Sudan Food Security Monitoring Round 5, October 2011 A ... · Jong Lake UNS WBS NBS War CES Unit All Incom In Oc other other 4). Sa 2011 Octob indica in 20 year. natur firew and reduc

SoutA coll

This r

Highl• I

p• H

a• T

f

Food Durinmonithouseinsecinsec(Figurharvesecurunimhas pOctobinsecEES aModeincreaFemafood housefemaheadeheadepercereturfor bo Food The foover bordeconsuMorethe pdifferpropoHoweto Oc

th Sudan Foolaborative acti

report released

ights n October 201parts of South SHigh food pricealso increased The main shocfood prices, hu

security situang the fifth routoring in Octoeholds were foure, 37 perure and 53 pere 1). Despiteest period inrity situation proved. Food sparticularly detber. Proportiure householdand WBS comerately food inased in UNS, Nale‐headed ho

insecure theholds. Aboule‐headed anded householdsed householdsent of male‐henees (38 perceoth residents a

consumption ood consumptseven‐day recerline and 62 pumption and 5e female‐headeprevious roundrence betweenortion of housever, some sligctober last year

od Security ivity of FSTS, S

d 12 December

11, the FSMS rSudan. NBS, Ues has increasecompared to laks experiencedman sickness,

tion und of the fooober, 10 perceound to be sevcent moderaercent were foe the onset ofn South Sudin some statsecurity situatteriorated signon of seveds increased pared to Octonsecure houseNBS and EES. ouseholds wehan the mat 11 percend 10 percent ofs were severels increased froeaded. Resideent). Prevalencand returnees.

tion score is cacall period. Thpercent had ac7 percent had ed householdsd, IDP househon the residenseholds with pght improvemer.

Monitoring SSRRC, MAF, M

r 2011

results shows NS, WBS, and ed expenditureast year. d by communidelay of rains

od security ent of the verely food tely food ood secure f the main dan, food tes is still ion in UNS ificantly in rely food mostly in ober 2010. eholds also

ere more ale‐headed nt of the f the male‐ly food insecuom 30 percent nt householdsce of severely f

alculated basedhe result showcceptable food acceptable foo had poor foodolds had a highnts (14 percenpoor food conents were seen

MoH, FAO, WF

mixed food seEES continue te on food con

ities across Soand insecurity

re. This was stin October 20s were more food insecure

d on dietary divwed that 15 peconsumption od consumptiod consumptionher proportionnt) and returnnsumption inn in Warrap, La

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Oct‐10

W

Prop

ortion

of h

ouseho

lds

Foo

FP and UNICEF

ecurity situatioto have high prsiderably espe

uth Sudan in ty.

tatistically sim010 to 41 percfood secure (households am

versity consumercent of the (Figure 2). In Oon. n (16 percent) n having poor fnee (15 perceEES, Jonglei aakes, Upper Ni

