Provision of Support to Economic Analysis and sector plan-ning in support of the Republic of Sudan

FED/2014/350-649

Funded by the European Union

Food Security and Nutrition Sector Report

Aart van der Heide

May 16, 2015

Rationale and Methodology!

The food security definition for the study conducted is the following:

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Food security is not a goal in itself but a means to achieve a higher goal i.e. a good health and nutritional status of all members of the family or household.

For the task assigned, the main objective discussed in the technical paper is to document and inform the EU Delegation on opportunities viable options to improving household food security and to diminish stunting and wasting for the Sudanese population.

Synergy of the food and nutrition security sector is required with the other sectors of intervention, especially livelihood and health.

1. A brief contextual introduction to the sector and strategic reason for the European Union to engage.

Sudan is a food insecure and not self-sufficient country in terms of global cereal and other staple food. Cereal production fluctuates on different year quite dramatically based on risks of drought and seasonality, with high basic food prices on the local markets even in good crop years, as was the case in 20141. Climate change and enduring conflicts further exacerbate the already difficult situation with negative impact on the livelihoods of the population.

The number of food insecure households in Sudan remains high, with an estimate of 2.5 to 5 million people considered food insecure2. The analysis of the data collected shows a wide fluctuation in the magnitude and severity of food insecurity for the different years and per location as well. Data for different years and per state are not available, however it is estimated that the whole of Darfur, as well as Red Sea State, Kassel and Geared in the East and Cordovan and Blue Nile in the South remain the less food secure in the Country.

1 Despite a bumper harvest the price of sorghum was in March 2015 45% higher than the 5 years average. Due to increas-ing prices, amongst other causes, 59% of the households in Darfur earn less than the price of the “local food basket”.2 See annex 5 for more details

The number of rural families living in poverty is extremely high due to economical and social factors, including limited access due to insecurity in ample areas of the Country. Exact numbers are Un-known but are estimated by the VAM on 2 – 2.5 million households!

In addition, the level of under-nutrition is well above international standards, both for stunting and wasting rates of under-five children (see annex 6) as well as Mid-Upper Arm Circumference screen-ing for pregnant and lactating mothers.

Stunting and wasting of under-five children remains alarmingly high countrywide with little differ-ences between rural and urban areas, except from Khartoum where both stunting and wasting are lower. 11 States still have Global Acute Malnutrition or GAM at emergency levels, for a total of more than 2 million children considered stunted. The highest stunting rates are found in Kassala (54.6%) and highest wasting rates in North Darfur (28.3%).High stunting is often accompanied by poor sanita-tion facilities and lack of improved sources of drinking water.

As a consequence in Darfur and other conflict-affected areas 60-70% of the households are food in-secure. The region continues to be impacted by internal conflicts and after more than a decade of conflict, millions of IDP’s continue to reside in urban and pre-urban. Most IDPs live of food aid or cash voucher with over than 50% of young people grown up in camps not knowing how to practice agriculture or livestock. Preliminary analysis of the 2014 CFSA (Darfur Comprehensive Food Security Assessment) indicates that the food security has deteriorated substantially across Darfur in all five States and is most pronounced in Southern and Western Darfur, where the population classified as food secure shrank by 24 and 22 % respectively. Only a third (37%) of the households are found to be food secure. However, Security and access remains a serious concern and are foreseen to worsen if the request from Government of Sudan for an "exit strategy" for UNAMID materialises3.

Data are scarce for the two southern states of Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where Government controls does not extend to the entire territory with clashes and fights making access almost im-possible. Global stunting and wasting are high according to the 2013 S3M data. For Blue Nile stunt-ing and wasting are 49.8% and 18.5% and for South Kordofan resp. 35.8% and 9.5% while the MUAC % for women <230mm for both states is 30% and 15%. International presence is de facto non-exist-ent and the few organisations with a presence in the areas are faced not only by serious security concerns, but also by the reluctance of Government to grant work/travel permits

Despite easier access and improved security levels, the situation food insecurity remains over the av-erage for the three Eastern States, but differences are registered (Red Sea with higher prevalence at 23%-83% food secure in 2012 and Kassala all localities >90% food secure (see Annex 5 VAM dia-grams). The current government’s Sudanisation policy (i.e. phase out INGO and foreign led interven-tions in the East of the country and replace them with national ones) has in the past lead to expul -sions of INGOs and workers and makes the situation challenging. Despite the risk, a quite number of INGOs are still operating successfully in the three states, making development work easier than in the other two regions

3 UNAMID is the hybrid mission that joins the AU and the UN peacekeeping mission to bring stability to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan.

