18 - acfsa - summary report - final - en - apr 2008

8/2/2019 18 - ACFSA - Summary Report - Final - En - APR 2008

1/15

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN THE SMALLURBAN CENTERS OF MONGOLIA

Findings from the Aimag Center Food Security Assessment

Summary Report - March 2008


2/15

Mercy Corps Mongolia - Aimag Center Food Security Assessment (Summary)

1

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN THESMALL URBAN CENTERS OF MONGOLIA Findings from the Aimag Center Food Security Assessment

Summary Report

Chris HillbrunerFood Security ConsultantMeaghan Murphy

Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellow

MERCY CORPS MONGOLIA24 Peace Avenue, Bayanzurkh DistrictUlaanbaatar, MongoliaPhone: 976-1146-0967

March 2008


3/15


1

IntroductionThis report presents summary findings from the Aimag Center Food Security Assessment, focusingspecifically on the prevalence, characteristics and determinants of food insecurity. The results of this assessment provide, for the first time, clear empirical evidence of food insecurity among aimagcenter residents in Mongolia. While not statistically representative of Mongolia as a whole, it islikely that the findings from Baruun-Urt, Arvaiheer, Ulaangom and Khovd reflect the situation inthe country's other aimag centers.

The most pressing issues relate to the access dimension of food security. One third of households inthe survey population were found to be food insecure (one quarter moderately or severely). Inaddition, information collected on seasonal patterns of food security suggests that the situationworsens considerably during the spring months when both food and employment are scarce.

These findings have important implications for programming in Mongolia and demonstrate thatefforts to mitigate food insecurity in aimag centers require a combination of both existingapproaches and the development of new initiatives to address urban unemployment, workforcecapacity, a lack of savings, the use of loans for consumption smoothing, inefficient food marketingsystems and childhood malnutrition.

Complete findings, results tables and assessment tools can be found in a longer, more in-depth finalreport available from Mercy Corps on request or from their website (www.mercycorps.org.mn).

Study Background

Food security is defined as when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life 1.This multifaceted definition is difficult to quantify and therefore food security is typically brokendown into four more easily measurable sub-components: availability, access, utilization andsustainability.

Often, both food insecurity and food security programming are concentrated in rural areas where alarge portion of the population is engaged in crop-based, subsistence agriculture. In Mongoliahowever, rural households are largely food secure. Livestock based agriculture provides ruralhouseholds with large quantities of meat and dairy products and informal safety nets are strong(FAO/UNICEF/UNDP 2007). Instead, food insecurity is considered most serious in urban areaswhere a large (60%) and growing proportion of the Mongolian population lives (NSO 2004). Arecent assessment by the FAO, UNICEF and UNDP estimated that approximately 30% of urbanresidents (Ulaanbaatar and aimag centers) were food insecure. Seasonal fluctuations in foodavailability, the high costs of urban living and unemployment were identified as key determinantsof urban food insecurity (2007).

However, these estimates are based mainly on interpreting income and poverty data, informationthat is related to, but not synonymous with, food security. Specific information on food security atthe household level, including information on characteristics and determinants of food insecurity, islargely unavailable. This is particularly true for urban communities outside of Ulaanbaatar. Finally,new measures of food security, like the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, have not beenmodified for use in Mongolia.

1 Rome Declaration on World Food Security (1996) World Food Summit. Rome, Italy


4/15


2

Purpose and Scope of the Study

The overall purpose of the assessment was to answer the research question: Does food insecurityexist within aimag centers in Mongolia? More specifically, the study aimed to explore thefollowing:

What are the constraints to food availability at the aimag center market level? At what level and degree of severity does food insecurity exist within aimag center

households? What are the characteristics of food insecure households that could allow for future

identification and program targeting? What factors mitigate or exacerbate household level food insecurity?