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct

11

WES EES Jongl

3%15%

24%15%112%

34%

41%

24%

3

85%

51%35%

61%

5

Figure

d secure M

Round

on in South Surevalence of foecially in the b

the three mon

ilar to last yeaent and male‐(54 percent) cmong the IDPs

med and numbhouseholds hOctober 2010,

than the malefood consumpent) householdand NBS statele and Unity st

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

ei Lakes UNS

2%13%15% 7% 14%

33%28%

28%

31%

57%

5%

59%

57%62%

29%

1: Food securi

oderately food

d 5, October

dan despite thood insecure hoorder States. E

nths prior to th

ar but moderaheaded increacompared to ts was 20 perce

ber of days eachad poor food19 percent of

e‐headed houseption (20 perceds in terms os is higher cotates in the fo

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

WBS NBS Wa

7%15%

7% 9% 14%

20%

38%

36%

62%

34%

74%

46%57%

28%

51%

ity status by st

d insecure S

r 2011

he start of harouseholds. Expenditure on

he monitoring

ately food inseased from 26 pthe IDPs (40 pnt, while it wa

h food type wa consumptionhouseholds ha

eholds (13 perent). There waof food consuompared to Ocod consumptio

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct

11

arrap CES Unity

%5% 3% 6% 1

%

26%41%

15%2

%69%

55%

79%78

tate

Severely food i

1

rvest in most

n cereals has

include high

cure female‐percent to 35 percent) and as 10 percent

as consumed , 24 percent ad poor food

rcent). Unlike as no marked mption. The ctober 2010. on compared

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

y Total

1%10%10%

21%

28%37%

8%63%

53%

nsecure

SoutA coll

Overaconsuon vegetconsusignifsecurand comeAnimconsuaveraconsuhousecereaamonconsu3). Cproduamonmodehousebut sThis of homeacceshousemarkincreacompbut tthe pJune.increaJune obtai AgricThe onumbby nepercecrop d Severfood perceinvolv

thern Sudanlaborative acti

all, humed staples average follotables (3.8 dayumption ficantly witrity status of hmost of thee from pulses (al proteinumed 2.3 age and umped by fooeholds. Consuals was cong the umption groupConsumption ucts have ng food secerately food eholds from Jimilar to Octoindicates the livestock

estead hence ss to meholds. Reliaets as a fooased in Octopared to Octothis was highpeak of hunger Market contrased from 30 to 43 percentned from the m

ulture overall numberber of cultivatiearly 60 percenent groundnutdiversification

rely food insecinsecure categent groundnutved in cultivati

n Food Securivity of FSTS, S

ouseholds 6.3 days

owed by ys). Protein

varied h food ouseholds e proteins (2.7 days). n was days on

mostly od secure mption of omparable

food ps (Figure of dairy increased cure and insecure

June 2011 ober 2010. presence around

increased milk for ance on od source ober 2011 ober 2010 her during r season in ributed to 43 percent in Junt in October. Inmarket.

r of householdng householdsnt of the houses, 24 percent appears to be

cure householdgories. About s, 15 percent on than their m

rity MonitorSSRRC, MAF, M

percent of hone to 54 percenn October 201

ds involved in cs declined in 2eholds. About sesame and 1 more commo

ds mostly cult78 percent of sesame and omale‐headed c

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Prop

ortion

of h

ouseho

lds

01234567

Oct‐1

S

5.2

6.06

Sev

ring MoH, FAO, WF

ouseholds’ cernt in October, 10, 51 percent

cultivation incr011 in Lakes a73 percent of 1 percent cultn in greater Eq

tivated cerealsthe severely fonly 5 percentcounterparts (8

%

%

%

%

%

%

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

WES EES

8% 15%233%29%

3

59%56%

4

Figu

Acce

10 Oct‐11 Oct‐1

Staples P

5.3

2.7

0 6.4

3.1

6.4 6.5

3

Figure 3: Avera

verely food ins

FP and UNICEF

reals in Octobewhereas mark

t of staples we

reased from 80nd Upper Nilethe cultivatingtivated other cquatoria states

s but food secufood insecure t cultivated ot87 vs. 77 perce

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

S Jonglei Lakes

25%18%22%31%27

33%24%

29%36%

23

42%

59%49%

34%50

ure 2: Food con

ptable

10 Oct‐11 Oct‐1

Protein Fruits

1.0 0.8

1

4.53.6

3.3

5.24

age number of

secure M

Round

er 2011 whilekets as a sourcere sourced fro

0 percent in 20e states compag households ccrops (Table 1s especially in t

ure householdhouseholds cuther crops. Feent).

