed by Food Group

also belie other challenges. These Figure 30: Access to Aid include relying on markets that are distant or in insecure areas or markets that are poorly stocked or dependent upon smuggled goods. Increased transportation and transaction costs mean that households may not be able to afford items in markets when they hard to find. Instances in which households reported that sugar was are available. goods are unavailable or difficult to unavailable, 37% reported that it was obtain appear to be localized and hard to find. Other items that were Along those lines, the vast majority commodity specific. For example, 8% reportedly hard to find included wheat of households reported that key of households reported that canned flour (27% of households) meat (23%), food commodities were available foods were unavailable, 4% reported fruit (22%), vegetables (19%), cooking on the market. Only a small that chicken was unavailable and 3% oil (18%) and lentils (18%). proportion reported shortages reported that they could not obtain although households frequently fruit or meat. Goods may also be reported that some items were available but are more frequently hard to find. For example, while only 2% of 27 Coping Strategies Index (CSI): 21 The detrimental alimentary behaviours: insecure the household is. CSI assesses how many times during the consumption of less preferred and Relying on less preferred and less a seven-day period a household less expensive food, the borrowing of expensive foods was used as a employed specific coping strategies food, the reduction of portion sizes, coping strategy more often than any in response to a shortage of food. The the restriction of adults’ consumption other food-related coping strategy. 22 reduced CSI (r-CSI) enquires about five in favour of children and reduction of Overall, 93% of households had a low could be reused, limiting portion size the numbers of meals consumed per reduced copying strategy index and no at meals, and reducing the number of day. The higher the score, the more households had a high rCSI. meals eaten each day. frequent and severe these strategies are, and the more vulnerable and food Figure 31:Reduced Coping Strategies Index by Cluster

Overall, 91% of households reported less preferred and less expensive could be reused, limiting portion size using one or more of the coping foods. Other strategies were far at meals, and reducing the number of strategies in the seven days preceding less common but included, in order meals eaten each day. the assessment. Households most of frequency, finding new ways to commonly reported relying on maintain and store food so that it

Figure 32: Average Number of Times Households Used Coping Strategies in the Previous Week.

Food Related Coping Strategies Number of times in 7 days Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods 4.2 Find new ways to maintain and store food so that it could be reused 1.7 Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative 0.5 Gather wild food, hunt, or harvest immature crops 0.2 Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat 0.7 Look for food in garbage 0.0 Limit portion size at mealtimes 1.5 Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 1.5

21 The Coping Strategies Index (CSI) measures a given household’s behaviour when they do not have 22 In this assessment the Reduced CSI was also sufficient amounts of food. (WFP. 2008. “The Coping utilized, which may be especially useful for 28 Strategies Index.” http://documents.wfp.org/ comparing food security across different contexts stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_ or for geographical targeting and planning of food proced/wfp211058.pdf assistance. Section 4: Agriculture continued engagement in The conflict in Syria has resulted in • Households engaged in agriculture less profitable. diminished agricultural production agriculture were more resilient Access to transportation, mills, and disrupted supply chains, leading and food secure than those processing plants, and changes to a reduction in levels of access and that were not or had had in value chains as a whole availability of food. In the long term, recently given up farming or have meant that households these may have severe effects on herding. have fewer options to earn a households that are not only engaged • In the 24 months preceding living from what they produce. in agriculture, but on food security the assessment, the livestock and development in Syria as a whole. sector experienced a decline, with the number of animals While previous assessments, such as Agricultural Livelihoods the CFSAM, have provided aggregate owned by households falling sharply. There was an overall figures on the effects of these trends, More than half (58%) of households information on linkages to household- reduction of nearly 50% in cattle, goat, and sheep interviewed were engaged in level agricultural production has been agriculture (crop production, livestock limited. numbers, while aggregate poultry holdings fell by 94%. or both) at the time of the assessment; 42% were engaged in crop production, Accordingly, this section aims to The main causes of the reduction were consumption while 40% in livestock production explore these linkages further. First, a and 24% were engaged in both. subsection on agricultural livelihoods and sale of household livestock. A relatively large proportion of provides an overview of the beneficial households reported having stopped effects of continued involvement in • Over the same time period, a large proportion of households crop production (10%) and livestock agriculture as well as the pressures production (11%) in the year prior to that households face in sustaining that had planted staple food crops previously reported that data collection. their engagement. Subsequent On a whole, households involved in subsections outline these pressures in they had stopped cultivation. greater detail. As markets for inputs The number of households Figure 33: Agricultural Engagement were highlighted as one of the factors planting potatoes and pulses limiting households’ engagement in fell by approximately 50%; the agriculture, a separate subsection number planting barley fell by examines challenges that households nearly 40%; and the number face in obtaining seeds, fertilizer, planting wheat, olives and and feed. With value chains severely vegetables fell 15-20%. affected by the conflict, a subsequent • Markets for agricultural inputs subsection details constraints farmers have suffered as a result of and herders face in selling an adding the conflict with the expense value to what they produce. or unavailability of inputs for crop production and livestock herding crop production (e.g., fertilizer, were more resilient and more likely fuel and water) being one of to report higher food consumption the main reasons for halting or scores, larger incomes, and a lower Key Findings scaling back cultivation. Similar use of coping strategies. However, factors have also affected • The survey revealed that households engaged in agriculture household engagement in 58% of the households faced a number of pressures that livestock production, with were engaged in agriculture, place their ability to remain engaged households naming the with 42% involved in crop in crop production and herding at risk. expense or unavailability of production and 40% involved in On average, households engaged in fodder and veterinary care livestock production. Amongst among the top reasons for households involved in ending or curtailing their agriculture, 41% were engaged engagement with agriculture. in both crop and livestock • Changes in markets resulting 29 production. from the conflict have made agriculture had higher incomes than engagement were also apparent in access to multiple sources of income. those that were not. For households food consumption patterns, with 74% involved in livestock production, of households engaged in livestock Along these lines, approximately monthly incomes were 2,001 SYP having acceptable food consumption two-thirds (64%) of households (5.03 USD) per month more than those scores, versus 52% of those that were engaged in agriculture named primary that were not; among households not, and households engaged in crop sources of income that were not engaged in crop production, monthly production 12% more likely to have directly associated with farming or incomes were 14,559 SYP (36.58 acceptable food consumption scores herding. Accordingly, livestock or crop USD) higher. Households that gave up than those that were not. production may serve as an important agriculture, by contrast, earned 19,003 supplement to other livelihoods SYP (47.75 USD) less per month than Households engaged in agriculture opportunities, improving purchasing households overall on average. generally owe their higher levels of power and food security in the face of The positive effects of agricultural food security to their ability to rely on depressed wages and increased costs. their own food production as well as Women are heavily involved in

Figure 34: Livestock and Crop production Engagement

agricultural activities in many areas While many had acceptable food households engaged in livestock assessed, and even though the work consumption scores, they appeared production reported relatively high they perform is often unpaid, they more prone to more severe food food consumption scores but incomes are directly contributing to household insecurity, with 15% reporting poor that were below average. livelihoods. In farming families, food consumption scores. women are often involved in land In most cases, households that have preparation and weed control; in At the same time, households remained engaged in agriculture have herding households they are engaged engaged in both crop production already drastically curtailed their in selling livestock products as well as and livestock appeared to be more production of key crops as well as feeding and caring for animals. resilient and had higher incomes as their livestock holdings. For example, well as food consumption scores. in the year prior to the assessment, Households that gave up crop While households engaged in crop the number of households cultivating production or livestock herding in production exclusively had markedly potatoes and pulses fell by over 50%, the year prior to the assessment higher incomes than those that did while the percentage of households had markedly lower incomes than not, their food consumption scores planting barley fell by nearly 40%. those that were able to continue. were only marginally higher. Similarly, Overall, households also reported 30 Figure 35: Changes in Crop Cultivation

