Detailed Livelihood Assessment of Flood Affected Areas of Pakistan

1. Detailed Livelihood Assessment of Flood Affected Areas of Pakistan Emerging Findings and Implications for Response – KPK Province September 2011

2. Objectives and Scope • To share the scale and scope of the DLA • To highlight key emerging findings of the DLA for KPK Province • To highlight implications for response in the short and medium term for KPK Province

3. Objectives of DLA 1. To evaluate the extent to which rural households have recovered from the 2010 floods in terms of livelihoods and food security. 2. To give insights on the impact and effectiveness of interventions designed to support livelihood and food security recovery. 3. To understand problems and issues that remain for livelihood recovery DECISION MAKING

4. The scale of the DLA • 28 most flood affected districts in SINDH, KPK , PUNJAB and BALUCHISTAN • 42 field teams • 9,000 households • 250 FGDs • 8 detailed case studies • Associate case studies • Secondary data

5. Household Questionnaire Associate case -studies Secondary literature Gender – disaggregated FGD Gender – disaggregated Livelihood asset case studies

6. The scale of the DLA in KPK

7. Phase I. Background Work and Presentation DLA to A&FS WG and AS WG DLA Chronology Phase II. Data Collection (June 14 –July 20) May 2011 Phase III. Final Analysis and Dissemination to the Stakeholders 1 Aug. Workshop to Present Preliminary Results Provincial Consultations 30 Aug. Rabi Response Priorities June 2011 Final Report of the DLA July 2011 August 2011 September /October 2011

8. Emerging Findings • Livelihood and food security recovery. • Livelihood asset trajectory • Rabi harvest 2011 vs. “normal” • Kharif planted area 2011 vs. “normal” • Kharif harvest expectations vs. “normal” • Livestock ownership • Debts • Food consumption and food security

9. Livelihood assets – case study Measured changes in Livelihood Assets before and after the floods: • Human Capital. Labour capacity, Education Employable skills, Local employment opportunities; • Natural capital. Access to: land, common property resources (Rangelands, water reservoirs/ ponds etc), Ag inputs, Irrigation infrastructure, Livestock holding, Crops;

10. Financial capital. Wages, Access to credit, Indebtedness, Individual or communal savings, Coverage of social safety nets, Access to remittances; • Physical capital. Water supply, Housing, Communications-roads, bridges, access to markets, Livestock shelters, Mechanical infrastructure; • Social capital. Social status, Social organizations , Discrimination against disable, Links with family & friends, Confidence.

11. KPK - Livelihood assets Trajectory (M +F) (Case studies) Human Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital Physical Capital Social Capital

12. KPK- Livelihood assets Trajectory (M) (Case studies) Human Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital Physical Capital Social Capital

13. KPK- Livelihood assets Trajectory (F) (Case studies) Human Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital Physical Capital Social Capital

14. Rabi Harvest All Crops (2011 vs "normal") (HH Quest)

15. KPK - Rabi Harvest All Crops (2011 vs "normal") (HH Quest) (% of respondents)

16. Kharif Crop 2011: % of normal land area planted (HH Quest)

17. KPK - KharifCrop 2011: % of normal land area planted (HH Quest)

18. Expected Kharif Harvest as % of normal Kharif Harvest (HH Quest)

19. Impact of floods on ALL livestock: % of HHs experiencing reductions between July 2010 and October 2010 (HH Quest)

20. KPK - Impact of floods on Large livestock: changes in No. of heads (HH Quest)

21. KPK - Impact of floods on Small livestock: changes in No. of heads (HH Quest)

22. KPK - Impact of floods on poultry: changes in No. of heads (HH Quest)

23. Ratio of debt to monthly income % July 2011 (HH Quest)

24. KPK - Ratio of debt to monthly income % July 2011 (HH Quest)

25. Reasons for new debt in last 6 months (Jan – Jun)

26. KPK - Reasons for new debt in last 6 months (Jan – Jun) (HH Quest)

27. KPK - Food Consumption Score (HH Quest)

28. Initial Conclusions and Implications for Response • Livelihood and food security recovery is happening…. • ….But: households are not yet back to pre-flood levels of livelihood and food security • Many households remain vulnerable and highly food insecure • Effect of rabi 2011 harvest on income and food access • Kharif 2011 harvest likely to be below average • RECOVERY INTERVENTIONS STILL REQUIRED IRRESPECTIVE OF 2011 MONSOON