Mercy Corps Mongolia

Mercy Corps has been operating in Mongolia since 1999. Currently, Mercy Corps Mongoliaimplements five programs focused primarily on promoting rural economic development andstrengthening civil society. These programs include the Gobi Initiative, The Rural AgribusinessSupport Program, Gobi Forage, the Training, Advocacy and Networking Project and the BaruunBus Regional Economic Development Program.

Mercy Corps' involvement in urban food security research aimed to take advantage of twoopportunities. First, more detailed information on aimag center food markets and urban household'sexpenditure and consumption patterns could be used to inform existing agribusiness developmentinitiatives, allowing them to more accurately respond to consumer and business demand. Second, anexploration of urban food security and its determinants was expected to reveal entry points forfuture programming and partnerships, particularly given the important linkages between foodsecurity, chronic malnutrition (of the type found in Mongolia) and economic development.

MethodologyData was collected in four purposively chosen aimag centers: Baruun-Urt, Arvaiheer, Uvs andKhovd. Two survey tools were used in the assessment: a qualitative market survey to collect dataon food availability at the local market level and a quantitative household survey to capture

information on household access, utilization and sustainability. For the market survey 73 interviewswere conducted with local food businesses. While this sample was non-random, efforts were madeto ensure that a range of business types, sizes and locations were interviewed.

For the household survey, a stratified simple random sample was used so that comparisons could bemade between the chosen aimag centers. While this data may suggest broader conclusions aboutfood security in Mongolian aimag centers, because the aimag centers were purposively chosen, thedata is only statistically representative of the populations in the survey sites. In total, 872households were visited across the four sites and 663 were successfully surveyed for a response rateof 76%.

Findings

Food Availability

A total of 73 businesses were interviewed across the four surveyed aimag centers. These businesseswere involved in range of different food sectors (Table 1) and played a variety of roles within thesesectors (Table 2). Businesses were most commonly involved in the meat sector, followed closely byflour and dairy. Most food related businesses concentrated on sales, although trading and processingwere also somewhat common. Very little food production occurred in the aimag centers.


5/15


3

Table 1: Market Survey Sampling - by food sector

Businesses involved in specific food sectors Meat Vegetables/Fruit Dairy Flour, Rice, Bread Other processed foods

37 28 32 33 22

Table 2: Market Survey Sampling - by role

Role in supply chainFood sectorProducer Processor Seller Trading

Meat 0 11 31 9Vegetables/Fruit 8 3 27 6Dairy 3 7 29 6Flour, rice, bread 0 9 27 10Other processed foods 11 31 22 6

Market structure, availability and prices by sector

Five main "food sectors" were explored through the market survey: meat, dairy, fruit andvegetables, flour and cereals and other processed foods. This section describes the market structureand current prices for each of these areas.

MeatThe major meat products available in the aimag centers were beef, mutton, goat and locallyprocessed sausage products. Camel and horsemeat were also available, although to a lesser extent.Very little fish (fresh, dried or canned) was sold. The major source for meat in the aimag center wasrural soums. Very little meat is imported from Ulaanbaatar. Fresh meat is sold almost entirelythrough the local meat market rather than through small food stores.

Two types of processing occur within the aimag center, basic slaughtering at local slaughterhousesand small scale sausage making and canning. Officially, all meat sold in the aimag center should becertified by a veterinarian, a service only available at the slaughterhouse. However, in reality, onlymeat destined for the capital is held to this standard. Sausage making and canning operations areusually small but tended to have established broad distribution networks.

Fresh meat prices ranged from 800 to 2,150 MNT (0.68-1.82 USD) per kilogram. The cost of processed meat products ranged from 900 to 5,500 MNT (0.76 - 4.62 USD) per kilogram.Availability is highly seasonal in the aimag centers with the supply of meat highest during the fall,when animals fattened over the summer are slaughtered and households purchase winter foodsupplies. Therefore, the prices collected for this assessment would typically represent the year'slowest although this is less true this year due to rising global food prices and inflation. Meat ismuch less available and meat prices are higher in the spring and early summer when animals arethin and giving birth. Summer also presents problems related to spoilage given that adequatestorage facilities and refrigeration are largely unavailable.