drastic reductions in flocks and herds. Total poultry holdings dropped 94% during the two years prior to the assessment, and sheep, cattle, and Figure 36: Percentage of HH with Livestock holdings and change over the past year goats dropped by approximately 50%. In many cases, this was due to households cutting their herds and flocks dramatically, often retaining only a fraction – often only two or three animals - of their previous holdings. For example, while poultry farmers interviewed had average flocks of 303 animals two years ago, they reported average flock sizes of 16 at the time of the assessment. Such dramatic reductions were often the result of large-scale farmers ceasing production, but smaller farmers have also been affected; median poultry holdings, for example, went from 25 to 15 animals over the same period. In addition to the pressures on agriculture listed above, FGDs and key informant interviews revealed communal lands and converted negligible (or negative) profit margins. a prevalence of long-term changes them into rain-fed farmlands. The Together, these changes present a in land use. Households that have burning of land and crops was also significant concern not only to current abandoned agriculture altogether widely mentioned as a reason for levels of agricultural production but have reallocated their land for other the decreasing availability of access also for the future cycles. Changes uses or sold their livestock. Conflict to arable land. In addition, reduced in land use have been accompanied and restrictions on movement have agricultural production was also linked by a shift in cultivation practices reduced the land available for grazing, to high land rental costs, insecurity that include planting crops several while households have taken over on the land and increased costs of times during the agricultural season state-owned pastures and other agricultural inputs, which lead to and replacing traditional crops with

31 ones that are more profitable and Agricultural equipment and spare supplies. Before the crisis, the less resource intensive. For example, parts: In most areas assessed, the Ministry of Agriculture subsidized in focus group discussions and availability of agricultural equipment fertilizers, and most farmers had key informant interviews, farmers reportedly declined significantly. access to governmental loans to discussed switching to crops that At the same time, in about half of cover their needs. These subsidies require less water and high-cost communities assessed, KIs and FGDs have ended in most areas not falling inputs, cultivating cash crops, or reported that spare parts, such as under government control and a lack limiting production to their own ones needed to repair machinery and financial supports have affected household’s consumption needs. pumps, had remained about the same farmers’ abilities to cover costs. Similar pressures could be seen with and that such equipment is usually Fertilizers are available in markets households engaged in livestock. In relatively easy to obtain despite the near Turkey and Iraq but at prices focus group discussions, participants fact that it needs to be imported. that farmers are either unable to reported the consumption or sale of afford or are unaccustomed to paying. livestock that would normally have Daily labor: Despite the fact that Sanctions, directed at ensuring been used for income, while in some households were significantly more that fertilizers are not used in the cases, livestock had been sold and likely to report agricultural wage labor production of explosives, have also moved to neighboring countries. as an income source, FGDs and KIIs disrupted supply chains and reduced discussed how labor costs had risen. availability. Markets for Agricultural Participants and respondents reported Inputs that labor shortages and labor costs Electricity: Approximately one half of were one of the top reasons for not key informants reported an increase harvesting crops. Exceptions to this The conflict in Syria has destroyed in the price of electricity, which is overall trend were apparent, however, much of the country’s agricultural closely tied to diesel costs due to particularly in some areas with large infrastructure and disrupted markets, an increased reliance on generators. IDP populations, such as northern placing severe constraints on Differences in prices were often Aleppo. households that had come to rely significant across areas of control, upon the provision of cheap and with ISIS-controlled communities Diesel: The availability and cost of readily available inputs to sustain that have access to fuel and diesel varied by community. While crop and livestock production. Not hydroelectricity reporting little change just over half of KIIs reported that surprisingly, one of the top reasons and some resource-constrained prices had stayed the same, a nearly that households reported taking on communities in Dar’a reporting little to equal number of KIIs reported either debt to pay for agricultural inputs, and no electricity at all. increases or decreases in cost. one of the top reasons for abandoning Communities reporting a decrease agriculture was the high cost or Herbicides and pesticides: About tended to be in the northeast of the unavailability of inputs. Accordingly, one half of communities assessed country where oil fields are situated input markets as well as output reported decreased supplies of and where informal fuel trading has markets warrant specific attention as pesticides and herbicides, while become a source of income. At the they represent one of the most severe nearly all reported increased costs. same time, rises in cost were reported constraints on sustaining agriculture, The fact that costs increased in a majority of communities in both in the short and long terms. throughout the country may largely opposition-held areas and outside of reflect constraints on production the core oil-producing regions. FGDs and key informant interviews resulting from international sanctions. provided basic information on Seeds: Non-government-controlled Fertilizers: Most key informants markets for inputs as well as outputs. communities reported a decrease reported that the availability of The information participants and in the availability of seeds, while fertilizers has fallen since the start respondents provided is mainly communities still under government of the crisis, with only a small based on personal experience and control reported an increase, a number, primarily in government impressions, but it underscores a need pattern that owes largely to the areas, reporting an increase in for a better understanding of market 32 functionality. government’s role in distributing farmers have suffered the effects of poor rainfall, other crops, which are seeds, particularly for wheat and the conflict more than others. As with not economical to harvest for grain, barley, both before and after the crisis. markets for agricultural inputs, trends including cotton, have contributed Outside of government areas, high- may be heavily influenced by lines of significantly as a source of fodder for quality seeds are largely unavailable control, with the conflict cutting off ruminants. As a result, production of or supplies are inadequate. Even established means of both obtaining barley has fallen. Cotton seed-cake when available, high-quality seeds and selling goods. On the demand has reportedly come to constitute the may be inaccessible for farmers, who side, reduced household consumption main source of supplementary protein cannot afford the higher unsubsidized and purchasing power have meant to grazing animals in some areas and costs. As a result, many farmers have that dramatically lowered production wheat bran and straw have become been forced to choose lower-quality has not resulted in higher prices for important crop by-products for feed alternatives or rely on their own commodities, even though supplies production. production. have fallen dramatically.

Water: Nearly all communities Figure 37: Reasons for no longer engaging in crop production reported an increase in the price of water used for irrigation. This is due to the fact that irrigation has become increasingly dependent upon electricity provided by generators and on the diesel fuel used to operate them.

