Validation/Verification Assessment of Vulnerable Families in Zakha Khel Tribe, Landi Kotal Tehsil, District Khyber (December 2020) Background The World Food Programme Pakistan CO was sent a letter by the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) October? 2020 to assist up to 6,000 households in about 41 villages of Zakha Khel Tribe, Landi Kotal Tehsil, District Khyber. They government provided a list of the 6,000 households based on their own vulnerability criteria, who are only a portion of the overall communities. According to the authorities these families have been affected primarily by the closure of the international Pakistan-Afghanistan border at Tsatsobi area, Zaka Khel Landi Kotal impacting their primary livelihoods of trading across the border. The border is closed for various reasons, also said to be to prevent COVID-19 spread. WFP carried out two sample rapid food security assessments in these areas including a mission by VAM PO. Objective The overall objective of the assessment is to understand the food security situation of the 6,000 households, and more specifically verify the socio-economic impact of the closure of the border on the livelihood of the people living in-line with WFP vulnerability criteria Methodology The assessment involved primary data collection from randomly selected households. A sample size of 500 was arbitrarily selected from a total population of 6000 households identified as vulnerable by the government authorities. The selected sample size is sufficient to generate findings at a confidence level of more than 95% with 5% margin of error. The households were then randomly selected and a total of 11 villages consisting of about 78% (of 6000HHs) were surveyed. A brief household level questionnaire was designed and administered. The validation exercise was completed in 4 days by engaging a team of 15 data collectors/enumerators. Key findings Severely Food Food Secure, … 1. Of all the 6,000HH supposedly vulnerable households in 41 Insecure 8% villages, 53% of the households are food insecure, 8% severely1 and 45% moderately2 food insecure. Another 38% households are marginally food secure3 while only 6% are Margina 4 food secure . According to the recently conducted lly Food Comprehensive Food Security and Livelihood Assessment Moderately Secure Food Insecure 41% (CFSLA-2019-2020), the prevalence of the overall food 45% insecurity in the entire Khyber district is about 27% (3% severe+25% moderately for an overall population. 2. Overall, of the targeted most vulnerable 6,000HH, 8% Food Consumption Score households have poor food Acceptable consumption, 44% have borderline food consumption, Borderline while 47% households have Poor acceptable food consumption. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1 Has extreme food consumption gaps, OR has extreme loss of livelihood assets will lead to food consumption gaps, or worse 2 Has significant food consumption gaps, OR marginally able to meet minimum food needs only with irreversible coping strategies 3 Has minimally adequate food consumption without engaging in irreversible coping strategies; unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures 4 Able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical coping strategies 1 Food Consumption Score5 (FCS) is an acceptable proxy indicator giving an indication of food security status of the household if combined with other household access indicators. 3. The food of the households is not sufficiently diverse, as 63% households are consuming very few food groups. Poor people tend to spend a larger share, if not their entire food budget, on cheap, macronutrient dense staples, such as, rice and wheat. This means that they tend not to consume micronutrients and protein rich foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, pulses, dairy and meat products 4. More than one third (36%) of the households are spending more than 75% of the households expenditure on food. Similarly, 23% households are spending 50% to 75% of the expenditure on food. 5. Overall, 52% households are resorting to ‘high level’ food consumption-based coping strategies, so it can be assumed that mothers are reducing consumption so that young children or male household members could eat. Other coping strategies include reducing the number of meals per day and/or reducing meals portion sizes. 27% households are resorting to ‘medium level coping strategies’ such as eating less desirable or less expensive food, borrowing food or relying on help from friends or relatives, while 22% are resorting to no/low coping strategies. 