Oct

11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

s UNS WBS

7%26%21%13%21%

3%7% 15%33%

38%

0%

67%64%54%

41%

nsumption cate

Border

0 Oct‐11 Oct‐10

s and Vegs D

3.8

0.2

4.3

1.9

4.94.0

2.

f days food item

Moderately foo

d 5, October

staples obtaice of staples reom own produ

010 to 83 percred to 2010. Dcultivated sorg1). Sorghum is the green belt

ds reported moultivated sorghmale‐headed

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

O0

NBS Warrap

%8% 10%

32%7%

%

18%19%

28%

15%

%

74%72%

40%

78%

egories by stat

rline

0 Oct‐11 Oct‐10

Dairy Su

0.20.7

1.82.3

82.3

3.3

ms consumptio

od insecure

r 2011

ned from owneduced from 6uction and 39

cent in 2011. HDelay of rains whum, 32 percecultivated in alivelihood zon

ore diverse crohum, 23 percehouseholds w

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

CES Unity T

4% 9% 2%19

23%11%12%

24

74%81%87%

57

te

Poor

0 Oct‐11 Oct‐10

ugar O

0.5 0.7

2.4 1.9

32.7 2.7

on in 7 days

Food secu

2

n production 64 percent in percent was

However, the was reported ent maize, 41 all states but e.

ops than the ent maize, 31 were also less

Oct

10

Oct‐11

otal

9%15%

4%24%

7%62%

Oct‐11

Oil

0.5

2.17

2.1

ure

SoutA coll

TableStat

WES

EES

Jong

Lake

UNS

WBS

NBS

War

CES

Unit

All

IncomIn Ocotherother4). Sa2011 Octobindicain 20year. naturfirewand reducthe pis haron saincrearesouof livdeclin Basedsustasourchousesourclivest Consifollowthis h


e 1: Percentagete Cultiva

Any

S

86%

glei 69%

es 92%

S 52%

S 85%

S 87%

rrap 91%

ty 73%

80%

me sources tober, sale of cr crops have r sources incoale of cereal is somewhat

ber 2010. Tation of low 011 compareCollection an

ral resources ood, charcoal sale of livesced slightly coprevious roundrvest season ale of crops is ease and sale urces and distrvestock are exne.

d on the reliainability of ces, 34 peeholds were clces classified aock and petty

iderable propowed by UNS (5had a significan


es of householated in 2010 se

Sorghum

76%

61%

89%

34%

66%

78%

87%

46%

68%

cereals and overtaken me (Figure in October t less than his is an production ed to last nd sale of including and grass

stock have ompared to d. October nd reliance expected to of natural ressed sale xpected to

ability and income

ercent of assified as havas poor includetrade are cons

ortion of hous7 percent), CEnt impact on ho


ds that cultivateason

Maize G/nu

6% 1

20%

10% 5

38%

11% 7

5% 2

17% 3

52% 1

19% 2

ving poor, 32 pe sale of grasssidered as mor

seholds in NBSES (50 percent)ouseholds’ foo

Sale of ce

Casu

Sal

ring MoH, FAO, WF

ted various cro

uts Sesame

1% 28%

2% 1%

6% 22%

7% 6%

5% 45%

3% 24%

1% 20%

7% 3%

9% 19%

percent as meds, charcoal andre reliable inco

S (69 percent)), WBS (36 perod access in the

ereals and othe

Sale of li

B

ual labour (agri

Salarie

le of natural re

Figure 4: H

FP and UNICEF

opsCu

Other An

9

10% 9

6% 7

2% 8

1% 3

13% 8

4% 8

17% 10

8

3% 8

7% 8

dium and anotd firewood, whome sources.

had poor inccent) and EESe above mentio

0%

er crops

ivestock

Brewing

culture)

ed work

esources

Other

Households ma

O

Round

ltivated in 201

y Sorghum

98% 46%

92% 86%

78% 68%

88% 85%

30% 30%

88% 72%

88% 93%

00% 100%

82% 63%

84% 65%

83% 73%

her 34 percenthile income so

come source (i(36 percent). Aoned states.