Value Chains and Markets for Agricultural Outputs

Value chains for agricultural products Wheat: Wheat was the main crop have been significantly impacted grown by households engaged in crop Fruit: The impact of the conflict on by the conflict. While farmers face production. With some exceptions, the production and storage facilities pressures due to reduced access particularly in Ar-Raqqa, Deir ez- has resulted in significant shifts to and availability of inputs, they Zor, Hasakeh, and Rural Damascus, in value chains. The effects of the also face disincentives to remain wheat production was reportedly high conflict on transportation, storage, engaged in agriculture as a result of enough to cover local needs as well and processing facilities cut off changes in value chains and access as yield surpluses for sale elsewhere. farmers’ access to value chains that to markets. The destruction of mills In communities where wheat was would allow them to sell their crops and processing facilities has reduced not the main crop, a lack of mills and to producers of juice and preserves. opportunities for farmers to add value incentives in the market to store yields As a result, farmers reported that to their products and make a profit for a higher price later on reportedly their crops have been spoiling before while conflict has severed accesses pushed production downward. In they can be processed or sold on the to markets. Ultimately, a continuation other locations, such as in Hama market. Without access to markets of these trends will result in a sharp and Idleb, wheat production fell as and faced with high fuel costs, many decrease in production and availability more lucrative crops took its place, farmers were reported to have cut of food. rain-fed farming grew in importance, their trees for firewood. Trends for individual agricultural and lower-quality seeds entered the Olives: The conflict has affected commodities varied. With producers market. Respondents expected this transportation, limiting the capacity of specific commodities facing varied trend to worsen and for productivity pressures and adjusting their levels levels to deteriorate further in the face of engagement in agriculture as well of lower rainfalls. : Barley is the main feed as production accordingly, some Barley grown for livestock, but in years of 33 of farmers to reach olive mills. This cultivated. In most cases, diminished These pressures have resulted in a has resulted in high levels of waste production was the result of dramatic reduction in the sizes of and spoilage, as well as farmers inadequate supplies of agrochemicals. herds and flocks and in some cases, being forced to mill their products their virtual liquidation. The size of themselves, resulting in reduced Livestock and Animal Products: cattle, goat and sheep herds has fallen output and higher overall prices In contrast to crop production, by approximately 50%. Of all livestock in markets. Combined with other challenges affecting livestock were producers, poultry farmers appear to pressures, including rising costs of more generalizable, having to do be the most affected. For example, labor and fuel, many farmers reported primarily with the unavailability or in 2015, the CFSAM found that of cutting trees for firewood rather than high costs of inputs, particularly all livestock, poultry has suffered continuing with olive cultivation. animal feed and veterinary care. In the greatest reduction in numbers some cases, the same pressures since 2011 with the destruction Tubers/Potatoes: Potato production affecting crop production also or abandonment of poultry units. was down dramatically over pre-crisis affected livestock. For example, Similarly, this assessment found that levels, largely because of reduced changes in land use as well as poor aggregate poultry holdings have fallen supply of seed potato, low yields and rainfalls, which have reduced the dramatically—by 94% according to costs associated with irrigation. In quantity of fodder, have also limited the household survey—and many areas outside of government control livestock owners’ ability to properly formerly large-scale producers have in particular, lack of seeds and feed their herds and flocks. Conflict taken to keeping just several chickens agrochemicals has also contributed and changes in land use are also for household consumption instead of to decreased potato cultivation. As affecting land available to graze for commercial sale. a result, production has fallen below livestock; in some cases, landowners With households unable to sustain local needs in a number of areas, and have turned farmland into pastures, the costs of keeping livestock, surpluses for sale elsewhere have while pastures have been converted many have sought to liquidate their also disappeared. to farmland.

Vegetables: After wheat, barley and Figure 38: Reasons for no longer holding livestock olives, vegetables were the fourth- most important crop amongst the households assessed. In most areas, production does not cover the local year-round consumption needs, due to the effects of diminished storage and production capacities, disrupted market access, and interruptions in cultivation and supply during the winter. At the same time, households continue to cultivate tomatoes, cucumber, eggplant, zucchini and parsley for their own consumption, holdings. Despite reported increases approximately half of livestock supplementing what they grow with in the number of livestock keepers keepers sold their animals for what what they are able to purchase on the selling their flocks and herds below was considered to be less than the market. market prices, distress sales were market price. not pervasive (5% to 40%) in most With households unable to sustain the Legumes/Pulses: In general, the areas assessed. One exception costs of keeping livestock, many have production of legumes and pulses was in northern Aleppo, where failed to meet local demands or just met them, with little opportunity to sell additional production outside of 34 individual communities where they are sought to liquidate their holdings. in agricultural activities but stopped.. assessment), and small increases in Despite reports of livestock keepers The average land area owned and cultivation were reported forbarley, selling their flocks and herds below cultivated by the households was olives and pulses. There were market prices, distress sales were 80 donems. Wheat and barley were reductions in the number of households not pervasive (5% to 40%) in most the main crops grown at 91% and that grew potatoes and vegetables. areas assessed. One exception was in 59% of the households engaged in The average size of land cultivated northern Aleppo, where approximately crop production, respectively. The was 42 donems. Approximately 46% half of livestock keepers sold their unavailability or expense of inputs of the households kept livestock; 22% animals for what was considered to (seeds, fertilizer and pesticides) and owned cattle whereas sheep and be less than the market price. a lack of water for irrigation were goats were owned by 18% and 11% reported as the main reasons for not of the livestock owners respectively. Agricultural Production by continuing. There was a decline in the The average number of sheep owned Assessment Cluster number of households growing wheat, was 11 and there was no change in barley, potatoes, olives and citrus fruits numbers compared to two years before Each cluster assessed had varying compared to 24 months before the the assessment. levels of agricultural engagement. assessment. At the same time, there The Greater Damascus Cluster had was a 30% increase in the number of Northern Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa: the lowest number of households households growing pulses compared Nearly 51% of the households were engaged in agriculture – only 14% to two years prior to the assessment. engaged in crop production at the of households were engaged in crop A majority of households (56%) were time of the assessment. Of the 49% production and 12% in livestock keeping livestock, with sheep (76%) that were not, 19% used to before. A production -- as well as the smallest and poultry (79%) being the main substantial drop in wheat production plots of land under cultivation (16 animals. was reported while the production donems). By contrast, the East of other crops remained largely the Hasakeh Cluster and Southern Syria Deir ez-Zor: Approximately one-third same. Households abandoned crop Cluster had the highest number (34%) of households in this cluster production due to the availability and of households -- 65% and 54%, were engaged in crop production. expense of inputs and the high cost of respectively -- that were involved in The average land area owned and labor. Overall, 47% of the households agriculture production. cultivated by the households was 21 reared livestock and 10% reported East Hasakeh: Nearly half (44%) donems, which is small compared to abandoning livestock production in the of households in this cluster were other clusters. Wheat and vegetables past two years. Approximately half engaged in crop production, the vast were the main crops grown by of households engaged in livestock majority of whom (84%) were planting 91% and 51% of the households owned cattle. While 85% of livestock wheat. Smaller proportions reported respectively. Overall, 30% of the owners held sheep, households planting pulses or barley. The land households in this cluster kept average holdings were down from 68 size cultivated was relatively large livestock. Of those that did not, only to 28 two years before the assessment. (82 donems). Approximately four- 6% had been keeping livestock before. Approximately 42% of livestock fifths (78%) of the households used Those that stopped reported the owners held goats--eight on average, a livestock for household consumption unavailability or expense of veterinary decrease from 21 two years before the (meat or milk). Sheep were used services as well as a lack of processing assessment. for consumption in one-third of facilities as the main reasons for Northwest Syria: Overall, 51% of households. The main uses for sheep stopping. services. the households were engaged in were for income generation (45%) Central Ar-Raqqa: Just over half crop production at the time of the and for milk (16%) of the households (54%) of households assessed were assessment – 15% lower than two respectively. currently engaged in crop production, years before. The availability and West Hasakeh: Approximately one and the average land area owned expense of fuel and a lack of water half of the households in this cluster and cultivated by the households was for irrigation were the main reasons were involved crop production and 42 donems. There was an increase in why households abandoned crop 8% reported that they used to engage households cultivating wheat (48% production. Households cultivated 78 versus 44% two years before the 35 donems on average. the two years prior to the assessment. Approximately one half of households The average land area owned and (48%) were engaged in livestock cultivated by the households was 16 production. Over half of households donems, with wheat being the most kept cattle but reported reductions common crop. Almost 12% of the in herds in the two years before the households were rearing livestock. assessment—from three animals Among households that held livestock, to one on average. Over half of over two-thirds held cattle and sheep; households also kept sheep, but they however, average holding sizes fell by reported reductions in herd sizes of two-thirds over the past two years. 50% over the two years before the assessment. Similar reductions were South Syria: This cluster had the also reported for households that held largest proportion of households goats (49%). For those that abandoned engaged in crop production (64%), with livestock, the unavailability and the average land size being 48 donems expense of animal feed and the and the main crops being wheat, unavailability of veterinary services vegetables, olives and citrus fruits. were the major reasons. Unlike in other clusters, there was little change in the proportion of households Greater Damascus: Located in the growing specific crops in comparison central of Syria, this cluster included to two years before the assessment. communities from both Damascus Among the 38% of households and Rural Damascus Governorates. engaged in livestock production, Only 14% of the households surveyed most reported keeping cattle (94%) were engaged in crop production at or sheep (82%). Reductions in cattle the time of the assessment, and 10% and sheep holdings were similar to reported abandoning agriculture in those observed in other clusters, with reductions in herd sizes of one half or more.

