Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RapidFoodSecurityAssessment,LibyaReport
November2016
s
Page 2 of 49
TableofContent1 ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................4
1.1 Keyfindings 42 Introduction......................................................................................................................................63 ObjectivesandMethodology............................................................................................................7
3.1 Objectives 73.2 Samplinganddatacollectionprocess 73.3 Limitations 8
4 IDPHouseholdsCharacteristics........................................................................................................94.1 Demographics 94.2 Timingofdisplacement 94.3 Employment 10
5 IncomeandExpenditure.................................................................................................................115.1 Incomesource 115.2 Expenditures 14
6 ExternalAssistance.........................................................................................................................187 FoodInsecuritysituationandtrends..............................................................................................208 Foodconsumption..........................................................................................................................21
8.1 Foodsources 259 CopingStrategies............................................................................................................................27
9.1 LivelihoodCopingStrategies 279.2 Consumptionbasedcoping 31
10 Profileofthefoodinsecure............................................................................................................3210.1 Geography 3210.2 Demography 3410.3 Socio-economicsituation 35
11 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................3911.1 Recommendations 39
12 Annex1-CARIcalculations.............................................................................................................4013 Annex2:CARIConsolesbylocationandregion..............................................................................4414 Bibliography....................................................................................................................................49ListofFiguresandTablesMap1:FoodSecurityacrosslocations.........................................................................................................5Map2:SampleDistributioninLibya............................................................................................................8Figure1:IDPHouseholdCharacteristics......................................................................................................9Figure2:Timingandmainreasonfordisplacement....................................................................................9Figure3:IDPEmploymentstatus...............................................................................................................10Figure4:EmployedIDPs.............................................................................................................................11Figure5:Incomesourcesandrelativecontributiontototalhouseholdincome.......................................12Figure6:Incomesituation..........................................................................................................................13Figure7:Mainincomechallengesacrosslocations...................................................................................13Figure8:Averageshareofexpenditure.....................................................................................................14Figure9:Averageshareofexpenditureonfoodbyregionsandbylocations...........................................15Figure10:AverageshareofexpenditureonfoodbyIDPPlaceofOriginanddisplacementtime............16Figure11:Expendituredevelopmentandincomecomparison.................................................................17Figure12:FoodAid,Assistance,andNon-foodassistance........................................................................19Figure13:Non-foodsupport......................................................................................................................19Figure14:FoodConsumptionScore..........................................................................................................21Figure15:FoodConsumptionScorebyregionsandlocation....................................................................22Figure 16: Food Consumption Score by Displacement Groups, Sex of Head of Households andDisplacementtime.....................................................................................................................................24
Page 3 of 49
Figure17:Mealseatenperdaybysexofheadofhouseholdsandaverageofnumberofdaysdisplaced24Figure18:Foodsources.............................................................................................................................25Figure19:Averageuseofkeyfoodsourcesacrosslocations....................................................................26Figure20:Useofmarket(cashandcredit)asfoodsource2015vs.2016.................................................27Figure21:Livelihoodcopingstrategiesusedbyhouseholds.....................................................................28Figure22:Livelihoodcopingstrategies......................................................................................................28Figure23:LivelihoodCopingStrategiesbyregionsandlocations.............................................................29Figure24:Livelihoodcopingstrategiesbydisplacementgroupsanddisplacementtime.........................31Figure25:Consumption-basedcopingstrategiesacrosslocations............................................................31Figure26:Foodsecurityacrossregionsandlocations...............................................................................33Figure27:Foodsecurityacrossdisplacementgroups...............................................................................34Figure28:FoodsecuritybySexofheadofhouseholdandEmploymentstatus........................................34Figure29:Foodsecuritybydisplacementtime.........................................................................................35Figure30:Householdsfoodsecuritybymainsourcesof incomeanduseofconsumption-basedcopingstrategies....................................................................................................................................................36Figure31:ClusterAnalysisofMostVulnerableIDPGroups.......................................................................38Table1:CARIClassification........................................................................................................................20Table2:CARIdefinitions............................................................................................................................21Table3:CARIClassificationofIDPhouseholds..........................................................................................36Table4:CARImodel...................................................................................................................................40Table5:Fooditemstablefromhouseholdsurvey.....................................................................................40Table6:Copingstrategyactivitiestablefromhouseholdsurvey..............................................................42
Page 4 of 49
1 ExecutiveSummaryThe Rapid Food Security Assessment was implemented by Voluntas Advisory together with Diwan MarketResearchonbehalfoftheUnitedNationsWorldFoodProgramme(WFP)toprovideup-to-date-informationoncritical food related needs of displaced population in Libya. The data was collected from 26 August to 6September2016,ineightlocations,namelyTripoli,ZawiyaandBaniWalidintheWest,AwbariandSabhaintheSouth,andAjdabiya,Benghazi,andTobrukintheEast.Theselocationscombinedhostabout53percentofthetotalIDPpopulationinLibya.
1.1 KeyfindingsHousehold foodsecurity
Theassessmentfoundthat24percentofall IDPhouseholdsarefood insecureandthey are not able tomeet their essential food needswithout engaging in atypicalcoping strategies. The food insecure households have a poor or borderline foodconsumptionanduseahighshareoftheirbudgettocoverfoodneeds.From2015to2016,overallIDPfoodinsecurityhasincreased:only6percentofallIDPswerefoodinsecure(moderatelyorseverely)in2015.Inadditiontothosealreadyfoodinsecure, 62 percent of all the IDP households are at risk of slipping into foodinsecurity. The developments are related to the significant rise in food prices,depreciationoftheLibyandinar,aswellasthelackofliquidityintheLibyanbanks.
Geographicallocation of foodinsecurehouseholds
Theleveloffoodinsecurityishighinthewesternandeasternpartsofthecountry,wherethemajorityoftheIDPhouseholdsarelocated.Atlocationlevel,BaniWalidismost concerning, with 58 percent of IDPs considered food insecure. In general,locationsclosetotheconflictareasarehostingthemostvulnerablehouseholdsasthey come from the areas most affected by the ongoing fighting. Although thesouthern region holds only 7 percent of the IDP households, 21 percent of thehouseholdsinAwbariarefoundtobefoodinsecure.Tobrukisthemostfoodsecurelocation,with no household found food insecure, followed by Zawiyah and Sabhawhereonly4and7percentarefoodinsecure.
Profile of thefoodinsecure
Foodinsecurehouseholdsaretypicallylargefamiliesheadedbyunemployedheadofhousehold.TheseIDPshouseholdsaredisplacedfromlessthansixmonthsandtheyarefarfromtheirplaceoforiginsotheydidnotestablishasocial, familyorethnicnetworksinthenewareasyet.Thesehouseholdshavebeenparticularlyaffectedbythehighinflationandtheincreasedoffoodpricesthustheyexperiencedareductionoftheirincomeandasignificantincreaseontheirshareoffoodexpenditure.Inordertomaintainaminimumleveloffoodconsumption(mostofthemeatonlytwomealsperday)theyareadoptingseveralcopingstrategiesasspendingsavingsandreducingnon-foodexpensesonhealthandeducation.
Profile of thefoodsecure
Foodsecurehouseholdsaremorelikelytoresideinareasfarfromtheconflictandbeengaged in salaried work or received state salary. These households have beendisplaced formore than one year and they havemanaged tomaintain theirworkdespitebeingdisplacedand/ortheyhavere-establishedtheirsocialandeconomictiesinthenewareasandthustheimpactoftheeconomiccrisiswaslessharshonthem.
Gender aspectsonfoodsecurity
Householdheadedbywomenaremorelikelytobefoodinsecurethanthoseheadedbymen.Femaleheadsofhouseholdsareoftenunemployedandtheydonotreceiveanyformofemployment.
Page 5 of 49
Map1:FoodSecurityacrosslocations
IDPFoodInsecurityIndexScoresAcrossAssessedLocations
Food Insecurity Index Across Cities
19%
MarginallyFoodSecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
FoodSecure
SeverelyFoodInsecure
4%
24%34%
16%2%
4%13%
7%
20%1%
TobrukBenghazi
Ajdabiyah
SabhaAwbari
Zawiyah
Tripoli
BaniWalid
Page 6 of 49
2 IntroductionSincethebeginningofthecrisis in2011,over3millionpeoplehavebeenaffectedacrossLibya.1ThefurtherescalationofviolencestartinginMay2014andtheclashesbetweenforcesloyaltothegeneralKhalifaHaftarinthe east and militias in the west have led to a significant spike in humanitarian needs, civilian casualties,displacementaswellasthedestructionofpublicinfrastructureandthedisruptionofbasicsocialservicesandsocialprotectionsystems.Inaddition,in2016,militaryoperationsagainsttheIslamicStatelocatedinandaroundSirtehave intensifiedbyoutside interventions, leading to thedisplacementof5,560householdsandputtingimmensestrainsonthecapacityoflocalcommunitiesinTarhuna,AlJufrah,andBaniWalid.2Accordingto2017Humanitarian Needs Overview, an estimated 1.3 million people are in need some form of humanitarianassistance,includingapproximately241,000internallydisplacedpersons(IDPs).3Combinedwiththeunstablepoliticalandsecuritysituation,Libyaisfacingtheinterconnectedcrisisof lackofliquidityanda rapiddepreciationof theDinar in relation to theDollar.Uncertaintyand fearover the futurepoliticalandsecuritysituationhadasignificanteffectonLibya’sforeigncurrencyblackmarket.4InJuly2016theDollarcostedmorethan5dinars,arecordhighintheLibyanhistory.5ThedepreciationoftheLibyancurrencyhadansignificantimpactonthefoodsecurity,asLibyastillimportsthemajorityofitsfoodduetoaharshnaturalenvironment,whichmakes agricultural production difficult. Estimates indicate that asmuch as 80%of foodrequirementswere importedbeforetheconflict.6 ThedepreciationoftheLibyanDinar isalsorelatedtothelimitedaccesstodollarsoftheCentralBankofLibyagiventhefallofoilexportsandoveralleconomicoutput.In2016,oilproductionisestimatedtohavedeclinedforthefourthconsecutiveyear.Consequently,revenuesfromthehydrocarbonsectoramountedtoonlyatenthofrevenuesthataccruedoverthesameperiodlastyear.LackoffundstopayduesubsidiestoimportersanddistributorsofbasicfoodsinceOctober2015translatedintoadefacto removal of subsidies to food. 7 Consequently, shortages in the supply of food emerged and the blackmarketsprospered,whichaccordingtotheWorldBankledpricesoffoodtoincreaseby31percentinthefirsthalfof2016.8ThecrashintheDinar’sblackmarketvalueisrunninginparallelwiththeongoingcashcrisisatLibya’sbanks.Thepoliticalcrisishasdirectlyaffectedtheliquidityavailabilityasthecountry’sfinancialinstitutionssplitinMay2016whenthecrisisculminatedwiththetwocentralbanks(oneinTripoliandoneinTobruk)threateningtocirculaterival Libyan dinar banknotes in the country.9 The general lack of liquidity has increasingly affected peoples’livelihoodsforallof2016,withpeoplequeuingoutsidebanks,onlytofindthevaultsempty.10Lackofconfidenceinthefinancialsystemhasledtobusinessesandindividualsrefusingtodepositcash,instead,leavingitundertheirmattressesand increasing theshortageofmoney forbanks.The triplechallengesof increased fighting,depreciationoftheLibyanDinarandlackofliquidityhasseverelyaffectedfoodsecurityinLibyaespeciallyforthedisplacedpopulation.Duetotheaccessrestrictionanddifficulties inconductingassessments,coupledwithhighlyvolatileandfluidsituation,available informationon thehumanitarian situation in Libyahasbeen limited todate.Against thisbackground,thisrapidfoodsecurityassessmentwasconductedimplementedbyVoluntasAdvisorywithitslocalpartner Diwan Market Research on behalf of WFP to inform the food security intervention in 2017. DatacollectiontookplacefromAugust26thtoSeptember6th,2016andeight locationsweretargeted inthethreehistoricalregionsofLibya,namelyTripoli,ZawiyaandBaniWalidintheWest,AwbariandSabhaintheSouth,andAjdabiya,Benghazi,andTobrukintheEast.