2. Existing and planned interventions in food security

For all interventions the amounts and the areas are specified in annex 5: Interventions EU, ECHO and member states.

Interventions in the area of improvement of household food and nutrition security are rare and very scattered, with little coordination and cooperation amongst donors.

European Union Delegation

In annex 6 the interventions of the EU is listed for Darfur in the area of relief and rehabilitation through a number of 15 programmes (amount). These programmes are mainly support to nutrition, health, livelihood, natural resources; sustain FS, poverty reduction, and market monitoring. The rest of the country concerns the small support to small scale commercial farmers carried out in the States of Red Sea, Kassala, Gedaref and Blue Nile with a central technical assistance from Landell Mill consultancy by World Vision, GAA/WHH, SOS-Sahel and ZOA (25 million €). The EU is financing 8.6 million € through FAO a food security and capacity programme building programme in four states, continuation of a previously financed food security information system at federal level. The FAO sup-ported programme for among others FSTS was a very important. UNICEF was supported with their emergency nutrition programme (3,350,000 €) for the whole country. WFP was supported by ECHO through a food assistance programme (14 million €) mainly for Darfur.

ECHO the European Commission’s Humanitarian Office4

ECHO is mainly funding partners in the Darfur States (80% of their funding) and three eastern States with focus on nutrition (UNICEF), food assistance (WFP) and support to food security interventions – primary health care, nutrition, NFI for production, WASH etc – through a number of international NGOs. Humanitarian access remains very constrained in main parts of Darfur and almost impossible in the conflict-affected areas in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Access to new refugees from South Sudan remains restricted, thus limiting adequate assistance and follow-up.

UKThe UK is funding a number of 4 of food security related programmes through DFID. Focus is on agro-economic activities and studies linking small and medium agro producers with commercial and financial networks. Support (21.9£ in 2014) is provided to WFP voucher programme for Darfur. Another programme (1) focuses on the development of the agriculture private sector for all of Sudan.

GermanyFund mainly the sectors of education, health and capacity building and no food security interventions.

ItalyItaly is directly tackling food security though food for work/assets, food for education and food for training activities (through WFP) and reducing severe and acute malnutrition (through UNICEF). On the other side, the Italian Cooperation has also been working indirectly to tackle food security. In particular, the recently started Poverty Alleviation Project for the States of Kassala and Red Sea looks at enhancing food security through livelihood strengthening, education and water management in a 3-year timeframe. Some activities are also carried out through FAO in order to enhance livelihoods of vulnerable farming and herding householders by supporting agricultural and livestock production with the aim at contributing to improve food and nutrition security of vulnerable rural people.4 annex 4 presents 2011-15 ECHO budget for Sudan

SpainThis member state funded the Spanish Red Cross in Gedaref in a programme that aimed to give humanitarian aid for the improvement of nutritional services. (3,850€ and 225,125€ SRC funds).

The NetherlandsThe Netherlands is not funding or implementing food security or nutrition projects. They can facilitate and finance studies if requested by partners or governmental agencies. Most of the studies financed so far are related to agricultural or livestock production or agro economic subjects.

USAIDUSAID's Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) provides timely food security information for Sudan and other countries that allows donors to monitor emerging crises and respond to needs early. USAID also supports activities that strengthen the abilities of Sudanese organizations to recognize and manage food insecurity threats. USAID has consistently been the world's largest donor of food assistance to Sudan. In FY 2013 and FY 2014, USAID provided more than $186.5 million and $183.7 million respectively for WFP and UNICEF to support food-insecure and vulnerable populations in Sudan through the distribution of emergency food aid, including ready-to-use supplementary foods, which help improve nutrition among children.

Federal Ministry of AgricultureThe federal Ministry is the lead ministry of the Food Security Technical Secretariat (FSTS). The FSTS should coordinate and link all stakeholders dealing with food security. It produces the yearly ACFSAM (agriculture crop, food supply assessment mission) data on agriculture, crops, food supply. It produces as well Integrated Phase Classification where phase stands for the integration of data of the Ministries of Agriculture, Animal Resources, Health, Water and Social Protection. This Ministry is not in charge of any food security and Nutrition projects. No information is available about their rural credit programme and also not about their extension offices. For this study the FSTS department is of great importance but their role in coordination and information is generally recognized to be needed improved.

Federal Ministry of Animal Resources.This ministry is involved in all livestock activities not only related to policy development but also specialized in livestock health control and support. However, this ministry is not involved in specific food security programmes except from the livestock components in broader programmes.

Federal Ministry of HealthThis ministry is important for the nutrition part. See report health sector.

