Jordan Cover photo: Arabah, Jordan Rift Valley © Michael Privorotsky, 2009 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION ASSESSMENT UNDERSTANDING LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE IN JORDAN ASSESSMENT REPORT NOVEMBER 2016 Contents Executive Summary 3 List Of Acronyms 7 Geographical Classifications 8 Introduction: Context And Objectives 9 Methodology 12 Findings 17 Socio-Economic Challenges And Risks 19 Environmental Challenges And Risks 26 Livelihood Resilience: Trends Over Time 32 Challenges Faced In Risk Mitigation And Preparedness 32 Summary 34 Conclusion And Recommendations 36 Annex 1: Focus Group Discussion Question Route 40 Annex 2: Elevation, Landcover, Sloping Maps Used For Zoning Exercise 45 Annex 3: Livelihood Zones In Jordan (Participatory Mapping Exercise) 48 Annex 4: Risk Perceptions Across Jordan 49 2 Executive Summary Context According to the INFORM 2016 risk index,1 which assesses global risk levels based on hazard exposure, fragility of socio- economic systems and insufficient institutional coping capacities, Jordan has a medium risk profile, with increasing socio-economic vulnerability being a particular area of concern.2 Since 1990, Jordan has also experienced human and economic losses due to flash floods, snowstorms, cold waves, and rain which is indicative of the country’s vulnerability to physical hazards.3 Such risk factors are exacerbated by the fact that Jordan is highly resource-constrained; not only is it semi-arid with only 2.6% of arable land,4 but it has also been ranked as the third most water insecure country in the world.5 Resource scarcity aggravates vulnerabilities within the agriculture sector which could have severe implications given that agriculture provides an important means of livelihood for 15% of the country’s population, primarily in rural areas.6 Resilience of agriculture is also closely linked to food and nutrition security. The onset of the crisis in neighbouring Syria in 2011 and subsequent arrival of large numbers of refugees has further exacerbated these existing vulnerabilities. It has brought about concerns over increased pressure on existing socio- economic and natural resource systems and what such pressure means for the resilience of livelihoods. For the purpose of this assessment, ‘resilience’ has been defined as the ability of communities to prevent, absorb and recover from disasters and shocks, employing the livelihood assets and safety nets accessible to them. While it is acknowledged that the current crisis has exacerbated existing vulnerabilities, understanding about how the interaction of pre-existing vulnerabilities with disruptions brought about by the crisis is aggravating livelihoods and what implications this has for future risk resilience remains deficient. Further, there also appears to be a lack of information regarding existing mitigation and preparedness strategies at the local levels. Insufficient information hinders the capacity of actors seeking to build resilience to design programming based on priority concerns and vulnerabilities among at-risk communities. In light of the above and to inform the tailoring and targeting of such resilience-based programming, between June and July 2016 the Regional Food Security Analysis Network (RFSAN), in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and REACH, conducted a nationwide Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 7 assessment in Jordan. The assessment employed a qualitative approach with two key components: a macro-level secondary data review, followed by community level data collection through 52 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Prior to the start of data collection, a preliminary zoning exercise was conducted with support from REACH’s Geographic Information System (GIS) team to understand the relevance of geographic features to risk assessments and facilitate the selection of communities where FGDs would take place. From this exercise, six ecological zones were identified based on land cover, elevation and sloping (See Map 2 and Annex 2). Table 1 outlines the detailed criteria used to identify these zones.8 Overall, the goal of this assessment is to improve the understanding of the risks communities face in sustaining livelihoods, context-specific ways in which communities are currently mitigating these risks and challenges they face in mitigation. Such an understanding could be useful to guide relevant actors in strengthening livelihood resilience through community level DRR programming in the country. 