1OCHA(2017):“HumanitarianNeedsOverview,November2016Libya”2IOM(2016):“SituationReportforAugust2016–LibyaHumanitarianSupporttoMigrantsandIDPs”3OCHA(2017):“HumanitarianNeedsOverview,November2016Libya”4Tarhouni,Adam(2016):“Op-Ed:Fear,uncertainty,riskandLibya’scurrencyblackmarket(1July2016)”5LibyaHerald(2016):“Libyandinarcontinuestocrashasitbreaks5-dinarmarkagainstthedollar”6WorldFoodProgramme(2011):“FoodSecurityinLibya:AnOverview”7WorldBank(2016):Libya’sEconomicOutlook–October20168Ibid.9TheGuardian(2016):“BattleofthebanknotesasrivalcurrenciesaresettobeissuedinLibya”10Tarhouni,Adam(2016):“Op-Ed:Fear,uncertainty,riskandLibya’scurrencyblackmarket(1July2016)”
Page 7 of 49
3 ObjectivesandMethodology
3.1 ObjectivesTheassessmentaimstoprovideanupdateofthecurrentfoodsecuritysituationofdisplacedpopulationinLibya,itsscale,andseverity.TheinformationgeneratedthroughtheassessmentwillfeedintofutureprogrammingandinformtheHumanitarianNeedsOverview.Furthermore,itwillenableWFPtofine-tuneresponseoptionsandtargetingforits2017programme.
3.2 SamplinganddatacollectionprocessTheassessmentfocusedonthepopulationdirectlyaffectedbytheconflict,specificallyIDPs,andcoverstheareaswhereasignificantnumberofIDPshasbeenreported.EightlocationscoveringthethreehistoricalregionsofLibyawereselected,namelyTripoli,ZawiyaandBaniWalid intheWest,AwbariandSabha intheSouth,andAjdabiya, Benghazi, and Tobruk in the East. The sampling framework allows for statistically representativefindingsattheregionallevelsgeneralizabletothewiderIDPpopulation.Targetedlocationswereselectedbasedonthefollowingcriteria:
1. Regionaldiversity:ToenablecomparisonamongthethreeregionsthesamplewassplitinordertocoverthreelocationsinEastandWestandtwointheSouth;
2. Concentration of IDP population: Based on IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix (IOM-DTM)localitieshostingthelargestshareofIDPsweretargeted.ThedatahasbeenadjustedtoreflectIDPhouseholdsizesmoreaccurately;
3. Comparisontohistoricaldata:toallowcomparisonwiththepreviousassessmentthelocationsthatweresurveyedin2014and2015wereselectedtobepartoftherapidassessment.
Altogether,theselocationscoverabout53percentofthedisplacedpopulationinLibyaaccordingtoIOM-DTMdatafromJuly2016.Inaddition,sevenoftheninelocationssurveyedinthepreviousassessmentwereselected,whichallowedcomparisonovertime.Atotalof890IDPshouseholdswereselectedrandomlyinthetargetlocations:100householdinterviewswithIDPswereconductedineachlocation,exceptthetwoareasintheSouth(SabhaandAwbari)where150and137householdinterviewswerecarriedrespectively(Map2).Onlysamegenderinterviewswereconducted.PostdatacollectionthedatawasweightedbasedontherelativenumberofIDPsintheeightlocations.Tovalidatedataandcomparefoodsecuritydevelopmentsovertime,therapidneedsassessmentemployeddatatabulationusingtwoprimarysourcesofdataforcomparison:
1. LibyaInteragencyRapidAssessment,December201411;2. LibyaMulti-SectorNeedsAssessment,June-July201512.
TheassessmentwasoutsourcedandperformedbyVoluntasAdvisorytogetherwiththeirLibyanpartnerDiwanMarketing Research, which has conducted various socio-economic surveys in Libya employing extensivequantitativemethods. The assessmentdesign, including thedata collection instruments,weredevelopedbyWFP.VoluntasAdvisoryimplementeddatacollection,analysisandreportingwithinputsandsupportsfromWFP.AlldatacollectioninthefieldwasconductedbyresearchersfromDiwanMarketResearch.VoluntasAdvisorytrainedthemaincoordinators,whoprovidedtrainingofthelocallevelresearchteams.Thedatacollectiontoolswere presented and discussed with the enumerators to ensure that the purpose of the assessment wasunderstoodandallquestionswereclear.Ineachlocation,ateamleaderensuredtheoverallimplementationofthe interviews and performed quality assurance checks. Filled instruments were brought to Tripoli for finalquality assurance by the data collection manager. The quantitative data was entered online using SurveyMonkey.MostoftheresearchershavebeeninvolvedinthepastfoodsecurityassessmentsandintheongoingmonitoringworkforWFPandare,therefore,familiarwiththetopicsandtargetedgroup.
11 Libya Interagency Rapid Assessment, December 2014. 12 Libya Multi-Sector Needs Assessment, June-July 2015.
Page 8 of 49
Map2:SampleDistributioninLibya
137
101
100
100
100
100
102
150
TripoliBenghazi
Awbari
BaniWalidAjdabiyah
Sabha
TobrukZawiyah
SouthEastWest
890HouseholdInterviewsconductedin8locationscoveringallthreehistoricregionsofLibya
*Adjusted numbers for data collection locations based onaverage family size of IDP families. Other use numbers from IOM DTM
Overall Rank Nationally Name in English IDP
householdsIDP
individuals*Share of
IDPs
1 Benghazi 10,346 59,696 16%
2 Bani Waled 7,200 42,192 11%
3 Ajdabiya 5,496 35,229 9%
4 Abu Salim (Tripoli) 4,934 27,863 7%
8 Tobruk 2,306 14,133 4%
9 Janzour (Tripoli) 1,950 11,012 3%
15 Az Zawiyah 893 4,715 1%
18 Sabha 740 5,136 1%
22 Awbari + Ghurayfah 641 4,478 1%
Followingdatacollection,thedatahasbeenweightedaccordingtoaccuratelyreflecttheshareofIDPsineachlocation.
3.3 LimitationsAnumberofchallengesandconstraintswereidentifiedaspartofthestudy:
• Representativeness:whileIOMDTMdataprovidesagoodoverviewofthedistributionofIDPsinLibyaandtheirplaceoforigin, it ishard toascertain therepresentativenessof theobtainedsample. It is,therefore, difficult to generalize to the wider IDP population living in areas not covered by theassessment.Thedatacan,however,beindicativeofthesituationforsameIDPgroups(e.g.,Tawergha)displacedinlocationsnotcoveredbytheassessment,aswellasdistinctsub-groups(e.g.unemployed,female-headedhouseholds,etc.).
• Social desirability effect: some of the topics included in the assessment touch upon issues that aresociallyawkwardand stigmatizede.g.begging,having lowconsumptionorhaving received support.Thereforetherecanbeariskthatfindingsrelatedtothesetopicsareunderestimated.TocontainthisriskasmuchaspossibletheresearchershavebeenundergoingrigoroustrainingonhowtointerviewIDPsonsensitivetopics,ensuringtheirconfidentialityandbuildingtrust.
Despitethelimitations,theassessmentisperceivedtoprovideanaccuratepictureofthesituationofvulnerablegroupsintheassessedlocations.
Page 9 of 49
4 IDPHouseholdsCharacteristicsThis section presents the main characteristics of the IDP households covered by the assessment, includinghouseholdsize,mainreasonsfordisplacementandemploymentsituation.