5% 10

9

6%6%

9

ain income sou

Oct‐10 Jun‐

d 5, October

11 season

m Maize G

% 51%

% 4%

% 64%

% 7%

% 26%

% 26%

% 4%

% 32%

% 43%

% 72%

% 32%

t as having gooources such as

in terms of reAs a composite

% 15%

9%

11%

13%

14%

12%

10%

16

10%

10%

9%

12%

15%

rce in the past

‐11 Oct‐11

r 2011

G/nuts Sesam

82% 41

26% 26

8% 4

65% 32

2% 0

78% 49

27% 20

38% 23

53% 29

1% 0

41% 24

od income sousalary and sa

eliability and se indicator for

20% 25%

24%

18%

19%

21%

22%

6%

18%

t 30 days

1

3

me Other

1% 30%

6% 13%

4% 9%

2% 5%

0% 1%

9% 8%

0% 2%

3% 4%

9% 31%

0% 4%

4% 11%

urces. Income le of cereals,

ustainability) food access,

30%

%

26%

Southern Sudan Food Security Monitoring A collaborative activity of FSTS, SSRRC, MAF, MoH, FAO, WFP and UNICEF

Round 5, October 2011

4

Expenditure (income proxy) and purchasing powerTable 2: Relative food expenditure and expenditure on staples

In general, overall percentages in the different categories of food expenditure did not change. During this round, 40 percent of households spent highly (more than 65 percent) on food. Similarly, 22 percent spent between 50 and 65 percent on food, while 38 percent of households had low (less than 50 percent) expenditure on food. On average, expenditure on food has increased from 48 percent in October 2010 to 55 percent in October 2011 (Figure 5). Much of the amount spent on food still went to staples which account for 29 percent. Increase in food expenditure and the amount spent on staples is attributed mainly to high food prices and delayed harvest resulting from late rains. Generally, average

food expenditure was lower than in June except in Upper Nile, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Western Bahr el Ghazal, and Central Equatoria states (Table 2).

State Relative food expenditure Staples expenditure

Oct‐10 Jun‐11 Oct‐11 Oct‐10 Jun‐11 Oct‐11

WES 47% 39% 11% 9%

EES 57% 69% 65% 34% 50% 49%

Jonglei 53% 61% 53% 25% 40% 23%

Lakes 55% 62% 52% 39% 50% 33%

UNS 39% 49% 63% 13% 21% 30%

WBS 43% 53% 57% 20% 28% 31%

NBS 51% 62% 63% 16% 35% 35%

Warrap 45% 59% 53% 19% 39% 29%

CES 50% 53% 25% 21%

Unity 38% 53% 17% 26%

All 48% 57% 55% 23% 33% 29%

During this round, severely food insecure and moderately food insecure households spent as high as 68 percent and 69 percent on food respectively. Expenditure on staples alone was 47 percent for severely food insecure and 38 percent for moderately food insecure households. Food secure households spent 43 percent on food and only 18 percent was spent on staples. Percentage of expenditure spent on staples has decreased in October compared to June owing to the local harvest that has started entering the markets. However, this is higher than in October 2010 owing to the poor agricultural season this year and high food prices. During this round, the per capita total expenditure was SSP 2.89 per day which was higher than in October 2010 at SSP 2.5. The average household monthly expenditure was SSP 629 compared to SSP 545 in the last round. High price of commodities across South Sudan in 2011 is the trigger for the increased expenditures on food and non food items resulting in rise in the overall households’ monthly expenditures.

