Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IDP Profiling Results
Fig
hti
ng
Hu
ng
er W
orl
dw
ide
April 2015
Geneina Town Camps, West Darfur
Page | 2
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 4
I. Background ..................................................................................................................... 5
II. Overall Food Security Situation in West Darfur State ......................................... 5
III. WFP assistance in West and Central Darfur .......................................................... 6
IV. Community Involvement in the Profiling Exercise ............................................... 7
V. Profiling Data Collection ............................................................................................. 7
VI. Profiling Data Analysis & Results .............................................................................. 8
A. Data Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................ 8
B. Overall Results ................................................................................................................... 8
C. Specific Results by Camp ................................................................................................. 10
VII. Coordination and Presentation of Results ............................................................ 20
VIII. Dealing with Complaints .................................................................................... 20
IX. Challenges and Lessons Learnt ................................................................................ 20
X. Implementation ........................................................................................................... 21
RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD ................................................................ 22
Page | 3
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
Acronyms
AO Area Office
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CO Country Office
DDPD Doha Document for Peace in Darfur
e-BSFP Emergency Blanket Supplementary Feeding
Programme
FFA Food for Assets
FFE Food for Education
FSMS Food Security Monitoring System
GFD General Food Distribution
HAC Humanitarian Aid Commission
IDP–P IDP Profiling
IAP Integrated Assistance Package
INGOs International Non-Governmental
Organizations
MNP Multi-nutrients Powder
MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference
NISS National Intelligence and Security Services
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TSFP Targeted Supplementary Feeding
Programme
UN United Nations
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
WFP World Food Programme
Page | 4
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In line with WFP’s rationalization strategy, WFP Sudan began an IDP profiling (IDP-P)
targeting exercise aimed at providing assistance to long-term IDPs based on
vulnerability rather than IDP status alone. The IDP-P exercise will result in the
classification of households into four different vulnerability categories: ‘none’,
‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’.
Between 2013/2014, WFP was able to collect household level data for nine camps
in Geneina town in West Darfur with approximately 33,000 long-term IDP
households (89,000 IDPs) receiving WFP assistance. Results from the analysis
indicated that approximately 11,000 of the profiled households fall within the ‘high’
vulnerability category, 13,000 within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category and
8,600 within the ‘low’ and ‘none’ vulnerability categories.
Based on the results, WFP will continue to provide monthly general food
distributions (GFD) to the IDPs falling within the ‘high’ vulnerability category
(34%), provide seasonal GFD (6 months) and/or food for assets/training (FFA/T)
to households falling within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category (40%) and will stop
GFD assistance for the 26% households falling within the ‘low’ and ‘none’
vulnerable categories. Food for education (FFE) and nutrition support programmes
will continue to be made available for all households in these camps regardless of
vulnerability category.
Page | 5
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
I. Background
Since 2009, WFP has started to implement a rationalization strategy, transitioning when
and where possible from emergency food assistance to more targeted early recovery activities
in Darfur as part of a long-term exit strategy.
In line with the strategy, WFP has updated and refined its beneficiary lists in the long-term
IDP camps through a verification process which accounted for the births and deaths of IDPs
and eliminated non-valid ration card holders and individuals that had left the camps. In July
2013, the verification process was finalized for the prioritized1 camps and WFP began taking
the exercise to the next level to tailor its assistance through the IDP-P exercise in order to allow
for provision of assistance that is based on needs rather than IDP status alone.
Specifically, the objectives of IDP-P are to classify IDP households based on their level of
vulnerability and target food assistance according to their vulnerability rather than IDP status;
introduce the Integrated Assistance Package (IAP) as an alternative to GFD and reduce food
assistance dependency. Lastly this should provide the basis for durable solutions for long-term
IDPs in line with the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur2 (DDPD) and the Darfur
Development Strategy3.
In West Darfur state, data collection for the IDP-P exercise began in February 2014. As of April
2015, data had been collected, entered and analyzed for all Geneina town camps: Abu Zar,
Dorti, Ardamata, Krinding 1, Krinding 2, Riyad, Sultan House, Hujaj and Jama. WFP will
begin implementing results of the profiling in May 2015.
II. Overall Food Security Situation in West Darfur State
WFP’s Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) is carried out three times a year: February
(post-harvest), May (pre-lean season) and November (post-lean) across West Darfur. The
most recent FSMS across West Darfur state was conducted in November 2014 where a total of
474 households across 20 locations were interviewed. Main findings are outlined below:
48% of households were classified as food secure. In reality, this represented a
deterioration from the situation in 2013, mainly attributed to an increase in prices due
to increased demand from Chad, and the high transportation cost from Central Sudan
in addition to the general inflation across Sudan in large due to the lifting of the fuel
subsidies in 2013.