UNDPUNDP established in 2014 the national climate change adaptation portfolio by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR). This is mentioned in order to know better the link between climate change adaption with food security. Through Poverty Reduction and MDGs Interventions (amount in EUR) in Darfur, South Kordofan and Eastern Sudan, 32,000 people have benefitted from new or expanded livelihood opportunities using new diversified agricultural production technologies, with over 4,000 new jobs created. Over 2.4 million of the 3.1 internally displaced people were provided with critical basic services including access to drinking water and food.

The Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF) was established in October 2007 as a Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF). In terms of Food Security and Nutrition income generation and health activities were supported but main activities were related to conflict resolution and reconciliation mechanisms. Main concern was a central coordination of activities5.

5 One aid worker called it as “Everybody took care of his or her tree but nobody took care of the forest”.

OCHAThe Common Humanitarian Fund for South Sudan was set up in 2012. It is a ‘pooled

fund’ channelling over 27 million US$ to NGOs and ensuring the effective implementation of projects in collaboration with OCHA and UN sector leads.

WFPWFP’s traditional mandate is combating hunger. It is the main distributor of food aid in the emergency areas such as in the five Darfur States and for the eastern emergency situations in the States of Red Sea, Kassala and Gedaref. From the 1 st of July 2015 it aims to realise the transition towards food and nutrition security for conflict affected and chronically vulnerable population through its Protected Relief and Recovery Operation Sudan 200808. This PRRO aims to reach 5,220,000 beneficiaries and to distribute 493,256 MT of food. The total costs are 693,274,155 US$. N.B. For staff is allocated 72,721,231 US$ or 10.4% of the total budget. The last EMOP or emergency operation was for a period of 12 months in 2014 extension total amount of 626,765,286 US$ for a total beneficiaries of 5,330,000. Locations are Central, Eastern and Three Areas (CETA) and the five Darfur States.It is also involved in new programmes aiming to combat hunger and poverty through distribution of cash vouchers, strengthening resilience of livelihood in the rehabilitation phase or post emergency situation. The Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping unit (VAM) is collecting data on malnutrition but does also in assessments to identify the number of food insecure households (see annex 4) . The generally extremely high costs of intervention are justified by the fact that very remote areas are involved and work has to be achieved under high risks. For the new PRRO the general costs per beneficiary are 140 US$ and 1,400 US$ per MT.

FAOFAO plays an important role in support of the FSTS both technically and financially (project is 100% financed by EUD). FAO is involved in strengthening data collection capacity at States level (Red Sea, Kassala, Gedaref and Blue Nile) on food security through its food security and livelihoods sector and has intensive technical collaboration with the MoA, MoAR and MoH The importance of this technical assistance is generally recognized but its effectiveness and impact is still a concern of certain stakeholders. Therefore this must be a point of attention. The number of direct beneficiaries is not known.

UNICEFUNICEF plays an important role in all nutrition related activities in Sudan in particular the treatment of severe acute malnutrition. It collaborates intensively with the MoH in nutrition. The Sudan S3M nutrition assessment was piloted by UNICEF and the MoH (see chapter 1). The importance of the S3M nutrition assessment is generally recognized. About its quality and representativeness no information is available. UNICEF Sudan is present in 15 states including Darfur. In 2013 its annual budget was $38,066,823. Beneficiaries are mainly children but indirectly. UNICEF works mainly through the MoH and a number of INGO’s. Statistical information UNICEF gives dates from the time North and South Sudan were still united.

INGO’sThere is a great number of INGO’s working in Sudan. Annex 5 indicates the INGO’s benefitting of EU and ECHO funding and also their locality of operation. The national NGO’s are in general small of size and limited in their capacity of implementation. Main problems for INGO’s are the access to remote and needed areas. The more the federal government’s policy of sudanisation makes intervention for foreign NGO’s more difficult. In this document the names of EU involved INGO’s are mentioned. The HAC or Humanitarian Activity Commission coordinates the activities of all NGO interventions in Su-dan!