Soap, 6%Health, 6%

Education, 5%

Cloth and shoes, 5%

Transport/Communication, 4%

Milling/grinding, 3%

Tobacco/Alcohol, 3%

Celebrations, 3%

Construction, 2%

Fines/Taxes, 1%

Agric tool/Seeds, 1%

Labour, 1%

Firewood/Charcoal, 1%

Assets, 1%

Paraffin, 1%Drinks, 0%

House rent, 0%Other non food, 3%

Staples, 29%

Meat and Fish, 7%

Sugar, 6%Other foods, 4%Oil, 4%Pulses, 3%

Fruits and Vegetables, 1%Roots and Tubers, 0%

Food,55%

Figure 5: Household expenditure breakdown

SoutA coll

CopinPropoadoptOctobhowedietaConsureducportiorepor Durinhouseone cto thein Ochoweused percehouse AbouHoushouse

Mid‐U2,119methperceincreawith perce


ng strategies inortion of hted coping ber comparedever there is ry adjustmentumption of cing number on size wererted coping str

ng this round, eholds reportecoping strategye assessment cctober 2010. Dever, higher ncoping strate

ent and in Jueholds used co

t 94 percent eholds using eholds.

Upper Arm Cir9 non‐pregnantodology in Ocent severely mased slightly frhighest malnuent).

Prop

ortion

ofho

useh

olds


ndex households tstrategies red to June and increase in ths in 2011 thanless preferreof meals and

e the most fategies (Figure

a half (50 peed having usey during the wcompared to 4During the leanumbers of hoegies. In Febne, 66 perceoping strategie

include houshigh coping

rcumference (Mt women of chctober 2011. Talnourished (Mrom June (11.6utrition levels o

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Oct‐10

W

Prop

ortion

of h

ouseho

lds


that had duced in February

he use of n in 2010. ed food, d limiting frequently e 6).

ercent) of d at least week prior 41 percent n season, ouseholds ruary, 60 nt of the s.

eholds with lowere mostly

MUAC) and chhild bearing agThe data showMUAC <210mm6 percent) andon this round w

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

WES EES Jo

98% 94%83% 87

2% 6% 17% 1

0% 0% 0% 2%

High

ring MoH, FAO, WF

ow coping strfemale‐heade

ild nutrition e were measu

ws that 11.1 pem) translating td February (7.8were Jonglei (

Oct

10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

O0

onglei Lakes

7% 91% 95% 93%7

1% 9%5% 7%

1

% 0% 0% 0%

Figure 7: CS

Less

Reduce nu

Lim

Restrict adul

Skip enti

Collect unu

Consum

Sel

FP and UNICEF

rategies and ted (1.2 perce

red for malnutercent were mto a GAM (Glob8 percent) but 20.6 percent),

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Upper Nile

WBS

79% 88%99% 100%

16% 10% 1%0%5% 2% 0% 0%

SI categories b

Medium

preferred foo

umber of meals

mit portion size

Borrow foo

lt consumption

re days withou

sual wild foods

me seed stocks

l more animals

Figure 6: Co

Round

those that dident) compared

trition by usingmoderately mabal Acute Malnis lower than EES (18.8 per

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

NBS Warrap

%100% 95% 98% 97%

0%5% 2% 3%

0%0% 0% 0%

by state

0% 10

d

s

e

d

n

ut …

s

s

s 4%4%

7%

oping strategie

Oct‐10

d 5, October

d not use copd to 0.2 perc

g Mid‐Upper Alnourished (Mnutrition) rate in October 201rcent), NBS (17

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct

11

p CES Unity

% 97% 97% 9

% 2% 4% 2% 1% 0% 2

Low

0% 20%

19%

17%

11%

8%

2

15%

12%

%

es used by hou

0 Oct‐11

r 2011

ping strategiecent among m

Arm CircumfereMUAC 210‐230mof 12.6 percen10 (15 percent7.6 percent) an

Oct‐11

Oct‐10

Oct‐11

y Total

7% 94% 94%

2% 5% 6%

2% 1% 1%

30%

25%

%

30%

23%

26%

23%

20%

useholds

1

5

s (Figure 7). male‐headed

ence (MUAC) mm) and 1.5 nt. GAM level t). The states nd UNS (14.5

40%

37%

33%

33%

Southern Sudan Food Security Monitoring A collaborative activity of FSTS, SSRRC, MAF, MoH, FAO, WFP and UNICEF

