i

Emergency Food Security Assessment

Ampara District, Sri Lanka

May 2009

ii

ACRONYMNS

ACRONYMNS DER-MFP Department of External Resources (Ministry of Finance and Planning ) DMU Disaster Management Unit DRC Danish Refugee Council FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GA Government Agent/ District Secretary HABITAT UN HABITAT HI Handicap International – France IOM International Organization for Migration JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency MADAS Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Services MFP Ministry of Finance and Planning MI Malteser International MNBEID Ministry of Nation Building & Estate Infrastructure Development MOH/PHI Ministry of Health & Nutrition MRDRS Ministry of Resettlement & Disaster Relief Services MRI Medical Research Institute OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs PIN People in Need SCiSL Save the Children – Sri Lanka SLRC Sri Lanka Red Cross UMCOR United Methodist Committee on Relief UNDP United Nation Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNIDO United Nations Industrial Organization WFP United Nations World Food Programme WUSC World University Service of Canada WVL World Vision Lanka ZOA Zoa Refugee Care IDP Internally Displaced People DCS Department of Census & Statistics

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 AGRICULTURE & FOOD SECURITY IN AMPARA DISTRICT ................................................................ 2 2.2 PREVIOUS FOOD SECURITY ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................ 3 2.3 HEALTH AND NUTRITION.................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 RESETTLEMENT IN AMPARA DISTRICT .............................................................................................. 4

3. METHODOLOGY/ APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 5 3.1 BROAD- SPECTRUM ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 TEAM COMPOSITION AND TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS .................................................................. 5 3.3 ASSESSMENT TOOLS ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.4 DATA MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 6

4.0 RESULTS/ SUMMARY STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 8 4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 SHELTER, WATER, SANITATION AND HEALTH .................................................................................. 9 4.3 HOUSEHOLD ASSETS ..........................................................................................................................10 4.4 LIVELIHOOD AND INCOME.................................................................................................................11 4.5 FARMING ............................................................................................................................................13 4.6 LIVESTOCK AND FISHING...................................................................................................................14 4.7 HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE...............................................................................................................15 4.7 FOOD CONSUMPTION .........................................................................................................................16 4.7 SHOCKS, COPING STRATEGIES ..........................................................................................................19

4.7.1 Shocks.........................................................................................................................................19 4.7. 2: Household coping strategies....................................................................................................20 4.7.3 Number of Meals per Day ..........................................................................................................21 4.7.4 Food assistance ..........................................................................................................................21

5. HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY STATUS.......................................................................................22 5.1 HOUSEHOLD FOOD ACCESS ...............................................................................................................22 5.2 HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................................23 5.3 HOUSEHOLD COPING STRATEGIES....................................................................................................25

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................27 6.1CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................27 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................................28

6.2.1 Food Assistance..........................................................................................................................28 6.2.2. Livelihood Assistance................................................................................................................28 6.2.3 Enabling Environment...............................................................................................................28

iv

Executive Summary The World Food Programme (WFP) in collaboration with partners (Government, UN Agencies and NGOs) undertook a food security assessment in Ampara District in May 2009. The main objective of this assessment was to identify the progress of the recovery of conflict affected communities as well as to find the broad picture of level of food security of the communities in Ampara district. Moreover, this study will provide the direction for future assistance programmes of WFP to recover the livelihood of food insecure people. The assessment involved a review of relevant background information, consultations with key institutions (Government, UN agencies and NGO’s), key informant interviews and household interviews covering more than 500 individual households. The findings of the Emergency Food Security Assessment revealed, overall that the food security situation of resettled, relocated and permanent households in Amapara has improved. This improvement is mainly as a result of the various types of assistance provided by the government as well as by humanitarian organizations such as UN, Red Cross and local NGO’s. Further, the regaining the food security was accelerated through the stable security environment after mid 2007. The food assistance has played an important role in the household food security status. World Food Programme has been continued vulnerable group feeding, IDP feeding, School feeding and mother and child nutritional programmes in Ampara district. The access to the cultivations (13% improved, 75% unchanged and 12% limited access) and fisheries (35% as Increased Access, 60% No change, 5% limited access) sector has improved. Mainly the households have enough access to their paddy lands, up land and home gardens. Water for agriculture, agricultural inputs and technology were still poor among majority of the households. Only a small area of paddy lands, uplands are inaccessible due to land degradation and mine risk. It is important to continue the livelihood assistance for the poor families until they completely recover to their normal livelihood. The government and other humanitarian projects had provided material assistance such as seeds/ seedlings, fertilisers, tools and livestock. Tsunami affected, war affected as well as drought and flood affected DS divisions are highly vulnerable for food insecurity. Overall, World Food Programme should scale down its food assistance to economically affected households in Ampara district with the improved food security situation. Food assistance should be continued in the villages/ clusters which fall into the “poor” food security category and the households which adopt very severe coping strategies. Most of the relocated families and newly resettled families are highly vulnerable for food insecurity.

v

Special categories of food insecure households (e.g. female headed households) exist in most villages/ clusters. It is recommended that their needs are selectively addressed using special assistance modalities such as the Government’s food stamp (Samurdhi) programme. Nutritional development programmes should be introduced in order uplift the nutritional status of the poor households. Livelihood assistance is recommended for vulnerable communities such as newly resettled communities, relocated communities, poor fishing communities etc. The assistance programmes should be implemented with the proper coordination with government agencies as well as relevant I/NGO’s. The security environment has significantly improved and people are enjoying the freedom of movement. The degraded lands and lands with mine risk should be rehabilitated. This will lead to azzadumize all the cultivable lands in Ampara district.

1

1. Introduction Ampara district is located in the eastern province of Sri Lanka and is bordered by the Indian Ocean on east and the districts of Moneragala and Badulla to west, Baticoloa to north and Hambathota to the south. (Annex: Map 01) Ampara district consists of 20DS divisions and there are 524 Grama Niladhari divisions in Ampara district. Agriculture is the prominent income source of the people in Ampara district and it is the highest rice producer the all other rice producing districts. Ampara district belongs to the lowland dry zone under the agro ecological zones and the climate is highly favourable for paddy and other filed crops. The annual average rainfall varies between 1500mm -2000mm. The paddy productivity is also very high in Ampara district with the cropping methods practiced. Approximately 8% of annual gross national paddy production is recorded from Ampara district. Moreover, Ampara district consists of approximately115 km of coastal belt which is very important under the fisheries industry. The Mahaweli and Gal oya major irrigation schemes and large number of minor cascade systems are providing the water for agricultural lands in dry season. maha season is the main cropping season for Ampara district. Rice is the main seasonal crop and maize, ground nut, green gram, cow pea, manioc, sweet potatoes, onion; chillies are the other main field crops cultivated in this district. Coconut, jack, cashew and fruits are the main perennial crops cultivated in this district. Due to the prevailed war between the Sri Lankan armed forces and LTTE carders, the food security, social and economic infrastructure has been deteriorated during the past 20 years. At present, the government of Sri Lanka has abolished the terrorism and established the peace in the country. Due to the prevailed conflict in the district, a large number of families were displaced in 1990, 2004 and 2006. Due to the conflict, most of the families have lost their living place and properties. Apart from that, Ampara district was one of the most affected districts by Tsunami devastation. There were more than 10000 human deaths recorded due to Tsunami devastation in December 2004. (desinventar.lk). Approximately 165,450 people were affected by Tsunami devastation and around 13,444 households were destroyed. With recurrent natural and human intervened devastations, people in Ampara district had suffered until 2008. WFP has been providing the food assistance for these vulnerable communities continuously to facilitate the people to come out of vicious cycle. 2009 May Food Security Assessment in Ampara district is very important to measure the extent of recovery of livelihood of vulnerable families and food security in order to guide the direction of future assistance programmes. There were rapid on set resettlement programmes which were really helpful for people to lead back to their normal living style. There are approximately n displaced families