4.1 DemographicsTheaveragehouseholdsizeissix.FortypercentoftheIDPhouseholdsconsistsofmorethansixmembers.ThevastmajorityoftheIDPhouseholds(88%)areheadedbyamale(Figure5).Figure1:IDPHouseholdCharacteristics
©2016Voluntas Advisory.Allrightsreserved.StrictlyConfidential. 3
HouseholdCharacteristics
Head of Household
88%Male
Female
Number of Persons in IDP Households
40%
27%
6%
28%
>6
5-6
0-2
3-4
4.2 TimingofdisplacementGiventheprotractednessoftheunstablesituationinLibya,itisnotsurprisingthatthevastmajority(70%)ofIDPshavebeendisplacedforat leastayear.Thirty-sixpercentof IDPshavebeendisplacedformorethan24monthsindicatingtheprolongedeffectsonthecountry’sinstability.Thecausesofdisplacementareconsistentlyrelatedtoinsecurityacrosslocations.Thevastmajority(90%)ofIDPscitethedeterioratingsecuritysituationasthemainreasonfortheirdisplacement.“Ethnicconflict”and“politicalconflict”havebeenalsocitedasthemainreasonfordisplacementbyrespondents.Figure2:TimingandmainreasonfordisplacementSecurityDeteriorationMainReasonforDisplacement
Time in current area
34%
21%6-12months
0-6months>24months
36%
9%
12-24months
Main reason for displacement
Politicalconflict
4%
Religiousconflict
0%4%
Ethnicconflict 1%
90%Securitydeterioration
Others(Pleasespecify)
Page 10 of 49
4.3 EmploymentAmong IDPs, the employment rate remain high, as such more than half are still employed. This could beattributedtothefactthat70percentofIDPshavebeendisplacedformorethanayear,whichhasgiventhemsomechancetofindemploymentinthenewareasofresidency.Amongtheunemployed,onlyoneintenhasbeenwithoutajobforatleastayear.Thenon-workingIDPsareeitherhouseladiesorreceivingpensionsfrompublicemploymentwithoutworkingorunemployed.ThereisamultitudeofreasonsfoundamongtheIDPsfornotworking.However,40percentreportedillnessorageasthemainreasonfornotworking,26percentoftheIDPswhodonothaveajob,foundthatthiswaseitherduetohavinggivenup(13%),orjustnotbelievinginthepossibilityoffindingajob(23%).Aroundoneintenofthenon-workingIDPsstatedthattheydidnotknowhowtofindemployment.Figure3:IDPEmploymentstatusAbouthalfoftheIDPsworkasemployee
Current Employment Status
13% Unemployedandlookingforajob
7%
Pensionerandworking
2%
Pensionerandnotworking10%
Unemployedandnotlookingforajob
Houselady5%
10%
53%
Others(Specify)
Employee
Reasons for unemployment
6%10%
Tiredoflooking
Didn’tfindasuitablejobDon’tknowhowtofindjob
Security
Illness,Aging
40%
2%
Waitingforsuitablejob
7%
13%
Nochanceofwork
23%
No 11% Yes
Unemployed had a job last 12 months
ThevastmajorityoftheemployedIDPsarepublicsectoremployees.Fourpercentareself-employedoutsidetheagriculturesectororengagedinunskilledworkwhile6percentworkedasskilledworkers.Almostafifth(17%)ofIDPsreportedthattheyhadchangedtheirplaceofworkduringthepastyear.Whileitseemscounter-intuitivethat92percentoftheemployedIDPs,havebeenabletoremainintheirpreviousjobsdespitebeingdisplaced,thismightbeexplainedbythevastmajorityofLibyansbeingemployedinthepublicsector. Here they continue to receive their salary despite not being able to show up for work. This alsocorrespondswithfindings,listedbelow,where“statesalaries”isreportedasprimarysourceofincomeformostIDPs.HowevergiventhedeterioratingsituationoftheLibyaneconomythereisariskthattheseIDPswillstopreceivingsalaryananytimeinthefutureiftheydonotwork.ThiswillmeanthatthevastmajorityoftheIDPswilllosetheirprimarysourceofincome.
Page 11 of 49
Figure4:EmployedIDPs78%ofIDPsareemployedinthePublicSector
Job Type for Employed IDPs
5% Other(pleasespecify)
Agriculturallabour2%Farming(SelfEmployed)1%
6%
78%
Non-Skilledlabour4%
Publicservant
Skilledlabour
Self-employed(Non-Farm)4%
Changed place of your work during the last 12 months
No 17% Yes
YesNo 8%
Changed job during the last 12 months
5 IncomeandExpenditureThefollowingsectiondescribestheoveralltrendsinincomeandexpendituresfortheIDPssincetheescalationofarmedconflictsinMay2014.
5.1 IncomesourceAsmostIDPsstatedbeingemployedinthepublicsector, it isnotsurprisingthat42percentofIDPsreportedstatesalary,astheprimarysourceofincome.Thus,statesalariesarebyfarthemainprimarysourceofincomeandconstitute83percentof the incomeof IDPsemployed in thepublic sector. Furthermore, social securityprogramscontributesto79percentofthetotalincomeemphasizingthedependenceuponthepublicsectorofmanyIDPs.Othersourcescitedbyhouseholdsare:salariedwork,casuallaborandsupportfromrelatives.Findings from the REACH June 2016Multi-Sector Needs Assessment confirm that salaried employmentwasreported as the primary source of income among the IDP key informants, followed by pensions and socialsecurity.13
13 REACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016”
Page 12 of 49
Figure5:Incomesourcesandrelativecontributiontototalhouseholdincome
Statesalaryisthemainincomesourcefor42%ofIDPsandonaveragecontributesto83%oftheincome
Main Income Sources Last 30 Days and Relative Contribution to Total Household Income
Externalassistance
2%
Pettytrade
Salariedwork
7%
15%
Casuallabor
SaleofAgricultureProducts
<1%
33%
Skilledlabor
14%
<1%
68%
BeggingKinshipsupport
6%
82%
25%28%
Statesalary
Spendsavings
Socialsecurity
5%
72%
Remittances
73%
1%5%
Borrowing
37%
31%33%
3%
42%
79%83%
20%
<1%
MainsourceofincomeAveragecontributiontoincome
WhilemanyIDPsstillhaveincomesourcesfromemployment,theeruptionoffightingin2014seemstohavenegatively impactedthe incomeofaroundhalf the IDPs.Assuch,29percentreportedthattheir incomehaddecreasedbyupto50percentcomparedtotheMay2014.Evenmoreconcerning,almostafifth(17%)statedthatincomehaddroppedbymorethan50percentsincetheescalationoftheconflict.However,theimpactoftheconflictsinLibyaalsoseemstodifferbetweenIDPs,assuch,almosthalf(47%)reportedthattheirincomewasalmostthesameascomparedtobeforeMay2014.AnumberofchallengestogeneratingincomewereobservedbyIDPshouseholds.Lackofjobopportunitiesanddelayornon-paymentofsalariesarethetwo incomechallengesreportedbythemajorityofthe interviewedhouseholds.Thisindicates,thatwhiletheemploymentrateamongIDPsisratherhigh,underemploymentcouldbeasignificantissue,especiallyrelatedtoincomegeneration.Thisisbackedbythefactthat44percentofIDPhouseholds report low salaries as a primary income challenge. Recently displaced IDPs reported that somegovernmentemployersandcompanieshadblockedordecreasedtheirsalaries,whileothersexplainedthatIDPswereunable toworkbecausethey feltat riskofdiscrimination14.Finally, thenon-functioningbanksystem ismentionedby46percentofIDPsasaprimaryincomechallenge. 14 REACH Rapid IDP Protection Needs Assessment, May 2016
Page 13 of 49
Figure6:Incomesituation
46%ofIDPsreportdecreasingincomecomparedtobeforeMay2014,mainchallengebeingsalarynotbeingpaid
Income situation compared to before May 2014
Significantlyincreased(Bymorethan50%)
Highlydecreased(bymorethan50%)
29%
Aboutthesame
17%
Decreasedby0-50%
47%
Increased(bylessthan50%)3%
5%
Lowwage/salary
Bankingsystemnotfunctioning46%
Salarynotpaid,delayed58%
1%
44%
No/lackofopportunities60%
Other
2% Nochallenge/difficultiesfaced
Main Income Challenges
Figure7:Mainincomechallengesacrosslocations
Page 14 of 49
Statesalaryisthemainincomesourcefor42%ofIDPsandonaveragecontributesto83%oftheincome
Main Income Challenges Across Locations
56% 57%
90%88%
44%
29%
92%
40%
27%
33%
15%
Tobruk
45%
55%
39%
Benghazi
43%
29%
94%
56%
89%
SabhaBaniWalid
48%
70%
Ajdabiyah
83%
Awbari
26%
89%86%
89%
47%
62%57%
Zawiyah
63%
30%
61%
Tripoli
BankingsystemnotfunctioningSalarynotpaid,delayedNo/lackofopportunities Lowwage/salary
5.2 ExpendituresWhenitcomestoexpendituresoftheIDPs’,thesituationlooksevenbleaker.IDPshouseholdsreportedlyspendmorethanhalfoftheircashexpendituresonfood.MainexpendituresamongIDPhouseholdsare,inorderofsignificance,food,health/medicine,andrent/housing.Figure8:Averageshareofexpenditure
63%inBani Walid use>75%ofexpenditureonfood,sameisrepoted by33%inBengahzi and25%inAjdabiyah
Shares of expenditures spend on food
11%
5%
Transportation8%
Rent
13%59%
3%
Otherexpenditures
Food
Education
Health
Expenditure Shares
37%52%
13%
2016
27%
48%
2015
11%
2016
93%
19%
29%
19%
26%
2016
26%
23%
26%
25%
2015
2016
2015
1%
10%
2016
10%
2015
2015
70%
73%
26%
81%
2016
61%
1%
20%
1%
2015
19%
33%37%
15%
63%
85%
10%
16%
1%
2016
88%
12%
28%
2016
11%
1%
2015
0%
2015
88%86%
70%
Tripoli Zawi-yah
BaniWalid
Ajd-abiyah
Ben-ghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
<50%spentonfood
50%- <65%spentonfood
>75%spentonfood65%- <75%spentonfood
Page 15 of 49
TheexpendituretrendsvaryconsiderablyacrossLibya.InboththeWesternandEasternregionsofLibya,IDPshavehighsharesexpendituresonfood.Assuch,39percentofIDPsintheWestand46percentofIDPsintheEastspendmorethan65percentoftheirexpendituresonfood.Accordingly, inBaniWalid,BenghaziandAjdabiyahhighpercentageofhouseholdsspendsmorethan75%ofexpendituresonfood.Thesehouseholdsarelikelytobevulnerabletoeconomicshocksasthereislittleadditionalbudgetavailableforanyotherexpensesexceptthemostbasicrequirements.The food expenditure situation is more positive in Zawiyah, Sabha and Tobruk, where the vast majority isspendinglessthan50percentoftheirtotalexpendituresonfood.However,ingeneraltheshareofIDPsspendinglessthan50percentoftotalexpendituresonfoodseemstohavedroppedbyaroundtenpercentagepointsinmostcitiesincomparisonwith2015.OnlyTripoliandTobrukhaveseenpositiveimprovements,asinTripolitheshareofIDPsspendinglessthanhalfoftheirexpendituresonfoodincreasedfrom15percentto61percent,andinTobrukfrom52percentto93percentbetween2015and2016. Figure9:Averageshareofexpenditureonfoodbyregionsandbylocations
77%
35%23%
20%
26%31%
3%
10% 22%
29% 24%
South West East
<75%spentonfood
65%- <75%spentonfood
50%- <65%spentonfood
<50%spentonfood
Page 16 of 49
LookingattheplaceoforiginofIDPs,60percentofthehouseholdsfromWadialHayaa/Awbarispendsmorethan75percentofall theirexpendituresonfood.Among IDPs fromTawergha,about36percentwhospendmorethan75percentoftheexpenditureonfood.Acrossdurationofdisplacement,theshareofIDPsspendingmorethan75percentofexpendituresonfoodisthelargestamongIDPswhohavebeendisplacedbetweensixmonthsandayear,droppingto27percentforbetweenoneandtwoyearsandfallingevenmoreto22percentforIDPs,whohavebeendisplacedformorethantwoyears.Somewhatsurprisingly,thelowestshareofIDPs,whospendmorethan75percentofhouseholdexpendituresonfoodisfoundamongthemostrecentlydisplaced.Figure10:AverageshareofexpenditureonfoodbyIDPPlaceofOriginanddisplacementtime