3. Prioritisation of needs within the sector.

a. Geographical prioritisation. Two important sources of data related to household food and nutri-tion security are the S3M Nutritional data (global stunting, global wasting, mother’s undernour-ishment, improved sanitation facility, improved source of drinking water) in annex 6 and the VAM produced mapping of the % of food insecure households in annex 4. The VAM annexes in -dicate mainly the data where WFP is operation for the number of food insecure households. Generally spoken the mayor needs are in the five Darfur states despite its emergency character, in the two Eastern States of Red Sea and Kassala (real needs caused by nature made emergency) and in the Southern States of Blue Nile and the Kordofan States (difficult access). This means that those states are a priority in terms of needs and not the whole country. On federal level pri -ority may be given to the strengthening of the FSTS as a coordinating and information entity with support of specialized UN agencies.

b. Need to practise the concept of resilience and LRRD. Recent and recurrent food crises in the Sahel region and in the Horn of Africa have underscored the need to work on a long-term and systematic approach to build the resilience of vulnerable countries and populations. Building re-silience is a long-term effort that needs to be firmly embedded in national policies and planning. It is a part of the development process, and genuinely sustainable development will need to tackle the root causes of recurrent crises rather than just their consequences. The consequent implementation of a LRRD approach is evident for optimal guarantee of long-term impact. The experience of ongoing activities of partners such as WFP, ZOA, WHH, SOS-Sahel but also agen-cies not mentioned here in the field of resilience and LRRD is of great importance.

c. Need for coordination and information. The FSTS is within the Government a central unity that collects data and produces updated information documents on production and market prices. It also produces a number of periodical documents on food production. However the information is still not reaching all the involved partners and the secretariat unable to coordinate and plan. An important role for a strengthened FSTS could be foreseen after an optimisation assessment of activities and expected results. However, it must be noted that the FSTS has always been fully donor driven with high costs (currently for 4 states the cost is of 8.5 million €). Despite the donor dependency the quality of the FSTS can be improved substantially. As long as this entity is fully donor driven sustainability is not guaranteed. Alternatives do not exist while the need is evident.

d. Need for synergy between food security, livelihood and health sectors. Synergy of the food and nutrition security sector is required with the sectors of livelihood and health. Food security from the conceptual point of view is in fact a part of the whole livelihood concept. Since the attention paid for nutrition in the concept of food and nutrition security nutrition is also an essential part of it and food security is part of the livelihood any form of synergy between the three sectors is evident. Nutrition deals with agriculture – agro nutrition – and with health – medical nutrition! This explains for example the synergy between the FS and the health sector. Nutrition surveil-lance of under-five children and mother is an essential part of the FS sector but is only feasible if adequate health facilities and trained health workers with sufficient equipment are available. This is in many remote areas not the case.

e. Need for an integrated approach built on the household approach and integrating the Resili -ence concept. The needs of activities in general – areas are different and some of the listed pro -

posals do not make sense in some places - for an integrated food security and nutrition pro-gramme to be prioritised are: Cereal production: soil improvement, improved seeds, improved planting, improved storing,

improved marketing etc. at what level? Small/medium holders? justify Gardening: introduction of gardening for improved home consumption, marketing, small

scale irrigation, pest control, simple transformation etc. Savings and micro-credits; Food storage on household and community level; Food transformation activities: cheese, other milk products, dried fruits, dried fish etc. for

what? Marketing or consumption? Fruit trees and tree planting: mainly as an economic activity but also for home consumption,

transformation technology and marketing. Anti erosion work: as part of soil improvement, water catchment etc. Livestock improvement etc.: poultry, funds for recovery, if necessary vaccination, drying of

meat etc. consumption or marketing? WASH: all elements of WASH in order to supply potable water and improve hygiene at

household level; Women’s organisation and training: is the most effective way of introducing IG activities,

small loans, improved child care, improved nutrition, WASH and all kind of training; Integration of nutrition and health: improve access to health facilities and if they hardly exist

for the poorest of the communities to look for alternatives (health sector with help of the MoH and UNICEF);

IGA activities for women’s groups; improve incomes of women combined with training; what kind of activities?

Nutrition activities with mothers: improve weaning practices, fortified weaning food etc. Anthropometrical surveillance of all under-five children (age, weight, length); Regular MUAC control of mothers; this is not an activity! Looking for treatment for severe malnourished case with help of the MoH and UNICEF. this

is food aid not food security Safety net programmes, including conditional and unconditional cash transfers6.

N.B. Prioritising of needs depend heavily on locality and the facts found through detailed baseline studies! Another factor that makes prioritisation necessary because of the limited re-sources available and therefore

f. Need for productivity improvement. Productivity improvement of yields should not be for-gotten since it works directly on the availability but also availability of food for household. If prices are also in a reasonable way stable the producer will benefit of it being guaranteed of a stable in -come. Households with small surfaces of land may also benefit of productivity improvement but only in a limited way. The VAM of WFP does in its household food availability assessments analysis if this is evident. However, the number of households that do not have land do not benefit of this. The number of households that have no access to land is not known. FSTS is the ideal entity to follow these developments in a structured way. N.B. The EU funds in 4 States programmes that aim to im -prove food productivity of middle class producers through 4 INGO’s.