While IDPs did not develop a similar pattern of income generation as resident
communities, the FSMS showed that more IDP households were engaged in small
business activities in comparison to the previous three years including cart transport,
donkey renting and tea stalls.
Generally, around 80% of IDP households allocate over 65% of their monthly
expenditure for food, indicating greater vulnerability to price and income shocks. This
percentage had increased from previous years despite the good harvest in 2013/2014
due to the general increase in prices across the state and Sudan in general.
The purchasing power of IDPs had also deteriorated in 2014 due to the higher prices
with approximately 72% of IDP households unable to afford the cost of even one local
food basket.
1 Camps prioritized for verification are those where IDPs were long term WFP beneficiaries. Camps under seasonal support were not targeted through the verification exercise. 2 http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/DDPD%20English.pdf 3 http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/Darfur%20Development%20Strategy%20%286.3.13%29.pdf
Page | 6
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
Similarly, household food consumption, in terms of dietary diversity and food
frequency, deteriorated in 2014 in comparison to the previous years with only 48% of
households having acceptable consumption, down from 68% in 2013. Generally, the
percentage of households who reported facing food difficulties accessing enough food
remained similar compared to previous FSMS rounds.
The below graph shows changes in the food security situation for IDPs in West Darfur4 over
the past four years. Generally, since 2011 the food security situation has improved with the
proportion of food insecure households decreasing from 36% to 15% and food secure
households increasing from 31% to 48 percent.
III. WFP assistance in West and Central Darfur
Across West and Central Darfur states, WFP has been providing GFD assistance to over
593,000 IDPs across 26 camps. These IDPs had been receiving GFD since 2003 upon the onset
of the Darfur crisis. Initially, full GFD rations, comprising 450 grams of cereal per person per
day, 50 grams of pulses, 30 grams of vegetable oil, 30 grams of sugar and 50 grams of CSB,
were provided.
In 2010, based on results of the FSMS, GFD rations to IDPs were reduced to 50 percent. The
reduction of GFD rations did not result in a deterioration in the food consumption of IDPs as
they had developed stronger coping mechanisms and were not in need of the same amount of
food they required upon the onset of the conflict. In 2013, the number of commodities in the
half ration was reduced to 270 grams of sorghum and 30 grams of pulses as the IDPs were
selling vegetable oil and sugar was not providing any additional nutritional value to their
consumption. In 2009, WFP began piloting the use vouchers instead of in-kind food with the
objective of providing more choice to the IDPs and also stimulating markets. In 2014, WFP
reached more than 88,000 long-term IDPs in Geneina town with value vouchers.
In addition to GFD, WFP also provides support to some 224,000 children through school
feeding and 121,000 through nutrition activities to treat and prevent moderate acute
malnutrition in young children and pregnant and lactating women.
4 Results pre 2012 are applicable to both West and Central Darfur states as they were collected prior to the establishment of Central Darfur as a separate state.
Page | 7
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
Recently, WFP has also put a stronger focus on increasing its recovery based activities and
now reaches some 76,000 IDPs through FFA activities. WFP also introduced the joint WFP,
Ministry of Agriculture and Central Bank of Sudan programme of Connecting Farmers to
Markets (F2M) programme aiming at linking farmers with markets for micro-finance,
insurance, extension services and market for sale.
IV. Community Involvement in the Profiling Exercise
WFP began the sensitization for the profiling in October 2013. A key component in moving
forward with the profiling was the community acceptance and engagement in the process. All
data was collected by the community members themselves following extensive training from
WFP staff. Additionally, community members were fully engaged in the process of selecting
factors within their own context that would have a large impact on vulnerability. Following
implementation, communities will also be involved in the selection of appropriate FFA
activities based on their own needs. In this way, WFP ensured that communities were a part
of the entire exercise.
V. Profiling Data Collection
WFP began data collection across Geneina in February 2014, using three different versions of
the IDP-P questionnaire as enclosed in Annex 1. This is due to the fact that the questionnaire
was revised on several occasions during the development of the IDP profiling methodology.
However, all questionnaires covered the main factors including: demographics, employment,
land access and assets ownership. The design of the questionnaire was done carefully to ensure
that the data would provide an overview of the long term vulnerability of households including
types of employment and asset ownership rather than seasonal vulnerability indicators such
as household income, food consumption score or coping mechanisms during a specific season.
Data was collected from door to door, meaning that each household was visited within the camp
and one questionnaire was completed per household. Data was collected by enumerators from
the community themselves and was entered by data entry clerks at Country Office (CO) level.