36 Conclusion and Recommendations

This assessment was conducted to relatively poor crop yields, while surveyed used to be engaged in crop provide information to humanitarian financial transfers and high-risk, low- or livestock production but stopped in and development actors on food skill jobs are increasing in importance the past two years. Households that security, livelihoods and agriculture as a source of income. have continued with crop and livestock status and needs throughout Syria, production have begun cultivating less addressing information gaps identified Trends such as these have been land or have dramatically reduced in previous assessment and data applying downward pressure on the size of their flocks and herds. collection initiatives. By analysing the already strained purchasing As a consequence, the proportion people’s food security status and power of Syrian households, and the of households planting staple crops, needs, this assessment sought to deterioration of livelihoods has had such as wheat and barley, is down provide a better understanding of how a deleterious effect on household dramatically, and overall holdings of the conflict has affected individuals, food security. Most households relied cattle, sheep and poultry are a fraction families and communities. This primarily on access to markets to of what they were before. section provides the conclusions and meet their daily food needs, followed recommendations, firmly based on the by household production and finally In most cases, households reported main findings of the assessment. humanitarian aid. Food expenses were that they stopped farming because a significant portion of households’ they could not afford inputs such as Conclusion budgets, and respondents reported fertilizer and seeds or feed; however, spending an average of 57% of total other challenges have played a role in The conflict has had a far-reaching expenditures on food. Despite this fact, reducing the profitability of agriculture effect on Syria’s economy, including 93% of households reported that they as well as households’ ability to on individual households and felt they required food aid. sustain crop or livestock production. communities. The types of income- Damaged infrastructure, including generating opportunities that were While various indices of food security barriers to irrigation due to a lack available before the crisis have indicated that most households were of electricity and damage to pumps disappeared in many cases, and food secure, many were at risk of are leading to an increased reliance more than half of the households food insecurity as measured by the on rain-fed crops and subsequent interviewed in this assessment types of foods they consume as well increases weather-related risks. reported relying on sources of income as their use of coping mechanisms. On the production side, households that were different than before the For example, despite the fact that the have far fewer opportunities to add start of the crisis. Approximately 80% proportion of households reporting value to what they produce; storage of households reported that their hunger was relatively low, it is largely and processing facilities have been incomes had fallen over the previous due to high consumption levels damaged and access to markets year, with nearly 60% reporting that of food that is high in energy and has been disrupted. Overall, the the reduction had been significant. low in nutrients. Coping strategies deterioration of the agriculture in Over the same period, one-third that households have adopted in Syria poses long-term threats to of households took on additional response to these pressures include the food security of the country as a debts, with average amounts owed selling livestock and personal assets, whole. equivalent to more than three months spending savings, and consumption/ of income. sale of seed stock, and may have long- As the conflict becomes protracted, Over time, households will face term implications, the effects of which the compounding effects of greater difficulties in paying off are difficult to reverse. diminishing food security, fewer these debts. Many of the jobs that livelihoods opportunities, and reduced are available are seasonal and do Households engaged in agriculture agricultural output as highlighted not provide sufficient income to tended to report higher levels of food in the assessment will likely cause pay off loans, let alone make ends security and had higher incomes than economic and humanitarian situation meet, particularly during the winter. those that were not; however, as with in Syria to further deteriorate. Agricultural wage labor increased other sectors, agriculture is under Changing areas of control as well as an overall income source, despite severe strain as a result of the conflict. as increasing levels of displacement 37 Approximately 15% of the households will further erode households’ ability to remain engaged in agriculture. of people in need of assistance. Livelihoods The Humanitarian Needs Overview Further assessments are necessary completed in October 2015 predicted to gain a better understanding of • Livelihood-supporting assistance that little progress would be made pressures on livelihoods and food across the whole value chain to in household level food security in security. This assessment also did not improve agricultural production, Syria due to the extreme strains on all focus on covering information gaps foster resilience, and to ensure four pillars of food security – access, related to the food security pillars of that households with borderline availability, utilisation, and stability. stability and utilization, which could food security status do not further With changing conflict dynamics, the be better understood through an deteriorate. capacity for humanitarian actors to integration of conflict analysis and • Target programming specifically make tangible, effective and lasting data on nutrition. Given the importance towards women and female- impacts on these pillars is consistently of markets to food security, a more headed households as well as in flux, but these opportunities do detailed assessment of commodities other vulnerable groups, such as exist. Understanding the conditions and markets, including further analysis people with disabilities and IDPs. on the ground as outlined above of results in light of regular price • Develop and expand access to is essential do designing effective data is needed. Further research on microfinance to allow households programming to support food security livelihoods is also recommended, to replace lost livelihoods with and livelihoods in Syria. including a more in-depth analysis new income-generating activities. on incomes and wealth distribution • Assist households in moving Recommendations through a household economy from indebtedness to productive approach. investments through financial Based on the main findings of this education and savings assessment, and conclusion the For agriculture, additional analysis management. following recommendations have been of markets and value chains is also • Support in transitioning out of formulated. They include directions necessary to gain a fuller picture of the low-paying, dangerous jobs to for future research as well as very constraints that farmers face, including mitigate pressures to join armed specific recommendations that should markets for inputs and production. groups help programming in the various With the quality of inputs such as • Provide cash-for-work activities to areas of livelihoods, food security and fertilizers and seeds identified as a improve agricultural productivity, agriculture. major constraint on production, there such as repairing irrigation is also a need to better understand infrastructure that has been Directions for Future Research certification processes and quality damaged. control mechanisms. Similarly, • Increase assistance during winter Given access and logistical significant shifts occurring in the months when costs for NFIs such constraints, it was not possible to extension system warrant a detailed as fuel are highest, and streams collect data throughout Syria that assessment of the currently existing of income are lowest. would have provided statistically gaps and needs for services in order to significant results for the country determine priority interventions. as a whole or for its administrative A number of specific recommendations subdivisions. Provided that these that relate to the main sections in constraints are less of a factor in the survey, namely livelihoods, food the future, subsequent food security security and agriculture have been and livelihoods assessments should identified. They are meant to inform attempt to sample at the second- programming opportunities inside level (district) or third-level (sub- Syria. district) administrative division. Such an approach would provide results that correspond more closely with humanitarian and development actors’ 38 operational approaches and could be used to derive caseloads and numbers Food Security Agriculture

• Target livelihoods interventions • Support livelihoods activities • Invest in greenhouses, nurseries, towards households in moderate aimed at restoring agricultural and agriculture projects that and severe food insecurity infrastructure give households income streams situations to enable them to • Develop livestock-restocking during winter months and supply engage in income-generating interventions and fodder banks markets with fresh vegetables. activities / microenterprises. to reverse a trend of households • Build capacity of local institutions, • Improve monitoring and early increasingly utilizing stocks for local partners, particularly warning systems to better track their own consumption. community-based organizations the many households at risk • Provide support to IDP households and local councils, to better of falling into food insecure as well as host community prepare them to handle disasters categories. members to access land and and shocks. • Conduct value-chain analysis inputs. of food commodities to assess • Provide quality agriculture inputs constraints and opportunities for the winter and spring seasons given the current context. such as high-yielding and early- • Design interventions to maturing variety seeds. simultaneously address basic • Support the keeping of small food/livelihood needs while livestock such as chickens, goats, re-establishing local productive and sheep. capacities to ensure that markets • Intensify small-scale urban and remain functional and accessible peri-urban agriculture activities to local populations. that require low external inputs. • Prioritize activities aimed at • Target subsidies for wheat promoting agricultural production production to allow initial volume and livelihoods opportunities required to set up distribution amongst households already networks and lower initial costs. engaged in agricultural wage • Provide technical capacity and labour. extension services as well as • Support local producers and inputs such as seed and fertilizer sellers through the use of cash and veterinary support to make up and vouchers for food aid to for the breakdown of state support sustain already widespread use of systems. markets. • Address constraints related to • In areas where markets are infrastructure, input supplies, functional, limited in-kind support marketing, and transportation to the most vulnerable households to enhance value chains for may still be necessary to meet vegetable, wheat and fruit the hunger gap and prevent production. deterioration of the food security • Although the increased cultivation context in both the IDP and host of cash crops may serve as a communities. coping strategy in response • Small-scale agriculture, to the diminished viability and including encouraging gardens profitability of traditional crops, (microgardens and homesteads), supporting and sustaining it in may make important contributions the short and medium term may to household food security and provide employment opportunities dietary diversity. and stimulate markets until the broader recovery is possible. 39 Annex A: Summary of Livelihoods Indicators by Assessment Clusters