2

remain in welfare centres and host families. With the increase of freedom of movement, access to farmlands and fishing has improved significantly for last two years. The main objective of this assessment was to access the recovery pace of vulnerable communities and to find out necessary food assistance programmes by WFP in order to uplift the lifestyle of poor communities. 2. Background 2.1 Agriculture & Food Security in Ampara District Ampara district is one the main rice producing districts in Sri Lanka. The agro-climatic environment is highly favourable for dry zone seasonal crops (low land and highland), perennials and livestock rearing. The coastal line, lagoons and bays also provide favourable conditions for fisheries industry and tourism. Unfortunately, Agriculture, fisheries and tourism were particularly affected by the brutal civil war. There are about 123,081 agricultural holdings in Ampara district 67,778 holdings are having less than 0.1 ha of area under agriculture. (Census, 2002) Paddy is the main seasonal crop cultivated in both yala and maha seasons. The other filed crops such as vegetables, chillies, cow pea, green gram and black gram are grown mainly in yala season. Approximately, 60,500 ha of paddy lands are under the major irrigations systems. There are about 2,300 and 7,250 ha of paddy lands under minor irrigation systems and raid fed systems respectively. Table 2.1: Paddy Gross Extent Sown in Ampara District (Ha) Season/ Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Maha 60,737 62,715 51,803 64,490 90,591 Yala 56,324 55,036 53,787 60,168 48,5001 Total 117,061 117,751 105,590 124,658 139,091

Source: Department of Census and Statistics and Department of Agriculture According to official statistics summarized in table 2.1, the extent of paddy cultivation has declined in year 2007. After then, the area of cultivation has shown an increasing trend. The forecasted extent of paddy cultivation for yala 2009 is less than the previous year yala season due to water insufficiency caused by prevailed drought conditions. Most of the minor irrigations schemes in Ampara district are abandoned and have not rehabilitated for a long time. Therefore, water retention capacity in dry season has declined majorly. It is clearly shown in the table 2.1 that the total extent of paddy cultivation has increased in comparison to the previous years. People have started to cultivate their lands as since there is full access to their farmlands. 1 The paddy extent sawn for yala is a forecasted value by Department of Agriculture

3

The amount of rice production in Ampara district over the last five years is presented in the table 2.2. The paddy production in 2008/09 maha season has increased in comparison to the last five years. This has shown the growing trends of rice production with the peace establishment. Table 2.2: Paddy production details in Ampara District (Metric tons) Season/ Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Maha 243191 273932 244031 299533 404,291 Yala 256551 256824 255935 283081 195,6552

Total 499742 530756 499966 582614 599,946 Source: Department of Census and Statistics and Department of Agriculture 2.2 Previous Food Security Assessments Emergency food security assessments have not been conducted at recent past in Ampara district. A study on relative food security and vulnerability has been conducted in year 2006 by WFP in close collaboration with GIS Society of Sri Lanka. This study has classified the vulnerability for food security at GN division level under main four categories. (Annexure I) 2.3 Health and Nutrition Medical Research Institute of Ministry and Health and Nutrition conducted a national nutritional assessment in January/ February 2009.According to the latest malnutrition statistics of age under five children, wasting, stunting, underweight percentages are 15.9%, 18 % and 19.4% respectively in Ampara district. (MRI, 2009) According to results of the national nutritional survey, the percentage of diarrhoea incidents of age under five children was recorded as 8.6 %. Table 2.3: Nutritional Status of Children under Five Years in Ampara District 3

Nutritional Level Stunting Wasting Underweight %<3 SD %<2 SD %<3 SD %<2 SD %<3 SD %<2 SD Ampara 2.7 14.1 4.7 19.3 2.1 22.0 Sri Lanka 4.2 18 3 15 3.8 21.6

Source: Demographic and Health Survey in 2006-07 According to the results of the Demographic and Health Survey Report (2006/2007) conducted by the Department of Census & Statistics in collaboration with Ministry of

2 The paddy harvest for year 2009 yala is only a forecasted value by the Department of Agriculture 3 Each of the indices is expressed in standard deviation units (SD) from the median of the WHO Child growth standards adopted in 2006.

4

Healthcare and Nutrition, wasting and underweight percentages are higher than the national averages. This acute malnutrition condition has arisen as a result of LTTE conflict and 2004 Tsunami devastation. According to the DH survey report, most married women (68 percent) were using some method of contraception. Modern methods of contraceptives account for 53 percent of methods used by women (or their partner), versus 15 percent who use traditional methods. But, the contraceptive use among married women in Ampara district has been recorded as 55.7 percent. Only 96 percent of mothers have delivered the kids with health facility and also 98 percent of mothers have seen a health professional (doctor, specialist or a mid wife) at least once for antenatal care for the most recent birth. 2.4 Resettlement in Ampara District The process of resettlement in eastern province started in august 2009. There are about 646 IDP families with host families in Ampara district. At present, the total number of displaced people is around 2261. These IDP families are being resettled by the government in their original localities. The displaced families from Vanni district have been resettled in Thirukkovil, ,Alayadiwembu, Navithanveli, Sammanthurai, Karaitivu and Kalmunai town DS divisions. The government and UN organizations are providing the food and non food assistance for the resettled communities until they establish their livelihood. Vulnerable Group Feeding, School Feeding and MCN programmes are continued by World Food Programme.