Overall, data was collected for a total of 36,837 households in comparison to 30,711 individuals
registered in WFP’s verification database. The additional households could be due to several
reasons including households that were not captured through the verification for various
reasons but still living in camps, households profiled more than once, or host community
households profiled in addition to camp residents and/or households that were added on to
the beneficiaries following the verification exercise but not updated in WFP’s central
verification database. However, it should be noted that only people that have been accepted
through WFP’s verification database will be considered for implementation.
All profiled households are cross-checked against the verification database using beneficiary
ration card numbers. Cases unmatched with the verification could be attributed to errors in
writing the ration card number or inclusion of households that do not exist in the verification
database. For those with errors in the ration card numbers, WFP will cross check the names
with community leaders. Those that were not included in the verification database will not be
considered in the profiling.
Page | 8
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
VI. Profiling Data Analysis & Results
A. Data Analysis Methodology
To analyze the profiling results, WFP adopted a discriminant analysis5 model in order to
classify IDP households into four categories of vulnerability: ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘none’.
Household data collected was firstly sorted out using community-identified factors in the
questionnaire which best qualify each vulnerability group.
Focus group discussions and consultations with community members and sheikhs were held
at the Area Office (AO) level in order to determine which factors present in the questionnaire
were the most important in determining household vulnerability to make up the first
categorization. Through the community consultations as well as discussions between AO
Programme staff including Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit, profiling focal
point, Operations Unit and Head of Area Office, West and Central Darfur Area Office derived
the below as the final first classification table for all Geneina camps:
Once the households were classified based on those initial factors, through a discriminant
analysis, households were then given a finalized categorization based on all other factors
present in the questionnaire. The analysis also showed the extent to which each household
reliably belongs in each category. This is expected to be a main component to dealing with
complaints or requests for reclassification. The analysis also yields a ‘Classification Function
Coefficients’ table which shows the relative weight that each variable has, for each level of
classification, making it possible to identify and isolate the variables which contribute the most
to categorical belonging. This information will complement the available data and can assist
in the design of FFA activities.
B. Overall Results
Data was analyzed for all camps and results indicated that overall, 26% of households fell
within the ‘none’ and ‘low’ vulnerability categories and will no longer receive GFD assistance.
Another 40% fell within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category and will receive either seasonal
GFD, FFA or a combination of both and 33% were within the ‘high’ vulnerability category and
will continue to receive their current GFD entitlement.
5 In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - distributing cases into groups, classes or categories
of most similar type. The Discriminant analysis models is used to determine, based on a set of quantitative variables (in this case the entirety of the data collected), the linear combinations of these variables that best group cases according to a given qualitative variable (level of vulnerability –none, low, medium or high)
6 Employment: this includes several employment options including crop, livestock, agricultural labour, non-agricultural wage labour, non-salary work, salary work and small business or petty trade. Employment does not necessarily mean constant or continuous employment; it is seasonal in the case of cultivation, irregular in the case of non-agricultural wage labour, etc. Access to land: access to land includes land either rented or owned by the household.
Vulnerability category Factors6
None Employment AND Access to land AND ownership of a
cart
Low Any combination of two of the above factors
Medium Any one of the above factors
High None of the above factors
Page | 9
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
When reviewing several key factors across the nine camps:
Average assets ownership stands at 11% with Jama camp having the lowest
percentage of households owning assets at only 1% and Abuzar camp having the
highest percentage at 25% of households.
Employment varies greatly between the camps ranging from only 9% of households in
Jama camp and up to 90% in Dorti camp and with an average of 65% overall.
Land access also varies greatly among camps with the highest being 74% of households
in Dorti and only 1% in Jama with average of 11% of all households.
Head of households’ education level across all camps is generally low. The average for
university level education is only at 1% and does not exceed 3% in any of the camps.
The average for secondary education across the camps is 6% with the highest being
Dorti camp at 14 percent of households. 49% of the population have no education and
only 44% have primary/khalwa level education.
Geneina camps have a very small proportion of individuals living in mud/mud brick houses or
stone/concrete houses. 72% of profiled households reported living in plastic sheeting houses.
However, the high proportion of plastic sheeting reported may be attributed to a
misunderstanding of what constitutes “plastic sheeting housing.” A large proportion of
households live in thatch or mud houses but put plastic sheeting as an addition on top. It is
believed that enumerators classified such houses as plastic sheeting houses in many instances.
Generally, Jama camp is the worst off in comparison to the other camps in Geneina, having
the highest proportion of households with no asset ownership, no employment, no land access,
no education, and the highest number of households living in plastic sheeting. Dorti camp is
generally the best off having the highest percentage of households with a working member, land
access, secondary school education and the lowest rate of populations living in plastic sheeting.