44 Labor 25,000 19,289 No data No data No Merchant

Agricultural Agricultural Southern Syria

Service Provision Service Transport to Transport Too is Work Expensive Income Does CoverNot Cost of Living No Jobs in Available Profession

%

47 52 Labor

33,000 21,813 Greater 200,000

Damascus Trade Work Trade Agricultural Agricultural

Service Provision Service Income Does CoverNot Cost of Living Security Concerns to Traveling Work Jobs Available Dangerous are

50 Enough 34% Labor

Other 35,000 21,254 75,000 Months (Unstable) Agricultural Agricultural Trade WorkTrade Not Work is Not Northwest Syria Northwest Always Available Available Always Income in Winter Winter Income in Income Does Not Cover Cost of Living

Raqqa

- 53 55% 45,000 27,433 Teacher 100,000 Months Livestock (Unstable) Work is Not Not Enough Government Government Employment and Ar Always Available Available Always Northern Aleppo Income in Winter Winter Income in

Income Does Not Cover Cost of Living

-

of Living 61 22% Labor Trade Raqqa 51,000 27,995 Always Always 125,000 Available Available Income Does Crop Sales Crop Income in (Unstable) Central Ar Central

Fuel/Diesel Agricultural Agricultural

Not Enough Work is Not Not CoverNot Cost Winter Months

Zor

-

61 32% Living 48,000 30,897 90,000 Months Livestock (Unstable) Deir ez Deir Trade workTrade Not Enough Work is Not Cover Cost of Always Available Available Always Agricultural Labor Agricultural Income Does Not Income in Winter Winter Income in

65 32% Labor Living Agricultural Agricultural 30,000 23,756 180,000 - Months Livestock in the Area Not Enough Cover Cost of West Hasekeh Non Income Does Not Income in Winter Winter Income in No Jobs Available Agricultural Labor Agricultural

58 33%

Labor Labor Living Agricultural Agricultural 45,000 19,654 300,000 - in the Area Agricultural Agricultural Trade WorkTrade East Hasekeh Cover Cost of

Non Income Does Not No Jobs Available Transport to Transport Too is Work Expensive

Food

in debtin 1 2 3 1 2 3 ) Income Sources Indicator HHs (SYP

debtholders) % Household expenditure Livelihood Challenges total expenditures total Median Debt (among (among Debt Median Three Main Major Median Monthly Income (SYP) Share of food expenditure over 40 Average Annex B : Summary of Agriculture Indicators by Assessment Cluster

- 6%

94% 82% 59%

% %

48 64 38 100% Syria Southern Wheat and Wheat Olives 24%Olives

Vegetables

% 67% 72% 33% 83%

57%

% % 16 14 67% 12 Greater Greater Wheat 90 Vegetables Barley Damascus

56% 52% 49% 53%

% % 18 43 42% 33 Syria Olives 63%Olives Barley 31% Vegetables

Northwest Northwest

48% 85% 42% 70%

% % 78 Raqqa 51 47 - Olives 45%Olives Northern Northern Ar Wheat 70% Barley 51%

Aleppo and

-

23% 18% 11% 12%

% % 42 54 46 Raqqa Barley 25% Olives 26%Olives Wheat 90%

Central Ar Central

9% 74% 53% 16% Zor

-

% % 21 34 50% 30 Barley 20% Wheat 94% Vegetables

Deir ez

18% 76% 37% 79%

% % % 80 4 50 56 West Hasekeh Vegetables Wheat 91% Barley 59%

% % 42% 57% 38% 95%

84 46 35%

% 82 44 68% East East Hasekeh Pulses Barley Wheat

ngaging ngaging

crop

those those area area

st Indicator

crop production verage verage Households e in Main crops produced among engaged in production A cultivated by Households e in livestock production Households engaged in Livestock that Own: Cattle Sheep Goats Poultry

41 Annex C: Household Questionnaire

Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment Household Questionnaire Syria, December 2015

Pre-screening questions: (tick boxes) If one of these boxes is not ticked, stop interview.  Interviewee is Head of HH  Interviewee is currently residing with 2 or more family members “under one  Interviewee is currently residing in this roof” at this location village/neighbourhood quadrant  Interviewee participates voluntarily and is informed that the interview is completely anonymous

A: Enumerator Profile A-1 Enumerator Name: Date of Interview _ _ / _ _ / _ A-2 (dd/mm/yyyy) _ _ _ Report Number _ _ - _ _ - _ A-3 (dd – daily number starting at 1 each day – First letter of Governorate and First letter of District – Enumerator _ - _ _ Initials) B: Area Information B-1 Governorate: B-2 District: B-3 Sub-District: B-4 Village

Good Morning/Afternoon. My name is ______from ______. I am conducting an assessment to determine how people are doing and how they are managing to provide for their families. The information will help to determine what needs still exist in order to help organizations better meet them. All the information being collected will be kept strictly confidential. Will you sit with me to answer some questions? The entire questionnaire will take about 45 minutes

DD: Demographics DD-1 Gender of Respondent Male = 1, Female = 2 [ ] DD-2 Is this an IDP household? Y = 1, N = 0 (if = 1 Skip to DD-4) [ ] < 1 Month = 1 3 – 6 Months = 3 DD-3 How long have you been Displaced? [ ] 1 – 2 Months = 2 > 6 Months = 4 DD-4 Are you the head of household? Y = 1, N = 0 (If = 1 Skip to DD-8) [ ] DD-5 Gender of Head of Household Male = 1, Female = 2 [ ] DD-6 Is the head of household currently living in the Y = 1, N = 0 (If = 1 Skip to DD-8) [ ] household? Deceased = 1 Jailed = 3 Emigrated (Long-Term) = 2 DD-7 If Not, Why Not? Other = 4 [ ] (Specify Other): (write ‘888’ if they refuse to answer) What is the Marital Status of the Head of DD-8 Married = 1 Widowed = 3 [ ] Household? Single = 2 Divorced = 4 DD-9 What is the Age of The Head of Household? [ ] (Y = 1, N = 0) What Education has the Head of Household a) None [ ] d) University [ ] DD-10 Completed? b) Primary Education [ ] e) Vocational Training [ ] c) Secondary Education [ ] f) Informal Education [ ] Does the head of household have any disabilities or Y = 1, N = 0 DD-11 [ ] chronic illness that prevents her/him from working? Please provide the age and sex of each of the permanent household members Pregnant / DD-12 0 – 4 y 5 – 14 y 15 – 18 y 18 – 30 y 31 – 64 y 64 y + Disabled Chronically ill lactating women Male [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

42

Female [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Permanent [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] residents