6 This is a key activity for resilience building in early recovery and self-reliance.

4. Recommendation for interventions including EU value addition, integrating cross cutting issues including conflict sensitivity and environment implications of proposed actions and gender di-mensions.

The following recommendations are outlined taking into account the specific cross cutting issues and added value for the EU and its member states. Prioritisation of recommendations is needed because of the limited resources available.

General Recommendations:

1. Concentration of interventions: In order to achieve maximum impact, it is recommended to concentrate interventions in a few projects with a few implementing partners. Building on exist -ing programmes and cooperation is most recommended. Therefore it is strongly recommended to strengthen the small scale agriculture intervention support programme with ZOA, SOS-Sahel and Welthungerhilfe and include a more household focussed element that deals with nutrition, health, IGA, nutritional surveillance of young children and mothers, gardening, small animals re-stocking etc. activities.

2. Build upon existing initiatives and policy frameworks. We refer to the National Comprehensive Food and Nutrition Security Policies document of March 2015 prepared by the FSTS in collabora-tion with the EU and the FAO. The European Union has funded several agriculture production projects over the last years. The intervention through support of commercial smallholders’ agri-culture producers is an example. However this programme is not a FSN programme is can easily be extended to a full FSN approach also for other areas. It is not so straight forward to just add household and nutrition interventions but the model can be used with certain adaptations. Fur-thermore they just target a few scattered areas. These programmes were implemented by ZOA in Gedaref, Welhungerhilfe – former German Agro Action – in Kassala and by SOS-Sahel in the Red Sea State. Welthunger Hilfe also implements a livelihood programme in Lagawa in West Kor-dofan State and an early recovery programme in North Darfur. All these programmes works in agriculture, livestock and livelihood. Enriching these programmes with a more household and nutrition approach makes them more complete and can be considered as household food secur-ity and nutrition programmes.

3. Strengthen of federal and state coordination and information entities: coordination in the sec-tor of food security and nutrition is experienced by most stakeholders as weak. Information based on reliable and qualitative good information of all kind of food security and nutrition indic-ators is the basis for a proper policy development. Coordination and information is the task of the Government of Sudan with support from specialized organisations such as specialized agen-cies of the UN such as WFP, FAO, UNICEF and WHO. The current FSTS plays that role already more or less but improvement and professionalization are most required. The high costs are already mentioned. Strengthening this entity with technical and also financial support from WFP, FAO and UNICEF is an option but first of all a detailed and independent evaluation looking at all these issues are highly recommended.

4. Complementarity and synergies: This new cycle of projects must be built on the existing pro-jects, analysing the added value of the European Union in complementarity with the EU Member States and other aid agencies, development and humanitarian institutions. An evaluation of the current EU-funded projects can determine what can be done better, what deserves to be contin -ued and which new projects the EU will support. This evaluation should include a detailed ana-lysis of the complementarity among EU actions in food security and nutrition, especially with the projects that are currently under implementation, the synergies also with other EU member states donors and the synergies with the other sectors (health, education, livelihood and eco -nomic development).

5. Sustainability: An important constraint felt by some agencies (mainly INGO partners) is that the EU is trying to combine a long-term development approach in food security and nutrition with only 3-year funding cycles. Therefore, projects approved in this new cycle should try to have an impact in at least 5 year project cycle (2016-2021) and preferably 10 year funding in order to be sure of any sustainability approach. N.B. the funding cycle must not be confused with the PCM approach. The EUD’s policy is that it can easily have longer projects despite the short funding cycle.

6. Geographical focus: the EU interventions should focus on those states where the EU has experi-ence, where the real needs are, where potential partners are already implementing but in gen-eral where access is guaranteed. It must also be mentioned that the situation is very volatile in terms of political situation and where conflicts are. It must be clear that intervention is most needed where the food security and nutrition indicators are the worst, namely Darfur (North, West, East and South) and states in East Sudan (Kassala, Red Sea and Gedaref) but also the States of Blue Nile and the States of Kordofan. Because of their worse rates in stunting and wasting, interventions should focus on rural areas, especially in Darfur. Also the eastern states, where the conflict or the poor climatic situation has made it impossible for most of the popula-tion to have normal access to basic food are of great importance. However, some activities could be implemented in other states with higher rates of food insecure households and also high stunting and wasting but this option must be considered as a long term.

EU added value: The importance of ongoing activities by a number of INGO's from the EU member states that receive EU and ECHO funding jointly with their local partners and state government agen-cies must be recognized as an EU added value. An extra EU added value is their experience on Food Security in other countries in Africa in general and in the Sahel in particular. Also must be mentioned the experience in professional monitoring systems on food security, nutrition and early warning sys-tems. In Sudan the technical expertise certain member states of the EU have is much appreciated and can be a useful tool for intervention.