Camp HH profiled High and
Medium
Low and
None Assets Employed
Land
accessNone
Primary/
KhalwaSecondary University
Mud/mu
d brick
Stone/co
nrete
Mats/Tha
tch
Plastic
Sheeting
Dorti 2,512 48 52 13% 90% 74% 48% 37% 14% 1% 4% 1% 47% 48%
Kirinding 1 5,793 69 31 3% 58% 27% 63% 33% 4% 0% 3% 1% 15% 81%Sultan House 1,531 70 30 9% 72% 30% 36% 52% 10% 3% 8% 5% 22% 65%Abuzar 4,643 77 23 25% 66% 23% 37% 52% 10% 1% 8% 4% 20% 69%Riyadh 5,764 77 23 13% 45% 21% 57% 38% 4% 1% 9% 7% 21% 63%
Ardamata 8,173 78 22 13% 71% 40% 47% 46% 6% 1% NA NA NA NAKirinding 2 2,795 78 22 4% 76% 20% 38% 54% 7% 1% 1% 1% 5% 93%Hujaj 1,485 83 17 2% 88% 11% 42% 53% 5% 1% 11% 1% 14% 74%
Jama 568 99 1 1% 9% 1% 70% 27% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 98%
74% 26% 11% 65% 31% 49% 44% 6% 1% 4% 3% 15% 54%
Housing
Weighted average
Education
Area
OfficeCamp Name High Medium Low None
Ardamata 28 50 13 9
Dorti 17 31 42 10
Sultan House 20 50 25 5
Riyadh 51 26 16 7
Jama 91 8 1 0
Hujaj 20 63 17 0
Abuzar 33 44 21 3
Kirinding 1 37 32 29 3
Kirinding 2 24 54 21 2
33 40 21 5
W&CD
Weighted Average
Page | 10
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
In comparing FSMS results outlined in Section 2 with profiling results, percentage of people
within the borderline is similar to those within the medium category. However, the
percentage of those within the food insecure category (15%) is a lot lower than that of the
profiling (33%) and people in the food secure category in the FSMS (48%) is a lot higher than
the profiling data (26%). This can be attributed to the fact that the profiling data analysis
focuses on longer term indicators of vulnerability rather than seasonal factors or factors that
are more strongly linked with the provision of food assistance.
C. Specific Results by Camp
This section will provide general information on each camp as well as final results and
implementation plan by camp. Additionally, graphs showing proportion of populations having
each of the main factors (employment, assets and land access) within each of the vulnerability
categories will be presented for each camp.
1. Dorti Camp
Dorti camp is in a village adjoined to Ardamata
Administrative unit in El Geneina. The camp
was established in 2003 as a result of attacks
that occurred in villages in North and East of El
Geneina Town including Dialo, Amer Alla, Um
Sibiaka, Um Salma, Kondobe, Bir Dagig, Dorti
Zalataya and Khartai. Most IDPs, from various
tribes including Erenga, Massalit, Tama,
Gimir, Burgo and Massira Jabel fled to Dorti
and were initially hosted by members of their
tribes within the host communities prior to settling in the camp which was set up shortly
following their arrival with the contribution of the host community.
Relations among camp residents is good as IDPs were living in close proximity to each other
and had good relations prior to the conflict. Relations were further strengthened when IDPs
settled in the same camp. Additionally, since the majority of IDPs in the camp have relatives
within the Dorti host community the relationship between the two is very good allowing for
collaboration between the groups.
WFP profiled a total of 2,512 households in Dorti camp in comparison to 2,140 households
registered in WFP’s verification database, all of whom are receiving WFP assistance. Within
the camp, 40% of those profiled live in plastic shelter, 48% in mats/thatch, 3% in
stone/concrete and 9% in mud/mud brick.
Around 48% of the heads of household reported having no education, 37% have
primary/Khalwa education, 14% have secondary education and less than 1% have university
level education. The none vulnerable group has the biggest proportion of those with university
education, although it was still low at 2% meanwhile the highly vulnerable group has the
highest proportion of households with no education in comparison to the other categories at
approximately 72%.
Overall, 13% of interviewed households indicated ownership of assets while 90% indicated
that they were employed and 74% indicated having land access, be it rented, owned, gift or
sharecropping. The none vulnerable group has the highest proportion of people employed,
asset ownership as well as land access, while the none vulnerable group has the lowest
proportion of people for all factors.