IDP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] residents LI: Livelihoods, Income and Expenditure What was your household’s total combined income for the last 24 months in SYP? LI-1 [ ] (Estimate as good as possible, and do not include loans or any money borrowed) What were your household’s three main sources of income over the course of the last month? Is it permanent or LI-2 temporary employment? How much did you earn from each of them? And, was the primary income earner male or female or child? (child being 14 years and younger) Income Code Temporary = 1 / Permanent = 2 Amount in SYP Primary Earner st LI-3 1 Source [ ] [ ] [ ] M [ ] F [ ] G [ ] B [ ] 2nd Source [ ] [ ] [ ] M [ ] F [ ] G [ ] B [ ] 3rd Source [ ] [ ] [ ] M [ ] F [ ] G [ ] B [ ] Income Codes: a) Trades Work (Blacksmith, b) Worker in Service c) Service Provider (Tailor, d) Permanent Employment Carpentry, Plumber, Industry (Shops, Café, Barber, Hairdresser, etc.) (Business Secretary, etc.) Electrician, Butcher, etc.) Restaurant, etc.) e) Worker (Non-Agriculture, f) Merchants (Vendors, g) Professional (Accountant, h) Medicine (Nurse, Construction, etc.) Vegetable Stall, etc.) Lawyer, etc. – NOT Doctor) Pharmacist, etc.) i) Medicine (Doctor) j) Medicine (Midwife) k) Remittances -outside Syria l) Worker in NGO m) Fuel/Diesel Trade n) Wood Trade o) Trader (Other) p) Employee q) Agriculture – Crops r) Agriculture – Engineer s) Agriculture – Livestock t) Worker (Agriculture) u) Teacher v) Shop Owner w) Journalist x) Driver y) Maintenance z) Babysitter aa) Pensions (Retired) bb) Religious Leader cc) Government Employee dd) Other LI-4 Were these 3 sources of income the same before the (Y=1, N=0) If = 1, skip to LI-3 [ ] crisis?

LI-5 (use the same codes as above, and rank the top 3) What were your 3 main sources of income before the 1st Income Source [ ] 3rd Income Source [ ] crisis? 2nd Income Source [ ] (write ‘888’ if they refuse to answer) Has your income increased or decreased in the last Increased a lot = 1 Decreased a little = 4 LI- 6 [ ] [??] months? Increased a little = 2 Decreased a lot = 5 Stayed the same = 3 What are the major challenges you currently face with regard to your livelihood? (rank top three 1 to 3 with 1 being the most critical and 3 being the least – use letter code) st a) Income does not cover the cost of living g) No transport to go to work 1 Challenge [ ] b) No jobs available in your profession h) Transport to work is too expensive 2nd Challenge LI-7 c) No jobs available in this area i) Salary is paid in government controlled areas [ ] d) The jobs that are available are dangerous j) Not enough income in winter months 3rd Challenge [ ] e) Concern over security on way to work/workplace k) No clients anymore f) Work is not always available (unstable) l) Other (Specify)[______] (Y = 1, N = 0) How much did you spend on the following items for Food [ ] Water [ ] Housing (Rent) [ ] LI-8 your household in the past month? (exclude Health [ ] Education [ ] Debt Repayment [ ] livelihood assets) Energy (Fuel, Diesel, Electricity, Gas, etc.) [ ] Other [ ] LI-9 Have you incurred any debts in the last year? (Y=1, N=0) If = 0, skip to IN-1 [ ]

LI-10 Approximately how much debt does your household currently have? (SYP) [ ]

43

LI-11 When did you take on this debt? (break down into Less than 1 month ago [ ] 6 to 12 months ago [ ] approximate percentage for each option) 1 to 6 months ago [ ] Over 12 months ago [ ] 1st Challenge LI-12 What were the top three reasons for taking this debt? (rank 1 to 3 with 1 being the most and 3 being the least – use letter code) If any = j, go to next question, otherwise skip to next section [ ] a) Travel expenses e) Health expenses g) To pay for housing k) Legal expenses 2nd Challenge [ ] b) Education expense f) To buy clothing h) Fuel l) Marriage costs 3rd Challenge c) To buy livelihood/agriculture inputs i) To buy tools or machinery for livelihood [ ] d) To pay household bills j) Other (Specify) [ ______] IN: Infrastructure How often can you access the following? (Please check one option for each) Electricity Water Mobile phone network Internet Fuel Heat Markets All the time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] IN-1 Often [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Rarely [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Never [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] IN-2 How far is the closest market (in km) [ ] IN-3 Can you access the market? (Y = 1, N = 0) [ ] If not, why not? (Y = 1, N = 0, select all that apply) IN-4 IDPs are not able to access markets [ ] Too dangerous to travel there [ ] No men in the family to access the market [ ] Have no transport Other (Specify): [______] FS: Food Security Over the last 7 days, how many days did you consume the following Score Source Food source codes: food? What was the main source of food in the past 7 days? (0 to 7) a) Own production (Please score 0 to 7 according to number of days where HH consumed the (crops/animals) food type. Please refer to Food Source Codes to right for the food source b) Gathering in the codes) wild Cereals (bread, pasta, wheat flour, bulghur etc.) [ ] [ ] c) Hunting / fishing White Roots and Tubers (Potatoes, Sweet Potatoes) [ ] [ ] d) Borrowed Vegetables/Leaves (tomato, eggplant, cauliflower, cabbage, etc.) [ ] [ ] e) Purchase FS-1 Fruits [ ] [ ] f) Food Aid (NGOs, Meat, Poultry (Beef, chicken, organ meat, etc.) [ ] [ ] UN, Other) Eggs [ ] [ ] g) Exchange Labour Pulses, nuts and seeds (beans, chickpeas, hummus, foul, lentils, etc.) [ ] [ ] for Food Sweets (Sugar, honey, jam, cakes, sweet tea, sweet coffee) [ ] [ ] h) Exchange items Milk and dairy products (yoghurt, cheese, etc.) [ ] [ ] for food i) Other Oil and fats [ ] [ ] Fish and other seafood [ ] [ ] Spices/Condiments/Tea [ ] [ ] Please provide the age and sex of each of the permanent household members

FS-2 Sugar Whatflour Lentils Infant formula Dairy products Rice Bulgur Cooking Oil Fruits Vegetables Canned food Meat Chicken Other: Hard to find [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Missing [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Consumption Based Coping Strategies: (Please score 0 to 7 for the number of During the last 7 days, how many times (in days) did your household do any of days) the following in order to cope with lack of food? Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods [ ] Look for food in garbage [ ] FS-3 Find new ways to maintain and store food so that it could be reused [ ] Limit portion size at mealtimes [ ] Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative [ ] Reduce number of meals eaten in a day [ ] Gather wild food, hunt, or harvest immature crops [ ] Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat [ ]

44

In the past four weeks… (Please Did you worry that your household would not have enough food? respond for Were you or any household member unable to eat the kinds of foods you preferred due to lack of resources? each) [] Did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? 1 = Never Did you or any household member have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a 3 = Often lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 2 = Rarely FS-4 Did you or any household member eat a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was not enough 4 = Always food? Did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food? Was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food? Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? Did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food? In the past 30 days, has your household done any of the following to meet basic food needs? (Please check for each) a) Engage in non-preferred wage labor Yes [ ] No [ ] Sales of household assets (e.g. jewelry, Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because they have all been sold [ ] b) radio, furniture, television) c) Spend savings Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because they have all been spent [ ] Send children to eat with other people in Yes [ ] No [ ] d) the community? e) Purchase food on credit? Yes [ ] No [ ] No, no one will sell us food on credit [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because already done [ ] f) Removing children from school If Yes or Already done: Due to: Security [ ] To Work [ ] Cannot FS-5 afford School [ ] Other Reason [ ] Sale of productive assets or means of Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because all have been sold [ ] g) transport h) Consume / Sold seed stocks Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because all have been Sold / Consumed [ ] Reduced expenditure on health (including Yes [ ] No [ ] i) drugs) and education Yes [ ] No [ ] j) Engaging in high risk employment If Yes: Who works in this employment? Men [ ] Women [ ] Boys [ ] Girls [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Begging k) If Yes: Who? Men [ ] Women [ ] Boys [ ] Girls [ ] l) Sold productive (female) livestock Yes [ ] No [ ] No, Because all have been Sold / Consumed [ ] AN: Assistance, Challenges and Needs Please Respond to each of the following, in the last month, did you… (Y = 1, N = 0, No aid Was Distributed = 2) Require Assistance? Receive Assistance? Receive Enough? Rate the Quality 1 – 3 (1 = Good) Food Aid [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] AN-1 Cash/Voucher [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Health [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Non-Food Items [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Other (Specify) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] AN-2 Which of the following are problems you are currently facing? (Y = 1, N = 0)