5

3. Methodology/ Approach for the Assessment 3.1 Broad- Spectrum The assessment involved a review of secondary information on food security assessments, consultations with policy planners, key informant discussions and primary data collection at the filed level. Under the household survey, 534 household were interviewed. Prior to the assessment, the assessment team consulted the Government Ministries and line agencies and NGO’s. Assessment team had gathered information mainly from Ministry of Nation Building (MNBEID), Ministry of Disaster Relief Services Resettlement (MADRS), Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Services (MADAS), Ministry of Finance and Planning (MFP), Ministry of Healthcare and Nutrion(MOH), Medical Research Organization (MRI), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The general information and policy recommendations on food security were discussed with the heads of the government agencies. A pre-tested structured questionnaire was used to collect household information. The sampling frame covered resettled households; IDP’s within host communities and economically affected people who receiving food assistance. All DS Divisions in Ampara district were used under the survey sample. Stratified random sample technique was used and the number of households per Grama Niladhari Division(GND) was calculated in proportion to the total number of households in selected GN divisions. The household distribution in the GND was mapped into the clusters with the support of Grama Niladharies or village leaders. With the each cluster, household selection was done randomly. After a random selection of the first household, this was followed by using the appropriate interval calculated based on total households in the community and the number of households predetermined during first phase. 3.2 Team composition and Training of Enumerators A two day training programme was conducted to give an introduction about the food security and field survey guidelines. The enumerators were trained about the approaching techniques and how to collect quality household information. There were six enumerating teams, each consisting six to seven members-(a team leader and enumerators). The team members of the teams were comprised of government officials attached to the district planning secretariat and district coordination committee, programm staff of WFP and UN ILO. Each of the teams was directed under the instructions of VAM experts from Colombo and Ampara.

6

UNDP, UNOCHA, UNILO and Unicef supported arrange the logistics requirements of the survey. They provided additional vehicles required for the filed survey. The data collection was scheduled in a roster including all the groups. 3.3 Assessment tools The household questionnaire was the main tool used and based on WFP Emergency Food Security Assessment Framework which is adapted for the economically affected communities. The questionnaire consisted of main seven sections that included household demographics, livelihood and income, food consumption, expenditure, food assistance and household coping strategy. The questionnaire was administrated to the head of the household. At the start of each interview, the interviewee was informed about the purpose and content, and his/her consent was received prior to commence. For consistency in interpretation of this survey, a household was defined as a group of people who consistently share food and resources for meals together. 534 household questionnaires were returned at the end of the assessment. In addition to the household questionnaire, there were focal group discussions, observations and stories of special cases. Photographs were also taken as the indicators for visual interpretation. Team leaders were given a check list (Annex II) to facilitate the information collection apart from the questionnaire. They gathered information on the availability of social infrastructure (shelter, water, electricity, transport, health, education, telecommunication, fuel for cooking, major health hazards and natural disasters) and food security matters. Moreover, the development needs and burning issues of villages were studied. . 3.4 Data management Data was captured and managed into a Microsoft Access database created for the purpose. Data cleaning and merging were done in the same flat form. Trained data encoders were hired and given special training by the WFP ITC unit on data capturing and cleaning. The data entry was carried out in parallel with the field survey; this ensured the data quality and easy rectification of mismatched information from enumerators before they left. The data were then exported to Microsoft Excel and SPSS which were used for the analysis. 3.5 Limitations of the Assessment Government officials, grama niladharies, village leaders and social workers have given their maximum contribution in order to make the assessment a success. District Secretary, Ampara, Director Planning, Additional District Secretary were involved in coordination of divisional secretaries to get their attention and support for this assessment.

7

Time limitation was the main critical constrain experienced during the survey. Since all clusters were dispersed it was time consuming to move from one cluster to the next. This reduced the time for administering the questionnaires and making observations. The official travel regulations of UN also restricted the time spent in the field. The security checkpoints also were time consuming for non-UN vehicles. The questionnaire was not translated into Tamil or Sinhala. This could have affected the quality of delivery of the questions, where the enumerators were not proficient in English.

8

4.0 Results/ Summary Statistics 4.1 Demographic profile The survey covered all twenty divisional secretariat divisions. Sixty seven GN divisions were included in the sample and the number of questionnaires per GN division was decided based on the population of GN divisions. Table 4.1 Age distribution statistics of the studied population

Age % Male % Female % Total Average 0-12 months 3.12 2.65 2.9 >12-59 months 8.68 7.72 8.2 >5-18 years 33.47 30.94 32.2 >18-59 years 51.52 55.18 53.3 60+ years 3.20 3.51 3.4 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

The demographic structure of the population consisted of 2.9 % of children 0-12 months old; 8.2% children between 12 – 59 moths; 32.2 % of children between 5 years and 18 years; 53.3% of adults over 18 year but lower than 60 years of age; and 3.4% elderly persons(Table 4.1). Fifty-one percent of the households had children of school going age; with a vast majority of the children (97%) attending school. The results had shown that the majority of the household heads are married (82%). The widowed household heads were also recorded as a considerable percentage (14%).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Resettled Relocated IDP with HostFamily

HostCommunity

TraditionalVillagers

Percentage

Figure 4.1 the type of the households in Ampara district More than 50% of the population interviewed were the traditional villagers. (Figure 4.1) Thirty percent of the population studied were resettled families. The rest IDP’s with host family (11%), relocated families (4%) and IDP’s with host community (0.5%).

9

4.2 Shelter, Water, Sanitation and Health The majority of households (85.5 %) owned the dwelling in which they lived; 62.9% of these dwellings are made of durable materials and 26.7% made of non-durable material. The remaining 11% of the households lived in room(s) in a shared house/ flat ,(3.8%), rooms in collective centre or public building (0.1%), in tent/plastic sheeting or shelter in camp (3.9%), and in unspecified other (2.4%). The summary of the housing conditions have been given in table 4.2. Shelter was one of the key priorities identified by government and humanitarian agencies. Housing was provided to most families under the resettlement process. INGO’s / NGO’s have been involving the resettlement process with which a large number of housing projects were introduced. Table 4.2 Types of shelter and ownership

Type of Dwelling Percent Private house mostly in durable material (brick, cement) 62.92%Private dwelling mostly in non-durable material (planks, plastic 26.78%

Room(s) in a shared house or shared flat 3.75%

Room(s) in a collective centre/public building 0.19%

Tent / plastic sheeting / shelter in camp 3.93%Other 2.43%

Thirty nine percent of the population collect their water from common or private protected wells. The other water sources are piped water (23%), common well (21%), tube well (11%) and Tank (1%). The distribution of water sources within this population is shown by the figure 4.2. According to the figure 4.2, there are few households which depend on mobile water supply, canals, rivers and ponds. Considering about the toilet facilities, flush latrines are used by nearly fifty percent of the population. 13% of the sample does not have toilet facilities at the household and used to open space. Rest of the households use traditional toilets (29.5%) and communal latrine (6.7%). In comparison to the national average, the toilet facilities of the targeted population are poor in Ampara district.