Vegetables and fruit

Vegetables most commonly available in the aimag centers included potatoes, onions, cabbage andcarrots. The source of vegetables in the aimag center was roughly split between local productionwithin the aimag and imports from China, either directly or via Ulaanbaatar. Fruit, most oftenapples and citrus, was more limited and was almost exclusively imported. Beyond some pickling,fruit and vegetable processing was almost non-existent. Fruit and vegetable availability ischaracterized by severe declines in both the quantity and quality of available produce andsignificant price increases during the winter and early spring.

Average, per kilogram vegetable prices ranged from 428 MNT (0.36 USD) for potatoes to 3,000MNT (2.54 USD) for cauliflower. Fruit prices ranged from 1,180 MNT (1.00 USD) per kilogram


6/15


4

for apples to 2,500 MNT (2.12 USD) per kilogram for plums and grapes. Prices were generallyhigher in the western region, possibly due to high transportation costs.

DairyFresh dairy products available in the aimag centers included milk, butter and, to a lesser extent,eggs. Yogurt, aruul (dried curds) and a variety of other traditional Mongolian processed dairyproducts were also available. During the summer and early fall local producers, from both the

aimag center and rural soums, produce large quantities of fresh milk, butter and other products.During the winter and spring however, locally produced dairy is unavailable, due in part to a lack of storage facilities. Instead, boxed and powdered milk are imported from China, typically viaUlaanbaatar. This lack of storage also leads to problems with spoilage during the summer. Eggswere in limited supply in all surveyed aimag centers, despite growing demand from restaurants andbakeries. Beyond the manufacture of traditional dairy products (e.g. aruul), dairy processing in theaimag centers is limited.

Prices for diary products ranged from 600 to 5,500 MNT (0.51 - 4.62 USD) per kilogram. Relativeto other parts of the year, these prices are probably about average. The lowest prices occur duringthe late summer and early fall and the highest prices are found during the spring. Eggs averaged 240MNT (0.20 USD) per piece. These prices may be higher than during other parts of the year becauseduring early winter (November/December) local businesses reported that chickens stop laying whilethey are molting. In general, dairy was less available and more expensive in the western regionaimag centers when compared to Baruun-Urt and Arvaiheer.

Flour, bread and riceFlour was widely available in all aimag centers surveyed and this supply does not appear tofluctuate seasonally. However, no grain production or milling was reported in any of the aimagcenters. Instead, primary sources of flour were Ulaanbaatar or direct imports from Russia andChina. All rice is imported from outside of Mongolia. Flour is sold primarily through the aimagcenter open market or to processors. Processors using flour, including bakeries and noodlemanufacturers, represented one of the most developed food processing sectors in the aimag centers,particularly with regard to distribution networks, some of which extended as far as other aimagcenters.

Flour prices ranged from 540 to 1,050 MNT (0.46 - 0.89 USD) per kilogram and have risensignificantly in the past year due to a global wheat shortage and increasing fuel prices. As a resultflour is sold mostly in bulk through the local aimag center open market because shop owners reportthat it is uneconomical to sell in small quantities.

Other processed foodsOther processed foods include salt, sugar, oil and canned goods not processed in the aimag center.These goods came primarily from Ulaanbaatar and to a lesser extent from Russia and China. Theseproducts were widely available in all aimag centers and availability does not appear to varyseasonally. The mean price of sugar across all four aimag was 950 MNT (0.81 USD) per kilogram.The mean price for vegetable oil (only collected in Ulaangom and Khovd) was 2,777 MNT (2.35USD) per liter.

Constraints to Availability

Interviews with local food businesses identified a number of key constraints. Most importantly, thedairy, meat and fruit/vegetable sector are heavily affected by season, with availability highest fromlate summer to early winter and lowest during the spring. Concurrent declines in quality andquantity accompany increased prices during this latter period. Underlying causes of these


7/15


5

fluctuations in supply include highly seasonal production patterns, limited food storage facilities inthe aimag centers and poor road infrastructure that becomes difficult to travel during the winter.