45

Armed conflict here or nearby [ ] Lack of processing facilities [ ] Bombing / barrel bombing in area [ ] Lack of fuel for heating [ ] Conflict or tension with local community [ ] Lack of fuel for cooking [ ] Discrimination by local community [ ] Lack of electricity [ ] Crime in area [ ] Lack of freedom of movement in area [ ] Risk of forced recruitment to armed forces [ ] Dangerous access to schools [ ] Immediate family members are missing [ ] Difficult access to health service [ ] Presence of landmines or UXOs [ ] Difficult access to humanitarian assistance [ ] Women or girls are insecure in area [ ] No humanitarian assistance provided [ ] Inadequate or overcrowded housing/shelter [ ] Behaviour of humanitarian assistance personnel [ ] Difficult access to drinking water [ ] Lack of/ insufficient food/water/pasturage for livestock [ ] Lack of/ insufficient land for garden or crops [ ] Other (Specify) [ ______] Absence or loss of identity/education certificates/official documents[ ] Agriculture A-1 Do you engage in agriculture? (If the answer was yes, move to question A-4) Yes  No  A-2 If the answer was no, did you engage in agriculture before? (If the answer was no, do not proceed) Yes  No  If the answer was yes, then why did you stop engaging in agriculture? (Select the main 3 reasons, no ranking)

[__ [__ Lack of access to land to cultivate [__] Land burnt / destroyed Crops stolen / seized ] ] [__ [__ A-3 Crops destroyed [__] Unavailability of labor Labor too expensive ] ] Unavailability / costliness of [__ Unavailability / Costliness of inputs [__ Lack of water for irrigation [__] diesel ] (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) ] Unavailability of transport to market Transport to market too [__ [__ [__] Lack of customers to buy production to sell production expensive ] ] Crop pests and diseases [__] Other (specify) A-4 How much land do you cultivate? (Dunums) [______]

What crops do you currently grow? What did you grow 24 months ago? For the crops you stopped growing, why did you stop?

A-5 Wheat Barley Potatoes Vegetables Grapes Olives Pulses Citrus Other

Currently grown [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Used to grow 24 months ago [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] LI: Livestock L-1 Do you keep livestock (if the answer was yes, move to question L-4) Yes  No  L-2 If the answer was no, did you engage in livestock activities before? (if the answer was Yes  No  no, end the interview)

L-3 If the answer was yes, why did you stop engaging in livestock activities?

Lack of access to land for livestock [____] Land burnt / destroyed [____] Livestock stolen [____]

Livestock destroyed [____] Unavailability of labor [____] Labor too expensive[____] Lack of water for livestock [____] Unavailability of animal feed [____] Animal feed too expensive [____] Unavailability of veterinary services [____] Veterinary services too expensive [____] Unavailability of transport to market to sell products [____] Lack of customers to buy products [____] Unavailability of processing facility (meat / milk) [____] Other (Specify) [____]

46

L-4 If you are engaged in livestock activities, then how many of each of the following animals do you currently have? How many did you have 2 years ago? What is the main use for each type of animal now?

Total number of each Total number of each type Utilization type (NOW) (2 YEARS AGO) 1=household consumption (meat or milk)

2=selling of live animal

3=sale of meat

4= sale milk / dairy products

5=ploughing or field preparation

6=other (specify)

Horses/donkeys/mules [______] [______] [____]

Camel [______] [______] [____]

Cattle [______] [______] [____]

Sheep [______] [______] [____]

Goats [______] [______] [____]

Poultry [______] [______] [____]

Pigeon [______] [______] [____]

47 Annex D: Rainfall Zones

Zone I covers some 2.7 million hectares and has an average annual rainfall of 400-650 mm.

Zone II covers about 2.5 million hectares and has an average annual rainfall of 300-400 mm.

Zone III covers about 1.3 million hectares and has an average annual rainfall of approximately 200-300 mm.

Zone IV is agriculturally marginal, with a total area of around 1.8 million hectares and an average annual rainfall of 100-200 mm.

Zone V is the Badia or steppe; it has a total area of approximately 8.3 million hectares and an average annual rainfall of less than 100 mm.

1a

Al-Hasakeh 1b Aleppo Ar-Raqqa 2 Idleb Lattakia 3 Hama Deir-ez-Zor Tartous 4 Homs

Damascus Rural Damascus

Quneitra Dara As-Sweida

48 Annex E: Calculation of Indices and Indicators

Household Dietary Diversity

The household dietary diversity score week. Results are then added together (HDDS) measures the variety of food to provide an overall HDDS, with a groups consumed by a household. maximum score of 12 and a minimum Using the same questions as the Food score of 0. Consumption Score, results are cal- culated to show if a food group was or was not consumed in the previous

Category Weight

Cereals (bread, pasta, wheat flour, bulgur) 1

White tubers and roots (potato, sweet potato) 1

Pulses, nuts and seeds (beans, chickpeas, etc) 1

Vegetables, yellow tubers, leaves 1

Fruits 1

Eggs 1

Fish and other seafood 1

Meat 1

Milk and dairy products 1

Oil and fats 1

Sweets 1

Spices and condiments 1

Food Consumption Score

The Food Consumption Score is a com- week each group is consumed. Each posite score that measures dietary di- group is then weighted to provide a versity and frequency of consumption household food consumption score, while weighting the relative nutrition- with the maximum possible being al importance of different food groups. 112. Thresholds are applied to classify Information is collected on whether scores as “Poor,” “Borderline,” and different food groups are consumed “Acceptable.” as well as the number of times per

49 Category Weight

Cereals (bread, pasta, wheat flour, bulgur) 2

White tubers and roots (potato, sweet potato) 2

Pulses, nuts and seeds (beans, chickpeas, etc) 3

Vegetables, yellow tubers, leaves 1

Fruits 1

Eggs 4

Fish and other seafood 4

Meat 4

Milk and dairy products 4

Oil and fats 0.5

Sweets 0.5

Spices and condiments 0

In Syria and surrounding countries a vegetables, sweets, and fats. The revised threshold is generally used revised threshold was applied in to account high intake of sweets and this assessment. fats. Households obtain a poor score if they only consume cereals, tubers

Food Consump- Standard Revised tion Category Acceptable > 35 > 42

Borderline 21 - 35 28 - 42

Poor <= 21 <= 28

50 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and Household Hunger Scale (HHS)

The HFIAS score is a measure of food severity. Frequency may be insecurity (access) in the household reported as “Never,” “Rarely,” over 30 days that aims to measure “Sometimes” and “Often.” access to sufficient amounts of food. Tabulation is based on whether a Responses to hunger included practice has occurred in response to in the HFIAS contribute to the insufficient food and the frequency HHS and are marked with an with which it occurred. Practices are asterisk below: codes and weighed according to their

Question HFIAS Frequency and Severity Scale

Rarely Sometimes Often

1-Did you worry that your household would not have enough Food Secure Mildly Food Mildly Food food? Insecure Insecure 2-Were you or any household member unable to eat the Mildly Food Mildly Food Mildly Food kinds of foods you preferred due to lack of resources? Insecure Insecure Insecure 3-Did you or any household member have to eat a limited Mildly Food Moderately Food Moderately Food variety of foods due to a lack of resources? Insecure Insecure Insecure 4-Did you or any household member have to eat some foods Mildly Food Moderately Food Moderately Food that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of Insecure Insecure Insecure resources to obtain other types of food ? 5-Did you or any household member eat a smaller meal than Moderately Moderately Food Severely Food you felt you needed because there was not enough food? Food Insecure Insecure Insecure 6-Did you or any household member have to eat fewer Moderately Moderately Food Severely Food meals in a day because there was not enough food? Food Insecure Insecure Insecure *7-Was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your house- Severely Food Severely Food Severely Food hold because of lack of resources to get food? Insecure Insecure Insecure *8-Did you or any household member go to sleep at night Severely Food Severely Food Severely Food hungry because there was not enough food? Insecure Insecure Insecure *9-Did you or any household member go a whole day Severely Food Severely Food Severely Food and night without eating anything because there was not Insecure Insecure Insecure enough food?