10

23.1%

0.8%

11.5%

39.3%

0.6%

1.1%

0.6%

0.4%

22.0%

0.6%

0.2%

Piped WaterPublic tapTube well/ BoreholeProtected /Common wellRain WaterWater tankRiverPondUnprotected / Common WellCanalMobile Water Supply

Figure 4.2 Distribution of toilet facilities It was also found out that (Table 4.3) 38 % of the households did not treat their drinking water. The waterborne diseases easily spread due to this reason. Further, the threat for chronic kidney disease is also high due to the long time consumption of contaminated saline water. However, 21% of the families used chlorification technique while 20% used boiling and 17% used filtration for treating their drinking water. Meanwhile 2% of the population had no idea about water purification techniques. This implies that the awareness generation among the communities and frequent monitoring is very important to uplift the health standards of life. Table 4.3 Treatment for Water Purification Type of Treatment Frequency Percent Yes, using chlorine 114 21%Yes, by boiling it 108 20%Filtration 91 17%No 208 39%Does not know 13 2%Total 534 100%

According to the results, the prevalence of diarrhoea for children under five year old and adults was approximately 12%. Fever was found from 51% of the households of the sample. The results imply that the health conditions are still poor in the economically affected families. 4.3 Household Assets

11

According to the results, the ownership of assets was found to be very low. (Refer table 4.4)The assets which reported most frequently were jewellery (43%), livelihood equipments/ tools (43%) and bicycles (47%). Other assets were reported very less i.e. water pumps (2%) and wheelers (0.75%), fishing boats and equipments, fertiliser plants, pesticide plants, bullock carts, vehicles and tractors.

It is shown that the number of households reporting ownership of tools of livelihood, tractor/ land master has increased. The fishing communities still have not shown a improvement after the displacement. The positive interventions for inland and lagoon fishing industry are needed to develop the livelihood of fishing communities.

The most of the families collect jewellery as one of the main assets of the household. This is a prominent cultural behaviour of the communities in Eastern and Northern Province. Table 4.4 Household assets at start of resettlement and during survey

Now Before Type of Asset Count % Count %

Change in Ownership

Jewellery 233 43.63% 273 51.12% -7.49% Equipments / tools for livelihood activity (axe, hoe…) 233 43.63% 221 41.39% 2.25% Water pump 12 2.25% 25 4.68% -2.43% Fertilizer plant 27 5.06% 32 5.99% -0.94% Pesticide plant / hand and power sprayers 18 3.37% 32 5.99% -2.62% Fishing Nets 44 8.24% 68 12.73% -4.49% Fishing boat - multi day 6 1.12% 6 1.12% 0.00% Fishing boat - one day 8 1.50% 8 1.50% 0.00% Fishing boat - Fibre Reinforced Plastic(FRP) 4 0.75% 6 1.12% -0.37% Fishing boat - traditional craft 3 0.56% 5 0.94% -0.37% Fishing boat - beach seine craft 0 0.00% 2 0.37% -0.37% Boat engine, specify -in board 0 0.00% 1 0.19% -0.19% Boat engine, specify - out board 11 2.06% 11 2.06% 0.00% Bicycle 255 47.75% 226 42.32% 5.43% Bullock carts 25 4.68% 34 6.37% -1.69% Motorbike 40 7.49% 38 7.12% 0.37% Three Wheeler 4 0.75% 6 1.12% -0.37% Tractor / land master 13 2.43% 5 0.94% 1.50% Rice mill / grinding mill 1 0.19% 1 0.19% 0.00% Any other Vehicle 1 0.19% 2 0.37% -0.19% 4.4 Livelihood and Income The figure 4.3 has described the distribution of different livelihoods within the surveyed population. Nearly 18% of the families do farming. Majority of the families depend on

12

the daily wage labour (46%). According to the sample, the fishing population is 9.5 % and nearly 7% of the families involve in skilled labour. Only 1% of the population deal with livestock and poultry industry as their main livelihood. But, it has become a major secondary income sources among 12% of the population studied.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Farming

Livesto

ck and p

oultry

raisin

gFish

ing

Forestry

and h

unting

Wholesal

e and

retai

l trade

Manufactu

ring/h

andic

raft

Salarie

d emplo

yment

Daily/co

mmon labo

urer

Skilled Labo

urer

Other

Figure 4.3 Distribution of Household Livelihood The table 4.5 describes the temporal distribution of different livelihoods over the time from the resettlement. According to the table the farming workforce has reduced by nearly by 9% during the time period. The labour force has increased by 10%. The percentage of people in manufacturing, salaried employments and wholesale and retail has grown in comparison to the beginning of resettlement. Table 4.5 Temporal change of household livelihood before and after the resettlement

During Assessment Before the Resettlement Type of Livelihood Frequency Percentage(%) Frequency Percentage (%)

Farming 95 18.38 122 28.00 Livestock and poultry raising 5 0.97 2 0.50 Fishing 50 9.67 58 13.30 Forestry and hunting 2 0.39 2 0.50 Wholesale and retail trade 32 6.19 28 6.40 Manufacturing/handicraft 13 2.51 6 1.40 Salaried employment 37 7.16 18 4.10 Daily/common labourer 238 46.03 166 38.10 Skilled Labourer 37 7.16 32 7.30 Other 8 1.55 2 0.50

13

4.5 Farming Agriculture has been identified as the main livelihood activity of people in Ampara district. The results have shown that the access to the cropping lands have been improved compared to the time of before the resettlement. When the households were asked to compare the access to their agricultural lands; majority 75% said the situation remained “unchanged”; 13% said it had “improved”; while 12% said it had “declined”. This is a positive impact for agriculture and most of the farmers will start to cultivate their lands. Farming was the first income source for 18% of the studied population. But, nearly 19.5 % of the population own paddy lands. It was recorded that majority of the paddy land owners are small holding farmers who own land area less or equal to 2 acres. 12% of the households reported to having home gardens of average 1 acre. 70% of the home gardens are fully accessible for the households. According to the results, 12% of the population deal with highland cultivations and they own average 1.6 acres of highland. It was revealed that the chenai cultivations is practiced by 6 % of the population interviewed. Traditional techniques such as chenai has lot of environmental issues and also very difficult to get a large income. According to the analysis, the agricultural production was reported as unchanged for 32% of the population. 61% of the interviewed families have mentioned that their production have decreased with compared to the last year production. This is a temporary impact by drought for 2008/09 maha season. But, the paddy production statistics, the production has increased in comparison to the last year maha harvest (Table 2.1). Only 21% of the paddy farmers (13.5% of total population) had sold their harvest in this maha season. 9.5 % of the population were entitled for fertilizer assistance programmes (5.4 % full assistance and 4% partial assistance) The results have found out that 6% of the farming community do not use fertilizer due to the high price. A large number of farmers (71%) have mentioned that they are not using fertilizer due to lack of availability. Only 15.9 % of the population has mentioned that they cultivate paddy for 2009 yala season. Lack of irrigation water and water supply controls are the main constraints for yala paddy farming. Mostly low country vegetables (pumpkin, melon, okra etc), other field crops such as corn, maize, chilli, sesame and legumes are cultivated in yala season. Maize, corn, sesame and chillies are tolerant to drought conditions. If the irrigation network is broadened and the water supply is increased, the area of paddy in yala season will be increased significantly. The results have shown that the assistance for seeds, tools, pesticides and cash assistance were very limited(less than 1% of population) for the agricultural holdings in Ampara. Development of agricultural infrastructure is more useful for resettled communities to develop their livelihood. The government has introduced several agricultural development programmes under the eastern province development programme.