Round 5, October 2011

6

7%

12%

7%11% 9%

1%

3%

2%

2%2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

FSMS 1 FSMS 2 FSMS 3 FSMS 4 FSMS 5

Figure 8: Overall child malnutrition among FSMS rounds

SAM

MAM

3,257 children between 6‐59 months were included in the MUAC measurement. The average GAM prevalence (MUAC <125mm) across the 10 states was 11.6 percent. More specifically, 2.4 percent were severely malnourished (MUAC <115mm) and 9.2 percent moderately malnourished (MUAC >115 ‐ <125mm). This is an increase from June and February when GAM was 12.6 and 9.1 percent respectively and is also higher compared to GAM of 15 percent in October 2010 (Figure 8). Within states, the prevalence of GAM remained the highest in UNS and EES, the latter showing drastic increase from June. Other states with increased prevalence from June were in WES, CES, Jonglei and Lakes. Dietary diversity information was collected from 2,129 children 6‐24 months. Overall, 32 percent of the children 6‐24 months consumed food from 4 or more food groups in October 2011, which indicates adequate dietary diversity. This is slightly lower than in October 2010 (37 percent). In terms of seasonality, consumption improved steadily from February (21 percent) and June (27 percent) until October. The upcoming rounds in 2012 will show more information on seasonal trends in dietary diversity. The dietary diversity based on child nutritional status was slightly better for those with malnutrition compared to non‐malnourished children (37 vs 30 percent). Among age groups, children >18 months have more diverse diet compared to the younger children. Approximately two thirds of all children under 2 years1 experienced illness in the past 2 weeks (Figure 9), a slight decrease from June and among the non‐malnourished and 10 percent point increase among malnourished children. Overall, diarrhoea was the main disease for the malnourished with almost 21 percent point higher prevalence compared to the non‐malnourished whereas fever was the main disease for the non‐malnourished. In general, the prevalence of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) increased slighly during the season while diarrhoea decreased. Assistance received About 25 percent of the assessed households reported receiving some sort of assistance in the past three months. This percentage is lower than in June when 31 percent received assistance. 21 percent of the sampled population received food assistance, 11 percent agricultural tools and/or seeds, 10 percent vitamin A and 2 percent other forms of assistance. Of the households who receive food assistance, 58 percent reported the food was received by the whole family, 33 percent mentioned that part of the family (adult) received the food, whereas 7 percent said children in school received the food and 2 percent of the households received children under 5 years’ ration.

1 1,921 children 6‐24 months

13% 20% 27% 16%29% 31% 36% 31% 26% 30% 35% 30%

22% 23% 17%25%

32% 26%25% 30%

27% 26% 24% 29%

47% 38% 37% 39%24% 30% 25% 18% 32% 30% 27% 21%

15% 18% 18% 18% 14% 13% 12% 18% 14% 13% 13% 18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FSMS 2

FSMS 3

FSMS 4

FSMS 5

FSMS 2

FSMS 3

FSMS 4

FSMS 5

FSMS 2

FSMS 3

FSMS 4

FSMS 5

Malnourished Normal Overall

Figure 9: Child illness in the past 2 weeks within nutritional status (Percent)

ARI

Diarrhoea

Fever

Measles

None

SoutA coll

ShockHigh contiheavidespihas sroundwas fby percedelaypercesickne(FigurThe specifbetwof rarepordelaysickneGhazashockperceUnity

MethClustesampof 10randoclustetradesite to DurinUNS, monitJongl Food and tvaluehouseconsu

For adThe F


ks experiencedfood p

nue to wily on housete the harveststarted duringd. High food frequently repohouseholds

ent) followedy of rains ent) and huess (41 perre 10).

