rapid food security assessment, libya · since the beginning of the crisis in 2011 ... limited...

RapidFoodSecurityAssessment,LibyaReport

November2016

s

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

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

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.

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

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)”

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.

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.

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)

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.

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”

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

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

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

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



<50%spentonfood

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

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



<50%spentonfood

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)”

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

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%

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

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%


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

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




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%


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

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%

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%



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

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

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

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




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


1519

41

107

18 18

7

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

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



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



FoodSecure MarginallyFoodSecure ModeratelyFoodInsecure SeverelyFoofInsecure

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%




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%




FoodSecure

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




FoodSecure

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


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

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.

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%

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.

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

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

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

of 49

Thismeansthatifarespondenthasperformedbothanactivitywithinthestresscopingcategoryandactivitywithinthecrisiscopingcategory,therespondentwillberecordedwithinthecrisiscopingcategory.ThecopingstrategycategoriesaresubsequentlytranslatedintotheCARI4pointscaleinthefollowingmanner:

• Nocopingstrategy(i.e.notperformedanyactivities)=Foodsecure• Stresscopingstrategy(performedstressactivity,butneithercrisisnoremergencyactivity)=Marginally

foodsecure• Crisiscopingstrategy(performedatleastonecrisisactivity,butnotemergencyactivity)=Moderately

foodinsecure• Emergencycopingstrategy(performedatleastoneemergencyactivity)=Foodinsecure

of 49

13 Annex2:CARIConsolesbylocationandregionTripoli

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)


ModeratelyFoodInsecure(3)


CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


76% / 18% 6%

CopingCapacity



61% 37% 1% 1%

AssetDepletionLivelihoodcoping strategycategories

5% 12% 51% 32%

FoodSecurityIndex 6% 75% 19% 0%81% 19%

Zawiyah

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


96% / 4% 0%

CopingCapacity



73% 26% 1% 0%


26% 28% 37% 9%


96% 4%BaniWalid

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


46% / 31% 23%

of 49

CopingCapacity



1% 16% 20& 63%


10% 27% 48% 15%


Ajdabiyah

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


81% / 14% 5%

CopingCapacity



19% 29% 19% 33%


50% 15% 32% 3%


Benghazi

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


84% / 11% 5%

CopingCapacity



11% 37% 27% 25%


42% 24% 33% 1%


Tobruk

Domain Indicator Foodsecure Foodinsecure

of 49

FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


100% / 0% 0%

CopingCapacity



93% 7% 0% 0%


0% 15% 57% 28%


Awbari

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


64% / 29% 8%

CopingCapacity



70% 28% 2% 0%


33% 30% 19% 18%


79% 21%Sabha

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


94% / 6% 0%

CopingCapacity



86% 11% 2% 1%


35% 7% 29% 29%

of 49


CARIScoresbyregionWest

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


64% / 22% 13%

CopingCapacity



35% 26% 22% 24%


14% 23% 45% 19%


65% 35%East

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


84% / 11% 5%

CopingCapacity



23% 31% 22% 24%


23% 22% 43% 13%


85% 15%South

Domain Indicator


FoodSecure(1)




of 49

CurrentStatus

FoodConsumption


77% / 18% 5%

CopingCapacity



77% 20% 3% 0%


35% 18% 23% 35%


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

rapid food security assessment, libya · since the beginning of the crisis in 2011 ... limited...

Documents