A number of other issues related to transportation and infrastructure were also raised. First, mostbusinesses rely on public or shared transportation to reach Ulaanbaatar or other major tradingcenters and to ship goods back to the aimag center. However, these transport systems are inefficientand not well organized. As a result, both the cost and provision of these services are unpredictable,

making it difficult for business owners to plan efficiently. Second, in addition to the poor quality of local roads, outdated power grids and declining airline service (particularly in the western region)also constrain food businesses. Finally, business owners identified a broad lack of access to inputs(productive, financial and human) as an impediment to better functioning operations and to businessexpansion.

Food Access Three groups of indicators related to the access dimension of household food security werecalculated from data collected for the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale: the prevalence of individual behaviors and experiences related to food insecurity, household food security categoriesand household food security scores.

Table 3: Prevalence of food insecurity experiences/behaviors in the last 30 days (any HH member)WeightedTotal (%)

Worry that your household would not have enough food 26.1Not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 27.5Ate only a few types of foods due to a lack of resources 19.8Ate foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food 10.4Ate a smaller portion than you felt you needed because there was not enough food 14.3Skipped breakfast, lunch or dinner because there was not enough food 10.9Had no food to eat of any kind in the household because of a lack of resources to get food 4.8Went to sleep hungry at night because there was not enough food 5.5Went a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food 2.9(n=660)

Table 3 presents results for this first group. The most commonly reported food insecuritybehaviors/experiences were related to anxiety about household food provision and poor dietaryquality and were identified by 20-30% of households. A second group of behaviors, includingreduced portion size and skipping meals, were reported by 10-15% of households. Finally, 3-6% of households reported experiencing the most serious consequences of food insecurity: hunger and acomplete lack of food at the household level. Ulaangom households reported the highest levels forseven of the nine behaviors, although these differences were not always statistically significant.Most seriously, households in this aimag center were almost four times more likely to have no foodto eat of any kind in the house due to a lack of resources. 2

The second indicator calculated with data from the HFIAS module was food security categories.Based on responses to the frequency of occurrence questions in the HFIAS, households werecategorized as food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure or severely foodinsecure. Overall, our analysis found that one third of the aimag centers' population was foodinsecure, one quarter moderately or severely (Table 4). When aimag centers are compared,households in Baruun-Urt were most likely to be food insecure (mild, moderate or severe) although

2 In a weight adjusted simple logistic regression model of no food in the household the odds ratio for an Ulaangomdummy variable = 3.835 (p


8/15


6

this was only significant at the 10% level. 3 Among households that were food insecure however,Baruun-Urt households were significantly more likely to be mildly or moderately food insecure 4 while households in Ulaangom were significantly more likely to be severely food insecure whencompared with the other aimag centers. 5

Table 4: Household Food Security (Access) Category (% of households)

Weighted Total (%)

Food Secure 67.2Mildly food insecure 10.7Moderately food insecure 13.1Severely food insecure 9.1(n=659)

The third access indicator calculated using HFIAS data was the Household Food Security Score.This indicator averaged 2.41 for the entire survey population and was highest in Ulaangom,although this difference was not significant. As expected, mean food security scores rose as foodinsecurity, as measured by the food security category, worsened. Because the HFIAS is a newindicator, there are limited examples in the published literature to compare with our results.However, two FAO studies do provide some insight. In the first study, households in a highHIV/AIDS prevalence area of Central Mozambique reported mean food security scores ranged from10.6 to 14.4. The second FAO study in rural Burkina Faso reported mean food security rangingfrom 4.89 to 7.09.