Regarding the cross cutting issues in food security and nutrition interventions:

To avoid radicalisation, food security and nutrition programmes - and employment on the side due to rural development - will reduce the pool of discontented young people where extremists are finding support. Please rather elaborate on the fact that better food security

To avoid migration: Food security and nutrition programmes must support IDPs in Darfur and refugees in the East. Migration can only be avoided if people have hope and also future through job creation in the whole agriculture sector but for food and nutrition security also the health sector. Access to and availability to good food – that is the objective of food se-curity – combined with a guarantee for good facilities for child care etc. is a way to make people less motivated to leave their place of origin. With a better nourished people and eco-nomical improvement, people will have more chances to find an employment and less people will migrate to Europe.

To build on resilience: more study on resilience mechanisms must be carried out in order to understand in a better way how resilience can contribute to improve early recovery pro-grammes. The WFP has started a special research unit on this subject and all involved stake-holders in the field in LRRD recognise it.

To integrate a gender approach: the household food security and nutrition approach fo-cuses on interventions through women’s groups in particular with special attention for IGA

activities for women, training skills for a broad package of skills and special attention for child care and child nutrition. This is also well known by experienced agencies.

5. An assessment of risks, limitations.

Access difficulties including both physical and political constraints for development activities. This constraint is linked with the GoS policy of Sudanisation but also the risk of expelling INGO implementation will be difficult. However this issue might be a concern we have now evidence that monitoring from the HQ in Khartoum is also feasible (only case is WHH). However, this case must be verified by field based evidence. If no access for expatriates is possible the EU cannot work there. EUD has rules about not working in development in areas where expatriate staff is not allowed. This is among others the case for the Blue Nile state.

Quality of monitoring. One has to take into account that actually proper M&E is one of the main problems faced by international NGO's and UN Agencies in Sudan, raising serious quality and ac-countability issues.

Radicalisation, armed conflicts or isolation can threat the implementation.This risk is not predictable depending on the development in the region but also on the peace talks. If the international community has to “embrace” the current government in power more field work will be possible. It means practically that certain areas will be out of reach.

Commitment from donor’s side.If a new policy from international donors becomes effective more chances will be feasible but for the time being most interventions remain limited.

Huge migration from neighbouring countries and abroad.Both immigration and emigration have to be considered.

Recurrent droughts. We have to include the climate change phenomenon that also plays a role and make environmental programmes etc. desirable.

Large scale-displaced population: makes early recovery impossible. We refer here also to the mi-gration constraint.

High spikes of food prices in Sudan: has an enormous influence on the purchase power of families except from ideal and optimal access to markets for small holders of food producers. This con-cerns local but also more national development of prices.

6. An assessment of potential implementation partners, consideration of the implementation modality.

Government of Sudan: It is impossible to work at central level for political reasons. It must also be mentioned that the available resources for the EU under this situation are limited. This has to do with the political willingness.

UN family: The agencies of the UN have only partial access to the rural areas in the different states. The costs of their intervention is quite high compared to the INGO’s. They work on federal level with ministries and their presence in the field is limited except from WFP. They work mostly through in-ternational and national NGO’s. However their weak points mentioned it is necessary to consider them as implementing partners but only on specific activities that must be well monitored.

INGO: A great number of international NGO’s are present in the field but their work is mainly in emergency or early recovery operations. Their presence in the field is of great importance but due to the federal government’s policy of sudanisation not very sustainable. A number of international NGO’s have already been expulsed.

Local NGOs: Are very sustainable but weak in capacity and small in operational activities. They are ideal partners for UN agencies and INGO’s to work with but also strongly politically controlled by the federal government.

Considering the implementation modalities it must be stated that neither are the INGOs for many years now real field implementers. They are also required to work with / through local NGO's or CBOs. Recent modification of national Technical Agreement for projects to be implemented re-em-phasized this trend, by requesting the implementing partner to be co-signing this document.