29. Emerging Findings 2. Impact and effectiveness of interventions. • % Households receiving interventions • Usefulness of interventions • Beneficiary reasons for dissatisfaction

30. % of HHs receiving external assistance between Jan 2011 and Jun 2011 (HH Quest)

31. Household opinions of assistance received: January – July 2011 (% of HHs) (HH Quest)

32. To those who answered that assistance received was of “ Little Help” or “No Help”, the HH questionnaires asked “why”.... See following three slides

33. HH opinions on General Food Distribution (% of HHs) (HH Quest)

34. HH opinions on Agricultural Inputs (% of HHs) (HH Quest)

35. Household opinions on Livestock support (% of HHs) (HH Quest)

36. Initial Conclusions and Implications for Response • Performance of interventions over 2011 is mixed… • Majority of HHs felt that assistance was of some / great help, however…. • Sizeable minorities said no or little help • Insufficient quantities, arrived too late, not suitable for livelihood, manipulated…. • CONCLUSIONS: • (a) Interventions seem broadly relevant to livelihoods and food security recovery • (b) ‘gaps’ in quality, quantity and coverage are apparent • (c) How can these gaps be addressed in next 6 – 9 months?

37. Emerging Findings 3. Remaining needs and issues for recovery. • Immediate agricultural needs • Structural agricultural issues and needs • Current needs overall • Projected needs until end of 2011

38. KPK - All Support Needs (HH Quest) %

39. KPK - All Support Needs (HH Quest)

40. KPK - All Support Needs (HH Quest)

41. KPK – Immediate Agriculture Support Needs (HH Quest)

42. Now, the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): these give a more diversified picture of the actual, outstanding problems....see next 6 slides.

43. “Structural” crop issues: Focus Group Discussions - Men • Irrigation system damage: cited by over 80% of all groups, with high average score and modest recovery rate • Land erosion: mentioned by 47% of all groups, with extremely high average score and very modest recovery rate • Crop diseases: cited by 25% of all groups with a relatively high average score • Drying of orchards: 16% of all groups, but sky-high average score and no recovery  high economic impact

44. Females – CROPS • Damage to irrigation systems mentioned by 23% of all groups with a high average score • Land erosion related issues: mentioned by a cumulative of over 35% of all groups with a upper-average score • Reduction of labour opportunities mentioned by 27% of all groups but with an upper-average score

45. Males - LIVESTOCK • Lack of fodder: mentioned by over 87% of all respondents, though with a average-low score. Lack of fodder was a top priority / recorded very high scores immediately after the floods hit. • Low milk production: mentioned by 60% of all group with an average-high score • Livestock diseases: mentioned by 66% of all respondents with a middle-low score. • Lack of shelter: mentioned by 47 % of all groups, with a middle-low average score

46. Females - LIVESTOCK • Lack of fodder: mentioned by over 77% of all respondents, average-low score. Lack of fodder was a top priority immediately after the floods. • Livestock diseases: mentioned by 66% of all respondents with a middle-low score. • Lack of shelter: mentioned by 36 % of all groups, with a middle-low average score. • Low milk production: mentioned by 60% of all group with an average-high score. • Loss of poultry business: mentioned by 20% of all groups with upper-average score.

47. Males – FARM & OFF FARM LABOUR • End / substantial reduction of work opportunities mentioned by over 90% of groups with a upper-average score. • Inflation / less purchasing power: mentioned by a combined over 35% of all groups with high average scores • Burden of debt mentioned by 30% of all groups with high average score

48. Females – OFF FARM • End / substantial reduction of work opportunities mentioned by 47% of groups with average-high score; • Loss of machinery and raw materials from cottage industry (including sawing machines) referred by a combined 40 + % of all groups with a marginal improvement from after the floods. Very high average scores • Burden of debt: referred by “only” 11% of all groups but with a top average score

49. Initial Conclusions and Implications for Response... • Most pressing immediate agricultural needs as at June /July 2011: Seeds, fertilizers, credit, agricultural services? GROUP WORK! • More “Structural” ag. needs: Irrigation repair; Land erosion; Livestock fodder; livestock disease control; employment support; small business equipment and support (women)? GROUP WORK! • Overall support needs in next 6 months: Cash grants; agricultural services; employment; food aid?  GROUP WORK!

50. THANK YOU