15%
61%
81%73%
1%10%
19% 24%11%
52%
93% 88% 86% 88%
70%
85%
37%
19%26%
16%
70%
29%26%
37%
48%
7% 12% 12% 12%
29%
1% 1%
20%
10%
19%26% 27%
1%1%
1%
63%
10%
33%26% 25%
1%
2015
2016
2015
2016
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalid
Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
<50%spentonfood 50%- <65%spentonfood 65%- <75%spentonfood <75%spentonfood
Page 17 of 49
In2016,60percentoftheIDPsreportedasignificantincreaseinexpendituresofmorethan50percentsincetheoutbreakoffightinginMay2014.Theincreaseinexpendituresislikelytoberelatedtothehighinflationratesover2016,whichhasledtosubstantialdecreaseintherealpurchasingpowerofthepopulation,especiallygivenrisingbasicfoodprices.Inaddition,lackoffundstopayduesubsidiestoimportersanddistributersofbasicfoodsince October 2015 translated into a de facto removal of subsidies to food. Traditionally, Libyans receivedgovernmentfoodsubsidieswhichreducedthecostofkeycommoditiesby50%.Anadditional20percentreportedanincreaseoflessthan50percent,whereasonly13percentstatedthattheirexpenditurelevelissimilartobeforeMay2014.ComparingexpendituresandincomeforIDPhouseholdsclearlyindicatesthechallengingsituationfacedbyIDPsfollowing the intensificationof the conflicts. 75percentof IDPshavehadexpenditures increasedmore thanincome,whileonlyafifthhaveseencorrespondingincreasesinexpensesandincome,andonly7percenthavehadhigherincreasesinincomethanexpenses.Theincreaseduseofnegativecopingstrategies,asexplainedinthefollowingchapters,couldsomehowexplainedhowpeopleareabletomeetadditionalexpenditureswhiletheirincomesareshrinking. Figure11:Expendituredevelopmentandincomecomparison
36%23% 25% 22%
59%
24%12%
31%
41%
29%
7%
42%
27%
31%
37%
31%
26%
28%21%
9%
21%
14%
5%
20%
25%
16%
10%13%
60%
12%
36%
5%19%
32% 27%
<75%spentonfood
65%- <75%spentonfood
50%- <65%spentonfood
<50%spentonfood
Page 18 of 49
For75%ofIDPHouseholds,ExpenditurehasIncreasedmorethanIncomesinceMay2014
Comparison of Expenditure and Income Development for IDP Households
75%
19%7%
Expenditureandincomechangethesame
Expenditureincreaselowerthanincomeincrease
Expenditureincreasehigherthanincomeincrease
Expenditure Compared to Before May 2014
Highlydecreased(bymorethan50%)
3%Decreasedby0-50%4%
Aboutthesame 13%
Increased(bylessthan50%)
20%
Significantlyincreased(Bymorethan50%)
60%
6 ExternalAssistanceWhilefooddistributionhasbeenincreasinglydifficulttoundertakeinLibyaespeciallyafterthepulloutoftheUNagenciesfromthecountry,foodaidstillreachesIDPs.However,onlyalimitedshareofbothfoodaid(10%),foodassistance(4%)andnon-foodassistance(6%)arereachingIDPs.Thecitieswheremostfoodaidsareprovidedare Tripoli, Tobruk, and Sabha. These findings are also seen in the REACH June 2016 Multi-Sector NeedsAssessment,where43percentofIDPsreceivefoodthroughdistributionsfromthegovernmentofhumanitarianactors.15Intheearlymonthsof2016,theInternationalConfederationofRedCrossandRedCrescent(ICRC)andLibyanRedCrescenthavealsodistributedfoodtoIDPsinTripoli,Misrata,andTobruk.16Whenitcomestofoodassistancethroughcashbasedtransfer,lessthanoneintenofIDPsacrosscities,exceptSabhahavereceivedthis.InSabha,almostathirdofIDPshavereceivedfoodassistance.Non-foodassistancesharesarealsovastlylargerinSabha,wheremorethanhalfofIDPsreporthavingreceivedassistanceintheformofnon-fooditems.
15 REACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016” 16 Libya News Agency (2016): “IRCC and LRC distribute aid to displaces people in Tripoli, Misrata and Tobruk (13-02-2016)”
Page 19 of 49
Figure12:FoodAid,Assistance,andNon-foodassistance
OnlyLimitedShareofIDPsReceiveFoodAid,AssistanceandNon-foodAssistance
IDPs receiving various types of support
10%4% 6%
FoodAssistance(cash,vouchers)
100%
Yes
Non-foodassistance
(e.g.cookingutensils,soap)
Foodaid(fooditemsandinkindcontributions)
No
Tobruk34%
4%Benghazi
19%
8%9%
4%
0%
7%
BaniWalid
Zawiyah0%
Ajdabiyah
Tripoli25%
3%
6%
3%
29%
0%
0%1%
5%
7%
7%
55%
3%13%Awbari
5%
Sabha
% of IDPs across key locations receiving various types of support
FoodAssistanceNon-foodassistance
Foodaid
Thelargestprovidersofnon-foodaidandothersupporttoIDPsarereligiouscharities.NineteenpercentofIDPsreporthaving receivednon-foodaidorassistance fromreligiouscharities.This is followedby families (14%),CommunityBasedOrganizations(15%)andcommunitiesingeneral(14%).Furthermore,communitiesandfamilies/relativesarealsothe largestproviderofothertypesofsupport.Thisprovidesbackingtothecorrelationbetweendistancefromtheoriginandnegativecopingstrategiesdiscussedabove,asthemainfallbackofIDPsarerelatedtotheirimmediatecommunityorrelatives.Figure13:Non-foodsupport
Page 20 of 49
Religiouscharities,families,CBOsandcommunitiesarethelargestprovidersfornon-foodsupporttoIDPs
Actors providing support to IDPs
9% 9%
6%
14%
17%
2%
5%
14%
Localtribe
13%
19%
CBOs ReligiousCharity
6%
Family/relatives
CommunityNGOs
9%
15%15%
UNagenciesGovernment/authorities
0%
4%
OthersupportNonfood
7 FoodInsecuritysituationandtrendsThe status of household food security is analyzed applying theWFP’s standardmethodology “ConsolidatedApproachforReportingIndicatorsofFoodSecurity”(CARI).CARIlooksattwodomains,namelycurrentstatusandcopingcapacity.Foreachdomain,relevantindicatorsareemployed:foodconsumptionforcurrentstatus;andshareofexpenditureonfoodaswellaslivelihoodcopingindicatorforcopingcapacity.Foreachindicator,householdsareclassifiedintodifferentlevelsoffoodinsecuritytoderiveafoodsecurityindex.PleaserefertoAnnex1forthedetailedcomputationprocessofCARI.Thetablebelowshowstheresultsoftheanalysis.Theinterviewedhouseholdsarecharacterizedbyanacceptablelevelofcurrentconsumptionwithpoorcopingcapacity:i.e.households’minimumfoodconsumptionismostlymetbuttheircopingcapacityisstretchedwithahighshareofexpenditureonfoodandalargeproportionofhouseholdsadoptingseverecopingstrategies.Overall,24percentofthehouseholdsarefoodinsecure,leavingthemajorityof62percentvulnerabletofoodinsecurity(marginallyfoodsecure).Table1:CARIClassification
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
Food Secure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFood Insecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
76% / 16% 8%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
54% 23% 8% 14%
AssetDepletionLivelihood copingstrategycategories
26% 20% 40% 13%
FoodSecurityIndex14% 62% 18% 6%
76% 24%
Page 21 of 49
Table2:CARIdefinitions
Althoughtheproportionof‘foodinsecure(severely/moderatelyfoodinsecure)’householdsarerelativelysmallat24percent,avastmajorityofIDPhouseholdsof62percentare‘marginallyfoodsecure’andatriskoffoodinsecurity. The ‘food insecure’ households typically have significant food consumption gaps and/or adoptingsevere coping strategies with their household budget stretched to buy food. The ‘marginally food secure’households have managed to meet the minimum food consumption through adopting livelihood copingstrategies. 8 FoodconsumptionMeasuredbythefrequencyandthediversityofthefoodconsumedoverthepast7days,thefoodconsumptionamongthemajorityoftheinterviewedhouseholdsismostlyacceptable.Twenty-fourpercentofthehouseholdsareborderlineorpoorconsumptionwithsignificantfoodconsumptiongap,andthosehouseholdsunderthesecategoriestypicallyconsumeonlymainstaplesalmostdaily,vegetableseveryotherdays,andmeattwiceaweek,whilefruitordairyproductsarerarelyconsumed.Figure14:FoodConsumptionScore
Foodsecurityclassification
Description
Foo
dinsecure
Severely foodinsecure
Extreme food consumption gaps OR extreme loss oflivelihoodassets
Moderately foodinsecure
Significant foodconsumptiongaps,ORmarginallyabletomeetminimum food needs onlywith irreversible copingstrategies
Food
secure
Marginally foodsecure
Minimallyadequatefoodconsumptionwithoutengaginginirreversiblecopingstrategies
Foodsecure Adequate food consumption without engaging in typicalcopingstrategies
14%
62%
18%6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%SeverelyfoodinsecureModeratelyfoodinsecureMarginallyfoodsecureFoodsecure
Page 22 of 49
Asfigure15shows,therehasbeenageneraldecreaseinfoodconsumptionscoresacrossLibya,from98percentofIDPshavinganacceptablefoodconsumptionscorein2015toonly76percentin2016.Atregionallevel,thewesternregionhasthehighestproportionofhouseholdswithunacceptablefoodconsumption.AjdabiyahandAwbarihaveseensignificantdropsfrom2015to2016intheshareofIDPswithacceptablefoodconsumptionscores;from100percentto81percentand64percentrespectively.BaniWalidhasthehighestproportionofhouseholdswithpoorfoodconsumption,withlessthanhalfofthehouseholdshavingacceptablediets.ThisdeteriorationmightbelinkedwiththeincreasenumberofIDPsintheselocationsin2016. Figure15:FoodConsumptionScorebyregionsandlocation
76%
16%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FoodConsumptionGroup
Poorfoodconsumption(≤28)
Borderlinefoodconsumption(28.5-42)
Acceptablefoodconsumption(≥42.5)
Poor Borderline AcceptableSugar 0 1 3
Oil/fat 1 2 3
Dairy 0 1 4
Legumes 0 0 1
Fruits 0 0 1
Meat/Fish 1 3 5
Vegetables 2 3 4
MainStaple 6 6 7
FoodconsumptionbyFCG
Page 23 of 49
Lookingatthefoodconsumptionscorefordifferentdisplacedgroups,IDPsfromAwbari/WadialHayaastandsoutwithconsiderablyworsescore.Herelessthanhalfhaveanacceptablefoodconsumptionscore,comparedto groups from Benghazi (91%), Sirte (75%), Tawergha (74%) and groupswith other places of origin (77%).Furthermore,groupsfromAwbari/WadialHayaahavethelargestshareofIDPswithapoorfoodconsumptionscore, with almost a third (29%), which is significantly higher than other displacement groups. Also, newlydisplacedgroupsseemtohavesomewhatlowerfoodconsumptionscores.Lookingatfoodconsumptionformaleandfemaleheadedhouseholds,femaleheadsofhouseholdsconstituteafourthofIDPswithapoorfoodconsumptionscoreand14%and10%oftheIDPswithborderlineandacceptablefoodconsumptionscoresrespectively.