Access - SeasonalityIn addition to the HFIAS and dietary diversity score a third indicator was used to collectinformation on the access dimension of food security. This indicator, Months of AdequateHousehold Food Provisioning (MAHFP), illustrates how the most severe manifestation of foodinsecurity, lack of food at the household level, fluctuates seasonally. In the four surveyed aimagcenters, 23.6 % of all households had experienced inadequate food supplies in the last year. Onaverage, these households were without adequate food for slightly more than three months. Whilethere was no difference between aimag centers in the proportion of households facing foodshortages, these shortages were significantly longer in the western region aimag centers. 6

Table 6: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning

Weighted TotalHouseholds with inadequate food supplies during at least 1 of the past 12 months (%) (n=659) 23.6Number of months without adequate food (among households with inadequate food supplies

during at least 1 of the past 12 months) (mean) (n=155) 3.11

(n=659)

The accepted hypothesis regarding the seasonality of food security has suggested that Mongolianhouseholds face one major period of food insecurity (March-May) each year. However, thisassessment found seasonal effects on food security to be more complex with respondentsidentifying two periods of increased food insecurity: the already recognized March-May and a lesssevere period beginning in August and peaking in October-November (Chart 1).

3In a weight adjusted simple logistic regression model of any food insecurity the odds ratio for a Baruun-Urt dummyvariable = 1.409 (p=0.071).4 In a similar model of mild or moderate food insecurity the odds ratio for a Baruun-Urt dummy variable = 2.808(p=0.020).5 In a similar model of severe food insecurity the odds ratio for an Ulaangom dummy variable = 2.240 (p=0.005).6 In a weight adjusted simple linear regression model of number of months with inadequate food supplies the parameterestimate for a Western region dummy variable = 0.26 (p=0.047)


9/15


7

Chart 1: Seasonal fluctuation in the proportion of households reporting inadequate food supplies(n=659)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

% o

f H H r e p o r

t i n g

I n a d e q u a t e f o o

d s u p p

l i e s

Weighted Total Baarun-Urt Arvaiheer Ulaangom Khovd

Access - Dietary DiversityInformation on dietary diversity was collected with the Household Dietary Diversity Score Module.For this indicator a higher score indicates higher dietary diversity and suggests better food security.On average, households in the survey population had eaten from about seven of the 12 food groupsduring the past 24 hours. The most commonly reported food groups were cereals, meat,miscellaneous. (including tea and condiments) and oils/fats. The least commonly reported foodgroups were eggs, beans/pulses and fish. Eleven percent of the survey population had eaten fromless than five food groups, indicating poor dietary diversity. This level of dietary diversity is similarto that found in Mali (6.1-6.7) and much lower than in other Asian countries, like Vietnam andBangladesh, where dietary diversity scores, using the same 12 food groups, averaged between eight

and nine (Hoddinott and Yohannes 2002).Table 5: Household Dietary Diversity Score

Weighted TotalHousehold Dietary Diversity Score (mean) 6.85Household ate from less than 5 food groups in the past 24 hours (%) 10.8(n=661)

Food Utilization

The nutritional status of children under five years of age was used as a proxy for the food utilizationdimension of food security. Due to problems with the quality of anthropometric data collected byhousehold medical points in Baruun-Urt and Arvaiheer, only results from Ulaangom and Khovd(where the survey team collected its own anthropometric data) are presented.

Children in the two western aimag centers had an average weight for height z-score of 0.98 (withinthe normal range), a mean height-for age z-score of -1.05 (mildly stunted) and a mean weight forage z-score of 0.13 (within the normal range). There were no significant differences in thesenutritional indices between aimag centers. Female children surveyed tended to be taller and lighteralthough for height-for age z-score and weight for age z-score these differences were not significantand for WHZ the difference was only significant at the 10% level. 7

7 In a weight adjusted simple linear regression model of WHZ the parameter estimate for a female child dummyvariable was -0.340 (p=0.089)


10/15


8

Charts 2 a-b : Distribution of weight for height and height for age z-scores

(a) (b)

Charts 2a - 2b compare the distribution of these indices in Ulaangom and Khovd with thedistribution in a healthy population. This comparison shows that children in these western regionaimag centers are shorter (Chart 2a) and heavier (Chart 2b) than they should be. Overall, 13.1% of children were overweight (WHZ > +2SD) and 19.4% were stunted, 10.7 moderately (HAZ < -2SDand >-3SD) and 8.7% severely (HAZ < -3SD).