ANNEX 1: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

1. Terms of Reference mission.2. Memo EU for working group reports.3. National comprehensive food and nutrition security policies. FSTS in collaboration with EU/FAO

project: FS policy and strategy; capacity programme, March 2015.4. Sudan –conflict Analysis Workshop report, Khartoum 12 Nov. 2014 – minutes.5. Various WFP reports, including new PRRO request and all VAM publications, Nutrition depart -

ment, Resilience strategy etc.6. WFP presentation – From relief to recovery.7. WFP EMOP BUDGET INCREASE TO EMERGENCY OPERATION (EMOP) SUDAN 200597 (Budget Re-

vision No. 3).8. M3S Nutrition Baseline report: 2014 – tables etc.9. EU, ECHO and Member States table of activities.10. ZOA annual report 2013.11. DFIC: WFP, UNICEF & FAO JOINT RESILIENCE PROGRAMME IN KASSALA STATE, EASTERN SUDAN12. Map: Sudan Food and Nutrition Security EU, ECHO and member states April 2015. 13. COMMISSION DECISION of 11.12.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of the

most vulnerable population in Sudan to be financed from the recommitment of EDF funds under the STABEX instrument.

14. Sudan National Human Development report 2012 UNDP.15. Economic Report on Sudan March 2015 EUD.16. ECHO Factsheet Republic of Sudan February 2015.

ANNEX 2: ACRONYMS

CBO Community Based OrganisationCFSA Comprehensive Food Security Assessment DCPSF Darfur Community Peace and Stability FundDFID Department for International Development – Government of the UKECHO European Commission Humanitarian OfficeEU European UnionEUD European Union Delegation to the Republic of SudanFAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UNFSTS Food Security Technical Secretariat GAA German Agro Action now Welt Hunger HilfeGAM Global Acute MalnutritionGDP Gross Domestic ProductGIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – German GovernmentGoS Government of SudanHIP Humanitarian Implementation PlanICC International Criminal CourtIDP Internal Displaced PeopleILO International Labour Organisation INGO International Non Governmental OrganisationIPC Integrated Phase ClassificationLFB Local Food BasketMAM Moderate Acute MalnutritionMDG Millennium Development GoalsMENA Middle East and North AfricaMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoAR Ministry of Animal Resources MoH Ministry of HealthMUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference NGO Non Governmental OrganisationNNGO National Non Governmental OrganisationODA Official Development AssistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentPMU Programme Management UnitS3M Simple Spatial Survey MethodologySAM Severe Acute MalnutritionSCF save the Children FundSMoA State Ministry of AgricultureSPCRP Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery ProgrammeUK United KingdomUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganisationUK United KingdomVAM Vulnerability Analysis and MappingWASH Water and Sanitation and HealthWFP World Food ProgrammeWHH Welt Hunger Hilfe was German Agro Action

ANNEX 3: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND/OR MET DURING THE MISSION IN SUDAN.

organisation name position

1 EU Jose Maria TRONCOSO PERERA Head of Section2 EU Cosimo Lamberti FOSSATI Programme Manager3 EU Umberto AMBROSI Programme Manager4 EU Mysa Programme Manager5 EU Maria Luisa Head of Section6 EU Francesca Programme Manager7 ECHO Jean Marc JOUINEAU Field expert8 WFP Adnan Khan Country Director9 WFP Margot van der Velden Deputy Country Director10 WFP Marc Andre Prost Head of Nutrition Unit11 WFP Anders Petersson Head of VAM12 WFP Filippo MINOZZI Head of Resilience PM13 WFP Kate CAREY Donor relations & Policy14 MoA-FSTS Hamza Abdalla SIROR Food Security analyst FSTS15 Embassy Nl Susan BLANKHART H.E. Ambassador16 Embassy Nl Esther Loeff deputy CdP17 Embassy Nl Jurrien Norder 2n secr.18 Apost. Nuncio Bert van MEGEN H.E. nuncio19 Embassy Sw Mattias ANDEREGG humanitarian adviser20 Embassy GB Ian BYRAM DFID humanitarian adviser21 Embassy Italy Anna DE PALMA Programme Off.22 Embassy Sw. Anna GUILLET first secretary23 UNOPS Chabib BELHASSAN Head of Mission24 OCHA Jean VERHEYDEN deputy Head of Office25 Landell Mills Abdul Hamid RHAMETALLA assistant Team Leader26 ZOA Tim RAE Country Director27 ZOA Ida MUNCK Operational Manager28 ZOA Timmo Gaasbeek Operational Manager29 WHH Ivan ZENAR Country Director30 WHH Lennaert LEHMANN Head of Programme Lagawa30 SCF Rahed CHAUDARY Country Director31 SCF Lily Phan Head Programme32 SCF El Badawi, Ali Nasr Head of health programme33 SCF Hassan Osman Head of livelihood program34 FAO Charles Agobla Chief technical adviser SPCRP 35 FAO Wolde Deboch FS&L

36 SOS Sahel Salih Eldhouma Country Director

ANNEX 4: Household Food Security data from different States and years.