14

4.6 Livestock and Fishing Only 27 percent of families have mentioned that they have livestock. 20% of the studied sample used to own livestock and at present they do not own livestock. Nearly fifty one percent of the interviewed households do not own livestock at all. The main livestock reared includes cattle, goats, poultry and buffalo. Ampara district has potential agro climate for rearing goat, cattle, buffalo and swine. The communities are still recovering their livelihood and it will take some other time to become to the livelihood to normal. 17% of the total households in the sample were involved in fishing sector. According to the results, the fishermen are in recovery process and the overall fishing has improved in compared to previous years. Fishermen have started fishing in deep sea with the lifting of fishing bands. 21% of the fishermen had mentioned that they have to travel to deep sea for fishing. 65% of the fishing families had mentioned that there is no change in the fishing distance with the time. Rest of the 12% families had mentioned that they travel less compared with the previous time for fishing. 34% of the fishing families interviewed had expressed that the access for fishing has increased compared to the last year and 60% has mentioned no change. Majority has mentioned that the amount of catch in the month of April was less compared with the March harvest. In Sri Lanka, the high wind season starts from April to August which results in low fishing harvests from eastern coast. Table 4.6 Types of activities in fishing industry

Fishing activities (N= 98) Count% of the Total HH in the Sample

Boat owner 7 7.14% Crew member, Open sea 24 24.49% Crew member, Lagoon fishing 28 28.57% Fish vendor 10 10.20% Net mending 4 4.08% Fish processing 6 6.12% Other 19 19.39%

The fishing families were involving in activities such as boat owners, crew member of open sea fishing, crew member of lagoon fishing, fish vendor, Net mending and fish processing (See Table 4.6). 28% of the fishing families has involved in lagoon fishing. Some of the fishermen were using hand nets and other traditional techniques (16% of the fishing community).

15

4.7 Household Expenditure The household expenditure pattern is one of the key parameter to determine its food security status. On average, expenditure on food items was 62% f total household expenditure. The average monthly expenditure on food was Rs.9, 136.00.Monthly non food expenditure value was recorded as Rs. 7282.00. The main food commodities purchased were rice (15.9% of total expenditure), pulses, meat, coconut, milk powder and vegetables (8%).

Rice16%

Bread4%

Pulses2%

Fish8%

Meat4%

Eggs1%

Curd1%

Oil/ Butter3%

Milk3%

Vegetable8%Fruits

1%

Coconut4%

Sugar4%

Tea1%

Spices 2%

Alcohol4%

Repairs2%

Education 5%

Soap/ Candles etc4%

Cooking Fuel1%

Transport3%

Clothing9%

Medicine5%

Other1%

Celebrations3%

Livelihood inputs2%

Figure 4.4: Household Expenditure Pattern Households had spent on clothing (9%), day today operations such as soap, candles etc (4%), education (5%) and medicine (5%) as main non food commodities. According to the results, on average 4% of the total expenditure has been spent on alcohol and tobacco. This figure validates that the alcoholism and smoking are still prevailing among the poor communities.

16

Table 4.7 Total Household Expenditure since Resettlement Total Expenditure Frequency PercentageIncreased 487 91.9%Same as before 33 6.2%A little less 6 1.1%Much less 4 0.8%Total 530 100.0%

90% of the total households in the sample had mentioned that the expenditure on food has increased. Only 6% has mentioned the food expenditure is same as before and 1% whose expenditure is little less. (See table 4.7) The results have shown that high food price has also become significant. 66% of the families interviewed have mentioned that the food prices are much higher against 3% of the families who have mentioned that there is no change in food prices between now and before the crisis.( Refer table 4.8) The increase of household expenditure without any increase in the household income and food price increase have become a major shock for the vulnerable families. Table 4.8 Food Price Changes with Period of beginning of Crisis Current Food Price Frequency PercentageMuch higher 353 66.7%Higher 157 29.7%Same 16 3.0%Less 3 0.6%Total 529 100.0%

4.7 Food Consumption The types of food and frequency they are eaten by household, as well as the sources of these food items do provide indications of food security situation. The households were asked to recall all the types of food consumed during the previous seven days. The information was used to construct a Food Consumption Score (FCS) for each household that enabled the households to be ranked. In the analysis, the food types are assigned different weights reflecting their nutritional density – nutrient-dense foods such as meats and diary products have higher weights than staples, fruits and sugar. The FCS for each household was derived by multiplying the weight for each food type by the frequency (number of days) they were consumed; the values for all the food types consumed during the seven days were summed up to give the household’s food consumption score. The second stage of the analysis entailed grouping the households using FCS thresholds into “poor”, “borderline” and “acceptable” food consumption categories.

17

In this study, a food consumption score of less than 21 was named as “poor”; a score between 21 and 35 was considered to be “borderline” food consumption; and a score greater than 35 was considered to be “acceptable” food consumption. These thresholds were derived from WFP’s empirical work across different regions and this is the proposed threshold level for South Asian and Southeast Asian countries. These thresholds may vary from across countries. In general, households that fall in the “poor” food consumption category tend to eat less diverse diet and their consumption of staples and vegetables tend not to be on a daily basis. Households in “borderline” and “acceptable” categories generally eat staples and vegetables on daily basis, but the two differ in the frequency of consumption of nutrient-dense food items such as meat, fish and milk. Table 4.9: Food Consumption Score Distribution Food Consumption Group Frequency Percentage (%) Poor (<=21) 1 0.2Borderline (>21 - 35) 17 3.2Acceptable (>35) 514 96.6Total 532 100

According to the results summarized in the table 4.9, nearly all households (96.6%) in the survey had “acceptable” food consumption. Only 3.2% fell in the “borderline” category; and there was only one household in the “poor” food consumption category.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0_5

Mon

ths

6_11

Mon

ths

12_2

3M

onth

s

24+

Res

ettle

d

Rel

ocat

ed

IDP

's w

ithH

ost

Hos

tco

mm

unity

Trad

ition

al

Mal

e

Fem

ale

No

Edu

Prim

Edu

Sec

o E

du

Ter E

du

Rerurn Date HH Type Sex of HHHead

Education of HH Head

% Boderline % Acceptable

Figure 4.5: Household Food Consumption by Household Categories Rice, Rotti, Chapati and Bread are the main staple foods consumed by nearly all households on daily basis. The table 4.11 has described the average number of meals taken per day by different age categories. The pregnant mothers were found to be having

18

less number of meals per day than the recommended. On average, the children under 5 and between 5-17 year of old take more than three meals per day. Adults get nearly 3 meals per day (2.88). This depicts that the food consumption is comparatively poor among the adults in the sampled households. According to the results, the return date also has shown that “borderline” group is higher within recently settled communities. Table 4.11: Average Number of Meals Taken Number AverageChildren under 5 193 3.25Children 5-17 331 3.09Adults 18 years + 523 2.88Pregnant women 44 2.55

A cross-tabulation of food consumption index with categories of households (figure 4.5) revealed that the resettled households had better consumption compared with relocated households. The “borderline” category was higher under the relocated groups. The traditional families were also shown as high proportion of “borderline” families in compared with other groups. The food consumption pattern of has shown more “borderline” families with less education level of the household head.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Rice