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Dorti - Assets
No assets Assets
Page | 11
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
Results have shown that Dorti camp has the highest proportion of residents falling within
the low and none vulnerable category, meaning the food security situation in Dorti camp is
significantly better than the situation across the other camps. Furthermore, Dorti IDPs came
from nearby locations and continue to have access to land. IDPs also participate in various
income generating activities including but not limited to selling of humanitarian relief
commodities provided by humanitarian agencies and NGOs, producing handicrafts, selling
firewood, construction wood and grass for animals, running small shops and restaurants,
labor in brick laying business as well as working in the local market, selling tea, vegetables etc.
Final Dorti Results:
None vulnerable: 254 households, representing 10% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 1,054 households, representing 42% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerable: 775 households, representing 31% of the beneficiaries
High vulnerable: 429 households, representing 17% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
1,308 households to be discontinued from GFD assistance, representing 52% of the beneficiaries
775 households shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA
429 households to continue receiving full GFD
2. Ardamata Camp
Ardamata camp is located in the outskirts of Ardamata village (approx. 7 km North East from
El-Geneina town) with no clear demarcation between the camp and the village. The majority
of the population residing in Ardamata camp came from the North and East of West Darfur
(Kerenik) and composed of different African tribes with the majority being Massalit.
The camp has good access to water since it lays in the Eastern side of the river “Wadi” Kaja.
During the rainy season, due to its flat landscape and the closeness to the Wadi, the camp
witnesses some flooding on the South West side. Ardamata camp continues to have good
relations with old traditional leaders, where 75% of the IDP community leaders belong to
traditional leadership.
The camp has a small market, and women are involved in daily labor and domestic work. Camp
residents are also involved in alcohol production.
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Dorti - Employment
Not employed Employed
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Dorti - Land Access
No land access Land access
Page | 12
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
WFP currently provides assistance to 6,675
households in Ardamata camp while some 8,173
individuals were profiled. Overall, 47% of heads of
household in Ardamata have no education, 46% have
primary/Khalwa level education, 6% have secondary
education and < 1% have university level degrees. The
‘medium’ category has the highest proportion of
household heads with no education followed by the
‘highly’ vulnerable. While the ‘none’ vulnerable
category has the highest percentage of household
heads with secondary level education (10%) although
still low.
Approximately 13% of the profiled households were found to have assets, employment rate
was high at 71% and 40% have land access. The ‘none’ vulnerable category has the highest
proportion of households with no employment, no assets and/or no land access. While the
‘low’ vulnerable category has the highest proportion of people with land access and employment.
Final Ardamata Results
None vulnerable: 772 households representing 9% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 1,054 households representing 13% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 4,092 households representing 50% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 2,255 households representing 28% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
1,826 households to be discontinued from GFD, representing 22% of the beneficiaries
4,092 shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA
2,255 households to continue receiving full GFD
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Ardamata - Land Access
No Land Access Land Access
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Ardamata - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Ardamata - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 13
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
3. Sultan House Camp
Sultan House was one of the camps that was
sampled through the FSMS, results indicated that
only 20% of the camp residents were food
insecure, 15% were borderline and 65% were food
secure. However, this result was derived from a
small sample of only 20 households.
Approximately 1,356 households in Sultan House
receive food assistance in comparison to 1,531
households that were profiled. Overall, 36% of
profiled household heads have no education,
while 52% reported having primary education,
10% have secondary education and 3% have
university education. The ‘high’ vulnerability category has the highest proportion of household
heads with no education.
Overall, 9% of profiled households reported having assets, 72% have an employed member
and 30% have land access. Those in the ‘high’ vulnerability category have the highest
proportion of households that have no employment, assets and/or land access.
Final Sultan House Results
None vulnerable: 69 households representing 5% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 388 households representing 25% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 761 households representing 50% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 313 households representing 20% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
457 households, representing 30% of the beneficiaries will be discontinued from GFD assistance
761 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA
313 households will continue to receive full GFD
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Sultan House - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Sultan House - Land Access
No Landaccess Landaccess
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Sultan House - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 14
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
4. Riyadh Camp
Riyad camp is located on the north-western
outskirts of Geneina town close to the Chad
border and composed of various tribes the
majority of whom are Massalit and around 10%
Arabs. Its location peripheral to Geneina town
restricts the ability of IDPs to access other camps
and the town centre. The camp also does not have
easy access to water as it is located far away from
the dry river bed of Wadi Kaja. Generally, intertribal
relations within the camp are good given that the
majority of IDPs are from the same tribe.
WFP assists approximately 4,053 in comparison
to 5,764 households that were profiled in Riyad camp. Levels of higher education amongst
household heads are low with only 1% having university education and only 4% with secondary
education. Around 38% have primary level/Khalwa education and 57% have no education.