6. Unsustainable Negative coping mechanisms have increased: 26% households are Households Coping Behavious HH not adopting coping strategies 11% HH adopting stress coping strategies 34% HH adopting emergencies coping 26% strategies HH adopting crisis coping strategies 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% resorting to ‘emergency’ level livelihood based coping strategies for instance, selling land/house, selling female animals, and begging in worst cases. Another 34% Reduced coping strategies Index households are resorting to ‘stress’ livelihood (rCSI) coping strategies, such as borrowing money, purchase food on credit, and/or spent savings. Similarly, 29% households are resorting to ‘crisis’ level coping strategies 52% which included Reduced health (including No/Low Coping drugs) and education expenditures, withdrew Medium Coping children from school, sold productive assets High Coping or means of transport, Consumed seed 27% stocks that were to be saved for the next season 22% 7. Agriculture activities are very rare in these areas. Majority, 80% households do not own 5 Based on a seven-day recall of the food groups consumed within a household, the FCS measures food diversity (types of foods consumed), food frequency (the number of days each food group is consumed), and the relative nutritional importance of different food groups. The score for each food group is calculated by multiplying the number of days the commodity was consumed and its relative weight. The FCS is a weighted sum of food groups. Based on FCS standard thresholds, households are categorized into three groups: "poor" food consumption (FCS=1-28),"borderline "food consumption (FCS = 28.1-42), and "acceptable "food consumption (FCS>42). 2 agriculture lands, 12% own up to 2 kanals of agriculture land, while only 3% own more than 4 kanals of agriculture land. 8. A major shift in the households’ livelihood strategies is seen. In order Shift Primary Livelihood Sources (Jan 2020-Nov to get an idea on the pre and post 2020) COVID-19 livelihood sources, Jan-20 Nov 2020 Cross-Border Trade 63.0% 15.7% households were asked for livelihood strategies they were engaged in, Sales of Agriculture 1.4% 0 back in Jan 2020 and currently. In Produce Jan 2020 for majority (63%) Agricultural wage 4.2% 5.4% labour household the major livelihood Fishery/forestry worker 0.2% 0 sources was ‘cross-border trade’, which declined to 16% in the post- Sale of 0.6% 1.4% COVID-19 situation. Similarly, in Jan livestock/livestock products 202 about 20% households were Non-agricultural wage 19.7% 55.5% engaged in non-agri wage labour labour/casual labour, whereas Small business/self- 3.2% 3.8% currently about 55% households are employed engaged in such unsustainable Medium to large 0.2% 0.4% livelihood strategies. business 9. A significant (52%) reduction is seen Government employee 0.2% 0 in the households average monthly NGO/private employee, 2.0% 2.4% income. In Jan 2020 the total Handicrafts 1.6% 2.0% average monthly income of a household was about PKR30,000 Pension/ allowances 0.2% 0.4% which has declined to PKR14500 in Remittances 0.4% 1.0% current situation. (domestic/foreign) 10. Since the agriculture activities are charity/zakat/gifts 0.4% 1.2% very limited, thus the areas are Other 2.6% 10.5% generally low on food production and the households are mainly sourcing food from the markets located in Jamrud and Landi Kotal, which are located at an average distance of 50 kilometres from the communities and the main mode of transportation is ‘car/taxi’. There are some local shops in the communities, however, these shops have also been severely affected due to low/no demand for the goods they sell since long. Similarly, more than half of the households (52%) reported that food availability was inadequate (available but not sufficient) available in the local markets. Conclusion and recommendations 1. Not all the 6000 supposedly vulnerable households were found food insecure as per WFP food insecurity criteria. Of 6000 HH, about 8% households have been identified as severely food insecure and another 45% HH as moderately food insecure. Similarly, 9% households have poor food consumption and 44% have borderline food consumption. 26% households are resorting to livelihood-based emergency coping strategies to meet the food shortfall. Overall, the findings do not suggest that all 6000HH are extremely vulnerable and in need of unconditional/general food assistance. However the severely food insecure households (8%HHs - approximately 500HHs of 6000HH) are the most vulnerable and may require immediate food assistance. However, such small caseload could be within the capacity of the community to help them. On the other hand, identification of such small caseload would not only be difficult but would require time and resources. 2. The food security situation in the subject/surveyed areas does not seem to be much different from other parts of the merged areas. According to the recently conducted 3 Comprehensive Food Security and Livelihood Assessment (CFSLA) 2019-2020, the prevalence of food insecurity in the merged areas is about 35% while it is 62% in District Orakzai. 3. On a positive note, a shift in the livelihood strategies (from cross border trade to casual labour) suggests that these households, after almost 9 months of border closure and disruption of livelihood activities, are somewhat resilient.