77%64%
85%
18%
22%
11%5%
13%5%
South West East
Acceptable Borderline Poor
80%
100%
76%
98% 94% 96%
46%
100% 100%
81%94%
84%96% 100%
90%100%
95%100%
64%
18%18%
2% 6% 4%
31%
14%
5%11%
4%8%
6%
28%
2% 6%
23%
5% 1% 5% 2%8%
2014
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalid
Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
Acceptable Borderline Poor
Page 24 of 49
OnaverageIDPswithapoorfoodconsumptionscore,haveamediumtolongdistancetotheirplaceoforiginandhavesmallerhouseholds,withmorementhanwomen.IDPshavingaborderlinefoodconsumptionscoreareonaveragelargehouseholdswithmoremalethanfemalemembers,whohasamediumdistancetotheirplaceoforigin.IDPswithanacceptablefoodconsumptionscorehaveonaverageashorterdistancetotheirplaceoforiginandmediumsizedhouseholds,withanequalsplitofmenandwomen.Figure16:FoodConsumptionScorebyDisplacementGroups,SexofHeadofHouseholdsandDisplacementtime
Inrelationwiththenumberofmealseatenperday,inBaniWalidandTripolimorethanaquarteroftheIDPsgetslessthanthreemealsperday.Thetimeofdisplacementseemstobepositivelycorrelatedwithnumberofmealsperday.Assuch,thelongertimeanIDPhasbeendisplacedthehigherthenumberofmealseatenperdaywillbe.Thismaybeexplainedbythefactthatthelongerthedisplacement,thelongertheIDPswillhavehadtoestablishafootingandlivelihoodmechanisms.Figure17:Mealseatenperdaybysexofheadofhouseholdsandaverageofnumberofdaysdisplaced
91%
46%
75% 74% 77% 77%
62% 64%
80% 75% 76%
6%
25%
15% 20% 18% 16%
21%27%
12% 15% 17%
3%
29%
10% 6% 5% 7%18%
8% 8% 9% 8%
Acceptable Borderline Poor
Page 25 of 49
8.1 FoodsourcesDespiteanincreaseinexpendituresonfood,themajorfoodsourceismarketpurchasewithcashtheprimarywayofobtainingfoodforIDPscontinuestobethroughpurchasingitwithcashatthemarket.Surveyfindingsshowthatnearly89percentofallhouseholdscontinuedtoaccesstheir foodthroughpurchase–83percentthrough purchase in cash, while the remaining 6 percent buy their food on credit. About 3 percent of thehouseholdsgettheirfoodfromexternalsupport(Figurex).Localproductionhasbeenaffectedbyconflictandfarmers reportedthat thedestructionof irrigationssystemsanddisruptionofsupply routespreventedthemfrompurchasingseeds,particularlyforcropssuchasvegetables,whereseedsarenotnormallysavedfromthepreviousharvest. Inaddition, the increase in fuelpricesalso limited farmers’ability tocarryoutmechanizedoperations. Attacks on the commercial port in Benghazi are reported to have disrupted critical food importroutes.Therehasbeenasubstantialdeclineinfoodimportsasforeignshippersfearmakingdeliveries.17About89percentof the IDPshouseholdsarebuying food inthemarketandarehighlyvulnerabletomarketshocks and volatility of prices, both of which have become common in recent years. Inflationary pressuresremainedhighoverthefirsthalfof2016leadingtosubstantiallossinrealpurchasingpowerofthepopulation,especiallygiventherisingbasicfoodprices.Higherfoodpricestranslateintoafurtherincreaseinexpendituresonfoodtothedetrimentofotherneedssuchashealth,educationandasset/livelihoodsbuilding. Figure18:Foodsources
17 FAO, GIEWS Country Brief, November 2016.
79% 70%769.2
21% 30%702.4
MaleHH FemaleHH Average#ofdaysdaysdisplaced
Threeormoremeals Twoorlessmeals
Page 26 of 49
Lookingatthesourceoffoodbylocations,onaverageIDPsinTripoliusethemarketconsiderablylessthaninotherLibyancities.Marketpurchasesthroughbothcashandcreditdroppedsignificantlyfrom2015to2016.Assuch, 71 percent of IDPs in Tripoli use themarket for food acquisition. Several factors could influence thisdiscrepancy;eitherthemarketinTripoli isnotentirelyfunctioningregardingprovidingfoodforIDPsorotherfoodsourcessuchas foodaid ismorereadilyavailable.Also, this resultscanbeexplainedwith the fact thatexchangeislikelytobehigherinhecticcitiessuchasTripoli.ItmightalsobethatIDPsinurbansettingsrelyoninformalmarketsratherthanofficialones,andthusthevariancebetweenareasmightdifferinwhatisconsideredthemarket.AwbariandTobrokhavethehighestproportionofhouseholdspurchasingtheirfoodoncredit–15percentand11percent,respectively.Figure19:Averageuseofkeyfoodsourcesacrosslocations
Market(Cash)83%
Market(Credit)6%
Foodaid5%
Gift3%
Zakat1%
Loan1%
OwnProduction
1%
Page 27 of 49
Figure20:Useofmarket(cashandcredit)asfoodsource2015vs.2016
9 CopingStrategiesThe following section presents the findings on livelihood coping strategies and reduced coping strategiesemployedbyIDPhouseholds.
9.1 LivelihoodCopingStrategies
65%
97%
79%87% 90%
82%94%
71%
6%
10% 7%11%
15%11%1%
1% 1% 4% 2%18%
3%
20%
2% 2% 3% 4%14%
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalid
Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
Marketpurchase(cash) Marketpurchase(credit) Foodaid Other
93% 96% 99%90% 92% 93% 91%
71%
91%
80%
97% 96% 93% 94%86%
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalidAjdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
2015 2016
Page 28 of 49
AssessmentfindingsshowthatmultiplecopingmechanismswereemployedtoaworryingdegreebytheIDPs.Morethantwo-thirdsoftheinterviewedhouseholdsreportedlyusedlivelihoodcopingstrategiesduetolackofmoneytobuyfoodorotherbasicneeds.Fifty-threepercentofthehouseholdsresortedtoemergencyorcrisislivelihoodcoping,suchassellingproductiveassetsorsendingchildrentowork,underminingfutureproductivityandcapacitytocope. AlargeshareofIDPhouseholdsspentsavings,orsoldhouseholdassets.Thesestrategiesmaybereversiblebutaprolongeddisplacementwould leadtoareducedability forhouseholdstodealwithfutureuncertainties.TheexcessiveuseofcopingstrategiesisanindicationofahighlevelofrisktofoodinsecurityamongIDPhouseholds.Theoveralluseofemergencycopingstrategieshasincreasedincomparisonwith2015findings.In2015onlyoneintenemployedemergencycopingstrategies,whichhasincreasedto14percentin2016.Theoveralluseofemergencycopingstrategiesisalsohigherthanin2014(12%).Figure21:Livelihoodcopingstrategiesusedbyhouseholds
Themostcommoncopingmechanismisspendsavings,followedbyreducingnon-foodexpensesonhealthandeducation,borrowing foodorbuying foodoncredit.Among the IDPs,23percentsoldhouseholdassetsasacopingmechanism,whereas9percentstatedthattheydidnotdosobecausetheyhadalreadyresortedtothiscopingmechanism.ThesefindingsareinlinewithJune2016REACHmulti-sectorassessmentthatfoundthatthemost frequent coping strategies used by IDPs included spending savings, buying food on credit or sellinghouseholdgoods.18Twenty-sixpercentofhouseholdshaveadoptednocopingmechanisms.Thiscouldeitherbeattributedtothelackofavailablecopingmechanismsornoneedforemployingnegativecopingmechanisms.Figure22:Livelihoodcopingstrategies
18 REACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016”
29%33%
26%
9%20%
20%
56%36%
40%
12%11%
14%
201420152016
Nocoping StressCoping CrisisCoping Emergencycoping
StressCoping CrisisCoping EmergencyCoping
Page 29 of 49
At regional level, both the South and theWest havemore than a fifth of IDPs adopting emergency copingstrategies,comparedtoonly5percentintheEast.Withregardstocrisiscopingstrategies,48percentofIDPsintheWesthasemployedcomparedto23percentintheSouthand35percentintheEast. Acrosslocations,aspikefrom2015to2016intheuseofemergencycopingstrategiesisfoundprimarilyinTripoli(27%-32%) and Sabha (6%-29%). The increase in emergency coping strategies is potentially related to thecontinuingdeteriorationinLibya’seconomicsituationandtherelatedsteepincreaseinfoodpricesespeciallyinthe South. Furthermore, continuing fighting in theWestern region can explain the deteriorating situation inTripoli,whereastheresultsfromSabhamightbelinkedwiththeinfluxofIDPsfromthefightinginSirte.Ontheotherhand,Benghaziexperiencedadecreasefrom15percentofIDPsresortingtoemergencycopingstrategiesin2015toonly1percentin2016,indicatingastabilizationoftheIDPsituation.Figure23:LivelihoodCopingStrategiesbyregionsandlocations
33%
10%
40%
21%
21%
20%
23%
48%
35%
23% 22%
5%
South West East
Nocoping StressCopingCrisisCoping Emergencycoping
Page 30 of 49
Amongdisplacementgroups,IDPsfromWadialHayaa/Awbariconsistentlystandsoutnegatively.Thisisalsothecasefortheuseofcopingstrategies,whereathirdofthedisplacementhasemployedemergencycopingstrategies.Theuseofemergencycopingstrategiesseemstocorrelatewiththedisplacementduration.However,theshareof IDPs who employ no coping strategies at all are significantly lower among recently displaced IDPs. ThisindicatesthatthesituationforIDPsisworsenedovertimeforashareofIDPs,butalsothatbetweenafifthand20percentofIDPscancreateasustainableconditionforthemselvesovertime.Giventhehighusageofcrisislivelihoodcopingstrategies,coupledwiththehighrelianceonsavings,itislikelythatIDPhouseholdswillfurtherresorttousingemergencylivelihoodcopingstrategiesintheupcomingmonths.