Table 7: Prevalence of under- and over-nutrition (Ulaangom and Khovd)

Weighted TotalWHZ Category (n=83)

Severely or Moderately Wasted -Within the Normal Range 86.7Overweight 13.1

HAZ Category (n=83)Severely Stunted 8.7

Moderately Stunted 10.7Within the Normal Range 80.5

WAZ Category (n=84)Severely Underweight 2.6

Moderately Underweight 2.6Within the Normal Range 91.0Overweight 3.9

Characteristics of food insecure households

Using weight adjusted simple logistic regression modeling, the relationships between four foodsecurity dummy variables (0,1) and a range of other indicators were explored. The four outcomevariables of interest were: household is food insecure (mild, moderate and severe food insecurity),household is food insecure (moderate and severe food insecurity), household dietary diversity scorewas less than five and household reported insufficient food supplies in the past 12 months.

Two groups of indicators were compared with the food security dummy variables. The first group

included household characteristics (e.g. household size). The objective of exploring the relationshipbetween these variables and food insecurity was to be able to describe food insecure households andidentify how they were different from households that were food secure. The second group of variables included indicators hypothesized to be determinants of food insecurity based on thestudy's conceptual framework. Analyzing the relationship between these variables and indicators of food insecurity provides insight into why households are food insecure and could possibly suggestentry points for programming or policies aimed at mitigating food insecurity.


11/15


9

Table 8: Characteristics of food insecure households - Odds ratios from simple logistic regression

Variable

HH is mildly,moderately orseverely food

insecure

HH ismoderately orseverely food

insecure

HH consumedfoods from less

than 5 foodgroups in past 24

hours

Insufficienthousehold

food suppliesin any of the

last 12 monthsHH is mildly, moderately orseverely food insecure 9.213*** 15.661***

HH is moderately or severely foodinsecure 7.074*** 14.338***

HH consumed foods from less than5 food groups in past 24 hours 9.213*** 7.074*** 5.135***

Insufficient household foodsupplies in any of the last 12months

15.661*** 14.338*** 5.135***

Female headed household 1.522* 1.478 1.334 1.665**Household Size 1.312*** 1.322*** 1.069 1.207***HH uses protected water source 0.465 0.264*** 0.236** 0.87HH lives in a ger 1.893*** 1.980*** 3.142*** 2.141***Any savings in the past year 0.373*** 0.179*** 0.249*** 0.302***Any loans taken in the last year 1.569** 1.489** 0.759 1.146

Any transfer received in last month 1.599 1.83 2.223 3.778**Size of landholdings (ha) 0.370 0.464**


12/15


10

significant at the 10% level. Poverty and unemployment had the strongest relationship with foodinsecurity. Both were significantly related to all four food security dummy variables. Lack of jobsecurity was strongly related to the household is food insecure (mild, moderate and severe) and toinadequate food supplies over the past year. However, there was not a significant relationshipbetween this variable and dietary diversity or with the indicator of more severe food insecurity.Only one food security variable, the household is food insecure (mild, moderate and severe), wassignificantly related to recent shocks.

Finally, two additional factors, loan taking and female headship, may negatively impact foodsecurity and therefore deserve discussion. To some degree, the significant relationship betweentaking a loan during the past year and being food insecure could simply reflect one consequence of food insecurity, namely the need to take loans to meet basic needs. For this reason, this variable wasincluded in the section exploring characteristics of the food insecure. However, some evidence hassuggested that taking loans may actually contribute to food insecurity if taking on debt does not leadto improvements in income and repayment obligations force households to reduce expenditure andconsumption (Diagne 1998).