Bread/ Pittu

Pulses

Fish

Meat

Eggs

Curd

Oil

Milk

Vegetables

Fruit

Coconut Products

Ow n production Purchase Traded goods or services Borrow ed Received as gif t Food aid Other

Figure 4.6: Principle Sources of Food Commodities Food consumption and sources of food are very important to determine the household food security. The figure itself highlights that nearly 80% of all food commodities are purchased by all the households in the sample. Nearly 10% of the rice, wheat floor, oil

19

and pulses are received under the food aid programme. Nearly 15% coconut, 15% rice, 12% fish and 17% of fruits are received from household own production. 4.7 Shocks, Coping Strategies 4.7.1 Shocks Shocks or emergencies have intensified the household food insecurity during the recovery time. Household in the sample were asked to list/ rank the shocks that they encountered since resettlement. The findings summarized in Figure 4.9 shows that lack of employment was ranked highest by 38.8% households. This was followed by high food prices (17.4), health issues (11.4%), death of family members (10.8%) and insecurity/ theft (4.8%). When the second the third shocks were combined loss of employment (25%) and high food price (25%) have emerged as the highest shocks. Death of household members and health problems were next to the highest shocks above listed. Loss of employment affects household income and the purchasing power. High food prices also reduce the purchasing power of household, but the extent to which households affected could not be estimated. The shocks always anguish household food security and limits access to livelihood resources such as farming, fishing, livestock and forestry. Moreover, the shocks create secondary impacts such as domestic violence, alcoholism and less education investments. Wild animals (especially elephants) were named as one of the main hazards, where they destroyed crops and/or created insecurity.

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%

Loss em

ployment

Sickness/health Prob

Death HH member

High food price

High fuel Price

Debt to reimburse

Irregular/unsafe drinking w

ater

Electricity cuts

Insecurity/thefts

Poor harvest/drought

Environment problems

Floods

Elephant/w

ild animal threat

Other shock

First Shock1-3 rd Shock

Droughts and other environmental problems also were identified as other shocks that the households were facing. This implies that climatic variations also have an emerging threat on food security.

20

4.7. 2: Household coping strategies4 The household coping mechanism adopted by the households generally reflects the food security situation. In a situation of mild or temporary food insecurity, households tend to rely on short-term measures for securing food (such as borrowing food and taking credit) that do not have adverse effects on lives or livelihoods. But, under the severe food insecurity circumstances, households are adopting the negative coping strategies such as reducing the number and size of meals and eating less preferred food. Further, it is harmful to the life as well as result in to sell livelihood tools, seed stocks and expenditure on health and education. Therefore, the frequency of the use of these coping strategies also gives an indication of the severity of the situation – where daily use suggests high severity while occasional use indicates low severity. The responses from households were analysed and subsequently ranked: at one extreme the households that used many options daily fall into the “very high” coping strategy category. At the other end, households that never used any of the options fall in “very low” coping strategy category. Using standard thresholds, households were grouped into five (5) coping strategy categorized: “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high” Coping Strategy Group. The results found that nearly 64% of the total households were not using any of these coping mechanisms. But, there were around 8%, 4% and 1% of total population which were fallen into medium, high and very high coping strategy groups respectively. Table 4.9: Use of coping strategies (Reduced CSI)5 CSI Reduced Frequency Percentage (%) Very low 329 64Low 118 23Medium 41 8High 20 4Very high 4 1 Total 100

Overall, the findings have revealed that the usage of coping strategies is lower and the level of food consumption by majority of the households was satisfied. It should be noted that this does not imply that these households have high food security, as many of the

4 The main coping options that households generally use include rely on less preferred, less expensive foods; borrowing food, or help from relatives; purchasing food on credit; consuming seed stock; limiting meal sizes; reducing number of meals; skipping days without eating; restricting consumption for adults; sending children to live with relatives; and reducing expenditures on health and education. Non-food coping options include selling household articles (utensils, blankets); selling jewellery; pawning; selling agricultural and other livelihood tools, seeds...; selling building materials, furniture; using savings; and borrowing money from relatives/neighbours. 5 Coping strategy index (CSI) is derived from a summation of the different coping strategies used by a household that reflects weighting and the frequency of used of each coping option used.

21

interviewed households depend on food assistance; this is reflected in the FCS, in turn in coping strategies 4.7.3 Number of Meals per Day Number of meals taken per day by different age categories also corroborates the household food security status. The change of the number of meals per day in comparison to before the crisis time has been summarized in the table 4.10. According to the results, there is no change in number of meals for 75% of the children under 5 years of age followed by 66% children of 5-17 years, 68% of adults’ age over 18. 21% of the adults’ age over 18 has reported that they take less number of meals compared with the time of crisis. This rationalizes that the food insecurity has popup among the studied population. Table 4.10: Meals Taken Compared with Start of Resettlement

Under 5 5-17 yrs +18yrs Pregnant Number of Meals Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Less meals 14 8.1% 48 15.7% 103 20.9% 3 9.1%

More meals 29 16.9% 55 18.0% 50 10.2% 8 24.2%

No change 129 75.0% 202 66.2% 339 68.9% 22 66.7%

Total 172 100.0% 305 100.0% 492 100.0% 33 100.0% 4.7.4 Food assistance The results have shown that the 68% of the households receive any type of food assistance provided by government, UN or any other agencies i.e. 53% by samurdhi, 8% by general food distribution and 5% supplementary food programme. The 32% of total families who do not receive any food assistance were included in this survey with the request from the government.

22

5. Household Food Security Status Food security is a broad concept encompassing many factors, and there are currently no internationally recognized qualitative or quantitative indicators for most of these factors. There are however established quantitative and qualitative methods for obtaining reliable information on household food security status. Food consumption indicators, food access indicators and the coping strategy indicators can all be considered proxy indicators for food security. Household livelihoods are the primary sources of food access –in the form of own production (where households are directly involved in production of food crops) or through purchases using cash income from livelihoods. Moreover, household assets, non-food products, labour exchange also play an important role in household food access. During acute food insecurity cases, households normally sell their assets and when they further fail the livelihood – based and asset based options, households seek credit to meet their food needs. Food aid by the government safety net programmes, assistance from relatives, neighbours and humanitarian agencies are also possible food access options. In extreme food insecurity conditions, households happened to adopt the negative coping mechanisms such as limited meal size and number of meals per day, selling of livelihood tools and employ child labour etc. 5.1 Household Food Access The livelihood characteristics mainly vary with household type, by gender of household head, by duration of the settlement and by the education level of the head of the household. Figure 5.1 describes the distribution of the main livelihood options under this each category. Household Type: The results have found that, the resettled households (7% of the resettled households in the sample) involve in farming as their main livelihood activity where none of relocated families involve in farming. Unskilled labour represents as the main livelihood option for each of the categories. Traditional villagers involve in farming as their main livelihood activity. In addition to the unskilled labour, fishing, livestock and poultry raring were indentified as the main livelihood activities among the relocated families. Return date: Farming was frequent among the all the families and it was highest among the families who settled before. Daily common labour was the main livelihood option under each of the return time groups. But, Majority of the newly settled families involve in daily common labour while the groups more than 24months and 11-24 months have shown some trends of moving daily common labour into farming, skilled labour, trade and salaried employments.