1. Food security in Darfur 2011 – 2014

2. Food security in Blue Nile 2014

3. Food Security in South Kordofan, May 2014

4. Food security in North Kordofan, 2012

5. Food security in Kassala, 2012

6. Food security in Red Sea state, 2012

ANNEX 5: Interventions EU, ECHO and member states!

DEU intervention in FS and/or nutrition.

Darfur Relief & Rehabilitation etc.

1. Improving nutrition through nutrition humanitarian response UNICEF 2,000,0002. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + livelihood) UNOPS 4,700,0003. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + soil) UNEP 6,700,0004. Integrated emergency primary health care and nutrition IMC-UK 1,520,0005. Integrated humanitarian reasons for communities in conflict Tear Fund 1,400,0006. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + soil) UNEP 6,700,0007. Sustaining FS and livelihoods CRS 1,300,0008. Improved FS recovering from conflicts WV 1,000,0009. Relief to rehabilitation FS and livelihoods WR 1,000,00010. Support to food insecure nomads and sedentary COOPI 1,000,00011. Towards improved FS and livelihoods TGN 1,000,00012. Improving FS and vulnerable conflict affected HH Concern 1,000,00013. Community based market monitoring SOS-Sahel 1,000,00014. Health and nutrition GRC 500,00015. Integrated humanitarian response Tear Fund 1,350,000

Small scale agriculture production programme (sorgum and livestock)

16. Small scale agriculture production WV 5,550,000 Blue Nile17. Small scale DWH 5,550,000 Kassala18. Small scale ZOA 5,000,000 Gedaref19. Small scale SOS-Sahel 5,000,000 Red Sea20. TA etc. to small scale agriculture production 16 -19 Landell Mill 3,800,000 Blue Nile, Kassala, Gedaref, Red Sea etc.

UN agencies general

21. Food security and capacity building programme FAO 8,600,000 all22. Emergency nutrition Sudan UNICEF 3,350,000 all23. Food assistance WFP 14,000,000 all

Annex 6: S3M data UNICEF 20137

RuralStateRural

Global stunting Global wasting Mothers undernourished MUAC <230mm

Improved sanitation facility

Improved source of drinking water

KEY >30% >15% >15% >50% <50%Red Sea 45.5 20.2 29.6 44.1 27.9Kassala 54.6 15.2 13.4 13.0 13.1Gedaref 52.0 13.2 8.5 4.0 46.0Blue Nile 49.8 18.5 19.1 73.3 84.9Kordofan S 35.8 9.5 23.7 4.1 61.4Kordofan W 36.7 12.7 13.9 8.7 28.6Kordofan N 41.6 12.1 11.3 2.0 35.8White Nile 39.1 8.6 9.9 3.3 31.8Semnar 32.6 12.8 11.8 9.5 46.4El Gezira 36.4 9.6 3.0 16.2 86.9Khartoum 20.2 8.2 6.3 47.9 90.4Northern 29.4 7.3 10.8 52.4 90.7River Nile 28.4 15.2 4.8 39.9 68.8N Darfur 35.2 28.3 26.2 12.9 60.4S Darfur 24.5 18.3 13.0 2.2 47.4E Darfur 39.9 14.9 12.2 7.9 12.7W Darfur 34.8 8.4 4.8 5.1 34.5C Darfur 44.9 12.7 15.5 9.6 55.9

UrbanTownUrban

Global stunting

Global wasting Mothers undernourished MUAC <230mm

Improved sanitation locality

Improved source of drinking water

KEY >30% >15% >15% >50% <50%Khartoum 11.6 7.7 3.2 82.0 88.4Port Sudan 34.3 13.8 14.0 73.9 25.5Kassala town 33.9 15.2 5.7 52.1 58.4El Fashir 36.0 16.5 12.8 48.1 59.2

Table 2: Under nutrition trends in under five children: stunting and underweight for all under five ages!

1986/87 20100

20

40

60

80

2032

3235

StuntingUnderweight

Perc

enta

ge

pre

vale

nce

Source: adapted from VAM/WFP data

7 These figures come from the last UNICEF Sudan S3M 2013 Core Indicator results by locality. It is considered as the most detailed data source. The national Simple Spatial Surveying Methodology (S3M) survey was carried out to collect detailed and current data on nutrition status and other health, water and sanitation variables that may affect nutrition status to en -sure a strong evidence-base for expansion of multi-sectorial services to combat malnutrition. The S3M methodology was chosen because of its ability to give detailed information for small geographical areas – results are available at sub-locality level for this survey – and its ability to map results making targeting of interventions possible.

Table 8: Food security in Darfur 2011 – 2014