1 INFORM is a collaboration of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Task Team for Preparedness and Resilience and the European Commission which assesses the risk of humanitarian crises and disasters in 191 countries. See also: http://www.inform-index.org/ the report outlining results from the 2016 Index for Risk Management is available here. 2 INFORM, Jordan Country Risk Profile: http://www.inform-index.org/Countries/Country-profiles In the 2015 index, Jordan was ranked 19th in the world in terms of socio-economic vulnerability. See also: Prevention Web, Jordan Disaster and Risk Profile 3 Prevention Web, Jordan Disaster and Risk Profile (data as of 2014) 4 World Bank Global Database (last updated 2013) 5 Maplecroft, Water Security Index (2014) available online 6 FAO, ‘Plan of Action: Resilient Livelihoods for Agriculture and Nutrition Security in Areas of Jordan Affected by the Syria Crisis’ (January 2014), p.6 7 For this assessment, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) was defined as any activity undertaken at the household, community or government level which seeks to protect livelihoods from disasters and sudden shocks, build the resilience of people and their communities and make people more capable of absorbing the impact of shocks as well as of recovering from them. 8 Zones 1-4 are rural areas, whereas Zones 5 and 6 include urban areas. For this assessment, urban areas were differentiated based on settlement sizes and population densities. Zone 5 covers big urban settlements in Amman, Irbid and Zarqa; and Zone 6 includes smaller urban settlements across remaining governorates. Zone 1 comprises rural parts in Amman, Ma’an, Mafraq and Zarqa governorates which have mostly barren land cover, high elevation and low sloping. Zone 2 includes rural parts of Aqaba, Karak and Tafilah which share common characteristics in terms of barren and shrub land land cover, medium elevation and high sloping. Zone 3 covers rural parts of Ajloun, Irbid and Jerash as they have similar land cover (mostly croplands and shrub lands) and high sloping. Zone 4 comprises rural parts of Balqa and Madaba with shrublands land cover, low elevation and medium sloping. 3 Key Findings Based on data collected through FGDs, key findings from this assessment are as follows: • The key challenges perceived to be affecting livelihood resilience are related to socio-economic, environmental or structural factors.8 Socio-economic factors include inflation, price shocks and increased costs of living; unemployment and insufficient job opportunities; and pressures brought about by abnormal population growth due to conflicts and subsequent displacements in the region. Environmental factors such as seasonal performance, climate change and scarcity of natural resources were also perceived to be relevant, especially in rural areas. Finally, structural factors include a perceived lack of institutional support to strengthen resilience, heightened regional insecurity and its effects on trade and tourism and an uneven distribution of development in the country. • Pre-existing vulnerabilities such as resource scarcity, unsuitable climatic conditions and rapid population growth are perceived to be at risk of being exacerbated by crisis-related disruptions. Crisis-related risks include inflation, price shocks and a subsequent inability to meet basic needs; disruptions to trade and tourism; increased job competition and unemployment; and further population growth which could disrupt ability of infrastructure to cope with the needs of the population. • While resource scarcity emerged as a key environmental risk at a household level, problems related to insufficient water and arable land may be characterized as resource management challenges. Existing land and water resources may be sufficient if used more efficiently and efforts to conserve them for the future are intensified. • Socio-economic shocks are a priority concern for communities in urban areas whereas shocks associated with environmental factors are more of a priority in rural areas. These variations can be attributed to the higher reliance on agricultural livelihoods in rural areas. Such findings reinforce the relevance of area-based approaches to tailor DRR programming which account for variations in types of livelihood activities, especially between urban and rural contexts. • In addition to livelihood variations, findings also indicate the relevance of geographic and ecological variations to risk perceptions. For instance, this assessment found that water scarcity was a particularly important concern for communities in the Badia desert region (large part of Zone 1).9 Similarly, economic shocks brought about by border closure and disruptions to trade were found to be particularly relevant in areas closer to the Syrian border such as Ramtha and rural parts of Irbid Governorate. Further, areas with predominantly barren land cover such as Karak and Aqaba governorates (Zone 2) cited scarcity of arable land as a specific future risk. • Women and men tended to prioritise different risks as being relevant to livelihood