Riyad camp also has a high percentage of families living in plastic shelters (63%) with 21% in
mats/thatch houses, 7% in stone/concrete houses and 9% in mud/mud brick houses.
Only 13% of those profiled indicated having assets, and 45% indicated that a member was
employed and 21% have land access. As with other camps, the ‘none’ vulnerable category had
the highest proportion of households with no employed member, land access and/or assets.
Riyad camp is one of the camps with the worst off situations across Geneina and has the second
highest number of households within the ‘high’ vulnerability category after Jama camp.
Final Riyadh Results
None vulnerable: 421 households representing 7% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 902 households representing 16% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 1481 households representing 26% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 2,960 households representing 51% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
1,323 households to be discontinued from GFD assistance representing 23% of the beneficiaries
1,481 households shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA
2,960 households to continue receiving full GFD
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Riyad - Land Access
No land access Land access
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Riyad - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Riyad - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 15
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
5. Jama Camp
Jama Camp is located in the southwest of Geneina
town, in close proximity to Abu Zar camp and
inhabited by mostly Fur tribe in addition to a small
minority of Massalit coming from Krenik, Azoum
and Wadi Saleh. Jama camp IDPs came from far of
locations and had no relatives within the host
community.
IDPs within Jama camp have no permanent
employment but are mainly engaged in daily work
activities in Geneina including housing/
construction and farming in addition to selling
goods in the markets. Although there are no significant tensions between the host community
and IDPs, there is no strong collaboration between the two groups. In past years, host communities
were pushing IDPs to back to their original state. However, this is no longer an issue.
Some 568 households were profiled in Jama camp in comparison to 391 in WFP’s verification
database and receiving assistance. The situation in Jama camp is the worst off in comparison
to other camps. Education levels of household heads are the lowest standing at 70% of heads
of household with no education, 27% with primary/Khalwa education, 2% with secondary
education and less than 1% with university education.
Asset ownership stands at only 1%, employment at 9% and land access at 1%. This, combined
with the fact that IDPs do not have strong collaboration with host communities and are not able
to return to their areas for farming has meant that individuals have very little coping strategies
and are heavily reliant on external support and in continued need for food assistance.
Final Jama Results
None vulnerable: 1 household representing < 0% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 5 households representing 1% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 43 households representing 8% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 519 households representing 91% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
Given the small number of households falling within the ‘none’ and ‘low’ vulnerable categories, these households should be treated as those in the medium vulnerability. As such,
49 households should receive seasonal GFD/FFA, and
519 households will continue to receive full GFD
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Jama - Land Access
No Land Access Land Access
0%
50%
100%
None Low Medium High
Jama - Employment
Unemployed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Jama - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 16
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
6. Hujaj Camp
Currently, WFP assists some 1,012 individuals in
Hujaj camp in comparison to 1,485 that were
profiled, of which 64% are headed by women. Of
those profiled in Hujaj, 11% live in mud/mud brick
houses, 1% in stone/concrete houses, 14% in
mats/thatches and 74% in plastic shelters.
Around 42% of those profiled highlighted that the
head of households has no education, 53% have
primary/Khalwa education, 5% have secondary
education and only 1% have university education.
The breakdown of female and male headed
households was similar across all groups.
Asset ownership in Hujaj camp is quite low at only 2%, land access is also low at 11% but
employment of at least one household member is high at 88 percent.
Final Hujaj Results
None vulnerable: 0 households
Low vulnerable: 250 households representing 17% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 938 households representing 63% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 297 households representing 20% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
250 households will be graduated from GFD
938 households will be shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA
297 households will continue to receive full GFD.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Low Medium High
Hujaj - Land Access
No Landaccess Landaccess
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Low Medium High
Hujaj - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Low Medium High
Hujaj - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 17
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
7. Abu Zar Camp
Abu Zar camp is located in the southwest of
Geniena town. Residents are composed of various
African tribes including Erenge, Daju and Fur,
however the majority are Masalit. Residents’ main
places of origin include Masterei, Angamay,
Baradia, Gokar, Nuru, Eisbarra, Tulus, Seraf-
Gedad, Tabong, Dagorshana, Kadlul, Agenday
and Abon. Relations between the IDPs is generally
good with no tensions.
Around 37% of profiled household heads do not
have education, 52% have primary/Khalwa
education, 10% have secondary education and
only 1% have university education. Meanwhile, 69% of households reported living in plastic
shelters, 20% in mats/thatch housing, 4% in stone/concrete housing and 8% in mud/mud
brick housing.