23

Gender of household head: As described by figure 5.1, farming and fishing were observed in slightly higher proportion among the male headed households. In female headed families, daily common labour, manufacturing and livestock and poultry rearing options were slightly higher than the male headed families. Fishing involvement was very less among the female headed households. Education of Household Head: The pattern of livelihoods activities was broadly similar among households whose heads that did not attend school education, or attained primary or secondary school level education. When the education level is higher, the salaried employments were increasing. The household heads who have completed their secondary education represents highest number of salaried employments. Figure 5.1 Distribution of household livelihoods by household categories

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0_5 Months6_11 Months12_23 Months

24+ ResettledRelocated

IDP's with Host FamilyHost community

Traditional Male

FemaleNo Edu

Prim EduSeco EduTer Edu

Reru

rnDat

eHH Typ

e

Sex of

HH

Hea

d

Educ

ation

of H

HHea

d

Farming Livestock and poultry raising Fishing Forestry and hunting Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing Salaried employment Daily/common labourer Skilled labourer Other

5.2 Household Food Consumption Cross tabulation of household food consumption score with its characteristics such as household type, gender of the head of the household, duration of the resettlement and the education level of the head of the household head. The food consumption score behaviour was elaborated under the section 4.7 in detailed. The ratio of the percentage of the ‘borderline’ to ‘acceptable’ is important to discuss the household food security status. (Figure 5.2) Household types: The analysis as shown that there is high vulnerability for food insecurity among the relocated households than the resettled and traditional permanent households. As shown by the figure 5.2 the ratio is higher under the category of relocated households than the resettled households. This would seem to reflect the general fact that it will take some more time to adjust to new locations.

24

Duration in resettlement: The duration of resettlement had positively influenced the household food consumption pattern. When the households are familiarized with the new environment, the access for livelihood will further improve. This is positively influencing to the household food security level. The households that returned during the past five months (i.e. 0-5 months) have greatest degree of food insecurity. The ratio of borderline to acceptable is very high for the returnees during the last five months.( Figure 5.1)The food security situation is shown to improve the longer the period in settlement, with households that returned more than two years ago (i.e. 24+ months) having the best relative food security situation. Households generally recover their livelihoods and food security situation with time, when they would involve in production over a number of cultivating seasons as well as some more time after they joined the employment. Gender of the household head: Female headed households have less livelihood opportunities and less security than the male headed households. Therefore, the female headed households are more vulnerable to food insecurity. This is not clearly explained by the ratios given in the figure 5.2. Key informant discussions and field observations were helped to derive these comments. Education of household head: Education level of the household head also positively influence to the household food consumption. The results have shown that the households are highly vulnerable for food insecurity when the household heads do not have any formal education. These results are consistent with earlier findings that households whose heads have had no formal education had proportionately higher share of food insecurity compared with households whose heads had some formal education.

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60

0_5

Mon

ths

6_11

Mon

ths

12_2

3M

onth

s

24+

Res

ettle

d

Rel

ocat

ed

IDP

's w

ithH

ost

Hos

tco

mm

unity

Trad

ition

al

Mal

e

Fem

ale

No

Edu

Prim

Edu

Sec

o E

du

Ter E

du

Rerurn Date HH Type Sex of HHHead

Education of HH Head

Figure 5.2: Ratio of Household Food Consumption Index Vs. Household Characteristics

25

5.3 Household Coping Strategies The coping strategies were cross tabulated with different household characteristics. The results have shown that the households with less education employ high coping strategies. The traditional households and resettled households also have shown small proportions of high coping strategies. But surprisingly, IDP households and host communities did not use high or very coping strategies, most likely because the assistance being is still continued and their cash grants may have been diverted to purchase food.( See figure 5.3)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ResettledRelocated

IDP's with Host FamilyHost community

Traditional Male

FemaleNo Edu

Prim EduSeco Edu

Ter Edu

HH

Typ

e

Sex

of

HH

Hea

dE

duca

tion

ofH

H H

ead

Very low Low Medium High Very high

Figure 5.3 Coping Strategies by Household Categories

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Farming

Livestock and poultry raising

Fishing

Forestry and hunting

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

Salaried employment

Daily/common labourer

Skilled labourer

Other

Very low Low Medium High Very high

Figure 5.4 Coping Strategies by Livelihoods Activities

26

The most of the households which employ least coping strategies were engaged in salaried employment and those who were adopting worse coping mechanisms were unskilled labourers, farmers or hunting and forestry groups. The households who engaged in fishing, manufacturing skilled labour, trade and livestock rearing were employing medium coping strategies. 5.4 Food Security Situation among the Clusters The field survey was conducted in all DS divisions and the GN divisions studied are listed in the annex. 63 GN divisions were visited by field enumerating groups. The key informant discussions and expert ideas also were used to validate the results of this cluster classification.

27

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1Conclusions

The findings of the Emergency Food Security Assessment revealed, overall that the food security situation of resettled, relocated and permanent households in Amapara has improved. This improvement is mainly as a result of the various types of assistance provided by the government as well as by humanitarian organizations such as UN, Red Cross and local NGO’s. Further, the regaining the food security was accelerated through the stable security environment after mid 2007.

The food assistance has played an important role in the household food security status. World Food Programme has been continued vulnerable group feeding, IDP feeding, School feeding and mother and child nutritional programmes in Ampara district.

The study has revealed that the recently resettled families, relocated families still need food assistance until they recover their livelihood. The households, who were resettled more than one year ago, have started their own cultivations.

The female headed, disabled member households, families with older heads are more vulnerable to food insecurity. These type of families could not join some assistance programmes like food due to unavailability of proper human resources.

The access to the cultivations and fisheries sector has improved. Mainly the households have enough access to their paddy lands, up land and home gardens. Water for agriculture, agricultural inputs and technology were still poor among majority of the households. Only a small area of paddy lands, uplands are inaccessible due to land degradation and mine risk. In addition, households that were relocated only received small acreage (1/8 acre) to build their homes and farm, which is not sufficient for a sustainable livelihood. But, limited land availability has caused to maximize the use of available lands for resettlement even with the crowding problem.

As an overall, the fishing access has improved. The harvest has declined as a result of wind season. Fishermen are using the lagoon, inland and sea for fishing without any disturbances with the lifting of fishing bands. The tools and fishing gear are not at a satisfactory level due to prevailing poor economic conditions among small scale fishing households.

It is important to continue the livelihood assistance for the poor families until they completely recover to their normal livelihood. The government and other humanitarian projects had provided material assistance such as seeds/ seedlings, fertilisers, tools and livestock.

A single forum to coordinate all the agencies is necessary in order to discuss and agree on a logical framework for rebuilding livelihoods(local, international and Government)

28

Tsunami affected, war affected as well as drought and flood affected DS divisions are highly vulnerable for food insecurity.