The algorithm used to calculate the HFIAS can be found at: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide 51 Reduced Coping Strategies Index

The Reduced Coping Strategies Index contribute to the r-CSI. Changes in the Each strategy is the multiplied by (r-CSI) is an indicator of household food r-CSI score indicates whether house- the internationally standard severity insecurity that is measured through hold food security status is declining weight. A threshold is then applied by responses to questions about how a or improving in the. To measure the taking maximum score (56) and divid- household manages to cope with a r-CSI, each household is asked how ing it into three thresholds showing insufficient. It is based on five standard many times over the previous week low, medium and high usage of coping indicators that can be compared across they utilized each of the strategies. strategies of 18.6 each. contexts. Where appropriate, additional indicators can be included that do not

Strategy Weight

Rely on less preferred and less expensive food 1

Borrow food, or rely on help from friends or relatives 2

Limit portion size at meals 1 Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat 3

Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 1

52 Livelihoods Coping Strategies

Livelihood coping strategies were 30 days before the interview and, if • Stress: Strategies that lead to collected using a 30-day recall period not, if the reason was because they reduced ability to deal with future as a base and were used to measure have exhausted that possibility (e.g. shocks due to increased debts or a household’s use of negative cop- have no assets left to sell) or because reduced resources. ing strategies relating to increased they did not need to. The strategies • Crisis: Strategies that directly livelihood stress and asset depletion. are then classified into three broad reduce future productivity (e.g. Respondents are asked if they used categories: selling off productive assets) any of the listed strategies over the • Emergency: Strategies that affect future productivity that are more Category Strategy difficult to reverse or strategies that are more dramatic in nature Stress Spent savings (e.g. taking high risk/illegal Bought food on credit or borrowed money to buy employment). food If households exhausted a coping Sold household assets (jewellery, phone, furniture, strategy is was counted as having etc) been used. Crisis Spent less money on other needs (eg. education/ health) Sold productive assets (sewing machine, tools/ma- chinery, car, livestock, etc) Emergency Taken jobs that are high risk, illegal and/or socially degrading Sent adult household members to beg Sent children household members to beg

53 Annex F: Communities Assessed

Cluster A (East Hasakeh)

Al Hasakeh 195 Tal Tamer 75 Zbara 15 Al Malikiyeh 90 Bab Elfaraj 15 Basira 45 Najaf 15 Derdara 15 Breiha 15 Tal Adas 15 Mjeibret Zarkan 15 Zir 15 Tal Zyara 15 Maqbara 15 Kassar 15 Fardos 15 Tal Talaah 15 Jalaa 15 Esmailiyeh 15 Sabkha 15 Cluster C (Deir-ez-Zor) Qalqilya 15 Susat 15 Jawadiyeh 15 Deir ez Zor 465 Marashdeh 15 Thaheriya 15 Abu Kamal 31 Hajin 15 Malikiyeh 90 Abu Kamal 1 Kishkiyeh 15 Hozon Castle 15 Hasrat 15 Tal Hadid 15 Siyal 15 Cluster D (Central Ar- Tunisiyeh 15 Abu Kamal Center 45 Raqqa) Ar Raqqa 202 Mzeireb 15 Abu Kamal 15 Ar Raqqa 67 Ghassaniyeh 15 Ghabra 15 Maabada 15 Hura 15 Khayala 12 Ashara 60 Htash 15 Ashara 15 Marj Abu Shareb 15 Cluster B (West Hasakeh) Yamama 10 Dablan 15 Zahera 15 Al Hasakeh 315 Dweir 15 Karameh 15 Al Hasakeh 15 Tishrine 15 Eastern Hamra 15 Thiban 30 Nasra 15 Mansoura 30 Amuda 45 Abu Hardoub 15 Debsi Afnan 15 Billet Bkara 15 Jarda 15 Kherbet Sheib 15 Deir ez Zor 75 Ghamamiz 15 Lower Tal Arus 15 Baglieh 15 Sabkha 60 Derbasiyeh 45 Deir ez Zor 15 Rahbi 15 Salam 15 Jafra 15 Masarra 15 Tal Sukkar 15 Jbeileh 15 Rabyeh 15 Western Shmuka 15 Upper Safira 15 Sabka 15 Qamishli 15 Tabni 45 Sabkha 30 Jermez 15 Qasabiyeh 15 Hweijet Shna 12 Ras al Ain 120 Tabni 15 Hweijet Shnanasra 3 Abu Shakhat 15 Tarif 15 Shamra 15 Arshet Ras El Ein 15 Muhasan 45 Big Abu Jarada 15 Abed 15 Hakimeh 15 Muhasan 15 Shara 15 Toob 15 Tal Sheer Ras El Ein 15 Mayadeen 45 Um Elasafir 15 Mahkan 15 54 Qotniyeh 15 Upper Baqras 15 Cluster E (Northern Alep- Ihsem 30 Kafr Takharim 15 po and Ar-Raqqa) Kafr Shalaya 15 Kuku 15 Aleppo 60 Sarja 15 Harim 15 Ain al Arab 60 Janoudiyeh 15 harim 15 Korbinar 15 Hamama 15 Heish 15 Hbab - Yadi Qawi 15 Jisr Ash Shoghour 75 Heish 15 Qola 15 Balmis 15 Ihsem 30 Zobar - Zorabi 15 Jdidet Eljisr 15 Kafr Shalaya 15 Ar Raqqa 90 Bshlamon 15 Sarja 15 Ain Issa 30 Bteibat 15 Janoudiyeh 15 Jahjah 15 Salhiyeh 15 Hamama 15 Jisr Ash Shoghour 75 Sharkrak 15 Darkoush 30 Balmis 15 Tal Abiad 60 Darkoush 15 Jdidet Eljisr 15 Mashrafet Elsheikh 15 Ghazala 15 Bshlamon 15 Shreian 15 Salqin 41 Bteibat 15 Zanbaqa 15 Azmarin 11 Salhiyeh 15 Saideh 15 Big Hir Jamus 15 Kafrahlat Jallad 15 Darkoush 30 Cluster F (Northwest Lattakia 60 Darkoush 15 Syria) Kansaba 60 Ghazala 15 Aleppo 60 Kadin 15 Salqin 41 Afrin 15 Karura 15 Azmarin 11 Big Hir Jamus 15 Afrin 15 Tala 15 Kafrahlat Jallad 15 Atareb 45 Kansaba 15 Lattakia 60 Hreibel 15 Kansaba 60 Kafr Taal 15 Cluster F (Northwest Kadin 15 Little Orm 15 Syria) Karura 15 Hama 45 Aleppo 60 Afrin 15 Tala 15 Madiq Castle 45 Kansaba 15 Hurriyeh 15 Afrin 15 Atareb 45 Sehriyeh 15 Cluster H (Southern Syria) Hreibel 15 Karim 15 Idleb 311 Kafr Taal 15 Dar'a 45 Badama 75 Little Orm 15 Busra al Sham 45 Hama 45 Baksariya 15 Abu Katuleh 15 Madiq Castle 45 Ein El-Bayda 15 Smaqiyat 15 Maraand 15 Hurriyeh 15 Tisiya 15 Armala 15 Sehriyeh 15 Hanbushiyeh 15 Karim 15 Kafr Takharim 15 Idleb 311 Kuku 15 Badama 75 Harim 15 Baksariya 15 harim 15 Ein El-Bayda 15 Heish 15 Maraand 15 Heish 15 Armala 15 55 Hanbushiyeh 15