Abu Zar camp has the highest rate of assets ownership amongst Geneina camps standing at
25%, well above the overall average for asset ownership across Geneina camps. Employment
of a household member was also high at 66% while land access stood at 23%, lower than the
average of 31% land access across Geneina.
Final Abu Zar Results
None vulnerable: 120 households representing 3% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 962 households representing 21% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 2,033 households representing 44% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 1,528 households representing 33% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
1,082 households representing 24% will be graduated from GFD
2,033 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA
1,528 households will continue to receive full GFD.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Abu Zar - Land Access
No Land Access Land Access
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Abu Zar - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Abu Zar - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 18
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
8. Krinding 1 Camp
Krinding 1 is located in the outskirts of Geneina
town and is attached to Krinding village with no
clear demarcation between the camp and the
village. The camp is composed of different African
tribes such as Gimiir and Bargo with the majority
being Massalit coming from South and East of
West Darfur including Krenik, Habila and Beida.
Despite some tensions over water resources, inter-
tribal relations are generally good since the majority
of the host community and IDPs are Massalit.
Income opportunities include selling various
products such as vegetables, sugar, tea, oil and soap, daily and domestic work for women and
alcohol production.
Currently WFP assists some 5,428 households in Krinding 1 camp in comparison to 5,793
households that were profiled. As with other camps education levels of household heads are
low with university education standing at almost 0, secondary at only 4%, primary/khalwa at
33% and no education at 63%. Over 80% of the population live in plastic housing, 15% in
mats/thatch housing, 1% in stone/concrete housing and 3% in mud/mud brick housing.
Asset ownership within the camp was extremely low at only 1%, while 58% have at least one
employed member and 27% have land access.
Final Krinding 1 Results
None vulnerable: 144 households representing 2% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 1,651 households representing 29% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 1,835 households representing 32% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 2,163 households representing 37% of the beneficiaries
Implementation
1,795 households will be graduated from GFD assistance
1,835 will be shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA
2,163 household will continue to receive GFD.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 1 - Land Access
No Land Access Land Access
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 1 - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 1 - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 19
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
9. Krinding 2 Camp
Krinding-2 IDP camp is situated in the eastern
outskirts of El Geneina town. Residents arrived
from different localities and various villages such
as: Jabon, Abon, Tandi koro, Mestery, Mejmery,
Bijbijei, Bidinei, Kereinik, Gokar, Diweit. The
majority of camp residents are Masalit (97%)
while others are Zaghawa, Tama and Arabs.
Currently, WFP assists some 2,416 households in
Krinding 2 camp in comparison to 2,795 that were
profiled. As with other camps university level
education of household head is low at 1%, while
6% have secondary education, 46% have primary/khalwa education and 47% do not have any
education. Krinding 2 camp has the highest number of households living in plastic sheeting
after Jama camp at 93%. Only 5% reported living in mats/thatch, 1% in mud/brick and 1% in
stone/concrete housing.
Only 4% of profiled household reported having assets. However levels of employment were
above the average for Geneina standing at 76% meanwhile land access stood at 20 percent.
Final Krinding 2 Results
None vulnerable: 43 households representing 1% of the beneficiaries
Low vulnerable: 579 households representing 21% of the beneficiaries
Medium vulnerability: 1,505 households representing 54% of the beneficiaries
Highly vulnerable: 668 households representing 24% of the beneficiaries
Implementation:
622 households representing 22% of the beneficiaries will be graduated from GFD assistance
1,505 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA
668 households will continue to receive full GFD.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 2 - Employment
Not Employed Employed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 2 - Land Access
No Land Access Land Access
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
None Low Medium High
Kirinding 2 - Assets
No Assets Assets
Page | 20
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
VII. Coordination and Presentation of Results
West Darfur Area Office presented the objectives and methodology of the IDP profiling
exercise to local authorities, communities and other humanitarian actors across the state in
April 2015. Upon finalization of data entry and analysis, results were presented to the
Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC), Sultan, Wali of West Darfur, National Security and
Intelligence Services (NISS) followed by Sheikhs/community leaders of the profiled camps.
The support received from local authorities was very strong and results were accepted by all
stakeholders. Generally, issues that were raised by the various stakeholders included
importance of support through seeds and tools and expansion in Farmers to Markets-type
activities in addition to construction of assets such as grain storage facilities, human capital
through agricultural trainings, and also the provision of access to land to IDP populations,
possibly on the outskirts of Geneina town. Sheikhs and community leaders pointed out the
importance of providing trainings to those that will be excluded in addition to the continuation
of assistance during the lean season.
The sensitization and coordination mechanism followed in West Darfur state guaranteed to a
great extent minimal resistance from communities in the acceptance of the results.