frequency fic shocks veen states. Dins was commrted in WES ay of rains has bess ranked nual has the higk, followed by ent). Insecurityy state (33 perc

hodology ers/sentinel spling stratum r0 clusters weromly selecteder. One commer checklists (wo provide supp

ng the fifth rouWBS, NBS, Wtoring system.ei were not as

consumption the food iteme to establish aeholds having umption.

dditional inforFSMS partners:


d prices weigh holds t that g this price orted (70

d by (62

uman rcent)

of varied Delay monly nd EES (63 pebeen reported umber one in ghest proportioUnity state (7y was more frcent), CES (33 p

ites were purrepresenting vre selected frd households munity/key infowhere applicabplementary inf

und, all ten stWarrap, CES an. However, twsessed due to

was derived ums were weigha food consumeither accept

rmation, pleas:

Food

H

Live

Lack


ercent each) amore frequenterms of freqon of househo77 percent), Laequently repopercent) and W

rposively selearious livelihoom all the tewere intervieormant questible) were admormation.

tates; WES, EEnd Unity wereo sites in Unitinsecurity.

using a seven‐hted based onmption score ttable, borderli

se contact Juba

%

d too expensive

Human sickness

Delay of rains

Insecurity

estock diseases

Floods

Weeds/pests

k of free access

Other

Figure

ring MoH, FAO, WF

nd Warrap (5ntly in Octoberquently reporteolds (82 perceakes (71 perceorted in JongleWES (33 percen

cted as the fod zones. A toen states and ewed from eionnaire and t

ministered at e

ES, Jonglei, Lake included in ty and one site

‐day recall pern their nutritiothat classifies ine or poor fo

[email protected]

% 20%

16%

2

16%

17%

13%

13%

11%

2

e 10: Shocks re

Oct‐1

FP and UNICEF

4 percent). Cor 2011. In Lakeed shocks. In ent) who repont), Warrap (6ei state (54 pent).

first otal 25 ach two ach

kes, the e in

riod onal the ood

Food acsource/consumcombine The copthe freqin the lacoping sthe houbeen ca State abWesternEquator(WBS),

org

40%

33%

21%

22%

23%

26%

41%

23%

%

23%

eported by hou

1 Oct‐10

Round

ompared to Oes and Unity stgeneral, Nortorted human s67 percent) anrcent), Lakes

ccess was obtareliability andption, food ed to obtain fo

ping strategies quency of the ast seven daysstrategies are useholds’ livelitegorized as h

bbreviations n Equatoria (Wria (CES), UppNorthern Bahr

60%

57%

65%70

62%

useholds

d 5, October

ctober 2010, tates, human hern Bahr el sickness as a d Jonglei (60 (35 percent),

ained by combd relative expaccess and

ood security ind

index was dercoping strategs prior to the often those whoods. Based aving low, med

WES), Easterner Nile (UNS),r el Ghazal (NB

WFP

80%

0%

r 2011

Demographi• During th

2,424 houwere intefrom 97 sstates. Inspreventedtwo sites state andJonglei st

• Female‐hhouseholrepresentpercent osampled p

• Average hsize was 7

• The residof the samhouseholo 94.1 president

o 4.7 pereturnee

o 1.2 pe

bining househopenditure on coping strat

dicator.

rived from the gies applied byassessment. M

with irreversiblon this, housdium and high

n Equatoria (E, Western BahBS)

VAM Unit, Sout

7

icsis round, useholds erviewed sites in all security d access to in Unity one site in ate. eaded ds ted 40 of the population. household 7.6 persons. ential status mpled ds are: percent ts ercent es ercent IDPs

olds’ income food. Food

tegies were

severity and y households More severe le effects on seholds have coping.

EES), Central hr el Ghazal

th Sudan

Documents

Sudan Food Security Monitoring Round 5, October 2011 A ... · Jong Lake UNS WBS NBS War CES Unit All Incom In Oc other other 4). Sa 2011 Octob indica in 20 year. natur firew and reduc