Similarly, female headship was initially identified as a characteristic of food insecure households.However, when included in multivariate modeling which controlled for income, education, shocks,employment and assets, female headship was still a significant predictor of food insecurity. Thissuggests that female headship is not simply a proxy for lower income, less access to credit or fewerlivestock. Rather, it indicates that some other, more fundamental issue related to gender is having anegative effect on the food security of these households.

Table 9: Hypothesized determinants of food insecurity - Odds ratios from simple logistic regression

Variable

HH is mildly,moderately orseverely food

insecure

HH ismoderately orseverely food

insecure

HH consumedfoods from less

than 5 foodgroups in past 24

hours

Insufficienthousehold food

supplies in any of the last 12 months

Highest level of education achievedby the HH head 0.864*** 0.835*** 0.723*** 0.826**

Moved to aimag center since 2005 0.933 0.400 2.632 1.501HH owns and raise any livestock 0.622 0.640 0.53 0.976HH owns any livestock that is raisedby others 0.404*** 0.330*** 0.837 0.600**

HH Head is unemployed 2.824*** 3.967*** 4.139*** 3.778***HH does not have job security 5.131*** 2.108 3.012 4.841***Total value of transfers received in thepast 1 month (10,000) 0.972*** 0.968*** 0.968** 0.979**

Grown fruits or vegetables in the last6 months 0.965 0.964 0.202 0.590

HH experienced any recent shock 1.754** 1.39 1.734 1.476Total income from all sources (per

capita) (10,000)0.842*** 0.806*** 0.790*** 0.869***

HH is poor - < Mongolian PovertyLine 5.187*** 4.897*** 8.905*** 4.138***

HH is poor -


13/15


11

for education, where each additional category of schooling (e.g. completed secondary school)attained by the household head was associated with a 15-28% decline in the likelihood of beingfood insecure. Finally, neither recent migration nor fruit and vegetable production weresignificantly related to any of the four outcome variables.

Discussion

The food security situationOverall, the results of the Aimag Center Food Security Assessment have provided, for the first time,clear empirical evidence of food insecurity among aimag center residents in Mongolia. While notstatistically representative of Mongolia as a whole, it is likely that the findings from Baruun-Urt,Arvaiheer, Ulaangom and Khovd reflect the situation in the country's other aimag centers.

The most pressing issues relate to the access dimension of food security. Based on the HouseholdFood Insecurity Access Scale, one third of households in the survey population were found to befood insecure (one quarter moderately or severely) Data from the Household Dietary DiversityScore indicator, another measure of access, found that 11% of households reported eating four orfewer types of food in the past 24 hours. In addition, information collected on seasonal patterns of food security suggests that the situation worsens considerably during the spring months when bothfood and employment are scarce.

The food insecure population in the surveyed aimag centers is characterized by large householdsize, living in the ger districts and relying heavily on income from government transfers to meethousehold needs. The primary determinants of food insecurity (access) identified by this study werepoverty, unemployment and lack of job security. Female headship and use of loans for consumptionsmoothing may also play a role.

Issues related to food availability, utilization and sustainability also contribute to food insecurity atthe aimag center level. Regarding availability, a range of basic food items appears to be generallyavailable, year round, in aimag center markets. However, there are important seasonal fluctuationsin the availability of specific food products (e.g. meat, produce and dairy) that have significanteffects on the quantity, quality and cost of food available to aimag center residents. Contributing tothese fluctuations is a lack of local production and inefficient food markets.