6.2 Recommendations 6.2.1 Food Assistance

Overall, World Food Programme should scale down its food assistance to economically affected households in Ampara district with the improved food security situation.

Food assistance should be continued in the villages/ clusters which fall into the “poor” food security category and the households which adopt very severe coping strategies. Most of the relocated families and newly resettled families are highly vulnerable for food insecurity.

Special categories of food insecure households (e.g. female headed households) exist in most villages/ clusters. It is recommended that their needs are selectively addressed using special assistance modalities such as the Government’s food stamp (Samurdhi) programme.

Nutritional development programmes should be introduced in order uplift the nutritional status of the poor households

6.2.2. Livelihood Assistance

Livelihood assistance is recommended for vulnerable communities such as newly resettled communities, relocated communities, poor fishing communities etc. The assistance programmes should be implemented with the proper coordination with government agencies as well as relevant I/NGO’s

Community Based Approaches and other appropriate tools and techniques should be used in order to identify the actual livelihood needs of the communities.

Micro financing, rural credit facilities should be introduce to rural families; as at present most of the households depend on informal money lending and burrowing which has high interest rates.

Purchasing the locally produced food under the food assistance programmes also has enormous benefits for local poor. Specially, Ampara district is the highest rice producing district in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it the households get the benefit of fixed purchasing price for paddy, the paddy farming can be further improved.

6.2.3 Enabling Environment

The security environment has significantly improved and people are enjoying the freedom of movement. The degraded lands and lands with mine risk should be rehabilitated. This will lead to azzadumize all the cultivable lands in Ampara district.

Development of transport infrastructure, market infrastructure, and agricultural infrastructure is highly important.

29

Enhancing women’s access to livelihoods resources and supporting initiatives are also recommended.

Provision of subsidized agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation water is recommended for the poor farming communities.

Annexure I

1) Average Food Consumption Score by GN Division

GN_Name Food Consumption Score

CSI Reduced

1 18A. Janapadaya 74.83 9.50 2 Addalachchenai 17 68.29 5.57 3 Alayadivembu 97.00 0.00 4 Aligambai 65.44 9.11 5 Ambalanoya 50.94 15.88 6 Aranthalawa 62.00 11.80 7 Bakmitiyawa 54.00 28.80 8 Bandaradoowa 55.75 13.60 9 Bedirekka 75.75 3.75

10 Central Camp 01 100.00 13.50 11 Central Camp 02 76.00 4.50 12 Central Camp 03 59.17 3.00 13 Chavalakade 88.29 14.36 14 Deegawapie 02 71.00 9.33 15 Dorakumbura 58.44 6.06 16 Easankanichcheemai 78.80 3.30 17 Gonagolla 51.85 10.40 18 Hidayapuram 1 65.59 4.23 19 Hulannuge 70.30 4.80 20 Ihalagama 57.88 6.29 21 Irakkamam 02 76.13 4.88 22 Irakkamam 05 76.50 4.88 23 Irakkamam 07 76.00 3.94

24 Islamabad & Kalmunai Town 85.67 10.92

25 Jalaldeen Square 65.89 11.72 26 Kalmunai 01 77.33 16.00 27 Kalmunai 02 87.00 11.50 28 Karangawa 61.47 7.00 29 Karativu 06 70.36 9.21 30 Karativu 11 60.14 29.50 31 Kolavil 01 80.57 7.29 32 Kolavil 03 79.38 8.35 33 Komarie 01 67.39 18.83 34 Malwatte 03 80.73 18.29 35 Marangala 59.63 7.63 36 Namal Oya (iii) 58.72 5.50 37 Ninthavur 06 70.00 5.70 38 Ninthavur 09 81.60 6.00

30

39 Palamuna 02 90.00 6.00 40 Palamuna 03 68.00 3.00 41 Palamuna 04 72.88 4.00 42 Panama South 84.94 10.28 43 Panama West 69.43 16.36 44 Pandiruppu 01 79.75 13.25 45 Paranagama 58.94 13.48 46 Periyaneelavanai 02 79.19 7.96 47 Pollebedda 61.33 15.73 48 Rajagalathenna North 59.64 13.07 49 Sainthamaruthu 2 80.63 4.50 50 Sainthamaruthu 4 86.11 3.50 51 Samagipura 58.65 16.85 52 Sangaman Kandy 54.40 22.25 53 Senaikudiyiruppu 01 81.33 18.90 54 Senaikudiyiruppu 01B 86.20 12.30 55 Sinna Panankadu 79.64 8.93 56 Sinna Ullai 74.85 19.94 57 Sorikalmunai 1 68.50 26.20 58 Thirukkovil 4 69.82 16.11 59 Town Division 05 68.11 3.83 60 Town Division 06 58.00 9.75 61 Town Division 07 70.00 7.50 62 Town Division 08 91.00 7.50 63 Town Division 09 85.00 7.50 64 Valathapitty 01 65.72 12.75 65 Veeramunai 02 77.13 15.00 66 Victor Estate 2 52.17 21.00 67 Vijayanagapuram 3 68.65 9.89

31

Annex 2: GN Divisions covered under EFSA Ampara 2009

32

33

Table 5.1 Food Security Status by Cluster Low Medium High Bakmitiyawa Victor Estate 2 Karativu 11 Sangaman Kandy Ambalanoya Gonagolla Samagipura Bandaradoowa Sorikalmunai 1 Paranagama Pollebedda Rajagalathenna North Town Division 06 Komarie 01

Aranthalawa Ihalagama Marangala Dorakumbura Namal Oya (iii) Valathapitty 01 Panama West Thirukkovil 4 Karangawa Jalaldeen Square Sinna Ullai Central Camp 03 Aligambai Vijayanagapuram 3 Hidayapuram 1 Karativu 06 Deegawapie 02 Kalmunai 01 Town Division 07 Addalachchenai 17 Veeramunai 02 Malwatte 03 Senaikudiyiruppu 01 Town Division 05 Ninthavur 06 Palamuna 03 Hulannuge 18A. Janapadaya Pandiruppu 01 Palamuna 04 Sinna Panankadu Irakkamam 02 Kolavil 03 Periyaneelavanai 02 Central Camp 02 Irakkamam 05 Bedirekka Irakkamam 07 Kolavil 01 Senaikudiyiruppu 01B Chavalakade Panama South

Islamabad & Kalmunai Town Easankanichcheemai Ninthavur 09 Kalmunai 02 Sainthamaruthu 2 Town Division 09 Sainthamaruthu 4 Town Division 08 Palamuna 02 Central Camp 01 Alayadivembu

Source: Principle Component Analysis with FCS, CSI, % Food Expenditure

34

Annex III Relative Vulnerability to Food Insecurity Status in Ampara District

Source: FIVIMS Sri Lanka ,2006

35

Annex IV Relative Vulnerability to Food Insecurity Status in Ampara District

Source: FIVIMS Sri Lanka, 2008