18%
29%
5%
50%
24% 26%
10%
29% 30%26% 24%
42%
24%20%
44%
35%29%
34%
12%
12%
12%
8%
16%
28%
27%
2%
8%
28%
22%
24%
26%
15%
8%
29%
7%24%
31%46%
32%
51%
30%
58%37%
48%65%
48%
37%
39%
33%
36%
57%
60%
21%
29%
44%17%
24%27%
32%
12%
2%9%
15%
4%
14%9%
15%
1%
14%
28%
12%6%
29%
3%
18%2014
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalid
Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
Nocoping StressCoping CrisisCoping Emergencycoping
Page 31 of 49
Figure24:Livelihoodcopingstrategiesbydisplacementgroupsanddisplacementtime
9.2 Consumptionbasedcoping
Householdswereaskediftheyhadtoemployconsumption-basedcopingduetolackoffoodormoneytobuyfoodoverthepastsevendays. Almost75percentoftheinterviewedhouseholdsadoptedsomeformofcoping.Mostcommonlycitedcopingstrategiesare“relyoncheaperfoods(67%)”,“limitportionsize(59%)”and“restrictadults’consumptionsothatchildrencaneat(50%)”.Inlinewithothermeasuresoffoodsecuritymeasures,thelocationswiththelargestproportionofhouseholdsusingoneormorecopingstrategieswasBaniWalid,where99percentofhouseholdshadtocopewithfoodshortagesintheweekbeforethesurvey.Assuch,BaniWalid,hasaconsiderablyhigherReducedCopingStrategyScore,comparedtootherIDPlocations.TobrukandAwbariseemtobeoverallbetteroff,withloweraveragescores,thusconfirmingtheoveralltrendoveraratherlargervarianceintheIDPfoodrelatedneedsacrossLibya.Figure25:Consumption-basedcopingstrategiesacrosslocations
26%17% 22%
36%
5% 8%
33% 29% 24%
17%
16%
25%
20%
26%
36%
30%
16%16%
51%
32%
44%33%
43%
48%
30%
43%42%
6%
34%
8% 11%
26%
8% 7%13% 17%
Benghazi Awbari Sirte Tawergha Other 0-6months
6-12months
12-24months
>24
Nocoping StressCoping CrisisCoping Emergencycoping
1519
41
107
18 18
7
Page 32 of 49
EventhoughBaniWalid,consistentlystandsoutintermsofnegativefoodsecurity,thismightberelatedtotheoriginoftheIDPs.Asthefigurebelowindicates,thefurtherawayfromtheplaceoforigin,thehigherthereducedcopingstrategyscorefortheIDPs.Whilethecorrelationbetweendistancetoplaceoforiginandfoodsecurityisweak, it is still statically significant. The correlationmight suggest that IDPs rely on social, family or ethnicnetworkswhendisplaced.Thesenetworksareweakened the furtheraway the IDPsaredisplaced fromtheirorigin,thuscreatinganincreaseintheirreducedcopingstrategyscore.Withoutsocialnetworks,theIDPshavefewersourcestorelyonforsupportgiventheirdisplacement. 10 Profileofthefoodinsecure Inthissection,theassociationbetweenhouseholdfoodinsecurityandhouseholdcharacteristics/circumstancesisexplored.
10.1 GeographyAcrossregions,theWeststandsoutasthemostfoodinsecure,withoneintenbeingseverelyfoodinsecureand24percentmoderatelyfoodinsecure.ThisissignificantlyworsethanthesituationfoundintheSouthandtheEast,where87percentand85percentrespectivelyarefoodsecure.Thedistributionofthefoodinsecurehouseholdsvariesbyprovince.ProvincesthatareborderingorareclosetotherecentconflictareasarelikelytohostlargerproportionsoffoodinsecureIDPhouseholds.ThefightinginSirteandclashesbetweentheopposingforcesintheWestandEasthaveincreasedpressureoninstitutionsandhadanimpactonfoodavailabilityandontheeconomicsituation,whichhasaffectedIDPsnegativelyacrossLibya.Higher rates of food insecurehouseholds areobserved inBaniWalid (38%),Awbari (21%) and Tripoli (19%)comparedtotheotherlocation(17%and18%forBenghaziandAjdabiyahrespectively).SomeofthekeydriversoffoodinsecurityinLibyaincludetheongoingpoliticalinstability,conflictsandinsecurity,increasingcostof living includinghighhealthexpenses, inflationsand lackof liquidity,highandvolatile foodprices, poor government capacity to provide social services, very limited agricultural production and highdependenceonmarketstoaccessfood. Thearmedconflicthasdisruptedcommercialsupplyroutes,limitingtheavailabilityoffoodandpushinguppricesintheinhospitabledeserticsoutherngovernorates.
3 3
2 2 2
Relyoncheaperfood
Limitedmeals
Restrictconsumptionbyadults
Borrowedfood
Reducedmeals
Page 33 of 49
ThegraphbelowillustratesthedevelopmentinthefoodinsecurityindexacrosstheeightLibyancitiesfor2015and 2016. Overall, the findings indicate that IDPs are more food insecure in 2016 compared to 2015. TheproportionoffoodsecureIDPshavedroppedfrom33percentto14percent,whichalsoreflectsageneraldeclineinthefoodsecuritysituationofIDPs.Assuch,24percentarefoodinsecurein2016comparedto0percentin2015.Figure26:Foodsecurityacrossregionsandlocations
39%
7%18%
47%
58%
67%
13%
24%
12%11%
3%
South West East
SeverelyFoofInsecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
MarginallyFoodSecure
FoodSecure
6%20%
41%
10%18%
28%18% 12% 15%
62%
41%29%
37%
100%75%
80%
55%
42%
90%64%
68%
65%88% 85%
38%
51% 71%42%
19%4%
34%
16%2%
13%7%
20%24%
2% 2% 4% 1%
2015
2016
2015
2016
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
Tripoli Zawiyah BaniWalid
Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
FoodSecure MarginallyFoodSecure ModeratelyFoodInsecure SeverelyFoofInsecure
Page 34 of 49
IfwelookattheplaceoforiginoftheIDPs,householdsfromWadiAlHayaa/AwbariandSirtearesignificantlyworseoffthanothergroups.AmongIDPsfromAwbari,31percentareseverelyfoodinsecure,28percentaremoderately food insecure,andonly10percentarefoodsecure.Thehigher insecurityof IDPsfromAwbari isrelatedtothefactthatcomparedtotheotherdisplacementgroups,theyhaveconsiderablyloweremploymentlevels(only27%employedcomparedtothe46%amongTawerghawhichhasthesecondlowestemploymentlevel).WithregardstoIDPsfromSirte,around5percentarefoundtobefoodinsecure,whereas20percentaremoderatelyfoodinsecure.Figure27:Foodsecurityacrossdisplacementgroups
10.2 Demography
Foodsecurehouseholdsarelikelytohaveasmaller/mediumhouseholdsizeandbeheadedbyamale.Themean average household size among the food secure households is 5,9 compared to 6,2 for food insecurehouseholds.Womenheadedhouseholdexhibitahigherrateoffoodinsecurity.Thirty-ninepercentofwomen-headedhouseholdsarefoodinsecurewhiletherateisloweramongthemale-headedhouseholdsat22percent.Thedifferencecouldbeexplainedbyhigher levelsofunemploymentamongwomen(only8%areemployedcomparedto59%ofmale-headedhousehold),fewerincomesourcesduetolackofjobsbeforedisplacementsandthuslackofpensions.Figure28:FoodsecuritybySexofheadofhouseholdandEmploymentstatus
13% 10% 14% 15% 17%
80%
30%
61% 58%67%
5%
28%
20% 23%13%
3%
31%
5% 4% 4%
SeverelyFoofInsecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
MarginallyFoodSecure
FoodSecure
15%3%
20%6% 12% 7% 3%
62%
57%
65%
41%
64%
27%22%
17%
22%
11%
29%
20%
63% 71%
5%17%
3%
24%
4% 4% 3%
SeverelyFoofInsecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
MarginallyFoodSecure
FoodSecure
Page 35 of 49
Householdswiththeirheadsbeingunemployedemploymentarelikelytobemorefoodinsecurecomparedtotheemployedhouseholdheads.Thirty-fivepercentofhouseholdsare food insecureamong theunemployedheadsofhouseholdswhiletherateis14percentamongtheemployedhouseholdheads.WhilearoundhalftheIDPsreporthavingajob,therearesignificantvariationsacrossthesurveyeddistricts.Assuch,78percentofIDPsinTobrukand76percent inAwbariareemployed,whereasonly28percent inBaniWalidand50percent inAjdabiyahhaveajob.Recently-arrivedhouseholds(0-6months)aremorelikelytobefoodinsecure.RecentlydisplacedIDPsbothhavethehighestshareofseverelyfoodinsecure(11%)aswellasthelowestshareoffoodsecure(5%).AstrikingdifferenceofhouseholdfoodsecuritystatusisobservedamongtherecentlyarrivedIDPhouseholdscomparedtothosewhoarrivedmorethanayearago.Foodinsecurityishighamongthehouseholdsthatarrivedlessthansixmonthsago(28%),followedby6-12monthsago(20%),12-24month(26%)andmorethantwoyears(24%).LookingatthetimeofdisplacementforIDPs,BaniWalidandAwbaristandsoutwithhostingthelargestshareofnewIDPs.Twenty-threepercentofIDPsinBaniWalidand18percentinAwbarihavebeendisplacedforsixmonthsorless.ThefindingsshowthatthelongertheIDPshavehadtoestablishthemselvesinanewarea,thelessfoodinsecuretheyare.Figure29:Foodsecuritybydisplacementtime
10.3 Socio-economicsituationSeverelyfoodinsecurehouseholdshavelimitedaccesstostableincomecomparedtoothergroups.Assuch43percentofseverelyfoodinsecurehouseholdsrelyoncasuallaborasthemainincomesource,whilethemostcommonincomesourceforothergroupsisthestatesalary.Arelativelyhighproportionofseverelyfoodinsecure(16%)thusalsorelyonkinshipandgiftsfromfamilyandfriendsasthemainsourceofincome.Inordertocopewith theunstable income, severely food insecurehouseholdsadoptanumberof consumptionbasedcopingstrategieswithmorethan8outof10householdseating lesspreferred/expensivefoods,borrowingfoodorrelying on help from friends and relatives, as well as limiting portion sizes. This compares to food securehouseholdswerelessthanonethirdofthehouseholdsuseanyofthesecopingstrategies.