VIII. Dealing with Complaints
As it is expected that various complaints will be received following implementation, WFP West
& Central Darfur AO will deal with the complaints in two steps:
Once lists are presented to Sheikhs, Sheikhs will be provided with a 10-14 day window
to come back with a list of complaints. This process can only be done once and lists
that come in after this timeframe will not be accepted.
In order to ensure IDPs have the chance to make individual complaints, helpdesks will
be set up in each of the camps for individual households to complain.
WFP will look into the percentage of categorical belonging of each household into the various
vulnerability groups as derived from the analysis as a first step to dealing with complaints.
IX. Challenges and Lessons Learnt
Ration card numbers for Ardamata and Dorti camp were not entered in the
questionnaire (question not part of the questionnaire). As such, it was difficult to
compare the profiling data with the verification data. For the other camps, only the last
few digits of the ration cards were entered in the questionnaire. This also made the
comparison with the verification data difficult.
West Darfur office had pending complaints from the verification exercise that are
currently being addressed. This has led to slight delays in preparing final profiling
distribution lists to be shared with the communities.
The definition of what constitutes various types of housing may have been skewed as
apparent from the high number of reported plastic sheeting housing. In future, all
enumerator trainings should set a clear definition of the various types of housing.
Slight revisions may also be made in the questionnaire to further clarify the various
types of housing.
Page | 21
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
X. Implementation
Based on the results and in line with the IDP-P Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP), all individuals in the high vulnerable category will continue to receive 12
months GFD at the current ration (270 grams of cereals and 30 grams of oil per person
per day). As such, 11,132 households across all camps will continue to receive full GFD.
However, given that only 6 households within Jama camp fell within the low and none
vulnerable category, it is recommended that those households continue to receive
assistance rather than being excluded from food assistance as that will be operationally
more manageable.
The Area Office will strive to shift individuals in the medium vulnerability category to
FFA/T activities. However, as there is not enough scope or capacity to implement FFA
for all individuals, the AO will strive to shift the maximum number of people possible
to FFA activities and will also consider providing a combination of FFA and GFD for
some households within the medium category where possible. The AO will ensure that
individuals receiving FFA get an overall higher quantity of food than those receiving
GFD. A total of 13,469 households will receive either seasonal GFD or FFA in Geneina
camps.
People in the low and none vulnerable categories will be shifted out of GFD. However,
they will continue to be eligible for FFE and nutrition activities. A total of 8,663
households will be shifted out of GFD.
The small number of people that may not have been profiled will be profiled through
local communities with the assistance of Sheikhs, HAC and camp established
committees. The local communities will categorize those individuals into the
appropriate category and present the final list to WFP. Individuals will be provided
with a chance to complain about results following implementation.
Implementation will begin in May 2015. The first round of distributions will be
conducted without the distribution of new ration cards in order to ensure that
implementation of results is not delayed. New ration cards for the accepted
beneficiaries will be distributed within the month of June.
It should be noted that the above numbers of households are based on the number of
households profiled, this includes individuals that may be taken out of the beneficiaries if not
matched with the verification and may exclude some members that were in the verification
and not profiled. As such these represent initial results, which will be adjusted as the reconciliation
with the verification database continues. Individuals that are found to not have been accepted
by WFP’s verification will be excluded and individuals that were not profiled will be categorized
through community based targeting given that they constitute a small proportion.
Page | 22
We
st
Da
rfu
r I
DP
Pr
ofi
lin
g R
es
ult
s –
Ge
ne
ina
To
wn
RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
1. In the future, full ration card numbers should be entered for all profiled
households to ensure that data is comparable to the verification database.
2. Results and revised lists should be available at least one month prior to
implementation to allow for sufficient time for the distribution of new ration
cards. This will ensure that there are fewer problems and crowds at food
distribution points.
3. Results should be circulated and shared with other humanitarian actors
including relevant UN agencies, I/NGOS and CBOs.
4. WFP should aim to enhance its partnerships with other humanitarian
organizations focused on recovery-based activities.
5. Collaboration and strong coordination with relevant authorities as well as
the Wali and Sultan of West Darfur proved to be very beneficial in facilitating
discussions with community leaders/Sheikhs, it is recommended the same
coordination mechanism is followed where possible for other areas
undergoing profiling.
6. Follow up food security assessments must be conducted in the profiled
camps on a regular basis.
.
For more information contact:
World Food Programme
P.O. Box 913, 653 A, Block 68 Arkawit
Khartoum, Sudan
Tel: +249 83 248001
Fax: +249 83 24003
Photo
s, F
ront &
Back C
over: W
FP/M
ais
sa K
hatta
b