High quality data on nutritional status was only collected in the western region aimags, thusconstraining our ability to explore the utilization dimension of food security. Despite this limitation,our results paralleled those of earlier studies, finding that roughly one fifth of children under fiveyears of age were stunted. In addition, 13% of the sampled children were overweight (WHZ > +2),an issue not discussed in other studies of nutritional status in Mongolia, but one with importantimplications for children's health. Observations during data collection, informal discussions withlocal Mercy Corps staff and previous research suggest that malnutrition in the aimag centers islikely due to a combination of poor feeding practices, a local diet that is high in fat and low in

important micronutrients and poor growth monitoring by local healthcare institutions.Finally, about 13% of households had experienced a recent shock and, in the majority of cases, thishad large financial implications, either because of declines in income or costs related to mitigatingthe shock's effects. Also, about 6% of employed household members felt that their jobs were notsecure. Together, these results illustrate the types of vulnerability that could affect the sustainabilityof household food security. However, when compared with rural households in Mongolia, whosefood security is much more vulnerable to natural disasters (e.g. drought and harsh winters), aimagcenters are relatively better off.


14/15


12

Moving forward

This evidence of food insecurity in Mongolian aimag centers, along with other findings from thisassessment, has important implications for future programming in Mongolia. The following listprovides a brief summary of possible activities to address food insecurity within aimag centers viatwo primary entry points, engagement with local food markets and promoting food security in low-income urban households.

Engaging with local food markets Improving access to risk mitigation products - Connecting businesses with risk mitigation

products like index-based livestock insurance or health insurance would help to addressvulnerability that can threaten both food supply and household access.

Promotion of improved transportation and shipping systems - The assessment identified anumber of issues related to the quality and quantity of transport services available to aimagcenter businesses. These findings suggest that initiatives to improve and streamline shippingservices could have significant benefits for aimag businesses and consumers.

Emphasize local food production for local consumption - Focusing on local food productiontakes advantage of local producer's comparative advantage in food production to build localbusinesses, increase labor demand, improve food availability and potentially reduce food pricesin aimag centers.

Increased engagement with traders and retailers - Often, programming has focused on ruralproducers and, to some extent, processors. However, in order to fully embrace food marketdevelopment programming would need to more fully engage with other actors in the foodsupply chain, particularly traders and retailers.

Infrastructure development - While large-scale construction projects (e.g. roads, power supply)are likely to be beyond the scope of potential NGO programming, support for the developmentof smaller infrastructure could be more feasible. For example, both simple undergroundvegetable storage cellars and more advanced cold storage facilities were identified as needs bylocal businesses.

Promoting food security in low-income urban households Savings promotion - Promoting savings can assist households in reducing their reliance oncredit for consumption smoothing and help household better prepare for future shocks. Vocational training - Job training, ideally in partnership with potential employers could address

the need, identified by aimag center businesses, for a more highly skilled workforce. However,given that improving the quality of existing educational institutions is often more effective thanpost-graduate job training programs, new initiatives should considered working with existingschools and vocational training centers.

Job creation initiatives - Two likely avenues to increase labor demand exist within aimagcenters. First, promoting entrepreneurship through the provision of credit and businessdevelopment assistance has the potential to create new businesses and new sources of employment. Second, since the primary obstacle to expansion for larger businesses was notcredit access, a focus on broader market issues, as described above, is likely to be the best wayto stimulate increased labor demand from larger companies.

Nutrition education and improved growth monitoring Address gender issues - Any future programs that aim to alleviate food security should attempt

to address the relationship between female headship and food insecurity. Options include aprogrammatic focus on female-headed households and/or female-headed businesses and thesupport of qualitative operations research to gain more insight into why this relationship exists.


15/15


Areas for further research

In addition to further exploration of the role gender plays in food insecurity, a number of other areasexist where further research could be useful in developing and implementing future programming inMongolia. Of particular importance would be a greater exploration of credit usage including astronger focus on informal borrowing, an investigation of the impact of loans on householdexpenditure and consumption. An analysis of how other financial products, like savings andinsurance could complement credit provision would also be useful. Other areas for research includefurther data on seasonal fluctuations in food insecurity and better data on malnutrition and itsdeterminants,

18 - acfsa - summary report - final - en - apr 2008

Documents