5%15% 15% 15%
68%64% 60% 61%
17%12% 19% 20%
11% 8% 7% 4%
0-6months 6-12months
12-24months
>24
SeverelyFoofInsecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
MarginallyFoodSecure
FoodSecure
Page 36 of 49
Figure 30: Households food security by main sources of income and use of consumption-based copingstrategies
Table3:CARIClassificationofIDPhouseholds
IDPgroups Foodinsecure Foodsecure
HeadofHouseholdMale 22% 78%Female 40% 60%
Displacementgroups(IDPsplaceoforigin)
Benghazi 8% 92%WadialHayaa/Awbari 60% 40%
Sirte 25% 75%Tawergha 27% 73%
Durationofdisplacement0-6months 27% 73%6-12months 20% 80%
52%
39%47%
29%
20%
20%
3%
12%
20%
43%
2%5%
6%5%
7% 8%
6% 4%15%
16%
10% 12% 12%7%
FoodSecure MarginallyFoodSecure
ModeratelyFoodInsecure
SeverelyFoodInsecure
Other
Kinship/giftsfromfamily/friends/remittancesPettytrade/smallbusiness
Skilledlabour
Casuallabour
Salariedwork
33%
71%75%
82%
30%
49%56%
82%
21%
61%
70%
82%
19%
52%
61%
77%
18%
50%
61%
79%
FoodSecure MarginallyFoodSecure ModeratelyFoodInsecure SeverelyFoodInsecure
Relyoncheaperfood
Borrowedfood
Limitedmeals
Restrictconsumptionbyadults
Page 37 of 49
12-24months 26% 74%>24months 24% 76%
EmploymentstatusEmployed 14% 86%
Notemployed 49% 51%
Distancetoplaceoforigin
Near(0-175km) 17% 83%Short(176-350km) 27% 73%
Medium(351-700km) 19% 81%Long(+700km) 35% 65%
OVERALL 24% 76%Among the IDPs surveyed, four distinct clusters of IDP groups stand out when applying a two-step clusterstatisticalanalysis.
• The first group,whichmakes up almost half of the IDPs (39%) consists of employedmale headsofhouseholds,whohasonlybeendisplacedforashortperiodandhasnotbeendisplacedfarfromtheirplace of origin. This group seems to the least food insecure group, as only 15% are found to foodinsecure.
• Thesecondgroup(13%ofIDPs)consistofemployedmaleheadsofhouseholds,whohasbeendisplacedforanextendedperiodandarelocatedfarfromtheirplaceoforigin.Thisgroupisalsonotaveryfoodinsecuregroup,asonly16%arefoundtofoodinsecure.
• Thethirdgroup,makingup12%oftheIDPs,areunemployedfemaleheadsofmediumsizedhouseholds.Thisgrouphasamediumtimeofdisplacementanddistancetoplaceoforigin.Amontheclustergroups,thisgroup,istheleastfoodsecure,withalmostathird(41%)beingfoodinsecure.
• Thefourthandfinalgroup(36%ofall IDPs)consistsofunemployedmaleheadsoflargehouseholds.Thesearedisplacedamediumdistancefromtheirplaceoforiginandhavebeensoforalongtime.Athirdofthesegroupisfoodinsecure,makingitthesecondmostinsecureclustergroup.
Page 38 of 49
Figure31:ClusterAnalysisofMostVulnerableIDPGroups
©2016Voluntas Advisory. Allrightsreserved. StrictlyConfidential.
Unemployedwomen,andunemployedmaleheadsoflargehouseholdmostvulnerableIDPgroups
Group1:EmployedMaleheadofMediumsizehousehold.Shortperiodofdisplacement,Shortdistancefromplaceoforigin
ShareoffoodinsecureingroupShareofIPDsGroupcharacteristics
Group2: EmployedMaleheadofMediumsizehousehold.Longperiodofdisplacement,Longdistancefromplaceoforigin
Group3:UnemployedFemaleheadofMediumsizehousehold.Mediumtimeperioddisplaced,shortdistancefromplaceoforigin
Group4:UnemployedMaleheadofLargesizehousehold.Longperiodofdisplacement,mediumdistancefromplaceoforigin
+6
39%
13%
12%
36%
15%
16%
41%
33%
Page 39 of 49
11 ConclusionAstheconflictcontinuesinLibyablockingprospectsforrevitalisingstateinstitutionsandstabilisingtheeconomy,therivalgovernments’abilitytodeliverconcreteimprovementinthelivesofLibyansisdecreasing,whiletheriskof further violence increases. Entire cities’ neighbourhoods have been destroyed, hundreds of thousands ofLibyanshavebeendisplaced,the localcurrencyhavedevaluatedand inflation isspiking leadingto increasingfoodpricesandsuspensionoftheregularsubsidiesbythegovernment.TheRapidFoodSecurityAssessmentof IDPs inLibya found that thecontinuingdeteriorationof securityandeconomicsituationareputtingimmensestrainsonIDPsinseveralareasinLibya.From2015to2016,overallIDPfoodinsecurityhasincreased,24percentofallIDPsarefoodinsecure,comparedto6percentfoodinsecurein2015.Overall,thesituationinBaniWalidisthemostpressing,whereIDPsaredisplacedduetoclashesbetweenforces from the eastern and western regions, and the fight against the Islamic State in Sirte face severehumanitarianchallenges.InBaniWalid,24percentofIDPsarefoundtobeseverelyfoodinsecureand43percentoftheIDPsintheWesterncityeatslessthanthreemealsperday.Furthermore,female-headedIDPhouseholdsare more food insecure than themale-headed ones. Also, IDPs seem to bemost insecure right after theirdisplacement,astheyhaveyetbeenabletocreatelivelihoodpotentials.TheeffectofdecreaseddisposableincomehashadasignificantimpactonIDPsfoodsecurity whoarealreadyaffectedbyrestrictedaccesstolivelihoods.Duetolimitedbankingfunctionalityhouseholdsdonothaveaccesstotheirsalariesandsavingsandtheyarenotabletoaccessfundsnecessarytopayfortheirneeds,includingfoodandaccommodation.Currently,almosthalfofIDPexpendituresaredirectedtowardsfood,thoughthisvariesconsiderably across cities. Food insecure and vulnerable households cope through adapting various copingstrategies.Thefrequentuseoflivelihoodcopingstrategies,especiallycrisisandemergencycoping,callforimmediateactionby humanitarian communities tomitigate a further deteriorationof food security situation among themostvulnerable.
11.1 Recommendations• Identifylocalpartnersthatcanhelpprovideandscale-upfoodassistanceinBaniWalidtoaddressIDPs
escalatingfoodsecuritycrisisinthecity;• IncreaseeffortstoreachvulnerableIDPhouseholdsespeciallyfemale-headedhouseholds,forinstance
throughtrainingoflocalpartnerstoidentifyandprofileIDPhouseholds;• Set-up food price monitoring system to enable on-going monitoring of food price inflation in key
markets;• Developcontingencyplansforotherconflictareasatriskoflocalizedsurgeofdisplacement,aswasseen
withtheSirtedisplacement;• ConsiderengagingwiththeLibyangovernmentonprovidingtargetedfoodsubsidiesinareashosting
highnumberofIDPs.
Page 40 of 49
12 Annex1-CARIcalculationsTheCARImethodologyisafoodsecurityassessmenttoolaimingtoestimatetheactualnumberoffoodinsecurehouseholdsinatargetpopulation.Itissuitablefornationalandsub-nationalassessmentsandspecificlocations,suchasrefugeesettlements.CARIisnotappropriateforqualitativeassessmentsthataresolelybasedonkey-informantinterviewsandfocusgroupdiscussionsandthereforeonlyIDPsandReturneeshavebeenincludedinthecalculations.TheCARImethodologyincludesthefollowingdomains,sub-domains,andindicators.Table4:CARImodelDomain Consoles IndicatorCurrentstatus Foodconsumption Foodconsumptionscore
FoodenergyshortfallCopingcapacity Economicvulnerability Foodexpenditureshare
PovertystatusAssetdepletion Livelihood coping strategies
categoriesThe4-pointscaleassignsascoretoeachindicator:
• Ascoreof1isseenasfoodsecure:ahouseholdcanmeetessentialfoodandnon-foodneedswithoutengaginginatypicalcopingstrategies.
• Ascoreof2meansmarginally food secure:ahouseholdhasminimallyadequate foodconsumptionwithout engaging in irreversible coping strategies but is unable to afford some essential non-foodexpenditures.
• Ascoreof3isseenasmoderatefoodinsecure,wherebyafamilyhassignificantfoodconsumptiongapsorismarginallyabletomeetminimumfoodneedsonlywithirreversiblecopingstrategies.
• Ascoreof4indicatesahouseholdisseverelyfoodinsecure,andthusfacesextremefoodconsumptiongaps,orhasseverelossoflivelihoodassetswillleadtofoodconsumptiongapsorworse.
Theoverallfoodsecurityclassificationiscalculatedinfourstepsbyfirstaveragingthehousehold’s4-pointscalescoresforavailableindicatorsinthecurrentstatusdomain(CS).Next,thesummaryindicatorofcopingcapacityis calculatednextbyaveraging thehousehold’s console scores foravailable indicators in thecopingcapacitydomain(CC).Thirdly,theCSandCCscoreareaveraged((CS+CC)/2).Thisaverageisthenroundedtothenearestwholenumberandwillalwaysfallbetween1and4.Thenumberthusrepresentsthehousehold’soverallfoodsecurityoutcome.Tocalculatewhatpercentageofthepopulationisfoodinsecure,theratesofthetwomostseverecategories(moderatelyfoodinsecureandseverelyfoodinsecure)aresummed.Inthisassessment,thefollowingthreeindicatorshavebeenincluded:
• Foodconsumptionscore• Foodexpenditureshare• Livelihoodcopingstrategiescategories
FoodconsumptionscoresFoodconsumptionscores(FCS)measurecurrentfoodconsumption.Householdsareallocatedintogroupsbasedonthevarietyoffoodsconsumedintheweekbeforebeingsurveyed.ThesurveyincludedthefollowingfoodgroupslargelyfollowingtheWFPTechnicalGuidanceforFoodConsumptionAnalysis:Table5:Fooditemstablefromhouseholdsurvey
Fooditems Foodgroups Weight
1. CerealsandGrain: Mainstaples 2
Page 41 of 49
Wheatbread(flourforhomebakery),RyeBread,Buckwheat,Pasta,Rice
2. Rootsandtubers: Potato,Beetroot3. Legumes/nuts:
Pulses 3 Beans,Peas/cannedpeas,othernuts4. Orangevegetables(Veg.richinVitaminA):
Vegetables 1 Carrot,RedPepper,Pumpkin5. Greenleafyvegetables:Spinach/Sourdock6. Othervegetables: Onion,Cabbage,Tomatoes/Cucumbers,Zucchini7.
Orangefruits(FruitsrichinVitaminA):Apricot,Peach,Orange
Fruits 18.
OtherFruits:Apple,Pear,Plums,Lemon
9. Meat:
Meatandfish 4
Chicken,Beef10. Liver,kidney,heartand/orotherorganmeats: Liver
11. Fish/Shellfish:Cannedtuna,Cannedsardines,Riverfish
12. Eggs13.
Milkandotherdairyproducts:FreshMilk,Cheese,Sourcream,Fuli(Kefir)/yoghurt Milk 4
14. Oil/fat/butter: Sunfloweroil,Butter,Lard,Margarine Oil 0,515. Sugar:Sugar,Cakes/sweets/cookies,Jam,Honey Sugar 0,5
16.
Condiments/Spices:Tea,coffee/cocoa,salt,garlic,spices,yeast/bakingpowder,lanwin,tomato/sauce,meatorfishasacondiment,condimentsincludingsmallamountofmilk/teacoffee,andherbsorsmallquantityofleafyvegetableslikeparsleyandcoriander
Condiments 0
Foreachfooditem,thenumberofdaysthattherespondenthaseatentheitemwithinthelastsevendaysisrecorded.Foreachfoodgroup,thesumofdaysiscalculated–scoresabovesevenarecodedas7.Eachfoodgroup score is then multiplied by its weight and the weighted scores summarized which equals the foodconsumptionscore.AsthereisahighuseofoilandsugaramongIDPs,theadjustedthresholdshavebeenutilizedforthisstudy.Theyareasfollows:
• Poor:0-28• Borderline28,5-42• Acceptable>42
ToconverttheFCSintotheCARIscale,adequatefoodconsumptionhouseholdsareconvertedtofoodsecureandassignedascoreof1.Borderlinefoodconsumptionhouseholdsareconvertedtomoderatefoodinsecureandassignedascoreof3.Poorfoodconsumptionhouseholdsareconvertedtoseverefoodinsecureandassignedascoreof4.Nohouseholdwillbeclassifiedasmarginalfoodinsecure.Foodexpenditureshare
Page 42 of 49
Food cost share measures economic vulnerability. Households are categorized based on the share of totalexpendituresdirectedtofood.Itisusedwhenpovertylineinformationisnotavailableandreliesonthepremisethatthegreatertheimportanceoffoodwithinahousehold’soverallbudgetcomparedtootherconsumeditemsandservices,themoreeconomicallyvulnerablethehouseholdis.Inthisstudy,thefoodcostsharehasbeencalculatedbyaskingrespondentswhattheirthreemainexpendituresareandwhatshareof their income is spendoneachof these three.Anotherapproach,whichhasnotbeenutilizedinthisstudy,isbydividingthetotalfoodexpendituresbythetotalhouseholdexpenditures.Convertingtheexpenditureshare intotheCARI4-pointscale isusuallybasedonthefollowingthresholdsforexpendituresusedtoacquirefoodcommodities:
• <50%ofexpenditure=Foodsecure• 50–65%ofexpenditure=Marginallyfoodsecure• 65–75%ofexpenditure=Moderatelyfoodinsecure• >75%=Severelyfoodinsecure
LivelihoodcopingstrategiesLivelihoodcopingstrategiesmeasurethesustainabilityoflivelihoodsandareadescriptorofahousehold’scopingcapacity. Households are categorized based on the severity of livelihood coping strategies employed. Theindicatorisderivedfromaseriesofquestionsregardingthehousehold’sexperiencewithlivelihoodstressandassetdepletionduring30daysbeforethesurvey.Allstrategiesareclassifiedintothreebroadgroups,includingstress,crisis,andemergencystrategies.Table6:Copingstrategyactivitiestablefromhouseholdsurvey
Duringthepast30days,didanyoneinyourhouseholdhavetoengageinanyfollowingbehaviorsduetoalackoffoodoralackofmoneytobuyfood?
Copingstrategycategory
1. Soldhouseholdassets/goods(radio,furniture,refrigerator,television,jewelry,etc.) Stress
2. Reducednon-foodexpensesonhealth(includingdrugs)andeducation Crisis
3. Soldproductiveassetsormeansoftransport(sewingmachine,wheelbarrow,bicycle,car,etc.)
Crisis
4. Spentsavings Stress
5. Borrowedmoney/foodfromaformallender/bank Stress
6. Purchasedfoodoncreditorborrowedfood Stress
7. Soldhouseorland Emergency
8. Withdrewchildrenfromschool Crisis
9. Begging EmergencyForeachcopingactivity,respondentswereaskediftheyhaddonetheactivitywithinthelast30days.Iftheyhadnot,respondentsreceivedfollow-upquestionsonwhetheritwasbecausetheyhadalreadydoneit(e.g.alreadysoldtheirhousemorethan30daysago)orbecausetheyhadnothadtodoittocope.Basedonthesethreeansweringcategoriesadichotomousvariablewasdevelopedwithrespondentsthathadperformedtheactivitywithin the last30daysaswellas therespondents thathadpreviouslyperformedtheactivityasonegroupandtheothergroupthathadnothadtodotheactivity.Thecopingstrategiesarehierarchallyrankedinthefollowingmanner:
1. Emergency2. Crisis3. Stress
Page 43 of 49
Thismeansthatifarespondenthasperformedbothanactivitywithinthestresscopingcategoryandactivitywithinthecrisiscopingcategory,therespondentwillberecordedwithinthecrisiscopingcategory.ThecopingstrategycategoriesaresubsequentlytranslatedintotheCARI4pointscaleinthefollowingmanner:
• Nocopingstrategy(i.e.notperformedanyactivities)=Foodsecure• Stresscopingstrategy(performedstressactivity,butneithercrisisnoremergencyactivity)=Marginally
foodsecure• Crisiscopingstrategy(performedatleastonecrisisactivity,butnotemergencyactivity)=Moderately
foodinsecure• Emergencycopingstrategy(performedatleastoneemergencyactivity)=Foodinsecure
Page 44 of 49
13 Annex2:CARIConsolesbylocationandregionTripoli
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
76% / 18% 6%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
61% 37% 1% 1%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
5% 12% 51% 32%
FoodSecurityIndex 6% 75% 19% 0%81% 19%
Zawiyah
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
96% / 4% 0%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
73% 26% 1% 0%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
26% 28% 37% 9%
FoodSecurityIndex41% 55% 4% 0%
96% 4%BaniWalid
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
46% / 31% 23%
Page 45 of 49
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
1% 16% 20& 63%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
10% 27% 48% 15%
FoodSecurityIndex 0% 42% 34% 24%42% 58%
Ajdabiyah
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
81% / 14% 5%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
19% 29% 19% 33%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
50% 15% 32% 3%
FoodSecurityIndex 18% 64% 16% 2%82% 18%
Benghazi
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
84% / 11% 5%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
11% 37% 27% 25%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
42% 24% 33% 1%
FoodSecurityIndex 18% 65% 13% 4%83% 17%
Tobruk
Domain Indicator Foodsecure Foodinsecure
Page 46 of 49
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
100% / 0% 0%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
93% 7% 0% 0%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
0% 15% 57% 28%
FoodSecurityIndex 15% 85% 9% 0%100% 0%
Awbari
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
64% / 29% 8%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
70% 28% 2% 0%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
33% 30% 19% 18%
FoodSecurityIndex37% 42% 20% 1%
79% 21%Sabha
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
94% / 6% 0%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
86% 11% 2% 1%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
35% 7% 29% 29%
Page 47 of 49
FoodSecurityIndex 41% 51% 8% 0%92% 8%
CARIScoresbyregionWest
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
64% / 22% 13%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
35% 26% 22% 24%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
14% 23% 45% 19%
FoodSecurityIndex7% 58% 24% 11%
65% 35%East
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
84% / 11% 5%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
23% 31% 22% 24%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
23% 22% 43% 13%
FoodSecurityIndex18% 67% 12% 3%
85% 15%South
Domain Indicator
Foodsecure Foodinsecure
FoodSecure(1)
MarginallyFood Secure(2)
ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)
SeverelyFoodInsecure(4)
Page 48 of 49
CurrentStatus
FoodConsumption
FoodConsumptionGroup
77% / 18% 5%
CopingCapacity
EconomicVulnerability
Share ofexpenditure onfood
77% 20% 3% 0%
AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories
35% 18% 23% 35%
FoodSecurityIndex 39% 47% 13% 1%86% 14%
Page 49 of 49
14 BibliographyAlJazeera(2016):“HaftarforcessufferlossesinLibyafighting(28July2016)”,availableat:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/haftar-forces-suffer-losses-libya-fighting-160728063021013.htmlDanishRefugeeCouncil(2016):“AssessmentReportWASHSituationinSabhaMunicipality,SouthernLibyaJuly2016”,availableathttps://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/assessments/wash_situation_report_drc_sabha.pdfTheGuardian (2016): “Battleof thebanknotes as rival currencies are set tobe issued in Libya,” available athttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/20/battle-of-the-banknotes-rival-currencies-libyaIOM(2016)“DisplacementTrackingMatrix”,availableat:http://www.globaldtm.info/IOM(2016):“SituationReportforAugust2016–LibyaHumanitarianSupporttoMigrantsandIDPs”,availableat:http://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/situation_reports/file/sitrep-Libya-August2016.pdfIOM (2016): “Press releaseMay 2016:Over 417,000 InternallyDisplaced in Libya: IOMReport”, available athttps://www.iom.int/news/over-417000-internally-displaced-libya-iom-reportLibyaHerald(2016):“Libyandinarcontinuestocrashasitbreaks5-dinarmarkagainstthedollar(19.July2016)”,available at https://www.libyaherald.com/2016/07/20/libyan-dinar-continues-to-crash-as-it-breaks-5-dinar-mark-against-the-dollar/LibyaNewsAgency(2016):“IRCCandLRCdistributeaidtodisplacedpeopleinTripoli,MisrataandTobruk(13-02-2016)”, available at http://www.lana-news.ly/eng/news/view/94764/IRCC_and_LRC_distribute_aid_to_displaces_people_in_Tripoli_Misrata_and_TobrukOCHA (2016): “Humanitarian Bulletin, June 2016, Libya”, issue 4, available athttp://unsmil.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Hf5NUBDjJBI%3D&tabid=3543&mid=6187&language=en-USREACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016”, available at:http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/reach.pdfREACH(2016):“RapidIDPProtectionNeedsAssessment–SirteDisplacement–WestLibyaReportMay2016”,availableathttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/final_rapid_idp_protection_needs_assessment_report_may_2016.pdfTarhouni,Adam(2016):“Op-Ed:Fear,uncertainty,riskandLibya’scurrencyblackmarket(1July2016)”,Availableathttps://www.libyaherald.com/2016/07/21/op-ed-fear-uncertainty-risk-and-libyas-black-market/UNICEF (2016): “UNICEF Humanitarian Appeal for Libya,” available athttp://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/HAC_2016_Libya.pdfUNHCR(2006):“HandbookfortheProtectionofInternallyDisplacedPersons.”World Bank (2016): “Libya’s Economic Outlook – October 2016”, available athttp://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/282581475460786200/Libya-MEM-Fall-2016-ENG.pdf